> The vaccinated are vectors and petri dishes too. A virus is going to virus.
Ok........you don't understand how antibodies & viral replication work. Please learn from people who are more knowledgeable than you and stop playing around. People are dying. People are being hurt. It's not an academic game.
> The oldest treatment in modern medicine. We understand their side effect profiles very well at this point.
Every vaccines contains a multitude of different things apart from the active ingredient, and each of them can have a vastly different safety profile, and when you take a vaccine, you are putting everything together in your body.
So the core techinique of vaccines, being employed for so long, does not actually prove the safety of vaccines in general. In fact, it cannot be proven generally, because as I said earler, each vaccines can contain vastly different make up.
> My problem is that the whole thing is based on old data and a false premise that life is safe when vaccinated people are only around vaccinated people.
No, its not; its based on transmission being reduced and infections less dangerous among the vaccinated, which mitigates (though does not fully eliminate) the dangers of being fully open, and the policy judgement that the burden of requiring the (freely available) vaccine for such activity is warranted by the public health benefit.
> NONE of vaccination pushers can explain deaths among people who had vaccines.
Vaccines are imperfect. They are particularly imperfect when given to patients with impaired immune systems. This is neither unexpected nor reason to think vaccines are not a good idea. Please do not resort to the Nirvana Fallacy! https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
> But the vaccinated are being infected at higher rates than the non-vaccinated according to UK govt data
Good god I'm so tired of having to explain vaccines to people.
Vaccines do NOT prevent you from being infected. That is NOT their purpose. That is NOT why they are created. The vaccine would have to somehow physically prevent the virus from entering your system. Not a single qualified, authoritative person on this subject has ever claimed they do.
>Not least of which is that no one calls "natural" immunity psuedoscience—it's how the vaccine works.
I’m sure that’s how it was intended to work but the term you’re looking for is artificial immunity or vaccine derived immunity. Unfortunately the vaccines don’t confer immunity so there goes that.
>What happens when we reach a critical mass of health workers quitting?
For not consenting to a vaccination mandate? We’re all about to find out. Can you imagine working on the front lines for over a year to suddenly be discarded like a piece of trash because you won’t take a vaccine (when you are almost certainly already immune)?
>The transmission argument similarly falls short given that the vaccine reduces the odds of you becoming a vector in the first place, or progressing to the point you require state intervention to survive
Speaking of disingenuous... I’m not sure why people gloss over the fact that the vaccines don’t prevent transmission. Why fumble over word games instead of acknowledging the simple fact that you don’t get immunity from the vaccine.
Now follow that train of thought to it’s logical end. Universal forced vaccination of everyone on Earth with passports to boot and the outbreaks still continue.
Well hey at least we have this neato “world ID” (vaccine passport) which couldn’t possibly be used for nefarious means.
> The thing to understand about vaccines is that they trigger things that your body does all the time by itself
I'm not against vaccines at all for the record. But this doesn't seem like a strong argument for them.
Cells multiply by themselves all the time. Triggering that effect is how you get cancer. Your heart beats constantly. Triggering that too much (or in the wrong rhythm) is not a good thing. There are probably a ton more examples.
> Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense.
Yes, and no one was arguing that.
> This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination.
Yes, and no one was arguing that.
> The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response.
That is neither the worst case nor the best case. It's also irrelevant because, again, no one was arguing about it.
I can see now why you think that HN has vocal anti-vaxxers, you think that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-vaxx. Protecting one's ego is a terrible trap and a fool's errand.
> The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies
Thanks for that Nature paper that I'd already read. The question is, are the presence of neutralising antibodies the same as sterilising immunity?
The answer is no. If you have a paper from Nature showing sterilising immunity, that would help you. Otherwise, my original statement holds true, you were incorrect.
> If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus
You missed the bit where the Dutch study in your second link mentions that "The Alpha variant… was the dominant variant in the area at that time." The CDC and PHE stuff I cited was regarding delta.
Not only that, the third study you linked to was led by someone at PHE… Do you even read these things? Perhaps you put as much effort into reading that as you do with all the "vocal anti-vaxxers" posts on HN.
And again, it's irrelevant, unless you're trying to disprove any "science is settled" claims you've made by showing disagreement within weeks by people at the same health agency. Great work there!
> There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case…
And here again you will show you didn't bother to read what I wrote:
> There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time
and this is mine, from the comment you replied to:
> transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others
Maybe you'll paraphrase me some more later.
I also wrote this:
> Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please.
I didn't think you'd try and prove it right in your very next response.
Finally, and bringing us round nicely to the start:
> You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination.
No, that's not my argument, that's someone else's. I'm pointing out that disagreement exists, something you with your black and white thinking are unable to process. Well done for completely missing the point repeatedly while showing yourself to be wrong repeatedly.
Unless you're going to apologise - which clearly you're not - then I won't be partaking in this conversation any further, you're wasting everyone's time, not just mine.
----
Edit, a typo. Would my interrogator have noticed anyway?
> I trust my immune system more than I trust whatever the vaccine does
Uhh…this is what a vaccine does. It shows your immune system what a disease looks like, lets it do it’s thing to discover a solution…so that it has a hashmap to a solution ready to go rather than than needing to iterate over the entire database and apply iterative mutations to the best solutions in order to find a successful match.
What in the world do you think a vaccine is? It’s letting your immune system do it’s thing. It’s trusting your immune system to know what to do!
What in the world do you think a vaccine is? Vaccine-based immunity is natural immunity.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the mechanism of vaccination.
reply