21 ms·

This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author. People don’t get the vaccine strictly on the strength of the vaccine. It’s considering the risk

This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author. People don’t get the vaccine strictly on the strength of the vaccine. It’s considering the risk of getting COVID, understanding the long term side effects, and minimizing risk for those around you. It’s also about avoiding mutations of the virus as the higher availability of the virus only provides more opportunities for it to mutate into something more resistant or possessing other less desirable traits. I understand that the post goes into these types of details but with the proliferation of “I read the title so I read the article” types a much less clickbait title should have been chosen. This only vindicates people looking to confirm their biases and leaves out the nuance that is so important to science.

jlmorton 5y ago
What is the harm? "I'm very worried about getting Covid, but I'm also worried about the vaccine, so I'll get Covid to protect me against Covid?" This is an important public health topic to model how the pandemic proceeds as more and more are naturally infected.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- CyanLite2 5y ago
  Some folks are looking for any excuse to not get the vaccine.
  - polote 5y ago
    And so what ? We should lie so that they take it ?
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      You appear to believe it would be immoral to lie to people to get them to take the vaccine. I don't believe anti-vaxxers want to die from COVID. Is it not also immoral to allow people who don't wish to die to die needlessly? It would seem to be a "lesser of two evils" sort of situation, and, in that case, the harm of lying is probably less than the harm of allowing people to die senselessly.
      - sleavey 5y ago
        I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people. I suggest, if you are unfamiliar with his work, that you read up on Kant's categorical imperative, in particular his absolute prohibition against lying. He argues that lying, even noble lying, is bad because it dehumanises the ones being lied to. If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        > I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. Completely understandable, and, I agree. > I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people. Regarding "can always govern by telling the truth," that's demonstrably untrue. For instance, there is such a thing as classified information for a reason (that reason ostensibly being national security). Yes, this does get abused at times, but that's not an argument that the government should not classify any information. Given your reference to Kant, I don't necessarily expect you to find this persuasive, but, I wager many reasonable people would. > ...Kant's categorical imperative.... I am actually familiar, but I reject the logic of it. It's... well... too categorical. I can't accept a principle that forbids me to take an action that may save a life. For example, I would be prohibited from hiding someone in my home who's being pursued by people who want to kill them, if the pursuers asked me directly where that person was. > If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that. I agree with this, but I reject the idea that not following the categorical imperative at all times necessarily deprives anyone of any right.
        sleavey 5y ago
        The Murderer at the Door hypothetical is commonly mentioned in response to Kant, but I don't think this serves as reason to reject the overall thesis. Kant also said that there is no right for someone to obtain information from another against their will. You don't need to tell someone who comes to your house looking for someone they plan to harm that they are there. You simply tell them they have no right to know who is in your house, and that they should bugger off! In the context of the current discussion, the government doesn't have the moral duty to reply to requests for classified information, they simply say they cannot provide classified information. If the public are unsatisfied with that answer, they need to vote them out. Now I understand that, stretched to extremes, Kant's theory gets rather tricky to defend, such as a hypothetical situation of a Nazi coming to your house to ask if you are harbouring Jews he plans to kill. But Kant and others since have argued ways to deal with such situations too, though I must admit I haven't studied their arguments in detail and wouldn't do them justice to try to paraphrase. But I don't think we're really dealing with such a high stakes situation in the context of this discussion, so I think "lower order" arguments in favour of Kant (like mine) suffice. This is something I expect you'll disagree with given your response. Coming back to the original context of governments lying to people to get them to have vaccines: I think it's possible to do huge damage to public trust in government and science if lies are told for the (always subjective) "greater good", even if the immediate outcome is positive. Governments should understand Kant. P.S. thanks for your level headed response, it's refreshing and rare to see in threads that discuss COVID. P.P.S. sometimes it needs to be said explicitly: I am open to changing my views on this if I hear a convincing argument.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    I'm not sure the specific rationalizations are as relevant as the moral questions. Do individuals have a right to their own body? Does a collective or a technocrat have a right to coerce an individual into a medical procedure? If we answer "yes" to the second question, only then does it become relevant because we must next ask: Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line?
    - cogman10 5y ago
      > Do individuals have a right to their own body? Insofar as their rights don't impact the rights of others. Individuals have a right to drink alcohol. They do not have a right to then drive a car. Vaccination by mandate is an extension of that reasoning. You have a right not to get vaccinated, but you don't have a right to participate in the public. Because restricting public interaction is neigh impossible (Even with imprisonment) the lesser of the two evils is mandated vaccination. > Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line? Yes, communicable illnesses prevention. That's the line. It's something that seems to have been lost on the modern era. It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people with disease by force of government (but often just voluntarily). This notion that there is no public interest in disease prevention and instead it's a "individual choice" is modern. Likely due to the advances in medicine, ironically vaccination, that have weakened the effects of most diseases. I dislike this moral pearl clutching. Perhaps it's because I'm more morally a utilitarian. At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society to work in general. The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.
      - aww_dang 5y ago
        Thanks for your response. >It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions. There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise? >At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society... And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda. > The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths. I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  The heart of the issue, and the one we seem most unable to talk about productively is "I'm worried about the vaccine".
  - sjg007 5y ago
    In Minnesota 645k people had covid and 7k died. In contrast 3M are vaccinated and basically nobody has died from the vaccine. In the US 363M vaccine doses have been given and about 7k may have died from vaccination side effects vs 628k who have died from covid from covid. So the vaccine is safe and effective.
    - acituan 5y ago
      No one in this forum says otherwise. But you miss human emotions 101: If someone tells you they are worried about something, you don’t throw facts at them as the first thing. You ask them to tell more about their emotions, hear them and make them feel heard. They might as well be missing factual data (as the case with vaccine hesitating folks) but their emotions are real, and unless they are treated as a person they’d be close to influence because they are in a skeptic, anxious state to begin with. Often people barge in like performing an exorcism expecting the power of data compelling the “possessed” demonized other to the “light”. Such vilification is a self-fulfilling process.
      - sjg007 5y ago
        You are more likely to get hurt or die in car accident on the way to get your vaccine then from the vaccine itself. After that car accident when you are in the hospital recovering you will probably get covid there.
        acituan 5y ago
        I don't see the relevance of your point. Perhaps you replied to the wrong thread or misunderstood what you've read?
- deelowe 5y ago
  That's exactly it. Almost everyone in my immediate family is more concerned about getting the vaccine than they are covid. And this is AFTER someone in the family has died from it. It is extremely concerning how bad this has gotten. My own mother literally had a panic attack after getting her first shot. My kids' school administrators are making decisions based on these illogical conclusions. I have had school staff tell me that it's best that they all go ahead and get covid. They compared it to chicken pox parties from the 80s. When I mentioned shingles, they told me that was a different disease. I have an at risk child at home. My tolerance for stupidity is waning. I'm afraid the general publicly is woefully underequipped to engage in nuanced discussions around this topic. They need simple and clear instructions.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    I wish I was more surprised about how easily covid made people rationalize authoritarianism.
raffraffraff 5y ago
Yeah. Should be "If you survive covid 19, you will have greater immunity to covid that you would get from a vaccine"
- seoaeu 5y ago
  Pedantically, dying from covid makes it even less likely you'll catch it again... Really this is all just confusing what the actual goal is: to end the pandemic while minimizing death and suffering
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    Well, actually pedantic anti-vaxers would formulate it as "If you survive covid 19, you will have greater immunity to covid than you would get from surviving taking the vaccine"
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    >the actual goal is: to end the pandemic while minimizing death and suffering We can all agree we want less death and suffering. However, it isn't difficult to imagine that other goals may exist. "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world" - Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset
- koheripbal 5y ago
  This assumes the audience for this title are people that have not yet been infected. It could also apply, for example, to the hundreds of millions of people world wide who have already been infected. I don't think a fact should assume an audience.
  - raffraffraff 5y ago
    Yes, but strategically we should probably write headlines that be can't taken out of context to disingenuously argue that they "prove" that vaccines are worthless. Anyway, re-reading your point... My headline wasn't intended to be aimed at any person. It's a hypothetical statement about covid immunity level after surviving covid. Glad I didn't go into journalism.
roenxi 5y ago
Based on the number of deaths, a very large percentage of people have already had COVID. Given that there is a non-0% chance of death or harm from taking the vaccine, why should they then get vaccinated? They are already less of a risk to themselves and others than someone who has been vaccinated.
- gammarator 5y ago
  Serological tests have consistently shown that far fewer people have had COVID than have been vaccinated, for instance.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    What's a good source of those numbers?
    - nradov 5y ago
      https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... The CDC estimates that 36% of Americans have been infected.
- andybak 5y ago
  > why should they then get vaccinated? I haven't done the sums but I suspect the risk of harm from the vaccine is less than the benefits the vaccine gives (especially when you factor in the duration of protecection depending when you had Covid vs when you had the vaccine). I know people who've recovered from serious Covid and still got vaccinated. I would.
- tootie 5y ago
  RTFA > The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and then 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.
polote 5y ago
> a much less clickbait title should have been chosen It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact.
- andybak 5y ago
  Clickbait and truth are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would suggest that most clickbait is true.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic. Knowing that previously infected people maintain immunity high levels against variants is important for people making informed decisions about their situations. What GP is really worried about is this fact being misused to incentivize people NOT to get the vaccine.
    - andybak 5y ago
      I don't quite understand your point. GP said > It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact. And I was pointing out that this statement is based on flawed logic. I wasn't commenting on truth/falsehood or clickbait/non-clickbait. I'm just objecting to incorrectly reasoning from one to the other.
      - koheripbal 5y ago
        I agree that it can be both. In this case, imo, it is not both. This isn't clickbait because this fact is pertinent.
    - myko 5y ago
      > This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic. I don't disagree with it being relevant but if one reads just the title of this article and had previously been infected they may believe they do not need to be vaccinated, but that isn't the case. According to this study folks who were infected previously are more than 2x as likely to be reinfected than those who were previously infected and then vaccinated: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM63289&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2070%2C%20August%206%2C%202021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM63289 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
yodsanklai 5y ago
> 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.
- fncypants 5y ago
  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.
  - asah 5y ago
    +1 and an example would make your argument even more persuasive
  - walterbell 5y ago
    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.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    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.
  - Trumpi 5y ago
    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.
vmception 5y ago
> The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv Its very irresponsible, look at this nonsense masquarading as peer review of a preprint 24 hours ago Furthermore, getting a vaccine for last year’s ailment cannot be compared to this year’s ailment, although its obvious people dont really have a choice in the matter the study should at least lead with that. There will be delta specific vaccines soon, compare to natural immunity then.
switch007 5y ago
> People don’t get the vaccine strictly on the strength of the vaccine. It’s considering the risk of getting COVID, understanding the long term side effects, and minimizing risk for those around you. It’s also about avoiding mutations of the virus as the higher availability of the virus only provides more opportunities for it to mutate into something more resistant or possessing other less desirable traits. Erm everyone I know under 40 got it because of a huge marketing campaign, wanting to travel with as few restrictions as possible and not wanting a vaccine passport to party.

jlmorton 5y ago

What is the harm? "I'm very worried about getting Covid, but I'm also worried about the vaccine, so I'll get Covid to protect me against Covid?" This is an important public health topic to model how the pandemic proceeds as more and more are naturally infected.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CyanLite2 5y ago
Some folks are looking for any excuse to not get the vaccine.
- polote 5y ago
  And so what ? We should lie so that they take it ?
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    You appear to believe it would be immoral to lie to people to get them to take the vaccine. I don't believe anti-vaxxers want to die from COVID. Is it not also immoral to allow people who don't wish to die to die needlessly? It would seem to be a "lesser of two evils" sort of situation, and, in that case, the harm of lying is probably less than the harm of allowing people to die senselessly.
    - sleavey 5y ago
      I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people. I suggest, if you are unfamiliar with his work, that you read up on Kant's categorical imperative, in particular his absolute prohibition against lying. He argues that lying, even noble lying, is bad because it dehumanises the ones being lied to. If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        > I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. Completely understandable, and, I agree. > I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people. Regarding "can always govern by telling the truth," that's demonstrably untrue. For instance, there is such a thing as classified information for a reason (that reason ostensibly being national security). Yes, this does get abused at times, but that's not an argument that the government should not classify any information. Given your reference to Kant, I don't necessarily expect you to find this persuasive, but, I wager many reasonable people would. > ...Kant's categorical imperative.... I am actually familiar, but I reject the logic of it. It's... well... too categorical. I can't accept a principle that forbids me to take an action that may save a life. For example, I would be prohibited from hiding someone in my home who's being pursued by people who want to kill them, if the pursuers asked me directly where that person was. > If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that. I agree with this, but I reject the idea that not following the categorical imperative at all times necessarily deprives anyone of any right.
        sleavey 5y ago
        The Murderer at the Door hypothetical is commonly mentioned in response to Kant, but I don't think this serves as reason to reject the overall thesis. Kant also said that there is no right for someone to obtain information from another against their will. You don't need to tell someone who comes to your house looking for someone they plan to harm that they are there. You simply tell them they have no right to know who is in your house, and that they should bugger off! In the context of the current discussion, the government doesn't have the moral duty to reply to requests for classified information, they simply say they cannot provide classified information. If the public are unsatisfied with that answer, they need to vote them out. Now I understand that, stretched to extremes, Kant's theory gets rather tricky to defend, such as a hypothetical situation of a Nazi coming to your house to ask if you are harbouring Jews he plans to kill. But Kant and others since have argued ways to deal with such situations too, though I must admit I haven't studied their arguments in detail and wouldn't do them justice to try to paraphrase. But I don't think we're really dealing with such a high stakes situation in the context of this discussion, so I think "lower order" arguments in favour of Kant (like mine) suffice. This is something I expect you'll disagree with given your response. Coming back to the original context of governments lying to people to get them to have vaccines: I think it's possible to do huge damage to public trust in government and science if lies are told for the (always subjective) "greater good", even if the immediate outcome is positive. Governments should understand Kant. P.S. thanks for your level headed response, it's refreshing and rare to see in threads that discuss COVID. P.P.S. sometimes it needs to be said explicitly: I am open to changing my views on this if I hear a convincing argument.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  I'm not sure the specific rationalizations are as relevant as the moral questions. Do individuals have a right to their own body? Does a collective or a technocrat have a right to coerce an individual into a medical procedure? If we answer "yes" to the second question, only then does it become relevant because we must next ask: Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line?
  - cogman10 5y ago
    > Do individuals have a right to their own body? Insofar as their rights don't impact the rights of others. Individuals have a right to drink alcohol. They do not have a right to then drive a car. Vaccination by mandate is an extension of that reasoning. You have a right not to get vaccinated, but you don't have a right to participate in the public. Because restricting public interaction is neigh impossible (Even with imprisonment) the lesser of the two evils is mandated vaccination. > Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line? Yes, communicable illnesses prevention. That's the line. It's something that seems to have been lost on the modern era. It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people with disease by force of government (but often just voluntarily). This notion that there is no public interest in disease prevention and instead it's a "individual choice" is modern. Likely due to the advances in medicine, ironically vaccination, that have weakened the effects of most diseases. I dislike this moral pearl clutching. Perhaps it's because I'm more morally a utilitarian. At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society to work in general. The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      Thanks for your response. >It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions. There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise? >At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society... And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda. > The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths. I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.
Buttons840 5y ago
The heart of the issue, and the one we seem most unable to talk about productively is "I'm worried about the vaccine".
- sjg007 5y ago
  In Minnesota 645k people had covid and 7k died. In contrast 3M are vaccinated and basically nobody has died from the vaccine. In the US 363M vaccine doses have been given and about 7k may have died from vaccination side effects vs 628k who have died from covid from covid. So the vaccine is safe and effective.
  - acituan 5y ago
    No one in this forum says otherwise. But you miss human emotions 101: If someone tells you they are worried about something, you don’t throw facts at them as the first thing. You ask them to tell more about their emotions, hear them and make them feel heard. They might as well be missing factual data (as the case with vaccine hesitating folks) but their emotions are real, and unless they are treated as a person they’d be close to influence because they are in a skeptic, anxious state to begin with. Often people barge in like performing an exorcism expecting the power of data compelling the “possessed” demonized other to the “light”. Such vilification is a self-fulfilling process.
    - sjg007 5y ago
      You are more likely to get hurt or die in car accident on the way to get your vaccine then from the vaccine itself. After that car accident when you are in the hospital recovering you will probably get covid there.
      - acituan 5y ago
        I don't see the relevance of your point. Perhaps you replied to the wrong thread or misunderstood what you've read?
deelowe 5y ago
That's exactly it. Almost everyone in my immediate family is more concerned about getting the vaccine than they are covid. And this is AFTER someone in the family has died from it. It is extremely concerning how bad this has gotten. My own mother literally had a panic attack after getting her first shot. My kids' school administrators are making decisions based on these illogical conclusions. I have had school staff tell me that it's best that they all go ahead and get covid. They compared it to chicken pox parties from the 80s. When I mentioned shingles, they told me that was a different disease. I have an at risk child at home. My tolerance for stupidity is waning. I'm afraid the general publicly is woefully underequipped to engage in nuanced discussions around this topic. They need simple and clear instructions.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  I wish I was more surprised about how easily covid made people rationalize authoritarianism.

raffraffraff 5y ago

Yeah. Should be "If you survive covid 19, you will have greater immunity to covid that you would get from a vaccine"

seoaeu 5y ago
Pedantically, dying from covid makes it even less likely you'll catch it again... Really this is all just confusing what the actual goal is: to end the pandemic while minimizing death and suffering
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  Well, actually pedantic anti-vaxers would formulate it as "If you survive covid 19, you will have greater immunity to covid than you would get from surviving taking the vaccine"
- aww_dang 5y ago
  >the actual goal is: to end the pandemic while minimizing death and suffering We can all agree we want less death and suffering. However, it isn't difficult to imagine that other goals may exist. "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world" - Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset
koheripbal 5y ago
This assumes the audience for this title are people that have not yet been infected. It could also apply, for example, to the hundreds of millions of people world wide who have already been infected. I don't think a fact should assume an audience.
- raffraffraff 5y ago
  Yes, but strategically we should probably write headlines that be can't taken out of context to disingenuously argue that they "prove" that vaccines are worthless. Anyway, re-reading your point... My headline wasn't intended to be aimed at any person. It's a hypothetical statement about covid immunity level after surviving covid. Glad I didn't go into journalism.

roenxi 5y ago

Based on the number of deaths, a very large percentage of people have already had COVID. Given that there is a non-0% chance of death or harm from taking the vaccine, why should they then get vaccinated? They are already less of a risk to themselves and others than someone who has been vaccinated.

gammarator 5y ago
Serological tests have consistently shown that far fewer people have had COVID than have been vaccinated, for instance.
- walterbell 5y ago
  What's a good source of those numbers?
  - nradov 5y ago
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... The CDC estimates that 36% of Americans have been infected.
andybak 5y ago
> why should they then get vaccinated? I haven't done the sums but I suspect the risk of harm from the vaccine is less than the benefits the vaccine gives (especially when you factor in the duration of protecection depending when you had Covid vs when you had the vaccine). I know people who've recovered from serious Covid and still got vaccinated. I would.
tootie 5y ago
RTFA > The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and then 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.

polote 5y ago

> a much less clickbait title should have been chosen It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact.

andybak 5y ago
Clickbait and truth are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would suggest that most clickbait is true.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic. Knowing that previously infected people maintain immunity high levels against variants is important for people making informed decisions about their situations. What GP is really worried about is this fact being misused to incentivize people NOT to get the vaccine.
  - andybak 5y ago
    I don't quite understand your point. GP said > It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact. And I was pointing out that this statement is based on flawed logic. I wasn't commenting on truth/falsehood or clickbait/non-clickbait. I'm just objecting to incorrectly reasoning from one to the other.
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      I agree that it can be both. In this case, imo, it is not both. This isn't clickbait because this fact is pertinent.
  - myko 5y ago
    > This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic. I don't disagree with it being relevant but if one reads just the title of this article and had previously been infected they may believe they do not need to be vaccinated, but that isn't the case. According to this study folks who were infected previously are more than 2x as likely to be reinfected than those who were previously infected and then vaccinated: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM63289&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2070%2C%20August%206%2C%202021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM63289 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

yodsanklai 5y ago

> 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.

fncypants 5y ago
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.
- asah 5y ago
  +1 and an example would make your argument even more persuasive
- walterbell 5y ago
  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.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  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.
- Trumpi 5y ago
  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.

vmception 5y ago

> The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv Its very irresponsible, look at this nonsense masquarading as peer review of a preprint 24 hours ago Furthermore, getting a vaccine for last year’s ailment cannot be compared to this year’s ailment, although its obvious people dont really have a choice in the matter the study should at least lead with that. There will be delta specific vaccines soon, compare to natural immunity then.

switch007 5y ago

> People don’t get the vaccine strictly on the strength of the vaccine. It’s considering the risk of getting COVID, understanding the long term side effects, and minimizing risk for those around you. It’s also about avoiding mutations of the virus as the higher availability of the virus only provides more opportunities for it to mutate into something more resistant or possessing other less desirable traits. Erm everyone I know under 40 got it because of a huge marketing campaign, wanting to travel with as few restrictions as possible and not wanting a vaccine passport to party.