3 ms·

Does the Pfizer jab infection and prevent transmission to others? I thought I saw Fauci and Walensky (CDC) recently lamenting that it doesn't. Most of what I he

Does the Pfizer jab infection and prevent transmission to others? I thought I saw Fauci and Walensky (CDC) recently lamenting that it doesn't. Most of what I hear people say is it prevents disease severity.

marcinzm 5y ago
Based on this it does: https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/vaccination-reduces-transmission-to-unvaccinated-household-members-by-63-for-delta-variant https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/vaccination-reduces-transmission...
politician 5y ago
It's a good question. If you Google it, the first page of results has articles reporting different reductions depending on the study, number of doses, and manufacturer. The range of results from a quick glance at a few of the articles is between 11% and 71% reduced transmission.
- hammock 5y ago
  Thanks I will check it out. Would love to understand how those square up with the many studies that discuss natural immunity and the low to non-existent reinfection/transmission rates there. I know so many people who recovered from covid (jabbed and unjabbed), are healthy now, and don't see a need for a jab/booster.
  - politician 5y ago
    I got the first two shots because it seemed advisable and I was willing to roll the dice on a novel mRNA treatment due to this HN post [1]. However, I'm confused and frustrated about the messaging on the 3rd. It's either only for people 65 and older, or for everyone if you can get it, or it's mandatory to complete your vaccination, or it's going to be a seasonal thing like the flu vaccine depending on the source. For me, it's worth pausing until the messaging stabilizes -- Omicron being universally reported as relatively mild really undermines the message that continuous boosters are necessary. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26628233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26628233
acdha 5y ago
It's not a boolean — it appears that the vaccines reduce spread but do not prevent it entirely. The concerns are because that means we need higher vaccination rates to prevent spread compared to a vaccine which completely halts spread. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...
- lb0 5y ago
  Spot on - this annoys me so much. So much, from quantum til cosmos, so much in life is not boolen / black or white. "Oh, someone got sick though he was vaccinated, vaccinations don't work" "Oh, someone got sick, and didn't die, it must not be serious" "Oh, its is not an exponential curve, it is sigmodial... " "Oh but now 50% on the ICUs are still vaccinated??" "Oh, but vaccinated, transmission is still possible?!" So many strawman and itself maybe right statements, but wrong conclusions drawn. I would hope we could educate ourselves better, it is not just booleans, it is also not just relative percentages, it is never simple. It is also always about absolute numbers, it is also about probability theory, it is even more about also conditional probability (that seems so counterintuitive to many) .. etc. etc. But people stick to argue with single observations or boolean statements as the gound truth so many places :( It is like children argueing "Yes it is" "No it isnt". To come back to what you said: Yes after all we know right now: The probability of transmission is reduced on multiple levels: your virus load is smaller, your infectious time is shorter, maybe more
gonehome 5y ago
It reduces infection risk on exposure substantially which translates to being less likely to spread (since you’re less likely to contract the disease in the first place). Once infected you’re right (at least last I read) that you still shed virus, but given lower infection rate on exposure it still helps reduce spread.

marcinzm 5y ago

Based on this it does: https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/vaccination-reduces-transmission-to-unvaccinated-household-members-by-63-for-delta-variant https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/vaccination-reduces-transmission...

politician 5y ago

It's a good question. If you Google it, the first page of results has articles reporting different reductions depending on the study, number of doses, and manufacturer. The range of results from a quick glance at a few of the articles is between 11% and 71% reduced transmission.

hammock 5y ago
Thanks I will check it out. Would love to understand how those square up with the many studies that discuss natural immunity and the low to non-existent reinfection/transmission rates there. I know so many people who recovered from covid (jabbed and unjabbed), are healthy now, and don't see a need for a jab/booster.
- politician 5y ago
  I got the first two shots because it seemed advisable and I was willing to roll the dice on a novel mRNA treatment due to this HN post [1]. However, I'm confused and frustrated about the messaging on the 3rd. It's either only for people 65 and older, or for everyone if you can get it, or it's mandatory to complete your vaccination, or it's going to be a seasonal thing like the flu vaccine depending on the source. For me, it's worth pausing until the messaging stabilizes -- Omicron being universally reported as relatively mild really undermines the message that continuous boosters are necessary. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26628233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26628233

acdha 5y ago

It's not a boolean — it appears that the vaccines reduce spread but do not prevent it entirely. The concerns are because that means we need higher vaccination rates to prevent spread compared to a vaccine which completely halts spread. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...

lb0 5y ago
Spot on - this annoys me so much. So much, from quantum til cosmos, so much in life is not boolen / black or white. "Oh, someone got sick though he was vaccinated, vaccinations don't work" "Oh, someone got sick, and didn't die, it must not be serious" "Oh, its is not an exponential curve, it is sigmodial... " "Oh but now 50% on the ICUs are still vaccinated??" "Oh, but vaccinated, transmission is still possible?!" So many strawman and itself maybe right statements, but wrong conclusions drawn. I would hope we could educate ourselves better, it is not just booleans, it is also not just relative percentages, it is never simple. It is also always about absolute numbers, it is also about probability theory, it is even more about also conditional probability (that seems so counterintuitive to many) .. etc. etc. But people stick to argue with single observations or boolean statements as the gound truth so many places :( It is like children argueing "Yes it is" "No it isnt". To come back to what you said: Yes after all we know right now: The probability of transmission is reduced on multiple levels: your virus load is smaller, your infectious time is shorter, maybe more

gonehome 5y ago

It reduces infection risk on exposure substantially which translates to being less likely to spread (since you’re less likely to contract the disease in the first place). Once infected you’re right (at least last I read) that you still shed virus, but given lower infection rate on exposure it still helps reduce spread.