3 ms·

If you're trying to make a point, I'd ask you make it more clearly. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines prevent infection, as the literature makes clear. What exactly is

If you're trying to make a point, I'd ask you make it more clearly. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines prevent infection, as the literature makes clear. What exactly is not clear?

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
GP said: > Vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce severity by training the body's immune system You said: > I don't know where this misinformation came from, but it is absolutely false. COVID vaccines have been shown to prevent infection... and cited a link which stated that > "... two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections." So, the vaccines reduce the risk of being the virus being present, as well as the risk that the virus being present will cause symptoms (and by implications, the risk of severe symptoms). Your link uses the term "infection" to cover both: * virus present, no symptoms * virus present, symptoms present Many people (including GP) would tend to use "infection" to refer to a single condition: virus present. So in that sense, GP is correct: the vaccine does not necessarily prevent the vaccine from being present in the body, but it is effective at reducing the risk that this will cause symptoms. Of course, your link also implies that there a reduction in the risk that detectable virus will occur after exposure to the virus (which is great!). But my reading of the whole document suggested that the authors are keen to allow for the possibility that a fully vaccinated person may still have detectable viral load in their body. Ergo, it does not "prevent infection".
- standardUser 5y ago
  If I smear some virus on you, you are not infected. An infection is defined by the growth of a pathogen, not its mere presence. When researchers look for an infection, as described in this study, they do not find an infection in most cases, hence the conclusion that infections are not taking hold and the vaccine is preventing an infection. This entire argument feels pedantic and is based on the idea that the researchers are just playing fast and loose with words.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection#Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection#Classification "The word infection can denote any presence of a particular pathogen at all (no matter how little) but also is often used in a sense implying a clinically apparent infection (in other words, a case of infectious disease).This fact occasionally creates some ambiguity or prompts some usage discussion; to get around this it is common for health professionals to speak of colonization (rather than infection) when they mean that some of the pathogens are present but that no clinically apparent infection (no disease) is present. "

If you're trying to make a point, I'd ask you make it more clearly. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines prevent infection, as the literature makes clear. What exactly is not clear?

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

GP said: > Vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce severity by training the body's immune system You said: > I don't know where this misinformation came from, but it is absolutely false. COVID vaccines have been shown to prevent infection... and cited a link which stated that > "... two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections." So, the vaccines reduce the risk of being the virus being present, as well as the risk that the virus being present will cause symptoms (and by implications, the risk of severe symptoms). Your link uses the term "infection" to cover both: * virus present, no symptoms * virus present, symptoms present Many people (including GP) would tend to use "infection" to refer to a single condition: virus present. So in that sense, GP is correct: the vaccine does not necessarily prevent the vaccine from being present in the body, but it is effective at reducing the risk that this will cause symptoms. Of course, your link also implies that there a reduction in the risk that detectable virus will occur after exposure to the virus (which is great!). But my reading of the whole document suggested that the authors are keen to allow for the possibility that a fully vaccinated person may still have detectable viral load in their body. Ergo, it does not "prevent infection".

standardUser 5y ago
If I smear some virus on you, you are not infected. An infection is defined by the growth of a pathogen, not its mere presence. When researchers look for an infection, as described in this study, they do not find an infection in most cases, hence the conclusion that infections are not taking hold and the vaccine is preventing an infection. This entire argument feels pedantic and is based on the idea that the researchers are just playing fast and loose with words.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection#Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection#Classification "The word infection can denote any presence of a particular pathogen at all (no matter how little) but also is often used in a sense implying a clinically apparent infection (in other words, a case of infectious disease).This fact occasionally creates some ambiguity or prompts some usage discussion; to get around this it is common for health professionals to speak of colonization (rather than infection) when they mean that some of the pathogens are present but that no clinically apparent infection (no disease) is present. "