New vax science shows mandates unwise

[RestoreTheJoy]

Likewise

I suppose. It would also curtail those who are discussing the ongoing developments and flip flops - and the constitutional fight to come over this unconstitutional mandate. Those are issues worth discussing.

Today, this vaccine- 2 years in when almost everyone has been exposed by now, and when millions are already recovered from previous infection. We all know that you don't take a vaccine for something from which you have recovered. Look at the CDC page for measles - you are exempt if you had measles (unless they have scrubbed that too).

Still here:
CDC considers you protected from measles if you have written documentation (records) showing at least one of the following:

• You received two doses of measles-containing vaccine, and you are a(n) —
  • school-aged child (grades K-12)
  • adult who will be in a setting that poses a high risk for measles transmission, including students at post-high school education institutions, healthcare personnel, and international travelers.
• You received one dose of measles-containing vaccine, and you are a(n) —
  • preschool-aged child
  • adult who will not be in a high-risk setting for measles transmission.
• A laboratory confirmed that you had measles at some point in your life.
• A laboratory confirmed that you are immune to measles.
• You were born before 1957.

Another year it could be a pill that would be mandated for all. Or any number of interventions if this stands.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The finding was partially that those who were infected were equally contagious. Additionally, the finding was that the protection from infection by the vaccine was also limited (38% of vaccinated that were exposed got infected compared to 25% for unvaccinated). Certainly nothing like the 90+% efficacy that those promoting the vaccines had been claiming.

They appear to somewhat limit the spread of the virus, but not significantly. One's actions (social distancing, masking, avoiding indoor areas) play a much more significant role in one's transmission vector than one's vaccination status.

I agree with the importance of masking and social distancing, etc. because vaccines alone are not enough. But I have two observations about the study cited. One is that the study only looked at the effect of vaccines on spread within households. Extrapolating those results to the effect on spread in the larger community is not so obvious. That's because viral load from people you live with in close proximity and without wearing masks and social distancing is bound to be much higher than viral load encountered in public situations where masks are often used and contact time is generally more limited. If vaccine is 90% effective at low to moderate levels of exposure, there is no guarantee that it ought to be 90% effective at much higher levels of exposure. That's one point.

The second point is related to compound interest. If you invest $1000 at with a 10% APY, at the end of two years you will have $1210. At the end of 5 years you will have $1611, which is a 61% gain. Similarly, if we accept the figures of 38% and 25% from the cited study, we see that being vaccinated reduces the infection rate from one index contact by 34% {(38-25)/38}. Conversely, we can say that being unvaccinated raises the infection rate from one index contact by 52% {(38-25)/25}. But that is just for one index contact. That is like the first year of compound interest. But what happens when we leave the money invested for more years? The interest compounds. Similarly, the additional 52% of people infected because of no vaccinations, they go out into the community and each one of them becomes another index case and through their exposure, infect 52% more people than they would have if everyone had been vaccinated. Since the incubation period for covid is on average 5.6 days, in less than a week we will repeat the 52% increase again. So instead of an interest rate of 10% per year we have an increased infection rate of 52% per week. After 5 weeks we would have infections multiplied by a factor of (1.52)^5 = 8.1. After 10 weeks we would have infections multiplied by a rate of 66. That is quite significant. So the idea that the benefits of vaccination are insignificant when applied to community spread is just wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again and again, i've been told that these vaccines significantly limit infection, and that the unvaccinated are the ones who are spreading the disease. The evidence doesn't bear out those claims nor conclusion.

But it does. You probably do not understand the rather simple math. I see this was a few days ago, are you still confused?

 

[whatbogsends]

But it does. You probably do not understand the rather simple math. I see this was a few days ago, are you still confused?

The "simple math" Niggle puts forth is much too simplistic as it relates to Covid.

Yes, the vaccines play a role in reduction of transmission, but that role is limited. The number and kind of one's social interactions play a much more substantial role in the determination of one's transmission vector.

You probably don't understand nuance. I've been saying this for months, are you still confused?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "simple math" Niggle puts forth is much too simplistic as it relates to Covid.

Yes, the vaccines play a role in reduction of transmission, but that role is limited. The number and kind of one's social interactions play a much more substantial role in the determination of one's transmission vector.

You probably don't understand nuance. I've been saying this for months, are you still confused?

Sorry, but you are projecting now. Yes, behavior matters. But that only makes it worse for you. Those that get vaccines are also the sort that obey the various mandates. They will have an even lower transmission rate due to that. But the data does support that those that get the vaccine are far less likely to get Covid19 in the first place. That is by a factor of 5 even with the Delta variant. Being less likely to catch the disease also makes one less likely to pass it on.

Then if one does get the disease with the vaccine the odds of serious cases are greatly reduced again and the percent reduction is still greater when it comes to deaths. These results are not modified by behavior. For that reason alone one should get vaccinated.

 

[whatbogsends]

Sorry, but you are projecting now. Yes, behavior matters. But that only makes it worse for you. Those that get vaccines are also the sort that obey the various mandates. They will have an even lower transmission rate due to that. But the data does support that those that get the vaccine are far less likely to get Covid19 in the first place. That is by a factor of 5 even with the Delta variant. Being less likely to catch the disease also makes one less likely to pass it on.

Then if one does get the disease with the vaccine the odds of serious cases are greatly reduced again and the percent reduction is still greater when it comes to deaths. These results are not modified by behavior. For that reason alone one should get vaccinated.

The data regarding actual infection rates is skewed because the unvaccinated are often required to test when the vaccinated aren't.

The study referenced showed actual infection rate to be only 1/3 less (25% vs 38%), while ongoing transmission rate to be roughly even (23% vs 25%). Other studies have shown fairly low rates of protection from infection (generally between 40-60%) - nothing like "factor of 5" which you're claiming.

As far as behavior goes, when you paint with a broad brush, you don't show much detail. Instead of focusing on "the unvaccinated" that are extending the pandemic, the focus should be on those who engage in large, prolonged, indoor gatherings, at which the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike are spreading the virus and increasing the probability of future variants.

 

[KCfromNC]

Other studies have shown fairly low rates of protection from infection (generally between 40-60%) - nothing like "factor of 5" which you're claiming.

The factor of 5 comes from here : SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Hospitalizations Among Persons...
Or here : https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Do...-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf
And here : https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/corona...irginia/covid-19-cases-by-vaccination-status/

Almost seems like there might be something to this vaccination stuff.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, the vaccines play a role in reduction of transmission, but that role is limited. The number and kind of one's social interactions play a much more substantial role in the determination of one's transmission vector.

Are you willing to risk quantifying specifically how much of a reduction in transmission you feel that each plays?

 

[variant]

We should absolutely have social measures in place to limit spread.

Not all protective measures are lockdowns.

I mask, social distance, and don't convene in indoor public spaces, and have no plans on changing that.

You are acting like people are likely to do the right thing...

What planet have you been living on?

 

[whatbogsends]

The factor of 5 comes from here : SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Hospitalizations Among Persons...
Or here : https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Do...-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf
And here : https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/corona...irginia/covid-19-cases-by-vaccination-status/

Almost seems like there might be something to this vaccination stuff.

You've provided 3 government sources, only 1 of which was actually a study. Discrepancy in testing rates and misattribution of vaccination status in time periods are likely to bias the 2 state sources.

The study cited in the OP showed a 33% prevention from infection.

For the period February 1, 2021 to October 1, 2021, vaccine effectiveness against infection (VE-I) declined over time (P < 0.01 for time dependence, Table 1), even after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidity. VE-I declined for all vaccine types (Fig. 1), with the largest declines for Janssen followed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. Specifically, in March, VE-I was 86.4% (95% CI: 85.2% to 87.6%) for Janssen; 89.2% (95% CI: 88.8% to 89.6%) for Moderna; and 86.9% (95% CI: 86.5% to 87.3%) for Pfizer-BioNTech. By September, VE-I had declined to 13.1% (95% CI: 9.2% to 16.8%) for Janssen; 58.0% (95% CI: 56.9% to 59.1%) for Moderna; and 43.3% (95% CI: 41.9% to 44.6%) for Pfizer-BioNTech.

AAAS


For instance, in a report released from the Ministry of Health in Israel, the effectiveness of 2 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against preventing COVID-19 infection was reported to be 39% [6], substantially lower than the trial efficacy of 96% [7]. It is also emerging that immunity derived from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may not be as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus [8]. A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines 6-months post immunization has also been reported [9]. Even though vaccinations offers protection to individuals against severe hospitalization and death, the CDC reported an increase from 0.01 to 9% and 0 to 15.1% (between January to May 2021) in the rates of hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, amongst the fully vaccinated [10].

Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States


Between Dec 14, 2020, and Aug 8, 2021, of 4 920 549 individuals assessed for eligibility, we included 3 436 957 (median age 45 years [IQR 29–61]; 1 799 395 [52·4%] female and 1 637 394 [47·6%] male). For fully vaccinated individuals, effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections was 73% (95% CI 72–74) and against COVID-19-related hospital admissions was 90% (89–92). Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months. Effectiveness against other (non-delta) variants the first month after full vaccination was also high at 97% (95% CI 95–99), but waned to 67% (45–80) at 4–5 months. Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions for infections with the delta variant for all ages was high overall (93% [95% CI 84–96]) up to 6 months.

DEFINE_ME

 

[whatbogsends]

Are you willing to risk quantifying specifically how much of a reduction in transmission you feel that each plays?

Based on varying studies, vaccine effectiveness is likely something between 40-60% (although the trend has been more recent studies have been trending to the lower end of that spectrum).

Social interaction can vary. A person who isolates entirely can have their actions constitute 90+% difference vs. someone who engages in high social contact. It varies widely by a range of actions.

 

[KCfromNC]

Discrepancy in testing rates and misattribution of vaccination status in time periods are likely to bias the 2 state sources.

Is there any reason we should believe this, or is it something that has to be taken on faith?

 

[KCfromNC]

Based on varying studies, vaccine effectiveness is likely something between 40-60% (although the trend has been more recent studies have been trending to the lower end of that spectrum).

Social interaction can vary. A person who isolates entirely can have their actions constitute 90+% difference vs. someone who engages in high social contact. It varies widely by a range of actions.

Yeah, let's resort to imagining people who will isolate completely for the rest of their lives to try and make vaccines sound less effective than they really are.