4 ms·

Maybe the source was unfortunate, but how can someone in January 2022 say with a straight face that the existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines prevent the spread of the v

by ls15 5y ago

Maybe the source was unfortunate, but how can someone in January 2022 say with a straight face that the existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines prevent the spread of the virus? I was vaccinated and I was infected by a tripple-vaccinated person and one of my best friends is in a similar situation. The idea that the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus is dead since we saw the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases in highly boostered countries.

mpweiher 5y ago
Not sure what's with this "prevent" straw man, which seems to imply that vaccines need to be 100% effective, otherwise they do not work at all. This is not true and has never been true. Vaccines "prevent" the spread in many cases. Vaccines not not "prevent" the spread in 100% of cases. Just like they do not "prevent" severe outcomes in 100% of cases. You can be fully vaccinated and boostered and still die of Covid. It's just a lot less likely than if you're not vaccinated. This reduction is the vaccines working as designed and advertised. Effectiveness at preventing spread was always less than at preventing severe outcomes, even with the original variant the vaccines were designed for (or against). This was in all the literature I read about the vaccines during early 2021 (which also showed that, for example, AZ was significantly less effective at reducing the spread than BionTech, although both were >90% effective [still not 100%!] at preventing severe outcomes). In the meantime the virus has mutated significantly, and the vaccines are less effective than they were against the original variant, but still effective.
- ls15 5y ago
  > Not sure what's with this "prevent" straw man, which seems to imply that vaccines need to be 100% effective, otherwise they do not work at all. They don't need to be 100% effective, but they need to be reasonably effective in order to be mandated as a tool for mitigating the spreading. At the very least reliably above 50%, I would say. Otherwise they can only be a tool for personal risk reduction, because they don't reliably do something against the spread. An airline has no authority to mandate personal risk reduction that is not related to the flight.
  - mpweiher 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - ls15 5y ago
      > OK. So are you now retracting your previous claim that "vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2"? Why should I? It is true, because I was infected after getting vaccinated by someone who was vaccinated as well. There is a lot of data that suggests the same. > Since you previously believed that they were not effective at all, which is 100% wrong, maybe you are not the ideal person to make that judgement call? No, I didn't. Don't twist my words. I don't respond to ad hominems and after all you asked me for that answer. > Fourth, I have seen no actual evidence from you for either (a) 50% being a reasonable threshold https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-least-50-efficacy-for-covid-19-vaccines-wsj https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-leas... > or (b) vaccine efficacy being below 50%. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy?t=1644061325800 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809... > So sixth, an airline is very well within its rights to prevent potential harm from its passengers and employees. Yes, but not by mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon.
      - mpweiher 5y ago
        >> > OK. So are you now retracting your previous claim that "vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2"? > Why should I? Because it is false. > It is true, because I was infected after getting vaccinated by someone who was vaccinated as well. That does not make your statement true. The vaccines never prevented transmission at 100% effectiveness. Never ever. They were not marketed as doing so, and if anyone did claim they prevent transmission at 100% effectiveness, then that person was spreading misinformation. It was never true. They didn't even prevent severe outcomes at 100% effectiveness, and they were always much better at preventing severe outcomes than they were at preventing infection. (Initially >90% vs. <~ 80% against Alpha). The whole idea that one case of transmission proves the vaccines are ineffective at preventing transmission is silly. > Don't twist my words. I am not twisting your words. You were making a judgement call, which you are obviously not qualified to make. > https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-least-50-efficacy-for-covid-19-vaccines-wsj https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-leas... 1. That is a 50% efficacy in preventing the disease, i.e. the severe outcomes, not transmission. All the vaccines pass that bar easily. 2. That was the threshold for approval then. Now is now. >https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy?t=1644061325800 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809... "Two weeks after the shot, the booster cuts the risk by about 70%." Seems to be greater than 50% to me. Drops after that, but once again, it was always known that the effectiveness of the vaccine would be temporary. >> So sixth, an airline is very well within its rights to prevent potential harm from its passengers and employees. > Yes, but not by mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. By saying who they allow to fly or not. You don't have to get vaccinated. United does not have to fly you. > I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon. Will probably be very short court cases...
r2_pilot 5y ago
As a counterpoint my unvaxxed housemate got covid a couple of weeks ago, I(boosted two weeks to the day at the time he showed symptoms) took no precautions and never developed symptoms. I also had close contact with someone who got omicron(PCR verified) the day after we hung out(asymptomatic then) and have yet to develop symptoms, that was this past Sunday so I'm pretty sure I'm good now. Vaccines work to prevent spread even now.
- ls15 5y ago
  I had symptoms and a multiple negative rapid tests at the same time. Only a PCR test confirmed that I was indeed positive. On the other hand, having no symptoms is no reliable test for being SARS-CoV-2-negative, since many Covid cases are asymptomatic and even asymptomatic people can infect other people. So there is a chance that you unknowingly gave Covid to someone else if you did not self-isolate. However, even the CDC says that vaccines don't prevent transmission anymore: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-vaccines-cant-prevent-transmission-anymore/ar-AASDndg https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-... CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said that Covid-19 vaccines are no longer effective at preventing transmission of the virus. "...what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission. So if you're going home to somebody who has not been vaccinated, somebody who can't get vaccinated... I would suggest you wear a mask in a public indoor setting,"
  - r2_pilot 5y ago
    You're moving the goalposts on what I'm saying, which is that I never developed symptoms. I followed CDC guidelines while in public(which had just been updated, yet again), so I don't really care if I was covid positive or not. More anecdata, very few people I'm around are vaccinated but nobody that I was in close contact with got sick, so it's doubtful that even if I was positive that I was shedding viral particles in large quantities. This is called ending the pandemic, where this virus becomes just part of the background since there's no point wasting tests on otherwise asymptomatic individuals and it doesn't affect society as a whole. These vaccines (still) work(for now).

by ls15 5y ago

mpweiher 5y ago

Not sure what's with this "prevent" straw man, which seems to imply that vaccines need to be 100% effective, otherwise they do not work at all. This is not true and has never been true. Vaccines "prevent" the spread in many cases. Vaccines not not "prevent" the spread in 100% of cases. Just like they do not "prevent" severe outcomes in 100% of cases. You can be fully vaccinated and boostered and still die of Covid. It's just a lot less likely than if you're not vaccinated. This reduction is the vaccines working as designed and advertised. Effectiveness at preventing spread was always less than at preventing severe outcomes, even with the original variant the vaccines were designed for (or against). This was in all the literature I read about the vaccines during early 2021 (which also showed that, for example, AZ was significantly less effective at reducing the spread than BionTech, although both were >90% effective [still not 100%!] at preventing severe outcomes). In the meantime the virus has mutated significantly, and the vaccines are less effective than they were against the original variant, but still effective.

ls15 5y ago
> Not sure what's with this "prevent" straw man, which seems to imply that vaccines need to be 100% effective, otherwise they do not work at all. They don't need to be 100% effective, but they need to be reasonably effective in order to be mandated as a tool for mitigating the spreading. At the very least reliably above 50%, I would say. Otherwise they can only be a tool for personal risk reduction, because they don't reliably do something against the spread. An airline has no authority to mandate personal risk reduction that is not related to the flight.
- mpweiher 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - ls15 5y ago
    > OK. So are you now retracting your previous claim that "vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2"? Why should I? It is true, because I was infected after getting vaccinated by someone who was vaccinated as well. There is a lot of data that suggests the same. > Since you previously believed that they were not effective at all, which is 100% wrong, maybe you are not the ideal person to make that judgement call? No, I didn't. Don't twist my words. I don't respond to ad hominems and after all you asked me for that answer. > Fourth, I have seen no actual evidence from you for either (a) 50% being a reasonable threshold https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-least-50-efficacy-for-covid-19-vaccines-wsj https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-leas... > or (b) vaccine efficacy being below 50%. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy?t=1644061325800 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809... > So sixth, an airline is very well within its rights to prevent potential harm from its passengers and employees. Yes, but not by mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon.
    - mpweiher 5y ago
      >> > OK. So are you now retracting your previous claim that "vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2"? > Why should I? Because it is false. > It is true, because I was infected after getting vaccinated by someone who was vaccinated as well. That does not make your statement true. The vaccines never prevented transmission at 100% effectiveness. Never ever. They were not marketed as doing so, and if anyone did claim they prevent transmission at 100% effectiveness, then that person was spreading misinformation. It was never true. They didn't even prevent severe outcomes at 100% effectiveness, and they were always much better at preventing severe outcomes than they were at preventing infection. (Initially >90% vs. <~ 80% against Alpha). The whole idea that one case of transmission proves the vaccines are ineffective at preventing transmission is silly. > Don't twist my words. I am not twisting your words. You were making a judgement call, which you are obviously not qualified to make. > https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-least-50-efficacy-for-covid-19-vaccines-wsj https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-leas... 1. That is a 50% efficacy in preventing the disease, i.e. the severe outcomes, not transmission. All the vaccines pass that bar easily. 2. That was the threshold for approval then. Now is now. >https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy?t=1644061325800 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809... "Two weeks after the shot, the booster cuts the risk by about 70%." Seems to be greater than 50% to me. Drops after that, but once again, it was always known that the effectiveness of the vaccine would be temporary. >> So sixth, an airline is very well within its rights to prevent potential harm from its passengers and employees. > Yes, but not by mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. By saying who they allow to fly or not. You don't have to get vaccinated. United does not have to fly you. > I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon. Will probably be very short court cases...

r2_pilot 5y ago

As a counterpoint my unvaxxed housemate got covid a couple of weeks ago, I(boosted two weeks to the day at the time he showed symptoms) took no precautions and never developed symptoms. I also had close contact with someone who got omicron(PCR verified) the day after we hung out(asymptomatic then) and have yet to develop symptoms, that was this past Sunday so I'm pretty sure I'm good now. Vaccines work to prevent spread even now.

ls15 5y ago
I had symptoms and a multiple negative rapid tests at the same time. Only a PCR test confirmed that I was indeed positive. On the other hand, having no symptoms is no reliable test for being SARS-CoV-2-negative, since many Covid cases are asymptomatic and even asymptomatic people can infect other people. So there is a chance that you unknowingly gave Covid to someone else if you did not self-isolate. However, even the CDC says that vaccines don't prevent transmission anymore: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-vaccines-cant-prevent-transmission-anymore/ar-AASDndg https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-... CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said that Covid-19 vaccines are no longer effective at preventing transmission of the virus. "...what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission. So if you're going home to somebody who has not been vaccinated, somebody who can't get vaccinated... I would suggest you wear a mask in a public indoor setting,"
- r2_pilot 5y ago
  You're moving the goalposts on what I'm saying, which is that I never developed symptoms. I followed CDC guidelines while in public(which had just been updated, yet again), so I don't really care if I was covid positive or not. More anecdata, very few people I'm around are vaccinated but nobody that I was in close contact with got sick, so it's doubtful that even if I was positive that I was shedding viral particles in large quantities. This is called ending the pandemic, where this virus becomes just part of the background since there's no point wasting tests on otherwise asymptomatic individuals and it doesn't affect society as a whole. These vaccines (still) work(for now).