4 ms·

It doesn't stop the spread, but it slows it and reduces the severity of the disease. Both of which help our health services to cope. You might care because you

It doesn't stop the spread, but it slows it and reduces the severity of the disease. Both of which help our health services to cope. You might care because you want healthcare to be available for yourself or your loved ones should they need it.

walterbell 5y ago
> slows it Not necessarily. Because vaccines suppress symptoms, people who would otherwise isolate in the presence of symptoms could be unaware they are infected and transmitting to others.
- bhouston 5y ago
  I think you should look at Canada and compare it to the US. In Canada there were lockdowns and aggressive vaccination campaigns with high compliance. Death and infection rates are 3x lower than the US per capita. It isn't a perfect test but the general populations and habits between Canada and US are somewhat comparable otherwise. I think it is fair to argue that maybe it wasn't worth it, as most of the deaths were primarily among the old and frail. But it does seem that the policy and cultural differences did have an effect.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    Cross-country or even cross-state comparisons are highly problematic for many reasons. Many narratives can and have been constructed, which are a far cry from a structured scientific study. Three macro differences between US and Canada: universal healthcare, obesity rates and 90% difference in population size. None of which changes the fact that vaccinated people can transmit unknowingly.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  My understanding is that people with suppressed symptoms are also less likely to transmit it. This makes sense given that we know coughing and sneezing is a primary transmission vector. So if you're not coughing and sneezing you're much less likely to transmit it. Of course you still can transmit it just by breathing, but it's just less likely. I would also add that I'm speaking in the context of the UK. Here we have freely and widely available lateral flow tests (you can order packs of tests online or pick them up from local chemists, and there is no charge in either case), and people are encouraged to test regularly, especially if attending a social event and even if you have no symptoms. And a lot of people are required to test regularly as part of their jobs, or in order to attend to school. In this context, it's quite likely that asymptomatic cases get picked up anyway.
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    Ok, so if suppressed symptoms means less likely to spread it- then restrictions based on vaccination status mean nothing. Restrictions based on symptoms are the only restrictions that make sense. I'm not arguing with you, but just pointing out one of the most ridiculous things that I'm currently going through here in Chicago. I am not allowed to workout at a gym, sit down and eat at a restaurant, but if I'm vaccinated, even if I'm sick, I can live my life unrestricted. I am now driving an extra 20 miles daily to workout as my partner was kicked from her gym for not being vaccinated. Great for the environment. Meanwhile- she caught covid a few weeks ago, and despite being pregnant, was recovered within 2 days. We isolated for a week, and I never had symptoms whatsoever. Natural immunity. Meanwhile, and this is anecdotal, but everyone we know that has has had a really bad time with covid during the past month, has also been vaccinated and boosted. And if they had mild cases, they didn't isolate like we did- they just assumed that they were fine because they are vaccinated. But we are the selfish ones.
    - bhouston 5y ago
      You wrote: "Meanwhile, and this is anecdotal, but everyone we know that has has had a really bad time with covid during the past month, has also been vaccinated and boosted" Death is 10x more likely if you are not vaccinated, your anecdote aside: https://twitter.com/OurWorldInData/status/1486076680619937795 https://twitter.com/OurWorldInData/status/148607668061993779...
      - yonaguska 5y ago
        Without controlling for age and comorbidities, this doesn't mean much. You can break down by age, but the categories are ridiculously broad, 18-49, then narrower age bands afterwards. Another breakdown that we will never see is the data broken down by death within two weeks of any shot(lumped in with unvaccinated) and death after full vaccination lapses. Which is an ever shortening window. Finally, how are the denominators being calculated? For the United States, we are basically guessing at this point, given that we only have an insanely large range of estimated undocumented people in the country alone.

walterbell 5y ago

> slows it Not necessarily. Because vaccines suppress symptoms, people who would otherwise isolate in the presence of symptoms could be unaware they are infected and transmitting to others.

bhouston 5y ago
I think you should look at Canada and compare it to the US. In Canada there were lockdowns and aggressive vaccination campaigns with high compliance. Death and infection rates are 3x lower than the US per capita. It isn't a perfect test but the general populations and habits between Canada and US are somewhat comparable otherwise. I think it is fair to argue that maybe it wasn't worth it, as most of the deaths were primarily among the old and frail. But it does seem that the policy and cultural differences did have an effect.
- walterbell 5y ago
  Cross-country or even cross-state comparisons are highly problematic for many reasons. Many narratives can and have been constructed, which are a far cry from a structured scientific study. Three macro differences between US and Canada: universal healthcare, obesity rates and 90% difference in population size. None of which changes the fact that vaccinated people can transmit unknowingly.
nicoburns 5y ago
My understanding is that people with suppressed symptoms are also less likely to transmit it. This makes sense given that we know coughing and sneezing is a primary transmission vector. So if you're not coughing and sneezing you're much less likely to transmit it. Of course you still can transmit it just by breathing, but it's just less likely. I would also add that I'm speaking in the context of the UK. Here we have freely and widely available lateral flow tests (you can order packs of tests online or pick them up from local chemists, and there is no charge in either case), and people are encouraged to test regularly, especially if attending a social event and even if you have no symptoms. And a lot of people are required to test regularly as part of their jobs, or in order to attend to school. In this context, it's quite likely that asymptomatic cases get picked up anyway.
- yonaguska 5y ago
  Ok, so if suppressed symptoms means less likely to spread it- then restrictions based on vaccination status mean nothing. Restrictions based on symptoms are the only restrictions that make sense. I'm not arguing with you, but just pointing out one of the most ridiculous things that I'm currently going through here in Chicago. I am not allowed to workout at a gym, sit down and eat at a restaurant, but if I'm vaccinated, even if I'm sick, I can live my life unrestricted. I am now driving an extra 20 miles daily to workout as my partner was kicked from her gym for not being vaccinated. Great for the environment. Meanwhile- she caught covid a few weeks ago, and despite being pregnant, was recovered within 2 days. We isolated for a week, and I never had symptoms whatsoever. Natural immunity. Meanwhile, and this is anecdotal, but everyone we know that has has had a really bad time with covid during the past month, has also been vaccinated and boosted. And if they had mild cases, they didn't isolate like we did- they just assumed that they were fine because they are vaccinated. But we are the selfish ones.
  - bhouston 5y ago
    You wrote: "Meanwhile, and this is anecdotal, but everyone we know that has has had a really bad time with covid during the past month, has also been vaccinated and boosted" Death is 10x more likely if you are not vaccinated, your anecdote aside: https://twitter.com/OurWorldInData/status/1486076680619937795 https://twitter.com/OurWorldInData/status/148607668061993779...
    - yonaguska 5y ago
      Without controlling for age and comorbidities, this doesn't mean much. You can break down by age, but the categories are ridiculously broad, 18-49, then narrower age bands afterwards. Another breakdown that we will never see is the data broken down by death within two weeks of any shot(lumped in with unvaccinated) and death after full vaccination lapses. Which is an ever shortening window. Finally, how are the denominators being calculated? For the United States, we are basically guessing at this point, given that we only have an insanely large range of estimated undocumented people in the country alone.