3 ms·

> How about they actually combat COVID first? Like, without needing to re-take them every few months. I sense some frustration behind that comment. Two points

> How about they actually combat COVID first? Like, without needing to re-take them every few months. I sense some frustration behind that comment. Two points 1) We don't see a decrease in Vaccine Effectiveness for Covid. The headlines you see confuse efficacy with effectiveness. There's no meaningful way to directly measure effectiveness and therefore, some studies use anti-bodies as a proxy. However, it should be noted that just because you do not have anti-bodies doesn't mean the effectiveness is reduced. The human body (T-Cells, B-Cells) are able to produce anti-bodies "on demand" as and when required. 2) The non-mRNA vaccines also reduce efficacy and we don't stop researching their benefits on other viruses. So, both of them are not mutually exclusive.

an9n 5y ago
> I sense some frustration behind that comment. Perhaps if the goalposts didn't continually keep shifting...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
native_samples 5y ago
Of course you can meaningfully measure effectiveness. Effectiveness (real world) is measured by comparing reported infection rates between the vaxxed and unvaxxed. Those not only fall with time (why do you believe otherwise?) but are now negative in the UK, where I'm from: vaccinated people are getting COVID at a higher rate and nobody has a good explanation of why ("behavioural differences" being the government's current choice). This real world data is then adjusted to try and turn it into efficacy (ideal conditions, vaccine only).
- jjeaff 5y ago
  It's not so easy to measure. Because the groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated are not randomly distributed. Behavior has something to do with it, I'm sure. But most likely is that the older, most susceptible, poor health people are vaccinated while the younger, healthier populations are less likely to have been vaccinated.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    The data is age stratified. Wrt different levels of health, yes, but there's some good analysis of this that shows it looks like the least healthy aren't vaccinated at all (probably because they're already dying) and this creates an artificial boost to the vaccines effectiveness against death. In the UK at least.

an9n 5y ago

> I sense some frustration behind that comment. Perhaps if the goalposts didn't continually keep shifting...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

native_samples 5y ago

Of course you can meaningfully measure effectiveness. Effectiveness (real world) is measured by comparing reported infection rates between the vaxxed and unvaxxed. Those not only fall with time (why do you believe otherwise?) but are now negative in the UK, where I'm from: vaccinated people are getting COVID at a higher rate and nobody has a good explanation of why ("behavioural differences" being the government's current choice). This real world data is then adjusted to try and turn it into efficacy (ideal conditions, vaccine only).

jjeaff 5y ago
It's not so easy to measure. Because the groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated are not randomly distributed. Behavior has something to do with it, I'm sure. But most likely is that the older, most susceptible, poor health people are vaccinated while the younger, healthier populations are less likely to have been vaccinated.
- native_samples 5y ago
  The data is age stratified. Wrt different levels of health, yes, but there's some good analysis of this that shows it looks like the least healthy aren't vaccinated at all (probably because they're already dying) and this creates an artificial boost to the vaccines effectiveness against death. In the UK at least.