The Vaccine Thread

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Roadrunner said:

But this wasn’t the promise of the vaccines, right?

I actually disagree with that. The point of most vaccines is to keep you from getting too sick. We were darn lucky that it had such a high efficacy against infection at the beginning -- no one expected that. 

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I am so pissed at everything - supposedly 95% efficacy they promised that turned out to be a pile of garbage. 

Actually, when people were testing the vaccines, they were hoping for like 70%. The fact that it was really 95% was amazingly good news and was a huge surprise. No one was 'promising' anything -- those were simply the numbers in the trials, and everyone basically knew that we had no clue how long immunity lasts.

The fact that it wanes is honestly not surprising. I was checking data on waning immunity basically ever since I got the shot. I would have been delighted if the vaccines provided lasting immunity, but I had no expectation of that, given how immunity to coronaviruses seems to mostly work. 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Kassia]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

The point of most vaccines is to keep you from getting too sick. 

Yes, my friend's sister just posted this:

I was vaccinated but sadly got Covid last week. I have been down for a week but finally feeling better. Thankful I got the vaccine as it could of been alot worse. I have been very careful wearing a mask, social distance and washing my hands. Not sure where I picked it up but sadly I did.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Kassia said:

Yes, my friend's sister just posted this:

I was vaccinated but sadly got Covid last week. I have been down for a week but finally feeling better. Thankful I got the vaccine as it could of been alot worse. I have been very careful wearing a mask, social distance and washing my hands. Not sure where I picked it up but sadly I did.

I'm expecting to get COVID post-vaccine. Frankly, I'm happy about it -- it looks like it's not a very scary disease after vaccination (commensurate with the flu), and it looks like natural immunity is quite effective, so... bring it on 😛 . 

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I actually disagree with that. The point of most vaccines is to keep you from getting too sick. We were darn lucky that it had such a high efficacy against infection at the beginning -- no one expected that. 

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio. I think lots of people think like me. Lots. We all understand that flu shots don’t work like that and I distinctly remember they telling us it wasn’t going to be like flu. 
I feel lied to. Super lied to. And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 
And yes, I will continue to get boosters, because I have to, but damn it, they should have been straight with is. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Roadrunner said:

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio. I think lots of people think like me. Lots. We all understand that flu shots don’t work like that and I distinctly remember they telling us it wasn’t going to be like flu. 
I feel lied to. Super lied to. And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 
And yes, I will continue to get boosters, because I have to, but damn it, they should have been straight with is. 

I don't think people CAN lie when they don't know!! You understand that when people were saying "we're aiming for 70% efficacy" early on, they meant that your chance of getting COVID with the vaccine was going to be a third of what it would have been otherwise, right? That's nowhere near "it stops you from getting sick." 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 

Well, you shouldn't, lol. You're now much less likely to get hospitalized and die and get very sick. 

[catz]

18 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I actually disagree with that. The point of most vaccines is to keep you from getting too sick. We were darn lucky that it had such a high efficacy against infection at the beginning -- no one expected that. 

I agree. 

The fact is that delta is really almost like a new pandemic even though it isn't being talked about that way.  It just completely changed the game.  The fact that is still very good at preventing serious infection is good news.  

I get the frustration and being fed up and I wish our feds had some budget for communications so their messaging and information was better.   With regular reminders this is the best information but data is being processed in real time.

Part of public health is driving transmission down far enough that it offers an additional layer of protection.  None of our vaccines are 100% affective.  

Edited September 15, 2021 by FuzzyCatz

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I wonder if an antibody card is enough, though? We know that actually having a confirmed infection is protective. I have no idea how protective having "some antibodies" is. I'd guess those aren't the same thing. 

Well, I mean, having antibodies shows you were infected, so if you consider infection protective....

21 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio. I think lots of people think like me. Lots. We all understand that flu shots don’t work like that and I distinctly remember they telling us it wasn’t going to be like flu. 
I feel lied to. Super lied to. And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 
And yes, I will continue to get boosters, because I have to, but damn it, they should have been straight with is. 

Pertussis is the same way. And chicken pox as well - lots of people still get chicken pox but a very mild case. 

And it isn't lying - the data changed. They told us what the data was at the time, but we knew variants could happen that could change things. No one lied. Stuff changed. 

In the beginning they hoped for anything over 50% reduction in death and hospitalization and serious illness. When it proved better than that - before Delta - they shared those numbers. When Delta hit, the efficacy was lower, and they shared those numbers. That's not lying. 

Edited September 15, 2021 by ktgrok

[SKL]

Yeah, it does bug me that certain people are getting very rich over something that doesn't perform as advertised.  IMO credibility doesn't improve now that (a) the government is attempting to force skeptics to make these companies far richer, (b) boosters are being discussed as if they are a given for all [probably more than one], (c) there is more Covid circulating now than before the vax EUAs, and (d) anyone who questions any of this is treated like public enemy number 1.

My household is fully vaxed, and we still can't see my folks.  We're still asked to mask and avoid people just as if we weren't vaxed.  The only thing we avoid is quarantines if we get exposed ... and a lot of people here think we shouldn't have that benefit either.

[regentrude]

28 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I feel lied to. Super lied to. 

Nobody lied. A vaccine teaches the immune system to recognize an evader and train. That does not mean every person's immune system will do that perfectly, or that the trained response will work if the virus has mutated significantly. That's simply biology.

Viruses that are left to spread uncontrolled through millions of people constantly mutate, and nobody can predict in which way. The fact that the vaccine continues to protect to a very high degree is great. It is not the vaccine makers' fault that delta developed. It will not be their fault if a mutation develops that evades the current vaccine altogether.

Maybe we could have squashed delta if enough people had gotten vaccinated fast enough - but with a global scale of the pandemic and the production and distribution challenges, that would probably not have happened even without the vaccine refusers.

ETA: It is a freaking MIRACLE that they developed a vaccine so quickly that protects to a very high degree against severe illness and death. It is an unbelievably huge scientific accomplishment.

Edited September 15, 2021 by regentrude

[regentrude]

36 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio.

This is not a fair comparison because the vaccination rates against polio (or measles, etc) are so incredibly high that there is basically no virus circulating in the community, which means the virus cannot mutate. Herd immunity accomplishes that. 

In contrast, the fraction of people vaccinate against Covid is far too small to prevent the virus from mutating, which means it can (partially or wholly) evade the vaccine. 
 

You get the polio vaccine not just so that you don't get polio, but so that the polio virus cannot spread and the disease remains extinct in your community.

Edited September 15, 2021 by regentrude

[ScoutTN]

How much immunity does previous infection give? Good (not perfect) protection against serious illness and death, like the vax? 
 

We know MANY people who have had the wretched virus twice (early 2020, early 2021,) and still got delta. Some vaxed, some partially, some not.

[vonfirmath]

58 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio. I think lots of people think like me. Lots. We all understand that flu shots don’t work like that and I distinctly remember they telling us it wasn’t going to be like flu. 
I feel lied to. Super lied to. And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 
And yes, I will continue to get boosters, because I have to, but damn it, they should have been straight with is. 

Honestly I was very surprsied they came up with ANYTHING as a vaccine for a coronavirus. The old joke is "Never found a vaccine for the common cold"  -- so while I was super excited at the beginning, the waning immunity? Okay it's more like I thought at the beginning.

I honestly thought the flu vaccine was (usually) more protective than I've discovered it is since all of this started. (50%? No wonder my success rate during the years I got it looks very similar to the years I didn't!)

 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, ScoutTN said:

How much immunity does previous infection give? Good (not perfect) protection against serious illness and death, like the vax? ...

I feel that there isn't enough incentive for this to be studied, since nobody stands to make money off of proving natural immunity.

I feel this is a huge hole when we're talking about vax mandates.  Where is the scientific justification for requiring 2 (maybe more, eventually) mRNA shots given to people who already have natural antibodies?

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Well, I mean, having antibodies shows you were infected, so if you consider infection protective....

It actually kind of doesn't. It means your body has encountered the virus, but it's not clear if that's as good as having had a recorded infection. 

[Not_a_Number]

36 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

honestly thought the flu vaccine was (usually) more protective than I've discovered it is since all of this started. (50%? No wonder my success rate during the years I got it looks very similar to the years I didn't!)

I mean, 50% would still half your risk. And it also does decrease illness severity. 

[Kassia]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm expecting to get COVID post-vaccine. Frankly, I'm happy about it -- it looks like it's not a very scary disease after vaccination (commensurate with the flu), and it looks like natural immunity is quite effective, so... bring it on 😛 . 

Yes, a friend of mine just had a breakthrough case and said it was like a bad flu.  Then he said he'd feel better for a day or two and it would hit him hard again.  Poor guy had to evacuate New Orleans for the hurricane when he was sick.  Bad timing! 

[chiguirre]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I feel this is a huge hole when we're talking about vax mandates.  Where is the scientific justification for requiring 2 (maybe more, eventually) mRNA shots given to people who already have natural antibodies?

J&J is acceptable and is not an mRNA vaccine.

[Roadrunner]

55 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, 50% would still half your risk. And it also does decrease illness severity. 

Absolutely.

I am saying their messaging is crap. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Absolutely.

I am saying their messaging is crap. 

Well, it’s hard to get great messaging if you don’t know what’s true!!! 

[Not_a_Number]

I like Jordan Ellenberg’s take:

https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/anna-kiesenhofer-principle-experts-cdc.html

[Roadrunner]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, it’s hard to get great messaging if you don’t know what’s true!!! 

That’s better messaging than what they did.

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Yeah, it does bug me that certain people are getting very rich over something that doesn't perform as advertised. 

What advertising are you talking about? I have yet to see an advertisement for a vaccine for this. I've seen news reports. Where information was shared. It performed very well against the strains we had at the time. It performs less well, but still very well, against the Delta strain. They never "advertised" how it would work against Delta, they reported how it worked against the strains we have. That's all they COULD do. 

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

It actually kind of doesn't. It means your body has encountered the virus, but it's not clear if that's as good as having had a recorded infection. 

I'm not sure I'm getting your distinction - you do mean actually got sick, or? You develop antibodies by it infecting you, and your body fighting back against that infection. 

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

That’s better messaging than what they did.

Where are you getting this messaging?

From the beginning, it was constantly said that it is still being studied or we are unsure. The problem is that it is like trying to hear one voice over a thousand others spewing random garbage. Yes, the journalists who were covering these things also spewed garbage and I'm not meaning a particular side. Journalism just seems to have super low standards now so you have to go straight to sources.

[bookbard]

I am finding (locally) more and more people getting vaccinated because they have to, not because they've been convinced. They've made a rule here that certain places such as pubs can open up when vax rate is 70% - but only vaccinated people can work and only vaccinated people can attend. They've hinted that for more workplaces to open up, you'll have to be vaccinated. There will probably be some legal challenges, but for the average person, they need to work - they're going to just go ahead and get vaccinated. And then I'm noticing that once they're done, actually it wasn't such a huge big deal and they're not so concerned any longer . ..

[frogger]

I really do not understand people's idea that a vaccine should prevent infection when it is all over the place. It doesn't create some magic force field so the virus can't come near you. It just trains your immune system to fight the virus that has actually entered your body. It can't fight until you are infected! 

There was hope that your body would fight it off fast enough that the virus wouldn't have time to replicate much thus preventing you from shedding virus onto others. This is why they originally asked vaccinated people to continue to mask and distance in the hope that more people would have time to vaccinate before infection. It WAS their messaging. It is NOT their fault that the average American has no biology education and that includes journalists.

[Not_a_Number]

38 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I'm not sure I'm getting your distinction - you do mean actually got sick, or? You develop antibodies by it infecting you, and your body fighting back against that infection. 

I suppose I mean "get sick enough for it to be somehow detectable" -- symptoms, or a positive PCR test, or something. 

I guess I don't know if people who are studying natural immunity are studying people who simply have had a positive antibody test. The study out of Israel looked at a population who had a COVID-19 infection on the record, if I remember correctly? That might mean a higher viral load or more involvement with your immune symptoms than simply having some antibodies. 

I suppose I'm wondering if there are dosage effects here. I'd like to see a study on people with antibodies specifically. 

[frogger]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I suppose I mean "get sick enough for it to be somehow detectable" -- symptoms, or a positive PCR test, or something. 

I guess I don't know if people who are studying natural immunity are studying people who simply have had a positive antibody test. The study out of Israel looked at a population who had a COVID-19 infection on the record, if I remember correctly? That might mean a higher viral load or more involvement with your immune symptoms than simply having some antibodies. 

I suppose I'm wondering if there are dosage effects here. I'd like to see a study on people with antibodies specifically. 

I'm still not sure if my daughter was officially "infected" because she took her test too close to being in a room of virus. She had a positive PCR test but if you were just breathing it in, then of course it will be in your nose.  She took another test on day 4 from exposure (should have been three) and it was negative. Do I say she was infected or not? No idea. 

She never had symptoms. 

Edited September 15, 2021 by frogger
Forgot an important preposition

[Faith-manor]

21 minutes ago, frogger said:

I really do not understand people's idea that a vaccine should prevent infection when it is all over the place. It doesn't create some magic force field so the virus can't come near you. It just trains your immune system to fight the virus that has actually entered your body. It can't fight until you are infected! 

There was hope that your body would fight it off fast enough that the virus wouldn't have time to replicate much thus preventing you from shedding virus onto others. This is why they originally asked vaccinated people to continue to mask and distance in the hope that more people would have time to vaccinate before infection. It WAS their messaging. It is NOT their fault that the average American has no biology education and that includes journalists.

Truth! 

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

I really do not understand people's idea that a vaccine should prevent infection when it is all over the place. It doesn't create some magic force field so the virus can't come near you. It just trains your immune system to fight the virus that has actually entered your body. It can't fight until you are infected! 

There was hope that your body would fight it off fast enough that the virus wouldn't have time to replicate much thus preventing you from shedding virus onto others. This is why they originally asked vaccinated people to continue to mask and distance in the hope that more people would have time to vaccinate before infection. It WAS their messaging. It is NOT their fault that the average American has no biology education and that includes journalists.

https://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/efficiency-effectiveness
 

not 55% after 6 months. 

[frogger]

17 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

https://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/efficiency-effectiveness
 

not 55% after 6 months. 

I have no idea what that has to do with my quote.

I'm not even sure what connection you are trying to make between your statement and the link. I'm not saying you don't have one but sometimes other people don't follow our logic especially when you don't really explain. 

[Roadrunner]

18 minutes ago, frogger said:

I have no idea what that has to do with my quote.

I'm not even sure what connection you are trying to make between your statement and the link. I'm not saying you don't have one but sometimes other people don't follow our logic especially when you don't really explain. 

It links efficacy and effectiveness rates of various vaccines. That’s the “standard” general population thinks vaccine should deliver. 
Inak glad so many of you don’t think 55% efficacy rate after 6 months is OK. Sure, it’s better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. 

[regentrude]

59 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It links efficacy and effectiveness rates of various vaccines. That’s the “standard” general population thinks vaccine should deliver. 
Inak glad so many of you don’t think 55% efficacy rate after 6 months is OK. Sure, it’s better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. 

As explained before,  all these vaccines in your link are against viruses that do not circulate widely in the population and hence don't have a chance to mutate into vaccine evading forms.

None of these vaccines was developed in the middle of an unfolding pandemic against a novel virus that had been known for less than two years, and that was rapidly mutating.

While a higher efficacy would be great, it's fantastic they created a vaccine at all. Are you blaming them for not foreseeing delta?

[frogger]

39 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It links efficacy and effectiveness rates of various vaccines. That’s the “standard” general population thinks vaccine should deliver. 
Inak glad so many of you don’t think 55% efficacy rate after 6 months is OK. Sure, it’s better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. 

I read the link and it gave some vaccines and what is believed to be true about them but nothing about what the general population thinks. I have no idea what the general population thinks. It doesn't think for one thing. You think one thing, I think another thing, George Foreman might think something entirely different. In fact, the vast majority of the time, the majority of the population doesn't think about vaccines at all until it becomes political. There have certainly been years of my life where I didn't think much about vaccines. So we need to quit throwing that term around.

We don't know for certain how effective each specific vaccine is  down to a very specific percentage after a time but they are still helping a lot. It is the unvaccinated that are flooding the hospitals though there are some vaccinated in there. It certainly complicates the data that those with weaker immune systems were the ones vaccinated 6 months ago other than healthcare workers. 

I'm still not sure what your goal was in saying 55% isn't good enough. Good enough for what? Are you saying if it isn't a certain percentage that Americans shouldn't take it? 

I can see a doctor talking to a patient about a drug being 55% likely to cure you of cancer and the patient going "Nah, call me back when you have something that is 100% likely to help." I mean that makes no sense to me.

Or were you again implying they lied? I mean, I'm pretty sure they couldn't foresee the future so I don't know what you expect from "them". Whoever you are including in "them". 

 

I still haven't figured out how the whole thing relates to my quote.

It seemed to have nothing to do with infection versus symptoms and damage to your body. 🤷

[mommyoffive]

Moderna releases new data on Covid breakthrough cases it says supports need for booster shots (msn.com)

 

[Laura Corin]

The latest Tim Spector Zoe video, mostly about vaccines.

https://youtu.be/3Jj8Nplg1NI

The most striking chart is UK incidence of death compared to vaccination status - official government figures including some Delta. There's also a country comparison for hospital admissions. Most European countries are using some combination of masking, distancing, vaccine passports.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Laura Corin

[TexasProud]

16 hours ago, frogger said:

I really do not understand people's idea that a vaccine should prevent infection when it is all over the place. It doesn't create some magic force field so the virus can't come near you. It just trains your immune system to fight the virus that has actually entered your body. It can't fight until you are infected! 

There was hope that your body would fight it off fast enough that the virus wouldn't have time to replicate much thus preventing you from shedding virus onto others. This is why they originally asked vaccinated people to continue to mask and distance in the hope that more people would have time to vaccinate before infection. It WAS their messaging. It is NOT their fault that the average American has no biology education and that includes journalists.

I was so incredibly angry at this post. Didn't have time to respond yesterday as I had a paper due. Sorry. Guess I am one of the thousands of people who feel duped and betrayed.  AND THIS IS A JAWM. Please, please, please don't tell me again how stupid I am and how bad my education was or whatever. 

I had the idea I would get the vaccine and I could live a normal life. I WANT A NORMAL LIFE.  I don't care if it is better than nothing. I don't care whether they lied or whether they didn't. Fact is, I want normalcy and expected the vaccine to give it to me.  Now, because I am taking care of my dying mom, ( thought it may take years...don't know yet), I will be isolated for the forseeable future. I am mad and disappointed. Before Covid, in this situation, I would not have stopped my normal interactions. Because of Covid I have to. I thought the vaccine would prevent it.

I guess I am just stupid and gullible that I didn't understand it.  I guess I still would have gotten it, but I wouldn't have gotten my hopes up that I could have a life again. I may never have it back.  AGAIN. I cannot handle you telling me what else did I expect. How stupid I was for not understanding the science.  I am dumb, what  can I say.

Edited September 16, 2021 by TexasProud

[Laura Corin]

3 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

I was so incredibly angry at this post. Didn't have time to respond yesterday as I had a paper due. Sorry. Guess I am one of the thousands of people who feel duped and portrayed.  AND THIS IS A JAWM. Please, please, please don't tell me again how stupid I am and how bad my education was or whatever. 

I had the idea I would get the vaccine and I could live a normal life. I WANT A NORMAL LIFE.  I don't care if it is better than nothing. I don't care whether they lied or whether they didn't. Fact is, I want normalcy and expected the vaccine to give it to me.  Now, because I am taking care of my dying mom, ( thought it may take years...don't know yet), I will be isolated for the forseeable future. I am mad and disappointed. Before Covid, in this situation, I would not have stopped my normal interactions. Because of Covid I have to. I thought the vaccine would prevent it.

I guess I am just stupid and gullible that I didn't understand it.  I guess I still would have gotten it, but I wouldn't have gotten my hopes up that I could have a life again. I may never have it back.  AGAIN. I cannot handle you telling me what else did I expect. How stupid I was for not understanding the science.  I am dumb, what  can I say.

Honestly, before Delta I hoped that enough people were getting vaccinated in the UK that something like normal life would be possible.  Then Delta, and it all went to hell in a handbasket.  I'm sorry.

I don't know if this would work for you, but each time I go to see my mum, I do a lateral flow (quick) test in the morning.  It's not a perfect system, but it eases my worries a bit.

[ieta_cassiopeia]

17 hours ago, SKL said:

I feel that there isn't enough incentive for this to be studied, since nobody stands to make money off of proving natural immunity.

I feel this is a huge hole when we're talking about vax mandates.  Where is the scientific justification for requiring 2 (maybe more, eventually) mRNA shots given to people who already have natural antibodies?

The NHS does, because being able to use natural infection saves it a lot of money it can use elsewhere. Especially if this turns out to be something requiring several vaccinations - if natural infection turns out to be something the NHS can treat as equivalent to one of those doses, then it could potentially save a lot of money each time there is a new wave.

 

Which may explain why natural immunity has already been studied, and why it has been found a significant number of people who had natural immunity revert to non-immune even within the 6-month period the NHS currently considers "immune" for COVID app purposes. Even Israel managed to get vaccines to go 6 months before losing immunity, and that was with spacing that would now be considered too close for optimal protection.

I do wonder if having mRNA for dose 1 (more effective in the short term) and something like OxfordAstrazeneca for dose 2 (early signs of being more effective in the medium term), 8-16 weeks apart, might turn out to be optimal for someone who's not had an infection (with the potential to skip one of the doses if an infection occurred in the appropriate window)? That's going to take quite a bit of research.

15 hours ago, ktgrok said:

I'm not sure I'm getting your distinction - you do mean actually got sick, or? You develop antibodies by it infecting you, and your body fighting back against that infection. 

A single dose of vaccine also generates antibodies, which is how the UK is on 92% of the population with antibodies. For comparison, that's about the same proportion who have antibodies against measles in the UK (almost all of which is through vaccination).

 

 

10 hours ago, frogger said:

Or were you again implying they lied? I mean, I'm pretty sure they couldn't foresee the future so I don't know what you expect from "them". Whoever you are including in "them". 

 

I still haven't figured out how the whole thing relates to my quote.

It seemed to have nothing to do with infection versus symptoms and damage to your body. 🤷

I think a lot of people heard "95% protection", "62/70/90% protection" and "66% protection" and assumed those headline figures were going to hold, based on their knowledge of stable viruses (or of percentages that are meant to hold until the next scheduled dose, in the case of flu). The concepts of waning immunity and vaccine evasion aren't taught in practical terms to most people until times like this, only maybe covered in the midst of a bunch of theory in high school-equivalent biology class.

It's rather hard to consider the possibility of waning immunity when it's only presented as a thing that happens in practise after immunity starts waning... (I get the feeling the journalists weren't told it was a practical risk rather than a theoretical one either, because not even the usually-responsible ones mentioned it).

And for the record, I had believed that places like the UK and USA could vaccinate hard enough and fast enough to at least create bubbles of safety within those countries (that would work much like New Zealand, where most of the time, most aspects of life are normal) while arrangements were made to vaccinate everywhere else.

Edited September 16, 2021 by ieta_cassiopeia

[Pawz4me]

Everybody's entitled to their own interpretation of vaccine efficacy, I guess. I keep seeing numbers like the ones below, and they're what I focus on. Sure I'd love to know with 100 percent certainty that I'll never get Covid (and thus never have to worry about long Covid), but that was never a realistic expectation. I find the numbers like the following very reassuring. They're from a local large hospital system (855 beds at the main hospital, another 650 or so beds at smaller satellite facilities) --

94 percent of the Covid patients in their hospitals are unvaccinated

96 percent of the Covid patients in their ICUs are unvaccinated

96 percent of the Covid patients on ventilators are unvaccinated

I see stats similar to those repeated over and over and they make me, as a fully vaxxed person, feel pretty darn safe.

[TexasProud]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Everybody's entitled to their own interpretation of vaccine efficacy, I guess. I keep seeing numbers like the ones below, and they're what I focus on. Sure I'd love to know with 100 percent certainty that I'll never get Covid (and thus never have to worry about long Covid), but that was never a realistic expectation. I find the numbers like the following very reassuring. They're from a local large hospital system (855 beds at the main hospital, another 650 or so beds at smaller satellite facilities) --

94 percent of the Covid patients in their hospitals are unvaccinated

96 percent of the Covid patients in their ICUs are unvaccinated

96 percent of the Covid patients on ventilators are unvaccinated

I see stats similar to those repeated over and over and they make me, as a fully vaxxed person, feel pretty darn safe.

Yes, we have similar figures, but I have several people I know who were vaccinated that have had "mild" cases of Covid that knocked them on their butt. Some did go to the hospital, though they were not admitted. And yeah, I wonder about long Covid for them.  Plus once again, so yeah, I am relatively safe, but giving it to my mom would be fatal.  Many people like me have vulnerable people in their lives.  Plus, the ones it tends to fail on her the older people, which is who this was supposed to protect in the first place.  GRR.

[Pawz4me]

11 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Yes, we have similar figures, but I have several people I know who were vaccinated that have had "mild" cases of Covid that knocked them on their butt. Some did go to the hospital, though they were not admitted. And yeah, I wonder about long Covid for them.  Plus once again, so yeah, I am relatively safe, but giving it to my mom would be fatal.  Many people like me have vulnerable people in their lives.  Plus, the ones it tends to fail on her the older people, which is who this was supposed to protect in the first place.  GRR.

You might want to be careful who you speak to like that. Many of us have vulnerable people in our lives, or are ourselves vulnerable. FYI, my DH has stage IV cancer and I am on a strong immune suppressing medication for an AI disease.,

[TexasProud]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

You might want to be careful who you speak to like that. Many of us have vulnerable people in our lives, or are ourselves vulnerable. FYI, my DH has stage IV cancer and I am on a strong immune suppressing medication for an AI disease.,

Speak to like what?  How are you not concerned if you are vulnerable.  I am confused.

So sorry for your husband's diagnosis.  But doesn't that make him VERY VERY vulnerable/??  You cannot live a normal life, can you????

Edited September 16, 2021 by TexasProud

[Pawz4me]

Just now, TexasProud said:

Speak to like what?  How are you not concerned if you are vulnerable.  I am confused.

I am not NOT concerned. I'm pragmatic and realistic. The vaccines give pretty darn strong protection, even to those who are higher risk.

[TexasProud]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I am not NOT concerned. I'm pragmatic and realistic. The vaccines give pretty darn strong protection, even to those who are higher risk.

I am glad you can be. I was already worried about killing people before this if I got it...

Praying the best for you.

[Pawz4me]

2 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Speak to like what?  How are you not concerned if you are vulnerable.  I am confused.

So sorry for your husband's diagnosis.  But doesn't that make him VERY VERY vulnerable/??  You cannot live a normal life, can you????

Well, for us -- yes. We live relatively normally. But we're strong introverts, so in a way the pandemic has been a bit of a weird blessing in that it's allowed us an "out" for not attending events we hate. Our normal life even in non-pandemic times would probably look very, very locked down to many people. But in other ways we live much more normally than many on here, probably. I've shopped in person (masked, and at less busy times) throughout the pandemic. If we need to shop for other things in person we do. We've kept up with all medical appointments (which for us aren't optional, of course), dental appointments, optometrists, etc. Because we're diligent about masking, social distancing and are vaxxed there's never been any real reason for us to worry about causing others to get sick. For us dealing with very serious health issues has, I think, helped keep the pandemic in perspective. We use common sense but we don't freak out about it. We have other things that are much more "freak out worthy" than the pandemic.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, TexasProud said:

 

I had the idea I would get the vaccine and I could live a normal life. I WANT A NORMAL LIFE.  I don't care if it is better than nothing. I don't care whether they lied or whether they didn't. Fact is, I want normalcy and expected the vaccine to give it to me.  Now, because I am taking care of my dying mom, ( thought it may take years...don't know yet), I will be isolated for the forseeable future. I am mad and disappointed.

I feel exactly the same way. There is nothing wrong or dumb about having had hope, and being angry that it didn't work out. I think a LOT of us feel that way. 

What people were reacting to was the idea that the anger should be directed at the scientists who made the vaccine, or at "people" for lying about it. Being angry at the situation, at Covid, at the pandemic, at people not doing their part - yes, absolutely. We all are. Accusing others of lyng about a vaccine, or purposely misleading everyone, that's what is not true or fair. And I don't think you did that. 

[TexasProud]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Well, for us -- yes. We live relatively normally. But we're strong introverts, so in a way the pandemic has been a bit of a weird blessing in that it's allowed us an "out" for not attending events we hate. Our normal life even in non-pandemic times would probably look very, very locked down to many people. But in other ways we live much more normally than many on here, probably. I've shopped in person (masked, and at less busy times) throughout the pandemic. If we need to shop for other things in person we do. We've kept up with all medical appointments (which for us aren't optional, of course), dental appointments, optometrists, etc. Because we're diligent about masking, social distancing and are vaxxed there's never been any real reason for us to worry about causing others to get sick. For us dealing with very serious health issues has, I think, helped keep the pandemic in perspective. We use common sense but we don't freak out about it. We have other things that are much more "freak out worthy" than the pandemic.

Ah... ok. Well we travel overseas on mission trips, sing in choir, participate in musical theater, at church activities several times a week, sing in praise team.  It is all gone.  I was out of the house more than home before the pandemic.  The last time I was this isolated I had to be medicated for depression. 

[Pawz4me]

5 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Ah... ok. Well we travel overseas on mission trips, sing in choir, participate in musical theater, at church activities several times a week, sing in praise team.  It is all gone.  I was out of the house more than home before the pandemic.  The last time I was this isolated I had to be medicated for depression. 

I feel tremendous sympathy for extroverts. I truly do.