16 ms·

Covid-19: How the virus spreads among vaccinated people

72 points by sohkamyung 5y ago

thecleaner 5y ago
"....who are infected in households where there is an infectious index (first) case." For the epidemiologist or medical professional in the crowd, what's an "infectious index (first) case"?
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
How many people in this thread either are professional epidemiologists or virologists, or work directly with covid patients? Can their comments get a special “I actually know what I’m talking about” tag?
- Shish2k 5y ago
  Alas, I think a lot of people would consider “random anonymous internet commenter” to be more trustworthy than “professional researcher”; and others would consider “not boosting the voices of non-experts” to be censorship...
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
I wonder is there any difference between those who are doubly vaccinated and those who had covid and are also doubly vaccinated.
- sohkamyung 5y ago
  Maybe this [1] will help answer your question: "Infection-induced immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity: Weighing the benefits and risks". [1] https://healthfeedback.org/infection-induced-immunity-versus-vaccine-induced-immunity-weighing-the-benefits-and-risks/ https://healthfeedback.org/infection-induced-immunity-versus...
  - throwawaymanbot 5y ago
    Cheers! :) An interesting read!
b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.
omginternets 5y ago
I'm not clear on how "the vaccine does not effectively prevent transmission" translates into "vaccinate everyone and give booster shots at once". I realize these vaccines reduce transmission rates, but ~25% is still alarmingly high. From my meager understanding of epidemiology, this is orders of magnitude above what is needed to stop an epidemic. I also realize that they reduce hospitalization and death rates, both of which are extremely valuable, especially to certain populations. But there's also a real ethical dilemma, here. The various approvals for the vaccines (especially with young children) hinge on its purported efficacy; this is what was supposed to offset the known-risks and Knightian uncertainties [0]. I realize this has become a terribly politicized issue, and I also realize there are a disappointing number of pig-headed, foolish anti-vaxxers, but it also seems like there's room for informed debate around mass inoculation with these vaccines in particular. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightian_uncertainty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightian_uncertainty EDIT: I must admit that I am pleasantly surprised by the level-headedness and respect with which you all have responded to this comment. Thank you so much, I really appreciate it.
- gregwebs 5y ago
  Vaccine efficacy is against severe COVID illness, not against transmission. The vaccine is still effective, although recent studies indicate that after 6 months it may only be 50% effective against severe illness (this will vary tremendously for each individual). This is a non-sterilizing vaccine. It was never designed to stop transmission. It did surprisingly block transmission pretty well before the Delta variant. The theory presented here is that the vaccine effect takes time and kicks in on around day 5. With Delta the virus has already become highly transmissive by then. Pre-delta that probably was not the case.
  - nucleogenesis 5y ago
    50% effective against transmission, severe illness, or both?
  - omginternets 5y ago
    You got it before I could edit :) But this is very much my point: we were sold a benefit-risk ratio that assumed the vaccines effectively curb transmission.
benjaminwootton 5y ago
I know it’s blasphemy to question the vaccines, but when they wane in effectiveness after 3 months and don’t prevent transmission much at all, surely the strategy and messaging has to change? Vulerable people should be getting their boosters like clockwork, but the real world data completely changes the equation as to whether you should vaccinating under 25s (to pick an arbitrary cutoff). Downvotes in 3, 2, 1....
- pif 5y ago
  I think everybody accepts it as a fact that polio vaccine never gave any advantage concerning, for example, influenza. Then, why would we expect that a vaccine against the original strain of the Covid 19 virus works as well against a new variant?
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Polio and influenza are completely different viruses. SARS-CoV-2 variants are much more closely related. They aren’t just coronaviruses or even SL (SARS like) but more narrowly similar than that. Should that matter? I’m not sure - but it is a difference relative to the polio/influenza example.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I'm not a partisan, so I won't charge you with blasphemy. :) However... > don’t prevent transmission much at all Where does this come from? I'd previously heard that these vaccines do a pretty good job of curbing transmission. Or rather, a number like 30% efficacy (of preventing transmission) is really good for vaccines.
  - lambdaba 5y ago
    I'm not sure this is the right number. I have read the initial results for one of the vaccines (I think it was from Pfizer) and with my, admittedly cursory and layman reading of the data, the reduction of transmission in vaccinated vs unvaccinated households wasn't at all dramatic, something like 1.5x for some cohorts. And this was with "freshly" vaccinated, post 2 weeks after vaccination (remember, 2 weeks post vaccination susceptibility to infection is increased).
phillc73 5y ago
"Our paper, which had a global impact within 24 hours of publication, provides important support for the following crucial public health actions: vaccinate the unvaccinated ASAP; give boosters to all those who are eligible ASAP; maintain social and public health measures despite vaccination. Nowhere in this article are anti-viral treatments mentioned. While part of the arsenal may be vaccination, boosters and social distancing, why ignore the potential of anti-virals?[1][2] Surely they are an important part of the picture. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58764440 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58764440 [2] https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/uk-government-secures-covid-19-antivirals-winter/ https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/uk-government...
- thecleaner 5y ago
  The study focussed on vaccinations from what I could tell. I don't think they were interested in treatments. Breaking transmission chains seems logical to me, vaccines are cheap and through prevention save the tax payer a lot of money.
  - phillc73 5y ago
    True, the study did focus on vaccines, but I would have also thought perhaps a statement in that quoted paragraph along the lines of "And authorise available anti-viral treatments ASAP" would have brought a little more balance. I do wonder about, and would like to see, a calculation of the cost of widespread anti-viral availability versus the cost of vaccination programmes. The current global COVID-19 death rate is at around 2% of total infectious cases, or around 5 million people.[1] Vaccination will have by now certainly assisted in preventing this number being even higher. I wonder about the cost of producing and distributing globally 500 million anti-viral treatments, versus an also very high number of vaccines and the cost of education programmes prompting people to accept vaccination. Would the current pandemic situation (health and economic) be different if the early focus had have been on anti-viral treatments rather than vaccines? [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
    - 5y ago
gregwebs 5y ago
If you want to a deeper dive on some of these recent studies showing the waning effect of the vaccines, Chris Martenson did a video on a couple yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnB8Tep92Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnB8Tep92Us The main conclusions from these recent studies * Vaccines don't lower transmission rate in households * Vaccines drop below 50% effectiveness at reducing severe infection after 6 months (with a sharper drop for just reducing infection) We may end up with mandates for boosters every six months. Unfortunately this will increase the side effects from vaccination: it would have been nice to pay that cost only once every several years instead of every 6 months. There is also the issue that vaccine immunity is not as effective as nature immunity. It's not clear how much of a problem this is if one can keep getting boosters, but it's something that needs more research. Once someone is on vaccines their immune response is going to be focused on the spike protein whereas a natural response will include antibodies to other parts of the virus.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Unfortunately this will greatly increase the side effects from vaccination. That's speculative, unless you have info that is not yet widely disseminated.
- ufo 5y ago
  IIRC, the evidence points towards the vaccine immunity being superior to immunity from infection.
  - gregwebs 5y ago
    This is a political narrative pushed by the drug companies and the CDC among others but is contrary to the science. Here’s an article with greater detail: https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/blog/2021/11/01/the-new-cdc-study-on-natural-immunity https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/blog/2021/11/01/the-new-cdc-s...
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    like everything else this pandemic, the science is continually updating, especially w.r.t natural immunity we've gone from "diminishes in 3 months" to "may last over 10 months" https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-long-does-covid-19-immunity-last/ https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-long-does-covid-19-immunity-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/06/04/past-covid-infection-slashes-risk-of-being-infected-again-for-at-least-10-months-study-finds/?sh=2ea23b031909 https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/06/04/past-covi... notwithstanding the flaws of measuring only antibodies as a true measure of effective immunity
thecleaner 5y ago
"Our paper, which had a global impact within 24 hours of publication...", anybody knows what was the impact ?
nonamenoslogan 5y ago
As someone who tested positive last Friday after being vaccinated back in March--I can say the symptoms I'm experiencing vs. some of my co-workers who just got full-on COVID are MUCH more mild. I've had a little congestion, some stuffiness, a head/neck ache, and a little upset-tummy. Some of my co-workers were out for weeks with the heavy flu-like symptoms and I'm sitting here wishing I could just clear my throat and go back to work.
- dmajirb 5y ago
  Glad you handled it well. My experience with Covid was even less mild (felt like a small hangover at worst). Clearly I am not at risk for hospitalization due to Covid, however am being pressured to receive a vaccine that I do not want/need/trust. I still do not understand how smart/intelligent people can defend, or outright vehemently advocate for, vaccine mandates given that what we know (not to mention that what we don’t). Brings to mind the following quote by Benjamin Disraeli; ‘the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, yet wiser people are full of doubt.’
  - sjg007 5y ago
    Vaccine mandates have been a thing for a 100 years. We have a right to protect public health. Get your vaccine and stop being a jerk.
    - dmajirb 5y ago
      I am up-to-date on all of my required vaccines, however the ‘Covid vaccine’ is a vaccine by name only—so much so that the CDC had to update the definition of a vaccine LMAO! Until the shot has several years of longitudinal case data available for analysis, I will remain uncomfortable taking the untested artificially designed gene therapy all for a disease that poses insignificant risk to me. Sorry for being a jerk, frustrating times
    - thenewnormal 5y ago
      If it's "for the public health" to mandate a vaccine to age groups for a disease that presents essentially no threat to those people, then we have already crossed a terrible line.
toss1 5y ago
This is entirely unsurprising. The action of vaccines is to pre-prime the body to fight the virus, like letting students read the answers to the test the week before. The result is not some kind of impermeable Star Wars shield, but a reduced likelihood that any one exposure will result in an infection. So, given a 90% effectiveness rate, it means that an exposure level (e.g., getting directly in the way of the coughs of a contagious person) that would typically infect 10 of 10 people, will now only result in only one infection of vaccinated people. However, if those vaccinated people expose themselves 10 times to the same viral load, they are now highly likely to get infected. Since living in the same household as an infected person literally creates multiple large exposures per day for the contagious period, it is no surprise that many vaccinated people will get infected in that situation. This does NOT mean the vaccine is ineffective, it is simply a limitation of the biology to be aware of. Reducing the household infections — continuous exposure — from 38% down to 25% is a very strong effect, cutting the infection rate by 1/3, or leaving unvaccinated people 50% more vulnerable. Moreover, these effects are multiplied. The 50% greater rate of household infections for the unvaccinated means 50% more people going out in the world infecting more people. This can have a massive effect on the R0 value, extending the pandemic greatly over the vaccinated rates. So, yes, the lesson should definitely be to vaccinate everyone, and make sure that they keep up to date on their boosters.
- dmajirb 5y ago
  You are incorrect, on many points. I am unwilling to deeply elaborate about vaccines or immune systems, however want to state my rejection of your faulty logic publicly (need more of this). Ultimately the ‘actions of vaccines’ is to instantiate immunity, which the Covid ‘vaccine’ fails to do. Please educate yourself about the differences between a vaccine vs a therapeutic. Words matter. Just because having elevated levels of ser Vitamin-C effectively reduces one’s exposure to catching the common-cold DOESN’T mean I can recklessly label Emergen-C as a ‘cold vaccine’.
cletus 5y ago
I'm honestly shocked and disappointed how much credence is given to anti-vaccination beliefs or even vaccination-skepticism or vaccination-hesitancy by people with a supposed higher education, even a science education. The reasons vary. None of them are quantifiable. A few common ones: - "We don't know the long-term effects" -> triggering an immune response is extremely quick in terms of effects. Any issues (eg the highly unlikely potential clotting issue in Astra-Zeneca) are actually identified quickly. Vaccines aren't drugs. Drugs are prone to long-term effects. Vaccines are different; - (now defunct) "The vaccine had an emergency authorization" -> it still went through Phase 3 Clinical Trials. People don't actually understand what "emergency authorization" actually means. It's primarily administrative, not clinical; - "The vaccine doesn't prevent transmission" -> It greatly diminishes severe outcomes including hospitalization and death. Immune response isn't simply a boolean switch. Viruses go through several stages before they become infections. Respiratory illnesses will probably still have the virus get to the respiratory tract and allow transmission; - "Risks of death are low" -> collapse of the hospital system would not only impact Covid patients but non-Covid patients. We already have had healthcare workers who essentially had to decide who lives and who dies. That's a lot of responsibility to put on someone for an unquantifiable risk; - "I did my own research" -> No, you didn't. You watched a Youtube video from an unverifiable source or just a plain whacko. That's not research. Stop using that word; - "Just vaccinate the people at risk" -> we don't really know who they are, particularly in young people. Some people have severe reactions for reasons that aren't entirely clear yet; - "Body autonomy" -> Diseases don't affect just you. You can transmit a virus to people who are at risk and may not for legitimate medical reasons be able to get a vaccine; - "This was rushed" -> Actually, it wasn't. DARPA had promoted mRNA vaccine research for years before Covid-19 and we can all be thankful for that; - "It's no more severe than the flu" -> In a bad year, the flu might kill 40,000 people in the US. The Covid death count stands at 800,000 at least and that's probably underreported by a lot, particularly with pandering politicians keen to underplay the significance and impact (eg New York not initially counting nursing home resident deaths). I could go on. One statistic I love to hear from anti-vaxxers is "the death rate is only 1% (or 2%)". If there is a bowl of 100 M&Ms and one of them will kill you, are you eating one? A large football stadium might hold 50,000 people. Are you going to a match when 500 of those people will die? We've now administered billions of vaccine doses worldwide and yet there's no quantifiable risk of adverse effects. Vaccines are a medical miracle that has eliminated polio and smallpox and all but eliminated a host of other devastating diseases. The only difference between those vaccines and Covid-19 is that it's more recent. That's it. If a disease affected just you then I'd say "go right ahead and don't get it" but it doesn't. And the minute risk of adverse outcomes from that vaccine outweighing the very quantifiable benefits to not only you but other people is just a level of irrational selfishness that I find deeply depressing. It also convinces me just how screwed we are on climate change when people are willing to let themselves and other die rather than have the minor inconvenience of a shot. Driving to the supermarket is riskier than having the vaccine yet I don't see people not driving places. Humans are bad at assessing risk. The sad part here is this irrationality is impacting other people in very real ways. Children being left without parents, that sort of thing. And please let's not play the false equivalence game here and say "there are two sides here". There really aren't.
lamontcg 5y ago
When did epidemiologists forget about superspreading and the dispersion number in transmitting SARS-CoV-2? Household transmission may be the bulk of all transmissions, but without superspreading you don't get very good household-to-household transmission and the virus doesn't propagate well. And we've known that for almost 2 years now. What is the effect of vaccination on superspreading? That's about literally the only question I care about when it comes to vaccinated transmission, and nobody is bothering to study it.

72 points by sohkamyung 5y ago

"....who are infected in households where there is an infectious index (first) case." For the epidemiologist or medical professional in the crowd, what's an "infectious index (first) case"?

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

How many people in this thread either are professional epidemiologists or virologists, or work directly with covid patients? Can their comments get a special “I actually know what I’m talking about” tag?

Shish2k 5y ago
Alas, I think a lot of people would consider “random anonymous internet commenter” to be more trustworthy than “professional researcher”; and others would consider “not boosting the voices of non-experts” to be censorship...

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

I wonder is there any difference between those who are doubly vaccinated and those who had covid and are also doubly vaccinated.

sohkamyung 5y ago
Maybe this [1] will help answer your question: "Infection-induced immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity: Weighing the benefits and risks". [1] https://healthfeedback.org/infection-induced-immunity-versus-vaccine-induced-immunity-weighing-the-benefits-and-risks/ https://healthfeedback.org/infection-induced-immunity-versus...
- throwawaymanbot 5y ago
  Cheers! :) An interesting read!

b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

omginternets 5y ago

I'm not clear on how "the vaccine does not effectively prevent transmission" translates into "vaccinate everyone and give booster shots at once". I realize these vaccines reduce transmission rates, but ~25% is still alarmingly high. From my meager understanding of epidemiology, this is orders of magnitude above what is needed to stop an epidemic. I also realize that they reduce hospitalization and death rates, both of which are extremely valuable, especially to certain populations. But there's also a real ethical dilemma, here. The various approvals for the vaccines (especially with young children) hinge on its purported efficacy; this is what was supposed to offset the known-risks and Knightian uncertainties [0]. I realize this has become a terribly politicized issue, and I also realize there are a disappointing number of pig-headed, foolish anti-vaxxers, but it also seems like there's room for informed debate around mass inoculation with these vaccines in particular. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightian_uncertainty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightian_uncertainty EDIT: I must admit that I am pleasantly surprised by the level-headedness and respect with which you all have responded to this comment. Thank you so much, I really appreciate it.

gregwebs 5y ago
Vaccine efficacy is against severe COVID illness, not against transmission. The vaccine is still effective, although recent studies indicate that after 6 months it may only be 50% effective against severe illness (this will vary tremendously for each individual). This is a non-sterilizing vaccine. It was never designed to stop transmission. It did surprisingly block transmission pretty well before the Delta variant. The theory presented here is that the vaccine effect takes time and kicks in on around day 5. With Delta the virus has already become highly transmissive by then. Pre-delta that probably was not the case.
- nucleogenesis 5y ago
  50% effective against transmission, severe illness, or both?
- omginternets 5y ago
  You got it before I could edit :) But this is very much my point: we were sold a benefit-risk ratio that assumed the vaccines effectively curb transmission.

benjaminwootton 5y ago

I know it’s blasphemy to question the vaccines, but when they wane in effectiveness after 3 months and don’t prevent transmission much at all, surely the strategy and messaging has to change? Vulerable people should be getting their boosters like clockwork, but the real world data completely changes the equation as to whether you should vaccinating under 25s (to pick an arbitrary cutoff). Downvotes in 3, 2, 1....

pif 5y ago
I think everybody accepts it as a fact that polio vaccine never gave any advantage concerning, for example, influenza. Then, why would we expect that a vaccine against the original strain of the Covid 19 virus works as well against a new variant?
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Polio and influenza are completely different viruses. SARS-CoV-2 variants are much more closely related. They aren’t just coronaviruses or even SL (SARS like) but more narrowly similar than that. Should that matter? I’m not sure - but it is a difference relative to the polio/influenza example.
throwaway894345 5y ago
I'm not a partisan, so I won't charge you with blasphemy. :) However... > don’t prevent transmission much at all Where does this come from? I'd previously heard that these vaccines do a pretty good job of curbing transmission. Or rather, a number like 30% efficacy (of preventing transmission) is really good for vaccines.
- lambdaba 5y ago
  I'm not sure this is the right number. I have read the initial results for one of the vaccines (I think it was from Pfizer) and with my, admittedly cursory and layman reading of the data, the reduction of transmission in vaccinated vs unvaccinated households wasn't at all dramatic, something like 1.5x for some cohorts. And this was with "freshly" vaccinated, post 2 weeks after vaccination (remember, 2 weeks post vaccination susceptibility to infection is increased).

phillc73 5y ago

"Our paper, which had a global impact within 24 hours of publication, provides important support for the following crucial public health actions: vaccinate the unvaccinated ASAP; give boosters to all those who are eligible ASAP; maintain social and public health measures despite vaccination. Nowhere in this article are anti-viral treatments mentioned. While part of the arsenal may be vaccination, boosters and social distancing, why ignore the potential of anti-virals?[1][2] Surely they are an important part of the picture. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58764440 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58764440 [2] https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/uk-government-secures-covid-19-antivirals-winter/ https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/uk-government...

thecleaner 5y ago
The study focussed on vaccinations from what I could tell. I don't think they were interested in treatments. Breaking transmission chains seems logical to me, vaccines are cheap and through prevention save the tax payer a lot of money.
- phillc73 5y ago
  True, the study did focus on vaccines, but I would have also thought perhaps a statement in that quoted paragraph along the lines of "And authorise available anti-viral treatments ASAP" would have brought a little more balance. I do wonder about, and would like to see, a calculation of the cost of widespread anti-viral availability versus the cost of vaccination programmes. The current global COVID-19 death rate is at around 2% of total infectious cases, or around 5 million people.[1] Vaccination will have by now certainly assisted in preventing this number being even higher. I wonder about the cost of producing and distributing globally 500 million anti-viral treatments, versus an also very high number of vaccines and the cost of education programmes prompting people to accept vaccination. Would the current pandemic situation (health and economic) be different if the early focus had have been on anti-viral treatments rather than vaccines? [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
  - 5y ago

gregwebs 5y ago

If you want to a deeper dive on some of these recent studies showing the waning effect of the vaccines, Chris Martenson did a video on a couple yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnB8Tep92Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnB8Tep92Us The main conclusions from these recent studies * Vaccines don't lower transmission rate in households * Vaccines drop below 50% effectiveness at reducing severe infection after 6 months (with a sharper drop for just reducing infection) We may end up with mandates for boosters every six months. Unfortunately this will increase the side effects from vaccination: it would have been nice to pay that cost only once every several years instead of every 6 months. There is also the issue that vaccine immunity is not as effective as nature immunity. It's not clear how much of a problem this is if one can keep getting boosters, but it's something that needs more research. Once someone is on vaccines their immune response is going to be focused on the spike protein whereas a natural response will include antibodies to other parts of the virus.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Unfortunately this will greatly increase the side effects from vaccination. That's speculative, unless you have info that is not yet widely disseminated.
ufo 5y ago
IIRC, the evidence points towards the vaccine immunity being superior to immunity from infection.
- gregwebs 5y ago
  This is a political narrative pushed by the drug companies and the CDC among others but is contrary to the science. Here’s an article with greater detail: https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/blog/2021/11/01/the-new-cdc-study-on-natural-immunity https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/blog/2021/11/01/the-new-cdc-s...
- disambiguation 5y ago
  like everything else this pandemic, the science is continually updating, especially w.r.t natural immunity we've gone from "diminishes in 3 months" to "may last over 10 months" https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-long-does-covid-19-immunity-last/ https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-long-does-covid-19-immunity-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/06/04/past-covid-infection-slashes-risk-of-being-infected-again-for-at-least-10-months-study-finds/?sh=2ea23b031909 https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/06/04/past-covi... notwithstanding the flaws of measuring only antibodies as a true measure of effective immunity

thecleaner 5y ago

"Our paper, which had a global impact within 24 hours of publication...", anybody knows what was the impact ?

nonamenoslogan 5y ago

As someone who tested positive last Friday after being vaccinated back in March--I can say the symptoms I'm experiencing vs. some of my co-workers who just got full-on COVID are MUCH more mild. I've had a little congestion, some stuffiness, a head/neck ache, and a little upset-tummy. Some of my co-workers were out for weeks with the heavy flu-like symptoms and I'm sitting here wishing I could just clear my throat and go back to work.

dmajirb 5y ago
Glad you handled it well. My experience with Covid was even less mild (felt like a small hangover at worst). Clearly I am not at risk for hospitalization due to Covid, however am being pressured to receive a vaccine that I do not want/need/trust. I still do not understand how smart/intelligent people can defend, or outright vehemently advocate for, vaccine mandates given that what we know (not to mention that what we don’t). Brings to mind the following quote by Benjamin Disraeli; ‘the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, yet wiser people are full of doubt.’
- sjg007 5y ago
  Vaccine mandates have been a thing for a 100 years. We have a right to protect public health. Get your vaccine and stop being a jerk.
  - dmajirb 5y ago
    I am up-to-date on all of my required vaccines, however the ‘Covid vaccine’ is a vaccine by name only—so much so that the CDC had to update the definition of a vaccine LMAO! Until the shot has several years of longitudinal case data available for analysis, I will remain uncomfortable taking the untested artificially designed gene therapy all for a disease that poses insignificant risk to me. Sorry for being a jerk, frustrating times
  - thenewnormal 5y ago
    If it's "for the public health" to mandate a vaccine to age groups for a disease that presents essentially no threat to those people, then we have already crossed a terrible line.

toss1 5y ago

This is entirely unsurprising. The action of vaccines is to pre-prime the body to fight the virus, like letting students read the answers to the test the week before. The result is not some kind of impermeable Star Wars shield, but a reduced likelihood that any one exposure will result in an infection. So, given a 90% effectiveness rate, it means that an exposure level (e.g., getting directly in the way of the coughs of a contagious person) that would typically infect 10 of 10 people, will now only result in only one infection of vaccinated people. However, if those vaccinated people expose themselves 10 times to the same viral load, they are now highly likely to get infected. Since living in the same household as an infected person literally creates multiple large exposures per day for the contagious period, it is no surprise that many vaccinated people will get infected in that situation. This does NOT mean the vaccine is ineffective, it is simply a limitation of the biology to be aware of. Reducing the household infections — continuous exposure — from 38% down to 25% is a very strong effect, cutting the infection rate by 1/3, or leaving unvaccinated people 50% more vulnerable. Moreover, these effects are multiplied. The 50% greater rate of household infections for the unvaccinated means 50% more people going out in the world infecting more people. This can have a massive effect on the R0 value, extending the pandemic greatly over the vaccinated rates. So, yes, the lesson should definitely be to vaccinate everyone, and make sure that they keep up to date on their boosters.

dmajirb 5y ago
You are incorrect, on many points. I am unwilling to deeply elaborate about vaccines or immune systems, however want to state my rejection of your faulty logic publicly (need more of this). Ultimately the ‘actions of vaccines’ is to instantiate immunity, which the Covid ‘vaccine’ fails to do. Please educate yourself about the differences between a vaccine vs a therapeutic. Words matter. Just because having elevated levels of ser Vitamin-C effectively reduces one’s exposure to catching the common-cold DOESN’T mean I can recklessly label Emergen-C as a ‘cold vaccine’.

cletus 5y ago

I'm honestly shocked and disappointed how much credence is given to anti-vaccination beliefs or even vaccination-skepticism or vaccination-hesitancy by people with a supposed higher education, even a science education. The reasons vary. None of them are quantifiable. A few common ones: - "We don't know the long-term effects" -> triggering an immune response is extremely quick in terms of effects. Any issues (eg the highly unlikely potential clotting issue in Astra-Zeneca) are actually identified quickly. Vaccines aren't drugs. Drugs are prone to long-term effects. Vaccines are different; - (now defunct) "The vaccine had an emergency authorization" -> it still went through Phase 3 Clinical Trials. People don't actually understand what "emergency authorization" actually means. It's primarily administrative, not clinical; - "The vaccine doesn't prevent transmission" -> It greatly diminishes severe outcomes including hospitalization and death. Immune response isn't simply a boolean switch. Viruses go through several stages before they become infections. Respiratory illnesses will probably still have the virus get to the respiratory tract and allow transmission; - "Risks of death are low" -> collapse of the hospital system would not only impact Covid patients but non-Covid patients. We already have had healthcare workers who essentially had to decide who lives and who dies. That's a lot of responsibility to put on someone for an unquantifiable risk; - "I did my own research" -> No, you didn't. You watched a Youtube video from an unverifiable source or just a plain whacko. That's not research. Stop using that word; - "Just vaccinate the people at risk" -> we don't really know who they are, particularly in young people. Some people have severe reactions for reasons that aren't entirely clear yet; - "Body autonomy" -> Diseases don't affect just you. You can transmit a virus to people who are at risk and may not for legitimate medical reasons be able to get a vaccine; - "This was rushed" -> Actually, it wasn't. DARPA had promoted mRNA vaccine research for years before Covid-19 and we can all be thankful for that; - "It's no more severe than the flu" -> In a bad year, the flu might kill 40,000 people in the US. The Covid death count stands at 800,000 at least and that's probably underreported by a lot, particularly with pandering politicians keen to underplay the significance and impact (eg New York not initially counting nursing home resident deaths). I could go on. One statistic I love to hear from anti-vaxxers is "the death rate is only 1% (or 2%)". If there is a bowl of 100 M&Ms and one of them will kill you, are you eating one? A large football stadium might hold 50,000 people. Are you going to a match when 500 of those people will die? We've now administered billions of vaccine doses worldwide and yet there's no quantifiable risk of adverse effects. Vaccines are a medical miracle that has eliminated polio and smallpox and all but eliminated a host of other devastating diseases. The only difference between those vaccines and Covid-19 is that it's more recent. That's it. If a disease affected just you then I'd say "go right ahead and don't get it" but it doesn't. And the minute risk of adverse outcomes from that vaccine outweighing the very quantifiable benefits to not only you but other people is just a level of irrational selfishness that I find deeply depressing. It also convinces me just how screwed we are on climate change when people are willing to let themselves and other die rather than have the minor inconvenience of a shot. Driving to the supermarket is riskier than having the vaccine yet I don't see people not driving places. Humans are bad at assessing risk. The sad part here is this irrationality is impacting other people in very real ways. Children being left without parents, that sort of thing. And please let's not play the false equivalence game here and say "there are two sides here". There really aren't.

lamontcg 5y ago

When did epidemiologists forget about superspreading and the dispersion number in transmitting SARS-CoV-2? Household transmission may be the bulk of all transmissions, but without superspreading you don't get very good household-to-household transmission and the virus doesn't propagate well. And we've known that for almost 2 years now. What is the effect of vaccination on superspreading? That's about literally the only question I care about when it comes to vaccinated transmission, and nobody is bothering to study it.