4 ms·

the CDC says the vaccine is effective at preventing infection the article’s point seems to be: “ To spread the coronavirus, you have to have the coronavirus. A

the CDC says the vaccine is effective at preventing infection the article’s point seems to be: “ To spread the coronavirus, you have to have the coronavirus. And vaccinated people are far less likely to have the coronavirus—period. “ so i’d be interested to know of a source that says vaccinated people are equally likely to become infected.

ithkuil 5y ago
This kind of exchange happens quite often everywhere. Is it possible that there isn't an well written response to this by people who really knows what they're talking about? EDIT: I mean: is it really only a failure to understand that if a group 100 people are vaccinated only, say, 10 people will be infected and if a group of 100 people are unvaccinated there will be, say, 70 people infected but those people who are infected in both groups carry a similar viral load? Is this all there is to this and it's all a big incomprehension ?
- fallingfrog 5y ago
  Anti vaccine activists don’t tend to be too good at math. They also tend to be wrapped up a whole bunch of connected conspiracy theories, of which this is just one, and have their root in cultural grievances rather than objective fact, so arguing with them on a factual basis tends to be futile.
  - pbaka 5y ago
    Well, it's not just anti-vaccine activists. You just didn't read the studies used in the actual efficiency studies presented for FDA approval, and didn't read the definitions used. You then didn't look at the endpoints measured. You then suppose journalists report stuff as they arein colloquial language, instead of parroting a marketing/PR blurb. You also then suppose that various bureaucrats in charge of Covid response in their PR sessions do the same, as do politicians. Can't fault you, not everybody has the psychological inclination for that, or has the time, or is bored enough. Some other people did, and then looked for the same in all subsequent efficiency studies since last winter. Found the same thing. Instead of just mocking people for "doing research on the toilet seat, Karen", maybe check for yourself from the original sources what they are saying, you might be surprised . All these actual peer-reviewed studies by the relevant governmental organisms in charge (US NIH, UK Technical Group, Israel Ministry of health) and FDA/ EU EDA documentation are a search away on their sites. I won't even talk about all the major US and UK university teams producing peer-reviewed published data which you can mostly find on medRxiv.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    This may be very often true, but there must be also people who would be willing to listen were the conversation around it clearer. The toxic information environment has very likely tipped into confusion plenty of otherwise reasonable people. I know for sure of at least one close family member, who if there was no Facebook and real life people banging on doubt and sharing misleading information, they wouldn't be constantly dragged into that direction (yesterday she told me "see, I read on a mainstream local newspaper that one vaccinated person died from covid; those antivaxxers said that the vaccine didn't work, they don't seem to be totally off the mark"; it took 5 minutes to explain that when you say that the vaccine is N% effective it means that in 100-N cases it's not effective, so having some deaths is to be expected... she was easily convinced, once she has been walked through. But it requires constant effort; the asymmetry of this information warfare is so strong; it takes far less energy to seed doubt, you don't have to be factual or even logical; while if you want to debunk stuff you have to be careful otherwise your credibility is gone)
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    > Anti vaccine activists don’t tend to be too good at math. Pro-forced vaccine activists don't tend to be too good at ethics or morals.
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      Both extreme groups appear not to be good at ethics and morals.
- guilhas 5y ago
  That would only be true if the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing infection, added to the current 90% effectiveness at preventing strong disease
dudeofea 5y ago
Here are some: https://archive.is/T23eV https://archive.is/T23eV https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1 I think it would help everyone if we all used specific terms when discussing covid infections. From what I've gathered, the current generation of covid vaccines (mRNA, J&J, AZ) induce mainly a IgG immune response (as well as other things I know nothing about), but they certainly do not induce an IgA response. IgG is humoral immunity which protects your blood, and lower respiratory track somewhat, IgA is mucosal immunity which protects your upper-respiratory track (nose, mouth, etc) as well as other mucous membranes. Since covid typically first infects the nose, studies which I cannot find at the moment have shown that vaccinated individuals have only slightly less viral load in the nose than unvaccinated. At the onset of the curve however (first few days), they are the same. Viral load does not equate directly to infectivity, but from this we can say that vaccinated people can spread covid, whilst being asymptomatically infected. Saying you "have" covid is too vague, since you can "have" it in your nose, in your blood, etc.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ithkuil 5y ago

This kind of exchange happens quite often everywhere. Is it possible that there isn't an well written response to this by people who really knows what they're talking about? EDIT: I mean: is it really only a failure to understand that if a group 100 people are vaccinated only, say, 10 people will be infected and if a group of 100 people are unvaccinated there will be, say, 70 people infected but those people who are infected in both groups carry a similar viral load? Is this all there is to this and it's all a big incomprehension ?

fallingfrog 5y ago
Anti vaccine activists don’t tend to be too good at math. They also tend to be wrapped up a whole bunch of connected conspiracy theories, of which this is just one, and have their root in cultural grievances rather than objective fact, so arguing with them on a factual basis tends to be futile.
- pbaka 5y ago
  Well, it's not just anti-vaccine activists. You just didn't read the studies used in the actual efficiency studies presented for FDA approval, and didn't read the definitions used. You then didn't look at the endpoints measured. You then suppose journalists report stuff as they arein colloquial language, instead of parroting a marketing/PR blurb. You also then suppose that various bureaucrats in charge of Covid response in their PR sessions do the same, as do politicians. Can't fault you, not everybody has the psychological inclination for that, or has the time, or is bored enough. Some other people did, and then looked for the same in all subsequent efficiency studies since last winter. Found the same thing. Instead of just mocking people for "doing research on the toilet seat, Karen", maybe check for yourself from the original sources what they are saying, you might be surprised . All these actual peer-reviewed studies by the relevant governmental organisms in charge (US NIH, UK Technical Group, Israel Ministry of health) and FDA/ EU EDA documentation are a search away on their sites. I won't even talk about all the major US and UK university teams producing peer-reviewed published data which you can mostly find on medRxiv.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  This may be very often true, but there must be also people who would be willing to listen were the conversation around it clearer. The toxic information environment has very likely tipped into confusion plenty of otherwise reasonable people. I know for sure of at least one close family member, who if there was no Facebook and real life people banging on doubt and sharing misleading information, they wouldn't be constantly dragged into that direction (yesterday she told me "see, I read on a mainstream local newspaper that one vaccinated person died from covid; those antivaxxers said that the vaccine didn't work, they don't seem to be totally off the mark"; it took 5 minutes to explain that when you say that the vaccine is N% effective it means that in 100-N cases it's not effective, so having some deaths is to be expected... she was easily convinced, once she has been walked through. But it requires constant effort; the asymmetry of this information warfare is so strong; it takes far less energy to seed doubt, you don't have to be factual or even logical; while if you want to debunk stuff you have to be careful otherwise your credibility is gone)
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  > Anti vaccine activists don’t tend to be too good at math. Pro-forced vaccine activists don't tend to be too good at ethics or morals.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    Both extreme groups appear not to be good at ethics and morals.
guilhas 5y ago
That would only be true if the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing infection, added to the current 90% effectiveness at preventing strong disease

dudeofea 5y ago

Here are some: https://archive.is/T23eV https://archive.is/T23eV https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1 I think it would help everyone if we all used specific terms when discussing covid infections. From what I've gathered, the current generation of covid vaccines (mRNA, J&J, AZ) induce mainly a IgG immune response (as well as other things I know nothing about), but they certainly do not induce an IgA response. IgG is humoral immunity which protects your blood, and lower respiratory track somewhat, IgA is mucosal immunity which protects your upper-respiratory track (nose, mouth, etc) as well as other mucous membranes. Since covid typically first infects the nose, studies which I cannot find at the moment have shown that vaccinated individuals have only slightly less viral load in the nose than unvaccinated. At the onset of the curve however (first few days), they are the same. Viral load does not equate directly to infectivity, but from this we can say that vaccinated people can spread covid, whilst being asymptomatically infected. Saying you "have" covid is too vague, since you can "have" it in your nose, in your blood, etc.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]