COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion

SexyGreyFox said:
Surely that's a correct statement he made?
I had 4 jabs and still got Covid 3 times, if people had been in my company I would have spread it.
The whole idea of the vaccine was to prevent a serious illness which I firmly believe it did for me because of my multiple comorbidities.
Click to expand...

not really no.

Vaccines arm and pre-warn the immune system to be able to respond to an infection.

As such, the immune system can respond and fight back harder, sooner.

Because of this, the average individual WILL fight off the infection sooner, resulting in a reduced rate of spread.

So no, it's not a correct statement he made.

As is so often the case with the anti-vax brigade, he's deliberately lying about it and he knows it.

It's been covered time and again at this point... If the vaccine did nothing and lockdowns were ineffective, we would still be suffering a widespread Covid pandemic now.

But it's just too much for them to bring themselves to admit that "what changed" was the global rollout of a vaccine.
 
Last edited:
Devilman said:
not really no.

Vaccines arm and pre-warn the immune system to be able to respond to an infection.

As such, the immune system can respond and fight back harder, sooner.

Because of this, the average individual WILL fight off the infection sooner, resulting in a reduced rate of spread.

So no, it's not a correct statement he made.

As is so often the case with the anti-vax brigade, he's deliberately lying about it and he knows it.

It's been covered time and again at this point... If the vaccine did nothing and lockdowns were ineffective, we would still be suffering a widespread Covid pandemic now.

But it's just too much for them to bring themselves to admit that "what changed" was the global rollout of a vaccine.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if "reduced rate of spread" is a good term to use in this context.

Just like say a flu vaccine, in theory a COVID vaccine should reduce the number of days most individuals are infectious to others, as well as reducing the likelihood of the infected individual getting serious consequences from the infection.

But the rate of spread will depend on the socialising pattern of the infected individual while they are infectious.
 
pallys said:
apnews.com

Posts mislead on Pfizer COVID vaccine’s impact on transmission

After Small testified before the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, misleading claims about whether Pfizer knew the impact of its COVID-19 vaccine on preventing transmission spread widely on social media.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
that all sounds pretty reasonable.
So being jabbed DID help reduce the spread of the virus, however the tests had not been properly carried out at launch for pfizer to be able to state it.

subsequent tests have shown it to be the case however - at least with the prevalent variants at the time.

pfizer say they never made any certain claims either way as they hadnt tested, however (my take) common sense would indicate it would help and that has since been bourne out of tests done since (according the what it says above)

is that a fair take?
 
bigmike20vt said:
that all sounds pretty reasonable.
So being jabbed DID help reduce the spread of the virus, however the tests had not been properly carried out at launch for pfizer to be able to state it.

subsequent tests have shown it to be the case however - at least with the prevalent variants at the time.

pfizer say they never made any certain claims either way as they hadnt tested, however (my take) common sense would indicate it would help and that has since been bourne out of tests done since (according the what it says above)

is that a fair take?
Click to expand...
I'd add this point

Dr. Walter Orenstein, associate director of the vaccine center at Emory University, told the AP that the fact that Pfizer did not address the vaccine’s impact on transmission during clinical trials is not unusual, because transmission is a complex metric to measure.

“It’s much more difficult to evaluate impact on transmission,” Orenstein, a professor of infectious diseases at the Emory School of Medicine, wrote in an email. “What is usually done is a randomized placebo controlled study, in which the recipients are ‘blinded (i.e., do not know whether they received placebo or vaccine.’”
Click to expand...

But the rest seems a fair take on the article, notable (IMO) bits below
But experts and research say that the COVID-19 vaccines have provided benefits in terms of limiting infections and transmission, at least with earlier variants of the virus and for a period of time after being vaccinated.
Click to expand...
While the vaccines do not eliminate all transmission, they can help. Studies done after distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines began, including research by Pfizer, did find that the company’s shot reduced asymptomatic infections in addition to symptomatic cases with earlier variants of the virus. Researchers in the United Kingdom reported in a February observational study that Pfizer’s vaccine helped cut transmission of the alpha and delta variants.

“Our study from earlier in the year shows that the Pfizer vaccine reduces transmission from people with breakthrough infections, at least in the 3 months post vaccine which we studied,” Dr. David Eyre, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Oxford and lead author of the study, wrote in an email.
Click to expand...
Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, explained that while the vaccines do provide neutralizing antibodies, which help protect against infection, those kinds of antibodies quickly wane — even as protection against serious illness continues to last.

“It is fair to say that when you get a vaccine that clearly decreases your chance of getting infected, it does,” said Offit, who is also the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “And therefore it decreases your chance of spreading it to others. But it’s not in any way absolute.”
Click to expand...
And last but not least
Offit added that messaging to the public around the vaccines early on was flawed and should have been focused on their core benefit — preventing serious illness and hospitalization — since many would later cast doubt on the vaccines’ success because of “breakthrough infections.”
Click to expand...
 
bigmike20vt said:
that all sounds pretty reasonable.
So being jabbed DID help reduce the spread of the virus, however the tests had not been properly carried out at launch for pfizer to be able to state it.

subsequent tests have shown it to be the case however - at least with the prevalent variants at the time.

pfizer say they never made any certain claims either way as they hadnt tested, however (my take) common sense would indicate it would help and that has since been bourne out of tests done since (according the what it says above)

is that a fair take?
Click to expand...

There are some complications like the earlier vaccines being based on variants of the virus which became replaced by other variants around the time of the vaccine rollout (possibly partly helped by the vaccine suppressing the older variant(s)).

It was obvious from the ONS data fairly early on though that the impact on transmission was moderate to limited despite being dressed up, or data kept vague, to look like it was *probably* more effective and especially with more recent variants the vaccine definitely had limited ability to prevent symptomatic illness (somewhat difficult to entirely measure) or transmission.

Both outbreaks of Omicron I'm aware of as local hotspots, one of which is when I had it, vaccines, even people boosted just enough time before to be at peak effectiveness, didn't prevent people getting or transmitting it, there might have been a few edge cases but pretty much everyone exposed got it.

Thing is with these kind of vaccines though they can prime the body to respond more rapidly and reduce the window someone is infectious, they don't tend to reduce peak infectivity and a person is still infectious around the point of the window most transmissions occur, as above social patterns, etc. have a big impact there.
 
Lean said:
Lucky you weren't forced to take it to keep your job, go on holiday, pressured from uni etc
Click to expand...
Now that the Covid panic (for want of a better word) has blown over, I do find the above bit ever so crazy, in that people had to get jabbed or face unemployment or face severe restrictions on thier lives.
Where I worked at the time we had to sign new contracts to say if we didn't mask up, social distance etc we would be instantly dismissed, which was never going to work with a bunch of mechanics all working in very close proximity.
It went well for about a day, then everyone got pee'd off at the covid marshall barking orders and it went back to lads being lads messing about, scrapping and generally dicking about, and normal service resumed with no masks or anything else.
What were they going to do, sack the entire workshop that earned them £175 p/h per person?.
Obviously the whole thing came out of the blue, and there was little direction as to the best way forward, but pressuring people to get the vaccine or lose thier freedoms (in one way or another) really didn't sit well with me.
Also, during lockdown I was running around for 3 old people in the village getting thier food, medicine etc so they could isolate, and the utter terror and fear that they felt will never leave me.
I'd have to walk a few yards into their gardens and place the food etc on a table whilst they were in the house, then I'd retreat, they'd come out, grab the food, then leave the money on the table.
Utterly bonkers.
That said, I've seen no one I know get seriously ill or worse, but I certainly don't dispute that people have.
Apologies for the ramble, but was just reflecting on the madness that was the last few years.

Anyone want a bet on bird flu mutating and the cycle begining again? :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom