Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Ghostmaker]

I wasn't aware the polio vaccine needed repeated boosters and you could still catch it regardless of your vaccination status.

Sorry, Pat. You're wrong on this one.

[Kiero]

I wasn't aware the polio vaccine needed repeated boosters and you could still catch it regardless of your vaccination status.

Sorry, Pat. You're wrong on this one.

More to the point, barring the covid and flu jabs, everything else we call a vaccine actually prevents infection. None of them are perfect (there are usually issues with individual biochemistry/immunology which means they don't "take" for specific people), but for the majority they stop you getting infected altogether.

Some of them do require boosters, but the end result is still the same: they protect you from being infected. When you are immunised against measles, it means as long as you're in the 93%, you can't be infected with measles. That is immunity.

[Shrieking Banshee]

My other sister also got covid. She was sick mildly for a few days. Now is negative.

[GeekyBugle]

I wasn't aware the polio vaccine needed repeated boosters and you could still catch it regardless of your vaccination status.

Sorry, Pat. You're wrong on this one.

More to the point, barring the covid and flu jabs, everything else we call a vaccine actually prevents infection. None of them are perfect (there are usually issues with individual biochemistry/immunology which means they don't "take" for specific people), but for the majority they stop you getting infected altogether.

Some of them do require boosters, but the end result is still the same: they protect you from being infected. When you are immunised against measles, it means as long as you're in the 93%, you can't be infected with measles. That is immunity.

And the rest is protected by herd immunity.

But you can't make a vaccine for a virus that mutates this fast.

[Pat]

That's always been a stupid argument. They're very leaky vaccines, but they're vaccines.

No they are not, they fail the long-standing definition of a vaccine, which is to provide immunity to infection.

That's not the definition of "vaccine", and never has been. A vaccine isn't defined by efficacy. It's just something that inspires an immunological response, without requiring the subject to be infected by the disease.

Many traditional vaccines are often very effective, because they evoke the full range of immunological responses in the body. But they also wane over time, and many require boosters (like tetanus shots). And while the body does have a general immunological response, the most effective aspects are very specific. As a result, when a disease isn't a single organism or a virus, but instead is a syndrome or collection of symptoms that can have a variety of causes, vaccination is often of little use. For instance, what we call "the flu" isn't one thing, it's many things. The seasonal flu shot protects against some of them, but it's a crapshoot whether you'll get exposed to something it protects against. Viruses that mutate rapidly can also be hard to protect against, because they change into new things over time. Some degree of cross-immunity often exists between parental strains and mutants, or within broad families of diseases, but it's less effective. Covid-19 falls into both categories, with some cross-immunity from earlier coronaviruses (like sars1), and a high degree of mutation.

I have no problems with calling the covid-19 vaccines shitty, but they're definitely vaccines.

[Pat]

More to the point, barring the covid and flu jabs, everything else we call a vaccine actually prevents infection. None of them are perfect (there are usually issues with individual biochemistry/immunology which means they don't "take" for specific people), but for the majority they stop you getting infected altogether.

That's nonsense. Neither vaccinations nor natural immunity create a magical shield that prevents (for example) a virus from getting into your body. Instead, the virus comes in, starts to replicate, and your body musters a defense, typically isolating and/or destroying the virus, and then overwhelms it.

That's how your body's immune system works. You may display mild or no symptoms, but you were infected.

[oggsmash]

That's always been a stupid argument. They're very leaky vaccines, but they're vaccines.

No they are not, they fail the long-standing definition of a vaccine, which is to provide immunity to infection.

That's not the definition of "vaccine", and never has been. A vaccine isn't defined by efficacy. It's just something that inspires an immunological response, without requiring the subject to be infected by the disease.

Many traditional vaccines are often very effective, because they evoke the full range of immunological responses in the body. But they also wane over time, and many require boosters (like tetanus shots). And while the body does have a general immunological response, the most effective aspects are very specific. As a result, when a disease isn't a single organism or a virus, but instead is a syndrome or collection of symptoms that can have a variety of causes, vaccination is often of little use. For instance, what we call "the flu" isn't one thing, it's many things. The seasonal flu shot protects against some of them, but it's a crapshoot whether you'll get exposed to something it protects against. Viruses that mutate rapidly can also be hard to protect against, because they change into new things over time. Some degree of cross-immunity often exists between parental strains and mutants, or within broad families of diseases, but it's less effective. Covid-19 falls into both categories, with some cross-immunity from earlier coronaviruses (like sars1), and a high degree of mutation.

I have no problems with calling the covid-19 vaccines shitty, but they're definitely vaccines.

   noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

   Tetanus boosters are EVERY 10 YEARS.   That definition I put there, the old one, has a really, really big word in it.  AND. 

[oggsmash]

  If people have to reach so far up their ass they tickle their throats, or use brand new definitions of words (merriam Webster is amazing at updating any words establishments needs updated on the fly, racism, vaccine, etc) to make a case for whatever shit Pfizer is putting is a vaccine, as expected and defined up until the point they started having "break through" cases....well forgive me for not taking it as the same meaning the words has had all the way up until 2021.

[oggsmash]

  Shitty vaccine = doesnt really work in its stated capacity
  How is that any different than a sugar pill?  Other than I know the sugar pill isnt going to work.   I have a theory, that A LOT of hospitalizations are largely not needed, and more the effect of people who never experience discomfort getting a little sick (this is not to discount the people with shitloads of other issues actually threatened by the virus).  Visit any emergency room and you are going to see a shitload of people who really do not need to be there most days.  I also suspect one of the deciding factors in these people going to the hospital is psychological to a degree.  They get sick, know they are vaccinated, and might even feel pretty bad.   They have been told they are MUCH less likely to need to go to the hospital...so they do not go.  Conversely, someone who has not had a shot, gets sick, feels pretty bad (because it does make you feel pretty bad) and go to the hospital because they have been pummeled endlessly about how much more likely they are to need hospitalization.   

   So at this point I am not certain hospitalizations (past ambulance rides) mean jack shit as to vaccine vs no vaccine as a viable statistic, because there has been a whole shitload of psychological pressure on people who have been just about fear porned to death. 

[Pat]

That's always been a stupid argument. They're very leaky vaccines, but they're vaccines.

No they are not, they fail the long-standing definition of a vaccine, which is to provide immunity to infection.

That's not the definition of "vaccine", and never has been. A vaccine isn't defined by efficacy. It's just something that inspires an immunological response, without requiring the subject to be infected by the disease.

Many traditional vaccines are often very effective, because they evoke the full range of immunological responses in the body. But they also wane over time, and many require boosters (like tetanus shots). And while the body does have a general immunological response, the most effective aspects are very specific. As a result, when a disease isn't a single organism or a virus, but instead is a syndrome or collection of symptoms that can have a variety of causes, vaccination is often of little use. For instance, what we call "the flu" isn't one thing, it's many things. The seasonal flu shot protects against some of them, but it's a crapshoot whether you'll get exposed to something it protects against. Viruses that mutate rapidly can also be hard to protect against, because they change into new things over time. Some degree of cross-immunity often exists between parental strains and mutants, or within broad families of diseases, but it's less effective. Covid-19 falls into both categories, with some cross-immunity from earlier coronaviruses (like sars1), and a high degree of mutation.

I have no problems with calling the covid-19 vaccines shitty, but they're definitely vaccines.

   noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

   Tetanus boosters are EVERY 10 YEARS.   That definition I put there, the old one, has a really, really big word in it.  AND.

That's a perfectly fine definition. Why aren't you using it?

[oggsmash]

That's always been a stupid argument. They're very leaky vaccines, but they're vaccines.

No they are not, they fail the long-standing definition of a vaccine, which is to provide immunity to infection.

That's not the definition of "vaccine", and never has been. A vaccine isn't defined by efficacy. It's just something that inspires an immunological response, without requiring the subject to be infected by the disease.

Many traditional vaccines are often very effective, because they evoke the full range of immunological responses in the body. But they also wane over time, and many require boosters (like tetanus shots). And while the body does have a general immunological response, the most effective aspects are very specific. As a result, when a disease isn't a single organism or a virus, but instead is a syndrome or collection of symptoms that can have a variety of causes, vaccination is often of little use. For instance, what we call "the flu" isn't one thing, it's many things. The seasonal flu shot protects against some of them, but it's a crapshoot whether you'll get exposed to something it protects against. Viruses that mutate rapidly can also be hard to protect against, because they change into new things over time. Some degree of cross-immunity often exists between parental strains and mutants, or within broad families of diseases, but it's less effective. Covid-19 falls into both categories, with some cross-immunity from earlier coronaviruses (like sars1), and a high degree of mutation.

I have no problems with calling the covid-19 vaccines shitty, but they're definitely vaccines.

   noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

   Tetanus boosters are EVERY 10 YEARS.   That definition I put there, the old one, has a really, really big word in it.  AND.

That's a perfectly fine definition. Why aren't you using it?

  I am, I just know what the meaning of the word AND means in the english language,  it means to qualify it must have the thing before the and, and the thing after the and.  This vaccine is not providing immunity.  So....

[Pat]

  Shitty vaccine = doesnt really work in its stated capacity
  How is that any different than a sugar pill?  Other than I know the sugar pill isnt going to work.   I have a theory, that A LOT of hospitalizations are largely not needed, and more the effect of people who never experience discomfort getting a little sick (this is not to discount the people with shitloads of other issues actually threatened by the virus).  Visit any emergency room and you are going to see a shitload of people who really do not need to be there most days.  I also suspect one of the deciding factors in these people going to the hospital is psychological to a degree.  They get sick, know they are vaccinated, and might even feel pretty bad.   They have been told they are MUCH less likely to need to go to the hospital...so they do not go.  Conversely, someone who has not had a shot, gets sick, feels pretty bad (because it does make you feel pretty bad) and go to the hospital because they have been pummeled endlessly about how much more likely they are to need hospitalization.   

   So at this point I am not certain hospitalizations (past ambulance rides) mean jack shit as to vaccine vs no vaccine as a viable statistic, because there has been a whole shitload of psychological pressure on people who have been just about fear porned to death.

See the graph. The covid-19 vaccines do reduce the chance of hospitalization. They're not as effective as natural immunity, and they're really terrible at preventing symptomatic cases or transmission, and the risk/benefit ratio isn't very good for people outside certain categories (like those 60+). But they do have an effect.

Have you seen Prasad's video on the latest CDC mask "study"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hWmFnA3AQ0
He thoroughly demolishes it, and a lot of his arguments are similar to the ones you're making about self-selection and different populations leading to garbage results.

[Pat]

That's always been a stupid argument. They're very leaky vaccines, but they're vaccines.

No they are not, they fail the long-standing definition of a vaccine, which is to provide immunity to infection.

That's not the definition of "vaccine", and never has been. A vaccine isn't defined by efficacy. It's just something that inspires an immunological response, without requiring the subject to be infected by the disease.

Many traditional vaccines are often very effective, because they evoke the full range of immunological responses in the body. But they also wane over time, and many require boosters (like tetanus shots). And while the body does have a general immunological response, the most effective aspects are very specific. As a result, when a disease isn't a single organism or a virus, but instead is a syndrome or collection of symptoms that can have a variety of causes, vaccination is often of little use. For instance, what we call "the flu" isn't one thing, it's many things. The seasonal flu shot protects against some of them, but it's a crapshoot whether you'll get exposed to something it protects against. Viruses that mutate rapidly can also be hard to protect against, because they change into new things over time. Some degree of cross-immunity often exists between parental strains and mutants, or within broad families of diseases, but it's less effective. Covid-19 falls into both categories, with some cross-immunity from earlier coronaviruses (like sars1), and a high degree of mutation.

I have no problems with calling the covid-19 vaccines shitty, but they're definitely vaccines.

   noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

   Tetanus boosters are EVERY 10 YEARS.   That definition I put there, the old one, has a really, really big word in it.  AND.

That's a perfectly fine definition. Why aren't you using it?

  I am, I just know what the meaning of the word AND means in the english language,  it means to qualify it must have the thing before the and, and the thing after the and.  This vaccine is not providing immunity.  So....

Immunity in this context has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean vaccines turn you into Superman and viruses just bounce off your chest. It means your body mounts an immune response. This might clarify:

"... stimulate the production of antibodies and [therefore] provide immunity ..."

That's how the term is being used. It doesn't mean:

"... stimulate the production of antibodies and [also] provide immunity ..."

[oggsmash]

That's always been a stupid argument. They're very leaky vaccines, but they're vaccines.

No they are not, they fail the long-standing definition of a vaccine, which is to provide immunity to infection.

That's not the definition of "vaccine", and never has been. A vaccine isn't defined by efficacy. It's just something that inspires an immunological response, without requiring the subject to be infected by the disease.

Many traditional vaccines are often very effective, because they evoke the full range of immunological responses in the body. But they also wane over time, and many require boosters (like tetanus shots). And while the body does have a general immunological response, the most effective aspects are very specific. As a result, when a disease isn't a single organism or a virus, but instead is a syndrome or collection of symptoms that can have a variety of causes, vaccination is often of little use. For instance, what we call "the flu" isn't one thing, it's many things. The seasonal flu shot protects against some of them, but it's a crapshoot whether you'll get exposed to something it protects against. Viruses that mutate rapidly can also be hard to protect against, because they change into new things over time. Some degree of cross-immunity often exists between parental strains and mutants, or within broad families of diseases, but it's less effective. Covid-19 falls into both categories, with some cross-immunity from earlier coronaviruses (like sars1), and a high degree of mutation.

I have no problems with calling the covid-19 vaccines shitty, but they're definitely vaccines.

   noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

   Tetanus boosters are EVERY 10 YEARS.   That definition I put there, the old one, has a really, really big word in it.  AND.

That's a perfectly fine definition. Why aren't you using it?

  I am, I just know what the meaning of the word AND means in the english language,  it means to qualify it must have the thing before the and, and the thing after the and.  This vaccine is not providing immunity.  So....

Immunity in this context has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean vaccines turn you into Superman and viruses just bounce off your chest. It means your body mounts an immune response. This might clarify:

"... stimulate the production of antibodies and [therefore] provide immunity ..."

That's how the term is being used. It doesn't mean:

"... stimulate the production of antibodies and [also] provide immunity ..."

  Bro you sure do seem to have to hit some funky Yoga poses to pretend the vaccines have any effect on the iteration of covid rolling around right now.  If that fucking thing was on a free market, it would get discontinued.  It does not work.  One of the qualifiers to be a vaccine, is it has to work.    UNless you are saying providing antibodies for the wrong virus (the old strain) while providing zero immunity for the new strain is fitting the definition you want for a vaccine.  Then so be it.  I guess words dont mean shit if we decide to shift what they are commonly accepted to mean in society whenever it suits Pfizer.

[Pat]

If you have a vaccine against one disease and get infected by another, it doesn't mean the vaccine isn't really a vaccine. It just means you got infected by something the vaccine doesn't protect against.