7 ms·

The answers aren't medical, they're pragmatic. - COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). - We lack the quantity of Anti

The answers aren't medical, they're pragmatic. - COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). - We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need. - We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost). The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe. Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards. Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals. Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue, you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better.

bitcurious 5y ago
> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). So a marginal cost of $24. Folks with natural immunity will have a stronger reaction to the vaccine, but let’s be conservative. Let’s say 12 hours of symptoms - headache, fatigue, light fever. Very standard with a shot. At around the minimum wage of $8/hour that’s a cost of $96. How much do you value your time? Full disclosure: happily vaccinated. The vaccine is safe, but it’s dammed inconvenient.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Eh, I had it on Saturday, and had a nice sleepy Sunday. Definitely fatigue, but nothing to remember on Monday.
- CaptainZapp 5y ago
  > Let’s say 12 hours of symptoms - headache, fatigue, light fever. Very standard with a shot. At around the minimum wage of $8/hour that’s a cost of $96. How much do you value your time? Other rich countries solve that problem by letting you take time off if you're sick. Even if working minimum wage.
peteradio 5y ago
I don't believe the science is settled no matter how much the already vaccinated wish to turn the page. What do you have to say that studies of vaccine efficacy and risk conducted by drug companies exclude those with prior immunity. How could the science be settled for a cohort purposefully excluded?
- Someone1234 5y ago
  You're asking me about something that I didn't say. Here is what I did say: > Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue My post was about the logistical and cost problems associated with certifying people with natural immunity, and why that doesn't make sense unless you believe the vaccine is unsafe.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    > Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue I'm arguing against this particular point not the others. I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here? When have we ever taken the position of prove its dangerous before you try to stop me from putting this in your body. Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe".
    - Someone1234 5y ago
      > I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here? Except we now have data from the population itself, including people previously infected with COVID-19. We therefore do know it is safe. I think what you're saying is that you want to ignore inconvenient data and use outdated arguments. > Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe". You could have made that argument at one point, but you cannot now. We have enough population level data to call it safe beyond the studies that also showed that it was safe. It is baseless.
      - 5y ago
mioasndo 5y ago
> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). That's not a valid reason at all. > We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need. We also lacked vaccine quantity, and many people still do. > We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost). Meh, that's a very weak reason considering it's a small incremental cost to vaccine passports and covid testing. > The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe. That's just your 'implicit assumption'. > Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards. Except vaccine efficacy is much lower than natural immunity and vaccine efficacy wears off over time. We literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved. > Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals. Your comment here is a distraction. You literally haven't brought up a single fact or data point on vaccine vs natural immunity efficacy. > Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue How is it a settled issue when there is literally zero data on long-term effects? > you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better. Cool story bud.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  Your argument has holes. - If the vaccine is safe. - If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logistically). - If tracking the vaccine is easier. Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense. You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not." You yourself admit that that is your actual reason: > Furthermore we literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved. The "but efficacy" response is confusing at best. If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people, it can still be the logical course of action at population scales for the other stated benefits (logistical, tracking, and cost).
hvac 5y ago
This is precisely correct, especially wrt the cost/benefit. The antibody tests won't tell you when you were infected, with which variant, or how much viral dose, on top of their imperfect accuracy. And if you're going to bother going to a hospital to get your blood drawn, why not just... get the shot and remove all doubt? Does the calculus change in the countries where vaccines are basically nonexistant? Yes, of course. But vaccines in the US are as nearly easy to get as Gatorade now, and have been for several months. We spent many billions making it that way - we don't need to turn around and start spending even more money on pox party incentives.
nradov 5y ago
Safety is not a binary condition. The vaccines have a good safety profile as confirmed through large-scale clinical trials, and have met stringent FDA criteria. However the risk isn't zero. The CDC has acknowledged a small risk of myocarditis for the mRNA vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my... This isn't generally a reason to avoid vaccination for most of the population, however the risk / benefit ratio may be different for some sub-populations. In particular there has been a higher than expected rate of adverse cardiac events for adolescent males. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v... So particularly for those adolescents who have already recovered from infection and have no other risk factors we should have a scientific discussion about whether vaccination makes sense from an evidence-based medicine perspective. Unfortunately the issue has been so politicized that any suggestion of caution often gets misinterpreted as being anti-vaccination.
- mike00632 5y ago
  More people will die waiting unvaxxed for their antibody results than will die from vaccine side effects. Please use real numbers when you talk about vaccine side effects.
  - nradov 5y ago
    The real numbers are in the links I posted above, as well as this CDC presentation. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...
    - mike00632 5y ago
      Oh, you're citing unverified data to support a claim against vaccine safety. Classic anti-vaxx move.
      - nradov 5y ago
pavon 5y ago
On top of that, early on when the vaccine supply was constrained we didn't have enough data to know whether natural immunity was as effective as vaccination, and now vaccine supply in the US is in surplus[1], so there is no reason to be selective in who receives it. So natural immunity didn't make sense to consider in the vaccination plan. It might make sense to consider in the booster plan though - if you've had a positive Covid test before or after being vaccinated, consider the later of those two actions to be a booster, and don't get another one. That would free up more doses for the rest of the world. [1]We have a large amount of vaccine that has/is expiring shortly but there isn't enough time before the expiration date to redirect them overseas.
dekhn 5y ago
I generally agree with this analysis, but people who are looking for some sort of 'smoking gun' that our government is colluding with pharma to help them make money by forcing unnecessary vaccinations, are more interested in hearing sexy, exciting narratives about how Fauci is working for the devil.
robocat 5y ago
At least let people pay to get the Antibody Test, and if positive then they get a one year vaccine holiday. There is little point getting knickers twisted over small percentage wins when a large population (children) are unvaccinated.
postalrat 5y ago
How about start with anyone who had a positive test in the past gets a vaccinated card.
cryptonector 5y ago
A lot of people will pay for the antibody tests.
elihu 5y ago
> Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals. Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue, you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better. I don't think this is a distraction, it's a difference in threat models. Suppose a government official said that everyone should install a particular app on their phones. It's safe, they say. They ran it through antivirus checks and it came up clean. They measured performance of the phone and didn't see any regressions. All the old apps work normally. Major government security agencies are recommending everyone to install the app. Wouldn't it be normal to be suspicious? I mean, that app could do anything. There are theories about the vaccine that are ridiculous. No, it doesn't have microchips. And so on. But on the other hand, the vaccine has been politicized by Republicans and Democrats alike. Democrats have a lot vested in the vaccine's success; if it turned out it had some serious flaw that was papered over because the benefits were perceived to be greater than the risks, it'd make them looks bad. In the same way that the operators of Fukushima Daiichi looked bad when their reactor failed, or BP looked bad when the blowout preventer didn't work. These are things where the experts said it was fine, but it wasn't. If you believe that government officials will cover up inconvenient facts for political reasons and your main source on the safety of the vaccines is government officials, then a rational choice is not to trust the vaccine. If microchips aren't a realistic threat, what sort of realistic flaws might the vaccine have? Maybe it elevates risk of cancer or dementia twenty years down the line. Maybe it affects fertility in ways we haven't tested. And so on. Really we have no idea what the long term risks could be, we just know that the short and long term risks of Covid are pretty bad. All that said, I got my two doses of the vaccine as soon as it was available, and I hope everyone else does the same. I'm just saying that given that some random person has no capacity to evaluate the safety of a vaccine on their own and supposing they have reasons to doubt that the people presented to them as experts regarding the safety of the vaccine would tell them the truth if there were real safety concerns with the vaccine, I can understand why they wouldn't want to get it. And I don't know what argument I could give that would change their minds. For the ones who've already gotten Covid and presumably have at least some reasonable amount of immunity, maybe there isn't really anything to be gained by trying to convince them.
SergeAx 5y ago
In Slovenia antigen test (which is acceptable across EU for 48 hours) priced at 10 EUR in a walk-in center and 12 EUR in drive-in lab. I don't know about the first, but the second is definetely a commercial venture with people employed and a place rented and software written and supported, so it should be even less in wholesale.

bitcurious 5y ago

> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). So a marginal cost of $24. Folks with natural immunity will have a stronger reaction to the vaccine, but let’s be conservative. Let’s say 12 hours of symptoms - headache, fatigue, light fever. Very standard with a shot. At around the minimum wage of $8/hour that’s a cost of $96. How much do you value your time? Full disclosure: happily vaccinated. The vaccine is safe, but it’s dammed inconvenient.

pessimizer 5y ago
Eh, I had it on Saturday, and had a nice sleepy Sunday. Definitely fatigue, but nothing to remember on Monday.
CaptainZapp 5y ago
> Let’s say 12 hours of symptoms - headache, fatigue, light fever. Very standard with a shot. At around the minimum wage of $8/hour that’s a cost of $96. How much do you value your time? Other rich countries solve that problem by letting you take time off if you're sick. Even if working minimum wage.

peteradio 5y ago

I don't believe the science is settled no matter how much the already vaccinated wish to turn the page. What do you have to say that studies of vaccine efficacy and risk conducted by drug companies exclude those with prior immunity. How could the science be settled for a cohort purposefully excluded?

Someone1234 5y ago
You're asking me about something that I didn't say. Here is what I did say: > Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue My post was about the logistical and cost problems associated with certifying people with natural immunity, and why that doesn't make sense unless you believe the vaccine is unsafe.
- peteradio 5y ago
  > Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue I'm arguing against this particular point not the others. I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here? When have we ever taken the position of prove its dangerous before you try to stop me from putting this in your body. Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe".
  - Someone1234 5y ago
    > I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here? Except we now have data from the population itself, including people previously infected with COVID-19. We therefore do know it is safe. I think what you're saying is that you want to ignore inconvenient data and use outdated arguments. > Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe". You could have made that argument at one point, but you cannot now. We have enough population level data to call it safe beyond the studies that also showed that it was safe. It is baseless.
    - 5y ago

mioasndo 5y ago

> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). That's not a valid reason at all. > We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need. We also lacked vaccine quantity, and many people still do. > We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost). Meh, that's a very weak reason considering it's a small incremental cost to vaccine passports and covid testing. > The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe. That's just your 'implicit assumption'. > Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards. Except vaccine efficacy is much lower than natural immunity and vaccine efficacy wears off over time. We literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved. > Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals. Your comment here is a distraction. You literally haven't brought up a single fact or data point on vaccine vs natural immunity efficacy. > Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue How is it a settled issue when there is literally zero data on long-term effects? > you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better. Cool story bud.

Someone1234 5y ago
Your argument has holes. - If the vaccine is safe. - If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logistically). - If tracking the vaccine is easier. Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense. You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not." You yourself admit that that is your actual reason: > Furthermore we literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved. The "but efficacy" response is confusing at best. If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people, it can still be the logical course of action at population scales for the other stated benefits (logistical, tracking, and cost).

hvac 5y ago

This is precisely correct, especially wrt the cost/benefit. The antibody tests won't tell you when you were infected, with which variant, or how much viral dose, on top of their imperfect accuracy. And if you're going to bother going to a hospital to get your blood drawn, why not just... get the shot and remove all doubt? Does the calculus change in the countries where vaccines are basically nonexistant? Yes, of course. But vaccines in the US are as nearly easy to get as Gatorade now, and have been for several months. We spent many billions making it that way - we don't need to turn around and start spending even more money on pox party incentives.

nradov 5y ago

Safety is not a binary condition. The vaccines have a good safety profile as confirmed through large-scale clinical trials, and have met stringent FDA criteria. However the risk isn't zero. The CDC has acknowledged a small risk of myocarditis for the mRNA vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my... This isn't generally a reason to avoid vaccination for most of the population, however the risk / benefit ratio may be different for some sub-populations. In particular there has been a higher than expected rate of adverse cardiac events for adolescent males. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v... So particularly for those adolescents who have already recovered from infection and have no other risk factors we should have a scientific discussion about whether vaccination makes sense from an evidence-based medicine perspective. Unfortunately the issue has been so politicized that any suggestion of caution often gets misinterpreted as being anti-vaccination.

mike00632 5y ago
More people will die waiting unvaxxed for their antibody results than will die from vaccine side effects. Please use real numbers when you talk about vaccine side effects.
- nradov 5y ago
  The real numbers are in the links I posted above, as well as this CDC presentation. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...
  - mike00632 5y ago
    Oh, you're citing unverified data to support a claim against vaccine safety. Classic anti-vaxx move.
    - nradov 5y ago

pavon 5y ago

On top of that, early on when the vaccine supply was constrained we didn't have enough data to know whether natural immunity was as effective as vaccination, and now vaccine supply in the US is in surplus[1], so there is no reason to be selective in who receives it. So natural immunity didn't make sense to consider in the vaccination plan. It might make sense to consider in the booster plan though - if you've had a positive Covid test before or after being vaccinated, consider the later of those two actions to be a booster, and don't get another one. That would free up more doses for the rest of the world. [1]We have a large amount of vaccine that has/is expiring shortly but there isn't enough time before the expiration date to redirect them overseas.

dekhn 5y ago

I generally agree with this analysis, but people who are looking for some sort of 'smoking gun' that our government is colluding with pharma to help them make money by forcing unnecessary vaccinations, are more interested in hearing sexy, exciting narratives about how Fauci is working for the devil.

robocat 5y ago

At least let people pay to get the Antibody Test, and if positive then they get a one year vaccine holiday. There is little point getting knickers twisted over small percentage wins when a large population (children) are unvaccinated.

postalrat 5y ago

How about start with anyone who had a positive test in the past gets a vaccinated card.

cryptonector 5y ago

A lot of people will pay for the antibody tests.

elihu 5y ago

> Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals. Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue, you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better. I don't think this is a distraction, it's a difference in threat models. Suppose a government official said that everyone should install a particular app on their phones. It's safe, they say. They ran it through antivirus checks and it came up clean. They measured performance of the phone and didn't see any regressions. All the old apps work normally. Major government security agencies are recommending everyone to install the app. Wouldn't it be normal to be suspicious? I mean, that app could do anything. There are theories about the vaccine that are ridiculous. No, it doesn't have microchips. And so on. But on the other hand, the vaccine has been politicized by Republicans and Democrats alike. Democrats have a lot vested in the vaccine's success; if it turned out it had some serious flaw that was papered over because the benefits were perceived to be greater than the risks, it'd make them looks bad. In the same way that the operators of Fukushima Daiichi looked bad when their reactor failed, or BP looked bad when the blowout preventer didn't work. These are things where the experts said it was fine, but it wasn't. If you believe that government officials will cover up inconvenient facts for political reasons and your main source on the safety of the vaccines is government officials, then a rational choice is not to trust the vaccine. If microchips aren't a realistic threat, what sort of realistic flaws might the vaccine have? Maybe it elevates risk of cancer or dementia twenty years down the line. Maybe it affects fertility in ways we haven't tested. And so on. Really we have no idea what the long term risks could be, we just know that the short and long term risks of Covid are pretty bad. All that said, I got my two doses of the vaccine as soon as it was available, and I hope everyone else does the same. I'm just saying that given that some random person has no capacity to evaluate the safety of a vaccine on their own and supposing they have reasons to doubt that the people presented to them as experts regarding the safety of the vaccine would tell them the truth if there were real safety concerns with the vaccine, I can understand why they wouldn't want to get it. And I don't know what argument I could give that would change their minds. For the ones who've already gotten Covid and presumably have at least some reasonable amount of immunity, maybe there isn't really anything to be gained by trying to convince them.

SergeAx 5y ago

In Slovenia antigen test (which is acceptable across EU for 48 hours) priced at 10 EUR in a walk-in center and 12 EUR in drive-in lab. I don't know about the first, but the second is definetely a commercial venture with people employed and a place rented and software written and supported, so it should be even less in wholesale.