You understand the virus mutates? Hence the importance of a high percentage of vaccination. When people say it's their business if they want to be vaccinated what you fail to address is that in that selfish, fearful perspective it comes to effect all of us. Who wasn't aware there would likely need to be boosters? The boosters will aim to address which ever variants that break through. Four months ago the Delta variant wasn't spreading like wild fire.aggierogue said:Are you saying that "breakthrough cases" weren't a surprise to the medical community? B/c it sure seems like this has surprised them. No one was talking about breakthrough cases four months ago.Zobel said:
It does prevent you from getting covid, but not by 100%.
It was never expected to prevent by 100%. It was also never expected to prevent infection altogether. The original studies didn't even test for that, they only tested for symptomatic illness.
How much less likely are you to *get* covid after vaccination?
9,344 Views |
103 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Zobel
bay fan said:You understand the virus mutates? Hence the importance of a high percentage of vaccination. When people say it's their business if they want to be vaccinated what you fail to address is that in that selfish, fearful perspective it comes to effect all of us. Who wasn't aware there would likely need to be boosters? The boosters will aim to address which ever variants that break through. Four months ago the Delta variant wasn't spreading like wild fire.aggierogue said:Are you saying that "breakthrough cases" weren't a surprise to the medical community? B/c it sure seems like this has surprised them. No one was talking about breakthrough cases four months ago.Zobel said:
It does prevent you from getting covid, but not by 100%.
It was never expected to prevent by 100%. It was also never expected to prevent infection altogether. The original studies didn't even test for that, they only tested for symptomatic illness.
It doesn't matter what percentage gets vaccinated. When the virus mutates (and it will), you'll still blame those who didn't get vaccinated. You've got a villain to blame either way. Look at countries like Israel, who has a large percentage vaccinated. They still have breakthrough cases. There is a lot we don't know, and a lot of imperfect numbers being used by all sides. Both will point and blame regardless where this goes.
When you have an unvaccinated population, you have more opportunities for virus mutation to happen. People talk about oh the vaccines don't stop infection but that's making a false dichotomy - they dramatically reduce the scale of the infection and the duration of the infection compared to not being vaccinated. That's why you don't get sick, and if you do it's much more mild.
There was a measles study in the Netherlands a while back that compared risk of getting measles with and without vaccines. Unsurprisingly vaccinated people in highly vaccinated populations had lowest risk, and unvaccinated people in unvaccinated populations had the highest risk. But you're better off being unvaccinated in a highly vaccinated population than vaccinated in an unvaccinated population.
No vaccines are 100% effective, they all have breakthrough infections.
All of these ancient antivaxxer tropes are now being taken up and championed (unwittingly?) by people against the covid vaccines.
There was a measles study in the Netherlands a while back that compared risk of getting measles with and without vaccines. Unsurprisingly vaccinated people in highly vaccinated populations had lowest risk, and unvaccinated people in unvaccinated populations had the highest risk. But you're better off being unvaccinated in a highly vaccinated population than vaccinated in an unvaccinated population.
No vaccines are 100% effective, they all have breakthrough infections.
All of these ancient antivaxxer tropes are now being taken up and championed (unwittingly?) by people against the covid vaccines.
Cyp0111 said:
F16 poster ? It's like logic flies right out the other side
Do you look under your bed for politics board posters before you go to bed at night? Jeez dude.
bay fan said:You understand the virus mutates? Hence the importance of a high percentage of vaccination. When people say it's their business if they want to be vaccinated what you fail to address is that in that selfish, fearful perspective it comes to effect all of us. Who wasn't aware there would likely need to be boosters? The boosters will aim to address which ever variants that break through. Four months ago the Delta variant wasn't spreading like wild fire.aggierogue said:Are you saying that "breakthrough cases" weren't a surprise to the medical community? B/c it sure seems like this has surprised them. No one was talking about breakthrough cases four months ago.Zobel said:
It does prevent you from getting covid, but not by 100%.
It was never expected to prevent by 100%. It was also never expected to prevent infection altogether. The original studies didn't even test for that, they only tested for symptomatic illness.
In light of the amount of spread noted in the CDC's study of the vaccinated in the Massachusetts outbreak it's looking unlikely that vaccination will prevent new variants.
I completely disagree. If the whole world were vaccinated the disease would end in fairly short order - I think everyone agrees with that, right? So we're talking about degrees against that extreme.
Vaccines don't mutate any other way other than replication, and that only happens in a host. The more sick people you have, the longer they're sick, and the more virus replication is happening in them, the more chances you have for mutation. Vaccines definitely reduce all of those, even if it is imperfect.
Vaccines don't mutate any other way other than replication, and that only happens in a host. The more sick people you have, the longer they're sick, and the more virus replication is happening in them, the more chances you have for mutation. Vaccines definitely reduce all of those, even if it is imperfect.
GenericAggie said:TulsAg said:
Amazing - and very telling - that the data-rich posts offered by KidDoc and Ranger 22 are simply ignored by those claiming that vaccines don't work, "natural immunity" is sufficient, etc.
There was a time when one could reasonably expect that a presentation of facts and scientific analysis would receive an objective consideration. But those days seem gone, and willful ignorance - coupled with claims of "conspiracy" - are the reaction of too many when confronted with a reality that they simply don't like and don't want.
.
I look at it differently. I don't believe people on this thread don't believe KidDoc. He/She seems like a reasonable person.
I believe the frustration is with: 1/ lack of transparency from the government. They lied early on. They've misled many times since. 2/ The messaging from the government has been misleading in terms of what efficacy means to the general public. Don't tell me that I take a vaccine to become less sick. That's not why anyone takes the flu vaccine. We take it to not get the flu. You can't argue that point with me. My 80 year old parents didn't take the vaccine so that they wouldn't get as sick. They took it because they believe it would stop them from getting the virus. You may feel this is semantics, but it's not.
I've taken the vaccine, so don't come at me.
My question is why is every thread turned into the govt lied to me thread usually based around masks. Vaccines still get thrown In as well but the evidence is such that it's hard to keep going there with vaccines.
We get it the govt lied and it makes us angry. The response to this thing was last spring and generally blame falls
On whatever political gang color we oppose.
At this point it's beating a dead horse.
NOBODY I know thinks masks really work great in many instances. Nobody thinks that I know thinks the 180 of Fauci was good messaging/policy but damn man let it go let's get in with working through the rest of this mess. It's like cluttering the Horns Tears thread with stories about how Baylor does this or that. Move on or start a masks tears thread or something on this board.
Zobel said:
I completely disagree. If the whole world were vaccinated the disease would end in fairly short order - I think everyone agrees with that, right? So we're talking about degrees against that extreme.
Vaccines don't mutate any other way other than replication, and that only happens in a host. The more sick people you have, the longer they're sick, and the more virus replication is happening in them, the more chances you have for mutation. Vaccines definitely reduce all of those, even if it is imperfect.
Then why did we have so much spread among the vaccinated? If it's spreading then it's finding new hosts.
i don'tQuote:
I completely disagree. If the whole world were vaccinated the disease would end in fairly short order - I think everyone agrees with that, right? So we're talking about degrees against that extreme.
this thing has a massive non-human animal reservoir
"So much spread" is relative, in this case relative to how much spread you would have had in an identical unvaccinated population.
When we have tested these vaccines in a controlled way we find that relative to unvaccinated people there is a lesser chance of symptoms, that disease is more mild, and that it doesn't last as long. That's what those phase 3 trials and subsequent studies point to, and that bears out in general if you look at the number of people being hospitalized between vaccinated and unvaccinated. All of these things align with lower amounts of viruses in your body (which also aligns with transmission potential).
When you put these things in binary terms, you get one picture - can vaccinated people still get sick? yes. can they possibly have enough viral loads to infect others? yes.
But when you put them in relative terms you get a completely different picture - can they get sick? yes, but at a rate 10-20x less than unvaccinated people. can they have enough viral load to infect others? yes, but at a lower rate and for a shorter duration.
When we have tested these vaccines in a controlled way we find that relative to unvaccinated people there is a lesser chance of symptoms, that disease is more mild, and that it doesn't last as long. That's what those phase 3 trials and subsequent studies point to, and that bears out in general if you look at the number of people being hospitalized between vaccinated and unvaccinated. All of these things align with lower amounts of viruses in your body (which also aligns with transmission potential).
When you put these things in binary terms, you get one picture - can vaccinated people still get sick? yes. can they possibly have enough viral loads to infect others? yes.
But when you put them in relative terms you get a completely different picture - can they get sick? yes, but at a rate 10-20x less than unvaccinated people. can they have enough viral load to infect others? yes, but at a lower rate and for a shorter duration.
Say what? What is the animal reservoir for COVID?cone said:i don'tQuote:
I completely disagree. If the whole world were vaccinated the disease would end in fairly short order - I think everyone agrees with that, right? So we're talking about degrees against that extreme.
this thing has a massive non-human animal reservoir
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I had not thought of that. Lead me to this paper, which is pretty interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002747/
But even so, if every person were vaccinated, it would still be over in short order because people being sick would not get severe disease, would be less likely to transmit, and once recovered have very durable immunity (N and S protein antibodies, etc). I'm not saying it would 100% eradicate the virus forever - I'm saying it'd no longer be an issue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002747/
But even so, if every person were vaccinated, it would still be over in short order because people being sick would not get severe disease, would be less likely to transmit, and once recovered have very durable immunity (N and S protein antibodies, etc). I'm not saying it would 100% eradicate the virus forever - I'm saying it'd no longer be an issue.
I don't think we have a substantial percentage of people mingling with minks on a regular basis.Zobel said:
I had not thought of that. Lead me to this paper, which is pretty interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002747/
But even so, if every person were vaccinated, it would still be over in short order because people being sick would not get severe disease, would be less likely to transmit, and once recovered have very durable immunity (N and S protein antibodies, etc). I'm not saying it would 100% eradicate the virus forever - I'm saying it'd no longer be an issue.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel said:
I had not thought of that. Lead me to this paper, which is pretty interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002747/
But even so, if every person were vaccinated, it would still be over in short order because people being sick would not get severe disease, would be less likely to transmit, and once recovered have very durable immunity (N and S protein antibodies, etc). I'm not saying it would 100% eradicate the virus forever - I'm saying it'd no longer be an issue.
This makes since in a closed community. But this is global. Delta came from India. We will still have massive reservoirs of hosts for a very long time.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-vax. I'm probably a hardcore vax proponent and take a lot of heat on F16 for doing so. I think they are miracles of modern medicine. However, with it being unable to significantly curtail spread I just don't think it's the magic bullet to end this if we keep thinking number of cases matter and base policy around that.
Why do you think it is unable to significantly curtail spread?
To really have that discussion I suppose you need to talk about what "significantly" means, and what "spread" means. But in any case that has to be relative to something (unvaccinated).
To really have that discussion I suppose you need to talk about what "significantly" means, and what "spread" means. But in any case that has to be relative to something (unvaccinated).
I think it does cause less spread and infection than being unvaccinated. But based on the CDC report on the Massachusetts outbreak they used to justify the return to masking it appears to not be significant. I had hoped it would significantly reduce spread, even believed it would. It did not. Now we have to adjust expectations.
No, I didnt even really know the politics board was a nut job sanctuary until you and a few others started posting. I did a quick drive by of that board and it's full tilt nuts.
Cyp0111 said:
No, I didnt even really know the politics board was a nut job sanctuary until you and a few others started posting. I did a quick drive by of that board and it's full tilt nuts.
Welcome to the internet. Everyone is nuts to someone.
Texags politics is a special corner. A lot of borderline personalities on their above the reg internet.
If you read that paper they say not to do exactly what you're doing.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf
The fact that the whole thing was 87% male, predominantly homosexual, 6% of the cases were HIV positive, should give us pause before broadly applying this.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf
Quote:
The findings in this report are subject to at least four limita- tions. First, data from this report are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant, during this outbreak. As population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of COVID-19 cases. Second, asymptomatic breakthrough infections might be under- represented because of detection bias. Third, demographics of cases likely reflect those of attendees at the public gatherings, as events were marketed to adult male participants; further study is underway to identify other population characteristics among cases, such as additional demographic characteristics and underlying health conditions including immunocompromising conditions. Finally, Ct values obtained with SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR diagnostic tests might provide a crude correlation to the amount of virus present in a sample and can also be affected by factors other than viral load. Although the assay used in this investigation was not validated to provide quantitative results, there was no significant difference between the Ct values of samples collected from breakthrough cases and the other cases. This might mean that the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 is also similar. However, microbiological studies are required to confirm these findings.
The fact that the whole thing was 87% male, predominantly homosexual, 6% of the cases were HIV positive, should give us pause before broadly applying this.
They felt confident enough in it to suggest masks again.
You have a clear way of communicating important information. Sadly, the people you are trying to help understand simply have chosen to not understand this relatively common sense situation. Thanks for continuing t to try.Zobel said:
I completely disagree. If the whole world were vaccinated the disease would end in fairly short order - I think everyone agrees with that, right? So we're talking about degrees against that extreme.
Vaccines don't mutate any other way other than replication, and that only happens in a host. The more sick people you have, the longer they're sick, and the more virus replication is happening in them, the more chances you have for mutation. Vaccines definitely reduce all of those, even if it is imperfect.
texan12 said:
What percentage of the public in 2019 knew about how often a coronavirus mutates? We were only used to flu seasons before this.
Based on that, I guess 100% since thr flu mutates at a high rate and the vaccine is roughly 50% effective
Here is current data on Delta spread in heavy vaccinated countries. It does prevent infection and spread just not as effective as prior variants.Salute The Marines said:Cyp0111 said:
No, I didnt even really know the politics board was a nut job sanctuary until you and a few others started posting. I did a quick drive by of that board and it's full tilt nuts.
Welcome to the internet. Everyone is nuts to someone.
Additional data is coming in that shows Moderna is much better than Pfizer at preventing any infection from Delta.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
My wild a** suspicion is the reservoir for Influenza might be chronic human (perhaps animal) intestinal tract infection. Probably only a small percentage of the population would need to fail to clear the virus. The genetic mutation/evolution proceeds in the carriers producing the appropriate genetic drift or shift that we see. Something seasonal like the rise and fall of vitamin D levels in the population allows the almost simultaneous reemergence of the virus at geographical dispersed locations.KidDoc said:I don't think we have a substantial percentage of people mingling with minks on a regular basis.Zobel said:
I had not thought of that. Lead me to this paper, which is pretty interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002747/
But even so, if every person were vaccinated, it would still be over in short order because people being sick would not get severe disease, would be less likely to transmit, and once recovered have very durable immunity (N and S protein antibodies, etc). I'm not saying it would 100% eradicate the virus forever - I'm saying it'd no longer be an issue.
Only the successfully mutated/virulent variant(s) finds a susceptible sub-population. There may be an additional factor in whatever mechanism allows some people to be super spreaders. Or it may be as simple as poor hygiene and/or public restrooms aerosolizing live virus.
Mechanism of Human Influenza Virus RNA Persistence and Virion Survival in Feces: Mucus Protects Virions From Acid and Digestive Juices
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28498998/
We know Classic SARS was spread in plumbing
Evidence of Airborne Transmission of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Virus
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa032867
and this curious "hmm?" story :-)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-diplomats-china-subjected-anal-swab-testing-covid-19-n1258844
YMMV
I also think most of us were pretty ignorant to the actual data surrounding the flu. I imagine most people may have been suprised to learn how many people were dying from it when Covid-19 started being compared to it.texan12 said:
What percentage of the public in 2019 knew about how often a coronavirus mutates? We were only used to flu seasons before this.
I also think people don't really understand how bad the flu is until you actually get it. It is an awful experience if you get the real symptoms.
Ok.
Keegan99 posted this on F16cone said:i don'tQuote:
I completely disagree. If the whole world were vaccinated the disease would end in fairly short order - I think everyone agrees with that, right? So we're talking about degrees against that extreme.
this thing has a massive non-human animal reservoir
Coronavirus rife in common US deer
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02168-4
One-third of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the northeastern United States have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 a sign that they have been infected with the virus.
The findings, reported in a preprint on 29 July (J. C. Chandler et al. preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/gmc8t6; 2021), represent the first detection of widespread exposure to the virus in a population of wild animals.
There are concerns about the emergence of new animal 'reservoirs' animal populations that harbour SARSCoV-2. Previous laboratory experiments have shown that white-tailed deer can become infected with the coronavirus and transmit it to other deer. In the wild, the animals live in herds, which could make it easier for the virus to spread.
Scientists at the US Department of Agriculture in Fort Collins, Colorado, and Ames, Iowa, tested 385 deer blood samples collected as part of regular wildlife surveillance between January and March 2021 in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois and New York state. They found that a striking 40% of the samples contained SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which are produced in response to infection. None of the surveyed deer showed signs of illness.
The testing of archived samples also turned up antibodies in three samples from early 2020, when SARSCoV-2 was beginning to circulate in the United States. All told, one-third of the 2020 and 2021 samples had antibodies for the virus.
It is not clear how the deer were exposed. It could have been through contact with people, other animals or even contaminated wastewater.
Researchers say that the rapid exposure of a large number of animals to the virus is concerning, but that more studies are needed to assess whether the deer can infect each other and other species in the wild. "It's an intriguing observation but still needs to be interpreted with caution," says Aaron Irving, an infectious-diseases researcher at Zhejiang University in Haining, China.
When the thing passes around, it mutates. Regardless of vaccination status. If it's moving through bodies, it's mutating.
I wouldn't say that the transfer between people causes the mutation. It allows the mutation that already occurred to transfer. Each cell that the virus attacks is an opportunity to mutate. Hypothetically it could infect someone and mutate to a world ending variant but if the person immediately falls into a volcano it wouldn't be a problem.
The key is to have your immune system ready to eliminate the virus and reduce the number of possible mutations and the time it would be possible to infect others. A vaccine is a great way to achieve that.
The key is to have your immune system ready to eliminate the virus and reduce the number of possible mutations and the time it would be possible to infect others. A vaccine is a great way to achieve that.
-------------------------------------------------------
God sent, hell bent, aggie through and through....
God sent, hell bent, aggie through and through....
Viruses mutate into more contagious less deadly. This virus is still being spread by vaccinated individuals.
If this was like MMR or Varicella, it would be eliminating and preventing infection and spread.
It's not. Unlike it was claimed to do when it was emergency authorized with no recourse in the event of side effects.
But of course, goal post got moved again and that fact was ignored again..
I'm in research mode and considering the vaccine but there are risks and those risks appear to be confidential information. Blast every new case on Twitter but ignore strokes after 2nd moderna shot (which run in my family).
I just wish we were being open about why we know and what we don't.
KidDoc has been a breath of fresh air. His approach, perspective, and information has been helpful and I trust his take being in the pursuit of truth.
If this was like MMR or Varicella, it would be eliminating and preventing infection and spread.
It's not. Unlike it was claimed to do when it was emergency authorized with no recourse in the event of side effects.
But of course, goal post got moved again and that fact was ignored again..
I'm in research mode and considering the vaccine but there are risks and those risks appear to be confidential information. Blast every new case on Twitter but ignore strokes after 2nd moderna shot (which run in my family).
I just wish we were being open about why we know and what we don't.
KidDoc has been a breath of fresh air. His approach, perspective, and information has been helpful and I trust his take being in the pursuit of truth.
Agsrback12 said:
Viruses mutate into more contagious less deadly. This virus is still being spread by vaccinated individuals.
If this was like MMR or Varicella, it would be eliminating and preventing infection and spread.
It's not. Unlike it was claimed to do when it was emergency authorized with no recourse in the event of side effects.
But of course, goal post got moved again and that fact was ignored again..
I'm in research mode and considering the vaccine but there are risks and those risks appear to be confidential information. Blast every new case on Twitter but ignore strokes after 2nd moderna shot (which run in my family).
I just wish we were being open about why we know and what we don't.
KidDoc has been a breath of fresh air. His approach, perspective, and information has been helpful and I trust his take being in the pursuit of truth.
Where does this come from? I distinctly remember the stated purpose of the vaccine was to lessen the impact should one contract COVID-19. Pretty sure the initial stance was that it did not eliminate ones ability to contract or spread the virus.
The varicella vaccine doesn't produce sterilizing immunity. The measles vaccine is 93% effective after one round. 88% against mumps.
So the covid vaccines are a lot like MMR and varicella.
So the covid vaccines are a lot like MMR and varicella.
Zobel said:
The varicella vaccine doesn't produce sterilizing immunity. The measles vaccine is 93% effective after one round. 88% against mumps.
So the covid vaccines are a lot like MMR and varicella.
After 1 round? MMR is a 2 dose vaccine. I didn't know that about varicella, so chicken pox parties are better than the vaccine.
97% after two for measles. But if you do get it after being vaccinated, your case will be less severe. like covid vaccines.
The downside to chicken pox parties is you get chicken pox and you're at a higher risk of getting shingles.
Could also be that the mRNA vaccines wind up as 3+ rounds, or 2 rounds further apart than one month. Some vaccines we give take 4 or more rounds.
The downside to chicken pox parties is you get chicken pox and you're at a higher risk of getting shingles.
Could also be that the mRNA vaccines wind up as 3+ rounds, or 2 rounds further apart than one month. Some vaccines we give take 4 or more rounds.
Featured Stories
See All
10:13
4h ago
2.6k
No. 13 A&M hoping recent purge brings surge against Oklahoma
by Olin Buchanan
45:12
1d ago
5.8k
10:48
6h ago
811