5 ms·

Vaccine does not prevent virus particles from entering and exiting one's body, so it is still about concentration of an aerosol in the air and the number of inf

Vaccine does not prevent virus particles from entering and exiting one's body, so it is still about concentration of an aerosol in the air and the number of infected people around you. What a vaccine does - it primes one's immune system, so it fight the virus way more efficient. And that's it. No miracles or invincibility.

vixen99 5y ago
The definition of vaccine by some authorities changes according to evidently non-medical requirements. I'm not making a point. This is an observation. https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-cdc-suddenly-changes-the-definition-of-vaccine-and-vaccination/ https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-cdc-suddenly-changes-the-... It's generally recognized that the mRNA vaccine prevents neither infection nor tranmission of Covid-19. It does confer a certain benefit in terms of the severity of the disease if contracted. It's not an undiluted benefit as is indicated by the UK data (for instance) which documents significant numbers of deaths for fully vaccinated people. See Table 2 in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Viral loads can be the same for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.21262798v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.21262798v... If this is a reproducible result, would it not render any vaccine passport pretty much meaningless in terms of public health?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > It's not an undiluted benefit as is indicated by the UK data (for instance) which documents significant numbers of deaths for fully vaccinated people. It is an undiluted benefit (your chances of survival are much much higher if you are vaccinated), but not a miracle cure, unfortunately. The UK data you linked still says 85% protection from symptomatic illness for Delta variant with Pfizer, 95% protection from hospitalization.
erdewit 5y ago
> What a vaccine does - it primes one's immune system, so it fight the virus way more efficient. My understanding is that it does not really fight the virus (viral load stays the same), but that it does prime the immune system so as not react too violently. In other words it prevents a cytokine storm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm
krona 5y ago
The vaccines aren't stopping respiratory replication and transmission in meaningful ways, and thus don't confer meaningful protection to anyone but yourself. This is hardly what was sold to everyone. Compare this to, for example, nasal spray influenza vaccines.
- ac2u 5y ago
  >This is hardly what was sold to everyone. Most interviews with experts I listened to in the media did stress at the beginning of the vaccine rollout that they didn't yet know how large the effect of the transmission would be. So I think it's unfair to say that it was "sold" as anything of the sort, it's mostly people retroactively rewriting the past, either deliberately to fit and agenda or just that their memory is faulty.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    How many news articles and recorded interviews repeat the phrase "safe and effective"? Maybe the "effective" part was a little misleading? Especially when these vaccines were explicitly billed as a solution to containment of the virus, to the degree that mandates were supposedly justified... Maybe you could argue that there was a disconnect between what virologists/epidemiologists were saying and what media, pharma, and government talking heads were saying, but it absolutely was sold as effective in preventing infection and spread. Hence the term "vaccine" which has since been redefined by the WHO and/or CDC (I forget which one changed the definition listed on their website). There is too much political momentum for our institutions to acknowledge that they may have made a series of significant errors in their assumptions.
    - ac2u 5y ago
      >Especially when these vaccines were explicitly billed as a solution to containment of the virus My whole argument was that the experts I listened to in the media didn't bill it as such, and your argument to refute that is to restate the argument I'm combating. >Maybe you could argue that there was a disconnect between what virologists/epidemiologists were saying and what media, pharma, and government talking heads were saying That's exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying "most experts I listened to in the media, from day one, stressed that they didn't know it's efficacy on transmissibility yet" and your point back is "ok maybe the experts said that, but what about what the media and phrama and talking heads were saying"? When did I mention them? My entire point was that from day one this was being said, but people either weren't listening, or strategically choosing to forget.

vixen99 5y ago

The definition of vaccine by some authorities changes according to evidently non-medical requirements. I'm not making a point. This is an observation. https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-cdc-suddenly-changes-the-definition-of-vaccine-and-vaccination/ https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-cdc-suddenly-changes-the-... It's generally recognized that the mRNA vaccine prevents neither infection nor tranmission of Covid-19. It does confer a certain benefit in terms of the severity of the disease if contracted. It's not an undiluted benefit as is indicated by the UK data (for instance) which documents significant numbers of deaths for fully vaccinated people. See Table 2 in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Viral loads can be the same for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.21262798v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.21262798v... If this is a reproducible result, would it not render any vaccine passport pretty much meaningless in terms of public health?

tsimionescu 5y ago
> It's not an undiluted benefit as is indicated by the UK data (for instance) which documents significant numbers of deaths for fully vaccinated people. It is an undiluted benefit (your chances of survival are much much higher if you are vaccinated), but not a miracle cure, unfortunately. The UK data you linked still says 85% protection from symptomatic illness for Delta variant with Pfizer, 95% protection from hospitalization.

erdewit 5y ago

> What a vaccine does - it primes one's immune system, so it fight the virus way more efficient. My understanding is that it does not really fight the virus (viral load stays the same), but that it does prime the immune system so as not react too violently. In other words it prevents a cytokine storm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm

krona 5y ago

The vaccines aren't stopping respiratory replication and transmission in meaningful ways, and thus don't confer meaningful protection to anyone but yourself. This is hardly what was sold to everyone. Compare this to, for example, nasal spray influenza vaccines.

ac2u 5y ago
>This is hardly what was sold to everyone. Most interviews with experts I listened to in the media did stress at the beginning of the vaccine rollout that they didn't yet know how large the effect of the transmission would be. So I think it's unfair to say that it was "sold" as anything of the sort, it's mostly people retroactively rewriting the past, either deliberately to fit and agenda or just that their memory is faulty.
- twofornone 5y ago
  How many news articles and recorded interviews repeat the phrase "safe and effective"? Maybe the "effective" part was a little misleading? Especially when these vaccines were explicitly billed as a solution to containment of the virus, to the degree that mandates were supposedly justified... Maybe you could argue that there was a disconnect between what virologists/epidemiologists were saying and what media, pharma, and government talking heads were saying, but it absolutely was sold as effective in preventing infection and spread. Hence the term "vaccine" which has since been redefined by the WHO and/or CDC (I forget which one changed the definition listed on their website). There is too much political momentum for our institutions to acknowledge that they may have made a series of significant errors in their assumptions.
  - ac2u 5y ago
    >Especially when these vaccines were explicitly billed as a solution to containment of the virus My whole argument was that the experts I listened to in the media didn't bill it as such, and your argument to refute that is to restate the argument I'm combating. >Maybe you could argue that there was a disconnect between what virologists/epidemiologists were saying and what media, pharma, and government talking heads were saying That's exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying "most experts I listened to in the media, from day one, stressed that they didn't know it's efficacy on transmissibility yet" and your point back is "ok maybe the experts said that, but what about what the media and phrama and talking heads were saying"? When did I mention them? My entire point was that from day one this was being said, but people either weren't listening, or strategically choosing to forget.