5 ms·

Preliminary data from Israel suggests that immunity acquired through natural infection may be more robust to variants like delta, compared to vaccine induced im

Preliminary data from Israel suggests that immunity acquired through natural infection may be more robust to variants like delta, compared to vaccine induced immunity. See this preprint and discussion from a couple weeks ago [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28307224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28307224

qzw 5y ago
That's kind of beside the point. With natural infection, the risk of severe illness is also much higher. So for most people trying to get "better" immunity by natural infection is not a good tradeoff. It's kind of like saying that since it's extremely rare to get bitten by a shark twice, you should try to get a shark to bite you once in order to acquire "immunity" to sharks.
- rajin444 5y ago
  A lot of vaccine hesitancy (in the US at least) is driven by refusal to acknowledge natural immunity. Ignoring it is another "noblie lie" to help drive up vaccine numbers. It's much easier to say "just get the vaccine". However, it's a massive ethical violation if the vaccine provides no improvement over natural immunity. It's still pretty bad if it only provides minimal improvement. "Just get the vaccine" would be an ok policy if there was a 0% chance of negative effects from the vaccine, but that is not true.
  - qzw 5y ago
    I think far more vaccine hesitancy in the US is driven by glorifying "natural immunity", especially when it's not clearly stated whether it's pre- or post-COVID immunity that's being touted. For example, I can't tell from your comment whether your position is that people shouldn't get vaccinated at all or whether they shouldn't do so if they've already had COVID. The latter position is debatable, but the former would be firmly contrary to pretty much all known scientific evidence (as long as we're talking about the general population and not a specific subgroup).
  - achenatx 5y ago
    Ive suspected all along the massive media push that "natural infection only generates immunity for 90 days" or "6 months" or whatever would turn out to be false. The media played up anecdotes of reinfections but there was never any actual data. The thing is they never lied. At the time they made those statements the virus had only been studied for that long. By the time the vaccines were created the "reinfection" idea was entrenched (even though not proven) and the vaccine was recommended just in case.

qzw 5y ago

That's kind of beside the point. With natural infection, the risk of severe illness is also much higher. So for most people trying to get "better" immunity by natural infection is not a good tradeoff. It's kind of like saying that since it's extremely rare to get bitten by a shark twice, you should try to get a shark to bite you once in order to acquire "immunity" to sharks.

rajin444 5y ago
A lot of vaccine hesitancy (in the US at least) is driven by refusal to acknowledge natural immunity. Ignoring it is another "noblie lie" to help drive up vaccine numbers. It's much easier to say "just get the vaccine". However, it's a massive ethical violation if the vaccine provides no improvement over natural immunity. It's still pretty bad if it only provides minimal improvement. "Just get the vaccine" would be an ok policy if there was a 0% chance of negative effects from the vaccine, but that is not true.
- qzw 5y ago
  I think far more vaccine hesitancy in the US is driven by glorifying "natural immunity", especially when it's not clearly stated whether it's pre- or post-COVID immunity that's being touted. For example, I can't tell from your comment whether your position is that people shouldn't get vaccinated at all or whether they shouldn't do so if they've already had COVID. The latter position is debatable, but the former would be firmly contrary to pretty much all known scientific evidence (as long as we're talking about the general population and not a specific subgroup).
- achenatx 5y ago
  Ive suspected all along the massive media push that "natural infection only generates immunity for 90 days" or "6 months" or whatever would turn out to be false. The media played up anecdotes of reinfections but there was never any actual data. The thing is they never lied. At the time they made those statements the virus had only been studied for that long. By the time the vaccines were created the "reinfection" idea was entrenched (even though not proven) and the vaccine was recommended just in case.