So we can still transmit COVID after immunization.....

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
91,404
43,983
1
Viruses rely on a host to survive and replicate. They invade the body of a human or an animal and bind with the host’s cells to allow their own genetic material (RNA) to enter the cells. The host’s own cells read the genetic code and replicate it, making more of the virus.

That new virus then leaves the cell in search of another host to infect.

Sometimes when that genetic code is being translated into proteins, a piece of the code gets changed. This is called a mutation, and they happen frequently.

“Human cells are DNA-based. And DNA – thankfully for us – has much better integrity than RNA. DNA has the ability to check itself. If there are small changes, or what we call mutations, to its genetic code, it can fix itself and get back to normal. RNA is a lot more messy,” Dr. Kasper said.

“This perpetual cycle goes on of constant replication. Each time a replication occurs, there is a small chance that code could change. When you have this go over a huge population over time, the odds start to favor that the virus will adjust. It’s evolution on a very, very rapid level.”

A virus lives in the host who is vaccinated. That is the point of the OP.

Here is what we know.

  • Based on evidence from clinical trials, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in people without evidence of previous infection.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
18,954
4,176
1
A virus lives in the host who is vaccinated. That is the point of the OP.

Here is what we know.

  • Based on evidence from clinical trials, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in people without evidence of previous infection.

They only studied preventing illness to speed up the approvals for the vaccines.

Now they are studying prevention of infection.

Ever since the US vaccine rollout officially commenced in December, a question that has been top of mind is whether the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines created by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech would perform as well under real-world conditions as they did in the laboratory. Though the clinical trials of mRNA vaccines proved they were largely effective at preventing disease, their ability to prevent infection remained unknown.​
Thanks to a study published yesterday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we now have our answer. According to the study, which was conducted on nearly 4,000 healthcare workers, first responders, and other essential workers at the frontlines in eight locations across the country, the mRNA vaccines are 90 percent effective at preventing infection. That means in addition to stopping the development of Covid-19 symptoms, they can stop the disease from spreading from one person to another, too.​
In December 2020, the study’s participants, who lived everywhere from Phoenix, Arizona to Portland, Oregon, began receiving doses of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Almost three quarters had at least one dose by March 2021. To cast a wide net that could catch both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, researchers required their subjects to test themselves for Covid-19 week in and week out using standard nasal swabs.​
In the group of unvaccinated workers, 161 ended up developing infections. By contrast, in the group of vaccinated workers, only 16 who received one dose caught the virus before they could get their second, while just three received both but caught it in the two-week period following the second dose. It was those three infections that brought the efficacy of the full two-dose regimen of the mRNA vaccines down to 90 percent. The mRNA vaccines aren’t foolproof, in other words, but given the circumstances they’re performing remarkably well.​
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
16,181
20,636
1
2020evidence.org
They only studied preventing illness to speed up the approvals for the vaccines.

Now they are studying prevention of infection.

Ever since the US vaccine rollout officially commenced in December, a question that has been top of mind is whether the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines created by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech would perform as well under real-world conditions as they did in the laboratory. Though the clinical trials of mRNA vaccines proved they were largely effective at preventing disease, their ability to prevent infection remained unknown.​
Thanks to a study published yesterday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we now have our answer. According to the study, which was conducted on nearly 4,000 healthcare workers, first responders, and other essential workers at the frontlines in eight locations across the country, the mRNA vaccines are 90 percent effective at preventing infection. That means in addition to stopping the development of Covid-19 symptoms, they can stop the disease from spreading from one person to another, too.​
In December 2020, the study’s participants, who lived everywhere from Phoenix, Arizona to Portland, Oregon, began receiving doses of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Almost three quarters had at least one dose by March 2021. To cast a wide net that could catch both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, researchers required their subjects to test themselves for Covid-19 week in and week out using standard nasal swabs.​
In the group of unvaccinated workers, 161 ended up developing infections. By contrast, in the group of vaccinated workers, only 16 who received one dose caught the virus before they could get their second, while just three received both but caught it in the two-week period following the second dose. It was those three infections that brought the efficacy of the full two-dose regimen of the mRNA vaccines down to 90 percent. The mRNA vaccines aren’t foolproof, in other words, but given the circumstances they’re performing remarkably well.​
Great...lets see how these people do against variants in the coming months and if they develop autoimmune disorders, cancers, etc. in 10-20 years when compared to non vaccinated people. Instead of ASSUMING things like that won't happen (since we have no long term data on mRNA products) we could instead use Ivermectin which has tons of safety data, is 85% effective at preventing transmission, and obliterates the virus if infected. No no saint fauci and his precious vaccine patents couldn't have now that can he.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjbankos

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
9,709
5,938
1
Will vaccinations "severely curtail" the virus?

That was the point of the question.

Starting to sound like the vaccine doesn't "severely curtail", but only "somewhat curtails" the ever mutating virus.

No. It severely curtails it. I'm not sure why that's even a question.

Vast majority of vax'd people who are exposed to the virus will fight it off before they become infected (infected enough) to be contageous -- And for the very small percentage that do become contageous, it will be for a very short period of time.

For their stated purpose, the vaccines are freaking amazing. Way better than advertised. The only concern anyone should maybe have - depending on their situation - is potential long term negative effects. And for the record, I'm not saying there is any (reasonable) reason to expect long term problems, but with this being a vaccine that works a different way, we just don't know -- We have no historical data older than eight months.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
91,404
43,983
1
No. It severely curtails it. I'm not sure why that's even a question.

Vast majority of vax'd people who are exposed to the virus will fight it off before they become infected (infected enough) to be contageous -- And for the very small percentage that do become contageous, it will be for a very short period of time.

For their stated purpose, the vaccines are freaking amazing. Way better than advertised. The only concern anyone should maybe have - depending on their situation - is potential long term negative effects. And for the record, I'm not saying there is any (reasonable) reason to expect long term problems, but with this being a vaccine that works a different way, we just don't know -- We have no historical data older than eight months.

The highlighted part is not settled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
16,181
20,636
1
2020evidence.org
No. It severely curtails it. I'm not sure why that's even a question.

Vast majority of vax'd people who are exposed to the virus will fight it off before they become infected (infected enough) to be contageous -- And for the very small percentage that do become contageous, it will be for a very short period of time.

For their stated purpose, the vaccines are freaking amazing. Way better than advertised. The only concern anyone should maybe have - depending on their situation - is potential long term negative effects. And for the record, I'm not saying there is any (reasonable) reason to expect long term problems, but with this being a vaccine that works a different way, we just don't know -- We have no historical data older than eight months.
They are ok if you completely discount the issues seen in animal testing (pathogenic priming, autoimmune disorders, etc.) and if the spike protein doesn't change too much (which it undoubtedly will due to vaccine pressure and "training" the virus to mutate its spike protein by mass deploying a leaky vaccine when there's tons of virus in circulation). But yeah other than that they are amazing!
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
9,709
5,938
1
The highlighted part is not settled.

Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of "vast majority," but the number is probably EASILY > 90% (probably more like 99%). If you consider 90% "vast majority," as do I, then you can safely consider it settled.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
9,709
5,938
1
They are ok if you completely discount the issues seen in animal testing (pathogenic priming, autoimmune disorders, etc.) and if the spike protein doesn't change too much (which it undoubtedly will due to vaccine pressure and "training" the virus to mutate its spike protein by mass deploying a leaky vaccine when there's tons of virus in circulation). But yeah other than that they are amazing!

Well, regardless of whether or not those are legitimate concerns (I'm honestly not commenting on that one way or another because I haven't done any of my own research on that), I would put them in my "potential long term negative effects" category that I said is the only concern anyone should have.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the difference between you and I (on this very particular topic) is that you're enumerating some potential negative long term side effects that you think you see as possibilities, where as I'm just generically saying "potential long term side effects" -- whatever they may end up being (hopefully none). No?
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
16,181
20,636
1
2020evidence.org
Well, regardless of whether or not those are legitimate concerns (I'm honestly not commenting on that one way or another because I haven't done any of my own research on that), I would put them in my "potential long term negative effects" category that I said is the only concern anyone should have.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the difference between you and I (on this very particular topic) is that you're enumerating some potential negative long term side effects that you think you see as possibilities, where as I'm just generically saying "potential long term side effects" -- whatever they may end up being (hopefully none). No?
That post was sort of TIC as we seem to agree mostly on this topic, the one part I disagreed with you was this:

" I'm not saying there is any (reasonable) reason to expect long term problems"

There are very reasonable reasons to expect long term problems:
1. As you said there's no long term safety data so the prudent position would be to assume there will be until we know for sure. This isn't something we should be rolling the dice on especially when there are well known drugs that are safe, cheap, and effective such as HCQ+zinc and even better is Ivermectin
2. The animal studies were horrific and ended in death and severe disease for ALL animals that received the vaccine after being exposed to wild viruses.
3. The manufactures have ZERO liability therefore no incentive to make a safe product. If it turns out 10 years from now their vaccines are killing people from autoimmune diseases, cancer, etc. it's no sweat off their back. No liability = no trust.

The animal studies track record is the reason that before all the covid fear porn in 2020 no coronavirus vaccine was ever brought to market (they've been trying since early 2000's). They could never get past this hurdle. Lo and behold the animal studies were largely skipped for these mRNA vaccines and went straight to human trials. How convenient and not concerning at all!! Then when submitting their data to the FDA the public wasn't allowed to see the raw data. Nothing to see here...
 
Last edited:

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
9,709
5,938
1
That post was sort of TIC as we seem to agree mostly on this topic, the one part I disagreed with you was this:

" I'm not saying there is any (reasonable) reason to expect long term problems"

There are very reasonable reasons to expect long term problems:
1. As you said there's no long term safety data so the prudent position would be to assume there will be until we know for sure. This isn't something we should be rolling the dice on especially when there are well known drugs that are safe, cheap, and effective such as HCQ+zinc and even better is Ivermectin
2. The animal studies were horrific and ended in death and severe disease for ALL animals that received the vaccine after being exposed to wild viruses.
3. The manufactures have ZERO liability therefore no incentive to make a safe product. If it turns out 10 years from now their vaccines are killing people from autoimmune diseases, cancer, etc. it's no sweat off their back. No liability = no trust.

The animal studies track record is the reason that before all the covid fear porn in 2020 no coronavirus vaccine was ever brought to market (they've been trying since early 2000's). They could never get past this hurdle. Lo and behold the animal studies were largely skipped for these mRNA vaccines and went straight to human trials. How convenient and not concerning at all!! Then when submitting their data to the FDA the public wasn't allowed to see the raw data. Nothing to see here...

I don't know about any of that stuff. Not saying you're wrong or I disagree - I just literally don't have any knowledge of it, so no opinion.

And "I'm not saying there is any (reasonable) reason to expect long term problems" does not equal "There aren't any (reasonable) reasons to expect long term problems." I was just making it clear that *I* was not suggesting that there are "(reasonable) reasons to expect long term problems."
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

PSU Lion 2000

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2002
720
90
1
I know a guy who got it from his daughter who was a heath care worker and had been immunized months ago. She had been exposed by an in-law. She didn't get it, but she passed it on.

Now what? How does this end? Shit, if the entire US was immunized, we could be passing it back and forth for a long time...........

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/if-youre-vaccinated-can-you-transmit-covid-19-what-we-know
How in the world do they know this for certain? The virus doesn't leave a receipt with each transfer.
 

PSU Lion 2000

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2002
720
90
1
Approximately 5800 case of Covid for those vaccinated. 66M vaccinated which works out to about 0.008% of the vaccinated population. Can you get it sure, but you are likely to be asymptomatic and your ability to pass it on would be very limited. Right now the vaccines are way better than the 95% effective number.
That stat would make sense if the 66M vaccinated people were each tested weekly for COVID. They aren't. Most vaccinated people will not take a COVID test again.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
18,001
10,166
1
That stat would make sense if the 66M vaccinated people were each tested weekly for COVID. They aren't. Most vaccinated people will not take a COVID test again.

the 5800 cases are symptomatic cases. Asymptomatic cases offer little threat to those infected and carry a low viral load wrt to the ability to infect others and pose low risk to others.
 

gjbankos

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2006
57,787
34,540
1
That stat would make sense if the 66M vaccinated people were each tested weekly for COVID. They aren't. Most vaccinated people will not take a COVID test again.
And the testing procedures have lightened up over time to make it less likely to test positive.
 

knickslions

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2005
215
260
1
I don't know about any of that stuff. Not saying you're wrong or I disagree - I just literally don't have any knowledge of it, so no opinion.

And "I'm not saying there is any (reasonable) reason to expect long term problems" does not equal "There aren't any (reasonable) reasons to expect long term problems." I was just making it clear that *I* was not suggesting that there are "(reasonable) reasons to expect long term problems."
Ya he doesn’t know what he is talking about either. The preclinical work on these type of mRNA have been fine. He’s making shit up he read off some bogus website. Trust the people that actually do the work.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
16,181
20,636
1
2020evidence.org
And the testing procedures have lightened up over time to make it less likely to test positive.
This ^^^^. Notice how the timing of them recommending lower cycle counts on the pcr tests coincided perfectly with the rollout of the vaccines? Which completely skews the numbers re: vaccine effectiveness.
Ya he doesn’t know what he is talking about either. The preclinical work on these type of mRNA have been fine. He’s making shit up he read off some bogus website. Trust the people that actually do the work.
I’ve backed my position with links to animal studies. What specific things am I making up?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
18,954
4,176
1
And the testing procedures have lightened up over time to make it less likely to test positive.

That's why we look at the positivity rate for tests. If you aren't testing enough then the positivity rate for the tests you do administer will be high. Right now the positivity rate in the US is 3.9% an all time low. It peaked at almost 23 % when covid first started spreading.

In India right now the positivity rate is well over 20%.

Delhi on Wednesday reported 20,960 Covid-19 cases, pushing the tally to 12,53,902. The positivity rate dipped to 26.37 per cent, which is the lowest since the commencement of lockdown on April 19.​
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
16,181
20,636
1
2020evidence.org
That's why we look at the positivity rate for tests. If you aren't testing enough then the positivity rate for the tests you do administer will be high. Right now the positivity rate in the US is 3.9% an all time low. It peaked at almost 23 % when covid first started spreading.

In India right now the positivity rate is well over 20%.

Delhi on Wednesday reported 20,960 Covid-19 cases, pushing the tally to 12,53,902. The positivity rate dipped to 26.37 per cent, which is the lowest since the commencement of lockdown on April 19.​
Basing any hysteria/concern on pcr tests (that aren’t even specific to sars-cov2 and don’t tell you if there is a clinically significant amount of virus) is completely irrational and dumb.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
18,954
4,176
1
Basing any hysteria/concern on pcr tests (that aren’t even specific to sars-cov2 and don’t tell you if there is a clinically significant amount of virus) is completely irrational and dumb.

I've seen pretty good correlation between number of new daily positive tests - new hospitalizations - new covid deaths.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
16,181
20,636
1
2020evidence.org
I've seen pretty good correlation between number of new daily positive tests - new hospitalizations - new covid deaths.
And? Case, hospitalization, and death numbers are all based on the shitty/inaccurate pcr tests. They could literally be listing someone who was hospitalized and died of flu as a covid death. The test can’t distinguish between the two.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
18,954
4,176
1
And? Case, hospitalization, and death numbers are all based on the shitty/inaccurate pcr tests. They could literally be listing someone who was hospitalized and died of flu as a covid death. The test can’t distinguish between the two.

You need to get help.
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
14,039
17,972
1
You need to get help.

Even the FDA has decided to severely limit the PCR Ct thresholds when examining vaccine breakthrough cases. If we had been using 28 all along like the FDA is going to use, we'd literally have a small fraction of cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
16,181
20,636
1
2020evidence.org
You need to get help.
For what? What I said is a fact. The fda admits in it’s own instructions re: pcr tests that they aren’t specific to sars-cov2


https://rumble.com/vbks5v-pcr-test-inventor-explains-why-its-not-relevant.html (PCR test inventor explains why its not relevant)

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download (See Page 39: FDA Guide On PCR Tests For Covid19: “cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens”)

Nothing to see here:
• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the
causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV
infection.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products
for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.