What I Don’t Get About Vaccine

[RONole]

Well, I guess the vaccine mandates….everyone admits that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid. All it does is help your chances if you do get it. So why force people to get it? If it stopped you from getting it or spreading it then I could see it but it doesn’t. So if someone catches Covid it is on them if they have it worse and they will have to live (or die) with their choice but I don’t get the purpose of mandates and firing people because it is not impacting your co-workers, just you, right? Am I missing something?

By the way I am vaccinated so I am not “anti vaccine” but I don’t understand the logic of the mandates when it does not stop the spread.

 

[itsjustme0770]

Have you looked to see what the breakthrough rate of vaccinated people is? You are magnitudes less likely to be infected if you are vaccinated. It stops LOTS of people from getting it. I have fired 4 employees for failure to comply with vaccine mandates. Vaccines are mandated in every walk of life. Its not a new practice.

 

[PopsNole]

Well, I guess the vaccine mandates….everyone admits that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid. All it does is help your chances if you do get it. So why force people to get it? If it stopped you from getting it or spreading it then I could see it but it doesn’t. So if someone catches Covid it is on them if they have it worse and they will have to live (or die) with their choice but I don’t get the purpose of mandates and firing people because it is not impacting your co-workers, just you, right? Am I missing something?

By the way I am vaccinated so I am not “anti vaccine” but I don’t understand the logic of the mandates when it does not stop the spread.

It helps slow the spread and if everyone was vaccinated then it would significantly slow the spread. Everyone getting vaccinated is how we've been able to eradicate diseases. Covid type diseases are much harder to get rid of and arguably impossible to completely eliminate it but if everyone was either vaccinated or had natural immunity and got a vaccine later we could significantly lower its spread.

 

[Dhersh]

I've made my personal stance on mandates clear. I don't agree with them, but I believe in the right of individual entities to establish their own rules.

But I want to touch on something else you said. It is not true to say vaccines do not prevent you from becoming infected. All vaccines approved in the US have shown initially high efficacy (as it relates to the ability of the body to avoid infection) against all VOCs. That efficacy has shown to wane over time, and at the 6 month mark, you are roughly as immune from infection as you would be after initially receiving a flu vaccine. You still have a reduced chance of becoming infected, and thus, the more vaccinations, the lower the rate of infections.

Another helpful aspect of the vaccine is that it primes the body to be able to fight the virus. This is referred to as immunogenicity and it is a measure of the vaccine's ability to create an immune response. Immunogenicity and efficacy are not the same thing - studies have shown that efficacy drops over time, but immunogenicity remains high. A stronger immune response if infected means a reduced viral load, reduced time of infection, reduced risk of symptomatic infection, reduced risk of complications, etc. etc.

 

[squiffynole]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

The Possibility of COVID-19 after Vaccination: Breakthrough Infections​

The bottom line: COVID-19 vaccines protect people against severe illness, including disease caused by Delta and other variants circulating in the U.S.

• COVID-19 vaccines protect people from getting infected and severely ill, and significantly reduce the likelihood of hospitalization and death.
• Getting vaccinated is the best way to slow the spread of COVID-19 and to prevent infection by Delta or other variants.
• A vaccine breakthrough infection happens when a fully vaccinated person gets infected with COVID-19. People with vaccine breakthrough infections may spread COVID-19 to others.
• Even if you are fully vaccinated, if you live in an area with substantial or high transmission of COVID-19, you – as well as your family and community – will be better protected if you wear a mask when you are in indoor public places.
• People who are immunocompromised may not always build adequate levels of protection after an initial 2-dose primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series. They should continue to take all precautions recommended for unvaccinated people, until advised otherwise by their healthcare professional. Further, CDC recommends that moderately to severely immunocompromised people receive an additional dose of vaccine.

 

[RONole]

I sincerely appreciate the responses. So my primary understanding has been that the vaccine helps me IF I get infected but does not really help me avoid getting infected. After I got vaccinated I remember feeling deflated hearing about all the break through cases and then seeing hospitalization stats that still included a decent amount of vaccinated people.

It seems clear that stats support that your odds of avoiding death and severe sickness are better when vaccinated. For me I am happy that I chose to be vaccinated. I honestly didn’t realize the vaccine made me statistically less likely to even catch the virus because I’ve personally known a pretty good amount of vaccinated people who have caught it. That makes me happy if true. Can you point me to stats that support that? I don’t ask because I doubt it but just from curiosity.

 

[itsjustme0770]

Breakthrough Infections: Coronavirus After Vaccination

COVID-19 breakthrough infections are on the rise but here’s what you can do to reduce your risk.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

How about Johns Hopkins. Study rates are showing between 1 in 5000 and 1 in 100. I suspect the latter is a result of waning vaccine effectiveness. Go get your booster.

 

[SteveT1]

Have you looked to see what the breakthrough rate of vaccinated people is? You are magnitudes less likely to be infected if you are vaccinated. It stops LOTS of people from getting it. I have fired 4 employees for failure to comply with vaccine mandates. Vaccines are mandated in every walk of life. Its not a new practice.

There’s a study regarding vaccination rate in US counties and other countries that found no link between vaccination rate and rate of infection.

 

[RONole]

It definitely feels like there is conflicting information out there. I wouldn’t qualify as a specific high-risk category so I’m not sure when I would be eligible to get a booster but as things stand right now I probably would choose to get the booster. I have to admit I still have some doubts about things but I lean towards the I feel safer having it stance right now.

 

[Spearhead04]

I know quite a few people who have contracted covid despite being vaccinated. So it’s definitely not 1 in 5000 or even 1 in 100. Prob more like 1 in 10 still susceptible to break through.

 

[itsjustme0770]

There’s a study regarding vaccination rate in US counties and other countries that found no link between vaccination rate and rate of infection.

Link? A single study? Is it published? Your assertion means nothing. Show me.

 

[itsjustme0770]

I know quite a few people who have contracted covid despite being vaccinated. So it’s definitely not 1 in 5000 or even 1 in 100. Prob more like 1 in 10 still susceptible to break through.

Oh, I see. You know trumps the study. How many uninfected do you know? How many total people do you know? How many of that total group is vaccinated. What were the conteola in place for your “study”. What is the ratio? Its hard to believe there are so many epidemiologist in one place on this board.

 

[itsjustme0770]

It definitely feels like there is conflicting information out there. I wouldn’t qualify as a specific high-risk category so I’m not sure when I would be eligible to get a booster but as things stand right now I probably would choose to get the booster. I have to admit I still have some doubts about things but I lean towards the I feel safer having it stance right now.

Yeah. Science should be based on feel, gut and personal experience.

 

[RONole]

Yeah. Science should be based on feel, gut and personal experience.

I see it is a challenge to have civil discussion here. I’ve clearly explained that I’m not anti vaccine and have been vaccinated. I’m simply asking for information on the benefit of my vaccination. I’m clear on it helping me if I get sick but I honestly didn’t think it helped to prevent me from getting sick (which IF true made me not understand the logic of mandates). I am asking for the science/stats to show it does help me. I don’t have a hidden agenda or motivation for asking other than I’d truly like to know.

 

[itsjustme0770]

I see it is a challenge to have civil discussion here. I’ve clearly explained that I’m not anti vaccine and have been vaccinated. I’m simply asking for information on the benefit of my vaccination. I’m clear on it helping me if I get sick but I honestly didn’t think it helped to prevent me from getting sick (which IF true made me not understand the logic of mandates). I am asking for the science/stats to show it does help me. I don’t have a hidden agenda or motivation for asking other than I’d truly like to know.

If johns hopkins, probably one the, if not the, most credible medical research facilities on the planet, isnt sufficient then I dont know what to tell you.

 

[fsufool]

Well, I guess the vaccine mandates….everyone admits that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid. All it does is help your chances if you do get it. So why force people to get it? If it stopped you from getting it or spreading it then I could see it but it doesn’t. So if someone catches Covid it is on them if they have it worse and they will have to live (or die) with their choice but I don’t get the purpose of mandates and firing people because it is not impacting your co-workers, just you, right? Am I missing something?

By the way I am vaccinated so I am not “anti vaccine” but I don’t understand the logic of the mandates when it does not stop the spread.

Because it reduces your chance of getting infected. Vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get infected. And if infected, it reduces your likelihood of having high enough viral load to infect others.

What Is Your Actual Risk of Getting COVID-19 If You're Vaccinated?

Breakthrough infections can and do happen to people who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. However, the risk is very miniscule, and the vaccines offer considerable protection against severe disease.

www.healthline.com

That is why the government is pushing vaccinations in all age groups. Delta is very contagious compared to Alpha; two times as much, which if you do some simple math would demonstrate why we are having a surge. No vaccination can be 100% protective, because it depends on your own immune system doing its job and in older folks or those with immune system issues it won't be enough to avoid serious infection.

Personally I agree with what some leading epidemiologist have said from early on that Covid would become endemic in the US..............meaning we all will come in contact with it over the next several years. Best to lower your risk when that inevitable contact happens.

 

[SteveT1]

Link? A single study? Is it published? Your assertion means nothing. Show me.

have posted it before. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7.pdf

 

[SteveT1]

Oh, I see. You know trumps the study. How many uninfected do you know? How many total people do you know? How many of that total group is vaccinated. What were the conteola in place for your “study”. What is the ratio? Its hard to believe there are so many epidemiologist in one place on this board.

The Ministry of Health in Israel reported a 36-ish% efficacy. That's 6+/10 not protected from infection. Whether it helps prevent serious infection/death seems to be the question, and I've been unable to find anything other than generalized statements on it... especially when the term "fully vaccinated" is defined in a somewhat misleading manner.

 

[C2TJMC]

5 people in my household vaccinated, 3 of them had breakthrough cases. Two of them had symptoms, one did not. Symptoms are extremely mild. I was the first in my household to get the vaccine, but I did not have a breakthrough case. We all received the same Pfizer vaccine.

My employer requires the vaccine, just as they do the flu vaccine. I have no problem with employer based requirement. I do have a problem with government type forced mandate.

Unless job/school requires, I believe it should be personal choice. If someone does not want to get it, and they don't have a job or other need that requires it, then they have made their choice even with all the info. At the very least the vaccine does increase the chances of being asymptomatic or just having mild symptoms. I will take that all day. If someone doesn't see that as reason to get it, that is their choice. Just don't want them complaining to me when I am walking around without my mask.

 

[caseminole]

I see it is a challenge to have civil discussion here. I’ve clearly explained that I’m not anti vaccine and have been vaccinated. I’m simply asking for information on the benefit of my vaccination. I’m clear on it helping me if I get sick but I honestly didn’t think it helped to prevent me from getting sick (which IF true made me not understand the logic of mandates). I am asking for the science/stats to show it does help me. I don’t have a hidden agenda or motivation for asking other than I’d truly like to know.

Actually another reason for vaccine mandates is that with an entire population vaccinated, we as humanity have a good chance to reach herd immunity and covid itself dies a much needed death.

With so many people making POLITICAL choices about it does nothing to combat the disease itself, and just makes it much harder for this thing to go the way of the Spanish Flu or the Bubonic Plague

 

[GeddyLee09]

Actually another reason for vaccine mandates is that with an entire population vaccinated, we as humanity have a good chance to reach herd immunity and covid itself dies a much needed death.

With so many people making POLITICAL choices about it does nothing to combat the disease itself, and just makes it much harder for this thing to go the way of the Spanish Flu or the Bubonic Plague

People didn't make this political, the media made it political from the very beginning. If this was treated as a public health emergency from the start with consistent messaging it could have been managed better.

 

[GbrNole]

With so many people making POLITICAL choices about it does nothing to combat the disease itself, and just makes it much harder for this thing to go the way of the Spanish Flu

just for consistency, there was lots of politics and no vaccine in the case of the spanish flu. it was also three times more deadly than COVID in the US and five to ten times more deadly globally.

 

[fsufool]

have posted it before. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7.pdf

Very strange posted article. Date Received August 17th, 2021. Data used 1 week ending September 3rd????
Also not peer reviewed.
Makes no attempt to consider percentage of already infected individuals in each country/county.
Country comparisons have different testing regimes, making the amount of infections non-comparable.
Only uses 1 week of data, which could be anomalous.
Etc.

 

[GbrNole]

7 days worth of data collection is just ridiculously narrow to have any real use. it's basically cherry picking.

with that said, breakthrough case data as collected by the CDC is almost completely worthless. the CDC only collects breakthrough data on fully vaccinated people that have been hospitalized or died and in both of those cases it is required to be by a PCR test that has been ran at 28 cycles or less.

the "unvaccinated" (which includes first jab and single/double jabbed people that are not yet 14 days out) are not afforded those same diagnosing accommodations. unvaccinated people are also considered covid positive by a rapid test, any PCR test and by being probable from symptoms despite not having a covid positive test.

 

[GeddyLee09]

7 days worth of data collection is just ridiculously narrow to have any real use. it's basically cherry picking.

with that said, breakthrough case data as collected by the CDC is almost completely worthless. the CDC only collects breakthrough data on fully vaccinated people that have been hospitalized or died and in both of those cases it is required to be by a PCR test that has been ran at 28 cycles or less.

the "unvaccinated" (which includes first jab and single/double jabbed people that are not yet 14 days out) are not afforded those same diagnosing accommodations. unvaccinated people are also considered covid positive by a rapid test, any PCR test and by being probable from symptoms despite not having a covid positive test.

Yep and how many cycles are those tests run at? Sometimes upwards of 60.

 

[fsufool]

7 days worth of data collection is just ridiculously narrow to have any real use. it's basically cherry picking.

with that said, breakthrough case data as collected by the CDC is almost completely worthless. the CDC only collects breakthrough data on fully vaccinated people that have been hospitalized or died and in both of those cases it is required to be by a PCR test that has been ran at 28 cycles or less.

the "unvaccinated" (which includes first jab and single/double jabbed people that are not yet 14 days out) are not afforded those same diagnosing accommodations. unvaccinated people are also considered covid positive by a rapid test, any PCR test and by being probable from symptoms despite not having a covid positive test.

Actually, the CDC breakthrough case data makes sense to know. The infection rates are really wonky with differing requirements from country to country . There have been some good studies looking at breakthrough infections including a study that just got published by the CDC, just with smaller Ns.

 

[misswebbsilverchief]

Well, I guess the vaccine mandates….everyone admits that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid. All it does is help your chances if you do get it. So why force people to get it? If it stopped you from getting it or spreading it then I could see it but it doesn’t. So if someone catches Covid it is on them if they have it worse and they will have to live (or die) with their choice but I don’t get the purpose of mandates and firing people because it is not impacting your co-workers, just you, right? Am I missing something?

By the way I am vaccinated so I am not “anti vaccine” but I don’t understand the logic of the mandates when it does not stop the spread.

THIS!! 100%%% Why can't we choose for ourselves based on our own risk assessment with our Doctor what is best? Why does the government have to "nanny" us if it does not stop the spread of the virus? Btw I also took the J&J shot months ago. But danged if I am going to take any "boosters" at this point I feel like anything the CDC, etc says is nothing but propaganda for Big Pharma......

 

[ChiefWB]

Why can't we choose for ourselves based on our own risk assessment with our Doctor what is best? Why does the government have to "nanny" us

That’s exactly what I did. Not once did the government check in on me or force me to do anything. Not once in 6 months have I been asked for proof of vaccination.
And let’s be honest. There are some that will listen to project veritas over the advise of their physician. That is a much bigger and real problem as I see it.

 

[itsjustme0770]

THIS!! 100%%% Why can't we choose for ourselves based on our own risk assessment with our Doctor what is best? Why does the government have to "nanny" us if it does not stop the spread of the virus? Btw I also took the J&J shot months ago. But danged if I am going to take any "boosters" at this point I feel like anything the CDC, etc says is nothing but propaganda for Big Pharma......

because the "THIS" you are responding to is false.

 

[GbrNole]

Actually, the CDC breakthrough case data makes sense to know. The infection rates are really wonky with differing requirements from country to country . There have been some good studies looking at breakthrough infections including a study that just got published by the CDC, just with smaller Ns.

The problem is that the breakthrough case data is woefully inadequate. There is zero justification to not count infection rates in the vaccinated population that were not hospitalized.

Infections per 100,000 people in the UK are substantially higher in the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated population in all but the youngest age groups 0-29.

 

[SteveT1]

7 days worth of data collection is just ridiculously narrow to have any real use. it's basically cherry picking.

with that said, breakthrough case data as collected by the CDC is almost completely worthless. the CDC only collects breakthrough data on fully vaccinated people that have been hospitalized or died and in both of those cases it is required to be by a PCR test that has been ran at 28 cycles or less.

the "unvaccinated" (which includes first jab and single/double jabbed people that are not yet 14 days out) are not afforded those same diagnosing accommodations. unvaccinated people are also considered covid positive by a rapid test, any PCR test and by being probable from symptoms despite not having a covid positive test.

I agree. The size of the study may offset the 7 day window. But unnuanced, unreliable data is, and has always been, the major issue and point of frustration/skepticism.

 

[SteveT1]

Very strange posted article. Date Received August 17th, 2021. Data used 1 week ending September 3rd????
Also not peer reviewed.
Makes no attempt to consider percentage of already infected individuals in each country/county.
Country comparisons have different testing regimes, making the amount of infections non-comparable.
Only uses 1 week of data, which could be anomalous.
Etc.

It's about to be published. Obviously would like better data. I'm more interested in nuanced data, just posted the article in response to someone demanding to see a study suggesting that levels of vaccination have no corrolation with covid19 infection rates. This data study does that.

 

[fsufool]

It's about to be published. Obviously would like better data. I'm more interested in nuanced data, just posted the article in response to someone demanding to see a study suggesting that levels of vaccination have no corrolation with covid19 infection rates. This data study does that.

Are you sure? No Peer Review?

 

[fsufool]

The problem is that the breakthrough case data is woefully inadequate. There is zero justification to not count infection rates in the vaccinated population that were not hospitalized.

Infections per 100,000 people in the UK are substantially higher in the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated population in all but the youngest age groups 0-29.

Well...........here is the problem. Unless you are testing everyone or have a random controlled trial.......then you don't really know because the majority of infections are asymptomatic and therefore no reason to test. However, hospitalizations and deaths are fairly easy to count, so fairly accurate metrics.

As to your statement about the UK. The only "study" I can find is this one about deaths. If this is what you are referring too, you really shouldn't listen to right wing politicians. I am surprised that you would.

Here is the Rueters Fact check on the statement:
Missing context. Suggestions that higher numbers vaccinated individuals are dying in England than unvaccinated omits context that most of the population has been vaccinated. Evidence shows that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of serious illness, hospitalization and death.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .

Full fact check: https://www.reuters.com/article/del...rmine-role-of-covid-19-vaccines-idUSL1N2QZ0IZ

Here is a study by Imperial College:

Coronavirus infections three times lower in double vaccinated people - REACT | Imperial News | Imperial College London

New research has found that double vaccinated people were three times less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive for the coronavirus.

www.imperial.ac.uk

This one is out, but not peered review.

Vaccinated people are less likely to spread Covid, new research finds

British scientists examined how the Pfizer-BioNTech and the AstraZeneca vaccines affected the spread of the virus if a person had a breakthrough infection.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[SteveT1]

Are you sure? No Peer Review?

Eur J Epidemiol, 2021 Sep 30. I don't know if it's been peer reviewed. It doesn't say either way.

 

[fsufool]

Eur J Epidemiol, 2021 Sep 30. I don't know if it's been peer reviewed. It doesn't say either way.

Again, no not peer reviewed as I stated above. Many studies die in peer review or get substantial change.

 

[Dhersh]

Again, no not peer reviewed as I stated above. Many studies die in peer review or get substantial change.

A lot of people don't realize that the vast majority of studies are unreliable. What's even worse is that the media reports on them and people buy in.

 

[SteveT1]

A lot of people don't realize that the vast majority of studies are unreliable. What's even worse is that the media reports on them and people buy in.

A study isn’t faulty just because it wasn’t peer reviewed, just as it isn’t concrete because it’s peer reviewed. This one was based on data and was very broad because the policies are very broad. I think we all want nuanced data, but it’s not available and —in the case of OSHA—is deliberately not compiled at all, likely to avoid embarrassments through foia

 

[Dhersh]

A study isn’t faulty just because it wasn’t peer reviewed, just as it isn’t concrete because it’s peer reviewed. This one was based on data and was very broad because the policies are very broad. I think we all want nuanced data, but it’s not available and —in the case of OSHA—is deliberately not compiled at all, likely to avoid embarrassments through foia

I understand. Peer reviews establish validity. As mentioned, fellow experts will more often than not find a flaw in the variables, testing methods, etc. that causes the results to be seen as invalid. It's one of the most important parts of a study.

 

[wbnolefan2]

7 days worth of data collection is just ridiculously narrow to have any real use. it's basically cherry picking.

with that said, breakthrough case data as collected by the CDC is almost completely worthless. the CDC only collects breakthrough data on fully vaccinated people that have been hospitalized or died and in both of those cases it is required to be by a PCR test that has been ran at 28 cycles or less.

the "unvaccinated" (which includes first jab and single/double jabbed people that are not yet 14 days out) are not afforded those same diagnosing accommodations. unvaccinated people are also considered covid positive by a rapid test, any PCR test and by being probable from symptoms despite not having a covid positive test.

isn't this a legit method by CDC though?

By this they are saying we want to find a true breakthrough (i.e. vaccinated but very sick), not we detected the virus in your nose (literally where your immune system is fighting it off) by using a wildly sensitive test