10 ms·

No one is advocating for people to get infected, but many front line workers have already had COVID while they were doing their hero work. Since studies are no

No one is advocating for people to get infected, but many front line workers have already had COVID while they were doing their hero work. Since studies are now showing they have better immunity than those who have received a vaccination, it is foolish to have them vaccinate. If you've had Measles, you aren't required to get a vaccination, so there is a well established precedent. The politicalization of the vaccine is foolish and unscientific.

paulcole 5y ago
Isn’t it just easier (and with virtually no risk) to require people to vaccinate rather than debate over who did/did not actually have COVID?
- protomyth 5y ago
  There is always a risk with vaccination as with any medication. It's small, but why take it? Taking a vaccine to make other people feel better is emotional and not scientific. There is no debate, there are blood tests. The same logic has been applied to measles.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Well, there’s a risk with the blood draw as well. It’s also small.
    - protomyth 5y ago
      That's not even in the same realm.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Pretty much. There are some indications that myocarditis, the most serious, but very rare and even more rarely fatal complication of the mRNA vaccines, is caused by accidental intravenous injection of the vaccine.
      - geysersam 5y ago
        They are not the same. But the "risk" from the vaccines does seem negligible compared to almost anything else.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    You'd find that judging an individual's immunity by a vague notion of prior infection with Covid-19 is probably riskier than the vaccine. Comirnaty had hundreds of millions of doses administered so far, and maybe - maybe - one woman died of myocarditis. This is nothing to potentially hundreds of thousands of prevented fatalities, much less the unpleasant to severe bouts of Covid-19.
    - labawi 5y ago
      How about judging by blood reactivity to virus protein in an ELISA test? [1] Why is it riskier and to whom? [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        This kind of testing isn't exactly cheap and it is hard to standardize because of all the variables and the fickleness of the process. The one you link is specific to one particular laboratory. These tests also tend to fail a few weeks or months after the infection. Nor does it actually prove any immunity against disease. You can only assume that these antibodies probe prior contact to the virus and that this prior contact resulted in a robust response. The strength of the immunity cannot be inferred from such titres...
        labawi 5y ago
        It's expensive, so noone should have the option even if they pay for it? (friend paid about 20€) It can have false negatives, making people needlessly take a vaccine, so everyone should take the vaccine in the name of equality? Vaccine certificates neither prove you actually got the vaccine (though highly likely), nor do they prove any immunity against disease (though fairly likely). With this level of arguments, I can argue noone should be permitted to take the vaccine.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        There have been rigorous studies that correlate the specific vaccine with the specific desired outcome of immunity. You probably can't understand (and don't want to) why that is not the case for people who got infected at some unknown random point in the past and with an unknown, random variant of the Virus. And I don't care to explain it to you. And you probably also don't want to understand why those lab tests aren't designed, regulated or approved as a proof of immunity. To be rigorous enough, probably every single lab would have to do control studies to find out if their tests predict immunity against reinfection.
- sethammons 5y ago
  I don't have a large social circle. I know of 2 vaccine related deaths (stroke), 2 vaccine related hospitalizations (heart issues), and one person now with tinnitus soon after the vaccine. Is the vaccine a better option than COVID? Data says yes (unless maybe for younger people, especially males). Is the vaccine 100% safe? No.
  - zzleeper 5y ago
    Sorry but that's impossible. FIVE vaccine related deaths/issues in your small social circle? Next you are going to tell me you know of a vaccine-related car crash. Please revisit your priors or who you put trust in, as they might as well lie.
    - sethammons 5y ago
      I don't know which vaccine each took. My dad's coworker had a stoke and died 2 days after getting the vaccine, two of my wife's brothers were the ones with heart issues. My daughter's bf's friends mom also had a stroke 2 days later. A friend now has tinnitus. Not sure what else to tell you. The math suggests this is unlikely. But here it is. Edit: also, nice edit changing it from "next I'll tell you that car accidents are marked as COVID deaths." I didn't say that and have no data on that so I appreciate you changing it.
      - cupofcoffee 5y ago
        Odds of death from AstraZenaca are 1 in 1 million. Let's take odds of the event of having serious complications to be 1/100,000 just to be more skeptical. The odds that 5 people in a row have such serious side effect is 1/10^25. That is equivalent to tossing 83 coins in a row and getting all heads. Which is more likelier. 1/10^25 or that you have false information regarding this. : )
        throwawayay02 5y ago
        Your math is wrong, see the birthday paradox. But still, unlikely.
- p49k 5y ago
  Antibody tests exist. I’m not in any way antivax, but it makes no sense why people who already had COVID should be required to receive a vaccine instead of just proving they have antibodies. This kind of illogical policy gives fuel to antivaxers.
  - faster 5y ago
    What's the difference in cost to the organization giving the shots or the antibody tests? My expectation is that they're about the same. If that's true, it's easier and more certain to just require vaccination. Also, this article provides some arguments based more on biology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-vaccination-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
    - sequel_database 5y ago
      No it's not easier because my employees will quit
    - protomyth 5y ago
      So if it costs a company the same, then workers can take medicine they don't need that has a risk to save someone a buck? How about we stick with science instead of profits?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      You can test for "antibodies". But the question of "is this patient immune from Covid-19" is a lot harder to answer and especially to standardize. There is such a thing as testing for neutralizing antibodies by testing the antibodies against the virus directly. But in general, all of the relevant tests seem to be more expensive and harder to standardize. Every human body creates its own set of antibodies against the virus (or the vaccine). Starting from different strains of the virus, the potential for uncertainty is too great.
- tasogare 5y ago
  > Isn’t it just easier [...] to require people to [do what I think is right] rather than debate [...]? - said every soviet officers ever. You might not believe in democracy, but this is still a better system than autocracy. Even if you were right (hint: you're not), this is setting a very dangerous precedent than can and will be abused down the line.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    What a BS argument. It is indeed easier to verify vaccination than natural immunity. That is a cold hard fact, and people who contradict it don't understand how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are. Legal requirements are shaped by such "conveniences" all the time. Of course you wouldn't need a driver's license if you could argue with a police officer at a traffic stop that you are qualified to drive, had no DOIs etc. It's a lot easier though to require a driving test and a current license. Same thing with the vaccination.
    - labawi 5y ago
      Would you please educate me on > how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are. AFAIK, you can actually test blood reactivity to virus protein, proving a positive. I'm not sure how you would prove that a person actually got vaccinated and it wasn't the case of doctor pouring vaccine down the drain, someone else taking the vaccine instead etc.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        I don't have time to explain to you the intricacies of antibody testing. However, it is much more difficult than to standardize on what antigens and what titres to pick and how to correlate that for a "positive" result. Testing for neutralizing antibodies is even harder, because it involves isolating the antibodies and testing them against live virus particles and a cell culture. And yes, standardizing such testing, as complicated and expensive as it is, across all the relevant labs across the country would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I'm not going to engage with your bullshit about doctors faking vaccinations.
ineptech 5y ago
> The politicalization of the vaccine is foolish and unscientific. I think you're confusing cause and effect here. The politicization of the vaccine is the reason the government is now pushing vaccine mandates and such, not a reaction to it. If Fox News had spent the last year telling its viewers that seat belts make you sterile, the government would be raising fines and ramping up enforcement and generally adopting policies to force people to wear seat belts, right? And some of those policies would inevitably look like overreach, and people would be writing essays like this one complaining about that overreach.
- dantheman 5y ago
  There are a lot of non fox news watchers that aren't getting the vaccine.
- protomyth 5y ago
  Both sides are to blame. I stand by my statement. Any politics directed at vaccines is foolish and unscientific. People should acknowledge that mistakes were made by the government and officials with their foolish statements. CNN and Fox are equal partners in the hysteria. People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. These are two different things. Ignoring post-COVID immunity studies just makes officials look unscientific and doesn't contribute to the final goal. Being unscientific puts you at the same level as hucksters. Getting rid of health care workers that risked it all and put a huge strain on their families is just plain dumb and ungrateful. The idea they don't know the whole story is baffling.
  - ineptech 5y ago
    > People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. For you perhaps, but some people have the terminal goal of avoiding vaccination, even if that increases the threat. That is why the government is doing anything and everything, including FUD, to push vaccines down peoples' throats. Their actions will always seem irrational if you ignore that.
    - 5y ago
bayesian_horse 5y ago
It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public. Also, while "natural immunity" may be better in some cases, it is much more unpredictable. We can't even tell for how long that natural immunity is good enough at all.
- rkk3 5y ago
  > It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public. Why? Germany and many other countries don't differentiate between forms of immunity. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-require-proof-covid-immunity-or-negative-test-arrival-sources-2021-07-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-require-proof-c...
  - detaro 5y ago
    I think large parts of the faction shouting about how unfair it is to expect people with previous infection to be vaccinated would also shout about the German policy of requiring a booster shot 6 months after the infection, at least that's my impression from how they argue here on HN.
    - protomyth 5y ago
      So far, in the US, last I heard Pfizer requires a booster. We haven't been notified about Moderna but they might not require it. I assume that the initial studies on immunity are still tracking and will have some recommendation on what people with a previous infection should do. I would hope people follow that guidance. Note: My last Moderna shot was in Feb, and its been radio silence and we passed the six month mark and are about to pass the eight month mark. I would hope they get done with whatever evaluation they are doing soon.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    Here is a point I'll concede to the skeptics. By my interpretation, our health system is dysfunctional to the point that it can't reliably and practically collect immunity information in a way that's useful to the immunization effort. I have no interest in defending that. However, given the dysfunction in our system, and given that hybrid immunity seems much better than either vaccine-induced or disease induced[1], the decision to require vaccines for everybody does make sense. [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected. It makes total sense to have them get vaccinated. The goal isn't to have everyone reach a specific level of immunity. It's to get the highest possible level of immunity that is possible without taking on additional risks.
- protomyth 5y ago
  The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected. It makes total sense to have them get vaccinated. Any risk is stupid if you already have better immunity than taking the vaccine. Once again, other diseases are handled exactly like this. Vaccine if you haven't had it, and no vaccine if you have. Doctors recognize that adding risk is a bad idea.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

paulcole 5y ago

Isn’t it just easier (and with virtually no risk) to require people to vaccinate rather than debate over who did/did not actually have COVID?

protomyth 5y ago
There is always a risk with vaccination as with any medication. It's small, but why take it? Taking a vaccine to make other people feel better is emotional and not scientific. There is no debate, there are blood tests. The same logic has been applied to measles.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Well, there’s a risk with the blood draw as well. It’s also small.
  - protomyth 5y ago
    That's not even in the same realm.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      Pretty much. There are some indications that myocarditis, the most serious, but very rare and even more rarely fatal complication of the mRNA vaccines, is caused by accidental intravenous injection of the vaccine.
    - geysersam 5y ago
      They are not the same. But the "risk" from the vaccines does seem negligible compared to almost anything else.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  You'd find that judging an individual's immunity by a vague notion of prior infection with Covid-19 is probably riskier than the vaccine. Comirnaty had hundreds of millions of doses administered so far, and maybe - maybe - one woman died of myocarditis. This is nothing to potentially hundreds of thousands of prevented fatalities, much less the unpleasant to severe bouts of Covid-19.
  - labawi 5y ago
    How about judging by blood reactivity to virus protein in an ELISA test? [1] Why is it riskier and to whom? [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      This kind of testing isn't exactly cheap and it is hard to standardize because of all the variables and the fickleness of the process. The one you link is specific to one particular laboratory. These tests also tend to fail a few weeks or months after the infection. Nor does it actually prove any immunity against disease. You can only assume that these antibodies probe prior contact to the virus and that this prior contact resulted in a robust response. The strength of the immunity cannot be inferred from such titres...
      - labawi 5y ago
        It's expensive, so noone should have the option even if they pay for it? (friend paid about 20€) It can have false negatives, making people needlessly take a vaccine, so everyone should take the vaccine in the name of equality? Vaccine certificates neither prove you actually got the vaccine (though highly likely), nor do they prove any immunity against disease (though fairly likely). With this level of arguments, I can argue noone should be permitted to take the vaccine.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        There have been rigorous studies that correlate the specific vaccine with the specific desired outcome of immunity. You probably can't understand (and don't want to) why that is not the case for people who got infected at some unknown random point in the past and with an unknown, random variant of the Virus. And I don't care to explain it to you. And you probably also don't want to understand why those lab tests aren't designed, regulated or approved as a proof of immunity. To be rigorous enough, probably every single lab would have to do control studies to find out if their tests predict immunity against reinfection.
sethammons 5y ago
I don't have a large social circle. I know of 2 vaccine related deaths (stroke), 2 vaccine related hospitalizations (heart issues), and one person now with tinnitus soon after the vaccine. Is the vaccine a better option than COVID? Data says yes (unless maybe for younger people, especially males). Is the vaccine 100% safe? No.
- zzleeper 5y ago
  Sorry but that's impossible. FIVE vaccine related deaths/issues in your small social circle? Next you are going to tell me you know of a vaccine-related car crash. Please revisit your priors or who you put trust in, as they might as well lie.
  - sethammons 5y ago
    I don't know which vaccine each took. My dad's coworker had a stoke and died 2 days after getting the vaccine, two of my wife's brothers were the ones with heart issues. My daughter's bf's friends mom also had a stroke 2 days later. A friend now has tinnitus. Not sure what else to tell you. The math suggests this is unlikely. But here it is. Edit: also, nice edit changing it from "next I'll tell you that car accidents are marked as COVID deaths." I didn't say that and have no data on that so I appreciate you changing it.
    - cupofcoffee 5y ago
      Odds of death from AstraZenaca are 1 in 1 million. Let's take odds of the event of having serious complications to be 1/100,000 just to be more skeptical. The odds that 5 people in a row have such serious side effect is 1/10^25. That is equivalent to tossing 83 coins in a row and getting all heads. Which is more likelier. 1/10^25 or that you have false information regarding this. : )
      - throwawayay02 5y ago
        Your math is wrong, see the birthday paradox. But still, unlikely.
p49k 5y ago
Antibody tests exist. I’m not in any way antivax, but it makes no sense why people who already had COVID should be required to receive a vaccine instead of just proving they have antibodies. This kind of illogical policy gives fuel to antivaxers.
- faster 5y ago
  What's the difference in cost to the organization giving the shots or the antibody tests? My expectation is that they're about the same. If that's true, it's easier and more certain to just require vaccination. Also, this article provides some arguments based more on biology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-vaccination-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
  - sequel_database 5y ago
    No it's not easier because my employees will quit
  - protomyth 5y ago
    So if it costs a company the same, then workers can take medicine they don't need that has a risk to save someone a buck? How about we stick with science instead of profits?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    You can test for "antibodies". But the question of "is this patient immune from Covid-19" is a lot harder to answer and especially to standardize. There is such a thing as testing for neutralizing antibodies by testing the antibodies against the virus directly. But in general, all of the relevant tests seem to be more expensive and harder to standardize. Every human body creates its own set of antibodies against the virus (or the vaccine). Starting from different strains of the virus, the potential for uncertainty is too great.
tasogare 5y ago
> Isn’t it just easier [...] to require people to [do what I think is right] rather than debate [...]? - said every soviet officers ever. You might not believe in democracy, but this is still a better system than autocracy. Even if you were right (hint: you're not), this is setting a very dangerous precedent than can and will be abused down the line.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  What a BS argument. It is indeed easier to verify vaccination than natural immunity. That is a cold hard fact, and people who contradict it don't understand how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are. Legal requirements are shaped by such "conveniences" all the time. Of course you wouldn't need a driver's license if you could argue with a police officer at a traffic stop that you are qualified to drive, had no DOIs etc. It's a lot easier though to require a driving test and a current license. Same thing with the vaccination.
  - labawi 5y ago
    Would you please educate me on > how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are. AFAIK, you can actually test blood reactivity to virus protein, proving a positive. I'm not sure how you would prove that a person actually got vaccinated and it wasn't the case of doctor pouring vaccine down the drain, someone else taking the vaccine instead etc.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      I don't have time to explain to you the intricacies of antibody testing. However, it is much more difficult than to standardize on what antigens and what titres to pick and how to correlate that for a "positive" result. Testing for neutralizing antibodies is even harder, because it involves isolating the antibodies and testing them against live virus particles and a cell culture. And yes, standardizing such testing, as complicated and expensive as it is, across all the relevant labs across the country would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I'm not going to engage with your bullshit about doctors faking vaccinations.

ineptech 5y ago

> The politicalization of the vaccine is foolish and unscientific. I think you're confusing cause and effect here. The politicization of the vaccine is the reason the government is now pushing vaccine mandates and such, not a reaction to it. If Fox News had spent the last year telling its viewers that seat belts make you sterile, the government would be raising fines and ramping up enforcement and generally adopting policies to force people to wear seat belts, right? And some of those policies would inevitably look like overreach, and people would be writing essays like this one complaining about that overreach.

dantheman 5y ago
There are a lot of non fox news watchers that aren't getting the vaccine.
protomyth 5y ago
Both sides are to blame. I stand by my statement. Any politics directed at vaccines is foolish and unscientific. People should acknowledge that mistakes were made by the government and officials with their foolish statements. CNN and Fox are equal partners in the hysteria. People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. These are two different things. Ignoring post-COVID immunity studies just makes officials look unscientific and doesn't contribute to the final goal. Being unscientific puts you at the same level as hucksters. Getting rid of health care workers that risked it all and put a huge strain on their families is just plain dumb and ungrateful. The idea they don't know the whole story is baffling.
- ineptech 5y ago
  > People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. For you perhaps, but some people have the terminal goal of avoiding vaccination, even if that increases the threat. That is why the government is doing anything and everything, including FUD, to push vaccines down peoples' throats. Their actions will always seem irrational if you ignore that.
  - 5y ago

bayesian_horse 5y ago

It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public. Also, while "natural immunity" may be better in some cases, it is much more unpredictable. We can't even tell for how long that natural immunity is good enough at all.

rkk3 5y ago
> It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public. Why? Germany and many other countries don't differentiate between forms of immunity. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-require-proof-covid-immunity-or-negative-test-arrival-sources-2021-07-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-require-proof-c...
- detaro 5y ago
  I think large parts of the faction shouting about how unfair it is to expect people with previous infection to be vaccinated would also shout about the German policy of requiring a booster shot 6 months after the infection, at least that's my impression from how they argue here on HN.
  - protomyth 5y ago
    So far, in the US, last I heard Pfizer requires a booster. We haven't been notified about Moderna but they might not require it. I assume that the initial studies on immunity are still tracking and will have some recommendation on what people with a previous infection should do. I would hope people follow that guidance. Note: My last Moderna shot was in Feb, and its been radio silence and we passed the six month mark and are about to pass the eight month mark. I would hope they get done with whatever evaluation they are doing soon.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  Here is a point I'll concede to the skeptics. By my interpretation, our health system is dysfunctional to the point that it can't reliably and practically collect immunity information in a way that's useful to the immunization effort. I have no interest in defending that. However, given the dysfunction in our system, and given that hybrid immunity seems much better than either vaccine-induced or disease induced[1], the decision to require vaccines for everybody does make sense. [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected. It makes total sense to have them get vaccinated. The goal isn't to have everyone reach a specific level of immunity. It's to get the highest possible level of immunity that is possible without taking on additional risks.

protomyth 5y ago
The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected. It makes total sense to have them get vaccinated. Any risk is stupid if you already have better immunity than taking the vaccine. Once again, other diseases are handled exactly like this. Vaccine if you haven't had it, and no vaccine if you have. Doctors recognize that adding risk is a bad idea.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]