SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
"Importantly, while the vaccine reduces the risk of developing symptomatic infection, it’s not yet clear whether it also reduces transmission of the virus that causes the disease, SARS-CoV-2. It’s possible that people who are vaccinated can still contract the virus and then transmit it to others, though they themselves would not get sick."
Huh. That doesn't make me feel a lot better...
That does not make me feel any better about the vaccine... but I an blessed with not being too worried, considering my choice of lifestyle. Despite what some here have said, it is perfectly ok to not want to be around high risk activities.
Was that a quote from here, I assume? I did not see it.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
"Importantly, while the vaccine reduces the risk of developing symptomatic infection, it’s not yet clear whether it also reduces transmission of the virus that causes the disease, SARS-CoV-2. It’s possible that people who are vaccinated can still contract the virus and then transmit it to others, though they themselves would not get sick."
Huh. That doesn't make me feel a lot better...
Well, there goes almost every argument in this thread for taking it.
What is the source of that quote? Edit: Never mind I found it.
In reply to Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) :
Yep.
In reply to 03Panther :
Stat News. From my breaking news feed last night. I shouldn't have posted it like that without the link.
Here's the link:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/11/fda-grants-historic-authorization-to-a-covid-19-vaccine-setting-stage-for-rollout/
In reply to 03Panther :
Looks to be from statnews. Here is the whole article:
Stat News Article
docwyte
PowerDork
12/12/20 9:39 a.m.
Didn't I post that in this thread pages ago?
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:
Well, there goes almost every argument in this thread for taking it.
Not really, it potentially means it's that much more important to take the vaccine, since you may not be safe even around those that are vaccinated. It would very much suck for those who cannot take the vaccine though. I think the primary point there is not to act like you are totally safe to do whatever you want after vaccination (for the benefit of others, not you).
But..... let's not get ahead of our skis here. As mentioned previously, they also cannot say that taking the vaccine will not "cause monkeys to fly out of your butt" or "give you an insatiable desire to drive a Miata". Is the likeliness of that being true very low? Almost certainly, but they can't say it doesn't because they have not tested (or studied the data) for that.
The statement does seem to imply there is some evidence of it, but as Curtis previously mentioned, there is (although likely slight) potential for transmission of someone who is vaccinated, who has the virus in them (not fully infected), but is not yet killed it off yet, to transmit it. It also could be related to the control group, or just the ways this thing is transmitted that we are not fully aware of yet.
Peabody
UltimaDork
12/12/20 11:05 a.m.
it’s not yet clear
Media speak for we have no idea but we need a panic point
I read yesterday that immunizations are scheduled to start here Tuesday
In reply to aircooled :
Obviously the issue is not monkeys, butts, or Miatas.
Of a great deal more importance and significance is that it has not been tested with pregnant women or children.
Im curious about the couple cases in the UK having allergic reactions. I know it's only been 2, but they're advising anyone that has allergic reactions to food and medicine not to take it.
Is this strictly for extreme allergies? If there's people that are allergic to eggs/peanuts, benedryl/penicillin are they supposed to avoid the vaccine?
Subscriber-unavailabile said:
Im curious about the couple cases in the UK having allergic reactions. I know it's only been 2, but they're advising anyone that has allergic reactions to food and medicine not to take it.
Is this strictly for extreme allergies? If there's people that are allergic to eggs/peanuts, benedryl/penicillin are they supposed to avoid the vaccine?
Beeneryl and penicillin are not at all related to this. Eggs? Maybe, but I'm not sure. Peanuts? Highly, highly doubt it.
And remember. Get 10k people together. Give them all a dixie cup of water. 2 of those 10k people are going to have some random severe reaction or bad experience because of randomness and a large samble size.
No Time
SuperDork
12/12/20 12:10 p.m.
The transfer doesn't necessarily need the person passing in the disease to be "infected", as long as the virus has a way to move from one person to another.
If you are vaccinated for a disease, it doesn't mean you can't be a transfer agent. If I touch a surface that someone infected sneezed on in a store, then touch a door handle leaving the store it is possible I have transferred virus from the surface to the door handle and it can potentially infect someone, even if the potential is low.
If someone sneezed near me it's possible I breath in the droplets so they are in the mucus of my sinuses. If I then sneeze and put droplets in the air they may contain the virus that's in my mucus.
In both case that transfer occurs whether or not I've been vaccinated. The vaccination protects me, but does not mean I can't transfer virus to someone else if I'm exposed and have it on me and touch something or in my mucus or saliva and cough or sneeze.
Anyone else find it curious that in general the same folks who at the beginning were in the "lockdowns will have a massive negative impact on the economy" camp are now in the "the vaccine should not be immediately trusted and may not be effective anyway" camp.
It's curious because it seems to me that if we all got the vaccine and it turns out to be effective, then we could stop all these economically harmful lockdowns.
I guess these two points of view are consistent in the "wait and see" response now that I type it out though. So maybe it's not that curious.
In reply to No Time :
That's not what that article I linked says.
The article says the vaccine reduces the risk of symptomatic infection. It still may be possible to contract the virus and infect others.
It reduces the symptoms. Not the ability to be infected.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I hope those are not what you are reading into anything I have posted in the last 7 months, because they are a long cry from what I believe.
No Time
SuperDork
12/12/20 12:23 p.m.
In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :
I went back a few pages trying to find the source for the discussion, or was that the Time article that was linked?
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I hope those are not what you are reading into anything I have posted in the last 7 months, because they are a long cry from what I believe.
Nope, if I'm ever trying to call you out you can be sure that I will be much more direct haha.
...and as far as I can tell, the lockdowns DID have a massive negative impact on our economy!
Subscriber-unavailabile said:
Im curious about the couple cases in the UK having allergic reactions. I know it's only been 2, but they're advising anyone that has allergic reactions to food and medicine not to take it.
Is this strictly for extreme allergies? If there's people that are allergic to eggs/peanuts, benedryl/penicillin are they supposed to avoid the vaccine?
What I read was people that were allergic to components of the vaccine should not take it.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
Excellent. Be as direct as you need to be with me.
You've got my number.
wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) (Forum Supporter) said:
Subscriber-unavailabile said:
Im curious about the couple cases in the UK having allergic reactions. I know it's only been 2, but they're advising anyone that has allergic reactions to food and medicine not to take it.
Is this strictly for extreme allergies? If there's people that are allergic to eggs/peanuts, benedryl/penicillin are they supposed to avoid the vaccine?
What I read was people that were allergic to components of the vaccine should not take it.
I read that too. But I didn't see anything that said what the components of the vaccine were.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
...and as far as I can tell, the lockdowns DID have a massive negative impact on our economy!
RIght! which is why I find it so interesting that many of the people worried about impact to the economy are the same people "putting the brakes" on the vaccine.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
Gotcha.
Are they putting they brakes on the vaccine, or just saying they are not ready to trust it or use it?
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
saying they are not ready to trust it or use it?
Should I not have used the words "putting the brakes" to describe the above? Seems to me like delaying getting the vaccine or delaying trusting the vaccine is exactly what putting the brakes means.
Now I am going to call you out - you are being combative. I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant since in the post where I made my original point I described "putting the brakes" as "the vaccine should not be immediately trusted and may not be effective anyway". You're a smart guy and I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant.
