5 ms·

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 vacci

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.
trhway 5y ago
>So far, all evidence points to the vaccines working exactly as well as anticipated. show me where that meager "49% lower risk" was anticipated - not only it wasn't anticipated, it is even not being paid attention to right now judging by all those vaccine mandates which are completely pointless giving such a low vaccine efficacy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-... "Reaching herd immunity is “not a possibility” with the current Delta variant, the head of the Oxford Vaccine Group has said. Giving evidence to MPs on Tuesday, Prof Sir Andrew Pollard said the fact that vaccines did not stop the spread of Covid meant reaching the threshold for overall immunity in the population was “mythical”. “The problem with this virus is [it is] not measles. If 95% of people were vaccinated against measles, the virus cannot transmit in the population,” he told the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on coronavirus. “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus … and we don’t have anything that will [completely] stop that transmission.” ... Data from a recent React study conducted by Imperial College London suggests that fully vaccinated people aged 18 to 64 have about a 49% lower risk of being infected compared with unvaccinated people. The findings also indicated that fully vaccinated people were about half as likely to test positive after coming into contact with someone who had Covid (3.84%, down from 7.23%)." --------- [end of quote] ------ The data and studies from Israel, Singapore, UK as well as my own DIY arithmetic on public MA data (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28068532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28068532) point to the same - third to half chances for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. CDC data on Provincetown outbreak is also pretty clear, though not for everybody :) And once infected vaccinated people are spreading the same way as unvaccinated https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/ 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. "
xunn0026 5y ago
For starters, the vaccines were anticipated to create herd immunity. The fact that we are debating about the conclusion of a study showing multiple vaccinated healthcare workers infecting themselves shows we are pretty far away from what was anticipated or promoted in any shape or form. Multiple vaccinated people infected, 250x viral load! All vaccinated members sharing the same office were infected, 53 cases in a 900 employee hospital, luckily caught early. The "experts" say the you need to go back to social distancing, that's how good the vaccine is.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Is working in a hospital, in tight, prolonged, everyday contact with sick covid patients to be considered a normal circumstance from which to draw any conclusion about the effectiveness of what has been promoted?
  - incongruity 5y ago
    Considering many other workplaces are similarly space constrained, people often can be contagious before showing symptoms and the extreme transmissibility and pace of the delta variant? Yes, it may be a closer analog than you seem to think, imho.
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      I don't know. Intuitively a place designed to attract sick people must be qualitatively and quantitatively different. I mean, it's literally full of severe covid patients and your job is literally to care for them. I mean, I'm not an expert, but if if that's indeed similar to the average workplace environment then I need some extraordinary evidence, because this does seem to me as an extraordinary claim
  - xunn0026 5y ago
    It's an infectious disease hospital. Since it's their job and I assume they don't have a breakout every other day for the other diseases, they may be capable of doing the job they did so far. Which is to say, it is quite extraordinary it happened in there and that it happened to fully vaccinated professionals. You average meat packing crew will be much less careful about things and have worse equipment and work conditions. Note there was a doctor 0! It's not like they all got it from patients they had there. All the people in his office, all vaccinated, got infected. Why do you assume they were behaving differently than you would behave in your IT job? If anything, they might have been more careful.
GistNoesis 5y ago
What matters is whether the R0 > 1 or < 1. Vaccine help reduce the R0, but if they are not effective enough to reduce transmission so that R0 become < 1, the epidemic go on and almost everyone will still get infected (albeit more slowly). Let's take an original R0 of 10 to make the number round : meaning that one person would normally transmit to 10 other people. Let's say they vaccine are 90% effective at reducing transmission (1 vaccinated person transmit it to only one whereas it would have transmitted it to 10 if non-vaccinated). It mean that even if you have 100% vaccinated population one person will still transmit to one other people and the epidemic can go on (combined R0 of 1). We are dangerously close to the threshold where vaccine alone won't suffice to stop the epidemic. And the more active cases you currently have, the more chance there are for vaccine resistant mutation, or higher transmissible mutation to occur. Humanity is currently running on luck, we are one "Antibody-dependent enhancement" mutation away from turning the vaccine from our greatest weapon to our greatest weakness, and by vaccinating while not taking the necessary measures to reduce the number of active cases we are pressure selecting for it to happen.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Good read for ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) and coronavirus: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-the-coronavirus-vaccines https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/an...

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.

trhway 5y ago

>So far, all evidence points to the vaccines working exactly as well as anticipated. show me where that meager "49% lower risk" was anticipated - not only it wasn't anticipated, it is even not being paid attention to right now judging by all those vaccine mandates which are completely pointless giving such a low vaccine efficacy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-... "Reaching herd immunity is “not a possibility” with the current Delta variant, the head of the Oxford Vaccine Group has said. Giving evidence to MPs on Tuesday, Prof Sir Andrew Pollard said the fact that vaccines did not stop the spread of Covid meant reaching the threshold for overall immunity in the population was “mythical”. “The problem with this virus is [it is] not measles. If 95% of people were vaccinated against measles, the virus cannot transmit in the population,” he told the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on coronavirus. “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus … and we don’t have anything that will [completely] stop that transmission.” ... Data from a recent React study conducted by Imperial College London suggests that fully vaccinated people aged 18 to 64 have about a 49% lower risk of being infected compared with unvaccinated people. The findings also indicated that fully vaccinated people were about half as likely to test positive after coming into contact with someone who had Covid (3.84%, down from 7.23%)." --------- [end of quote] ------ The data and studies from Israel, Singapore, UK as well as my own DIY arithmetic on public MA data (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28068532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28068532) point to the same - third to half chances for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. CDC data on Provincetown outbreak is also pretty clear, though not for everybody :) And once infected vaccinated people are spreading the same way as unvaccinated https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/ 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. "

xunn0026 5y ago

For starters, the vaccines were anticipated to create herd immunity. The fact that we are debating about the conclusion of a study showing multiple vaccinated healthcare workers infecting themselves shows we are pretty far away from what was anticipated or promoted in any shape or form. Multiple vaccinated people infected, 250x viral load! All vaccinated members sharing the same office were infected, 53 cases in a 900 employee hospital, luckily caught early. The "experts" say the you need to go back to social distancing, that's how good the vaccine is.

ithkuil 5y ago
Is working in a hospital, in tight, prolonged, everyday contact with sick covid patients to be considered a normal circumstance from which to draw any conclusion about the effectiveness of what has been promoted?
- incongruity 5y ago
  Considering many other workplaces are similarly space constrained, people often can be contagious before showing symptoms and the extreme transmissibility and pace of the delta variant? Yes, it may be a closer analog than you seem to think, imho.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    I don't know. Intuitively a place designed to attract sick people must be qualitatively and quantitatively different. I mean, it's literally full of severe covid patients and your job is literally to care for them. I mean, I'm not an expert, but if if that's indeed similar to the average workplace environment then I need some extraordinary evidence, because this does seem to me as an extraordinary claim
- xunn0026 5y ago
  It's an infectious disease hospital. Since it's their job and I assume they don't have a breakout every other day for the other diseases, they may be capable of doing the job they did so far. Which is to say, it is quite extraordinary it happened in there and that it happened to fully vaccinated professionals. You average meat packing crew will be much less careful about things and have worse equipment and work conditions. Note there was a doctor 0! It's not like they all got it from patients they had there. All the people in his office, all vaccinated, got infected. Why do you assume they were behaving differently than you would behave in your IT job? If anything, they might have been more careful.

GistNoesis 5y ago

What matters is whether the R0 > 1 or < 1. Vaccine help reduce the R0, but if they are not effective enough to reduce transmission so that R0 become < 1, the epidemic go on and almost everyone will still get infected (albeit more slowly). Let's take an original R0 of 10 to make the number round : meaning that one person would normally transmit to 10 other people. Let's say they vaccine are 90% effective at reducing transmission (1 vaccinated person transmit it to only one whereas it would have transmitted it to 10 if non-vaccinated). It mean that even if you have 100% vaccinated population one person will still transmit to one other people and the epidemic can go on (combined R0 of 1). We are dangerously close to the threshold where vaccine alone won't suffice to stop the epidemic. And the more active cases you currently have, the more chance there are for vaccine resistant mutation, or higher transmissible mutation to occur. Humanity is currently running on luck, we are one "Antibody-dependent enhancement" mutation away from turning the vaccine from our greatest weapon to our greatest weakness, and by vaccinating while not taking the necessary measures to reduce the number of active cases we are pressure selecting for it to happen.

ithkuil 5y ago
Good read for ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) and coronavirus: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-the-coronavirus-vaccines https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/an...