This is some data from the CDC internal report that was in an email from my employer today, thought they were interesting.

conspiracy theory stuff from a large subset of the population with an alarmingly low IQ is a dangerous thing. Youtube/facebook/twitter is dangerous with rather dull minds to influence.

Not sure how many times this line has to be repeated, but I'll say it again -- the vaccines (and any vaccine) is to prevent severe illness by the pathogen, not infection by the pathogen of interest. This is true of all vaccines and has been known for quite a while.

Some of the best data we currently have available comes from a recent study out of Singapore, which shows that PCR Ct values (the number of cycles of a PCR machine it takes to be able to detect viral RNA --> the lower the Ct value, the more genetic material was around so the less cycles it took for the machine to make a detection vs a higher Ct value, which means less viral RNA was around so it took more cycles by the machine to detect) of vaccinated individuals dramatically decreases post-infection compared to unvaccinated individuals. This means that vaccinated individuals were more efficiently able to clear the virus (and quicker) than unvaccinated, and why vaccinated individuals are less likely to develop severe symptoms.



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full.pdf

The easiest metaphor one can make for vaccination is it being akin to sprinkler systems in buildings that prevent fires. When a fire breaks out (infection), the sprinkler system (vaccination) kicks on and hopefully contains the fire until the fire department arrives to fully put out the fire (body's immune system). Are sprinkler systems 100% effective in controlling all fires? No, but they do help a large majority of the time in preventing major loss (and why a lot of the time they are now required by law.....). Is vaccination 100% full proof? No, but its going to be effective for the individual a large majority of the time in preventing death or an expensive hospital stay (major loss).

KidDoc said:

---

I would be willing to bet that 99% of the non medical public never knew there was such a thing as coronavirus before 2020, much less that they tend to mutate (like pretty much all RNA virus).

Just like they don't know about Coxsackie virus, human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus, etc-- it isn't their job so you shouldn't expect the general public to know anything about it.

Just like I don't know how to fix my car, I take it to people with training and knowledge for that. But somehow many people have become infectious disease experts via Google and social media in 2020-21.

Robin Hood here just keeps insisting the CDC is putting out a coordinated effort to misinform and "move the goal posts". I am no CDC fan and they have been pretty bad especially in 2020 but this decision was based on hard data.

---

I remember being on Spring Break, drinking Corona, and making Corona virus jokes. God help my wife if we have a Coxsackie outbreak!

More than 99.99% of fully vaccinated people have not had a severe breakthrough case of Covid-19, according to a CNN analysis of CDC data as of August 2nd.

— Ana Cabrera (@AnaCabrera) August 9, 2021

texan12 said:

---

Don't be a dick

---

My definition of being a dick is making crap up and pretend it's true, not stating facts with support.

Robin Hood Was A Thief said:

---

Many doctors and researchers would disagree with you. The response of CDC has been anything but consistent. However, I now understand that you hold the exclusive monopoly on knowledge. I'm sure this serves you well.

---

Except unlike you, it's not my knowledge. I am posting reputable sources, not opinions or emotion.

GenericAggie said:

---

Does the influenza vaccine stop me from getting the flu or prevent me from getting more sick?

---

No. The flu vaccine has an efficacy of only 40% or so. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take it because it also improves health outcomes. And even at that efficacy it helps reduce the spread particularly because the flu is not very contagious relative to covid. Hopefully you aren't confused about the messaging here.

GenericAggie said:

---

The masks were a fear mechanism to stop people from being close to each other. I may not agree with the tactic but it was effective.

Fauci stated early on that the masks were not effective. Why would he lie? He wasn't lying. He did lie later though.

---

I think it's more likely that masks were an attempt to move Rt from 1.6 to 1.3 knowing full well it wouldn't solve everything.

Vaccinated in March; Moderna.
Tested positive 8/2 (Binax home test). Sinus pressure, congestion, slight fever. Lost taste/smell for about 3 days.
2 of my 3 kids tested positive 5 days later. Minor symptoms. Slight congestion.

No PCR. Not interested in becoming a statistic. Only did the home test after Sen. Lindsay Graham said his felt like a sinus infection. Bingo. How many others like me are walking around spreading this thing? The vaccine did what it was supposed to do. I have other friends with relatives in the hospital. None are vaccinated. Just my personal case study.

Motracicletraficificker said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Isn't that the point of the vaccine, to lessen symptoms and make it where you don't have to go to the hospital?

95% of serious cases are unvaccinated. That's all that really matters.

---

Not true. The problem with this statement and the lack of transparency by the CDC/ Government is it always conveniently leaves out the third OBVIOUS scenario..:that is how many serious reinfected are previously recovered covid positives. All the CDC and news want cover is unvaccinated vs vaccinatedal ways omitting natural immunity for those whom have already recovered. How many people in that category are being reinfected and land in hospital beds? No one ever cares to provide that data.

---

I don't disagree with your assessment that those with natural immunity should be counted as well, and they are being ignored. But that has little to do with my point regarding the objective of the vaccine and the fact that 95% of those with serious cases are not vaccinated.

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.



.

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.

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.

---

No vaccine is 100 percent effective. This is a fundamental fact that I thought most people knew.

I get the flu vax every year knowing there is still a slight chance that I could come down with the flu. However, the vax will help lessen the severity of the symptoms and reduce likelihood of hospitalization.

Regarding the Covid vax, I do think the public health messaging could have been more clear about how it'll lessen the severity of symptoms if you get Covid and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization. But I don't think the government lied.

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.



.

---

My 80 year old parents didn't take the vaccine so that they wouldn't get as sick. They took it because they it would stop them from getting the virus. You may feel this is semantics, but it's not.

---

So keeping your high risk parents from getting seriously ill and possibly dying isn't a good thing? You think they would have chosen differently if they thought otherwise?

I don't understand this argument.

I'm not sure he understands the argument. His 80 yr old parents took the vaccine so they dont die.

Aston94 said:

---

Isn't that the point of the vaccine, to lessen symptoms and make it where you don't have to go to the hospital?

95% of serious cases are unvaccinated. That's all that really matters.

---

I thought the point of the vaccine was to prevent you from getting Covid and prevent the spread of Covid from those who are vaccinated. It has failed on both of those parts.

But it seems the narrative now is that it keeps you out of the hospital.

What happens when the next variant comes through, and it doesn't keep you out of the hospital? Not possible? Guess we'll see.

F16 poster ? It's like logic flies right out the other side

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.

---

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.

The original studies saw efficacy in the 95% range. This is a hazard ratio between placebo and vaccine, so by definition it includes breakthrough cases. Just means if you did a large group of people 50-50 placebo and vaccine, and from that group 100 got sick, 95 would be placebo and 5 would have been vaccinated.

But the vaccines were for the original type, and delta has a mutation on the spike. So the vaccines are less effective than they were against original type. How much less is up in the air, studies show 60-88% efficacy at preventing symptomatic illness vs delta, compared to 93-98% for the original.

Can't know how well it'll perform against unknown future variants.