SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance(biorxiv.org)
biorxiv.org
SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.454085v1
100 comments
I hope we get a variant that is extremely contagious but harmless so that is pushes current variants out of the way and this pandemic is over.
Interesting that they only studied vaccine-induced immunity. Not a single word about natural immunity.
[deleted]
Naturally-acquired cell-mediated immunity is probably broad (works against variants) and durable (lasts a long time): https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...
> Not a single word about natural immunity.
There’s major, major hesitance to giving natural immunity any credibility. The reason for that is an exercise left up to the reader.
There’s major, major hesitance to giving natural immunity any credibility. The reason for that is an exercise left up to the reader.
Because the virus is dangerous. If you have the choice of getting immunity though a vaccine or by catching the virus, you should pick the vaccine. The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place. Getting infected so that you can become immune makes no sense at all.
There's more than one type or way to describe immunity, as this discussion[1] by experts on the virus shows.
[1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we...
[1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we...
I don't see how this article bears on my comment. This article was written before the vaccines came out. We now know fairly well how the vaccines perform, and they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination.
You stated:
> The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place
That is a description of sterilising immunity, which none of the COVID-19 vaccines provide, they attempt to provide acquired immunity. You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true.
The efficacy of the vaccines is measured in several ways, basically on how well they prevent severity of symptoms, e.g. death, needing ICU, hospitalisation, mild symptoms, asymptomatic.
As to this:
> they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination.
that is not settled science, there is still much debate and research going on regarding this point with outcomes that support both "sides" (probably because different people have different immune responses, both could be true in different people), and you've overstated the case by a long way anyway.
> The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place
That is a description of sterilising immunity, which none of the COVID-19 vaccines provide, they attempt to provide acquired immunity. You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true.
The efficacy of the vaccines is measured in several ways, basically on how well they prevent severity of symptoms, e.g. death, needing ICU, hospitalisation, mild symptoms, asymptomatic.
As to this:
> they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination.
that is not settled science, there is still much debate and research going on regarding this point with outcomes that support both "sides" (probably because different people have different immune responses, both could be true in different people), and you've overstated the case by a long way anyway.
> That is a description of sterilising immunity
No, it's a description of both sterilising and non-sterilising immunity. Note that I wrote "infected/sick," not just "infected." The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both.
> that is not settled science
Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person? The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people. If you have a choice of how to acquire immunity, vaccination is always preferable to infection, because infection carries significant risks. If you haven't yet been infected, the science is absolutely settled that you should get vaccinated.
I really don't know what's happened to HN, and how anti-vaxxers became so vocal here.
No, it's a description of both sterilising and non-sterilising immunity. Note that I wrote "infected/sick," not just "infected." The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both.
> that is not settled science
Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person? The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people. If you have a choice of how to acquire immunity, vaccination is always preferable to infection, because infection carries significant risks. If you haven't yet been infected, the science is absolutely settled that you should get vaccinated.
I really don't know what's happened to HN, and how anti-vaxxers became so vocal here.
Firstly, I'm not an anti-vaxxer and I think you should apologise. You've gone overboard in every comment and now you've landed on personal attacks. If you can't make a persuasive and well-reasoned argument don't look at anyone but yourself.
> No, it's a description of both sterilising and non- sterilising immunity.
I know, that's why I wrote "You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true." The sterilising part isn't correct, the vaccines do not act to produce neutralising antibodies, they work to produce acquired immunity. That is why we have this[1] via the CDC:
> "High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus," Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC's director, said in a statement Friday.
and this[2] from Public Health England (PHE):
> The Technical Briefing also includes some initial findings which indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta but have already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people. This may have implications for people’s infectiousness, whether they have been vaccinated or not. However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case.
So your statement:
> The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both.
is factually wrong.
The vaccines *do not* provide sterilising immunity. Rates of transmission are not the same thing, sterilising immunity is a type of immune response[3], transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others, they are not synonyms, so stating "The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people" - which is to compare efficacy and severity with infectiousness is beside the point and only goes to show your lack of understanding or ability to hold a good faith argument.
> “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus … and we don’t have anything that will [completely] stop that transmission.”
Those are the words[4] of professor Andrew Pollard[5], an immunologist, and Chief Investigator on the University of Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx-1 n-CoV-19) trials.
Again:
> “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated”
That is not the case with sterilising immunity. Is he anti-vaxx? Do behave.
As to the second half of your comment:
> Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person?
If it's settled then why are experts saying things like this[6], from last week:
> “It appears that natural immunity is better against the Delta variant. When you get infected with COVID, your body’s immune system develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus,” Makary said. “Not just the slight protein that the vaccines gives you, but the entire surface. And so you get a more diverse antibody portfolio in your system.”
That is from, as the article points out, "Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine", but he has a Wikipedia page too[7] where you can check out his credentials, long list of awards, and try to find some kind of controversy section (or even start one).
He's quoting evidence from Israel's health ministry (via a news report[8], if you finally overcome your aversion to challenging information then you might find me the data from the ministry itself, I'd appreciate that):
> With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.
>By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.
and he's not anti-vaccine either:
> Makary has still encouraged those who are not vaccinated and not immune to get the vaccine.
and I remind you of the end of the quote above by PHE:
> However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case
When was it published? 6th of August, 2021.
And at the end of that Israeli news report:
> According to a report by Channel 13, the disparity has confounded – and divided – Health Ministry experts, with some saying the data proves the higher level of immunity provided by natural infection versus vaccination, while others remained unconvinced.
When was it published? July the 13th, 2021. That is not settled science.
On the other hand - and as I am so very anti-vaxx I don't know why I'd share this - this is from PHE's technical briefing[9]:
> - sera from vaccinees shows decreased ability to neutralize B.1.621 compared to first wave virus and Alpha, with a magnitude of change similar to Beta - sera from individuals who have been infected with Delta does not have strong neutralising activity against either Beta or B.1.621 - sera from individuals who have been vaccinated and have had subsequent recent Delta infection have a high level of neutralising activity against all variants tested (including beta and B.1.621)
So it looks like those who have been vaccinated and were subsequently infected (where were those neutralising antibodies?;) are then given some neutralising immunity.
As professor Makary stresses wherever he seems to be quoted, the different populations to be considered should be the immune and the not-immune, not the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Those without immunity who are at risk should get vaccinated - this is my view. Is that an anti-vaxx message? Again, behave.
Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmed-cases-of-covid-...
[3] https://www.accessscience.com/content/neutralizing-antibody/...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pollard_(biologist)
[6] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natu...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Makary
[8] https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762
[9] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> No, it's a description of both sterilising and non- sterilising immunity.
I know, that's why I wrote "You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true." The sterilising part isn't correct, the vaccines do not act to produce neutralising antibodies, they work to produce acquired immunity. That is why we have this[1] via the CDC:
> "High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus," Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC's director, said in a statement Friday.
and this[2] from Public Health England (PHE):
> The Technical Briefing also includes some initial findings which indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta but have already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people. This may have implications for people’s infectiousness, whether they have been vaccinated or not. However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case.
So your statement:
> The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both.
is factually wrong.
The vaccines *do not* provide sterilising immunity. Rates of transmission are not the same thing, sterilising immunity is a type of immune response[3], transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others, they are not synonyms, so stating "The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people" - which is to compare efficacy and severity with infectiousness is beside the point and only goes to show your lack of understanding or ability to hold a good faith argument.
> “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus … and we don’t have anything that will [completely] stop that transmission.”
Those are the words[4] of professor Andrew Pollard[5], an immunologist, and Chief Investigator on the University of Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx-1 n-CoV-19) trials.
Again:
> “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated”
That is not the case with sterilising immunity. Is he anti-vaxx? Do behave.
As to the second half of your comment:
> Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person?
If it's settled then why are experts saying things like this[6], from last week:
> “It appears that natural immunity is better against the Delta variant. When you get infected with COVID, your body’s immune system develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus,” Makary said. “Not just the slight protein that the vaccines gives you, but the entire surface. And so you get a more diverse antibody portfolio in your system.”
That is from, as the article points out, "Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine", but he has a Wikipedia page too[7] where you can check out his credentials, long list of awards, and try to find some kind of controversy section (or even start one).
He's quoting evidence from Israel's health ministry (via a news report[8], if you finally overcome your aversion to challenging information then you might find me the data from the ministry itself, I'd appreciate that):
> With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.
>By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.
and he's not anti-vaccine either:
> Makary has still encouraged those who are not vaccinated and not immune to get the vaccine.
and I remind you of the end of the quote above by PHE:
> However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case
When was it published? 6th of August, 2021.
And at the end of that Israeli news report:
> According to a report by Channel 13, the disparity has confounded – and divided – Health Ministry experts, with some saying the data proves the higher level of immunity provided by natural infection versus vaccination, while others remained unconvinced.
When was it published? July the 13th, 2021. That is not settled science.
On the other hand - and as I am so very anti-vaxx I don't know why I'd share this - this is from PHE's technical briefing[9]:
> - sera from vaccinees shows decreased ability to neutralize B.1.621 compared to first wave virus and Alpha, with a magnitude of change similar to Beta - sera from individuals who have been infected with Delta does not have strong neutralising activity against either Beta or B.1.621 - sera from individuals who have been vaccinated and have had subsequent recent Delta infection have a high level of neutralising activity against all variants tested (including beta and B.1.621)
So it looks like those who have been vaccinated and were subsequently infected (where were those neutralising antibodies?;) are then given some neutralising immunity.
As professor Makary stresses wherever he seems to be quoted, the different populations to be considered should be the immune and the not-immune, not the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Those without immunity who are at risk should get vaccinated - this is my view. Is that an anti-vaxx message? Again, behave.
Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmed-cases-of-covid-...
[3] https://www.accessscience.com/content/neutralizing-antibody/...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pollard_(biologist)
[6] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natu...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Makary
[8] https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762
[9] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies. For example, this is the title of a Nature paper from May: "BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans."[1]
You cite a bunch of people saying that vaccinated people can transmit the virus. They can, but they're far less likely to, as multiple studies have now shown. If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus,[2] and even partially vaccinated people are 40-50% less likely to transmit the virus.[3] There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time - see the recent study from Singapore: [4]).
This is on top of the fact that vaccinated people are far less likely to get infected (even with Delta) in the first place. Uninfected people don't transmit, of course. Overall, the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing transmission in a population is high. Recall that most vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity, but many still generate herd immunity, regardless.
You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination. This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination. If I can use a rather crude analogy, imagine the following argument: "People who jaywalk and get run over by cars are less likely to get run over a second time than people who use the crosswalk." The whole point of vaccination is to avoid the negative effects that come from getting infected without pre-existing immunity. Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense. The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response.
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03653-6
2. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...
3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
You cite a bunch of people saying that vaccinated people can transmit the virus. They can, but they're far less likely to, as multiple studies have now shown. If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus,[2] and even partially vaccinated people are 40-50% less likely to transmit the virus.[3] There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time - see the recent study from Singapore: [4]).
This is on top of the fact that vaccinated people are far less likely to get infected (even with Delta) in the first place. Uninfected people don't transmit, of course. Overall, the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing transmission in a population is high. Recall that most vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity, but many still generate herd immunity, regardless.
You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination. This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination. If I can use a rather crude analogy, imagine the following argument: "People who jaywalk and get run over by cars are less likely to get run over a second time than people who use the crosswalk." The whole point of vaccination is to avoid the negative effects that come from getting infected without pre-existing immunity. Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense. The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response.
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03653-6
2. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...
3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
> Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense.
Yes, and no one was arguing that.
> This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination.
Yes, and no one was arguing that.
> The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response.
That is neither the worst case nor the best case. It's also irrelevant because, again, no one was arguing about it.
I can see now why you think that HN has vocal anti-vaxxers, you think that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-vaxx. Protecting one's ego is a terrible trap and a fool's errand.
> The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies
Thanks for that Nature paper that I'd already read. The question is, are the presence of neutralising antibodies the same as sterilising immunity?
The answer is no. If you have a paper from Nature showing sterilising immunity, that would help you. Otherwise, my original statement holds true, you were incorrect.
> If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus
You missed the bit where the Dutch study in your second link mentions that "The Alpha variant… was the dominant variant in the area at that time." The CDC and PHE stuff I cited was regarding delta.
Not only that, the third study you linked to was led by someone at PHE… Do you even read these things? Perhaps you put as much effort into reading that as you do with all the "vocal anti-vaxxers" posts on HN.
And again, it's irrelevant, unless you're trying to disprove any "science is settled" claims you've made by showing disagreement within weeks by people at the same health agency. Great work there!
> There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case…
And here again you will show you didn't bother to read what I wrote:
> There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time
and this is mine, from the comment you replied to:
> transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others
Maybe you'll paraphrase me some more later.
I also wrote this:
> Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please.
I didn't think you'd try and prove it right in your very next response.
Finally, and bringing us round nicely to the start:
> You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination.
No, that's not my argument, that's someone else's. I'm pointing out that disagreement exists, something you with your black and white thinking are unable to process. Well done for completely missing the point repeatedly while showing yourself to be wrong repeatedly.
Unless you're going to apologise - which clearly you're not - then I won't be partaking in this conversation any further, you're wasting everyone's time, not just mine.
----
Edit, a typo. Would my interrogator have noticed anyway?
Yes, and no one was arguing that.
> This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination.
Yes, and no one was arguing that.
> The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response.
That is neither the worst case nor the best case. It's also irrelevant because, again, no one was arguing about it.
I can see now why you think that HN has vocal anti-vaxxers, you think that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-vaxx. Protecting one's ego is a terrible trap and a fool's errand.
> The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies
Thanks for that Nature paper that I'd already read. The question is, are the presence of neutralising antibodies the same as sterilising immunity?
The answer is no. If you have a paper from Nature showing sterilising immunity, that would help you. Otherwise, my original statement holds true, you were incorrect.
> If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus
You missed the bit where the Dutch study in your second link mentions that "The Alpha variant… was the dominant variant in the area at that time." The CDC and PHE stuff I cited was regarding delta.
Not only that, the third study you linked to was led by someone at PHE… Do you even read these things? Perhaps you put as much effort into reading that as you do with all the "vocal anti-vaxxers" posts on HN.
And again, it's irrelevant, unless you're trying to disprove any "science is settled" claims you've made by showing disagreement within weeks by people at the same health agency. Great work there!
> There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case…
And here again you will show you didn't bother to read what I wrote:
> There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time
and this is mine, from the comment you replied to:
> transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others
Maybe you'll paraphrase me some more later.
I also wrote this:
> Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please.
I didn't think you'd try and prove it right in your very next response.
Finally, and bringing us round nicely to the start:
> You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination.
No, that's not my argument, that's someone else's. I'm pointing out that disagreement exists, something you with your black and white thinking are unable to process. Well done for completely missing the point repeatedly while showing yourself to be wrong repeatedly.
Unless you're going to apologise - which clearly you're not - then I won't be partaking in this conversation any further, you're wasting everyone's time, not just mine.
----
Edit, a typo. Would my interrogator have noticed anyway?
A very large number of people got infected before they even had the opportunity to be vaccinated, so it's not just a simple choice of catching the virus or getting vaccinated.
A not as large but still significant number of people (including myself) also got vaccinated, then got infected anyway. It's certainly not a simple choice between the two, taking the vaccine reduces your risk, it does not eliminate it.
Note, I am NOT saying that the vaccine isn't worth getting, I am very glad I got vaccinated, the infection sucked as it was with my immune system primed to fight it off. I don't think I would want to experience the counterfactual where I had been infected without vaccination.
Note, I am NOT saying that the vaccine isn't worth getting, I am very glad I got vaccinated, the infection sucked as it was with my immune system primed to fight it off. I don't think I would want to experience the counterfactual where I had been infected without vaccination.
Some forms of immunity decrease your ability to transmit to others, which protects those at risk, so it's not just about self-preservation.
Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others. An unvaccinated person is far more likely to get the virus, and then if they get it, they are far more likely to transmit it.
Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. The worst case with vaccination is that you get a breakthrough infection. But that's far less risky than getting infected in the first place.
Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection. The worst case with vaccination is that you get a breakthrough infection. But that's far less risky than getting infected in the first place.
>Deciding not to get vaccinated massively increases your risk of transmitting the virus to others.
Can you source this claim? In the original Pfizer, Moderna, etc studies, they never tested for transmissibility, only reduction of COVID-like symptoms.
>Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection.
And I disagree. I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. I'm not at risk, so taking on additional poorly defined risk such as the vaccine makes little sense from a self-preservation standpoint. From what I've seen there's not enough data to support vaccines reducing spread, but I'd like to see what you may have. And then we have the issue of variants that go right around the vaccine.
Here's a relevant quote from Fauci: "Even though you’re vaccinated, because you could get infected, not know it, and be completely without symptoms because the vaccine is preventing you from getting symptoms, but you can have virus in your nasal pharynx and then inadvertently and innocently, pass it on to someone else who’s not vaccinated. That’s the problem we’re facing."
I don't know where we're at now, but early on when the vaccines were being first deployed, it was unsure if they'd reduce transmission, even between vaccinated populations. And you see Fauci here certainly implying that's the case.
Can you source this claim? In the original Pfizer, Moderna, etc studies, they never tested for transmissibility, only reduction of COVID-like symptoms.
>Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection.
And I disagree. I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. I'm not at risk, so taking on additional poorly defined risk such as the vaccine makes little sense from a self-preservation standpoint. From what I've seen there's not enough data to support vaccines reducing spread, but I'd like to see what you may have. And then we have the issue of variants that go right around the vaccine.
Here's a relevant quote from Fauci: "Even though you’re vaccinated, because you could get infected, not know it, and be completely without symptoms because the vaccine is preventing you from getting symptoms, but you can have virus in your nasal pharynx and then inadvertently and innocently, pass it on to someone else who’s not vaccinated. That’s the problem we’re facing."
I don't know where we're at now, but early on when the vaccines were being first deployed, it was unsure if they'd reduce transmission, even between vaccinated populations. And you see Fauci here certainly implying that's the case.
You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated, and people who aren't infected can't transmit the virus.
If you do get a breakthrough infection, the time window during which you're infectious is far shorter.[1]
There's more and more data now on how much vaccination lowers transmission. For example, a recent study found that vaccinated people who caught the virus are 40-50% less likely to pass it on to their family members than unvaccinated people are.[2]
> I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally.
This is insane.
1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
2. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
If you do get a breakthrough infection, the time window during which you're infectious is far shorter.[1]
There's more and more data now on how much vaccination lowers transmission. For example, a recent study found that vaccinated people who caught the virus are 40-50% less likely to pass it on to their family members than unvaccinated people are.[2]
> I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally.
This is insane.
1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
2. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
>You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated
This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however.
Here's another Fauci quote:
>There's more and more data
There's also data building to the contrary. Take a look at Israel's number of cases vs vaccination status, for example. We're not at a stage where data is conclusive either way, and in that case I'm fine with waiting things out.
For example, this is what you're study says:
>The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection
This is not about reducing SARS-COV-2 transmission, but symptomatic COVID. These mistakes lead to misinformation spreading.
Further, this is all your second study concludes:
This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however.
Here's another Fauci quote:
So far, the available Covid-19 vaccines have not been judged primarily on their ability to prevent transmission – though this is now being evaluated as a secondary endpoint for many of them. Instead, their efficacy was assessed by whether they could prevent symptoms from developing. “This means that we set our targets kind of pragmatically,” says Danny Altmann, professor of immunology at Imperial College London.
…
There isn’t yet any conclusive evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can prevent people from being infected with the coronavirus – and therefore halt its spread. But there are some early signs that it might.
>There's more and more data
There's also data building to the contrary. Take a look at Israel's number of cases vs vaccination status, for example. We're not at a stage where data is conclusive either way, and in that case I'm fine with waiting things out.
For example, this is what you're study says:
>The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection
This is not about reducing SARS-COV-2 transmission, but symptomatic COVID. These mistakes lead to misinformation spreading.
Further, this is all your second study concludes:
Among index patients, those who had been vaccinated were likely to be less severely symptomatic2 and might have been less infectious than those who were unvaccinated.
> This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however.
The most effective way to not transmit is to not get infected in the first place. The vaccines drastically reduce chance of infection.
> For example, this is what you're study says:
>> The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection
The very next sentence states,
> Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response.
This means that infections in vaccinated people are typically much shorter-lived than infections in unvaccinated people. The time during which you have high viral load is drastically reduced.
> it's possible that vaccinated individuals were simply practicing better viral hygiene
Reducing infections of family members by 40-50% is a massive effect, especially when you consider that the vast majority of people in this study had only even received their first dose. There's an obvious explanation that fits with everything else we know about vaccination (e.g., that vaccinated people who get infected are far less symptomatic and that the time during which they have high viral load is much shorter).
Most vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity. Nevertheless, many of them still produce herd immunity. Immunity is not an all-or-nothing thing. You're far less likely to get infected if you're vaccinated, and if you do get infected, you're far less likely to transmit the virus. Even if you don't care about dramatically reducing your own risk of getting seriously ill or dying, the vaccine significantly reduces your chance of ever transmitting the virus to others.
The most effective way to not transmit is to not get infected in the first place. The vaccines drastically reduce chance of infection.
> For example, this is what you're study says:
>> The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection
The very next sentence states,
> Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response.
This means that infections in vaccinated people are typically much shorter-lived than infections in unvaccinated people. The time during which you have high viral load is drastically reduced.
> it's possible that vaccinated individuals were simply practicing better viral hygiene
Reducing infections of family members by 40-50% is a massive effect, especially when you consider that the vast majority of people in this study had only even received their first dose. There's an obvious explanation that fits with everything else we know about vaccination (e.g., that vaccinated people who get infected are far less symptomatic and that the time during which they have high viral load is much shorter).
Most vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity. Nevertheless, many of them still produce herd immunity. Immunity is not an all-or-nothing thing. You're far less likely to get infected if you're vaccinated, and if you do get infected, you're far less likely to transmit the virus. Even if you don't care about dramatically reducing your own risk of getting seriously ill or dying, the vaccine significantly reduces your chance of ever transmitting the virus to others.
>Reducing infections of family members by 40-50% is a massive effect
The point is that you're attributing this to vaccine effectiveness, when it may have been viral hygiene. The authors of the study did not attribute this reduction to the vaccine directly as you are.
The point is that you're attributing this to vaccine effectiveness, when it may have been viral hygiene. The authors of the study did not attribute this reduction to the vaccine directly as you are.
Vaccination is the most likely explanation, and there's a very good biological reason to expect it to be the reason: viral load decreases much more rapidly in vaccinated people, meaning they're likely infectious for a much shorter time window.
There's more more and more research that strongly points to transmission by vaccinated people who get infected (which, remember, is much less likely) being substantially lower than transmission by unvaccinated people. This study [1] came out just last week, for example:
> Our study showed that the COVID-19 vaccines not only protect the vaccinee against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also offer protection against transmission to close contacts after completing the full schedule.
This study finds an even stronger reduction (70%) in transmission by fully vaccinated people. The first study that I posted primarily studied partially vaccinated people.
1. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...
There's more more and more research that strongly points to transmission by vaccinated people who get infected (which, remember, is much less likely) being substantially lower than transmission by unvaccinated people. This study [1] came out just last week, for example:
> Our study showed that the COVID-19 vaccines not only protect the vaccinee against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also offer protection against transmission to close contacts after completing the full schedule.
This study finds an even stronger reduction (70%) in transmission by fully vaccinated people. The first study that I posted primarily studied partially vaccinated people.
1. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...
The irony is that if it weren't for quacks and anti-vax idiots we would not have to exercise such hesitancy.
Sort of like how we could talk about genetics and IQ if it were not for racists. I could list a dozen more like this.
We now have to whisper about certain topics for fear of providing anything that can be quoted out of context and twisted by bad faith actors to promote destructive nonsense.
I personally think the best option might be to slather these topics with such thick academic and technical jargon that papers and messages about them contain nothing that can be quoted in a meme and shared on Facebook.
Sort of like how we could talk about genetics and IQ if it were not for racists. I could list a dozen more like this.
We now have to whisper about certain topics for fear of providing anything that can be quoted out of context and twisted by bad faith actors to promote destructive nonsense.
I personally think the best option might be to slather these topics with such thick academic and technical jargon that papers and messages about them contain nothing that can be quoted in a meme and shared on Facebook.
Immunity is complex. If it were simple, a single flu/cold would make you immune to all.
You're more than twice as likely to be reinfected if you have immunity through previous infection. Vaccine protection is significantly better.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines...
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines...
I seriously doubt this is correct.
Covid has 3 protein markers. After you get infected your antibodies will continue to recognise all three.
However the vaccines don't have all three, so the antibodies generated are not as all encompassing as they would be if you contracted Covid.
Therefore, if it doesn't kill you, having Covid puts you in a better position to fight off variants.
At least that's how I understand it from all the articles I read about the various vaccines, that said, IANAD, so don't take this post as medical advice.
Covid has 3 protein markers. After you get infected your antibodies will continue to recognise all three.
However the vaccines don't have all three, so the antibodies generated are not as all encompassing as they would be if you contracted Covid.
Therefore, if it doesn't kill you, having Covid puts you in a better position to fight off variants.
At least that's how I understand it from all the articles I read about the various vaccines, that said, IANAD, so don't take this post as medical advice.
You are correct. Both links that he posted are talking about reinfection. So prior infection + vaccine > infection (no vaccine) > vaccine only > no infection/no vaccine.
Speculation from a random stranger on the internet, or a study showing results? I'll take the study with the results.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
This study talks about reinfection for vaccinated patients and not about reinfection of unvaccinated patients. This does not seem to contradict the parent comment.
After this legitimation crisis, sorry, but articulate strangers are often the best way to "read the headlines upside down" - a necessary fact of life now.
You might want to look at the multiple peer reviewed studies I posted in a different reply, because you are spreading misinformation.
There is a big public health motivation (completely understandable) for why they don't talk much about natural immunity.
A lot of people, my lovable but dumb as a rock sister included, who had some symptoms after socializing with people who end up testing positive, who never got the test themselves. They just assume they were infected. We definitely don't want these people to skip the vaccines. But again, managing the behavior of morons is a separate activity from determining the actual truth of the matter.
There is a big public health motivation (completely understandable) for why they don't talk much about natural immunity.
A lot of people, my lovable but dumb as a rock sister included, who had some symptoms after socializing with people who end up testing positive, who never got the test themselves. They just assume they were infected. We definitely don't want these people to skip the vaccines. But again, managing the behavior of morons is a separate activity from determining the actual truth of the matter.
among people who were previously infected
This says that a combination of having been infected and vaccinated is better than just having been infected.
This says that a combination of having been infected and vaccinated is better than just having been infected.
Who is the one linking sketchy sources and implying people do their own research, now?
There are multiple longitudinal studies with large cohorts whose conclusions completely disagree.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241
The meta-conclusion is that natural immunity is at least as effective as the Pfizer/Moderna, and more protective than the J&J vaccine.
There isn't a collection of billion dollar multi-national pharma companies pushing studies on natural immunity, nor are public health experts talking about it, creating a false impression in the mind of the public.
Trust me, I got the "redneck vaccine" in February, before I was eligible for the real vaccines. I still haven't recovered all of my sense of smell, and don't recommend it. That being said, I am also at increased risk of complications from the vaccine due to having a sky-high level of antibodies in my blood according to my doctor. I visit him monthly, and at his recommendation I will be getting the shot as soon as the antibodies wane.
Edit: Here is clinical evidence of worse side effects for previously infected individuals getting vaccinated
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Really obnoxious that my comment is getting downvoted with no rebuttals.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241
The meta-conclusion is that natural immunity is at least as effective as the Pfizer/Moderna, and more protective than the J&J vaccine.
There isn't a collection of billion dollar multi-national pharma companies pushing studies on natural immunity, nor are public health experts talking about it, creating a false impression in the mind of the public.
Trust me, I got the "redneck vaccine" in February, before I was eligible for the real vaccines. I still haven't recovered all of my sense of smell, and don't recommend it. That being said, I am also at increased risk of complications from the vaccine due to having a sky-high level of antibodies in my blood according to my doctor. I visit him monthly, and at his recommendation I will be getting the shot as soon as the antibodies wane.
Edit: Here is clinical evidence of worse side effects for previously infected individuals getting vaccinated
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Really obnoxious that my comment is getting downvoted with no rebuttals.
[deleted]
This won't be "over" until we go through the entire Greek alphabet?
Oh, you are set for a big surprise mate [1] :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals
It won't be over until we stop caring, accept the risk, and move on with our statistically slightly shorter lives.
Yup. This thing really destroyed peoples ability to assess risk. I make no embellishments when I say a good swath of people got some screws knocked loose in their head because of this stuff. Some of the smartest most level headed people went right off the deep end and will never be the same again.
There is a shadow pandemic of untreated, unacknowledged mental illness caused by the non stop fearmongering.
There is a shadow pandemic of untreated, unacknowledged mental illness caused by the non stop fearmongering.
"Supported by Chan-Zuckerberg initiative"
this will be great for conspiracy theorists
this will be great for conspiracy theorists
um i'm pretty sure that's true for all biorxiv papers
We’ve got one vaccine that’s been blacklisted due to high prevalence of blood clots.
We’ve got another made by a company that’s been embroiled in a 4-decade long controversy over asbestos in baby talcum powder that only recently issued a recall, denying it all the way and claiming it’s safe.
I assure you, Zuck isn’t needed for any negativity here. These companies are awful and they’re not to be trusted. Period.
We’ve got another made by a company that’s been embroiled in a 4-decade long controversy over asbestos in baby talcum powder that only recently issued a recall, denying it all the way and claiming it’s safe.
I assure you, Zuck isn’t needed for any negativity here. These companies are awful and they’re not to be trusted. Period.
> We’ve got one vaccine that’s been blacklisted due to high prevalence of blood clots.
The risk of getting a blood clot from the J&J vaccine is 400,000:1. This is less likely than dying of COVID in any age category. 0.00025%.
The risk of dying in a car accident in America is 0.01% every year. So you're 40X more likely to die in a car accident this year alone than get a serious blood clot from the J&J vaccine.
The risk of being injured in a car accident in America is 1.15% every year. So you're 6000X more likely to be injured in a car accident this year than get a serious blood clot from the J&J vaccine.
Nothing in life is risk-free. This is pretty close though.
The risk of getting a blood clot from the J&J vaccine is 400,000:1. This is less likely than dying of COVID in any age category. 0.00025%.
The risk of dying in a car accident in America is 0.01% every year. So you're 40X more likely to die in a car accident this year alone than get a serious blood clot from the J&J vaccine.
The risk of being injured in a car accident in America is 1.15% every year. So you're 6000X more likely to be injured in a car accident this year than get a serious blood clot from the J&J vaccine.
Nothing in life is risk-free. This is pretty close though.
> This is less likely than dying of COVID in any age category. 0.00025%.
Is this not apples and oranges? The odds of a Covid patient dying from Covid is higher, is it not, than the odds of a person dying from Covid?
That is, one must take into account the chances of catching Covid in the first place.
If there is a nasty disease with 10% mortality, and a vaccine with only a 0.001% chance of mortality, there would not be sufficient information to decide whether to take the vaccine... instead, you would also need to know your chances of catching the nasty disease in the first place over some period of time.
Is this not apples and oranges? The odds of a Covid patient dying from Covid is higher, is it not, than the odds of a person dying from Covid?
That is, one must take into account the chances of catching Covid in the first place.
If there is a nasty disease with 10% mortality, and a vaccine with only a 0.001% chance of mortality, there would not be sufficient information to decide whether to take the vaccine... instead, you would also need to know your chances of catching the nasty disease in the first place over some period of time.
Speaking strictly about mRNA vaccines, the risk is not yet well-defined, since it's a new tech, so doing a quantitative comparison at this point doesn't seem right. Additionally, the methods of data collection between vaccine and COVID risk haven't followed the same standards, making an apples to apples quantitative comparison difficult.
The risk of the vaccine is an open question that's being answered over time (consider things like ADE that caused mRNA vaccines to be put on hold prior to the pandemic). On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses. We also have to consider vaccine effectiveness; is it robust to variants? over what timeline is it effective? does it reduce transmission? etc. If it is less effective in any of these categories, the risk:reward grows larger, and not taking it begins to make more and more sense.
Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any.
The risk of the vaccine is an open question that's being answered over time (consider things like ADE that caused mRNA vaccines to be put on hold prior to the pandemic). On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses. We also have to consider vaccine effectiveness; is it robust to variants? over what timeline is it effective? does it reduce transmission? etc. If it is less effective in any of these categories, the risk:reward grows larger, and not taking it begins to make more and more sense.
Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any.
> ... Speaking strictly about mRNA vaccines, the risk is not yet well-defined.
> ... On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses.
So, to be clear, you're saying that 2 years of observational data on COVID is conclusive because COVID is very similar to other viruses (SARS, MERS) which we have on decades of observational data on.
And yet you're saying that almost a year of observational data on COVID vaccines, over 3 billion doses delivered, is inconclusive even though it's also based on decades of study of similar vaccines. Vaccines developed using the same platform - both mRNA and viral vector vaccines are decades old. And in some cases, the studied vaccines were developed for SARS - the same virus you credit towards understanding of COVID. Should credit not also go towards understanding of the vaccines?
Is this not inconsistent?
At this point the COVID vaccine has been studied, trialed and monitored more than probably anything else you've ever interacted with in your daily life. Most vaccine trials are run with one thousand people, not three billion.
> Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any.
There's a very high chance you will catch it unless you mask and vax. Even then there's a pretty high chance.
You have no reason to believe you have natural immunity - you almost certainly do not. This is at best wishful thinking.
You're exposing yourself to more risk through inaction. But worse, you're putting your friends and family who cannot get the vaccine for actual reasons instead of gut feeling at risk.
> ... On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses.
So, to be clear, you're saying that 2 years of observational data on COVID is conclusive because COVID is very similar to other viruses (SARS, MERS) which we have on decades of observational data on.
And yet you're saying that almost a year of observational data on COVID vaccines, over 3 billion doses delivered, is inconclusive even though it's also based on decades of study of similar vaccines. Vaccines developed using the same platform - both mRNA and viral vector vaccines are decades old. And in some cases, the studied vaccines were developed for SARS - the same virus you credit towards understanding of COVID. Should credit not also go towards understanding of the vaccines?
Is this not inconsistent?
At this point the COVID vaccine has been studied, trialed and monitored more than probably anything else you've ever interacted with in your daily life. Most vaccine trials are run with one thousand people, not three billion.
> Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any.
There's a very high chance you will catch it unless you mask and vax. Even then there's a pretty high chance.
You have no reason to believe you have natural immunity - you almost certainly do not. This is at best wishful thinking.
You're exposing yourself to more risk through inaction. But worse, you're putting your friends and family who cannot get the vaccine for actual reasons instead of gut feeling at risk.
I understand where you're coming from in pointing out what seems to be inconsistencies. But we've been dealing with coronaviruses since the beginning, while mRNA vaccines were only deployed en masse in 2019/2020 (right?). I don't think this is so inconsistent, and I addressed this in my post. Such limited data is never ideal in making these kind of decisions, but I'd wager we know much more about COVID's risk than mRNA. As I understand it, the technology for mRNA is a few decades old, but this is the first time it's hit the market, is it not? If so, the risk is still in the process of being discovered.
Generally vaccines have a much longer trial and study period, this has been rushed due to emergency circumstances.
>But worse, you're putting your friends and family who cannot get the vaccine for actual reasons instead of gut feeling at risk.
How so? It's currently up in the air whether or not the vaccines reduce transmission.
I still disagree that I'm exposing myself to more risk by inaction. My risk is already nearly 0, so I don't really care to minimize it further anyway, but by vaccinating I'm taking on a lot of uncertainty (in personal risk, effectiveness of the vaccine over time, transmission reduction, etc), so it's impossible to assess properly with these unknowns. I would much rather just get COVID. You don't see an issue with that, right?
Generally vaccines have a much longer trial and study period, this has been rushed due to emergency circumstances.
>But worse, you're putting your friends and family who cannot get the vaccine for actual reasons instead of gut feeling at risk.
How so? It's currently up in the air whether or not the vaccines reduce transmission.
I still disagree that I'm exposing myself to more risk by inaction. My risk is already nearly 0, so I don't really care to minimize it further anyway, but by vaccinating I'm taking on a lot of uncertainty (in personal risk, effectiveness of the vaccine over time, transmission reduction, etc), so it's impossible to assess properly with these unknowns. I would much rather just get COVID. You don't see an issue with that, right?
> I understand where you're coming from in pointing out what seems to be inconsistencies. But we've been dealing with coronaviruses since the beginning, while mRNA vaccines were only deployed en masse in 2019/2020 (right?). I don't think this is so inconsistent, and I addressed this in my post. Such limited data is never ideal in making these kind of decisions, but I'd wager we know much more about COVID's risk than mRNA. As I understand it, the technology for mRNA is a few decades old, but this is the first time it's hit the market, is it not? If so, the risk is still in the process of being discovered.
mRNA vaccines were first published in 1989, so 32 years ago.
At this point we've vaccinated more people against COVID with mRNA vaccines than the number of people globally infected with COVID proper. At this point we know more about the risk profile of mRNA vaccines than COVID.
> Generally vaccines have a much longer trial and study period, this has been rushed due to emergency circumstances.
Yes, generally vaccines have a much longer trial period - with a tiny fraction of the participants.
The average vaccine phase II trial has 2,854 participants, and 29,844 in phase III [1]. So far, 4.62 billion doses of the COVID vaccine have been delivered. Since most are two-shot, we can generously round that down to 2,310,000,000 people in this 'trial.'
'Rushed' is the wrong way of looking at it. It went faster, yes, but there's a reason. Since you can't knowingly infect people with ebola to test the efficacy of an ebola vaccine, you get a few thousand people, immunize them and then you wait. And wait. And wait. During the massive outbreak in 2014-2016, only 28,000 people in the world caught it.
On the other hand, by mid-2021 17% of America had caught COVID.
Proving it worked was a much faster exercise.
That it went faster doesn't mean it's less safe, and it certainly doesn't mean isn't effective. It only went fast because it was possible to prove its efficacy so quickly.
The data is clear: hospitalization rates are 15-200X higher in the unvaccinated and death rates are 8-87X higher. Even with Delta. [2]
Why do you think getting it to market faster means its less safe?
> I still disagree that I'm exposing myself to more risk by inaction. My risk is already nearly 0, so I don't really care to minimize it further anyway, but by vaccinating I'm taking on a lot of uncertainty (in personal risk, effectiveness of the vaccine over time, transmission reduction, etc), so it's impossible to assess properly with these unknowns. I would much rather just get COVID. You don't see an issue with that, right?
Your risk of a negative outcome from a vaccine is lower than your risk from infection, and they're both very low. The negative outcome from a vaccine is very low for everyone, while the risk of a negative outcome from COVID is low for you.
> I would much rather just get COVID. You don't see an issue with that, right?
Of course I see an issue with it. The vaccine causes your body to produce a subset of proteins from the COVID genome. A controlled, inert subset. You would rather your body produce whole live viruses that mutate, evolve and want to kill you. That makes no sense.
I agree vaccines aren't a panacea for transmission, but I know they're less risky than whole live viruses shooting out of you lol.
I'd argue that's dark ages thinking but even they were pro-vaccine because they were anti getting sick. Shouldn't really be controversial in this the year of our lord 2021.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551877/
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/10/us/covid-brea...
mRNA vaccines were first published in 1989, so 32 years ago.
At this point we've vaccinated more people against COVID with mRNA vaccines than the number of people globally infected with COVID proper. At this point we know more about the risk profile of mRNA vaccines than COVID.
> Generally vaccines have a much longer trial and study period, this has been rushed due to emergency circumstances.
Yes, generally vaccines have a much longer trial period - with a tiny fraction of the participants.
The average vaccine phase II trial has 2,854 participants, and 29,844 in phase III [1]. So far, 4.62 billion doses of the COVID vaccine have been delivered. Since most are two-shot, we can generously round that down to 2,310,000,000 people in this 'trial.'
'Rushed' is the wrong way of looking at it. It went faster, yes, but there's a reason. Since you can't knowingly infect people with ebola to test the efficacy of an ebola vaccine, you get a few thousand people, immunize them and then you wait. And wait. And wait. During the massive outbreak in 2014-2016, only 28,000 people in the world caught it.
On the other hand, by mid-2021 17% of America had caught COVID.
Proving it worked was a much faster exercise.
That it went faster doesn't mean it's less safe, and it certainly doesn't mean isn't effective. It only went fast because it was possible to prove its efficacy so quickly.
The data is clear: hospitalization rates are 15-200X higher in the unvaccinated and death rates are 8-87X higher. Even with Delta. [2]
Why do you think getting it to market faster means its less safe?
> I still disagree that I'm exposing myself to more risk by inaction. My risk is already nearly 0, so I don't really care to minimize it further anyway, but by vaccinating I'm taking on a lot of uncertainty (in personal risk, effectiveness of the vaccine over time, transmission reduction, etc), so it's impossible to assess properly with these unknowns. I would much rather just get COVID. You don't see an issue with that, right?
Your risk of a negative outcome from a vaccine is lower than your risk from infection, and they're both very low. The negative outcome from a vaccine is very low for everyone, while the risk of a negative outcome from COVID is low for you.
> I would much rather just get COVID. You don't see an issue with that, right?
Of course I see an issue with it. The vaccine causes your body to produce a subset of proteins from the COVID genome. A controlled, inert subset. You would rather your body produce whole live viruses that mutate, evolve and want to kill you. That makes no sense.
I agree vaccines aren't a panacea for transmission, but I know they're less risky than whole live viruses shooting out of you lol.
I'd argue that's dark ages thinking but even they were pro-vaccine because they were anti getting sick. Shouldn't really be controversial in this the year of our lord 2021.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551877/
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/10/us/covid-brea...
>That it went faster doesn't mean it's less safe
No, but it does the mean the long term risk are not defined as well. What if, for example, this causes reproductive harm, or some harm to the offspring? I personally believe this is very unlikely, but it's too early to know at the moment. Or, what if the ADE risk is real, and vaccinated individuals aren't able to combat variants as effectively, perhaps even reacting worse to reinfection? It's simply too early to evaluate so many risk here. On the other hand, I can be pretty sure COVID won't cause birth defects, given that no coronaviruses do.
>hospitalization rates are 15-200X higher in the unvaccinated and death rates are 8-87X higher
Well, of course - there's a lot more unvaccinated people and cases, what else would you expect? And I'm not at risk of being hospitalized anyway, so I still see no reason to try and mitigate that risk. My time would be better spent ensuring my car is operating safely, or a million other things that could decrease my chance of harm more substantially.
Regardless, taking the vaccine is pointless beyond self-preservation if it doesn't reduce spread, and at the moment that's unknown, and complicated by the fact that some 'variants' seem to side-step the vaccine. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for more data seems reasonable to me.
No, but it does the mean the long term risk are not defined as well. What if, for example, this causes reproductive harm, or some harm to the offspring? I personally believe this is very unlikely, but it's too early to know at the moment. Or, what if the ADE risk is real, and vaccinated individuals aren't able to combat variants as effectively, perhaps even reacting worse to reinfection? It's simply too early to evaluate so many risk here. On the other hand, I can be pretty sure COVID won't cause birth defects, given that no coronaviruses do.
>hospitalization rates are 15-200X higher in the unvaccinated and death rates are 8-87X higher
Well, of course - there's a lot more unvaccinated people and cases, what else would you expect? And I'm not at risk of being hospitalized anyway, so I still see no reason to try and mitigate that risk. My time would be better spent ensuring my car is operating safely, or a million other things that could decrease my chance of harm more substantially.
Regardless, taking the vaccine is pointless beyond self-preservation if it doesn't reduce spread, and at the moment that's unknown, and complicated by the fact that some 'variants' seem to side-step the vaccine. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for more data seems reasonable to me.
> No, but it does the mean the long term risk are not defined as well.
That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines are almost 50 years of study on viral vector vaccines.
> What if, for example, this causes reproductive harm, or some harm to the offspring?
You have no basis for that. What if it causes some people to grow a third arm? A fourth testicle? Again, we've studied the vaccine and know that it does not affect the germ line.
> Or, what if the ADE risk is real, and vaccinated individuals aren't able to combat variants as effectively, perhaps even reacting worse to reinfection?
The data that I linked you shows otherwise?
> It's simply too early to evaluate so many risk here. On the other hand, I can be pretty sure COVID won't cause birth defects, given that no coronaviruses do.
No mRNA vaccine has caused that either lol, nor has any viral vector vaccine. So why would it start now? It's as likely to do that as it is to grow in a bonus nut. [1] Note that the CDC does not specifically cover my bonus nut theory, so who knows? I'll keep an eye out for it tho.
"There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems in women or men." [1]
I mean why would they? A viral vector vaccine is a virus, just like COVID (well, more specifically, an adenovirus) which doesn't infect germ cells.
> Well, of course - there's a lot more unvaccinated people and cases, what else would you expect?
That's up to 200X higher per capita in the un-vaccinated population vs the vaccinated population.
> And I'm not at risk of being hospitalized anyway, so I still see no reason to try and mitigate that risk.
Everyone is, at different rates, and your rate is strictly higher than after vaccination.
> Regardless, taking the vaccine is pointless beyond self-preservation if it doesn't reduce spread, and at the moment that's unknown, and complicated by the fact that some 'variants' seem to side-step the vaccine. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for more data seems reasonable to me.
The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend...
That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines are almost 50 years of study on viral vector vaccines.
> What if, for example, this causes reproductive harm, or some harm to the offspring?
You have no basis for that. What if it causes some people to grow a third arm? A fourth testicle? Again, we've studied the vaccine and know that it does not affect the germ line.
> Or, what if the ADE risk is real, and vaccinated individuals aren't able to combat variants as effectively, perhaps even reacting worse to reinfection?
The data that I linked you shows otherwise?
> It's simply too early to evaluate so many risk here. On the other hand, I can be pretty sure COVID won't cause birth defects, given that no coronaviruses do.
No mRNA vaccine has caused that either lol, nor has any viral vector vaccine. So why would it start now? It's as likely to do that as it is to grow in a bonus nut. [1] Note that the CDC does not specifically cover my bonus nut theory, so who knows? I'll keep an eye out for it tho.
"There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems in women or men." [1]
I mean why would they? A viral vector vaccine is a virus, just like COVID (well, more specifically, an adenovirus) which doesn't infect germ cells.
> Well, of course - there's a lot more unvaccinated people and cases, what else would you expect?
That's up to 200X higher per capita in the un-vaccinated population vs the vaccinated population.
> And I'm not at risk of being hospitalized anyway, so I still see no reason to try and mitigate that risk.
Everyone is, at different rates, and your rate is strictly higher than after vaccination.
> Regardless, taking the vaccine is pointless beyond self-preservation if it doesn't reduce spread, and at the moment that's unknown, and complicated by the fact that some 'variants' seem to side-step the vaccine. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for more data seems reasonable to me.
The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend...
>That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines
Yes, in which they were largely viewed as non-viable and a shelfed idea at least in part due to issues like ADE. The research here was not extremely active, nor was it done on humans to the extent it is now.
>You have no basis for that.
Correct, but I have no basis to believe that some unseen risk is not present too. Given that I'm not personally at risk for COVID, I think there's wisdom in waiting a couple years (at least) to see how it unfolds. And there is a basis for ADE fears, which you ignored in favor of joking about growing a spontaneous third testicle.
>do you not think anyone has had a child since they were vaccinated?
One child would not imply it's impossible for _some_ child to have a defect.
>The data that I linked you shows otherwise?
Can you point me to where this was? The 'data' is still very immature regardless. I'm sure I could source data that comes to the opposite conclusion. It's important to view these things in aggregate, not lean on the studies you agree with. Right now, I'm finding studies that disagree often, so I think waiting for the data to mature a bit is reasonable assuming I'm not harming anyone by doing so.
>The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated
You missed my point here - the point is that they can still get infected, not that they aren't expressing symptoms as severely.
...
Birth defects were just an example, like I said I view it as unlikely. The point is that there's a potential for unseen risk here. You've devolved into being a bit rude now, and I found your lack of skepticism tiring anyway. The data is all over the map currently, yet you seem rigid in your position - that's bad practice. You keep making arguments about the vaccines being effective at symptom reduction, but that's never been the point I'm trying to engage, since I agree with that and there is pretty conclusive data there. I will say that you can find data to the contrary (see Israel's recent stats), but mostly I'm saying that a) as someone who's already _not_at_risk_, there's arguably no net benefit to society in me taking the vaccine, so long as transmission rate reduction is largely an unknown (and even in that case, I'd prefer natural immunity) and b) there's a possibility of unforeseen and unwanted side effects / repercussions due to the vaccine - this is true despite you belittling this idea.
I'm not at risk, so I don't care about minimizing it or how effective it is. There is a possibility I may be a host to transmit COVID to people at risk though, so I care about that. As of now, natural immunity looks much more enticing than vaccination for someone like me. Why are you so opposed to this? I won't be hospitalized, so you don't have to worry about me, and I presumably will spread it similarly to how vaccinated individuals will.
Yes, in which they were largely viewed as non-viable and a shelfed idea at least in part due to issues like ADE. The research here was not extremely active, nor was it done on humans to the extent it is now.
>You have no basis for that.
Correct, but I have no basis to believe that some unseen risk is not present too. Given that I'm not personally at risk for COVID, I think there's wisdom in waiting a couple years (at least) to see how it unfolds. And there is a basis for ADE fears, which you ignored in favor of joking about growing a spontaneous third testicle.
>do you not think anyone has had a child since they were vaccinated?
One child would not imply it's impossible for _some_ child to have a defect.
>The data that I linked you shows otherwise?
Can you point me to where this was? The 'data' is still very immature regardless. I'm sure I could source data that comes to the opposite conclusion. It's important to view these things in aggregate, not lean on the studies you agree with. Right now, I'm finding studies that disagree often, so I think waiting for the data to mature a bit is reasonable assuming I'm not harming anyone by doing so.
>The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated
You missed my point here - the point is that they can still get infected, not that they aren't expressing symptoms as severely.
...
Birth defects were just an example, like I said I view it as unlikely. The point is that there's a potential for unseen risk here. You've devolved into being a bit rude now, and I found your lack of skepticism tiring anyway. The data is all over the map currently, yet you seem rigid in your position - that's bad practice. You keep making arguments about the vaccines being effective at symptom reduction, but that's never been the point I'm trying to engage, since I agree with that and there is pretty conclusive data there. I will say that you can find data to the contrary (see Israel's recent stats), but mostly I'm saying that a) as someone who's already _not_at_risk_, there's arguably no net benefit to society in me taking the vaccine, so long as transmission rate reduction is largely an unknown (and even in that case, I'd prefer natural immunity) and b) there's a possibility of unforeseen and unwanted side effects / repercussions due to the vaccine - this is true despite you belittling this idea.
I'm not at risk, so I don't care about minimizing it or how effective it is. There is a possibility I may be a host to transmit COVID to people at risk though, so I care about that. As of now, natural immunity looks much more enticing than vaccination for someone like me. Why are you so opposed to this? I won't be hospitalized, so you don't have to worry about me, and I presumably will spread it similarly to how vaccinated individuals will.
Apologies if you found the comments rude, I was just joking around :) tone doesn't always carry well. I do appreciate your thoughts, and thank you for a vigorous debate!
touche, and apologies for being impatient.
> https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-21.asp
This is based on voluntary reporting, which is known to have under reporting where even 10% events are not reported.
Even then the risk is a serious AEFI is 1 in 5095.
This is based on voluntary reporting, which is known to have under reporting where even 10% events are not reported.
Even then the risk is a serious AEFI is 1 in 5095.
VAERS reports are also correlative not causative, if you dig in, you can actually whittle down the reports pretty significantly.
I was referring specifically to the incidence of blood clots, not necessarily any AEFI.
I don't know enough about the NZ governments methodology to comment on your source.
I was referring specifically to the incidence of blood clots, not necessarily any AEFI.
I don't know enough about the NZ governments methodology to comment on your source.
>I was referring specifically to the incidence of blood clots, not necessarily any AEFI.
Most people are concerned about having any sort of serious AEFI, and not just blood-clots.
So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion.
Most people are concerned about having any sort of serious AEFI, and not just blood-clots.
So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion.
> So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion.
Hm, I was addressing the parent's specific point about blood clots rather than safety in general. I agree with you broadly, however. Worth calling out my wording. Thanks!
Hm, I was addressing the parent's specific point about blood clots rather than safety in general. I agree with you broadly, however. Worth calling out my wording. Thanks!
Yeah you’re putting your faith in a company whose talcum powder has been causing cancer for decades and saying “it doesn’t kill you it’s not that bad”
It’s an experimental vaccine that hasn’t even been out for a year mate. Use some better judgement.
“Oh but it prevents covid” - yeah and that powder helped with the rash too I’m sure.
It’s an experimental vaccine that hasn’t even been out for a year mate. Use some better judgement.
“Oh but it prevents covid” - yeah and that powder helped with the rash too I’m sure.
> Yeah you’re putting your faith in a company whose talcum powder has been causing cancer for decades and saying “it doesn’t kill you it’s not that bad”
No, I'm putting my faith in the CDC and VAERS, and an incredibly twitchy public willing to report absolutely anything and everything, in no small part because folks like you freak them out.
> It’s an experimental vaccine that hasn’t even been out for a year mate. Use some better judgement.
Yeah, it's been administered billions of times. Most "experimental" vaccines are given to around 1000 people total. This is like aspartame now - one of the most studied vaccines on earth.
> “Oh but it prevents covid” - yeah and that powder helped with the rash too I’m sure.
This could not be less relevant.
Just wait until you learn what Bayer did during WWII as part of IG Farben. I'm pretty sure they had a Nuremberg trial about it. And yet we still take Aspirin. I suggest you stick to one thing at a time.
No, I'm putting my faith in the CDC and VAERS, and an incredibly twitchy public willing to report absolutely anything and everything, in no small part because folks like you freak them out.
> It’s an experimental vaccine that hasn’t even been out for a year mate. Use some better judgement.
Yeah, it's been administered billions of times. Most "experimental" vaccines are given to around 1000 people total. This is like aspartame now - one of the most studied vaccines on earth.
> “Oh but it prevents covid” - yeah and that powder helped with the rash too I’m sure.
This could not be less relevant.
Just wait until you learn what Bayer did during WWII as part of IG Farben. I'm pretty sure they had a Nuremberg trial about it. And yet we still take Aspirin. I suggest you stick to one thing at a time.
>No, I'm putting my faith in the CDC and VAERS
About VAERS this might be interesting...
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccin...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9Pd...
About VAERS this might be interesting...
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccin...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9Pd...
CDC is a political vehicle. It’s a tragedy what’s happened over the last year as they flip flop.
VAERS and it’s predecessors did not track this kind of thing even though they were explicitly made with the intention to. Their own workforce was puzzled as to why they weren’t deployed early on to track vaccine side effects.
Look, stick to the basics. If you’re going to appeal to authority find one with some backbone and preferably one with less profit motive.
CDC didn’t make the vaccine. J&J did. Neither knows what it will do over the next N years, and even if they did you’d be the last to know. You’ve got all the evidence you need in how J&J handled the powder case.
So no, I’m not taking the vaccine or the aspirin.
Everyone should question the competency and “trust us we know” attitudes of these companies. They’re the kind of people you only want to deal with when you absolutely have no choice.
VAERS and it’s predecessors did not track this kind of thing even though they were explicitly made with the intention to. Their own workforce was puzzled as to why they weren’t deployed early on to track vaccine side effects.
Look, stick to the basics. If you’re going to appeal to authority find one with some backbone and preferably one with less profit motive.
CDC didn’t make the vaccine. J&J did. Neither knows what it will do over the next N years, and even if they did you’d be the last to know. You’ve got all the evidence you need in how J&J handled the powder case.
So no, I’m not taking the vaccine or the aspirin.
Everyone should question the competency and “trust us we know” attitudes of these companies. They’re the kind of people you only want to deal with when you absolutely have no choice.
> CDC is a political vehicle. It’s a tragedy what’s happened over the last year as they flip flop.
The CDC is an apolitical vehicle broadly speaking. It's not perfect, and it has become more politicized over time, sure. It's a sign of their doing their job to adjust their position in the face of a rapidly changing landscape. It's also their job to be pretty conservative.
> VAERS and it’s predecessors did not track this kind of thing even though they were explicitly made with the intention to. Their own workforce was puzzled as to why they weren’t deployed early on to track vaccine side effects.
VAERS has always been there to track Reports of Vaccine Adverse Events. It's by the way an HHS system, not CDC. Do you have any articles to back your assertions? I'm of course open to reading them.
> CDC didn’t make the vaccine. J&J did.
As is tradition.
> Neither knows what it will do over the next N years, and even if they did you’d be the last to know.
The vaccine platforms are decades old and well studied, we know broadly what they do, so we can project their effects.
> You’ve got all the evidence you need in how J&J handled the powder case.
Would you not say it's fair that they incurred liability over the talcum powder, but the government waived their liability over any vaccine adverse effects and so they would have far less interest in covering it up?
> So no, I’m not taking the vaccine or the aspirin.
You... won't take aspirin because of the Nazis? My dude (or m'lady, as appropriate), I'm Polish and I'm over it. lol.
The CDC is an apolitical vehicle broadly speaking. It's not perfect, and it has become more politicized over time, sure. It's a sign of their doing their job to adjust their position in the face of a rapidly changing landscape. It's also their job to be pretty conservative.
> VAERS and it’s predecessors did not track this kind of thing even though they were explicitly made with the intention to. Their own workforce was puzzled as to why they weren’t deployed early on to track vaccine side effects.
VAERS has always been there to track Reports of Vaccine Adverse Events. It's by the way an HHS system, not CDC. Do you have any articles to back your assertions? I'm of course open to reading them.
> CDC didn’t make the vaccine. J&J did.
As is tradition.
> Neither knows what it will do over the next N years, and even if they did you’d be the last to know.
The vaccine platforms are decades old and well studied, we know broadly what they do, so we can project their effects.
> You’ve got all the evidence you need in how J&J handled the powder case.
Would you not say it's fair that they incurred liability over the talcum powder, but the government waived their liability over any vaccine adverse effects and so they would have far less interest in covering it up?
> So no, I’m not taking the vaccine or the aspirin.
You... won't take aspirin because of the Nazis? My dude (or m'lady, as appropriate), I'm Polish and I'm over it. lol.
They got a liability waiver for the vaccines, no need to be concerned
Literally every vaccine in the United States comes with a liability waiver. Since 1986, you've had to sue the US Federal Government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...
I think you are missing some facts here. COVID vaccines are not on the list of eligible vaccines for that program. You also can't sue the relevant govt departments for the COVID vaccine.
This article does a nice job of going into the nuances
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
Also, a better link than a wikipedia article: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/history/ind...
This article does a nice job of going into the nuances
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
Also, a better link than a wikipedia article: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/history/ind...
I'm confused which facts you think that I'm missing.
FYI. Higher immune resistance in this paper is relative the D614G (the original parent of all variants, so not the original Wuhan strain). As far as I understand Lambda is less immune/vaccine resistant than Delta and has been mostly outcompeted by Delta.
Indeed, lambda doesn't seem to be growing vs. delta anywhere. It's so frustrating to watch the media fall into this trap, just google "lambda covid" and you'll find a flood of breathless headlines about this "new dangerous variant" and like no warnings from any experts at all.
A significant part of news media has devolved into a curse for humanity. Their main objective is getting eyeballs, so their headlines have become anxiety-inducing. Anxious people check the news more often.
Their ultimate objective earning money with ads/publicity, so maybe that curse boils down (again) to advertisement.
Their ultimate objective earning money with ads/publicity, so maybe that curse boils down (again) to advertisement.
Devolved? Have you seen the headlines from a 100 years ago. What golden age of media would you suggest we have devolved from?
The media is what they always were alarmist who selectively report in order to maximize profits while carefully falling in with the most powerful but always trying to appear distanced and at odds with.
The media is what they always were alarmist who selectively report in order to maximize profits while carefully falling in with the most powerful but always trying to appear distanced and at odds with.
> maximize profits while carefully falling in with the most powerful
That's not really consistent with the evidence though. Elite media in this circumstance seems to be treating lambda relatively calmly. It's outfits like the NY Post ("Deadly Lambda variant could be neutralizing vaccines"), Daily Beast ("Tokyo Deliberately Left Deadly New COVID Variant Out of Press Briefings"), etc...
That's not really consistent with the evidence though. Elite media in this circumstance seems to be treating lambda relatively calmly. It's outfits like the NY Post ("Deadly Lambda variant could be neutralizing vaccines"), Daily Beast ("Tokyo Deliberately Left Deadly New COVID Variant Out of Press Briefings"), etc...
There are few "breathless headlines" about Lambda. Though notably it is the overwhelming dominant strain in Peru and other South American countries, having completely crowded out Delta and other variants.
I'm not a medical expert. I'm not a statistical expert. I don't purport any expertise or useful knowledge in those areas. But after millions of deaths and a complete worldwide changing of how we work, play and so on, it is remarkable how often HN discussions still fall to media blaming, incant accusations of fear mongering, etc.
If one were to believe the dominant HN commentary through virtually all of this pandemic, it has always been an overblown nothingburger, etc.
The media has done has a much better job at accurately informing than the comments that usually rise to the top in any HN-related discussion.
(to the point that I think any COVID related discussions should be flagged off HN at first sighting. There are a lot of spectacularly misinformed people on here who just muddy the waters with noise, and the net effect is always just misinformation)
I'm not a medical expert. I'm not a statistical expert. I don't purport any expertise or useful knowledge in those areas. But after millions of deaths and a complete worldwide changing of how we work, play and so on, it is remarkable how often HN discussions still fall to media blaming, incant accusations of fear mongering, etc.
If one were to believe the dominant HN commentary through virtually all of this pandemic, it has always been an overblown nothingburger, etc.
The media has done has a much better job at accurately informing than the comments that usually rise to the top in any HN-related discussion.
(to the point that I think any COVID related discussions should be flagged off HN at first sighting. There are a lot of spectacularly misinformed people on here who just muddy the waters with noise, and the net effect is always just misinformation)
The media has done a shit job of informing people without being wrong per se. The coverage usually goes like this:
Things are getting bad in [location]! Hospitals are overcrowding (no information on how many beds and how long until disaster). Here's some disconnected but scary stats. [x] people were admitted to the hospital this weekend in a sudden surge (no information on how many were admitted before, thus impossible to judge the magnitude of the "surge"). [y]% people tested positive this week (no information on how many tests were given, who was able to get tests, or anything about the methodology that would make this data useful). Now for an interview with some stupid person who wishes they listened to us earlier. If you ignore the restrictions, this will happen to you! Stay tuned.
All of it was factual but none of it was informative. The news is the noise!
It really got to a point where if you wanted to actually know anything about the severity of the situation, how long it would last, how much risk you are facing per trip outside etc then you had to download the data from the NIH/CDC and plot it yourself. The media should have been doing that for me. They were derelict in their duty.
Things are getting bad in [location]! Hospitals are overcrowding (no information on how many beds and how long until disaster). Here's some disconnected but scary stats. [x] people were admitted to the hospital this weekend in a sudden surge (no information on how many were admitted before, thus impossible to judge the magnitude of the "surge"). [y]% people tested positive this week (no information on how many tests were given, who was able to get tests, or anything about the methodology that would make this data useful). Now for an interview with some stupid person who wishes they listened to us earlier. If you ignore the restrictions, this will happen to you! Stay tuned.
All of it was factual but none of it was informative. The news is the noise!
It really got to a point where if you wanted to actually know anything about the severity of the situation, how long it would last, how much risk you are facing per trip outside etc then you had to download the data from the NIH/CDC and plot it yourself. The media should have been doing that for me. They were derelict in their duty.
For some media organizations the fear mongering accusation is true, others much less. I agree it's tiresome to tar them all with the same brush. Of course everyone needs to treat sources of information with a bit of healthy scepticism.
On the COVID theme, it does remind me of an all hands call at my company with a quite senior person during the early days of the pandemic. At one point, we were confidently told that the 20,000 deaths Sky News were reporting as possible was "fake news" and the media was scaring everyone. Well, we know how that turned out (hint, the Sky News figure was around x6 too little).
I thought at the time it was a bold statement given no one really had any idea how the pandemic would progress.
On the COVID theme, it does remind me of an all hands call at my company with a quite senior person during the early days of the pandemic. At one point, we were confidently told that the 20,000 deaths Sky News were reporting as possible was "fake news" and the media was scaring everyone. Well, we know how that turned out (hint, the Sky News figure was around x6 too little).
I thought at the time it was a bold statement given no one really had any idea how the pandemic would progress.
I agree that popular news and media outlets are hype driven and not typically concerned with helping people form an accurate and well-informed opinion.
> like no warnings from any experts at all
Citing the OP, one important takeaway is the warning that the Lambda variant may lead to breakthrough infections and further variants:
> Because the Lambda variant is a VOI, it might be considered that this variant is not an ongoing threat compared to the pandemic VOCs.
> However, because the Lambda variant is relatively resistant to the vaccine-induced antisera, it might be possible that this variant is feasible to cause breakthrough infection
> like no warnings from any experts at all
Citing the OP, one important takeaway is the warning that the Lambda variant may lead to breakthrough infections and further variants:
> Because the Lambda variant is a VOI, it might be considered that this variant is not an ongoing threat compared to the pandemic VOCs.
> However, because the Lambda variant is relatively resistant to the vaccine-induced antisera, it might be possible that this variant is feasible to cause breakthrough infection
Can we avoid linking to pre published studies? People base their opinions on articles like these before the process has a chance to make corrections
Releasing studies to the world is the process, the more eyes on it the faster you find issues.
I think many people overestimate the thoroughness of reviewers and underestimate the thoroughness of the world at large.
I think many people overestimate the thoroughness of reviewers and underestimate the thoroughness of the world at large.
Sure, but a hn discussion, or major media coverage doesn’t really contribute. Almost nobody reads the linked articles and the feedback doesn’t propagate back to the authors effectively. On the other hand, the opinions of the public have already been influenced and the article will almost certainly never resurface with media attention if there was a correction.
Maybe hn discussions do contribute sometimes, there are some experts on here who comment
Maybe hn discussions do contribute sometimes, there are some experts on here who comment
Its more than half way through 2021 and Sweden has recorded its second-lowest annual deaths in the past 5 years:
https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje...
The 1st lowest? 2019, the year before the pandemic.
Suggesting a lot of mortality displacement from 2019 and 2021 into 2020.
https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje...
The 1st lowest? 2019, the year before the pandemic.
Suggesting a lot of mortality displacement from 2019 and 2021 into 2020.
What is your point? There are other countries that implemented strict restrictions and also saw very low death rates during the first and second waves (China, New Zealand, Australia).
There are still a lot of people trying to tout the "do-nothing" approach to CoVID-19.
It's been obvious for more than a year that it's possible to eliminate the virus entirely and then reopen society with very few restrictions. This approach saves lives, gives people the ability to live their lives normally, and is better for the economy. China, Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries have demonstrated this.
Why we're still arguing about this is beyond me. The question isn't what the best strategy is - it's why most developed countries can't/don't/won't implement the most effective strategy.
It's been obvious for more than a year that it's possible to eliminate the virus entirely and then reopen society with very few restrictions. This approach saves lives, gives people the ability to live their lives normally, and is better for the economy. China, Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries have demonstrated this.
Why we're still arguing about this is beyond me. The question isn't what the best strategy is - it's why most developed countries can't/don't/won't implement the most effective strategy.
Less than a month ago, 40% of the Australian population was under a stay-at-home order:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57845163
The Australian military is being used to intimidate dissenters (eg. anti-lockdown protests) and enforce lockdown: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58021718
Australia is absolutely not an example of success, it has deteriorated into a police state.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57845163
The Australian military is being used to intimidate dissenters (eg. anti-lockdown protests) and enforce lockdown: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58021718
Australia is absolutely not an example of success, it has deteriorated into a police state.
Australia has been living normally for most of the last year and a half, unlike virtually the rest of the developed world. If you deal decisively with outbreaks before they become serious, you can eliminate them and get back to your normal life more quickly.
Ah wonderful. The next hot new variant is here for the media and health “experts” to fearmonger over.
When are people gonna realize that until they tune out all the doomsday prognosticators, this will never end? The people that tell us to be afraid are never going to tell us it is safe. Ever.
Covid and all its spooky variants are here forever. Get your vaccine and be done. Life is way, way too short to cower away in fear forever.
When are people gonna realize that until they tune out all the doomsday prognosticators, this will never end? The people that tell us to be afraid are never going to tell us it is safe. Ever.
Covid and all its spooky variants are here forever. Get your vaccine and be done. Life is way, way too short to cower away in fear forever.
When everyone vaccinates
Given that is never gonna happen, all you can do is get yours, accept the risks of covid like you accept every other risk in your life and return to 2019 normal.
There is literally nothing more you can do. The vaccines we have are the end of the road. The goalposts cannot ethically or morally be moved any further no matter what all these politicians and health “experts” say.
There is literally nothing more you can do. The vaccines we have are the end of the road. The goalposts cannot ethically or morally be moved any further no matter what all these politicians and health “experts” say.
That’s a rather fatalist point of view. Hopefully there are at least some anti-vaxxers whose minds can be changed.
Why the nomenclature jump from delta to lambda?
not kidding: were there uninteresting variants in alphabetical order between them? (i.e, what of epsilon, zeta, eta, theta, iota, and kappa?)
not kidding: were there uninteresting variants in alphabetical order between them? (i.e, what of epsilon, zeta, eta, theta, iota, and kappa?)
There are "variants of interest", "variants of concern" and "variants of high consequence", in order of possible impact. The first are labelled, the latter "make headlines".
They all exist[1] to some degree, I couldn't tell you much about them though.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2
There's a large-scale "clinical trial" going on in some of the most vaccinated countries. I am not aware of any scientific explanation of the effect.
https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+covid+cases&rlz=1C1CH...
https://www.google.com/search?q=iceland+covid+cases&rlz=1C1C...
https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+covid+cases&rlz=1C1CH...
https://www.google.com/search?q=iceland+covid+cases&rlz=1C1C...