10 ms·

Non-sterilizing vaccines still reduce viral load, decreasing the amount of active viral particles in circulation. There are plenty of vaccines we use to curb ep

by OzyM 5y ago

Non-sterilizing vaccines still reduce viral load, decreasing the amount of active viral particles in circulation. There are plenty of vaccines we use to curb epidemics that aren't full sterilizing vaccines. For the COVID-19 U.S. vaccines in particular: > Preliminary data from the clinical trials among adults ≥18 years old suggest COVID-19 vaccination may also protect against asymptomatic infection.[0] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

bamboozled 5y ago
Cool, so if everyone else takes it, I won't really need to and I'll likely be safe? Everyone seems absolutely hell bent on taking it immediately, so if that's the case, it's pretty good news for those who'd like some more time to evaluate.
- OzyM 5y ago
  You're right, if everyone around you is vaccinated to the point of virtual herd immunity (afaik not currently true anywhere, but perhaps given more time / incentives / information that may change), you being the only unvaccinated person wouldn't be a major concern (except insofar as it indicates less concern for other people in other contexts). The main issue is that there are still plenty of people with your same mindset. See the measles resurgence as less people got vaccinated: Even if you accept the personal effects of getting major illnesses, it comes with an increase in danger to the immunocompromised, people who medically cannot be vaccinated, and people whose vaccines don't protect them 100% of the time. You're free to choose whether or not to get a vaccine, but the consequences of your decision affect more than just you. [Edit: Additional note - while it seems preferable that everyone who can get vaccinated do so, I suppose if you're sticking with the face masks, hand washing, and social distancing you could still protect others without getting vaccinated. I'd respect that as a viable alternative. However, based on anecdata, the overlap of "people who won't get vaccinated" and "people careful about preventing disease spread" doesn't seem to be a huge section.]
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    I've had many vaccines before, I'm not opposed to vaccines. I'm opposed to this particular vaccines because: * There are reports of dangerous side effects after taking it. * It's a new vaccine and the effects of the spike proteins it forces your body to produce have been found in places we were told they wouldn't be found. * No long term studies have been done, even though lipids from the vaccine have been found in reproductive tissues (we don't know what this means yet). * The vaccine is still only under emergency use authorization. * I'm not in a high risk category, high risk people should be vaccinated if they're the ones primarily at risk? * People are being pressured and coerced into taking it even though they are scared to do so. This is wrong, people should feel comfortable to take it, not as if it's their duty to mankind to protect elderly people (who could just take the vaccine).
    - OzyM 5y ago
      All the major side effects I've heard of have been very small in scope, i.e. the chance of a healthy person developing one of the dangerous side effects is extremely small, and certainly orders of magnitude smaller than their chance of proportionally damaging side-effects from the disease itself. As every vaccine currently developed has a small side-effect risk, this seems reasonable, unless you have a major piece of data I'm missing. As far as I can tell, any variables about the vaccines seem extremely safe compared to the unknown variables incurred by those with symptomatic infections. I agree that people in high risk categories who can be vaccinated should do so. However, the vaccine is only mostly effective, not 100% effective, so to some extent their health is still influenced by the health of those around them. As far as social pressure, pushing (but not forcing) people toward decisions that benefit everyone seems like the entire point of social pressure. People should be given all of the relevant information and should be free to make their own medical decisions. However, there should be some expectation that one tries not to spread deadly diseases to vulnerable populations, and schools / businesses / etc. should absolutely feel free to require vaccination (of those capable of being vaccinated). But re: your other comment about wearing a mask, if you're one of the rare people who won't be vaccinated but still keep your mask on in all public places, wash your hands frequently, and stay 6 feet apart from everyone not in your household, you not getting vaccinated isn't a major concern. But the people who use these justifications (disclaimer: anecdata) aren't usually taking those precautions.
- raydev 5y ago
  Surely you understand that you are surrounded by millions of others acting the same as you are, so you remain at high risk of catching COVID.

by OzyM 5y ago

bamboozled 5y ago

Cool, so if everyone else takes it, I won't really need to and I'll likely be safe? Everyone seems absolutely hell bent on taking it immediately, so if that's the case, it's pretty good news for those who'd like some more time to evaluate.

OzyM 5y ago
You're right, if everyone around you is vaccinated to the point of virtual herd immunity (afaik not currently true anywhere, but perhaps given more time / incentives / information that may change), you being the only unvaccinated person wouldn't be a major concern (except insofar as it indicates less concern for other people in other contexts). The main issue is that there are still plenty of people with your same mindset. See the measles resurgence as less people got vaccinated: Even if you accept the personal effects of getting major illnesses, it comes with an increase in danger to the immunocompromised, people who medically cannot be vaccinated, and people whose vaccines don't protect them 100% of the time. You're free to choose whether or not to get a vaccine, but the consequences of your decision affect more than just you. [Edit: Additional note - while it seems preferable that everyone who can get vaccinated do so, I suppose if you're sticking with the face masks, hand washing, and social distancing you could still protect others without getting vaccinated. I'd respect that as a viable alternative. However, based on anecdata, the overlap of "people who won't get vaccinated" and "people careful about preventing disease spread" doesn't seem to be a huge section.]
- bamboozled 5y ago
  I've had many vaccines before, I'm not opposed to vaccines. I'm opposed to this particular vaccines because: * There are reports of dangerous side effects after taking it. * It's a new vaccine and the effects of the spike proteins it forces your body to produce have been found in places we were told they wouldn't be found. * No long term studies have been done, even though lipids from the vaccine have been found in reproductive tissues (we don't know what this means yet). * The vaccine is still only under emergency use authorization. * I'm not in a high risk category, high risk people should be vaccinated if they're the ones primarily at risk? * People are being pressured and coerced into taking it even though they are scared to do so. This is wrong, people should feel comfortable to take it, not as if it's their duty to mankind to protect elderly people (who could just take the vaccine).
  - OzyM 5y ago
    All the major side effects I've heard of have been very small in scope, i.e. the chance of a healthy person developing one of the dangerous side effects is extremely small, and certainly orders of magnitude smaller than their chance of proportionally damaging side-effects from the disease itself. As every vaccine currently developed has a small side-effect risk, this seems reasonable, unless you have a major piece of data I'm missing. As far as I can tell, any variables about the vaccines seem extremely safe compared to the unknown variables incurred by those with symptomatic infections. I agree that people in high risk categories who can be vaccinated should do so. However, the vaccine is only mostly effective, not 100% effective, so to some extent their health is still influenced by the health of those around them. As far as social pressure, pushing (but not forcing) people toward decisions that benefit everyone seems like the entire point of social pressure. People should be given all of the relevant information and should be free to make their own medical decisions. However, there should be some expectation that one tries not to spread deadly diseases to vulnerable populations, and schools / businesses / etc. should absolutely feel free to require vaccination (of those capable of being vaccinated). But re: your other comment about wearing a mask, if you're one of the rare people who won't be vaccinated but still keep your mask on in all public places, wash your hands frequently, and stay 6 feet apart from everyone not in your household, you not getting vaccinated isn't a major concern. But the people who use these justifications (disclaimer: anecdata) aren't usually taking those precautions.
raydev 5y ago
Surely you understand that you are surrounded by millions of others acting the same as you are, so you remain at high risk of catching COVID.