3 ms·

Why? There are already tests for antibodies. And we already know over 100 million Americans had covid already. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-hea

Why? There are already tests for antibodies. And we already know over 100 million Americans had covid already. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020 https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news... A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020. And we know that those antibodies from past covid are excellent, I call them superior. 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... The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-covid-prevents-delta-infection-better-than-pfizer-shot https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...

radley 5y ago
> The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study... And the CDC has a study saying the opposite: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... So, maybe we need a few more studies before jumping to conclusions.
- freeflight 5y ago
  The "we are figuring this out as we go" factor for this is massive, something that's rarely acknowledged yet a big factor for the more rational opposition to "just vaccinate everybody all the time".
  - throwawayfear 5y ago
    The consequences of "just vaccinate everybody": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r... What if this was worse? That's some 25 million people in the USA alone. What if it was much worse and what if we don't know the full story? We must be allowed to figure everything out as we go, but for some reason the Democrats in power want to divide us along vaxed vs unvaxed lines. Why? That's a false dilemma considering the 100+ million who have excellent antibodies from natural immunity already.
    - freeflight 5y ago
      It's weird how under-reported any findings on side-effects are, another one to watch out for is hepatitis infections [0] I also don't think it's particularly useful to frame this into a US domestic "the democrats in power!" narrative. The issue is extremely polarized all over the world, rarely any place allows for any nuance outside of the imagined "anybody who doesn't want to get vaccinated fears Bill Gates 5G" two camps. Trying to make this into a "Them Democrats are to blame!" is just more of that partisan kindergarten in a different flavor. [0] https://www.dovepress.com/hepatitis-c-virus-reactivation-following-covid-19-vaccination--a-case--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IMCRJ https://www.dovepress.com/hepatitis-c-virus-reactivation-fol...
      - throwawayfear 5y ago
        I agree that it is weird how under-reported findings on side effects are. The narrative has been such that it's not considered okay or safe to discuss those or to report on those as openly. And treating the established narrative as sacrosanct. I hear you and accept your point about mentioning a political party. If you are sensitive to that type of thing, it is my hope that you will also be sensitive to the "vax vs unvax" and "pandemic of the unvaccinated" false dilemmas being painted in the media.
    - radley 5y ago
      I believe there are many, very smart people working on this, taking this very seriously, and giving the best advice they can. You're free to think it's political power grab designed to divide us, but I won't entertain that kind of debate.
- throwawayfear 5y ago
  The CDC study you reference: Overall, 246 case-patients met eligibility requirements and were successfully matched by age, sex, and date of initial infection with 492 controls. The Israeli study I linked: Overall, 673,676 MHS members 16 years and older were eligible for the study group of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals; 62,883 were eligible for the study group of unvaccinated previously infected individuals and 42,099 individuals were eligible for the study group of previously infected and single-dose vaccinees. I'm going to go ahead and trust the more recent Israeli study which has much more data to go off of. Also note that in either case, the narrative is still that past infection provides protection. If it's much better, almost as good, or as good as the vaccines is all fine by me. It's still excellent protection and on par with what people were rolling with maskless just a few weeks ago. Time to evolve the narrative in the media about "vax vs unvax"
- sanedigital 5y ago
  This is a case of the CDC either lying or at least being deliberately misleading with their headline: the study in question shows that amongst people previously infected with COVID those who were also vaccinated were less likely to be hospitalized. “In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.”
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  If you read it carefully, that CDC study compares vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the population of people that recovered from covid. It does not compare vaccinated (and not recovered) vs recovered (but not vaccinated), but I have seen many people misinterpret it in this way including journalists. I think this sort of misdirection is by design with how often I see it happening, the right does not have a monopoly on spreading misinformation.
yosame 5y ago
But the vaccine is free and safe. Unless you're allergic to the vaccine, or immunocompromised, there's no good reason not to get the vaccine. Even if you've had covid already, it's not going to do any harm.
- throwawayfear 5y ago
  What reason is there TO get it if you have better antibodies from past covid? Why should anyone bother with the unknowns of that? 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... The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. Over 100 million Americans already fall into this bucket of having these antibodies. Why should they care about something that doesn't matter? Reinfection is very rare - so these people are not a risk to anyone.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  >But the vaccine is free and safe. Can you please explain how you know this, when it's been available for only a year, while a human lifespan is several decades?

radley 5y ago

> The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study... And the CDC has a study saying the opposite: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... So, maybe we need a few more studies before jumping to conclusions.

freeflight 5y ago
The "we are figuring this out as we go" factor for this is massive, something that's rarely acknowledged yet a big factor for the more rational opposition to "just vaccinate everybody all the time".
- throwawayfear 5y ago
  The consequences of "just vaccinate everybody": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r... What if this was worse? That's some 25 million people in the USA alone. What if it was much worse and what if we don't know the full story? We must be allowed to figure everything out as we go, but for some reason the Democrats in power want to divide us along vaxed vs unvaxed lines. Why? That's a false dilemma considering the 100+ million who have excellent antibodies from natural immunity already.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    It's weird how under-reported any findings on side-effects are, another one to watch out for is hepatitis infections [0] I also don't think it's particularly useful to frame this into a US domestic "the democrats in power!" narrative. The issue is extremely polarized all over the world, rarely any place allows for any nuance outside of the imagined "anybody who doesn't want to get vaccinated fears Bill Gates 5G" two camps. Trying to make this into a "Them Democrats are to blame!" is just more of that partisan kindergarten in a different flavor. [0] https://www.dovepress.com/hepatitis-c-virus-reactivation-following-covid-19-vaccination--a-case--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IMCRJ https://www.dovepress.com/hepatitis-c-virus-reactivation-fol...
    - throwawayfear 5y ago
      I agree that it is weird how under-reported findings on side effects are. The narrative has been such that it's not considered okay or safe to discuss those or to report on those as openly. And treating the established narrative as sacrosanct. I hear you and accept your point about mentioning a political party. If you are sensitive to that type of thing, it is my hope that you will also be sensitive to the "vax vs unvax" and "pandemic of the unvaccinated" false dilemmas being painted in the media.
  - radley 5y ago
    I believe there are many, very smart people working on this, taking this very seriously, and giving the best advice they can. You're free to think it's political power grab designed to divide us, but I won't entertain that kind of debate.
throwawayfear 5y ago
The CDC study you reference: Overall, 246 case-patients met eligibility requirements and were successfully matched by age, sex, and date of initial infection with 492 controls. The Israeli study I linked: Overall, 673,676 MHS members 16 years and older were eligible for the study group of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals; 62,883 were eligible for the study group of unvaccinated previously infected individuals and 42,099 individuals were eligible for the study group of previously infected and single-dose vaccinees. I'm going to go ahead and trust the more recent Israeli study which has much more data to go off of. Also note that in either case, the narrative is still that past infection provides protection. If it's much better, almost as good, or as good as the vaccines is all fine by me. It's still excellent protection and on par with what people were rolling with maskless just a few weeks ago. Time to evolve the narrative in the media about "vax vs unvax"
sanedigital 5y ago
This is a case of the CDC either lying or at least being deliberately misleading with their headline: the study in question shows that amongst people previously infected with COVID those who were also vaccinated were less likely to be hospitalized. “In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.”
bananabiscuit 5y ago
If you read it carefully, that CDC study compares vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the population of people that recovered from covid. It does not compare vaccinated (and not recovered) vs recovered (but not vaccinated), but I have seen many people misinterpret it in this way including journalists. I think this sort of misdirection is by design with how often I see it happening, the right does not have a monopoly on spreading misinformation.

yosame 5y ago

But the vaccine is free and safe. Unless you're allergic to the vaccine, or immunocompromised, there's no good reason not to get the vaccine. Even if you've had covid already, it's not going to do any harm.

throwawayfear 5y ago
What reason is there TO get it if you have better antibodies from past covid? Why should anyone bother with the unknowns of that? 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... The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. Over 100 million Americans already fall into this bucket of having these antibodies. Why should they care about something that doesn't matter? Reinfection is very rare - so these people are not a risk to anyone.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
>But the vaccine is free and safe. Can you please explain how you know this, when it's been available for only a year, while a human lifespan is several decades?