from Hacker News

Stanford requires booster shots for all students

by montefischer on 12/30/21, 4:35 PM with 534 comments

  • by vmception on 12/30/21, 5:49 PM

    Alright, now you lost me.

    As someone that complied initially, holed up in an apartment solo for many months while the city descended into chaos, and began testing every 7 days when that became available and staggering interactions between people, I feel like I’ve shown that I’m willing to help mitigation efforts.

    Boosters for last year’s virus makes less sense. Boosters at all make less sense, especially for a non vulnerable population, and the fairly predictable solution of stacking them every 6 months should come under much more scrutiny. Especially with the unnecessary myocarditis element.

    The same for cloth masks, if they are less effective against the newer prevalent variant.

    I’m not sold on this one, and I’ll totally begin bolstering anti-establishment sentiment if they are the only ones willing to disagree.

  • by i_am_proteus on 12/30/21, 5:25 PM

    See also: https://news.stanford.edu/report/2021/12/16/first-two-weeks-...

    >Classes at Stanford will be online for the first two weeks of the winter quarter. The quarter will still begin Jan. 3 for most students, as scheduled. We will resume in-person instruction Tuesday, Jan. 18, after the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day holiday. We continue to expect students and instructors to be on campus for the winter quarter.

    >If you are healthy, you are encouraged to come back to campus on-time and get settled. You can return to campus later if you choose to, but we advise against waiting until in-person classes are about to begin. This is because if you return on-schedule, test positive upon arrival and need to isolate for at least 10 days, you will be able to continue your coursework during the online instruction period. Once in-person instruction begins, any accommodations for those in isolation will need to be arranged with individual instructors at their discretion.

    The reader with an understanding of university finances is encouraged to arrive at his own conclusions.

  • by drno123 on 12/30/21, 5:48 PM

    What happens with immune system if you get booster shots every 3 months for, let’s say, 3 years?
  • by oregano on 12/30/21, 5:39 PM

    No matter which way you cut it- it's shaping up to be another great quarter for big pharma!
  • by danappelxx on 12/30/21, 5:13 PM

    All the universities in the UC system are also requiring booster shots by end of January.
  • by PaulHoule on 12/30/21, 5:02 PM

    I know Cornell requires me (staff) to get a booster by February. I was looking for one in early December and couldn't get one in Ithaca in the near future so I wound up booking a shot three weeks later (this week) in Cortland, the next town over.

    It was surreal being right next to a student outbreak with 1000+ positives but having almost no transmission to faculty and staff.

  • by iamdamian on 12/30/21, 7:18 PM

    I'm vaccinated but do not plan to get a booster of the original vaccine. If a new and dangerous variant shows up, and we have a vaccine specifically for that variant, I will consider that new shot, just as I do with yearly flu shots.

    What many people miss when they advocate for boosters is that antibody count is not the full story. When it comes to protection against severe disease, cell-mediated immunity is key and doesn't go away.

    Here's the most relevant science I've found about the effectiveness of the booster.

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115926

    If you look at the results table, the booster does benefit everyone. I can't argue with that. However, the absolute counts shown in that table paint a more nuanced picture.

    While the 60+ crowd gets significant benefits from being boosted, making it a no-brainer for them, the under 60 crowd has less benefit. The under 60 crowd is already relatively safe from severe disease and death with the original vaccine dose.

    Being healthy and under 60, I need to weigh these mild benefits with the cons: 1) normalizing mandated boosters as an ongoing way of life and 2) extending the pandemic by using up booster doses instead of sending them to undervaccinated countries (the ones where new variants are popping up).

    Instead of getting in the habit of being boosted with the same vaccine every 3-6 months for mild benefit, I think it makes much more sense to take a holistic view that helps us end this pandemic.

    [Edited for clarity]

  • by data_dan_ on 12/30/21, 6:00 PM

    Meanwhile, the Nevada state legislature decided against extending the vaccination requirement for the Nevada System of Higher Education (https://lasvegassun.com/news/2021/dec/21/college-students-in...) and the NSHE board of regents may be on the verge of reversing their staff vaccine mandate instead of firing those who refuse to comply (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/education/regents-to-rea...).
  • by thepasswordis on 12/30/21, 5:53 PM

    At this point what is the case for vaccine requirements?

    * They aren't risk free (like we were all told initially)

    * They don't prevent transmission (like we were all told initially)

    Full disclosure: fully vaxxed, got it the very first day I was allowed to. Wouldn't change the decision. That said: man I really cannot get over the fact that it feels like public health officials are just straight up lying to us all at this point. That is something that I really do not like for several reasons. Not the least of which is that it will prevent people from trusting them in the future, and that will have negative consequences for everyone.

  • by jeffalbertson on 12/30/21, 6:34 PM

    Fascinating honesty in a lot of comments in this thread. HN trends liberal and the sentiment here feels growing frustration with how gov, corps, schools are handling things. I sense the general population is turning a corner, where despite what your politics are on the vaccine, everyone is over it and will demand life prior to covid.
  • by LatteLazy on 12/30/21, 6:16 PM

    It's amazing seeing so many people have such strong opinions on this. Worse still, people make blanket statements or seem to just want to trot out their on conclusions.

    Why?

    Can't we all just take a breath?

    Reddit abortion debates are higher quality than this. Come on.

  • by KerryJones on 12/30/21, 5:41 PM

    Generally curious and would love input from others, but from the research I've done, boosters are not recommended for all people and there was significant misgivings in the FDA officials who approved the booster: - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/health/covid-boosters-cdc...

    As it's said a bit in that article, it's important to know that the response to anything should be based on a variety of factors and in this case including severity of getting the virus.

    From my research, Omicron _is_ similar to getting a common cold. We should be adjusting our response based not only on how transmissible it is but on the consequences of us getting it, but it seems there is a much more black & white approach.

    When the chance of death was significantly higher in other variants, holding off seeing ones kids made sense, when long-term covid meant going without taste or smell, that's a significant risk. I still see a lot of "do whatever is necessary to not get Covid" -- but that is now not including the severity of what you're getting. If we removed the name "Covid" and considered each to be a separate virus, would "Omicron" be something you freak out about?

    If I were to do a generalized formula it would be something like:

    [severity of illness] * [transmissibility] = [strength of response justified]

    --------

    Would love additional data that changes this mindset.

    * I am vaccinated but not boosted.

    -------

    EDIT: Getting downvoted without responses when I'm looking for genuine information to understand more thoroughly is a pretty poor approach to helping fight C19. It dichotomizes and turns people against each other rather than facilitate discussion or learning.

  • by tomohawk on 12/30/21, 5:58 PM

    Posted earlier. Related. One student's response.

    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/life-is-too-shor...

  • by stri8ed on 12/30/21, 5:19 PM

    Given the relative weakness of the (current) vaccines vs Omnicron, do these mandates make any sense, or is it largely security theatre at this point?
  • by marvin on 12/30/21, 5:23 PM

    Does anyone have a summary of the current science regarding the third vaccine shot for covid?

    I had the impression that the safety effect for someone in good health under 45 was neglible, although with a significant decrease in risk of catching or passing on the virus. With these effects waning on a time-scale similar to the first two doses.

    Particularly curious regarding the risk-benefit ratio for a healthy young adult. How much of a no-brainer is an extra vaccine dose at this point? And do we know something yet about a decrease in the «no sense of smell» long-term complication?

  • by mikestew on 12/30/21, 5:24 PM

    I’m all for requiring booster shots for $ACTIVITY, but we need to collectively get our shit together on informing folks of how to get said booster. Or maybe it’s just Washington. I was looking for a booster, so I went to our handy state Department of Health website for the vaccine locator. Nearly every single listing said something to the effect of “last updated: three months ago”. IOW, the site is now abandoned and unmaintained because, hey, we rolled out those vaccines and PROBLEM SOLVED! “Oh, shit, ‘boosters’? But the off-shore development contract only went through July!”

    Okay, I’ll try CVS/Walgreens/et. al. If you don’t mind waiting until February, I guess that’s an option. Finally I just gave up and scheduled an appointment within the next two weeks at a clinic 90 minutes away. Then we happened to walk into healthcare provider Kaiser that is ten minutes from home: big fucking arrows and signs, “Walk-ins welcome!!!!11” And so we went back the next day and got our booster shots. But here’s my question/complaint: Kaiser is also the clinic that’s 90 minutes away, where we scheduled our original appointment. On the Kaiser site, there is not a single mention of a walk-in option.

    My conclusion is that we appear to have to rely on Facebook posts, and rumors from friends to find a booster because the “official” channels are either not useful or just plain abandoned.

  • by mistrial9 on 12/30/21, 5:18 PM

    compliance !== safety
  • by bern4444 on 12/30/21, 7:53 PM

    I truly don't understand what is so difficult about getting the booster shot.

    Outside of that, a private institution is absolutely allowed to make a rule like this.

    If you don't want to get a booster shot that's fine - the government should not force you to do so, but that action has consequences. Private - and several public - institutions should impose vaccine requirements as they deem fit. I want to be able to go see a play, or a movie, or to a restaurant without fear that I'm putting myself more at risk because someone at the table next to me got a vaccine 8 months ago and is no longer protected and far more likely to be carrying and spreading covid. I want to be able to see friends and then my family without having to wait days at a time in between to get a covid test result back because places are allowing not fully vaccinated people in.

    My personal belief is that fully vaccinated should, today, equate to the initial vaccine plus the booster. I expect it might even further change to include a second booster.

    I have a difficult time understanding why compliance with a life saving decision that is in the best interest of the individual as well as society is so hard. Reasonable exceptions should continue to exist.

    If you choose not to get a booster then I don't want you to be able to continuously put me at risk.

    I fully support mandates by private and public entities. This does not mean I will always do so - I'm not playing the slippery slope argument fallacy game. For covid booster shots I would be in full support of a government mandate.

  • by jwlake on 12/30/21, 5:45 PM

    Wonder how many weeks until everyone in CA realizes everyone has already gotten it.
  • by faangiq on 12/31/21, 12:09 AM

    Race to the bottom. Faster!
  • by aitchnyu on 12/30/21, 6:28 PM

    Does booster have same contents as dose 1 or can it use a fraction of the material? I heard about research of mixing vaccines by different manufacturers but not about stretching a dose to more individuals.
  • by slenk on 12/31/21, 7:12 AM

    I don't understand how this is any different than the normal vaccines that are required for you to attend public and private universities. This isn't a new concept.
  • by treme on 12/30/21, 7:50 PM

    Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex

    https://www.reveddit.com/v/COVID19/comments/rofrig/risk_of_m...

    Really interesting paper from authors with major roles on advisory committees and public health. This is an important and comprehensive dataset that will absolutely be used to further inform public policy in the UK and abroad.

    The main take home:

    "the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

    i.e The second dose of "full strength" Moderna in males 13-40 gives a spike in myocarditis that is markedly higher than the risk of myocarditis from covid infection.

    There weren't enough cases of myocarditis from this very comprehensive dataset to properly assess myocarditis in children aged 13-17, so as the authors state, this now needs to be pursued by pooling international datasets, and I expect they are already pursuing that.

    Very interesting data, thanks for posting.

    As I stated elsewhere, this is one piece of the public health puzzle. There are obviously a number of risks and benefits that all feed into the recommendations made. But all else being equal, this data could certainly affect recommendations for Moderna vs other vaccine options in males under 40. Watching with interest, thanks for posting OP!

    permalinkhide replies (2)author-focusas-ofpreserve [–]a_teletubby113 points4 days, 20 hours ago* (edited 3 hours, 2 minutes after) It's not just a Moderna problem though. Even for Pfizer, we see a weaker but clear signal:

    Infection: 2.02 (1.13 - 3.61)

    Dose 1: 1.66 (1.14 - 3.41)

    Dose 2: 3.41 (2.44 - 4.78)

    Dose 3: 7.60 (1.92 - 30.15)

    This is a "bombshell" for the lack of better words. I really wish someone could show this to college administrators who are mandating 3d dose for college students after just 6 months, with no regard for recent breakthrough infections.

    Edit:

    I know the CIs overlap, but the fact that the point estimate of infection (2.02) is clearly outside of Dose 2's CI (2.44 - 4.78) is already concerning. I'm merely advocating for caution for healthy young males for whom Covid is a miniscule threat.

  • by benterris on 12/30/21, 5:34 PM

    What religious exemption is the page referring to ? How are vaccines a religious subject ?
  • by Proven on 12/30/21, 5:17 PM

    And then another one by end of September...

    I wonder if we'll get to the point where they require a booster shot every month or every week and how many people would still comply at that point.

  • by timr on 12/30/21, 5:46 PM

    This is a dumb policy. Covid presents essentially no risk to young people. We also now know that the risk of myocarditis to young men from vaccination exceeds the risk of same from the virus itself:

    https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...

    Moreover, additional vaccination offers minimal -- if any -- benefit to young, healthy people. As Paul Offit -- a pediatrician, creator of the Rotavirus vaccine, member of the CDC ACIP committee and one of the biggest SARS-CoV2 vaccine advocates -- said in a recent NY Times article:

    > Boosters are likely to provide the best protection against infection with Omicron. But for most healthy young people, the original two-shot series — or one dose of Johnson and Johnson — should be sufficient to prevent hospitalization and death, Dr. Offit said. If that’s the purpose of vaccination, then “these vaccines continue to hold up,” Dr. Offit said.

    https://archive.fo/b3raO

    Meanwhile, the WHO continues to beg western countries to stop boosting younger, healthy people. Nobody listens.

    > The focus of COVID-19 immunization efforts must remain on decreasing death and severe disease, and the protection of the health care system....In the context of ongoing global vaccine supply constraints and inequities, broad-based administration of booster doses risks exacerbating vaccine access by driving up demand in countries with substantial vaccine coverage and diverting supply while priority populations in some countries, or in subnational settings, have not yet received a primary vaccination series.

    https://www.who.int/news/item/22-12-2021-interim-statement-o...

    This push for repeated vaccination of the young is based on antibody titers and other "correlates of risk", not on clinical data. But antibody levels decline over time -- particularly in the nasal mucosa. It's basic immunology, and a principal reason that vaccines against respiratory viruses were rare prior to Covid.

    We're quite literally conducting a societal experiment based on fear and speculation, while "experts" forget what they learned in biology 101.

  • by HarryHirsch on 12/30/21, 5:20 PM

    You'd wish there were adapted vaccines and especially nasal vaccines, but that's not even on the government's radar.

    Where's the revolution?

  • by qlplan on 12/30/21, 5:31 PM

    Vaccines aren't that great to stop the spread. We have ample evidence of the fact by looking at the winter 2021 numbers in highly vaccinated regions. They are even less effective against Omicron.

    Omicron is mild anyway. Heaven forbid that students will experience a "a sore throat, runny nose and a headache":

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59768366

  • by ed25519FUUU on 12/30/21, 5:43 PM

    I (fully vaccinated) wasn’t an anti-vaxxer until Webster literally changed the definition of the word to include those “who oppose regulations mandating vaccination“

    I feel pretty good about the safety and efficacy of the current vaccines, but the discourse is poisonous bordering on religious zealotry. What happens when vaccine with genuine safety issues comes along and is mandated?

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

  • by heybecker on 12/31/21, 2:33 AM

    Y'all are overthinking this. The answer is "Do Not Identify". Your vax status is between you and your doctor.
  • by guilhas on 12/30/21, 5:26 PM

    From "trust the science" to "just take the shot"
  • by debacle on 12/30/21, 5:30 PM

    Is there a notable difference in case loads between Socal and Norcal?

    Florida seems to have done relatively well for themselves (unless you buy into conspiracy theories about misreporting case loads), but I wonder if vit D and general level of outsideness plays a big role, but it's hard to make apples to apples comparisons between Florida and e.g. New York.

  • by vaccin8 on 12/30/21, 5:19 PM

    There’s a lot of extremism on both sides. I’m vaccinated, boosted etc. and very much pro-vaccine, however, I try to avoid extremism and I also like to understand the non-extremist opposition to my view. As such, I’ve been trying to find the non-extremist[1] anti-vaccine argument… but I’ve struggled. I guess this is as good a place as any: anyone here want to share their own anti-vax thoughts, or the thoughts of someone anti-vax that they respect?

    [1] I define extremist as the satanism / 5g microchip stuff.

  • by hn_throwaway_99 on 12/30/21, 6:20 PM

    Random question for the HN crowd. Does anyone think that at this point HN is in desperate need of some categorization/filtering capability on the front page (please let me know if it exists, here or in an HN mirror site and I'm missing it)?

    I'm soooo sick of these Covid threads. They basically never lead anywhere in the comments, it's the same shit over and over, folks presenting their take as unassailable fact. I'm not saying this article is deserving of being flagged, but over the past two years I greatly wish I at least had the capability to just look at "tech articles" vs. everything else.

    Also, I get it, it's easy to say "just don't look", I'm just asking if anyone else things an easy way to filter out some threads like this would be useful. This sentiment is basically a follow-on to a submission I posted recently, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29532676 , where the best consensus seemed to be that it's really not possible to have insightful, thoughtful debate on these sensitive topics, or at least it's the case that the HN threads really aren't that much higher quality on these topics than on other sites, and that's not true for lots of other categories of topics.