4 ms·

Can you name a single vaccine that prevents infection and transmission, as in "nobody with the vaccine gets sick or gets someone else sick"? I don't think such

by Timon3 3y ago

Can you name a single vaccine that prevents infection and transmission, as in "nobody with the vaccine gets sick or gets someone else sick"? I don't think such a vaccine exists, but I might be wrong.

landemva 3y ago
Nothing is absolutely perfect, and polio vaccine has great results.
- Timon3 3y ago
  But they don't prevent infection nor transmission. What is the word to describe a proposed medical treatment that does not work? Both the Covid vaccine and the vaccines you are saying had great results share this trait. You mentioned this negatively for the Covid vaccines. Why is it different for other ones?
  - landemva 3y ago
    I don't know anyone, in western countries, who got polio vaccines and suffered illness. I know people who took the covid shots and boosters and got sick with covid and variants. Some got it multiple times, so somehow the covid shots are interferring with sterilizing immunity.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      > Some got it multiple times, so somehow the covid shots are interferring with sterilizing immunity. How do you get to this conclusion? People without vaccination seem to be more likely to be re-infected. If anything, Covid itself is interfering with sterilizing immunity, and the vaccines help!
brutusborn 3y ago
CDC says Polio is "99 - 100 % effective" against paralytic polio [0]. So essentially perfect efficacy. Covid vaccines look like a failure in comparison (<60% effective against hospitalization, much more significant harms)[1] To me the problem wasn't that the vaccines didn't perfectly to prevent infection and transmission; the problem is that the messaging from the medical field was that the vaccine _would_ prevent transmission and harmful reactions would be rare. No matter how much one squints, neither of those look remotely true. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... [1] https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-compariso...
- Timon3 3y ago
  > CDC says Polio is "99 - 100 % effective" against paralytic polio [0]. So essentially perfect efficacy. Covid vaccines look like a failure in comparison (<60% effective against hospitalization, much more significant harms)[1] You're using an arbitrary delineation which the parent didn't. "Essentially perfect" is imperfect, just like the Covid vaccines - because the measure wasn't "more than 99% effective", it's "100% effective". > To me the problem wasn't that the vaccines didn't perfectly to prevent infection and transmission; the problem is that the messaging from the medical field was that the vaccine _would_ prevent transmission and harmful reactions would be rare. No matter how much one squints, neither of those look remotely true. When and by who was this messaging put out? The Covid vaccines are pretty darn good at protecting you - but only from the original strains, they're not good at protecting from mutated strains. You need updated shots for that, by which time the virus has mutated further.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I’m not implying that the numbers I choose are the best to use, but I think they are a fair indication of a vaccine that is very effective vs one that is marginally effective. If you have some numbers that are less arbitrary, I’m open to new info to change my mind. During the pandemic most health institutions were being really optimistic in their messaging about the vaccines. I guess it’s just semantics, but I don’t think you can say a vaccine is darn good then say the virus mutates too fast for the vaccine to be effective long-term. Aren’t those things in opposition?
    - Timon3 3y ago
      > I’m not implying that the numbers I choose are the best to use, but I think they are a fair indication of a vaccine that is very effective vs one that is marginally effective. If you have some numbers that are less arbitrary, I’m open to new info to change my mind. I don't think that any specific number is a good delineation between "ineffective" and "effective". I fundamentally disagree that the Covid vaccines are ineffective. The only way to call them ineffective is to use a delineation which no vaccine survives. > During the pandemic most health institutions were being really optimistic in their messaging about the vaccines. I guess it’s just semantics, but I don’t think you can say a vaccine is darn good then say the virus mutates too fast for the vaccine to be effective long-term. Aren’t those things in opposition? No, they are not in opposition. You left out the important part: the vaccines are darn good against the original virus. They are still sorta good for mutations.

by Timon3 3y ago

Can you name a single vaccine that prevents infection and transmission, as in "nobody with the vaccine gets sick or gets someone else sick"? I don't think such a vaccine exists, but I might be wrong.

landemva 3y ago

Nothing is absolutely perfect, and polio vaccine has great results.

Timon3 3y ago
But they don't prevent infection nor transmission. What is the word to describe a proposed medical treatment that does not work? Both the Covid vaccine and the vaccines you are saying had great results share this trait. You mentioned this negatively for the Covid vaccines. Why is it different for other ones?
- landemva 3y ago
  I don't know anyone, in western countries, who got polio vaccines and suffered illness. I know people who took the covid shots and boosters and got sick with covid and variants. Some got it multiple times, so somehow the covid shots are interferring with sterilizing immunity.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > Some got it multiple times, so somehow the covid shots are interferring with sterilizing immunity. How do you get to this conclusion? People without vaccination seem to be more likely to be re-infected. If anything, Covid itself is interfering with sterilizing immunity, and the vaccines help!

brutusborn 3y ago

CDC says Polio is "99 - 100 % effective" against paralytic polio [0]. So essentially perfect efficacy. Covid vaccines look like a failure in comparison (<60% effective against hospitalization, much more significant harms)[1] To me the problem wasn't that the vaccines didn't perfectly to prevent infection and transmission; the problem is that the messaging from the medical field was that the vaccine _would_ prevent transmission and harmful reactions would be rare. No matter how much one squints, neither of those look remotely true. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... [1] https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-compariso...

Timon3 3y ago
> CDC says Polio is "99 - 100 % effective" against paralytic polio [0]. So essentially perfect efficacy. Covid vaccines look like a failure in comparison (<60% effective against hospitalization, much more significant harms)[1] You're using an arbitrary delineation which the parent didn't. "Essentially perfect" is imperfect, just like the Covid vaccines - because the measure wasn't "more than 99% effective", it's "100% effective". > To me the problem wasn't that the vaccines didn't perfectly to prevent infection and transmission; the problem is that the messaging from the medical field was that the vaccine _would_ prevent transmission and harmful reactions would be rare. No matter how much one squints, neither of those look remotely true. When and by who was this messaging put out? The Covid vaccines are pretty darn good at protecting you - but only from the original strains, they're not good at protecting from mutated strains. You need updated shots for that, by which time the virus has mutated further.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I’m not implying that the numbers I choose are the best to use, but I think they are a fair indication of a vaccine that is very effective vs one that is marginally effective. If you have some numbers that are less arbitrary, I’m open to new info to change my mind. During the pandemic most health institutions were being really optimistic in their messaging about the vaccines. I guess it’s just semantics, but I don’t think you can say a vaccine is darn good then say the virus mutates too fast for the vaccine to be effective long-term. Aren’t those things in opposition?
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > I’m not implying that the numbers I choose are the best to use, but I think they are a fair indication of a vaccine that is very effective vs one that is marginally effective. If you have some numbers that are less arbitrary, I’m open to new info to change my mind. I don't think that any specific number is a good delineation between "ineffective" and "effective". I fundamentally disagree that the Covid vaccines are ineffective. The only way to call them ineffective is to use a delineation which no vaccine survives. > During the pandemic most health institutions were being really optimistic in their messaging about the vaccines. I guess it’s just semantics, but I don’t think you can say a vaccine is darn good then say the virus mutates too fast for the vaccine to be effective long-term. Aren’t those things in opposition? No, they are not in opposition. You left out the important part: the vaccines are darn good against the original virus. They are still sorta good for mutations.