[phobosanomaly]

I haven't actually seen any convincing counter-evidence presented in a clear and concise manner. I've seen some stuff that gets off in the weeds, but ignores the mechanism of T-cell and B-cell mediated immunity and the most plausible mechanisms of transmission at an aggregate level, and that only focuses on primary outcomes of clinical trials, while ignoring secondary outcomes.

But I haven't seen anything that was written in a way that would convince a mildly skeptical human (and I've spent some time behind a micropipette) that vaccines do nothing to prevent contracting and spreading viruses in a meaningful (clinical - not analytical) sense.

I'm coming to this with an open mind, and I don't think I'm being a jerk about anything. I shared a quote from the CDC at face-value. You're just some faceless dude on the internet. Why should I believe you over the CDC?

"At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection." <-- This is straight-up saying that the vaccine protects you from getting infected. I'm not quoting out of context or anything. If enough people are protected against getting infected, we reach herd immunity. Am I missing something here?

I promise I'm not masterminding some elaborate FUD campaign to undermine your premise. You're just saying something that's super-counterintuitive and then getting angry at me because I don't see clear evidence for it in what you presented.

[acqq]

You have seen the scientists writing explicit contrary to your claims, and even the specific vaccine testing protocols, I’ve given you the exact links and quotes, but you doubled down. The UK authorized Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and still:

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-vaccine-wont-free-self-1656...

“Although the vaccine will give recipients immunity from the virus, scientists do not yet know whether it will stop them being carriers.

Government sources said it was likely to be months before there was any prospect of the vaccine negating the need for self-isolation.”

[phobosanomaly]

svrb's comment is specifically with regard to vaccines: "They do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus."

What you acqq are posting is “Although the vaccine will give recipients immunity from the virus, scientists do not yet know whether it will stop them being carriers."

Can you see the very fine semantic line that is being walked here?

The public is being told by health officials that the virus gives 'immunity' from the virus. In the same breath, you are supporting the argument that it does nothing to prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus.

You guys are acting like this is all rather obvious, but it's not at all.

If I walked up to someone on the street and said that a vaccine will give them immunity, what do you think they would take that to mean?

Well, the NHS, and the CDC are both saying that the vaccine gives 'immunity' and 'protection.'

You have to stop getting angry at me, and consider that if you're not making a convincing argument to me, how the hell are you going to make a convincing argument to somebody who doesn't have a degree in biochemistry.

[acqq]

https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/528619-pfizer...

“Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Dateline host Lester Holt that the pharmaceutical company was “not certain” if the vaccine prevented the coronavirus from being transmitted, saying, “This is something that needs to be examined.””

December 03, 2020 - 02:36 PM EST

[phobosanomaly]

I'd also like to provide a different perspective from another scientist at Pfizer/BioNTech.

While Mr. Bourla is a 'business executive and veterinarian', another member of the Pfizer/BioNTech team has a different perspective.

Uğur Şahin MD, chief executive of Germany’s BioNTech, whose main field of research is cancer research and immunology, and whose company actually developed the underlying technology of the mRNA vaccine jointly released with Pfizer had this to say:

'“I’m very confident that transmission between people will be reduced by such a highly effective vaccine — maybe not 90% but maybe 50%,” he said.'

https://apnews.com/article/europe-coronavirus-pandemic-1e199...

He is wwwaaaayyyyy more qualified to have insight into the efficacy of the vaccine than a CEO and vet who has never done research in or treated human patients in the field of immunology.

[phobosanomaly]

That's a pretty well-worded statement from Al. Sounds reasonable to me. There's no RCT to definitively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will prevent someone who has received the vaccine from transmitting virus to another person under any circumstances, no matter how unusual.

Remember the claims at the start of this thread were:

"They [vaccines] do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. They only reduce the symptoms."

Albert isn't saying any of that stuff, so why on earth would I disagree with him?

Article goes on to say "In November, Pfizer announced that its vaccine candidate had been shown to be more than 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19"

Aaaaaand so we're back at my comment before this one. What do they mean by 'prevent?' Because they're saying it 'prevents' COVID-19, just like the CDC did in the quote I shared that svrb got so angry at me about.

You guys are saying the vaccine does nothing to prevent people from getting SARS-CoV-2, but the CDC, and the articles you yourself are sending me are saying that the damn thing 'prevents' COVID-19, which is an infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Is the vaccine magically making people asymptomatic while an infection rages inside of them? Is it preventing a virus that destroys lung tissue from somehow showing any outward signs of dyspnea? Is it somehow blocking a cytokine storm? I don't think so, that's how Dexamethosone is being used to treat this, not vaccines. Maybe in the long run by shifting Th1/Th2 response or something, but that would have quickly become apparent in the routine labs done in the process of clinical trials. Does it magically break up thromboemboli in the bloodstream? How would a vaccine prevent kidney damage from showing up in someone with a raging, yet completely asymptomatic infection?

What is the mechanism by which a vaccine would allow a raging infection to occur inside of someone, while showing zero outward signs of it? Because if it's knocking down levels of active virus in the body by triggering a robust T and B-cell response, it's reducing viral shedding, and it's reducing transmission. That's the same thing that all the papers you have shared with me so far have indicated.

What do you want me to say?

Don't sneeze on grandma until she gets vaccinated. I said that earlier.

[acqq]

No. Covid-19 is the illness (symptomatic). Exactly like defined in the vaccine protocols. One can carry a virus (one can have positive PCR) without being ill (asymptomatic). We also know that their CT value (which corresponds to the amount of virus) is often as low (low values are high amount of virus) as by those who have symptoms. That’s why they infect more than those with symptoms (who stay at home or in the hospital). That’s common knowledge.

[phobosanomaly]

My dude, if you review the literature (or just google it) you will find that there is common reference to 'subclinical' and 'asymptomatic' COVID-19. First-page google results for 'asymptomatic COVID-19' include an article in The BMJ from four days ago titled 'Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates.' I'm not saying I buy the findings in that study, but be conservative with what you claim to be 'common knowledge.'

Again, regarding CT values, continuity of positive nasal swab PCR results can be totally divorced from significantly decreased lower-respiratory-tract viral titers, as the Nature monkey paper you sent me pointed out.

I ask you again: What is the mechanism by which a vaccine takes a person who would normally be symptomatic, and magically makes them asymptomatic, while having zero impact on titers of virus in the body?

I'm not talking about behavior here. I'm talking about direct, biochemical mechanisms inside of the human body.

The vaccine is reducing viral titers. And by reducing viral titers, it is reducing shedding into the lower airway. And by reducing shedding into the lower airway, it is reducing the number of viral particles contained in respiratory droplets expelled from the airway. And by reducing the number of viral particles that exit that airway, it is reducing transmission as it is intended.

Behavior is a separate discussion entirely, but consider the mechanism I have described. It is not only reducing viral titers in those who would normally be symptomatic, it is also reducing viral titers in those who would normally be asymptomatic. Those silent carriers that are walking around among us, well, now they're walking around spreading a hell of a lot less virus. And that is a big deal, especially in places like Oklahoma, Idaho, Arizona, South Dakota, Wyoming, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, etc, which as I mentioned earlier, have zero state-level requirement for anyone to wear a mask at all.

You are claiming [or at least not refuting svrb's argument] that vaccines have no impact on titers of virus in the body, and yet somehow they magically render people asymptomatic by a mechanism as-yet unknown to biology.

That's just not how it works. And the fact that vaccines knock down the amount of virus being spread around is a big deal, especially in places where there are no mask requirements in place.

Earlier you accused me of spreading false information, and asked me to apologize for spreading beliefs that can put people in danger, but have you come to see that this discussion is not as clear-cut and binary as you originally made it seem?

I promise I'm not the enemy.