I wonder... can we have a civilized COVID discussion as things (hopefully) wind down?

fusion66 said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Is there evidence now suggesting that with a certain level of participation the current Covid vaccines could provide herd immunity? I just tried a search on this and it seems herd immunity mostly stopped being discussed in late 2021. 

Here's an article that gives you some info and shows how the vaccine stops spread through some simulations.  but immunity does wane(does for most vaccines) and new variants can do an end run.  This is why I had to get boosters to certain diseases when I started to travel to weird places for my old aerospace job. 
 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/18/967462483/how-herd-immunity-works-and-what-stands-in-its-way

Fueled by Caffeine said:

fusion66 said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Is there evidence now suggesting that with a certain level of participation the current Covid vaccines could provide herd immunity? I just tried a search on this and it seems herd immunity mostly stopped being discussed in late 2021. 

Here's an article that gives you some info and shows how the vaccine stops spread through some simulations.  but immunity does wane(does for most vaccines) and new variants can do an end run.  This is why I had to get boosters to certain diseases when I started to travel to weird places for my old aerospace job. 
 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/18/967462483/how-herd-immunity-works-and-what-stands-in-its-way

 

 

 

Of course my place of work blocks NPR 'cause... reasons.

I look forward to reading this. I find some people have "herd immunity" in their heads as some sort of alternative way to tackle a pandemic, instead of the natural result of a species surviving one. Like I said earlier, we've never actually achieved herd immunity without a vaccine, and even some we have "whooping cough, polio) have come back because people stopped vaccinating their kids. Sadly enough, they did it because all around them was proof, in their minds, that the vaccines were not necessary, and now they themselves become the proof that vaccines absolutely still are necessary.

tuna55 said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

fusion66 said:

 

Which facts do we need to agree on?

 

The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.

 

 

 

 

Ehh. The more vaccine in the wild the mess spread. No vaccine actually stops or prevents spread.  A mass of people who are less sucepyible to the disease eventually slows and stops spread. 

A vaccine absolutely does reduce spread because the viral load in the body is reduced for whoever is infected, and they have it for far far far less time.

I agree, data shows that it can reduce spread. My statement was "The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.". I think this is widely accepted but maybe it isn't? 

tuna55 said:

 

Of course my place of work blocks NPR 'cause... reasons.

I look forward to reading this. I find some people have "herd immunity" in their heads as some sort of alternative way to tackle a pandemic, instead of the natural result of a species surviving one. Like I said earlier, we've never actually achieved herd immunity without a vaccine, and even some we have "whooping cough, polio) have come back because people stopped vaccinating their kids. Sadly enough, they did it because all around them was proof, in their minds, that the vaccines were not necessary, and now they themselves become the proof that vaccines absolutely still are necessary.

That's not why people don't vaccinate their kids.  Some groups believe that they should not use certain levels of outside medical interference.  Some have issues with ingredients within the vaccines or with how they were developed (using aborted fetal remains for testing, for example).  

fusion66 said:

tuna55 said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

fusion66 said:

 

Which facts do we need to agree on?

 

The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.

 

 

 

 

Ehh. The more vaccine in the wild the mess spread. No vaccine actually stops or prevents spread.  A mass of people who are less sucepyible to the disease eventually slows and stops spread. 

A vaccine absolutely does reduce spread because the viral load in the body is reduced for whoever is infected, and they have it for far far far less time.

I agree, data shows that it can reduce spread. My statement was "The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.". I think this is widely accepted but maybe it isn't? 

It's a question of absolutes. By that logic, nothing stops anything. Brakes don't stop cars, because sometimes brakes fail.

jmabarone said:

tuna55 said:

 

Of course my place of work blocks NPR 'cause... reasons.

I look forward to reading this. I find some people have "herd immunity" in their heads as some sort of alternative way to tackle a pandemic, instead of the natural result of a species surviving one. Like I said earlier, we've never actually achieved herd immunity without a vaccine, and even some we have "whooping cough, polio) have come back because people stopped vaccinating their kids. Sadly enough, they did it because all around them was proof, in their minds, that the vaccines were not necessary, and now they themselves become the proof that vaccines absolutely still are necessary.

That's not why people don't vaccinate their kids.  Some groups believe that they should not use certain levels of outside medical interference.  Some have issues with ingredients within the vaccines or with how they were developed (using aborted fetal remains for testing, for example).  

I know lots of anti-vaxxers and that is absolutely one of the reasons which they use.

Let me rephrase then, "That's not ALWAYS why people don't vaccinate their kids."  My apologies, I was too specific with that.  

Also, are we talking all vaccines or just Covid vaccines?  

Fueled by Caffeine said:

fusion66 said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Is there evidence now suggesting that with a certain level of participation the current Covid vaccines could provide herd immunity? I just tried a search on this and it seems herd immunity mostly stopped being discussed in late 2021. 

Here's an article that gives you some info and shows how the vaccine stops spread through some simulations.  but immunity does wane(does for most vaccines) and new variants can do an end run.  This is why I had to get boosters to certain diseases when I started to travel to weird places for my old aerospace job. 
 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/18/967462483/how-herd-immunity-works-and-what-stands-in-its-way

 

 

 

Interesting article and demostrates the theory but of course lacks the inputs to model to come to a conclusion regarding Covid and its vaccines. 

This article in Nature is very dated but also cast doubt on the ability to achieve herd immunity with this disease.

Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible (nature.com)

“Herd immunity is only relevant if we have a transmission-blocking vaccine. If we don’t, then the only way to get herd immunity in the population is to give everyone the vaccine,”

jmabarone said:

Let me rephrase then, "That's not ALWAYS why people don't vaccinate their kids."  My apologies, I was too specific with that.  

 

Also, are we talking all vaccines or just Covid vaccines?  

All for my comments. I know many families that eschew vaccines. I know a family that eschews any medical intervention at all. I hope their kids never get sick.

fusion66 said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

fusion66 said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Is there evidence now suggesting that with a certain level of participation the current Covid vaccines could provide herd immunity? I just tried a search on this and it seems herd immunity mostly stopped being discussed in late 2021. 

Here's an article that gives you some info and shows how the vaccine stops spread through some simulations.  but immunity does wane(does for most vaccines) and new variants can do an end run.  This is why I had to get boosters to certain diseases when I started to travel to weird places for my old aerospace job. 
 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/18/967462483/how-herd-immunity-works-and-what-stands-in-its-way

 

 

 

Interesting article and demostrates the theory but of course lacks the inputs to model to come to a conclusion regarding Covid and its vaccines. 

This article in Nature is very dated but also cast doubt on the ability to achieve herd immunity with this disease.

Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible (nature.com)

“Herd immunity is only relevant if we have a transmission-blocking vaccine. If we don’t, then the only way to get herd immunity in the population is to give everyone the vaccine,”

There is no such thing as a vaccine which blocks all transmission. There never has been and never will be. There is no such things as brakes which always stop the car. There never has been and never will be.

tuna55 said:

fusion66 said:

tuna55 said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

fusion66 said:

 

Which facts do we need to agree on?

 

The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.

 

 

 

 

Ehh. The more vaccine in the wild the mess spread. No vaccine actually stops or prevents spread.  A mass of people who are less sucepyible to the disease eventually slows and stops spread. 

A vaccine absolutely does reduce spread because the viral load in the body is reduced for whoever is infected, and they have it for far far far less time.

I agree, data shows that it can reduce spread. My statement was "The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.". I think this is widely accepted but maybe it isn't? 

It's a question of absolutes. By that logic, nothing stops anything. Brakes don't stop cars, because sometimes brakes fail.

I agree.

Thirty percent of the people in my life that were at least double vaccinted have later contracted Covid. It's not like we are talking it happens to one in a thousand. I do not think that the data shows the  current vaccine does a good job of preventing infection and transmission. 

Edit - in other words, if your brakes failed as often as the vaccine does at  preventing the  infection, I doubt many people would be driving today.

fusion66 said:

tuna55 said:

fusion66 said:

tuna55 said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

fusion66 said:

 

Which facts do we need to agree on?

 

The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.

 

 

 

 

Ehh. The more vaccine in the wild the mess spread. No vaccine actually stops or prevents spread.  A mass of people who are less sucepyible to the disease eventually slows and stops spread. 

A vaccine absolutely does reduce spread because the viral load in the body is reduced for whoever is infected, and they have it for far far far less time.

I agree, data shows that it can reduce spread. My statement was "The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.". I think this is widely accepted but maybe it isn't? 

It's a question of absolutes. By that logic, nothing stops anything. Brakes don't stop cars, because sometimes brakes fail.

I agree.

Thirty percent of the people in my life that were at least double vaccinted have later contracted Covid. It's not like we are talking it happens to one in a thousand. I do not think that the data shows the  current vaccine does a good job of preventing infection and transmission. 

It does just as good as any other vaccine. The deal is that you're not out there swimming in polio every day like we are with Covid right now. If you were, your polio vaccine from your infancy wouldn't do anything. The data shows that it does very well at preventing you from catching and spreading. There have been real studies done by real doctors showing just that, but it wanes over several months, again just like any other vaccine. And we're still swimming around with covid everywhere.

tuna55 said:

fusion66 said:

tuna55 said:

fusion66 said:

tuna55 said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

fusion66 said:

 

Which facts do we need to agree on?

 

The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.

 

 

 

 

Ehh. The more vaccine in the wild the mess spread. No vaccine actually stops or prevents spread.  A mass of people who are less sucepyible to the disease eventually slows and stops spread. 

A vaccine absolutely does reduce spread because the viral load in the body is reduced for whoever is infected, and they have it for far far far less time.

I agree, data shows that it can reduce spread. My statement was "The vaccine does not stop infection or spread.". I think this is widely accepted but maybe it isn't? 

It's a question of absolutes. By that logic, nothing stops anything. Brakes don't stop cars, because sometimes brakes fail.

I agree.

Thirty percent of the people in my life that were at least double vaccinted have later contracted Covid. It's not like we are talking it happens to one in a thousand. I do not think that the data shows the  current vaccine does a good job of preventing infection and transmission. 

It does just as good as any other vaccine. The deal is that you're not out there swimming in polio every day like we are with Covid right now. If you were, your polio vaccine from your infancy wouldn't do anything. The data shows that it does very well at preventing you from catching and spreading. There have been real studies done by real doctors showing just that, but it wanes over several months, again just like any other vaccine. And we're still swimming around with covid everywhere.

It does just as good as any other vaccine? That is a very strong statement and I do not think you can back it up with real world peer reviewed studies.  

I have enjoyed the discussion but as a fellow engineer that also likes to follow the data I sense we are both being selective in what data is relevant. 

Thank you. 

In reply to fusion66 :

OK, here is the data and analysis by a doctor on the subject. check the links and data below.

There is a common misconception that vaccinated people spread the virus as much as unvaccinated. I even received blowback from my holiday post because I said that a room full of vaccinated people with no other precautions didn’t pose a significant threat on the community.

I’m not surprised of the confusion given the suboptimal messaging from public health officials over the past year. But, vaccinated people do not spread the virus as much as unvaccinated. Not even close. Here’s how it works…

Vaccines prevent infection in the first place

Let’s say a vaccinated person and an unvaccinated person are standing next to each other and both are exposed to the same amount of virus for the same amount of time. An equal playing field. The virus then enters both of the people’s nasal passageway. What happens next depends on vaccination status:

1. For the unvaccinated person, viral particles try to find and invade cells. Once a virus particle enters the cell it starts replicating fast. We need a certain amount of virus to become contagious. The virus reaches this threshold and the person starts transmitting to others. The person is contagious for 24-48 hours before getting disease (i.e. showing symptoms).

2. For the vaccinated person, the viral particles try to find host cells but the immune system (and particularly neutralizing antibodies) recognize the virus and quickly destroys it. Importantly, the virus is destroyed before entering host cells and, thus, cannot replicate. Because it can’t replicate, the vaccinated doesn’t become contagious. This phenomenon is called “sterilizing immunity”, which prevents infection from happening in the first place. Not everyone gets sterilizing immunity, but COVID19 vaccines help with approximately 50-75% reduction in initial infection risk.

This has a huge effect on transmission in the community. You cannot transmit an infection you never get.

Reducing transmission among breakthrough cases

But, vaccines aren’t perfect. For some unlucky few (and specifically those with high exposure jobs like healthcare), vaccine-induced immunity won’t be able to catch all the virus particles before finding cells. Once the virus finds a cell, it starts replicating enough virus to make the vaccinated person contagious. Then, this person typically gets asymptomatic disease, but some breakthrough cases get mild to severe disease.

The vaccine still kicks in though, making breakthrough cases less contagious than unvaccinated cases. Vaccines do this in two ways:

1. Clears the virus faster. The vaccinated are contagious for far fewer days than unvaccinated (average 3-6 days vs. 13-18 days with Delta). We’ve had three studies provide this evidence thus far: one in Singapore (here; see figure below), one among NBA (basketball) players (here), and one in the UK published in the Lancet (here). The faster the virus is cleared, the less it’s transmitted.

   

2. Reduces number of infectious particles. In the first few days, breakthrough cases have the same number of virus particles as unvaccinated (this is called viral load). But viral particles do not equal infectious particles. In fact, vaccinated have less infectious viral particles than unvaccinated. For example, in a study with healthcare workers, the vaccinated and unvaccinated had the same viral load. However, 69% vaccinated were positive for infectious virus compared to 85% unvaccinated positive for infectious virus. We also saw this in another study in China (here). The less infectious virus particles we have, the less the virus is transmitted.

So, in conclusion, the majority of vaccinated people won’t spread the virus if they are exposed. Among breakthrough cases, vaccines ensure less infectious virus for a shorter period of time. Together, transmission is significantly reduced.

Boosters reduce transmission even more

Unsurprisingly, boosters reduce transmission because they increase our neutralizing antibodies. Boosters increase the likelihood of preventing infection in the first place and, presumably, helps clear the virus faster among breakthrough cases. This week a preprint was released assessing this phenomenon for the first time. The study was a lot of mathematical models, but essentially a booster made a sizable impact in reducing individual transmission. Because of this, boosters deceased community transmission by 21-66%.

What about infection-induced (“natural”) immunity?

Some that are unvaccinated and survive COVID19 disease mount an immune response. This means they too have neutralizing antibodies and, because of this, their body acts much like the vaccinated: prevent infection and, thus, prevent transmission.

The problem is that this response is not guaranteed. For example, people with asymptomatic or mild disease may not mount a strong enough response for variants of concern but people who survive severe infection (i.e. hospitalization) do (here). If they don’t mount a response, they don’t have enough neutralizing antibodies to fend off infection and thus transmission.

If the unvaccinated mounts an immune response, the durability of protection is also variable. Infection-induced immunity lasts for at least 90 days and a maximum of 5 years. Mathematical models found that, on average, people will mount immunity against SARS-CoV-2 for 16 months.

Because of this, reinfection is much higher among unvaccinated. Two peer reviewed studies found the reinfection rate is 2.5-5 times higher among infection-induced immunity compared to vaccine-induced immunity (here, here).

Bottom Line

The majority of vaccinated people won’t spread the virus if they are exposed. Among breakthrough cases, vaccines ensure less infectious viral particles for a shorter period of time. Fully vaccinated people provide little to no threat to community transmission. Boosters also help. And those with infection-induced immunity may or may not help reduce transmission.

We desperately need pandemic off-ramps. What is our plan to transition into an endemic state? I continue to be surprised and disappointed that we still don’t have guidance on this from public health officials. But, a very safe “off-ramp” is vaccinated people. A room full of vaccinated people, for example at Thanksgiving, with no other precautions poses little to no threat to the larger community.

I don't normally wade into threads like this, I try to keep my comments on this site mostly car-related. However, it's been pretty civil so far so I will offer my own 2c and then be on my way :)

There are two things that I think were especially difficult about the pandemic, especially early on, that made it hard for people to unite against the disease, at least from my perspective:

1. Data changes, and changes frequently with a new disease, as has been reasonably established already by other commentators. I think most reasonable people would agree with that. The thing that I think made dealing with the data changes hard was the social rigidity with which the changes were made. There was a lot of moral commentary by both the leaders of the country as well as the media pundits and social media users that said, essentially, "if you don't do follow the CDC guidelines, you are bad." That goes beyond the scope of science. Suddenly, "follow the science" was a moral slogan, not a scientific one. People conflated the two, and when the language of science is pushed beyond the scope of actual scientific inquiry and into the realm of moral discourse, nothing good can happen. Science can't tell you what is moral or immoral. It can inform one's moral considerations, but it is not moral or immoral on its own.

I think this mostly played out in the way policy decisions were discussed, e.g. school closures. When people began to question the moral implications of keeping kids isolated for so long, there was a lot of backlash along the lines of "follow the science!" instead of actual discourse along the lines of the moral implications of policy decisions.

2. The things that weren't said or acknowledged. The CDC seemed to make the active decision to tailor their messaging so that people would do the most effective thing to stop the virus, but it wasn't exactly straightforward (see the earlier comments about Fauci and masks.) So there were a lot of questions people had that the CDC wouldn't answer, at least early on, in order to push its main line. I can understand why they chose to do this, but it certainly didn't breed trust with a lot of people. I remember very early on in the vaccination process, the CDC essentially pretended that any form of natural immunity didn't exist. It's not that they denied it, but if any press asked about it they would respond with the standard, "get the vaccine, it's the best way to stop the virus." I got Covid right before the vaccines came out, and I remember desperately trying to find any sort of scientific study or commentary that would explain if I had any level of immunity, and if so how long it would last. Every article I clicked on said, essetially, "this isn't really a good question to be asking yourself, just get vaccinated when you can." The CDCwebsite made no mention of immunity from the virus, not even a "we don't know." When this happens, it's a lot harder for people to trust that what they are being told is the whole story. It doesn't feel good to be gaslit by the medical authorities.

I think this is what a lot of people forget when they tsk tsk at Covid skeptics. (I'm not at all one myself, just to be very clear, but I have friendly encounters with them all the time.) It doesn't take people actively lying to you to make you lose trust. It just takes people not telling you the whole truth. A lot of these people didn't feel like they were getting the whole truth, for good reason, so they turned to the people who claimed to have it.

And with that, I have offered all I have to give, and I've tried to offer it in a thoughtful way in the spirit of this thread. I'm going back to cars now, I wish y'all the best

Edit: I see that in the time I was writing this the conversation has moved on, so I'm sorry if this seems woefully off topic at this point, but I'll leave it here anyway just in case

So that brings up a good turn in this discussion, I think.  If the current crop of vaccines aren't that effective (for whatever reason), what would convince those that 1) have had it AND 2) have not had any to get a new version?  

Here is the way that many people I know feel about their kids getting the vaccines:  Absolutely not.  It was developed using a new concept in vaccines and rushed in without long term studies.  There is no way to know long term side effects.  Apart from that, Covid in kids generally ranged from a non-issue (like NO symptoms) or a mild cold.  

jmabarone said:

So that brings up a good turn in this discussion, I think.  If the current crop of vaccines aren't that effective (for whatever reason), what would convince those that 1) have had it AND 2) have not had any to get a new version?  

Here is the way that many people I know feel about their kids getting the vaccines:  Absolutely not.  It was developed using a new concept in vaccines and rushed in without long term studies.  There is no way to know long term side effects.  Apart from that, Covid in kids generally ranged from a non-issue (like NO symptoms) or a mild cold.  

I continue to get updated shots despite this because the vaccine will keep me out of the hospital/morgue and reduce my odds/severity of long-COVID symptoms, mainly. The concept of "long-term" or "super-delayed" side effects is medically nonsensical - any side effects would turn up in a couple months at most. 2/3rds of earth's population has had some sort of COVID19 vaccine now so there's been plenty of opportunity for any unknown side effects to be discovered.

Not going to quote because there is a ton to edit out, but just an antecdote regarding vaccinated vs. unvaccinated transmission.  

My work has roughly 70% vaccination status (not sure of boosting) at our VA facility, likely similiar or higher numbers at our other facility.  We have had a few "outbreaks" and they have all been caused by a vaccinated employee bringing it within the facility transmitting it to vaccinated employees.  Of the unvaccinated people (at my place in VA), anyone that has gotten it has not gotten it at work.  And they didn't bring it in and get vaccinated people sick.  

jmabarone said:

So that brings up a good turn in this discussion, I think.  If the current crop of vaccines aren't that effective (for whatever reason), what would convince those that 1) have had it AND 2) have not had any to get a new version?  

Here is the way that many people I know feel about their kids getting the vaccines:  Absolutely not.  It was developed using a new concept in vaccines and rushed in without long term studies.  There is no way to know long term side effects.  Apart from that, Covid in kids generally ranged from a non-issue (like NO symptoms) or a mild cold.  

I hear that last one a lot. It's not true that it was rushed in, and it's not true that it wasn't thoroughly tested. It is true that it hasn't been long term tested. Neither has your new car. Neither has basically any medicine you take outside of aspirin, ibuprofen, penecillin and tylenol. I see these same people stocking up on horse dewormer, and it's obvious that the argument wasn't presented as intellectually honest. You can't say that the Covid vaccine is untested and therefore potentially unsafe, and on the other hand happily stock up on horse dewormer from Tractor Supply. Before you say it, yes I actually know actual people who have done and said this exact thing.

GameboyRMH said:

jmabarone said:

So that brings up a good turn in this discussion, I think.  If the current crop of vaccines aren't that effective (for whatever reason), what would convince those that 1) have had it AND 2) have not had any to get a new version?  

Here is the way that many people I know feel about their kids getting the vaccines:  Absolutely not.  It was developed using a new concept in vaccines and rushed in without long term studies.  There is no way to know long term side effects.  Apart from that, Covid in kids generally ranged from a non-issue (like NO symptoms) or a mild cold.  

I continue to get updated shots despite this because the vaccine will keep me out of the hospital/morgue and reduce my odds/severity of long-COVID symptoms, mainly. The concept of "long-term" or "super-delayed" side effects is medically nonsensical - any side effects would turn up in a couple months at most. 2/3rds of earth's population has had some sort of COVID19 vaccine now so there's been plenty of opportunity for any unknown side effects to be discovered.

Thanks for this. It's true. We also have zero long term testing for what steel will do in 500 years. It might explode, you don't know. Its tests (the subjects have had the vaccine for years now) are still ongoing, and are now quite old.

GameboyRMH said:

 

I continue to get updated shots despite this because the vaccine will keep me out of the hospital/morgue and reduce my odds/severity of long-COVID symptoms, mainly. The concept of "long-term" or "super-delayed" side effects is medically nonsensical - any side effects would turn up in a couple months at most. 2/3rds of earth's population has had some sort of COVID19 vaccine now so there's been plenty of opportunity for any unknown side effects to be discovered.

You ever watch TV?  Have you seen the ads for the lawyers trying to get people to sign on to class action lawsuits because some medication or treatment didn't work?  Those aren't things that came out in the last 2 years.  How many FDA approved medications have been pulled off the shelves because they discovered massive side effects later on?  

In reply to tuna55 :

Unfortunately it wanes very fast, faster if you've already had a prior infection. 

4 months max according to this study to hit 0% efficacy, 80% max efficacy at the time of the shot and 2 months to get to 50%. Those with a prior infection with the shot 70% efficacy drops to 50% in 8 weeks, 0 in 18 weeks. Taken from here.

The viral load theory is still not settled. There are several studies showing both that vaccinated patients have a higher viral load but over a shorter time (3-5 days) compared to unvaccinated that have a lower viral load but for a longer period of time (5-7). There are other studies showing that they have the same over the same period and others showing that unvax have a higher load for shorter. The common issue on most of these are the vaccine used, any prior infections and individual immuno responses seem to vary quite a bit.

Have the same  have less lower with omicron, similar in delta, higher in alpha

AMiataCalledSteve said:

I don't normally wade into threads like this, I try to keep my comments on this site mostly car-related. However, it's been pretty civil so far so I will offer my own 2c and then be on my way :)

The CDCwebsite made no mention of immunity from the virus, not even a "we don't know." When this happens, it's a lot harder for people to trust that what they are being told is the whole story. It doesn't feel good to be gaslit by the medical authorities.

 

 

And with that, I have offered all I have to give, and I've tried to offer it in a thoughtful way in the spirit of this thread. I'm going back to cars now, I wish y'all the best

I trimmed this down to reply to specific parts.

I thank you for joining the discussion. I am glad you came.

This part is huge. For some reason, people are scared to say "I don't know". I find it very comforting when someone tells me that. I am now pretty sure I am dealing with an honest person, who is aware of their limitations. I think doctors do appear have a ego issue a lot of the time, and they have to appear that they know everything or else we won't trust them. It's a question of bounds. If I design a wheel, and I tell you what load it can take, I can also tell you what will happen if it's overloaded, or smacked with a hammer, or a curb, etc, because it's all neatly bounded. Biology isn't neatly bounded. Let's stop pretending that it isn't. I think this goes two ways. We need to be OK with doctors not know, and getting things wrong, and they need to allow themselves to explain when they don't know.

jmabarone said:

GameboyRMH said:

 

I continue to get updated shots despite this because the vaccine will keep me out of the hospital/morgue and reduce my odds/severity of long-COVID symptoms, mainly. The concept of "long-term" or "super-delayed" side effects is medically nonsensical - any side effects would turn up in a couple months at most. 2/3rds of earth's population has had some sort of COVID19 vaccine now so there's been plenty of opportunity for any unknown side effects to be discovered.

You ever watch TV?  Have you seen the ads for the lawyers trying to get people to sign on to class action lawsuits because some medication or treatment didn't work?  Those aren't things that came out in the last 2 years.  How many FDA approved medications have been pulled off the shelves because they discovered massive side effects later on?  

None that I'm aware of - the only medication recall due to a long-delayed issue I'm aware of was due to a medication storage issue, basically the medication would go off in an unexpected way and become dangerous if taken. There was also a medication that was recalled due to an issue that was found in a previous round of testing but basically ignored in a subsequent FDA approval attempt, and then surprise surprise, the issue was still there.

tuna55 said:

In reply to fusion66 :

<SNIP>

I’m not surprised of the confusion given the suboptimal messaging from public health officials over the past year. But, vaccinated people do not spread the virus as much as unvaccinated. Not even close. Here’s how it works…

Vaccines prevent infection in the first place

Let’s say a vaccinated person and an unvaccinated person are standing next to each other and both are exposed to the same amount of virus for the same amount of time. An equal playing field. The virus then enters both of the people’s nasal passageway. What happens next depends on vaccination status:

<SNIP>

1. For the vaccinated person, the viral particles try to find host cells but the immune system (and particularly neutralizing antibodies) recognize the virus and quickly destroys it. Importantly, the virus is destroyed before entering host cells and, thus, cannot replicate. Because it can’t replicate, the vaccinated doesn’t become contagious. This phenomenon is called “sterilizing immunity”, which prevents infection from happening in the first place. Not everyone gets sterilizing immunity, but COVID19 vaccines help with approximately 50-75% reduction in initial infection risk.

This has a huge effect on transmission in the community. You cannot transmit an infection you never get.

<SNIP>

To Tuna or anyonelse that wants to chime in.

Let me preface this by saying that I am vaccinated and double boosted, as are all members of my family (wife and kids). I believe in vaccines, but I also believe that you should be able to choose what you want to do with your body, even if that will place my family and I at a higher risk.

With that being said, my wife got Covid from work. Given her office and the way it is staffed, she thinks she knows who she got it from. That person was vaccinated/double boosted as well. This happened during summer, my kids were not in school and neither have I been working.

I tested positive shortly after as well, along with the youngest of my kids (age 10). My other two kids, ages 13 and 15, never tested positive or showed symptoms. I know a few other people that got it as well. Our cases were mild and lasted about 3-4 days with a good week or two were we felt like we were living in the Twilight Zone.

Anyways, my question is how come we got it if we were vaccinated? You said that breakthrough cases are rare, as in people that work in hospitals and are exposed to a much higher viral load.

Is it because the virus completely changed by the time I got it and the vaccine was not effective then? I think after a certain time we can't say that breakthrough cases are rare.