Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

petergriffin999 t1_iw38byy wrote

Reply to comment by thekuroikenshi in Farmington child hospitalized for RSV in Maine after family cannot find NH beds by every1getslaid

The effect on transmission is zero, and the duration of transmissibility as it relates to peak viral load still had no impact on the case studies.

Check the lancet journal of medicine report from last October.

The data shows that for those at risk, it can help prevent more serious side effects. But that's it.

It has no measurable beneficial effect on either acquiring or transmitting the virus, in comparison to someone that is unvaccinated.

The data also shows now that the side effects re: heart problems, is due to the vaccine, not COVID-19. That doesn't mean it's evil or a plot or that the benefits might not outweigh the heart risk, for people who are at risk from severe problems due to COVID-19.

But as far as the people who said that it's a personal decision re: risk / reward, they were absolutely correct. Everyone who criticized them as "plague rats" were wrong.

−10

foodandart t1_iw4g6ws wrote

> Everyone who criticized them as "plague rats" were wrong.

Oh, I think there's a ton of unvaccinated people that got struck with Covid that are left permanently crippled with heart, lung, kidney and liver issues that might beg to differ, never mind the dead ones..

Pretty much every person I know that has been vaccinated and caught Covid, has had at worst a few days of minor cold-like symptoms.

The only relatives I have that have died from this? Unvaccinated.

4

petergriffin999 t1_iw4siy9 wrote

You don't know what the term "plague rats" means.

Like I said in my post, it can help people who are at risk

But the term "plague rats" means "plague spreaders". Vaccinated or not vaccinated, it makes no difference regarding the spread.

0

Darwins_Dog t1_iw72hr2 wrote

Paper after paper has found that a COVID infection carries a much higher risk of cardiovascular problems than the vaccine. You are straight up wrong there.

Vaccine effects on transmission haven't really been studied because of ethics. Don't mistake lack of any evidence for evidence against. There are a few studies out there that have found that it does reduce transmission. It would be really weird if vaccines reduced infection severity and duration without affecting transmission. All of those are linked to viral loads so reducing one will help the others.

3

petergriffin999 t1_iw7g8sb wrote

Patently untrue. The study I'm referring to showed of > 1000 households where 1 person had COVID (half vaxxed, half not) what was the effect on other family members that shared the household, and visitors, where there was also a good mix of vaxxed and not vaxxed.

Some acquired the virus, some didn't. But even those results were evenly distributed among vaxxed and non vaxxed.

−1

Darwins_Dog t1_iw7rpi3 wrote

What's untrue exactly? Here's a review of more than one study that found reduced infection and transmission potential. The results aren't as clear cut as those for preventing severe infection because it's much more difficult to study transmission (ethically and logistically) in a robust method.

Also, when I said it would be really weird for a vaccine to reduce disease severity and not transmission potential, I mean that there's no known mechanism by which that can happen. A vaccine can't reduce only the virus particles that stay in the body and skip the ones destined to be expelled. The immune system doesn't work that way.

2

thekuroikenshi t1_iw9vrwo wrote

The language you're using - "patently untrue" - is really strong for conclusions drawn from scientific study. Any good scientist couches their terms carefully for the very reason that because it's so damn ridiculously hard to prove causal relationships.

2

Go_fahk_yourself t1_iw5aqpk wrote

Boy oh boy, according to the down votes the truth certainly does hurt. That’s what fear does, you can stick their noses in the truth all day and they will still believe the lie.

−2

shy-bae t1_iw72009 wrote

Yeah, my triple vaxxed spouse picked it up at work and got sick. Then four days later, I (unvaxxed) caught it (I didn’t go out in that time frame so I couldn’t have caught it from anyone else).

We were both sick the same amount of time with the same symptoms lol.

−2

petergriffin999 t1_iw7ft7e wrote

Yep. Supposedly there is a benefit (to the vaccine) in terms of how hard it hits you, I'm seen conflicting studies on that so at this point I'm just giving it the benefit of the doubt as far as that goes.

But in terms of whether or not you acquire the virus, OR transmit it: vaccine has zero or negligible impact.

0