[randomopining]

Everybody should get vaccinated and then get it now. The current Delta is close enough to the OG version that your body can crush it and then get a stronger immunity towards the future lineage of the virus.

If you stay in a bubble, by this winter there will be a variant that almost completely evades the vaccines and then you're back to square one.

Basically we should be continuously getting immunity against the newest.

[NonContro]

Why should people with natural immunity from previous exposure get it? Natural immunity provides broader protection because antibodies are generated for more of the virus, instead of just the spike protein in the case of vaccines.

If there is negligible additional protection then why take the risk of vaccine injury?

Why can't antibody tests be regarded in the same way as vaccination for 'passport' purposes?

The CDC estimates about 110 million Americans have had COVID already. Why should they be vaccinated? Why not 'donate' the doses that would be have been used on them to other countries, to help people who have not been previously infected?

[randomopining]

What's the risk of vaccine injury?

If the percentage chance of serious vaccine injury is many times less than the chance of somewhat serious covid or long covid... a logical person would take the vaccine.

If you just had covid and had a mild or moderate case, yes I could accept not getting a vaccine.

What i'm talking about is moreso that people should get vaccine immunity, and then get the delta so that we don't fall too far behind in general immunity.

[Mikeb85]

Death, in the case of some younger (mostly women) people and the AZ vaccine. Canada and other countries literally don't use it for the reason, I believe the US hasn't certified it either. The Pfizer vaccine has been linked to some heart issues but mostly minor and with far less frequency.

(For the record, I got Pfizer)

[mint2]

I think he meant to ask about rates. The term risk is slightly ambiguous.

Death or long term disability is the risk of Covid.

The rates of those outcomes are extremely higher for the actual disease.

I Feel like a lot of people are falling into a “Both sides” or “fair and balanced” type trap by over indexing on that in theory the outcome could be the same, while ignoring the elephant in the room that the odds are vastly different such that there’s not really a comparison.

[Mikeb85]

> The rates of those outcomes are extremely higher for the actual disease.

But the risk of catching the disease is less than 100%. So you need to weigh the risk of the vaccine versus your risk of catching the disease AND dying.

Do the probability of negative outcomes of AZ for women 20-40 versus the probability of catching Covid during a given timeframe AND dying for that same age group.

There's a reason many countries don't use AZ, and that some who do used it only for older patients. Canada for example doesn't even use AZ anymore. I believe it's still not approved for use in the US either. This isn't some conspiracy, lots of countries have highlighted the risks and don't use the vaccine.

Also this isn't an anti-vaxx post (I literally have 2 doses of Pfizer), it's a realistic post about the risks.

[nradov]

In the long run everyone's risk of catching the virus is close to 100%. It's now endemic (like several other coronaviruses) and no matter what you do you can't expect to avoid exposure forever. Just a question of when.

[randomopining]

You realize that everything is a probability right?

There are people who choke and die on Hot Dogs every year. So there is a "risk of death from hot dogs"

Yet most reasonable people would not really care.

[Mikeb85]

The same argument can be made for Covid itself too and is also an anti-vaxx argument. Everything we do has risks and we determine whether or not they're reasonable.

With vaccines, enough countries have said some have acceptable risk profiles (Pfizer and Moderna) and some are too risky (AstraZeneca).

[randomopining]

Not at all actually. Since the statistical evidence shows covid "bad-effects" at a rate much much higher than vaccine "bad-effects".

So basically your entire argument is wrong.

[CodesInChaos]

I think the most important advantage of vaccines is that you get them (J&J aside) twice, which helps build long term protection. Which is why it's recommended to get a single dose of a vaccine if you caught covid, bringing you up to two exposures as well.

[nradov]

Vaccine manufacturers are stating that people should probably get a third dose as an additional booster.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/moderna-says-a-3...

[CodesInChaos]

Feels a lot like learning through spaced repetition

[Mikeb85]

> Why can't antibody tests be regarded in the same way as vaccination for 'passport' purposes?

They are for the EU vaccine green pass. A certified recovery is counted the same as being vaccinated.

[deegles]

The science on this is clear, please update your stance.

Natural immunity is not as protective as vaccine induced immunity. It is in fact 2.3x more likely that you will get reinfected while unvaccinated, and a stronger immune response from the vaccine means fewer people end up hospitalized. See:

> Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

[peytn]

From your link:

> these findings cannot be used to infer causation

Do you have more data to support your claims?

[deegles]

Not knowing the mechanism by which something happens doesn't mean it's not happening. I'm not sure what you're asking.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Previous time that "Natural immunity vs vaccine induced immunity", and vaccinating after COVID was mentioned on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28107854

tl;dr get the jab

[infamouscow]

The reason for this global effort was because SARS-CoV2 was overrunning healthcare systems.

The CDC also said:

> Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated

> Among five COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated

In other words, 80% of infections that require hospitalization are from vaccinated patients.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> In other words, 80% of infections that require hospitalization are from vaccinated patients.

That means nothing unless you also know what percentage of the population are vaccinated.

Since you're interest in this topic, I'm sure that you have seen this graphic before:

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1418952126244478977

https://i.redd.it/km870p4xn1d71.jpg

Originally from the Financial Times of London, sorry i haven't soured it there, they have a paywall.

Let's not misrepresent incomplete data.

[dotcommand]

> The science on this is clear, please update your stance.

You are conflating science with "stats".

> Natural immunity is not as protective as vaccine induced immunity.

If that is true and if the science is clear, then why is that the case? What is the biological mechanism behind that? Shouldn't natural immunity be better in most cases since your body is actually fighting the real disease? Since you say the "science is clear", can you explain the science behind it?

> It is in fact 2.3x more likely that you will get reinfected while unvaccinated, and a stronger immune response from the vaccine means fewer people end up hospitalized. See:

From your link...

"Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation. Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings."

So you say the science is clear and then you link to a study that explicitly says not to infer any causation?

You literally spread FUD and misinformation. As seems to be the case of so many invested in this covid narrative on both sides.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Shouldn't natural immunity be better in most cases since your body is actually fighting the real disease?

And why should that be? Because natural is always better? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Vaccines produce a different and sometimes stronger response than the disease that they mimic, as they are literally designed to do.

In answer to your question: no, there is no "should" about it at all. it could go either way. And when it goes the wrong way, people try to redesign the vaccines until it goes the other way.

There is some evidence that COVID vaccines produce stronger responses. Links upthread.

> You literally spread FUD and misinformation

Please check yourself before flinging that accusation.