5 ms·

It did for the first variants, but then Omicron happened. I see you're calling a vaccine a "vaccine". Noted.

• WillPostForFood 2y ago
  MRNA vaccine is highly effective at reducing symptoms and saving lives of those at high risk (e.g., over 65), but it was never effective at preventing infection or stopping transmission. People who were saying that were somewhere between being over optimistic, and spreading disinformation to try to increase uptake.
  • gadders 2y ago
    It was also more dangerous to healthy young men than just getting COVID, due to myocarditis.
    • Marsymars 2y ago
      This isn't generally true. It does seem wise to preferentially get the Pfizer boosters over the Moderna boosters for lower dosage though, particularly if you're a young man.
    • llamaimperative 2y ago
      Absolutely not true.
      • gadders 2y ago
        Looks like we have a science denier: https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/uk-now-reports-myocarditis-stratified https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/uk-now-reports-myocarditis-s... "It is now clear for men <40, dose 2 and dose 3 of Pfizer have more myocarditis than sars-cov-2 infection, and this is true for dose 1 and dose 2 of Moderna."
        • maxerickson 2y ago
          You need to analyze the total risk of both options to state that getting vaccinated is more dangerous, not just the risk of myocarditis following each.
          • gadders 2y ago
            I need to state the risk of COVID in a healthy male under 40? That's self evident.
            • maxerickson 2y ago
              If you want to say you are doing science, then yes, you need to define what you mean by "healthy" and make the case that the harm from vaccination was greater in your group than the harm from infection. If you want to say your subjective group is self evidently better off with some option, then don't say you are making a scientific argument.
              • gadders 2y ago
                Unfortunately I don't have the budget to fund a large RCT. It is also worrying that the companies and health authorities with the budgets haven't done so either. Unless there is some unknown, long term effect from COVID that is yet to manifest itself, it is self-evident that the comment that "It was also more dangerous to healthy young men than just getting COVID, due to myocarditis." is "Absolutely not true" is incorrect.
                • llamaimperative 2y ago
                  You don't need an RCT. You need a study that compares COVID's many consequences and sequlae to the vaccine's myocarditis. Not COVID's myocarditis rate to the vaccine's myocarditis rate. I can't find age-breakdown data of which specific complication causes the most death in COVID patients, but for the population broadly, it is multiple organ failure, then pneumonia and related pulmonary problems. Not myocarditis. So if you're excluding the primary causes of death of COVID then sure, the tradeoff gets a lot less clear.
  • javagram 2y ago
    Studies showed it decreased infection and transmission against the original strain of Covid.[0] It lost effectiveness against delta and then became nearly ineffective against Omicron (although still helping with reduction of hospitalizations and deaths). Non-mRNA vaccine is available now (Novavax) and the effectiveness, or lack thereof, seems similar. [0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/07/vaccination-against-covid-19-prevents-breakthrough-infections.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/07/vaccination-a...