Re multiple breakthrough infections possible?

[SailinAway]

Starting a new thread because the other one went off the rails. This is a purely scientific question. I googled it but can't find the answer. Inquiring for my friend who is recovering from a breakthrough infection.

QUESTION: If someone gets a breakthrough infection, does that mean that the vaccination didn't "take" in that person at all, and therefore the person is also susceptible to further infections after the first one?

In other words, if the vaccine fails you once and you get infected, does that mean that (a) you have zero protection from all future exposures, as if you had not been vaccinated, or (b) you still have 95% protection (minus loss of protection over time) for each exposure, i.e., the vaccine failed you once because you had a 5% chance of infection, but it's still active and your chances of infection are unchanged?

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

Starting a new thread because the other one went off the rails. This is a purely scientific question. I googled it but can't find the answer. Inquiring for my friend who is recovering from a breakthrough infection.

QUESTION: If someone gets a breakthrough infection, does that mean that the vaccination didn't "take" in that person at all, and therefore the person is also susceptible to further infections after the first one?

In other words, if the vaccine fails you once and you get infected, does that mean that (a) you have zero protection from all future exposures, as if you had not been vaccinated, or (b) you still have 95% protection (minus loss of protection over time) for each exposure, i.e., the vaccine failed you once because you had a 5% chance of infection, but it's still active and your chances of infection are unchanged?

I dont think there is such thing as the vaccine "didnt take" its just not as effective as the marketing hype.

Dont go off the rails and assume I am saying its not effective, it just that the 95% number is a best case calculation of the entire test group, not any single individual.

You also need to know that the protection the vaccine offers declines with time.

Also, the vaccine offers diminishing protection in most new variants.

So in truth everyone that is vaccinated is susceptible to infections and further infections in the future, there are no assurances of protection unless you totally isolate yourself.

That said, if someone suffers a breakthrough infection, they will enjoy a level of natural immunity that currently science cannot totally replicate. So maybe that will bring some comfort. Even so, there is no 100% protection, life affords us nothing like that.

ATB

[TheTimeTraveler]

I think it may be best if you ask your medical provider for an accurate answer on your question (it takes the politics out of it).

The only thing that appears to be the norm; If you have been vaccinated and do get a "break thru" Covid infection then you may become sick, but you likely won't become seriously ill or die.

I have a family member who had been vaccinated, did get a "break thru" infection in August. She was sick for about five days but did not need a ventilator (and she didn't need to see her Doctor or visit a Hospital).

What are the long term effects of Covid? I don't think anyone really knows at this point. We will be able to better look back twenty years from now to answer that.

[Newbiesaukee]

Both responses are accurate and properly admit to not knowing all the answers.

My only addition is that some individuals do have impaired immune responses to both the vaccines and natural infection but this is really so specific a question that it is best handled by the person’s physician.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by Newbiesaukee

Both responses are accurate and properly admit to not knowing all the answers.

My only addition is that some individuals do have impaired immune responses to both the vaccines and natural infection but this is really so specific a question that it is best handled by the person’s physician.

100% Agreed!

[John Mercier]

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...rotection.html

The breakthrough most likely acted like a booster shot to the initial vaccine.
It reinvigorated the immune system... much like a booster would.

I think only a blood test could determine the actual level of protection that each of us has at any given time; and even that would be a bit subjective.

[Woodsy]

I don't think we have ever been told the full truth about this virus. IMHO, the CDC releases just enough dribs & drabs of information and if you pay attention you can kind of put a blurry picture together.

I am sure the vax "took" in most of the break through cases... but this is an engineered "gain of function" virus. It is going to especially nasty. So if the Ptown outbreak over the summer is a rough guide... 30% of those affected in that outbreak were fully vaxxed. that means 30% were so called "break through" infections. I am not sure I would use the term 'break through" when the number is at 30%!

Despite the vax marketing, the issue here is that the vax does not work like most of the vaccines we compare it to. It does not set the immune system up for a catch & kill like the smallpox vax does. Unfortunately, despite being vaxxed, you can still catch & more importantly transmit Covid, and the protection wears off very quickly! The CDC had some blurb earlier this month about similar viral loads in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed infections.


IMHO, the vax works more like an OTC cold medicine... keeps the Covid symptoms relatively minor and controllable for most people.

Woodsy

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I don't think we have ever been told the full truth about this virus. IMHO, the CDC releases just enough dribs & drabs of information and if you pay attention you can kind of put a blurry picture together.

I am sure the vax "took" in most of the break through cases... but this is an engineered "gain of function" virus. It is going to especially nasty. So if the Ptown outbreak over the summer is a rough guide... 30% of those affected in that outbreak were fully vaxxed. that means 30% were so called "break through" infections. I am not sure I would use the term 'break through" when the number is at 30%!

Despite the vax marketing, the issue here is that the vax does not work like most of the vaccines we compare it to. It does not set the immune system up for a catch & kill like the smallpox vax does. Unfortunately, despite being vaxxed, you can still catch & more importantly transmit Covid, and the protection wears off very quickly! The CDC had some blurb earlier this month about similar viral loads in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed infections.


IMHO, the vax works more like an OTC cold medicine... keeps the Covid symptoms relatively minor and controllable for most people.

Woodsy

GREAT post, well stated.

[John Mercier]

People vaccinated for smallpox can still get smallpox.

Wiki published the Rao Case Study fatality rates for the various formats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

People vaccinated for smallpox can still get smallpox.

Wiki published the Rao Case Study fatality rates for the various formats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

Do we still vaccinate against smallpox? I didnt think so.

I dont think i got it,,,

None of my medical records exist from my childhood so I have no way to be sure what vaccinations I had or not. Or any other medications I was subjected to for that matter.

[John Mercier]

According to the history, the last case of smallpox in the US was 1949... and the US stopped vaccinating the general public in 1972.

Strategic supplies of the vaccine exist should an outbreak occur... and a single case is currently considered and outbreak.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I don't think we have ever been told the full truth about this virus. IMHO, the CDC releases just enough dribs & drabs of information and if you pay attention you can kind of put a blurry picture together.

I am sure the vax "took" in most of the break through cases... but this is an engineered "gain of function" virus. It is going to especially nasty. So if the Ptown outbreak over the summer is a rough guide... 30% of those affected in that outbreak were fully vaxxed. that means 30% were so called "break through" infections. I am not sure I would use the term 'break through" when the number is at 30%!

Despite the vax marketing, the issue here is that the vax does not work like most of the vaccines we compare it to. It does not set the immune system up for a catch & kill like the smallpox vax does. Unfortunately, despite being vaxxed, you can still catch & more importantly transmit Covid, and the protection wears off very quickly! The CDC had some blurb earlier this month about similar viral loads in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed infections.


IMHO, the vax works more like an OTC cold medicine... keeps the Covid symptoms relatively minor and controllable for most people.

Woodsy

You misstate the "marketing" of the vaccine. The vaccines are marketed as ~90% effective. That means that for every 100 unvaccinated people who get infections, we should expect 10 vaccinated people to get infections (if all humans are behaving identically). So let's not get confused on think that every breakthrough is a surprise or failure or conspiracy-minded whatever. Nothing is perfect.

The people in P-town put themselves in an especially challenging situation--packed bars and dance clubs with lots of close contact. Nobody should be surprised that there were a whole bunch of transmissions even if many of them were vaxxed.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...rotection.html.

John, thank you for this link. Since it's a scientific question, I appreciate the link to a scientific study.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

for every 100 unvaccinated people who get infections, we should expect 10 vaccinated people to get infections (if all humans are behaving identically).

Does efficacy depend on the number of direct exposures to Covid? I.e., if I got the Pfizer vaccine I have a 5% chance of infection with each exposure? So 100 exposures could result in 5 infections. (I think you explained this in another thread but I've forgotten the answer.)

(Exposure has been defined by the CDC etc. in terms of distance from an infected person and duration of exposure.)

I think you're also saying that my friend's infection is a simple matter of probability, not an indication that the vaccination "didn't take" with her.

[Jdarby]

The vaccine causes the body to create antibodies that will attack the virus when they detect its presence in the body. The level of antibodies created is going to vary among each person. The length of time that those antibodies remain present in the body will also vary depending upon the person. When you’re exposed to the virus it will begin to replicate. Your antibodies will attack it. If it replicates faster than your antibodies can attack you will have a breakthrough infection. The more antibodies, the more likely your immune system will knock it down and destroy the virus cells before you can spread them or they cause you serious illness. A vaccine is not a barrier that protects you from the virus. It’s a means of causing your body to attack the virus if it infects you. There are many reasons why one person generates more antibodies than another. Smoking, alcohol use, poor nutrition, some medications, and certain illnesses can all impact the ability of your immune system to function in a manner that will optimize the level of antibodies you produce.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by Jdarby

The vaccine causes the body to create antibodies that will attack the virus when they detect its presence in the body. The level of antibodies created is going to vary among each person. The length of time that those antibodies remain present in the body will also vary depending upon the person. When you’re exposed to the virus it will begin to replicate. Your antibodies will attack it. If it replicates faster than your antibodies can attack you will have a breakthrough infection. The more antibodies, the more likely your immune system will knock it down and destroy the virus cells before you can spread them or they cause you serious illness. A vaccine is not a barrier that protects you from the virus. It’s a means of causing your body to attack the virus if it infects you. There are many reasons why one person generates more antibodies than another. Smoking, alcohol use, poor nutrition, some medications, and certain illnesses can all impact the ability of your immune system to function in a manner that will optimize the level of antibodies you produce.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

And yet another great post and very well stated!

So much better than some of the nonsense banter posts (mine included!)

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

You misstate the "marketing" of the vaccine. The vaccines are marketed as ~90% effective. That means that for every 100 unvaccinated people who get infections, we should expect 10 vaccinated people to get infections (if all humans are behaving identically). So let's not get confused on think that every breakthrough is a surprise or failure or conspiracy-minded whatever. Nothing is perfect.

The people in P-town put themselves in an especially challenging situation--packed bars and dance clubs with lots of close contact. Nobody should be surprised that there were a whole bunch of transmissions even if many of them were vaxxed.

I respectfully disagree...

When you use the term "vaccine" people think immunity. They go right to smallpox/TB etc. and the vax effectiveness at eliminating the offending virus.

I agree that they originally marketed the vaccines with 90%-95% efficacy. However, there was ALWAYS the caveat of the unknown length of protection. In reality what we are seeing is breakthrough infections running at approx 30%. Technically a breakthrough would be one of the original 5%-10% in the efficacy rate.

Unfortunately, the CDC found the same viral loads in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individuals... so the vax does very little to prevent transmission or mutation. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...-covid-19.html

Woodsy

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

Does efficacy depend on the number of direct exposures to Covid? I.e., if I got the Pfizer vaccine I have a 5% chance of infection with each exposure? So 100 exposures could result in 5 infections. (I think you explained this in another thread but I've forgotten the answer.)

(Exposure has been defined by the CDC etc. in terms of distance from an infected person and duration of exposure.)

I think you're also saying that my friend's infection is a simple matter of probability, not an indication that the vaccination "didn't take" with her.

Excellent questions.

For any person, likelihood of getting covid increases with number and intensity of exposures.

Efficacy in the case of vaccines describes the likelihood of getting covid if you've been vaxxed compared to the likelihood of getting covid if you have not been vaxxed. These things assume that every person has the same amount of exposure to virus.

A simplified example-- They give 1,000 people a vaccine, and another 1,000 people a fake placebo vaccine. When 100 people in the placebo group have covid, they stop the trial and count the number of vaxxed people with covid. If the number of vaxxed people with covid is 5, then the efficacy of the vaccine is expected to be 95%. If there are 10 positives in the vaxxed group, then the efficacy is 90%. So no one should be surprised that 5 or 10% of the vaxxed population gets covid--this is basically what the companies and FDA predicted would happen.

In the trial, they are assuming that every person has the same level of risk, and as you'd expect, they give people a bunch of questions to try to control for this. They would throw out a trial if they discovered that a whole bunch of people were partying in P-town or Sturgis, just for example.

So if you get a 95% effective vaccine, you have only 1/20 the risk of an unvaxxed person, and it's really unlikely you're going to get covid at the store or work. But if you go to a mosh pit, especially with a significant number of unvaxxed people, it's kind of like taking a bath in covid, and you are asking for trouble

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I respectfully disagree...

When you use the term "vaccine" people think immunity. They go right to smallpox/TB etc. and the vax effectiveness at eliminating the offending virus.

I agree that they originally marketed the vaccines with 90%-95% efficacy. However, there was ALWAYS the caveat of the unknown length of protection. In reality what we are seeing is breakthrough infections running at approx 30%. Technically a breakthrough would be one of the original 5%-10% in the efficacy rate.

Unfortunately, the CDC found the same viral loads in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individuals... so the vax does very little to prevent transmission or mutation. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...-covid-19.html

Woodsy

Also respectfully,

I understand that when people hear "vaccine" they often think 100% immunity. But when scientists, doctors, and the FDA say "vaccine" they really mean anything that teaches the immune system to attack a disease--this is not necessarily 100% effective, and the scientists have been completely clear that these are "only" 90-95% effective.

I believe you are mistaken on the breakthrough cases. Here's an NBC report from yesterday that shows Massachusetts breakthrough cases are at 0.71%. So in the real world, the 95% effective vaccines are showing approximately 99% efficacy.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local...-mass/2498028/

It's funny the way humans (me included) respond to numbers--I Googled the above just to check your number, and when I saw 30,000, I thought "oh no! that's a lot of people". But it is less than 1% of the vaxxed, which is super performance

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I respectfully disagree...

When you use the term "vaccine" people think immunity. They go right to smallpox/TB etc. and the vax effectiveness at eliminating the offending virus.

I agree that they originally marketed the vaccines with 90%-95% efficacy. However, there was ALWAYS the caveat of the unknown length of protection. In reality what we are seeing is breakthrough infections running at approx 30%. Technically a breakthrough would be one of the original 5%-10% in the efficacy rate.

Unfortunately, the CDC found the same viral loads in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individuals... so the vax does very little to prevent transmission or mutation. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...-covid-19.html

Woodsy

Thanks that last paragraph was new information to me.

Just goes to show the constantly evolving situation we are in.

Also shows that there is so much not being communicated on the mainstream media that we should know about.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I respectfully disagree...

When you use the term "vaccine" people think immunity. They go right to smallpox/TB etc. and the vax effectiveness at eliminating the offending virus.

I agree that they originally marketed the vaccines with 90%-95% efficacy. However, there was ALWAYS the caveat of the unknown length of protection. In reality what we are seeing is breakthrough infections running at approx 30%. Technically a breakthrough would be one of the original 5%-10% in the efficacy rate.

Unfortunately, the CDC found the same viral loads in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individuals... so the vax does very little to prevent transmission or mutation. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...-covid-19.html

Woodsy

The Rao Case Study pointed out that smallpox vaccine did not eliminate the offending virus. That breakthroughs existed, and the vaccine effectiveness was only 3-5 years.
We immunized Americans for over 20 years after the last reported case of natural infection... and did so with a live virus vaccine that had 1000/1M vaccinated with side effects serious enough to need medical attention.

Tuberculosis is caused by bacteria... not viral.
But from Wiki... ''Rates of protection against TB infection vary widely and protection lasts up to twenty years.[4] Among children it prevents about 20% from getting infected and among those who do get infected it protects half from developing disease.[9] The vaccine is given by injection into the skin.[4] There is no evidence that additional doses are beneficial[4]."

4. "BCG vaccines: WHO position paper – February 2018". Relevé Épidémiologique Hebdomadaire. 93 (8): 73–96. February 2018. hdl:10665/260307. PMID 29474026. Lay summary (PDF).

It also states that the US has never mass immunization because the US has not had a severe outbreak. The US format is to catch latent TB, and treat with antibiotics.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

Starting a new thread because the other one went off the rails. This is a purely scientific question. I googled it but can't find the answer. Inquiring for my friend who is recovering from a breakthrough infection.

QUESTION: If someone gets a breakthrough infection, does that mean that the vaccination didn't "take" in that person at all, and therefore the person is also susceptible to further infections after the first one?

In other words, if the vaccine fails you once and you get infected, does that mean that (a) you have zero protection from all future exposures, as if you had not been vaccinated, or (b) you still have 95% protection (minus loss of protection over time) for each exposure, i.e., the vaccine failed you once because you had a 5% chance of infection, but it's still active and your chances of infection are unchanged?

Did your friend stay out of the hospital? If so, he might give some credit to the vaccine. Not that, that is a guarantee either.

As others pointed out. Nothing is 100%.

It's also why I'm still wearing a mask for now (only when shopping indoors, which is intentionally not that often). Just playing it safe, since it's completely harmless to wear a mask.

The rate of break throughs that lead to hospitalization on vaccinated folks is extremely low. For the moment.

Keep us posted how your friend rides it out

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I respectfully disagree...

When you use the term "vaccine" people think immunity. They go right to smallpox/TB etc. and the vax effectiveness at eliminating the offending virus.

I agree that they originally marketed the vaccines with 90%-95% efficacy. However, there was ALWAYS the caveat of the unknown length of protection. In reality what we are seeing is breakthrough infections running at approx 30%. Technically a breakthrough would be one of the original 5%-10% in the efficacy rate.

Unfortunately, the CDC found the same viral loads in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individuals... so the vax does very little to prevent transmission or mutation. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...-covid-19.html

Woodsy

That's a good article. You'd think they wouldn't be pushing kids back to school knowing this data. I wonder what the impact of motor cycle week was?

[John Mercier]

Bike Week probably had no more impact than other comparable venues over the summer.

And we have the fairs and Grass Drags coming up... they would be comparable.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

That's a good article. You'd think they wouldn't be pushing kids back to school knowing this data. I wonder what the impact of motor cycle week was?

Kids are being "pushed" back to school because not being in school was worse for them than the risks from Covid.

Throughout the whole of last-year's in-person classes at my school, there was only one case attributed to in-school transmission, and it was with teachers who shared a (fairly small) planning space. Even that one was questionable because a couple of those affected also had family members testing positive at the same time, so it became a "which came first" scenario.

In any case, the drop in social and academic involvement and the rise in mental health issues and suicidality vs. the impact to young people from Covid is a (mostly) easy decision. This is a decision made easier when adding the efficacy of masks and contact tracing, ease of testing and hygiene steps, etc. to the process.

Really, the only reason not to have kids in school (which it always was) is to limit how much Covid is transmitted to more vulnerable populations, which is why vaccinations for those populations are essential.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BillJohn]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

That said, if someone suffers a breakthrough infection, they will enjoy a level of natural immunity that currently science cannot totally replicate. So maybe that will bring some comfort. Even so, there is no 100% protection, life affords us nothing like that.

ATB

Based on the studies I have read the best immunity comes from those who have had Covid and the vaccine. Getting Covid alone does not provide the same protection. The vaccine is humanity's best chance for getting out of this pandemic as well as the spread of variants.

Secondly, while it is true that it that the vaccine protection wanes over time and maybe less effective against some of the new variants there are booster shots that will bring immunity back up. Going forward there will be booster shots for the variants as well. Yes, there will still be breakthrough infections but if you are otherwise healthy and vaccinated the current science says you will get sick but will not need to be hospitalized.

In the meantime, vaccinations and mask-wearing are our best protection. BTW that is not my opinion it is based on the current science. As we all know science evolves over time and more as information is gleaned. There is no logic in looking backward and talking about the fact the masks were at first thought not to offer protection.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

Did your friend stay out of the hospital? If so, he might give some credit to the vaccine. Not that that is a guarantee either. . . .
Keep us posted how your friend rides it out

My friend lives with her husband and another family member. All three are fully vaccinated. They believe that the other family member brought Covid home from her place of work, where she was exposed to an infected person. My friend's course of the illness has gone up and down but she seems to be feeling better now. She did avoid the hospital.

My friend did everything she could to protect herself, but she still got the virus. Our degree of protection depends on the actions of the people around us. And that's my main point throughout my posts: we're all in this together.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The Rao Case Study pointed out that smallpox vaccine did not eliminate the offending virus. That breakthroughs existed, and the vaccine effectiveness was only 3-5 years.
We immunized Americans for over 20 years after the last reported case of natural infection... and did so with a live virus vaccine that had 1000/1M vaccinated with side effects serious enough to need medical attention.

Tuberculosis is caused by bacteria... not viral.
But from Wiki... ''Rates of protection against TB infection vary widely and protection lasts up to twenty years.[4] Among children it prevents about 20% from getting infected and among those who do get infected it protects half from developing disease.[9] The vaccine is given by injection into the skin.[4] There is no evidence that additional doses are beneficial[4]."

4. "BCG vaccines: WHO position paper – February 2018". Relevé Épidémiologique Hebdomadaire. 93 (8): 73–96. February 2018. hdl:10665/260307. PMID 29474026. Lay summary (PDF).

It also states that the US has never mass immunization because the US has not had a severe outbreak. The US format is to catch latent TB, and treat with antibiotics.

Please note the immunity for all of the mentioned above is measured in YEARS..... not months!

If you want to split hairs over me calling TB a virus... whatever!

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Also respectfully,

I understand that when people hear "vaccine" they often think 100% immunity. But when scientists, doctors, and the FDA say "vaccine" they really mean anything that teaches the immune system to attack a disease--this is not necessarily 100% effective, and the scientists have been completely clear that these are "only" 90-95% effective.

I believe you are mistaken on the breakthrough cases. Here's an NBC report from yesterday that shows Massachusetts breakthrough cases are at 0.71%. So in the real world, the 95% effective vaccines are showing approximately 99% efficacy.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local...-mass/2498028/

It's funny the way humans (me included) respond to numbers--I Googled the above just to check your number, and when I saw 30,000, I thought "oh no! that's a lot of people". But it is less than 1% of the vaxxed, which is super performance

I will just leave this here.... his use of Ptown and MLB speak volumes.

I am thinking the actual breakthrough rate is close to 30%....

https://fee.org/articles/what-is-the...20state%20data.

Woodsy

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I will just leave this here.... his use of Ptown and MLB speak volumes.

I am thinking the actual breakthrough rate is close to 30%....

https://fee.org/articles/what-is-the...20state%20data.

Woodsy

FEE is not a news or science or public health organization. They are a political group.

When you say "I am thinking ..." and then back it up with only anecdotes from a political group, I am back to what I said several posts ago--it is really a bummer when people use covid for politics or inject politics into vaccines.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I will just leave this here.... his use of Ptown and MLB speak volumes.

I am thinking the actual breakthrough rate is close to 30%....

https://fee.org/articles/what-is-the...20state%20data.

Woodsy

Hey Woodsy, you should know by now that if you cite anything on this forum from any source other than left-leaning, mainstream media, then its immediately discredited and debunked. Ask me how I know....

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

FEE is not a news or science or public health organization. They are a political group.

When you say "I am thinking ..." and then back it up with only anecdotes from a political group, I am back to what I said several posts ago--it is really a bummer when people use covid for politics or inject politics into vaccines.

Ya ok! I used that site because the observations they made mirror what we are really seeing... a so called break through rate of 30%. 30% is not a break through rate... 5% would be a decent break through rate.

Then we can dive into the CDC not actually tracking break through data for non hospitalization results. If you want to dive deeper lets get the actual reports from the NBC data... what States, what was the sampling rate etc. etc. etc.

P-Town & MLB are fairly accurate mirrors of what is really happening. Especially with the MLB Covid protocols..

Woodsy

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Hey Woodsy, you should know by now that if you cite anything on this forum from any source other than left-leaning, mainstream media, then its immediately discredited and debunked. Ask me how I know....

Hahahaha! Propagating false data, debunked experiments, and untrue information is soooo funny!!!

We can discuss grey area all we want, but the crap you're called out on is absolutely, clearly disproven, and never once have you accepted that.

People like you who continue to post objectively false info are part of the problem.

AWESOME joke material! Whoop whoop!
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Ya ok! I used that site because the observations they made mirror what we are really seeing... a so called break through rate of 30%. 30% is not a break through rate... 5% would be a decent break through rate.

Then we can dive into the CDC not actually tracking break through data for non hospitalization results. If you want to dive deeper lets get the actual reports from the NBC data... what States, what was the sampling rate etc. etc. etc.

P-Town & MLB are fairly accurate mirrors of what is really happening. Especially with the MLB Covid protocols..

Woodsy

When you say P-town and MLB "mirror what we are really seeing", I am confused.

From work, family, and friends I have "anecdotal" (as you put it) data on over a hundred, maybe a couple of hundred of people who have been vaxxed. I have heard of only 1 breakthrough case in that group. So my experience mirrors the data from CDC and others.

I would guess that you also know over 100 people who have been vaxxed in your family and friends group. Are you saying that you are "seeing" 30 or more vaxxed family and friends with covid--"real" people that you know personally, not the Red Sox--with breakthrough infections? Or maybe 1 or 2 or none? Or maybe 5 or 10?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Hahahaha! Propagating false data, debunked experiments, and untrue information is soooo funny!!!

We can discuss grey area all we want, but the crap you're called out on is absolutely, clearly disproven, and never once have you accepted that.

People like you who continue to post objectively false info are part of the problem.

AWESOME joke material! Whoop whoop!
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

False information? Now that’s the real joke. It’s always your sources and your position on matters that’s the correct one (in your world only). Wake up and look around at what’s happening in this country instead of slurping up the liberal KoolAid. You might actually learn something.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

False information? Now that’s the real joke. It’s always your sources and your position on matters that’s the correct one (in your world only). Wake up and look around at what’s happening in this country instead of slurping up the liberal KoolAid. You might actually learn something.

I've called you and your posts out at least three times—all CLEARLY false. You show me I'm wrong, and I'll accept it.

But you won't—you'll continue to bloviate about "my position" rather than accept you fell for confirmation bias in support of your narrative.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Please note the immunity for all of the mentioned above is measured in YEARS..... not months!

If you want to split hairs over me calling TB a virus... whatever!

Woodsy

I simple pointed out the great deal of false information in your post.

And the 3-5 estimate was not done with modern science, because we no longer supply or do studies on the smallpox vaccine.
Modern science could actually measure the efficacy of the immunity response over the months with blood tests like it does now and determine that a booster would be needed sooner.

Problem being the smallpox vaccine has severe side effects in every 1000/1M - that is a very high rate.
It is the basis for the currently government ability to mandate a vaccine, even one with such high levels of complications and to do so for more than two decades after the last active case in the US.

To be fair smallpox has a much higher incident of death than covid.

But when making comparisons to other contagious diseases, the data must be at the least presented in a comparable format.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I used that site because the observations they made mirror what we are really seeing... a so called break through rate of 30%.

So you personally are seeing infections in 30% of the people you know who have been vaccinated? That's odd. Everyone in my personal and work circle (excluding those tradesmen I've referred to elsewhere, who aren't in my circle) is vaccinated. Only one of them has gotten Covid.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

So you personally are seeing infections in 30% of the people you know who have been vaccinated? That's odd. Everyone in my personal and work circle (excluding those tradesmen I've referred to elsewhere, who aren't in my circle) is vaccinated. Only one of them has gotten Covid.

Remember the question you asked about repeated contact with an infected person(s)?

While the CDC is showing a shallow breakthrough rate for the millions that have been vaccinated... it is likely that they also do not spend a lot of time in high risk situations. Meaning they have only a small amount of contact with possibly infected individuals.

Because of the various individual immunity levels, given enough time and opportunity, the virus will find new hosts.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Remember the question you asked about repeated contact with an infected person(s)?

While the CDC is showing a shallow breakthrough rate for the millions that have been vaccinated... it is likely that they also do not spend a lot of time in high risk situations. Meaning they have only a small amount of contact with possibly infected individuals.

Because of the various individual immunity levels, given enough time and opportunity, the virus will find new hosts.

You make a good point. Getting vaccinated is associated with minimizing risks. The people in my circle---friends and the people I work with---tend to share a similar political and social outlook, and hence similar attitudes about vaccinations, masks, and social distancing. We are all vaccinated and took the necessary precautions from the beginning. That explains why I only know one person who had a breakthrough infection, but it doesn't explain Woodsy's observation that he is seeing a 30% breakthrough rate. Still waiting to hear his explanation of that.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Kids are being "pushed" back to school because not being in school was worse for them than the risks from Covid.

Throughout the whole of last-year's in-person classes at my school, there was only one case attributed to in-school transmission, and it was with teachers who shared a (fairly small) planning space. Even that one was questionable because a couple of those affected also had family members testing positive at the same time, so it became a "which came first" scenario.

In any case, the drop in social and academic involvement and the rise in mental health issues and suicidality vs. the impact to young people from Covid is a (mostly) easy decision. This is a decision made easier when adding the efficacy of masks and contact tracing, ease of testing and hygiene steps, etc. to the process.

Really, the only reason not to have kids in school (which it always was) is to limit how much Covid is transmitted to more vulnerable populations, which is why vaccinations for those populations are essential.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Well it doesn't look like it's off to a good start.

https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-no...l-data-report/

Couple snippets from above. Children have made up 15% of the population infected. In the last week they jumped to 25%. Last week was the 3rd highest report of Children infected since the pandemic began.

Bet you they start shutting down by end of October.

[John Mercier]

The State of NH keeps a very informative section of its dashboard on this.

https://www.covid19.nh.gov/dashboard/schools

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

Well it doesn't look like it's off to a good start.

https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-no...l-data-report/

Couple snippets from above. Children have made up 15% of the population infected. In the last week they jumped to 25%. Last week was the 3rd highest report of Children infected since the pandemic began.

Bet you they start shutting down by end of October.

I don't see schools closing down in NH or MA at all. There's a lot of evidence that shows schools are not areas of spread so, when connected with our high(er) vaccination rates and the effects on children still being minimal, the reporting/concern standards are very low.

For example, MA DESE's new definition for a close contact for students with masks is over 15 minutes within three feet. Given normal desk/working/private space distance, that's essentially not possible, which means that in the last few Covid positive cases my classes, there have been no close contact quarantine/absence requirements.

So, although some of my students have caught Covid (~6 out of 100+), absences have been minimal and transmission clearly from outside the school (and, really, before school was in session).

My feeling from people's behaviors lately is that once the 5-11 vaccine is released—by Halloween? Thanksgiving?—the "pandemic" will be over.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[gravy boat]

You may have missed this depending what media you follow, but Mayorkas admitted today that 12,000 of the 17,000 Haitian migrants have already been released throughout the US, with more likely to follow.

And this past Friday Mayorkas said that nearly 15,000 Haitian migrants camped out under the Del Rio bridge were NOT tested for COVID. Up to 30,000 people were encountered in Del Rio since September 9 and that as many as 15k were there at one time.

Think about that. Not tested. Released into the US. Now, if there is proof they all received the J&j shot and isolated for 2 weeks before being released then I welcome someone here showing that proof.

Instead of the continual useless arguing among each other here, perhaps you use that anger and energy to contact your Congressman or Congresswoman and insist they either vaccinate or deny entry to all migrants, no exceptions. Also according to Mayorkas, “What we do is follow the law as Congress has passed it.”

[John Mercier]

If history has shown us anything, the Congress can get ''verbally stern'' with the Administration, but has little power to actually direct the Administration to do anything.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

I don't see schools closing down in NH or MA at all. There's a lot of evidence that shows schools are not areas of spread so, when connected with our high(er) vaccination rates and the effects on children still being minimal, the reporting/concern standards are very low.

For example, MA DESE's new definition for a close contact for students with masks is over 15 minutes within three feet. Given normal desk/working/private space distance, that's essentially not possible, which means that in the last few Covid positive cases my classes, there have been no close contact quarantine/absence requirements.

So, although some of my students have caught Covid (~6 out of 100+), absences have been minimal and transmission clearly from outside the school (and, really, before school was in session).

My feeling from people's behaviors lately is that once the 5-11 vaccine is released—by Halloween? Thanksgiving?—the "pandemic" will be over.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I agree, for now--In Mass, I think it's a race between covid and the 5-11 vaccines.

The 5-11 vaccine release is likely to generate more data on vaccine efficacy. We will probably be able to compare Mass to Mississippi, just for example. Within Mass, we will probably be able to compare towns like hi-vax Newton to towns like lo-vax Chelsea.

[WinnisquamZ]

You are insane if you allow your 5-11 year old to be vaccinated to protected others that have already been vaccinated.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

You are insane if you allow your 5-11 year old to be vaccinated to protected others that have already been vaccinated.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I do not have a 5 year old, but when I did, I had them vaxxed for a dozen(?) different things. Some of those things, such as polio, were much less of a risk to my kids than covid is today. So if the FDA approves a covid vax for kids, I recommend it.

I'm really grateful than none of my kids have suffered from polio, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, smallpox, tetanus, covid...

[WinnisquamZ]

Yes, we all had our children vaccinated when they were young. This one is different, still under emergency use only.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

They will move from an EUA to a formal approval over time.
Pfizer already has formal approval for those over the age of 16.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Yes, we all had our children vaccinated when they were young. This one is different, still under emergency use only.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

A fair point that emergency use is different. My other posts assumed full FDA approval for 5-11. I'm pretty sure that is coming in a month or two.

[John Mercier]

Full approval in a month or two? I would think the EUA would be issue first.

[icg56]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

Do we still vaccinate against smallpox? I didnt think so.

I dont think i got it,,,

None of my medical records exist from my childhood so I have no way to be sure what vaccinations I had or not. Or any other medications I was subjected to for that matter.

If you received a smallpox vaccine, you have a scar on your upper arm. It was the original vaccine card at the border; you had to show your scar. No scar/not vaccinated.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by icg56

If you received a smallpox vaccine, you have a scar on your upper arm. It was the original vaccine card at the border; you had to show your scar. No scar/not vaccinated.

I literally just discovered that this is the scar on my sister's arm that I never knew about. I never got it—we're five years apart—so I always thought it was just a birthmark...until I looked it up. Crazy!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk