6 ms·

that's what happens when most people are vaccinated. This whole thing is dumb. We know vaccines work. Let's move on to interesting and productive things.

by sprafa 5y ago

nickthemagicman 5y ago
Agreed. Vaccines don't stop people from infection, they stop or reduce people from having symptoms. People will still make tests positive. But humans can't stop their self flagellation because it gives some groups meaning to their lives and some groups make money from the chaos. Fatalities have got to be be near zero I bet.
- s9w 5y ago
  Fatalities are near zero without a "vaccine", too.
- superkuh 5y ago
  It's a bit more nuanced but you're generally right. Intramuscular vaccines do not provide long term protection from infection of the mucosal tissues of the upper respiratory tract. So they can be infected and shed virus but the lungs themselves get IgG antibodies seeping in from blood serum and protection from serious disease. If you want to have resident B and T cells in the upper respiratory mucosa generating IgA antibodies and generally killing infected cells right away you need to use an intranasal vaccination. In the UK they have already realized this (and it was known in the 1960s). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti... page 5, #8. >"Whilst we feel that current vaccines are excellent for reducing the risk of hospital admission and disease, we propose that research be focused on vaccines that also induce high and durable levels of mucosal immunity in order to reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated individuals. This could also reduce the possibility of variant selection in vaccinated individuals." https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 - "the ideal vaccination strategy may use an intramuscular vaccine to elicit a long-lived systemic IgG response and a broad repertoire of central memory B and T cells, followed by an intranasal booster that recruits memory B and T cells to the nasal passages and further guides their differentiation toward mucosal protection, including IgA secretion and tissue-resident memory cells in the respiratory tract." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00550-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00550-x "Prospects for durable immune control of SARS-CoV-2 and prevention of reinfection" - any of it.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Another solution is for the healthy population to just get the illness, get better, and build herd immunity.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      What happens to the unhealthy population in that scenario?
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        They get the vaccine which is effective at reducing symptoms but not from people testing positive on Covid tests? The problem is that people are freaking out about people testing positive on Covid tests while fatalities are still very very low. Which means the vaccines are working to stop sickness as intended...they're just not working with whatever Covid tests have going on.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  If vaccines don't stop transmission, then the only reason to get a vaccine is to protect yourself from severe symptoms. That contradicts what I've often been hearing that you should get the vaccine for the benefit of others. When the only effect the vaccine will have is on yourself, it becomes a personal question rather than a societal one.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    > That contradicts what I've often been hearing that you should get the vaccine for the benefit of others I don't know why everyone keeps harping on this to blame the experts and cast doubt on them. The virus changed. What was said in the past was true about the earlier variants. The Delta variant works differently.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      This is not casting doubt on what experts said. It's casting doubt on what others have said about what experts have said. It is media and politicians that say people should get the vaccine for others. Of course, if experts said that too, well, they were wrong if the vaccinated can spread the virus about as much as the unvaccinated.
    - briefcomment 5y ago
      I'm not saying anything about experts. I'm saying that the concept that you should get the vaccines for others looks like it's moot. That means the only consideration you should have about getting the vaccine is if you want the extra protection for yourself.
      - bamboozled 5y ago
        If you get the vaccine and stay out of ICU, you’re doing it for others.
        briefcomment 5y ago
        You mean by freeing up hospital beds? That's orders of magnitude less of a benefit than stopping exponential contagious spread, so not nearly as compelling of a reason.
bananabiscuit 5y ago
Except right there in the report they list the vaccine coverage for Massachusetts to be at 69% (out of the “eligible” population, implying I’m that number is somewhat less for the total population). If 74% of positive COVID tests come from vaccinated people, then we’re already in “being vaccinated is worse than not” territory. Not saying that’s the necessarily the correct conclusion, but it’s something that definitely needs some kind of explanation and shouldn’t be hastily brushed away.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  There are skewing factors here. Kids under 12 are 100% unvaccinated at the moment, for example. People who are anti-vaccine may have a tendency to also avoid testing. etc.
  - bananabiscuit 5y ago
    The 69% figure is out of “eligible” people according to the report. As children aren’t eligible, I’d think they aren’t included in the denominator. Your hypothesis about anti-vaxxers being hesitant to go test is definitely promising, but having a hypothesis alone isn’t enough, this kind of stuff needs to be looked into and not ignored/labeled conspiracy theories as it so often does. Edit: just realized that even if the 69% was out of the entire population, that would still imply (on the surface) that being vaccinated is worse than not, since COVID doesn’t discriminate about who it spreads to which makes the whole population eligible to get it.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The 69% figure is out of “eligible” people according to the report. The vaccinated population is still skewed elderly, and the elderly are more likely to become “cases” than younger people in the same vaccination status. The population isn't a homogeneous blob.
  - decremental 5y ago
    In the US, under 400 kids below the age of 18 have died from Covid since the beginning of the Pandemic. Many had comorbidities as severe as leukemia. What is the case for exposing them to the greater risk presented by the vaccine, when it has been shown that vaccinated adults will still get Covid either way? Edit: And just like that, the CDC link has been flagged for presenting inconvenient information. Talk about a cult.

that's what happens when most people are vaccinated. This whole thing is dumb. We know vaccines work. Let's move on to interesting and productive things.

by sprafa 5y ago

that's what happens when most people are vaccinated. This whole thing is dumb. We know vaccines work. Let's move on to interesting and productive things.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

Agreed. Vaccines don't stop people from infection, they stop or reduce people from having symptoms. People will still make tests positive. But humans can't stop their self flagellation because it gives some groups meaning to their lives and some groups make money from the chaos. Fatalities have got to be be near zero I bet.

s9w 5y ago
Fatalities are near zero without a "vaccine", too.
superkuh 5y ago
It's a bit more nuanced but you're generally right. Intramuscular vaccines do not provide long term protection from infection of the mucosal tissues of the upper respiratory tract. So they can be infected and shed virus but the lungs themselves get IgG antibodies seeping in from blood serum and protection from serious disease. If you want to have resident B and T cells in the upper respiratory mucosa generating IgA antibodies and generally killing infected cells right away you need to use an intranasal vaccination. In the UK they have already realized this (and it was known in the 1960s). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti... page 5, #8. >"Whilst we feel that current vaccines are excellent for reducing the risk of hospital admission and disease, we propose that research be focused on vaccines that also induce high and durable levels of mucosal immunity in order to reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated individuals. This could also reduce the possibility of variant selection in vaccinated individuals." https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 - "the ideal vaccination strategy may use an intramuscular vaccine to elicit a long-lived systemic IgG response and a broad repertoire of central memory B and T cells, followed by an intranasal booster that recruits memory B and T cells to the nasal passages and further guides their differentiation toward mucosal protection, including IgA secretion and tissue-resident memory cells in the respiratory tract." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00550-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00550-x "Prospects for durable immune control of SARS-CoV-2 and prevention of reinfection" - any of it.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Another solution is for the healthy population to just get the illness, get better, and build herd immunity.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    What happens to the unhealthy population in that scenario?
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      They get the vaccine which is effective at reducing symptoms but not from people testing positive on Covid tests? The problem is that people are freaking out about people testing positive on Covid tests while fatalities are still very very low. Which means the vaccines are working to stop sickness as intended...they're just not working with whatever Covid tests have going on.
briefcomment 5y ago
If vaccines don't stop transmission, then the only reason to get a vaccine is to protect yourself from severe symptoms. That contradicts what I've often been hearing that you should get the vaccine for the benefit of others. When the only effect the vaccine will have is on yourself, it becomes a personal question rather than a societal one.
- belltaco 5y ago
  > That contradicts what I've often been hearing that you should get the vaccine for the benefit of others I don't know why everyone keeps harping on this to blame the experts and cast doubt on them. The virus changed. What was said in the past was true about the earlier variants. The Delta variant works differently.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    This is not casting doubt on what experts said. It's casting doubt on what others have said about what experts have said. It is media and politicians that say people should get the vaccine for others. Of course, if experts said that too, well, they were wrong if the vaccinated can spread the virus about as much as the unvaccinated.
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    I'm not saying anything about experts. I'm saying that the concept that you should get the vaccines for others looks like it's moot. That means the only consideration you should have about getting the vaccine is if you want the extra protection for yourself.
    - bamboozled 5y ago
      If you get the vaccine and stay out of ICU, you’re doing it for others.
      - briefcomment 5y ago
        You mean by freeing up hospital beds? That's orders of magnitude less of a benefit than stopping exponential contagious spread, so not nearly as compelling of a reason.

bananabiscuit 5y ago

Except right there in the report they list the vaccine coverage for Massachusetts to be at 69% (out of the “eligible” population, implying I’m that number is somewhat less for the total population). If 74% of positive COVID tests come from vaccinated people, then we’re already in “being vaccinated is worse than not” territory. Not saying that’s the necessarily the correct conclusion, but it’s something that definitely needs some kind of explanation and shouldn’t be hastily brushed away.

ceejayoz 5y ago
There are skewing factors here. Kids under 12 are 100% unvaccinated at the moment, for example. People who are anti-vaccine may have a tendency to also avoid testing. etc.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  The 69% figure is out of “eligible” people according to the report. As children aren’t eligible, I’d think they aren’t included in the denominator. Your hypothesis about anti-vaxxers being hesitant to go test is definitely promising, but having a hypothesis alone isn’t enough, this kind of stuff needs to be looked into and not ignored/labeled conspiracy theories as it so often does. Edit: just realized that even if the 69% was out of the entire population, that would still imply (on the surface) that being vaccinated is worse than not, since COVID doesn’t discriminate about who it spreads to which makes the whole population eligible to get it.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The 69% figure is out of “eligible” people according to the report. The vaccinated population is still skewed elderly, and the elderly are more likely to become “cases” than younger people in the same vaccination status. The population isn't a homogeneous blob.
- decremental 5y ago
  In the US, under 400 kids below the age of 18 have died from Covid since the beginning of the Pandemic. Many had comorbidities as severe as leukemia. What is the case for exposing them to the greater risk presented by the vaccine, when it has been shown that vaccinated adults will still get Covid either way? Edit: And just like that, the CDC link has been flagged for presenting inconvenient information. Talk about a cult.