Red Mosquito

We almost had it beaten. Then government bowed to business and opened for Christmas.

Now it’s completely out of control and per capita, worse than the US.

We’re fucked.

dimejinky99 wrote:worse than the US.

We’re fucked.

Ha ha! Hold our beer.

You can't beat a virus

verb_to_trust wrote:You can't beat a virus

Smallpox dislikes this post.

B wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:You can't beat a virus

Smallpox dislikes this post.

If a virus as beaten then the continued use of vaccines would not be required. In the case of Covid this is especially true as the vaccine is only known to lessen symptoms and does absolutely nothing to prevent getting Covid or spreading it (as far as known).

And why does RM still think Covid is a misspelling?

I was being a bit facetious b/c we won't "smallpox" crush this, but I'm curious why you think the vaccine doesn't prevent the disease.

B wrote:I was being a bit facetious b/c we won't "smallpox" crush this, but I'm curious why you think the vaccine doesn't prevent the disease.

Because the manufacturers don't claim it prevents the disease.

surfndestroy wrote:

B wrote:I was being a bit facetious b/c we won't "smallpox" crush this, but I'm curious why you think the vaccine doesn't prevent the disease.

Because the manufacturers don't claim it prevents the disease.

I think B is referring to a clinical presentation of the disease. The distinction between that and asymptomatic viral replication in your body (and probabal viral shedding) is probably not much comfort to those in your immediate vicinity without immunity.

Did I get that right? Manufacturers are stepping over each other to clarify that prevention of viral replication and spread was not demonstrated during their trials, just a massive decrease in the likelihood of clinical presentation of the disease.

I mean, sure you can get sick in the weeks after being vaccinated b/c your body takes time to respond, but once you're immune to a disease, you're not going to shed the virus. Vaccination would have crashed and burned 224 years ago if that's how they worked.

B wrote:I mean, sure you can get sick in the weeks after being vaccinated b/c your body takes time to respond, but once you're immune to a disease, you're not going to shed the virus. Vaccination would have crashed and burned 224 years ago if that's how they worked.

So you're saying the manufacturers are wrong.

I'm saying vaccinated people don't get sick. People who aren't sick can't get other people sick.

They didn't test for people who might have subclinical cases that make people sick because there's no such thing as a vaccine that prevents symptomatic illness, but allows asymptomatic illness.

They also didn't test for people who got eaten by Godzilla following a dose of vaccine, but people need not fear being eaten by a giant lizard.

B wrote:I'm saying vaccinated people don't get sick. People who aren't sick can't get other people sick.

They didn't test for people who might have subclinical cases that make people sick because there's no such thing as a vaccine that prevents symptomatic illness, but allows asymptomatic illness.

They also didn't test for people who got eaten by Godzilla following a dose of vaccine, but people need not fear being eaten by a giant lizard.

I am not sure why you are so adamant to claim something the manufacturers won't about their own product.

I never said or even hinted that "vaccine that prevents symptomatic illness, but allows asymptomatic illness". Everything I have read about the vaccines is that do not claim to prevent a parson from getting Covid but lessen reported symptoms. This is important as one if the real fears with Covid is swamping the healthcare symptom. If a vaccine makes it so people don't even know they have Covid or lessen the symptoms to regular homecare as with seasonal flu then healthcare won't get overrun and Covid can become something more like seasonal flu where we can't prevent people from getting but is highly manageable. If you can point me to any manufacturer that claims their vaccine prevents you from getting Covid please point me to it.

Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine efficacy after 2 doses was 94.1% (95% confidence interval = 89.3%–96.8%) in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was the primary study endpoint.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 695152e1_w

That doesn't mean people get sick asymptomatically and shed virus. It means that people didn't get sick with COVID.

B wrote:I mean, sure you can get sick in the weeks after being vaccinated b/c your body takes time to respond, but once you're immune to a disease, you're not going to shed the virus. Vaccination would have crashed and burned 224 years ago if that's how they worked.

Then why do they keep bringing it up? Is the current guidance you can just stop any sort of mask wearing and social distancing a few weeks after the 2nd dose? If not, why not? 95+% efficacy is insufficient?

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:I mean, sure you can get sick in the weeks after being vaccinated b/c your body takes time to respond, but once you're immune to a disease, you're not going to shed the virus. Vaccination would have crashed and burned 224 years ago if that's how they worked.

Then why do they keep bringing it up? Is the current guidance you can just stop any sort of mask wearing and social distancing a few weeks after the 2nd dose? If not, why not? 95+% efficacy is insufficient?

Because 95% isn't 100% and we don't know who the 5% are. And that 5% is more enough to cause outbreaks in an unvaccinated population.

B wrote:

Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine efficacy after 2 doses was 94.1% (95% confidence interval = 89.3%–96.8%) in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was the primary study endpoint.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... 695152e1_w

That doesn't mean people get sick asymptomatically and shed virus. It means that people didn't get sick with COVID.

First of all thank you. I read it and the meaning of the following is where you and I diverge.

"Moderna COVID-19 vaccine efficacy after 2 doses was 94.1% (95% confidence interval = 89.3%–96.8%) in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was the primary study endpoint."

This has been described to me by the manufacturers that it does not prevent me getting Covid but does lessens symptoms. Is this different from a Polio vaccine that prevents me from getting polio? Or does Polio vaccine still allow me to get Polio and the vaccine has already taught my body how to fight it and preventing symptoms?

Yes, but Moderna is bound to report ONLY what they looked at. They looked at the two groups for symptoms and positive test results, so that's what they can say it prevents.

That is NOT the same as saying the vaccine does not prevent asymptomatic spreading. That would require contact tracing and testing contacts. The government didn't pay for that level of testing, and no for-profit company would foot that bill either.

B, could I characterize your assessment as this
That vaccine developers, public health officials, etc. are covering their ass by sticking to hard, known facts, and that although "it’s still unclear whether they prevent infection and transmission of the virus",
it's very likely that the covid vaccines will prevent transmission? Just no specific scientific data yet?


This December 21, 2020 article from The Mercury News is interesting
Coronavirus vaccines are proven to prevent disease, but what about transmission?

While scientists have been humbled by this virus, Moore[Dr. Patrick Moore, a virologist at the University of Pittsburgh who reviewed the Moderna vaccine as part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee] did point to one previous vaccination experience that underscores the importance of preventing transmission. It was not for a viral disease but for the bacteria that causes pneumonia.

That initial vaccine only prevented serious illness, not transmission. Later, it was improved upon to also guard against transmitting the virus but only approved for use in infants. Despite a smaller segment of the population receiving the later vaccine, it saved more lives.

The FDA is known for not signing off on likely true statements unless they are filled out in $500,000,000 triplicate.