How Do We Know the Vaccine's Working?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Let me put it this way: if i am told that something does not exist because its not proven scientifically, then I have an expectation set for how we conduct science.

A study without any review, without any replication, without any scientific process, is still just a study. And given how easily we see those kinds of things be ruined with shoddy statistics and poor controls...until its replicated elsewhere its just information and nothing else.

I will call people ignorant when the information they are stating as fact is not fact. Which is exactly what happened here. Prove that study out, and Ill adjust my views. Which is what science actually is. Until then, there is no cause to make any changes in anything as its all unproven anecdotes, regardless of who is aggregating the stories.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

Let me put it this way: if i am told that something does not exist because its not proven scientifically, then I have an expectation set for how we conduct science.

A study without any review, without any replication, without any scientific process, is still just a study. And given how easily we see those kinds of things be ruined with shoddy statistics and poor controls...until its replicated elsewhere its just information and nothing else.

I will call people ignorant when the information they are stating as fact is not fact. Which is exactly what happened here. Prove that study out, and Ill adjust my views. Which is what science actually is. Until then, there is no cause to make any changes in anything as its all unproven anecdotes, regardless of who is aggregating the stories.

The same applies to the argument that it doesn't prevent spread, we simply don't have sufficiently validated data to know. People seem to have taken the statement that we don't know if it reduces spread to mean it doesn't.

Stating either position as unequivocal truth is incorrect at this time

a reply to: ScepticScot

I am taking the following fact: the mRNA vaccine does not create antibodies.

And i am extrapolating that into what we know to be true. If there are unknowns/new information, I am happy to adjust my viewpoints. Which is what science does. And, as i mentioned, i will revel in the discovery of a new method of immunity that does not involve antibodies.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

I am taking the following fact: the mRNA vaccine does not create antibodies.

And i am extrapolating that into what we know to be true. If there are unknowns/new information, I am happy to adjust my viewpoints. Which is what science does. And, as i mentioned, i will revel in the discovery of a new method of immunity that does not involve antibodies.

My understanding is mRNA vacines do produce antibodies, they just use an indirect method to do so.

www.cdc.gov...#:~:text=Not%20mRNA%20vaccines.,real%20virus%20enters%20our%20bodies.< br />
Happily admit not my area of expertise so if I am incorrect perhaps you can explain clearer?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

I am taking the following fact: the mRNA vaccine does not create antibodies.

And i am extrapolating that into what we know to be true. If there are unknowns/new information, I am happy to adjust my viewpoints. Which is what science does. And, as i mentioned, i will revel in the discovery of a new method of immunity that does not involve antibodies.

My understanding is mRNA vacines do produce antibodies, they just use an indirect method to do so.

www.cdc.gov...#:~:text=Not%20mRNA%20vaccines.,real%20virus%20enters%20our%20bodies.< br />
Happily admit not my area of expertise so if I am incorrect perhaps you can explain clearer?

Well, that right there ends the argument that it is not a vaccine because it does not create antibodies. I have heard that time and time again. That settles it.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
You don't know it's working.

How do you prove the vaccine prevented you from getting something you probably wouldn't get in the first place?

You don't.

Controlled case studies.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

Speaking of measles.. the attn on coronovirus has caused a spike in measles deaths as many nations suspend efforts to stop measles to focus on cornovirus. Just one small example of the deaths caused by covid fear mongering bs.

And measles kills otherwise healthy kids.. not just ppl who are already almost dead..


www.nature.com...

a reply to: ScepticScot

Ugh.

Then why in the holy hell are we being told that masks will continue for years and that this is a "new normal". Why are we being given the massive fear that vaccines won't give us a life again? Why did my wife, who is a nurse that administers vaccine for the local health authority, sit through an inservice explaining that her vaccine in no way protects unvaccinated people, and will only diminish the immune response and symptomology? This was for Pfizer exclusively....they have not received anything but Pfizer to give out.

The double speak began early on COVID. And its still continuing to this day. And while I am standing corrected here, I will point out that it only confirms to me that none of this makes any damned sense.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ugh.

Then why in the holy hell are we being told that masks will continue for years and that this is a "new normal". Why are we being given the massive fear that vaccines won't give us a life again? Why did my wife, who is a nurse that administers vaccine for the local health authority, sit through an inservice explaining that her vaccine in no way protects unvaccinated people, and will only diminish the immune response and symptomology? This was for Pfizer exclusively....they have not received anything but Pfizer to give out.

The double speak began early on COVID. And its still continuing to this day. And while I am standing corrected here, I will point out that it only confirms to me that none of this makes any damned sense.

This seems quite a reasonable explanation.

health.clevelandclinic.org...

There remains a lot we don't know about covid 19 and as you said the science changes and with it the advice Thats isn't double speak but the reality of an evolving situation.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ugh.

Then why in the holy hell are we being told that masks will continue for years and that this is a "new normal". Why are we being given the massive fear that vaccines won't give us a life again? Why did my wife, who is a nurse that administers vaccine for the local health authority, sit through an inservice explaining that her vaccine in no way protects unvaccinated people, and will only diminish the immune response and symptomology? This was for Pfizer exclusively....they have not received anything but Pfizer to give out.

The double speak began early on COVID. And its still continuing to this day. And while I am standing corrected here, I will point out that it only confirms to me that none of this makes any damned sense.

Actually the thinking on the transmission may be changing. It seems likely if you are vaccinated, and you do have a mild or non-symptomatic case, you most likely would not be able to spread it to others. The science is still out on it, but if confirmed, hopefully it will be the end of masks (please God). Pfizer and Moderna were focusing on diminishing the effects to keep people out of the hospital. Transmission was a secondary.

There are some early hints that certain vaccines might be able to reduce transmission, even if they can’t eliminate it entirely. One way it might do this is by reducing the number of viral particles in people’s bodies. "It is quite likely that if the vaccines are making people less ill, they are producing less virus, and therefore will be less infectious, but that's just a theory," says Neal.

Also from the same article.

It's also possible to be infected with pertussis, hepatitis B, mumps, and (often, but not always) influenza, regardless of whether you have been vaccinated – though all these immunisations are highly effective at preventing people from developing serious symptoms or needing to be hospitalised.

So it works quite like other vaccines for heb-b, mumps, flu, etc. Not to necessarily prevent infections, but to limit the serious symptoms.

BBC Link

A brand new article just today on Fox News saying basically the same thing. If you are vaccinated, and do become infected, your chances of passing it on is low.

Fox News

a reply to: MrRCflying
The effect of leaky vaccines on how disease spreads is explained by the “imperfect-vaccine hypothesis”. It holds that, without vaccination, a very virulent virus can get into a population and kill infected hosts (people or animals) very quickly – before they have a chance to spread it. This means that the virus will die out very quickly too, as all potential hosts will be dead or immune to it.

A leaky vaccine can prevent the very virulent virus from killing the host, but doesn’t stop that host from spreading the virus to others. This means that a very virulent virus can survive for long periods in the vaccinated hosts. And it can continue to spread in this time, making it less likely to die out.
theconversation.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I can't disagree with that. But the study was done with a pretty lethal virus in chickens. The majority of the chicken subjects not vaccinated, contracted the disease and died. Thus the virus died out with them, unable to spread.

Covid has a much lower mortality rate than the virus in the study. So effectively a Covid infected person, vaccinated or not, could continue to spread the virus for some time. In theory. I don't know if we actually know if the 2 week thing is true or not. However, it seems increasingly likely that a covid positive, vaccinated person, has a lower chance of transmitting it to others.

With or without vaccines, we could see mutations for either less or more transmissable/deadly. Something to watch out for, for sure.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Politicans creating laws is not "responding to a changing environment".

Which is the issue.

None of this would be an issue at all had the government in the US not used it as a pretext for diminishing rights. And while its something nonAmericans may not understand....i absolutely expect my government to abide by the Constitution and observe my rights as an individual.

Retrospect: it seems pretty obvious this could have been handled much less drastically with similar results. More: had Fauci not advised against wearing masks when he already knew it stopped the spread, regardless of the reason he gives, is the sole reason that the spread went completely unabated, and why we were not able to get anyone to wear masks subsequently.

And at this point, i don't trust any of them to make decisions.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

Politicans creating laws is not "responding to a changing environment".

Which is the issue.

None of this would be an issue at all had the government in the US not used it as a pretext for diminishing rights. And while its something nonAmericans may not understand....i absolutely expect my government to abide by the Constitution and observe my rights as an individual.

Retrospect: it seems pretty obvious this could have been handled much less drastically with similar results. More: had Fauci not advised against wearing masks when he already knew it stopped the spread, regardless of the reason he gives, is the sole reason that the spread went completely unabated, and why we were not able to get anyone to wear masks subsequently.

And at this point, i don't trust any of them to make decisions.

Yes I forgot only Americans have a constitution or rights...

I think it's stretching credibility to assign the spread of the virus or reluctance to wear masks to anything fauci said a year ago.

Some good decisions and some bad ones have been made however I will reserve my criticisms for those decisions that weren't following the scientific advice of the time.

For example in the UK there was a delay introducing any form of lockdown however they were following advice of their experts at the time As the evidence changed so did the advice, that's exactly what should happen.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It is hilarious that you cant see weve been intentionally misled over and over again and why ppl cant believe a thing they say anymore.. it isnt our fault for being skeptical of everything they say at this point.. "no need to wear masks" turned into the primary response being to make ppl wear masks.. its complete lunacy and idiocy.

a reply to: MrRCflying
The evolution of Marek's disease due to vaccination has had a profound effect on the poultry industry. All chickens across the globe are now vaccinated against Marek's disease (birds hatched in private flocks for laying or exhibition are rarely vaccinated). Highly virulent strains have been selected to the point that any chicken that is unvaccinated will die if infected.
Other leaky vaccines are commonly used in agriculture. One vaccine in particular is the vaccine for avian influenza. Leaky vaccine use for avian influenza can select for virulent strains which could potentially be transmitted to humans.
Marek's disease - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ScepticScot

The only reason Fauci didn't advise mask wearing was to save stock for medical staff. Instead of providing instructions on making your own, etc....he advised against it. Which is a big reason so many Americans refuse...it looked wishy washy.

The science did not direct that decision. Whatever directed it....is mismanagment.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: ScepticScot

It is hilarious that you cant see weve been intentionally misled over and over again and why ppl cant believe a thing they say anymore.. it isnt our fault for being skeptical of everything they say at this point.. "no need to wear masks" turned into the primary response being to make ppl wear masks.. its complete lunacy and idiocy.

Whonl is being mislead

Those using actual evidence compiled by medical professionals, researchers and data scientists from dozens of independent agencies across multiple countries and international organisations

Or

Those believing YouTube videos and twitter feeds by professional contrarions and 'entertainment personalities'.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Most likely correct.. and if so he told ppl dont wear masks while knowing that masks slowed transmission.. anyone who thinks it was just an honest mistake is incredibly niave..

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Whonl is being mislead

Those using actual evidence compiled by medical professionals, researchers and data scientists from dozens of independent agencies across multiple countries and international organisations

Or

Those believing YouTube videos and twitter feeds by professional contrarions and 'entertainment personalities'.

Gullible ppl who just believe the so called "experts" no matter how often and how catastrophically wrong they keep truning out to be.. are beimg misled.

The experts told us no masks than that we mist wear masks. They counted covid deaths entirely wrong. They overestimated its deadliness over and over again and have continually lowered it (this here "professional contrian" has been saying they were exaggerating this danger all along) and they have been.