5 ms·

Polio vaccines are a cure. Covid vaccines are not.

retrac 5y ago
Polio vaccines are not a cure. They do not treat the infection nor the after-effects. Also, people who have been vaccinated can still, in principle, contract polio. Like people with immunity from previous infection, generally they get a very mild and asymptomatic case that clears almost immediately.
- the_doctah 5y ago
  You're arguing semantics when you knew what I meant. Polio vaccines have all but eliminated the virus in the wild (33 cases worldwide as of 2018). It's more effective in every way shape or form when compared to Covid-19 vaccines, which makes the comparison invalid.
  - xjlin0 5y ago
    Want a slightly valid comparison? Please compare first year data of each vaccine for the very strain.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - the_doctah 5y ago
      Strains change by definition, which is exactly why there's no cure to Influenza
  - retrac 5y ago
    Polio took 50 years to wipe out with aggressive vaccination programs approaching 100% in some populations. If we reach comparable levels of immunization for polio with the COVID-19 vaccine we may yet see that, too. Where I live with ~90% of adults immunized for COVID, the number of infections and % testing positive continues to fall over the last few months, even as we get more social. I hold out with some cautious optimism?
SigmundA 5y ago
What does that mean? The polio vaccine is considered 100% effective at 4 doses while 90% at 2. Does a vaccine have to hit 100% effectiveness at some number of doses to be considered a cure?
manquer 5y ago
No they are not, no vaccine is 100% effective.[1] In the case of Polio there is actually Vaccine derived poliovirus VDPV[2], the person getting the vaccine is immune, however he can transmit it to un-vaccinated people for the OPV version which was administered in the U.S. till 2000 OPV is known to cause paralytic poliomyelitis(polio) in 3 cases per million doses given [3] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/vaccine-derived-poliovirus-faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/vaccine-derived-p... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27894720/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27894720/
- throw10920 5y ago
  Huh, there's a (very small) chance to get permanently paralyzed from the polo vaccine? :| Why do people think that it's a good idea to shield vaccine manufacturers from liability, again?
  - yupper32 5y ago
    If they weren't shielded from liability, would there be any company willing to take on the risk of administering the vaccines to 92%+ of the population (US polio vaccine numbers via CDC)? They're shielded from liability because we as a society have determined that the benefits outweigh the risks with all the currently recommended vaccines, and that the companies that develop these vaccines shouldn't be punished for creating a massively net-good for society.
    - throw10920 5y ago
      > If they weren't shielded from liability, would there be any company willing to take on the risk of administering the vaccines to 92%+ of the population Absolutely yes. Every other industry is exposed to the risk created by their products - including makers of cars, heavy machinery, drugs, food, beverages, and airplanes - and continues to sell their products. There's no airliner deficit because the major companies are scared of the potential liability resulting from a crash, or beer deficit because major breweries are averse to the risk of a bad batch poisoning hundreds of people. The claim that vaccine companies are somehow different than car companies, or drug-makers (who you can argue have also "created a massive net-good for society" - which is also a bad argument), or every other industry, is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence. > we as a society have determined Objectively false. There has been no general vote on this issue, there have been no politicians that ran on platforms around this issue, and most of the individuals that I know do not support this decision - in fact, as far as I know, the only inputs into the legislation were from pharmaceutical companies, which is the opposite of "society". This claim is absolutely absurd, and equivalent to arguing that "we as a society have decided that personal data mining for the purposes of advertising is OK" just because that's the way the legal system is currently set up. > the companies that develop these vaccines shouldn't be punished for creating a massively net-good for society This is a snuck premise. This is no "punishment" at all for developing vaccines, and no one is forcing these companies to create or sell them; this is forcing them to ensure that their products are as safe as humanly possible by providing financial incentives to do so, which not only happens with every other industry, but is the only sane thing to do - if you sell something that people put into their bodies, there is no argument that you can make that you shouldn't also be liable for any negative consequences that happen as a result. You can make an argument that cars, or antibiotics, or phones, or cheap+healthy+readily-available food have all been beneficial for "society" - and yet, the makers of all those things are equally liable for bodily harm arising from (proper) use of their products. Moreover, forcing manufacturers to be liable for their products has been a net good for society, as its forced them to invest significant resources in ensuring that the things that they build are safe. Consider the high standards for food safety that we have now, and the incredible amounts of testing and safety engineering that go into building automobiles and airplanes - if manufacturers weren't liable, none of that would have happened. More concretely, if vaccine manufacturers were forced to take responsibility for their products, and there were actually high numbers of long-term side effects - the manufacturers would do research into understanding their interactions with the body better, and they would get safer. But, of course, vaccine side-effect incident rate is extremely rare, because they're completely safe, so manufacturers would rarely have to pay out in the first place, right? I suppose that I asked "why do people think that it's a good idea" not "is this reasonable/just/excusable", and so your comment was an answer to that - but it definitely doesn't seem like this is something you can actually justify. Also, I'm curious: if the manufacturers aren't liable for injury or death from their products, then who do you think is?
heavyset_go 5y ago
If you have polio and take the polio vaccine, it will do nothing. It is no cure for polio, it is prophylaxis.
- the_doctah 5y ago
  Semantics.
  - TylerE 5y ago
    Words. They mean things.

Polio vaccines are not a cure. They do not treat the infection nor the after-effects. Also, people who have been vaccinated can still, in principle, contract polio. Like people with immunity from previous infection, generally they get a very mild and asymptomatic case that clears almost immediately.

the_doctah 5y ago
You're arguing semantics when you knew what I meant. Polio vaccines have all but eliminated the virus in the wild (33 cases worldwide as of 2018). It's more effective in every way shape or form when compared to Covid-19 vaccines, which makes the comparison invalid.
- xjlin0 5y ago
  Want a slightly valid comparison? Please compare first year data of each vaccine for the very strain.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - the_doctah 5y ago
    Strains change by definition, which is exactly why there's no cure to Influenza
- retrac 5y ago
  Polio took 50 years to wipe out with aggressive vaccination programs approaching 100% in some populations. If we reach comparable levels of immunization for polio with the COVID-19 vaccine we may yet see that, too. Where I live with ~90% of adults immunized for COVID, the number of infections and % testing positive continues to fall over the last few months, even as we get more social. I hold out with some cautious optimism?

SigmundA 5y ago

What does that mean? The polio vaccine is considered 100% effective at 4 doses while 90% at 2. Does a vaccine have to hit 100% effectiveness at some number of doses to be considered a cure?

manquer 5y ago

No they are not, no vaccine is 100% effective.[1] In the case of Polio there is actually Vaccine derived poliovirus VDPV[2], the person getting the vaccine is immune, however he can transmit it to un-vaccinated people for the OPV version which was administered in the U.S. till 2000 OPV is known to cause paralytic poliomyelitis(polio) in 3 cases per million doses given [3] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/vaccine-derived-poliovirus-faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/vaccine-derived-p... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27894720/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27894720/

throw10920 5y ago
Huh, there's a (very small) chance to get permanently paralyzed from the polo vaccine? :| Why do people think that it's a good idea to shield vaccine manufacturers from liability, again?
- yupper32 5y ago
  If they weren't shielded from liability, would there be any company willing to take on the risk of administering the vaccines to 92%+ of the population (US polio vaccine numbers via CDC)? They're shielded from liability because we as a society have determined that the benefits outweigh the risks with all the currently recommended vaccines, and that the companies that develop these vaccines shouldn't be punished for creating a massively net-good for society.
  - throw10920 5y ago
    > If they weren't shielded from liability, would there be any company willing to take on the risk of administering the vaccines to 92%+ of the population Absolutely yes. Every other industry is exposed to the risk created by their products - including makers of cars, heavy machinery, drugs, food, beverages, and airplanes - and continues to sell their products. There's no airliner deficit because the major companies are scared of the potential liability resulting from a crash, or beer deficit because major breweries are averse to the risk of a bad batch poisoning hundreds of people. The claim that vaccine companies are somehow different than car companies, or drug-makers (who you can argue have also "created a massive net-good for society" - which is also a bad argument), or every other industry, is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence. > we as a society have determined Objectively false. There has been no general vote on this issue, there have been no politicians that ran on platforms around this issue, and most of the individuals that I know do not support this decision - in fact, as far as I know, the only inputs into the legislation were from pharmaceutical companies, which is the opposite of "society". This claim is absolutely absurd, and equivalent to arguing that "we as a society have decided that personal data mining for the purposes of advertising is OK" just because that's the way the legal system is currently set up. > the companies that develop these vaccines shouldn't be punished for creating a massively net-good for society This is a snuck premise. This is no "punishment" at all for developing vaccines, and no one is forcing these companies to create or sell them; this is forcing them to ensure that their products are as safe as humanly possible by providing financial incentives to do so, which not only happens with every other industry, but is the only sane thing to do - if you sell something that people put into their bodies, there is no argument that you can make that you shouldn't also be liable for any negative consequences that happen as a result. You can make an argument that cars, or antibiotics, or phones, or cheap+healthy+readily-available food have all been beneficial for "society" - and yet, the makers of all those things are equally liable for bodily harm arising from (proper) use of their products. Moreover, forcing manufacturers to be liable for their products has been a net good for society, as its forced them to invest significant resources in ensuring that the things that they build are safe. Consider the high standards for food safety that we have now, and the incredible amounts of testing and safety engineering that go into building automobiles and airplanes - if manufacturers weren't liable, none of that would have happened. More concretely, if vaccine manufacturers were forced to take responsibility for their products, and there were actually high numbers of long-term side effects - the manufacturers would do research into understanding their interactions with the body better, and they would get safer. But, of course, vaccine side-effect incident rate is extremely rare, because they're completely safe, so manufacturers would rarely have to pay out in the first place, right? I suppose that I asked "why do people think that it's a good idea" not "is this reasonable/just/excusable", and so your comment was an answer to that - but it definitely doesn't seem like this is something you can actually justify. Also, I'm curious: if the manufacturers aren't liable for injury or death from their products, then who do you think is?

heavyset_go 5y ago

If you have polio and take the polio vaccine, it will do nothing. It is no cure for polio, it is prophylaxis.

the_doctah 5y ago
Semantics.
- TylerE 5y ago
  Words. They mean things.