4 ms·

At home taking care of my daughter. She has covid, and now so do I. I mean when this is all said and done, I will be what the vaccines (falsely) claimed they

At home taking care of my daughter. She has covid, and now so do I. I mean when this is all said and done, I will be what the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune... at least to this variant... for a while. If it's endemic, mutates faster than even rushed through emergency medical interventions can stop, and is now so infectious that all our present restrictions aren't holding it back, then what is the point? Never mind discussions about the costs; where's the benefit in this cost benefit analysis?

frafra 5y ago
Vaccine were never meant to make people immune; they have been approved and evaluated based on their effectiveness to reduce severe cases and deaths. We have been lucky enough that they have also been effective to reduce the spread. Even now, they are still very effective with respect to their main goal: reducing the number of people getting into the hospital because of COVID. After ~1 year of vaccinations and ~2 of COVID, I hoped that would have been crystal clear for most people, or, at least, for most of HN users.
- andrewclunn 5y ago
  Wasn't sure which of these responses to shoot down, but prior to the definition change of what a vaccine was (which happened last year, well after the release of these "vaccines") that was precisely the definition. And all these claims now that no medical authority ever claimed the vaccines were going to make you immune... I understand that the "memory hole" is a real thing, but gosh, this is seriously not difficult to find: --- https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-herd-immunity-08e6e1ce-a6fe-4a8d-b339-79dcff6610e8.html https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-herd-immu... > "If you have 75%–80% of the people get vaccinated, you create an umbrella of herd immunity — that even though there is virus around, it is really almost inconsequential because it has no place to go, because almost all of the people are protected," Fauci says. --- I mean they're even now just distorting the term "immunity" to mean something new, but still pushing it in relation to vaccines: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220111/Third-dose-of-mRNA-COVID-vaccine-induces-strong-immunity-in-older-adults.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220111/Third-dose-of-mRN...
  - frafra 5y ago
    I know that it would be better not to reply in order to avoid losing points (and time), but HN users often forget that the world is not just the US. That is not a matter of "memory holes". FDA and EMA evaluated and approved vaccines based on their efficacy with reducing the severe cases and deaths. That is what has been reported and what mattered the most. They also reduced the spreading, by giving some level of immunity, but is a pleasing secondary effect, mostly. No agency gave a red or green light based on that. This is what I said. I agree with you that there has been a huge problem with communicating properly with the wide public, politicians making mistakes, doctors and professionals spending too much time on TV talking about their personal opinion, and too little time spent on the basics, what we know, to which degree, and what we do not know. That is a different matter from what the goals of the vaccines during their development (passing the FDA and EMA parameters) have been.
  - andrewclunn 5y ago
    I respect that you are replying, (who cares about karma though? Internet brownie points are dumb). How is pushing vaccination under the auspices of achieving herd immunity NOT representing that these shots provide immunity? Goal post shifting by saying, "The US is not the whole world" does not answer that question.
    - frafra 5y ago
      I think that we have a misunderstanding, so I am going to stress what I replied to: "the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune" -> they weren't supposed to, they were developed based on another criteria. This is a problem of miscommunication in my opinion, as people sold vaccines as a way to reach immunity or herd immunity. People took bets and made guesses on something hard to model and predict. We like to give people news as they are 100 % sure, making simplification, even for good reasons. Scientific research and understanding does not work like this. Reality and complex, and if we have had a better approach at explaining the current scientific consensus regarding the COVID pandemic, including confidence levels, and lack of understanding or to make reliable predictions and such, science as a whole would probably not have suffered in terms of popularity and general trust.
sanj 5y ago
My understanding is that vaccines never claimed immunity. Ever. They claimed milder symptoms, less complications, and less hospitalizations.
acdha 5y ago
> I will be what the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune This really isn't true — actual experts never claimed that you would be 100% immune to everything forever. The vaccines performed as advertised against earlier strains and even with Omicron's substantially greater immune evasion compared to those earlier strains they're still quite effective at keeping people from having severe cases, which is exactly as the scientists described them — and that still seems to be better than natural immunity. The end game here is vaccination: the U.S. has a low rate and that means that we're seeing the same medical system overload as before. Vaccination mandates are what will keep that from happening so that's what we should be focusing on as the metric for relaxing safety measures.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  I'm curious what your thoughts are on reports like [0] that lots of covid cases at hospitals are incidental (e.g 60% from these 2 US hospitals), and even the ones that are admitted for covid are not requiring intubation? It seems a little late in the game to be banging the mandate drum. [0] https://coloradosun.com/2022/01/12/colorado-covid-omicron-hospital-patients/ https://coloradosun.com/2022/01/12/colorado-covid-omicron-ho...
  - acdha 5y ago
    I generally like Ed Yong’s take on for versus with: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/01/for-covid-with-covid-hospitals-are-mess-either-way/621229/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/01/for-covid... > It seems a little late in the game to be banging the mandate drum. I think it’s other way around: vaccines are what’s making it close to the end by reducing the severity of cases. Mandates avoid delays and reduce the collateral damage — once we get <5, that should be enough to keep the hospitals running smoothly.
    - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
      I need to digest that article a little more, but on the mandates piece, what do you mean by < 5? R0? If a mandate came out tomorrow in the US, and you got everyone their next shot that day, what do you think would happen? It takes 2 weeks for the effectiveness to fully kick in, and I think I recall hearing that there may even be a potential little temporary dip in immunity directly after the shots. Omicron will likely have peaked in the States by then, and at best you end up with no better results. At worst you end up worse off because of the temporary dip (if that is a thing). In any case, mandate + everyone jabbed tomorrow is beyond impossible anyway. Even if it was possible, there would be minimal benefit for a hefty cost (that I think a lot of people don't realize).

frafra 5y ago

Vaccine were never meant to make people immune; they have been approved and evaluated based on their effectiveness to reduce severe cases and deaths. We have been lucky enough that they have also been effective to reduce the spread. Even now, they are still very effective with respect to their main goal: reducing the number of people getting into the hospital because of COVID. After ~1 year of vaccinations and ~2 of COVID, I hoped that would have been crystal clear for most people, or, at least, for most of HN users.

andrewclunn 5y ago
Wasn't sure which of these responses to shoot down, but prior to the definition change of what a vaccine was (which happened last year, well after the release of these "vaccines") that was precisely the definition. And all these claims now that no medical authority ever claimed the vaccines were going to make you immune... I understand that the "memory hole" is a real thing, but gosh, this is seriously not difficult to find: --- https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-herd-immunity-08e6e1ce-a6fe-4a8d-b339-79dcff6610e8.html https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-herd-immu... > "If you have 75%–80% of the people get vaccinated, you create an umbrella of herd immunity — that even though there is virus around, it is really almost inconsequential because it has no place to go, because almost all of the people are protected," Fauci says. --- I mean they're even now just distorting the term "immunity" to mean something new, but still pushing it in relation to vaccines: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220111/Third-dose-of-mRNA-COVID-vaccine-induces-strong-immunity-in-older-adults.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220111/Third-dose-of-mRN...
- frafra 5y ago
  I know that it would be better not to reply in order to avoid losing points (and time), but HN users often forget that the world is not just the US. That is not a matter of "memory holes". FDA and EMA evaluated and approved vaccines based on their efficacy with reducing the severe cases and deaths. That is what has been reported and what mattered the most. They also reduced the spreading, by giving some level of immunity, but is a pleasing secondary effect, mostly. No agency gave a red or green light based on that. This is what I said. I agree with you that there has been a huge problem with communicating properly with the wide public, politicians making mistakes, doctors and professionals spending too much time on TV talking about their personal opinion, and too little time spent on the basics, what we know, to which degree, and what we do not know. That is a different matter from what the goals of the vaccines during their development (passing the FDA and EMA parameters) have been.
- andrewclunn 5y ago
  I respect that you are replying, (who cares about karma though? Internet brownie points are dumb). How is pushing vaccination under the auspices of achieving herd immunity NOT representing that these shots provide immunity? Goal post shifting by saying, "The US is not the whole world" does not answer that question.
  - frafra 5y ago
    I think that we have a misunderstanding, so I am going to stress what I replied to: "the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune" -> they weren't supposed to, they were developed based on another criteria. This is a problem of miscommunication in my opinion, as people sold vaccines as a way to reach immunity or herd immunity. People took bets and made guesses on something hard to model and predict. We like to give people news as they are 100 % sure, making simplification, even for good reasons. Scientific research and understanding does not work like this. Reality and complex, and if we have had a better approach at explaining the current scientific consensus regarding the COVID pandemic, including confidence levels, and lack of understanding or to make reliable predictions and such, science as a whole would probably not have suffered in terms of popularity and general trust.

sanj 5y ago

My understanding is that vaccines never claimed immunity. Ever. They claimed milder symptoms, less complications, and less hospitalizations.

acdha 5y ago

> I will be what the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune This really isn't true — actual experts never claimed that you would be 100% immune to everything forever. The vaccines performed as advertised against earlier strains and even with Omicron's substantially greater immune evasion compared to those earlier strains they're still quite effective at keeping people from having severe cases, which is exactly as the scientists described them — and that still seems to be better than natural immunity. The end game here is vaccination: the U.S. has a low rate and that means that we're seeing the same medical system overload as before. Vaccination mandates are what will keep that from happening so that's what we should be focusing on as the metric for relaxing safety measures.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
I'm curious what your thoughts are on reports like [0] that lots of covid cases at hospitals are incidental (e.g 60% from these 2 US hospitals), and even the ones that are admitted for covid are not requiring intubation? It seems a little late in the game to be banging the mandate drum. [0] https://coloradosun.com/2022/01/12/colorado-covid-omicron-hospital-patients/ https://coloradosun.com/2022/01/12/colorado-covid-omicron-ho...
- acdha 5y ago
  I generally like Ed Yong’s take on for versus with: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/01/for-covid-with-covid-hospitals-are-mess-either-way/621229/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/01/for-covid... > It seems a little late in the game to be banging the mandate drum. I think it’s other way around: vaccines are what’s making it close to the end by reducing the severity of cases. Mandates avoid delays and reduce the collateral damage — once we get <5, that should be enough to keep the hospitals running smoothly.
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    I need to digest that article a little more, but on the mandates piece, what do you mean by < 5? R0? If a mandate came out tomorrow in the US, and you got everyone their next shot that day, what do you think would happen? It takes 2 weeks for the effectiveness to fully kick in, and I think I recall hearing that there may even be a potential little temporary dip in immunity directly after the shots. Omicron will likely have peaked in the States by then, and at best you end up with no better results. At worst you end up worse off because of the temporary dip (if that is a thing). In any case, mandate + everyone jabbed tomorrow is beyond impossible anyway. Even if it was possible, there would be minimal benefit for a hefty cost (that I think a lot of people don't realize).