7 ms·

But you _did_ catch covid so being careful isn't always enough. I don't think it's emotional or unreasonable for your family to require the vaccine before you v

by mehphp 5y ago

But you _did_ catch covid so being careful isn't always enough. I don't think it's emotional or unreasonable for your family to require the vaccine before you visit. Also, I'm not suggesting that you will "kill everyone" by not getting the vaccine, but it really isn't just about you and that you personally will probably recover. Do you think it's a reasonable thing for most people to take your stance and not get vaccinated? We are at the tail end of this thing _because_ we have a vaccination available.

deweller 5y ago
The thing that I find so wrong about this type of argument is that the vaccine is not proven to prevent spreading the virus. It is only proven to stop the onset of COVID-19 after one contracts the virus. So the line of reasoning that argues one should get vaccinated to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is not valid. Edit: Wow - the downvotes... There is some evidence that transmission is reduced, but it is not proven: "the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
- pandem 5y ago
  I'm not sure why people keep saying this. The original studies did not study if the vaccine prevents spread, that is true. I'm not certain myself, but I believe that studies done based on COVID spread in countries where vaccination rates are high (at least Israel) point to the direction that it prevents spread as well. Are these not valid data points?
  - beiller 5y ago
    There was also the Seychelles data point which had the highest vaccinated rate and then had a large outbreak after.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      Which vaccine did they use? The CDC says the strongest evidence for preventing spread is for the mRNA vaccines.
      - cylinder714 5y ago
        The vaccine produced by China's Sinopharm company: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sinopharm+seychelles&t=fpas&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sinopharm+seychelles&t=fpas&ia=web
        beiller 5y ago
        Not entirely accurate. From the top article in your search: "Among the vaccinated population that has had two doses, 57 percent was given Sinopharm, while 43 percent was given AstraZeneca."
    - lbeltrame 5y ago
      The outbreak was mostly in unvaccinated people, and there was no background of prior infections (they never had a first wave). Besides, studies on healthcare workers, who are tested regularly, showed a clear reduction in transmission.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I thought I read that it was proven to significantly reduce the likelihood of infection as well as completely eliminate the risk of hospitalization if you do get infected. Admittedly, the media coverage was abysmal (everyone was just quoting “90% effective” without clarifying “effective at what?”).
- DennisP 5y ago
  Not proven, but looking increasingly likely. From your own link to the CDC, "A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others."
- newsbinator 5y ago
  I suspect people have a question in their minds for months ("Will the upcoming vaccines prevent a vaccinated person from carrying and spreading the virus?"), and whatever is the first credible reply to that question, they cement it in their understanding ("you may still spread covid if you're vaccinated"). Now we have far more real world data and it appears that even if a vaccinated person is carrying an asymptomatic infection that they shed very little virus. This is not a certainty, but things are leaning that way. But people can't replace the old "fact" they knew with the new "fact".
peteradio 5y ago
Vaccinate the high risk people then.
- camgunz 5y ago
  This doesn't work because non-vaccinated people will breed variants, which the original vaccine won't work on.
  - NeutronStar 5y ago
    What you're saying is kill all bats and all other animals because they don't get vaccinated and produce variants of viruses?
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Sounds like boosters are needed regardless. High risk people get boosters, problem solved.
    - camgunz 5y ago
      Sure but in the interim, high risk people die. Your argument is essentially "I would rather not get a vaccine, even in the face of some high risk people dying". My argument is "I would rather everyone (within reason) get a vaccine, even in the face of some people not liking it".
  - frankfrankfrank 5y ago
    That is clearly not logically consistent. I also know that the following will be very bothersome to hear for many people and I hope to . Nothing would indicate that unvaccinated would lead to mutations, especially over vaccinated whose vaccination does not actually perform as well as natural immunity developed from the body naturally building immunity. What is actually bing discussed in the non-corporate medical community and research is starting to validate the very well understood theory that relatively poorly performing vaccines are actually going to lead to mutations if they haven't already. It is the same concept that has led to "antibiotic resistant bacteria" when antibiotics are either overused or not used as long as they should be, leaving the most resistant bacteria to reproduce. I realize it must be difficult to accept such a contradiction to what people are told by the corporate media and corporate medical industrial complex. It also requires accepting and acknowledging that may have been injected with an untested/risky novel experimental medial compound for no good reason, but that it will likely also lead to even worse variants that will require ever more vaccines that are ever less tested and will increase risks of adverse reactions with every single event. No matter what, we have clearly cast the die and things have clearly been fundamentally shifted in ways that are clearly carry unknown outcomes. THAT should really worry people, even if we all survive this particular event, scathing by relatively unharmed. What happens when the next virus comes around that may actually be as dangerous as we were scared about and some or maybe all of the next rushed vaccines trigger antibody-dependent enhancement or some other mortal effect that kills millions with no way to prevent it. We ARE playing with fire here. No matter how we look at it. Someone, possibly many, will be get burned at some point probably far sooner than one would think.
yostrovs 5y ago
This comment avoids the facts noted in the linked article, which seem to point to perpetual immunity of anyone who was infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the past.
- skrowl 5y ago
  It's strange how the same people who scream "TRUST THE SCIENCE" the loudest seem to ignore your body naturally producing antibodies to Covid after you've been infected and recovered. You simply don't need a vaccine to help your body produce antibodies if you already have them. Not just for covid 19 but for anything. Don't let anyone shame you or pressure you into getting a vaccine that you're not comfortable getting.
  - Accacin 5y ago
    What's your area of expertise regarding antibodies? I'm quite happy admitting that I do not know anything other than the basics and trust in experts in their respective fields instead.
    - skrowl 5y ago
      It's literally in OP's linked article. Did you come here to comment without even clicking the link?
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      I don't trust anyone without running a skeptical eye over their claims. Blind faith in authority is authoritarianism manifest.
  - Frost1x 5y ago
    >It's strange how the same people who scream "TRUST THE SCIENCE" the loudest seem to ignore your body naturally producing antibodies to Covid after you've been infected and recovered. It's not strange at all. Human beings have probably been doing this since not too long after languages developed: Do 'X' because 'Y', since 'Y' is in agreement with my opinion and personal interests of you doing 'X'. 'Y' may be science, religion, math, emotion, whatever. The point is that many people will push information they want pushed with and later contradict themselves if need be as long as they can consistently push the information they want. The arguments and rationale are usually secondary, not the primary driver. Politicians do this a lot. It's lying in the form of intellectual dishonesty or sheer ignorance. Many highly religious people push firm accordance with their religion or their interpretation of their religion, while allowing their own desires to shape those ground rules: they pick and choose which rules to follow literally and which to interpret, and so on. There are a lot of people out peddling things in the name of science but they don't understand science: evidence, process, uncertainty, etc. When it comes to COVID we've learned a lot but there's still a lot of uncertainty around a lot of aspects in various studies and we need to understand that with humility and act accordingly.
JPKab 5y ago
The person you are responding to is not *most people". They had the virus and they recovered. The vaccine is intended to create immunity in people who don't already have it because they haven't already caught the virus. This really isn't complicated.
- zamalek 5y ago
  The vaccines are effective against the spike protein, which is what makes SARS-CoV-2 so virulent. In reality, there are many ways skin that cat, and there's no guarantee that the body chose the spike protein. From the article: > most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 No matter how you slice it, you are playing 'Rona Roulette if you don't get vaccinated. The CDC also recommends getting vaccinated despite any prior infection, and there has been anecdotes of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome being alleviated with a vaccination. The root comment is special pleading.
  - beagle3 5y ago
    If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. The claims about superiority of vaccine induced immunity that I’ve seen all rely on antibody counts, and in the very short term that may very well be true - but the importance of T-cells is not sufficiently well characterized to say it with certainty.
    - xref 5y ago
      > If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. Where’s the research showing there is more effective immunity possible than the spike protein method of the vaccine?
    - zamalek 5y ago
      ... which hinges completely on the virus not evolving at all, which is outside of the realm of reality. Evolving a new spike is extremely disadvantageous for the virus. Widespread natural immunity is not enough to prevent a repeat of this this or next year, especially when we have evolutionary hotbeds in countries which could not (or would not) do anything to prevent the spread.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> Do you think it's a reasonable thing for most people to take your stance and not get vaccinated? As with any other disease, it is reasonable (and expected) for everyone who had covid to not get vaccinated, given that the immunity you get from having the disease is always better than what you'd get from a vaccine. That this is even considered controversial by some people just goes to show you how far our science education has failed us.
- jf22 5y ago
  >given that the immunity you get from having the disease is always better than what you'd get from a vaccine This is false. Stop spreading misinformation.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Stop spreading misinformation. My comment was not false, and in fact is quite obvious. e.g. from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Waiver_Ed_Natural_Immunity_479884_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Waiver_Ed_Natural_Im... "It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines."
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      The only argument that document takes about it actually being better is that with some vaccines you need two shots instead of one. That's not compelling as being "better" at all. "Better" would imply that, once the complete course of vaccination is complete, the immunity is somehow more complete, stronger, or longer lasting.
    - jf22 5y ago
      Quite often what is "obvious" isn't true. Take some time and do some reading on this topic and you'll find that vaccines can provide equal or better immunity than a natural infection.
    - jhayward 5y ago
      Your comment was indeed false, and many many studies have been done to compare natural vs vaccine immunity. Vaccination with a highly effective vaccine, e.g. Moderna or Phizer/BNT yield higher antibody response, and are more protective against variants in study after study.
loveistheanswer 5y ago
>We are at the tail end of this thing _because_ we have a vaccination available. Are you implying naturally gained immunity does not play a role in herd immunity? Is there any data which supports this hypothesis?
- Isn0gud 5y ago
  No he is not
- zamalek 5y ago
  Brazil. Sweden. Seasonal flu. HIV. Human immunity is not the sole factor in herd immunity.

by mehphp 5y ago

deweller 5y ago

The thing that I find so wrong about this type of argument is that the vaccine is not proven to prevent spreading the virus. It is only proven to stop the onset of COVID-19 after one contracts the virus. So the line of reasoning that argues one should get vaccinated to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is not valid. Edit: Wow - the downvotes... There is some evidence that transmission is reduced, but it is not proven: "the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

pandem 5y ago
I'm not sure why people keep saying this. The original studies did not study if the vaccine prevents spread, that is true. I'm not certain myself, but I believe that studies done based on COVID spread in countries where vaccination rates are high (at least Israel) point to the direction that it prevents spread as well. Are these not valid data points?
- beiller 5y ago
  There was also the Seychelles data point which had the highest vaccinated rate and then had a large outbreak after.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Which vaccine did they use? The CDC says the strongest evidence for preventing spread is for the mRNA vaccines.
    - cylinder714 5y ago
      The vaccine produced by China's Sinopharm company: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sinopharm+seychelles&t=fpas&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sinopharm+seychelles&t=fpas&ia=web
      - beiller 5y ago
        Not entirely accurate. From the top article in your search: "Among the vaccinated population that has had two doses, 57 percent was given Sinopharm, while 43 percent was given AstraZeneca."
  - lbeltrame 5y ago
    The outbreak was mostly in unvaccinated people, and there was no background of prior infections (they never had a first wave). Besides, studies on healthcare workers, who are tested regularly, showed a clear reduction in transmission.
throwaway894345 5y ago
I thought I read that it was proven to significantly reduce the likelihood of infection as well as completely eliminate the risk of hospitalization if you do get infected. Admittedly, the media coverage was abysmal (everyone was just quoting “90% effective” without clarifying “effective at what?”).
DennisP 5y ago
Not proven, but looking increasingly likely. From your own link to the CDC, "A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others."
newsbinator 5y ago
I suspect people have a question in their minds for months ("Will the upcoming vaccines prevent a vaccinated person from carrying and spreading the virus?"), and whatever is the first credible reply to that question, they cement it in their understanding ("you may still spread covid if you're vaccinated"). Now we have far more real world data and it appears that even if a vaccinated person is carrying an asymptomatic infection that they shed very little virus. This is not a certainty, but things are leaning that way. But people can't replace the old "fact" they knew with the new "fact".

peteradio 5y ago

Vaccinate the high risk people then.

camgunz 5y ago
This doesn't work because non-vaccinated people will breed variants, which the original vaccine won't work on.
- NeutronStar 5y ago
  What you're saying is kill all bats and all other animals because they don't get vaccinated and produce variants of viruses?
- peteradio 5y ago
  Sounds like boosters are needed regardless. High risk people get boosters, problem solved.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    Sure but in the interim, high risk people die. Your argument is essentially "I would rather not get a vaccine, even in the face of some high risk people dying". My argument is "I would rather everyone (within reason) get a vaccine, even in the face of some people not liking it".
- frankfrankfrank 5y ago
  That is clearly not logically consistent. I also know that the following will be very bothersome to hear for many people and I hope to . Nothing would indicate that unvaccinated would lead to mutations, especially over vaccinated whose vaccination does not actually perform as well as natural immunity developed from the body naturally building immunity. What is actually bing discussed in the non-corporate medical community and research is starting to validate the very well understood theory that relatively poorly performing vaccines are actually going to lead to mutations if they haven't already. It is the same concept that has led to "antibiotic resistant bacteria" when antibiotics are either overused or not used as long as they should be, leaving the most resistant bacteria to reproduce. I realize it must be difficult to accept such a contradiction to what people are told by the corporate media and corporate medical industrial complex. It also requires accepting and acknowledging that may have been injected with an untested/risky novel experimental medial compound for no good reason, but that it will likely also lead to even worse variants that will require ever more vaccines that are ever less tested and will increase risks of adverse reactions with every single event. No matter what, we have clearly cast the die and things have clearly been fundamentally shifted in ways that are clearly carry unknown outcomes. THAT should really worry people, even if we all survive this particular event, scathing by relatively unharmed. What happens when the next virus comes around that may actually be as dangerous as we were scared about and some or maybe all of the next rushed vaccines trigger antibody-dependent enhancement or some other mortal effect that kills millions with no way to prevent it. We ARE playing with fire here. No matter how we look at it. Someone, possibly many, will be get burned at some point probably far sooner than one would think.

yostrovs 5y ago

This comment avoids the facts noted in the linked article, which seem to point to perpetual immunity of anyone who was infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the past.

skrowl 5y ago
It's strange how the same people who scream "TRUST THE SCIENCE" the loudest seem to ignore your body naturally producing antibodies to Covid after you've been infected and recovered. You simply don't need a vaccine to help your body produce antibodies if you already have them. Not just for covid 19 but for anything. Don't let anyone shame you or pressure you into getting a vaccine that you're not comfortable getting.
- Accacin 5y ago
  What's your area of expertise regarding antibodies? I'm quite happy admitting that I do not know anything other than the basics and trust in experts in their respective fields instead.
  - skrowl 5y ago
    It's literally in OP's linked article. Did you come here to comment without even clicking the link?
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    I don't trust anyone without running a skeptical eye over their claims. Blind faith in authority is authoritarianism manifest.
- Frost1x 5y ago
  >It's strange how the same people who scream "TRUST THE SCIENCE" the loudest seem to ignore your body naturally producing antibodies to Covid after you've been infected and recovered. It's not strange at all. Human beings have probably been doing this since not too long after languages developed: Do 'X' because 'Y', since 'Y' is in agreement with my opinion and personal interests of you doing 'X'. 'Y' may be science, religion, math, emotion, whatever. The point is that many people will push information they want pushed with and later contradict themselves if need be as long as they can consistently push the information they want. The arguments and rationale are usually secondary, not the primary driver. Politicians do this a lot. It's lying in the form of intellectual dishonesty or sheer ignorance. Many highly religious people push firm accordance with their religion or their interpretation of their religion, while allowing their own desires to shape those ground rules: they pick and choose which rules to follow literally and which to interpret, and so on. There are a lot of people out peddling things in the name of science but they don't understand science: evidence, process, uncertainty, etc. When it comes to COVID we've learned a lot but there's still a lot of uncertainty around a lot of aspects in various studies and we need to understand that with humility and act accordingly.

JPKab 5y ago

The person you are responding to is not *most people". They had the virus and they recovered. The vaccine is intended to create immunity in people who don't already have it because they haven't already caught the virus. This really isn't complicated.

zamalek 5y ago
The vaccines are effective against the spike protein, which is what makes SARS-CoV-2 so virulent. In reality, there are many ways skin that cat, and there's no guarantee that the body chose the spike protein. From the article: > most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 No matter how you slice it, you are playing 'Rona Roulette if you don't get vaccinated. The CDC also recommends getting vaccinated despite any prior infection, and there has been anecdotes of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome being alleviated with a vaccination. The root comment is special pleading.
- beagle3 5y ago
  If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. The claims about superiority of vaccine induced immunity that I’ve seen all rely on antibody counts, and in the very short term that may very well be true - but the importance of T-cells is not sufficiently well characterized to say it with certainty.
  - xref 5y ago
    > If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. Where’s the research showing there is more effective immunity possible than the spike protein method of the vaccine?
  - zamalek 5y ago
    ... which hinges completely on the virus not evolving at all, which is outside of the realm of reality. Evolving a new spike is extremely disadvantageous for the virus. Widespread natural immunity is not enough to prevent a repeat of this this or next year, especially when we have evolutionary hotbeds in countries which could not (or would not) do anything to prevent the spread.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> Do you think it's a reasonable thing for most people to take your stance and not get vaccinated? As with any other disease, it is reasonable (and expected) for everyone who had covid to not get vaccinated, given that the immunity you get from having the disease is always better than what you'd get from a vaccine. That this is even considered controversial by some people just goes to show you how far our science education has failed us.

jf22 5y ago
>given that the immunity you get from having the disease is always better than what you'd get from a vaccine This is false. Stop spreading misinformation.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Stop spreading misinformation. My comment was not false, and in fact is quite obvious. e.g. from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Waiver_Ed_Natural_Immunity_479884_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Waiver_Ed_Natural_Im... "It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines."
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    The only argument that document takes about it actually being better is that with some vaccines you need two shots instead of one. That's not compelling as being "better" at all. "Better" would imply that, once the complete course of vaccination is complete, the immunity is somehow more complete, stronger, or longer lasting.
  - jf22 5y ago
    Quite often what is "obvious" isn't true. Take some time and do some reading on this topic and you'll find that vaccines can provide equal or better immunity than a natural infection.
  - jhayward 5y ago
    Your comment was indeed false, and many many studies have been done to compare natural vs vaccine immunity. Vaccination with a highly effective vaccine, e.g. Moderna or Phizer/BNT yield higher antibody response, and are more protective against variants in study after study.

loveistheanswer 5y ago

>We are at the tail end of this thing _because_ we have a vaccination available. Are you implying naturally gained immunity does not play a role in herd immunity? Is there any data which supports this hypothesis?

Isn0gud 5y ago
No he is not
zamalek 5y ago
Brazil. Sweden. Seasonal flu. HIV. Human immunity is not the sole factor in herd immunity.