I forgot to get all my booster shots!
Bit of a chellenge coming up with a possible mechanism behind this result. It's probably akin to the "immune fatigue" previous found, but how and why? Thoughts?
(5 votes)
Vaccine now increases infection risk
I forgot to get all my booster shots!
Bit of a chellenge coming up with a possible mechanism behind this result. It's probably akin to the "immune fatigue" previous found, but how and why? Thoughts?
Comments
(Old Spike)
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/study-finds-gradual-increase-in-covid-infection-risk-after-second-vaccine-dose/
(Old Spike)
meant to edit, seem to have double posted.
(Old Spike)
yes that study is a year old. this one finds much more conclusively that the risk goes up after the first dose not the second, and goes up significantly not slightly.
(Old Spike)
Still the risk of severe sickness is significantly reduced, so I don't see the issue (unless any of the studies recommends not vaccinating due to more dangerous sickness)
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
No issue that a vaccine designed to prevent a disease makes you more likely to catch the disease?
I'd say that's a pretty dodgy vaccine but I'm not an expert in the field.
(Old Spike)
This is why experts and not you or me advise on that. It is simply weighing up risk and benefit. My question is did the study recommend to stop vaccinating? I guess not, otherwise all the antivaxtards would have crawled all over it. Oh wait, looks like they are.......
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"My question is did the study recommend to stop vaccinating?"
I don't know. Lets see how it plays out since it's still an ongoing study.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if they say it's fine or even recommended for everyone with 5x booster.
Billions of $$$ are at stake.
...and my question for you was
"No issue that a vaccine designed to prevent a disease makes you more likely to catch the disease?"
Can you give a personal opinion or do we just have to wait what the experts tell you to say.
I may be way off target since I'm not an expert but it's my understanding that vaccines are typically designed to prevent diseases, or at the very least lessen the chances of getting said disease. Again, I might be way off here but thats my general understanding of vaccines.
(Old Spike)
It has been known pretty much from roll out of all the vaccines that they will not protect 100% from infections, back in the day the favourite word of the antivaxtards was "leakage", of course they were completely ignorant about what they thought they were criticising. It was made clear though that the severity of the desease was expected to be way less severe for the vaccinated. This is still the case and it is also similar to the behaviour of the fluy vaccine in this respect, I believe.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Nobody ever said it would be 100% effective, but for the first variants, the estimates were pretty high.
Remember all that talk about heard immunity?
It entails that the majority gets vaccinated and it slows / stops the spread so the virus eventually disappears or at least goes to very low numbers. As you might have noticed, it didn't happen even though good vaccination coverage. Now if we are going to the other direction where the vaccine actually increases infections, then it's really not looking good.
About the leaky vaccines, well we are seeing exactly what it predicted. Many new variants that are more contagious.
The idea is if the vaccine doesn't kill the virus effectively and is only given some resistance, it gives it a good environment to evolve into new variants.
I doubt we will ever know what kind of impact the vaccines had on covids evolution vs variants that arose naturally.
(Old Spike)
hey, i don't talk to many people here so i got a pretty good memory of the times i do talk
you've said you didn't get the vax. you said you got the virus three times. you've spent time enforcing the idea that the vaccines were going to be 100% effective as to use the true effectiveness as a reason not to take the vax. you've also misused the leaky term a few times. it goes from describing a breakthrough cases which you said happens in every vaccine to being used to describe a mutation to the virus caused by the vax which still hasn't been proven since the last time we spoke about it. and the list goes on..
deffinatly somes problems but its not with the vaccine
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"you've spent time enforcing the idea that the vaccines were going to be 100% effective as to use the true effectiveness as a reason not to take the vax."
If I've ever claimed 100% effectiveness, then I've miss spoken. But it was claimed to be highly effective. Just in this video the guy quoted a study for the early variants where it was said to be 97% effective. Don't think that really ever materialized because then the virus would be almost eradicated.
My reason for not taking the vaccine is because it was produced fast and it was a new kind of vaccine. Really just thinking what if people start dropping dead in a couple of years or get some kind of complication down to road?
This kind of thing happened to my cousin with the swine flu vaccine. Some kind of permanent neurological disorder. Also a lot of narcolepsy cases that they actually admitted to.
" it goes from describing a breakthrough cases which you said happens in every vaccine to being used to describe a mutation to the virus caused by the vax which still hasn't been proven since the last time we spoke about it. and the list goes on.."
Well if there are many breakthrough cases and / or just people spreading it without symptoms thats all you need. Thats the breeding ground for new variants. Some vaccines are nearly 100% effective, other not so good.
I don't think you can ever prove how much "natural variants" there are vs. what variants we got from a vaccine that gives some protection but doesn't kill the virus. Hard to pinpoint as the world isn't exactly a clean lab setting.
(Old Spike)
Further to what sal said: read the study, tell us where you think it says vaccination is no longer recommended. Oh well, I forgot, you are not "interested enough" to do this and prefer to stick with your own opinion. I can't help you, hun.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
As I said, don't think they will do that. Gotta make that $$$.
(Old Spike)
lol, but if you are such an expert on these things why do you decline to read the paper and explain it to us. Just saying "people are too greedy" to be able to accept this is skeptoid level idiocy and makes you look a fool (as do all your comments on this post btw).
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Don't know what you want out of me. Did I say something about not recommending the vaccination?
If being more susceptible to covid in exchange to possibly being more protected from serious illness sounds like a good deal to you, then take it, but remember you do have permission to question and think for yourself too.
Experts also recommended my cousin the swine flu vaccine and got a lifelong neurological condition from it. So, all I can say it's everyone's own choice.
There are the experts AND then in the mix theres politics, covernments and a shit load of money to be made by multi-billion corporations. If you think it all just works seamlessly for the sole purpose of protecting the people, then I think you are being naive.
(Old Spike)
Still trying so desperately to look like a fool:
https://www.nicswell.co.uk/health-news/swine-flu-vaccine-link-to-deadly-nerve-condition
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
In my cousins case the doctors never admitted the vaccine had anything to do with it. No compensation, just an early retirement in her 30's since she wasn't able to work anymore. But it's good she took one for the team. Wasn't really eager to take the vaccine in the first place, but was peer pressured into it as she was a nurse.
Same goes for the people who got narcolepsy, but at least here in Finland they got compensation for that.
(Old Spike)
correlation does not always mean causation. autism and the mmr vaccine are other prime examples for this.
(Site Administrator)
Where's the video gone to, guys? I want to see it.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yeah, the guy removed it for some reason. Might find a repost somewhere?
(Old Spike)
lol, why? If you are really interested better read the study itself without this guy's opinion attached to it. Probably was forced to remove it because he was distorting the findings.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Probably was forced to remove it because he was distorting the findings."
Probably? Why say "probably" when you can check it?
So you didn't read the paper, and you're accusing me of not reading the paper :D
(Old Spike)
Well you don't know whether or not I read the study, in any case, in contrary to you I don't think these findings make a case against covid vaccinations, to me this is just proof that the scientific system works. Also I can't check it, even if I wanted to, the video was removed so I can't watch it now. YOU have a problem with it, so YOU point them out please.....
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Well you don't know whether or not I read the study"
My guess is no but you can answer that to yourself and see if you're being hypocritical.
"YOU have a problem with it, so YOU point them out please....."
Please remind me, whats my problem again?
I would not take it, but I would not tell anyone not to take it if they choose to. It's not a problem for me.
Again, my non-expert opinion is that the vaccine seem to be kind of shitty if it increases the infection rate the more booster you take and only has a 30% efficacy rate. Can we at least agree that it's not exactly optimal?
(Old Spike)
doesn't even try to comprehend full scope of scientific studies, posts pictures of statistics like he knows what he is talking about, yay!
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So you we can't even agree that the vaccine isn't optimal, huh?
If you have something to add about the stats, then please do, oh fellow non-expert with higher comprehension than mine.
(Old Spike)
sigh, I remain undecided whether you making such a desperate fool out of yourself is actually more sad than it is hillarious.
If you are so good at this you should become a doctor, or better a virologist. You would have to study this shit in depth, though.....
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You keep dodging this question. -> So we can't even agree that the vaccine isn't optimal, huh?
I'm not being sarcastic when I'm saying I'm a non-expert on this. Thats what I am. I can comprehend the main idea of that graph though. I'm talking to another non-expert whos only input is shooting condesending remarks.
Whats you objective here?
You wanna educate me or maybe even learn something together?
OR
You just trying to live up to your name? Mainly the last part...
(Old Spike)
i'm no expert but what does this mean?
Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
its on the website where you got the pic from
(Old Spike)
Oh, sal, this graph apparently confirms the poster's bias so it doesn't matter where it is taken from and whether or not it is contextual or significant.
We should be glad he went through the trouble to bless us plebs with this graph.
(Site Administrator)
Guys, can I get the link to the actual published paper please.
Edit, ok found at:
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-067873
(Old Spike)
no, thats a different study, he's using this one https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1
(Site Administrator)
Will try to check it out tomorrow thanks.
(Site Administrator)
Here they're showing that anywhere between 12-19% of vaccinated people in an Israeli test population (depending on age group) tested positive for covid-19 by 6mos after their second dose. Sorry..where's the controversy?
(Old Spike)
There is none.
What there is are people that do a lot of selective reading of studies and publish their "interpretations" on this. Then there are those that claim to be "suspicious" or "skeptic" ('member that one) but actually only look for confirmation bias who eat their shit up unchallenged.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Heres the paper. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full
(Old Spike)
for one.using studies that specifically tell you not to use for anything. the other is using studies that are for something and people using them for other purposes. take the graph you just posted. its from a study that concludes that protection wanes after 90 days and that a third shot is warrented. you're ignoring the fact that this study doesn't look into whats happening with the unvaccinated. sure. they fill up the hospitals and the morgues. studies show the vaccine gives more protection and somehow. you guys take graphs from something and try to make it out like the vaccines don't work
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"or one.using studies that specifically tell you not to use for anything."
I know. Thats what I said earlier in this thread, that it's still an on going investigation and we have to see how it plays out.
Have to wait for replications. They claim high confidence levels but of course there can be flaws in the study.
(Old Spike)
you're looking at study that says a third shot is warranted. wait as long as you want. its never going to become a study that says the vaccines don't work. you're basically championing not going to the dentist because dentists are the ones that cause cavities. if you don't go, you never get them. sure you lose your teeth but you're not an expert and you're using this to prove it
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"you're looking at study that says a third shot is warranted."
Yes, and possibly a forth, and a fifth, and so on.
"wait as long as you want. its never going to become a study that says the vaccines don't work."
Never said so. How well this particular vaccine work is really the question here.
I would guess this is pretty common knowledge for anyone who hasn't been living under a rock that the vaccine is supposed to give at least some protection against infection. Say so on the CDC's site.
But IF you actually become more susceptible to the virus, well, then thats quite interesting to say the least.
(Old Spike)
why aren't you looking at studies that compare having the vaccine to not having it if you want to look how effective it is?
(Site Administrator)
Wait, can you do that?? Of course you can. Look at you, keeping an open mind and dispassionately asking the right questions.
Backdraft, Sal is right. You seem so keen to demonstrate that vaccines aren't effective against infection or reinfection but you seem to be overlooking the reported disparity in severity and duration of infection (including mortality rates) between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
Anyway, the Chinese are now traveling without restriction again so it's just a matter of time before a new variant makes the headlines and we're scrambling again for a new formula. What you need to ask yourself is: have you already made up your mind about definitely not taking it. Again, if you don't like mRNA, I'm sure they'll have *original recipe*, chalk full of mercury, metals and those other preservatives they said for years (without evidence), were giving babies autism or whatever.
(Old Spike)
I believe that is what I said from the start of this "discussion": Is it due to the findings recommended not to vaccinate? I don't think they even question it!
backdraft is just like a kid at the dinner table saying "I don't eat that spinach!"
Fair enough, don't!
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Did you miss my post above?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
@Bob
"You seem so keen to demonstrate that vaccines aren't effective against infection or reinfection but you seem to be overlooking the reported disparity in severity and duration of infection (including mortality rates) between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations."
I'm not overlooking it. Just think it's kind of curious that the vaccine makes you more susceptible to the virus. Would think the first line of defense is not getting infected.
For contrast a paper from 2021 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.02.21258231v1
"have you already made up your mind about definitely not taking it."
I've had it now atleast 3 times, so I think I'll survive without the vaccine. Same story with the kids and wife.
First time was like a bad flu that stuck for a long time. The kids got better way faster than me.
2 and 3 were just normal flu symptoms.
(Site Administrator)
Thanks Backdraft for the link to the actual paper. Without access to the originally posted video, I won't know if this was already addressed, but there's definitely a problem with their sampling methodology. It says:
"METHODS. Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment on the day the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available to employees, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over the following weeks." Remember that the bivalent vaccine only became available in this last round of innoculations (for my family, around Nov'22). This means you may now have an over-representation of the conscientious objectors (see, I'm being nice) who were previously suspended or getting back to work only after the vaccination requirement was lifted. The authors go on to say in the DISCUSSION section..
"The study has several limitations. Individuals with unrecognized prior infection would have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Since prior infection protects against subsequent infection, such misclassification would have resulted in underestimating the protective effect of the vaccine. However, there is little reason to suppose that prior infections would have been missing in the bivalent vaccinated and non-vaccinated states at disproportionate rates. Those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine might have been more worried about infection and might have been more likely to get tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine."
Combined, the two statements basically say you'll potentially see an over-representation of infection in the hospital employees having more doses, simply because they were around, getting exposed/infected AND tested (per hospital protocols) the most. ie. having better documentation of past and new infections vs those with fewer/no doses.
It certainly explains why the publication's initial reviewer may have proposed further controls be implemented by the authors before this can be sent on for peer review. Basically, do better.
Hope this helps!
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"This means you may now have an over-representation of the conscientious objectors (see, I'm being nice) who were previously suspended or getting back to work only after the vaccination requirement was lifted."
Not sure how this has anything to do with it.
"Combined, the two statements basically say you'll potentially see an over-representation of infection in the hospital employees having more doses, simply because they were around, getting exposed/infected AND tested (per hospital protocols) the most. ie. having better documentation of past and new infections vs those with fewer/no doses.
Sure these might swing the numbers, but how much we don't know.
"It certainly explains why the publication's initial reviewer may have proposed further controls be implemented by the authors before this can be sent on for peer review."
Yes agreed.
As I said early in this mile-long thread. We have to wait and see how it plays out. The study needs to be replicated and hopefully with better controls.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
@Sal
The guy quoted a study in the video and said the first vaccine was about 97% effective for the original strain, but
this is a new version of the vaccine. A bivalent vaccine designed to combat the original strain and the Omicron variants.
The effectiveness according to this paper is 30%
Also, approved without human testing -> https://www.health.com/news/new-covid-boosters-human-testing-safety
So it does help, but not optimal given what the first one did. Would you agree?
(Old Spike)
what guy? all i see is a Video unavailable. This video has been removed by the uploader. its like the poster knew something about the video he posted and took it down but left all you guys swinging in the wind
maybe you should spend some time reading the discussion part and then you'll know why he deleted it. its 30% effective to your 0% of i'm not an expert and i didn't read the studies i'm sharing
that health.com site has got a fast fact you got to skip over to read the article. "Vaccine approval without human clinical trials is not unheard of—in fact, flu shots are developed and updated in this way each year"
nothing from nothing is nothing
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" its like the poster knew something about the video he posted and took it down but left all you guys swinging in the wind"
Well we can speculate all we want.
Maybe he misrepresented it and doesn't want to own up to it.
Though he had a similar graph in his never videos where he was showing a similar thing. -> After 90 days of a second vaccination the odds of getting covid is higher than with the unvaccinated. With the third dose it's even worse. Now, thats what I call a super leaky vaccine (my non professional assessment).
Or maybe he got paranoid.
At the end of the video he did say "I apologize if I won't be as much publically available as before"
"its 30% effective to your 0% of i'm not an expert and i didn't read the studies i'm sharing"
I'm no expert but with the number of infections I've had, I'm probably better protected than some vaccinated.
""Vaccine approval without human clinical trials is not unheard of—in fact, flu shots are developed and updated in this way each year""
Yes, but if not for safety reasons, maybe just to see how well it works. Well, they get paid either way.
(Old Spike)
"...the odds of getting covid is higher than with the unvaccinated..." this statement on its own is completely meaningless no matter how often it is repeated. So is the "leaky" argument standing on its own. It is simply cherrypicking what some (non experts of course) perceive as "flaws".
1. "unvaccinated" is not a homgenically defined group, so should be sub categorised in:
- never were positive for covid
- were recently positive for covid (define period)
- were less recently positive for covid (define period)
- and maybe add a few more even less recent periods and maybe also number of times infected in the past
Otherwise the whole comparison doesn't make much sense as it is completely unclear when the "unvaccinated" last had covid.
EVEN IF this is done the data has to be taken with a shovel of salt as "the unvaccinated" are not an as closely monitored group as "the vaccinated".
2. It needs to be catregorised in severity of infection, as an important factor of the protection by vaccine for covid is that the actually disease is less deadly and severe.
If this is not the case any longer, then vaccination may not be recommended until another new strain makes a case for a modified vaccine.
This is just two things, there are (probably) way more.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Otherwise the whole comparison doesn't make much sense as it is completely unclear when the "unvaccinated" last had covid."
It was UK government stats that showed this.
I assume these are experts doing the stats and concluded there's some useful info there.
But I agree, those are important factors to take into account. Then again, if a vaccinated gets infected (and possibly goes undiagnosed), would that count as a "booster" if the same applies for the unvaccinated?
(Site Administrator)
To your last question, not necessarily, since another factor would be that you're depleting the reserve of unvaccinated individuals with important co-morbidities (pre-existing conditions) since proportionally more of these individuals would have died in the first round of the pandemic (under the more virulent strains that attacked the lower airways/lungs).
(Old Spike)
The info is "as useful as it gets" as we do not have anything else. Hence it has to be taken with a shovel of salt, and this is what the experts, unlike the "skeptics" with an agenda*, actually do.
If a vaccinated person gets covid afaik it is currently not recommended to get a booster until at least 1/2 a year has passed so yes I guess you are correct. BTW this is why my wife and I did not get the 3rd vaccination yet, we were "positive" in August (mildest symptoms, we found out sort of by accident).
* Same rules apply for climate change, btw, it is a hugely complicated topic and the "skeptics" always pick up on one thing they think is important, when they actually should focus on the big picture, but then they would run out of arguments quicke than a paid hooker puts her clothes on.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"The info is "as useful as it gets" as we do not have anything else. Hence it has to be taken with a shovel of salt, and this is what the experts, unlike the "skeptics" with an agenda*, actually do."
I'm sure this will be investigated a lot more (certainly hope so) in the following months and years. Just have to wait.
Interesting though how you, a non expert can determine the amount of salt needed. Who knows, maybe these numbers are way off, but we don't really know yet.
(Old Spike)
i know you didn't read the study. i know why john deleted the video and why he kept it up on rumble. i would have to say that this. much like the 9/11 thing, your position is based on purposefully staying ignorant on the topics your espousing
(Site Administrator)
Now that bit about keeping it up on rumble says a lot, don't it. Sure it's of the 'clic' variety but in the end...
(Old Spike)
One of the things with these kind of topics that we can use, evan as a layman, our intuition for is "unreliable data to be taken with a shovel of salt", lol. But that doesn't concern you as long as the results posted are what you want to hear......
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
As a layman to another, should I listen to your intuition or mine?
So far my intuition tell me to take the stats (that are made by experts) with a pinch of salt.
"But that doesn't concern you as long as the results posted are what you want to hear......"
What I'd like to hear is that the vaccine is super effective and stops infections.
(Old Spike)
well than you should look at studies about a vaccine before everybody got the virus. that part you skipped in the study. says that 75% of kids and 60% of adults had just had the omicron virus and that it might be a reason the vaccine might seem underwhelming. if you think about that. its pretty important to the study. like. the reason you would delete a video
(Old Spike)
"What I'd like to hear is that the vaccine is super effective and stops infections."
Oh wouldn't we all. But even if it were you would find arguments against it. You, dear sir, are hillarious!
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Ok then.