Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Horatius77 106 days ago
Appears that it is trying to stimulate broad immunity .. instead of any one specific virus/disease. Artificial and overstimulation of our immune systems long-term can't be healthy. Definitely a tradeoff here.
4 comments

> [greater activity within] our immune systems long-term can't be healthy

Not trying to be flip, but why? "Natural" isn't always better, and as the obesity epidemic has shown, our evolutionary past hasn't done a perfect job of preparing us for our current environment.

You might be right, but I'm skeptical that there is any non-extreme limit to something as simple and mechanical as our innate immune system.

We know that systemic inflammation is associated with all kinds of chronic diseases. I don’t know whether we have figured out which causes which, but I’d be wary of overstimulating the immune system too.
calling the immune system simple and mechanical is completely wild, like half of americans have some kind of medically diagnosable immune dysfunction
The immune system operates at level far below where we get "tired" -- worrying that we'll "use up" the immune system seems similar to worrying that exercise will "use up" our lifetime allotment of heartbeats.
The concern isn't "using up" the immune system, the concern is the immune system gets all revved up looking for something to kill, and not finding pathogens handy, attacks your own organs.
Normally when your immune system is on high alert for a prolonged period of time, it can lead to more false positives and trigger auto immune issues.
But this is talking about the innate vs. the adaptive immune system. I am not a medical professional, but it seems like the innate system is either maladapted or not. In any case, I don't think it's fair to assume that your "common sense" overrides my skepticism.
There are likely biological pros and cons between innate and adaptive, such that using the innate response for everything is not desirable.

The innate response is less targeted, less effective, and causes potentially damaging effects like inflammation. The adaptive response is more targeted and more effective, with the tradeoff that it needs to be learnt.

Cant we say this applies to the flu vaccine? This almost validates why I skip it every year.

I get sick after getting the flu vaccine and feel pretty bad for 1-3 days... then I get the flu anyway because they picked the wrong ones.

The normal vaccine is very different. The inmune system learns how to block one virus or bacteria and go to rest until the virus or bacteria appears.

This looks like the inmune system is keep at the emergency level for 3 months.

> Cant we say this applies to the flu vaccine? This almost validates why I skip it every year.

These two things have literally nothing to do with each other.

> I get sick after getting the flu vaccine and feel pretty bad for 1-3 days

I thought you skipped it every year? So did this happen like, once, and you don't actually have any real basis for comparison or understanding, here? Come on.

Did it for a few years in my 20s. Then did it for a few years from family peer pressure. Then did the covid thing.

Probably n=5 or 6 out of 18.

And you distinctly remember every single one of those 5-6 years getting sick immediately after, and getting the flu the same year? Again, come on now. This isn't even anecdata, it's just invented memories to push a conclusion you arrived at in your 20s with no actual understanding or basis of knowledge. I assume you think there are no benefits to having gotten the flu vaccine, if you do happen to get the flu after, either, for reasons that are surely backed by strong evidence and subject matter expertise, and not like, Facebook posts.

I don't know why people feel so compelled to invent stories about vaccines they hate but don't even vaguely understand, especially when the creative writing is so poor. It's such a weirdly pervasive thing in healthcare, that people think basic existence is the same as expertise.

It could also be useful in low doses to supplement, for example, a seasonal vaccine in a year where they are especially unsure about prevalent strains, or where their predictions were already proved wrong early in the flu season
you would think so! as a "vaccine skeptic", i think this kind of research is important and patients should be able to decide w/ their doctor which to pursue based on their individual condition. perhaps this tradeoff will be worth it in higher risk individuals.
Until they mandate it...
> Until they mandate it...

When, specifically, do you think that has happened? I'll wait.