You have to read the methodology carefully. While I believe there's nonzero effect of the booster, you don't know that infection is measured with symptomatic numbers and you don't know that a subsymptomatic viral load isn't transmissible. As for policy, with the fact that getting vax + covid will give you better immunity than a vaccine-only regime in general (probably even more so with omicron), you don't know that it isn't strategically better to have vaccinated, low risk people get breakthrough infections and get immunity to omicron proper, and aggressively self-quarantine, versus getting a booster that omicron has evolved to escape.
“you don't know that infection is measured with symptomatic numbers and you don't know that a subsymptomatic viral load isn't transmissible”
That is mentioned in the article, but right now there isn’t really any evidence suggesting the vaccine doesn’t actually stop infection in at least some cases. PCR tests can discover asymptomatic infections for instance and some workplaces had mandatory testing regimes. The initial moderna trial tested everyone even without symptoms on reception of the 2nd dose and found that just one dose of the vaccine had greatly reduced PCR + compared to the placebo group, there seems no evidence that behavior of the vaccines isn’t generalizable.
“ you don't know that it isn't strategically better to have vaccinated, low risk people get breakthrough infections and get immunity to omicron proper”
How do you you see this as an alternative while still suggesting the vaccine wouldn’t work or provide immunity?
If the vaccine makes a specific person immune to Omicron infection, they don’t need breakthrough immunity because they already have it. If it fails to make that person immune to Omicron infection, they’ll still “strategically” get sick by being in the community and being infected.
Unless you are suggesting an alternative of young vaccinated people specifically exposing themselves to Omicron positive cases en masse in an attempt to have a breakthrough case and boost their immunity I don’t see how your comparison makes sense.
Deploying an omicron-specific vaccine without any safety trials or testing seems likely to be safer than variolation using live omicron virus to intentionally infect millions (moreover, expecting those millions to actually self isolate is unrealistic - a significant percentage of them would go out to stores or social events and spread the virus more rapidly to seniors)
Our health authorities are too scared of making mistakes to do either though, so it seems purely hypothetical either way.
No, that's how almost everyone would have believed them to work. The definition has now been updated (some would say the previous widespread misconception was corrected) to mean that a vaccine can also "prevent severe infection" while not actually stopping transmission or reducing infection.
The above is what has been used to justify why vaccines still have to be mandatory, despite everyone who wants one getting one, while at the same time, masks and other restrictions need to stay, because the vaccine doesn't actually prevent the spread.
When you say it like I have above, people dont like it, but we've celebrated and mandated a "vaccine" that is a lot different in it's protection than what we would normally think of.
I have all three of my shots FYI. I'm really curious to hear a substantively different take than mine.
> The definition has now been updated (some would say the previous widespread misconception was corrected) to mean that a vaccine can also "prevent severe infection" while not actually stopping transmission or reducing infection.
“ The reason this is a problem for Marek’s disease is because the vaccine is “leaky.” A leaky vaccine is one that keeps a microbe from doing serious harm to its host, but doesn’t stop the disease from replicating and spreading to another individual. On the other hand, a “perfect” vaccine is one that sets up lifelong immunity that never wanes and blocks both infection and transmission. [. . .] But the results do raise the questions for some human vaccines that are leaky – such as malaria, and other agricultural vaccines, such as the one being used against avian influenza, or bird flu.“
That said, the covid-19 vaccines we have do prevent some infections even of the mutant omicron variant, just not 95% of infections like it did against the original strain of COVID-19. And luckily omicron, while still dangerous and not really “mild”, is milder than the delta variant and the vaccine seems to be able to save a lot of lives.
It's pretty screwed up this doesn't get more attention. I don't know how many times I've seen comments "explaining" how "vaccine" has always meant the second definition.
It makes sense that the dictionary had updated its entry - they are supposed to be reflecting current usage, not defining words as an authority. But the government making changes is absolutely Orwellian.
Merriam Webster's old definition contradicted other dictionaries and actual usage. Probably you heard about diphtheria and tetanus vaccines before 2020. Those are prepared from toxins. And Merriam Webster's virus definition said viruses aren't organisms. So their old vaccine definition excluded anything made from a virus. Other popular dictionaries had better definitions and didn't change them.
The CDC working definition didn't change. They removed a redundant reference to protection from a page for the public because some people claimed it meant anything under 100% effective isn't a vaccine.
I’d suggest you’re talking about “a definition” not “the definition”. Merriam-Webster is just a dictionary, not the final authority on the meaning of words.
“The definition” would refer to how people actually use the word, and examples of pre-2020 writing (as I gave) where e.g. the vaccine for Marek’s is called a vaccine would suggest merriam-webster’s definition was too limited.
That said, I think the old Merriam-Webster definition still applies to the covid vaccine anyway, so this is a bit of a side conversation. “ produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease” an increase of immunity suggests that this definition also covers leaky vaccines.
The definition update seems to be more about, as sibling poster said, the first part of the definition not covering mRNA or toxin based vaccines accurately.
Thanks. I appreciate literature references to this instead of the disingenuous comments from an earlier poster asserting bandwagon effect and bad faith by public health officials.
Unless Omnicron dissociated it, worse experience == more viral load == more infectious; vaccine reduced (and potentially for some elimintated) viral load and thus reduced infectiousness.
> Unless Omnicron dissociated it, worse experience == more viral load == more infectious; vaccine reduced (and potentially for some elimintated) viral load and thus reduced infectiousness.
I'm not quite sure what you're stating here. You disagree with the conclusions here and believe there is evidence that vaccinations significantly impact community transmission of covid? If so, could you provide references to that evidence?
I haven't had a chance to review the study yet (but look forward to doing so); I'm stating my current understanding.
Delta allowed for breakthrough cases; the rate was dramatically lower than unvaccinated overall (I handled reporting on some these stats in our region).
I haven't been as involved since the start of the omnicron variant, but my understanding is that the relationship still holds that prob(infected | vaccinated) < prob(infected | unvaccinated and no reported prior case).
COVID-19 intensity of illness was (and may still be?) associated to the relative infectiousness of an individual to others in their network (across the entire episode). So an asymptomatic individual (vs. presymptomatic before intense illness) was less infectious overall.[0]
> Question What are the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 G614 viral shedding in incident infections in association with COVID-19 symptom onset and severity?
> Findings In a cohort study of persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after recent exposure, viral RNA trajectory was characterized by a rapid peak followed by slower decay. Peak viral load correlated positively with symptom severity and generally occurred within 1 day of symptom onset if the patient was symptomatic.
I'm trying to remember if our herd immunity artcle covered the monitoring stats ratios between vaccinated and unvaccinated. I'm thinking that the lead author left it out
> All incidence and hospitalization rate ratios exceeded 1, regardless of predominant variant, indicating that the risks were consistently highest for unvaccinated persons and that COVID-19 vaccines were protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19–associated hospitalization among fully vaccinated persons, and most protective among those with a booster.
This one shows a nice breakdown of the incidence rate ratio among age groups and similar.
------------
What does this have to do with community transmission?
[1] If you aren't infected, you aren't spreading the disease
[2] A lower transmission rate equates to lower community spread all else equal (as someone identified earlier, Jevon's paradox could come to head)
[3] The lower IRR is a lower propensity (or, if you prefer, a lower R_t) between the two groups.
-----------
This matches what I see in my regional reporting; the IRR is significantly different between the two groups. In my area (a red state in the US) behaviors are mostly back to pre-pandemic levels of behavior, so it is reasonable to conclude that the IRR in my area is representative of life following any COVID-19 protocols being relaxed.
> I do, but since the data is not publicly released its not shareable.
I don't believe you do and I shouldn't need to either way. "Believe me bro" isn't science.
> Hence the reason I've explained
What's that supposed to mean? What reason, what explanation?
> and pointed you to the appropriate resources.
You pointed to no appropriate resources. You actually deflected from the question and provided a lot of links and waffle that did not answer the question at all. In case it wasn't clear, I was not asking for techbro handwaving about whether vaccines impact community transmission. I was asking for actual data.
> A reduction in the incidence rate ratio among vaccinated individuals is a reduction to community spread.
An assertion that you have failed to prove and have no evidence for, as far as I can see.
> Have a good evening.
You too. And try not to make any more claims you don't have evidence for, it's misinformation.
I'll respond here in case your engagement with disinformation caused anyone confusion.
> "Believe me bro" isn't science.
Correct. This is a public internet forum where private or restricted access sources are not shareable, not an open science conference. Hence the reason the Washington State and CDC studies were shared, which align to claims made.
> What's that supposed to mean? What reason, what explanation?
I'll refer you to prior comments in this discussion chain.
> pointed to no appropriate resources. ... provided a lot of links
Read the links provided.
> An assertion that you have failed to prove and have no evidence for, as far as I can see.
Tautologies generally don't need proof. I believe you're being intentionally deceptive here.
Why tautological: a reduction in an individual's capacity to become infected with the virus reduces their individual capacity to spread the disease. A community is a collection of individuals; reducing many people's capacity through a vaccine to spread disease reduces community spread.
I refer you to both the Washington State study as well as the CDC study for the recent incidence rate ratio comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
> You too. And try not to make any more claims you don't have evidence for, it's misinformation.
It's comments like these that show you are sealioning. Strong evidence for your questions have been provided in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30232957 -- your inability to acknowledge the evidence provided because it disproves your attempt at sowing confusion doesn't mean the evidence is not clearly presented and available.
Versus sealioning on a controversial topic -- that's disinformation. I find insulting when people engage in it, and I'll not entertain your comments further.
--------------------
For any reading this comment chain who may be confused -- vaccinations reduce community spread, the evidence has been provided in the comment linked, and I encourage you to strongly distrust when people are "just asking questions."
That's not what sealioning means. I'm asking for data for the one central assertion you made, and you are unable to provide it. Typing out increasingly waffling and verbose answers without providing that data, making yet more assertions you have no evidence for, and linking papers and data which do not answer the original question is the problem here.
You can't just cry "sealioning" after you make unsubstantiated claims and refuse to provide evidence for them.
> Correct. This is a public internet forum where private or restricted access sources are not shareable, not an open science conference.
Very convenient you just brought that up only after several back and forth posts that showed you were unable to substantiate your claim with actual data. You can see why I don't believe you.
> For any reading this comment chain who may be confused -- vaccinations reduce community spread, the evidence has been provided in the comment linked, and I encourage you to strongly distrust when people are "just asking questions."
Evidence was not provided. If evidence was provided, then you wouldn't be talking about these non-public sources of evidence you claim to be privy to, would you? They would be irrelevant because you would be able to just provide the evidence.
Your story has fallen apart badly. It's clearly pointless to keep beating a dead horse here and obviously you're not the type to ever admit they're wrong. Just keep it in mind for next time and stop yourself from spreading misinformation.
Or if they're so mild you don't think you have a cold, you might go out and spread it more. This would be a genius evolutionary play by the virus -- have such mild symptoms that most healthy people don't even know they have it and spread it like crazy.
Ok wow downvoted. Well, if this actually happens, I will be sure to link back to this downvoted claim. Be careful, I have been right about "out of left field" events in the past that I've recorded on hn (such as failure of the Boeing starliner https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21839565) and in this situation I do have PhD training in biology, so this wasn't one point at least reasonably close to my wheelhouse
> Or if they're so mild you don't think you have a cold, you might go out and spread it more.
Yes, Jevon's paradox could exist in this instance.
> This would be a genius evolutionary play by the virus
It's not sentient. It's simply filling niches.
It would be a net benefit if, in US culture, we normalized health being a priority (including taking time to recover and not spread to others, whether a cold or flu or COVID-19).
> Ok wow downvoted.
From the guidelines:
>>> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
I've noticed here and, if I recall correctly, in other COVID-19 threads that sea-lioning comments tend to be downvoted. I expect this is because people are tired of science denialism, whether it is couched as "just speculating" or as "just asking questions."
What science denialism? I had a previous life as a working PhD in the life sciences. Honestly the crazy thing to me is just how much the mainstream discourse/policy on covid is itself science denial.
