- COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose).
- We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need.
- We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost).
The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe. Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards.
Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals. Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue, you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better.
Safety is not a binary condition. The vaccines have a good safety profile as confirmed through large-scale clinical trials, and have met stringent FDA criteria. However the risk isn't zero. The CDC has acknowledged a small risk of myocarditis for the mRNA vaccines.
This isn't generally a reason to avoid vaccination for most of the population, however the risk / benefit ratio may be different for some sub-populations. In particular there has been a higher than expected rate of adverse cardiac events for adolescent males.
So particularly for those adolescents who have already recovered from infection and have no other risk factors we should have a scientific discussion about whether vaccination makes sense from an evidence-based medicine perspective. Unfortunately the issue has been so politicized that any suggestion of caution often gets misinterpreted as being anti-vaccination.
More people will die waiting unvaxxed for their antibody results than will die from vaccine side effects. Please use real numbers when you talk about vaccine side effects.
This is precisely correct, especially wrt the cost/benefit. The antibody tests won't tell you when you were infected, with which variant, or how much viral dose, on top of their imperfect accuracy. And if you're going to bother going to a hospital to get your blood drawn, why not just... get the shot and remove all doubt?
Does the calculus change in the countries where vaccines are basically nonexistant? Yes, of course. But vaccines in the US are as nearly easy to get as Gatorade now, and have been for several months. We spent many billions making it that way - we don't need to turn around and start spending even more money on pox party incentives.
On top of that, early on when the vaccine supply was constrained we didn't have enough data to know whether natural immunity was as effective as vaccination, and now vaccine supply in the US is in surplus[1], so there is no reason to be selective in who receives it.
So natural immunity didn't make sense to consider in the vaccination plan. It might make sense to consider in the booster plan though - if you've had a positive Covid test before or after being vaccinated, consider the later of those two actions to be a booster, and don't get another one. That would free up more doses for the rest of the world.
[1]We have a large amount of vaccine that has/is expiring shortly but there isn't enough time before the expiration date to redirect them overseas.
> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose).
That's not a valid reason at all.
> We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need.
We also lacked vaccine quantity, and many people still do.
> We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost).
Meh, that's a very weak reason considering it's a small incremental cost to vaccine passports and covid testing.
> The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe.
That's just your 'implicit assumption'.
> Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards.
Except vaccine efficacy is much lower than natural immunity and vaccine efficacy wears off over time. We literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved.
> Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals.
Your comment here is a distraction. You literally haven't brought up a single fact or data point on vaccine vs natural immunity efficacy.
> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue
How is it a settled issue when there is literally zero data on long-term effects?
> you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better.
- If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logistically).
- If tracking the vaccine is easier.
Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense. You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not."
You yourself admit that that is your actual reason:
> Furthermore we literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved.
The "but efficacy" response is confusing at best. If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people, it can still be the logical course of action at population scales for the other stated benefits (logistical, tracking, and cost).
Something you don't know. If you want a sincere discussion you might want to at least admit the obvious.
> If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logically).
First of all you don't know if it's cheaper. Second, people are free to pay for anything they want regardless of how cheap it is. I'm sure the vast majority of vaccine-sceptical people would readily pay for their own tests.
> If tracking the vaccine is easier.
Why do you keep with the 'if, if , if'? I did not make any assertions or assumptions that intersect with your ifs whatsoever. All of your 'ifs' are completely irrelevant, and I'm guessing by the fact that you start explaining every supposed hole with an 'if', that you understand that you can't even verify the validity of these supposed holes you found.
> Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense.
Because natural immunity is more effective and some people do not want to get the vaccine?
> You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not."
I've stated multiple payoffs multiple times already:
- We do not know the long-term side effects of mrna vaccines.
- MRNA vaccine efficacy is lower than natural immunity, and all data points to MRNA vaccines wearing off significantly after 6 months.
- Some people may not want to get the vaccine for other reasons, the actual reasons are completely irrelevant - in a free society people get to choose what biologically active substances they inject into their own bodies.
> You yourself admit that that is your actual reason:
So looks like you did notice one of the reasons I gave you? Interesting that you quoted it, yet completely ignored the substance and failed to challenge or respond to the actual point.
> If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people,
Stop with the 'ifs'. If you don't know the validity of your own point, don't make the point.
> for the other stated benefits (logical, tracking, and cost).
These other stated benefits coming directly from your imagination right? Or are these the 'if' kind of benefits?
'IF the vaccines are a perfect solution, we should forcibly vaccinate everyone.' - cool story bud
Yes I do. The Antibody Test costs $42 and the vaccine costs $16/dose in the US today.
> Second, people are free to pay for anything they want regardless of how cheap it is.
Nobody was proposing that individuals pay for either one of these. The US Government should pay for it using taxes so that even the poorest citizen has access.
> I'm sure the vast majority of vaccine-sceptical people would readily pay for their own tests.
Letting people self-certify as a public health strategy has been problematic in the past and would be problematic here too.
> I've stated multiple payoffs multiple times already:
But they don't add up. Your "list" boils down to:
- It is unsafe (which is factually inaccurate).
- The vaccine may not add to natural immunity (which as I said, being cheaper and simpler than the alternative testing makes it still worthwhile).
- It is unsafe, and we live in a free society (which is factually inaccurate and irrelevant).
You've made zero arguments for why a cheaper and simpler safe vaccine is inferior to a more expensive and complex antibody test regime. That's because your entire argument hinges on "the vaccine is unsafe" and little else.
> Yes I do. The Antibody Test costs $42 and the vaccine costs $16/dose in the US today.
You're ignoring economies of scale, ignoring basic economics (increase supply - price goes down), ignoring the fact that vaccines require 2 dozes - and potentially more, as well as ignoring the additional costs of administering vaccines multiple times. Also, I would like to see where you're getting those numbers from, since a quick google search directly contradicts your numbers:
> The U.S. government will pay Pfizer Inc nearly $2 billion for 100 million additional doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to bolster its supply as the country grapples with a nationwide spike in infections.
> Nobody was proposing that individuals pay for either one of these.
I literally just proposed it to your face 2 times in a row.
> The US Government should pay for it using taxes so that even the poorest citizen has access.
Oh, look at you, so concerned about the poorest citizen that you want to explicitly deny them the possibility to pay for their own tests and force them to get vaccinated against their will. What a champion of the poor.
> Letting people self-certify as a public health strategy has been problematic in the past and would be problematic here too.
Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ? Do you want to respond to my actual statement or just continue with these weak strawmen?
> It is unsafe (which is factually inaccurate).
For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand?
> The vaccine may not add to natural immunity (which as I said, being cheaper and simpler than the alternative testing makes it still worthwhile).
Another strawman completely unrelated to anything I've said.
> - It is unsafe, and we live in a free society (which is factually inaccurate and irrelevant).
Do you see the words 'safe' or 'unsafe' anywhere in my 3rd point? No? Are you going to continue making these fallacious, insincere strawmen, or are you secure enough with your beliefs to actually defend them honestly?
> That's because your entire argument hinges on "the vaccine is unsafe" and little else.
I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects.
No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset.
> Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ?
You argued that people should be able to pay for and provide their own tests. That's self-certification. If you're arguing for the state to do it instead, then we're back to square one (i.e. that the logistics don't favor it).
> For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand?
You cannot argue these two thing together in good faith:
- Natural immunity provides long term immunity, without long term data.
- We cannot know on the vaccine because we lack long term data.
Pick one or the other. Not both.
> I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects.
So you didn't make any except that same one in every single one of your comments?
Attaching vindictive clapbacks to every other sentence from OP is really not a way to help your argument, especially on HN. OP’s argument is clear; we have surplus vaccines, it’s statistically safer than getting COVID regardless of your infection status and cheaper than getting tested for natural immunity, not to mention the cost society needs to bear if your failed die roll lands you in an ICU. I’m not sure what yours is, something vague about a govt-backed immunity testing program that doesn't exist yet. But I’m sure you’ll find a way to call me a turd for not getting it rather than supply details. Surprise me, please.
>No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset.
"Take this medical treatment you don't want because I believe in economies of scale"
"My body my choice, and you can put your economy of scale wherever you want but not in my bloodstream - I'd rather not since I've already had covid"
"bbbut I believe in economies of scale!"
the end
Forcing people to take medical procedures they don't want might be last step in a long chain of things, which include a test for natural immunity due to presence of antibodies.
you're not arguing in good faith and much of your argument is just illogical. There's no reason to do this, it won't convince anybody , in fact it will make most people just ignore you.
right? These word by word break down responses don't ever get anywhere
the whole argument he's making has operates on the presumtion that the vacccine is unsafe, contrary to mainstream scientific opinion. Then the only evidence he has to back that up is lack of evidence on long term effects.
But...the type of which would potentially appease him is only possible with a time machine, so it's literally impossible to appease him
> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose).
So a marginal cost of $24. Folks with natural immunity will have a stronger reaction to the vaccine, but let’s be conservative. Let’s say 12 hours of symptoms - headache, fatigue, light fever. Very standard with a shot. At around the minimum wage of $8/hour that’s a cost of $96. How much do you value your time?
Full disclosure: happily vaccinated. The vaccine is safe, but it’s dammed inconvenient.
> Let’s say 12 hours of symptoms - headache, fatigue, light fever. Very standard with a shot. At around the minimum wage of $8/hour that’s a cost of $96. How much do you value your time?
Other rich countries solve that problem by letting you take time off if you're sick.
I generally agree with this analysis, but people who are looking for some sort of 'smoking gun' that our government is colluding with pharma to help them make money by forcing unnecessary vaccinations, are more interested in hearing sexy, exciting narratives about how Fauci is working for the devil.
In Slovenia antigen test (which is acceptable across EU for 48 hours) priced at 10 EUR in a walk-in center and 12 EUR in drive-in lab. I don't know about the first, but the second is definetely a commercial venture with people employed and a place rented and software written and supported, so it should be even less in wholesale.
> Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals. Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue, you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better.
I don't think this is a distraction, it's a difference in threat models.
Suppose a government official said that everyone should install a particular app on their phones. It's safe, they say. They ran it through antivirus checks and it came up clean. They measured performance of the phone and didn't see any regressions. All the old apps work normally. Major government security agencies are recommending everyone to install the app. Wouldn't it be normal to be suspicious? I mean, that app could do anything.
There are theories about the vaccine that are ridiculous. No, it doesn't have microchips. And so on. But on the other hand, the vaccine has been politicized by Republicans and Democrats alike. Democrats have a lot vested in the vaccine's success; if it turned out it had some serious flaw that was papered over because the benefits were perceived to be greater than the risks, it'd make them looks bad. In the same way that the operators of Fukushima Daiichi looked bad when their reactor failed, or BP looked bad when the blowout preventer didn't work. These are things where the experts said it was fine, but it wasn't. If you believe that government officials will cover up inconvenient facts for political reasons and your main source on the safety of the vaccines is government officials, then a rational choice is not to trust the vaccine.
If microchips aren't a realistic threat, what sort of realistic flaws might the vaccine have? Maybe it elevates risk of cancer or dementia twenty years down the line. Maybe it affects fertility in ways we haven't tested. And so on. Really we have no idea what the long term risks could be, we just know that the short and long term risks of Covid are pretty bad.
All that said, I got my two doses of the vaccine as soon as it was available, and I hope everyone else does the same. I'm just saying that given that some random person has no capacity to evaluate the safety of a vaccine on their own and supposing they have reasons to doubt that the people presented to them as experts regarding the safety of the vaccine would tell them the truth if there were real safety concerns with the vaccine, I can understand why they wouldn't want to get it. And I don't know what argument I could give that would change their minds. For the ones who've already gotten Covid and presumably have at least some reasonable amount of immunity, maybe there isn't really anything to be gained by trying to convince them.
I don't believe the science is settled no matter how much the already vaccinated wish to turn the page. What do you have to say that studies of vaccine efficacy and risk conducted by drug companies exclude those with prior immunity. How could the science be settled for a cohort purposefully excluded?
You're asking me about something that I didn't say. Here is what I did say:
> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue
My post was about the logistical and cost problems associated with certifying people with natural immunity, and why that doesn't make sense unless you believe the vaccine is unsafe.
> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue
I'm arguing against this particular point not the others.
I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here? When have we ever taken the position of prove its dangerous before you try to stop me from putting this in your body. Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe".
> I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here?
Except we now have data from the population itself, including people previously infected with COVID-19. We therefore do know it is safe. I think what you're saying is that you want to ignore inconvenient data and use outdated arguments.
> Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe".
You could have made that argument at one point, but you cannot now. We have enough population level data to call it safe beyond the studies that also showed that it was safe. It is baseless.
- COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose).
- We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need.
- We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost).
The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe. Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards.
Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals. Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue, you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better.