Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Covid vaccines safety

11920222425269

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Ok, well I was clearly being sarcastic. But no matter I am not offending by you deliberately misunderstanding my post for effect.

    And whilst it is possible I misunderstood King Mob's posts, I certainly did not do it deliberately. If you can point me to the misunderstanding I'll do my best to clarify/correct it.

    This was the first post I quoted:

    It doesn't "offer you possibility of having covid infecton milder". It grants immunity.

    Studies have shown that the vaccines have and effectiveness of over 90%

    I again suspect you, like most conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers don't actually know what vaccines are or how they work.

    This being especially ironic given that you claimed the covid vaccines weren't vaccines.

    The bit I highlighted was the bit which led me to believe he was stating the vaccine grants immunity. Was he being sarcastic? Or did I misunderstand something else? Or perhaps it was a different post?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,530 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    He clarified it again and you were still having none of it. There’s not much anyone can do if you don’t understand even after been corrected a number of times by people and it’s not deliberate.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Just looking for this clarification. In the next post he restated it.

    But it does grant immunity. It's been show. to reduce infection rates. Studies have shown that they have between 85% and 95% efficacy https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison.

    i’ll keep looking.



  • Subscribers Posts: 35,726 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat


    Yes, it's provable that you are less transmissible with the vaccine than without... Thus it reduces infection rates


    What's the confusion?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,490 ✭✭✭✭ Timberrrrrrrr


    No one has claimed the vaccine gives you immunity though.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,235 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    was it the next post he clarified it? In which he said:

    You are dishonestly conflating "immunity" and "complete 100% prevention of any infection".

    now that sounds more of a statement of opinion on my own position, rather than King Mob clarifying what he meant by “it grants immunity”

    and it is not just a deliberate misunderstand of my posts, it is a total misrepresentation. Why the quotation marks? Was it to misleadingly suggest that this was a direct quote of something I posted? Looks a lot like it.

    but given I never said anything about 100% prevention of any infection his statement was disingenuous at best.

    @Fighting Tao shall I go on looking for this “clarification” or are we done here?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Ah, I think I found the clarification in a later post, not directed at me.

    I did say immunity.

    But that was with the assumption and people understood that this was not an absolute statement. In the same post I give direct numbers that weren't 100%,

    i understood he did not mean it granted 100% immunity, there was no misunderstanding deliberate or otherwise on that point.

    i understood it that he meant the benefits of The vaccine principally - i.e the approximate 85-95% efficacy figures he quoted - was the granting of immunity, and not that it was principally effective at preventing severe cases/outcomes.

    He was pretty clear on that point, so I am pretty sure I didn’t misunderstand him deliberately or otherwise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,235 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    I have no issue understanding what that poster meant. After all the context that has been given I don't know why you still think they meant something else when they clearly don't. It's also a relative term. Covid vaccines do confer immunity against the disease, I've used the term many times in that context, but I don't literally mean you get the vaccine and have lifelong immunity or you can't catch Covid.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    I have no issue understanding what the poster meant either! I never said anything about lifelong immunity or 100% immunity.

    Let me put it another way by asking two simple questions:

    1) Given the universal understanding and acceptance of the definition of vaccine and vaccination back in January, do you think the recipients of an 85-95% effective vaccine against Covid expected that the principal aim of the vaccination roll out program was to provide as much immunisation to Covid as possible in our society?

    2) Given what we have learnt since January and our understanding of how specifically the Covid vaccine works in real conditions, do you think the recipients of the vaccine booster roll out program expect that the principal aim of the boosters is to prevent as many cases as possible developing into severe cases i.e hospitalisation/ICU/death.

    My own view that is it is reasonable to believe in 1) that most understood the principal aim was widespread immunisation and 2) that most now believe the principal aim is to reduce the severity of outcomes.

    But what do you think?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,235 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    1. Won't speak on what recipients expected, the principle aim around the world seems to have been (and to be) to get as many people vaccinated as possible, to reduce the transmission and severity of Covid. I think a lot people presumed that the vaccines would be much more effective in reducing transmission of Covd than they have been.
    2. We're learning that the virus is much more tenacious than we thought, the Delta variant is particularly infectious and that we need to rely on boosters. I don't think the initial aim has changed, rather our understanding of the vaccine effectiveness and limitations has.




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    It's telling that you have managed to answer two questions about a worldwide vaccination rollout, the biggest in history indeed, without a single reference to immunisation, which was the absolute unambiguous expectation of any previous vaccine roll out program, significant or otherwise, but now nobody seems comfortable claiming it as an expectation of the Covid vaccine. It's talked about at best indirectly, eg "reduce the transmission".

    You say the change has been in our "understanding of the vaccine effectiveness and limitations has", which I totally agree with and I think is entirely understandable given the circumstances.

    To me it seems clear that with the benefit of having delivered millions of vaccines the effectiveness is principally limiting what otherwise would have been severe cases to mild doses, and there are fairly significant limitations to its ability to confer immunity and thus the reduction of transmission.

    I must admit find it difficult to see how anybody could fundamentally disagree with this in the real world, outside the adoption of intractable positions on an internet forum.



  • Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭ PintOfView


    Just to try to put some perspective on it, the Pfizer vaccine trial consisted of 40,000 people, half of whom were given the vaccine, and half given a placebo. They then went back to living life as normal. Over the next 100 days the numbers of people getting Covid were monitored. The results were as follows:

    Vaccinated: 8 people got symptomatic Covid, 1 person got severe Covid

    Placebo: 162 people got symptomatic Covid, 9 people got severe Covid

    These results are public (here) and don't make any claims the vaccine grants you immunity (we can see 9 of the vaccinated got symptomatic Covid, with one severe). What the results do show is that the vaccination reduced the severity dramatically, and reduced symptomatic Covid dramatically (we don't know how many of either group got Covid without symptoms).

    It does appear that there may be a waning of the protective effect of the vaccine as time goes on. This doesn't seem to be that unusual. For eg. the US CDC recommends that children should get 4 doses of the Polio vaccine, at 2 mths, 4 mths, between 6 - 18 mths, and again between 4 - 6 years old. The MMR vaccine is recommended as two doses, one at 12-15 mths, second at 4 - 6 years (US CDC again).

    Not sure how that squares with the points being made earlier?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭ astrofool


    A vaccine stimulates a persons immune system to produce antibodies against a particular virus (aided by B-Cell and T-Cell response in the longer term).

    Whether the vaccine is 5% effective or 100% effective at that process, it will always be a vaccine due to how it works.

    The vaccine itself does not fight the virus in any way, the persons immune system does all of the work, which means the vaccine can only be as good as that persons immune system and why vulnerable people can still get very sick from the virus (particularly the immuno-compromised).

    But no vaccine can give 100% immunity to everyone, again, because some people have very weak immune systems (for less transmissible virus this isn't that big an issue as protection occurs via herd immunity).



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    But no vaccine can give 100% immunity to everyone, again, because some people have very weak immune systems (for less transmissible virus this isn't that big an issue as protection occurs via herd immunity).

    Thanks for pointing this out, but once again I'll reiterate that nowhere did I suggest we should expect 100% immunity from covid vaccines or any other vaccine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,235 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe



    Some vaccines offer stronger immunity, other's offer limited protection. The Covid vaccines were never sold as offering any sort of gold-plated lifelong type immunity



  • Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 5,364 Mod ✭✭✭✭ aido79


    Would you care to give your own opinion on this and not just the view of the archaeologist turned tv presenter?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Totally agree, and once again I never mentioned anything about lifelong immunity, gold plated or otherwise!

    I simply maintain that as a vaccine, it would be reasonable to expect that the principle benefit of receiving that vaccine would be some level of immunity, albeit with the understanding that this immunity may wane in time, and that there would inevitably be a number of breakthrough infections.

    That is certainly what I expected with the covid vaccine when it was first announced, because that is/was the understood and accepted definition of vaccine.

    Having seen the effects of the vaccine over the past 6-9 months, and watched our case numbers rise as vaccination rates rises, but simultaneously our ICU and death rates fall, my expectations have changed.

    I no longer think this vaccine is likely to provide any significant immunity, and I believe the principal benefit of vaccination is that it will reduce the severity of outcomes - eg an unvaccinated person who may have had a severe dose of covid would more be likely suffer only a mild dose if vaccinated. Now, obviously thats a superior outcome to being vaccinated, but it is not immunity.

    The yardstick of success that this vaccine is being measured by is the reduction in severity of outcomes. Not in the amount of people who are immunised.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,235 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    You are subjectively disappointed with certain aspects of the vaccine. That's fine. As mentioned it's a highly tenacious disease, with many variants.

    Personally I am very impressed with them, considering the time-frame of development and challenges faced.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Disappointed with certain aspects would be a fair comment, but I am impressed with other aspects.

    You mention that

    The Covid vaccines were never sold as offering any sort of gold-plated lifelong type immunity

    Which is true, but moving on from what they may have or not have been sold as at the start of the roll out, look at the current messaging in Ireland from government, HSE etc on vaccines.

    Can you find any examples selling the vaccine on offering any sort of immunity at all now? They're promoting the benefits as they want to get as many people vaxxed as possible, but have you seen any mention of immunity amongst those benefits?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,235 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Vaccinated are less likely to catch Covid than the unvaccinated.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    In fairness, I just checked HSE website and they do actually mention immunity:

    After having both doses, most people will have immunity. This means you will be protected against COVID-19.

    Most of the stuff you hear from politicians, CMO etc is reducing ICU etc or indirect references as you indicated like "Vaccinated are less likely to catch Covid than the unvaccinated." They are very wary of discussing immunity.

    This is hardly surprising as cases rises in tandem with vaccination rates.

    Edit to add. They only specifically say immunity in relation to Astra Zeneca. The others have some vague waffle on the subject that is completely non commital and stops short of saying the vaccine confers immunity:

    Vaccines teach your immune system how to protect you from diseases.

    It is much safer for your immune system to learn how to protect you from COVID-19 through vaccination than by catching the virus.

    https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Further to the above in Read more about immunity link they have:

    After having both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, most people will be protected against the virus.

    There is a small chance you might still get COVID-19 after vaccination. Even if you do get COVID-19, being vaccinated can reduce how serious your symptoms will be.

    There is some new evidence to show that the vaccines may reduce you spreading COVID-19 to other people but more research is needed.

    So, no mention of immunity, just most people will be protected, and pushing the "vaccinated can reduce how serious your symptoms will be" line.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭ Igotadose




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Sure, no doubt about it. That's what I have been arguing all day!

    Tony Holohan is very clear on vaccines performance in terms of immunity versus reducing severe outcomes:

     “Unfortunately, in crude terms, the vaccinations have probably done a little better than we might have hoped in terms of preventing severe infection.

    “They have performed and held up their performance really well in protecting people from the severe effects of the disease.

    “In truth they are probably not performing as well as we might have hoped in terms of preventing transmission.

    “There is an impact on transmission by and to people who are vaccinated, but it’s not as great as we might like.

    Promoting the benefits of reducing severe cases whilst admitting immunity is disappointing.

    He confirmed the message to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health in response to a question on what vaccination rate would be possible for herd immunity:

    Even if we achieve high rates of vaccination, the vaccines are not perfect, far from it, in their ability to prevent transmission of the virus. It is not possible for us to talk in terms of achieving herd immunity to this virus in the same way that we do with a disease such as measles. If we achieve a level of 95% in that case, we know that the chances, in effect, of an unvaccinated person in the remaining 5% running into someone with measles will be very low. In the context of this disease, however, we do not think that herd immunity is a concept that we should be talking about. Our message in this case is that the further we can go and the higher we can get regarding the percentage of people vaccinated, the better we will be. Equally, every individual vaccinated means better protection for him or her from the severe effects of this disease. That is our basic message.

    So that's pretty clear from a credible source and official authority. The benefits from this vaccine are that it makes covid infections milder, not that it grants immunity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭ patnor1011


    You fail to realize that smallpox vaccine is 95% effective against getting infection itself and for a quite long time whereas covid vaccine is nowhere near that effective mere 2 months after taking it and offer pretty much zero protection against contracting covid. The only effect is hypothetical reduction of symptoms which can not be proved since nobody knows what their symptoms would be after getting infected.

    Not to mention that a lot of current research points to that natural gained "immunity" by recovering from covid seems to give you far superior and longer lasting protection than any current covid vaccine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭ patnor1011


    Of course it is a vaccine. Ever since vaccine definition was changed to accommodate its failure to provide any immunity whatsoever. which (immuniy) by the way used to be a definition of a vaccine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭ patnor1011


    You seems to be fixated on whatever you define as "perfectly valid reason not to get vaccinated" since you post it time and again.

    There are actually few of them all perfectly valid.

    Allergy to many components which is well documented and nothing to be dismissed even by vaccine zealots. Another one may be religious reason as all current vaccines do use cell lines derived from aborted humans tissue. That is not to be dismissed either since freedom of religion is quite a thing in "democratic" society.

    Last, and most valid reason is that everyone who recovered from covid achieved much better and broader protection than any current vaccine offer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,176 ✭✭✭ protonmike


    Meanwhile those who get COVID and die... And generally if you're allergic to an ingredient in a covid vaccine, you can switch and that's it. So basically out of your list, religious freedom is the best you can manage and all major world religions are favouring getting the vaccines regardless of what it derives from.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,717 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    OK.

    What is the medical definition of immunity according to yourself? It would be nice is you also provided some back up for this definition or a source.


    And if you are now stating that the covid vaccines aren't vaccines, how is it that they have achieved their effects (which you have accepted) if they aren't giving people immunity?

    How are they different from how the smallpox vaccine and other vaccines work chemically and biologically?


    You've been repeatedly misrepresenting me these last few pages. It's very dishonest of you.

    Post edited by King Mob on


Advertisement