Viruses / Vaccines
Comments
-
cincybearcat said:
My workplace has bi-weekly meetings with individuals tasked to read the actual studies and provide information. After initially saying that a vaccinated person who got delta passed it on just like a non-vac person for the first 3-5 days and then a huge drop off….they recently updated saying the the amount of active virus shed by vaccinated people was actually far less than unvaccinated. Meaning while the same amount of virus is shed…in the vaccinated only a smaller percentage of that load could cause others to be infected.Indifference said:mrussel1 said:
Not necessarily. Remember your chance if getting covid is dramatically reduced by the vax. This study just says if you're a breakthrough, you can spread it. But your chances of spreading are lower by never getting it.nicknyr15 said:
Nothing new. That’s why I laugh when people claim it’s to protect those around you. The vaccine has become : protect yourself and not overwhelm the hospitals by getting very sick. And I’m totally for being vaccinated. Stupid not to.Indifference said:
Yes to both.
Science reporting in mainstream media continues to be terrible and misleading. Vaccination protects the community and the individual but that point is now being missed with how these headlines and stories are being written.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
My theory, and that’s all it is right now, is the vaccine is far less effective than we’re being told. A few reasons I believe this.
I was the third person to test positive in a week (with a staff less than 40, so that’s a big chunk of us). All of us fully vaxed And all showed symptoms. Being in quarantine and using a home test I’ve learned some about it.
The rapid home test is about 85% accurate, even less in the rest world since people can’t follow directions. Almost all of the error is in false negatives. You aren’t asked or even encouraged to report a positive home test to the county. So many with false negative tests never know they have it. Those with a positive never get reported. I don’t see how this can’t lead to under reporting in breakout cases. The flu vaccine only last 6 months, many people got their vaccines in Feb/March, so good chance it’s wearing off by now.
Im not anti vaccine, and there’s still lots of reason to believe it reduces ICU and hospital visits. I actually wish I got the booster, I was only eligible about a week before I got it and just hadn’t signed up yet.
I just believe breakout cases are probably a lot more common than what is currently being reported. And a lot of the spread, more than we think, is due to breakout cases. Especially if you’re relying on an inaccurate home test.0 -
Depends on what you mean by “effective”. The primary goal of vaccination for an illness like this has always been to minimize the risk of serious or fatal cases, not to eliminate mild or asymptomatic cases. The fact that these vaccines do reduce the risk of getting mild cases in addition to serious and fatal cases is a major bonus. Too much to ask for to hope that we won’t still have to deal with symptoms like we expect from a cold.Love mace1229 said:My theory, and that’s all it is right now, is the vaccine is far less effective than we’re being told. A few reasons I believe this.
I was the third person to test positive in a week (with a staff less than 40, so that’s a big chunk of us). All of us fully vaxed And all showed symptoms. Being in quarantine and using a home test I’ve learned some about it.
The rapid home test is about 85% accurate, even less in the rest world since people can’t follow directions. Almost all of the error is in false negatives. You aren’t asked or even encouraged to report a positive home test to the county. So many with false negative tests never know they have it. Those with a positive never get reported. I don’t see how this can’t lead to under reporting in breakout cases. The flu vaccine only last 6 months, many people got their vaccines in Feb/March, so good chance it’s wearing off by now.
Im not anti vaccine, and there’s still lots of reason to believe it reduces ICU and hospital visits. I actually wish I got the booster, I was only eligible about a week before I got it and just hadn’t signed up yet.
I just believe breakout cases are probably a lot more common than what is currently being reported. And a lot of the spread, more than we think, is due to breakout cases. Especially if you’re relying on an inaccurate home test.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
how do you equate being lied to about vaccine effectiveness with human error in home testing? I think what is being reported is what should be reported; one trend that our health officials found was that an alarming amount of people aren't testing positive until they arrive at the hospital for treatment; we are being encouraged to report positives. But I don't know how prevalent home testing is here compared to the US. We just go to a local testing site and get it done. Much quicker and more accurate and free.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
Oh, that's a definite bummer. I guess I don't see that sort of thing much because I tend to read sources like The Guardian which is much more pro-science, pro-vaccination, etc. I'm guessing I would not feel too good reading mainstream news sources these days!oftenreading said:cincybearcat said:
My workplace has bi-weekly meetings with individuals tasked to read the actual studies and provide information. After initially saying that a vaccinated person who got delta passed it on just like a non-vac person for the first 3-5 days and then a huge drop off….they recently updated saying the the amount of active virus shed by vaccinated people was actually far less than unvaccinated. Meaning while the same amount of virus is shed…in the vaccinated only a smaller percentage of that load could cause others to be infected.Indifference said:mrussel1 said:
Not necessarily. Remember your chance if getting covid is dramatically reduced by the vax. This study just says if you're a breakthrough, you can spread it. But your chances of spreading are lower by never getting it.nicknyr15 said:
Nothing new. That’s why I laugh when people claim it’s to protect those around you. The vaccine has become : protect yourself and not overwhelm the hospitals by getting very sick. And I’m totally for being vaccinated. Stupid not to.Indifference said:
Yes to both.
Science reporting in mainstream media continues to be terrible and misleading. Vaccination protects the community and the individual but that point is now being missed with how these headlines and stories are being written.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
I don’t think I said we’re being lied to. But that we don’t have all the data, largely due to home testing. That’s not the same as being lied to.HughFreakingDillon said:how do you equate being lied to about vaccine effectiveness with human error in home testing? I think what is being reported is what should be reported; one trend that our health officials found was that an alarming amount of people aren't testing positive until they arrive at the hospital for treatment; we are being encouraged to report positives. But I don't know how prevalent home testing is here compared to the US. We just go to a local testing site and get it done. Much quicker and more accurate and free.
I didn’t realize how common home tests were until recently. Talking to my coworkers, nearly all of them rely on home tests. I wasn’t even aware until a few days ago, but my state gives them out for free for front line workers and had 2 million available. They are being sold out in stores because they are in high demand. So there’s obviously a lot out there and if a good chunk aren’t being reported to the county health dept, that obviously skews the data. That’s not equal to a lie, but I am surprised they don’t say to report positive cases, even the CDC website doesn’t say to do that for a home test.0 -
I would say an equally important goal, and one we keep hearing most about, is to stop the spread. That’s how it was first advertised as well, wasn’t it supposed to be like a 95% efficacy or something? Not just minimize hospital visits and deaths for those vaccinated.oftenreading said:
Depends on what you mean by “effective”. The primary goal of vaccination for an illness like this has always been to minimize the risk of serious or fatal cases, not to eliminate mild or asymptomatic cases. The fact that these vaccines do reduce the risk of getting mild cases in addition to serious and fatal cases is a major bonus. Too much to ask for to hope that we won’t still have to deal with symptoms like we expect from a cold.Love mace1229 said:My theory, and that’s all it is right now, is the vaccine is far less effective than we’re being told. A few reasons I believe this.
I was the third person to test positive in a week (with a staff less than 40, so that’s a big chunk of us). All of us fully vaxed And all showed symptoms. Being in quarantine and using a home test I’ve learned some about it.
The rapid home test is about 85% accurate, even less in the rest world since people can’t follow directions. Almost all of the error is in false negatives. You aren’t asked or even encouraged to report a positive home test to the county. So many with false negative tests never know they have it. Those with a positive never get reported. I don’t see how this can’t lead to under reporting in breakout cases. The flu vaccine only last 6 months, many people got their vaccines in Feb/March, so good chance it’s wearing off by now.
Im not anti vaccine, and there’s still lots of reason to believe it reduces ICU and hospital visits. I actually wish I got the booster, I was only eligible about a week before I got it and just hadn’t signed up yet.
I just believe breakout cases are probably a lot more common than what is currently being reported. And a lot of the spread, more than we think, is due to breakout cases. Especially if you’re relying on an inaccurate home test.
But I wasn’t arguing any of that, in fact I even acknowledged it reduced those risks. I just believe the number of breakthrough cases is higher than what is being reported. That’s not due to false reporting by officials, but by false negatives on tests and not reporting of positive home tests.
Im not complaining we still have to deal with cold symptoms, I still think the vaccine is good. I just made a comment that it’s probably not as effective as we believe. No reason to read into that, nothing to read into. The flu vaccine is often 60% effective or even less and no one complains about that and I still get that every year. Especially with the delta variant, I’d bet it’s closer to that 50-60% range than that 95%. I still think everyone should get it.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
'my theory'
0 -
Yes, I wanted to be up front I’m not claiming evidence on that, just having a conversation. Not sure why that needed to be pointed out. Either way, I still confident breakthrough cases are under reported.0
-
The way its going here looks like the vaccine isnt stopping many getting it . Just an observation of people i know . So breakthrough is very very common
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -0 -
mutation of delta then? superdelta?
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Delta we are told
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -0 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
NEXT TIME, MANAGE RISK INSTEAD OF CLOSING BORDER, TASK FORCE URGES CANADA, U.S.
Good luck with that. When the border fully reopens soon Canadians still will need a test to return even if fully vaccinated…lmfao.Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Mace, this confused me as well.mace1229 said:
I would say an equally important goal, and one we keep hearing most about, is to stop the spread. That’s how it was first advertised as well, wasn’t it supposed to be like a 95% efficacy or something? Not just minimize hospital visits and deaths for those vaccinated.oftenreading said:
Depends on what you mean by “effective”. The primary goal of vaccination for an illness like this has always been to minimize the risk of serious or fatal cases, not to eliminate mild or asymptomatic cases. The fact that these vaccines do reduce the risk of getting mild cases in addition to serious and fatal cases is a major bonus. Too much to ask for to hope that we won’t still have to deal with symptoms like we expect from a cold.Love mace1229 said:My theory, and that’s all it is right now, is the vaccine is far less effective than we’re being told. A few reasons I believe this.
I was the third person to test positive in a week (with a staff less than 40, so that’s a big chunk of us). All of us fully vaxed And all showed symptoms. Being in quarantine and using a home test I’ve learned some about it.
The rapid home test is about 85% accurate, even less in the rest world since people can’t follow directions. Almost all of the error is in false negatives. You aren’t asked or even encouraged to report a positive home test to the county. So many with false negative tests never know they have it. Those with a positive never get reported. I don’t see how this can’t lead to under reporting in breakout cases. The flu vaccine only last 6 months, many people got their vaccines in Feb/March, so good chance it’s wearing off by now.
Im not anti vaccine, and there’s still lots of reason to believe it reduces ICU and hospital visits. I actually wish I got the booster, I was only eligible about a week before I got it and just hadn’t signed up yet.
I just believe breakout cases are probably a lot more common than what is currently being reported. And a lot of the spread, more than we think, is due to breakout cases. Especially if you’re relying on an inaccurate home test.
But I wasn’t arguing any of that, in fact I even acknowledged it reduced those risks. I just believe the number of breakthrough cases is higher than what is being reported. That’s not due to false reporting by officials, but by false negatives on tests and not reporting of positive home tests.
Im not complaining we still have to deal with cold symptoms, I still think the vaccine is good. I just made a comment that it’s probably not as effective as we believe. No reason to read into that, nothing to read into. The flu vaccine is often 60% effective or even less and no one complains about that and I still get that every year. Especially with the delta variant, I’d bet it’s closer to that 50-60% range than that 95%. I still think everyone should get it.
I thought the vaccine reduces the chance of severe symptoms and/or hospitalization, but I haven't read anything about a reduction of transmissibility as a byproduct of being vaccinated. If that's the case, the 'virality' wouldn't change, just the mortality rate. Does anyone know the truth of the matter on this?'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
pre-delta that was the contention. that transmission was reduced if vaxxed. however delta being able to have higher viral loads across the board, so its stands to reason higher shedding would be a result vaxxed or not.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
mace1229 said:My theory, and that’s all it is right now, is the vaccine is far less effective than we’re being told. A few reasons I believe this.
I was the third person to test positive in a week (with a staff less than 40, so that’s a big chunk of us). All of us fully vaxed And all showed symptoms. Being in quarantine and using a home test I’ve learned some about it.
The rapid home test is about 85% accurate, even less in the rest world since people can’t follow directions. Almost all of the error is in false negatives. You aren’t asked or even encouraged to report a positive home test to the county. So many with false negative tests never know they have it. Those with a positive never get reported. I don’t see how this can’t lead to under reporting in breakout cases. The flu vaccine only last 6 months, many people got their vaccines in Feb/March, so good chance it’s wearing off by now.
Im not anti vaccine, and there’s still lots of reason to believe it reduces ICU and hospital visits. I actually wish I got the booster, I was only eligible about a week before I got it and just hadn’t signed up yet.
I just believe breakout cases are probably a lot more common than what is currently being reported. And a lot of the spread, more than we think, is due to breakout cases. Especially if you’re relying on an inaccurate home test.which vaccine did you get? I think the other hard part is the media and governments treat them all like the same thing. It seems like Moderna is the best with high efficacy, and it doesn't taper off very much with time.Pfizer is ok, but it tapers off a lot. To something like 50% after 6 months. Here in Canada Pfizer was the most accessible vaccine during the vaccine rollouts. I was surprised the government wasn't more focused on boosters for people who got pfizer... now they're slowly getting to it, but for everyone.0 -
Straight from the CDC website:benjs said:
Mace, this confused me as well.mace1229 said:
I would say an equally important goal, and one we keep hearing most about, is to stop the spread. That’s how it was first advertised as well, wasn’t it supposed to be like a 95% efficacy or something? Not just minimize hospital visits and deaths for those vaccinated.oftenreading said:
Depends on what you mean by “effective”. The primary goal of vaccination for an illness like this has always been to minimize the risk of serious or fatal cases, not to eliminate mild or asymptomatic cases. The fact that these vaccines do reduce the risk of getting mild cases in addition to serious and fatal cases is a major bonus. Too much to ask for to hope that we won’t still have to deal with symptoms like we expect from a cold.Love mace1229 said:My theory, and that’s all it is right now, is the vaccine is far less effective than we’re being told. A few reasons I believe this.
I was the third person to test positive in a week (with a staff less than 40, so that’s a big chunk of us). All of us fully vaxed And all showed symptoms. Being in quarantine and using a home test I’ve learned some about it.
The rapid home test is about 85% accurate, even less in the rest world since people can’t follow directions. Almost all of the error is in false negatives. You aren’t asked or even encouraged to report a positive home test to the county. So many with false negative tests never know they have it. Those with a positive never get reported. I don’t see how this can’t lead to under reporting in breakout cases. The flu vaccine only last 6 months, many people got their vaccines in Feb/March, so good chance it’s wearing off by now.
Im not anti vaccine, and there’s still lots of reason to believe it reduces ICU and hospital visits. I actually wish I got the booster, I was only eligible about a week before I got it and just hadn’t signed up yet.
I just believe breakout cases are probably a lot more common than what is currently being reported. And a lot of the spread, more than we think, is due to breakout cases. Especially if you’re relying on an inaccurate home test.
But I wasn’t arguing any of that, in fact I even acknowledged it reduced those risks. I just believe the number of breakthrough cases is higher than what is being reported. That’s not due to false reporting by officials, but by false negatives on tests and not reporting of positive home tests.
Im not complaining we still have to deal with cold symptoms, I still think the vaccine is good. I just made a comment that it’s probably not as effective as we believe. No reason to read into that, nothing to read into. The flu vaccine is often 60% effective or even less and no one complains about that and I still get that every year. Especially with the delta variant, I’d bet it’s closer to that 50-60% range than that 95%. I still think everyone should get it.
I thought the vaccine reduces the chance of severe symptoms and/or hospitalization, but I haven't read anything about a reduction of transmissibility as a byproduct of being vaccinated. If that's the case, the 'virality' wouldn't change, just the mortality rate. Does anyone know the truth of the matter on this?- COVID 19-vaccines are effective. They can keep you from getting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19. Learn more about the different COVID-19 vaccines.
All along it’s been said the vaccine helps prevent getting Covid, and if you do actually get it, the symptoms are more mild. It was also believed to have a 95% efficacy rate, and what I understood that to mean is a lot smaller chance of infection, not just hospitalization.0 -
I got Pfizer, second dose in March. My wife got moderna about the same time, and she hasn’t caught it from me yet and my 10 days are almost up. So there may be a lot of truth in that, I really haven’t looked into the differences.Zod said:mace1229 said:My theory, and that’s all it is right now, is the vaccine is far less effective than we’re being told. A few reasons I believe this.
I was the third person to test positive in a week (with a staff less than 40, so that’s a big chunk of us). All of us fully vaxed And all showed symptoms. Being in quarantine and using a home test I’ve learned some about it.
The rapid home test is about 85% accurate, even less in the rest world since people can’t follow directions. Almost all of the error is in false negatives. You aren’t asked or even encouraged to report a positive home test to the county. So many with false negative tests never know they have it. Those with a positive never get reported. I don’t see how this can’t lead to under reporting in breakout cases. The flu vaccine only last 6 months, many people got their vaccines in Feb/March, so good chance it’s wearing off by now.
Im not anti vaccine, and there’s still lots of reason to believe it reduces ICU and hospital visits. I actually wish I got the booster, I was only eligible about a week before I got it and just hadn’t signed up yet.
I just believe breakout cases are probably a lot more common than what is currently being reported. And a lot of the spread, more than we think, is due to breakout cases. Especially if you’re relying on an inaccurate home test.which vaccine did you get? I think the other hard part is the media and governments treat them all like the same thing. It seems like Moderna is the best with high efficacy, and it doesn't taper off very much with time.Pfizer is ok, but it tapers off a lot. To something like 50% after 6 months. Here in Canada Pfizer was the most accessible vaccine during the vaccine rollouts. I was surprised the government wasn't more focused on boosters for people who got pfizer... now they're slowly getting to it, but for everyone.
0 -
Not in the main. No. All people in the first instance like my brother . Mum . Got pfizer. He works in a care home and she is 67. So all health care and elders got pfizer. Then my age got AZ then all under 50 got pfizer because of clotting. Which i still insist is due to not aspirating . I stand by that. But most young and old got Pfizer here only mid age got AZ which over time is same efficacy as pfizer anyhow. Where pfizer drops off the cliff at 5-6 months it then evens out with Az at same time. Ive had AZ 6 months ago and i have anti Bodies im in a study. But how many rah only knows.mickeyrat said:
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help