4 ms·

There are layers to this. 1) "I'm going to protect myself with natural immunity" with no other context is a stupid statement for the reasons given in the comic

There are layers to this. 1) "I'm going to protect myself with natural immunity" with no other context is a stupid statement for the reasons given in the comic. It does feel like people do make this proclamation, but it's likely that they're just leaving relevant context out, and that they're actually in one of the below categories. 2) "I'm not afraid of getting sick myself, so I'm willing to do so early and protect people later" makes a little bit of sense, except that in reality such people (my bias; I could be wrong) tend to infect themselves in an uncontrolled manner that fails to protect others anyway. (I would support a version of the Great Barrington Declaration that was fully controlled, where all infections were consensual. I actually had a run-in with Jeffrey Tucker about this at a libertarian event.) 3) "Tried as I did to avoid it, I got infected anyway. But at least I should be good to go at this point." This makes sense (pending scientific review). The cost to self and others is already paid. 4) "I would not be afraid of getting sick so long as I had an early treatment plan" also makes sense in principle. It's an alternative to vaccination. Also pending scientific review; I have no idea who's right here.

michaelmrose 5y ago
4 is an absolutely terrible alternative to vaccination. It's like saying if the boat sinks I'm going to either swim or put on a life vest. 2 prior to vaccination was absolutely horrible nonsense. There was an expectation relatively early that we would have a vaccine within a few years and that it was absolutely possible to hold out and have only a fraction of the population would have to get it pre vaccine. If you hold position 2 the only logical way to proceed would be to take protective measures prior to vaccination, vaccinate, then get infected. This is still suboptimal because the more the infections are spread out the lower the burden on the system for those who do get sick. The reason you don't see fully fleshed out though processes beyond I'm going to get sick and get it over with is that if they really thought it all the way through they would drop the entire position.
- orblivion 5y ago
  > 4 is an absolutely terrible alternative to vaccination. It's like saying if the boat sinks I'm going to either swim or put on a life vest. I don't dismiss it prima facie like you do here. On one hand you probably have small but non-zero damage from the vaccines (putting aside the controversy of supposed significant damage). On the other, you supposedly have the ability to keep damage from the disease to also small (but non-zero) by early treatment. Plus, you get immunity to more proteins in the end. At least some studies out there indicate that infection-based immunity is stronger and/or longer lasting than vaccine-based. But again, the reality of the situation may very well be as you imply. I just want to steelman their argument. I'm also rather skeptical of their claims about mitigating damage with early treatment, but maybe. > 2 prior to vaccination was absolutely horrible nonsense. I have mixed agreement here. As it pertains to careless massive spread of the thing, I'm with you. As it pertains to individual choices, I really think it's a value judgment. Do you want to live life hidden away for this unknown period of time, the government apparently moving the goal posts over and over, etc etc? Or would you rather just take a risk in life like you always do, albeit a bit larger one than usual? Or maybe you're close to the end of life anyway, and you're willing to risk dying to see your grandkids one last time? etc etc. I've always had zero judgment toward people who make this choice in as much as it affects only them. I was close to taking this route myself (in a controlled manner) winter 2020-2021 if the vaccines didn't come out. (On the other hand, I've had a lot of judgment toward people in as much as they affect others. It's been a tough couple years for me as a libertarian.) > If you hold position 2 the only logical way to proceed would be to take protective measures prior to vaccination, vaccinate, then get infected. This is more or less me, other than pulling back during hospital surges.
lamontcg 5y ago
3 is actually poor as well. Natural immunity doesn't involve a known infectious dose, and the virus actually has parts of its genome (ORF8) which antagonize MHC and the humoral immune system. If you get very sick then its much better than vaccination because you gain T-cell epitopes to the whole genome and the response is very strong. But someone who just pops PCR positive and has little to no symptoms may not have seroconverted and form no immunity at all. There's this very stupid idea that "natural is better" and that is false. A pile of the nonstructural proteins are all thought to be involved in immune suppression and are the exact opposite of anything that you'd ever want to put into a vaccine. The virus itself wants to be as stealthy as possible for as long as possible, for reasons that one would think would be entirely obvious. That makes it worse.
- orblivion 5y ago
  Hmm, then it sounds like getting infected before vaccination is more likely to be valuable than getting infected after, since you'd be less likely to be very sick after. And of course you don't want to get very sick. I guess there's no free lunch here.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    That's very difficult to know, but most studies of "superimmunity" were done on people who got sick and then got vaccinated, not the other way around (and those generally were patient contacts, so often more severe than symptoms that would normally be treated at home). The only way to have a known, titrated response is to be vaccinated. And the vaccines actually are free, and the side effects are very low and they're safer than aspirin. And they're designed to bypass innate and intrinsic immunity and to stimulate humoral immunity -- where the natural virus has a gene that specifically tries to combat the host humoral immune response. The fetish for natural immunity is ascientific. Every bit as much as something like Steve Jobs rejecting surgery for his cancer in favor of natural alternative treatments.

michaelmrose 5y ago

4 is an absolutely terrible alternative to vaccination. It's like saying if the boat sinks I'm going to either swim or put on a life vest. 2 prior to vaccination was absolutely horrible nonsense. There was an expectation relatively early that we would have a vaccine within a few years and that it was absolutely possible to hold out and have only a fraction of the population would have to get it pre vaccine. If you hold position 2 the only logical way to proceed would be to take protective measures prior to vaccination, vaccinate, then get infected. This is still suboptimal because the more the infections are spread out the lower the burden on the system for those who do get sick. The reason you don't see fully fleshed out though processes beyond I'm going to get sick and get it over with is that if they really thought it all the way through they would drop the entire position.

orblivion 5y ago
> 4 is an absolutely terrible alternative to vaccination. It's like saying if the boat sinks I'm going to either swim or put on a life vest. I don't dismiss it prima facie like you do here. On one hand you probably have small but non-zero damage from the vaccines (putting aside the controversy of supposed significant damage). On the other, you supposedly have the ability to keep damage from the disease to also small (but non-zero) by early treatment. Plus, you get immunity to more proteins in the end. At least some studies out there indicate that infection-based immunity is stronger and/or longer lasting than vaccine-based. But again, the reality of the situation may very well be as you imply. I just want to steelman their argument. I'm also rather skeptical of their claims about mitigating damage with early treatment, but maybe. > 2 prior to vaccination was absolutely horrible nonsense. I have mixed agreement here. As it pertains to careless massive spread of the thing, I'm with you. As it pertains to individual choices, I really think it's a value judgment. Do you want to live life hidden away for this unknown period of time, the government apparently moving the goal posts over and over, etc etc? Or would you rather just take a risk in life like you always do, albeit a bit larger one than usual? Or maybe you're close to the end of life anyway, and you're willing to risk dying to see your grandkids one last time? etc etc. I've always had zero judgment toward people who make this choice in as much as it affects only them. I was close to taking this route myself (in a controlled manner) winter 2020-2021 if the vaccines didn't come out. (On the other hand, I've had a lot of judgment toward people in as much as they affect others. It's been a tough couple years for me as a libertarian.) > If you hold position 2 the only logical way to proceed would be to take protective measures prior to vaccination, vaccinate, then get infected. This is more or less me, other than pulling back during hospital surges.

lamontcg 5y ago

3 is actually poor as well. Natural immunity doesn't involve a known infectious dose, and the virus actually has parts of its genome (ORF8) which antagonize MHC and the humoral immune system. If you get very sick then its much better than vaccination because you gain T-cell epitopes to the whole genome and the response is very strong. But someone who just pops PCR positive and has little to no symptoms may not have seroconverted and form no immunity at all. There's this very stupid idea that "natural is better" and that is false. A pile of the nonstructural proteins are all thought to be involved in immune suppression and are the exact opposite of anything that you'd ever want to put into a vaccine. The virus itself wants to be as stealthy as possible for as long as possible, for reasons that one would think would be entirely obvious. That makes it worse.

orblivion 5y ago
Hmm, then it sounds like getting infected before vaccination is more likely to be valuable than getting infected after, since you'd be less likely to be very sick after. And of course you don't want to get very sick. I guess there's no free lunch here.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  That's very difficult to know, but most studies of "superimmunity" were done on people who got sick and then got vaccinated, not the other way around (and those generally were patient contacts, so often more severe than symptoms that would normally be treated at home). The only way to have a known, titrated response is to be vaccinated. And the vaccines actually are free, and the side effects are very low and they're safer than aspirin. And they're designed to bypass innate and intrinsic immunity and to stimulate humoral immunity -- where the natural virus has a gene that specifically tries to combat the host humoral immune response. The fetish for natural immunity is ascientific. Every bit as much as something like Steve Jobs rejecting surgery for his cancer in favor of natural alternative treatments.