Machu Peach

I've enjoyed the discussions here for a long long time. Excited to see what's coming, but it does remind me of one of my favorite movie quotes.

And I don’t get this. We solved polio. We solved measles, whooping cough, mumps, etc. Then a bunch of discredited docs wrote books questioning vaccines and we now have parts of the country with lower vaccination rates than third world countries. My generation never saw the horrors of those sicknesses because they were eradicated when we grew up, but we were all vaccinated. now those are on the rise because we aren’t learning from history While I agree that we aren't learning from history, I think there's a different lesson to be learned from your 1st example, polio. The same year the polio vaccine was approved (1955), a public opinion poll showed that almost half of parents said they would not take the vaccine. In 1958 many pharmaceutical companies stopped making the vaccine because of vaccine hesitancy. It took a massive public education effort, famously spearheaded by the March of Dimes, and new vaccine to change public opinion. Historically, pro-vaccination campaigns have been very successful worldwide. However, they require trust and respect. Attempting to scare people isn't very effective and belittling people even less so. More disciplined and respectful pro-vaccine messaging would be far, far more effective than the current media strategy.

It's important to note that many of the symptoms of "long-haul COVID" (headaches, insomnia, fatigue, muscle pain, difficulty concentrating) are also symptoms of depression and anxiety. Given that it's well established that social isolation (which occurs with quarantine) can increase chances of developing depression or anxiety one would need a study with a control group and a plausible mechanism to determine a true rate of long-haul COVID. Do you know of a study that includes a control group or looks into a plausible mechanism?

Sorry. 1) Viral evolution for novel viral genomes was not a discipline until Covid-19. 2) You're wrong. 1) This is incorrect. People have been studying evolution of novel viral genome for decades. A simple pubmed search will result in thousands of articles on the topic.2) Well, I guess that settles that

You couldn't be any more wrong. The level of infection is very important because each person infected is a potential candidate to harbor an additional mutation to the virus that COULD lead to a highly transmissible, highly lethal variant. The more people infected the higher the likelihood that one of those types of variants occurs. IT HAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE BEST HEALTH POLICY TO REDUCE/ELIMINATE infections. And while many people are vaccinated there is no guarantee that will protect against a much higher lethality variant. Get a variant with a 10% lethality and that's a game changer. 50%? goodbye most of the planet... This isn't how viral evolution works.

I assume you mean Maurice Hilleman, but yes he was an amazing individual. Most estimates credit his work and that of his colleagues with saving hundreds of millions of lives.

Imagine if you will a world where a couple's nanny is also their friend....[sarcasm]in the Twilight zone[/sarcasm]. They didn't suddenly change their story. His wife was out of town with their nanny and some other friends for the weekend. You'll have to forgive my confusion. "Out with friends" and "From my childcare provider" are very different types of interactions. I'm not sure that sarcasm adds much to an otherwise respectful discussion. Thanks for the link and the clarification for the studies. I figured if they can say it was 90% effective (on data less than 2 years old) that they could have actual data on its spread by vaccinated people (even prelim data) by now, but I guess not. It would be helpful if they did. We are agreed that vaccinated people are X% (whatever the particular vaccine they used) less likely to spread the vaccine. Would you agree that unmaking people when COVID rates are high is unsafe? No, I disagree. Masks are unnecessary for vaccinated individuals and masking vaccinated people does little to nothing to improve safety. Claiming otherwise is greatly overestimating the efficacy of masks and greatly underestimating the efficacy of vaccination. The hypocrisy can come direct from the CDC article you posted: vs this one: The hypocrisy is simple. The main reason for the reduction in masks is to gain acceptance of the vaccine, not reduction of the virus spread. That is manipulative. You claim it is the "main reason" yet the quote you cite only says "may help." Those are two very different things. Why do you feel it is the "main reason"? I feel it is very important to state that "gain[ing] acceptance of the vaccine" is single most important thing that can be done to "[reduce] virus spread." Furthermore, I must apologize again but I don't see how those two statements are in conflict with one another. With respect, the premise that masking vaccinated people will significantly further reduce viral spread is incorrect. You're also ignoring human nature. If dropping the mask requirement for vaccinated individuals does actually increase vaccine acceptance by the general population the CDC should absolutely should be doing so. The vaccines are a highly effective method for greatly reducing or eliminating viral spread. Masks, at best, have a modest impact in comparison.

Didn't they originally say she got it from their nanny but now it's a friend? This is why anecdotes are so unreliable. It's impossible to know what really occurred. The studies are helpfully summarized here. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html Notably, you will often see non-absolute language like "should reduce" or "make it rare to spread" in preliminary studies. Average peer review for a large study in a major journal is 2 years (and that's after all the data is collected, analyzed, and written up (a process that routinely takes over 5 years for these types of studies)), so expecting to see fully fleshed out, definitive studies on anything COVID related at this point is not realistic. Every study you've read to date would be considered preliminary As pointed out several times in this thread, all data to date show an ~90% reduction in infections in vaccinated individuals (for the two mRNA vaccines). Would you agree that a if a person is not infected they are not going to spread disease? Thus, even with this very simple analysis, it is safe to say that vaccinated people are at least 90% less likely to spread disease? You've used the word "hypocritical" twice and I apologize, but I think I'm missing the point. Who do you think is hypocritical? What actions/advice are they doing/giving that are hypocritical?

This discussion earlier, if that's what you're referring to, was not about whether vaccinated people can get infected, but rather the likelihood of vaccinated people becoming infected and then spreading the disease to others. There's no reason to suspect that the Yankees outbreak was spread from a vaccinated individual or that the other MLB infections are spread from vaccinated individuals.

It does functionally eliminate the spread of the virus from vaccinated individuals. It's not impossible, but it is rare to very rare.Can't be that rare. Someone (vaccinated) who works for me caught it from his wife (vaccinated), who caught it from their nanny (unknown). He said both he and his wife didn't show symptoms but were tested because of the nanny.Anecdotes are just anecdotes. There's simply no possible way to prove that your coworker got it from his wife or even that his wife got it from the housekeeper. You're making assumptions that cannot be be proven either way, and basing your conclusion on an N of 1. The data on the issue are clear; it is rare.

It does functionally eliminate the spread of the virus from vaccinated individuals. It's not impossible, but it is rare to very rare.

Oh I see, thank you. For some reason I thought that acute response antibody titers were being referred to, but yes the baseline/longterm titers should also be higher, which would lead to better protection. It's one of several reasons why a person that was previously infected with COVID would benefit from vaccination.

Your doctor must have a limited understanding of immunology/vaccines. She is very incorrect.The studies have shown that someone with COVID antibodies getting the first shot will show significantly more antibodies. I don't remember the number, but I thought it was something like 10 or 20x strong immune response (which is a good thing).This makes sense, recall responses always induce much higher antibodies titers than primary responses. It's one of the reasons why most vaccinations protocols require multiple boosts. However, I'm afraid I may be missing your overall point?

Your doctor must have a limited understanding of immunology/vaccines. She is very incorrect.

Can you link this? It doesn't pass the smell test/sanity check.

Notably, the CDC does not have any say on enforcement of local or state mask mandates. One still needs to follow the requirements of their local or state government until those mask mandates are officially lifted. That said, I hope governments move very quickly to end the mandates for those that are vaccinated.

This is a month old, and the CDC almost immediately said its own director was taking too big of a leap. https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-vaccination-comments-director-rochelle-walensky-2021-4 Sorry, I posted the wrong link. Notably, this is consistent with what the director was saying in the April 1st article. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-people-dont-always-need-to-wear-masks-outdoors.html

“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html

I specifically stated that I don't see a scientific justification. I did not comment on social, political, or enforcement justifications. I also did not quote your post nor refer to your post. It was not in response to you. My apologies, people occasionally response to the post immediately before them without quoting and I was mistaken.

Since the start of the pandemic, the number of kids under 18 dying from COVID isn't much higher than that of influenza (with a bizarrely mild flu season). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge

Yea, I can see why one would trust the CDC's summary/recommendations over a random person on the internet. However, the data in links in the background rational show a greatly reduced risk of vaccinated individuals spreading disease. The CDC summary does not match the data. Addendum: I guess these statements are technically correct, but they are somewhat misleading. The question is not if the vaccines reduce spread of the disease, but how much they reduce the spread. The answer is between "a lot" or "almost all." "- We’re still learning how well COVID-19 vaccines keep people from spreading the disease. - Early data show that the vaccines may help keep people from spreading COVID-19, but we are learning more as more people get vaccinated."

By any reasonable standard it is safe to say that the risk of a fully vaccinated individual acquiring and then transmitting the virus to a new host is very low. Any health official that argues otherwise is just gaslighting at this point.

I specifically stated that I don't see a scientific justification. I did not comment on social, political, or enforcement justifications.

I don't see a scientific justification for requiring fully vaccinated people to wear a mask. Infections of vaccinated people are quite rare, and deaths are even rarer. The idea that a significant number of vaccinated people can be infected asymptomatically and shed virus was alway dubious and has been disproven over the last few months. It seems like some in the general population are greatly overestimating the efficacy of masks and greatly underestimating the efficacy of vaccination.

It's very well established that the side effects one experiences after an immunization are mostly due to activation of the innate immune system. However the goal of a vaccine is to induce a response from the adaptive immune system. There's certainly a loose correlation between the intensity of the innate response and development of the adaptive response but it would be incorrect to assume that people that have more severe side effects are better protected. Younger people generally are more likely to experience side effects, again because of stronger innate immunity. Both innate and adaptive immunity wane as one ages. Notably, with this type of immunization the side effects to the vaccine will not mimic the symptoms of the actual disease, other than that they both can strongly activate innate immunity and that alone can make one feel pretty crummy for a day or two.