* Outlets had previously been reporting that mild cases do not give enough immune response to be lasting
* Variants might not be caught by the natural immune response, but the vaccines are showing to be pretty effective with them.
* Many people also think it's selfish not to get the free flu vaccines each year, so it isn't surprising that after a pandemic where half a million Americans died due to the spread of this disease, "No I'm good" seems callous. Surprise, you live in a society - and I don't say that sentence ironically.
Yes, science and reality is important. That's why the fact that the vaccine is a sure shot vs. you winging it with your prior illness, despite the fact the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, gives some people pause.
You should. Majority of Muricans is not even willing to pay into a communal health insurance. So much for the level of society.
> That's why the fact that the vaccine is a sure shot
That take is not scientific at all. There have been several issues reported with the vaccines.
Very few reactions have occurred. If you're worried about it, also don't go outside, cross a street, or go swimming in any body of water.
Sure, one can quibble about whether maybe some of the very small number of people who got a vaccine more than a couple weeks before a severe COVID case had a form of ADE, but that’s like saying that we haven’t ruled out that seatbelts might kill people. In both cases, the risk that a protective measure harms the recipient is massively outweighed by the degree to which the protective measure protects the recipient.
But the vaccine developers do know what they’re doing. IIRC, with SARS, a lot of research was done that suggested that antibodies against N might cause ADE but antibodies against S would not. If that carries over to COVID, then maybe one is better off with a vaccine than natural disease: the latter induces antibodies against N but the former does not.
Covid is very often asymptomatic but still spreads. There is no way you can know that you haven't had it again, haven't spread it to others, and won't continue to do so without a vaccine.
And while it may be asymptomatic for you, you can still spread it to others who it will be very symptomatic for - including others who have been diligent and have taken the vaccine. You can kill people without knowing it.
The longer people go unvaccinated, the more likely mutations are to catch on, which may defeat the vaccine.
You are placing your general dislike of "putting things into my body" above all of our safety and welfare, and you are interfering with our collective efforts to end this pandemic and move on for the sake of our health and economy.
Please don't be so selfish.
The OP's post is entirely about themself, evidenced in that it is written in a completely self-centered way. "I am experiencing social shaming and being shunned for a position I take where I show absolutely no concern for others. And yet they don't subscribe to my superior reasoning powers. My feelings are so hurt!"
Cry us a river, dude.
Why come on here and post straight falsehoods that take 5-10 mins to google?
But a much bigger problem is presymptomatic transmission, which is why this disease was able to spread so steadily. Aside from that, there are people with symptoms that are so minor they never even consider themselves sick (although hopefully today people are more vigilant about this).
Over 500,000 people have died. Awesome. You recovered. A lot of other people didn’t. I wouldn’t be so confident you’ll always recover. And it’s possible that you’ll infect folks who can’t recover along the way, because of your “lack of interest.”
It's also baffling to me that you say you act responsible and two paragraphs later admit to being around people who have had COVID!
To me, it's completely irresponsible to not get a vaccine if offered but I'm not going to hold it against you and I can at least understand where you are coming from.
The reason that not going out when you're sick is an insufficient precaution for covid is that people spread the virus for several days before they get symptoms.
Variants are the problem here, which is the case for all anti-vax arguments.
a. you caught covid, so does your approach work?
b. you are often ill and contagious before you have any symptoms so unless you never go out this isn't sufficient
c. you get vaccinated and a flu shot for the holistic group, i.e. society. When individuals talk about personal rights and the "me" I question if they get this.
>> I have continuously been near or around folks that have come down with Covid and have yet to encounter a second infection or positive test since my initial infection. I look forward to when greater fact-based realities start to take hold again.
OK, here's one: your casual anecdote is not a factual reality.
(For all that the H1N1 pandemic flu was minor compared to COVID, it still put a lot of people in the hospital. I’m quite glad I didn’t get a severe case.)
Naturally acquired immunity from the original strain of covid-19 is not effective against some of the other variants. The strain currently ravaging India has infected many individuals who had been sick before, sometimes extremely seriously.
The mRNA vaccines don't work the same way as old school vaccines. They're better technology and they're also much more effective than natural immunity. Basically by getting the vaccine you won't get seriously ill and you won't die. You're also less likely to get infected with the strains.
Nobody can force you to get a shot but you're helping protect yourself and other people by getting it. I hope you reconsider.
The vaccines are only 85-99% effective. So your family is still at risk for getting and spreading the infection. And if you're the spreader, it's possible that it would be a resistant strain.
My attitude mirrors that of your family. And it has more to do with doing ones part to combat this pandemic and return to normal. I got a vaccine less for my own person safety, but more for the good of society. I want people to be safe, feel safe, and I want front line workers -- who've given so much -- to finally get a break.
You're not willing to make this same, minor sacrifice for society that everyone else did. It makes sense that you'd be shunned by people who want this to be over with.
Consider a little respect and humility. You might be wrong. Many of the the loudest voices throughout this whole covid affair are currently muffled as they can’t eat and talk at the same time, lest they choke on their massive servings of humble pie for being so wrong about something they were so certain about.
With the flu for instance, you are communicable before you show symptoms. Were you wearing a mask for the duration of the flu season prior to covid? That would be what responsible looks like if you're not interested in getting a shot.
>I have continuously been near or around folks that have come down with Covid and have yet to encounter a second infection or positive test since my initial infection.
I'm not sure you can say that with 100% certainty unless you've been getting weekly tests since your initial positive results. Early studies indicate that people who get re-infected are more likely to show no symptoms the second time around, but they can still infect others.
https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/12/can-someone...
The article you have given is written by people that haven't given a single probability number. But they declare that it is unsafe. Declaring un/safety without measuring risk is senseless.
How many days before you are noticeably sick can you spread the flu or COVID?
From an administrative standpoint, it's much easier to confirm that everyone has had the vaccine. And, there's some evidence that the vaccine provides better immunity than the virus itself.
IMO, this is even more true for the flu vaccine! Flu vaccines are less effective on an individual level, so as a society we're more reliant on collective immunity to slow down the spread. Lots of people die from the flu, and a little shot each year can help keep them alive!
People can get covid twice [1]. Especially older people who are at higher risk of death.
I'm not going to say you have to get vaccinated against anything, but I do see it in a lot of ways like a game of tug-of-war with society vs disease. Sure, its not essential that _everyone_ be pulling on the rope but it sure makes it a lot easier if they are. And things get really bad if more and more people stop pulling on it, especially if the other side starts getting stronger.
And you think your family are the ones with the emotional arguments (!) Sorry this happened to you, but you're the one in the wrong here.
Science generally saves us from trusting anecdotes, though. I know two people who were reinfected within five months, but I wouldn't conclude it's likely.
I think you are in for a long wait.
I caught it in mid-February with mild symptoms basically just loss of smell. I have very high antibodies and my physician actually recommended that I hold off on getting the vaccine.
Unfortunately, I have several co-workers who refuse to attend a picnic if I'm there. All of them are vaccinated which indicates to me that there is no logic and simply a demand that I adhere to the same religion they do.
Because honestly it's sure feels like a religion with these people.
This may not be your view, but it is the view of many, that we are under attack, and people's lives are at stake. A ton of people have lost loved ones. Or they've had loved ones at deaths door and on oxygen and suffering for weeks.
So while you view those vaccinated folks who don't want to be around unvaccinated people as having a "religion," it may be just that they view you as a traitor to humanity. Back during the Iraq war, I didn't support us starting it, and for that position many people treated me far far worse than simply not wanting to be at a company picnic with them. The people who treated me poorly for my views often had family who were in the military, and didn't want to think that they were putting their lives at risk for nothing. It wasn't even that the US itself was at risk, it's that they wanted their family to be risking their lives for a cause everyone supported. So when people have been fighting against a local enemy that is hurting us all, I'm surprised the reaction is so mild as to not want to be at the same picnic.
what was their reasoning?
He did this contingent on the fact that I don't live near any elderly relatives nor do I socialize with anyone that is high risk. I don't socialize much at all really unless I'm outdoors.
I almost forgot to mention that he had looked at literature which stated that high antibody levels at time of vaccine could reduce its efficacy.
Frankly a lot of this is moving target so I'm keeping my mind open.
Although I fully agree that they should have a pass for people who already got it and have high antibody titers.
But you really should get the vaccine, at least if you're in a place with abundant supply. There's just no good argument against it. The odds of "putting things in your body" having any effect on you are far less than the odds of getting Covid again, even if those odds are low. And mine as well make your family happy.
Regardless on one’s position, this is simply baseless bullshit. Please don’t spread it.
Is any data, yet, available about how reduced the contagiousness is for getting infected for the 2nd time naturally, vs. having the vaccine? For both catching and spreading it?
Additionally if you do want to get the vaccination after 6 month they only want you to get 1 shot not 2.
Does the US not differentiate between those who have had it and those that didn't?
No they do not. Public messaging has completely ignored natural immunity.
Sounds like you ought to start with yourself, to be frank.
Meanwhile, under 55 age group has a fatality chance of Covid that is less than dying in a car accident and will develop immunity after natural infection. And the under 55 age group makes up over 80% of the population.
I completely agree about fact based realities needing to take hold again!
I think we may be in a post-truth society and all that matters to people is what's the news media report instead of actual science and statistics.
The upside to people getting their reality from the media is that when the news media quits reporting on an issue it will be COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN ABOUT, much like darfur, metoo, blm, starving children, dead innocent civilians in the middle east. Poof it will just vanish in the wind as long as the politicians don't make it actionable.
So just hold out for a bit longer and the news media will stop reporting on Covid and switch to a new topic that people can be outraged over.
And no one will care at all about your vaccine.
> we're giving the vaccine to perfectly healthy people in America and no one gives it a second thought!
You always give vaccines to healthy people.
>> And no one will care at all about your vaccine.
I'm quite confident you'll get a vaccine when you need proof to go on your week's vacation to some beach country, or any similar personal impact.
Directly from your previous sentence: "preventing an older or compromised person from getting VERY sick" (disengenuous of you)
>>I'm quite confident you'll get a vaccine....
Don't be. This will all but forgotten in a few months. :)
They want everyone to get the vaccine so that people aren't missed who had a mild case.
Right or wrong, this is the reasoning being shared where I live.
i feel like "mild case" (also) subtly refers to all of the folks who said "oh, yeah, i had a cold in december 2019, that was probably covid. i've had it. no big deal."
That's going to be tough[1]:
> Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html
The article talks about how the experts on this field "presume" we'll need boosters to get antibody levels high enough to combat the worse mutated variants, and of course, it could be a bit of an arms race between it mutating variants that are better against our antibodies, and us boosting our antibodies with vaccines to trigger responses and keep blood levels high.
Furthermore, there may not be "official documentation from your gov't and official health body". I was tested & 'treated', but my wife had exactly the same symptoms & recovery without bothering with doctors (seriously, it was really mild), so there is no documentation and no apparent process to procure such documentation.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Seems that, to most people, Covid & vaccines are magic: the disease is perceived little differently from evil spirits (sparing some and slaying others, with nothing corporeal to perceive & avoid), and the vaccine is a tangible talisman mysteriously able to ward off such spirits (by a mere prick from a costumed wizard wielding magic potions). This leaves most people, unable to really grasp the objective mechanism of vaccination (being a simulation of actual infection, to teach the body to fight it off), with the only objectively perceivable act they can grasp in the issue: vaccine injection. Hence many dismiss the near-spiritual notion of "I contracted it, survived, and am now immune - without intervention by wizards". Thus, to present it a bit over-the-top, recovered and vaccinated are not treated the same by those not professionally involved in medicine.
As can be concluded from my post: Where I live vaccinated and recovered are treated the same, at least for now.
> Furthermore, there may not be "official documentation from your gov't and official health body".
Where I live there are laws what is permitted in super markets, restaurants, bars etc. And there are recommendations from the official health body that is responsible for the Covid topic. Often they overlap, sometimes they don't. But I think currently both agree on the vaccinated vs recovered point.
All that is said just to sync up on facts. I'm not trying to convince anybody of changing their interpretation or opinion.
And you say you don't go out when you get sick, but I'm not sure how you would do that for covid, since covid can in many cases be asymptomatic.
I'm not sure how it works in your country, but here people that already had covid only get one vaccine shot, as the covid infection is counted as the first one.
If you have a condition or something that it could affect, sure don’t get the vaccine. I’m fine with that. But if you’re healthy and esp if you didn’t have covid yet, getting the shot is patriotic. Fools try to twist it otherwise.
Also you do not have any resonsibility to do that for society. The society we live in is not even close to the level of solidarity and empathy to demand anything from an individual beyond respecting the law and paying taxes.
The average human (except maybe the elderly?) does not have the same problems with flu season and vaccination in the same way we view covid. Granted, covid is a big problem, but the mortality rate is about 10% [0]. The main difference here is that the flu season is mostly dictated by science, there are no public restrictions and people go about their lives mostly without consequence. Covid is a different beast for a bunch of reasons, and one major one is politics.
I have never up until this point in my life saw the amount of political pressure that everyone needs to be vaccinated. Probably going more off opinion that fact at this point, but I can't foresee any place in the world going back to normal once n% of people get vaccinated. At least the mayo clinic doesn't seem certain on what the long term effects of the current vaccines will be [1], specifically around "A COVID-19 vaccine might...Prevent you from getting COVID-19 or from becoming seriously ill or dying due to COVID-19." The CDC website seems to have more confident information, but I'm not convinced that we actually have the long-term data yet to back that up, but I'm open to being corrected with any studies that last more than 2 months, and use saline for control groups (and not another vaccine, which seems to be the popular method, which I'm also interested in opinions on). So _if_ the vaccines don't provided long term protection from being sick AND spreading the disease, don't expect vaccinated percentages to change the state of the current lockdowns.
I've been told I'm a bad citizen for just waiting for data that proves that shooting this vaccine in my body will actually support a good long term solution.
[0] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...
Also, I'm not suggesting that you will "kill everyone" by not getting the vaccine, but it really isn't just about you and that you personally will probably recover.
Do you think it's a reasonable thing for most people to take your stance and not get vaccinated? We are at the tail end of this thing _because_ we have a vaccination available.
As with any other disease, it is reasonable (and expected) for everyone who had covid to not get vaccinated, given that the immunity you get from having the disease is always better than what you'd get from a vaccine.
That this is even considered controversial by some people just goes to show you how far our science education has failed us.
My understanding is that the opposite is true, at least based on what we know right now. Here is an article summarizing just that[1], which links to a few peer-reviewed studies (and a couple that are pending review) suggesting that the vaccines are better than natural immunity.
I don't have any background in this or agenda or anything, so don't shoot the messenger - just sharing what I understand to be the opinion of at least some of the medical community.
> "Vaccines are highly efficacious," Fauci concluded. "They are better than the traditional response you get from natural infection."
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-why-covid-vaccines-wor...
The link reports that vaccines have been observed to generate higher antibody-levels than natural infections. It was also observed that vaccines seem to protect against a set of variants. This is the good news that is worth reporting.
But there are observed occurences of the opposite; that vaccinated people test negative for antibodies. Similarly, people test negative for antibodies some time after recovering. Sometimes, recovered people never test positive for antibodies.
Diagnostic tools widely available are simply not good enough to test the immune response.
Do you have a source for that claim? GP offered peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, which you don't believe, but so far you've offered no evidence at all.
That sort of claim really requires evidence. "Obvious" statements aren't science.
I don’t know too much about COVID, so I’ll use Flu as an example.
Let’s say your statement is true. You get antibodies for the specific strain of Flu that you caught and the response was greater than vaccine. Flu vaccines include multiple strains. So even if your premise was true, you should get the vaccine to protect against other strains right? Unless you are advocating for catching every strain of Flu?
This is false. Stop spreading misinformation.
If you disagree with it counter it with your own facts but you are not the speech police.
"It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines."
This is actively untrue.
See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4813740/ vs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29029053/ for a non-COVID example.
Are you implying naturally gained immunity does not play a role in herd immunity? Is there any data which supports this hypothesis?
Human immunity is not the sole factor in herd immunity.
The vaccine is intended to create immunity in people who don't already have it because they haven't already caught the virus.
This really isn't complicated.
> most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2
No matter how you slice it, you are playing 'Rona Roulette if you don't get vaccinated.
The CDC also recommends getting vaccinated despite any prior infection, and there has been anecdotes of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome being alleviated with a vaccination.
The root comment is special pleading.
It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity.
The claims about superiority of vaccine induced immunity that I’ve seen all rely on antibody counts, and in the very short term that may very well be true - but the importance of T-cells is not sufficiently well characterized to say it with certainty.
Evolving a new spike is extremely disadvantageous for the virus.
Widespread natural immunity is not enough to prevent a repeat of this this or next year, especially when we have evolutionary hotbeds in countries which could not (or would not) do anything to prevent the spread.
... Right up until almost everyone has an immune response to the spike and not to any other feature, at which point a virus which changes the spike and potentially keeps its other features is a winner. We are creating an immune monoculture.
This makes no sense.
If you only only target the spike, you assume the spike doesn't change sufficiently. If you target the entire virus, you assume the entire virus doesn't change sufficiently. As far as I know, mutations are generally assumed to be random. You're effectively matching against a shorter string (spike only), so you're less likely to recognize a mutated virus, than if you match against a longer string (the entire virus) which is what natural immunity targets.
Mutations in the spike (that still keep it effective - and we actually have quite a few of these already) are much more likely to evade the vaccine-induced immunity than they are likely to evade natural immunity.
Mutations only in the nucleocapsid are more likely to evade natural immunity than vaccine-induced immunity, but to a lesser degree - because natural immunity also targets the spike.
Where’s the research showing there is more effective immunity possible than the spike protein method of the vaccine?
The linked article only indicates that antibody production should continue for a long time, but that's only one factor in robust long-term immunity. The rate of antibody production and the set of proteins that the antibodies target are also very important.
It's good news to be sure, but it doesn't yet prove what you seem to want it to.
There have been far more breakthrough cases of fully vaccinated people than there have been confirmed reinfections.
Yeah, but there are vastly more vaccinated people than people have been confirmed infected even once, so that doesn’t really tell you anything. (Currently, the number of vaccination doses being delivered per day globally is about 1/5 the total number of confirmed global COVID cases.)
We'd need to compare the number of confirmed reinfections divided by confirmed infections with the number of breakthrough cases divided by the number of fully vaccinated people.
Its also worth noting the confirmed reinfection count is on a much longer time scale than breakthrough infections. So we currently have more data about the long term natural immunity than we do for vaccinated immunity.
Yeah, that’s what the immune system does.
You simply don't need a vaccine to help your body produce antibodies if you already have them. Not just for covid 19 but for anything.
Don't let anyone shame you or pressure you into getting a vaccine that you're not comfortable getting.
It's not strange at all. Human beings have probably been doing this since not too long after languages developed:
Do 'X' because 'Y', since 'Y' is in agreement with my opinion and personal interests of you doing 'X'.
'Y' may be science, religion, math, emotion, whatever. The point is that many people will push information they want pushed with and later contradict themselves if need be as long as they can consistently push the information they want. The arguments and rationale are usually secondary, not the primary driver.
Politicians do this a lot. It's lying in the form of intellectual dishonesty or sheer ignorance. Many highly religious people push firm accordance with their religion or their interpretation of their religion, while allowing their own desires to shape those ground rules: they pick and choose which rules to follow literally and which to interpret, and so on.
There are a lot of people out peddling things in the name of science but they don't understand science: evidence, process, uncertainty, etc. When it comes to COVID we've learned a lot but there's still a lot of uncertainty around a lot of aspects in various studies and we need to understand that with humility and act accordingly.
I'm quite happy admitting that I do not know anything other than the basics and trust in experts in their respective fields instead.
Manaus in Brazil doesn't count, FTR. It never ever reached herd immunity: the data was a large overestimation.
- A human gets infected
- The human becomes a virus factory
- While producing gazillions of viruses, mutations occur
- Mutations are variants
(From memory, don’t have a link handy)
That said, I don't think that's an argument against non-immunocompromised people getting vaccinated. It's like me saying "don't touch the toaster if it were just on, you'll get burned" and you responding "yeah but ovens really burn you." OK well, be careful around both I guess.
What is actually bing discussed in the non-corporate medical community and research is starting to validate the very well understood theory that relatively poorly performing vaccines are actually going to lead to mutations if they haven't already. It is the same concept that has led to "antibiotic resistant bacteria" when antibiotics are either overused or not used as long as they should be, leaving the most resistant bacteria to reproduce.
I realize it must be difficult to accept such a contradiction to what people are told by the corporate media and corporate medical industrial complex. It also requires accepting and acknowledging that may have been injected with an untested/risky novel experimental medial compound for no good reason, but that it will likely also lead to even worse variants that will require ever more vaccines that are ever less tested and will increase risks of adverse reactions with every single event.
No matter what, we have clearly cast the die and things have clearly been fundamentally shifted in ways that are clearly carry unknown outcomes. THAT should really worry people, even if we all survive this particular event, scathing by relatively unharmed. What happens when the next virus comes around that may actually be as dangerous as we were scared about and some or maybe all of the next rushed vaccines trigger antibody-dependent enhancement or some other mortal effect that kills millions with no way to prevent it.
We ARE playing with fire here. No matter how we look at it. Someone, possibly many, will be get burned at some point probably far sooner than one would think.
She went into cardiac arrest 3 hours after getting her shot. It's been over a week now and they will be taking her off life support shortly because she is now brain dead. It should be noted that this is a rare event and I do recommend to my loved ones especially my father and her to get vaccinated.
That being said no media organizations are going to report what happened to my mother-in-law. They know if they do so it will create vaccine hesitancy in many people. I understand and empathize with this but it does raise ethical questions.
The corporate media are perfectly happy to stay silent on this because they no longer view their role as informing the public, but rather as getting the public to do what they think is right.
They are happy to report on statistically improbable events as long as they are part of their overall political narrative. For every person that reflexively responds to me that what happened to my mother-in-law is a rare event, the same people won't hesitate to talk about the George Floyd murder as if it's a typical occurrence in police interactions with black men. The data shows this to be not true at all but they don't care because their narrative is all they care about.
My point is that this vaccine technology is definitely new and it's probably going to be revolutionary and saving tremendous numbers of lives especially in Africa with malaria. However because it's so new there are going to be bad things happening from it as well and folks who deny this are making problems worse.
What happened to my mother-in-law is now being used as fuel by various people my family who are Alex Jones followers. The reaction from the medical establishment and the complete lack of coverage in the media has further added ammunition to this idiot in my family. Suppressing information always creates a backlash every time.
With respect to the media: > That being said no media organizations are going to report what happened to my mother-in-law. They know if they do so it will create vaccine hesitancy in many people. I understand and empathize with this but it does raise ethical questions.
There are plenty of news organizations who would publicize this story. There have been major outlets reporting on all manner of vaccine complications as they have been rolled out.[1][2][3]
I would encourage you to reach out to the CDC directly if you feel the medical team is not taking it seriously.
[1]: https://www.foxnews.com/health/cdc-guidance-heart-inflammati... [2]: https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2021/05/04/cdc-investigating-mi... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/health/covid-vaccine-deat...
The medical team did confirm with us yesterday that they have reported it to VAERS.
The irony with all of this is rich. The entire point of the vaccine was to prevent her from acquiring an infection that would potentially put her on a ventilator in an ICU forcing us to say goodbye to her as she suffocated.
We are now going to be turning off the ventilator, removing the tube, and saying goodbye to her as she suffocates. At least she is brain dead which she would not be if she was dying of covid-19. That's the only blessing we can think of.
It's actually how viruses work [1].
[1]: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-does-it-mean-that-th...
So the line of reasoning that argues one should get vaccinated to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is not valid.
Edit: Wow - the downvotes... There is some evidence that transmission is reduced, but it is not proven:
"the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated"
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
Now we have far more real world data and it appears that even if a vaccinated person is carrying an asymptomatic infection that they shed very little virus. This is not a certainty, but things are leaning that way.
But people can't replace the old "fact" they knew with the new "fact".
Besides, studies on healthcare workers, who are tested regularly, showed a clear reduction in transmission.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sinopharm+seychelles&t=fpas&ia=web
"Among the vaccinated population that has had two doses, 57 percent was given Sinopharm, while 43 percent was given AstraZeneca."
Yep. Notice how the "follow science" phrase isn't used anymore. It's now just a demand to comply, or else you're a horrible person.
However, none of these facts or articles such as this will ever effectively challenge the "get the vaccine or you are a bad citizen and will kill everyone" emotional arguments that are out there.
I have continuously been near or around folks that have come down with Covid and have yet to encounter a second infection or positive test since my initial infection. I look forward to when greater fact-based realities start to take hold again.