nojokes

The vaccination has reduces community spread but in much lower rate because of prolonged close contact. There is much lower amount of infectious virions compared to somebody without previous immunity and the period of being infectious is reduced.

Still breakthrough infections can infect somebody, especially somebody without previous immunity and nobody should rely on somebodies else immunity for their own security.

I am from EU where previous infection is somewhat recognized. If the discussion is about why convalescents are not equally recognized, I am for it.

If the discussion is about not vaccinating and promoting natural immunity as the solution to end the pandemic then I must note that this has been tried and it failed.

We got delta, gamma and lambda from it and now omicron. Natural immunity did not end pandemic, it has prolonged it greatly.

Saying natural immunity is best is really not smart. This means that you must get sick to acquire it and possibly really sick. This is exactly what vaccines are trying to avoid.

In principle it is smart to prime your immune system with a vaccine. Then if you get still sick, you will mostly gain benefits from natural immunity.

There are still risks involved because instead of single protein in fixed configuration you will get 29 of them in bioactive forms but at least you have greatly reduced your risk.

I am not sure how people do not have even slightest intuition about overdosing something. There are quite strict limits to everyday over the counter medicine. For example you should not take more than 1000 mg of paracetamol at time and not more than 4000 mg a day. Would the same people who think that it is normal to take 5 times in a row the dosage that is mostly prescribed for several months also take 20000 mg of paracetamol when somebody claims that it will cure covid?

You are mistaken, it just wants to spread more. Being a 2 times more deadly for being 100 times more transmissible would be not big tradeoff in evolution. It happened with delta, I can happen again.

Dr Campbell can explains some difficult research papers fairly well but he has one major shortcoming - he does not explain study limitations. For example he may say that this paper found that some drug works for something but he does not stress that it was in vitro study (in the lab) and this is very early to say if it even works when tested on animals. Even worse, he have done the same for results in silico i.e. computer simulations that are not even close to the real world.

I would be gladly happy when it works. This paper does not prove that it does. It is just another one in the list of badly designed and executed studies.

That you for this bit of information. There people did read suspicious.

If you had followed Marty Makary, you may have noticed that he clearly is propagating anti-vaccination talking points.

Like in the childhood, right? It is very likely how it works with other disease that is constantly surrounding us and how we can tolerate many previously deadly epidemic pathogens.

Still the research has displayed that almost any viral infection has undesirable outcomes in the long run so it would make sense to try to avoid as many as possible.

I think dismissing natural immunity is direct reaction to the stupidity that emerged in beginning of the pandemic: great barrington declaration, Tegnell, UK initial response etc. We know how it worked out - a lot of people died, even worse virus variants appeared. It really did not work, it was not a solution.

But this handling of the issue made the things even worse because it gave fuel for the conspiracy theorists, quacks, pseudo medicine followers etc.

How it should have been handled? By acknowledging possibility that it will give good protection for reinfection and verifying it by studies and constantly verifying it for new variants, by giving convalescents similar treatment that has been given to vaccinated - these people have suffered enough, most likely they did not seek out the disease, they got bad luck, so let them be, by encouraging them still to get vaccinated to improve their likelihood to not catch it again, by explaining that seeking out virus is by any means is really not a good idea and can result in very bad outcomes. That is - treating people as they are not complete morons.

The situation in EU has been a little better. Here at least having confirmed infection has been recognized to provide limited time protection but there are still issues with this.

> we now know that there was minimal to zero medical benefit to me getting this vaccine

Actually the opposite is true.

Data from other countries shows that during the delta wave you had 2-3 times less change to catch it. Both risks very relatively low but yours was still better.

Now with omicron wave that has clear advantage to escape previous immune response, you still have similar advantage but convalescents without vaccination have much higher change to catch it than before. You are now dodging real bullets.

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28170099

You were absolutely correct there in your conclusion.

I believe that people are very reactive to so called natural immunity because of misguided suggestion at the beginning of epidemic to reach the herd immunity by mass infection.

We later wound out that many of those people were actually anti-vaxxers in disguise because they continue to suggest this even after we had vaccines available.

But don't be mad - you now have much better immunity against omicron.

I am sorry for your loss and it was shameful of your coworkers to treat you like this but you were right and you were actually much more protected than they were.

And it is still weak against omicron.

If it was just reaction to the spike protein then why is myocarditis more likely on the second vaccination?

I think it is therefore more likely that adaptive immune system is involved because it has ability to remember.

Now is it possible that spike protein itself or lipid shell is causing this based on incidence rate differences between 3 vaccines?

Hard to say.

The amount of spike protein produced is in correlation with amount of mRNA entering cells. The amount of mRNA entering cells is 3x higher with Moderna vaccine than with Pfizer vaccine and it appears that it is similar on both shots (first and second). But the amount of mRNA (converted from adenovirus DNA) entering cells with the second AZ shot is probably lower than on the first shot because there is also some immunity against the adenovirus and the dose size is the same.

This is in correlation with the amount of antibodies produced by these vaccines.

This is the not contradicting with the observation so far.

But it could be also lipid cell that has been found to cause inflammation. Considering the high amount of antibodies generated on the second vaccination, it is plausible that the lipid shells are not attacked by the immune system directly. But it might be possible that the cells are attacked after lipid shells have merged with their membranes.

There are few ways to find how what is most likely happening.

First is to hope that protein based vaccine from Novavax will be used by meaningful amount to detect proper incidence rates. When it is spike protein itself then we should see also high incidence rate on second vaccination.

The second option is to analyze mixed vaccinations where first vaccination was done with adenovirus vaccine and the second one with mRNA vaccine. It is not perfect setup but it might provide some additional information.

Third option is to use a mouse model similar to one in previous study where mouse were intravenously injected with mRNA vaccines. Repeat the study with mRNA vaccine, placebo (saline solution), dummy lipid shells and protein vaccines (might be necessary to do the study without and with the adjuvant).

If it was just reaction to the spike protein then why is myocarditis more likely on the second vaccination?

I think it is therefore more likely that adaptive immune system is involved because it has ability to remember.

Now is it possible that spike protein itself or lipid shell is causing this based on indicence rate differences between 3 vaccines?

Hard to say.

The amount of spike protein produced is in correlation with amount of mRNA entering cells. The amount of mRNA entering cells is 3x higher with Moderna vaccine than with Pfizer vaccine and it appears that it is similar on both shots (first and second). But the amount of mRNA (converted from adenovirus DNA) entering cells with the second AZ shot is probably lower than on the first shot because there is also some immunity against the adenovirus and the dose size is the same.

This is in correlation with the amount of antibodies produced by these vaccines.

This is the not contradicting with the observation so far.

But it could be also lipid cell that has been found to cause inflammation. Considering the high amount of antibodies generated on the second vaccination, it is plausible that the lipid shells are not attacked by the immune system directly. But it might be possible that the cells are attacked after lipid shells have merged with their membranes.

There are few ways to find how what is most likely happening.

First is to hope that protein based vaccine from Novavax will be used by meaningful amount to detect proper incidence rates. When it is spike protein itself then we should see also high incidence rate on second vaccination.

The second option is to analyze mixed vaccinations where first vaccination was done with adenovirus vaccine and the second one with mRNA vaccine. It is not perfect setup but it might provide some additional information.

Third option is to use a mouse model similar to one in previous study where mouse were intravenously injected with mRNA vaccines. Repeat the study with mRNA vaccine, placebo (saline solution), dummy lipid shells and protein vaccines (might be necessary to do the study without and with the adjuvant).

1) Sure, it is better, but it was not by much during delta wave when these decisions were made.

2) Well, if you are not clearly open about this, you are hurting the trust. People can be stupid but not this stupid that they do not understand that they are being manipulated.

If you want people to trust you, you have to be completely honest.

> because thats the only thing we are told to do.

No, this is the only thing we have at the moment that is working well enough against delta and omicron. We have to wait another 2 months at least to get omicron specific vaccines.

Current vaccines are incredibly good at reducing hospitalizations after booster. If everybody already had their booster, there would be nothing to have meaningful discussion about - there would be no meaningful stress on hospitals.

> Pfizers new antiviral drug with over 90% efficacy

Is there large enough supply of it? Is there enough diagnostic capacity to confirm the every potential case within 5 days range from symptoms onset? It is an answer but not definitely a simple answer. Also there are side effects of the drug and it is systemic, please do not forget that.

I completely welcome oral anti-virals and I hope these become a game changer.

> natural immunity

Natural immunity does not appear from thin air. How all the people who mention it seam to forget that you must have the infection with all its risks to acquire it? For me everyone that brings up "natural immunity" is automatically marked as "potentially as anti-vax weirdo who has very limited understanding of the situation and is highly biased and potentially completely crazy". Why? Because there is very high correlation between saying "natural immunity" and complete nonsense that follows and I must pay attention that conversation is continuing in good faith.

> The only political, myopic stance here is yours: “repeated boosters seem like the answer”.

There we go. GP especially mentioned that there is simple criteria - COVID19 damage prevented vs vaccine damage caused. If the vaccine causes more damage, we don't boost. If COVID19 causes more damage, we boost.

Latest study from Israel hints that current vaccine from Pfizer has reached its upper limit but that study was small and did not include the most vulnerable age groups and there is possible long term effect that is not counted in here because early UK study displayed that immunity against omicron from Pfizer vaccine wanes relatively quickly while the same from Moderna vaccine is more stable. So we actually do not know yet all the answers.

And it does not take into account omicron specific boosters that most likely will arrive a little late but perhaps not - omicron appears to be fairly resilient and there is at the moment very high probability of another variant emerging from it after it has entered India.

-------------

Now to the part of the comment that has more substance.

I am looking currently at data from one country (that I could not mention, sorry, I value my pseudo privacy here) that is comparing previous delta wave and current omicron wave.

It is stratified by vaccination status and previous infection. Completely naive are the baseline here. Fully vaccinated (by 2 doses) had about 2.25 times smaller infection rate during previous delta wave followed by convalescents who had about 4 times smaller infection rate than that.

Finally on about the same level were both boosted(one does after vaccination or infection) - about 3 times less than convalescents.

Yes, we knew this already way before that previous infection gives good immunity and boosting it improves it even more and it was not very amusing to follow this silly argument in US that felt completely political in nature.

In current wave double vaccinated are complete toast when we talk about infection rates. There is about 10% difference in infection rates (protection against hospitalization is still very, very good, mind you!). Immunity from previous infection is still better but the difference is much smaller - 15-20%.

There is now clear difference between boosted fully vaccinated and boosted convalescents - 50% in favor of fully vaccinated. Difference between convalescents and boosted convalescents is another 50%. In total there is about 3 times difference between naive and boosted fully vaccinated.

In addition the difference is growing because infection rates are rising at different speed, so I expect that difference at the top of the wave would be much more pronounced.

Having about 3 times smaller infection rates is not perfect situation but if we also take info account huge difference in hospitalization rates, there would be no epidemic to talk about if everyone was by now fully vaccinated and boosted (or previously infected and boosted by one dose).

Now would 4th dose make any meaningful difference at the moment? No idea, really. If everyone would get boosted by now, it would be great deal already. If the 4th does not reduce infection rates by much then it would probably not make much difference but it is too early to be too confident about this.

I personally do not think that there would be another booster with the same vaccine in this country.

Boosters are not currently around 6 months. Can you get second booster now? Nope, even when you got yours 6 months ago.

Pfizer CEO also for sure is well aware that his companies vaccine did not make any meaningful difference after 4th shot against omicron and better strategy would be to make a strain specific vaccine.

I am not sure if this could be feasible. Omicron pushed through the world like wildfire. There was no meaningful time to produce or even develop a vaccine before it was already everywhere and circulating deep in community.

Omicron was very different from the cluster of previous variants. When something pops up from another direction like this then there would be probably no meaningful time to react to it.

Perhaps a little too pessimistic view. Maybe set of multiple antigenes from the cluster outer ring does the job or a vaccine against inner machinery of the virus - this should be more stable in time.

Stats, stats, stats. Hospitalizations among people who got booster are incredibly low but meaningful difference appears from age of 50.

I previously made a "joke" in relation the same point - dying among people who have died from covid is lower than among vaccinated.

But I understand that this discussion comes up about restrictions - why are the convalescents not treated the same as vaccinate?

I think they should. Both should have about 4-5 months before getting a booster. ;)

I am sorry, it is not name calling, but specific term that describes specific people. When I say Nazis, it is not name calling when I mean Nazis and not somebody who I may think is like them. Or should I use another term when I speak about Germans belonging to German Nationalist Party?

I am not talking about people who prefer to not wear a mask when possible or who are afraid to vaccinate because they have heard too many fear stories about vaccines. I am talking about specific people who spread FUD about masks or vaccines. How should we call them?

I think these are precise enough terms and are well understood and widely accepted.

I have personally seen enough evidence that this kind of behavior is shared by the same people. I have also seen enough evidence to deduce that they will do exactly what I told that they will do.

Shall I not write about this prediction? Even when this is based on very specific observations about said people over longer period of time? I just do not want to put too many details about myself into public so that I could not be easily identified. I know that this does reduce my credibility though. I am sorry.

I understand that these are perhaps not a kind kind of terms and perhaps they do not like to be called like that but so did Nazis. I think it is not enough to stop using this term for them.

I tried to be terse because I tend to write too much. As we can see, in the end it did lead to even more words. I try to be more explanatory in the future such that there is less misunderstanding in my writing.

There is more nuance in this. It is possible that kids were important infection vector from the beginning but it was under tested. It can also be that the first variant of the virus really affected them less.

During the delta wave the school children were very important infection vector and controlling infection in schools (by rapid antigen tests) has played important role in controlling the epidemic.

It is also possible that containment of viral load was relatively sufficient before also with cloth masks but is not anymore with omicron because of even higher viral load it creates.

Vaccines still limit spread but by smaller degree and it has been possible to increase (no, especially increase, not restore) the control to higher level but even here we have limitations. We could not expect one vaccine to perfectly control the virus that has evolved too far.

And so on.

I trust science or more precisely the scientific process. I think it is the best tool that we have to finally come to closest to the truth.

But it does not mean that I take every preprint or even print as truth. Far from it and I believe all of us should stay sharp and critical.

It does not mean that I believe only published things that confirm my prejudice. No, I read what the study has actually done. How much can we conclude from it? What are its limitations?

I think too few popularizers of the science help people to understand the limitations of the science. It should be done more. I think it is the cornerstone of the science.

I am sorry, but I was factual. I am following social media very closely and this is how it will pan out based on my experience.

Can somebody please rephrase it in a way that will not violate the guidelines but stays factual?

I do not support forced actions like this but you appear to cite a source that is confirming that vaccines are effective.

What you are looking for is affinity maturation. On first exposure to the antigen the immune system will make low affinity antibodies i.e. simple ones that are fast to make but only stick to very specific part of the antigen. On subsequent exposures immune system will make more antibodies for different parts of the antigen so there is higher likelihood that they stick to a little altered antigen.

Denmark negative effectiveness is most likely explainable by few things. Delta (even that 10%) and omicron are spreading is slightly different populations (delta more in unvaccinated, omicron more in vaccinated), behavioral differences - while unvaccinated population can access everything, testing is a hassle and there might be some testing fatigue, Yule Simpson effect - as a whole there might be negative efficiency but if you look by subcomponents (for example by age), this will disappear.

The spike protein in vaccine is fixed in place by a clever RNA hack but the real one is oscillating randomly between closed and open position. In closed position (as in vaccines) it does not stick to the ACE2 receptor but it does in open position. This means that spike protein in vaccines is less bioactive and also antibodies developed against is are less dangerous because there is a immune mechanism that starts creating antibodies against antibodies (to get rid of the eventually - your body is not from rubber and can hold only limited amount of stuff and you get constantly different kind of stuff your immune system must fight off so there is not room for everything). Now the antibodies that for against antibodies that stick to the open spike protein can also stick to the ACE2 receptor i.e. your own cells and they are called autoantibodies what is kind of bad because they mark your own cells for destruction unnecessarily.

So the spike protein in vaccines is by design less dangerous but it does not necessarily mean that could not cause issues. This must be researched and verified.

My current pet theory is that the lipid shell is to blame for adverse effects because it is inflammatory. Being inflammatory is not bad by itself because it attracts immune reaction and makes production of antibodies more likely but it might cause problems in wrong places like in heart. It has been suspected that vaccines entering the venous blood stream because of faulty injection technique could be the cause but it has not been verified in humans.

I hope that you will see this reply.

The opposite of a child is an adult. An adult can understand a purpose of some measure and follows it without throwing a tantrum even when it is not most convenient.

I also find these masks very comfortable. Are you using FFP2 masks?

Right, those negative efficiency numbers that drive every anti-vaxxer crazy and anybody ignoring them like there is there nothing to see. Must be hard. It is right there.

Has it occurred to anybody that there really is nothing to see there? Can it for example be that delta and omicron are circulating in slightly different populations where omicron is more prevalent among vaccinated and delta among unvaccinated?

Or there could be some disparities in populations, for example young people not getting vaccinated but getting infected by delta instead of omicron not not getting infected because of some other measures like school antigen testing?

You can investigate this information https://covidtracker.fr/vaximpact/

It is mostly omicron in France by now.

Thank you for your kindness but it really would help if you could do something about toxic anti-vaxxer community forming here on HN. This is also destroying this place.

It worked fine till omicron. It was totally fine and kicked delta ass. But there are limits how much you could beat out of the immune system with the same vaccine. It is completely surprising we even got this far but delta was not that much different virus, just had higher viral load. Omicron is totally different https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/the-case-fo...

The fact that we can limits its transmission and reduce illness is a gift but really expecting current vaccines to do more is just too greedy.