Lowers the risk you are infected and infect other people and/or take a bed in a crowded hospital

> Lowers the risk you ... infect other people

Not necessarily:

> Pfizer chairman: We're not sure if someone can transmit Covid after vaccination

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25298299

People that don't know that might be confident they don't need to keep distance or wear a mask anymore.

I think everyone agrees on priorities but nuance is lacking from comments and everyone just assumes the worst interpretation.

EDIT: Though the behavior towards you just seems spiteful now.

It's still your civic duty to get the vaccine just like distancing and mask wearing. Just because it's not proven to be a silver bullet doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

I never said otherwise.

The reason why I'm backing h3cate and the reason why he probably spoke up is that the notion that this is a civic duty invites the idea that it's sure to protect other people, when it hasn't yet been proven to do so.

Indeed, one should get it on the chance that it does, but I'm betting a lot of people will assume the vaccine suffices for others' protection.

The vaccine probably won't make any vaccinated a guaranteed superhuman which 100% breaks the transmission: even with 95% efficacy, we know that 1 in 20 will get the symptoms, for the start, and we know that the virus has to replicate in the body, at least in the upper respiratory pathways, before the immune system fights it down, also in the bodies of the vaccinated.

However, those who get the vaccine, by lowering their own chance to get sick, will contribute to the well-being of everybody: once most people are vaccinated the number of cases needing hospital has to eventually drop.

If the amount of virus produced in the body of vaccinated drops just for some percentage, the chance of transmission in some occasions will somewhat drop, even if it won't be zero. That will help everybody.

Still, there is reasonable probability that there will be a period of time when it will be hard to explain to many that they should keep behaving like potential virus carriers even after they received the vaccine (masks, distancing etc). If they do that then they will contribute to the earlier end of pandemic and directly and indirectly protect some vulnerable. By still behaving like potential carriers they will reduce already mentioned chance of transmission and contribute to health of everybody else. It's somehow non-intuitive. Also non-intuitive: some percentage of all vaccinated will with such behavior directly protect themselves too, simply because even 95% isn't 100% -- that 95% means one of 20 still gets sick, on average.

Then it won't be the first time during this pandemics that "dumbing down" the message isn't the best way to communicate.

Whoever cares about those who are most in danger, and even whoever just cares about the economy, should once again try to understand the nuances and then explain them to those who don't.

This is old news, at least one vaccine is reported to provide sterilizing immunity, so the expectation is swinging towards the idea that probably they all will.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

> the impact of these COVID-19 vaccines on infection and thus transmission is not being assessed. Even if vaccines were able to confer protection from disease, they might not reduce transmission similarly.

> Challenge studies in vaccinated primates showed reductions in pathology, symptoms, and viral load in the lower respiratory tract, but failed to elicit sterilising immunity in the upper airways. Sterilising immunity in the upper airways has been claimed for one vaccine, but peer-reviewed publication of these data are awaited.

Italics are mine.

> These observations suggest that we cannot assume COVID-19 vaccines, even if shown to be effective in reducing severity of disease, will reduce virus transmission to a comparable degree. The notion that COVID-19-vaccine-induced population immunity will allow a return to pre-COVID-19 “normalcy” might be based on illusory assumptions.

I can't sense any tone of favorable expectation in the link you shared.

The bed point is good, what's the current data for ICU bed space in your country?

My county has less than 15% ICU bed availability.

And what was the average availability for the previous 5 years?

It was hovering around 30-40% 2 months ago, and was around 56% in May. Unfortunately historical data is hard to find since most gov/hospital websites only seem to show covid related data.

But that's because the pandemic actually emptied out most hospitals. ICUs are not built for Easter Sunday. Here's an article with pre-pandemic numbers: "Although average ICU occupancy was only 68% in 2005, some hospitals, especially academic medical centers, regularly face occupancy levels exceeding 90% (Wunsch et al. 2013), often requiring the rationing of scarce critical care beds."

http://www.elisalong.com/uploads/1/0/9/7/109701801/long_math...

Sounds like ICU capacity is roughly appropriate for normal-times peak demand to me.

The average occupancy you quote is consistent with the “2 months ago” capacity quoted by GP.

The pandemic emptied hospitals and put many other kinds of therapies, surgeries etc. on delay, because it's dangerous. Hence the need to get vaccinated so we can resume.

...No it doesn't. It only "decreases the likeliness of symptoms". It doesn't affect transmission.

Other replies to my comment already mention it (and have sources).

Same as a mask? Keep him from transmitting it to other people.

Kind of, see other comment. There's no guarantee by Pfizer that the vaccine keeps people from transmitting. They've said that. It seems they've only tested that the one getting the vaccine doesn't develop symptoms. Hence h3cate's

> What will you having this vaccine do for anybody but yourself?

We don't know if the vaccine can substitute the mask for the time being.

You mean like any vaccine? They’re CYAing because no vaccine is 100% effective. It’s that simple.

* because there are people who, due to age or immuno-compromisation or allergic response, cannot safely take the vaccine, so those who can safely take it should help contribute to herd immunity

* because there are many people out of work whose livelihoods depend on the types of establishments closed or restricted by COVID (restaurants, theaters, etc)

* because safely interacting with other human beings in-person is generally good for mental health

How do you know if you cannot safely take the vaccine?

Assuming this is a good faith question: while this is not guaranteed, it is highly likely a vaccine will prevent disease transmission (given how the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines help create an antibody response to coronavirus's spike protein), breaking chains in viral spread.

Edit: correction to better reflect the mRNA vaccine mechanism.

Assuming this is a good faith response: Maybe and maybe not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/health/coronavirus-nasal-...

> Without a strong mucosal response, injected vaccines may be less likely to produce so-called sterilizing immunity, a phenomenon in which a pathogen is purged from the body before it’s able to infect cells, Dr. Durbin said. Vaccinated people might be protected from severe disease, but could still be infected, experience mild symptoms and occasionally pass small quantities of the germ onto others.

I’ve also read that levels of exposure inversely correlate to outcomes: all else being equal, being exposed to less virus leads to better outcomes.

?

"What will you having this vaccine do for anybody but yourself ?"

COVID is contagious meaning it's as much about those around you as it is yourself.

Second, in order to beat COVID we have to have a certain immunity threshold i.e. 75% or whatever, meaning, your participation in that effort matters.

It is our 'civic duty' and I'm proud that the top commenter (at the moment I write this) has put it in those terms because that's a good way to put it.

It wasn't necessary to copy/paste this eight times.

Not every HN comment subtree is an argument that you need to “win”.

If you write a comment you think is good, once is enough.

You needn't have bothered. You shared a highly speculative piece which seemed to not mention the Pfizer vaccine at all, which largely said the opposite of what you are saying (i.e. the Oxford vaccine reduced both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections) and had one quote talking about a "worst case scenario" in which that might not be true.

And you shared it 8 times, which is 8 times too many.

I see 3, but even if it were 8 at some point, it'd just be 7 times too many at best. Saying 8 times is just shutting-up a perfectly valid comment.

My point was that it wasn't a perfectly valid comment.

Somebody else posted link about quote from Pfizer chairman saying it's completely unknown if transmission continues after vaccination. Happy to read any evidence either way

If this were common practice on HN, HN would be pretty awful. If you've said something once in a thread, those who read the thread will read it.

Are we at -1 apologies now?

[EDIT:] we're square now, thanks...

I might have read it if your replied once and got downvote. Then it looks like you are saying an unpopular truth, which I am inclined to investigate. Otoh, copy pasting a bunch of times makes you seem like an internet crazy person.

Its a good question let me answer - some people can't get the vaccine. Right now, it's banned for people with allergies. Babies can't get it. For some people, they can never get it due to their immune system.

Their only chance is never coming into contact with a contagious person, so that means as many of us need to get the vaccine as possible to ensure that doesn't happen.

Where is it banned for people with allergies? Source?

From the UK 2 days ago: “People with a history of significant allergic reactions should not have the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid jab, regulators say.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122

Can anyone clarify what "allergies" mean in this context?

I have a (now really mild) allergy to some pollen; as s child it made me miserable for two months (late April to early June) with nose constantly running, puffy eyes.

Now I barely sneeze twice a day and only in some specific areas... never got tested so I don't know which plant I am allergic to (and if it is the plant getting extinct or my body getting better at handling it).

Would this prevent me from taking the vaccine?

No I assume pollen's fine, I would maybe double check literally at the point being administered with personally, but the news was about severe reactions, anaphylactic shock, people that need to worry about what's in what they eat. And it came up 'in production' because they didn't have anyone in the trial with such an allergy; surely they had plenty of hayfever in there, statistically.

Thanks!

Do you have a chicken egg allergy, or have had a significant reaction to any b other vaccine? The former and you probably can't take the vaccines being rolled out at all, the latter and you need to proceed cautiously.

The Pfizer vaccine is not egg-based. I don't believe any of the three in late stage trials are, actually.

From what has been reported in the UK the people having reactions are those that have to carry epi pens. However I am not a doctor, somebody who's studied medicine for years will be able to give you more info

It will help stop the spread

sure, but i don’t see how this could make it “worse”. as the vaccine is more widely understood this fact re pfizer vaccine will be messaged to the public.

the people first vaccinated will be in health care, and anecdata (most of my extended family and friends across social backgrounds and regions of the country work in the field) indicates these people are, in the general case, diligent about social hygiene practices. a vaccinated person who is still wearing a mask when inside in poorly ventilated public spaces when not with their family unit in their home is no more dangerous to the public than someone doing all of that who is unvaccinated.

vaccinated people have immunity ~10 days after vaccination. assuming vaccination of the population proceeds steadily, and everyone practices diligent social hygiene, eventually the pool of vaccinated people sink the R value below 1.

it is at this point that we will be turning the corner.

i will note that all of this applies to pfizer because their study design did not test asymptomatic trial participants. this means we know the pfizer vaccine helps people not get sick. however, i believe moderna did test all trial participants periodically even when asymptomatic and their measurements of effectiveness were on par.

Sorry I should of been clearer, by worse I mean the virus living in more hosts. Not worse for us humans.

I agree on the vaccinated Vs unvaccinated life point.

Does that not depend on how the R number is calculated? Sure less people will be showing symptoms so less tests and less positive tests. We will not however know the true never of people carrying the virus. The R number may be growing after vaccination however we just don't show symptoms.

Having the vaccine decreases the probability that I spread the virus.