9 ms·

I have never ever on HN seen an argument about DNA and mRNA, but then again I don't follow the conversation too much. As it seems like you know someone with co

I have never ever on HN seen an argument about DNA and mRNA, but then again I don't follow the conversation too much. As it seems like you know someone with correct background on the subject, so I wanted to ask you something I've always wanted to know as a young,(late 20s) healthy person with no existing risky precondition in this pandemic: Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me. It's an genuine question, as I soon have to travel (to a country that still force quarantine even with vaccine) and have vaccine session booked by next month. With my limited info the risk vs benefits of vaccine seems to solely end on "we know too little about the vaccine". Edit: thanks for all the thoughtful replies. It's a hard question to ask (without anonymity) these days so all the sincere replies are much appreciated. I'll read through the given links (and credibility of the link) when I wake up

hackingforfun 5y ago
> If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with I just don't think this is true. Again, look at the states in the US with the lowest levels of vaccination. They are running out of ICU beds due to the amount of cases. I'm not sure where you're located. Maybe there's a low amount of cases there, but in general, the risk of being hospitalized (and maybe not having a bed to go to) is rather high. The delta variant is also affecting young people more than other variants before it. I personally think getting the COVID vaccine is a smart choice. In terms of vaccinated people still spreading the virus, the idea with vaccination is to reduce the chance of being hospitalized. That still seems like a big benefit to me.
- sim_card_map 5y ago
  It is true. There's an Oxford Covid risk calculator, and for an average 20 something person, the risk of hospitalization is ~0.002%. https://qcovid.org/ https://qcovid.org/
  - mrtesthah 5y ago
    Has this been updated for the delta variant which is estimated be twice as likely to cause hospitalization? https://www.politico.eu/article/delta-coronavirus-variant-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization-scottish-study/ https://www.politico.eu/article/delta-coronavirus-variant-do...
    - dgfitz 5y ago
      So ~0.004% then. Are you suggesting that is statistically significant?
      - fendy3002 5y ago
        I'll get downvoted, but people keep forgetting that covid spread is exponential, not linear.
        dgfitz 5y ago
        Ok, 0.008% if you want. Sure feels like an argument for argument sake. I can find a list of odds of things that will hurt/kill a 20-something where the percentage is greater than 0.008 if you'd like.
      - leoedin 5y ago
        That calculator includes an estimate of likelihood of catching covid - so the actual risk of hospitalisation for someone who does catch covid is way, way higher - for a 25 year old man in the US it's about 1.6%. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
  - leoedin 5y ago
    That calculator isn't telling you the risk of hospitalisation per case, but the risk of hospitalisation over a 90 day period during the first peak of the pandemic. The two are very different. The calculated risk includes the fact that not everyone (or even most people) will get covid during that 90 day window. It's also based on the statistics for the original covid variant - by all accounts Delta is both more transmissible and more likely to cause hospitalisation. The likelihood on a per-case basis is significantly higher. The Economist has a tool here: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort... For example, a 25 year old man with no co-morbidity who receives a positive covid test has a 1.6% chance of hospitalisation. Obviously not everyone with covid will receive a positive test (I've seen an estimate of 1 in 4 are tested) - so perhaps that rate is actually 0.4%. That's way, way higher than the 0.002% you said. Ultimately if covid is endemic, you will get it. At that point, even as a 25 year old, you're risking hospitalisation.
- NalNezumi 5y ago
  Thank you for the rapid and informative reply. I appreciate it (esp when the topic is a bit politicized right now) I'm not from US so I haven't checked the stats closely for those states. My current city of residence is Tokyo. Afaik right now hospitalization seems quite bad, and there's no strict lockdown. I'm trying to work from home and dodge rush hours as much as possible to reduce the risk for now. Do you have any numbers of "old vs young" hospitalization in the majority unvacinated area? And stats such as "young vaccinated vs young unvacinated" would also be interesting to see I would guess. I've heard about the delta variant being more dangerous to the young, so that's for sure a important point. But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant, and also the delta variant difference seems to not be that much bigger according to this[0] study I found Jeremy Howard link on Twitter (I've only read the summary so I might be wrong on this) Edit: thanks for the link hackingforfun, I'll be sure to take a look at it (tomorrow as it's late night here right now) [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00475-8/fulltext?utm_campaign=lancet&utm_content=177869450&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-27013292 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
  - hackingforfun 5y ago
    I don't have numbers on "old vs young" hospitalization. I'd have to do some more googling for that and I need to get back to work. However, regarding efficacy on the delta variant, from here [1]: Data so far suggests efficacy rates of approximately 67 percent for the J&J vaccine, 66 to 95 percent for the Moderna vaccine, and 42 to 96 percent for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Seems like pretty good efficacy to me. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-19-vaccines-work-against-the-delta-variant https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-...
  - divbzero 5y ago
    Indiana currently has about 44% of overall population vaccinated (3.0M out of 6.8M). Since January the state has recorded the following numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths: [1] Unvaccinated Vaccinated C 278,508 6,740 H 16,322 226 D 5,709 78 (The article did not provide a full breakdown by age, but did note that Indiana’s vaccinated population skews older and would have higher baseline risk for complications.) [1]: https://www.kpcnews.com/covid-19/article_f0e9bff4-a968-56b3-928d-734094459955.html https://www.kpcnews.com/covid-19/article_f0e9bff4-a968-56b3-...
- fredros 5y ago
  We should not consider the US to be a good sample, given the sky-high obesity rates.
Griffinsauce 5y ago
> when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus I imagine this is not binary but you are likely to be less sick and less contagious.
- NalNezumi 5y ago
  That's a good point. The article that mentioned it (I think it was based on study in Boston or Manhattan?) did mention that vaccinated people carried/spread it for _shorter amount of time_
  - lovegoblin 5y ago
    Exactly. Getting vaccinated is not just about you, but everyone you come in contact with - especially those who may be at higher risk than you are. Maybe even people you care about? I'm in my 30s and in good health. I've not been particularly concerned about dying myself from covid[0]. But I do have a mom and grandparents. I do have immunocompromised friends and family. How could I live with myself if I got one of them sick and hadn't taken even that simple step of a shot in the arm? [0] though long-covid is another story, or even short-term "being sick for days/weeks" doesn't sound like a particularly good time.
  - didjathinkmess 5y ago
    Please circle back and post that article. That would be the first that I've heard of any difference in time between the two. Honestly it sounds suspicious.
- didjathinkmess 5y ago
  Less likely to be sick and.. That's it. Equally as likely to spread the Delta variant if we're considering viral load as the metric. That's only compared to an unvaccinated person who has not previously had an infection (i.e. no natural immunity).
wyldfire 5y ago
I lack the background on biology, just a layperson take. > Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. There's unknowns about the long-term effects of infection, too. Several viral infections result in prolonged symptoms or decades-later re-emergence. Bottom line IMO - there's little/no treatment for the infection resulting from this virus. So the best solution medicine can offer is the vaccine. Safe vaccines have been designed and administered before, so I hope this is among the many safe vaccines. We know it's effective at mitigating symptoms and we know it's effective at reducing the spread. I think taking the vaccine is the net least risk, but you're right that there's stuff that we just don't know.
- polote 5y ago
  So it just doesn't give any benefit. Reducing the risk of something which is already close to zero, is still 0. If we follow your argument, why not take the vaccine ten times ? The excess mortality of people under 49 years in a country like france is zero in 2020 [0]. About long term effects of infections. Well the same can be said of the vaccine. In both case we have no idea [0] https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/4493806?sommaire=4493845#graphique-figure7_radio1 https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/4493806?sommaire=449384...
  - mrtesthah 5y ago
    >Well the same can be said of the vaccine. In both case we have no idea. See https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19... * History tells us that severe side effects are extremely rare, and if they if do occur, they usually happen within the first two months. * COVID-19 vaccine technologies have been studied for years and used in other treatments without issue. * The vaccine development process, from clinical trials to ongoing monitoring, helps to uncover and understand side effects.
    - polote 5y ago
n8cpdx 5y ago
> when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus Why wear your seatbelt if you can still die in a collision? Why bother with refrigeration when cold food can still rot? You can't think of risk in terms of binaries; bad things are still possible with the best safety technologies, but that doesn't mean those technologies aren't worthwhile. As an aside, the virus is actively changing over time, and delta variant is putting a lot more young people in the hospital.
- polote 5y ago
  > As an aside, the virus is actively changing over time, and delta variant is putting a lot more young people in the hospital. If this is the case, this is not hugely more than the previous variants as we can't see it on hospitalizations charts > Why wear your seatbelt if you can still die in a collision? Why not wear a helmet in a car I'm sure it would help in some cases ?
  - mrtesthah 5y ago
    Wearing a helmet in a car is a PITA. Getting vaccinated causes literally no ongoing inconvenience 24-36 hours later. It's effectively a cost-free intervention with enormous upside in terms of protection from death and hospitalization. Helmets are better compared to interventions like masks and social distancing, as they must be used constantly. Edit: taking your analogy less literally, it seems the issue here is the socially acceptable level of risk. The health risks of covid are demonstrable and apparent. If we can mitigate those risks by ~90% with no ongoing cost, then that intervention makes sense. On the other hand, if additional interventions mitigate it by only an additional 5%, then those may not be worth the trouble.
    - polote 5y ago
      I was comparing the helmet to the seatbelt. So the comparison between helmet an seat-belt is not ok, but the comparison between the seat-belt and the vaccine is ok ?
      - 5y ago
steeve 5y ago
Let's put it another way: with Delta, the chances of you getting COVID are pretty high. If you do, the chances of you getting bad side effects may be low, but they're a few orders of magnitude higher than the vaccine. In this case, why not take the vaccine?
deathanatos 5y ago
> Why should I take a vaccine > when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus Because just because you "can" doesn't mean that you're as likely to[1]: > Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to spread the virus for a shorter time […] This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people. (—the CDC) > If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me. With what data exists, the chance of side-effects from the vaccine is many orders of magnitude less than the chances of any of suffering from COVID or even death from COVID. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var... I also don't think it is worth putting stock into fear of the unknown with this vaccine: scientists have developed vaccines before. If anything, the structure of this particular vaccine — an mRNA strand inside a lipid bubble — seems a lot safer and much less ad-hoc than what I understand of earlier vaccines; in fact, it seems like downright engineering, and to me, it is exciting that we've gotten tech for that at such a crucial time. My high-school level biology knowledge of how mRNA interacts with a cell makes me feel that part should be pretty safe; what side-effects the spike protein might have are, I suppose, an unknown, but without the virus, your chances of not getting infected, are, IMO, not good, and the virus will generate far more than just spike proteins, and in far greater numbers. We also know just as little about the long-term side effects of the virus, but thus far, the reports on side-effects from the virus are much worse than reports on side-effects from the vaccine. That's also just assessing it from the standpoint of "me", but part of the other reason I got the vaccine is that, while I might be young and healthy and might be able to give COVID a run for its money (though honestly, the idea of a respirator scares me far more than anything about the vaccine) I have people around me who are not so young or not so healthy; while I might live, I do not want to transmit a a virus that could be potentially lethal to them. The good outweighs the bad. (Very clearly, IMO.) Yes, there are some unknowns, but nothing in life is certain.
- NalNezumi 5y ago
  Hi thanks for the reply and the perspective. >I have people around me who are not so young or not so healthy; while I might live, I do not want to transmit a a virus that could be potentially lethal to them. This is also the reason I did sign up for vaccination,(traveling with work and all) but it also put a dent in the reasoning that the people I'll meet will highly likely be vaccinated due to their age. >I also don't think it is worth putting stock into fear of the unknown with this vaccine You have a valid point and I do trust the scientist to do their work well(although after entering research this year my trust for science have been slightly jaded), but trusting the vaccine means I have to trust not just the scientists but all entities involved along the line (mass production, distribution, quality control, government logistics, safe storage and transportation). With the entire vaccine thing being so highly politicized and tribalized, having the (healthy) level of scepticism and trying to express it to inform myself through dialogue have been very hard, so I appreciate your comment a lot. I'll ponder a bit where my doubts are valid/not valid and what action is reasonable based on that
yodsanklai 5y ago
1. even in your 20s, there's still risk to be sick in an unpleasant way 2. we've been using vaccines forever. I've been vaccinated maybe 10 times in my life. Why suddenly should I worry. RNA vaccines may be newer, but 100s of millions of people have been vaccinated, and side effects happen usually soon after the injection. You can also use the AZ vaccine which is more conventional. 3. you prevent other people from getting sick. Even though the vaccine doesn't totally prevent spreading the disease, it does to some extent. 4. Consensus about doctors is that ratio benefit/risk is favorable toward the vaccine for all age classes. I trust my family doctor with my health and follow his recommendation.
armchairhacker 5y ago
The risk of suffering long-term damage from getting covid unvaccinated is way higher than the risk of any long-term side effects from the vaccine or getting Covid vaccinated. Even if the former is low, there's no downside to getting the vaccine anyways. I can kind of understand if someone is avoiding the vaccine and also isolating themselves to protect against the virus, but I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't. Also, the risk of catching Covid unvaccinated may not be that low. But, the risk of any serious vaccine side-effects, or catching Covid vaccinated, is super low. IIRC Israel did a study and, the amount of breakthrough cases requiring hospitalization for under 40 was 0.3 per 100k, and the amount of people suffering myocarditis and other vaccine complications is in the double-digits, despite vaccinations being in the billions. We know little about the vaccine, but we also know little about the effects of social media, random pollutants, etc. And that stuff is applied without your consent, and unlike the vaccine that stuff probably is harmful long-term.
- polote 5y ago
  > The risk of suffering long-term damage from getting covid unvaccinated is way higher than the risk of any long-term side effects from the vaccine or getting Covid vaccinated Honest question, there were studies about the effect of the vaccine on hospitalizations. But is there any studies about the effect on long covid ? And especially is there studies showing that people under the age of 40 in healthy condition have any benefit regarding long covid by taking the vaccine ? > I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't. Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it. It is not risk-benefit positive. It is just more aligned with some people feelings. Some people make preventing death as the almost most important things in their life, so they will take drugs, be careful in life and so on. While some people are just ok dying in certain conditions, and are not willing to engage in risk-free life
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I don't know of studies directly studying the vaccine for prevention of long covid, but most of the studies coming out seem to indicate that long covid is more likely in severe infections. So since we know the vaccine is good at preventing severe infections, it makes sense that the vaccine would be good at preventing long covid. I get where you are coming from on the default being not taking medicine. But to me, I just don't see a vaccine as quite the same as medicine. It's basically a training program for your immune system. It tells your immune system what to look for and then when covid does enter your system, it is prepared and your immune system naturally fights it off the same way it always would. It just has a headstart in creating antibodies.
SamTwardowski 5y ago
>Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me. Simply put: get the vaccine or we will make you suffer.
gilbetron 5y ago
Think of it this way, you have two choices: 1. You have a 0.0001% risk of death, and a 0.001% risk of hospitalization, and will maybe spread covid to 5-8 people. Long term effects unknown. 2. You have a 0.00001% risk of death, and a 0.0001% risk of hospitalization, and will maybe spread covid to 1-2 people. Long term effects unknown. Which choice would you take? (note the 2nd option is a conservative estimate of the effects of the vaccine, and the odds are probably less than what I wrote)
- pineaux 5y ago
  you forgot to add an important argument: You forget to say that probably both are manmade. Who do you trust more? 1) something probably created in a chinese lab? 2) something created by a list of different corporations and tested independently by at least 50 countries?
  - gilbetron 5y ago
    Lab released, maybe. Lab created, seems unlikely, although the line between lab released and created gets blurry. Genetically engineered (rather than created via "husbandry"), seems very unlikely given that nobody has noticed anything to suggest that it might be. So either it isn't, or China has gotten so good at it that we can't tell when they do it, which is terrifying!
- leoedin 5y ago
  The risk of hospitalisation for most people who get covid is way higher than 0.01% - it's about 1% for a 21 year old man, 2.7% for a 30 year old man and 8.5% for a 50 year old man - and only goes up from there. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
  - gilbetron 5y ago
    I should've posted where I got the values for Covid risk, my bad. I used this: https://qcovid.org/Calculation https://qcovid.org/Calculation and did it for a healthy 25 year old, and then rounded. I don't know exactly what the different between what I used and what the Economist used, but I'm guessing the Economist is using a dataset of people that skewed more symptomatic?
SergeAx 5y ago
This is a false dichotomy: low risk hospitalization vs unknown long term side effects of the vaccine. The correct choice is unknown long term side effects of COVID-19 vs unknown long term side effects of vaccine. In other words: you will get your immunity either by becoming sick (and maybe get well known short term side effects of being sick, including hospitalization and death) or by getting vaccinated, with other set of short and long term known and unknown side effects. In the first case you will put more pressure to public health system (even by staying home and consuming self-prescripted basic drugs). Otherwise the choice is yours.
sjg007 5y ago
The vaccine has an extremely low risk of side effects short term. There is no scientific reason to think there will be long term effects. What exactly are you concerned about? In terms of "we know too little about the vaccine", we know even less about "covid" itself. The vaccine reduces the likelihood you will get severe covid and require hospitalization. It's like a 22x reduction in risk. The vaccine reduces your infectious period if you do catch covid, this reduces R0 (R-naught) will help shorten the pandemic. The delta variant is hospitalizing healthy and young people with no preexisting conditions. Future variants are likely to do so as well.

hackingforfun 5y ago

> If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with I just don't think this is true. Again, look at the states in the US with the lowest levels of vaccination. They are running out of ICU beds due to the amount of cases. I'm not sure where you're located. Maybe there's a low amount of cases there, but in general, the risk of being hospitalized (and maybe not having a bed to go to) is rather high. The delta variant is also affecting young people more than other variants before it. I personally think getting the COVID vaccine is a smart choice. In terms of vaccinated people still spreading the virus, the idea with vaccination is to reduce the chance of being hospitalized. That still seems like a big benefit to me.

sim_card_map 5y ago
It is true. There's an Oxford Covid risk calculator, and for an average 20 something person, the risk of hospitalization is ~0.002%. https://qcovid.org/ https://qcovid.org/
- mrtesthah 5y ago
  Has this been updated for the delta variant which is estimated be twice as likely to cause hospitalization? https://www.politico.eu/article/delta-coronavirus-variant-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization-scottish-study/ https://www.politico.eu/article/delta-coronavirus-variant-do...
  - dgfitz 5y ago
    So ~0.004% then. Are you suggesting that is statistically significant?
    - fendy3002 5y ago
      I'll get downvoted, but people keep forgetting that covid spread is exponential, not linear.
      - dgfitz 5y ago
        Ok, 0.008% if you want. Sure feels like an argument for argument sake. I can find a list of odds of things that will hurt/kill a 20-something where the percentage is greater than 0.008 if you'd like.
    - leoedin 5y ago
      That calculator includes an estimate of likelihood of catching covid - so the actual risk of hospitalisation for someone who does catch covid is way, way higher - for a 25 year old man in the US it's about 1.6%. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
- leoedin 5y ago
  That calculator isn't telling you the risk of hospitalisation per case, but the risk of hospitalisation over a 90 day period during the first peak of the pandemic. The two are very different. The calculated risk includes the fact that not everyone (or even most people) will get covid during that 90 day window. It's also based on the statistics for the original covid variant - by all accounts Delta is both more transmissible and more likely to cause hospitalisation. The likelihood on a per-case basis is significantly higher. The Economist has a tool here: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort... For example, a 25 year old man with no co-morbidity who receives a positive covid test has a 1.6% chance of hospitalisation. Obviously not everyone with covid will receive a positive test (I've seen an estimate of 1 in 4 are tested) - so perhaps that rate is actually 0.4%. That's way, way higher than the 0.002% you said. Ultimately if covid is endemic, you will get it. At that point, even as a 25 year old, you're risking hospitalisation.
NalNezumi 5y ago
Thank you for the rapid and informative reply. I appreciate it (esp when the topic is a bit politicized right now) I'm not from US so I haven't checked the stats closely for those states. My current city of residence is Tokyo. Afaik right now hospitalization seems quite bad, and there's no strict lockdown. I'm trying to work from home and dodge rush hours as much as possible to reduce the risk for now. Do you have any numbers of "old vs young" hospitalization in the majority unvacinated area? And stats such as "young vaccinated vs young unvacinated" would also be interesting to see I would guess. I've heard about the delta variant being more dangerous to the young, so that's for sure a important point. But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant, and also the delta variant difference seems to not be that much bigger according to this[0] study I found Jeremy Howard link on Twitter (I've only read the summary so I might be wrong on this) Edit: thanks for the link hackingforfun, I'll be sure to take a look at it (tomorrow as it's late night here right now) [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00475-8/fulltext?utm_campaign=lancet&utm_content=177869450&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-27013292 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  I don't have numbers on "old vs young" hospitalization. I'd have to do some more googling for that and I need to get back to work. However, regarding efficacy on the delta variant, from here [1]: Data so far suggests efficacy rates of approximately 67 percent for the J&J vaccine, 66 to 95 percent for the Moderna vaccine, and 42 to 96 percent for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Seems like pretty good efficacy to me. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-19-vaccines-work-against-the-delta-variant https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-...
- divbzero 5y ago
  Indiana currently has about 44% of overall population vaccinated (3.0M out of 6.8M). Since January the state has recorded the following numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths: [1] Unvaccinated Vaccinated C 278,508 6,740 H 16,322 226 D 5,709 78 (The article did not provide a full breakdown by age, but did note that Indiana’s vaccinated population skews older and would have higher baseline risk for complications.) [1]: https://www.kpcnews.com/covid-19/article_f0e9bff4-a968-56b3-928d-734094459955.html https://www.kpcnews.com/covid-19/article_f0e9bff4-a968-56b3-...
fredros 5y ago
We should not consider the US to be a good sample, given the sky-high obesity rates.

Griffinsauce 5y ago

> when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus I imagine this is not binary but you are likely to be less sick and less contagious.

NalNezumi 5y ago
That's a good point. The article that mentioned it (I think it was based on study in Boston or Manhattan?) did mention that vaccinated people carried/spread it for _shorter amount of time_
- lovegoblin 5y ago
  Exactly. Getting vaccinated is not just about you, but everyone you come in contact with - especially those who may be at higher risk than you are. Maybe even people you care about? I'm in my 30s and in good health. I've not been particularly concerned about dying myself from covid[0]. But I do have a mom and grandparents. I do have immunocompromised friends and family. How could I live with myself if I got one of them sick and hadn't taken even that simple step of a shot in the arm? [0] though long-covid is another story, or even short-term "being sick for days/weeks" doesn't sound like a particularly good time.
- didjathinkmess 5y ago
  Please circle back and post that article. That would be the first that I've heard of any difference in time between the two. Honestly it sounds suspicious.
didjathinkmess 5y ago
Less likely to be sick and.. That's it. Equally as likely to spread the Delta variant if we're considering viral load as the metric. That's only compared to an unvaccinated person who has not previously had an infection (i.e. no natural immunity).

wyldfire 5y ago

I lack the background on biology, just a layperson take. > Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. There's unknowns about the long-term effects of infection, too. Several viral infections result in prolonged symptoms or decades-later re-emergence. Bottom line IMO - there's little/no treatment for the infection resulting from this virus. So the best solution medicine can offer is the vaccine. Safe vaccines have been designed and administered before, so I hope this is among the many safe vaccines. We know it's effective at mitigating symptoms and we know it's effective at reducing the spread. I think taking the vaccine is the net least risk, but you're right that there's stuff that we just don't know.

polote 5y ago
So it just doesn't give any benefit. Reducing the risk of something which is already close to zero, is still 0. If we follow your argument, why not take the vaccine ten times ? The excess mortality of people under 49 years in a country like france is zero in 2020 [0]. About long term effects of infections. Well the same can be said of the vaccine. In both case we have no idea [0] https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/4493806?sommaire=4493845#graphique-figure7_radio1 https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/4493806?sommaire=449384...
- mrtesthah 5y ago
  >Well the same can be said of the vaccine. In both case we have no idea. See https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19... * History tells us that severe side effects are extremely rare, and if they if do occur, they usually happen within the first two months. * COVID-19 vaccine technologies have been studied for years and used in other treatments without issue. * The vaccine development process, from clinical trials to ongoing monitoring, helps to uncover and understand side effects.
  - polote 5y ago

n8cpdx 5y ago

> when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus Why wear your seatbelt if you can still die in a collision? Why bother with refrigeration when cold food can still rot? You can't think of risk in terms of binaries; bad things are still possible with the best safety technologies, but that doesn't mean those technologies aren't worthwhile. As an aside, the virus is actively changing over time, and delta variant is putting a lot more young people in the hospital.

polote 5y ago
> As an aside, the virus is actively changing over time, and delta variant is putting a lot more young people in the hospital. If this is the case, this is not hugely more than the previous variants as we can't see it on hospitalizations charts > Why wear your seatbelt if you can still die in a collision? Why not wear a helmet in a car I'm sure it would help in some cases ?
- mrtesthah 5y ago
  Wearing a helmet in a car is a PITA. Getting vaccinated causes literally no ongoing inconvenience 24-36 hours later. It's effectively a cost-free intervention with enormous upside in terms of protection from death and hospitalization. Helmets are better compared to interventions like masks and social distancing, as they must be used constantly. Edit: taking your analogy less literally, it seems the issue here is the socially acceptable level of risk. The health risks of covid are demonstrable and apparent. If we can mitigate those risks by ~90% with no ongoing cost, then that intervention makes sense. On the other hand, if additional interventions mitigate it by only an additional 5%, then those may not be worth the trouble.
  - polote 5y ago
    I was comparing the helmet to the seatbelt. So the comparison between helmet an seat-belt is not ok, but the comparison between the seat-belt and the vaccine is ok ?
    - 5y ago

steeve 5y ago

Let's put it another way: with Delta, the chances of you getting COVID are pretty high. If you do, the chances of you getting bad side effects may be low, but they're a few orders of magnitude higher than the vaccine. In this case, why not take the vaccine?

deathanatos 5y ago

> Why should I take a vaccine > when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus Because just because you "can" doesn't mean that you're as likely to[1]: > Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to spread the virus for a shorter time […] This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people. (—the CDC) > If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me. With what data exists, the chance of side-effects from the vaccine is many orders of magnitude less than the chances of any of suffering from COVID or even death from COVID. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var... I also don't think it is worth putting stock into fear of the unknown with this vaccine: scientists have developed vaccines before. If anything, the structure of this particular vaccine — an mRNA strand inside a lipid bubble — seems a lot safer and much less ad-hoc than what I understand of earlier vaccines; in fact, it seems like downright engineering, and to me, it is exciting that we've gotten tech for that at such a crucial time. My high-school level biology knowledge of how mRNA interacts with a cell makes me feel that part should be pretty safe; what side-effects the spike protein might have are, I suppose, an unknown, but without the virus, your chances of not getting infected, are, IMO, not good, and the virus will generate far more than just spike proteins, and in far greater numbers. We also know just as little about the long-term side effects of the virus, but thus far, the reports on side-effects from the virus are much worse than reports on side-effects from the vaccine. That's also just assessing it from the standpoint of "me", but part of the other reason I got the vaccine is that, while I might be young and healthy and might be able to give COVID a run for its money (though honestly, the idea of a respirator scares me far more than anything about the vaccine) I have people around me who are not so young or not so healthy; while I might live, I do not want to transmit a a virus that could be potentially lethal to them. The good outweighs the bad. (Very clearly, IMO.) Yes, there are some unknowns, but nothing in life is certain.

NalNezumi 5y ago
Hi thanks for the reply and the perspective. >I have people around me who are not so young or not so healthy; while I might live, I do not want to transmit a a virus that could be potentially lethal to them. This is also the reason I did sign up for vaccination,(traveling with work and all) but it also put a dent in the reasoning that the people I'll meet will highly likely be vaccinated due to their age. >I also don't think it is worth putting stock into fear of the unknown with this vaccine You have a valid point and I do trust the scientist to do their work well(although after entering research this year my trust for science have been slightly jaded), but trusting the vaccine means I have to trust not just the scientists but all entities involved along the line (mass production, distribution, quality control, government logistics, safe storage and transportation). With the entire vaccine thing being so highly politicized and tribalized, having the (healthy) level of scepticism and trying to express it to inform myself through dialogue have been very hard, so I appreciate your comment a lot. I'll ponder a bit where my doubts are valid/not valid and what action is reasonable based on that

yodsanklai 5y ago

1. even in your 20s, there's still risk to be sick in an unpleasant way 2. we've been using vaccines forever. I've been vaccinated maybe 10 times in my life. Why suddenly should I worry. RNA vaccines may be newer, but 100s of millions of people have been vaccinated, and side effects happen usually soon after the injection. You can also use the AZ vaccine which is more conventional. 3. you prevent other people from getting sick. Even though the vaccine doesn't totally prevent spreading the disease, it does to some extent. 4. Consensus about doctors is that ratio benefit/risk is favorable toward the vaccine for all age classes. I trust my family doctor with my health and follow his recommendation.

armchairhacker 5y ago

The risk of suffering long-term damage from getting covid unvaccinated is way higher than the risk of any long-term side effects from the vaccine or getting Covid vaccinated. Even if the former is low, there's no downside to getting the vaccine anyways. I can kind of understand if someone is avoiding the vaccine and also isolating themselves to protect against the virus, but I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't. Also, the risk of catching Covid unvaccinated may not be that low. But, the risk of any serious vaccine side-effects, or catching Covid vaccinated, is super low. IIRC Israel did a study and, the amount of breakthrough cases requiring hospitalization for under 40 was 0.3 per 100k, and the amount of people suffering myocarditis and other vaccine complications is in the double-digits, despite vaccinations being in the billions. We know little about the vaccine, but we also know little about the effects of social media, random pollutants, etc. And that stuff is applied without your consent, and unlike the vaccine that stuff probably is harmful long-term.

polote 5y ago
> The risk of suffering long-term damage from getting covid unvaccinated is way higher than the risk of any long-term side effects from the vaccine or getting Covid vaccinated Honest question, there were studies about the effect of the vaccine on hospitalizations. But is there any studies about the effect on long covid ? And especially is there studies showing that people under the age of 40 in healthy condition have any benefit regarding long covid by taking the vaccine ? > I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't. Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it. It is not risk-benefit positive. It is just more aligned with some people feelings. Some people make preventing death as the almost most important things in their life, so they will take drugs, be careful in life and so on. While some people are just ok dying in certain conditions, and are not willing to engage in risk-free life
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I don't know of studies directly studying the vaccine for prevention of long covid, but most of the studies coming out seem to indicate that long covid is more likely in severe infections. So since we know the vaccine is good at preventing severe infections, it makes sense that the vaccine would be good at preventing long covid. I get where you are coming from on the default being not taking medicine. But to me, I just don't see a vaccine as quite the same as medicine. It's basically a training program for your immune system. It tells your immune system what to look for and then when covid does enter your system, it is prepared and your immune system naturally fights it off the same way it always would. It just has a headstart in creating antibodies.

SamTwardowski 5y ago

>Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me. Simply put: get the vaccine or we will make you suffer.

gilbetron 5y ago

Think of it this way, you have two choices: 1. You have a 0.0001% risk of death, and a 0.001% risk of hospitalization, and will maybe spread covid to 5-8 people. Long term effects unknown. 2. You have a 0.00001% risk of death, and a 0.0001% risk of hospitalization, and will maybe spread covid to 1-2 people. Long term effects unknown. Which choice would you take? (note the 2nd option is a conservative estimate of the effects of the vaccine, and the odds are probably less than what I wrote)

pineaux 5y ago
you forgot to add an important argument: You forget to say that probably both are manmade. Who do you trust more? 1) something probably created in a chinese lab? 2) something created by a list of different corporations and tested independently by at least 50 countries?
- gilbetron 5y ago
  Lab released, maybe. Lab created, seems unlikely, although the line between lab released and created gets blurry. Genetically engineered (rather than created via "husbandry"), seems very unlikely given that nobody has noticed anything to suggest that it might be. So either it isn't, or China has gotten so good at it that we can't tell when they do it, which is terrifying!
leoedin 5y ago
The risk of hospitalisation for most people who get covid is way higher than 0.01% - it's about 1% for a 21 year old man, 2.7% for a 30 year old man and 8.5% for a 50 year old man - and only goes up from there. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
- gilbetron 5y ago
  I should've posted where I got the values for Covid risk, my bad. I used this: https://qcovid.org/Calculation https://qcovid.org/Calculation and did it for a healthy 25 year old, and then rounded. I don't know exactly what the different between what I used and what the Economist used, but I'm guessing the Economist is using a dataset of people that skewed more symptomatic?

SergeAx 5y ago

This is a false dichotomy: low risk hospitalization vs unknown long term side effects of the vaccine. The correct choice is unknown long term side effects of COVID-19 vs unknown long term side effects of vaccine. In other words: you will get your immunity either by becoming sick (and maybe get well known short term side effects of being sick, including hospitalization and death) or by getting vaccinated, with other set of short and long term known and unknown side effects. In the first case you will put more pressure to public health system (even by staying home and consuming self-prescripted basic drugs). Otherwise the choice is yours.

sjg007 5y ago

The vaccine has an extremely low risk of side effects short term. There is no scientific reason to think there will be long term effects. What exactly are you concerned about? In terms of "we know too little about the vaccine", we know even less about "covid" itself. The vaccine reduces the likelihood you will get severe covid and require hospitalization. It's like a 22x reduction in risk. The vaccine reduces your infectious period if you do catch covid, this reduces R0 (R-naught) will help shorten the pandemic. The delta variant is hospitalizing healthy and young people with no preexisting conditions. Future variants are likely to do so as well.