341–350 of 717 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they don't prevent somebody catching and spreading the virus? No but they do reduce the chance you catch and spread the virus
I hear people say this, is there data from the CDC on this?
"In September, unvaccinated persons had 5.8X Risk of Testing Positive for COVID-19 and 14X Risk of Dying from COVID-19 compared to fully vaccinated people"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Remain obsessed" with transmission of a highly contagious virus that has shown significant ability to mutate at scale? That sure seems worth being obsessed about. When it mutates to spread past all current defenses then consistently kill because we failed to stop current spread it will indeed be "depressing".
There is absolutely no way to stop the spread forever. Just suggesting it is crazy. It is an option you have to forget about. Stalling the spread is useless as well - we have already had two major mutations in less than two years.
Well, there is, we just don't want to pay for it: vaccinating poor countries, where effectively the mutations are being created by high infection rates.
If I'm reading this correctly, this is "protection against severe disease" and has little to do with transmission. The National Airport Data from Israel seems to suggest "the absolute number of infected individuals in the Vaccinated (boosted) group is likely to be at least as high as in the Unvaccinated" [0] So it seems to me that as long as we all remain obsessed with case numbers and not actual hospitalizations and…
This is a good point. Hospitalization and death are really all that matter. People will be getting sick (to lesser degrees, likely, but it will still happen) from this for generations to come. What really matters is whether or not you are sick in bed at home and missing a few days of work vs sick in the hospital, occupying emergency health resources and facing potential death.
If there is an expert in immunology here I'd really like to ask a question: Aren't antibody titers just one measure of immunity? Since ~everyone with just two shots get them a while ago, and people receiving the boosters are receiving them now, wouldn't we expect must higher levels of neutralizing antibodies in boosted people? I know the number of antibodies fades over time, (whether from vaccine or infection) but th…
> Aren't antibody titers just one measure of immunity? Yes. But Omicron just came out 3 weeks ago. -------- We start with the quickest measures of immunity. As better data comes in, we change our opinion. The gold-standard is a large-scale, multi-month A/B test. There simply hasn't been enough time for that to be created. If these smaller tests prove adequate, we probably will skip the large-scale test... much like A…
This is exactly the problem with pandemic messaging. Too many claims based on garbage data that end up being wrong later. The result is a population that doesn't trust its government's guidance.
Vaccines were supposed to end the pandemic. Then it was they would keep you from getting sick. Then it was you'd still get sick, but you wouldn't spread it. Now it's you'll still get sick and you'll still spread it, but you won't die.
I have a few relatives in the medical field (all vaxxed and boosted) that have explained the booster shot is just more of the same stuff - they haven't had time to make a new recipe.. so isn't this just the same study all over again? i.e 2 shots had high protection in the beginning and waned over time. Can we expect the same from the booster shot?
https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/vaccine-development
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they don't prevent somebody catching and spreading the virus? No but they do reduce the chance you catch and spread the virus
What are you basing this on? UK data for instance shows the percentage of vaccinated covid cases is similar to the percentage of vaccinated people among the population, suggesting that vaccinated people are just as likely to catch it as the unvaccinated.
From ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
"Those who have received at least one dose of a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine continued to be less likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those not vaccinated; people who reported receiving three vaccinations (including booster vaccinations) were even less likely to test positive than those who had a second dose of Astra Zeneca or Pfizer more than 90 days ago in the fortnight ending 14 November 2021."
Is there a comprehensive white-paper anywhere with sample sizes and error bars? Otherwise this seems like an anecdote. "The sera were collected from subjects 3 weeks after receiving the second dose or one month after receiving the third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine" How do we know this study isn't just measuring the effect of that additional week? Also how many subjects was this sera pulled from? Are…
I have no idea why you believe a third dose is just marketing. It is plainly obvious that immunity decreases over time, as is the case for all vaccines against flus and similar. A booster is the normal way to handle it. If there were a way to avoid it, at least one of the many companies working on this would have created it. And one for the regular flu, too, while they are at it, which has not happened in decades.
Because I haven't heard of one.
Sure sounds fishy to me.
If I'm reading this correctly, this is "protection against severe disease" and has little to do with transmission. The National Airport Data from Israel seems to suggest "the absolute number of infected individuals in the Vaccinated (boosted) group is likely to be at least as high as in the Unvaccinated" [0] So it seems to me that as long as we all remain obsessed with case numbers and not actual hospitalizations and…
This doesn't end until nearly everyone is vaccinated, recovered, or dead. To paraphrase the German health minister.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They cost $20 every six months max.
What a meaningless way to phrase it. "Only $20"? Ha! How about this phrasing... Pfizer Expects $33.5 Billion In Vaccine Revenue In 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/aayushipratap/2021/07/28/pfizer... https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/02/business/pfizer-earnings/inde... The vaccine business alone was responsible for more than 60% of the company's sales, as vaccine revenue rose to $14.6 billion from only $1.7 billion a year…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Is there a comprehensive white-paper anywhere with sample sizes and error bars? Otherwise this seems like an anecdote. It's marketing. When the vaccine effectiveness is waning the solution seems to be more of it If it only took 2 days to create the vaccine, why do they not have an updated one? Is there another in development that targets more than just the spike protein? Why is the entire defense that vaccine?
> If it only took 2 days to create the vaccine, why do they not have an updated one? There's a deafening silence every time somebody asks this. From what I've been able to see, it's because regulatory bodies won't accept an update vaccine without 8 months of testing, and the manufacturers are doing the testing, but at those delays there isn't really any point. Why regulatory bodies won't accept updated vaccines is th…
Besides, I don't expect the anti-vax crowd to be very forgiving about mistakes or unforeseen consequences of an updated vaccine. I'm perfectly happy with the regulator having very strict controls for what gets approved for rapid rollout to the entire population.