Comment by JPKab | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JPKab | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The public health authorities won't be honest about any of this. Anytime the choice is between controlling the behavior of stupid people vs. telling the public the truth, they choose the former every time.

"Organic immunity"? You mean that thing that the public health authorities are pretending doesn't exist, therefore requiring me, a person who caught, tested positive, and recovered from COVID in February to get vaccinated? Yeah, let me know when they stop pretending. I'm willing to get a vaccine, but annoyed because it has no benefit for me and only risk (albeit low).

Edit:

Downvote all you want, but I was a teen in the 90s when the public health authorities pretended like heterosexuals engaging in standard sexual activities were at equal risk of catching HIV compared to IV drug users and gay men. They weren't remotely at the same risk, by orders of magnitude. They wanted to promote safe sex and abstinence in teens and young people, which is a good thing, but they didn't hesitate to use the fear of HIV as a tool to (dishonestly) achieve that goal.

People with long COVID symptoms have recovered after taking the vaccine. This is hypothesized to be due to persistent viral reservoirs, viral fragments, or an autoimmune response.

We don't know how the vaccine would improve things for people without visible long covid symptoms, but it is likely to help.

Also immune response improves after a vaccine just as it improves after a second shot.

There are risks, there might not be benefits for you, but there are definitely benefits to taking the vaccine for people who recovered.

One added note on "long covid":

I think a lot of sufferers of it are psychosomatic. The demographic for long covid doesn't match the demographic of those who are most at risk of the virus or get the worst symptoms. Instead, it matches the demographic most likely to complain about symptoms from other diseases that have attracted large numbers of sufferers, only to have most of them disappear when the disease became less trendy: Fibromyalgia and gluten intolerance, who had massive spikes in patients claiming to have the diseases, and suddenly big drop offs, for lifelong illnesses that don't go away. These patients tended to be affluent, white, middle-age women, who are not remotely the most at risk from covid, but are disproportionate in claiming long covid.

The vaccine probably has a placebo effect on these kinds of folks. Underestimating the full power of psychosomatic driven symptoms is a big problem. The mind can really make the body sick, and there's a lot of science backing this up.

I should specify that i don't think this is voluntary, or humans wanting attention. I think it's induced by excessive fear-based media and the subconscious, combined with the huge evolutionary advantage of the mind having the ability to induce vomiting if other tribe members who have eaten contaminated food begin getting sick.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23851-what-if-your-gl...

If their symptoms are psychosomatic, but the vaccine cures those symptoms through the placebo effect, then what's the problem? They were genuinely suffering, and now they're not: the vaccine cured their long covid.

Probably better to give them a placebo vaccine so we don't waste the good stuff ;)

Given that lung scans of people with long-COVID show scar tissue, I doubt it's entirely psychosomatic. Given that lung damage has appeared even in outwardly asymptomatic carriers, it seems likely that that damage shows up more in people who, knowing they are less likely to die, take more risks.

That’s not the case in general. The CBC in Canada has run multiple article about long Covid and state again and again “doctors have said all the tests come back negative, nothing is wrong with them”.

I mean, you're looking at Canada. Look at the BBC and Oxford's xenon based scans that are in fact detecting the damage.

That’s experimental and has been done on a pretty small group of patients. It would still need to validated before it can be used as a diagnostic.

A very valid point. There have been quite a few conflicting reports, especially on long term lung damage. It may be too early to make definitive statements. Certainly it seems likely enough that some long term consequences exist, enough that it worries me.

Good to know. That helps me knowing that there are benefits rather than having it essentially being a placebo.

Can you provide links to any peer reviewed scientific literature on the benefits of the vaccine for recovered individuals? I don't trust any of the journalism on this, considering that they are universally scientifically and statistically illiterate clickbait producers these days.

You're also getting immunity to variants that you haven't caught. Vaccines have been proven to confer some immunity, and less dire infections to those who do get it. Having previously caught it doesn't seem to, especially the Brazillian variant.

This seems like the most logical argument to me. His body may have deteremine and locked on to some other protein in whatever variant infected him rather than the one targeted by the vaccines that I believe all 3 currently approved vaccines go after.

You can find some preliminary work on this thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1371226482... and you can follow the professor for the latest updates.

I have two friends who got covid twice. One had it first in July and then in January. Second one was brutal, maybe b/c it was likely the Brazilian strand, or maybe because the second time your lungs are still recovering. Who knows.

But I would advise you to take it.

Statistically, they likely had a false positive the first test. Columbia University commissioned a study on 50k people in Qatar (covid spread was rampant there) who were confirmed positive, and after 7 months, catching and recovering from it provided immunity at a threshold exceeding the Pfizer vaccine.

Yes, there are people who have caught it twice. They are rare, and the paper highlighted that a likely explanation was false positives in the original testing.

I'll take the vaccine, but shouldn't be required to.

It was not a rapid test; he got two positive PCR tests paid by his employer.

Mind you, this is in Perú (he works at a mining firm) which was hit really hard in July and then now (one of the hardest per capita deaths).

Also, the Qatar study might not say much about the newer strands

There are benefits for recovering patients to get a single shot.

First, it seems that natural immunity is a bit inferior to the mRNA vaccines ('only' 80% protection for people at your age[0]). Second, a single shot offers better protection against the SA variant which can apparently escape the immune reaction of some people who were previously ill[1]. A second shot is apparently unnecessary[2].

Local guideline is to wait a few months following recovery (there are concerns a too early vaccination will lead to immune overreaction) and then get a single shot.

[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

[1] https://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/health/new-sa-covid-19-varia...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/people-who-had-covid-19-need...

No one is expecting you to get a vaccine, just don't expect to be able to fly in a couple of months if you don't have a vaccine card or be allowed in certain establishments. It's your body, your choice, but you also have to live with the ramifications of your choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com