7 ms·

If transmission between vaccinated people is happening relatively easy, that should totally change the narrative. - Herd immunity becomes unrealistic. - My va

If transmission between vaccinated people is happening relatively easy, that should totally change the narrative. - Herd immunity becomes unrealistic. - My vaccine doesn’t protect you and vice versa. Our own does however protect us very well. - Vaccine passports are essentially pointless and possibly dangerous if they give a false sense of security. Only asymptomatic, more infectious people will be allowed in. - The messaging should change towards “take a vaccine to protect yourself and not burden the health service with your own illness.” I wonder if messaging will change to reflect the new “the science” or if too much political face would be lost at this point?

glenngillen 5y ago
The messaging early in the pandemic seemed less about “not burden the health service with your own illness” directly, and more the indirect impact that burden created in servicing non-covid patients. I don’t think that changes much, does it? Still seems like we need to make sure people need to not be overwhelming hospitals. Either via vaccination or other means.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  No, "flatten the curve" was the early goal, but I don't remember any mention of that helping non-corona cases. In fact, most hospital elective surgeries were cancelled (and the nurses laid off), so I'm not sure where you got your ideas from. You might want to post a link.
blendergeek 5y ago
> Only asymptomatic, more infectious people will be allowed in. I don't see anything in the study that would indicate that people with the vaccine are more infectious than those without. Rather, the study says they are infectious. The variable in this study was alpha vs delta variant and the result is that while the vaccine prevented the transmission of alpha variant it does not prevent the transmission of the delta variant. This study does not address the question of whether those with the vaccine are more or less likely to spread the delta variant than those without the vaccine.
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Well it seems like simple logic no? If the vaccine decreases symptoms but not viral load, vaccinated are more likely to transmit it. Right? Maybe I’m being dumb again. Happens. :)
  - spauka 5y ago
    The paper does not make conclusions about whether the vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic - but in case you are interested the results are presented in Table 1. Of The 69 cases infected, 47 developed symptoms (median 4 days post diagnosis), which is 68% of cases. Viral loads for symptomatic cases was higher (page 11). Key points: there is not enough information here to draw conclusions about the infectiousness of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals, or about whether vaccinated individuals are more likely to be asymptomatic. This paper does not even try to draw such conclusions.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    I'm not following the logic. Why would decreased symptoms mean you're more likely to spread? You're thinking that asymptomatic people are more likely to not wear masks/be in more populous places whereas symptomatic people are more likely to quarantine/wear a mask? I could see that line of reasoning, although, as a counterpoint, I understood that the main virality of COVID stems from the long lag between being infectious & symptoms. In other words, basically everyone is asymptomatic for the first 7-10 days that they're infectious anyway. If the vaccine confers a reduction in symptoms, that's still valuable. The danger of COVID is the sudden spike needed in hospital resources & deaths. Sounds like the vaccine still decreases both, even for delta. Not getting infected at all is a secondary benefit that's a nice to have & important for eradicating the virus totally. I suspect that's a pipe dream at this point & the question is how quickly we can transition it to an endemic disease like the flu.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > vaccinated are more likely to transmit it. Right? The vaccinated are also less likely to have it in the first place, so no, not right. There are "similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients" _who have symptoms_ - that's a huge selection bias right there. You can still assume that there are very different rates at which vaccinated and unvaccinated are prone to getting infected in the first place, then developing symptoms. This conclusion is also wrong: "My vaccine doesn’t protect you and vice versa." - yet more simplistic, all or nothing, black or white thinking. Delta means that my vaccination doesn't protect you _as much as it did_ but it is incorrect to leap to "it doesn't protect you at all" It's clear that at present, vaccination alone is not the answer, but it would be very wrong to disparage vaccination, e.g. to say that "vaccination is not the answer" - vaccination is part of the answer, likely the largest part.
refurb 5y ago
This appears to the direction we're headed - a similar steady state as the flu (which a few people hypothesized early on in the pandemic). - Covid won't go away, we'll just keep having waves move through the population - A vaccine mostly protects the person who receives it; it likely makes them less contagious, but not enough to stop them from infecting others - The vaccines work very well in making the disease less severe; again, similar to the flu - sick enough to stay home, but rarely so severe you need to be hospitalized - Eventually you just live with it. We'll probably have new outbreaks of different variants (just like we have more severe flu seasons)
- dehrmann 5y ago
  I'm somewhat optimistic because the vaccines are probably good enough to bring death rates to an acceptable level, we have multiple vaccines, that take different approaches, and covid has hopefully already made all the easy wins for transmission, so it won't get that much more contagious. My fear is that all these countermeasures select for something actually scary, though there's no reason to think it will get significantly more deadly.
- grepfru_it 5y ago
  And then you have folks like Lamar Jackson who has been infected with the virus already and has a mild experience with delta just like those with the vaccine (similar to the outcome of the flu shot) Im watching intently as so far the data shows vaccine offers superb reduction in symptoms, while previous natural infection also reduces symptoms and duration (making me wonder what a vaccine passport is really accomplishing)
  - fy20 5y ago
    In my country the passport is issued to those who were previously infected (and diagnosed with an official test) as well, so it shows you are "known to have some level of immunity". I feel that's fair as it applies to both people who were infected and those who were vaccinated. Where it gets confusing though is it's also issued to people who had a recent PCR negative test (last 48 hours), so those people are "known unlikely to be infectious", but that doesn't apply to the previous groups, and the statement of the previous groups doesn't apply to this group.
cjensen 5y ago
Your interpretation is almost completely wrong, and is a good example of why we layfolk should leave the explaining to experts. For example, you said "my vaccine doesn't protect you and vice-versa." That is entirely unsupported by this paper which merely says "transmission between vaccinated people is possible." You have interpreted this fact well beyond any actual evidence. For example, the proposition "the vaccine makes it hard to transmit, and makes cases very mild" would be entirely consistent with this study, and is completely in opposition to your incorrect conclusion. So far, all evidence points to the vaccines working exactly as well as anticipated.
- peytn 5y ago
  I think you’re confusing the poster’s hypothetical for an interpretation.
  - shusaku 5y ago
    How silly of him to assume the top hacker news comment was related to the specifics of the linked article and not a hypothetical
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    What hypothetical? The comment clearly thinks that the study should be read in the light they present. They even wonder if the narrative will change based on the new science - not whetheriit would change.
- sieabah 5y ago
  > Your interpretation is almost completely wrong, and is a good example of why we layfolk should leave the explaining to experts. "Don't think too hard, let us, the self appointed exports, do the thinking for you" I don't believe the original comment had the same direction you think it did. Your response seems to be more saving face of "how not to interpret something". Whereas the parent comment is proposing different messaging if certain things are found to be true with more studying. Appeal to authority isn't a valid argument and I'm not sure why you think it would be.
- 5y ago
acituan 5y ago
> Vaccine passports are essentially pointless and possibly dangerous if they give a false sense of security. Only asymptomatic, more infectious people will be allowed in. Counterargument; mixing of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations is precisely what gives the "training" to the virus variants. Herd immunity works if the duration of the mixture of these herds is minimized. You can achieve that with distance or high and fast vaccine rollout, neither of which happened. The mistake was opening up too much, too soon, and mixing up too much. We've been focusing on protection "right now" at the expense of protection over time. I think focusing on personal protection is also a non-scaling approach; I get that it might motivate the rollout but ultimately personal immunity, unless it comes from having survived the real deal, is also a perishable state both from slow decay of vaccine immunity and constant training of variants perspective. None of these countermeasures make popular policies, so it is less about saving face and more about optimizing re-electibility.
wesleywt 5y ago
Many conclusions based on flimsy or next to no evidence in this comment.
n8cpdx 5y ago
If injury in a car accident where people are wearing seatbelts is relatively likely, that should totally change the narrative: - expecting seatbelts to prevent all traffic injuries becomes unrealistic (it never was but that doesn’t mean it’s useless - the herd immunity war was lost the moment vaccines became political, which was about 20 years ago) - My seatbelt won’t protect you from injury in the event of a crash, and vice versa (don’t confuse possibility with likelihood. Vaccines are still reducing severity and likely reducing the amount of virus that’s being shed e.g. through coughing. Seatbelts also protect other occupants from yourself becoming a projectile, but like vaccines, they don’t fully solve the problem) - seatbelt mandates to enter public roads are essentially pointless and possibly dangerous if they give a false sense of security. Only foolhardy, risk-taking seatbelt-wearing drivers will be on the road. (Passports are a tool to create a mandate in the absence of a mandate. If everyone was vaccinated delta wouldn’t have happened at all. In the absence of that, reducing the load on the hospital system is well worth the cost of the passport system) - The messaging should change to “wear a seatbelt to protect yourself and not burden the health service with your own injuries” (sure, but that’s kind of what the message already is and always has been) I wonder if the poster will understand the analogy that’s being made, or if too much face would be lost at this point?

glenngillen 5y ago

The messaging early in the pandemic seemed less about “not burden the health service with your own illness” directly, and more the indirect impact that burden created in servicing non-covid patients. I don’t think that changes much, does it? Still seems like we need to make sure people need to not be overwhelming hospitals. Either via vaccination or other means.

redis_mlc 5y ago
No, "flatten the curve" was the early goal, but I don't remember any mention of that helping non-corona cases. In fact, most hospital elective surgeries were cancelled (and the nurses laid off), so I'm not sure where you got your ideas from. You might want to post a link.

blendergeek 5y ago

> Only asymptomatic, more infectious people will be allowed in. I don't see anything in the study that would indicate that people with the vaccine are more infectious than those without. Rather, the study says they are infectious. The variable in this study was alpha vs delta variant and the result is that while the vaccine prevented the transmission of alpha variant it does not prevent the transmission of the delta variant. This study does not address the question of whether those with the vaccine are more or less likely to spread the delta variant than those without the vaccine.

newbamboo 5y ago
Well it seems like simple logic no? If the vaccine decreases symptoms but not viral load, vaccinated are more likely to transmit it. Right? Maybe I’m being dumb again. Happens. :)
- spauka 5y ago
  The paper does not make conclusions about whether the vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic - but in case you are interested the results are presented in Table 1. Of The 69 cases infected, 47 developed symptoms (median 4 days post diagnosis), which is 68% of cases. Viral loads for symptomatic cases was higher (page 11). Key points: there is not enough information here to draw conclusions about the infectiousness of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals, or about whether vaccinated individuals are more likely to be asymptomatic. This paper does not even try to draw such conclusions.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  I'm not following the logic. Why would decreased symptoms mean you're more likely to spread? You're thinking that asymptomatic people are more likely to not wear masks/be in more populous places whereas symptomatic people are more likely to quarantine/wear a mask? I could see that line of reasoning, although, as a counterpoint, I understood that the main virality of COVID stems from the long lag between being infectious & symptoms. In other words, basically everyone is asymptomatic for the first 7-10 days that they're infectious anyway. If the vaccine confers a reduction in symptoms, that's still valuable. The danger of COVID is the sudden spike needed in hospital resources & deaths. Sounds like the vaccine still decreases both, even for delta. Not getting infected at all is a secondary benefit that's a nice to have & important for eradicating the virus totally. I suspect that's a pipe dream at this point & the question is how quickly we can transition it to an endemic disease like the flu.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > vaccinated are more likely to transmit it. Right? The vaccinated are also less likely to have it in the first place, so no, not right. There are "similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients" _who have symptoms_ - that's a huge selection bias right there. You can still assume that there are very different rates at which vaccinated and unvaccinated are prone to getting infected in the first place, then developing symptoms. This conclusion is also wrong: "My vaccine doesn’t protect you and vice versa." - yet more simplistic, all or nothing, black or white thinking. Delta means that my vaccination doesn't protect you _as much as it did_ but it is incorrect to leap to "it doesn't protect you at all" It's clear that at present, vaccination alone is not the answer, but it would be very wrong to disparage vaccination, e.g. to say that "vaccination is not the answer" - vaccination is part of the answer, likely the largest part.

refurb 5y ago

This appears to the direction we're headed - a similar steady state as the flu (which a few people hypothesized early on in the pandemic). - Covid won't go away, we'll just keep having waves move through the population - A vaccine mostly protects the person who receives it; it likely makes them less contagious, but not enough to stop them from infecting others - The vaccines work very well in making the disease less severe; again, similar to the flu - sick enough to stay home, but rarely so severe you need to be hospitalized - Eventually you just live with it. We'll probably have new outbreaks of different variants (just like we have more severe flu seasons)

dehrmann 5y ago
I'm somewhat optimistic because the vaccines are probably good enough to bring death rates to an acceptable level, we have multiple vaccines, that take different approaches, and covid has hopefully already made all the easy wins for transmission, so it won't get that much more contagious. My fear is that all these countermeasures select for something actually scary, though there's no reason to think it will get significantly more deadly.
grepfru_it 5y ago
And then you have folks like Lamar Jackson who has been infected with the virus already and has a mild experience with delta just like those with the vaccine (similar to the outcome of the flu shot) Im watching intently as so far the data shows vaccine offers superb reduction in symptoms, while previous natural infection also reduces symptoms and duration (making me wonder what a vaccine passport is really accomplishing)
- fy20 5y ago
  In my country the passport is issued to those who were previously infected (and diagnosed with an official test) as well, so it shows you are "known to have some level of immunity". I feel that's fair as it applies to both people who were infected and those who were vaccinated. Where it gets confusing though is it's also issued to people who had a recent PCR negative test (last 48 hours), so those people are "known unlikely to be infectious", but that doesn't apply to the previous groups, and the statement of the previous groups doesn't apply to this group.

cjensen 5y ago

Your interpretation is almost completely wrong, and is a good example of why we layfolk should leave the explaining to experts. For example, you said "my vaccine doesn't protect you and vice-versa." That is entirely unsupported by this paper which merely says "transmission between vaccinated people is possible." You have interpreted this fact well beyond any actual evidence. For example, the proposition "the vaccine makes it hard to transmit, and makes cases very mild" would be entirely consistent with this study, and is completely in opposition to your incorrect conclusion. So far, all evidence points to the vaccines working exactly as well as anticipated.

peytn 5y ago
I think you’re confusing the poster’s hypothetical for an interpretation.
- shusaku 5y ago
  How silly of him to assume the top hacker news comment was related to the specifics of the linked article and not a hypothetical
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  What hypothetical? The comment clearly thinks that the study should be read in the light they present. They even wonder if the narrative will change based on the new science - not whetheriit would change.
sieabah 5y ago
> Your interpretation is almost completely wrong, and is a good example of why we layfolk should leave the explaining to experts. "Don't think too hard, let us, the self appointed exports, do the thinking for you" I don't believe the original comment had the same direction you think it did. Your response seems to be more saving face of "how not to interpret something". Whereas the parent comment is proposing different messaging if certain things are found to be true with more studying. Appeal to authority isn't a valid argument and I'm not sure why you think it would be.
5y ago

acituan 5y ago

> Vaccine passports are essentially pointless and possibly dangerous if they give a false sense of security. Only asymptomatic, more infectious people will be allowed in. Counterargument; mixing of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations is precisely what gives the "training" to the virus variants. Herd immunity works if the duration of the mixture of these herds is minimized. You can achieve that with distance or high and fast vaccine rollout, neither of which happened. The mistake was opening up too much, too soon, and mixing up too much. We've been focusing on protection "right now" at the expense of protection over time. I think focusing on personal protection is also a non-scaling approach; I get that it might motivate the rollout but ultimately personal immunity, unless it comes from having survived the real deal, is also a perishable state both from slow decay of vaccine immunity and constant training of variants perspective. None of these countermeasures make popular policies, so it is less about saving face and more about optimizing re-electibility.

wesleywt 5y ago

Many conclusions based on flimsy or next to no evidence in this comment.

n8cpdx 5y ago

If injury in a car accident where people are wearing seatbelts is relatively likely, that should totally change the narrative: - expecting seatbelts to prevent all traffic injuries becomes unrealistic (it never was but that doesn’t mean it’s useless - the herd immunity war was lost the moment vaccines became political, which was about 20 years ago) - My seatbelt won’t protect you from injury in the event of a crash, and vice versa (don’t confuse possibility with likelihood. Vaccines are still reducing severity and likely reducing the amount of virus that’s being shed e.g. through coughing. Seatbelts also protect other occupants from yourself becoming a projectile, but like vaccines, they don’t fully solve the problem) - seatbelt mandates to enter public roads are essentially pointless and possibly dangerous if they give a false sense of security. Only foolhardy, risk-taking seatbelt-wearing drivers will be on the road. (Passports are a tool to create a mandate in the absence of a mandate. If everyone was vaccinated delta wouldn’t have happened at all. In the absence of that, reducing the load on the hospital system is well worth the cost of the passport system) - The messaging should change to “wear a seatbelt to protect yourself and not burden the health service with your own injuries” (sure, but that’s kind of what the message already is and always has been) I wonder if the poster will understand the analogy that’s being made, or if too much face would be lost at this point?