62 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] thread
Well, the infrastructure is now in place. At a whim, the government can strip back freedoms of people and claim it is for the greater good.

It wont matter if you have had 2 injections of Pfizer in the past, the government soon will deem you completely unvaccinated and take away your freedoms without looking at your demographics or your previous vaccination status.

Insanity.

That's the new "unholy" - a fluid term outside of the law framework and defined by a few random joes who got to wear the "authority badge". I can totally see this new "holiness" getting extended to flu vaccines (with kickbacks from the flu vaccine manufacturers)I
Who said at a whim? We need everyone to be vaccinated. I don't see anything different between requiring vaccination and requiring boosters
> We need everyone to be vaccinated.

I don't need this. How is that your needs have a higher priority than mine?

Because the political coalition in power, supported by the voters in the county, says so.

It's really that simple.

At least in the U.S. the actions being taken by our federal Executive are plainly illegal. So it hardly matters what the voters want if they can't get our Congress to pass an appropriate law enabling this. If your State Governor wants to mandate something then go for it.
Why do you think you don't?
Vaccinated are still contracting the virus, spreading it, and being hospitalized. I don't think it's providing the safety you've been convinced it is.
Yep. Just like "at a whim" the government says you need a tetanus shot every ten years. Chilling.
Boosters will be required every 6 months unless new vaccines are invented, so I don’t think you can compare them.
There is no mandate for tetanus. Unless they just forgot to check mine when I went 15 years without one.
You can't comply your way out of tyranny. Perhaps this change in rules will help more people to see this.
You can't "muh freedom" your way out of a pandemic.
Especially if you're dead.
Unless you're old, obese or diabetic, your chance of dying is pretty low. For someone in their 30's, probably less than the flu. And even if you're 80 years old, it is not a death sentence. Stop acting like this is Ebola. It is not.
That's roughly half the population there.

And a less lethal but highly transmissible virus is clearly worse than Ebola in some ways. We routinely contain Ebola outbreaks, they don't kill millions of people. The largest outbreak infected less than 30,000 people.

Can't "muh vax" it either apparently. Enjoy your boosters forever :) If we're lucky this little war will be as costly and effective as Afghanistan. We've got to give up just a little freedom, spend a little more money, but its only short term right?
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN? You've been doing a ton of this, unfortunately. We ban such accounts, regardless of which ideology they're battling for.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you weren't aware of the site guidelines, but if you'd please review them (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and stick to the intended spirit from now on, we'd appreciate it. The basic idea is: if you have a substantive point, make it thoughtfully; if not, please don't comment until you do. And please use the site primarily for curiosity, not ideological battle; we ban accounts that do the latter.

Now while the phrasing might've been a bit provocative, I do believe I made a substantive point.

The parent was making a comparison between health measures and dictatorship. I made a counterpoint that freedom is worthless if we're all dead from disease.

The dysphemism was merely a rhetorical device to add a little color to the argument, but the argument per se was just that, a substantive argument.

"Freedom is worthless if we're all dead from disease" doesn't seem particularly substantive to me.

In any case, please make your arguments without swipes and without breaking the site guidelines in the future. You've been doing that repeatedly, not just in this one case. That's not cool.

Commenters tend to underestimate how provocative their own provocations are, and overestimate it in the other person. Objects in the mirror are much closer than they appear. That's why we all need to err on the opposite side - otherwise we just get a downward spiral.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Point taken on the subjective judgement on provocation - I'll try to do better there!

I do still think liberty vs life and the right balance between the two should they be in conflict is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had, fwiw.

This was exactly one of the concerns of those of us that criticized AstaZeneca in the past and wanted to wait for Biontech/Pfizer - that the vaccine will be considered second rate.

It was of course dismissed, just like the concerns about the blood clots were in the beginning.

Also recently several countries started recommending against using Moderna for under 30s due to the higher risk of heart issues compared to Biontech/Pfizer.

From the data in Israel it is clear that Pfizer's efficacy vanes over time, thus the need for boosters. So, it is not because J&J is second rate. We will probably need boosters while there's high prevalence of the virus.
Pfizer’s own data says the same thing. The safety and efficacy study they did shows that efficacy drops by about 6% every 2 months.

Everyone will need boosters at least once per year in perpetuity if they want to maintain any reasonable amount of protection.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v...

Does natural immunity wane off at the same rate?
It doesn't look like it.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

> SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

So it's better to get natural immunity while under the effect of vaccine. I'm sure Pfizer would prefer perpetual mandatory boosters because thats a fat revenue stream.
Nops, because of antigenic imprinting.

From the wiki (that prefers the annoying name Original Antigenic Sin, probably invented by a theist)

"Original antigenic sin, also known as antigenic imprinting or the Hoskins effect,[1] refers to the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilize immunological memory based on a previous infection when a second slightly different version of that foreign pathogen (e.g. a virus or bacterium) is encountered. This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections. Antibodies or T-cells induced during infections with the first variant of the pathogen are subject to a form of original antigenic sin, termed repertoire freeze."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

Correct. It's inconvenient for the current narrative of getting absolutely everyone vaccinated with a spike protein from a single variant, but the best immunity currently available is naturally-obtained.

Also, mostly unrelated, but the word "sin" has little to do with theism, though maybe that's where it's most commonly used. For example, in archery, a miss is called a "sin". I think it's apt for this concept.

Better to get natural immunity and just leave it at that. But it you got a vaccine afterwards from what I've gathered your natural antibodies will outcompete whatever the vaccine is producing. The inverse appears to be the same, in that, your body will be unable to produce its own antibodies after getting a vaccine because it is being outcompeted. This seems to pose an issue for variants, as your body will have no way of fighting off a sufficiently mutated virus, it will continue to produce the wrong antibodies. This is known as antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, and was a well understood risk prior to rushing out these vaccines.
(comment deleted)
Not sure if there are studies, but I don't think it likely. It is almost natural to suppose that infection confers a broader antigenic stimuli than just a single spike protein for a single variant.
> Everyone will need boosters at least once per year in perpetuity if they want to maintain any reasonable amount of protection

At 6 months, there's a stark difference between VE against infection versus VE against hospitalization. What endpoint should we really care about? Constantly boosting a non-sterilizing vaccine that is apparently still highly effective at reducing the risk of severe outcomes is mind boggling.

There are people getting breakthrough infections just 2-4 months after their second dose. Look at how much drama has been generated trying to get people to take an initial vaccination series. The idea that vaccination campaigns for perpetual boosters every 3-6 months could ever be widely successful is absurd. It just isn't going to happen.

It's pretty obvious that virtually everyone is going to get this thing at some point even if they've been vaccinated, and eventually public health officials will have no choice but to accept that natural immunity is a real thing.

I recall all the way back in March public health “experts” said that everybody was gonna get it. That was the idea behind “flatten the curve” to keep everybody from getting it at once…

Dunno how society forgot that.

And soon in the US if you don't have a booster you'll be considered dirty and unvaxxed. They will just keep moving the pole as long as they are allowed.
You mean until the pandemic is done?
How long will this take, exactly?
Shortly after drugs and terror are defeated probably.
Pandemics last on average 5-7 years according to the RKI. This is with adequate medical response though. Idiots who think they're above the vaccine make that last longer.
It will be done about the same time the flu pandemic is done.
I got one dose of JJ and i was feeling so sick that it was difficult to stand up for two days. The idea of doing that routinely is insane to me.
I got covid in march. I had a fever for two days, about two weeks of congestion and mucus, and loss of taste/smell for a month. I had two antibody tests done, july and september. I was positive on both. Got the J&J in setember because it was becoming impossible to do anything without a vaccine card and it was worse than covid. One and a half days of chills, fever, sweating.

Whatever antibodies I got from my vaccine will probably disappear before my natural ones. I still don't understand the point of getting people who had a natural immunity to get vaccinated. There is little to no evidence natural immunity is worse, and compelling evidence it is superior to a vaccine (see: Israel study).

I remain convinced the CDC is in bed with the pharma companies producing the vaccines.

Vaccine-induced or natural immunity isn't just about antibodies. Immune system gets to remember the spike protein (vaccine) and other characteristics of the virus (natural immunity) so even if antibodies go down, the body remembers and can create new antibodies on next encounter. So you still have some immunity benefit.

Agreed on natural immunity, it would be very unexpected and weird if it was substantially worse than vaccine-induced immunity. And there isn't any evidence of that, afaik.

And yet Wolenski, Fauci, the CDC, continue to "reccommend" people get vaccinated regardless of natural immunity and refused to answer the senate on whether they think those with natural immunity should be exempt from vaccine mandates.
When officials all push the same narrative and ignore available relevant scientific knowledge that contradicts this narrative, that's how we know they became untrustworthy actors similar to politicians even if they were at some point considered scientists. It is amazing how the narrative pushed from above is everywhere the same, despite many respected scientists pointing out massive holes that smart children can see.
I got one dose of JJ and felt bad the next day. I got covid last week and slept a full day and felt miserable the rest of the week. My folks are sick going on a week and a half now (unvaccinated). Vaccines still seem much preferable to me.
All of this would have been avoided if we kept the vaccine only for the groups that are high risk. Is absurdly pathetic to see healthy, relatively people in their 20's and 30's terribly scared of covid-19 as if it was ebola. Well, for you it is not, it never was.

Yes, you can get it and you can die, it is possible, but this is a very unlikely outcome to you. We should never ever created this level of fear to vaccinate people with a leaky vaccine, that is based in a few spike proteins from a single variant.

For the downvoters: Please show me numbers from the CDC proving me wrong.

Maybe people in their 20's to 30's are not only being anxious about the direct chance that they could die but of other side effects too?

Long covid alias long lasting damages such as impaired taste that have a high impact on your life and are a good reason to get vaccinated against.

Just because they most likely won't die, doesn't mean that it will be easy nor that it will be without other nasty side-effects. The vaccine has also been limited AFAIK to high-risk groups in most countries before being available to 'healthy' people.

Vaccinating them will also improve the chance for other vaccinated high-risk groups to be infected less and as such help those groups over all in the long term.

> Vaccinating them will also improve the chance for other vaccinated high-risk groups to be infected less

Viral Loads Similar Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated People https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim...

UK study finds vaccinated people easily transmit Delta variant in households https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

Hmm, my comment was meant to reference eeard immunity, but it's interesting that the virus load remains the same. Thank your for linking sources.

Though even if the virus load is the same, it doesn't change the (in most cases) shorter duration people are emitting the virus.

> a good reason to get vaccinated against.

I completely agree, but how does this explain the level of enforcement of vaccination that we are seeing?

I can only guess that it's a mix of the drive towards ending the 'pandemic situation' (see germany for example) and the easy brownee-points some politicians see in going with the train of 'I value lives over (money|...) And that's why I will add the new mandate for vaccines' etc. Or just a lot of pilled up anxiety, that's been collecting over the course of lockdowns.
Maybe you just havent been seeing the same horror I've been seeing in terms of whole families getting covid and falling quite sick in India due to the shock it caused to the healthcare system..