The problem with this paper is not the result, but the authors' tone punching through, which expresses surprise at this result. This paper should have been rejected for revision on that basis.
> The mRNA-based Pfizer1, 2 and Moderna3 vaccines were shown to have 94–95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, calculated as 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo). It means that in a population such as the one enrolled in the trials, with a cumulated COVID-19 attack rate over a period of 3 months of about 1% without a vaccine, we would expect roughly 0·05% of vaccinated people would get diseased.
Even if you consider Delta variant, we were originally told the vaccines were very effective:
> The study said the Pfizer vaccine was 88% effective against the B.1.617.2 variant, first found in India, 2 weeks after the second dose. The Pfizer vaccine was 93% effective against the variant found in the U.K., known as B.1.1.7, two weeks after the second dose.
> Two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were 60% effective against the B.1.617.2 variant and 66% effective against B.1.1.7, the study said.
It's fine if preliminary results didn't hold up, but lets not gaslight the public into thinking vaccines were never about not getting infected.
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
[1] https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021052...
[EDIT] Updated link 0 to one that more clearly states the definition of efficacy
Again, I'm okay with new finding. What I'm not okay with is this constant gaslighting. The media tries to pretend I don't remember what was reported 6 months ago.
The vaccines stay highly effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. But we’ll probably all end up taking a 3rd shot eventually.
The vaccine was sold as the ticket to freedom with early claims that it prevents spread and death. It does neither, might actually increase risk of more virulent strains longer term and brings a false sense of security to those not informed fully of the ongoing risks.
It will be the 'unvaccinated' - the 5-10% left - somehow still causing all spread and death because that's easier than having to continue to be cautious and responsible after 'taking one for the team' with the jab, or admit the vaccine mostly provides individual risk reduction, not societal.
Many people will still say vaccinated people get negative faster so, even if they were shedding as much virus as unvaccinated people, vaccinated people would still be less contagious.
This seems the basis for a lot of the mandates, if it stops being true then covid vaccination becomes a matter of personal health rather than public health.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
This study found "no significant difference" in the vaccinated:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v...
Moreover, a vaccinated person is less likely to be symptomatic, therefore more likely to be out and about, actually spreading those viral particles.
Recent data from the UK shows that vaccinated aged 40+ are more likely to be infected.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... (Page 13)
There is still a reduction in the younger age groups, presumably because those have been vaccinated more recently.
> This seems the basis for a lot of the mandates, if it stops being true then covid vaccination becomes a matter of personal health rather than public health.
The mandates are based on assumptions that have been proven wrong, you are now witnessing the inertia of authorities in adjusting policy to new information. Furthermore, blaming the vaccine hesitant for reality not living up to promise is politically expedient.
Are you implying that shedding does not correlate with being symptomatic?
There's some evidence they do correlate, at least in severe cases: https://twitter.com/paulchenz/status/1428793894678958087 (paper in top tweet)
> The mandates are based on assumptions that have been proven wrong
Without taking any position in the mandates themselves, what are the assumptions that have been proven wrong?
1. Your second link does not invalidate the first, and that seems to support vaccinated recover faster, hence they have less time to spread.
2. I've came across the UK weekly reports, there's still much controversy on the population data used in those reports: https://twitter.com/ftdata/status/1447486663505100806
The question is genuine, what are the assumptions that would support mass vaccination, instead of only people at risk of severe cases, and have been proven wrong?
(edit: formatting)
No, I'm saying being vaccinated correlates with having fewer or no symptoms, which leads to different behavior.
> Your second link does not invalidate the first, and that seems to support vaccinated recover faster, hence they have less time to spread.
The crucial period is the first few days, especially before symptom onset. If you are symptomatic, you are probably at home after this period.
> I've came across the UK weekly reports, there's still much controversy on the population data used in those reports
Good point, I stand corrected. That said, data from Israel also suggests little to no reduction in infections among vaccinated.
> The question is genuine, what are the assumptions that would support mass vaccination, instead of only people at risk of severe cases, and have been proven wrong?
The wrong assumption is that vaccines "protect others" and that they will substantially reduce infections. If they actually did substantially reduce infections, we should observe that effect everywhere - we don't. Whatever reduction there is, it's likely counter-acted by the modified behavior of the people who still rely on these assumptions to be true. Either way, none of it justifies mandatory vaccination, or the scapegoating of the vaccine hesitant.
And I agree that the weakest the "protect others" is, the least justifiable mandates are. The story is definitely not as straightforward as it's often portrayed.
Thank you for the peaceful exchange, I've very much enjoyed it.
The authors are not making any claims about anything, other than demonstrating the rate of vaccination doesn't seem to affect the case rate.
The most obvious thing I see is that places with lower case rates and remote not dense populations tend to be less vaccinated in the first place. I have family in rural areas with almost zero case rates and as a result they're just less concerned and less vaxxed.
This is an important consideration for policy because it's generally not been about making sure workers have protected themselves (although that's one issue) it's really about preventing outbreaks.
Looking forward to further commentary.
Seems like the reader can at least reasonably deduce that the vaccine does not significantly impact the transmission rate.
Mainstream thought and dogma about the vaccine certainly takes a hit based on the observations made in this article. I already see comments dismissing the findings based on personal theories about lockdown impacts and other WAGS.
And yes, this data would be damaging to mainstream dogma but it's only one article.
My bet is the scientific reality is somewhere in the middle: vaccines prevent transmission, but not by that much.
Public Health Policy is always going to err on the side of 'more vaxxes'.
If the data really starts to show vaxxes not as useful as we might want for R0 (because one study is just one study), they will change their tune and back off.
There are a lot of reasons this data could be odd, including the fact that spread is happening among children right now, so it could be related to school outbreaks, and, areas where there wasn't a lot of COVID previously.
In the end, their messaging will primarily be driven by net cases and uptick: if we're seeing breakouts and growth of COVID in certain areas, then you'll hear about vaccines, if case rates stay very low, we'll get back to normal.
I don't think that's what everyone does, or should know.
In the strict technical use of the word "stop" you are correct. it is not 100% eliminated.
But this is misleading, as the risk of being infected is much reduced by vaccination, as well as the "hospitalization and case severity".
As others have noted, the behaviours of people also influences the infection rate. Lockdown without any vaccination, or no lockdown and high vaccination percentages might give similar infection rates.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-dose-of-covid-19-vacc...
If you take out junk data from Africa, you get clear relation for each continent. Take out 3 clear and explainable outliers: Israel, Mongolia and Malaysia and it becomes even more clear.
Here is data have fun (see source for copy paste)
Country Name Location People Fully Vaccinated % of Population Cases Per 1 Million People in the Last 7 Days Angola Africa 2.71 31.09011888 Argentina South America 32.42 636.3661061 Australia Australia 28.37 300.2921838 Austria Europe 57.65 943.9270195 Azerbaijan Asia 26.72 2268.729292 Bahrain Asia 62.31 339.1876085 Botswana Africa 8.66 1307.336771 Brazil South America 29.68 596.5323021 Bulgaria Europe 17.12 1313.100336 Cambodia South America 50.72 150.5920474 Canada North-America 66.93 536.6461776 Cyprus Europe 58.85 1800.665537 Czechia Europe 53.56 106.7643565 Djibouti Africa 2.37 44.90135173 Egypt Africa 3.08 15.0875239 Georgia Asia 10.6 5408.851208 Greece Europe 55.43 1661.114672 Hong Kong Asia 46.02 4.766444233 Iceland Europe 76.82 1202.819199 India Asia 10.9 182.8242777 Indonesia Asia 13.19 204.0875492 Israel Asia 62.51 6224.276933 Italy Europe 61.04 610.8587852 Jamaica South America 4.88 1408.45923 Japan Asia 46.85 932.0131544 Kazakhstan Asia 28.63 1694.397008 Kenya Africa 1.47 72.96442264 Kyrgyzstan Asia 6.89 160.3718091 Latvia Europe 40.99 760.6053562 Lebanon Asia 16.15 950.4884734 Libya Africa 0.84 1215.772624 Lithuania Europe 56.32 1277.388952 Malawi Africa 2.17 25.09201977 Malaysia Asia 46.5 3788.511754 Mali Africa 0.41 4.411258991 Malta Europe 80.22 577.1876773 Mauritania Africa 0.46 210.2569365 Mauritius Asia 58.81 1577.631401 Mongolia Asia 62.99 4745.768006 Montenegro Europe 29.45 5502.737835 Namibia Africa 4.47 332.7736861 Nepal Asia 15.73 316.0918378 New Zealand Australia 25.5 71.5954806 North Macedonia Europe 25.88 2276.894799 Pakistan Asia 7.99 103.9787184 Panama South America 37.92 748.3596682 Philippines Asia 12.71 943.3400713 Portugal Europe 75.01 1088.816271 Russia Europe 25.53 753.5568248 Sao Tome and Principe South America 5.32 255.1888397 Saudi Arabia Asia 42.66 37.46390845 Senegal Africa 3.29 35.18197046 Slovenia Europe 43.67 1348.424008 Somalia Africa 0.6 27.50695315 South Africa Africa 10.23 869.8911342 South Korea Asia 31.74 199.648441 Sri Lanka Asia 38 1477.394423 Suriname South America 23.13 2316.668863 Sweden Europe 56.97 568.6918876 Taiwan Asia 3.93 2.263675619 Trinidad and Tobago South America 28.51 860.0700882 Turkey Asia 43.94 1399.061291 Ukraine Europe 8.99 299.9989279 United Arab Emirates Asia 76.03 595.8313028 United States North-America 51.91 3039.054339 Uruguay South America 72.13 177.8975494 Vietnam Asia 2.78 820.9530543 Zimbabwe Africa 10.97 64.53677208