Getting vaccine for wrong reasons.

[serial muse]

Here's some data from CDC showing the gap between unvaxxed and vaxxed populations with regard to hospitalizations due to COVID. It's pretty stark. I think everything the OP needs is in the data plot in this story. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc-study-shows-unvaccinated-people-are-29-times-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

Science's Jon Cohen highlights the plot here: https://twitter.com/sciencecohen/status/1430269482325270530

 

 

[OneLov]

6 hours ago, E-mc2 said:

But as far as the mRNA vaccine... we just won't FULLY know with 100% certainty for another 10 years or so.

While that’s true—we can never know with 100% certainty—we can make very reasonable presumptions based on our knowledge of mRNA.  Indeed these vaccines were the first to be submitted to phase III trials; however, mRNA therapeutics, specifically vaccines, were first developed ~30 years ago.  Moderna was founded in 2010 to take the biotechnology to other therapeutics.

Two of the things we are certain of is:  1. mRNA does not enter the nucleus of a cell, thus it cannot alter your DNA.  2.  mRNA is incredibly unstable and rapidly deteriorates.  Various chemicals used in pesticides can get inside the nucleus of cells, which could potentially alter your DNA, and they can deteriorate much slower.  Also, consuming widely available  products treated with those pesticides would likely result in multiple rounds of exposure.  For example, it’s highly unlikely someone’s cancer was related to using Round Up once, but being exposed continually definitely would increase risk.

mRNA could definitely pose serious negative effects in the short-term if the “message” is wrong.  Moderna learned that the hard way in 2016 when it became overly ambitious and tried to use the technology to treat other disorders that are more complicated.  But with our knowledge of mRNA and vaccines in general, we can be reasonable sure there will be no long-term effects.

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by OneLov

[Weezy1973]

3 hours ago, Timshel said:

The vaccine is important to protect individuals from serious illness but does not prevent spreading to others.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1

"Data from COVID-19 tests in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore are showing that vaccinated people who become infected with Delta SARS-CoV-2 can carry as much virus in their nose as do unvaccinated people. This means that despite the protection offered by vaccines, a proportion of vaccinated people can pass on Delta, possibly aiding its rise."
 

Yes vaccinated people can get and spread COVID. But they are far less likely to get it. It’s like people who’ve never smoked cigarettes and haven’t been exposed to second hand smoke can still get lung cancer. But not smoking and staying away from second hand smoke will reduce your chances of getting lung cancer immensely. Getting the vaccine will reduce the chances of getting COVID immensely and therefore will reduce transmission. Fewer people getting it, fewer transmissions.

[Lotsgoingon]

Until the Delta variant, the vaccines were doing a great job at preventing covid infection and preventing the spread from vaccinated people. That early protection spoiled a lot of us but was apparently unrealistic. 

But the vaccines still lower the infection rate compared to the unvaccinated and hugely lower the risk of hospitalization compared to the unvaccinated.

I'll quote from a very recent CDC report that tracked the Delta variant in Los Angeles among 43,000 people. 

The CDC writes, On July 25, infection and hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons were 4.9 and 29.2 times, respectively, those in fully vaccinated persons. 

Back to me talking--infection rates are 5x higher among unvaccinated. Hospitalization rates are are astounding 29 times higher. That's pretty dang good. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e5.htm#F1_down

[E-mc2]

1 hour ago, OneLov said:

While that’s true—we can never know with 100% certainty—we can make very reasonable presumptions based on our knowledge of mRNA.  Indeed these vaccines were the first to be submitted to phase III trials; however, mRNA therapeutics, specifically vaccines, were first developed ~30 years ago.  Moderna was founded in 2010 to take the biotechnology to other therapeutics.

Two of the things we are certain of is:  1. mRNA does not enter the nucleus of a cell, thus it cannot alter your DNA.  2.  mRNA is incredibly unstable and rapidly deteriorates.  Various chemicals used in pesticides can get inside the nucleus of cells, which could potentially alter your DNA, and they can deteriorate much slower.  Also, consuming widely available  products treated with those pesticides would likely result in multiple rounds of exposure.  For example, it’s highly unlikely someone’s cancer was related to using Round Up once, but being exposed continually definitely would increase risk.

mRNA could definitely pose serious negative effects in the short-term if the “message” is wrong.  Moderna learned that the hard way in 2016 when it became overly ambitious and tried to use the technology to treat other disorders that are more complicated.  But with our knowledge of mRNA and vaccines in general, we can be reasonable sure there will be no long-term effects.

 

Sure.  I'm not a geneticist so I can only put trust in those who are during this time of turmoil.  Like I said, I got the shot, I trust those who are on the front line of this fight that they are good people who care about humanity and are doing their best.  But, it's foolish to think we know everything about the side effects of the covid vaccine when there has only been one years worth of data.  I suspect, just like most things in life there is always a side effect.  Heck, there are side effects of taking Aspirin.  But I agree, [we can make very reasonable presumptions based on our knowledge of mRNA].  Yes, so we go with what we have available and hope for the best.  Good luck to all.         

1 hour ago, OneLov said:

 Various chemicals used in pesticides can get inside the nucleus of cells, which could potentially alter your DNA, and they can deteriorate much slower.  Also, consuming widely available  products treated with those pesticides would likely result in multiple rounds of exposure.  For example, it’s highly unlikely someone’s cancer was related to using Round Up once, but being exposed continually definitely would increase risk.

 

 

Yes that's true and there are hundreds of carcinogens we are exposed to on a daily basis that can alter our DNA.  Everything around us is a chemical.  Most of these are natural chemicals from nature.  What I'm claiming is (so there is no confusion) a cup of coffee (acrylamide) or a glass of wine (ethanol) is more cancerous than a non-organic apple laced with trace amount of synthetic pesticides.  Yes, you read that correctly, I did say that, and yes I'm dead serious.  The tolerable trace amount being determined by the Environmental Protection Agency.  They came to that conclusion from scientific study and many years (decades) of research.  This is the same government and scientists who told you mRNA was safe.  Let's not pick and choose what fit's our narrative and what we want to make ourselves feel good.  People want to believe if they pay extra $ for that organic apple that it's making them healthier and they will live longer.  Yeah right, I'm calling B.S. on that.  So does science.  

             

[Trail Blazer]

On 8/29/2021 at 9:57 AM, HazelBliss said:

A lot of people I know are getting the vaccine because they think they will not contract the virus. The sole purpose of a vaccine is to eradicate a specific disease right?.. but if vaccinated people are still contracting the virus, what is the point of getting it??  If it is to alleviate symptoms and prevent you from dying, than they should stress that as opposed to having people assume they are invincible after getting it and also assume they don't have to take precautions even after getting vaccinated.. and there's that question again.."What is the point of the vaccine?

I know a few people who were vaccinated and now their whole household has covid. My friend who said I cant come to her house unless im vaccinated.. has covid and she and her husband were vaccinated. Crazy.

 

Too many people aren't concerned with doing their own research into the messaging coming from reputable health organizations like the CDC, WHO or their local/state health authorities.

If people spent time educating themselves with facts, there wouldn't be so much confusion.  Personally I have no idea how anyone could even arrive at such conclusions.  But hey, much of the world's human inhabitants baffle me!

The fact is, not one credible health professional or regulatory body has stated that the vaccine is the panacea that, when taken, will alleviate the recipient of any and all likelihood of contracting and potentially spreading the virus.

Without the vaccine, many millions of lives would be lost.  Without the vaccine, hundreds of millions of additional people would contract the virus.  Most would survive, but many would be affected by the symptoms of Covid for months on end.

[ ] 

As far as taking precautions once vaccinated; it is still recommended to social distance where possible and wear masks while in public places.  Once again, if people care to do their research, this information is available to them.

[ ]  

Edited September 3, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
needs sources/civility

[Alpacalia]

19 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

Too many people aren't concerned with doing their own research into the messaging coming from reputable health organizations like the CDC, WHO or their local/state health authorities.

If people spent time educating themselves with facts, there wouldn't be so much confusion.  Personally I have no idea how anyone could even arrive at such conclusions.  But hey, much of the world's human inhabitants baffle me!

The fact is, not one credible health professional or regulatory body has stated that the vaccine is the panacea that, when taken, will alleviate the recipient of any and all likelihood of contracting and potentially spreading the virus.

Without the vaccine, many millions of lives would be lost.  Without the vaccine, hundreds of millions of additional people would contract the virus.  Most would survive, but many would be affected by the symptoms of Covid for months on end.

[ ] 

As far as taking precautions once vaccinated; it is still recommended to social distance where possible and wear masks while in public places.  Once again, if people care to do their research, this information is available to them.

[ ] 

This is really useful information.

I'm curious if those breakthrough cases are primarily due to the Delta variation - it's strange because my father just visited me and, despite the fact that we're both vaccinated, made sure he stayed apart for a few days because he flew by air. When he got home, he had some moderate respiratory symptoms and was given a Covid test, which came out negative. Thankfully, he's well, but I'm still wondering if he became infected in any way.

He did though also visit my sister afterwards, and she had recently been infected with Covid (she's unvaccinated) so it's so hard to know.

Edited September 3, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
removed items no longer in quote

[Trail Blazer]

27 minutes ago, Alpaca said:

This is really useful information.

I'm curious if those breakthrough cases are primarily due to the Delta variation - it's strange because my father just visited me and, despite the fact that we're both vaccinated, made sure he stayed apart for a few days because he flew by air. When he got home, he had some moderate respiratory symptoms and was given a Covid test, which came out negative. Thankfully, he's well, but I'm still wondering if he became infected in any way.

He did though also visit my sister afterwards, and she had recently been infected with Covid (she's unvaccinated) so it's so hard to know.

I was at my physician two days ago for an unrelated matter and I was discussing the virilency of Delta and the effectiveness of Pfizer (of which I have received my double-doseage) against it. 

I was told that it was up to 90 percent effective against Delta for a double-vaccinated person who has received their second shot within the last few months.

However, my doctor said that data coming in from Israel is being continuously monitored, and that Pfizer's efficacy against Delta starts to significantly wane over time.

It's possible that those who were one of the first to receive both their jabs are at most risk of contracting Covid, with immunity levels plummeting.

As we speak, I've just found an article which reports that a study conducted by the CDC into the mRNA vaccines' effectiveness against Delta, which put it at a 66 percent average.

I'm not a medical professional by any stretch, but from my understanding based on what I've read and been told, the conclusion I have come to is the longer the time it has been since your last jab, the more likely you are to contract Delta.

The booster shots can't come soon enough!

[Alpacalia]

50 minutes ago, Trail Blazer said:

I was at my physician two days ago for an unrelated matter and I was discussing the virilency of Delta and the effectiveness of Pfizer (of which I have received my double-doseage) against it. 

I was told that it was up to 90 percent effective against Delta for a double-vaccinated person who has received their second shot within the last few months.

However, my doctor said that data coming in from Israel is being continuously monitored, and that Pfizer's efficacy against Delta starts to significantly wane over time.

It's possible that those who were one of the first to receive both their jabs are at most risk of contracting Covid, with immunity levels plummeting.

As we speak, I've just found an article which reports that a study conducted by the CDC into the mRNA vaccines' effectiveness against Delta, which put it at a 66 percent average.

I'm not a medical professional by any stretch, but from my understanding based on what I've read and been told, the conclusion I have come to is the longer the time it has been since your last jab, the more likely you are to contract Delta.

The booster shots can't come soon enough!

Certainly.

And, from what I understand, the Delta variant is not very effective at avoiding antibodies produced by vaccines or past infection, so it may be as you stated (a fading in vaccine-induced immunity) or simply the Delta variant's high transmissibility.

[Lotsgoingon]

Oh and there is some good news about the vaccines from Singapore. Yes, they have had a lot of breakthrough infections, but hospitalization was much higher among the unvaccinated AND vaccinated people, according to this study, expel the virus much faster than unvaccinated people and thus have much lower viral loads over time. 

So my reading is that vaccinated people are not equal spreaders as unvaccinated. 

Here is the journal link. And this is about the Delta variant.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full

[E-mc2]

1 hour ago, Trail Blazer said:

The booster shots can't come soon enough!

That's where I get nervous.  I already got the shot but if i'm supposed to get one every six months for the rest of my life I think I'll pass on that.  I would at least have to see a year or two of positive data from people who were jacking their immune system with genetic stuff that I don't understand.  We already know there are more side effects from the second shot because of the way our immune system responds.  Now a third, fourth, fifth etc?  And along side multiple strains at the same time?  It wouldn't surprise me if we look back in a couple years and see that they whole vaccine idea was a big mistake.    

[Lotsgoingon]

The booster option isn't fully decided yet. Right now, the world is trying to grapple with the Delta variant.  More studies are coming in and governments around the world will have a better sense of whether boosters are absolutely needed to control the delta variant. 

I get my annual flu shot and have for a decade even though I'm not a senior citizen. That's me. Frankly, it's not even a hassle. I just tell the pharmacy person at the register that I want a flu shot. They point me to a chair and in five minutes the pharmacist comes out and administers the shot. In fact, might go to the pharmacy for my flu shot this weekend.

Well if I have to get an annual covid shot in the future-- to feel like I've done what's reasonably in my control to reduce my risk--that is fine with me. 

And yes, I'll affirm what someone stated earlier: let's hope for continued progress in treating covid among people who do get it, vaccinated or not. I'm sure there's tons of research going on right now. 

[Trail Blazer]

6 hours ago, E-mc2 said:

That's where I get nervous.  I already got the shot but if i'm supposed to get one every six months for the rest of my life I think I'll pass on that.  I would at least have to see a year or two of positive data from people who were jacking their immune system with genetic stuff that I don't understand.  We already know there are more side effects from the second shot because of the way our immune system responds.  Now a third, fourth, fifth etc?  And along side multiple strains at the same time?  It wouldn't surprise me if we look back in a couple years and see that they whole vaccine idea was a big mistake.    

What I think will happen over time, as we "learn to live with the virus" is that the booster shot will really just become a seasonal Covid shot akin to the flu.

I really don't think it will be an endless regiment of bi-annual or even quarterly booster shots.  At some point things will settle down, but that could still be a few years away.

[Timshel]

On 9/2/2021 at 6:57 PM, Weezy1973 said:

Yes vaccinated people can get and spread COVID. But they are far less likely to get it. It’s like people who’ve never smoked cigarettes and haven’t been exposed to second hand smoke can still get lung cancer. But not smoking and staying away from second hand smoke will reduce your chances of getting lung cancer immensely. Getting the vaccine will reduce the chances of getting COVID immensely and therefore will reduce transmission. Fewer people getting it, fewer transmissions.

Ermm, ok. I hope so...I don't know for sure that having the vaccine will reduce the chances of getting COVID so much as diminish symptoms. Our knowledge is understandably changing from day to day. I am vaccinated; I am pro vaccination for anyone able to safely receive it. Covid vaccines seem beneficial at this time; the positives outweigh the potential negatives based on our current information.

 

[Weezy1973]

12 hours ago, Timshel said:

Ermm, ok. I hope so...I don't know for sure that having the vaccine will reduce the chances of getting COVID so much as diminish symptoms.

 

Unvaccinated people are 4 to 5 times more likely to get COVID. And that’s a low estimate. This region for example shows they’re 7x more likely to get COVID. 
 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/publichealthinsider.com/2021/09/03/new-data-dashboard-tracks-covid-19-risk-for-unvaccinated-people-compared-to-vaccinated-people/amp/

 

The vaccines definitely prevent people from getting COVID. It’s not perfect of course so there are breakthrough cases. But you’re chances of getting COVID (and therefore spreading it) are far greater if you’re unvaccinated.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Weezy1973

[Myabee]

On 9/3/2021 at 12:22 PM, Trail Blazer said:

I was at my physician two days ago for an unrelated matter and I was discussing the virilency of Delta and the effectiveness of Pfizer (of which I have received my double-doseage) against it. 

I was told that it was up to 90 percent effective against Delta for a double-vaccinated person who has received their second shot within the last few months.

However, my doctor said that data coming in from Israel is being continuously monitored, and that Pfizer's efficacy against Delta starts to significantly wane over time.

It's possible that those who were one of the first to receive both their jabs are at most risk of contracting Covid, with immunity levels plummeting.

As we speak, I've just found an article which reports that a study conducted by the CDC into the mRNA vaccines' effectiveness against Delta, which put it at a 66 percent average.

I'm not a medical professional by any stretch, but from my understanding based on what I've read and been told, the conclusion I have come to is the longer the time it has been since your last jab, the more likely you are to contract Delta.

The booster shots can't come soon enough!

So true. I feel as though breakthroughs are occurring due to  vaccines wearing off. No vaccine can last forever as we know. We have been vaccinating people for decades. While I had my jab in late March.. I will sign up for that booster when eligible.   

[NuevoYorko]

On 9/4/2021 at 4:24 AM, Timshel said:

Ermm, ok. I hope so...I don't know for sure that having the vaccine will reduce the chances of getting COVID so much as diminish symptoms. Our knowledge is understandably changing from day to day. 

 

There are plenty of data confirming that the vaccine does indeed reduce the chances of getting COVID, at least currently.  Links have been provided here.  

[ASG]

On 9/4/2021 at 1:09 AM, Trail Blazer said:

What I think will happen over time, as we "learn to live with the virus" is that the booster shot will really just become a seasonal Covid shot akin to the flu.

I really don't think it will be an endless regiment of bi-annual or even quarterly booster shots.  At some point things will settle down, but that could still be a few years away.

And only some people are recommended for the flu vaccine. 

As for boosters, right now, I'll pass. Not because I'm anti vaccine, but I do believe we need to vaccinate the REST of the world FIRST before we start boosting the immunity we already have. 

Having loads of unvaccinated people in the world is a breeding ground for new and potencially more dangerous variants, so we need to squash that first! 

Then do all the boosters you want!

[elaine567]

23 minutes ago, ASG said:

As for boosters, right now, I'll pass. Not because I'm anti vaccine, but I do believe we need to vaccinate the REST of the world FIRST before we start boosting the immunity we already have. 

That would be great, if we didn't need to give people boosters to maintain their immunity.
If they do not maintain their immunity then they are essentially "unvaccinated" and therefore  run the risk of severe illness and death.
As these people are in general the old, the infirm and the extremely vulnerable, then we would be back to stage one pretty quickly.

Edited September 14, 2021 by elaine567

[ASG]

2 hours ago, elaine567 said:

That would be great, if we didn't need to give people boosters to maintain their immunity.
If they do not maintain their immunity then they are essentially "unvaccinated" and therefore  run the risk of severe illness and death.
As these people are in general the old, the infirm and the extremely vulnerable, then we would be back to stage one pretty quickly.

That's not true, because their immunity does not fall to zero. And the people in these other countries have ZERO immunity. And some of them are also old and infirm and extremely vulnerable.

I'm not adverse to giving a booster to immuno compromised, but 50% efficacy is better than 0% by not having any vaccines. 

[Haydn]

21 hours ago, ASG said:

And only some people are recommended for the flu vaccine. 

As for boosters, right now, I'll pass. Not because I'm anti vaccine, but I do believe we need to vaccinate the REST of the world FIRST before we start boosting the immunity we already have. 

Having loads of unvaccinated people in the world is a breeding ground for new and potencially more dangerous variants, so we need to squash that first! 

Then do all the boosters you want!

This.

[Trail Blazer]

On 9/14/2021 at 8:52 PM, ASG said:

And only some people are recommended for the flu vaccine. 

As for boosters, right now, I'll pass. Not because I'm anti vaccine, but I do believe we need to vaccinate the REST of the world FIRST before we start boosting the immunity we already have. 

Having loads of unvaccinated people in the world is a breeding ground for new and potencially more dangerous variants, so we need to squash that first! 

Then do all the boosters you want!

We can vaccinate the rest of the world all we like, but until every eligible vaccine recipient in the west does the right thing and gets vaccinated, the world will remain a breeding ground.

As far as I'm concerned, if my health is potentially compromised by anti-vaxxers, I'd like to ensure that inoculations are still effective.  Those who refuse to vaccinate put us all at risk, not just themselves.

[ASG]

8 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

We can vaccinate the rest of the world all we like, but until every eligible vaccine recipient in the west does the right thing and gets vaccinated, the world will remain a breeding ground.

As far as I'm concerned, if my health is potentially compromised by anti-vaxxers, I'd like to ensure that inoculations are still effective.  Those who refuse to vaccinate put us all at risk, not just themselves.

I mean... sure.... But how do you justify revaccinating 40% of a population, because another 40% refuse the vaccine, when 100% of another country has zero vaccines??

Once we get to a point where all or almost all have at least the CHANCE to vaccinate at least 50 to 60% of their population, then sure, lets boost this immunity! Until then, it is much more likely that a new variant will develop in a country with 5% vaccination rate than one with 50%

[basil67]

@ASG  when you say "revaccinating" I assume you're referring to boosters.   If people who are vaccinated aren't given boosters when needed, they will become more vulnerable and more likely to get COVID.  If I use your numbers, this will mean 80% are now at risk instead of 40%.  And those who were vaxxed may as well never bothered with the vaccines in the first place.  

I'm not sure where the remaining 20% of your population fit in your equation.  

[Trail Blazer]

14 hours ago, ASG said:

I mean... sure.... But how do you justify revaccinating 40% of a population, because another 40% refuse the vaccine, when 100% of another country has zero vaccines??

Once we get to a point where all or almost all have at least the CHANCE to vaccinate at least 50 to 60% of their population, then sure, lets boost this immunity! Until then, it is much more likely that a new variant will develop in a country with 5% vaccination rate than one with 50%

Is there actually a country in the world which hasn't started vaccinating yet?  Look, I do understand the point you're making, but at the same time, as selfish as it may come across, the health and safety of myself and my loved ones is the primary concern for me.

As far as I'm concerned, most developed nations - at least in the northern hemisphere - have had access to the vaccine for the majority of 2021.  As the efficacy wanes, we are at risk of contracting and developing more variants in our own backyard if we, ourselves, do not receive boosters.

I feel for the people of developing nations.  However, when something is in finite supply, wealthier nations will win out.  The point at which booster shots become available, I will take them.  It's as simple as that.  If that means that the U.S. government has chosen the safety of its citizens over those of developing nations, that is on them, not me.  

Edited September 17, 2021 by Trail Blazer