Just got shot #2. What does this really mean for me immunity wise or even policy wise in the near to mid term?
Just got shot #2. What does it mean in any practical sense?
8,345 Views |
71 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by JP_Losman
Serious?
buffalo chip said:
Serious?
Yeah. While I've been cautious, I'm not one that has been hiding under the bed over COVID. Just wondering what is really going to change for me. Policy wise mostly. Dad is in memory care and I'm not sure this means I get more access to him even.
The vaccine most likely isn't going to prevent the spreading of the virus. It's designed to lower your symptoms if you get it.
I keep hearing this but haven't seen data on this because it wasn't studied. What examples of vaccines do we have of those who are vaccinated continue to spread?
I have only see a few experts mentioned in articles who think it is not very likely that you can spread this after you get fully vaccinated but that gets very little press.
I have only see a few experts mentioned in articles who think it is not very likely that you can spread this after you get fully vaccinated but that gets very little press.
Jbob04 said:
The vaccine most likely isn't going to prevent the spreading of the virus. It's designed to lower your symptoms if you get it.
That's a bold prediction that is not supported by data. Didn't data from one of the mRNA vaccine studies show a much lower rate of asymptomatic individuals in the group that received the vaccines compared to the control group? Furthermore, it's reasonable to assume that the viral load/contagiousness of these individuals will be lower than those that are showing symptoms.
aggiederelict said:
I keep hearing this but haven't seen data on this because it wasn't studied. What examples of vaccines do we have of those who are vaccinated continue to spread?
I have only see a few experts mentioned in articles who think it is not very likely that you can spread this after you get fully vaccinated but that gets very little press.
It's a CYA, and since that wasn't the purpose of the studies the public health folks have to give that message (even if the content is dubious).
It means you can be less cautious. That's the whole point, to provide those who are inoculated with the protection they need to go back to business as usual.Squadron7 said:buffalo chip said:
Serious?
Yeah. While I've been cautious, I'm not one that has been hiding under the bed over COVID. Just wondering what is really going to change for me. Policy wise mostly. Dad is in memory care and I'm not sure this means I get more access to him even.
#CertifiedSIP
It's all so crazy. You got the cure and then someone always comes in says "but did you think about this anecdote that proves nothing?"
It's like public policy is being made around outliers and anecdotes rather than actual data.
It will be something else in a few weeks. This new strand kills everyone, the vaccines don't actually work because 3 people got sick after being fully vaccinated.
It's like public policy is being made around outliers and anecdotes rather than actual data.
It will be something else in a few weeks. This new strand kills everyone, the vaccines don't actually work because 3 people got sick after being fully vaccinated.
As it relates to transmitting the virus after vaccination there's a big difference between "we have no evidence vaccination will prevent transmission" and "vaccination doesn't prevent transmission".
the last I researched it this was roughly how the actual data was broken down:aggiederelict said:
I keep hearing this but haven't seen data on this because it wasn't studied. What examples of vaccines do we have of those who are vaccinated continue to spread?
I have only see a few experts mentioned in articles who think it is not very likely that you can spread this after you get fully vaccinated but that gets very little press.
- The phase 3 trials didn't do large scale random covid testing on both the control and vaccine group. The only people who got tested were people who would have otherwise got tested, which consisted of mostly people reporting symptoms and so got tested. Because of this, the data really only supports that the vaccine reduces symptomatic cases, because that is what was tested. There is not data from the phase 3 trials to suggest it fails to lower the overall rate of infection (defined as any virus reproduction inside of a person even without symptoms), that just wasn't tested so its a question mark. A reasonable person might infer that if it so drastically reduced disease rates (infection with symptoms) that it likely also reduced infection rates, but at this point that would simply be conjecture.
- One of the 2 vaccines did do some monkey trials where they deliberately exposed vaccinated monkeys to the virus and were able to get positive PCR tests in both the control and the vaccinated group even though the vaccinated group showed protection against disease. I don't know what the rates were, but qualitatively it showed that the efficacy of the vaccine against infection was less than its efficacy against disease to some degree. This is potentially concerning since we know at least moderate amounts of transmission occurs with this virus prior to symptoms showing up.
- So basically what you end up with is a set of data that says the vaccine will protect you but we don't know if you can still get it enough to spread it. And we have a little data to support that this might actually be a possibility. So in that context the medical groups choose to err on the side of caution.
The purpose of the vaccine is to protect the inoculated, NOT to protect the un-inoculated. As such, questions on transmissibility are irrelevant, as these vaccines are very effective at preventing bad covid outcomes for those that receive them.
If a person wants protection, it is now available, and they should go get vaccinated. If a person is expecting the level of community vaccination to reach a point where the virus is driven out of existence, they need to adjust their thinking. That will never be achieved; this virus is not going away, ever.
If a person wants protection, it is now available, and they should go get vaccinated. If a person is expecting the level of community vaccination to reach a point where the virus is driven out of existence, they need to adjust their thinking. That will never be achieved; this virus is not going away, ever.
#CertifiedSIP
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
I think that's a very fair question.
One day at a time.
You don't, and there will come a time that's the policy. I'm convinced right now it's just not realistic to be able to tell who really got vaccinated and who just is sick of masks. There will be people still getting infected even after herd immunity.
GAC06 said:
You don't, and there will come a time that's the policy. I'm convinced right now it's just not realistic to be able to tell who really got vaccinated and who just is sick of masks. There will be people still getting infected even after herd immunity.
Well I do have papers to prove I've been vaccinated ...
One day at a time.
I think the video is suggesting otherwise. They seem to be of the thought that spread after vaccination is quite low. Either way my behavior will change now that I have had both of my vaccinations.
OP - I'm pretty sure you'll need to wear your mask for two-more weeks.
Fireman said:
OP - I'm pretty sure you'll need to wear your mask for two-more weeks.
Yes... two more weeks and then give zero Fs after that.
Really? It's designed to protect you from getting it, 95% of the time. Sure, the 5% you actually do get it, your symptoms are less but that's certainly not the purpose.Jbob04 said:
The vaccine most likely isn't going to prevent the spreading of the virus. It's designed to lower your symptoms if you get it.
Also, I have seen nothing from scientists saying it "mostly likely" won't prevent spread, simply that it is unknown.
Because you're the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine. Store clerks should not have to "card"you.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
bay fan said:Because your the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
OK. So I don't have to wear a mask then?
One day at a time.
bay fan said:You pretty much seem like someone who is going to do what you want regardless of others so you don't need my permission. I will continue to wear mine for the sake of others, particularly minimum wage store clerks who are put in position of enforcing regulations.aginlakeway said:bay fan said:Because your the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
OK. So I don't have to wear a mask then?
Yep. That's me. I have spent 12 years helping others overcome addiction, including many fellow TexAgs posters. Doing that is by far the most important thing in my life. But I'm very selfish. Always putting myself first. That's me. You got me pegged.
I was simply asking why I need to wear a mask if I can't give anyone else covid. Can I pass it on if I have been vaccinated and have the antibodies? I truly don't know, I didn't think that was such an unfair question.
But thanks anyway for the condescending, default negative opinion/judgment of a total stranger. I prefer to default to the positive. But that's just me.
One day at a time.
Well then, you should get the vaccine so you don't have to trust them, shouldn't you?bay fan said:Because you're the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine. Store clerks should not have to "card"you.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
#CertifiedSIP
If the only reason to wear a mask is to prevent (or limit) the transmission of the virus, then you don't need a mask. But if you want to enter a place of business that requires everybody to wear a mask, then you have to wear one.aginlakeway said:bay fan said:Because your the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
OK. So I don't have to wear a mask then?
But I think you knew this already. You're just purposely being obstinate.
You also have the option of having the letter "V" tattooed on your forehead. Good enough, Bay Fan?aginlakeway said:GAC06 said:
You don't, and there will come a time that's the policy. I'm convinced right now it's just not realistic to be able to tell who really got vaccinated and who just is sick of masks. There will be people still getting infected even after herd immunity.
Well I do have papers to prove I've been vaccinated ...
I am not.RealTalk said:If the only reason to wear a mask is to prevent (or limit) the transmission of the virus, then you don't need a mask. But if you want to enter a place of business that requires everybody to wear a mask, then you have to wear one.aginlakeway said:bay fan said:Because your the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
OK. So I don't have to wear a mask then?
But I think you knew this already. You're just purposely being obstinate.
I was simply asking why I need to wear a mask if I can't give anyone else covid. Can I pass it on if I have been vaccinated and have the antibodies? I truly don't know, I didn't think that was such an unfair question.
One day at a time.
I saw this on reddit earlier today looking to see what we can see from Israel being so far ahead of everyone when it comes to vaccines
Link: Israel Study
"According to one of the Israeli health providers, in the week after their second shot, just 20 out of 128,000 Israelis tested positive. This is 0.015%, compared to the 0.65% of the general population who are currently getting infected each week. This would suggest an efficacy of around 95% as claimed by Pfizer. None of the 20 were hospitalised.
Overall infections among over 60s have dropped very significantly compared to the rest of the (still mostly unvaccinated) population. This has coincided with the British virus variant becoming more widespread in Israel, leading to an increase in infections among younger people."
I removed the following: " The effect after a single dose is significantly smaller (and apparently less than Pfizer was claiming), though it still reduces infections by around a third" from the response because there seemed to be more debate about whether this statement was true.
The clarification on that was the following:
"That's actually also wrongly reported. The efficacy rate of 52% comes from comparing infections in the vaccine and control groups from the first dose to the second, which includes the first 12 days where antibodies haven't kicked in yet. If you look at the Pfizer data and ignore those first 12 days, you'd get around 90% efficacy from the first dose alone."
Link: Israel Study
"According to one of the Israeli health providers, in the week after their second shot, just 20 out of 128,000 Israelis tested positive. This is 0.015%, compared to the 0.65% of the general population who are currently getting infected each week. This would suggest an efficacy of around 95% as claimed by Pfizer. None of the 20 were hospitalised.
Overall infections among over 60s have dropped very significantly compared to the rest of the (still mostly unvaccinated) population. This has coincided with the British virus variant becoming more widespread in Israel, leading to an increase in infections among younger people."
I removed the following: " The effect after a single dose is significantly smaller (and apparently less than Pfizer was claiming), though it still reduces infections by around a third" from the response because there seemed to be more debate about whether this statement was true.
The clarification on that was the following:
"That's actually also wrongly reported. The efficacy rate of 52% comes from comparing infections in the vaccine and control groups from the first dose to the second, which includes the first 12 days where antibodies haven't kicked in yet. If you look at the Pfizer data and ignore those first 12 days, you'd get around 90% efficacy from the first dose alone."
I'm two weeks out from my second shot. I still wear a mask in public only because I don't want have to explain myself to everyone if I didn't and it doesn't really bother me to wear one for a few minutes when I'm in a store or whatever. It's more out of politeness than any sound scientific reasoning.
With that said, when vaccinations reach critical mass in my community, I'm throwing my mask away and if anyone whines at me, I'll politely tell them to F off.
With that said, when vaccinations reach critical mass in my community, I'm throwing my mask away and if anyone whines at me, I'll politely tell them to F off.
You act like anyone can get it. I'll be first in line when my demographic is eligible which likely won't be for some time.FratboyLegend said:Well then, you should get the vaccine so you don't have to trust them, shouldn't you?bay fan said:Because you're the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine. Store clerks should not have to "card"you.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
So innocent, except I answered your question in my first response and you ignored that and responded "okay so I don't have to wear a mask" which elicited the reply you object to.aginlakeway said:bay fan said:You pretty muchd seem like someone who is going to do what you want regardless of others so you don't need my permission. I will continue to wear mine for the sake of others, particularly minimum wage store clerks who are put in position of enforcing regulations.aginlakeway said:bay fan said:Because your the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
OK. So I don't have to wear a mask then?
Yep. That's me. I have spent 12 years helping others overcome addiction, including many fellow TexAgs posters. Doing that is by far the most important thing in my life. But I'm very selfish. Always putting myself first. That's me. You got me pegged.
I was simply asking why I need to wear a mask if I can't give anyone else covid. Can I pass it on if I have been vaccinated and have the antibodies? I truly don't know, I didn't think that was such an unfair question.
But thanks anyway for the condescending, default negative opinion/judgment of a total stranger. I prefer to default to the positive. But that's just me.
Wear your mask until your local government tells you otherwise. If you can help addicts you can certainly help people who have not yet been vaccinated or minimum wage employees put in bad situations by people who refuse masks.
What demographic is that? The demographic that never had to worry much to begin with?bay fan said:You act like anyone can get it. I'll be first in line when my demographic is eligible which likely won't be for some time.FratboyLegend said:Well then, you should get the vaccine so you don't have to trust them, shouldn't you?bay fan said:Because you're the only one who knows whether that's true......many people even on here have made their positions very clear and I wouldn't trust them to not just lie to avoid a mask while awaiting the vaccine. Store clerks should not have to "card"you.aginlakeway said:
So if you've been vaccinated AND have the antibodies, why do you have to wear a mask?
I think that's a very fair question.
The reason the vax may not be available to you is because you have little reason to adjust your lifestyle w/r/t the virus to begin with. That's the #Science.
So, I ask again, why worry about trusting others wearing masks when you completely control your own risk, via your own behavior and, now, the vaccine?
#CertifiedSIP
FratboyLegend said:
The purpose of the vaccine is to protect the inoculated, NOT to protect the un-inoculated. As such, questions on transmissibility are irrelevant, as these vaccines are very effective at preventing bad covid outcomes for those that receive them.
If a person wants protection, it is now available, and they should go get vaccinated. If a person is expecting the level of community vaccination to reach a point where the virus is driven out of existence, they need to adjust their thinking. That will never be achieved; this virus is not going away, ever.
Polio says hi....
Featured Stories
See All
'Basketball savant' McMillan returns to home state to face Alabama
by Olin Buchanan
25:57
12m ago
318
13:08
25m ago
380
Keys to the Game: Texas A&M at Alabama
by Luke Evangelist
Postseason pain provides Aggie veterans with something to prove
by Kayla Gaither