Well, first, there was no expectation that the vaccinated couldn't infect others, with the exception of the immediate four to six months in which the vaccinated person and the Covid-19 patient effectively has neutralizing immunity due to the amount of antibodies produced. All but one vaccine, the HPV vaccine, only reduce the risk of seve…
Well, first, there was no expectation that the vaccinated couldn't infect others, with the exception of the immediate four to six months in which the vaccinated person and the Covid-19 patient effectively has neutralizing immunity due to the amount of antibodies produced. All but one vaccine, the HPV vaccine, only reduce the risk of severe illness and death. It's the very nature of vaccines, they are only as good as the actual disease in setting up the immune system.
I find that few people actually understand the most fundamental facts about vaccines, such as what I stated above. The one thing that studies of the vaccinated and of Covid-19 patients is that they shed a lot less infectious viruses, see:
Thank you for sharing this. What do you make of the data in the U.K. for example and elsewhere that shows higher infection rates in the vaccinated populations and or, it seems everytime we’ve stArted vaccinating cases start to skyrocket. Take Israel currently as an example. I also keep hearing about vaccine inequity in Africa but they seem relatively unphased and in fact South Africa is the 90% majority of their cases. Just curious. I’ve seen all these graphs where when boosters start it seems cases go up in almost every case??
You're welcome. There's a lot in that post! You'd have to post links to the information in question, such as a news article about it. I know of no such research that indicates that the vaccinated get infected at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.
The fact is that after about six months, both the vaccinated and ex-Covid-19 patients effectively lose whatever neutralizing immunity that they had as their immune systems contract the antibodies. This is normal. Going forward, these people would have the same infection rate as unvaccinated people, not higher, as they are part of the same community as the unvaccinated people, so why would they have a higher rate?
The issue seems to be that most people do not understand what I posted immediately above and so falsely believe nonsense.
No I completely get what your saying there is a waning immunity so therefore the vaccinated become the same as unvaccinated. I get that I just was curious about Israel for example because they are the most boosted and have highest vaccinated rate or one of the highest and I should have posted links so see below
So in this case the continent has more than 2 billion people and very low vaccine uptake but they’re cases are relatively low other than South Africa which has a higher uptake
It appears that the vaccine is doing its job in Israel! The vaccinated are having less severe cases than the unvaccinated, which is what vaccines and getting sick do, they build an immune response.
The only thing that I heard about Africa and its lower case rate is that it has a younger average age than the US or Europe, so the hospitalizations are fewer. I think that they discussed this on a TWiV episode.
"So I would not blame the public for failing to understand how vaccines work when it seems the NIH and CDC are, um, having a hard time themselves."
I understand the point, but I still blame the public for not educating themselves, such as they obviously chose to not read a virology or immunology textbook.
I am surprised at how ill informed most policy makers are. IMO, a good example is in a study performed by epidemiologists that looked at "leaky" vaccines and their impact on virus mutation rates.
First, all but one vaccine is "leaky", the HPV vaccine is the only one that I've heard of that actually prevents infection, no others do, they simply set the immune system up to fight future infections. That they would even use that term indicates that their expectations are not aligned with the understandings of immunologists or virologists.
Second, "leaky" vaccines can't increase mutation rates any more than actual infections, they would by default reduce the effects of normal viral mutation as they would reduce the ability of viruses to replicate. However, the study could quantify that reduction in effect.
Third, that epidemiologists use "leaky" without explanation, especially that all but one vaccine is "leaky", allows the ignorant public to believe that there's a fundamental problem with the Covid-19 vaccine.
OK, I might sound like I'm being too hard on the public, but I say what I say because the public does choose what to do with their time. they watch sports, watch streaming TikTok and youtube videos, TV and cable programs, etc, yet they choose to NOT read about these subjects at the 101 textbook level while they listen to know-nothings on their preferred blog or youtube channel.
If more people took the time to read about the confirmed science we wouldn't be here. That's all.
Regarding the boosters, Vincenet Racaniello discussed this on TWiV. He came to the conclusion that they became a good idea as the spacing between the two vaccinations were spaced too close together that didn't allow the immune system to "mature", my word, not necessarily theirs. Initially, he didn't think that boosters were necessary but changed his mind from discussions with other experts. Boosters also seem to help recovered Covid-19 people.
I didn't take it any other way. I mentioned Vincent only because others may read this and I thought that they could then review some TWiVs to find his discussion on the subject.
"Probably because that argument would also make the profiteering aspect of this a little too obvious."
IMO, it is the utter lack of competency in leadership, whether an ignorance of fact or "better safe than sorry", they've failed to communicate adequately.
Well, first, there was no expectation that the vaccinated couldn't infect others, with the exception of the immediate four to six months in which the vaccinated person and the Covid-19 patient effectively has neutralizing immunity due to the amount of antibodies produced. All but one vaccine, the HPV vaccine, only reduce the risk of severe illness and death. It's the very nature of vaccines, they are only as good as the actual disease in setting up the immune system.
I find that few people actually understand the most fundamental facts about vaccines, such as what I stated above. The one thing that studies of the vaccinated and of Covid-19 patients is that they shed a lot less infectious viruses, see:
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-855/
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-854/
Thank you for sharing this. What do you make of the data in the U.K. for example and elsewhere that shows higher infection rates in the vaccinated populations and or, it seems everytime we’ve stArted vaccinating cases start to skyrocket. Take Israel currently as an example. I also keep hearing about vaccine inequity in Africa but they seem relatively unphased and in fact South Africa is the 90% majority of their cases. Just curious. I’ve seen all these graphs where when boosters start it seems cases go up in almost every case??
You're welcome. There's a lot in that post! You'd have to post links to the information in question, such as a news article about it. I know of no such research that indicates that the vaccinated get infected at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.
The fact is that after about six months, both the vaccinated and ex-Covid-19 patients effectively lose whatever neutralizing immunity that they had as their immune systems contract the antibodies. This is normal. Going forward, these people would have the same infection rate as unvaccinated people, not higher, as they are part of the same community as the unvaccinated people, so why would they have a higher rate?
The issue seems to be that most people do not understand what I posted immediately above and so falsely believe nonsense.
No I completely get what your saying there is a waning immunity so therefore the vaccinated become the same as unvaccinated. I get that I just was curious about Israel for example because they are the most boosted and have highest vaccinated rate or one of the highest and I should have posted links so see below
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/more-covid-cases-confirmed-in-israel-in-january-than-all-of-2021-data-shows/amp/
So in this case the continent has more than 2 billion people and very low vaccine uptake but they’re cases are relatively low other than South Africa which has a higher uptake
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1170463/coronavirus-cases-in-africa/
Just curious.
Regarding Israel, I have not seen anything that backs up what Yaakov Jerris claims:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-covid-omicron-unvaccinated-14-adults-100-ecmo-serious-cases-1.10530817
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-omicron-in-israel-unvaccinated-die-in-much-higher-numbers-1.10586137
https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/7/20/22584134/whats-going-on-in-israels-outbreak-among-vaccinated-people
It appears that the vaccine is doing its job in Israel! The vaccinated are having less severe cases than the unvaccinated, which is what vaccines and getting sick do, they build an immune response.
The only thing that I heard about Africa and its lower case rate is that it has a younger average age than the US or Europe, so the hospitalizations are fewer. I think that they discussed this on a TWiV episode.
"So I would not blame the public for failing to understand how vaccines work when it seems the NIH and CDC are, um, having a hard time themselves."
I understand the point, but I still blame the public for not educating themselves, such as they obviously chose to not read a virology or immunology textbook.
I am surprised at how ill informed most policy makers are. IMO, a good example is in a study performed by epidemiologists that looked at "leaky" vaccines and their impact on virus mutation rates.
First, all but one vaccine is "leaky", the HPV vaccine is the only one that I've heard of that actually prevents infection, no others do, they simply set the immune system up to fight future infections. That they would even use that term indicates that their expectations are not aligned with the understandings of immunologists or virologists.
Second, "leaky" vaccines can't increase mutation rates any more than actual infections, they would by default reduce the effects of normal viral mutation as they would reduce the ability of viruses to replicate. However, the study could quantify that reduction in effect.
Third, that epidemiologists use "leaky" without explanation, especially that all but one vaccine is "leaky", allows the ignorant public to believe that there's a fundamental problem with the Covid-19 vaccine.
OK, I might sound like I'm being too hard on the public, but I say what I say because the public does choose what to do with their time. they watch sports, watch streaming TikTok and youtube videos, TV and cable programs, etc, yet they choose to NOT read about these subjects at the 101 textbook level while they listen to know-nothings on their preferred blog or youtube channel.
If more people took the time to read about the confirmed science we wouldn't be here. That's all.
Regarding the boosters, Vincenet Racaniello discussed this on TWiV. He came to the conclusion that they became a good idea as the spacing between the two vaccinations were spaced too close together that didn't allow the immune system to "mature", my word, not necessarily theirs. Initially, he didn't think that boosters were necessary but changed his mind from discussions with other experts. Boosters also seem to help recovered Covid-19 people.
"To be clear"
I didn't take it any other way. I mentioned Vincent only because others may read this and I thought that they could then review some TWiVs to find his discussion on the subject.
"...has to know the uninformed will interpret all this as "this is proof boosters work"
And for the wrong reason.
"Probably because that argument would also make the profiteering aspect of this a little too obvious."
IMO, it is the utter lack of competency in leadership, whether an ignorance of fact or "better safe than sorry", they've failed to communicate adequately.