4 ms·

> 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

> 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/...
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies. For example, this is the title of a Nature paper from May: "BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans."[1] You cite a bunch of people saying that vaccinated people can transmit the virus. They can, but they're far less likely to, as multiple studies have now shown. If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus,[2] and even partially vaccinated people are 40-50% less likely to transmit the virus.[3] There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time - see the recent study from Singapore: [4]). This is on top of the fact that vaccinated people are far less likely to get infected (even with Delta) in the first place. Uninfected people don't transmit, of course. Overall, the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing transmission in a population is high. Recall that most vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity, but many still generate herd immunity, regardless. You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination. This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination. If I can use a rather crude analogy, imagine the following argument: "People who jaywalk and get run over by cars are less likely to get run over a second time than people who use the crosswalk." The whole point of vaccination is to avoid the negative effects that come from getting infected without pre-existing immunity. Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense. The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03653-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03653-6 2. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.31.2100640 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E... 3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense. Yes, and no one was arguing that. > This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination. Yes, and no one was arguing that. > The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response. That is neither the worst case nor the best case. It's also irrelevant because, again, no one was arguing about it. I can see now why you think that HN has vocal anti-vaxxers, you think that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-vaxx. Protecting one's ego is a terrible trap and a fool's errand. > The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies Thanks for that Nature paper that I'd already read. The question is, are the presence of neutralising antibodies the same as sterilising immunity? The answer is no. If you have a paper from Nature showing sterilising immunity, that would help you. Otherwise, my original statement holds true, you were incorrect. > If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus You missed the bit where the Dutch study in your second link mentions that "The Alpha variant… was the dominant variant in the area at that time." The CDC and PHE stuff I cited was regarding delta. Not only that, the third study you linked to was led by someone at PHE… Do you even read these things? Perhaps you put as much effort into reading that as you do with all the "vocal anti-vaxxers" posts on HN. And again, it's irrelevant, unless you're trying to disprove any "science is settled" claims you've made by showing disagreement within weeks by people at the same health agency. Great work there! > There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case… And here again you will show you didn't bother to read what I wrote: > There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time and this is mine, from the comment you replied to: > transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others Maybe you'll paraphrase me some more later. I also wrote this: > Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please. I didn't think you'd try and prove it right in your very next response. Finally, and bringing us round nicely to the start: > You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination. No, that's not my argument, that's someone else's. I'm pointing out that disagreement exists, something you with your black and white thinking are unable to process. Well done for completely missing the point repeatedly while showing yourself to be wrong repeatedly. Unless you're going to apologise - which clearly you're not - then I won't be partaking in this conversation any further, you're wasting everyone's time, not just mine. ---- Edit, a typo. Would my interrogator have noticed anyway?

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/...

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies. For example, this is the title of a Nature paper from May: "BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans."[1] You cite a bunch of people saying that vaccinated people can transmit the virus. They can, but they're far less likely to, as multiple studies have now shown. If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus,[2] and even partially vaccinated people are 40-50% less likely to transmit the virus.[3] There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time - see the recent study from Singapore: [4]). This is on top of the fact that vaccinated people are far less likely to get infected (even with Delta) in the first place. Uninfected people don't transmit, of course. Overall, the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing transmission in a population is high. Recall that most vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity, but many still generate herd immunity, regardless. You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination. This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination. If I can use a rather crude analogy, imagine the following argument: "People who jaywalk and get run over by cars are less likely to get run over a second time than people who use the crosswalk." The whole point of vaccination is to avoid the negative effects that come from getting infected without pre-existing immunity. Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense. The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03653-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03653-6 2. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.31.2100640 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E... 3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
- brigandish 5y ago
  > Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense. Yes, and no one was arguing that. > This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination. Yes, and no one was arguing that. > The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response. That is neither the worst case nor the best case. It's also irrelevant because, again, no one was arguing about it. I can see now why you think that HN has vocal anti-vaxxers, you think that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-vaxx. Protecting one's ego is a terrible trap and a fool's errand. > The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies Thanks for that Nature paper that I'd already read. The question is, are the presence of neutralising antibodies the same as sterilising immunity? The answer is no. If you have a paper from Nature showing sterilising immunity, that would help you. Otherwise, my original statement holds true, you were incorrect. > If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus You missed the bit where the Dutch study in your second link mentions that "The Alpha variant… was the dominant variant in the area at that time." The CDC and PHE stuff I cited was regarding delta. Not only that, the third study you linked to was led by someone at PHE… Do you even read these things? Perhaps you put as much effort into reading that as you do with all the "vocal anti-vaxxers" posts on HN. And again, it's irrelevant, unless you're trying to disprove any "science is settled" claims you've made by showing disagreement within weeks by people at the same health agency. Great work there! > There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case… And here again you will show you didn't bother to read what I wrote: > There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time and this is mine, from the comment you replied to: > transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others Maybe you'll paraphrase me some more later. I also wrote this: > Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please. I didn't think you'd try and prove it right in your very next response. Finally, and bringing us round nicely to the start: > You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination. No, that's not my argument, that's someone else's. I'm pointing out that disagreement exists, something you with your black and white thinking are unable to process. Well done for completely missing the point repeatedly while showing yourself to be wrong repeatedly. Unless you're going to apologise - which clearly you're not - then I won't be partaking in this conversation any further, you're wasting everyone's time, not just mine. ---- Edit, a typo. Would my interrogator have noticed anyway?