HN Explorer

Ask HN: How do I know my Covid-19 vaccine is working?

15 points by charbonneau2 ↗ HN
To find out an individual's immunity against hepatitis B, we use standard serologic testing [1]. With COVID-19, the FDA[2] and CDC[3] state that you "should not interpret the results of your SARS-CoV-2 antibody test as an indication of a specific level of immunity or protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection".

Which methods can be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19? How do I know if my 2nd (or 3rd) dose worked? Are there any ongoing trials (for immunity tests)?

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hbv/pdfs/serologicchartv8.pdf

[2] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currently-recommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fvaccines%2Fcovid-19%2Finfo-by-product%2Fclinical-considerations.html

21 comments

[ 0.83 ms ] story [ 52.3 ms ] thread
[dead] questiondev
hmm well do you have heart issues yet?

american heart association said that the vaccines cause heart issues. the paper was released on nov 8th, not trying to make anyone worry but yeah it’s a side effect

see: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.107...

a peer reviewed journal

charbonneau2
Here's a different standpoint to your article [1]. The rhetoric used in the Twitter thread is unnecessary, but it presents a bit more context.

[1] https://twitter.com/lfoquet/status/1462888024862121990

rsfern
Thanks for the context! The aha link GP shared seems to be the abstract for the poster discussed in this Twitter thread.

So not a peer reviewed study, and plenty of red flags in the poster content according to the Twitter thread, including the unlisted conflict of interest on the part of the poster author

dang
Single purpose accounts aren't allowed here, and neither is using HN primarily for ideological battle, so I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

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

charbonneau2
> Single purpose accounts aren't allowed here

What's wrong with that? Some users really like to talk a lot about Java [1] and I am mainly interested in talking about the ongoing pandemic. HN offers a great format to have balanced discussions with a technical/science-oriented community. Additionally, it doesn't seem like COVID-19 topics are spamming/dominating the main page.

> and neither is using HN primarily for ideological battle

I started the thread to find out more about the current situation. One user replied with an article against vaccines. I tried to offer more context (i.e. defending the vaccines). In a different thread [2], a user underestimated the risks of vaccinating children and, again, I tried to balance it out (i.e. criticizing the vaccines). And sometimes, I just like to add a comment to confront the absurdities of today's governance [3]. Where am I primarily engaging in ideological battle?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Skinney (Just a random user)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29111492

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29275781

dang
What's wrong with that is that such accounts are invariably agenda-driven rather than curiosity-driven, and that destroys what the site is supposed to be for.

Curiosity meanders in unpredictable directions, so there's basically zero overlap here.

charbonneau2
IMO, it's unfortunate that you see my comments/threads as invariably destructive & agenda-driven, essentially putting them on a level with this [1] (although that user wasn't banned). I'd be glad to continue the discussions about the pandemic. Your site, your decision.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328994

dang
You can't get meaningful signal out of pointing to one bad comment like that. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I've responded now.

Bad as that comment was, it's clear from the account history that there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for. I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that.

Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated. People do that all the time, of course, but it tends to be a signal that they don't really care about the values of the site.

[dead] charbonneau2
> I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that [...] Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated.

I pointed at a single comment in the same tree to better understand your reasoning for the ban (You cannot see each comment, that's obviously unrealistic. Still, I assumed that you at least reviewed the tree).

> there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for

How I recently used HN (last 5 comments):

- Provided missing context to unfounded vaccine skepticism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328687

- Asked for more information/reasoning behind vaccine skepticism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328216

- Expanded vaccine skeptical comment without judgement - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322045

- Added statements from original study author to put unfounded vaccine skepticism into perspective - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29316229

- Tried to put hospitalizations into perspective, citing CDC study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29299661

You say my account is agenda-driven. What's my agenda? Where am I fighting an ideological battle? Am I pro- or anti-vaccine? Maybe both? Or maybe I am just trying to have "curious conversations" on a topic I'm currently most curious about. To get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

If that's not OK because it's too focused on one topic and therefore not curious enough, well then I accept the ban.

yesenadam
There's hardly a phrase in your off-topic comment that isn't objectionable and/or wrong. Anyway..

I could only find the abstract, then realized it's because the paper was not published in this peer-reviewed journal, i.e. Circulation. Instead the abstract appeared in Volume 144, Issue Suppl_1: Abstracts From the American Heart Association's 2021 Scientific Sessions. The Scientific Sessions appears to have been an online "3-day learning experience" in video conference/lecture form. Unfortunately they want $80 from me to look at the videos so my quest stopped there.

I was curious how the amazing amateurishness presented in the sibling comment's linked twitter thread (apparently screen shots of "the paper" in question) was possible in a peer-reviewed journal, so I've answered that one at least, I think.

https://professional.heart.org/en/meetings/scientific-sessio...

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
randomopining
"Cause heart issues"

What percentage of people get it? If it's super low than it's not straightforward to say they cause heart issues.

That's like the few people per year that slip on banana peels and die... "Banana peels cause death!"

op00to
This particular “abstract” is from a guy selling diet supplements.
yesenadam
Well, to be fair(er), it seems his main/first career was heart surgeon.
redis_mlc
Even after the corona vaccine, you can still get and transmit the virus.

So there's no point in worrying about it.

op00to
BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE (The author of the poster is selling food supplements)
h2odragon
They give you a paper card that then people ask to see to prove you've been vaccinated.

Any biological effects the vaccines have are essentially irrelevant, they're a tribal sign and "sacrifice ritual".

caeril
Not really sure why this is downvoted.

We now know for a fact that comprehensive population vaccination is not sufficient to reduce the R0-value of the infection below 1, so the "protect others" rationalization is entirely invalid.

Restricting freedom of movement and association on the basis of a mandatory medical treatment that does NOT sterilize the population of something that has long been endemic is purely an authoritarian power play, with a dash of virtue signaling thrown in.

Don't get me wrong, it will definitely help YOU and YOUR own mortality risk, but the population protection argument is a ship that has long since sunk. Any advocacy for mandates at this point is motivated by pure fascistic tyranny, and nothing else.

raxxorrax
There is a test for antibodies which medical professional have to go through in some cases. You will only get a binary result though if you have protection or not.