You must log in or register to comment.

gravitywind1012 t1_j8eawtm wrote

“Thus, the vaccinated would likely face lower COVID-19 risk even if not vaccinated.”

This is such a confusing sentence to me. What?


SpacedOutKarmanaut t1_j8ek9en wrote

Trash journals gonna print trash. Fun fact - there have already been four papers published with ChatGPT as a coathor, and those are the ones that admit it.


SecretAdam t1_j8i8ul3 wrote

This article is not some Gawker blog spam, it has 10 authors and cites 44 sources. I know you did not read it like everybody else in this thread but to dismiss it outright based on one confusing sentence is very lazy and cynical.


Helldozer5000 t1_j8fhz7e wrote

I agree the sentence is confusing in a vacuum but it makes perfect sense in context. They're just saying that the people who chose to be vaccinated were already healthier in general so even if those healthy people didn't get vaccinated they still would've fared better than the people who ended up not getting the vaccination because those people were already in worse health.

Nothing super groundbreaking here, we already knew COVID was way worse for people with multiple comorbidities.


BenjaminHamnett t1_j8hz5pp wrote

People who care about their health are healthier than people who don’t take health seriously


dbx999 t1_j8irva0 wrote

Ok so the vaccinated group is biased towards healthier baseline individuals while unvaccinated group is biased for unhealthy lifestyle choices and a lack of self care including getting vaccinated?


mootmutemoat t1_j8oh2ei wrote

Why the other person snipped that line out is beyond me. Here is the whole paragraph and it is very clear that when you adjust for healthy living, the benefits of being vaccinated are even more obvious:

"Thus, the vaccinated would likely face lower COVID-19 risk even if not vaccinated. After controlling for these selection effects, we found substantial vaccine protection against death, but also increasing two-dose RMR over time, and large differences in RMR after two doses between younger (age 18–59) and older (age 60+) people. These findings imply that boosters are highly important in reducing mortality, especially for ages 60+."


BenjaminHamnett t1_j8l36z7 wrote

Over simplifying it, but yes that’s what I’m saying I think they are saying


sw33tr3l33s t1_j8hi7bd wrote

Maybe before becoming a scientists, they should focus on learning how to write proper sentences so people won't have to decipher them and wonder which of 5 possible meanings is the correct one. If one sentence requires 5 additional explanatory sentences to be understood, maybe we should focus on learning how to write that first sentence so that people don't require additional text to understand it. I swear these people are trying to figure out how to save the world but probably can't do their own laundry.


I-Way_Vagabond t1_j8hlvpr wrote

I think you’ve hit the nail right on the head with you comment.

The inability of public health leaders to explain these things in simple English has resulted in an information vacuum. As a result, people with their own agendas, often self-serving or even nefarious, have moved in to fill it.

The end result is confusion among the public and in many cases distrust and outright hostility towards public health authorities.


hallgod33 t1_j8i5t0t wrote

I've got a BSPH, and I'd say that is a huge barrier no one wants to tackle. Medical anthropology is designed to help reduce the communication barrier, but no one in practical medicine wants to listen. Even though we use the same English words, the grammar and sentence structure and etc make medical science a functionally different language.


DrThirdOpinion t1_j8huz99 wrote

The sentence wasn’t difficult to interpret at all.

Maybe before becoming scientists, people should learn how to read?


darquintan1 t1_j8jv4lz wrote

In this particular case, the sentence mentioned above is clearer when not taken by itself. In the paper, it is immediately preceded by "We found substantially lower non-COVID natural mortality risk for vaccinated than for unvaccinated persons." That statement clarifies why they suggest that because vaccinated individuals die less from all causes, they likely would die less from COVID too, regardless of the effectiveness of the vaccine itself.


jokester1801 t1_j8ljr22 wrote

You've hit the nail on the head but i think in a different way than you originally thought. The thing is, this paper isn't necessarily meant for the general public. One of the worst parts of the scientific literature in its present state is that it's written for other scientists, who already know the jargon and who are familiar with the field. Scientific writing just isn't meant to be easily digestible anymore, especially by people without training in it. This is a major flaw in scientific publishing though because it makes science much more inaccessible and creates the information vacuums that others have mentioned.


sw33tr3l33s t1_j8wz7g7 wrote

Everybody can overcomplicate things, a few can simplify.


Breezy207 t1_j8kqp4x wrote

It also makes sense that those who got the jabs were more concerned w distancing, masking and stayed away from public spaces…


advanced_approach t1_j8lkrxf wrote

Parents who read parenting books tend to be better parents because they're the type to read parenting books.


updatedprior t1_j8euga4 wrote

Vaccinated and unvaccinated were not from homogenous populations. I’m not sure if that is what they are getting at here, but it does add something to the mix when looking at and comparing results.


BenjaminHamnett t1_j8hz1c9 wrote

Like people who would take vitamins live longer than those who wouldn’t. Regardless of if they do or not in studies


skibbi9 t1_j8iesws wrote

Bunch of studies actually the opposite for vitamins but agree on the sentiment


bannedPosts t1_j8jty0t wrote

So the take-home point with vitamins is that they don't have any effect on mortality. Cool.


tzaeru t1_j8ent0k wrote

Hints that the unvaccinated were more likely to already in a poorer health. Sentence before the one you quoted: "We found substantially lower non-COVID natural mortality risk for vaccinated than for unvaccinated persons."

Which, if interpreted optimistically, might mean that people who skipped vaccinations had immunity system problems or were already too critically ill.

But it probably just means that the lifestyle choices of the unvaccinated people were generally much less healthy than the vaccinated people.

In the sentence after the one you quoted, they say they controlled for this effect: "After controlling for these selection effects [..]"

For reference:

> We used a novel outcome measure, CEMP, to study how vaccination affects COVID-19 mortality risk. This measure uses mortality from other natural causes to control for selection effects in who gets vaccinated. We found substantially lower non-COVID natural mortality risk for vaccinated than for unvaccinated persons. Thus, the vaccinated would likely face lower COVID-19 risk even if not vaccinated. After controlling for these selection effects, we found substantial vaccine protection against death [..]


Immovable-Floss t1_j8gb9wx wrote

MDPI is known to publish low-quality research from institutions whose scientific practices are questionable. Not saying this is the case for this study but MDPI has low standards and people will often use this as a means to discredit studies, unless the study agrees with what they already agree with.


International_Bet_91 t1_j8ghcg5 wrote

Probably means the kind of people who get vaccinated also wear seatbelts, don't smoke, don't drink and drive, go for annual doctors visits etc etc etc.

And maybe even more relevant than the boring stuff, people who are homeless, addicted to drugs, running from the law, etc etc also don't get vaccinated.


onyerbikedude t1_j8mhx3q wrote

That is taking very polar views and is quite cynical to me as a scientist who certainly got vaccinated, goes to the doctor annually, yet smokes, drinks and - most of all - doesn't judge others for their problems.


slo1111 t1_j8iap44 wrote

They were referring to the fact that mortality for non-covid reasons was lower in the vaccinated versus the non-vaccinated which suggests there are other hidden variables as one would not expect the vaccination to have any impact on non-covid related deaths, so they used statistics to adjust for that anomaly.


[deleted] t1_j8em3q4 wrote



tzaeru t1_j8eo53q wrote

No, this was specifically something they controlled for. They wanted to remove this effect from the study.


rashaniquah t1_j8embe3 wrote

Probably because of a smaller sample size.


QuartzPuffyStar t1_j8i0p2i wrote

Bs science funded to give "scientific proof" to show governments that they have to keep the vaccine consumption high. Even when Omicron is basically a cold that lasts 2 days...


Seb278426 t1_j8e96dd wrote

Mdpi is a predatory journal publisher that will publish anything as long as they get paid. Just skimming over this study shows that it would have never passed any real review process in terms of quality of data and analysis.


tzaeru t1_j8epuj2 wrote

It's kind of interesting that there's only one author with background in medicine and then there's authors from law, economics, business..

Either way - far as I can tell, the conclusions found here are also what the vast majority of studies have arrived to. The vaccines prevented deaths and worked as intended, but the non-vaccine mitigation strategies were - and are - also important, as vaccines alone weren't/aren't good enough.


Fatesurge t1_j8ftc3i wrote

They're not predatory per se, just Chinese (I'm being flippant but also serious).


Seb278426 t1_j8hvoid wrote

If they write unsolicited invitations to journals that have nothing to do with my field, or invite me to be an editor for said journals, promise rapid publication and have publication fees, I think it's fair for me to call them predatory. Its the combination of all of those and the effort of customization they put it. I got invitations from renowned journals but those came from editors that are known in the field and match my research. Predatory ones just randomly scrap titles from the web and paste them into whatever template they have for their issue of the day.


PomegranatePlanet t1_j8doon2 wrote

>the study only looked at deaths from COVID and did not consider infections the vaccine may have prevented or made less severe

Prevented infections reduce the spread among all cohorts. Making recommendations based on death benefits only is simplistic and not helpful.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8dpeiw wrote

Do you have any data on the estimated reduction in transmission?


PomegranatePlanet t1_j8dq15w wrote

The article stated that the study did not consider any data related to reduction in transmission.

My comment is that, due to that limitation, it is too simplistic to make such a broad recommendation. A better study is needed.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8dsao5 wrote

Sure, I agree. But I’m wondering if you know of any data that suggests an estimated reduction in transmission rates associated with these vaccines.


Generallyawkward1 t1_j8e0tx8 wrote

That’s the real question. Id wager they are stil ongoing, as it’s still too soon to get a broad scope of it, especially with the different variants and weather change.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8e1fys wrote

Agreed. Another big question is the comparable impact of vaccine immunity alone reducing transmission, compared to natural immunity from previous exposure. Nearly everyone has been exposed at this point, vaccinated or not. And we don’t have a very effective means at identifying a control group.


shiruken t1_j8ecsld wrote

This is a little tricky since the OP's study was conducted over a long period of time prior to the existence of the bivalent boosters designed for the Omicron variant, which partially evaded the immunity conferred by the original vaccines and/or infection with earlier strains of SARS-CoV-2.

The CDC publishes a tracker that is updated monthly showing the rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths by vaccination status. In December 2022, people aged 5+ who were vaccinated with an updated (bivalent) booster had 3.1x lower risk of testing positive for COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated people. People aged 5+ who were vaccinated without the updated booster only had 2.4x lower risk compared to unvaccinated.

A recent peer-reviewed study by the CDC found that the bivalent boosters from both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna were 48% effective against symptomatic infection from the current predominant omicron subvariant. Note that this effectiveness was calculated relative to fully vaccinated individuals without the bivalent booster dose, so the effectiveness relative to unvaccinated individuals would be even higher (but was beyond the scope of the study).

For more information about vaccine effectiveness, see this comprehensive list maintained by the CDC.


williamwchuang t1_j8dsch8 wrote

Check the various statistics reported by the state health departments in the U.S.


IzTea_1X t1_j8ebd59 wrote

Is it not true that the pfizer vaccine doesnt reduce transmission?


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8ecai4 wrote

From what I’ve read, not effectively. That’s why I’m wondering if anyone has specific data on that, and isolated to identify the transmission rate reduction incurred purely by the vaccine, versus from previous infection.

Pfizer didn’t even test for transmission blocking during their trial prior to the mass vaccine rollout.


nexusgmail t1_j8gsia8 wrote


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8guqwj wrote

Does being asymptomatic mean you cannot transmit the virus to others?

And they will continue to mutate and evade the narrow and short lasting immunity offered by these vaccines.


troyan2 t1_j8ei1ku wrote

Pfizer and Albert Bourla are criminals that need to be put to jail for life


neuronexmachina t1_j8elwcz wrote

How would you ethically test for the effectiveness of a vaccine in blocking transmission?


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8epczm wrote

Animal models.

Double blind placebo controlled trial involving people in roles involving frequent contact.

Similar model for phase 3 but using larger groups in broader community.

The important thing is to have put forth an effort to do so, and to collect this data in the long term without muddying the water by unblinding the control groups. This has not been the case here from what I’ve seen. It’s not going to be perfect, obviously in times of emergency especially, but that doesn’t change the facts at hand.

But on the subject of ethics, would it be ethical to tell people to get vaccinated with a brand new technology, and claim “you’re doing your part” by reducing transmission, if you have no data to support that claim to begin with?


Quixote1111 t1_j8f9fdd wrote

It seems to me like a bit of a no-brainer that someone that has COVID and doesn't even realize it because they have no symptoms what-so-ever (vaccinated) would not spread the virus nearly as much as someone that is half dead with the virus running rampant through their system and they are coughing up a lung, spewing particles everywhere they go (unvaccinated). Sure there are exceptional cases, but I'm talking on a broad scale.

I'm no expert though, just going on common sense.

I'm triple-vaxxed (in my 40s) and I'm pretty sure I've had COVID at some point and didn't even know it. My elderly mom got it too and barely missed a beat (also vaccinated 3 or 4 times). She lives with my dad (nearly 80) and he did not catch it. I understand this is not scientific data, but it speaks to me about the effectiveness of the vaccines and their ability to reduce transmission.


mostly_browsing t1_j8fpaor wrote

Literally what is this saying/trying to say


sufferinsucatash t1_j8gty4o wrote

It’s saying if you are vaccinated you are protected against deadly complications from Covid.


Jam5quares t1_j8gxlc3 wrote

Does it say you are protected or that you have a bit more protection...very different.


thatissomeBS t1_j8hbtp6 wrote

If you think it's binary, and you're either at risk or not at risk, then this question would be valid. However, it's not binary. "Protected" doesn't need to mean 100% protected to still be protected. Wearing a seatbelt protects you in a crash, but it doesn't mean you can't die while wearing a seatbelt.


Publius015 t1_j8jl0o6 wrote

This right there is what the vast majority of vaccine skeptics didn't understand. Literally nobody said the vaccine would 100% guarantee your health, but vaccine skeptics don't understand that it isn't binary, just like you said.

Everything is risk management to some degree.


[deleted] t1_j8i2owm wrote



thatissomeBS t1_j8i4l9h wrote

Well, according to the numbers, 50-75% more protected. So yeah, that's lap belt, shoulder belt, and airbags.


im_thatoneguy t1_j8ixqgr wrote

> Does the car have airbags or not, to fit your analogy.

You can still die in an accident with airbags. Which type of airbags, which direction of collision, what's your speed? What is the frame of your car made out of? What was your body position at the time of the accident? Was your seatbelt fitted perfectly?

Only magical amulets imbue absolute protection.


sufferinsucatash t1_j8gxzku wrote

If I were you, I would look at the deaths pre vaccine versus post vaccines. And you’d have a rough estimation of the protection! :)


Gigahert t1_j8jz2pb wrote

Pre vaccine vs post vaccine. It amazes me how quickly people forgot about the overflowing morgues and the bodies piled up in the street.


karmannsport t1_j8l8mxh wrote

Well…to play devils advocate, the most susceptible went first. Makes sense the most deaths would occur at the beginning with some upticks along the way as the virus mutates.


farox t1_j8dupwp wrote

It's not just about death, but long covid as well and transmission.

So far the benefits outweigh the risks in any cohort, to my understanding.


phred14 t1_j8dy3fm wrote

I was wondering this, too. Are you aware of studies quantifying vaccination vs long Covid?


Mkwdr t1_j8eibmc wrote

If of interest…

>Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long-COVID,

> A new study, published today in The BMJ, suggests that COVID-19 vaccines may significantly reduce the impact of pre-existing long COVID symptoms.


farox t1_j8e364s wrote

I'd have to look for it. But I do vaguely remember that vaccines were at least considered as treatment for it. No idea what came out of that.


Generallyawkward1 t1_j8e14pw wrote

Long covid is what’s making me worry. A lot of people don’t realise that the origin virus did massive damage to the immune system, especially in people with moderate to low health.


Th3LastRebel t1_j8edu84 wrote

I don't think it's the immune system itself that is the big problem, The information that we have so far suggests that mitochondrial impact is more significant when it comes to us long haulers. (The immune system is important but doesn't always recognize threats until it is too late and/or can also overreact.) Mitochondrial impact might not be as immediately evident as the symptoms created by the body's immune response.

Covid-19 (which is the name of the initial SARS variant) absolutely wrecked and/or destroyed a notable account of lives and significantly affected a good number of others. (I'm one of them.)

The majority of us who have the worse long haul symptoms appear to have been exposed prior to a vaccination being available. This stands to reason that one of the reasons many of us long haulers catch it even after vaccinated is because our Mitochondria is already impacted and I theorize that it is sort of like having the door kicked in...

For some viruses, the door isn't destroyed and is bolstered in it takes a few hits but is made stronger. Or you have ones like the Measles that essentially removes the entire door AND makes the new doors out of cheaper material...

For Covid 19, its more like that for some of us, the door is still there but was pretty battered and had cracks in it...we can ADD defenses and repair the door after the fact but it won't be as good as that original door was before it got kicked in.

And when it comes to immune response, that repaired door is good at keeping most crap out, but crap that makes its way through anyways heads right for the Mitochondria and continues to screw with us.


BuckTheFuckNaked t1_j8hwccl wrote

This is totally out of left field, but I wonder if muscling up could possibly help with that particular issue? Muscle mass increase increases the total number of mitochondria. Again, total conjecture I’m spewing.


Brokenspokes68 t1_j8fmh0v wrote

The title is terribly confusing. Seems like the article referenced is too.


Justadud513 t1_j8e3gnk wrote

Excess mortality is a great measure but I don’t think the authors adequately show their methodology accounts for confounding variables. Not taking into account clinical characteristics (yes, I know it is difficult to link data in the US) is a major limitation. Figure 1 also reports a correlation of 0.97, but visually it does not look close to that. The bottom left is clustered with data points and the top right is pulling the correlation towards 1, so the methodology may also have limitations. I was surprised the authors did not address this.

Regardless, it still explores excess mortality and vaccination status, which is quite interesting


Wagamaga OP t1_j8dgrx0 wrote

COVID-19 booster shots appear to benefit folks 50 and older but less so for younger people, a new study suggests.

For the study, researchers ran a statistical analysis using death rates from COVID, and looked at the vaccines' effectiveness in protecting people from dying of the disease. While they were found to be very effective among older people, the study noted that boosters made little difference in younger folks because they're least likely to die from the infection anyway.

Senior researcher Bernard Black is a law professor at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law in Chicago who specializes in health policy. He pointed out that the study only looked at deaths from COVID and did not consider infections the vaccine may have prevented or made less severe.

Still, for younger people the booster may be of less benefit, he suggested.

"There isn't evidence of a [death] benefit in younger people," Black said.

Although millions of Americans have gotten the initial doses of a COVID vaccine, only about 16% of those eligible for booster shots have gotten them, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC recommends that everyone 6 months and older get the COVID vaccine and keep up with boosters.

With the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration poised to recommend yearly COVID shots, Black believes the message should be focused on folks in their 60s and older, for whom the protection against dying is greatest.

"We don't know enough to know whether to recommend an annual COVID shot below age 60," he said. "From everything I know, above a 60, sure; in your 50s, probably. Below that, I'd say we just don't know."

Maybe, Black said, if public health messaging said, "You are someone who really needs it," more people who really need the booster would get it.


dustymoon1 t1_j8di5qt wrote

That is always the case because as you get older, one's immune system gets weaker and slower.


johnleeshooker t1_j8dq2qg wrote

Your immune system takes a hit with every covid infection as well.


Mmedical t1_j8duoil wrote

Are you suggesting that a COVID infection somehow inherently weakens the immune system or that the person themselves are left less resilient after having a serious illness?


dustymoon1 t1_j8dvm6y wrote

It does. It actually is considered an immune system virus.


Mmedical t1_j8e0uy3 wrote

COVID causes a dysregulated immune and inflammatory response during the infection but to my knowledge does not leave the immune system impaired like say, HIV. Do you have sources I could read?


phred14 t1_j8dxvr2 wrote

Interesting. I've read information pointing in this direction, but hadn't heard it stated as a conclusion.


KaneXX12 t1_j8eofco wrote

These sources do point to an association between COVID-19 and increased risk of various autoimmune conditions, however, this is a far cry from conclusively saying “your immune system takes a hit with every covid infection as well.”

And it isn’t considered an “immune system virus”. That would imply it actively targets the immune system. There is evidence that it can infect certain immune cells like macrophages, but it is considered a respiratory system virus because that is the primary tissue it attacks (as opposed to an actual immune system virus like HIV, which specifically targets immune cells and spreads throughout the lymphatic system).

Not trying to be dismissive, but there is not enough research yet to fully characterize the effect on the immune system, or how long such effects might last, and claiming conclusively one way or the other is irresponsible.


johnleeshooker t1_j8dwr7n wrote

In 30 years or so, after x number of infections from a constantly mutating virus, our children may never forgive us this small moment in history.


mb_500- t1_j8e7dtk wrote

Your comment is such a gut punch. My son, contracted CoVid at age 7. He was incredibly sick with MIS-c and long CoVid for 8 months following. He contracted it again, 9 months after the initial infection and again, long CoVid for months following. His immune system was absolutely devastated and he caught everything. The vaccine wasn’t approved for him yet when he got it the first time and I’ll never forgive myself for not keeping him home. We failed our children and we don’t even understand the price they may have to pay years down the road.


johnleeshooker t1_j8e9ooy wrote

I didn’t mean it as such. I too have family members and friends that are immunocompromised. Hopefully it doesn’t play out that way. Keep following the science.


SirFiletMignon t1_j8dpmt0 wrote

We've been seeing that many other long term symptoms can occur after a covid infection. I'm hoping to see a study looking into those and booster protection (if any).


FTR t1_j8drwxs wrote

A study that looks at only death but not long COVID for young people is essentially not a study.


Generallyawkward1 t1_j8e1jzj wrote

I think everyone can agree that the elderly 60 and older should get a scheduled treatment of the vaccine until more data can come from the other age groups.


orbitaldragon t1_j8fduet wrote

The issue here is this study is only look at death tolls. There are other issues associated with getting COVID that are completely ignored here.


Prinzka t1_j8g5eu0 wrote

What were you on when you wrote that title?


SerialStateLineXer t1_j8i3gwk wrote

You got the title wrong. The numbers you cite in the title are relative mortality risk, not the reduction in risk of mortality. So people age 60-79 were 27% as likely to die (i.e. 73% less likely), not 27% less likely (73% as likely), as implied by your title.


RealClayClayClay t1_j8dmlhn wrote

Does this account for people who had other complications that prevented them from receiving the vaccine?


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8dndyr wrote

Anyone know if this accounts for natural immunity from previous infection?


williamwchuang t1_j8dspx5 wrote

It doesn't appear to do so. The problem with comparing natural immunity is that the COVID infections murder the weakest victims so the culled populations will tend to be more resistant than vaccinated populations.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8dt2g2 wrote

But the overwhelming majority of people who have been infected, even those with multiple comorbidities, have fully recovered from their infections.

But in general you’re describing the longstanding concept of herd immunity.


williamwchuang t1_j8dtsun wrote

My point is that herd immunity can be achieved using vaccinations at a far lower cost in money and in heartache. No matter how much you try to dismiss the downsides of COVID, the fact is that the downsides of the vaccination are even lower. From a cost-benefit analysis, there is no evidence that vaccination is bad public policy if you value human lives and the reduction in overall sickness.


Beakersoverflowing t1_j8e48nf wrote

"Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or mass immunity) is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity." -Wikipedia

Show me a covid-19 vaccine that can make me immune to infection. If a product doesn't provide that level of protection it can never be used to achieve herd immunity.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8du22g wrote

You cannot achieve herd immunity for this type of respiratory virus, with the current iteration of vaccines. I wish this wasn’t the case.

I have at no point downplayed the seriousness of covid. I just pointed out that your previous statement was objectively incorrect.


williamwchuang t1_j8duviw wrote

You didn't point out any facts that contradict my statement that COVID culls populations of the weakest persons, which is almost undeniable. You are simply arguing that COVID isn't killing enough people.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8dvhy5 wrote

You implied that since the weakest among us are “murdered” by covid, the remaining population is more resilient.

I pointed out that the majority of “weak” individuals do recover. I explained that you’re describing a process of natural herd immunity that has existed long before vaccines were invented.

You also incorrectly claimed that the current vaccines could induce herd immunity for this type of respiratory virus.

No one is on “team covid”. You’re just bothered by people having a less hyperbolic take on the issue.


swesley49 t1_j8eanb0 wrote

You can have a population where infections happen with no vaccines and get herd immunity. You can use vaccines we have now, infections still happen, and get herd immunity from the natural immunity from infections except that fewer people will be severely affected and dead because we know the vaccines make death and serious illness less likely. It's wild that you think somehow herd immunity is impossible in a world with these vaccines, but it is inevitable in a world where these vaccines don't exist.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8ebvxn wrote

Even as spelled out in your comment, the vaccines do not induce herd immunity. They merely help to reduce death while herd immunity is being developed through natural infection.

Although you cannot qualify the efficacy of a vaccine simply by its ability to reduce severity of infection from the targeted pathogen. You need to look at all cause death over the long term.


swesley49 t1_j8ef5v2 wrote

First, yes, AFAIK herd immunity may very well require true immunity. Although I'm also thinking about the possibility of reducing infections by enough that the spread is just too slow to get through our quarantine strategies. In that case, vaccines don't need to provide full immunity.

Second, these vaccines are not and will not ever cause more deaths than covid. I'm not sure what you mean by looking at all causes of death.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8egfqt wrote

Do you have any data to suggest that these vaccines effectively reduce the rates of transmission? If so, by what rate?

Secondly, are you suggesting that zero people who would fully recovered covid without vaccination, will suffer a death caused by an adverse event caused by these vaccines?

Do you know how many healthy people you need to vaccinate in order to statistically prevent a single covid death?


johnleeshooker t1_j8dq8gb wrote

Your goal should be to NOT contract the deadly mutating highly transmissible virus.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8dskbv wrote

The vast majority of people have already been exposed and developed some form of natural immunity, with or without the vaccines.

No one of an accomplished background in infectious diseases would suggest that avoiding the virus altogether is a realistic strategy.


wealhtheow t1_j8e3yof wrote

For Covid, infection-generated immunity wanes over time just as vaccine-induced immunity does. Regardless of what taught a person's immune system to recognize and fight SARS-CoV-2, it doesn't last. This has not only been documented from many data sources from many countries (ex ) it's also apparent in anyone's personal life. I think at this point we all know someone who's gotten covid multiple times.

It's also clear that avoiding infection is important not just to avoid death, but to avoid the negative health effects of multiple bouts of covid.


JurassicCotyledon t1_j8e86b1 wrote

I’ve never suggested that natural immunity doesn’t wane over time - although it does offer a more broad and durable immunity, meaning if you are exposed to subsequent variants, your immune response has a greater chance at offering protection, and your immune memory can be updated to recognize the contemporary variants in circulation.

Even if your immunity wanes, your lingering immune memory will allow your body to mount a more targeted immune response when compared to a first exposure to a novel virus.

We’re not talking about blocking infection. We’re talking about reducing death and serious illness.

You can attempt to avoid infection, although it’s unrealistic to effectively prevent while living a normal healthy life. Your best bet is to maximize your natural immune health, and focus on protecting the most vulnerable in society.


Walmartsavings2 t1_j8e0me4 wrote

This article has absolutely nothing to do whether you contracted the disease and it’s effect on transmission.


Chakkaaa t1_j8dqcqx wrote

The virus has changed from even that strain of omicron now too though. But have omicron subtype if vaccine too that will work bit better on new types. But ya at least its harder for the old strains to make a comeback too partly


Brokenspokes68 t1_j8fnc6y wrote

Holy hell, the antivaxxers are brigading the comments in here.


aRealAmateur t1_j8g670r wrote

Not to be rude but, what a random hodgepodge of academic areas chiming in with only two institutions of health and medicine: Law, Economics, Business…with correspondence being directed to a postdoctoral fellow in Law…


Cash907 t1_j8hh8iv wrote

Ooof that F’ing headline. Anyone else have to ready that a few times to figure out what they were trying to say?


Hamson117 t1_j8eobv6 wrote

Ooohhh now do 18yr olds!


CraWLee t1_j8g9mxl wrote

So placebo like numbers


blackdragonstory t1_j8glhcl wrote

A lot of these studies are based on low numbers of people,bad hypothesis or make vague conclusions.... Several years ago I had confidence in science and studies actually being based in facts and correct but ever since coronavirus I became very skeptical of it all. Too many people can lie or omit things just to create the outcomes they want and then said thing gets published by news or similar and people take it as facts.


AutoModerator t1_j8dgjbt wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


AaronfromKY t1_j8dvndb wrote

Anecdotally, the past 2 weeks my fiancee and I have had covid. She had 3 doses of the original vax, while I had 3 doses of original plus a bivalent booster. Her symptoms were much worse, chills, coughing fits, fever, and sneezing compared with mine, where I had an occasional cough, some sneezing and some tiredness, causing me to only miss an hour of work compared to the day off that she had to take(we both work from home). We've both recuperated, but she has a lingering cough.


mandozombie t1_j8hvmjj wrote

Call me crazy but you'd think that would be more consistent.


cheddarsox t1_j8um94r wrote

Vaccinate weekly. I always do! You can't tell them, and you have to shop around, but you can get weekly vaccines if you do your homework. They don't check!


555nick t1_j8h2imu wrote

Important info. But those sharing science titles need communication training. The meaning of “protection… was 42%” is not clear at all.


_Chronically_Online_ t1_j8egurj wrote

Now let's add the VAERS reports to the equation...


tzaeru t1_j8ep69r wrote

Anyone can report anything to VAERS with no confirmation.

Actual studies have been ran on the frequency of adverse effects. They have found the vaccines to be pretty safe.