Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Eh? Not sure what the gotcha there is? Can you spell it out for me?

Fair enough, but are you prepared to help me understand it as I asked? Because deflecting with insults looks a bit like you don't understand it either :D

Keep your hair on, I've had a busy morning.

Your questions:

Which vaccines grant people immunity to the respective diseases? Obviously smallpox and polio stand out in history as highly effective at granting immunity. In commonly used vaccines today two examples would be tetanus and measles.

Do you agree that the numbers I quoted at you are accurate? You sort of asked this question twice, not sure if you mean the figures you linked in that badly drawn website or the Tony Holahan figures I quoted, but I guess it doesn't matter because in both instances I would agree that they seem accurate.

If I've missed a question, or you have any more questions, by all means post them up for me and I will answer them. I might not get to it immediately due to other more pressing concerns, but you don't need to get in a panic about the delay.

Do have a link to 95% claim re smallpox? Is that some sort of recognised scientific claim? Not trying to be smart, I have no idea what % effective claim was, but would like to read more if you have seen something specific.

Ok, the answer is pretty obvious.

The smallpox vaccine claim as 95% effective is clearly credible by virtue of the fact that widespread vaccination clearly led to widespread immunisation evidenced by falling case numbers and ultimately eradication.

The covid vaccine claim as 95% effective is not credible by virtue of the fact that widespread vaccination has clearly not led to widespread immunisation as evidenced by rising case numbers.

No I am saying quite the opposite, that it does not grant immunity. I certainly haven't seen any proof of immunisation. Again, quite the opposite.

As far as I am aware @King Mob is the only one stating it grants immunity.

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?