4 ms·

> non-sterilizing vaccines What does "sterilizing vaccine" mean? It triggers my FUD alarm and makes me think you're an anti-vaxxer, > were infected and recove

• walterbell 5y ago
  Here's a study of 900 Vietnamese healthcare workers, where 7% of vaccinated workers were infected, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733 Recent UK medical data for the week of 7th Oct reports possible Covid reinfection in the range of 0.005% (narrowly defined as specific genetic sequence) to an upper estimate of ~1% of 5.9 million people, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023910/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w40_v2.pdf#page18 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Comparing only these two examples, vaccinated people were infected by Covid at a rate somewhere between 7 times and 1000 times higher than those who previously recovered from Covid. As expected, the infected+vaccinated people did not suffer serious illness, because the vaccines provided protection against serious illness. > Those who have been vaccinated are also "statistically immune", and through a lower risk route This is a popular misconception that doctors, pharmaceutical companies and the CDC have attempted to correct, e.g. Sept 2021 CDC website clarification that vaccines provide "protection against serious illness" NOT immunity. Current, intramuscular Covid vaccines are explicitly stated by the CDC and manufacturers as NOT providing sterilizing immunity (which has a textbook definition). They provide protection via serum/blood antibodies, against serious illness. Recovery from Covid infection (of vax or unvax) provides nasal/mucosal immunity that can stop future infections in the upper respiratory tract. Future nasal Covid vaccines may provide sterilizing immunity, but current injections into the deltoid muscle do not. > You think this 1/3rd of the police that refuses to state their vaccination status already had COVID? Where's your evidence? We know that Covid swept through dense, urban areas like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, infecting large segments of the population, especially essential workers like police, firefighters, paramedics and healthcare workers who served the public in the challenging year of 2020. If an essential worker was exposed for nine months, including the peak periods of infection and transmission, and was not knowingly infected, they could have been asymptomatically infected. Those who worked from home and avoided infection should avoid projecting their own experience onto those who kept them safe in 2020.
  • eesmith 5y ago
    You answered none of my objections. How many of the Chicago police who refuse to reveal their vaccination status have NOT HAD COVID? > As you can see ... Yes, we know that "The AZD1222 vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection." - quoting https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxf... . So of course we expect some people who have had the vaccine to still get infected. What is your actual point? You want to quote studies? Here's https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm... titled "Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021" ] Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated. If you have COVID, get vaccinated, and you're even less likely to get COVID again. > We know that Covid swept ... What does "swept" mean? Was it 30% of the police force? Was it the same 30% of the police force that do not want to reveal their vaccination status? Or did all of the police who got infected also get vaccinated, so only the anti-vaxxers are resisting? Where is your evidence that your argument is even relevant to this topic?
    • walterbell 5y ago
      > efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection This sentence means the vaccine prevents symptoms, as stated on the CDC website. This sentence does not mean the vaccine prevents infection, no matter how much someone wants that to be true. Recovery from Covid prevented infection in 99% of 5 million UK people. People who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatically infected, especially with Delta, are extremely contagious and thus dangerous to other people. For this reason, the CDC recommends testing of vaccinated people after exposure, since the vaccine suppresses symptoms that would otherwise cause people to self-isolate, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac... > Based on evolving evidence, CDC recommends fully vaccinated people get tested 5-7 days after close contact with a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. In other words, vaccinated+infected+asymptomatic people are much more infectious and dangerous than Covid-recovered people. > What does "swept" mean? It means a 2020 graph like this one for New York, with a city-wide density of cases that is much higher than other parts of the USA in a comparable timeframe, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-totals.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-totals.pag... Logic dictates that essential workers who were serving the public would have faced the highest risk of exposure. If people in a high-risk subset of 2020 workers, in one of the highest-risk cities in the USA were not infected with Covid in 2020, why would they be infected in 2021 when overall rates of infection are dramatically lower? Either they got infected in 2020 and the survivors are now immune, or they didn't get infected during nine months of exposure, and now have a much lower chance of being infected. > Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021" Here's a detailed analysis of that study, https://satyameva.medium.com/analysis-of-reduced-risk-of-reinfection-with-sars-cov-2-after-covid-19-vaccination-in-kentucky-2e797a5f3c44 https://satyameva.medium.com/analysis-of-reduced-risk-of-rei...: "this study doesn’t really look at the relative strengths of naturally acquired immunity Vs vaccination acquired immunity, it is looking at whether vaccination can add further to the robust protection elicited by covid infection ... they made no effort to show the protection elicited by prior infection in the first place." > If you have COVID, get vaccinated, and you're even less likely to get COVID again. That's a personal medical decision based on medical history, the marginally incremental (and rapidly declining trend: https://youtu.be/TSZMtSPX3iE https://youtu.be/TSZMtSPX3iE) benefit of a vaccine over and above the immunity provided by recovery, and the still-evolving landscape of adverse events which are affecting a minority of vaccine recipients. From a recent FDA statement, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-takes-additional-actions-use-booster-dose-covid-19-vaccines https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi... Moderna risks > Ongoing analyses from the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) safety surveillance systems have identified increased risks of inflammatory heart conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, following vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, particularly following the second dose. Typically, onset of symptoms has been a few days following vaccination. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age, particularly males 18 through 24, than among females and older males. J&J risks > Earlier analyses from the FDA and CDC safety surveillance systems suggest an increased risk of a serious and rare type of blood clot in combination with low blood platelets following administration of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. This serious condition is called thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). People who developed TTS after receiving the vaccine had symptoms that began about one to two weeks after vaccination. Reporting of TTS has been highest in females ages 18 through 49 years. In addition, safety surveillance suggests an increased risk of a specific serious neurological disorder called Guillain Barré syndrome, within 42 days following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. It would be irresponsible to recommend blind acceptance of all vaccines for all people. The FDA does not. Readers who are male between 18 and 40, or female between 18 and 49, please consider the above FDA statements when selecting a vaccine or booster, and carefully monitor health during the high-risk windows, e.g. it is safest to avoid heavy exertion for 14 days after a shot.
• blub 5y ago
  Labelling someone as anti-"vaxxer" is not an argument. It's also fine to not want to get vaccinated against Covid and yes - even to argue against it. It's a perk of living in a liberal democracy, which implies freedom of speech. This bears repeating, because this insult has become a form of bullying.
  • eesmith 5y ago
    My argument is that walterbell's comment does not seem supported by the evidence. I pointed out the weaknesses in my comment. It happens that those weakness sound like anti-vaxxer FUD, which I pointed out, but that is not my main objection. Nor is it the same as labelling walterbell an anti-vaxxer. Thank you for supporting my freedom of speech to point out how this sounds like anti-vaxxer FUD.
    • blub 5y ago
      You literally said "makes me think you're an anti-vaxxer". What would labelling them anti-vaccine look like to you, literally writing - walterbell, you sir are an anti-vaxxer? Furthermore "anti-vaxxer" is en ever-evolving term which expands in meaning to encompass whatever the pandemic zeitgeist deems undesirable. Before this pandemic it used to refer to parents which didn't want to vaccinate their kids against measles and to anti-vaccine activists. Finally, the two statements which you labeled as anti-vaccine were those mentioning sterilising immunity (1) and natural immunity (2). 1. The former was broadly discussed in regards to anti-SARS-2 vaccines and for a brief time it looked like vaccines could completely prevent infection, not just disease. Obviously that's off the table now with Delta. 2. Natural immunity is officially recognised in many (most?) areas of Western Europe as an alternative to vaccine-acquired immunity.
      • eesmith 5y ago
        Yes. I was being clear in my comments that the arguments presented were similar to ones presented by anti-vaxxers. However, that doesn't mean that walterbell is an anti-vaxxer. It could be that walterbell has other evidence, or simply presented things poorly. For example, I recall one online exchange where I said something about evolution poorly enough that someone else commented I sounded like a creationist. I am not. I followed up by clarifying my original comment to ensure I did not sound like a creationist. I am offering the same courtesy. > mentioning sterilising immunity As I commented at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955101 , I have since learned that "sterilizing vaccine" [1] does have a specific meaning in a medical context. However, it does not appear to be a common term in the literature, with only about 176 matches in Google Scholar, and several of those specifically use "sterilizing vaccine" to mean a vaccine which causes sterility. Even now with this new knowledge I do not understand how the qualifier "non-sterilizing" in walterbell's clause "If you've kept the public safe for months before the existence of non-sterilizing vaccines" improves understanding. Looking through walterbell's history shows a fondness for the term, even though I am not the first to be confused about the term. For examples, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28882719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28882719 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883038 , and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28479544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28479544 . See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475164 where in the subthreads we can read people objecting to walterbell's insistence on distinguishing between "sterilizing" and "non-sterilizing", such as how the polio vaccine is "non-sterilizing" but mandatory for school children. [1] Your use of British English spelling reminded me to also check "sterilising vaccine". Google Scholar finds 29 matches, of which two refer to anti-vaccine hesitancy : > 3.3.2 Sterilising vaccine: An international debate ... The basic principle of a contraceptive (or antifertility) vaccine is to use the body's own immune defence mechanisms to provide protection against an unplanned pregnancy. The contraceptive, however, became a weapon for the pro-life campaigners and in their narrative was transformed from an ‘antifertility vaccine’ into a ‘sterilising vaccine’. - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/209660831900200102 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20966083190020... And http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/911/ http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/911/ by the same author, making the same point. The other 27 are the same sort of "specific meaning in a medical context" I referred to before.
• eesmith 5y ago
  tl;dr - outside of a specific medical context, scholarly publications describe the term "sterilizing vaccine" including in online forums, as a FUD term by anti-vaxxers. walterbell previously used the term "sterilizing vaccine", and at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883691 commented "There's a stable definition in textbooks." / "If 2021 consumer media is offering variable definitions, Cui Bono?" I decided to investigate. Google Scholar reports about 176 uses of the phrase "sterilizing vaccine"; the infrequency suggests it is not a common phrase, especially given how it's sometimes given in quotes, like: > Because of the ability of HIV to rapidly establish latent reservoirs and undergo immune escape, it has been proposed that an HIV vaccine will need to be a “sterilizing” vaccine, or a vaccine that prevents infection in the absence of an anamnestic response. To achieve sterilizing immunity, a vaccine needs to elicit persisting levels of Ab that are sufficient to block an incoming infection. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4019109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4019109/ Most of the references to "sterilizing" were either regarding HIV, or recent publications about COVID, but not all. Here's one for chlamydia: > The holy grail is to produce a sterilizing vaccine that would completely prevent infection in the individual and hence also prevent transmission of infection to others. However, if 100% prevention of infection is not possible to achieve, then some consideration needs to be given to a vaccine that mainly prevents ascending infections that lead to disease pathology. In fact, one argument might be to focus on the disease pathology, as this is the major consequence of infection. - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X13011110?casa_token=Dy8wL4JwEvoAAAAA:jswC0XbMXQ46NQlMe4SBpZjgI-gS8--jyN4oSHKg5zbfmir3qi5z-u8yH7yap9pAJloW0Z3M https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1... Do note that "sterilizing vaccine" is also used to describe (putative) sterility caused by vaccines . This is not some sort of recent '2021 consumer media' definition. One is the 2008 publication "Sterilizing Vaccines or the Politics of the Womb: Retrospective Study of a Rumor in Cameroon" concerning "a rumor that public health workers were administering a vaccine to sterilize girls and women" - https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1525/maq.2000.14.2.159?casa_token=POrlp4RcTVAAAAAA:xegAkTBG9iY0livsZtZcQJncdHEwrrii7MZVQ4l1D0iIzlhetd1sqnIJdh7L2Wn3nGASQ3_5gUoXaA https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/1... . Another is https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315128795-13/rumor-begets-rumor-pamela-feldman-savelsberg-flavien-ndonko-song-yang https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97813151... , also about the same rumor. A third is "HPV Vaccine Representations on Online Discussion Forums in Romania" from 2013 : > A subcategory of people postulated that the vaccine is promoted with the hidden intention to exterminate part of the population: “Some guys out there consider we are too many on this earth!…They want us dead.” (NS, 2009). They frequently mentioned words such as “genocide”, “Masonic vaccine”, “experiment”, “sterilizing vaccine” and they considered vaccination as “the biggest crime against humanity”. A fourth is https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/275883 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/275883 about reasons for why heads of family decide to not vaccinate their children against polio: > Aşılamaya uyumsuz aile reislerinin OPA’nın ilk dozunun ne zaman olduğunu bilmedikleri, OPA’nın güvenli olmadığı ve infertiliteye sebep olabileceğine inandıkları gösterilmiştir (1). - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/275883?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=sv&_x_tr_pto=nui https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/275883?_x_... [Translation] "It has been shown that heads of families who do not comply with vaccination do not know when the first dose of OPA is, and they believe that OPA is not safe and may cause infertility (1)." (This cites the Cameroon paper as previous precedent.) And one is a non-scholarly report from the Baker Institute AnnualReport 2011-2012 on a vaccine to make dog sterile: > The dream of a long ­term solution to pet overpopulation has remained unreal­ized, ... "Dogs are so reproductively efficient that it's hard to make an impact with spaying alone. A safe sterilizing vaccine for both males and females could rapidly reduce feral dog populations and significantly improve their wel­fare worldwide." - https://ecommons.cornell.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1813/48299/Baker-Institute_AnnualReport_2011-2012.pdf?sequence=1 https://ecommons.cornell.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1813/482... Thus, it seems best to avoid the terms "sterilizing vaccines" and "non-sterilizing vaccines" 1) in a non-clinical forum, and 2) in a context where the more specific term adds nothing.
• dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Obviously this entire topic is fraught (in more ways than one), but your comments have been noticeable steps hellward, and we're trying to go the other way here. Being right, or feeling you are, does not make it ok to break the rules! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html