FileNotFound wrote: » There is no technically about it - that is 100% what these vaccines and every other vaccine in the world does. Flu jab efficacy is somewhere below 70% if i recall and only cover a small number of the known variants at any time (4 more prevalent in the precious year or comething similar) - (Stand open for correction on the specifics here). Covid will be the same in years to come. We haven't actually lost anything to the delta based on actual real world figures coming out of the UK. Cases high but mortality and hospitalization low. At least all thats what all the charts floating round in these threads show. So I would disagree and say that it is going as planned but people expected magic.
TonyMaloney wrote: » https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vaccines-block-most-transmission-of-covid-19 That's from April. It's now out of date. Because of delta we have lost a huge advantage. Take the time to wrap your head around this so you don't go around accusing people of spreading misinformation. An apology would be nice once you've managed to grasp it
timmyntc wrote: » By reducing symptoms the vaccine reduce transmissibility - but the virus is still transmissible. You still shed the virus even if vaccinated. This has not changed. No covid vaccine to date was ever a perfect vaccine. They are all "leaky" vaccines, which is fine. But they have been like that from the outset, and delta has changed nothing.
TonyMaloney wrote: » Because of delta we have lost a huge advantage.
TonyMaloney wrote: » That is where NPHET and others see many of the hospitalisations and deaths coming from. I see hardly anyone that has managed to come to terms with this yet.
TonyMaloney wrote: » It is SIGNIFICANTLY leakier Lets say you have a care home where a couple of feisty residents refuse the vax. Well prior to delta, if you vaxed everyone else around them then they were highly unlikely to get covid as the vaccinated acted as a barrier. They were less likely to get covid, and if they did, they were less likely to spread it as they were unlikely to become symptomatic. That is gone. Or lessened to the extent that it can no longer be relied upon. That is where NPHET and others see many of the hospitalisations and deaths coming from. I see hardly anyone that has managed to come to terms with this yet.
topdecko wrote: » If as seems possible we get a load of JandJ vaccines in the coming weeks and bump up our baseline vaccination level then we should be in a better position in 2-3 weeks. however this creation of deadlines and then recurrent delays and u turns is creating alot of unrest. some of the policies aren't thought through either and are announced off the cuff in an attempt to appease the public.the idea of vaccinated people having more rights is surely unconstitutional especially when the youth are yet again massively disadvantaged by a condition which doesn't really impact them. You would have the bizzare situation where a young person couldn't get served in a cafe yet would almost certainly make up a large part of the workforce in said cafes. We need coherence and appropriate level of response..... cases rising in UK but what about hospitalizations and deaths..
robinph wrote: » No. The vaccinated people would still get infected with covid. The vaccine just gives their immune system a head start in fighting it off. If you test them they may show as positive for covid, but as their immune system is already primed to deal with it the fact that they caught the virus from another resident is hopefully mostly irrelevant. That the virus then can't take hold in them reduces the chances of them passing it on to someone else. The vaccine doesn't stop you catching covid, it stops you getting ill from it... Hopefully.
Mimon wrote: » This is happening in most of Europe and people are not complaining and running to cry about the unconstitutionality of it, they are getting on with it without begrudging the vaccinated.
TonyMaloney wrote: » I don't really know what to say to all this. The vaccines were helping to dramatically reduce transmission. Against a virus whose biggest strength is it's transmit-ability, that was huge. It wasn't expected. As you all keep pointing out the point of the vaccines was to offer protection. But they did significantly reduce transmission, and we based a lot of our plans around that fact.That advantage has been lost to delta. Fortunately with MRNA tech it's hopefully only a temporary thing. Our current vaccines are still bloody fantastic. Get them into you as fast as you can.
TonyMaloney wrote: » I don't really know what to say to all this. The vaccines were helping to dramatically reduce transmission. Against a virus whose biggest strength is it's transmit-ability, that was huge. It wasn't expected. As you all keep pointing out the point of the vaccines was to offer protection. But they did significantly reduce transmission, and we based a lot of our plans around that fact. That advantage has been lost to delta. Fortunately with MRNA tech it's hopefully only a temporary thing. Our current vaccines are still bloody fantastic. Get them into you as fast as you can.
TonyMaloney wrote: » I keep hearing a variation of this repeated - "the vaccines were not designed to stop infection, they just give the person protection from serious disease". And while technically correct it completely ignores that with original covid and other known variants, the vaccines did largely provide immunity from infection. It was a huge advantage that we've effectively lost to delta. Vaccinated people helped to protect the non-vaccinated, but that is as good as over now.
dominatinMC wrote: » Genuinely curious, has this actually been proven?? I have seen some data to suggest a reduction, but not sure if it is conclusively "lost"..
TonyMaloney wrote: » Sorry, I don't mean lost. Not entirely. But it's reduced to the point where a vaccinated person could no longer be thought of as a barrier to the non-vaccinated.
FileNotFound wrote: » The latest study being touted about the J&J vaccine in SA I think seems to indicate its highly effective. The UK hospital and mortality figures would seem to indicate AZ is highly effective. Haven't seen anything to say they actually are not beyond the usual scaremongering to be fair. One thing NPHET could do is actually find decent studies and inform the nation on them in a nice clear way.
Turtwig wrote: » Tony is correct. Back in January 4 weeks after your first dose of Pfizer or AZ the vaccines reduced your risk of infection by 90%. Transmission was reduced by about 50%. With Delta four weeks after your first dose the risk of infection is reduced by less than 50% percent. Why are people retconning this? The vaccines still prevent severe disease. That doesn't mean we haven't lost significant ground - we have. The vaccines prevented infection against the original wildtype and alpha. This is no longer the case with Delta, at least in the same timeframe. Suggesting we haven't lost ground is bizarre.
dominatinMC wrote: » I'm not even sure this is the case. A lot of conflicting science and reporting out there.
robinph wrote: » If that were what was happening then the numbers for cases, hospitalisations and deaths in the UK would have the decimal point two places further to the right.
Turtwig wrote: » Tony is correct. Back in January 4 weeks after your first dose of Pfizer or AZ the vaccines reduced your risk of infection by 90%. Transmission was reduced by about 50%. With Delta four weeks after your first dose the risk of infection is reduced by less than 50%. Why are people retconning this? The vaccines still prevent severe disease. That doesn't mean we haven't lost significant ground - we have. The vaccines prevented infection against the original wildtype and alpha. This is no longer the case with Delta, at least in the same timeframe. Suggesting we haven't lost ground is bizarre.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
