Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
condoms, yes if they are catholic at leastDo they have an issue with condoms too?
Will they get out in the streets if an AIDS vaccine is discovered?
arent the main people (outside antivaxxers) that are against the hpv vaccinations evangelists who equate the hpv vaccine with sexual promiscuity?
I'm not sure that there have been any indications that mRNA vaccines actually have any serious harms - once you ignore the Covid-denier groups who, of course, who do a dumpster dive into VAERS/Yellow Card reports and try to blame anything that happens to anybody on the vaccines. I remember there were indications of a risk of mild carditis in adults
Just re-quoting as this was a reply meant to partially answer, beside of the direct point that in this case vaccination should be a personal decision, to @Albuquerque 's ideea that it's a lot about political aligment and news sources.Vaccination does not prevent one to get the disease, nor to transmit it, by any meaningful measure. Flu vaccine as well, same situation.
I did sadly believe it would help stop transmission too, in early 2021 when i got my shots. As the media were suggesting it and because the word "vaccine" has been used for this injection and I probably many others, are use to the word meaning it "stops us from getting the disease"
Firstly, let's not confuse transmission with infection. There's no good evidence vaccination prevents transmission, to my knowledge, and the manufacturers themselves said they've never measured that and they wouldn't claim any efficacy here. I do agree though that at the time the confusion was made, by me as well i think, and from the media back then you might get the hope vaccines would help with that.To an extent, it did:
The effectiveness against transmission waned because the virus had continued to mutate. When the vaccines first dropped, the strain they were specifically targeting were indeed hampered in transmission. The virus you're fighting now is different than the one we were fighting then.
The main benefit of being vaccinated now is to decrease your viral load and the severity of the infection, which is extremely valuable and perhaps that message wasn't communicated as clear as it could have been early on. But while relatively brief, it did have a period of reducing transmission too.
I think suspicions around the current vaccines in part, which has been somewhat proven justified since we've learnt how they haven't been as thoroughly tested as other vaccines and there are some unknowns surrounding their novel vaccine strategy. I think it prudent to scale back the vaccination while mRNA vaccines are investigated more to learn the ins and outs now that the majority of Covid risks are diminished. If it were up to me, I'd see about creating mRNA vaccines for other disease we already have vaccines for and comparing them. And/or developing traditional vaccines (or alternatives like nasals) to Covid while mRNA vaccines have ongoing evaluation.
I'm not sure that there have been any indications that mRNA vaccines actually have any serious harms - once you ignore the Covid-denier groups who, of course, who do a dumpster dive into VAERS/Yellow Card reports and try to blame anything that happens to anybody on the vaccines. I remember there were indications of a risk of mild carditis in adults - but much less of a risk than being unvaccinated and contracting Covid. Not sure if similar risks occur in children, but I've not seen any reporting of it.
What do you mean by progress of the disease - reducing transmission in populace (which already was said not to be a target for the vaccine) or reducing severity of the illness on individual (which the vaccines arguably succeeded in)?However for boosters there were studies which showed it helped reduce infections for a few months. However, that protection is still lower than needed to impact the progress of the disease.
I meant rate of infection/transmission, and not the effect on the overall severity of the outcomes, because of the context.What do you mean by progress of the disease - reducing transmission in populace (which already was said not to be a target for the vaccine) or reducing severity of the illness on individual (which the vaccines arguably succeeded in)?
Why would you attribute reduced severity to natural immunity but not to vaccines?( I'm personally unsure of how the vaccines helped reducing the severity of the ilnesses, not convinced by the data either way, mostly because almost anyone failed to account for natural immunity's impact and that is certainly a relevant factor)
It's not about that, it's just that there are two huge sources of immunity and one is barely ever considered. It's as if we'd rate multiple gaming computers' performance only by the CPUs they use, and we don't mention the GPU used, just that they can be any of the commercially available ones .Why would you attribute reduced severity to natural immunity but not to vaccines?
Real world studies on Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) use "test-negative" designs that compare the proportion of those vaccinated in those testing postive (cases group) with the proportion of those vaccinated in those testing negative (control group). In this way prior population immunity should not affect the VE figure.It's not about that, it's just that there are two huge sources of immunity and one is barely ever considered. It's as if we'd rate multiple gaming computers' performance only by the CPUs they use, and we don't mention the GPU used, just that they can be any of the commercially available ones .
If the studies / analysis / statistics control for natural immunity (the majority of times they don't seem to be) the findings are of little practical relevance as very few people are still completely naiive to the virus (never exposed to the virus and never vaccinated).
The fact that the measure of VE is not influenced by population immunity allows it to estimate the additional protection provided by vaccines, on top of existing immunity in the population. So it's very relevant for determining the efficacy of a vaccine in the real world.Right, hence my "little practical relevance"
but this is a previously fictional case, which only appeared in the case of covid.additional protection provided by vaccines, on top of existing immunity in the population. So it's very relevant for determining the efficacy of a vaccine in the real world.
Everyone's had flu, so why is there a flu vaccine? Likewise why bother with a 'shingles' vaccine for people who have had chicken pox?If you've already got the disease, you don't vaccinate. Period. This is overwhelmingly how "classic" vaccines are used, hence it stands to reason that this should be the default for a new one that doesn't appear to be superior (to put it mildly) to the classic ones.
Low risk from what? Long Covid has been pretty prevalent among all ages.Similarly, why would you even vaccinate if you are in a really low risk group (where most are, actually, at least in present day) with a vaccine doesn't stop the disease from spreding.
I think there was something on that on the BMJ where basically the body acclimates to the antigen presence. I can't recall though and that's just heresay without reference. However, this would be in keeping with natural philosophy that the body always acclimates to constants as a new norm.Also Robert Clancy in one his youtube long interviews that many doses might make the immune system attack the virus less, not more, which is not what you want.
Is it a honest question? Surely you can see the massive difference in how covid vaccine was promoted to everybody and their dog. How people got fired and have their movement restricted if they refused to vaccinate.Everyone's had flu, so why is there a flu vaccine? Likewise why bother with a 'shingles' vaccine for people who have had chicken pox?
Looks like you found a reason why one might want to vaccinate if one is in a low risk group? If the risk is low for covid, but somehow larger for LC, and the person was not previously infected ( knowingly or unknowingly), could be a good ideea.Low risk from what? Long Covid has been pretty prevalent among all ages.
Vaccines themselves are just supposed to give the immune system a nudge; present the antigen so the immune system will know how to create antibodies whenever encountering the virus. The fact that after vaccinations we can measure a level of antibodies is mearly a (usually useful) side effect.I think there was something on that on the BMJ where basically the body acclimates to the antigen presence. I can't recall though and that's just heresay without reference. However, this would be in keeping with natural philosophy that the body always acclimates to constants as a new norm.
The question I was addressing was not "should we vaccinate", but "do we have a reliable method of assessing vaccine effectiveness that takes into account prior immunity". And my claim was that we do have such a method (real world studies using test-negative designs).but this is a previously fictional case, which only appeared in the case of covid.
I instead see a lot of stretches & juggling here, solutions looking for a problem; as depicted also by the invention of the term (makes its appearence on the paper you've linked) "hybrid immunity"
If you've already got the disease, you don't vaccinate. Period. This is overwhelmingly how "classic" vaccines are used, hence it stands to reason that this should be the default for a new one that doesn't appear to be superior (to put it mildly) to the classic ones.
Similarly, why would you even vaccinate if you are in a really low risk group (where most are, actually, at least in present day) with a vaccine doesn't stop the disease from spreding.
^^
The point i'm assembling here is that since we're not administring / treating this as a "real" vaccine (nor should we), numbers that might be useful for vaccines' measured efficacy are no longer obviously relevant.
Not to say the linked paper isn't quite interesting though, and feels pretty accessible.
That's a different issue to the one I was addressing. You said we don't give vaccines to the already vaccinated or those who have had the disease. I present Exhibit A, vaccines where we do just that!Is it a honest question? Surely you can see the massive difference in how covid vaccine was promoted to everybody and their dog. How people got fired and have their movement restricted if they refused to vaccinate.
There's two types. One primes the body's cellular response to react quickly and the other activates the immune system to produces ABs and avoid a real infection. The first MMR type vaccines you get are to prime the immune system, whereas the annual Flu vaccine is the 'activate' type vaccine to produce active ABs.Vaccines themselves are just supposed to give the immune system a nudge; present the antigen so the immune system will know how to create antibodies whenever encountering the virus. The fact that after vaccinations we can measure a level of antibodies is mearly a (usually useful) side effect.
Some of this - patterns and principles - is philosophy, not science, and scientists by and large prefer to stick with their very limited understanding, go full ahead with what they 'know' and then develop new theories years later that show what they 'knew' wasn't correct.I was just trying to give a picture about the immune system. The pattern/principle which I could observe is only to give as little input to the immune system as possible.