4 ms·

But the vaccines don't prevent Covid infection. If the infection rates from Ontario and the UK were to be believed (before the UK stopped publishing the vaccina

But the vaccines don't prevent Covid infection. If the infection rates from Ontario and the UK were to be believed (before the UK stopped publishing the vaccinated vs unvaccinated breakdowns, that is), being vaccinated might even make you more likely to be infected.

moistly 4y ago
The vaccine was effective against the more dangerous Alpha and Delta variants, where we saw the unvaccinated overwhelming the hospitals. The vaccine is not effective against the less dangerous Omicron variant, and the hospitals are not overwhelmed.
kadoban 4y ago
> being vaccinated might even make you more likely to be infected. That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. Which is somewhat likely, but then you're not really comparing the effects of the vaccine anymore. Everything I've seen has shown the obvious, fewer and less serious cases.
- native_samples 4y ago
  That would certainly seem unlikely It's actually a proven matter of fact, so it's not really up for debate about whether it's likely or not. It happened already. The few countries that publish infection rates by vaccine status all show the same thing: the vaccinated get infected with COVID at much higher rates than the unvaccinated and this has been getting worse with time. England, Denmark, New Zealand all show this. There may be other countries by now. Most countries simply don't publish this basic statistic at all, which is all you need to know about the integrity of public health. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior No, negative effectiveness has happened before with vaccines and there are biological pathways via which it can happen. In particular the COVID mRNA vaccines are immunosuppressant. This was known by Pfizer before approval but not mentioned anywhere - it came out during their document dumps. OAS/imprinting is another very likely candidate.
- IdEntities 4y ago
  > That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. No, other possibilities which have been observed with other pathogens are Original Antigenic Sin (i.e. perhaps targeting the spike protein from the now-extinct Wuhan strain gets the immune system "stuck in a rut" with a less optimal response) or Antibody Dependent Enhancement. Not to say that these definitely are occurring in the case of SARS-CoV-2, but even Fauci acknowledged the possibility of disease enhancement before the vaccines were rolled out. A good article on the UK vaccinated/unvaccinated data, which was pulled when it no longer flattered the vaccines: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-cases-and https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-ca...
  - renaudg 4y ago
    To anyone else wondering : that "good article" comes from a notorious antivaxxer : https://twitter.com/ichudov https://twitter.com/ichudov
    - native_samples 4y ago
      You're making a circular argument. Anyone who looks at the UK data showing negative effectiveness cannot avoid being "anti vax" because if vaccines make COVID more prevalent rather than less, then the cost:benefit ratio cannot possibly be positive. In your construction, actually observing published government statistics and acting rationally on it automatically makes someone a "notorious antivaxxer". It's ideology, not rationality.
      - renaudg 4y ago
        No, What I'm saying is that this guy is a run-of-the-mill antivaxxer, even outside Covid. Check his tweets and blog : he writes fallacious pieces against childhood vaccinations like : https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-reduced https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-... And no, he's not acting rationally. It may have the flavor of it at first glance, but the implications of what he says being true would invalidate large swathes of science. So is he a genius or a crank ? I don't have time to comb through and debunk every single claim (Brandolini's law !) but good old Occam's razor says he's a conspiracist crank who fallaciously massages data until it fits what he set out to prove. That is to say, an ideologue.

moistly 4y ago

The vaccine was effective against the more dangerous Alpha and Delta variants, where we saw the unvaccinated overwhelming the hospitals. The vaccine is not effective against the less dangerous Omicron variant, and the hospitals are not overwhelmed.

kadoban 4y ago

> being vaccinated might even make you more likely to be infected. That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. Which is somewhat likely, but then you're not really comparing the effects of the vaccine anymore. Everything I've seen has shown the obvious, fewer and less serious cases.

native_samples 4y ago
That would certainly seem unlikely It's actually a proven matter of fact, so it's not really up for debate about whether it's likely or not. It happened already. The few countries that publish infection rates by vaccine status all show the same thing: the vaccinated get infected with COVID at much higher rates than the unvaccinated and this has been getting worse with time. England, Denmark, New Zealand all show this. There may be other countries by now. Most countries simply don't publish this basic statistic at all, which is all you need to know about the integrity of public health. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior No, negative effectiveness has happened before with vaccines and there are biological pathways via which it can happen. In particular the COVID mRNA vaccines are immunosuppressant. This was known by Pfizer before approval but not mentioned anywhere - it came out during their document dumps. OAS/imprinting is another very likely candidate.
IdEntities 4y ago
> That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. No, other possibilities which have been observed with other pathogens are Original Antigenic Sin (i.e. perhaps targeting the spike protein from the now-extinct Wuhan strain gets the immune system "stuck in a rut" with a less optimal response) or Antibody Dependent Enhancement. Not to say that these definitely are occurring in the case of SARS-CoV-2, but even Fauci acknowledged the possibility of disease enhancement before the vaccines were rolled out. A good article on the UK vaccinated/unvaccinated data, which was pulled when it no longer flattered the vaccines: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-cases-and https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-ca...
- renaudg 4y ago
  To anyone else wondering : that "good article" comes from a notorious antivaxxer : https://twitter.com/ichudov https://twitter.com/ichudov
  - native_samples 4y ago
    You're making a circular argument. Anyone who looks at the UK data showing negative effectiveness cannot avoid being "anti vax" because if vaccines make COVID more prevalent rather than less, then the cost:benefit ratio cannot possibly be positive. In your construction, actually observing published government statistics and acting rationally on it automatically makes someone a "notorious antivaxxer". It's ideology, not rationality.
    - renaudg 4y ago
      No, What I'm saying is that this guy is a run-of-the-mill antivaxxer, even outside Covid. Check his tweets and blog : he writes fallacious pieces against childhood vaccinations like : https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-reduced https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-... And no, he's not acting rationally. It may have the flavor of it at first glance, but the implications of what he says being true would invalidate large swathes of science. So is he a genius or a crank ? I don't have time to comb through and debunk every single claim (Brandolini's law !) but good old Occam's razor says he's a conspiracist crank who fallaciously massages data until it fits what he set out to prove. That is to say, an ideologue.