Why Some Who Are Vaccinated Still Get Coronavirus

[LBDamned]

I dont get the flu shot. And don't get the flu. Enough said.

What I do or don't do doesn't mean you have to. And vice versa.

[bigbossman]

You absolutely cannot get sick from the inactivated vaccine or the shot. It’s crazy some Americans still think this is true. It’s all in your head....

Not true. While you can't actually get the flu, you can get flu like symptoms. It most assuredly not "all in your head" - that's a fact.

https://www.gohealthuc.com/library/can-flu-shot-make-you-sick

https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19544378/flu-shot-side-effects/

.....You may also experience other flu shot side effects, like a low-grade fever, body aches, headache, and an overall feeling of illness....

[ERdept]

That's right and some may have gotten the virus before their injection..


Think of it like the flu shot, you can still get the flu but it's not as bad.


so in this case where there are people who have co-morbidities and may die or get hospitalized, they would benefit... such as old, with copd, diabetes, hypertension, etc.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

No, they didn't. I never saw oversell. They said a vaccine is the way to herd immunity, and it is a way to herd immunity. The effective numbers are very good, but no vaccine is 100% effective. None ever has been, likely none ever will. The science is if enough people DO get the antibodies, it won't matter that 10% or so don't, because the herd cannot carry the pathogen.

First, 'oversell' is somewhat subjective and not what I said.

Second, I did say they touted it as a 'short cut' to herd immunity; which is the role of vaccination.

Third, the 'effective numbers' being cited are "in the lab;" i.e., from the test groups and are, thus, inferences. We don't know... yet... what the real world, efficacy rate is. In fact, it's something they are looking into right now, bearing in mind that only something like 32,000,000 doses have been released; i.e., less than 10% of this country's population (or more than 90% of the country hasn't taken it yet) and that the higher numbers require two doses.

Finally, what you cite as "the science" isn't what is now being said. In fact, that's part of the point of the OP; i.e., that the pathogen is, in fact, still out there and is transmissible. The vaccines provide a level of protection vis a vis the severity of the symptoms. Some will have a sufficient resistance to not experience any, most recipients will have enough to reduce the impact to where it will be like the 'normal' flu, a few will still require more 'advanced' treatment.

In short, what the actual Science is now saying is that the current COVID vaccines may end up being more akin to the flu vaccines than the measles or polio vaccines when it comes to 'herd immunity;' i.e., that herd immunity may not be achievable, but that herd resistance seems to be the more likely outcome. Put another way, the pathogen WILL certainly be 'carried' in the population and WILL result in some form and numbers of infection. However, the severity of those infections will be less virulent.

The HOPE for the vaccines is what you are citing and that has been what the media pushed. It's what people such as Fauci, initially, talked about; e.g., "the Holy Grail." Now... The discourse is being tempered with what is happening in the real world and what the vaccines were always most likely to accomplish rather than what, theoretically, might be possible.

While that may be what many suspected to be the eventual outcome, to the masses, as has been noted by members, not just in this thread, but myriad threads, that wasn't what the 'message' was understood to be. The "might be possible" or what "we HOPE to achieve" became the touchstone for the majority of people. While the "most likely" outcome wasn't mooted, it was muted by the continual citing of efficacy rates which critics attempted to point out were, likely, overly optimistic in the real world. (We have many threads/posts on this site observing just that.)

In the end, it wasn't so much 'oversold' by actual Scientists. What was pushed (by the media in particular, but also as part of the PR that a 'solution' would be forthcoming) was the overly optimistic and theoretical potential without the appropriate emphasis on the 'filters' which would have been the proper, 'conservative' approach actual Science is supposed to employ; but, doesn't work so well in terms of being 'encouraging.' That last being something I've gone back and forth with Duenor over; i.e., that Fauci has been openly criticized, by other infectious disease experts, as being too 'encouraging' as a public health official.

Certainly, the potential for herd immunity, in the form you cite, was, theoretically, possible. Thus, it wasn't being 'oversold;' but, it wasn't the more realistic outcome, particularly in the 'short term,' with this type of virus. Now the "PR campaign" is shifting the goal posts to the more realistic and talking less about the theoretically possible. As a result, the majority end up finding that what they 'understood' the talking heads to mean was kinda what they meant was possible, not what was likely. Again, to those not familiar with how Science actually works, it is not only confusing, but often disheartening given that too many have come to 'count on' what they were initially told or understood.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Citing "weaker immune systems" and "weaker blood types" is a bit misleading. Everyone is 'vulnerable' to something. The question becomes the amount of exposure to that 'something' vs. the amount of vulnerability. Simply putting it as having 'weak genes' opens a panoply of discourse with regard to issues that geneticists still don't completely agree upon.

The potential side effects aren't "all in your head" and you even acknowledge that it's been "known for years" that one can feel such symptoms immediately after vaccination. What those 'side effects' are is the individual's immune system kicking in. That's the purpose of a vaccine... to cause the individual's immune system to create the antibodies necessary to resist the viral infection. The 'danger' is that, depending on the individual, the virus, and the circumstances, one's immune system can 'overreact;' which becomes the 'lead story' for the media in that if it bleeds, it leads. What is not reported by the media or by many/most individuals are the milder, but predictable side effects; said 'reporting' again being dependent upon the individual and context.

Vital signs are ONE measurement of an individual's health or potential health status. While they don't, necessarily 'lie,' they are also not the panacea of indicators you are presenting. They are also not a reliable indicator of how an individual is feeling or 'should be' feeling. (An 'extreme' example would be how some dogs can detect 'cancer' and other illnesses when none of the sophisticated medical 'tests' picked up on it and the individual was 'feeling fine.')

[Jwalt]

We're used to vaccines like Smallpox or Measles. "Effective" means you don't get sick.

Some, like the one for Whooping Cough, primarily reduce severity of symptoms until you have a ton of booster shots.

Some just reduce severity of symptoms.

But this is why it's so ugly and dishonest to apply perfectly valid smallpox vaccine logic (get the shot so you don't spread it) to Covid.

The shot might keep you alive or out of the ER, but it won't stop the spread. There is no similar social good argument.

[eta34]

So in other words there is no good reason for an individual to get the vaccine to protect themselves as it doesn't do that, it's for the good of the herd.

Unless of course you are afraid of a virus with a 99.9% survival rate in those under 50.

Biggest sham in American history.

No, I think you misunderstood. If one is concerned about the virus, one would get the vaccine in order to protect oneself. Again, the vaccine is not designed to protect anyone other than the recipient.

[Garand Hunter]

Mr Endless # 30, I call BS on your posting ! It doth appear you were not there in the Army building at Husterhoh Kasern HHQ 59th Ordnance Group in the fall of 1966 when I and a few hundred others got the FLU shot like it or not. As for the others I can not speak. BUT FOR ME MYSELF AND I all three of us got the flu two days later. As for flu shots now in the 2020's timeframe I can not speak for getting it again as I do NOT ever get a flu shot since 1966. Helpeth thyself to the vaccine if you please. I am with San !

Psalm 1

[TrappedinCalifornia]

For those who think I was just talking to hear the wind move around when I said that they are in the process of moving the goal posts in terms of 'herd immunity' vs. 'herd resistance,' you might note this piece posted to NPR this morning...

A Rocky Road On The Way To Herd Immunity For COVID-19

[pratchett]

So in other words there is no good reason for an individual to get the vaccine to protect themselves as it doesn't do that, it's for the good of the herd.

Unless of course you are afraid of a virus with a 99.9% survival rate in those under 50.

Biggest sham in American history.

Jenny McCarthy would be proud of you! This is one of the dumbest misreads of scientific literature I've read all day.

[LBDamned]

^^^ "scientific literature" bwaaaaahaaaahaaaa

Its a f-ing farce dude. No one believes the bs you're selling.

[Corbin Dallas]

I say it clearly for all to hear...


There is NO VACCINE for the FLU


/full stop

[2shotjoe]

yes and no. i never said i got sick from the flu shots.

most of the time i feel a little warm a day after getting the flu shot and i am back to normal a few days later.

my comment is based on getting the flu months after in the season. i have got the flu still, i travel a lot for work. it's nothing major, most of the time i feel 1 degree warmer and i can sleep it off.

weaker immune system does run in the family, my grandpa on my mom's side got exposed to stuff while he was in service. i could say i am the least effected.

my wife got the nasal mist because they were out of the flu shots. no one got sick from that.

[pratchett]

^^^ "scientific literature" bwaaaaahaaaahaaaa

Its a f-ing farce dude. No one believes the bs you're selling.

Not selling anything, sweetie, and I have no idea why it's so important to you to believe that I'm trying to convince you of something. His read was idiotic, and had nothing to do with fact, or the article, scientific or not.

The person I was responding to was inventing things out of thin air, and all the Qs down in Qville...

[TrappedinCalifornia]

^^^ "scientific literature" bwaaaaahaaaahaaaa

Its a f-ing farce dude. No one believes the bs you're selling.

Technically, there's nothing intrinsically 'wrong' or 'misleading' about the actual Scientific literature.

Where 'we' tend to get it wrong is in relying on someone's interpretation of the results... Which is my point in this and other threads.

Vaccines were never going to be the 'Holy Grail' in terms of defeating/eradicating this type of virus; at least, it was unlikely to ever work that way given the nature of the virus and how vaccines work. The 'best' and most likely outcome was the development of a 'herd resistance' which would slow or minimize transmission; with the additional benefit of providing some 'preventive protection' for the individual when it came to how the virus impacted them. That's precisely why there's so much concern being expressed over mutations which are more 'resistant' to the vaccines.

That's the nuts and bolts of the actual Science. How individuals, groups, factions, enemies, et al. are taking advantage of it is a separate discussion. But, that's also a major part of the challenge.

We have to be able to discern between the actual Science and how it is being presented/used/interpreted.