[yodsanklai]

> This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author

The title describes the content of the article. I think people should be treated as adults (esp. on HN). We should be able to discuss Covid-19 science and data without always fearing misinterpretation from anti-vaxxers.

[ProjectBarks]

The original title of the paper was "Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections." It's important to point out that the paper isn't just one fact but a collection of facts that form nuance.

To me science mags title is much more sensationalistic and there is a reason they did not chose a title more closely aligned to what the authors of the original study chose.

[tootie]

You're right. Data is data. That being said there is a pretty irrational contingent on HN these days.

[flowardnut]

go step into the world of "covid vaccines are bad!" for a second (/r/newnormal) and you'll rescind this statement. It's getting out of hand, between misinformation and politicizing how we treat an infectious virus.

[fncypants]

Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Communication is key. Scientists and health professionals fail at it. Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public, because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view. Messaging is critical in public communication.

[TimTheTinker]

> This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with.

No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.

Telling people the truth (including what you don't yet know) and letting them freely assume their own risks is a powerful way to win them over.

> because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view

People don't change their worldview because someone tries to change it for them. Straight facts without manipulation of any sort is the best way.

People know when they're being manipulated, talked down to, and lied to. That's the worst way to try to change their opinion. Fauci and other officials did a lot of this early on, unfortunately, and they lost credibility with large swaths of the public, leaving a truth vacuum that badly misinformed youtubers rushed in to fill.

[matmatmatmat]

> No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.

For better and for worse, this is not true with most people. Most people are most open to changing their viewpoints if you engage them in a manner where you try to take their side, first, and then lead them in a new direction.

Straight facts might work best for you, but I'm afraid they're pretty much a sure-fire away to turn off most adults who've already made up their minds and don't already agree with you.

[richrichardsson]

Search for "people don't change their views based on facts" with your engine of choice for a plethora of articles that confirm the query.

I don't remember the source but I read recently that peer pressure is far more likely to change someones mind about a given subject.

[sharken]

I think the fact approach works well for rational and logical thinking persons.

As for the rest, yes other approaches must be employed instead.

[TimTheTinker]

As long as the approach is respectful and not manipulative... anything less will backfire.

[hncurious]

You're right that communication is critical, but it's precisely because facts are omitted that causes the problem. Those facts just come out later, and that only makes things worse. Instead of transparency and straight forward communication, public health officials are engaging in manipulation of the public. So called noble lies, like telling people masks don't work in order to cover for the lack of mask availability. That burned their credibility and is just one example.

The lies and lies by omission are literal oxygen to anti-vaxxers because they can point out, with proof, that we were lied to. Naturally the next question is, what else are we being lied to about?

Stop lying, start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax and anti-expert sentiment dissipate.

I would also point out that there is an intentional conflation between anti-vaxxers (those opposed to all vaccines) and vaccine hesitant (those who are pro-vaccine generally, but are weary about a new vaccine or were already infected and have natural immunity). The latter are being grouped with the former, and this has also destroyed a great amount of credibility and trust.

[alunchbox]

> Start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax sentiment dissipate.

I've only seen Anti-vaxxers treated as adults from the onset, being upfront about the data etc. It just get disputed, debated and then denied.

I'm burnt out and numb to them at this point. I do agree with you that information shouldn't be omitted; However, the damage is done at this point. It's not going to stop either.

[mbg721]

"Do this willingly and this can all be over...okay, that didn't work, now we're going to make you" isn't exactly what I'd call treating someone like an adult.

[aww_dang]

I'm not convinced the biosecurity state will go away anymore than the TSA will disappear tomorrow. Government agencies rarely cede power back to the citizenry.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Every single government, bureaucracy, expert, official, authority in anyway all gained power during covid. A lot of them “discovering” powers they had no idea they had (CDC, evictions).

I agree it’s unlikely anyone will give it up willingly.

[walterbell]

Here is the full conclusion of the paper, rather than the blog post which summarizes the paper:

> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

[bavell]

Sorry, no. Hiding facts from responsible adults is a great way to breed resistance to any subject being discussed. Stop infantilizing your neighbors.

[ghiculescu]

I think this attitude is actually what leads to a lot of hesitancy.

> Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public

It’s very patronizing.

[Trumpi]

No - we have anti-vaxxers because nobody will debate them. Instead we ask them not to post their nonsense and so they just retreat to their echo-chambers and begin reinforcing their views to each other.

[downWidOutaFite]

I've seen many online debates with antivaxers and nobody convinces anybody of anything. People just get angrier and more hardened in their opinions. Everyone goes into it with an us vs them mentality instead of open minded.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Trying to hide crucial information inside the article or censor it altogether just fuels all these misinformation campaigns.

[asah]

+1 and an example would make your argument even more persuasive

[Pokepokalypse]

>Scientists and health professionals fail at it.

They do just fine.

The problem is "science" "journalism".