5 ms·

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 poi

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.
      - brigandish 5y ago
        Firstly, I'm not an anti-vaxxer and I think you should apologise. You've gone overboard in every comment and now you've landed on personal attacks. If you can't make a persuasive and well-reasoned argument don't look at anyone but yourself. > No, it's a description of both sterilising and non- sterilising immunity. I know, that's why I wrote "You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true." The sterilising part isn't correct, the vaccines do not act to produce neutralising antibodies, they work to produce acquired immunity. That is why we have this[1] via the CDC: > "High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus," Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC's director, said in a statement Friday. and this[2] from Public Health England (PHE): > The Technical Briefing also includes some initial findings which indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta but have already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people. This may have implications for people’s infectiousness, whether they have been vaccinated or not. However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case. So your statement: > The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both. is factually wrong. The vaccines *do not* provide sterilising immunity. Rates of transmission are not the same thing, sterilising immunity is a type of immune response[3], transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others, they are not synonyms, so stating "The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people" - which is to compare efficacy and severity with infectiousness is beside the point and only goes to show your lack of understanding or ability to hold a good faith argument. > “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus … and we don’t have anything that will [completely] stop that transmission.” Those are the words[4] of professor Andrew Pollard[5], an immunologist, and Chief Investigator on the University of Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx-1 n-CoV-19) trials. Again: > “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated” That is not the case with sterilising immunity. Is he anti-vaxx? Do behave. As to the second half of your comment: > 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? If it's settled then why are experts saying things like this[6], from last week: > “It appears that natural immunity is better against the Delta variant. When you get infected with COVID, your body’s immune system develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus,” Makary said. “Not just the slight protein that the vaccines gives you, but the entire surface. And so you get a more diverse antibody portfolio in your system.” That is from, as the article points out, "Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine", but he has a Wikipedia page too[7] where you can check out his credentials, long list of awards, and try to find some kind of controversy section (or even start one). He's quoting evidence from Israel's health ministry (via a news report[8], if you finally overcome your aversion to challenging information then you might find me the data from the ministry itself, I'd appreciate that): > With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID. >By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave. and he's not anti-vaccine either: > Makary has still encouraged those who are not vaccinated and not immune to get the vaccine. and I remind you of the end of the quote above by PHE: > However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case When was it published? 6th of August, 2021. And at the end of that Israeli news report: > According to a report by Channel 13, the disparity has confounded – and divided – Health Ministry experts, with some saying the data proves the higher level of immunity provided by natural infection versus vaccination, while others remained unconvinced. When was it published? July the 13th, 2021. That is not settled science. On the other hand - and as I am so very anti-vaxx I don't know why I'd share this - this is from PHE's technical briefing[9]: > - sera from vaccinees shows decreased ability to neutralize B.1.621 compared to first wave virus and Alpha, with a magnitude of change similar to Beta - sera from individuals who have been infected with Delta does not have strong neutralising activity against either Beta or B.1.621 - sera from individuals who have been vaccinated and have had subsequent recent Delta infection have a high level of neutralising activity against all variants tested (including beta and B.1.621) So it looks like those who have been vaccinated and were subsequently infected (where were those neutralising antibodies?;) are then given some neutralising immunity. As professor Makary stresses wherever he seems to be quoted, the different populations to be considered should be the immune and the not-immune, not the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Those without immunity who are at risk should get vaccinated - this is my view. Is that an anti-vaxx message? Again, behave. Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmed-cases-of-covid-19-variants-identified-in-uk https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmed-cases-of-covid-... [3] https://www.accessscience.com/content/neutralizing-antibody/450600 https://www.accessscience.com/content/neutralizing-antibody/... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pollard_(biologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pollard_(biologist) [6] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natural-immunity-is-more-effective-then-vaccine-immunity/ar-AAMX3sM https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natu... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Makary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Makary [8] https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 [9] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
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

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.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      Firstly, I'm not an anti-vaxxer and I think you should apologise. You've gone overboard in every comment and now you've landed on personal attacks. If you can't make a persuasive and well-reasoned argument don't look at anyone but yourself. > No, it's a description of both sterilising and non- sterilising immunity. I know, that's why I wrote "You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true." The sterilising part isn't correct, the vaccines do not act to produce neutralising antibodies, they work to produce acquired immunity. That is why we have this[1] via the CDC: > "High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus," Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC's director, said in a statement Friday. and this[2] from Public Health England (PHE): > The Technical Briefing also includes some initial findings which indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta but have already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people. This may have implications for people’s infectiousness, whether they have been vaccinated or not. However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case. So your statement: > The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both. is factually wrong. The vaccines *do not* provide sterilising immunity. Rates of transmission are not the same thing, sterilising immunity is a type of immune response[3], transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others, they are not synonyms, so stating "The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people" - which is to compare efficacy and severity with infectiousness is beside the point and only goes to show your lack of understanding or ability to hold a good faith argument. > “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus … and we don’t have anything that will [completely] stop that transmission.” Those are the words[4] of professor Andrew Pollard[5], an immunologist, and Chief Investigator on the University of Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx-1 n-CoV-19) trials. Again: > “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated” That is not the case with sterilising immunity. Is he anti-vaxx? Do behave. As to the second half of your comment: > 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? If it's settled then why are experts saying things like this[6], from last week: > “It appears that natural immunity is better against the Delta variant. When you get infected with COVID, your body’s immune system develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus,” Makary said. “Not just the slight protein that the vaccines gives you, but the entire surface. And so you get a more diverse antibody portfolio in your system.” That is from, as the article points out, "Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine", but he has a Wikipedia page too[7] where you can check out his credentials, long list of awards, and try to find some kind of controversy section (or even start one). He's quoting evidence from Israel's health ministry (via a news report[8], if you finally overcome your aversion to challenging information then you might find me the data from the ministry itself, I'd appreciate that): > With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID. >By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave. and he's not anti-vaccine either: > Makary has still encouraged those who are not vaccinated and not immune to get the vaccine. and I remind you of the end of the quote above by PHE: > However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case When was it published? 6th of August, 2021. And at the end of that Israeli news report: > According to a report by Channel 13, the disparity has confounded – and divided – Health Ministry experts, with some saying the data proves the higher level of immunity provided by natural infection versus vaccination, while others remained unconvinced. When was it published? July the 13th, 2021. That is not settled science. On the other hand - and as I am so very anti-vaxx I don't know why I'd share this - this is from PHE's technical briefing[9]: > - sera from vaccinees shows decreased ability to neutralize B.1.621 compared to first wave virus and Alpha, with a magnitude of change similar to Beta - sera from individuals who have been infected with Delta does not have strong neutralising activity against either Beta or B.1.621 - sera from individuals who have been vaccinated and have had subsequent recent Delta infection have a high level of neutralising activity against all variants tested (including beta and B.1.621) So it looks like those who have been vaccinated and were subsequently infected (where were those neutralising antibodies?;) are then given some neutralising immunity. As professor Makary stresses wherever he seems to be quoted, the different populations to be considered should be the immune and the not-immune, not the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Those without immunity who are at risk should get vaccinated - this is my view. Is that an anti-vaxx message? Again, behave. Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmed-cases-of-covid-19-variants-identified-in-uk https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmed-cases-of-covid-... [3] https://www.accessscience.com/content/neutralizing-antibody/450600 https://www.accessscience.com/content/neutralizing-antibody/... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pollard_(biologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pollard_(biologist) [6] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natural-immunity-is-more-effective-then-vaccine-immunity/ar-AAMX3sM https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natu... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Makary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Makary [8] https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 [9] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

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