6 ms·

Do these vaccines prevent a person from spreading the virus? I've heard a number of times that these will prevent the person who got the vaccine from getting si

Do these vaccines prevent a person from spreading the virus? I've heard a number of times that these will prevent the person who got the vaccine from getting sick, but that it won't prevent them from spreading the disease. If that is the case then I could understand why a young healthy person would not want the vaccine as the risk to them from covid is extremely low.

bognition 6y ago
Why would getting the vaccine increase your risk at all?
- tux1968 6y ago
  The vaccine is not field tested, so there is a risk in the unknown. The Canadian government at least is warning that some people may have an allergic reaction and are creating a tracking database to find out who is most at risk to such. Also, people are not perfect, so the entire supply chain poses some risk in delivering a bad batch of vaccine. In short, you should not be injecting things into your system unless you really need them.
  - blueline 6y ago
    > The vaccine is not field tested what exactly would you call phase 3 trials for the various vaccines that were done on thousands/tens of thousands of people?
    - tux1968 6y ago
      Not enough to know with absolute certainty what will happen when millions of people get it. Especially unforeseen reactions that take several years to appear. As much as you trust each of the (5?) vaccines, you yourself can not know for certainty.. there is some doubt. You may judge that that uncertainty and risk is minimal and well worth taking the vaccine, another completely rational person may decide that it is not worth the risk. The point of my post was that there is real and legitimate risk, be it ever so small. Anyone who pretends there is zero risk to the vaccine is misrepresenting the truth and doing a disservice in the effort of persuading rational adults that vaccine delivery is being lead in an honest and forthright way.
      - blueline 6y ago
        Well luckily we _do_ know what happens with a great deal of certainty when you get actually infected with covid, and it turns out it sucks pretty hard. i find this "better the devil you know" mindset really weird when the "devil you know" is an extremely infectious virus that has killed _three hundred thousand_ americans (not to mention more worldwide), and thousands more by the day. these hypothetical vaccine side effects that have not come up during any of the trials that have been going on for _months_, across thousands and thousands of participants, would have to be pretty insanely bad in order to outweigh the negatives of millions more people contracting the actual virus.
        tux1968 6y ago
        Those are certainly arguments you can make. But you have to acknowledge that there are huge incentives for the drug manufacturers to have a successful test and a healthy scepticism until they have been truly independently verified isn't unwarranted. Also a pure, as tested, vaccine doesn't magically appear for your inoculation, there is manufacturing, and delivery, and other potential contamination points along the way. It means what goes into your system isn't necessarily what has shown to be safe; not a huge risk, but a risk nonetheless. It would have made me feel better if you had started out your reply by saying.. "yes there are risks to this vaccine, but..". That way I would know we're working from the same starting point and I could trust that your views are calm and considered, and that you accept the reality that there is indeed risk to taking a foreign substance into your bloodstream. Many of us know people who have had Covid, and it wasn't a very big deal. Even fat old Donald Trump shrugged it off in a few days; granted he had the best medical care possible. That's not to diminish the loss of loved ones that have surely been taken by Covid. But it can make one question the statistical importance of Covid in the larger scheme of things. Again, i'm not really arguing with your points, just that they need to be presented with honesty, we shouldn't put a religious halo around vaccines; we should be clear about the risks too.
        cmurf 6y ago
        Trump received the Regeneron antibody treatment. He did not shrug it off. There aren't enough such treatments for everyone who would benefit from it.
- savanaly 6y ago
  Time has value, it takes time to get it. Also there are unknowns to any new medication and side effects of some vaccines. Of course there's also unknowns to getting covid, but it's at least internally consistent to favor one over the other.
- markkanof 6y ago
  Because it's a new vaccine and the mRNA ones are a completely new type of vaccine. They seem safe in limited use over a short period of time, but we don't know yet what effects they may have in the future. Also there is an aspect of if you are young and healthy your risk of serious effects from covid is low. Even if your risk of problems from the vaccine is low, if your risk of serious effects from the disease that the vaccine treats is also very low then why bother taking any action.
GloriousKoji 6y ago
Nothing is 100% yes or no, but it's safe to say that the vaccine helps reduce the spread of the virus. Vaccinated people can spread the virus on a (there's a better term for this) surface level, which is why it's still important for them to wear masks and wash hands. Hypothetical example of how it can spread: an infected person sneezes on a vaccinated person right in the face. That vaccinated person then rubs his face all over an non-vaccinated person. Really high chance the non-vaccinated person is infected. I also want to emphasize that a vaccinated person that came in contact with the corona virus is far less contagious than an asymptomatic person.
- rolph 6y ago
  >>Vaccinated people can spread the virus on a (there's a better term for this) surface level<< i think you are looking for "disease vectoring" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(epidemiology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(epidemiology)
oldie 6y ago
For young people, the risk of death is low, but even young people can suffer from long Covid: <https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4470 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4470>.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  I have heard rumors in the medical field that it’s possible that having had COVID might be considered a preexisting condition in the future. Imagine having COVID now, fully recovering, then developing an unrelated lung disease 10 years later just to find out that insurance won’t cover anything to do with it because they’ll just blame it on COVID.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    I've heard rumors in the medical field that it's impossible that having had COVID might be considered a preexisting condition in the future.
- timr 6y ago
  That paper doesn't show what you're claiming, because it lacked a control group. They explicitly say so: "The authors observed that neither symptoms nor blood investigations were predictive of organ impairment. “Causality of the relationship between organ impairment and infection cannot be deduced, but may be addressed by longitudinal follow-up of individuals with organ impairment,” the authors said." The paper took 201 people who self-reported as long Covid sufferers, and found that 66% of them had something that could be characterized as "organ impairment" when a whole-body MRI scan was conducted. It's not at all clear that this would differ significantly from any random group of people whom you stick in a whole-body MRI scan (let alone a group of people who had recently recovered from any other viral illness). Which is why we don't do them. Thus far, ~all such "long Covid" research has been anecdotal and/or uncontrolled. The evidence quality is quite poor.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  We know about as much about “long covid” as we do about the long term effects of the vaccines. So surely if you’re going to make that argument it should apply both ways?
h3cate 6y ago
Early thinking is that the virus still lives in the throat and can still be passed if you have had the vaccine. You won't get sick but the whole problem with this virus is people spreading it because they have not yet developed symptoms. Short answer, it doesn't look like it no.

bognition 6y ago

Why would getting the vaccine increase your risk at all?

tux1968 6y ago
The vaccine is not field tested, so there is a risk in the unknown. The Canadian government at least is warning that some people may have an allergic reaction and are creating a tracking database to find out who is most at risk to such. Also, people are not perfect, so the entire supply chain poses some risk in delivering a bad batch of vaccine. In short, you should not be injecting things into your system unless you really need them.
- blueline 6y ago
  > The vaccine is not field tested what exactly would you call phase 3 trials for the various vaccines that were done on thousands/tens of thousands of people?
  - tux1968 6y ago
    Not enough to know with absolute certainty what will happen when millions of people get it. Especially unforeseen reactions that take several years to appear. As much as you trust each of the (5?) vaccines, you yourself can not know for certainty.. there is some doubt. You may judge that that uncertainty and risk is minimal and well worth taking the vaccine, another completely rational person may decide that it is not worth the risk. The point of my post was that there is real and legitimate risk, be it ever so small. Anyone who pretends there is zero risk to the vaccine is misrepresenting the truth and doing a disservice in the effort of persuading rational adults that vaccine delivery is being lead in an honest and forthright way.
    - blueline 6y ago
      Well luckily we _do_ know what happens with a great deal of certainty when you get actually infected with covid, and it turns out it sucks pretty hard. i find this "better the devil you know" mindset really weird when the "devil you know" is an extremely infectious virus that has killed _three hundred thousand_ americans (not to mention more worldwide), and thousands more by the day. these hypothetical vaccine side effects that have not come up during any of the trials that have been going on for _months_, across thousands and thousands of participants, would have to be pretty insanely bad in order to outweigh the negatives of millions more people contracting the actual virus.
      - tux1968 6y ago
        Those are certainly arguments you can make. But you have to acknowledge that there are huge incentives for the drug manufacturers to have a successful test and a healthy scepticism until they have been truly independently verified isn't unwarranted. Also a pure, as tested, vaccine doesn't magically appear for your inoculation, there is manufacturing, and delivery, and other potential contamination points along the way. It means what goes into your system isn't necessarily what has shown to be safe; not a huge risk, but a risk nonetheless. It would have made me feel better if you had started out your reply by saying.. "yes there are risks to this vaccine, but..". That way I would know we're working from the same starting point and I could trust that your views are calm and considered, and that you accept the reality that there is indeed risk to taking a foreign substance into your bloodstream. Many of us know people who have had Covid, and it wasn't a very big deal. Even fat old Donald Trump shrugged it off in a few days; granted he had the best medical care possible. That's not to diminish the loss of loved ones that have surely been taken by Covid. But it can make one question the statistical importance of Covid in the larger scheme of things. Again, i'm not really arguing with your points, just that they need to be presented with honesty, we shouldn't put a religious halo around vaccines; we should be clear about the risks too.
        cmurf 6y ago
        Trump received the Regeneron antibody treatment. He did not shrug it off. There aren't enough such treatments for everyone who would benefit from it.
savanaly 6y ago
Time has value, it takes time to get it. Also there are unknowns to any new medication and side effects of some vaccines. Of course there's also unknowns to getting covid, but it's at least internally consistent to favor one over the other.
markkanof 6y ago
Because it's a new vaccine and the mRNA ones are a completely new type of vaccine. They seem safe in limited use over a short period of time, but we don't know yet what effects they may have in the future. Also there is an aspect of if you are young and healthy your risk of serious effects from covid is low. Even if your risk of problems from the vaccine is low, if your risk of serious effects from the disease that the vaccine treats is also very low then why bother taking any action.

GloriousKoji 6y ago

Nothing is 100% yes or no, but it's safe to say that the vaccine helps reduce the spread of the virus. Vaccinated people can spread the virus on a (there's a better term for this) surface level, which is why it's still important for them to wear masks and wash hands. Hypothetical example of how it can spread: an infected person sneezes on a vaccinated person right in the face. That vaccinated person then rubs his face all over an non-vaccinated person. Really high chance the non-vaccinated person is infected. I also want to emphasize that a vaccinated person that came in contact with the corona virus is far less contagious than an asymptomatic person.

rolph 6y ago
>>Vaccinated people can spread the virus on a (there's a better term for this) surface level<< i think you are looking for "disease vectoring" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(epidemiology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(epidemiology)

oldie 6y ago

For young people, the risk of death is low, but even young people can suffer from long Covid: <https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4470 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4470>.

IgorPartola 6y ago
I have heard rumors in the medical field that it’s possible that having had COVID might be considered a preexisting condition in the future. Imagine having COVID now, fully recovering, then developing an unrelated lung disease 10 years later just to find out that insurance won’t cover anything to do with it because they’ll just blame it on COVID.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  I've heard rumors in the medical field that it's impossible that having had COVID might be considered a preexisting condition in the future.
timr 6y ago
That paper doesn't show what you're claiming, because it lacked a control group. They explicitly say so: "The authors observed that neither symptoms nor blood investigations were predictive of organ impairment. “Causality of the relationship between organ impairment and infection cannot be deduced, but may be addressed by longitudinal follow-up of individuals with organ impairment,” the authors said." The paper took 201 people who self-reported as long Covid sufferers, and found that 66% of them had something that could be characterized as "organ impairment" when a whole-body MRI scan was conducted. It's not at all clear that this would differ significantly from any random group of people whom you stick in a whole-body MRI scan (let alone a group of people who had recently recovered from any other viral illness). Which is why we don't do them. Thus far, ~all such "long Covid" research has been anecdotal and/or uncontrolled. The evidence quality is quite poor.
TechBro8615 6y ago
We know about as much about “long covid” as we do about the long term effects of the vaccines. So surely if you’re going to make that argument it should apply both ways?

h3cate 6y ago

Early thinking is that the virus still lives in the throat and can still be passed if you have had the vaccine. You won't get sick but the whole problem with this virus is people spreading it because they have not yet developed symptoms. Short answer, it doesn't look like it no.