21 ms·

>I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and have still gotten COVID. vaccinated people get covid and spread it like unvaccinated[1]. Then what is

by trhway 5y ago

>I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and have still gotten COVID. vaccinated people get covid and spread it like unvaccinated[1]. Then what is the point of vaccination mandate? I really don't understand. Add to that that since May CDC stopped counting breakthrough cases which don't result in hospitalizations. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of-people-infected-in-massachusetts-covid-outbreak-were-fully-vaccinated.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of... "About three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts Covid-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated, according to new data published Friday by the CDC. The new data, published in the U.S. agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, also found that fully vaccinated people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people. "

thrwwmbkpr 5y ago
Potentially related - "How major media outlets screwed up the vaccine ‘breakthrough’ story" [1]. Outlines media mis-interpretation of an unfinished, internal CDC presentation last week (roughly lines up with your July 30 story). [1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_coverage_vaccination.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_coverage_... I found that while reading daily news from AllSides[2], as recommended in a recent HN thread. I really like it so far. [2] https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
- trhway 5y ago
  Your link is multipage propaganda spin full of media distrust FUD without data, and deja vu - White House tweets blaming the media for wrong coverage of hard CDC data. Whereis if you compare the CNBC link i posted with the official CDC report linked below you'll find no screwed up nor mis-interpretation on the part of CNBC (though CNBC didn't mention the 69% vaccination coverage and obvious correlation with the observed 74% share of infections). And the CDC report is crystal clear: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm "During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons"
  - skystarman 5y ago
    It's weird that you are certain this study is a gold-standard for medicine when nothing anywhere close to this has been shown in any other country. It's an incredibly small sample size, directly after an unusual event after very large indoor public gathering of many people. This is not how science works.
    - trhway 5y ago
      Your response is extremely typical mix of mis-information (see below), generally stated principles bordering in their generality on banality and absence of any data. >nothing anywhere close to this has been shown in any other country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-guidance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-gu... "This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated."
      - skystarman 5y ago
        >Your response is extremely typical - just generally stated principles bordering in their generality on banality and without any ounce of data. Y'see in SCIENCE we have this generally stated principle that we don't draw empirical conclusions from a dataset of a few hundred observations. How banal! "This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated." This does absolutely nothing to back up your claim that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta variant. But please ask for help next time you move those goalposts, I wouldn't want you hurting yourself.
        trhway 5y ago
        >Y'see in SCIENCE we have this generally stated principle that we don't draw empirical conclusions from a dataset of a few hundred observations. the statistics would disagree with you on how representative a random draw of several hundred would be in this situation. Anyway, just an example related to the situation - Moderna stage 2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871769/): "Between 29 May and 8 July 2020, 600 participants were randomized, 300 per age cohort. [...] Conclusions Vaccination with mRNA-1273 resulted in significant immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in participants 18 years and older, with an acceptable safety profile, confirming the safety and immunogenicity of 50 and 100 µg mRNA-1273 given as a 2 dose-regimen. " >This does absolutely nothing to back up your claim that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta variant. beside obvious statistical arithmetic clearly showing it (whihc i guess is pointless to discuss giving your statistics statements above), you probably missed the part about nasal viral content in vaccinated people being similar to that of unvaccinated and hint - this infection is airborne. This is why CDC introduced mask mandate for everybody. And you can read this too https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/delta-infections-among-vaccinated-likely-contagious-lambda-variant-shows-vaccine-2021-08-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... "The higher the amount of coronavirus in the nose and throat, the more likely the patient will infect others. In one Wisconsin county, after Delta became predominant, researchers analyzed viral loads on nose-and-throat swab samples obtained when patients were first diagnosed. They found similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, with levels often high enough to allow shedding of infectious virus. "
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
_ph_ 5y ago
To my knowledge (which can be wrong), vaccinated people do have a much less chance to get infected, and if infected on average have a much less viral load (thats whey they don't get as sick). As a consequence, they are less contributing to spreading the virus than unvaccinated people. And as they get less often seriously sick, they also reduce the load onto the health sytem.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
xjlin0 5y ago
>vaccinated people get covid and spread it like unvaccinated[1]. Then what is the point of vaccination mandate? I really don't understand. The point is to greatly reduce your chance going into ICU. Trust me, nobody like the intubation. Physicians don't like it, patients hate it.
- XorNot 5y ago
  Also if you're American the short answer is you can't afford that medical bill.

by trhway 5y ago

thrwwmbkpr 5y ago

Potentially related - "How major media outlets screwed up the vaccine ‘breakthrough’ story" [1]. Outlines media mis-interpretation of an unfinished, internal CDC presentation last week (roughly lines up with your July 30 story). [1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_coverage_vaccination.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_coverage_... I found that while reading daily news from AllSides[2], as recommended in a recent HN thread. I really like it so far. [2] https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

trhway 5y ago
Your link is multipage propaganda spin full of media distrust FUD without data, and deja vu - White House tweets blaming the media for wrong coverage of hard CDC data. Whereis if you compare the CNBC link i posted with the official CDC report linked below you'll find no screwed up nor mis-interpretation on the part of CNBC (though CNBC didn't mention the 69% vaccination coverage and obvious correlation with the observed 74% share of infections). And the CDC report is crystal clear: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm "During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons"
- skystarman 5y ago
  It's weird that you are certain this study is a gold-standard for medicine when nothing anywhere close to this has been shown in any other country. It's an incredibly small sample size, directly after an unusual event after very large indoor public gathering of many people. This is not how science works.
  - trhway 5y ago
    Your response is extremely typical mix of mis-information (see below), generally stated principles bordering in their generality on banality and absence of any data. >nothing anywhere close to this has been shown in any other country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-guidance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-gu... "This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated."
    - skystarman 5y ago
      >Your response is extremely typical - just generally stated principles bordering in their generality on banality and without any ounce of data. Y'see in SCIENCE we have this generally stated principle that we don't draw empirical conclusions from a dataset of a few hundred observations. How banal! "This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated." This does absolutely nothing to back up your claim that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta variant. But please ask for help next time you move those goalposts, I wouldn't want you hurting yourself.
      - trhway 5y ago
        >Y'see in SCIENCE we have this generally stated principle that we don't draw empirical conclusions from a dataset of a few hundred observations. the statistics would disagree with you on how representative a random draw of several hundred would be in this situation. Anyway, just an example related to the situation - Moderna stage 2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871769/): "Between 29 May and 8 July 2020, 600 participants were randomized, 300 per age cohort. [...] Conclusions Vaccination with mRNA-1273 resulted in significant immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in participants 18 years and older, with an acceptable safety profile, confirming the safety and immunogenicity of 50 and 100 µg mRNA-1273 given as a 2 dose-regimen. " >This does absolutely nothing to back up your claim that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta variant. beside obvious statistical arithmetic clearly showing it (whihc i guess is pointless to discuss giving your statistics statements above), you probably missed the part about nasal viral content in vaccinated people being similar to that of unvaccinated and hint - this infection is airborne. This is why CDC introduced mask mandate for everybody. And you can read this too https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/delta-infections-among-vaccinated-likely-contagious-lambda-variant-shows-vaccine-2021-08-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... "The higher the amount of coronavirus in the nose and throat, the more likely the patient will infect others. In one Wisconsin county, after Delta became predominant, researchers analyzed viral loads on nose-and-throat swab samples obtained when patients were first diagnosed. They found similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, with levels often high enough to allow shedding of infectious virus. "
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

_ph_ 5y ago

To my knowledge (which can be wrong), vaccinated people do have a much less chance to get infected, and if infected on average have a much less viral load (thats whey they don't get as sick). As a consequence, they are less contributing to spreading the virus than unvaccinated people. And as they get less often seriously sick, they also reduce the load onto the health sytem.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

xjlin0 5y ago

>vaccinated people get covid and spread it like unvaccinated[1]. Then what is the point of vaccination mandate? I really don't understand. The point is to greatly reduce your chance going into ICU. Trust me, nobody like the intubation. Physicians don't like it, patients hate it.

XorNot 5y ago
Also if you're American the short answer is you can't afford that medical bill.