7 ms·

> Not a single word about natural immunity. There’s major, major hesitance to giving natural immunity any credibility. The reason for that is an exercise lef

by xienze 5y ago

> Not a single word about natural immunity. There’s major, major hesitance to giving natural immunity any credibility. The reason for that is an exercise left up to the reader.

api 5y ago
The irony is that if it weren't for quacks and anti-vax idiots we would not have to exercise such hesitancy. Sort of like how we could talk about genetics and IQ if it were not for racists. I could list a dozen more like this. We now have to whisper about certain topics for fear of providing anything that can be quoted out of context and twisted by bad faith actors to promote destructive nonsense. I personally think the best option might be to slather these topics with such thick academic and technical jargon that papers and messages about them contain nothing that can be quoted in a meme and shared on Facebook.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
Immunity is complex. If it were simple, a single flu/cold would make you immune to all.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
Because the virus is dangerous. If you have the choice of getting immunity though a vaccine or by catching the virus, you should pick the vaccine. The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place. Getting infected so that you can become immune makes no sense at all.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  A very large number of people got infected before they even had the opportunity to be vaccinated, so it's not just a simple choice of catching the virus or getting vaccinated.
  - Hasu 5y ago
    A not as large but still significant number of people (including myself) also got vaccinated, then got infected anyway. It's certainly not a simple choice between the two, taking the vaccine reduces your risk, it does not eliminate it. Note, I am NOT saying that the vaccine isn't worth getting, I am very glad I got vaccinated, the infection sucked as it was with my immune system primed to fight it off. I don't think I would want to experience the counterfactual where I had been infected without vaccination.
- brigandish 5y ago
  There's more than one type or way to describe immunity, as this discussion[1] by experts on the virus shows. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we-might-develop-immunity-to-covid-19/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we...
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    I don't see how this article bears on my comment. This article was written before the vaccines came out. We now know fairly well how the vaccines perform, and they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      You stated: > The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place That is a description of sterilising immunity, which none of the COVID-19 vaccines provide, they attempt to provide acquired immunity. You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true. The efficacy of the vaccines is measured in several ways, basically on how well they prevent severity of symptoms, e.g. death, needing ICU, hospitalisation, mild symptoms, asymptomatic. As to this: > they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination. that is not settled science, there is still much debate and research going on regarding this point with outcomes that support both "sides" (probably because different people have different immune responses, both could be true in different people), and you've overstated the case by a long way anyway.
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        > That is a description of sterilising immunity No, it's a description of both sterilising and non-sterilising immunity. Note that I wrote "infected/sick," not just "infected." The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both. > that is not settled science Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person? The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people. If you have a choice of how to acquire immunity, vaccination is always preferable to infection, because infection carries significant risks. If you haven't yet been infected, the science is absolutely settled that you should get vaccinated. I really don't know what's happened to HN, and how anti-vaxxers became so vocal here.
- noobly 5y ago
  Some forms of immunity decrease your ability to transmit to others, which protects those at risk, so it's not just about self-preservation.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. An unvaccinated person is far more likely to get the virus, and then if they get it, they are far more likely to transmit it. Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. The worst case with vaccination is that you get a breakthrough infection. But that's far less risky than getting infected in the first place.
    - noobly 5y ago
      >Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. Can you source this claim? In the original Pfizer, Moderna, etc studies, they never tested for transmissibility, only reduction of COVID-like symptoms. >Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. And I disagree. I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. I'm not at risk, so taking on additional poorly defined risk such as the vaccine makes little sense from a self-preservation standpoint. From what I've seen there's not enough data to support vaccines reducing spread, but I'd like to see what you may have. And then we have the issue of variants that go right around the vaccine. Here's a relevant quote from Fauci: "Even though you’re vaccinated, because you could get infected, not know it, and be completely without symptoms because the vaccine is preventing you from getting symptoms, but you can have virus in your nasal pharynx and then inadvertently and innocently, pass it on to someone else who’s not vaccinated. That’s the problem we’re facing." I don't know where we're at now, but early on when the vaccines were being first deployed, it was unsure if they'd reduce transmission, even between vaccinated populations. And you see Fauci here certainly implying that's the case.
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated, and people who aren't infected can't transmit the virus. If you do get a breakthrough infection, the time window during which you're infectious is far shorter.[1] There's more and more data now on how much vaccination lowers transmission. For example, a recent study found that vaccinated people who caught the virus are 40-50% less likely to pass it on to their family members than unvaccinated people are.[2] > I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. This is insane. 1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v... 2. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717

by xienze 5y ago

> Not a single word about natural immunity. There’s major, major hesitance to giving natural immunity any credibility. The reason for that is an exercise left up to the reader.

api 5y ago

The irony is that if it weren't for quacks and anti-vax idiots we would not have to exercise such hesitancy. Sort of like how we could talk about genetics and IQ if it were not for racists. I could list a dozen more like this. We now have to whisper about certain topics for fear of providing anything that can be quoted out of context and twisted by bad faith actors to promote destructive nonsense. I personally think the best option might be to slather these topics with such thick academic and technical jargon that papers and messages about them contain nothing that can be quoted in a meme and shared on Facebook.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

Immunity is complex. If it were simple, a single flu/cold would make you immune to all.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

Because the virus is dangerous. If you have the choice of getting immunity though a vaccine or by catching the virus, you should pick the vaccine. The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place. Getting infected so that you can become immune makes no sense at all.

jaywalk 5y ago
A very large number of people got infected before they even had the opportunity to be vaccinated, so it's not just a simple choice of catching the virus or getting vaccinated.
- Hasu 5y ago
  A not as large but still significant number of people (including myself) also got vaccinated, then got infected anyway. It's certainly not a simple choice between the two, taking the vaccine reduces your risk, it does not eliminate it. Note, I am NOT saying that the vaccine isn't worth getting, I am very glad I got vaccinated, the infection sucked as it was with my immune system primed to fight it off. I don't think I would want to experience the counterfactual where I had been infected without vaccination.
brigandish 5y ago
There's more than one type or way to describe immunity, as this discussion[1] by experts on the virus shows. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we-might-develop-immunity-to-covid-19/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we...
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  I don't see how this article bears on my comment. This article was written before the vaccines came out. We now know fairly well how the vaccines perform, and they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    You stated: > The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place That is a description of sterilising immunity, which none of the COVID-19 vaccines provide, they attempt to provide acquired immunity. You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true. The efficacy of the vaccines is measured in several ways, basically on how well they prevent severity of symptoms, e.g. death, needing ICU, hospitalisation, mild symptoms, asymptomatic. As to this: > they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination. that is not settled science, there is still much debate and research going on regarding this point with outcomes that support both "sides" (probably because different people have different immune responses, both could be true in different people), and you've overstated the case by a long way anyway.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      > That is a description of sterilising immunity No, it's a description of both sterilising and non-sterilising immunity. Note that I wrote "infected/sick," not just "infected." The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both. > that is not settled science Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person? The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people. If you have a choice of how to acquire immunity, vaccination is always preferable to infection, because infection carries significant risks. If you haven't yet been infected, the science is absolutely settled that you should get vaccinated. I really don't know what's happened to HN, and how anti-vaxxers became so vocal here.
noobly 5y ago
Some forms of immunity decrease your ability to transmit to others, which protects those at risk, so it's not just about self-preservation.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. An unvaccinated person is far more likely to get the virus, and then if they get it, they are far more likely to transmit it. Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. The worst case with vaccination is that you get a breakthrough infection. But that's far less risky than getting infected in the first place.
  - noobly 5y ago
    >Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. Can you source this claim? In the original Pfizer, Moderna, etc studies, they never tested for transmissibility, only reduction of COVID-like symptoms. >Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. And I disagree. I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. I'm not at risk, so taking on additional poorly defined risk such as the vaccine makes little sense from a self-preservation standpoint. From what I've seen there's not enough data to support vaccines reducing spread, but I'd like to see what you may have. And then we have the issue of variants that go right around the vaccine. Here's a relevant quote from Fauci: "Even though you’re vaccinated, because you could get infected, not know it, and be completely without symptoms because the vaccine is preventing you from getting symptoms, but you can have virus in your nasal pharynx and then inadvertently and innocently, pass it on to someone else who’s not vaccinated. That’s the problem we’re facing." I don't know where we're at now, but early on when the vaccines were being first deployed, it was unsure if they'd reduce transmission, even between vaccinated populations. And you see Fauci here certainly implying that's the case.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated, and people who aren't infected can't transmit the virus. If you do get a breakthrough infection, the time window during which you're infectious is far shorter.[1] There's more and more data now on how much vaccination lowers transmission. For example, a recent study found that vaccinated people who caught the virus are 40-50% less likely to pass it on to their family members than unvaccinated people are.[2] > I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. This is insane. 1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v... 2. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717