7 ms·

> However the main purpose of a vaccine is herd immunity. This is false when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines under development. They do not—and are not meant

by svrb 6y ago

> However the main purpose of a vaccine is herd immunity. This is false when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines under development. They do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. They only reduce the symptoms. This does not help herd immunity (other than perhaps allowing the virus to spread faster, I guess).

phobosanomaly 6y ago
Unless you're a PhD molecular biologist (I'm not) with some meta-understanding of mRNA vaccines and I've missed something, I think the person you're responding to is actually correct. "COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them." "Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19." "At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection. The benefit of mRNA vaccines, like all vaccines, is those vaccinated gain this protection without ever having to risk the serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...
- acqq 6y ago
  The quote you use doesn't claim sterilizing immunity but the "protection" and is misleading. The publicly reported protection of the vaccines seeking EUA is against the symptomatic disease, as it can be seen in the protocols of the vaccine studies. E.g. Moderna protocol: https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301... "To be considered as a case of COVID-19 for the evaluation of the Primary Efficacy Endpoint, the following criteria must be met: - The participant must have experienced at least TWO of the following systemic symptoms: Fever (≥ 38ºC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s), OR - The participant must have experienced at least ONE of the following respiratory signs/symptoms: cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, OR clinical or radiographical evidence of pneumonia; AND - The participant must have at least one NP swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if hospitalized) positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR." In some other protocols it's not written in an easily quotable way but spread through the text and tables, but if you analyze the protocols carefully, the goal is the same: it's the vaccinated and symptomatic that are counted and compared with the symptomatic counted in the placebo group. So whenever you saw "protection" up to now it was implicit it's the protection from the disease as defined above. Not the sterilizing immunity. Moderna's announcement is also explicit in mentioning so defined "primary endpoint": https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-primary-efficacy-analysis-phase-3-cove-study https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d... "The primary endpoint of the Phase 3 COVE study is based on the analysis of COVID-19 cases confirmed and adjudicated starting two weeks following the second dose of vaccine." We should eventually know more, but we still don't have that information.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    Both Moderna and Pfizer trials have secondary outcomes that are measurable, protective, neutralizing antibody titers. Check out the Pfizer press release. The vaccine is eliciting robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, as well as T-cell responses. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-share-positive-early-data-lead-mrna https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... That's a direct mechanism of protection that will help to both prevent people from getting sick, and knock down shedding. You're getting so far off in the details that you're missing the forest for the trees.
    - acqq 6y ago
      > That's a direct mechanism of protection that will help to both prevent people from getting sick That's what the reported numbers claim: up to 95% people less are getting sick. But it's unknown how much it will "knock down shedding" and the experts who follow only publicly available data are still cautious to claim the opposite of what you claim, specifically: "it will be important to communicate to policy makers and the general public that first-generation vaccines are only one tool in the overall public health response to COVID-19 and unlikely to be the ultimate solution that many expect." You may not like that or believe something else, but it's not what I hear and read the mentioned experts say, like, as an example, Natalie E. Dean whose article I've already linked to, and you can follow her other writings too. And, as far as I know, her opinion is far from being untypical, i.e. it would be easy to find more actual experts (which I define as those who were doing active research even before Covid-19 in the field and not something totally unrelated and who aren't just jumping in for political purposes -- note that that definition automatically excludes those like Ioannidis) who publicly say the same.
      - phobosanomaly 6y ago
        There is no ultimate public health solution ever in any situation! Of course our response will be a multi-faceted approach! Look at how many businesses are now installing UV-lights in ventilation systems, allowing people to work from home, and how the wearing of masks has become normalized and accepted in many parts of the country! People will no longer hesitate to throw on a mask if they feel ill, unlike before when we used to wander into Target sneezing and coughing all over everything! Think of how awesome that is for immunocompromised people! The vaccine will be a critical link in a long chain that will hopefully save thousands, and thousands of lives. Whether it 100% eliminates the shedding of any measurable viral particles, knocks it down by 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% or whatever, it's a huge win. Right now we have zero way to even think about reducing viral shedding in real-world populations. We're relying 100% on social distancing and masks. Get excited! We're gonna kick this thing!
- svrb 6y ago
  Imagine spending this much effort to spread your own ignorance.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    Only if you consider sharing helpful information from the CDC to be spreading ignorance.
    - svrb 6y ago
      The information you so generously "shared" was not helpful. You intentionally spread it in a misleading way, and at this point enough counter-evidence has been provided to you that you must know you were wrong, which means you are now arguing in bad faith. Nowhere on that page does the CDC claim that current COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of the virus (in fact they explicitly disclaim the vaccine's effect on herd immunity), but you selectively quoted to make it seem as though they might have said that. To be fair, a large portion of the blame lies with whoever wrote the copy for that CDC marketing page, as they are intentionally obscuring the fact that these vaccines do not prevent the spread of the virus. It's easily understandable why they are obscuring that fact and I suppose we should just be thankful that they haven't spread any outright lies on that page, again by explicitly making no claims about herd immunity. Note that the page does explain to people that they need to keep social distancing after receiving the vaccine, which shows that the CDC does acknowledge privately that the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus.
      - phobosanomaly 6y ago
        I haven't actually seen any convincing counter-evidence presented in a clear and concise manner. I've seen some stuff that gets off in the weeds, but ignores the mechanism of T-cell and B-cell mediated immunity and the most plausible mechanisms of transmission at an aggregate level, and that only focuses on primary outcomes of clinical trials, while ignoring secondary outcomes. But I haven't seen anything that was written in a way that would convince a mildly skeptical human (and I've spent some time behind a micropipette) that vaccines do nothing to prevent contracting and spreading viruses in a meaningful (clinical - not analytical) sense. I'm coming to this with an open mind, and I don't think I'm being a jerk about anything. I shared a quote from the CDC at face-value. You're just some faceless dude on the internet. Why should I believe you over the CDC? "At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection." <-- This is straight-up saying that the vaccine protects you from getting infected. I'm not quoting out of context or anything. If enough people are protected against getting infected, we reach herd immunity. Am I missing something here? I promise I'm not masterminding some elaborate FUD campaign to undermine your premise. You're just saying something that's super-counterintuitive and then getting angry at me because I don't see clear evidence for it in what you presented.

by svrb 6y ago

phobosanomaly 6y ago

Unless you're a PhD molecular biologist (I'm not) with some meta-understanding of mRNA vaccines and I've missed something, I think the person you're responding to is actually correct. "COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them." "Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19." "At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection. The benefit of mRNA vaccines, like all vaccines, is those vaccinated gain this protection without ever having to risk the serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...

acqq 6y ago
The quote you use doesn't claim sterilizing immunity but the "protection" and is misleading. The publicly reported protection of the vaccines seeking EUA is against the symptomatic disease, as it can be seen in the protocols of the vaccine studies. E.g. Moderna protocol: https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301... "To be considered as a case of COVID-19 for the evaluation of the Primary Efficacy Endpoint, the following criteria must be met: - The participant must have experienced at least TWO of the following systemic symptoms: Fever (≥ 38ºC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s), OR - The participant must have experienced at least ONE of the following respiratory signs/symptoms: cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, OR clinical or radiographical evidence of pneumonia; AND - The participant must have at least one NP swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if hospitalized) positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR." In some other protocols it's not written in an easily quotable way but spread through the text and tables, but if you analyze the protocols carefully, the goal is the same: it's the vaccinated and symptomatic that are counted and compared with the symptomatic counted in the placebo group. So whenever you saw "protection" up to now it was implicit it's the protection from the disease as defined above. Not the sterilizing immunity. Moderna's announcement is also explicit in mentioning so defined "primary endpoint": https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-primary-efficacy-analysis-phase-3-cove-study https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d... "The primary endpoint of the Phase 3 COVE study is based on the analysis of COVID-19 cases confirmed and adjudicated starting two weeks following the second dose of vaccine." We should eventually know more, but we still don't have that information.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Both Moderna and Pfizer trials have secondary outcomes that are measurable, protective, neutralizing antibody titers. Check out the Pfizer press release. The vaccine is eliciting robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, as well as T-cell responses. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-share-positive-early-data-lead-mrna https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... That's a direct mechanism of protection that will help to both prevent people from getting sick, and knock down shedding. You're getting so far off in the details that you're missing the forest for the trees.
  - acqq 6y ago
    > That's a direct mechanism of protection that will help to both prevent people from getting sick That's what the reported numbers claim: up to 95% people less are getting sick. But it's unknown how much it will "knock down shedding" and the experts who follow only publicly available data are still cautious to claim the opposite of what you claim, specifically: "it will be important to communicate to policy makers and the general public that first-generation vaccines are only one tool in the overall public health response to COVID-19 and unlikely to be the ultimate solution that many expect." You may not like that or believe something else, but it's not what I hear and read the mentioned experts say, like, as an example, Natalie E. Dean whose article I've already linked to, and you can follow her other writings too. And, as far as I know, her opinion is far from being untypical, i.e. it would be easy to find more actual experts (which I define as those who were doing active research even before Covid-19 in the field and not something totally unrelated and who aren't just jumping in for political purposes -- note that that definition automatically excludes those like Ioannidis) who publicly say the same.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      There is no ultimate public health solution ever in any situation! Of course our response will be a multi-faceted approach! Look at how many businesses are now installing UV-lights in ventilation systems, allowing people to work from home, and how the wearing of masks has become normalized and accepted in many parts of the country! People will no longer hesitate to throw on a mask if they feel ill, unlike before when we used to wander into Target sneezing and coughing all over everything! Think of how awesome that is for immunocompromised people! The vaccine will be a critical link in a long chain that will hopefully save thousands, and thousands of lives. Whether it 100% eliminates the shedding of any measurable viral particles, knocks it down by 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% or whatever, it's a huge win. Right now we have zero way to even think about reducing viral shedding in real-world populations. We're relying 100% on social distancing and masks. Get excited! We're gonna kick this thing!
svrb 6y ago
Imagine spending this much effort to spread your own ignorance.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Only if you consider sharing helpful information from the CDC to be spreading ignorance.
  - svrb 6y ago
    The information you so generously "shared" was not helpful. You intentionally spread it in a misleading way, and at this point enough counter-evidence has been provided to you that you must know you were wrong, which means you are now arguing in bad faith. Nowhere on that page does the CDC claim that current COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of the virus (in fact they explicitly disclaim the vaccine's effect on herd immunity), but you selectively quoted to make it seem as though they might have said that. To be fair, a large portion of the blame lies with whoever wrote the copy for that CDC marketing page, as they are intentionally obscuring the fact that these vaccines do not prevent the spread of the virus. It's easily understandable why they are obscuring that fact and I suppose we should just be thankful that they haven't spread any outright lies on that page, again by explicitly making no claims about herd immunity. Note that the page does explain to people that they need to keep social distancing after receiving the vaccine, which shows that the CDC does acknowledge privately that the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      I haven't actually seen any convincing counter-evidence presented in a clear and concise manner. I've seen some stuff that gets off in the weeds, but ignores the mechanism of T-cell and B-cell mediated immunity and the most plausible mechanisms of transmission at an aggregate level, and that only focuses on primary outcomes of clinical trials, while ignoring secondary outcomes. But I haven't seen anything that was written in a way that would convince a mildly skeptical human (and I've spent some time behind a micropipette) that vaccines do nothing to prevent contracting and spreading viruses in a meaningful (clinical - not analytical) sense. I'm coming to this with an open mind, and I don't think I'm being a jerk about anything. I shared a quote from the CDC at face-value. You're just some faceless dude on the internet. Why should I believe you over the CDC? "At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection." <-- This is straight-up saying that the vaccine protects you from getting infected. I'm not quoting out of context or anything. If enough people are protected against getting infected, we reach herd immunity. Am I missing something here? I promise I'm not masterminding some elaborate FUD campaign to undermine your premise. You're just saying something that's super-counterintuitive and then getting angry at me because I don't see clear evidence for it in what you presented.