Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

You mention that

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?

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

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:

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