4 ms·

Wrong in what way? It's true that the vaccines against covid don't provide durable sterilizing immunity, and they aren't expected to. In other words, the vacc

Wrong in what way? It's true that the vaccines against covid don't provide durable sterilizing immunity, and they aren't expected to. In other words, the vaccines are not expected to prevent most people from getting infected, but rather only from getting seriously sick. This is true of vaccines in general; vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, and almost none do. For example, flu vaccines don't keep you from from getting infected, and the virus is still able to spread even when vaccination rates are high. Rather, flu vaccines cause you to have less severe symptoms. Vaccines are designed and tested to prevent disease in spite of infection. The current evidence indicates that the vaccines are doing a good job of preventing hospitalizations due to covid, and I wish the CDC would message this more clearly instead of fearmongering about "breakthrough" infections.

eloff 5y ago
Vaccines reduce both incidence and severity of infection. There's plenty of data on that now, with the delta variant.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  You're erecting a teeny tiny strawman here. I never said they don't reduce infection rates. I said they're designed and tested to prevent serious disease, not infection, and therefore transmission is expected to continue to a significant extent even after we achieve high rates of vaccination. Please look up sterilizing immunity, and tell me how many common vaccines are known to induce it. I'll give you a hint: there's only one, and it isn't a covid vaccine. This is a well known feature of vaccines, including the new covid vaccines, and this is supported by the available data, as you might notice from some of the articles that @belter cited earlier. So I'll ask again, in what way was @belter wrong in your opinion?
  - eloff 5y ago
    > I said they're designed and tested to prevent serious disease, not infection, and therefore transmission is expected to continue to a significant extent even after we achieve high rates of vaccination. I agree then. > So I'll ask again, in what way was @belter wrong in your opinion? I assumed he would make an argument about covid vaccines being ineffective. His actual argument he later made was that the unvaccinated are not solely to blame for spreading of the disease. Which he's right about. But it's a shallow victory because the unvaccinated are actually largely to blame. He's arguing against a strawnan. In the context of the article, presumably it's an argument that the teacher was not negligent for not getting vaccinated, but I don't agree with that.

eloff 5y ago

Vaccines reduce both incidence and severity of infection. There's plenty of data on that now, with the delta variant.

nate_meurer 5y ago
You're erecting a teeny tiny strawman here. I never said they don't reduce infection rates. I said they're designed and tested to prevent serious disease, not infection, and therefore transmission is expected to continue to a significant extent even after we achieve high rates of vaccination. Please look up sterilizing immunity, and tell me how many common vaccines are known to induce it. I'll give you a hint: there's only one, and it isn't a covid vaccine. This is a well known feature of vaccines, including the new covid vaccines, and this is supported by the available data, as you might notice from some of the articles that @belter cited earlier. So I'll ask again, in what way was @belter wrong in your opinion?
- eloff 5y ago
  > I said they're designed and tested to prevent serious disease, not infection, and therefore transmission is expected to continue to a significant extent even after we achieve high rates of vaccination. I agree then. > So I'll ask again, in what way was @belter wrong in your opinion? I assumed he would make an argument about covid vaccines being ineffective. His actual argument he later made was that the unvaccinated are not solely to blame for spreading of the disease. Which he's right about. But it's a shallow victory because the unvaccinated are actually largely to blame. He's arguing against a strawnan. In the context of the article, presumably it's an argument that the teacher was not negligent for not getting vaccinated, but I don't agree with that.