24 ms·

Apologies in advance for getting on my soapbox, but this has been on my mind for a while. The way in which the media has gotten everyone to say "the unvaccinat

Apologies in advance for getting on my soapbox, but this has been on my mind for a while. The way in which the media has gotten everyone to say "the unvaccinated" is a 'disease' against basic science (not even getting into the divisive nature of this). I would go as far as saying if you read any paper, study, or other that refers to the "unvaccinated" as a single cohort, you are reading vaccine propaganda, not science, or certainly not good science. This must stop. Prior infection immunity is basic science that we've known for eons, and ignoring it is so blatantly glaring an omission, it should make the most staunch pro-vaccine person pause and say: "why are they so adamant to vaccinate those with prior infection?". One would expect prior infection to be robust, and multiple studies, including even the CDC's most recent shows it to be easily as good if not better and longer lasting than the vaccine. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. If you think any of the above is "anti-vax" then I would suggest the media has won and science is dead. I'm not suggesting the vaccine doesn't work. I'm not suggesting it doesn't provide protection against severe disease and death. I'm not suggesting anyone go out and intentionally try to get COVID, but a HUGE # of people have already had it and ignoring them is downright unscientific. If you are a rational person who wants to see good science and are unemotional and detached from outcomes, then you will want to see proper study cohorts, and combining prior infection in with the "unvaccinated" cohort, is just bad science. This bad science fuels the anti-vaxx movement even more, and honestly, it is hard blame them.

maxerickson 5y ago
It's a lot harder to accurately determine if someone has convalescent immunity than it is to just give them a couple shots. And then immunity is not a binary or linear response. Vaccination can still boost immunity in the case that someone has recovered from infection.
ChrisClark 5y ago
Because the vaccine protects so much better than just a previous infection. We've been over this, over, and over. But you just won't accept the numbers now will you?
- ravar 5y ago
  I hope this is sarcasm
  - ChrisClark 5y ago
    If you were infected with the original strain, you'd have had less immunity to Delta than if you were vaccinated. The exact same thing for Delta vs Omicron. The mRNA vaccines give a broader immunization that covers more. That's not even up for debate, you're only pretending it is. I hope your comment is sarcasm.
    - throwaway1777 5y ago
      This is wrong according to the CDC. Prior infection is better than the vaccine by itself but vaccine + prior infection is best. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-covid-infection-offered-more-protection-against-delta-than-vaccines---but-both-together-did-best/?sh=500d15ba3d04 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-c...
      - bink 5y ago
        It's been awhile since I read about that study but didn't it determine that previous infection provided better resistance to infection than vaccination without a booster, but that vaccination provided better resistance to serious illness and death? Either way I find it weird that the study clearly shows vaccination + infection provides the best protection yet people are using this to argue that they don't need a vaccination at all.
        ipaddr 5y ago
        It is also the combo most likely to give you side effects.
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      Source? Because the CDC disagrees https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-covid-infection-offered-more-protection-against-delta-than-vaccines---but-both-together-did-best/?sh=140821063d04 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-c...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
headmelted 5y ago
Not disagreeing with this (although my understanding is that there have been studies that show vaccination has been more effective), but how would you seperate the unvaccinated / previously-infected-and-recovered cohorts? Even by reconciling PCR testing data (which I imagine is incredibly patchy at best), you still would only know historically how many people tested positive (ignoring what is in all likelihood a majority of the cases that never got tested) and be able to reconcile it against numbers of vaccinated, which tells you nothing useful without being able to intersect the two sets (which you can’t do without uniquely identifying every PCR test and matching it to an individual universally). i.e. the better data you would need doesn’t exist.
- dexen 5y ago
  There's a recent (January 19, 2022) CDC publications with numbers on exactly that. Forbes provides a brief overview: "CDC: Prior Covid Infection Offered More Protection Against Delta Than Vaccines — But Both Together Did Best" https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-covid-infection-offered-more-protection-against-delta-than-vaccines---but-both-together-did-best/?sh=500d15ba3d04 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-c...
- teh_infallible 5y ago
  Currently, people who only got one shot or got their second one less than two weeks ago are being counted as “unvaccinated” which seems disingenuous at best.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  If that data doesn't exist then that's just because it isn't tracked. Here in Germany if you test positive on a PCR test you have to quarantine for 14 days, then you get a proof of recovery which for 6 months you can use like a proof of vaccination (which you need for non-essential shops, gyms, etc when the 7-day incidence is too high, like right now). As a result, tracking numbers for the "recovered" cohort isn't a problem. Obviously the "unvaccinated" group will always contains some unknown number of recovered people we don't know about, but at large enough effect sizes that isn't a problem.
buryat 5y ago
simple numbers show that unvaccinated get covid at higher rates and the number of hospitalizations is higher which puts strain on the hospitals. If something happens to me I dont want an unvaccinated taking a spot I need.
- nu11ptr 5y ago
  Your comment could not illustrate my point better if you had tried
  - djmips 5y ago
    It doesn't illustrate your point. You, on your soapbox pretend you have it all figured out. You, on the side of science. But as some of the responses have shown, you haven't really thought it through. I agree however, that the media hasn't either. But when was that ever true?
    - nu11ptr 5y ago
      First, apologies for slight snugness of that that reply - probably not needed, and I've received some probably well deserved downvotes for that. Second, it does prove my point in that the poster referred to the "unvaccinated" as a single group, a position that I'm suggesting results in a very inaccurate set of conclusions (which other responders have commented on) because of skewed cohorts. Third, I most definitely do NOT have it all figured out - I'm as confused as anybody else on most of this stuff, which is why my post was on a single focused point, and not on issues where I have an opinion, but much less research and data supporting my position. Lastly, I've read all the replies and thought it was good discussion. I didn't see anything to suggest I hadn't thought it through or disprove my position, just disagreements on how useful it would or wouldn't be, which is fair.
      - djmips 5y ago
        That's a reasonable answer. I appreciate that. I agree on your main point.
- 5y ago
bonzini 5y ago
> why are they so adamant to vaccinate those with prior infection Because the data shows they don't matter. This is the same thing as deaths due to covid vs. deaths while positive to covid. Sure some people might have been miscounted as covid deaths but actually died due to cancer/car accident/whatever. Despite this the excess deaths over the past two years is much higher than the number of covid deaths; thus showing that miscounts must be a small minority which, in any case, is absolutely dwarfed by excess deaths not counted as covid deaths. It might even grow a little as testing improves but it still remains mostly irrelevant. Likewise it may be that some people do not need a vaccination. However, we have a 30/70 split in number of covid hospitalizations, with 30 being vaccinated people, in countries where the split in the normal population is 90/10. This means that despite some unvaccinated people having had prior infection the vaccine reduces hospitalizations by 20x. Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction. As the number of unvaccinated but protected people will grow (through a combination of more infections, more vaccinations and more deaths), the proportion above will revert to 90/10 and unvaccinated people will not be an issue anymore. For now however analyzing the proportion of naturally immune people among the unvaccinated is, again, mostly irrelevant.
- nu11ptr 5y ago
  My point is that it is NOT a pointless distinction, and there is a huge discrepancy between "unvaccinated - prior infection" and "unvaccinated - no infection" cohorts. Countries that track prior infection (there are a few) show this in their data, and if you separate them you will see the "unvaxxed - no infection" get worse and the other much better. If the subject matter were something less politically polarizing I'm suggesting this would be a split group in everyone's data.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    The only people who make getting vaccinated a political matter are those who refuse to get vaccinated. If you look at the data (and not just the convenient headlines) “unvaccinated, prior infection” have a lot higher chance of reinfection and a lot higher chance of a severe outcome than vaccinated. Sure it is still better to be “unvaccinated, prior infection” vs “unvaccinated, no prior infection” but not the same order of magnitude as “vaccinated and boosted”. Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted).
crummy 5y ago
Zeynep Turfekci talks about this in this thread, and about why she thinks prior infection offers less protection than the vaccines, to the point that she supports vaccinations for those who have already caught COVID. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1484930583214100481?t=UDTW3X2jh9fAXINQFJaQkQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1484930583214100481?t=UDTW...
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Lost a lot of respect for Zeynep after reading that. The argument boils down to unvaxxed have more hospitalization, some unvaxxed also have prior infection, therefore prior infection isn't effective. There is no data in her post that those with prior infection are the ones being hospitalized. Meanwhile, there is real data elsewhere on this topic.
- xdennis 5y ago
  > to the point that she supports vaccinations for those who have already caught COVID It's so ridiculous now they're requiring vaccination for the vaccinated too.
eloff 5y ago
I've also noticed this. I have covid right now. I'm double vaccinated. I was planning to get my booster shot, but now that I've had covid what's the point. It's not likely to increase my immunity and it comes with risks. At some point the government will probably change the definition of fully vaccinated to three shots and then I'll be in that unvaccinated group I usually make fun of. Somebody I know lost their job because they wouldn't get vaccinated (but they'd already had confirmed covid). That seems very unfair. I'm very angry at the dumbasses who haven't been infected and refuse to get vaccinated, including family of mine who died because of that. But no distinction is being made of those who have natural immunity. Which, as you say, is unscientific. I feel like partly that's because many people think they had it, but didn't, and partly because it's easier for the government to just tell everyone to get vaccinated.
- orang2tang 5y ago
  >I'm very angry at the dumbasses who haven't been infected and refuse to get vaccinated, including family of mine who died because of that. You use your dead relative as proof for your case in the same breath as calling them a dumbass. This goes to prove a point. Does it matter if everyone is vaccinated & "safe", at the expense of our dignity and respect as a species?
  - eloff 5y ago
    Getting vaccinated doesn't hurt our "dignity as a species". It's the smart and socially responsible thing to do, so it would make one more worthy of respect. I know name calling is pretty low, but I stand by it. The data is so good right now, there are so many people who have been vaccinated, so many who've had covid with and without being vaccinated, that yes, you're a dumbass if you think it's smart not to get the vaccine. You've listened to the wrong information and built a bad argument in your mind. My family member who died was a lovely person, but always bad at critical thinking and always fell for conspiracy theories. Mostly it was harmless. Sometimes it just cost him a lot of money. This time it cost him his life.
- bink 5y ago
  > It's not likely to increase my immunity and it comes with risks. Can you explain what risks you're referring to here?
bobbyasdfasdf7 5y ago
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  Every time you express an attitude like this you cause fewer vaccinations to happen.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    yeah, I think the solution is to give $$ incentives for vaccination and not try to shame people, because shamed people often just double-down on their resistance.
    - dpark 5y ago
      Is there any evidence that this is effective? Who refuses to get vaccinated but decides to do it for $100 or whatever?
  - dpark 5y ago
    Pretty sure at this point none of this affects anyone’s choices because people have chosen “sides” and dug in their heels.
  - bobbyasdfasdf7 5y ago
    Vaccine refusal has directly lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths. At some point we have to stop acting like its ok.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Just do what you are told. Follow your leaders. Everyone else is doing it...
  - bobbyasdfasdf7 5y ago
    The vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective over and over. At some point you just aren't listening.
dekhn 5y ago
I'd like to make sure I understand your underlying position before proceeding. I think what you're trying to say is that you believe there is an adequate enough case for people who had prior infection to avoid what they believe is an unnecessary medical procedure which may have some risk. And, scientifically, you believe it's absolutely certain that in this specific situation, prior infection immunity provides very good protection, enough to override any benefits we might see that happen at very high vaccination rates. Hope that's a good summary.... Are you a scientist? You made a number of statements about what is good and bad science, but some of the reasoning you make doesn't completely add up. In science nobody has epistemic certainty, but scientists and public health people act as if they do. In reality public health decisions are made using imperfect information and balance utilitarian and emotional concerns, as well as prior knowledge of patient compliance. Sometimes it may be necessary to not change a message, even if it's somewhat wrong, too quickly. The calculus is very simple at this point. I believe CDC and others are saying that the additional risk from taking the vaccine is very very small, and the marginal benefit of having even people with prior infection get vaccinated presents a greater (overall) health outcome (presumably in the form of people who had infection immunity but still were re-infected, and then infected others). Beyond that I don't think anybody has enough scientific data that is certain enough to say that you're right in your statements, and I think it's pretty poor taste to just keep attacking people who disagree with you as doing "bad science". Science is a subtle art, and anyway, public health is an entirely different field that has to concern itself with effective communication and people-emotions and ethics, so sometimes what CDC announcements may not be identical to what the state of the art of science is saying. I think making a simpler and weaker point would work better. I'd criticize the media for unnecessarily creating additional fear, uncertainty, and doubt, around COVID (there was a lot of early reporting about how omicron was going to destroy the world, that was entirely baseless speculation). And too many people, both media and generally, are quick to criticize people who don't "follow the CDC to the letter", especially around vaccines. I think that kind of cropped up politically in the US after the unnecessary autism/vaccine scare and ended up representing a dividing line. BTW, I'm an ex-scientist, worked in medical biology for decades, and I don't think many vaccines (flu, covid) are nearly as effective as the medical establishment suggests (look at the numbers of people who died of flu even in years with very high vaccination rates). And people do have significant side effects from getting vaccinated, but very rarely are the side effects more dangerous than the value of being vaccinated (in cases of flu and covid), which is why I support them. Finally, I think that herd immunity doesn't actually work in diseases like flu or covid. So I have some sympathy to your message but ultimately, just get vaccinated and boosted unless you can truly articulate some huge risk to your personal biology.
namdnay 5y ago
Isn’t it just simpler to vaccinate everyone and be done with it? Instead of tracking who already had an infection etc. Just like we do for all the other vaccines we get. I don’t understand why it’s so controversial. The upside is huge and there is literally no downside.
- 7952 5y ago
  What we need are tests that indicate immunity levels and give a good predictor of risk.
- SamPatt 5y ago
  "literally no downside" Adverse reactions to vaccinations exist. Some are severe / fatal. Ignoring this feeds into vaccine skepticism.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  There is no downside to force vaccinating a population with something new that doesn't expect the first long term study to be in until 2024? How could that be controversial? A woman has a right to say my body my choice. You think removing that choice is without controversy?
  - evandale 5y ago
    >A woman has a right to say my body my choice. You think removing that choice is without controversy? Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is not comparable to choosing to spread a highly contagious disease.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Allowing a government to control those rights means they can and someone will take advantage of this in the future. Let's say America's birthrate is too low because of the vaccine, the government could use that reasoning to suspend the right to choose.
    - homonculus1 5y ago
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> but a HUGE # of people have already had it and ignoring them is downright unscientific. Unless they went to the hospital or had a positive test, then they just think they had it right? We get data like this: All we know are things like: Unvaccinated 12-34 year-olds in Washington are • 2 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds. • 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 yearolds. Unvaccinated 35-64 year-olds are • 3 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds. • 7 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 yearolds. Unvaccinated 65+ year-olds are • 4 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. • 7 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. • 11 times more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. (from https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/..., so local to where I live). But it unfortunately doesn't break down things like "had a confirmed prior infection" or "thought they might have had a prior infection". It would be interesting to see how the data works, but right now unvaccinated people are on average in a very bad spot. For all we know, the unvaccinated are just more likely to have comorbidities (e.g. obesity) that lead to their higher fatality rates. But for now, getting vaccinated is so easy, I wouldn't take the risk.
ynx 5y ago
> If you are a rational person who wants to see good science and are unemotional and detached from outcomes, then you will want to see proper study cohorts, and combining prior infection in with the "unvaccinated" cohort, is just bad science. Not sure what you mean. Science detached from outcomes is bad science. Science is trying to suss out cause and effect, not to avoid reality. > This bad science fuels the anti-vaxx movement even more, and honestly, it is hard blame them. Ah. There it is. Nope. It's still easy to blame them. It's not a sufficient criticism to cede moral superiority. "You didn't adjust your tone to distinguish 'unvaccinated' from 'immune-because-infected' from 'vaccinated'." does not suggest that antivaxxers are any less morally bankrupt for promoting the course of action which results in serious illness and death.
ArchOversight 5y ago
> One would expect prior infection to be robust, and multiple studies, including even the CDC's most recent shows it to be easily as good if not better and longer lasting than the vaccine. I got COVID back in March of 2020. I got two vaccines and a booster, and then in late December I caught COVID again (probably Omicron based upon symptoms and the prevalence).
unethical_ban 5y ago
>If you think any of the above is "anti-vax" then I would suggest the media has won and science is dead. [edited to remove antagonistic comment] - I think your comment about science being dead is less-than-useful hyperbole. Why focus on the "get vaccinated" message? Because the vaccine is free. It's widely available. There is absolutely low, low risk to taking it - less risk by far than getting COVID or long COVID. Because prior to Omicron, the goal wasn't "let everyone get sick and be done with it", it was "prevent anyone from getting sick". I just thought of one as I type this: To say "we accept natural immunity as a viable strategy" could have encouraged thousands upon thousands of ignorant or otherwise actively anti-authority citizens to get sick on purpose to stick it to the man, then end up in the hospital. I don't want lies to win, and I don't want to ignore the science. Natural immunity should be acknowledged for its benefits. I think a government could do that, and still say "tough shit, get vaxxed" just to make sure people don't commit bio-warfare on communities by trying to get ill.
henrikschroder 5y ago
Yes, this is a prime example of bad data being worse than no data. In the UK, for months now, the rate of infection has been higher among the vaccinated cohort than among the unvaccinated cohort, for most age groups. [1] The antivaxxers are of course pointing to this data and claiming it's evidence that the vaccines make you more likely to get infected, and therefore the tinfoil hats were right all along. But what's actually happening is that the unvaccinated cohort contains a lot of people with natural immunity, who are dragging the numbers down, while the vaccinated cohort doesn't have as many people in it who have had a prior infection. I strongly suspect that if you were you properly separate people by vaccination status and prior infection, you would see that the group of unvaccinated+no prior have a much higher case ratio than any other group. But since we don't have this good data, the antivaxxers are running hog wild with the bad data, drawing the wrong conclusions. [1] https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/t.coddington/viz/UKReportsRiskRatios/UKCharts https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/t.coddington/viz/UKRe...
- MatteoFrigo 5y ago
  Either way, there is no point in vaccinating the unvaccinated cohort that you mentioned. If you are right, most of them have natural immunity and the data proves that this is already better than the vaccine, so what's the point? They are already doing ok, and vaccination would then move them to the vaccinated column and count their immunity as a success for the vaccine, which is unscientific and dishonest.
  - henrikschroder 5y ago
    I agree. Many places around the world have vaccine passes that don't care about natural immunity, which is incredibly unscientific and dishonest. If the case rate is higher among the vaccinated, you're statistically less protected at a venue that checks the vaccine pass. It's counterproductive and ought to be abolished immediately. Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity are equally wrong. Many hospitals in the US fired un-vaccinated healthcare personnel without regarding natural immunity, which led to staff shortages, which combined with this Omicron surge means hospitals are so desperate for staff, that many are allowing people to work with an active corona infection, as long as they are vaccinated. We're preferring actually infected people over un-infected, but un-vaccinated people. In a healthcare setting. And the people responsible for this is claiming to "follow science". It's absurd. The only measurement that should matter is your immunity level, regardless of how you acquired it.
yehosef 5y ago
Thanks for saying this. Science is dead.
renewiltord 5y ago
In a prior probability sense, that makes sense, right? The adaptive immune system has to be working or the vaccines wouldn't work, and adapting against the actual threat has to be effective or you'd never have fought it off in the first place. Of course, the general problem here is one of measurability and working in an adverse environment. So in a medical sense, prior infection determines response. But in a public health sense, if you believe that prior infection claims are easier to fake than vaccine records, and if you believe the spread risk is worse, then it makes sense to proxy spread risk with vaccine records. Personally, I get what you mean, and perhaps I'm not fighting too hard for the truth here because I don't really care that much. But I just wanted to say I'm with you on the facts since every other response is operating (in my opinion) in the fallacious "there's a paper that says" mode. It's just not Bayesian.
standardUser 5y ago
Unvaccinated people have caused other people to suffer worse health outcomes because unvaccinated people are disproportionately filling hospital and ICU beds (and wearing out doctors and nurses). Developing antibodies the old fashioned way is great! Doing it with vaccines saves other people's lives. That is the problem with people who refuse the vaccine and why they deserve to be vilified.
- nradov 5y ago
  Vilifying people for making unhealthy choices is never an effective public health measure. It didn't work for the HIV/AIDS epidemic and it won't work now. Try education and harm reduction instead.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    I think it was clear I was not offering a public policy idea. I was explaining the common emotional response most of us have when they see people make decisions that they know will cause physical harm others. Like poisoning a river or driving drunk.
tunesmith 5y ago
Some unvaccinated are immunocompromised. I know someone who could not get vaccinated for medical reasons (legitimately), and caught it, and died. It just really sucks to know that the person I know would more likely be alive if not for the choices of others.
- 20after4 5y ago
  Vaccination does not prevent one from being contagious. On the contrary, vaccination could lead to more risky behavior. Which of these two people are more likely to spread COVID: 1. An unvaccinated person who rarely leaves their house and avoids contact with people as much as possible. 2. A vaccinated individual with an asymptomatic infection who regularly engages in social activity, confident that their triple-boosted immunity will protect them from serious illness. So yes, the choices of others have an impact, but I don't think it's clear that getting a vaccine is the thing that universally improves the outcome for others. It's individual behaviors more than vaccination status that impact the health of others. The choice to get vaccinated (or not) has little impact on one's chance of shedding the virus. But the change in behavior thanks to vaccine-induced confidence leading to more risky behavior could actually have a negative impact on the health of others.
  - tunesmith 5y ago
    Your comment is a potpourri of the kind of fractured logic that has become all too common in this debate. > Vaccination does not prevent one from being contagious. I never said it did, that's not even a counterpoint. Seat belts do not prevent car accident injuries, helmets do not prevent concussions. But they all are effective in reducing the probability. > On the contrary, Note the common form of the straw man. > Vaccination could lead to more risky behavior. "could", an imagining of some sort of scenario that works for whatever reality you're trying to believe in > Which of these two people are more likely to spread COVID: Apparently you think those two options are exhaustive?? Eliding right past the public behavior of the non-immunocompromised unvaccinated? Ignoring the point that if more unvaccinated people were vaccinated and boosted, it would be less likely that vaccinated people engaged in social activity would spread COVID? So, no thank you, I will not ignore a reality that hit me viscerally in favor of your theories of what "could" be true.
version_five 5y ago
It's also sociopathic. We've stopped caring about the people around us and created a group to hate that we refer to in a dehumanizing way. You may not agree with their choices, but they are still people and it should be beneath us to dehumanize "them" - actually our neighbors. It's actually horrifying from a human perspective
majormajor 5y ago
Ignoring those who are unvaccinated but had a prior infection seems like it can only make the data look better for the unvaccinated than it actually is, no? Because the "true" death rate among the unvaccinated-and-not-yet-infected will be higher than among the unvaccinated-and-previously-recovered group that already has that immunity you talk about. So if anything, breaking that out just makes not getting vaccinated for those without prior infection look even stupider. I'd have no problem with treating proof of immune response as similar to vaccinated, but I also haven't seen most of the outraged argue for that - versus just arguing for "freedom" - so... don't wait for me to make that case for them.
jasondigitized 5y ago
Do we apply this same thinking to the flu? If I have had the flu before I shouldn’t be encouraged to get a flu shot? Seems easier for everyone to just get the flu shot than figure out if I have had the flu before and then maybe get a flu shot. What am I missing?
marco_yolo 5y ago
well said, the "unvaccinated" term is way to dehumanize real people.

maxerickson 5y ago

It's a lot harder to accurately determine if someone has convalescent immunity than it is to just give them a couple shots. And then immunity is not a binary or linear response. Vaccination can still boost immunity in the case that someone has recovered from infection.

ChrisClark 5y ago

Because the vaccine protects so much better than just a previous infection. We've been over this, over, and over. But you just won't accept the numbers now will you?

ravar 5y ago
I hope this is sarcasm
- ChrisClark 5y ago
  If you were infected with the original strain, you'd have had less immunity to Delta than if you were vaccinated. The exact same thing for Delta vs Omicron. The mRNA vaccines give a broader immunization that covers more. That's not even up for debate, you're only pretending it is. I hope your comment is sarcasm.
  - throwaway1777 5y ago
    This is wrong according to the CDC. Prior infection is better than the vaccine by itself but vaccine + prior infection is best. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-covid-infection-offered-more-protection-against-delta-than-vaccines---but-both-together-did-best/?sh=500d15ba3d04 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-c...
    - bink 5y ago
      It's been awhile since I read about that study but didn't it determine that previous infection provided better resistance to infection than vaccination without a booster, but that vaccination provided better resistance to serious illness and death? Either way I find it weird that the study clearly shows vaccination + infection provides the best protection yet people are using this to argue that they don't need a vaccination at all.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        It is also the combo most likely to give you side effects.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Source? Because the CDC disagrees https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-covid-infection-offered-more-protection-against-delta-than-vaccines---but-both-together-did-best/?sh=140821063d04 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-c...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

headmelted 5y ago

Not disagreeing with this (although my understanding is that there have been studies that show vaccination has been more effective), but how would you seperate the unvaccinated / previously-infected-and-recovered cohorts? Even by reconciling PCR testing data (which I imagine is incredibly patchy at best), you still would only know historically how many people tested positive (ignoring what is in all likelihood a majority of the cases that never got tested) and be able to reconcile it against numbers of vaccinated, which tells you nothing useful without being able to intersect the two sets (which you can’t do without uniquely identifying every PCR test and matching it to an individual universally). i.e. the better data you would need doesn’t exist.

dexen 5y ago
There's a recent (January 19, 2022) CDC publications with numbers on exactly that. Forbes provides a brief overview: "CDC: Prior Covid Infection Offered More Protection Against Delta Than Vaccines — But Both Together Did Best" https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-covid-infection-offered-more-protection-against-delta-than-vaccines---but-both-together-did-best/?sh=500d15ba3d04 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-c...
teh_infallible 5y ago
Currently, people who only got one shot or got their second one less than two weeks ago are being counted as “unvaccinated” which seems disingenuous at best.
wongarsu 5y ago
If that data doesn't exist then that's just because it isn't tracked. Here in Germany if you test positive on a PCR test you have to quarantine for 14 days, then you get a proof of recovery which for 6 months you can use like a proof of vaccination (which you need for non-essential shops, gyms, etc when the 7-day incidence is too high, like right now). As a result, tracking numbers for the "recovered" cohort isn't a problem. Obviously the "unvaccinated" group will always contains some unknown number of recovered people we don't know about, but at large enough effect sizes that isn't a problem.

buryat 5y ago

simple numbers show that unvaccinated get covid at higher rates and the number of hospitalizations is higher which puts strain on the hospitals. If something happens to me I dont want an unvaccinated taking a spot I need.

nu11ptr 5y ago
Your comment could not illustrate my point better if you had tried
- djmips 5y ago
  It doesn't illustrate your point. You, on your soapbox pretend you have it all figured out. You, on the side of science. But as some of the responses have shown, you haven't really thought it through. I agree however, that the media hasn't either. But when was that ever true?
  - nu11ptr 5y ago
    First, apologies for slight snugness of that that reply - probably not needed, and I've received some probably well deserved downvotes for that. Second, it does prove my point in that the poster referred to the "unvaccinated" as a single group, a position that I'm suggesting results in a very inaccurate set of conclusions (which other responders have commented on) because of skewed cohorts. Third, I most definitely do NOT have it all figured out - I'm as confused as anybody else on most of this stuff, which is why my post was on a single focused point, and not on issues where I have an opinion, but much less research and data supporting my position. Lastly, I've read all the replies and thought it was good discussion. I didn't see anything to suggest I hadn't thought it through or disprove my position, just disagreements on how useful it would or wouldn't be, which is fair.
    - djmips 5y ago
      That's a reasonable answer. I appreciate that. I agree on your main point.
5y ago

bonzini 5y ago

> why are they so adamant to vaccinate those with prior infection Because the data shows they don't matter. This is the same thing as deaths due to covid vs. deaths while positive to covid. Sure some people might have been miscounted as covid deaths but actually died due to cancer/car accident/whatever. Despite this the excess deaths over the past two years is much higher than the number of covid deaths; thus showing that miscounts must be a small minority which, in any case, is absolutely dwarfed by excess deaths not counted as covid deaths. It might even grow a little as testing improves but it still remains mostly irrelevant. Likewise it may be that some people do not need a vaccination. However, we have a 30/70 split in number of covid hospitalizations, with 30 being vaccinated people, in countries where the split in the normal population is 90/10. This means that despite some unvaccinated people having had prior infection the vaccine reduces hospitalizations by 20x. Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction. As the number of unvaccinated but protected people will grow (through a combination of more infections, more vaccinations and more deaths), the proportion above will revert to 90/10 and unvaccinated people will not be an issue anymore. For now however analyzing the proportion of naturally immune people among the unvaccinated is, again, mostly irrelevant.

nu11ptr 5y ago
My point is that it is NOT a pointless distinction, and there is a huge discrepancy between "unvaccinated - prior infection" and "unvaccinated - no infection" cohorts. Countries that track prior infection (there are a few) show this in their data, and if you separate them you will see the "unvaxxed - no infection" get worse and the other much better. If the subject matter were something less politically polarizing I'm suggesting this would be a split group in everyone's data.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  The only people who make getting vaccinated a political matter are those who refuse to get vaccinated. If you look at the data (and not just the convenient headlines) “unvaccinated, prior infection” have a lot higher chance of reinfection and a lot higher chance of a severe outcome than vaccinated. Sure it is still better to be “unvaccinated, prior infection” vs “unvaccinated, no prior infection” but not the same order of magnitude as “vaccinated and boosted”. Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted).

crummy 5y ago

Zeynep Turfekci talks about this in this thread, and about why she thinks prior infection offers less protection than the vaccines, to the point that she supports vaccinations for those who have already caught COVID. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1484930583214100481?t=UDTW3X2jh9fAXINQFJaQkQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1484930583214100481?t=UDTW...

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Lost a lot of respect for Zeynep after reading that. The argument boils down to unvaxxed have more hospitalization, some unvaxxed also have prior infection, therefore prior infection isn't effective. There is no data in her post that those with prior infection are the ones being hospitalized. Meanwhile, there is real data elsewhere on this topic.
xdennis 5y ago
> to the point that she supports vaccinations for those who have already caught COVID It's so ridiculous now they're requiring vaccination for the vaccinated too.

eloff 5y ago

I've also noticed this. I have covid right now. I'm double vaccinated. I was planning to get my booster shot, but now that I've had covid what's the point. It's not likely to increase my immunity and it comes with risks. At some point the government will probably change the definition of fully vaccinated to three shots and then I'll be in that unvaccinated group I usually make fun of. Somebody I know lost their job because they wouldn't get vaccinated (but they'd already had confirmed covid). That seems very unfair. I'm very angry at the dumbasses who haven't been infected and refuse to get vaccinated, including family of mine who died because of that. But no distinction is being made of those who have natural immunity. Which, as you say, is unscientific. I feel like partly that's because many people think they had it, but didn't, and partly because it's easier for the government to just tell everyone to get vaccinated.

orang2tang 5y ago
>I'm very angry at the dumbasses who haven't been infected and refuse to get vaccinated, including family of mine who died because of that. You use your dead relative as proof for your case in the same breath as calling them a dumbass. This goes to prove a point. Does it matter if everyone is vaccinated & "safe", at the expense of our dignity and respect as a species?
- eloff 5y ago
  Getting vaccinated doesn't hurt our "dignity as a species". It's the smart and socially responsible thing to do, so it would make one more worthy of respect. I know name calling is pretty low, but I stand by it. The data is so good right now, there are so many people who have been vaccinated, so many who've had covid with and without being vaccinated, that yes, you're a dumbass if you think it's smart not to get the vaccine. You've listened to the wrong information and built a bad argument in your mind. My family member who died was a lovely person, but always bad at critical thinking and always fell for conspiracy theories. Mostly it was harmless. Sometimes it just cost him a lot of money. This time it cost him his life.
bink 5y ago
> It's not likely to increase my immunity and it comes with risks. Can you explain what risks you're referring to here?

bobbyasdfasdf7 5y ago

nsxwolf 5y ago
Every time you express an attitude like this you cause fewer vaccinations to happen.
- dekhn 5y ago
  yeah, I think the solution is to give $$ incentives for vaccination and not try to shame people, because shamed people often just double-down on their resistance.
  - dpark 5y ago
    Is there any evidence that this is effective? Who refuses to get vaccinated but decides to do it for $100 or whatever?
- dpark 5y ago
  Pretty sure at this point none of this affects anyone’s choices because people have chosen “sides” and dug in their heels.
- bobbyasdfasdf7 5y ago
  Vaccine refusal has directly lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths. At some point we have to stop acting like its ok.
ipaddr 5y ago
Just do what you are told. Follow your leaders. Everyone else is doing it...
- bobbyasdfasdf7 5y ago
  The vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective over and over. At some point you just aren't listening.

dekhn 5y ago

I'd like to make sure I understand your underlying position before proceeding. I think what you're trying to say is that you believe there is an adequate enough case for people who had prior infection to avoid what they believe is an unnecessary medical procedure which may have some risk. And, scientifically, you believe it's absolutely certain that in this specific situation, prior infection immunity provides very good protection, enough to override any benefits we might see that happen at very high vaccination rates. Hope that's a good summary.... Are you a scientist? You made a number of statements about what is good and bad science, but some of the reasoning you make doesn't completely add up. In science nobody has epistemic certainty, but scientists and public health people act as if they do. In reality public health decisions are made using imperfect information and balance utilitarian and emotional concerns, as well as prior knowledge of patient compliance. Sometimes it may be necessary to not change a message, even if it's somewhat wrong, too quickly. The calculus is very simple at this point. I believe CDC and others are saying that the additional risk from taking the vaccine is very very small, and the marginal benefit of having even people with prior infection get vaccinated presents a greater (overall) health outcome (presumably in the form of people who had infection immunity but still were re-infected, and then infected others). Beyond that I don't think anybody has enough scientific data that is certain enough to say that you're right in your statements, and I think it's pretty poor taste to just keep attacking people who disagree with you as doing "bad science". Science is a subtle art, and anyway, public health is an entirely different field that has to concern itself with effective communication and people-emotions and ethics, so sometimes what CDC announcements may not be identical to what the state of the art of science is saying. I think making a simpler and weaker point would work better. I'd criticize the media for unnecessarily creating additional fear, uncertainty, and doubt, around COVID (there was a lot of early reporting about how omicron was going to destroy the world, that was entirely baseless speculation). And too many people, both media and generally, are quick to criticize people who don't "follow the CDC to the letter", especially around vaccines. I think that kind of cropped up politically in the US after the unnecessary autism/vaccine scare and ended up representing a dividing line. BTW, I'm an ex-scientist, worked in medical biology for decades, and I don't think many vaccines (flu, covid) are nearly as effective as the medical establishment suggests (look at the numbers of people who died of flu even in years with very high vaccination rates). And people do have significant side effects from getting vaccinated, but very rarely are the side effects more dangerous than the value of being vaccinated (in cases of flu and covid), which is why I support them. Finally, I think that herd immunity doesn't actually work in diseases like flu or covid. So I have some sympathy to your message but ultimately, just get vaccinated and boosted unless you can truly articulate some huge risk to your personal biology.

namdnay 5y ago

Isn’t it just simpler to vaccinate everyone and be done with it? Instead of tracking who already had an infection etc. Just like we do for all the other vaccines we get. I don’t understand why it’s so controversial. The upside is huge and there is literally no downside.

7952 5y ago
What we need are tests that indicate immunity levels and give a good predictor of risk.
SamPatt 5y ago
"literally no downside" Adverse reactions to vaccinations exist. Some are severe / fatal. Ignoring this feeds into vaccine skepticism.
ipaddr 5y ago
There is no downside to force vaccinating a population with something new that doesn't expect the first long term study to be in until 2024? How could that be controversial? A woman has a right to say my body my choice. You think removing that choice is without controversy?
- evandale 5y ago
  >A woman has a right to say my body my choice. You think removing that choice is without controversy? Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is not comparable to choosing to spread a highly contagious disease.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Allowing a government to control those rights means they can and someone will take advantage of this in the future. Let's say America's birthrate is too low because of the vaccine, the government could use that reasoning to suspend the right to choose.
  - homonculus1 5y ago

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> but a HUGE # of people have already had it and ignoring them is downright unscientific. Unless they went to the hospital or had a positive test, then they just think they had it right? We get data like this: All we know are things like: Unvaccinated 12-34 year-olds in Washington are • 2 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds. • 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 yearolds. Unvaccinated 35-64 year-olds are • 3 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds. • 7 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 yearolds. Unvaccinated 65+ year-olds are • 4 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. • 7 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. • 11 times more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. (from https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/..., so local to where I live). But it unfortunately doesn't break down things like "had a confirmed prior infection" or "thought they might have had a prior infection". It would be interesting to see how the data works, but right now unvaccinated people are on average in a very bad spot. For all we know, the unvaccinated are just more likely to have comorbidities (e.g. obesity) that lead to their higher fatality rates. But for now, getting vaccinated is so easy, I wouldn't take the risk.

ynx 5y ago

> If you are a rational person who wants to see good science and are unemotional and detached from outcomes, then you will want to see proper study cohorts, and combining prior infection in with the "unvaccinated" cohort, is just bad science. Not sure what you mean. Science detached from outcomes is bad science. Science is trying to suss out cause and effect, not to avoid reality. > This bad science fuels the anti-vaxx movement even more, and honestly, it is hard blame them. Ah. There it is. Nope. It's still easy to blame them. It's not a sufficient criticism to cede moral superiority. "You didn't adjust your tone to distinguish 'unvaccinated' from 'immune-because-infected' from 'vaccinated'." does not suggest that antivaxxers are any less morally bankrupt for promoting the course of action which results in serious illness and death.

ArchOversight 5y ago

> One would expect prior infection to be robust, and multiple studies, including even the CDC's most recent shows it to be easily as good if not better and longer lasting than the vaccine. I got COVID back in March of 2020. I got two vaccines and a booster, and then in late December I caught COVID again (probably Omicron based upon symptoms and the prevalence).

unethical_ban 5y ago

>If you think any of the above is "anti-vax" then I would suggest the media has won and science is dead. [edited to remove antagonistic comment] - I think your comment about science being dead is less-than-useful hyperbole. Why focus on the "get vaccinated" message? Because the vaccine is free. It's widely available. There is absolutely low, low risk to taking it - less risk by far than getting COVID or long COVID. Because prior to Omicron, the goal wasn't "let everyone get sick and be done with it", it was "prevent anyone from getting sick". I just thought of one as I type this: To say "we accept natural immunity as a viable strategy" could have encouraged thousands upon thousands of ignorant or otherwise actively anti-authority citizens to get sick on purpose to stick it to the man, then end up in the hospital. I don't want lies to win, and I don't want to ignore the science. Natural immunity should be acknowledged for its benefits. I think a government could do that, and still say "tough shit, get vaxxed" just to make sure people don't commit bio-warfare on communities by trying to get ill.

henrikschroder 5y ago

Yes, this is a prime example of bad data being worse than no data. In the UK, for months now, the rate of infection has been higher among the vaccinated cohort than among the unvaccinated cohort, for most age groups. [1] The antivaxxers are of course pointing to this data and claiming it's evidence that the vaccines make you more likely to get infected, and therefore the tinfoil hats were right all along. But what's actually happening is that the unvaccinated cohort contains a lot of people with natural immunity, who are dragging the numbers down, while the vaccinated cohort doesn't have as many people in it who have had a prior infection. I strongly suspect that if you were you properly separate people by vaccination status and prior infection, you would see that the group of unvaccinated+no prior have a much higher case ratio than any other group. But since we don't have this good data, the antivaxxers are running hog wild with the bad data, drawing the wrong conclusions. [1] https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/t.coddington/viz/UKReportsRiskRatios/UKCharts https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/t.coddington/viz/UKRe...

MatteoFrigo 5y ago
Either way, there is no point in vaccinating the unvaccinated cohort that you mentioned. If you are right, most of them have natural immunity and the data proves that this is already better than the vaccine, so what's the point? They are already doing ok, and vaccination would then move them to the vaccinated column and count their immunity as a success for the vaccine, which is unscientific and dishonest.
- henrikschroder 5y ago
  I agree. Many places around the world have vaccine passes that don't care about natural immunity, which is incredibly unscientific and dishonest. If the case rate is higher among the vaccinated, you're statistically less protected at a venue that checks the vaccine pass. It's counterproductive and ought to be abolished immediately. Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity are equally wrong. Many hospitals in the US fired un-vaccinated healthcare personnel without regarding natural immunity, which led to staff shortages, which combined with this Omicron surge means hospitals are so desperate for staff, that many are allowing people to work with an active corona infection, as long as they are vaccinated. We're preferring actually infected people over un-infected, but un-vaccinated people. In a healthcare setting. And the people responsible for this is claiming to "follow science". It's absurd. The only measurement that should matter is your immunity level, regardless of how you acquired it.

yehosef 5y ago

Thanks for saying this. Science is dead.

renewiltord 5y ago

In a prior probability sense, that makes sense, right? The adaptive immune system has to be working or the vaccines wouldn't work, and adapting against the actual threat has to be effective or you'd never have fought it off in the first place. Of course, the general problem here is one of measurability and working in an adverse environment. So in a medical sense, prior infection determines response. But in a public health sense, if you believe that prior infection claims are easier to fake than vaccine records, and if you believe the spread risk is worse, then it makes sense to proxy spread risk with vaccine records. Personally, I get what you mean, and perhaps I'm not fighting too hard for the truth here because I don't really care that much. But I just wanted to say I'm with you on the facts since every other response is operating (in my opinion) in the fallacious "there's a paper that says" mode. It's just not Bayesian.

standardUser 5y ago

Unvaccinated people have caused other people to suffer worse health outcomes because unvaccinated people are disproportionately filling hospital and ICU beds (and wearing out doctors and nurses). Developing antibodies the old fashioned way is great! Doing it with vaccines saves other people's lives. That is the problem with people who refuse the vaccine and why they deserve to be vilified.

nradov 5y ago
Vilifying people for making unhealthy choices is never an effective public health measure. It didn't work for the HIV/AIDS epidemic and it won't work now. Try education and harm reduction instead.
- standardUser 5y ago
  I think it was clear I was not offering a public policy idea. I was explaining the common emotional response most of us have when they see people make decisions that they know will cause physical harm others. Like poisoning a river or driving drunk.

tunesmith 5y ago

Some unvaccinated are immunocompromised. I know someone who could not get vaccinated for medical reasons (legitimately), and caught it, and died. It just really sucks to know that the person I know would more likely be alive if not for the choices of others.

20after4 5y ago
Vaccination does not prevent one from being contagious. On the contrary, vaccination could lead to more risky behavior. Which of these two people are more likely to spread COVID: 1. An unvaccinated person who rarely leaves their house and avoids contact with people as much as possible. 2. A vaccinated individual with an asymptomatic infection who regularly engages in social activity, confident that their triple-boosted immunity will protect them from serious illness. So yes, the choices of others have an impact, but I don't think it's clear that getting a vaccine is the thing that universally improves the outcome for others. It's individual behaviors more than vaccination status that impact the health of others. The choice to get vaccinated (or not) has little impact on one's chance of shedding the virus. But the change in behavior thanks to vaccine-induced confidence leading to more risky behavior could actually have a negative impact on the health of others.
- tunesmith 5y ago
  Your comment is a potpourri of the kind of fractured logic that has become all too common in this debate. > Vaccination does not prevent one from being contagious. I never said it did, that's not even a counterpoint. Seat belts do not prevent car accident injuries, helmets do not prevent concussions. But they all are effective in reducing the probability. > On the contrary, Note the common form of the straw man. > Vaccination could lead to more risky behavior. "could", an imagining of some sort of scenario that works for whatever reality you're trying to believe in > Which of these two people are more likely to spread COVID: Apparently you think those two options are exhaustive?? Eliding right past the public behavior of the non-immunocompromised unvaccinated? Ignoring the point that if more unvaccinated people were vaccinated and boosted, it would be less likely that vaccinated people engaged in social activity would spread COVID? So, no thank you, I will not ignore a reality that hit me viscerally in favor of your theories of what "could" be true.

version_five 5y ago

It's also sociopathic. We've stopped caring about the people around us and created a group to hate that we refer to in a dehumanizing way. You may not agree with their choices, but they are still people and it should be beneath us to dehumanize "them" - actually our neighbors. It's actually horrifying from a human perspective

majormajor 5y ago

Ignoring those who are unvaccinated but had a prior infection seems like it can only make the data look better for the unvaccinated than it actually is, no? Because the "true" death rate among the unvaccinated-and-not-yet-infected will be higher than among the unvaccinated-and-previously-recovered group that already has that immunity you talk about. So if anything, breaking that out just makes not getting vaccinated for those without prior infection look even stupider. I'd have no problem with treating proof of immune response as similar to vaccinated, but I also haven't seen most of the outraged argue for that - versus just arguing for "freedom" - so... don't wait for me to make that case for them.

jasondigitized 5y ago

Do we apply this same thinking to the flu? If I have had the flu before I shouldn’t be encouraged to get a flu shot? Seems easier for everyone to just get the flu shot than figure out if I have had the flu before and then maybe get a flu shot. What am I missing?

marco_yolo 5y ago

well said, the "unvaccinated" term is way to dehumanize real people.