[flagged]
What would really be wild is if Covid vaccines were this effective at reducing hospitalizations and symptoms and provided no immunity at all.
At the time we were told the delta variant was 20 times more infectious than the previous strains, so downgrading it to 15 time more infectious won't really make any difference (those numbers were probably bullshit like most numbers comming from epidemiologists but that logic stands whatever the real infection rate was, as long as it is a very high rate).
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00578-z
"Most COVID-19 vaccines are designed to elicit immune responses..."
It's crazy how many people spreads information without giving any prove.
It was not known at the time whether that protection would maintain or not, nobody knew how the virus would mutate.
Claims that the vaccine provided immunity were always baseless. What the trials demonstrated was that the vaccine was effective at suppressing symptoms and hospitalisations.
And this is not something that came after the fact, I remember that this approach was discussed on HN when the results were initially published.
Even if there were a minor correlation, then you can infer some information from the trials.
I'm not also suggesting that what you describe isn't part of the story, but there is no reason to believe it's a major part of the story. Viral infections lead to symptoms (most of the time). The vaccine is not a magic totem that allows for massive amounts of viral replication while just taking away the symptoms. That isn't how the immune system works.
vaccines do not function like a benedryl.
The initial vaccine was absolutely tested for infection and was based on infection rates, not based on "severity of symptoms." They changed the narrative after it was clear that vaccination did not provide protection from infection from variants but did maintain protection from severe symptoms.
No vaccine prevents an infection. None. Zero. Never happens.
The best a vaccine can do is train your immune system to identify and react to the infectious agent before it gains enough of a foothold to impact you. Often, especially if you've been vaccinated with the specific strain that infected you, it can do this before you notice you've been infected. Practically giving you an immunity, but not truly, you still got infected and your immune system still fought it off.
For viruses though it's a different story. Viruses mutate, the strain you got vaccinated against may not be the one that enters your body, but the vaccine means your immune system can mount an effective response. In these cases, it significantly reduces risk of hospitalizations and death from the vaccine, but does not mean you won't have some effects from the virus.
> No vaccine prevents an infection. None. Zero. Never happens.
As quoted from the CDC:
"A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers."
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0329-COVID-19-Vacci....
Here is your entire post in case you try to change it:
>"they" didn't change the narrative. >No vaccine prevents an infection. None. Zero. Never happens.
>The best a vaccine can do is train your immune system to identify and react to the infectious agent before it gains enough of a foothold to impact you. Often, especially if you've been vaccinated with the specific strain that infected you, it can do this before you notice you've been infected. Practically giving you an immunity, but not truly, you still got infected and your immune system still fought it off.
>For viruses though it's a different story. Viruses mutate, the strain you got vaccinated against may not be the one that enters your body, but the vaccine means your immune system can mount an effective response. In these cases, it significantly reduces risk of hospitalizations and death from the vaccine, but does not mean you won't have some effects from the virus.
I think we can give people some slack considering it was trumpeted by many elected officials and most of the national news networks for over a year.
He said that AND ALSO at the same public appearance: "vaccinated people are less likely to catch the virus than unvaccinated people and, if they do catch it, are less likely to get sick"
Why somebody take first statement as absolute and not the second one?
Why after that statement ignore all other statements made by properly medically and scientifically prepared experts?
> Why somebody take first statement as absolute and not the second one?
Because 90% of the US population is incapable of nuance and only listens to the first few words of a sentence? Maybe lead with the important part instead of wish casting?
Why muddy the waters? Why even say the first part when you KNOW it's going to confuse most people?