Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by LangleyMan, May 5, 2021.
So it doesn’t work?
Well for starters I has been noted numerous times that vaccination does not equate to immunity. You would face reduce risk if you catch it and it is still possible to infect others once you caught it.
There are also reasons other than health reasons. Lets assume you are on a cruise ship, resort or airplane. If it is determine that passengers or guest are infected the entire ship or plane could be quarantined even if you are vaccinated. Imagine being stuck on a cruise ship because no ports will allow you to dock because their is an outbreak.
If the vaccine works, why quarantine anything?
the vaccine also severely reduces covid transmission.
hence the value.
we need everyone vaccinated.
the vaccine doesn't protect you from receiving the virus from someone who's infected.
it only reduces your symptoms and seriousness of infection
I simply don't see the point. Regardless of my having been vaccinated, I'm still required to follow whatever local policy exists, masks, distancing, etc. Fauci has literally said the once vaccinated all clear, and now says the exact opposite. More, no one has show, or proven that vaccinated folks can become reinfected, or for that matter infect others. If the vaccination doesn't work, then why force folks to take it? If it does work, why continue with the virtue signaling? Democrats, historically (I'll use the case of AIDs here) have chosen the "doesn't matter even if you knowingly infect others, it's not a crime" standard. What changed? So, why are ya'll forcing us to live in the exact same restricted way again? Face it. Masks are this years version of uniforms. Democrats love them some uniforms.
Because there will always be people in a country that is not vaccinated either because of choice or medical issues. Also as I started vaccination does NOT equal immunity.
By definition, it then isn't a vaccine. Take the example of Polio. The polio vaccine ensure I NEVER get it, can't get it, can't pass it, etc.
You already need evidence of vaccination in some settings.
Poison? That's a new level of stupid. Prime candidate for the Darwin Award.
Right. So if it works, why ban people from anywhere? If you’re older and more at risk, get the vaccine.
It's standard practice to send letters to patients reminding them of the schedule for preventive measures such as vaccines, colonoscopy, mammogram, PSA, colonoscopy, etc., so, it's fine to send a letter "you're now eligible for the Covid-19 vaccine and we have it in our practice - or you can get it from ....[insert location here] - so please call our office to discuss."
That that policy exists is not proof that it’s actually warranted.
And what about people that already had it? Do they get a card without the shot?
The vaccine reduces your risk of catching the virus by 95%.
not exactly so.
it provides 90 or 99% immunity, but we dont know how long this lasts
It may not be the same as customers and the efficacy may not be as high as the average.
I wouldn't be too cavalier about covid.
There may be long-term health problems for a significant number of 20-somethings.
-What may not be the same as customers?
-I am not cavalier about Covid, which is precisely why I social distanced and got vaccinated at the earliest possible moment.
-The notion that a 20 something waiter that is vaccinated, in the highly unlikely event does contract Covid while vaccinated which would tend to give him a mild case due to being vaccinated, then going on to have long term health problems......is not only NOT shown by any evidence, it is also just plain far fetched. At this juncture such a declaration is little more than fear mongering. There is a chance that all of us that got vaccinated may die of heart failure in 3 years too.... but I wouldnt bet on it. At some point, cooler heads need to prevail and this baseless fear mongering needs to stop.
That's not entirely true. It depends on the vaccine and what endpoint the makers used for their studies. Many of these efficacy phase 3 trials focused on symptomatic infection, not just mere asymptomatic infection (being positive but having no symptoms). That is, the clinical disease, not just the infection. And in real life, the numbers have also oscillated and went a bit lower than that; for example, certain real life studies showed Pfizer avoiding 90% of cases, not 95%.
The vaccines technically don't prevent the infection from happening. What they do is that the immune system having been primed and boosted, as soon as the virus comes in, there is a strong immune response that clears the virus pretty quickly, without the person ever developing the clinical disease (for the majority of cases). So technically the person did "catch" the virus, but the virus did not thrive in the person's system. Others will actually catch the virus and develop the disease, but it will be mild and won't require hospitalization, and won't kill the person (preventing death for most Covid-19 vaccines gets close to 100%).
And then, there is the issue of neutralizing antibodies. If you get a high titer of these, this situation does function a bit like not "catching" the virus if it is immediately neutralized. So the issue becomes a bit semantic.
But if we want to be a bit pedantic, we'd have to say, the vaccine doesn't prevent you from "catching" the virus but it makes your immune system whack it right away in most cases or at least makes the case asymptomatic or mild.
Covid vaccine keeps you from dying or getting very sick.
It also reduces your ability to pass on the virus if infected.
That's why we need everyone vaccinated. This isn't rocket science.
-You can nitpick between 90 and 95% if you like. In the context of my discussion, he was claiming that it does not reduce the chances of catching Covid and that assertion is patently false.
-The vaccines DO technically prevent the infection from happening. Its protection DOES extend to asymptomatic as well as symptomatic, and asymptomatic transmission was most certainly a studied endpoint within the phase 3 clinical trials for all of the vaccines. The immune system preventing the virus from replicating (which is what the bolstered immune response accomplishes) does in fact mean that the person did not "catch" the virus. What you are referring to means that they were still exposed to the virus, but "catching" it means that the virus replicated in your system and multiplied, and the vaccine is highly effective at preventing that multiplication from occurring. In the same way, an unvaccinated person that is exposed to an infected person and does not catch the virus similarly did not have the virus replicate despite their exposure. It is improper to equate exposure to "catching" the virus. There is a reason that they put a timeframe on exposure risk, and the longer you sit next to an infected person in a poorly ventilated area, the more virus exposure that you have, and thus a greater chance of that virus replicating and ultimately overtaking your immune system, which is what would constitute "catching" the virus.
-Even if being pedantic, it is still 100% proper to say that the vaccines significantly lower your risk of "catching" Covid. It is improper to say that they do not
No, not all vaccines used this endpoint of preventing even asymptomatic infection. I'm talking about ALL vaccines, not just the ones approved in the United States. Consult my thread The State of the Vaccines for details.
We basically agree. I was just trying to be a bit more precise. I did say the added precision was pedantic (about the same as saying it is nitpicking). I did say, if you have enough neutralizing antibodies, the situation functions a bit like not catching the virus at all, didn't I? Not all vaccines (and not for all variants) produce high titers of neutralizing antibodies, so yes, you can have replication even if you're vaccinated.
You know, this is an international forum, not just an American forum. There are 14 vaccines currently approved somewhere, not just the 3 that were approved in the USA. And when we talk about vaccine passports, it's obviously an international issue (like, the European Union is leading discussions on this). My opening remark in this thread had to do, for example, with the CoronaVac, which does not exist in the United States. So, no, don't say that ALL vaccines used the same endpoint because that is not correct.
Its just sickening how Republicans have turned a vaccine into a political issue.
THEIR President developed the damn thing!!! So take your shot and move on with your life.
Oh good grief. Liberals bashed Trump because he was "rushing the vaccine" 6-8 months ago. Geez.
-I guess in fairness, I can only speak to the vaccines approved in the United States as well as the Astra Zeneca. I admittedly know nothing about the Chinese vaccine and their methods including if they even had phase 3 trials.
-It is not "like" not catching the virus at all. It IS not catching the virus at all. When an immune system prevents a virus exposure from replicating and taking hold in its host, that is an example of NOT catching that virus. This description applies to an unvaccinated as well as a vaccinated person. The vaccines significantly improve the odds of not allowing a virus to replicate, thus it significantly improves your chances of not "catching" that virus. I can appreciate that you were TRYING to be more precise by saying it technically does not mean they did not catch the virus, but you were mistaken in that assertion.
Again, serious question. If I have antibodies to COVID from being exposed/catching it, why do I need the shot again?
Separate names with a comma.