[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

no, since even if you are vaccinated, you can still spread the virus onto others

Are you sure that's not some weird anti-Vaccer nonsense Nicky?

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Are you sure that's not some weird anti-Vaccer nonsense Nicky?

no

vaccinating makes yourself immune, but you can still carry the virus and spread it onto others

which is why it is important everyone gets the vaccine (otherwise covid-19 will never really go away)

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Are you sure that's not some weird anti-Vaccer nonsense Nicky?

No that is correct Mock, you can still carry the virus even if vaccinated

the point of vaccination is that you don't develop the disease in a serious way or enough to be hospitalised

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No that is correct Mock, you can still carry the virus even if vaccinated

the point of vaccination is that you don't develop the disease in a serious way or enough to be hospitalised

I was wondering if it would be weak enough to actually not spread to someone else if you got vaccinated.

Thank god I'm not a Scientist.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No that is correct Mock, you can still carry the virus even if vaccinated

the point of vaccination is that you don't develop the disease in a serious way or enough to be hospitalised

i heard this from my country's ICU chief Diederik Gommers, whom is educating the youth on corona, why lockdowns are important, why vaccinating is important here, using social media

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

i heard this from my country's ICU chief Diederik Gommers, whom is educating the youth on corona, why lockdowns are important, why vaccinating is important here, using social media

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No that is correct Mock, you can still carry the virus even if vaccinated

the point of vaccination is that you don't develop the disease in a serious way or enough to be hospitalised

I thought this was just the pfizer one? Sure I read the oxford one actually stops catching/transmisson. Which is why I find it a bit baffling that the pfizer one is the one being pushed really. Its awkward to store, and seems to not actually help the spread or anything. Meanwhile, the oxford one can just be stored in a bog standard fridge for 3 days..it seems the pfizer one is still the key, according to the government, but I cannot see how. It was a good stopgap until others came, but unless I have understood it all wrong (which is entirely possible!) the oxford one should be the main one used..

(otherwise covid-19 will never really go away)

This bit though, is very optomistic. I wish I could believe it will 'go away' but I cannot see it. Much more likely to behave like other coronaviruses, and become a kind of..seasonal illness. That might need a vaccine topup every now and again (possibly alongside the flu jab, as the high risk people for both seem to overlap a lot). There would be a LOT more work involved in totally eradicating it, and I am sure we only ever managed that with smallpox..and that was due to everyone working together and a very very aggressive fight, and a crapload of money because of the sheer numbers dying everywhere. Which I cannot see covid being deemed 'serious enough' for all that effort. Especially if it keeps mutating. My friend who works in virology swears blind that the huge majority of mutations are the virus becoming naturally less deadly..as a virus that kills its host is a crappy virus, in virus terms, its meant to spread easily person to person but not kill them. Or something along those lines. If this follows the same route, in time it will become more and more like..well a cold really (not saying it is this now, bu its the logical endpoint to me). I have found nothing to contradict what she said either..seems it is largely correct in that viruses do tend to get less deadly over time, rather than more.

While it sounds horrendous, 2m people over the whole world dying in a year..I cannot see being deemed serious enough for a smallpox type reaction from leaders.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I thought this was just the pfizer one? Sure I read the oxford one actually stops catching/transmisson. Which is why I find it a bit baffling that the pfizer one is the one being pushed really. Its awkward to store, and seems to not actually help the spread or anything. Meanwhile, the oxford one can just be stored in a bog standard fridge for 3 days..it seems the pfizer one is still the key, according to the government, but I cannot see how. It was a good stopgap until others came, but unless I have understood it all wrong (which is entirely possible!) the oxford one should be the main one used..

It's unknown for both; the trials have all been a simple "vaccines to number of cases" measure of effectiveness, there has been little to no testing at all on whether vaccinated people are totally immune or can still be asymptomatic carriers... figuring that out takes far longer. There's also no reason to assume that one vaccine is better/worse than another at this point when it comes to this.

However, either way, it's worth remembering that vaccinated or not, people can still transmit the virus to others on their hands/clothes/posessions etc. if there's a short enough time between contamination and contact.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's unknown for both; the trials have all been a simple "vaccines to number of cases" measure of effectiveness, there has been little to no testing at all on whether vaccinated people are totally immune or can still be asymptomatic carriers... figuring that out takes far longer. There's also no reason to assume that one vaccine is better/worse than another at this point when it comes to this.

However, either way, it's worth remembering that vaccinated or not, people can still transmit the virus to others on their hands/clothes/posessions etc. if there's a short enough time between contamination and contact.

This bit is very interesting to me actually..as am now wondering if this is the case for other vaccines or not? Like, could you still spread chickenpox like this, if you had the vaccine? Honestly (and maybe naively too) I kind of assumed that 'the norm' for vaccinations was..that you cannot get it, nor pass it to anyone high risk who cannot have the vaccine for whatever reason.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

This bit is very interesting to me actually..as am now wondering if this is the case for other vaccines or not? Like, could you still spread chickenpox like this, if you had the vaccine? Honestly (and maybe naively too) I kind of assumed that 'the norm' for vaccinations was..that you cannot get it, nor pass it to anyone high risk who cannot have the vaccine for whatever reason.

i'm pretty sure there are vaccines that don't stop you getting the particular virus, but stop you spreading it, so there are a few variations around that theme

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

This bit is very interesting to me actually..as am now wondering if this is the case for other vaccines or not? Like, could you still spread chickenpox like this, if you had the vaccine? Honestly (and maybe naively too) I kind of assumed that 'the norm' for vaccinations was..that you cannot get it, nor pass it to anyone high risk who cannot have the vaccine for whatever reason.

It depends on the virus - some can survive without a host (on objects) for a prolonged time, some die within minutes or even seconds outside of a host so can only spread directly from person to person. Also the "amount of exposure" needed to infect varies so for example some could spread just with that's transferred on someone's hands... some would need there to be an actual gob of spit or something (bleh...) so you could catch it from, say, someone's used tissues but not from someone's coat.

I can't say I know the answer specifically for chicken pox . It does seem to be surprisingly still quite unknown for MANY regular vaccines, and I cas see lots of studies that suggest large reductions but not "complete" halting e.g. a vaccine giving 95% individual protection in a population but only stopping spread by about 70%... which would suggest that 70% of people gain full immunity, and then a further 25% gain a level of immunity that stops them developing symptoms but the virus is still replicating asymptomatically in them.

In theory... it SHOULDN'T be a problem so long as all of the vulnerable categories are vaccinated, and assuming that the vaccine effects are long-term... as it should mean that even if it continues to spread, anything more than mild cases will become very rare.

I do agree with you above though; the scale of spread at this point means it's a complete fantasy that we'll ever live in a 100% covid-free world, viruses like this that are "out of the bag" so to speak can't just be eradicated... if they could, we would have eradicated chicken pox, measles, glandular fever etc. years ago but they still go around.

Covid will HOPEFULLY be rendered "not really a problem" by vaccination and then life can go back to normal. People get seriously ill and die of viruses all the time and always have, we carry on. The key is in bringing the scale of them problem WAY down so that we can treat it as we do those viruses. And I agree that it will most likely be a "minor ailment of the future", one of a multitude of minor viruses that circulate, but we're likely talking a century or more for that to happen really. Essentially, it's possible or even likely that the existing circulating coronaviruses were pretty nasty in humans when they first appeared... but they've been around for a LONG time.