5 ms·

I think the issue with being hesitant about mRNA vaccines is that they're probably not as bad for you as an mRNA virus. The mRNA virus will definitely inject mR

I think the issue with being hesitant about mRNA vaccines is that they're probably not as bad for you as an mRNA virus. The mRNA virus will definitely inject mRNA into you to make your cells do its evil bidding, and it is fairly unlikely that the vaccine, which only injects one part of the virus' mRNA into some cells, could somehow be worse than the virus, which injects everything in the vaccine plus mRNA encoding several other proteins, and replicates boundlessly to boot. The mRNA that Pfizer puts in to the lipid nanoparticles isn't even as dangerous as the virus's equivalent - the version of the spike protein it encodes is mutated at a point to prevent it from making the conformal change that wrenches membranes open.

hammock 5y ago
What about the 100+ million in the US with natural immunity to the mRNA virus? Edit: 40+ million Edit 2: perhaps it is 100+ million when counting estimated unreported cases- I do recall getting this 100+ number from the CDC itself
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  The vaccine generalizes better without the annoyance to deathly consequences of actually contracting the virus.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    A recent study had a great chart: https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/0/nejm.ahead-of-print/nejmoa2110475/20210824/images/img_xlarge/nejmoa2110475_f4.jpeg https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour... (Figure 4 here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475) For essentially all 'side effects' of the vaccine - you're substantially more likely to experience them if you get Covid. Not only is the notion of avoiding the vaccine to avoid the side effects misguided, it's actively increasing your chances of getting those very same side effects.
    - HN_Morons 5y ago
      Your odds are lowest if you avoid both the vaccine and the virus.
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        Sure, and your odds of injury from a car crash are lowest if you avoid getting in an accident, but if you're driving in a demolition derby you're certainly better off if you're wearing a seat belt and a helmet..
- jcranmer 5y ago
  The actual case counts for the US appear to be about 40 million right now, not 100 million. I also wonder how many people who claim to have natural immunity actually have that natural immunity. The tale of Manaus is cautionary here.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    The official CDC estimate is 100 million plus, based one estimated unreported cases and serology testing.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Case counts are meaningless because most infections were never tested. The CDC estimates that 120M Americans have been infected as of July 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Well, there are two groups roughly speaking of people with natural immunity. One group, those who have already had the virus, seem to be fairly well protected according to that one Israeli study. Obviously, going out and getting the virus to protect yourself from the virus is an idea straight out of Catch-22, so I assume you're talking about the other group. ;) As for people with natural immunity but who haven't had it, that's everyone. Every person has what are called "naive B-cells," covered in random antibodies. One of them probably binds to coronavirus in some way, and that would be how your body would get started fighting the infection if you got it. However, the fact that people have some natural ability to fight it off explains why not everyone dies from it (every virus would kill you if you had no immune response, that's why HIV is deadly), but it's of little consolation to the people who found out too late that their natural immunity wasn't enough. If there was a test to see in advance who would fight off the coronavirus without realizing they had it, I guess that would be a way to save some money and inconvenience giving them shots, but since we don't know for sure in advance who will or won't have an easy case, that's why we have to get vaccinated.
  - mjevans 5y ago
    It would probably cost less to just administer a proven safe and effective vaccine anyway than it would to test that person even once. 3 shots of Pfizer ~ 60 USD < -- VS -- > 100+ USD ~ Single test to see if someone's infected, surely a test to see if someone is naturally immune at best costs this or more. # Pfizer seems to cost about 20 USD per dose, so even with the three dose regime (2 initial shots plus a later booster) is expected to cost under 100 USD; most of the other shots cost less. https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/ https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines... As there is no currently known technology to reliably test if someone is immune I'll grab data for the next closest similarity: a test to see if someone is presently infected. Nearly all of those tests cost in the range of 100 to 200 USD, with some rare outliers above and beneath. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/q-and-a-how-much-does-it-cost-to-get-a-covid-19-test-it-depends https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/q-and-a-how-muc... https://www.talktomira.com/post/how-much-does-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-cost-with-or-without-insurance https://www.talktomira.com/post/how-much-does-coronavirus-co...
- grayhatter 5y ago
  what about them? Just that they exist?
- mthoms 5y ago
  “Natural” immunity? You’ve been politely asked before to stop using this misleading phrase. Your insistence on using it is telling. What you really mean is disease-induced immunity.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    You have some natural immunity to viruses before you get them, that's why you can survive viruses. That's little consolation to anyone in the ER, of course.
    - mthoms 5y ago
      Of course, but the context was 100 million people (or however many) are "immune". He's referring to people who've had the virus.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  They already beat the mRNA from the actual real "live" replicating virus. They have very little to fear from the mRNA in the vaccine. Infection followed by an mRNA vaccine also acts as a boost which provides broad neutralization against mutated spikes and possibly some pan-sarbecovirus immunity.
rory 5y ago
To play devil's advocate, the retort to this is that if you don't get the vaccine you're some <100 percentage more likely to get the virus, but if you do get the vaccine you're 100% likely to get the vaccine. I think the related mistake some vaccine-hesitant people make is that they greatly underestimate their likelihood to get the virus in the future. This is reinforced by some pro-vaccine people (incorrectly) claiming we can eradicate the virus through high vaccination rate.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  That's not a retort, that's a question. "Do the odds of getting the virus attenuate its expectation value enough to make it equal to the expectation value of the vaccine?" The answer to the question is related to the question of how many people are going to get this thing before it stops spreading. From what I've heard we're looking at 70-80% based on herd immunity estimations, which is not a lot of risk attenuation on the virus side. If someone wants to chime in with a better-justified estimate, I'd appreciate that.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Those herd immunity level estimates were based on R0 estimates for earlier variants. The Delta variant is so contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect unvaccinated people. Almost all of us will eventually be exposed no matter what we do, but fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
  - SkyMarshal 5y ago
    True, and also keep in mind that expectation value incorporates not just relative odds of occurrence, but relative harm as well. The immediate harm of getting the vaccine is much lower than the immediate harm of contracting the virus, and furthermore the vaccine reduces both the odds and harm of the virus. All that is factored into the comparative E(V) too.
  - rory 5y ago
HN_Morons 5y ago
Are you anti-science? Because the vaccine advisory board in the UK says COVID vaccines aren't worth the risk for children: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-advisers-decide-against-covid-vaccines-healthy-12-15-year-olds-2021-09-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-advisers-decide-against-... Getting a vaccine obviously involves a personal risk assessment that varies for every individual. The idea that you can make that decision for everyone is laughable, and calling people "anti-vaxxers" for rejecting your ignorant pronouncements is counter-productive.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I suppose it's reasonable to not get vaccinated if you're 12, but I think most of the people on this thread are adults.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Sometimes I'm not so sure.

hammock 5y ago

What about the 100+ million in the US with natural immunity to the mRNA virus? Edit: 40+ million Edit 2: perhaps it is 100+ million when counting estimated unreported cases- I do recall getting this 100+ number from the CDC itself

rejectedandsad 5y ago
The vaccine generalizes better without the annoyance to deathly consequences of actually contracting the virus.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  A recent study had a great chart: https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/0/nejm.ahead-of-print/nejmoa2110475/20210824/images/img_xlarge/nejmoa2110475_f4.jpeg https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour... (Figure 4 here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475) For essentially all 'side effects' of the vaccine - you're substantially more likely to experience them if you get Covid. Not only is the notion of avoiding the vaccine to avoid the side effects misguided, it's actively increasing your chances of getting those very same side effects.
  - HN_Morons 5y ago
    Your odds are lowest if you avoid both the vaccine and the virus.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Sure, and your odds of injury from a car crash are lowest if you avoid getting in an accident, but if you're driving in a demolition derby you're certainly better off if you're wearing a seat belt and a helmet..
jcranmer 5y ago
The actual case counts for the US appear to be about 40 million right now, not 100 million. I also wonder how many people who claim to have natural immunity actually have that natural immunity. The tale of Manaus is cautionary here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  The official CDC estimate is 100 million plus, based one estimated unreported cases and serology testing.
- nradov 5y ago
  Case counts are meaningless because most infections were never tested. The CDC estimates that 120M Americans have been infected as of July 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
whatshisface 5y ago
Well, there are two groups roughly speaking of people with natural immunity. One group, those who have already had the virus, seem to be fairly well protected according to that one Israeli study. Obviously, going out and getting the virus to protect yourself from the virus is an idea straight out of Catch-22, so I assume you're talking about the other group. ;) As for people with natural immunity but who haven't had it, that's everyone. Every person has what are called "naive B-cells," covered in random antibodies. One of them probably binds to coronavirus in some way, and that would be how your body would get started fighting the infection if you got it. However, the fact that people have some natural ability to fight it off explains why not everyone dies from it (every virus would kill you if you had no immune response, that's why HIV is deadly), but it's of little consolation to the people who found out too late that their natural immunity wasn't enough. If there was a test to see in advance who would fight off the coronavirus without realizing they had it, I guess that would be a way to save some money and inconvenience giving them shots, but since we don't know for sure in advance who will or won't have an easy case, that's why we have to get vaccinated.
- mjevans 5y ago
  It would probably cost less to just administer a proven safe and effective vaccine anyway than it would to test that person even once. 3 shots of Pfizer ~ 60 USD < -- VS -- > 100+ USD ~ Single test to see if someone's infected, surely a test to see if someone is naturally immune at best costs this or more. # Pfizer seems to cost about 20 USD per dose, so even with the three dose regime (2 initial shots plus a later booster) is expected to cost under 100 USD; most of the other shots cost less. https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/ https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines... As there is no currently known technology to reliably test if someone is immune I'll grab data for the next closest similarity: a test to see if someone is presently infected. Nearly all of those tests cost in the range of 100 to 200 USD, with some rare outliers above and beneath. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/q-and-a-how-much-does-it-cost-to-get-a-covid-19-test-it-depends https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/q-and-a-how-muc... https://www.talktomira.com/post/how-much-does-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-cost-with-or-without-insurance https://www.talktomira.com/post/how-much-does-coronavirus-co...
grayhatter 5y ago
what about them? Just that they exist?
mthoms 5y ago
“Natural” immunity? You’ve been politely asked before to stop using this misleading phrase. Your insistence on using it is telling. What you really mean is disease-induced immunity.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  You have some natural immunity to viruses before you get them, that's why you can survive viruses. That's little consolation to anyone in the ER, of course.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Of course, but the context was 100 million people (or however many) are "immune". He's referring to people who've had the virus.
lamontcg 5y ago
They already beat the mRNA from the actual real "live" replicating virus. They have very little to fear from the mRNA in the vaccine. Infection followed by an mRNA vaccine also acts as a boost which provides broad neutralization against mutated spikes and possibly some pan-sarbecovirus immunity.

rory 5y ago

To play devil's advocate, the retort to this is that if you don't get the vaccine you're some <100 percentage more likely to get the virus, but if you do get the vaccine you're 100% likely to get the vaccine. I think the related mistake some vaccine-hesitant people make is that they greatly underestimate their likelihood to get the virus in the future. This is reinforced by some pro-vaccine people (incorrectly) claiming we can eradicate the virus through high vaccination rate.

whatshisface 5y ago
That's not a retort, that's a question. "Do the odds of getting the virus attenuate its expectation value enough to make it equal to the expectation value of the vaccine?" The answer to the question is related to the question of how many people are going to get this thing before it stops spreading. From what I've heard we're looking at 70-80% based on herd immunity estimations, which is not a lot of risk attenuation on the virus side. If someone wants to chime in with a better-justified estimate, I'd appreciate that.
- nradov 5y ago
  Those herd immunity level estimates were based on R0 estimates for earlier variants. The Delta variant is so contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect unvaccinated people. Almost all of us will eventually be exposed no matter what we do, but fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
- SkyMarshal 5y ago
  True, and also keep in mind that expectation value incorporates not just relative odds of occurrence, but relative harm as well. The immediate harm of getting the vaccine is much lower than the immediate harm of contracting the virus, and furthermore the vaccine reduces both the odds and harm of the virus. All that is factored into the comparative E(V) too.
- rory 5y ago

HN_Morons 5y ago

Are you anti-science? Because the vaccine advisory board in the UK says COVID vaccines aren't worth the risk for children: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-advisers-decide-against-covid-vaccines-healthy-12-15-year-olds-2021-09-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-advisers-decide-against-... Getting a vaccine obviously involves a personal risk assessment that varies for every individual. The idea that you can make that decision for everyone is laughable, and calling people "anti-vaxxers" for rejecting your ignorant pronouncements is counter-productive.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 5y ago
I suppose it's reasonable to not get vaccinated if you're 12, but I think most of the people on this thread are adults.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Sometimes I'm not so sure.