3 ms·

They did provide protection against infection initially, and did so very effectively. It was not known at the time whether that protection would maintain or no

They did provide protection against infection initially, and did so very effectively. It was not known at the time whether that protection would maintain or not, nobody knew how the virus would mutate.

cempaka 3y ago
There was certainly no reason to believe, even at the time, that these vaccines would be any more durable over the long term against a rapidly evolving coronavirus than all of the previous attempts to develop such a vaccine. Seems like a lot of people were just hoping that would be the case because of the shiny new tech involved and because they were aggressively sold on the idea the vaccines were the key to "ending the pandemic." Plenty of immunologists at the time predicted that SARS-CoV-2 immune escape would come quickly and that vaccine protection would wear off quickly.
- peter422 3y ago
  Many very smart virologists at the time noted that other coronaviruses in circulation didn't mutate that much (as compared to something like influenza), so it really was not known to what expect and at what speed the virus would or could mutate.
cm2187 3y ago
During the vaccine trials, the test population was never tested for covid unless they developped symptoms. So you can't infer any information on whether the vaccine provided immunity against the virus (as in you won't get infected if you are vaccinated), or whether the vaccinated population got infected (and were possibly contagious) but without symptom. For that it would have required to test for covid the full test population regularly. Claims that the vaccine provided immunity were always baseless. What the trials demonstrated was that the vaccine was effective at suppressing symptoms and hospitalisations. And this is not something that came after the fact, I remember that this approach was discussed on HN when the results were initially published.
- peter422 3y ago
  So your belief is that being infected with COVID is entirely uncorrelated with having COVID symptoms? Even if there were a minor correlation, then you can infer some information from the trials. I'm not also suggesting that what you describe isn't part of the story, but there is no reason to believe it's a major part of the story. Viral infections lead to symptoms (most of the time). The vaccine is not a magic totem that allows for massive amounts of viral replication while just taking away the symptoms. That isn't how the immune system works.

cempaka 3y ago

There was certainly no reason to believe, even at the time, that these vaccines would be any more durable over the long term against a rapidly evolving coronavirus than all of the previous attempts to develop such a vaccine. Seems like a lot of people were just hoping that would be the case because of the shiny new tech involved and because they were aggressively sold on the idea the vaccines were the key to "ending the pandemic." Plenty of immunologists at the time predicted that SARS-CoV-2 immune escape would come quickly and that vaccine protection would wear off quickly.

peter422 3y ago
Many very smart virologists at the time noted that other coronaviruses in circulation didn't mutate that much (as compared to something like influenza), so it really was not known to what expect and at what speed the virus would or could mutate.

cm2187 3y ago

During the vaccine trials, the test population was never tested for covid unless they developped symptoms. So you can't infer any information on whether the vaccine provided immunity against the virus (as in you won't get infected if you are vaccinated), or whether the vaccinated population got infected (and were possibly contagious) but without symptom. For that it would have required to test for covid the full test population regularly. Claims that the vaccine provided immunity were always baseless. What the trials demonstrated was that the vaccine was effective at suppressing symptoms and hospitalisations. And this is not something that came after the fact, I remember that this approach was discussed on HN when the results were initially published.

peter422 3y ago
So your belief is that being infected with COVID is entirely uncorrelated with having COVID symptoms? Even if there were a minor correlation, then you can infer some information from the trials. I'm not also suggesting that what you describe isn't part of the story, but there is no reason to believe it's a major part of the story. Viral infections lead to symptoms (most of the time). The vaccine is not a magic totem that allows for massive amounts of viral replication while just taking away the symptoms. That isn't how the immune system works.