This is great news, adding to a report in Nature that the natural immunity produced in people who have already had covid may last a lifetime.[1]
In case you hadn't heard, the Cleveland Clinic--consistently regarded as one of the top hospital systems in the United States and in the world--recently shared a study of 52,238 patients showing zero incremental benefit from the jab to the previously infected, recommending that "people who’ve had COVID-19 don’t need to get vaccinated."[2]
>a study of 52,238 patients showing zero incremental benefit from the jab to the previously infected
This study ended May 15, 2021, and it notes that:
>Lastly, it is necessary to emphasize that these findings are based on the prevailing assortment of virus variants in the community during the study. It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent.
Another study found that, for people already seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from a previous infection, getting the first dose of an mRNA vaccine increased antibody titers by two orders of magnitude on average [1] but that the 2nd dose had no effect on antibody titers.
[1] Florian Krammer, et al. "Antibody responses in seropositive persons after a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine." New England Journal of Medicine (2021).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101667
"for people already seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from a previous infection, getting the first dose of an mRNA vaccine increased antibody titers by two orders of magnitude on average"
That's not what this says -- you're extrapolating that the vaccine somehow changed the immune response, when this letter is only providing data that people who already had Covid had a clear, ~immediate antibody response to vaccination. That's exactly what you expect to happen when immune people see an antigen for a second time.
In other words, the previously infected recipients already had a well-primed immune response. The vaccination isn't necessarily doing anything to increase the response -- it's just the expected reaction of an already-primed immune system, when it a bolus of antigens it already knows about is injected into the body:
> The antibody titers of vaccinees with preexisting immunity were 10 to 45 times as high as those of vaccinees without preexisting immunity at the same time points after the first vaccine dose (e.g., 25 times as high at 13 to 16 days) and also exceeded the median antibody titers measured in participants without preexisting immunity after the second vaccine dose by more than a factor of 6.
If anything, this letter (not a paper) provides further evidence that vaccination for the previously infected is not necessary.
I admit I'm not medically trained, but the graph [1] seems pretty clear to me, and the authors said:
> In contrast, participants with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline before the first vaccine injection rapidly developed uniform, high antibody titers within days after vaccination (median AUC before vaccination, 90 [43 participants];
The graph is quite clear. It shows that seropositive (previously infected) people had a higher pre-existing antibody level before vaccination, and it rapidly increased at days 5-8 post-vaccination -- faster and stronger than in unexposed people. It takes 28+ days and a second dose for the unexposed group to approach the titers seen in the group who already had Covid, and they still don't quite get there.
Most notably, even those previously infected people with ~0 titers at baseline rapidly developed high levels of antibodies at 5-8 days after vaccination. It's a small group, but the rapid nature of the response is telling.
This data is clear that the infected people had a rapid, robust immune response to vaccination. It cannot tell you what you're trying to infer -- that the vaccination itself increased the immune response. To determine that, you'd need to do some other experiment.
I'm not sure what you're saying -- are you saying that I inaccurately stated the experimental results of the study, or are you disputing their clinical relevance? I didn't really make any claims about the clinical relevance of this antibody study, but I do think that it suggests that the current CDC guidance (of recommending 2 doses even for those previously infected) might be overkill and that it would be worth further study of whether 1 dose (or even 0 doses) would be sufficient (including against variants) for those previously infected.
I don't know of any study of the Delta variant (or other recent variants) comparing immunity acquired from infection versus immunity conferred by vaccination -- AFAIK, it's still unknown how these compare and whether a vaccination might provide additional immunity against variants. IIRC, the mRNA vaccines were developed to target key parts of the virus that are thought to be unlikely to mutate without decreasing virus viability.
I don't follow your argumentation - why would extremely high antibody titres not almost certainly result in a better immune response?
On the contrary, from all that we know today, wouldn't we expect people with high IgA titres to even develop neutralizing immunity, at least in the weeks after titres peak?
Higher antibody levels don't necessarily mean a lower risk of disease. While that's possible it remains unproven. There's more to the immune system than just circulating antibodies.
The headline for the second article is with regards to prioritizing vaccination in places where demand outstrips supply. The conclusion of the study is:
"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."
And from the body of the article:
"Experts say that more research is needed to determine how long immunity lasts after a case of COVID-19. Until we have that data, some infectious disease specialists are recommending that people who’ve had COVID-19 still get one dose."
And:
"Given the limited availability of the vaccines in certain countries, the findings add to the growing belief that the vaccines should be prioritized for those who haven’t previously had COVID-19."
I read the entire Nature paper. I wouldn't call this paper great news. It's just confirmation of the not terrible news we had before.
Is 12 to 15 weeks (3-4 months) really "long lasting" antibody mediated immunity? I'm glad the antibodies still neutralize even gamma that long but 3-4 months is the timespan people were previously calling "short". Yes, T cell responses (the cells that kill infected cells) to sars-cov-2 epitopes last longer (not covered in this article) but this just seems to confirm the short coverage of b cell mediated antibodies.
> Is 12 to 15 weeks (3-4 months) really "long lasting" antibody mediated immunity?
It's perfectly normal for an antibody response to decay over time. We don't keep making antibodies in perpetuity for every antigen we've ever seen, or our blood would turn into peanut butter.
The B-cell and T-cell mediated responses to previous infection are also proving to be robust, and the B-cell response, in particular, primes the immune system for a rapid increase in antibody levels if the virus is encountered again.
Yes. But we only get one influenza vaccine per year. The expectation has been for antibody neutralization coverage (not just T-cell mediated infected cell killing) lasting that long.
15 weeks is rather short. Additionally, it's not really 15 weeks. The study time scale starts at the 1st vaccine dose (week 1). Then it's 3 weeks until the 2nd dose and 2 more weeks till full protection. So the actual protective coverage span in this study is week 8 to week 15, or 7 weeks.
This study being held up as proof of long lasting immunity doesn't hold water. It is not bad news though. Decent B-cell responses (though tailing off) till 7 weeks after full vaccination is good. But we definitely need to know what happens after the first 2 months too. This exact study should be repeated again in 6 months (24 weeks).
Adjusted risk ratio of covid infection for antibody positive healthcare workers was 0.11 (89% less likely) - 7 month follow up period. All reinfections were asymptomatic.
At this point, claiming that immunity to Covid (even against "the variants") is less than a year is an extraordinary claim. There is no reason, prima facie to presume that the results will be different for vaccines.
Right. The experiment was far too short to make any claims about long term B cell mediated antibody levels. Establishing 7 weeks post fully vaccinated being good is not a "lasting immunity".
I'm not sure I agree with just assuming protection will last that long as a default. This study does not establish it but it is a good stepping stone to proving that theory.
re: your edits, the tangential bit from this paper about sars-cov-2 positive cases wasn't the main thrust and from the graphs it looks like their neutralizing antibody levels actually are multiple logs below mRNA vaccinated people at the same 15 week point. I'm not sure what all these citations about naturally infected people add to the topic being debated.
It's time for the naturally immune to be treated the same as those who've been vaccinated. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to the contrary, and plenty of evidence to support it.
Vaccination is more comprehensive than natural immunity though. We've already see that the BNT vaccine offers a higher degree of protection against variants than natural immunity, or indeed other vaccines.
Reinfection studies from a few months ago demonstrated that natural immunity is roughly 50% effective for people aged 65 or over. And that's the age group most likely to experience negative outcomes from covid-19, it's seems prudent to go ahead and recommend vaccinations for this age group, regardless of previous infection.
Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not. It would be easier to vaccinate this group than it would be to perform a test for covid antibodies.
If covid hadn't become a political shit-show, I'd agree with you. But at this point, I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated.
> Vaccination is more comprehensive than natural immunity though. We've already see that the BNT vaccine offers a higher degree of protection against variants than natural immunity, or indeed other vaccines.
I have seen no evidence for either of these claims, other than assertions. If you have some, please provide citations.
No it isn't - it's providing unified and clear guidance on vaccination. I'm up in Canada where vaccine hesitancy has been almost unheard of[1] and those who refuse to get vaccinated, excepting those that can't for medical reasons, are ostracized for their overtly selfish actions. The US, though, has a real problem with disinformation being accepted more readily than fact. I am fine with the theory of having a nuanced and technical discussion of vaccine efficacy but I think it's pretty clear that that discussion can't happen in the public forum due to continued calls that hydroxychloroquine is an equally valid solution.
As a Canadian who emigrated to the US, the attitude you so proudly display--ostracizing people who aren't convinced of a novel vaccine with zero long-term safety information--makes me so happy I live here.
This has nothing to do with what I said. You are reacting to anti-vaccine views other people have that are not expressed in my comment. I said that _if_ Covid-19 infection confers equal levels of protection to vaccination then it is irresponsible to try and coerce people who have been infected to get vaccinations they don't need. I have said nothing about anything else. If you have issues with what those people have said you should take it up with them
> I'm up in Canada where vaccine hesitancy has been almost unheard of[1] and those who refuse to get vaccinated, excepting those that can't for medical reasons, are ostracized for their overtly selfish actions.
In other words, those who value individual freedom might want to avoid Canada for its over-boarding groupthink and overtly collectivist mentality.
What you are saying is contrary to the tack already taken towards the eradication of other endemic lethal diseases and pests such as River Blindness. That example has been eradicated through much of the Americas primarily by treating everyone in an affected community with ivermectin, which has the effect of slowing transmission from all of the infected individuals in the community (including those who don't know they are infected) and does not harm uninfected individuals. With attitudes like the one you are quoting, it would never work.
> Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not.
There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.
>I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated.
I think it's irresponsible to require people who most science points to having better protection naturally, to also have to get a vaccine. From this point of view, 2 dose vaccine still have less protection than natural antibodies. Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all...
> There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.
The virus is a moving target and what was true of the alpha variant may not be true of delta or downstream. I guess it depends on what you mean by excuse. If you mean allow people to say go on a cruise with a positive covid test as opposed to a vaccination record that seems tentatively reasonable. If you mean allow workers at an old folks home to opt out based on a prior positive test that is unreasonable. If it makes you even possibly slightly less likely to kill the old folks you should get the jab.
The real problem is the grey area created by such a rule. There are probably multiple times as many people who think they have had covid compared to those that have actually had covid that have never been tested. I know people in the US who had an illness in 2019 who are sure they had covid. If you give them an opening they wont let it go. It will surely get ugly.
If folks can't produce a confirmed positive covid test or antibody test, then they can effectively be treated as unprotected because there's no evidence they have protection, that's fine.
> If you mean allow workers at an old folks home to opt out based on a prior positive test that is unreasonable. If it makes you even possibly slightly less likely to kill the old folks you should get the jab.
Where is the line drawn? Maybe it would be more effective for people with 2 doses to get a third? What science is there showing antibodies + 1 shot is more marginal protection than 3 shots?
> Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all...
Why would we do that when the vaccines are safer than the actual disease and effective enough to contain the spread?
There are repeated calls demanding people with antibodies should be required to get a vaccine shot. However most available science points towards natural immunity having slightly better protection. Is there any science whatsoever showing that antibodies + 1 more shot is better than 2 vaccine shots + 1 additional shot? If antibodies are still more protected than 2 shots, how do we know which option provides the most marginal protection? You could easily make the case that since the current science is showing natural antibodies have more comprehensive protection than 2 dose shots, that maybe our first priority should be giving 2 dosers a third shot?
Isn’t the number of antibodies after a COVID infection far lower than after receiving the vaccine? I thought that’s why a jab after an infection is actually still recommended, to boost the number to levels that vaccinated see?
The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting. Adding to the good news, “the implications are that vaccines will have the same durable effect”, says Menno van Zelm, an immunologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
> There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.
Yes, but don't just take their word for it. Confirmed clinical test should be the bar. I fear if the "you don't need a vaccine if you've had it" narrative gains traction, even if it is undeniably true, it's going to result in the anti-vaxxers lying about having already had the virus, to manufacture another excuse for themselves. If we've learned anything in the last year, it's that any system that relies on people to pinky-swear they're telling the truth will be exploited by a small but significant minority of people.
Here is the thing (and that's something that people with kids might relate to) -- we already know that covid is not a danger to kids, and that there are potential side effects involved when vaccinating kids. There is no way in hell I would vaccinate my child because "it is good for the society as a whole".
I agree entirely. My point is that there are a significant amount of people who aren't even there. There hasn't been acquiescing past demanding exception-less vaccine passports.
It's not your business to police this and that's not how it works in the United States. It is not anyone's business to demand a confirmed clinical test. Florida and other states have been open for a long time now and their covid numbers are declining same as wherever there are attempts at more mandates. What use is a confirmed clinical test there?
We are not a collective. We do not have these types of arbiters who will police and decide what is best for everyone. We are a nation of individuals and if you cannot trust people to "pinky-swear" on this matter then how can you trust them to do anything? Including vote on anything? Or reason? Who will make all the decisions for them?
> zero scientific evidence to the contrary, and plenty of evidence to support it
We have evidence that vaccination continue to provide broad-spectrum immunity while those naturally immune are e.g. still vulnerable to the Delta variant [1].
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that about half of adults infected in an outbreak of the delta variant in Israel were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine
Is this intended as a counterpoint, or a point in support? People have been pretty loose with their "therefore" about this Israel snippet. After all, if 100% of Israel had been vaccinated with Pfizer, then 100% of adults infected with Delta would have been fully vaccinated. I'm sure the raw number of people infected with Delta is way down compared to what it would have been w/o vaccination though.
This is a frequent anti-vaxx talking point that well predates COVID-19. In most outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, most of the cases will be in the vaccinated. We see this for measles and pertussis all the time. The rate will be much lower though.
Can I see a link? I'm not finding the same report. Instead I'm finding these [1] which point to the vaccine being highly effective at keeping you out of the hospital.
you conveniently miss the fact that if more people were vaccinated, delta wouldn't have spread this fast and perhaps wouldn't even come to be or would die out before it could spread.
Just saw a quote from Gottlieb the other day saying that they think the vaccine is more protective against COVID generally than natural immunity... the variants also seem more likely to pierce prior immunity... and that what's really protective is if you get vaccinated after natural infection. (paraphrased, but pretty close.)
Also, generally speaking, people who caught COVID were contagious for a while, while vaccinated people aren't. So there's the social responsibility factor - if you have a lifestyle where you at all likely to be among people while contagious, getting vaccinated reduces risk for others.
Thanks, he doesn’t directly address this new study. And uses soft, non-definitive language that can be walked back if needed. Not saying I don’t appreciate you providing the source, but as far as what he says vs what you said he said… it’s a little different.
I’d also like to add, I don’t think many ppl are thinking they’d rather get the disease vs the vaccine, rather, if they already got the disease, is there a real benefit vs the risks of the vaccine (eg the heart stuff we’re seeing now). Personally I was careful and never got sick, so I got the vaxx ASAP, but I do think it’s a fair and legitimate concern.
Combination of previous infection and a vaccine dose gives you better coverage, the second is less needed. (And e.g. here in Germany proof of previous infection + one dose counts as fully vaccinated)
And? That doesn't change that there are still things which are common sense and rooted in basic logic accessible to anyone. That Nature journal article is one of those things.
it was basic logic accessible to anyone that washing hands doesn't matter - it was, after all, just dirt and blood. it couldn't be proven that there was anything bad in dirt and blood.
SARS-CoV1 didn't have a pool of 8 billion people to mutate in. It'll get less deadly as time goes by giving fuel to the 'it's just a flu' crowd, killing millions in the meantime and potentially mutating beyond the scope of currently attained immunity, god forbid.
There it’s just a flu crowd are the same people who call every little sniffle they get “the flu“. I’ve had the flu and I was out of it. I couldn’t even make it to the bathroom on my own.
the 'it's just the flu' crowd probably doesn't realize how many people actually die from flu complications, but then, i wouldn't expect them to, unfortunately. perception of freedom trumps science for them.
Someone should find out if natural antibodies provide long term immunity, including variants, since so many people already contracted Covid-19 and recovered.
Especially among young adults teenagers and children since they have yet to be vaccinated at scale.
What doesn't seem to be addressed is why COVID-19 germinal centre response might produce lasting immunity while, say, flu vaccination (which also produces germinal centre responses) doesn't
I believe influenza viruses mutate at a much faster pace, hence defeating the immunity achieved from a previous infection, and from vaccines. Coronaviruses seem to mutate at a slower pace, in comparison.
It’s basically identical to other real world studies which have shown 89-91% effectiveness in the general population against the prevailing mixture of variants this winter and spring in the US and the UK. Which is in turn only slightly lower than the reported 94-95% effectiveness in the clinical trial environment last summer. Long story short it’ll be a long time before the mRNA vaccines aren’t effective.
efficacy is similar due to conservation of the receptor binding domain[RBD] of spike protien[S] the RBDab is billed as the gold standard neutralizing antibody as when it binds to RBD of the S protien, that particular S protien is no longer able to bind to its ligand [ACE2]
should we see a variant that escapes this RBD Antibody mechanism then there will be a possibility of escape, and concommitant requirement to tweak the vaccine antigen.
Depends on what you mean by "effective" (i.e. are you talking about infection, hospitalisation or death?), and relative to what (i.e. ancestral wild type vs Alpha vs Delta).
If you're talking Alpha vs Delta and about hospitalisation/death, then the vaccines are actually marginally more effective against Delta than Alpha according to data from Public Health England (although there's significant overlap in the confidence intervals).
Has there been any work done on the severity of the COVID 19 variants? My understanding is variants of highly dangerous viruses rarely keep the high level of risk as the progenitors.
Does the delta variant and others pose the same risks? Are we over responding to a virus family group?
> My understanding is variants of highly dangerous viruses rarely keep the high level of risk as the progenitors.
Even if that's a general trend that doesn't mean it's a rule. And the rationale "a dead host isn't as useful at spreading the virus" doesn't really apply to covid since only a small percentage gets hospitalized or dies, most infectees remain fit enough to spread it further.
A friend of mine in his late 30's from work passed away from Covid and he was a healthy person.
Sometimes your immune system needs help. Please stop the "my immune system is enough" nonesense
We cannot force some to isolate and others not too. We have reached a point where the vaccine is proven effective. Virtually anyone in the US that wanted to get a vaccine by now has had ample opportunity to do so. Those who choose not too will either contract the virus or not, that is their call. I am fully vaccinated and would encourage everyone to get vaccinated but I don't see how we have the right to force anyone to take a novel medication if they don't want to or restrict their movements. It is their body and their right to do as they wish. If we force people to take this medication, what is to stop people being forced to take something else that another group may disagree with.
The US has moved past isolation, its just not going to happen again, there is no political will for it. I fully support vaccination, I just don't support a police state asking to check our papers.
And yet none of your argument applies to smoking, because it affects those around not just the smoker and imposes extraordinary costs on non-smoker’s insurance bill.
Seems clear we can, and do, forbid individuals from physically and financially harming the community by their ‘personal’ choices. It is their body and their right to do as they wish — perhaps only as long as it harms no others who have the right to be unharmed.
What outcome does a domestic vaccine passport achieve? I work in health information privacy, where regulations were written to prevent that specific situation. There's no denying it's a proxy for political positions, so the case for it needs to be clear, especially in a world where people say in public that it is "irresponsible," to entertain critical opinions.
What problem does a domestic vaccine passport solve?
> What problem does a domestic vaccine passport solve?
The same problem the Yellow Card [1] solves. Right now, I have a New York State electronic passport and a CDC paper proof of vaccination. The former works in New York City. The latter works across the U.S., at least now. (At least, it worked in San Francisco and Atlanta.) If I travel abroad, I may need to get the latter re-certified since it's trivial to forge and not independently verifiable. Having a single, authoritative document fixes all this and makes socializing and commerce more frictionless.
If we don't want to go into another lockdown when the Delta variant hits, we need to be able to isolate the vaccinated from the vulnerable. The former can continue mixing and mingling with reduced (though not zero) risk of causing a flare-up. The latter, I don't know, ideally they'd stay home but we know that won't happen.
I would bet a huge personal sum that if there were a federal legal guarantee of no vaccine passports, hesitancy would evaporate overnight, and every single SMART health leak and backdoor regulation to enable them is creating an increasingly hard core and radicalized resistance movement.
Yellow card is for some international travel and school enrollment. It is not a vaccine passport, so while I appreciate engaging the question, it's not clear that this is the same use case. Nobody asks an adult for their measles vaccination status in a normal domestic interaction like a concert, train, office, etc.
I think most people should get vaccinated and we can all move on with our lives, however, I also think a generalized vaccine passport for domestic use is an abomination with inevitable and horrific consequences, and so I am trying to get a sense of what the sincere case for it is. If it's just leveraging the crisis to institute bureaucratic social controls, I'll be the most reasonable man on the barricades.
We need a better "why" that is actually true, and not a cynical "noble lie," (like masks/no-masks was), because when you actually get off the internet and talk to people, it's the percieved lies and the attitudes of the people who tell them that are creating the hesitancy.
If a covid-unvaccinated person goes into a stadium or bar full of covid-vaccinated people, what is the effect? The only way the shots get more traction is with a clear and honest answer to that, imo.
Let's flip that around: what is the effect of an asymptomatic COVID sufferer entering a room of people (some of whom are vaccinated vs. some who are not)?
Children aren't currently eligible for any vaccine, and some immunocompromised people can't get the vaccine.
I disagree reason is somehow going to overpower the conspiracy machine. Rules and consequences speak directly to those too greedy to vaccinate or are petrified by fear of some conspiracy theorized takeover.
Two things, if you don't think you can reason with them you aren't going to to try very hard so why bother, which is precisely their objection - but the second is, sure, given everyone who wishes and needs to be vaccinated can get it, what is the effect of an asymtpomatic carrier?
I'm saying it does not justify a relationship where people show vaccine passport ID everywhere they go. Greed is a pretty coarse rationale, I'd suggest it's on the critic to be more persuasive. Conflating the arguments against passports with arguments against vaccination is too disingenuous to accuse someone of, but if someone did't see the difference, it sort of ceases to be an intellectual discussion at that point. So what is the effect?
you'd have to argue about what is the right question to ask first, i'm afraid. that might be a difficult discussion if vaccines are a religious/political topic (i.e. emotional and belief-based instead of skeptical logic).
Because authoritarianism is antithetical to our founding nature.
A centralized database that is used to control individuals is akin to China's social credit system. I've actually started seeing people argue for China style systems, and I find it both frightening and sickening.
When I start to push back at all, I usually get arguments like `Leave the US if you don't like it.`, and sure I'll just pick up and leave the country I was born in, but beyond that where will I be able to go?
If I just want my own individual rights, where in the world will I be able to go if what is basically the last bastion of freedom and individualism is lost to tyrannical majority rule?
> Could you apply this same argument to taxes/SSNs, drivers licenses[+], and other existing centralized systems in the US?
Sure, but at least driver's licenses are about public spaces. I can drive on private property all I want without a license.
As for the other systems, I personally don't much believe those are okay either, but that's a much deeper argument than this.
We've been losing our rights since the income tax and probably prior. I just want us to stop losing them at a minimum, but asking for that is viewed as some kind of major indiscretion.
it really doesn't do that, its intent is to prevent freedom of travel to the unvaccinated. Most people I know that are not vaccinated are very open about it and they can be; as there are currently very few if any prohibition on where they can go. The purpose of the vaccine passport is to end that freedom.
You can try, but to succeed you would essentially have to prove that it came from me and that I all but intentionally infected you. Negligence would require that my actions are not the actions of a prudent person. With 50% of the population not being vaccinated it may be hard to prove what a prudent person would do.
I'm vaccinated and would encourage others to get vaccinated but I am very much against forcing it on anyone.
Allegation of your excessive alcohol consumption or unpopular opinions is not going to decrease your credit score. Your donation to the government "charity" is not going to increase your credit score. With low credit score, you can still take a train to anywhere you want.
It's a privately ran optional system. I do realize that society generally makes it non-optional, but then that gets into arguments about running a debt based monetary regime.
Every American is in a whole myriad of government databases form the federal level on down. Pretending otherwise, or pretending that the next database will be the one to break individualism and lead to autocracy, is just magical thinking.
>Every American is in a whole myriad of government databases form the federal level on down...
The park might be full of needles but that's no justification for further litter.
Why do we need yet another database? People have enough problems with the no fly list and that's a short list. A DB that has 1/3 of the country flagged would cause mayhem from false positives and inconsistent data.
I'm not supporting any new database, just pointing out that if our goal is to prevent centralized government databases of Americans, that ship has already sailed... around the world several times over.
That's not true at all, several of our lists already limit constitutionally approved freedoms.
The No Fly List and felony registration for gun ownership being 2 examples.
edit: before the downvotes start, agreement with those lists does not negate that they are restricting freedoms based on activities that added or removed someone from a list
I think this kind of attitude is exactly what OP had in mind. There are tons of central databases you are already registered in, all available on demand. They detail your life in more detail than you know about yourself at this point (certainly when all data are combined).
To be not aware of this on place like HackerNews is... not very believable, we discuss this all the time, every day.
"last bastion of freedom" - there are places like Switzerland which have more of freedom than any place in US. There is no power nor amount of the money in the world that would force me to move from here to police state like US where everybody talks about freedom but only top 0.1% enjoys some of it.
This might be hard to grasp, but it should be generally true also in US - your freedom ends where other's begins (ie transportation, coming to any work/office). With Covid, this is valid 1000x more. Freedom and anarchy are not the same as some hardliners would like to believe.
I like your comment, and I agree the Swiss are probably free-er at this point--but we were something of a free nation at one time, and we still (Orwellian?) bill ourselves as such.
> There are tons of central databases you are already registered in, all available on demand.
Most of these are not ran by the government though. Thus their use is not mandated.
> your freedom ends where other's begins
In libertarian circles this is generally spoken about as the `non-aggression principle`.
I in no way think that a proof of vaccination system put together by private providers, coupled with businesses' choice to check vaccination status is wrong. I do think the responsible thing to do is somewhere along the lines of self isolating to either being vaccinated or having an antibody test.
My objection is a government orchestrated vaccination database with mandated use in private businesses.
edit: I don't know why you're being downvoted, but I did upvote you for the thoughtful commentary. : )
Well, you're halfway there. Each state already runs an immunization information system which holds this data.
In Arizona, it's required that all immunizations given to <=18s are reported (along with "encouragement" for providers to report adult immunizations) and this is the basis for determining if the child may attend a public school, for example.
The WHO has been issuing so-called Yellow Card certificates for decades. There are enough countries which will require vaccination against Polio, Yellow Fever and Meningococcal meningitis in order for you to cross borders.
Moreover, one of the first international certificate issued (1944) targetted Smallpox vaccinations and it's proliferation coincided with the booming air travel in the 1960's and 1970's. It is argued that the certificate was substantial towards preventing Smallpox from spreading in an age where endemic regions became only a few hours of flying away.
The United States signed and ratified the Convention back in 1945, essentially acknowledging that countries are able to require U.S. citizens to have a vaccine certificate.
While the Convention dates back 75 years, today's Yellow Card is the de facto standard for certifying that you have gotten shots at a border.
COVID-19 poses a challenge as this disease is highly infectious and crippling enough that preventing spread has become a far bigger global priority then other infectious diseases such as Yellow Fever. However, as of yet, a digital, secure, widely adopted solution that goes beyond the WHO's Yellow Card is still in the works. Several airlines and the IATA are working on their own travellers pass, but realistically, a trusted vaccination passport which is globally recognized requires an international treaty between nations governments. The world hasn't arrived at this point yet, and most countries still operate their own systems such as passenger locator forms or national passes issued to their own citizens.
When it comes to schools, anyone can claim a "religious exemption" to those rules (as if public health is a religious matter...). There's no verification or proof involved in claiming that exemption. It's a major loophole.
I wonder why, when many people on this thread aren't even capable of understanding the science pointing out the difference between vaccinated, previous covid infection antibodies, and no protection. There's repeated boxing into vaccinated and unvaccinated like natural antibodies mean nothing, contrary to the available science.
The wild emotionalism that has overflowed during Covid, is unlikely to go back into the container, unfortunately. It's a hellish birth child of the lunacy of the social media era meets rampant pandemic hysteria.
Software engineers (engineers in general actually) aren't special at all when it comes to being rational. They just like to think they are because of their field. It's identical to Stephen Hawking thinking he had special insight on politics, because he was gifted at one thing; or a famous actor thinking they have special insight on politics because they're gifted at one thing. Engineers are just as prone to failing to control their emotions properly, bouts of subject irrationalism and failing to strive for objectivity as is the typical person. Your typical software engineer on HN is no more rational than the typical plumber, the plumber is just likely more honest about it and less full of their self. You see it in every thread on HN, yet the rational engineer myth persists, amusingly.
Europe isn't doing much better. It has a lower % fully vaccinated (around 30% in each country, I can't find exact numbers for the whole EU). In a lot of countries the vaccines are now available to everyone over 18, and you can book appointments within a few days or just turn up. In Poland they are running a financial lottery to encourage people to be vaccinated.
We are still supply-limited in Germany. The number of new first doses are currently down because we need these doses for the second ones instead.
36% fully vaccinated, 54% have received the first dose at least. The percentages are of the total population, i.e. including kids which cannot even receive the vaccine yet, so we aren’t doing that bad, imo.
Could someone elaborate why this particular comment is being downvoted? Or I guess in other words, is there something unique about the mRNA vaccines that make it unnecessary to require "booster shots" (if "booster shots" equate to yearly shots we are used to with the flu variants)?
(I legitimately don't know and I am curious. I see the article does reference protection against a variant during a study, but it's unclear to me if that means all future variants as well.)
There's no basis to believe at this point that we'll need "booster shots" of any kind with COVID vaccination, and in fact the opposite seems to be the case, so this comment is being downvoted for spreading misinformation (amusingly, this specific comment will probably be disliked by both vaccination proponents and disease proponents :)
The reason we won't need yearly vaccinations as with the flu shots isn't a property of the mRNA vaccine, it's a property of COVID-19. The watered-down explanation is that this particular sort of virus simply doesn't mutate as much as the flu virus because it has a mechanism that prevents it. We do see variants, but they're actually quite similar so the same vaccine still works (thankfully).
It's also why we're talking about COVID "variants" and flu "strains". In this context, a different "strain" usually signifies different surface proteins, i.e., you need a different vaccine for it. I don't believe that we've seen a second COVID strain yet.
We really don't know yet if (and when) a booster shot would be needed, and if we would need an extra shot of the same vaccine (to help with immune escape) or a tweaked version (for resistant variants). So far research suggests that we're good, but this isn't something that's set in stone.
If you're a vaccine maker, it's a good idea to have something ready if it turns out that a booster is needed. If you're in charge of public health, it's a good idea to plan for that possibility. That doesn't make it the plan yet.
Also note that you're looking at a press release. Scientific press releases take the information from the article, summarize it by giving the main achievement, removing any caveats, and otherwise presenting it in the best possible light possible. There are press releases like that for vaccines that were later shown to be ineffective, because at that point they were promising.
I don't know why the original comment is being downvoted. It is not a conspiracy theory to assume that we need booster shots. Is it not like our situation with the flu?
No, as other commenters pointed out coronaviruses are different from the flu viruses in that they cannot mutate as easily as flu does. Hence it is possible that booster shots will not be required.
That also doesn't mean that that there's no longer a decent chance of immune escape. Before this research came out, it was a reasonable position to think that we needed boosters. It is NOT a conspiracy theory.
If you read any of the articles I've cited one of them has the CEO of Pfizer stating that we will likely need a yearly booster shot.
It's hard to determine that as a laymen when you have the CEO of Pfizer (who is likely being advised by Pfizer's own researchers) saying, "A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed. And again, the variants will play a key role"
So there's no chance of immune escape? I thought at the very least, it'd be like the flu vaccines where the virus mutates often enough that we all need periodic booster shots.
This article says that _if the virus doesn’t mutate_ the immunity is probably long lasting. It doesn’t directly address the orthogonal issue of immune escape.
in America, the vaccine is referred to as the "Pfizer vaccine" in the majority of newsletters. I understand this varies based on what country you're in, but this isn't unique there and is common practice for this vaccine's name.
Pfizer is easier to type than "Pfizer BioNTech" (there's 3 capital letters in that second word, 2 next to each other).
"The process is the vaccine" aka manufacturing the vaccine is the hardest part. Saying that Pfizer is just a partner of the "real" vaccine developer downplays the importance of manufacturing to a significant degree. It's just as much Pfizer's vaccine as it is BioNTech's.
It's still a bit unfortunate that this vaccine gets marketed as the sole achievement of a major us company while in reality the larger part of the funding for its development came from other parties, the single most biggest being german tax-payers.
The mRNA vaccines have been the silver lining to the whole COVID-19 disaster.
They seem “unreasonably effective” against COVID, basically if you had a genie that you could ask to make a vaccine, it would be hard to do much better, other than the requirement for 2 jabs.
In addition, the mRNA technology has broad applicability to other issues such as other viruses (such as flu) and even cancer!
Traditional vaccines have also been "unreasonably effective". I'm all for mRNA going forward (I got pfizer myself) but lets not downplay just how effective the "old" tech has been against covid. It's really quite amazing how well we've been able to target it. Now if only we could get more people to accept that the vaccines are safe...
> Traditional vaccines have also been "unreasonably effective"
AFAIK not really. I know just about Sinovac and that was significantly worse efficacy than other vaccines. Note that adonovirusvector based vaccines like AstraZeneca one are not 'traditional vaccines' but also rather new tech.
That’s why I put old in quotes. mRNA is also nothing new, just new at this scale. People are just acting like it’s something that was just invented over the last year.
Which old tech vaccines? I haven't seen any attenuated vaccines for covid. Even the viral vector vaccines aren't exactly "old tech" and they are certainly less effective than mRNA vaccines.
Just like with mRNA; viral vector vaccines haven't been seen widespread use before COVID either. And the only attempts at an attenuated vaccine have been pretty ineffective as far as I know.
They're all pretty comparable. Novavax should be getting a lot more attention since it doesn't require super cold storage and appears to be on par with the mRNA vaccines.
Novavax does look promising, but I was mainly pointing out that there is currently no effective "old tech" vaccine in widespread use, it's all new tech.
I'm not saying that out of skepticism for these vaccines, I think it's amazing we're deploying all these new platforms. I just think saying that they're no more effective than vaccines we've had before is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Moderna and pfizer both encode the spike protein identically.
"Follow up earlier post. Here is moderna/pfizer/wild type spike. There is only 2 amino acids different from wild to vaccine. Same for both vaccines. The change forces the protein to look like it would when stuck to the outside of the virus, without needing the rest of the virus"
From Thought Emporium on twitter (cool biohacker with particular focus on genetic engineering, but amazing breadth into physical sciences as well - I highly recommend his youtube channel)
There's very strong evidence, particularly against the Delta variant[1]. That paper cites a 33.5% effectiveness after one dose, compared to 87.9% after two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
That includes the lag time. A single dose is supposed to be about 80% effective once immunity develops. They don't know how long that will last and thus have the second shot to increase effectiveness and hopefully longevity.
It's likely that the 80% figure you mention was based on protection against "ancestral type" virus, as would have been measured in the main trials. The gap between first dose and second dose protection is larger for Delta variant than for other variants, as documented in the paper I cited.
That is not consistent with the "Vaccination status" definition in the paper I cited. The tl;dr on that is that "first dose" starts 21 days after vaccination, and "second dose" 14 days after.
If you wait 21 days after the first dose, or 14 days after the second dose. Unless everyone had their second dose 7 days after the first one you still don't compare the same thing.
We need something like, 21 days after the first dose, and split the result between people who got one dose and those who got two. We also need to make sure that the repartition of ` age since first dose` is the same for the two doses group and the single dose group.
Much of the data comparing efficacy of 1 vs 2 doses doesn't wait until 10-days after the first dose, which defeats the point. That being said 2 doses is more effective, just not by as much as you'd might think.
edit: replaced the above link because it was pay-walled
In case you hadn't heard, the Cleveland Clinic--consistently regarded as one of the top hospital systems in the United States and in the world--recently shared a study of 52,238 patients showing zero incremental benefit from the jab to the previously infected, recommending that "people who’ve had COVID-19 don’t need to get vaccinated."[2]
[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
[2]https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-study-determines-...