7 ms·

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.

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.