Situation which will increase the disparity between the elite and the "dirty plebs". Since poor people have more risky jobs and lack the extra-care elites can afford, we will be the first ones to lose our jobs and go into debt in case we get sick. Unfortunately, inequality will only rise with COVID, especially in countries with poor social welfare models, like the U.S..
Have you just discovered that the one true religion of america is the sacrosanct dollar?
Movie productions are big money, they have the money to implement strict protocol and the money to acquire the relevant resources. Therefore they can do the thing which requires the strict protocol and relevant resources.
I cringe every time I hear the phrase, "Why would they voting that way. They're voting against their own self interest." Personally I think we need more people voting against their own self interest.
Voting against one's self interest doesn't mean you're voting for the good of the world. The often intended meaning of that statement is that you, as a lower class individual, are unwittingly empowering the upper class and exacerbating societal problems, and often implied that you don't realize you're doing this.
On a scale of one to ten, how condescending do you think this is?
At some point the left needs to start treating people as people instead of pawns to be shuffled around. Combine this with the "with us or against us" mentality, and they generate their own opposition.
About as condescending as someone deserves if they're pro Affordable Care Act, but anti-Obamacare. The average voter, on both sides, doesn't understand issues at a basic level, let alone hold a rational perspective of the nuances of their outcomes. Most issues, unlike the obamacare/aca juxtaposition, have a way to justify taking either side of the issue from a conservative or liberal framework. That doesn't mean constituents on either side are thinking about it that way.
Saying someone is voting against their own stated interests isn't likely to be persuasive to them, but it doesn't make it factually false. Most people don't really know what their political interests are anyway and just react to strawmen.
If that's the implication, then I think the implication is wrong. It's not like they don't know they are voting to cut entitlements and lower taxes on the wealthy.
We know that all reports of side-effects will be false because the emotional and political implications if any of them were to be true are just too much to bear.
I disagree. This taps into a lot of technical know-how and communication skills.
It’s a well-rounded examination of how someone can contribute to the development of a product. That such a well-rounded assessment happens to include examining your likability or “other emotional response” is just a byproduct of testing how well someone interfaces with other humans - part of the job almost always.
The grandposter actually doesn't say "social skills" are worthless. You're kinda putting words into their mouth. They only claim that that type of interview is biased for one factor.
"Culture fit" is one of those things that seems to be used as a proxy for traits that are illegal to take into consideration during the hiring process.
At its worst case, sure. But it also means, can I work with this person? Can we be productive together? Are they picking up what I and the rest of the team will be throwing down?
Everyone has had to do a terrible group project in school where the group dynamic was just not there and the whole thing suffered, despite all the smarts being at the table. This is to attempt to avoid that exact same thing from happening, because often you just don't have the time to flub around telling someone how to document something properly for the 10th time.
We recently spent a long time filling a position. We're a relatively small team, where it is paramount that one works well with the rest of the team.
That doesn't mean you got to fit some tight social profile, far from it.
But since we're a small team each person has a lot of responsibility, and so we need to trust the right decisions are made for the right reasons, that communication won't be an issue, that you can handle dealing with customers for projects and troubleshooting etc.
We don't need the best skilled coders. We need developers who're good at finding solutions to our customers problems, within the constraints of us being a small team with limited resources (time most of all). We need someone who's capable of learning new technologies as the needs arise, and we need someone who can communicate well within the team and with our customers.
When I got hired, my actual coding skill wasn't really a topic. I didn't get a single programming quiz or similar question. They were far more interested in my background, what sort of projects I had been working on, what motivated me etc.
I can understand this concern though I can assure you when I say "culture fit" I'm considering it a two way street.
A good example: I had an interview earlier this week for a full-stack role and the inteviewee had recently come off a two year project that was heavy on react. The project he'd be on has a jquery frontend. I told him candidly that the project would likely never make a "modern" refactor a priority, and asked him if he could still be happy in a role that used jquery.
Our full-time team is small and ensuring we can all collaborate and work together is very important for us to be effective. On the flip side we try to be transparent about what our team looks like too and give you a chance to decide if you could be locked in a room, hashing out which circle talks to which on a whiteboard, with us.
> However the main purpose of a vaccine is herd immunity.
This is false when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines under development. They do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. They only reduce the symptoms. This does not help herd immunity (other than perhaps allowing the virus to spread faster, I guess).
Unless you're a PhD molecular biologist (I'm not) with some meta-understanding of mRNA vaccines and I've missed something, I think the person you're responding to is actually correct.
"COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them."
"Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19."
"At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection. The benefit of mRNA vaccines, like all vaccines, is those vaccinated gain this protection without ever having to risk the serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19."
The information you so generously "shared" was not helpful. You intentionally spread it in a misleading way, and at this point enough counter-evidence has been provided to you that you must know you were wrong, which means you are now arguing in bad faith. Nowhere on that page does the CDC claim that current COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of the virus (in fact they explicitly disclaim the vaccine's effect on herd immunity), but you selectively quoted to make it seem as though they might have said that.
To be fair, a large portion of the blame lies with whoever wrote the copy for that CDC marketing page, as they are intentionally obscuring the fact that these vaccines do not prevent the spread of the virus. It's easily understandable why they are obscuring that fact and I suppose we should just be thankful that they haven't spread any outright lies on that page, again by explicitly making no claims about herd immunity. Note that the page does explain to people that they need to keep social distancing after receiving the vaccine, which shows that the CDC does acknowledge privately that the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus.
I haven't actually seen any convincing counter-evidence presented in a clear and concise manner. I've seen some stuff that gets off in the weeds, but ignores the mechanism of T-cell and B-cell mediated immunity and the most plausible mechanisms of transmission at an aggregate level, and that only focuses on primary outcomes of clinical trials, while ignoring secondary outcomes.
But I haven't seen anything that was written in a way that would convince a mildly skeptical human (and I've spent some time behind a micropipette) that vaccines do nothing to prevent contracting and spreading viruses in a meaningful (clinical - not analytical) sense.
I'm coming to this with an open mind, and I don't think I'm being a jerk about anything. I shared a quote from the CDC at face-value. You're just some faceless dude on the internet. Why should I believe you over the CDC?
"At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection." <-- This is straight-up saying that the vaccine protects you from getting infected. I'm not quoting out of context or anything. If enough people are protected against getting infected, we reach herd immunity. Am I missing something here?
I promise I'm not masterminding some elaborate FUD campaign to undermine your premise. You're just saying something that's super-counterintuitive and then getting angry at me because I don't see clear evidence for it in what you presented.
You have seen the scientists writing explicit contrary to your claims, and even the specific vaccine testing protocols, I’ve given you the exact links and quotes, but you doubled down. The UK authorized Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and still:
svrb's comment is specifically with regard to vaccines: "They do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus."
What you acqq are posting is “Although the vaccine will give recipients immunity from the virus, scientists do not yet know whether it will stop them being carriers."
Can you see the very fine semantic line that is being walked here?
The public is being told by health officials that the virus gives 'immunity' from the virus. In the same breath, you are supporting the argument that it does nothing to prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus.
You guys are acting like this is all rather obvious, but it's not at all.
If I walked up to someone on the street and said that a vaccine will give them immunity, what do you think they would take that to mean?
Well, the NHS, and the CDC are both saying that the vaccine gives 'immunity' and 'protection.'
You have to stop getting angry at me, and consider that if you're not making a convincing argument to me, how the hell are you going to make a convincing argument to somebody who doesn't have a degree in biochemistry.
“Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Dateline host Lester Holt that the pharmaceutical company was “not certain” if the vaccine prevented the coronavirus from being transmitted, saying, “This is something that needs to be examined.””
I'd also like to provide a different perspective from another scientist at Pfizer/BioNTech.
While Mr. Bourla is a 'business executive and veterinarian', another member of the Pfizer/BioNTech team has a different perspective.
Uğur Şahin MD, chief executive of Germany’s BioNTech, whose main field of research is cancer research and immunology, and whose company actually developed the underlying technology of the mRNA vaccine jointly released with Pfizer had this to say:
'“I’m very confident that transmission between people will be reduced by such a highly effective vaccine — maybe not 90% but maybe 50%,” he said.'
He is wwwaaaayyyyy more qualified to have insight into the efficacy of the vaccine than a CEO and vet who has never done research in or treated human patients in the field of immunology.
That's a pretty well-worded statement from Al. Sounds reasonable to me. There's no RCT to definitively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will prevent someone who has received the vaccine from transmitting virus to another person under any circumstances, no matter how unusual.
Remember the claims at the start of this thread were:
"They [vaccines] do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. They only reduce the symptoms."
Albert isn't saying any of that stuff, so why on earth would I disagree with him?
Article goes on to say "In November, Pfizer announced that its vaccine candidate had been shown to be more than 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19"
Aaaaaand so we're back at my comment before this one. What do they mean by 'prevent?' Because they're saying it 'prevents' COVID-19, just like the CDC did in the quote I shared that svrb got so angry at me about.
You guys are saying the vaccine does nothing to prevent people from getting SARS-CoV-2, but the CDC, and the articles you yourself are sending me are saying that the damn thing 'prevents' COVID-19, which is an infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Is the vaccine magically making people asymptomatic while an infection rages inside of them? Is it preventing a virus that destroys lung tissue from somehow showing any outward signs of dyspnea? Is it somehow blocking a cytokine storm? I don't think so, that's how Dexamethosone is being used to treat this, not vaccines. Maybe in the long run by shifting Th1/Th2 response or something, but that would have quickly become apparent in the routine labs done in the process of clinical trials. Does it magically break up thromboemboli in the bloodstream? How would a vaccine prevent kidney damage from showing up in someone with a raging, yet completely asymptomatic infection?
What is the mechanism by which a vaccine would allow a raging infection to occur inside of someone, while showing zero outward signs of it? Because if it's knocking down levels of active virus in the body by triggering a robust T and B-cell response, it's reducing viral shedding, and it's reducing transmission. That's the same thing that all the papers you have shared with me so far have indicated.
What do you want me to say?
Don't sneeze on grandma until she gets vaccinated. I said that earlier.
No. Covid-19 is the illness (symptomatic). Exactly like defined in the vaccine protocols. One can carry a virus (one can have positive PCR) without being ill (asymptomatic). We also know that their CT value (which corresponds to the amount of virus) is often as low (low values are high amount of virus) as by those who have symptoms. That’s why they infect more than those with symptoms (who stay at home or in the hospital). That’s common knowledge.
My dude, if you review the literature (or just google it) you will find that there is common reference to 'subclinical' and 'asymptomatic' COVID-19. First-page google results for 'asymptomatic COVID-19' include an article in The BMJ from four days ago titled 'Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates.' I'm not saying I buy the findings in that study, but be conservative with what you claim to be 'common knowledge.'
Again, regarding CT values, continuity of positive nasal swab PCR results can be totally divorced from significantly decreased lower-respiratory-tract viral titers, as the Nature monkey paper you sent me pointed out.
I ask you again: What is the mechanism by which a vaccine takes a person who would normally be symptomatic, and magically makes them asymptomatic, while having zero impact on titers of virus in the body?
I'm not talking about behavior here. I'm talking about direct, biochemical mechanisms inside of the human body.
The vaccine is reducing viral titers. And by reducing viral titers, it is reducing shedding into the lower airway. And by reducing shedding into the lower airway, it is reducing the number of viral particles contained in respiratory droplets expelled from the airway. And by reducing the number of viral particles that exit that airway, it is reducing transmission as it is intended.
Behavior is a separate discussion entirely, but consider the mechanism I have described. It is not only reducing viral titers in those who would normally be symptomatic, it is also reducing viral titers in those who would normally be asymptomatic. Those silent carriers that are walking around among us, well, now they're walking around spreading a hell of a lot less virus. And that is a big deal, especially in places like Oklahoma, Idaho, Arizona, South Dakota, Wyoming, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, etc, which as I mentioned earlier, have zero state-level requirement for anyone to wear a mask at all.
You are claiming [or at least not refuting svrb's argument] that vaccines have no impact on titers of virus in the body, and yet somehow they magically render people asymptomatic by a mechanism as-yet unknown to biology.
That's just not how it works. And the fact that vaccines knock down the amount of virus being spread around is a big deal, especially in places where there are no mask requirements in place.
Earlier you accused me of spreading false information, and asked me to apologize for spreading beliefs that can put people in danger, but have you come to see that this discussion is not as clear-cut and binary as you originally made it seem?
The reality is exactly the opposite of what you claim: all the studies of infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2, and even of other respiratory viruses correlate with detection of high virus load in the upper respiratory tract, and don't correlate with the detection of the high virus load in the lower respiratory tract. Here the most recent meta-analysis of the most relevant studies:
Your reasoning therefore completely doesn't match the results of many different studies across the world, and also doesn't fit with which people are considered infectious in practice, with all the millions of people involved.
So, the study that I've quoted earlier, which detected high viral load in the upper respiratory tract of non-human primate animal model therefore suggests exactly what I've already mentioned that it suggests, namely, that we can not assume that vaccine provides sterilizing immunity unless the later studies with humans show otherwise. And that is exactly how the UK is going to proceed with their vaccination policy, as I've already documented, and also matches the statement of Pfizer's CEO.
(I also note that you again try to insinuate that my claims are something that I've never even mentioned, hoping to change the topic. Please don't.)
Dude. This paper you're sending me is saying exactly what I'm saying. My reasoning matches all of the papers you've sent me so far:
You're saying:
> "all the studies of infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2, and even of other respiratory viruses correlate with detection of high virus load in the upper respiratory tract"
But, RNA fragments detected by PCR in nasal swabs != live, infectious virus.
The paper you linked is saying, instead:
"Our study shows that despite evidence of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples, viable virus appears to be short-lived. Therefore, RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness."
"Our findings suggest that, although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection might have prolonged RNA shedding of up to 83 days in upper respiratory tract infection, no live virus was isolated from culture beyond day 9 of symptoms despite persistently high viral RNA loads."
Residual RNA from lysed cells is sticking around and getting picked up on nasal swabs even when actual, infectious, titers of virus in the body are plummeting, and patients are no longer infectious. I used to work with RNA in a research lab! The shit is everywhere. Our experiments used to get contaminated with RNA from the lab next door all the time. I used to have to spray my bench with a bleach solution every day, sanitize my pipettes, and work at night so my RT-PCR experiments didn't get contaminated. That's in the air. Imagine how long it hangs out in the moist, snotty environment of the nasal cavity.
"Nevertheless, most studies demonstrate faster viral clearance among asymptomatic individuals than those who are symptomatic."
"This finding is in keeping with viral kinetics observed with other respiratory viruses such as influenza and MERS-CoV, in which people with asymptomatic infection have a shorter duration of viral shedding than symptomatic individuals."
Giving these people a vaccine will help them clear the infection even faster, which will help reduce community transmission, especially in places where they're now wandering around without masks on, in full compliance with state law.
I'm happy that the UK is prepared to make aggressive and forward-thinking health policy. Good for the UK, but this ain't the UK. There are a lot of countries like the US where I live, as well as my neighbor Mexico that don't have an NHS, and don't live on a small island with a well-functioning government. These vaccines will help to reduce community transmission in places where the scenes from urban hospitals can best be described as nightmarish.
"No part of the world has been as devastated by the pandemic as Latin America. Mexico, Brazil, Peru and other Latin American countries — hobbled by weak health systems, severe inequality and government indifference — have several of the highest deaths per capita from the virus in the world.
And unlike in Europe, the United States and many other regions, the outbreak in Latin American has not struck in waves. It hit furiously in the spring and has continued for months, with few of the respites savored elsewhere, however briefly, around the world. By the first week of September, the 10 countries with the highest deaths per capita were all in Latin America or the Caribbean."
Again, shift your frame of reference. The rest of the world does not look like the UK and Europe. Enjoy living somewhere that isn't a charnel house. The vaccines reduce community transmission, and I can say that confidently because I have outlined a pretty clear mechanism for it and there is zero data you have presented that points in the other direction, despite the fact that you keep saying it. Celebrate that fact that we now have this tool in our arsenal.
I promise I'm not the enemy. I promise I'm not conjuring things out of thin air. I'm reading all of the papers you're sending me, and I'm drawing valid scientific insights from them that are applicable to the broader world-at-large, not just the UK with the NHS at the helm, which is able to take steps that for much of the rest of the world is an unrealistic luxury.
The paper, and the papers it references, disproves your wrong theory that you repeated many times in more messages on this page about "lower respiratory tract" being more relevant for virus transmission, which is still wrong, as in, completely the opposite of what is reported in the scientific papers.
I show you the findings about upper respiratory tract, you then cite "respiratory and stool samples" sentence from the paper as if it somehow disproves what is supported by the paper and the ones it references, that the high viral load in the upper respiratory tract before symptoms and during the first days of symptoms is critical.
You cherry pick the sentence about the "viable virus" not being present "beyond day 9 of symptoms" (meaning day > 9) but that doesn't disprove what is claimed in the studies: that the transmission occurs even before symptoms (days -2 -1 and 0) and during the first few days of symptoms, that is, before the host's immune system has the time to fight the virus infection.
The scientific facts aren't less true in the US than in the UK and Europe. Your claim that you "used bleach solution" in the lab also doesn't make your wrong theory and your other wrong claims less wrong. Of course PCR tests detect RNA longer than the infectious virus is present, but all studies I've cited haven't ignored that fact.
Can you cite specific sentences from the paper that disprove my hypothesis?
I pulled and quoted specific sentences so you didn't have to dig through the paper to see what I'm talking about.
If I'm wrong, and the paper clearly says how I'm wrong, pull the specific sentences and show me. Then I don't have to dig through a research paper trying to guess what you're seeing in there that makes you think I'm wrong. I've outlined a specific mechanism, you can pull things from the papers and refute my mechanism line-by-line if you want. I'm not being vague about anything. I'm spelling it out pretty clearly. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong and then I and everyone reading this will be able to see clearly how I'm wrong.
> "I show you the findings about upper respiratory tract, you then cite "respiratory and stool samples" sentence from the paper as if it somehow disproves what is supported by the paper and the ones it references, that the high viral load in the upper respiratory tract before symptoms and during the first days of symptoms is critical."
I haven't seen any other method of measuring viral load in the upper respiratory tract than PCR. Maybe I've missed something? But in the lower airway they're using lavage in live animals and tissue immunohistochemistry in sacrificed animals to determine actual viral load. So, we don't actually know viral load in the upper respiratory tract from nasal swab PCR specimens (since, as they mentioned in the last paper, PCR from nasal swab doesn't actually correlate with viral load). Do you know of a way that they're measuring upper respiratory tract viral load other than nasal swab PCR?
The point of the bleach anecdote is to highlight what this paper said, which is that you can't estimate viral load based on nasal swab PCR since very high levels of mRNA hang out in the snout for long past the time when infectious viral titers have diminished.
> I haven't seen any other method of measuring viral load in the upper respiratory tract than PCR.
So we came to the truth: you didn't try to read how the researchers perform their research, even if they do publish their methods in the few papers you argue against, but you still claim here you know more than they do.
Of course the researchers can and do establish in their papers how much there's infectious virus in the upper tract. It's just a practical trade-off that, on the mass scale of all the millions of tests daily for clinical purposes, only PCR tests are preformed.
I've given you a single meta-analysis paper instead of linking to all the papers that paper refers to. Whichever detail you'd like to know, the paper links to them. It's mostly a click away. Almost all papers are also open access, meaning that you can read them in full. Moreover, for even those which aren't open access, typically the "appendices" are open access, exactly the parts that describe the methods used in the paper.
So, yes, we do know the actual viral loads of infectious virus good enough (1) to conclude what I wrote. And the conclusions, dumbed down enough, are what I've written before and eventually they can, when we're lucky, even end in the policies in the UK and statements of Pfizer CEO: there's enough research right now to not assume sterilizing immunity, unless the future studies show something else. That's science, it's seldom 100% certainty in 100% of effect.
You can either write about bleach all day or you can try searching in the paper and the references for what you want to know if you really want to learn something. Fishing for single sentences out of the context that support your wrong theories while claiming you know more than the majority of researchers is dishonest and contra-productive, unless you really just want to waste time of everybody (there are actually people paid to do that too, unfortunately).
---
1) Even for a single patient the actual existence of infectious virus can be established and the paper published: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31456-2 "(SARS-CoV-2) shedding was observed from the upper respiratory tract of a female immunocompromised individual" ... "Shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 was observed up to 70 days" Yes, "upper respiratory tract" and "infectious SARS-CoV-2."
I have been reading the papers, I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt of having read them and seen something I missed. I read scientific papers in biology all the time over the course of making a living, and I know how difficult they are to actually understand and interpret. I see PhDs and MDs make mistakes in interpreting them all the time. I make mistakes and miss things when reading them all the time. That's why graduate students, and professors, and medical residents, and doctors often read and discuss them in journal clubs, seminars, and conferences. The process is very similar to what we are doing right now.
I just read the paper you cited there. They're not determining titers of infectious virus in the upper respiratory tract with any other method than PCR. So, yeah, I'm right. I had just assumed you had read the papers and seen something I missed. You're making me second-guess myself, but I'm doing a pretty good job of cruising through these papers and understanding what they're actually doing.
Again, from the other paper you sent me, "RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness."
The Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla is a 'business executive and veterinarian."
Uğur Şahin MD, chief executive of Germany’s BioNTech, and whose main fields of research are cancer and immunology, and whose company actually developed the underlying technology of the mRNA vaccine jointly released with Pfizer had this to say:
'"I'm very confident that transmission between people will be reduced by such a highly effective vaccine - maybe not 90% but maybe 50% - but we should not forget that even that could result in a dramatic reduction of the pandemic spread," he said.'
I'm measuring my interpretation relative to actual scientists. Not just a random CEO who held a press conference. Albert, although he probably doesn't have as deep an understanding of the biology as Uğur, probably knows a hell of a lot more about manufacturing processes, and global distribution networks.
Imagine reducing asymptomatic transmission by 50%! That's insane. That's so awesome! It's going to cut transmission of this virus in half, even by a conservative estimate.
If I was able to sit down with Uğur, (who obviously has a much deeper understanding of the mechanism of action than I do) I'm willing to bet that his mechanism isn't so different than mine. Sounds like he and I agree on a lot!
The papers I've read use virus growth in cells, and even electron microscopy. I don't even know how you managed to claim now that only PCR is used in all the relevant papers.
It's no use for me even trying to discuss with you when your "reading" ends with recognizing that some paper mentions "PCR" and then claiming you're right in general, and all the epidemiologists and virologists aren't.
Anyway, AstraZeneca study just came out, and apparently even when the vaccine efficacy was 90%, the number of asymptomatic cases in the group where that was also measured dropped only 27% percent, which suggest again that the societies can't depend on vaccine providing sterilizing immunity -- it still appears that the vaccinated will be able to transmit the virus, just like the materials that I've referred to suggested.
That's why the UK starts with vaccinating first the most vulnerable, they know it's about protecting from illness, not about making the vaccinated impossible to transmit, as it's covered in many news in the UK -- the expectation is that, at the end, the immunity of population will only be reached once everybody is vaccinated. You can claim that nobody but you gets it, and that your "theory" is better than what's observed in many papers, but it's also a certain symptom.
Can't measure viral titer with an electron microscope. All the papers are measuring viral titer in the upper airway with PCR.
They may be confirming virus is present with other technologies, but the only way they're measuring viral titer is with PCR.
I don't claim that nobody but me gets it. The head of BioNTech seems to be saying exactly what I'm saying. I don't claim to say anything different from him.
Let's both come together to draft a public health statement that we both would feel comfortable releasing to the public. I'll go first:
Although new vaccine technologies will (1) aid in preventing members of the public from becoming severely ill with COVID-19, (2) will help significantly reduce the number of people contracting the virus in a clinically meaningful sense, and (3) will help to significantly reduce transmission in a community setting, it will be important for members of the public to continue wearing masks and maintaining social distancing until such a significant portion of the population is vaccinated that infection rates as-measured by nasal-swab PCR begin to show significant decreases, and ICU capacity is restored. Based on this, we will incrementally re-open and relax restrictions as deemed appropriate.
I have much more "down to the ground" practical considerations: I don't directly think about some abstract "ICU capacity" or abstract "nasal swabs" meaning too much but:
1) can I or somebody else transmit the virus to somebody I care about and cause them to end on the ICU or die and
2) I know that no country actually measures "infection rates" with PCR but uses that only as a tool to count the "confirmed cases", where a lot of "confirmed cases" are anyway in bad enough state to need hospitalization (meaning it's expected the will need at least something like oxygenation in hospital, if not intubation in the ICU). I also know that there are cases where the CT scan directly shows that somebody is a "case" even if the repeated PCR is negative. So I don't worry too much about the PCR alone, it's just one of the tools.
I also know that some of those who come in contact with the vulnerable which I know will very probably get the vaccine much earlier then I will. I know they will have to behave like they aren't vaccinated, and I know it will be hard for them to accept that, like it was for you to even agree it's a real problem.
I also know that I personally will have to be potentially careful not to think that I can't transmit to somebody who is in worse shape than me, even once I am vaccinated. I know that even if the vaccine has 95% efficacy, it doesn't mean that somebody I care about isn't in the remaining 5%. I also won't know if I am not in the remaining 5% and pre-symptomatic exactly in that moment. And like I've written, it can be it's even worse, and we have to assume that until the studies show otherwise.
And on the higher level, I have to care about everybody actually: as long as the disease spreads, everybody is worse off. The sooner the broad measures don't have to restrict any activity, the better for everybody. I want the real "recovery" as soon as possible.
So what will I do?
a) follow the results of the ongoing studies hoping for some better news, but not assuming everything simply has to be perfect.
b) prepare myself and those I want to remain in contact with that we'll have to be as careful as we are now until there's simply much less prevalence. If I were in Australia now I'd allow myself much more than I will do for some months here where the prevalence (number of people who are new cases every day) is what it is (and it's similar in a big part of the Western world). So I expect that it will be quite hard for everybody for more coming months.
c) try to make as much people as possible understand that the vaccine is almost surely (even with 95% efficacy it's 1 of 20 for whom it's not "working") not something giving them any new "powers." The more are aware of that, there's bigger chance that the prevalence will go down earlier, and that will protect everybody sooner. And it will save some lives, maybe exactly those I know.
In short, it will be very obvious that it's significantly "better" once when the prevalence goes down to something like Australia (7 new cases today among 25 million people, hey! But it's Summer there) and people I care about (including me) are vaccinated. And that "better" won't start at the moment anybody particular has received the vaccine while the prevalence is still much higher. Vaccine simply won't be a magical shield for any single person, as long as the prevalence isn't low. Which is why always more experts now also say that we should do vaccine trials for the children and if needed start vaccinating them too from some point on (once the trials confirm it's safe and the prevalence still exists). I know people who will surely try to be in close contact with their grandchildren before the risk for them is actually low enough.
We will also have to be careful to observe the prevalence in context of how much measures we don't follow at that moment and how big risks we are willing to allow for all we care about. And I consider that all in the local context -- if my city is with much better prevalence than some other, it will be enough.
The quote you use doesn't claim sterilizing immunity but the "protection" and is misleading. The publicly reported protection of the vaccines seeking EUA is against the symptomatic disease, as it can be seen in the protocols of the vaccine studies.
"To be considered as a case of COVID-19 for the evaluation of the
Primary Efficacy Endpoint, the following criteria must be met:
- The participant must have experienced at least TWO of the
following systemic symptoms: Fever (≥ 38ºC), chills,
myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste
disorder(s), OR
- The participant must have experienced at least ONE of the
following respiratory signs/symptoms: cough, shortness of
breath or difficulty breathing, OR clinical or radiographical
evidence of pneumonia; AND
- The participant must have at least one NP swab, nasal swab,
or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if hospitalized)
positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR."
In some other protocols it's not written in an easily quotable way but spread through the text and tables, but if you analyze the protocols carefully, the goal is the same: it's the vaccinated and symptomatic that are counted and compared with the symptomatic counted in the placebo group.
So whenever you saw "protection" up to now it was implicit it's the protection from the disease as defined above. Not the sterilizing immunity.
Moderna's announcement is also explicit in mentioning so defined "primary endpoint":
"The primary endpoint of the Phase 3 COVE study is based on the analysis of COVID-19 cases confirmed and adjudicated starting two weeks following the second dose of vaccine."
We should eventually know more, but we still don't have that information.
> That's a direct mechanism of protection that will help to both prevent people from getting sick
That's what the reported numbers claim: up to 95% people less are getting sick.
But it's unknown how much it will "knock down shedding" and the experts who follow only publicly available data are still cautious to claim the opposite of what you claim, specifically:
"it will be important to communicate to policy makers and the general public that first-generation vaccines are only one tool in the overall public health response to COVID-19 and unlikely to be the ultimate solution that many expect."
You may not like that or believe something else, but it's not what I hear and read the mentioned experts say, like, as an example, Natalie E. Dean whose article I've already linked to, and you can follow her other writings too. And, as far as I know, her opinion is far from being untypical, i.e. it would be easy to find more actual experts (which I define as those who were doing active research even before Covid-19 in the field and not something totally unrelated and who aren't just jumping in for political purposes -- note that that definition automatically excludes those like Ioannidis) who publicly say the same.
There is no ultimate public health solution ever in any situation!
Of course our response will be a multi-faceted approach! Look at how many businesses are now installing UV-lights in ventilation systems, allowing people to work from home, and how the wearing of masks has become normalized and accepted in many parts of the country!
People will no longer hesitate to throw on a mask if they feel ill, unlike before when we used to wander into Target sneezing and coughing all over everything! Think of how awesome that is for immunocompromised people!
The vaccine will be a critical link in a long chain that will hopefully save thousands, and thousands of lives. Whether it 100% eliminates the shedding of any measurable viral particles, knocks it down by 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% or whatever, it's a huge win. Right now we have zero way to even think about reducing viral shedding in real-world populations. We're relying 100% on social distancing and masks.
I’m not against the vaccine. I’m merely against your claims which weren’t true, specifically, your false claims about the known level of the immunity they provide, believing which could put people in danger.
“Exclusive: Coronavirus vaccine won't free you from self-isolation, says Government —- The jabs provide Covid-19 immunity but scientists are yet to prove this prevents recipients from carrying and spreading the virus”
“People who receive the coronavirus vaccine will not be exempted from self-isolation if they are contacted by NHS Test and Trace, it has emerged.
Although the vaccine will give recipients immunity from the virus, scientists do not yet know whether it will stop them being carriers.
Government sources said it was likely to be months before there was any prospect of the vaccine negating the need for self-isolation.
It means that even if someone has been vaccinated, they will still have to remain at home for 14 days if they come into contact with someone who has the virus.”
..
“Any other vaccine that might be approved by regulators, such as the one being developed by Oxford University, will also be subject to the same lengthy process of discovering whether it prevents people being “silent” carriers of the virus.”
Do you have an actual source for that? People keep repeating it over and over but I've seen no evidence that COVID-19 carries particularly high risk compared to other infectious diseases.
What about people in the risk group(s) for vaccine side-effects? E.g., people with autoimmune issues. Does their safety matter less than yours? (Assuming you're advocating for vaccinating others; if you're just advocating for vaccinating yourself and yourself only, then carry on.)
I'm also in the autoimmune-disorder bucket. From what I understand, Covid also triggers plenty autoimmune issues, so the risk assessment does not change in a significant way.
At this point, the autoimmune dangers of vaccines are well understood but the autoimmune dangers of COVID-19 aren't. Doesn't that mean it's safer to avoid the vaccine, until that situation changes? In fact it's exactly the opposite of what many people here are saying, considering only themselves and not others, but using their own logic!
I dunno. I have an autoimmune disease. I was COVID-19 positive without any symptoms. It has been some time now. Everything is fine. With regarding to the vaccine: I do not want to risk it, when I know that I went through COVID-19 without symptoms and may just do it again and again after 6 months? They say I have 6 months of immunity.
Is that going to be allowed? Do we seriously believe at this point that governments aren't going to make these vaccines mandatory, if not for everyone explicitly then at least in practice by making them mandatory for access to public services and spaces?
Are there serious suggestions that everyone be forced to take the vaccine? I haven’t seen that, and frankly I’m not sure that would stand up to court scrutiny.
The core thing to understand about Windows leadership over the past decade is that the mobile product went so well that when the project was clearly dying, all Windows leadership was fired so the mobile folks could take their place. No joke.
With that information decisions like this become significantly less murky, though still ridiculous.
