Majolnurnur's primary mechanism of action is deliberately causing viral mutations, with the aim of preventing successful replication. This is somewhat different from chance mutations in vivo.
You will not. Depending on how cynical you are, that was either a honest mistake because it was incorrectly thought the vaccines did prevent transmission, or just a made up false narrative pushed to promote vaccinations.
The only effect there is is the meager excuse that you could protect grandma because the temporary protection from severe illness might be saving medical resources she needs. But if you look into the numbers, you’ll see that for the not elderly without preexisting conditions, chances of severe illness are very low anyway.
> [T]he CDC changed its definition of vaccine from "a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease" to "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases."
No, I’m not. The semantic difference you insist upon is pointless.
The mechanism of a flu or covid shot is exactly the same as any other vaccine; the only difference is the degree of efficacy due to human mucosal immunity not having evolved to fully block infection from respiratory viruses.
Vaccines do reduce transmission. From studies I've seen VE against transmission is around 60-80%, though it wanes quickly after 4 months. Not as good as 95% VE against hospitalization but not nothing either.
Can you explain the mechanism by which vaccines injected into muscle tissue impart mucosal immunity? The humeral immunity these vaccines impart doesn't stop the virus replicating in the nose and throat where it can spread to others via respiration. Mucose is not connected to the blood stream where the antibodies from the vaccine are.
Naumova EA, Dierkes T, Sprang J, Arnold WH. The oral mucosal surface and blood vessels. Head Face Med. 2013 Mar 12;9:8. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-9-8. PMID: 23497446; PMCID: PMC3639856.
It also has antibodies (humoral immune response).
Immunoglobulin A (IgA) is the most abundant antibody isotype in the mucosal immune system.
Li Y, Jin L, Chen T. The Effects of Secretory IgA in the Mucosal Immune System. Biomed Res Int. 2020 Jan 3;2020:2032057. doi: 10.1155/2020/2032057. PMID: 31998782; PMCID: PMC6970489.
And the vaccine triggers the development of those antibodies.
We evaluated the serum anti-spike (anti-S) IgG, anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) IgG and anti-S IgA response following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of first-responders. Among the 378 completely vaccinated participants, 98% were positive for anti-S IgG and 96% were positive for anti-S IgA.
Montague, B.T., Wipperman, M.F., Chio, E. et al. Elevated serum IgA following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of high-risk first responders. Sci Rep 12, 14932 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19095-7
I haven't been updated on this in a while, but the prevailing idea early on seemed to be that the reduction is achieved through shortening the infectious time, not so much by doing anything about the level of transmission before it's suppressed.
Essentially the current vaccines wouldn't give any mucosal protection worth mentioning in itself, but since there are (hopefully) relevant lymphocytes in circulation, the host has more in the way of specific countermeasures ready to infiltrate from the bloodstream and shut down the worst of the shedding, sooner than if the specific immunity had to be developed first.
So we'd have more or less unfettered susceptibility for getting infected (superficially) and pretty much just as high levels of infectious excretions, but for maybe half as long a time at the highest levels.
Would you happen to know if that picture still holds?
The FDA says there isn't enough evidence to say that the vaccines reduce transmission:[1]
> "While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission."
That is not what the FDA source you linked to says. You either had a massive error in comprehension or are deliberately misleading others.
What the FDA said, simplified, is there is no evidence either way whether a breakthrough COVID case in a vaccinated person poses a greater risk of infection to other vaccinated people, BUT past vaccinations have shown that those other vaccinated people are still protected and therefore that should be the assumption here until refuted.
Original:
Q: If a person has received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, will the vaccine protect against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination?
A: Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.
The FDA and CDC are slow. They didn't admit for months that covid is airborne, way after it was well established. It's obvious looking at the data that vaccines reduce transmission.
Yeah cause this type of vaccine doesn't provide immunity and the protection lasts a couple of months at most. Not to mention that repeated doses are started to be weakening the immune system
The vaccine doesn't provide immunity. It doesn't prevent transmission, just lowers it. This is well known. It may lower sickness severity in older population. It also only lasts 2-3 months.
You probably live in the US, where nobody is boosted and 30% of the population isn't vaccinated.
I don't.
I know 2 people that caught covid after being vaccinated. I've never caught it. Most people I know never caught it. And it would be even worse without vaccines. Y'all are doing something wrong over there.
No, that's not science. That's you weaponizing science in your crusade against things you don't like. You don't like vaccines, so you make bullshit claims that are unsubstantiated but hard to disprove, and then eventually people get tired of arguing with you and you have your way.
They were very slow to confirm side effects (remember when people suffering with heart issues were ridiculed and ignored?).
Very slow to let everyone know that it wouldn't actually stop transmission (remember when we were told to get it to protect grandma? Or how about the messaging that 'breakthrough cases are very rare').
Very slow to reveal that effectiveness waned quite quicky.
These issues were quite obvious from the beginning. It's taken two years and only now can these be openly discussed without becoming a social pariah.
This study doesn't prove what you're saying. Some vaccinated people had asymptomatic covid != vaccines don't prevent spread
If you find a study that takes comparable samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, tests all of them, and reports how many were infected, then let me know.
Until then you should be more diligent in gathering evidence.
"These findings suggest that, although vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals remain highly infectious upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in this prison setting, their infectiousness is reduced compared to individuals without any history of vaccination or infection. This study underscores benefit of vaccination to reduce, but not eliminate, transmission."
We need high quality studies by multiple reputable organizations to research this question. Odds of this happening/getting funded - close to 0 right now.
In the same way that seatbelts don't stop deaths from motor vehicle accidents but do significantly reduce them, vaccines don't stop transmission but they do significantly reduce the transmission rates.
Similar statistical model as control rods in a nuclear reactor - they don't stop neutrons, they significantly reduce the numbe of free neutrons flying about and avoid an exponential increase and runaway chain reaction.
In the highly unlikely case that they did reduce transmission by 50%, people would still catch the same mild disease, it would just slow transmission. So that argument has a time limit which is way less than the 3 years we’ve been playing this game.
And even if it was 99% effective, it certainly doesn’t justify leaving drugs in the market where one mutation potentially has humanity ending consequences.
The Covid vaccine was great for helping the elderley and vulnerable from day one. For the rest of us, it was a busted flush.
No they do not reduce transmission. That was clear when delta hit, they found same viral loads in vaxxed and unvaxxed even if mild symptoms. And a vax which merely reduced symptoms gives a false sense of safety where they end up becoming silent spreaders of the virus. This happened here in Ontario where during delta, an over 50s hockey league had an outbreak where 15 fully vaxxed got infected, 1 elderly died and then their family wondered how this happened.
Similar thing happened in Manitoba where 80% of an elderly long term care facility got infected despite everyone being fully vaxxed.
Comparing a seat belt to a permanent medical procedure inside the body is asinine. Seat belts don’t go inside the body, can be taken off, don’t need a new belt on top of old one every few months, get recalled if defective, manufacturer can be sued, belts don’t cause blood clot or heart inflammation.
Data from studies in the United Kingdom showed that both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines were effective in preventing onward transmission of the virus to close contacts in case of breakthrough infections.
In one study among the general population in the United Kingdom, the effectiveness against transmission from breakthrough infections to household contacts from 21 days after the first dose was 47% (95% CI: 37–57) for the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and 49% (95% CI: 41–56) for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. [1]
Another study from the United Kingdom reported that, among healthcare workers, who predominantly received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, vaccination was associated with a 30% (95% CI: 22–37) reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to household contacts. [2]
[1] Harris RJ, Hall JA, Zaidi A, et al. Impact of vaccination on household transmission of SARS-COV-2 in England. 2021.
[2] Shah ASV, Gribben C, Bishop J, et al. Effect of vaccination on transmission of COVID-19: an observational study in healthcare workers and their households (preprint). medRxiv 2021.
This is a study of less than 2 months between "4 January 2021 to 28 February 2021". This is long long before delta and omicron and newer variants came. I specifically mentioned the changes which Delta brought.
This is once again an outdated study from "8th December 2020 to 3rd March 2021" which is long before Delta, Omicron, and newer variants.
People repeatedly keep citing outdated studies from before Delta, Omicron and don't acknowledge the changes which those variants plus waning immunity brought. Also any study which doesn't measure asymptomatic infections is worthless.
Here's a better example. In a 94% vaccinated study, 56% reported being unaware of their infection:
I initially responded to an overly broad generic comment
" Since the vaccines didn’t stop transmission, can’t the same be said of them? "
with the broadly true statement that no vaccine that I'm aware of stops transmission .. they ideally reduce transmission* (being effectively not a vaccine if they fail to slow spread through a population (or mitigate effects of a virus that does spread)).
The studies I cite are just two (of many) first off the rank that demonstrate that the two of the more widely used vaccines did indeed slow transmission at the time they were used.
> Here's a better example. In a 94% vaccinated study, 56% reported being unaware of their infection:
I read that with interest the entire way through,
* it fails to support a claim that "vaccines did not reduce transmission of Delta or Omicron variants"
* it supports a claim that "vaccines reduced the effect of having a COVID variant (to the degree that most did not even realise they'd been infected)"
The specific statistical reason that your "better example" doesn't address the transmission rate (through vaccinated Vs unvaccinated populations) is that it exclusively looks at people infected and the bulk of those are vaccinated.
There's no larger view there of infection rates in a bigger population, and no differential look at infection rates in unavaccinated Vs vaccinated.
What the study confirms (re: transmission) is something I conceded in my first coment: vaccines do not stop transmission
(again, they ideally reduce transmission rates (not addressed in your 'better' study)).
If you're interested in a longwinded careful, multi factor analysis and model type paper (of which there are many) one such example is
which is detailed but lacks any clearcut gotcha messages .. it bears close reading and laments in places the lack of early vaccine uptake in the population (Australia) during the Delta and Omnicron waves (ie. supports vaccines reducing transmission rates, doesn't dwell on it as not enough people are vaccinated at that time and so looks at other mitigations).
Do you also oppose the polio vaccine because it merely reduces the odds of infection? And every other vaccine for the same reason?
There is not a vaccine in the world that provides 100% protection to every individual. ALL vaccines work by reducing R0 to <1 so outbreaks shrink rather than growing.
I can’t believe we’re still doing the nutty antivax thing in 2023.
> I can’t believe we’re still doing the nutty antivax thing in 2023.
Expressing safety concerns and having a rational discussion about a new genetic therapy is not a "nutty antivax thing", and it is disingenuous and argument in bad faith to suggest that it is.
Could you please clarify why you believe calling COVID-19 vaccines genetic therapy is "the very definition of nuttiness"?
mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines) and adenovirus vector (Janssen vaccine) are the transfer of nucleic acids and viruses that mediate their effect by translation, and transcription then translation, respectively, of the transferred genetic material.
The FDA defines them as such: "Gene therapy products. Human gene therapy/gene transfer is the administration of nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms that mediate their effect by transcription and/or translation of the transferred genetic material, and/or by integrating into the host genome."
You may have misunderstood that I was drawing a distinction and suggesting that they are not "vaccines," which some people do. Similarly, but from the opposite point of view, you may also be suggesting that genetic therapies and vaccines are non-overlapping categories. I reject the false dichotomy.
Respectfully disagree, and I assure you my argument is not made in bad faith. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that a vaccine CANNOT be a genetic therapy (i.e., that they are distinct and non-overlapping concepts). You may be confusing my argument with that of those who assert that the mRNA vaccines (and let's include Janssen's adenovirus vaccine) are genetic therapies but NOT vaccines.
The FDA defines "Gene therapy products. Human gene therapy/gene transfer is the administration of nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms that mediate their effect by transcription and/or translation of the transferred genetic material, and/or by integrating into the host genome."
Vaccines are typically very effective. So effective they can eliminate a virus among vaccinated populations.
Covid-19 vaccines are sorta effective. They didn’t eliminate virus transmission among vaccinated populations. But they reduced the severity of cases.
Pretending the vaccines weren’t underwhelming in terms of efficacy doesn’t do us any favors, because people know from their own experience that most vaccinated people have had Covid.
As I stated above the COVID vaccines didn't eliminate transmission they reduced transmission rates.
I've just replied to another comment and provided two (of many) statistically significant studies (for professional epidemiologists) that confirm that (specifically for two vaccines in the UK). There are other studies across the globe that affirm the same conclusion.
The important truths about "people know from their own experience that most vaccinated people have had Covid." are that many vaccinated people had COVID .. a milder form with greatly reduced rates of hospitalisation, reduced rates of critical care, and reduced rates of death.
The "two (of many) statistically significant studies" you provided are worthless as they are even before when delta wasn't even around. Relying on such outdated studies to make your point is very misleading when my comment specifically said "delta":
I take it that you do agree with conclusions of the parent, that vaccines are indeed effective against Covid, but that effectiveness is mediated by viral strains/mutations such as delta?
It reduces the severity of flu outbreaks for a population by reducing the likelihood and severity of infection for individuals.
Just like covid vaccines, flu vaccines also protect unvaccinated people by making it less likely for them to be exposed to the virus in the first place.
The critical thing that antivax people miss is that they are both individuals and members of a population. Reducing the odds of infection for individuals has an exponential effect on reducing the odds for a population.
Comparing polio vax to covid vax is silly and I don't think I need to explain why because I don't think it is worth arguing with someone who resolves to using ad hominem attacks of "nutty antivax".
