2 ms·

> The vaccine which doesn't prevent infection or transmission It reduces the chances of transmission and reduces the effects of the virus when someone is infec

> The vaccine which doesn't prevent infection or transmission It reduces the chances of transmission and reduces the effects of the virus when someone is infected. I have no idea why “it doesn’t stop all infections!” is presented as such a gotcha when that’s the way vaccines have always worked. Breakthrough cases always happen. That doesn’t mean they’re not worth having. > My natural antibodies are doing just fine, thank you On what basis? You said the vaccines are “seemingly” losing efficacy weekly. How do you know the same isn’t the case for natural antibodies?

jaywalk 5y ago
> It reduces the chances of transmission Check more recent studies. There is no difference in viral loads or likelihood of transmission in vaccinated versus unvaccinated. > and reduces the effects of the virus when someone is infected. Even that seems to be waning, because I know plenty of vaccinated people who got infected and had a much tougher time than I did (infection before vaccine was available). But with that being the only possible benefit at this point, it doesn't come close to the justification needed to mandate the vaccine. > You said the vaccines are “seemingly” losing efficacy weekly. How do you know the same isn’t the case for natural antibodies? Me personally? I just got an antibody test recently, and after 8 months they're still going strong. Overall? Studies have shown natural antibodies to be quite long-lasting, I believe the longest one I'd seen so far went out to 9 months post-infection with no meaningful drop.
ericd 5y ago
I thought the general consensus was that it doesn’t reduce your chance of infecting others much if you’re infected, but that it dramatically reduces the severity of your symptoms, and thus the load on the healthcare system, whereas non-n95 masks do little to protect you, but they’re effective in reducing the risk you infect others?

jaywalk 5y ago

> It reduces the chances of transmission Check more recent studies. There is no difference in viral loads or likelihood of transmission in vaccinated versus unvaccinated. > and reduces the effects of the virus when someone is infected. Even that seems to be waning, because I know plenty of vaccinated people who got infected and had a much tougher time than I did (infection before vaccine was available). But with that being the only possible benefit at this point, it doesn't come close to the justification needed to mandate the vaccine. > You said the vaccines are “seemingly” losing efficacy weekly. How do you know the same isn’t the case for natural antibodies? Me personally? I just got an antibody test recently, and after 8 months they're still going strong. Overall? Studies have shown natural antibodies to be quite long-lasting, I believe the longest one I'd seen so far went out to 9 months post-infection with no meaningful drop.

ericd 5y ago

I thought the general consensus was that it doesn’t reduce your chance of infecting others much if you’re infected, but that it dramatically reduces the severity of your symptoms, and thus the load on the healthcare system, whereas non-n95 masks do little to protect you, but they’re effective in reducing the risk you infect others?