3 ms·

Some forms of immunity decrease your ability to transmit to others, which protects those at risk, so it's not just about self-preservation.

by noobly 5y ago

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. An unvaccinated person is far more likely to get the virus, and then if they get it, they are far more likely to transmit it. Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. The worst case with vaccination is that you get a breakthrough infection. But that's far less risky than getting infected in the first place.
- noobly 5y ago
  >Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. Can you source this claim? In the original Pfizer, Moderna, etc studies, they never tested for transmissibility, only reduction of COVID-like symptoms. >Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. And I disagree. I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. I'm not at risk, so taking on additional poorly defined risk such as the vaccine makes little sense from a self-preservation standpoint. From what I've seen there's not enough data to support vaccines reducing spread, but I'd like to see what you may have. And then we have the issue of variants that go right around the vaccine. Here's a relevant quote from Fauci: "Even though you’re vaccinated, because you could get infected, not know it, and be completely without symptoms because the vaccine is preventing you from getting symptoms, but you can have virus in your nasal pharynx and then inadvertently and innocently, pass it on to someone else who’s not vaccinated. That’s the problem we’re facing." I don't know where we're at now, but early on when the vaccines were being first deployed, it was unsure if they'd reduce transmission, even between vaccinated populations. And you see Fauci here certainly implying that's the case.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated, and people who aren't infected can't transmit the virus. If you do get a breakthrough infection, the time window during which you're infectious is far shorter.[1] There's more and more data now on how much vaccination lowers transmission. For example, a recent study found that vaccinated people who caught the virus are 40-50% less likely to pass it on to their family members than unvaccinated people are.[2] > I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. This is insane. 1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v... 2. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
    - noobly 5y ago
      >You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however. Here's another Fauci quote: So far, the available Covid-19 vaccines have not been judged primarily on their ability to prevent transmission – though this is now being evaluated as a secondary endpoint for many of them. Instead, their efficacy was assessed by whether they could prevent symptoms from developing. “This means that we set our targets kind of pragmatically,” says Danny Altmann, professor of immunology at Imperial College London. … There isn’t yet any conclusive evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can prevent people from being infected with the coronavirus – and therefore halt its spread. But there are some early signs that it might. When these were being released, no one knew it's effects on transmission, yet the sentiment was that they certainly did, and questioning this brought about frustration. >There's more and more data There's also data building to the contrary. Take a look at Israel's number of cases vs vaccination status, for example. We're not at a stage where data is conclusive either way, and in that case I'm fine with waiting things out. For example, this is what you're study says: >The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection This is not about reducing SARS-COV-2 transmission, but symptomatic COVID. These mistakes lead to misinformation spreading. Further, this is all your second study concludes: Among index patients, those who had been vaccinated were likely to be less severely symptomatic2 and might have been less infectious than those who were unvaccinated. As I'm sure you know, correlation does not imply causation, it's possible that vaccinated individuals were simply practicing better viral hygiene (especially given that they were vaccinated back in Jan/Feb, when there was less social pressure and more risk).

Some forms of immunity decrease your ability to transmit to others, which protects those at risk, so it's not just about self-preservation.

by noobly 5y ago

Some forms of immunity decrease your ability to transmit to others, which protects those at risk, so it's not just about self-preservation.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. An unvaccinated person is far more likely to get the virus, and then if they get it, they are far more likely to transmit it. Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. The worst case with vaccination is that you get a breakthrough infection. But that's far less risky than getting infected in the first place.

noobly 5y ago
>Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. Can you source this claim? In the original Pfizer, Moderna, etc studies, they never tested for transmissibility, only reduction of COVID-like symptoms. >Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. And I disagree. I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. I'm not at risk, so taking on additional poorly defined risk such as the vaccine makes little sense from a self-preservation standpoint. From what I've seen there's not enough data to support vaccines reducing spread, but I'd like to see what you may have. And then we have the issue of variants that go right around the vaccine. Here's a relevant quote from Fauci: "Even though you’re vaccinated, because you could get infected, not know it, and be completely without symptoms because the vaccine is preventing you from getting symptoms, but you can have virus in your nasal pharynx and then inadvertently and innocently, pass it on to someone else who’s not vaccinated. That’s the problem we’re facing." I don't know where we're at now, but early on when the vaccines were being first deployed, it was unsure if they'd reduce transmission, even between vaccinated populations. And you see Fauci here certainly implying that's the case.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated, and people who aren't infected can't transmit the virus. If you do get a breakthrough infection, the time window during which you're infectious is far shorter.[1] There's more and more data now on how much vaccination lowers transmission. For example, a recent study found that vaccinated people who caught the virus are 40-50% less likely to pass it on to their family members than unvaccinated people are.[2] > I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. This is insane. 1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v... 2. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
  - noobly 5y ago
    >You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however. Here's another Fauci quote: So far, the available Covid-19 vaccines have not been judged primarily on their ability to prevent transmission – though this is now being evaluated as a secondary endpoint for many of them. Instead, their efficacy was assessed by whether they could prevent symptoms from developing. “This means that we set our targets kind of pragmatically,” says Danny Altmann, professor of immunology at Imperial College London. … There isn’t yet any conclusive evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can prevent people from being infected with the coronavirus – and therefore halt its spread. But there are some early signs that it might. When these were being released, no one knew it's effects on transmission, yet the sentiment was that they certainly did, and questioning this brought about frustration. >There's more and more data There's also data building to the contrary. Take a look at Israel's number of cases vs vaccination status, for example. We're not at a stage where data is conclusive either way, and in that case I'm fine with waiting things out. For example, this is what you're study says: >The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection This is not about reducing SARS-COV-2 transmission, but symptomatic COVID. These mistakes lead to misinformation spreading. Further, this is all your second study concludes: Among index patients, those who had been vaccinated were likely to be less severely symptomatic2 and might have been less infectious than those who were unvaccinated. As I'm sure you know, correlation does not imply causation, it's possible that vaccinated individuals were simply practicing better viral hygiene (especially given that they were vaccinated back in Jan/Feb, when there was less social pressure and more risk).