6 ms·

now that ba.5 is the dominant variant, seriously, what is the efficacy of the original covid-19 vaccine? does it actually reduce spreading and by how much?

superkuh 4y ago
Look at the UK's monitoring re: vaccine effectiveness against infection as described in table 3 of this document: "COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report: 16 June 2022 (week 24)" https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1083443/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-24.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-... The current vaccine effectiveness against infection for either Moderna's, BioNTech/Pfizers, or AstroZeneca's against BA.4/BA.5 is 0-30%.
- drno123 4y ago
  How does 30% compare to flu vaccine? I heard that the flu vaccine is also around 30% effective.
  - superkuh 4y ago
    It varies from year to year. The traditional seasonal flu intramuscular contains 4 different variants it targets, and sometimes the predictions of which sequences to include are wrong. In those years you see sub 50% vaccine efficiencies against infection. Vaccine efficiency versus hospitalization is much better. But the same situation re: igG humoral antibodies from intramuscular vaccination not getting in your nose/throat/etc mucosa apply to flu vaccines. Most people only get intramuscularly vaccinated and so get upper respiratory flu infections and spread but are mostly asymptomatic and unaware. Actual vaccine efficiency for flu intramusculars is probably lower than reported due to the asymptomatic cases. I personally alternate between intramuscular flu vaccines and the Flu Mist intranasal flu vaccine (which you can get by request).
  - OnlyMortal 4y ago
    Remember these vaccines are more intended to reduce the severity of the virus.
    - miles 4y ago
      > Remember these vaccines are more intended to reduce the severity of the virus. People could be forgiven for thinking otherwise: https://tinyapps.org/blog/202201040700_gaslighting.html https://tinyapps.org/blog/202201040700_gaslighting.html
    - sudden_dystopia 4y ago
      Was that really the intention? Pretty sure they intended for something better and just settled on this because it was the only feather left in the cap.
      - cm2187 4y ago
        Well the original trials only tested if there were symptoms, they never even measured the ability to stop transmissions. So it never really said on the tin that it did. It the bullshit echochamber of journalists and politicians that ended up defining the vaccine “working” as stopping transmissions, rather than serious cases. But that was not a claim from the manufacturers of the vaccines.
        miles 4y ago
        > It the bullshit echochamber of journalists and politicians that ended up defining the vaccine “working” as stopping transmissions, rather than serious cases. But that was not a claim from the manufacturers of the vaccines. Pfizer stated[0] on Jan 26, 2021 that their vaccine "has been authorized for emergency use to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16+." [emphasis added] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20210126223727/https://twitter.com/pfizer/status/1354196725716672519 https://web.archive.org/web/20210126223727/https://twitter.c...
        cm2187 4y ago
  - __blockcipher__ 4y ago
    > I heard that the flu vaccine is also around 30% effective. The flu vaccine is so ineffective that if we actually applied evidence-based medicine standards to it / actually looked at a real cost:benefit analysis, we would never be pushing the flu vaccine. https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influ... > Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost. So: a miniscule reduction in actual flu cases (granted, a slightly-better-but-still-weak reduction in general ILI), with no appreciable difference on hospitalizations or working days lost, meaning that the economic benefit of giving the flu vaccine is basically zero. It's pretty great that the first world (at least America) has been so heavily socialized to accept the flu vaccine as effective and necessary, because it makes arguing for the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine much easier, since the bar is so incredibly low.
    - cat_plus_plus 4y ago
      Flu vaccine has zero side effects for many and if you do have side effects you are free to skip it. Otherwise, I like getting a little less sick statistically with no downside. Current COVID vaccines are different in that many have days of quite significant side effects. Absolutely worth it for initial 2-3 shots without preexisting immunity, not so much once one's immune system is already trained through vaccination and repeated exposure.
- Trouble_007 4y ago
  >current vaccine effectiveness against infection< Is always the lowest percentage, followed by effectiveness against hospitalisation mid-percentage, followed by effectiveness against death the highest percentage.
  - Animats 4y ago
    "High levels of protection (over 90%) are also seen against mortality with all 3 vaccines and against both the Alpha and Delta variants with relatively limited waning" That's something. Remember the early days, when there was a shortage of body bags.
  - superkuh 4y ago
    The protection afforded by intramusculars to the body against death is clear, well worth it, and long lasting. I am not talking about that here. I tried to make this distinction clear by writing out the full "vaccine effectiveness against infection" every time. The entire point of my comments in this post's threads is to point out the intramuscular vaccines cannot and are not protective against you getting infected and spreading the disease. That's bad. We need new intranasal vaccine boosters to augment the intramusculars and we need to keep wearing face fitting N95 or ffp2 or better masks indoors until then. Being intramuscularly vaccinated will not prevent you from spread sars-cov-2. It will keep you from dying for years and keep you from being hospitalized for ~6 months.
- stochtastic 4y ago
  I take it that you're looking only at the "All Infection" efficacy? While the original vaccines are clearly less effective at totally preventing infection with the latest variants, their efficacy against symptomatic infection and hospitalization is nothing to sneeze at — ~50% and ~90% respectively with a booster, eyeballing the table.
  - whoomp12342 4y ago
    yes, that is precisely what I was asking about. I dont have high expectations for the vaccine, we all know tons of vaxed people have gotten re-infected with later variants.
cm2187 4y ago
To be honest at this stage vaccination policies have become little more than a bureaucratic process and a mean to enforce compliance for the sake of compliance. Forcing people to get vaccinated irrespective of whether they were infected or not, or whether the virus circulates or not, or whether they are in a demographics with near zero risk from the virus. It ceases to be a medical consideration. So the fact that we are many variants away from the original vaccine is lost on the political science graduates running the show.
- whoomp12342 4y ago
  what nonsense is this? why would you get vaccinated AFTER and infection? the point of the vaccine is to prevent, not to fix. I realize my comment begged someone to talk like this, to be honest I am glad that me and my whole family got vaxxed. It was the least we could do.

superkuh 4y ago

Look at the UK's monitoring re: vaccine effectiveness against infection as described in table 3 of this document: "COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report: 16 June 2022 (week 24)" https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1083443/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-24.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-... The current vaccine effectiveness against infection for either Moderna's, BioNTech/Pfizers, or AstroZeneca's against BA.4/BA.5 is 0-30%.

drno123 4y ago
How does 30% compare to flu vaccine? I heard that the flu vaccine is also around 30% effective.
- superkuh 4y ago
  It varies from year to year. The traditional seasonal flu intramuscular contains 4 different variants it targets, and sometimes the predictions of which sequences to include are wrong. In those years you see sub 50% vaccine efficiencies against infection. Vaccine efficiency versus hospitalization is much better. But the same situation re: igG humoral antibodies from intramuscular vaccination not getting in your nose/throat/etc mucosa apply to flu vaccines. Most people only get intramuscularly vaccinated and so get upper respiratory flu infections and spread but are mostly asymptomatic and unaware. Actual vaccine efficiency for flu intramusculars is probably lower than reported due to the asymptomatic cases. I personally alternate between intramuscular flu vaccines and the Flu Mist intranasal flu vaccine (which you can get by request).
- OnlyMortal 4y ago
  Remember these vaccines are more intended to reduce the severity of the virus.
  - miles 4y ago
    > Remember these vaccines are more intended to reduce the severity of the virus. People could be forgiven for thinking otherwise: https://tinyapps.org/blog/202201040700_gaslighting.html https://tinyapps.org/blog/202201040700_gaslighting.html
  - sudden_dystopia 4y ago
    Was that really the intention? Pretty sure they intended for something better and just settled on this because it was the only feather left in the cap.
    - cm2187 4y ago
      Well the original trials only tested if there were symptoms, they never even measured the ability to stop transmissions. So it never really said on the tin that it did. It the bullshit echochamber of journalists and politicians that ended up defining the vaccine “working” as stopping transmissions, rather than serious cases. But that was not a claim from the manufacturers of the vaccines.
      - miles 4y ago
        > It the bullshit echochamber of journalists and politicians that ended up defining the vaccine “working” as stopping transmissions, rather than serious cases. But that was not a claim from the manufacturers of the vaccines. Pfizer stated[0] on Jan 26, 2021 that their vaccine "has been authorized for emergency use to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16+." [emphasis added] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20210126223727/https://twitter.com/pfizer/status/1354196725716672519 https://web.archive.org/web/20210126223727/https://twitter.c...
        cm2187 4y ago
- __blockcipher__ 4y ago
  > I heard that the flu vaccine is also around 30% effective. The flu vaccine is so ineffective that if we actually applied evidence-based medicine standards to it / actually looked at a real cost:benefit analysis, we would never be pushing the flu vaccine. https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influ... > Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost. So: a miniscule reduction in actual flu cases (granted, a slightly-better-but-still-weak reduction in general ILI), with no appreciable difference on hospitalizations or working days lost, meaning that the economic benefit of giving the flu vaccine is basically zero. It's pretty great that the first world (at least America) has been so heavily socialized to accept the flu vaccine as effective and necessary, because it makes arguing for the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine much easier, since the bar is so incredibly low.
  - cat_plus_plus 4y ago
    Flu vaccine has zero side effects for many and if you do have side effects you are free to skip it. Otherwise, I like getting a little less sick statistically with no downside. Current COVID vaccines are different in that many have days of quite significant side effects. Absolutely worth it for initial 2-3 shots without preexisting immunity, not so much once one's immune system is already trained through vaccination and repeated exposure.
Trouble_007 4y ago
>current vaccine effectiveness against infection< Is always the lowest percentage, followed by effectiveness against hospitalisation mid-percentage, followed by effectiveness against death the highest percentage.
- Animats 4y ago
  "High levels of protection (over 90%) are also seen against mortality with all 3 vaccines and against both the Alpha and Delta variants with relatively limited waning" That's something. Remember the early days, when there was a shortage of body bags.
- superkuh 4y ago
  The protection afforded by intramusculars to the body against death is clear, well worth it, and long lasting. I am not talking about that here. I tried to make this distinction clear by writing out the full "vaccine effectiveness against infection" every time. The entire point of my comments in this post's threads is to point out the intramuscular vaccines cannot and are not protective against you getting infected and spreading the disease. That's bad. We need new intranasal vaccine boosters to augment the intramusculars and we need to keep wearing face fitting N95 or ffp2 or better masks indoors until then. Being intramuscularly vaccinated will not prevent you from spread sars-cov-2. It will keep you from dying for years and keep you from being hospitalized for ~6 months.
stochtastic 4y ago
I take it that you're looking only at the "All Infection" efficacy? While the original vaccines are clearly less effective at totally preventing infection with the latest variants, their efficacy against symptomatic infection and hospitalization is nothing to sneeze at — ~50% and ~90% respectively with a booster, eyeballing the table.
- whoomp12342 4y ago
  yes, that is precisely what I was asking about. I dont have high expectations for the vaccine, we all know tons of vaxed people have gotten re-infected with later variants.

cm2187 4y ago

To be honest at this stage vaccination policies have become little more than a bureaucratic process and a mean to enforce compliance for the sake of compliance. Forcing people to get vaccinated irrespective of whether they were infected or not, or whether the virus circulates or not, or whether they are in a demographics with near zero risk from the virus. It ceases to be a medical consideration. So the fact that we are many variants away from the original vaccine is lost on the political science graduates running the show.

whoomp12342 4y ago
what nonsense is this? why would you get vaccinated AFTER and infection? the point of the vaccine is to prevent, not to fix. I realize my comment begged someone to talk like this, to be honest I am glad that me and my whole family got vaxxed. It was the least we could do.