Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Why the Covid Vaccines Aren’t Dangerous
https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/why-the-covid-vaccines-arent-dangerous
118 comments
> You can't persuade skeptics by not addressing (simply omitting) some most important concerns…
You're making a couple assumptions here which don't hold true in practice. (1) That "skeptic" concerns are uniform. Those may be your important concerns, but they're not for others. (2) That you'll be able persuade "skeptics" by logically addressing their concerns. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
You're making a couple assumptions here which don't hold true in practice. (1) That "skeptic" concerns are uniform. Those may be your important concerns, but they're not for others. (2) That you'll be able persuade "skeptics" by logically addressing their concerns. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
honkycat(3)
There is another point: to the author,
«[...] This all sounds quite risky. Does it mean that we should avoid prescription medicines entirely? Let’s look at the most common adverse-reaction offenders. Anti-seizure drugs, insulin, and blood-thinning medications—often used to prevent stroke—are at the top of the list; antibiotics account for more adverse effects than almost any other kind of drug, leading to approximately a hundred and fifty thousand E.R. visits annually; even acetaminophen turns out to be risky, causing fifty-six thousand E.R. visits, twenty-six hundred hospitalizations, nearly half of all liver failures, and over four hundred and fifty deaths each year. Nevertheless, I think that most of my vaccine-hesitant patients would agree that preventing strokes and seizures, treating diabetes, alleviating pain, and curing infections are extremely important, and that the benefits we derive from using these medications weigh favorably against their risks.»
A binary dilemma is expressed in the paragraph, while the actual topic is ternary. «Most of [his] vaccine-hesitant patients» would take insulin as a better option than just bearing diabetes, but not necessarily would take farmaceutical prophylaxis over a relatively high isolation (if they can afford it in practice - The New Yorker was not exactly born for a public of dwellers in low density areas).
«[...] This all sounds quite risky. Does it mean that we should avoid prescription medicines entirely? Let’s look at the most common adverse-reaction offenders. Anti-seizure drugs, insulin, and blood-thinning medications—often used to prevent stroke—are at the top of the list; antibiotics account for more adverse effects than almost any other kind of drug, leading to approximately a hundred and fifty thousand E.R. visits annually; even acetaminophen turns out to be risky, causing fifty-six thousand E.R. visits, twenty-six hundred hospitalizations, nearly half of all liver failures, and over four hundred and fifty deaths each year. Nevertheless, I think that most of my vaccine-hesitant patients would agree that preventing strokes and seizures, treating diabetes, alleviating pain, and curing infections are extremely important, and that the benefits we derive from using these medications weigh favorably against their risks.»
A binary dilemma is expressed in the paragraph, while the actual topic is ternary. «Most of [his] vaccine-hesitant patients» would take insulin as a better option than just bearing diabetes, but not necessarily would take farmaceutical prophylaxis over a relatively high isolation (if they can afford it in practice - The New Yorker was not exactly born for a public of dwellers in low density areas).
It's also not comparable because drugs are given to people who are ill, so the cost/benefit analysis is much clearer. Vaccines are being given to people who are not ill, may well not become ill any time soon even if they don't take the vaccine, and if they did become ill for many (i.e. the non eldery/co-morbid) it would not be especially serious. All of which makes the cost/benefit calculation drastically different to antibiotics.
It's partly the weakness of pro-vaccine articles like this one that fuels the phenomenon. People read it and say, is that the best counter-argument there is? Then perhaps my hesitation is correct indeed.
It's partly the weakness of pro-vaccine articles like this one that fuels the phenomenon. People read it and say, is that the best counter-argument there is? Then perhaps my hesitation is correct indeed.
The statement «if they did become ill for many ... it would not be especially serious» brings to the question about what causes damage after infection, and what causes (severe) adverse events after the vaccines: if the causes are different, the poster's idea that seem to imply that "a specific individual may get worse consequences from the vaccines than from the natural infection" may appear less shaky, while if the causes partially coincide (something about the spike protein) it would make more sense to believe that the same individual risks much more damage with natural infection than with vaccination - consistently with the apparent numbers (damages post-vaccine seem to be order(s) of magnitude less than damages post natural infection. Of course, the practical comparison passes through the individual chances of vaccination vs chances of infection - but that is another matter).
If the source of damages is similar with infection or vaccination, and if the vulnerability depended on one's specific body, if you may suffer a hit after the latter, imagine the blow you could get after the former.
About instead the article and its "reassurances to hesitants": its honest report of the risks of very common medicines will be an eye opener to those who thought of medicines as "innocuous candies not worth considerate approach".
If the source of damages is similar with infection or vaccination, and if the vulnerability depended on one's specific body, if you may suffer a hit after the latter, imagine the blow you could get after the former.
About instead the article and its "reassurances to hesitants": its honest report of the risks of very common medicines will be an eye opener to those who thought of medicines as "innocuous candies not worth considerate approach".
Right, the problem is one I flag in another comment - there doesn't seem to be any actual systematic way to compare the impact of vaccines vs viral infections. You can't even get data into comparable units, let alone then study the reliability of those measurements or transformations.
If you read the underlying papers it seems to be just assumed that one is much less than the other because that's how vaccines normally work, and it'd be insane if it were not the case. But this is new technology, and these vaccines aren't acting like vaccines are meant to e.g. they don't seem to stop you catching it and getting sick, their effectiveness seems to last months rather than decades, and their side effects are much worse.
I have become quite suspicious about this over time because I keep encountering people who say the vaccine made them sick, and the symptoms align very closely with COVID symptoms. Recovery appears to be a little faster but perhaps not by much - the only person in my immediate social circle who actually definitely got COVID was only in bed for a day, and then it took several days to shake off the remnants of the cough. The vaccines don't give people a cough but "It laid me low for a day or two, felt so sick I had to stay in bed all day" is a very common side effect. This is what you'd expect if the vaccine was doing the same stuff as the virus itself but without filling the lungs with crap. And that's in turn what you'd expect given the way the mRNA vaccines actually work: they cause cells to act infected and the immune system then detects them as such. Whether vaccines cause more or less damage than a viral infection very much depends on the relative areas under the curves and the relative value of different kinds of cells that are exposed and destroyed, but, again, no way to actually get data into that form.
But then you weight it by incidence. Governments seem to have a bloody minded fanatical determination to make vaccine incidence 100% by any means possible. On the other hand, where I live, after a year and a half of this stuff, only ~10% of the population has tested positive. When the person I live with got sick, I was forced to self-isolate with them, and I never got sick even though delta is supposedly super infectious. The incidence of the virus is far less than the incidence of vaccines, so even if their impact is within a similar order of magnitude (i.e. much less but still comparable), it seems quite plausible that the vaccines end up making more people sick than the virus (for some value of "the virus" given that it mutates and "the vaccine" given the apparent need for repetitive boosters).
If you read the underlying papers it seems to be just assumed that one is much less than the other because that's how vaccines normally work, and it'd be insane if it were not the case. But this is new technology, and these vaccines aren't acting like vaccines are meant to e.g. they don't seem to stop you catching it and getting sick, their effectiveness seems to last months rather than decades, and their side effects are much worse.
I have become quite suspicious about this over time because I keep encountering people who say the vaccine made them sick, and the symptoms align very closely with COVID symptoms. Recovery appears to be a little faster but perhaps not by much - the only person in my immediate social circle who actually definitely got COVID was only in bed for a day, and then it took several days to shake off the remnants of the cough. The vaccines don't give people a cough but "It laid me low for a day or two, felt so sick I had to stay in bed all day" is a very common side effect. This is what you'd expect if the vaccine was doing the same stuff as the virus itself but without filling the lungs with crap. And that's in turn what you'd expect given the way the mRNA vaccines actually work: they cause cells to act infected and the immune system then detects them as such. Whether vaccines cause more or less damage than a viral infection very much depends on the relative areas under the curves and the relative value of different kinds of cells that are exposed and destroyed, but, again, no way to actually get data into that form.
But then you weight it by incidence. Governments seem to have a bloody minded fanatical determination to make vaccine incidence 100% by any means possible. On the other hand, where I live, after a year and a half of this stuff, only ~10% of the population has tested positive. When the person I live with got sick, I was forced to self-isolate with them, and I never got sick even though delta is supposedly super infectious. The incidence of the virus is far less than the incidence of vaccines, so even if their impact is within a similar order of magnitude (i.e. much less but still comparable), it seems quite plausible that the vaccines end up making more people sick than the virus (for some value of "the virus" given that it mutates and "the vaccine" given the apparent need for repetitive boosters).
> And remaining 5% holdouts are well-informed
"holdout" and "well-informed" are mutually incompatible in this scenario.
"holdout" and "well-informed" are mutually incompatible in this scenario.
Unless you are getting them in Japan. Or got Astra Zeneca, or whatever.
They should really make this article free for everyone to read.
isn't it?
"You’ve read your last complimentary article.
Become a New Yorker subscriber, plus get a free tote. Cancel anytime."
> isn't it?
No, it isn't.
I get a popup blocking the article, reading
"Already a subscriber? Sign in
You’ve run out. You’ve read your last complimentary article. Become a New Yorker subscriber, plus get a free tote. Cancel anytime."
No, it isn't.
I get a popup blocking the article, reading
"Already a subscriber? Sign in
You’ve run out. You’ve read your last complimentary article. Become a New Yorker subscriber, plus get a free tote. Cancel anytime."
void_mint(9)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
>It is this weighing of risks and benefits, in all their many facets, that informs the chorus of health-care professionals imploring their families, neighbors, co-workers, and friends, along with everyone else, to please get vaccinated against covid-19. They urge vaccination because they see its ratio of risks to benefits as incredibly, unbelievably good.
For someone who has already had Covid and recovered, there is no benefit. Only risk.[1] But they are not allowed to make this calculation for themselves and instead are treated to constant social pressure campaigns like this piece.
[1]https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210608/No-point-vaccinat...
For someone who has already had Covid and recovered, there is no benefit. Only risk.[1] But they are not allowed to make this calculation for themselves and instead are treated to constant social pressure campaigns like this piece.
[1]https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210608/No-point-vaccinat...
This study is based on 2020 data, pre Delta.
Here is the latest data. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-on...
Vaccinated person 13x more likely than the naturally immune to catch delta
7x more likely to be symptomatic
More likely to be hospitalized
Perhaps, as is a common argument from the vaccine-hesitant, we should wait for more scientific data before concluding that previous infection provides more protection than the vaccine? :)
After all, this whole thing has happened quite quickly.
After all, this whole thing has happened quite quickly.
The commenter stated that the vaccine had no benefit to previously infected. That is not true. From the article you reference:
"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated."
"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated."
At what cost? What is the risk vs benefit for this particular scenario?
Yes agreed, but the benefits appear to be insignificant relative to the benefits of giving that vaccine dose to an immunologically naive or otherwise vulnerable individual.
Maybe those who disagree with you think that you should make a more subtle argument. For those who are convalescent, the risk / benefit ratio of the vaccine is very different than for someone who is immunologically naive. And, to my knowledge, the vaccines have not been carefully validated in a convalescent population, on the same level as the clinical trials on which their efficacy estimates are founded. The idea of getting an illness and then immediately double vaccinating oneself against it should give any rational person pause. This is at very least marginally beneficial, and at worst downright risky. A single dose might make sense, but there should be no rush to apply one.
The chance of an otherwise healthy COVID-19 convalescent person ending up hospitalized from reinfection appears to be almost immeasurably low. But the risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine is low but not immeasurable. And it could be worse for someone whose immune system is primed against the vaccine, but that's also not clear.
The chance of an otherwise healthy COVID-19 convalescent person ending up hospitalized from reinfection appears to be almost immeasurably low. But the risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine is low but not immeasurable. And it could be worse for someone whose immune system is primed against the vaccine, but that's also not clear.
Yes the lack of significant benefit from vaccinating individuals who have already acquired immunity has direct implications for public health policy. It’s not an efficient use of limited vaccine doses, especially when many vulnerable or immunologically naive people around the world have not received even one dose. These factors need to be considered because they could help reduce the total mortality from this pandemic [1].
[1] Model-informed COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies by age and serostatus https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/371/6532/916.full...
[1] Model-informed COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies by age and serostatus https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/371/6532/916.full...
Not true. Vaccinated and previously infected people are much less likely to be reinfected than unvaccinated previously infected. Here is a recent study:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
Reinfection was twice as likely among unvaccinated previously infected. The more recent data includes the effects of the delta variant. So, the risk of Covid is much higher and the risk of adverse effects are approximately zero for getting the vaccine.
Note that I am not commenting on vaccine prioritization and allocation, just the assertion of the post that vaccination has no benefit to previously infected people.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
Reinfection was twice as likely among unvaccinated previously infected. The more recent data includes the effects of the delta variant. So, the risk of Covid is much higher and the risk of adverse effects are approximately zero for getting the vaccine.
Note that I am not commenting on vaccine prioritization and allocation, just the assertion of the post that vaccination has no benefit to previously infected people.
>risk of Covid is much higher and the risk of adverse effects are approximately zero for getting the vaccine.
Where is your data for this?
What is the risk of a naturally immune person catching Covid, and being either a)symptomatic, b)hospitalized, or c)killed?
How does this risk compare to the risk of a serious adverse event or long-term consequence such as autoimmune disease from the vaccine in a healthy young man?
Where is your data for this?
What is the risk of a naturally immune person catching Covid, and being either a)symptomatic, b)hospitalized, or c)killed?
How does this risk compare to the risk of a serious adverse event or long-term consequence such as autoimmune disease from the vaccine in a healthy young man?
You asserted that there was no benefit to getting the vaccine for previously infected. I pointed you to a reference that shows that that is not true. The original article to which we are all responding pointed out the minuscule levels of risk associated with getting the vaccine.
With respect to autoimmune disease, I think we are seeing that long covid is becoming a significant health concern among even healthy young people with only a mild response to Covid infection. Here is an example article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-vaccines-do-their-work-focus...
Relevant quote: "Long Covid—a term referring to symptoms that linger for weeks or months beyond infection—affects between 10% and 30% of people who catch the virus, including those with mild or asymptomatic infections, according to experts. In some cases, symptoms persist for more than a year."
At any rate, I imagine none of this will persuade you, so I simply wish you good luck and hope you remain healthy. My strongest hope is that things can improve enough that we can all go back to arguing about linux user interface schemes.
With respect to autoimmune disease, I think we are seeing that long covid is becoming a significant health concern among even healthy young people with only a mild response to Covid infection. Here is an example article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-vaccines-do-their-work-focus...
Relevant quote: "Long Covid—a term referring to symptoms that linger for weeks or months beyond infection—affects between 10% and 30% of people who catch the virus, including those with mild or asymptomatic infections, according to experts. In some cases, symptoms persist for more than a year."
At any rate, I imagine none of this will persuade you, so I simply wish you good luck and hope you remain healthy. My strongest hope is that things can improve enough that we can all go back to arguing about linux user interface schemes.
I would like to point out that long-term effects are a possible outcome in many types of flu, not just covid ex. [1][2]. Given the combination of relatively short timeframe for covid studies, the unknown complications of living in lockdowns, and the general "don't care" attitude toward these effects in previous flus, the whole "Long Covid" story at least seems rather overblown.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17497-6
[2] https://www.labmate-online.com/news/chromatography/1/breakin...
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17497-6
[2] https://www.labmate-online.com/news/chromatography/1/breakin...
As someone who is close to a person who suffers from an infection triggered autoimmune condition that has led to severe and long term neurological effects, I would agree that conditions similar to long covid have been occurring for quite a while. However, just because they have been ignored does not mean they aren't real and that the issue is "overblown." While I take no joy from the suffering of others, having more attention being paid to this very real and at times devastating condition is one of the few upsides of the virus.
> How does this risk compare to the risk of a serious adverse event or long-term consequence such as autoimmune disease from the vaccine in a healthy young man?
Where is your data that serious adverse effects are even possible beyond an absurdly tiny statistic?
And how does that compare to the risk of a break-through re-infection and the well documented long-term health issues people have developed with Covid?
Don't talk like the data is on your side when it isn't. You are being childish. Full stop.
Where is your data that serious adverse effects are even possible beyond an absurdly tiny statistic?
And how does that compare to the risk of a break-through re-infection and the well documented long-term health issues people have developed with Covid?
Don't talk like the data is on your side when it isn't. You are being childish. Full stop.
See [1]. I'm sure you'll redefine "serious" however you want to try and retain your point. Which is, of course, childish as you say. Your comment here is disappointing. I'd expect you to actually do some research on your own before posting like this and making inflammatory statements.
[1] https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/vaccine-after-effects-more-co...
[1] https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/vaccine-after-effects-more-co...
The paper you cite describes them as mild. "...COVID-19 infection are almost twice as likely to experience one or more MILD whole body..."
So if I am taking the paper you cite as gospel, I would say they are mild as described. I think perhaps you are the one who needs to do a closer reading.
So if I am taking the paper you cite as gospel, I would say they are mild as described. I think perhaps you are the one who needs to do a closer reading.
We've given literally billions of vaccine doses at this point. The post-vaccination tracking has been able to pick up side-effects affecting 1/100k patients. Those side-effects have also been made public by the relevant authorities immediately when concerns were raised. This tracking has not produced any kind of evidence for auto-immune disease for the mRNA vaccines.
And no, it cannot be that the side-effects you're worried about haven't happened yet. If they happened, they'd happen within weeks of the vaccination.
Look, the position that you don't think the risk-reward ratio is good enough for somebody who has recovered is pretty reasonable. But for some reason you're not satisfied with that, and are instead making factually incorrect statements both about the benefits and the risks. That makes it pretty hard to believe you're actually making that argument in good faith.
And no, it cannot be that the side-effects you're worried about haven't happened yet. If they happened, they'd happen within weeks of the vaccination.
Look, the position that you don't think the risk-reward ratio is good enough for somebody who has recovered is pretty reasonable. But for some reason you're not satisfied with that, and are instead making factually incorrect statements both about the benefits and the risks. That makes it pretty hard to believe you're actually making that argument in good faith.
> And no, it cannot be that the side-effects you're worried about haven't happened yet. If they happened, they'd happen within weeks of the vaccination.
What evidence is there of this?
What evidence is there of this?
That CDC report is very careful to word its abstract to hide that the findings are from a very small group of people (a whopping 50 fully vaccinated) without even mentioning overall immunity levels across the general population. I'm not arguing that vaccine + natural antibodies aren't more effective - they are - but you're going to have to do a lot better than that to justify wanting to vaccinate everyone who's already been infected despite the known risks [1].
[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.29.21250653v...
[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.29.21250653v...
GP was referencing this study [0] when claiming "Reinfection was twice as likely among unvaccinated previously infected".
That CDC study has a relatively small sample size (N=738) and uses data from a single state during a 2-month period. The confidence interval on the "2.34" odds ratio is large (95% CI = 1.58–3.47). Most importantly, a tremendous amount of literature contradicts those findings.
Nearly every large scale and long term serological study has demonstrated that immunity acquired through previous infection is at least equally effective as vaccination in preventing reinfection. I have yet to see any CDC publication that acknowledges or cites these reputable findings. Why is that?
- A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. [1] (N=25,661)
- In conclusion, documented SARS-CoV-2 reinfections were exceedingly rare, with an incidence of 0.3 infections for every 1000 persons-week, and none were severe. Seroconversion after symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection seems to be associated with a 10-fold reduction in risk of successive viral infection contamination, lasting at least 8 months. [2] (N=1,494)
- The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies. [3] (N=15,075)
- Reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months. [4] (N=192,967)
- The degree of protection (10-fold) associated with seropositivity appears to be comparable to that observed in the initial reports of the efficacy of mRNA vaccines in large clinical trials. [5] (N=3,257,478)
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/
[2] Risk of Reinfection After Seroconversion to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Population-based Propensity-score Matched Cohort Study https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
[3] Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
[4] SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...
[5] Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
That CDC study has a relatively small sample size (N=738) and uses data from a single state during a 2-month period. The confidence interval on the "2.34" odds ratio is large (95% CI = 1.58–3.47). Most importantly, a tremendous amount of literature contradicts those findings.
Nearly every large scale and long term serological study has demonstrated that immunity acquired through previous infection is at least equally effective as vaccination in preventing reinfection. I have yet to see any CDC publication that acknowledges or cites these reputable findings. Why is that?
- A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. [1] (N=25,661)
- In conclusion, documented SARS-CoV-2 reinfections were exceedingly rare, with an incidence of 0.3 infections for every 1000 persons-week, and none were severe. Seroconversion after symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection seems to be associated with a 10-fold reduction in risk of successive viral infection contamination, lasting at least 8 months. [2] (N=1,494)
- The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies. [3] (N=15,075)
- Reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months. [4] (N=192,967)
- The degree of protection (10-fold) associated with seropositivity appears to be comparable to that observed in the initial reports of the efficacy of mRNA vaccines in large clinical trials. [5] (N=3,257,478)
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/
[2] Risk of Reinfection After Seroconversion to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Population-based Propensity-score Matched Cohort Study https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
[3] Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
[4] SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...
[5] Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
There's always a risk-benefit calculation, depending on the person and their medical status it might not be worth it (for that person) to get vaccinated if they already had the disease. Of course for the society as a whole there might be big benefits even if some of these people stand to loose their health or even their life as with the Astra vaccine and the atypical blood clots.
There's a study out of Israel that say the exact opposite
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...
This isn't something that can just be hand-waved way
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...
This isn't something that can just be hand-waved way
No, the Israel study is vaccinated vs previously infected. The study I pointed to was vaccinated and previously infected vs only previously infected. I was responding to an assertion that vaccination offers no benefit to the previously infected. The article you reference confirms the point I made. Here is the quote from the article:
"Giving a single shot of the vaccine to those who had been previously infected also appeared to boost their protection."
"Giving a single shot of the vaccine to those who had been previously infected also appeared to boost their protection."
I thought you were talking about only previous infection versus vaccinated, my mistake
How good and available is the testing to prove you have natural immunity?
Antibody tests are instant and widely available. These tests are (I believe) what the natural immunity studies use to establish history of prior infection.
Detractors will say that there is no established level of antibodies that means "immunity."
Ironically, it is declining antibodies though (and no set threshold) that is being used to justify "booster" jabs around the world!
Detractors will say that there is no established level of antibodies that means "immunity."
Ironically, it is declining antibodies though (and no set threshold) that is being used to justify "booster" jabs around the world!
Far from that clear cut, other results show booster shots on top of previous infection perform better than just natural immunity - and we will see how the longevity of both works out with future data, and can adjust accordingly. (and e.g. the current policy here in Germany: immunity counts for X (I think 6) months, afterwards a single booster shot counts as fully vaccinated.)
[deleted]
> For some people, it’s not so much the known risks that have them worried as the unknown. They ask, What if the mRNA vaccines alter our DNA, threatening our health far in the future? Will they affect our bodies in other, as yet undiscovered, ways? After all, some say, this is brand-new technology, and the F.D.A. has only fully approved the Pfizer vaccine.
> As it turns out, though, mRNA technology isn’t especially new. Scientists have been developing it since the nineteen-nineties.
A lot of the anti-vaxxer claims about mRNA vaccines are incredulous, but this common approach to dismissing concerns about them is a bit disingenuous and not very convincing.
Yes, mRNA technology has been in development for decades. So what? We went from having 0 mRNA vaccines in use to injecting hundreds of millions of people around the world with them all at once.
The sales pitch: if enough people get vaccinated, we'll stop the spread of the virus and life can return to normal.
The reality: people fully vaccinated less than a year ago are becoming infected, with the data showing clearly in the case of Delta that vaccinated people have similar viral loads to unvaccinated people and can spread the virus to others too. Now we're being told that we'll have to have booster shots, perhaps as soon as every 5-6 months, something that we don't do for any other disease.
I'm fully vaccinated with Pfizer and not particularly concerned about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects, but to pretend that what we're doing really isn't novel is far from convincing and I think arguments along these lines are having the opposite of the intended effect.
> As it turns out, though, mRNA technology isn’t especially new. Scientists have been developing it since the nineteen-nineties.
A lot of the anti-vaxxer claims about mRNA vaccines are incredulous, but this common approach to dismissing concerns about them is a bit disingenuous and not very convincing.
Yes, mRNA technology has been in development for decades. So what? We went from having 0 mRNA vaccines in use to injecting hundreds of millions of people around the world with them all at once.
The sales pitch: if enough people get vaccinated, we'll stop the spread of the virus and life can return to normal.
The reality: people fully vaccinated less than a year ago are becoming infected, with the data showing clearly in the case of Delta that vaccinated people have similar viral loads to unvaccinated people and can spread the virus to others too. Now we're being told that we'll have to have booster shots, perhaps as soon as every 5-6 months, something that we don't do for any other disease.
I'm fully vaccinated with Pfizer and not particularly concerned about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects, but to pretend that what we're doing really isn't novel is far from convincing and I think arguments along these lines are having the opposite of the intended effect.
There's one really simple, mechanical principle at work here. If you get an mRNA shot your body will generate a snippet of spike protein which your immune system will learn to attack and destroy. If you get a live sars2-cov virus, your body will also generate that protein, but orders of magnitude more of it and without automatically ceasing generation once the original mRNA breaks down... because the virus generates more mRNA. Your immune system will also learn to attack it but by the time it does the virus may be dozens of generations of exponential growth in which means there is simply so much to attack by that point that you will never generate enough antibodies before it overwhelms you.
The only argument for not getting the vaccine would be if you thought you had a better than average chance of never encountering the live virus. If given a choice between a vax and the live virus, no sane person would choose the live virus.
So everything else here is BS. People don't want to get the vaccine because they're scared. I understand that. But the probability of them encountering the virus is so high that taking the vaccine is clearly orders of magnitude less risky than not doing so, since in both cases you almost certainly will end up with the spike protein in your system and the only decision you really have is whether that will be self-administered and self-limiting, or wild and replicating uncontrolledly.
The only argument for not getting the vaccine would be if you thought you had a better than average chance of never encountering the live virus. If given a choice between a vax and the live virus, no sane person would choose the live virus.
So everything else here is BS. People don't want to get the vaccine because they're scared. I understand that. But the probability of them encountering the virus is so high that taking the vaccine is clearly orders of magnitude less risky than not doing so, since in both cases you almost certainly will end up with the spike protein in your system and the only decision you really have is whether that will be self-administered and self-limiting, or wild and replicating uncontrolledly.
It's not really that simple. First of all, "the orders of magnitude" claim is not supported by anything I've seen, care to provide your source? Then there is an issue of what cells are affected. We know that the virus binds only to a certain receptor, which exists only on some cells. What about the vaccine's "lipid particles", do they bind to receptors at all? I also could not find any reliable information on these particle mechanism of action, which I imagine is natural as this is the trade secret of the vaccine manufacturers so we don't know if these affect the same cells the virus does. I for one rather sacrifice a few billion of epithelial cells to the virus than 1/1000th of this number in the brain neurons to the vaccine because neurons are probably not going to regenerate while the epithelium constantly regenerates.
From an engineering standpoint, it's just obvious that something generating a few million partial spike protein snippets originating in your deltoid muscle - even if some get into your blood or lymphatic system - is still a lot less dangerous than uncontrolled replication of billions of spike + whole viruses running wild around your body. Sure, either one could end up damaging your brain if it got through the blood/brain barrier. There's some evidence that vax-induced spike proteins have been found 30 days later in the bloodstream. Nonetheless, compared with the onslaught of that same protein you'd get from a live virus, it's the better of two bad options.
I do not understand this standpoint. I am an engineer myself and when I compare two numbers I calculate both numbers and not just wave my hands. I don't know how to calculate either number in this case. Where did you get the "few million"? How come the vaccine causes myocarditis and thrombosis, both outside the deltoid muscle, where you said it's contained? How could the virus end damaging my brain, are you really sure there are ACE2 receptors in the brain neurons?
> not particularly concerned about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects
We don't know the long-term effects of corona or corona vaccines on the female reproductive system, especially eggs.
Considering that if eggs are attacked, that's the end of us, so we should learn more and fast.
We don't know the long-term effects of corona or corona vaccines on the female reproductive system, especially eggs.
Considering that if eggs are attacked, that's the end of us, so we should learn more and fast.
More than likely Covid-19 will have the same long term side effects of any other Coronavirus or the Flu. None of the long term side effects seem particularly surprising, other than they are publicized more.
More than likely Covid-19 viral vector vaccine's (Johnson and Johnson) or Live-attenuated vaccines will have the same long term side effects of any other vaccine in these categories.
More than likely Covid-19 viral vector vaccine's (Johnson and Johnson) or Live-attenuated vaccines will have the same long term side effects of any other vaccine in these categories.
> Yes, mRNA technology has been in development for decades. So what? We went from having 0 mRNA vaccines in use to injecting hundreds of millions of people around the world with them all at once.
IMO their argument works against them: Three decades of nothing, then two at once from different companies? What's the catch?
IMO their argument works against them: Three decades of nothing, then two at once from different companies? What's the catch?
One is far less concerned regarding the vaccine (succesful two-shot Pfizer here) than the Orwellian, totalitarian precedent set.
What, if anything, is the limiting principle to the controlling urge?
What, if anything, is the limiting principle to the controlling urge?
Given the responses to this article and the general level of education among the HN crowd, I hope everyone is ready for another year of this crap.
If we can’t convince this crowd to get fully vaccinated, we stand no chance of stopping this pandemic until it’s finished it’s natural and brutal course.
If we can’t convince this crowd to get fully vaccinated, we stand no chance of stopping this pandemic until it’s finished it’s natural and brutal course.
> Given the responses to this article and the general level of education among the HN crowd,
Yeah.
I expect that the "level of education" is part of the problem here. So many "i yam very smart, I thinks different" people who don't know how far out of their lane of competence they are now. Sadly the contrarian impulse leads them into traps that others have set.
Yeah.
I expect that the "level of education" is part of the problem here. So many "i yam very smart, I thinks different" people who don't know how far out of their lane of competence they are now. Sadly the contrarian impulse leads them into traps that others have set.
[deleted]
I feel that articles like this one are much closer to propaganda than to any explanation of science.
1. In comparing risks of adverse effects of drugs with those of covid vaccines the author is missing a big point. Namely, medications are given to help patients (i.e. already sick people) or prophylactically to people in serious risk of developing an illness. Covid vaccines have been given and continue to be given to perfectly healthy people who are in minimal risk. Now, other vaccines we do administer to healthy people, so a more proper comparison would be between other vaccines - but, while I don't have any data to quote, I believe you'll find significant higher risks of adverse effects from the covid vaccines than from previous vaccines.
2. > And the principles behind it [mRNA technology] are startlingly simple and elegant.
Now this is quite problematic the way I see it. First off, I have a medical degree and I find the technology incredibly complex. Secondly, the author uses "simplicity" as a crutch to support her argument further down that since mRNA translation happens outside the nucleus (where the DNA is) there is in no way any interaction between DNA and mRNA.
I'm not saying that the mRNA vaccines alter our DNA; I wouldn't know. I do know there are a couple of ways - at least - that mRNA can go back to DNA (retrotransposons for example). But, I also believe that when developing the technology, issues like this have been given serious thought by smarter and more knowledgeable people than me. That, however, doesn't take away the fact that the author is omitting quite a lot in order to present a nicer, simpler picture of reality. Well, that's quite close to lying in my book.
These two issues at least stood out for me. I'm not "anti-vaccine", I'm just "anti-bullshitting". And no, even if you have the best intentions in mind, it's still very much bullshit.
edit: minor layout edits
1. In comparing risks of adverse effects of drugs with those of covid vaccines the author is missing a big point. Namely, medications are given to help patients (i.e. already sick people) or prophylactically to people in serious risk of developing an illness. Covid vaccines have been given and continue to be given to perfectly healthy people who are in minimal risk. Now, other vaccines we do administer to healthy people, so a more proper comparison would be between other vaccines - but, while I don't have any data to quote, I believe you'll find significant higher risks of adverse effects from the covid vaccines than from previous vaccines.
2. > And the principles behind it [mRNA technology] are startlingly simple and elegant.
Now this is quite problematic the way I see it. First off, I have a medical degree and I find the technology incredibly complex. Secondly, the author uses "simplicity" as a crutch to support her argument further down that since mRNA translation happens outside the nucleus (where the DNA is) there is in no way any interaction between DNA and mRNA.
I'm not saying that the mRNA vaccines alter our DNA; I wouldn't know. I do know there are a couple of ways - at least - that mRNA can go back to DNA (retrotransposons for example). But, I also believe that when developing the technology, issues like this have been given serious thought by smarter and more knowledgeable people than me. That, however, doesn't take away the fact that the author is omitting quite a lot in order to present a nicer, simpler picture of reality. Well, that's quite close to lying in my book.
These two issues at least stood out for me. I'm not "anti-vaccine", I'm just "anti-bullshitting". And no, even if you have the best intentions in mind, it's still very much bullshit.
edit: minor layout edits
> Now this is quite problematic the way I see it. First off, I have a medical degree and I find the technology incredibly complex. Secondly, the author uses "simplicity" as a crutch to support her argument further down that since mRNA translation happens outside the nucleus (where the DNA is) there is in no way any interaction between DNA and mRNA.
If someone is concerned about this they are either ignorant of how mRNA viruses such as SARS-COV-2 (and every "cold" and flu virus) reproduce or have to explain away how having a fixed amount of vaccine mRNA translation is bad, but having an unlimited amount of SARS-COV-2 translation (including those same spike proteins) is fine. This is a process that has happened literally billions, if not trillions, of times in every single HN readers body with other viruses not some exotic thing.
If someone is concerned about this they are either ignorant of how mRNA viruses such as SARS-COV-2 (and every "cold" and flu virus) reproduce or have to explain away how having a fixed amount of vaccine mRNA translation is bad, but having an unlimited amount of SARS-COV-2 translation (including those same spike proteins) is fine. This is a process that has happened literally billions, if not trillions, of times in every single HN readers body with other viruses not some exotic thing.
I have a genuine question here, that I've tried to find the answer to before and struggled to get good data on. I'd really like to understand the actual size of dosages that you get from both the vaccines and different kinds of viral infections, in comparable units. For example a table mapping viral load in PCR cycle thresholds to microgram dosages of the different brands of vaccines.
The assertion that the vaccines give you way less mRNA / cell death than the actual virus sounds like it should obviously be true, but I can't find any papers that measure it, and I keep encountering people for whom the vaccine appeared to actually give them COVID for a day or two. I've also known people who had COVID naturally and whose symptoms and duration was pretty much the same as those people reporting bad side effects from the vaccines, which I'd guess is somewhere between 25%-50% of people taking it, judging from my social circle, but it's hard to know exactly.
The best info I could get is that dosages were obtained by simply starting really low and then steadily increasing it until antibody titers were high "enough" and side effects were still considered tolerable. However the dosages of some brands are much higher than others. At that point information became proprietary and I couldn't go further. Still, given the wide range of severities of infections it's not totally clear why this process was expected to yield a drastically lower dose than all possible viral infections.
The assertion that the vaccines give you way less mRNA / cell death than the actual virus sounds like it should obviously be true, but I can't find any papers that measure it, and I keep encountering people for whom the vaccine appeared to actually give them COVID for a day or two. I've also known people who had COVID naturally and whose symptoms and duration was pretty much the same as those people reporting bad side effects from the vaccines, which I'd guess is somewhere between 25%-50% of people taking it, judging from my social circle, but it's hard to know exactly.
The best info I could get is that dosages were obtained by simply starting really low and then steadily increasing it until antibody titers were high "enough" and side effects were still considered tolerable. However the dosages of some brands are much higher than others. At that point information became proprietary and I couldn't go further. Still, given the wide range of severities of infections it's not totally clear why this process was expected to yield a drastically lower dose than all possible viral infections.
Oh - so inflammation of the heart is not at thing anymore? Great. #science
- Role of age, fitness and comorbidities in risk/benefit analysis - Lack of trust in institutions (suppression of alternative views; capture/corruption)
Another question is who New Yorker can reach, I won't be surprised that ~95% of their audience are already vaccinated. And remaining 5% holdouts are well-informed and would need way better arguments.