Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

[flagged]


You seem misinformed, Canada does allow "recovered from COVID" as a way to bypass testing requirement when you enter Canada through the borders. Source: https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/covid-...

Canada also has no vaccine passport. Vaccine passports are decided by provinces and every provinces is free to choose criteria of their choice for the passport or if they want a passport at all. Not every provinces have a vaccine passport anymore.


From the link you gave:

"What is not accepted as a fully vaccinated traveller

Recovered from COVID-19 with only one dose

If you’ve recovered from COVID-19, you still need at least 2 doses of an accepted COVID-19 vaccine or mix of 2 accepted vaccines."

And Canada does have a vaccine passport, for example, you can't go to WalMart of Costco without vaccination.


Maybe soon, but not yet. Hospitals are still stretched, mostly by unvaccinated patients. If provincial passports included covid recovered, many people who haven't yet gotten infected would have an incentive to get infected.


From the article you linked: > For one, the new report was based on data only through November, before the U.S. booster campaign really took off. It also looked at data during the Delta wave and does not account for the surging Omicron variant.

The study doesn't take other variants into account. This is important because later findings reflect the unvaccinated would have immunity from just the one variant and not all of them uniformly. The language would have to be "recovered from all COVID variants" and the protesters have absolutely no interest in health or science.


> the unvaccinated would have immunity from just the one variant and not all of them uniformly

And "the vaccinated" have immunity from just one protein, from one variant, which is even lower.

If anything recovered people have better immunity, not worse.

The best strategy right now is to get vaccinated, and also get Omicron - then you have the best of both worlds, without the risk. But someone who took the risk, and recovered, is perfectly safe.



I read your link and there is not a single word about people who recovered. So what exactly is it meant to refute?


Even worse, it's immunity to a spike that hasn't been around for years now. The vaccines were developed for the 2019 strain. The idea that people who got it and recovered two months ago have less immunity than a vaccinated person is based mostly on statistical biases in the way public health agencies measure effectiveness, that can create the appearance of (temporary) effectiveness in water.


Source data from that article: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/pdfs/mm7104e1-H.pdf

That article is misleading, because it's comparing hazard rates of people who have had COVID before and were unvaccinated versus people who didn't have COVID before and were vaccinated. Best case scenario are people who are vaccinated and had COVID. Worst off are people are not vaccinated and hadn't had COVID.

I've seen this claim elsewhere and it's frustrating because people just read the headline and regurgitate this nonsense. So much for "doing your own research".


Is that not intentional? To compare the immunity gained from having the virus, to the immunity gained from vaccination?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: