5 ms·

The booster for omicron reduces spread potential?

by 650 5y ago

empthought 5y ago
Of course it does, that’s how vaccines work.
- ghiculescu 5y ago
  Does it?
  - codyb 5y ago
    If your symptoms are milder and fought off by your body quicker it certainly seems like, intuitively, you’d spread the virus less.
    - dnautics 5y ago
      Or if they're so mild you don't think you have a cold, you might go out and spread it more. This would be a genius evolutionary play by the virus -- have such mild symptoms that most healthy people don't even know they have it and spread it like crazy. Ok wow downvoted. Well, if this actually happens, I will be sure to link back to this downvoted claim. Be careful, I have been right about "out of left field" events in the past that I've recorded on hn (such as failure of the Boeing starliner https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21839565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21839565) and in this situation I do have PhD training in biology, so this wasn't one point at least reasonably close to my wheelhouse
      - tomrod 5y ago
        > Or if they're so mild you don't think you have a cold, you might go out and spread it more. Yes, Jevon's paradox could exist in this instance. > This would be a genius evolutionary play by the virus It's not sentient. It's simply filling niches. It would be a net benefit if, in US culture, we normalized health being a priority (including taking time to recover and not spread to others, whether a cold or flu or COVID-19). > Ok wow downvoted. From the guidelines: >>> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. I've noticed here and, if I recall correctly, in other COVID-19 threads that sea-lioning comments tend to be downvoted. I expect this is because people are tired of science denialism, whether it is couched as "just speculating" or as "just asking questions."
        dnautics 5y ago
        What science denialism? I had a previous life as a working PhD in the life sciences. Honestly the crazy thing to me is just how much the mainstream discourse/policy on covid is itself science denial.
- version_five 5y ago
  No, that's how almost everyone would have believed them to work. The definition has now been updated (some would say the previous widespread misconception was corrected) to mean that a vaccine can also "prevent severe infection" while not actually stopping transmission or reducing infection. The above is what has been used to justify why vaccines still have to be mandatory, despite everyone who wants one getting one, while at the same time, masks and other restrictions need to stay, because the vaccine doesn't actually prevent the spread. When you say it like I have above, people dont like it, but we've celebrated and mandated a "vaccine" that is a lot different in it's protection than what we would normally think of. I have all three of my shots FYI. I'm really curious to hear a substantively different take than mine.
  - javagram 5y ago
    > The definition has now been updated (some would say the previous widespread misconception was corrected) to mean that a vaccine can also "prevent severe infection" while not actually stopping transmission or reducing infection. Not sure the definition has been updated, this article from 2015 discusses a similar vaccine behavior: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-makes-virus-dangerous https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-m... “ The reason this is a problem for Marek’s disease is because the vaccine is “leaky.” A leaky vaccine is one that keeps a microbe from doing serious harm to its host, but doesn’t stop the disease from replicating and spreading to another individual. On the other hand, a “perfect” vaccine is one that sets up lifelong immunity that never wanes and blocks both infection and transmission. [. . .] But the results do raise the questions for some human vaccines that are leaky – such as malaria, and other agricultural vaccines, such as the one being used against avian influenza, or bird flu.“ That said, the covid-19 vaccines we have do prevent some infections even of the mutant omicron variant, just not 95% of infections like it did against the original strain of COVID-19. And luckily omicron, while still dangerous and not really “mild”, is milder than the delta variant and the vaccine seems to be able to save a lot of lives.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > Not sure the definition has been updated It has. To see proof Merriam-Webster changed it, compare https://web.archive.org/web/20191013020123/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20191013020123/https://www.merri... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220203031512/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20220203031512/https://www.merri... And to see proof the CDC changed it, compare https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.g... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.g...
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  There are some indications that it doesn't significantly help. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2821%2900768-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Thanks. I appreciate literature references to this instead of the disingenuous comments from an earlier poster asserting bandwagon effect and bad faith by public health officials. Unless Omnicron dissociated it, worse experience == more viral load == more infectious; vaccine reduced (and potentially for some elimintated) viral load and thus reduced infectiousness.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > Unless Omnicron dissociated it, worse experience == more viral load == more infectious; vaccine reduced (and potentially for some elimintated) viral load and thus reduced infectiousness. I'm not quite sure what you're stating here. You disagree with the conclusions here and believe there is evidence that vaccinations significantly impact community transmission of covid? If so, could you provide references to that evidence?
      - tomrod 5y ago
        I haven't had a chance to review the study yet (but look forward to doing so); I'm stating my current understanding. Delta allowed for breakthrough cases; the rate was dramatically lower than unvaccinated overall (I handled reporting on some these stats in our region). I haven't been as involved since the start of the omnicron variant, but my understanding is that the relationship still holds that prob(infected | vaccinated) < prob(infected | unvaccinated and no reported prior case). COVID-19 intensity of illness was (and may still be?) associated to the relative infectiousness of an individual to others in their network (across the entire episode). So an asymptomatic individual (vs. presymptomatic before intense illness) was less infectious overall.[0] > Question What are the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 G614 viral shedding in incident infections in association with COVID-19 symptom onset and severity? > Findings In a cohort study of persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after recent exposure, viral RNA trajectory was characterized by a rapid peak followed by slower decay. Peak viral load correlated positively with symptom severity and generally occurred within 1 day of symptom onset if the patient was symptomatic. [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2787768 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
javagram 5y ago
The article notes "Booster doses cut the risk of infection in vaccinated people by about half across all age groups." You can't transmit if you aren't infected.
- dnautics 5y ago
  You have to read the methodology carefully. While I believe there's nonzero effect of the booster, you don't know that infection is measured with symptomatic numbers and you don't know that a subsymptomatic viral load isn't transmissible. As for policy, with the fact that getting vax + covid will give you better immunity than a vaccine-only regime in general (probably even more so with omicron), you don't know that it isn't strategically better to have vaccinated, low risk people get breakthrough infections and get immunity to omicron proper, and aggressively self-quarantine, versus getting a booster that omicron has evolved to escape.
  - javagram 5y ago
    “you don't know that infection is measured with symptomatic numbers and you don't know that a subsymptomatic viral load isn't transmissible” That is mentioned in the article, but right now there isn’t really any evidence suggesting the vaccine doesn’t actually stop infection in at least some cases. PCR tests can discover asymptomatic infections for instance and some workplaces had mandatory testing regimes. The initial moderna trial tested everyone even without symptoms on reception of the 2nd dose and found that just one dose of the vaccine had greatly reduced PCR + compared to the placebo group, there seems no evidence that behavior of the vaccines isn’t generalizable. “ you don't know that it isn't strategically better to have vaccinated, low risk people get breakthrough infections and get immunity to omicron proper” How do you you see this as an alternative while still suggesting the vaccine wouldn’t work or provide immunity? If the vaccine makes a specific person immune to Omicron infection, they don’t need breakthrough immunity because they already have it. If it fails to make that person immune to Omicron infection, they’ll still “strategically” get sick by being in the community and being infected. Unless you are suggesting an alternative of young vaccinated people specifically exposing themselves to Omicron positive cases en masse in an attempt to have a breakthrough case and boost their immunity I don’t see how your comparison makes sense.

The booster for omicron reduces spread potential?

by 650 5y ago

The booster for omicron reduces spread potential?

empthought 5y ago

Of course it does, that’s how vaccines work.

ghiculescu 5y ago
Does it?
- codyb 5y ago
  If your symptoms are milder and fought off by your body quicker it certainly seems like, intuitively, you’d spread the virus less.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    Or if they're so mild you don't think you have a cold, you might go out and spread it more. This would be a genius evolutionary play by the virus -- have such mild symptoms that most healthy people don't even know they have it and spread it like crazy. Ok wow downvoted. Well, if this actually happens, I will be sure to link back to this downvoted claim. Be careful, I have been right about "out of left field" events in the past that I've recorded on hn (such as failure of the Boeing starliner https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21839565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21839565) and in this situation I do have PhD training in biology, so this wasn't one point at least reasonably close to my wheelhouse
    - tomrod 5y ago
      > Or if they're so mild you don't think you have a cold, you might go out and spread it more. Yes, Jevon's paradox could exist in this instance. > This would be a genius evolutionary play by the virus It's not sentient. It's simply filling niches. It would be a net benefit if, in US culture, we normalized health being a priority (including taking time to recover and not spread to others, whether a cold or flu or COVID-19). > Ok wow downvoted. From the guidelines: >>> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. I've noticed here and, if I recall correctly, in other COVID-19 threads that sea-lioning comments tend to be downvoted. I expect this is because people are tired of science denialism, whether it is couched as "just speculating" or as "just asking questions."
      - dnautics 5y ago
        What science denialism? I had a previous life as a working PhD in the life sciences. Honestly the crazy thing to me is just how much the mainstream discourse/policy on covid is itself science denial.
version_five 5y ago
No, that's how almost everyone would have believed them to work. The definition has now been updated (some would say the previous widespread misconception was corrected) to mean that a vaccine can also "prevent severe infection" while not actually stopping transmission or reducing infection. The above is what has been used to justify why vaccines still have to be mandatory, despite everyone who wants one getting one, while at the same time, masks and other restrictions need to stay, because the vaccine doesn't actually prevent the spread. When you say it like I have above, people dont like it, but we've celebrated and mandated a "vaccine" that is a lot different in it's protection than what we would normally think of. I have all three of my shots FYI. I'm really curious to hear a substantively different take than mine.
- javagram 5y ago
  > The definition has now been updated (some would say the previous widespread misconception was corrected) to mean that a vaccine can also "prevent severe infection" while not actually stopping transmission or reducing infection. Not sure the definition has been updated, this article from 2015 discusses a similar vaccine behavior: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-makes-virus-dangerous https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-m... “ The reason this is a problem for Marek’s disease is because the vaccine is “leaky.” A leaky vaccine is one that keeps a microbe from doing serious harm to its host, but doesn’t stop the disease from replicating and spreading to another individual. On the other hand, a “perfect” vaccine is one that sets up lifelong immunity that never wanes and blocks both infection and transmission. [. . .] But the results do raise the questions for some human vaccines that are leaky – such as malaria, and other agricultural vaccines, such as the one being used against avian influenza, or bird flu.“ That said, the covid-19 vaccines we have do prevent some infections even of the mutant omicron variant, just not 95% of infections like it did against the original strain of COVID-19. And luckily omicron, while still dangerous and not really “mild”, is milder than the delta variant and the vaccine seems to be able to save a lot of lives.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > Not sure the definition has been updated It has. To see proof Merriam-Webster changed it, compare https://web.archive.org/web/20191013020123/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20191013020123/https://www.merri... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220203031512/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20220203031512/https://www.merri... And to see proof the CDC changed it, compare https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.g... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.g...
throwawaylinux 5y ago
There are some indications that it doesn't significantly help. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2821%2900768-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
- tomrod 5y ago
  Thanks. I appreciate literature references to this instead of the disingenuous comments from an earlier poster asserting bandwagon effect and bad faith by public health officials. Unless Omnicron dissociated it, worse experience == more viral load == more infectious; vaccine reduced (and potentially for some elimintated) viral load and thus reduced infectiousness.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > Unless Omnicron dissociated it, worse experience == more viral load == more infectious; vaccine reduced (and potentially for some elimintated) viral load and thus reduced infectiousness. I'm not quite sure what you're stating here. You disagree with the conclusions here and believe there is evidence that vaccinations significantly impact community transmission of covid? If so, could you provide references to that evidence?
    - tomrod 5y ago
      I haven't had a chance to review the study yet (but look forward to doing so); I'm stating my current understanding. Delta allowed for breakthrough cases; the rate was dramatically lower than unvaccinated overall (I handled reporting on some these stats in our region). I haven't been as involved since the start of the omnicron variant, but my understanding is that the relationship still holds that prob(infected | vaccinated) < prob(infected | unvaccinated and no reported prior case). COVID-19 intensity of illness was (and may still be?) associated to the relative infectiousness of an individual to others in their network (across the entire episode). So an asymptomatic individual (vs. presymptomatic before intense illness) was less infectious overall.[0] > Question What are the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 G614 viral shedding in incident infections in association with COVID-19 symptom onset and severity? > Findings In a cohort study of persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after recent exposure, viral RNA trajectory was characterized by a rapid peak followed by slower decay. Peak viral load correlated positively with symptom severity and generally occurred within 1 day of symptom onset if the patient was symptomatic. [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2787768 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

javagram 5y ago

The article notes "Booster doses cut the risk of infection in vaccinated people by about half across all age groups." You can't transmit if you aren't infected.

dnautics 5y ago
You have to read the methodology carefully. While I believe there's nonzero effect of the booster, you don't know that infection is measured with symptomatic numbers and you don't know that a subsymptomatic viral load isn't transmissible. As for policy, with the fact that getting vax + covid will give you better immunity than a vaccine-only regime in general (probably even more so with omicron), you don't know that it isn't strategically better to have vaccinated, low risk people get breakthrough infections and get immunity to omicron proper, and aggressively self-quarantine, versus getting a booster that omicron has evolved to escape.
- javagram 5y ago
  “you don't know that infection is measured with symptomatic numbers and you don't know that a subsymptomatic viral load isn't transmissible” That is mentioned in the article, but right now there isn’t really any evidence suggesting the vaccine doesn’t actually stop infection in at least some cases. PCR tests can discover asymptomatic infections for instance and some workplaces had mandatory testing regimes. The initial moderna trial tested everyone even without symptoms on reception of the 2nd dose and found that just one dose of the vaccine had greatly reduced PCR + compared to the placebo group, there seems no evidence that behavior of the vaccines isn’t generalizable. “ you don't know that it isn't strategically better to have vaccinated, low risk people get breakthrough infections and get immunity to omicron proper” How do you you see this as an alternative while still suggesting the vaccine wouldn’t work or provide immunity? If the vaccine makes a specific person immune to Omicron infection, they don’t need breakthrough immunity because they already have it. If it fails to make that person immune to Omicron infection, they’ll still “strategically” get sick by being in the community and being infected. Unless you are suggesting an alternative of young vaccinated people specifically exposing themselves to Omicron positive cases en masse in an attempt to have a breakthrough case and boost their immunity I don’t see how your comparison makes sense.