3 ms·

Do they actually reduce spread or do they instead just make people who catch it more likely to avoid hospitalization and increase their survival chances? If it

Do they actually reduce spread or do they instead just make people who catch it more likely to avoid hospitalization and increase their survival chances? If it is the first I can see why they do it, if it is the second then I do not see the point of enforcing it. Although I wonder if they will consider workers who passed covid before (and thus have antibodies) as "vaccinated". > The vaccines are tested and are safe Weren't there various (rare) occurrences of serious side effects? (such as the blood clot thing for astra and jonson or myocarditis for pfizer and moderna)

majormajor 5y ago
From the data I've seen, they are potentially looking more effective at preventing cases than at preventing hospitalization: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-angeles-covid-june-vaccine-breakthrough-cases https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-ange... > Among fully vaccinated people, there were about 27 coronavirus infections for every 100,000 county residents in June, according to figures presented Thursday. But among people not fully vaccinated, there were 125 infections for every 100,000 residents. > That month, there were also 2 fully vaccinated people hospitalized for every 100,000 residents — much smaller than the comparable rate, 11, for people not fully vaccinated. So per 100k fully vaccinated people, 27 cases and 2 hospitalizations. Or: 7.4% of cases resulting in hospitalization. Per 100k not-fully-vaccinated: 125 cases and 11 hospitalizations. Or: 8.8% of cases resulting in hospitalization. What this doesn't tell us is "how many cases were so mild and occurred in people who aren't getting test regularly that they went under the radar." I don't know of any data telling us anything about what the "mild case rate" looks like for vaccinated vs unvaccinated (it would be VERY hard to measure without widespread mandatory testing). But if you've got a case that gets detected, the vaccine doesn't really seem to prevent that case from hospitalizing you at the same rate as before. It just prevents you from getting those cases nearly as frequently as the rest of the population.
- cowl 5y ago
  UK statstics show a 20 factor reduction in hospitalisation rates for vaccinated people vs non vaccinated. However what is not considered in all these statistics is the non-symtomatic cases. If hospitalisation rate is 20 times lower it means also that symtomatic infections are way lower than those detected. In your cited statistics for those 27 cases there would be a lot more not diagnosed at all. The risk here is that although they will pass it without notice they will also risk infecting others-hence the recomandation that vaccinated people still need to use masks. There is a great risk on falling into complancy here if we think vaccination is the silver bullet and is enough.

majormajor 5y ago

From the data I've seen, they are potentially looking more effective at preventing cases than at preventing hospitalization: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-angeles-covid-june-vaccine-breakthrough-cases https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-ange... > Among fully vaccinated people, there were about 27 coronavirus infections for every 100,000 county residents in June, according to figures presented Thursday. But among people not fully vaccinated, there were 125 infections for every 100,000 residents. > That month, there were also 2 fully vaccinated people hospitalized for every 100,000 residents — much smaller than the comparable rate, 11, for people not fully vaccinated. So per 100k fully vaccinated people, 27 cases and 2 hospitalizations. Or: 7.4% of cases resulting in hospitalization. Per 100k not-fully-vaccinated: 125 cases and 11 hospitalizations. Or: 8.8% of cases resulting in hospitalization. What this doesn't tell us is "how many cases were so mild and occurred in people who aren't getting test regularly that they went under the radar." I don't know of any data telling us anything about what the "mild case rate" looks like for vaccinated vs unvaccinated (it would be VERY hard to measure without widespread mandatory testing). But if you've got a case that gets detected, the vaccine doesn't really seem to prevent that case from hospitalizing you at the same rate as before. It just prevents you from getting those cases nearly as frequently as the rest of the population.

cowl 5y ago
UK statstics show a 20 factor reduction in hospitalisation rates for vaccinated people vs non vaccinated. However what is not considered in all these statistics is the non-symtomatic cases. If hospitalisation rate is 20 times lower it means also that symtomatic infections are way lower than those detected. In your cited statistics for those 27 cases there would be a lot more not diagnosed at all. The risk here is that although they will pass it without notice they will also risk infecting others-hence the recomandation that vaccinated people still need to use masks. There is a great risk on falling into complancy here if we think vaccination is the silver bullet and is enough.