4 ms·

The argument seems fine to me. Let people with natural immunity have the same privileges as vaccinated people assuming they have a piece of paper from a federal

by leifg 5y ago

The argument seems fine to me. Let people with natural immunity have the same privileges as vaccinated people assuming they have a piece of paper from a federal entity to prove it. The only argument I can think of against it is: Certain vaccine skeptic people might be incentivized to catch the virus on purpose.

deelowe 5y ago
To what extent has the efficacy of natural immunity been characterized? There should be some minimum bar of understanding that must be met before something becomes a policy even in extreme cases such as these.
- gojomo 5y ago
  There's growing evidence one natural infection is better than any vax for future immunity. One recent report, based on Israeli data: "Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine" https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... I love vaccines; especially the Pfizer until further research helps lower the Moderna (& Pfizer) doses. If I'd had COVID, I'd want 1 extra dose, perhaps a half a year later, as an extra boost. But it's unfair – & unscientific – to insist on such doses for the proven-recovered (who are also more likely to have bad vax reactions). Other countries are doing this better – just like other countries got faster immunity, & stronger delta-variant immunity, by delaying 2nds doses to get more people 1st-dose vaccinated in early 2021. Our local scientific bureaucracy is killing us & generating unnecessary extra social conflict, with their unscientific inflexibility.
  - deelowe 5y ago
    > just like other countries got faster immunity, & stronger delta-variant immunity, by delaying 2nds doses > Our local scientific bureaucracy is killing us & generating unnecessary extra social conflict, with their unscientific inflexibility. Other countries delayed second doses either due to health and safety concerns or supply constraints while the US pushed forward with EUA before second dose efficacy was fully characterized. To me, this is the opposite of bureaucracy.
    - gojomo 5y ago
      Supply constraints (not anything 'safety' related) were the original driving factor for slower 2nd doses elsewhere - but it was already confidently conjectured by domain experts that a longer spacing would likely be more effective. It's even taught in vaccination textbooks, pre-COVID, that a delay of at least 2 months is usually necessary to train the strongest/longest immune response. (Much like 'spaced repetition' to consciously memorize facts, an immune-response is more-reinforced if a separate presentation happens at a distinctly-different time, when forgetting has begun but is reversible.) Thus, those countries that trusted the pre-COVID science – like the UK or Canada – delayed 2nd shots for 8 weeks or more - giving more of their population the all-important 1st-dose sooner, & closely monitoring the effects on community cases. In the meantime, Fauci did interviews insisting the 3/4 week rapid boosting was "optimal". (That was overconfident bluster unsupported by the rushed & limited trial data, which other more honest scientists pointed out.) Surprise! With data, the textbooks were right. 8 week or longer delays generate immune responses that are stronger & last longer. In the UK, now without such tight supply constraints, it's considered dangerously negligent to not warn patients they should wait at least 8 weeks for the 2nd shot: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/covid-vaccine-second-jab-early-eight-weeks-more-likely-affected-fourth-wave-1105488 https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/covid-vaccine-second-jab-early-e... In the US, disease experts like Eric Topol & Monica Gandhi now suggest some of the 'fading' immunity showing up in Israeli & US studies, especially with Pfizer, is due to the rushed 3-week booster. Our flailing CDC still insists, today in their vaccination FAQ, contra the science & the interests of Americans, that "you should get your second shot as close to the [21d or 28d] interval as possible". They're also still urging people not to use N95-quality masks, even though they are now cheap & plentiful and likely 2x-4x more effective than cloth or surgical masks. The failure to recognize that prior infections are as protective as vaccinations is another error that's wasting vaccine & creating arguments that we could just... skip & do better for everyone. Thus: "Our local scientific bureaucracy is killing us & generating unnecessary extra social conflict, with their unscientific inflexibility."
      - deelowe 5y ago
        You're rewriting history. The US approved EUA and rolled out warp speed before any of this was known for sure. There was speculation on both sides. One being that delaying would be helpul the other being that it would render vaccines useless or that covid would be so bad by then it wouldn't matter. Either way, the US chose a path based on science and data just like most other countries. It wasn't bureaucracy.
moolcool 5y ago
Even if you've already had covid, the vaccine is still a safe and effective way to even further reduce your odds of transmitting it in the future
gojomo 5y ago
Seeking infection may cure their skepticism faster than any amount of scolding!
- leifg 5y ago
  If catching COVID is only a risk to the people catching it I'd agree. However by catching COVID you are also a burden to the health care system and possibly take away a hospital bed for someone who actually needs it (already happening). I do have a problem with that.
  - howlong 5y ago
    A great deal of burden on the health care system -- perhaps even more than completely eliminating COVID -- could be alleviated by people dedicating themselves to better diet and exercise. Why not mandate that?
    - leifg 5y ago
      OK that argument has been debunked a million times but here we go: 1. No one is talking about mandates 2. Yes living unhealthy is a burden on the health care system. But I am fine with that as long as your actions only have consequences in your own life. With an infectious disease that's different because you suddenly have a multiplier. I didn't hear about any ICU capacity issues because of obese people. 3. We (at least most countries) already have measures to increase the overall health of our society (smoking bans in certain places, age limits on alcohol consumptions, programs in schools to provide healthier food in cafeterias, you name it).
      - howlong 5y ago
        Nothing I said has been debunked. 1. Lots of people are talking about mandates. 2. I didn't say anything about ICUs, or about obesity spreading to other people. Across the entire healthcare system, there could be much alleviation of burden if people took dietary and activity-based steps toward being healthier. 3. Banning smoking in public places doesn't stop smoking altogether. If the government wanted to end smoking, they could "mandate" the complete shutdown of tobacco companies. Or the tobacco companies themselves could shut down of their own accord. But folks involved care more about their business than about the health of their "customers". Healthier food in school cafeterias is great, but clearly not enough. People are being hammered with anti-COVID material left and right; nothing even close to that is being done toward pressuring people into taking better care of themselves through diet and exercise.
triceratops 5y ago
> The only argument I can think of against it is: Certain vaccine skeptic people might be incentivized to catch the virus on purpose. I think that's a pretty important argument against allowing natural immunity in lieu of vaccination. A lot of people will go and deliberately infect themselves. Some of them will die. They will spread it to others. Many will tie up ICU beds, doctors, nurses and other hospital resources, causing tons of first- and second-order harm.
- kuraudo 5y ago
  I know of several people who purposefully went to get the virus in the early stages of 2020: I don't think your worry is very far off the mark at all.

by leifg 5y ago

deelowe 5y ago

To what extent has the efficacy of natural immunity been characterized? There should be some minimum bar of understanding that must be met before something becomes a policy even in extreme cases such as these.

gojomo 5y ago
There's growing evidence one natural infection is better than any vax for future immunity. One recent report, based on Israeli data: "Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine" https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... I love vaccines; especially the Pfizer until further research helps lower the Moderna (& Pfizer) doses. If I'd had COVID, I'd want 1 extra dose, perhaps a half a year later, as an extra boost. But it's unfair – & unscientific – to insist on such doses for the proven-recovered (who are also more likely to have bad vax reactions). Other countries are doing this better – just like other countries got faster immunity, & stronger delta-variant immunity, by delaying 2nds doses to get more people 1st-dose vaccinated in early 2021. Our local scientific bureaucracy is killing us & generating unnecessary extra social conflict, with their unscientific inflexibility.
- deelowe 5y ago
  > just like other countries got faster immunity, & stronger delta-variant immunity, by delaying 2nds doses > Our local scientific bureaucracy is killing us & generating unnecessary extra social conflict, with their unscientific inflexibility. Other countries delayed second doses either due to health and safety concerns or supply constraints while the US pushed forward with EUA before second dose efficacy was fully characterized. To me, this is the opposite of bureaucracy.
  - gojomo 5y ago
    Supply constraints (not anything 'safety' related) were the original driving factor for slower 2nd doses elsewhere - but it was already confidently conjectured by domain experts that a longer spacing would likely be more effective. It's even taught in vaccination textbooks, pre-COVID, that a delay of at least 2 months is usually necessary to train the strongest/longest immune response. (Much like 'spaced repetition' to consciously memorize facts, an immune-response is more-reinforced if a separate presentation happens at a distinctly-different time, when forgetting has begun but is reversible.) Thus, those countries that trusted the pre-COVID science – like the UK or Canada – delayed 2nd shots for 8 weeks or more - giving more of their population the all-important 1st-dose sooner, & closely monitoring the effects on community cases. In the meantime, Fauci did interviews insisting the 3/4 week rapid boosting was "optimal". (That was overconfident bluster unsupported by the rushed & limited trial data, which other more honest scientists pointed out.) Surprise! With data, the textbooks were right. 8 week or longer delays generate immune responses that are stronger & last longer. In the UK, now without such tight supply constraints, it's considered dangerously negligent to not warn patients they should wait at least 8 weeks for the 2nd shot: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/covid-vaccine-second-jab-early-eight-weeks-more-likely-affected-fourth-wave-1105488 https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/covid-vaccine-second-jab-early-e... In the US, disease experts like Eric Topol & Monica Gandhi now suggest some of the 'fading' immunity showing up in Israeli & US studies, especially with Pfizer, is due to the rushed 3-week booster. Our flailing CDC still insists, today in their vaccination FAQ, contra the science & the interests of Americans, that "you should get your second shot as close to the [21d or 28d] interval as possible". They're also still urging people not to use N95-quality masks, even though they are now cheap & plentiful and likely 2x-4x more effective than cloth or surgical masks. The failure to recognize that prior infections are as protective as vaccinations is another error that's wasting vaccine & creating arguments that we could just... skip & do better for everyone. Thus: "Our local scientific bureaucracy is killing us & generating unnecessary extra social conflict, with their unscientific inflexibility."
    - deelowe 5y ago
      You're rewriting history. The US approved EUA and rolled out warp speed before any of this was known for sure. There was speculation on both sides. One being that delaying would be helpul the other being that it would render vaccines useless or that covid would be so bad by then it wouldn't matter. Either way, the US chose a path based on science and data just like most other countries. It wasn't bureaucracy.

moolcool 5y ago

Even if you've already had covid, the vaccine is still a safe and effective way to even further reduce your odds of transmitting it in the future

gojomo 5y ago

Seeking infection may cure their skepticism faster than any amount of scolding!

leifg 5y ago
If catching COVID is only a risk to the people catching it I'd agree. However by catching COVID you are also a burden to the health care system and possibly take away a hospital bed for someone who actually needs it (already happening). I do have a problem with that.
- howlong 5y ago
  A great deal of burden on the health care system -- perhaps even more than completely eliminating COVID -- could be alleviated by people dedicating themselves to better diet and exercise. Why not mandate that?
  - leifg 5y ago
    OK that argument has been debunked a million times but here we go: 1. No one is talking about mandates 2. Yes living unhealthy is a burden on the health care system. But I am fine with that as long as your actions only have consequences in your own life. With an infectious disease that's different because you suddenly have a multiplier. I didn't hear about any ICU capacity issues because of obese people. 3. We (at least most countries) already have measures to increase the overall health of our society (smoking bans in certain places, age limits on alcohol consumptions, programs in schools to provide healthier food in cafeterias, you name it).
    - howlong 5y ago
      Nothing I said has been debunked. 1. Lots of people are talking about mandates. 2. I didn't say anything about ICUs, or about obesity spreading to other people. Across the entire healthcare system, there could be much alleviation of burden if people took dietary and activity-based steps toward being healthier. 3. Banning smoking in public places doesn't stop smoking altogether. If the government wanted to end smoking, they could "mandate" the complete shutdown of tobacco companies. Or the tobacco companies themselves could shut down of their own accord. But folks involved care more about their business than about the health of their "customers". Healthier food in school cafeterias is great, but clearly not enough. People are being hammered with anti-COVID material left and right; nothing even close to that is being done toward pressuring people into taking better care of themselves through diet and exercise.

triceratops 5y ago

> The only argument I can think of against it is: Certain vaccine skeptic people might be incentivized to catch the virus on purpose. I think that's a pretty important argument against allowing natural immunity in lieu of vaccination. A lot of people will go and deliberately infect themselves. Some of them will die. They will spread it to others. Many will tie up ICU beds, doctors, nurses and other hospital resources, causing tons of first- and second-order harm.

kuraudo 5y ago
I know of several people who purposefully went to get the virus in the early stages of 2020: I don't think your worry is very far off the mark at all.