All you need is to 1. convert documents to embeddings (OpenAI or some other local library for this), 2. store all embeddings in an index like (SaaS like Pinecone or FAISS locally), 3. run query against embeddings. Just a document search is likely good enough, but if not you can use a completion algorithm in a simple LLM of the docs to generate answers.
> Months ago he was insisting that the people who had contracted COVID-19 and who had antibodies in their system may not need the vaccine. Now, we have a number of studies coming out to support that.
No such study exists, please link to the primary research.
Vaccination always offers stronger protection than getting the virus [1], and more importantly, even if they offered equivalent protection for 99% of people, the portion of the additional 1% of people without a vaccine who show up at a hospital are going to be much sicker than the vaccinated with breakthrough infections and more likely to need to go or stay at a hospital for an extended period of time (29x more likely [2]), which our healthcare system cannot support. We've had to ration care and kick out cancer patients out of hospitals [3], who have subsequently died as a result of lack of care, but we should allow for limited resources to be used up by the willfully unvaccinated? I have personally had family members in need of critical care have care rationed due to hospitals being full with 99%+ unvaccinated folks. So much for the personal responsibility crowd living up to their slogans.
Your first link does not actually claim that “vaccination always offers stronger protection than getting the virus”. It indicates “among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 [the study] shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus”. So it’s comparing infected + vaccinated to just infected, not just infected vs just vaccinated.
You have just (unintentionally) shared misinformation about the vaccine. Would you support deleting your comment from HN?
So rephrasing what you said, unvaccinated individuals who are twice as likely to get reinfected than those with a who were vaccinated after infection means that vaccination doesn't always offer stronger protection than getting the virus?
This isn't exhaustive in the sense that it doesn't cover all permutations of vaccinated, infected, and, but it shows that at least infected + vaccinated is better than infected. That seems to meet the criteria that vaccination always offer stronger protection than getting the virus (at least in the vaccinated + infected vs infected populations).
But even a cursory glance at the study shows that the authors of the study knew this wasn't exhaustive, but they cite research [1] backing up OPs claim, and then add their voice to back up that vaccine > infection, vaccine + infection > infection, and make OPs conclusion in the Discussion section.
> This isn't exhaustive in the sense that it doesn't cover all permutations of vaccinated, infected, and, but it shows that at least infected + vaccinated is better than infected. That seems to meet the criteria that vaccination always offer stronger protection than getting the virus (at least in the vaccinated + infected vs infected populations).
It is consistent with that criteria, but generally “always” means something stronger than “we have evidence it holds in one case”. Especially if that case is the rarest permutation.
> But even a cursory glance at the study shows that the authors of the study knew this wasn't exhaustive, but they cite research [1] backing up OPs claim, and then add their voice to back up that vaccine > infection, vaccine + infection > infection, and make OPs conclusion in the Discussion section.
The paper you just linked was cited on the line “Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 has been documented, but the scientific understanding of natural infection-derived immunity is still emerging” in the OP’s article. The closest line I can find to “back up that vaccine > infection” is an offhand “ Although such laboratory evidence continues to suggest that vaccination provides improved neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 variants, limited evidence in real-world settings to date corroborates the findings that vaccination can provide improved protection for previously infected persons” which doesn’t seem like a particularly strong stance for “vaccine > infection”. Especially when we get back to the original claim which used “always”.
And it appears that they may have been wise in not going that far, since now that we have studies in review that directly measure the endpoints we’re discussing it’s certainly not clear that this is true[1][2].
I’ll wait for those to get peer reviewed and more widely discussed before I’d be comfortable saying “in most cases infection > vaccine” (note I didn’t use the word “always”, which I doubt any researcher or clinician would) but the actual opposing claims in the papers you’ve cited are comparatively tangential to the original “always vaccine > infection” claim.
This was in the context of reinfections, read the context of the comments and the article. The argument being made is that because someone got infected with COVID, they should not need to get a vaccine because natural immunity provides better protection, which is clearly false per the CDC. You are less likely to get reinfected or wind up in the hospital, per the article: "The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection. Additionally, a second publication from MMWR shows vaccines prevented COVID-19 related hospitalizations among the highest risk age groups. As cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rise, the data in today’s MMWR reinforce that COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to prevent COVID-19."
I have trouble seeing how “vaccination always offers stronger protection than getting the virus” could be equivalent to “getting the virus plus vaccination always offers stronger protection than getting the virus”. But anyway you made a clearer claim this time around:
> The argument being made is that because someone got infected with COVID, they should not need to get a vaccine because natural immunity provides better protection, which is clearly false per the CDC.
That link and the study it cited did not compare natural immunity to vaccine protection, since every participant had been previously infected with COVID. That is inherent in the fact that the study examined reinfection, and they are clear that the vaccination occurred after the original infection. You can not compare two populations when one of them does not exist in your study!
The tradeoff is always the benefit of getting vaccinated weighed against the potential harm of side-effects. The only strong claim made on behalf of the efficacy of the vaccines is that they will greatly reduce the vaccinated individual's chance of hospitalization and death. Those chances vary due to a number of factors, age and obesity being just two of the most important. An otherwise fit and healthy individual in his or her twenties or thirties already has a low chance of being hospitalized or dying. But, for the sake of argument, let's agree that the benefit outweighs the risk.
That benefit to risk ratio changes if that same young, fit, and healthy individual has already been infected with COVID-19. So, now what's the tradeoff? My original point is that in the current environment, there are some people who would rather not only that this not be discussed; some would rather that discussion—and perhaps even research into the question—be shut down.
Let's not pretend we're being governed by scientists. We're being governed by bureaucrats. No matter their credentials, the function of a bureaucrat is gaining compliance and expanding his or her department. That's what's behind calls for censorship.
Note that this is specifically the case in regards to the Delta variant. All prior variants showed the vaccine being much more effective than infection immunity.
Although, even with this, getting both still provides even greater immunity with no downside.
(Plus I think far too many people will say "oh, I had a cold sometime in the last year but didn't get tested. That was probably COVID so I have an excuse to not get vaccinated now.")
I personally had the vaccine because I have high blood pressure and I'm borderline diabetic at 40+. I made my call and took my chances. Others should have the right to make their own call.
I'm saying that "no downside" and those sort of claims are outright false and people should have the right to choose for themselves wherether the risks are worth the reward.
Also here'a copy paste from the FDA meeting from oct 2020:
FDA Safety Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines : DRAFTWorking list of possible adverse event outcomes*Subject to change*Guillain-Barré syndrome Acute disseminated encephalomyelitisTransverse myelitisEncephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/ meningoencephalitis/meningitis/ encepholapathyConvulsions/seizuresStrokeNarcolepsy and cataplexyAnaphylaxisAcute myocardial infarctionMyocarditis/pericarditisAutoimmune diseaseDeathsPregnancy and birth outcomesOther acute demyelinating diseasesNon-anaphylactic allergic reactionsThrombocytopeniaDisseminated intravascular coagulationVenous thromboembolismArthritis and arthralgia/joint painKawasaki diseaseMultisystem I nflammatory Syndrome in ChildrenVaccine enhanced disease
While unfortunate, that's a much better statistical outcome than getting COVID, for the hundreds of millions who got COVID and have some form of long COVID, and 4.55M dead as of today.
That’s not really true that vaccination is always more protective, immunology is complex and there’s more interesting nuance to that. See the latest twiv with Shane Crotty, he goes into detail about how natural infection plus one shot creates a better response than reversing the order.
I’m not wringing my hands over anti vax content being pulled at all, but I don’t think we should be reductive about the science. That doesn’t help to establish trust.
That's not conflicting research and they very clearly state that this is not peer reviewed yet. I'd hold off on using this as the basis for any claim until then.
There is no conflicting research and the conclusion drawn by this research needs further parsing as it may not be applicable to all populations.
Nonetheless, this study should not be taken as an endorsement that getting infected is a better overall option for protection than the highly effective vaccines.
Vaccines work by prompting a targeted (partial) immune response. They give your body advanced designs for part of the virus so it can be proactive - the con is a vaccine can not provide all of the information.
Contracting a virus provides your body with the full genetic footprint of the virus. Assuming you survive, you should have better antibodies than what a vaccine can provide.
In practice it doesn't actually work out that way. 1/3 of people who get covid have no antibodies at all, whereas everyone (who is not immunocompromised) who gets the vaccine develops antibodies.
Sure, absolutely. The point the author is making is that since you're more likely to get an antibody response with the vaccine, you're getting a benefit from the vaccine that there's a decent chance you won't get from catching the virus.
The article doesn't say what you think it says. Please post a link to a peer reviewed article that shows that natural immunity drives better reinfection outcomes and recovery rates than vaccines do.
This pricing is highway robbery, how is the incremental setup of an IP in a /29 (only 6 usable addresses out of 2^3=8) when setting up 8 (at $19/IP) total $152? I can see how the monthly rate would change, but upfront setup that high? I guess I won't be using Hetzner going forward..
> I can see how the monthly rate would change, but upfront setup that high?
Presumably this is to make it untenable for spammers to churn through multiple blocks of /24s at little to no cost.
Also, a /24 is going for around $10k to buy or sell on the IPv4 market now, or approx 50% of their setup fee, making it much more economical to buy your own space, which is probably what they'd rather you did, since giving you 256 IPs means thats 256 more servers that they cant sell.
EDIT: and before the response of "but I only want a /29", if there's no incremental setup cost to get a larger block, that approach will get abused by nefarious users. This is why we can't have nice things.
EDIT2: ..and a /29 still means 8 more servers that can't be sold. There's opportunity costs involved in leasing IP space that could be better used elsewhere. As the cost of acquisition of IPv4 space goes up, so does the cost to the end user.
>Presumably this is to make it untenable for spammers to churn through multiple blocks of /24s at little to no cost.
This is exactly what it does. Hetzner Cloud will also, to the dismay of my ssh known hosts, keep assigning you the same IPv4 addresses until it becomes the LRU in their pool for a new customer so you can't do this.
Did u even read the reasoning? IPv4 prices are rising for last 5 years (or even more) price increase is nothing new (my ISP is taking 7 euro per month for IPv4, few years ago it was 2 euro)
They want to encourage people to buy individual addresses if that works for them. Because that way they can offer them individual bits and pieces rather than having to find contiguous chunks.
When you can read the DOJ case filings and all the facts of the case, where he actually agreed that he did in fact commit crimes, there's no need to "hear from the accused's own mouth." You're just making excuses for someone's crimes in the name of some intellectual purity exercise. Do you also believe there were "good people on both sides" in Charlottesville?
Typically, but no guarantee. And on what time frame, nobody knows.