3 ms·

> All previous vaccines were aimed at preventing infectious diseases. This is a common misconception, and that's whythe U.S. CDC is now emphasizing that vacci

by jph 3y ago

> All previous vaccines were aimed at preventing infectious diseases. This is a common misconception, and that's whythe U.S. CDC is now emphasizing that vaccines can do more to help people. The most important recent example is the world's widespread rollout of COVID vaccines. These are primarily aimed at better protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death; these are not primarily aimed at preventing an individual from ever being infected by any COVID variant.

Auracle 3y ago
Well that’s just plain revisionist history. Name another example. The flu vaccine, maybe? But that’s because they don’t know which strains to target. Both the CDC director at the time and Biden said the vaccine would prevent you from getting COVID. It’s insane we’re changing the definition of words because the COVID vaccines were kinda crappy and that would be bad politically. Not that the vaccine discussed here shouldn’t be called one - it absolutely is.
- throwaway8877 3y ago
  No, covid vaccines were not kind of crappy, just the virus itself evolved so rapidly that the virus had evolved enough even before complete rollout of the vaccines. Yet even then the boosted vaccination was highly effective against the delta variant and still effective against omicron on the level par with flu vaccines. Omicron was just infectious on the level of measles and with very short incubation period giving the immune system very little time to ramp up the immune response.
  - Auracle 3y ago
    I'd argue that a vaccine that allowed the virus to evolve rapidly out of it because it's only targeting on small section of the virus is pretty crappy by definition. Don't get me wrong, it saved a lot of lives. Compared to every other vaccine we've all taken in our lives it's the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the fact that politically (and possibly for public health reasons) a good portion of politicians effectively lied about that made it so companies didn't feel like they should invest in making a better vaccine. I've had Covid twice and both times I was very sick - I'd love a better, more broad, vaccine. I'd argue it's definitely not as effective as flu vaccines vs omicron. On a good year the flu vaccine can prevent 50% of flu cases in those that take it. Everyone I know has gotten Covid, vaccinated or not.
    - throwaway8877 3y ago
      Do you have any studies to share that confirm this claim? As far I am aware the new variants evolved from regions that were not highly vaccinated like South Africa. Omicron was considerably more virulent than flu - the risk of getting an infection is also a function of prevalence.
      - throwaway8877 3y ago
        But I don't think we'll get any better vaccine soon the medical community appears to be too stubborn for this to happen. I'm not arguing that vaccines can't or shouldn't be much better. Just that they actually were considerably good if we take everything we should into account.
- jph 3y ago
  > Name another example Sure, another example is the flu vaccine as you mention. The primary aim of the flu vaccine in the U.S. medical system is to protect high-risk people from life-threatening symptoms, even during infections from different strains. Another example is the shingles vaccine. The primary aim is to prevent severe symptoms (such as neural damage and long term pain) during a reactivation of an existing chronic infection. > It’s insane we’re changing the definition of words The semantic meaning of the word vaccine hasn't changed. All that's changed is the U.S. CDC official definition text, to clarify that the primary aim of vaccines is to activate the body's immune system, rather than solely to prevent a new specific infection. If you're curious about the language exactness, beyond the U.S. CDC, the U.S. FDA is also involved. For example, the U.S. FDA during COVID stated that a vaccine would need to be at least 50% effective for diminishing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms to obtain regulatory and marketing approval. In other words, the primary aim was to help people reduce damage; the primary aim was not to full-stop prevent infection.

by jph 3y ago

Auracle 3y ago

Well that’s just plain revisionist history. Name another example. The flu vaccine, maybe? But that’s because they don’t know which strains to target. Both the CDC director at the time and Biden said the vaccine would prevent you from getting COVID. It’s insane we’re changing the definition of words because the COVID vaccines were kinda crappy and that would be bad politically. Not that the vaccine discussed here shouldn’t be called one - it absolutely is.

throwaway8877 3y ago
No, covid vaccines were not kind of crappy, just the virus itself evolved so rapidly that the virus had evolved enough even before complete rollout of the vaccines. Yet even then the boosted vaccination was highly effective against the delta variant and still effective against omicron on the level par with flu vaccines. Omicron was just infectious on the level of measles and with very short incubation period giving the immune system very little time to ramp up the immune response.
- Auracle 3y ago
  I'd argue that a vaccine that allowed the virus to evolve rapidly out of it because it's only targeting on small section of the virus is pretty crappy by definition. Don't get me wrong, it saved a lot of lives. Compared to every other vaccine we've all taken in our lives it's the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the fact that politically (and possibly for public health reasons) a good portion of politicians effectively lied about that made it so companies didn't feel like they should invest in making a better vaccine. I've had Covid twice and both times I was very sick - I'd love a better, more broad, vaccine. I'd argue it's definitely not as effective as flu vaccines vs omicron. On a good year the flu vaccine can prevent 50% of flu cases in those that take it. Everyone I know has gotten Covid, vaccinated or not.
  - throwaway8877 3y ago
    Do you have any studies to share that confirm this claim? As far I am aware the new variants evolved from regions that were not highly vaccinated like South Africa. Omicron was considerably more virulent than flu - the risk of getting an infection is also a function of prevalence.
    - throwaway8877 3y ago
      But I don't think we'll get any better vaccine soon the medical community appears to be too stubborn for this to happen. I'm not arguing that vaccines can't or shouldn't be much better. Just that they actually were considerably good if we take everything we should into account.
jph 3y ago
> Name another example Sure, another example is the flu vaccine as you mention. The primary aim of the flu vaccine in the U.S. medical system is to protect high-risk people from life-threatening symptoms, even during infections from different strains. Another example is the shingles vaccine. The primary aim is to prevent severe symptoms (such as neural damage and long term pain) during a reactivation of an existing chronic infection. > It’s insane we’re changing the definition of words The semantic meaning of the word vaccine hasn't changed. All that's changed is the U.S. CDC official definition text, to clarify that the primary aim of vaccines is to activate the body's immune system, rather than solely to prevent a new specific infection. If you're curious about the language exactness, beyond the U.S. CDC, the U.S. FDA is also involved. For example, the U.S. FDA during COVID stated that a vaccine would need to be at least 50% effective for diminishing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms to obtain regulatory and marketing approval. In other words, the primary aim was to help people reduce damage; the primary aim was not to full-stop prevent infection.