Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday May 03, @09:28AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]

The UK did a large study of household transmission, large enough to include a statistically respectable number of breakthrough cases among vaccinated people.

The vaccinated people who never got infected of course didn't pass along an infection. Of those who had been vaccinated but still got infected, the chance of passing it along to a household member dropped by 38-49%.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half

Take the reduction in infections into account, and the estimate is that vaccinations cut the effective reproductive number by a factor of 6. The virus cannot afford that. Even in the early days in Wuhan with no precautions it was only 3-3.5.

We're still waiting for the results of the prospective study on college campuses but this strikes me as enough data to encourage vaccines to protect the unvaccinated.

I'm eager to see how the nasal spray vaccines turn out. Medicine is horribly unpredictable but it's reasonable to think that something stimulating the mucosal immune subsystem could be even more effective, maybe even much more.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Monday May 03, @09:51AM (92 children)

    by Mojibake Tengu (8598) on Monday May 03, @09:51AM (#1145622) Journal

    This one current vaccination campaign marketing strategy reminds me of Contergan marketing camapaign long time ago, but I don't know why.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide [wikipedia.org]

    Surely those vaccines now have no such severe effects on pregnant and fetuses like then.

    --
    The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by PiMuNu on Monday May 03, @10:08AM (54 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @10:08AM (#1145624)

      Do you have evidence that the covid vaccine is harmful?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kazzie on Monday May 03, @10:41AM (42 children)

        by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @10:41AM (#1145628)

        To play troll's advocate, no-one had evidence that Thalidomide was harmful either (initially).

        But I'm confident that medical testing has improved since the 1950s.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @11:11AM (25 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @11:11AM (#1145631)

          Yes.

          The only way to get good medicine is to do human trials. That's not Nazi-evil, that's reality.
          The only way to get good medicine quickly is to do lots of human trials quickly. Millions.
          No human trials? No medicine. Period.

          All of this Covid-antivaxx bullshit fully hinges on the point that covid is not a problem BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT IT TO BE DO NOT WANT LET THE WORLD BE NORMAL AGAIN FINGERS IN EAR LALALALALAAAAAA!

          From this one, single, basic presumption you can deduce a) all flawed argumentation that supports the basic premise, and building on that the rest of the conspiracy theories even appear logical.

          But it's just that single delusion at the core. Psychologically absolutely understandable, especially in western cultures, and yet so damaging.

          BTW: Ockham's Razor - it's the simplest possible explanation so it wins ;-)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @11:30AM (15 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @11:30AM (#1145634)

            BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT IT TO BE DO NOT WANT LET THE WORLD BE NORMAL AGAIN

            Reality is even weirder than that - the idiots don't even believe virus is real. It's like convincing flat earther that the earth is actually not a plate.

            https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-hospital-icu-patients-deniers-1.6002111 [www.cbc.ca]

            • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @12:22PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @12:22PM (#1145641)

              >> It's like convincing flat earther that the earth is actually not a plate.

              So how do you explain tectonic plate theory, moron.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @03:39PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @03:39PM (#1145693)

                are you saying the universe is just a big sink full of dirty dishes?

                • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday May 03, @08:32PM

                  by Osamabobama (5842) on Monday May 03, @08:32PM (#1145810)

                  No. The Earth is a sink full of dirty dishes. The rest of the universe is foam, presumably from the dish soap.

                  --
                  Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
            • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday May 03, @03:21PM (11 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 03, @03:21PM (#1145681)

              No, they say they believe the virus isn't real. It's become a shibboleth, something you say not because of its literal meaning but because it identifies you as part of the group of people that have decided to take the anti-science route with regards to Covid, usually because the alternative would be admitting you supported a politician who was bad and wrong about Covid (not just in the US, either: Jair Bolsanaro is another example of this).

              As in, the denialists will often say all of the following are true, simultaneously:
              1. Covid isn't real.
              2. Covid is real, but doesn't actually hurt or kill anybody.
              3. Covid is real, and kills people, but only the people that are weak and should die anyway.
              4. Covid vaccines don't work (against the virus that they said didn't exist in point 1).
              5. Covid vaccines work, but also have a tracking chip in them.
              6. Covid vaccines work, and don't have a tracking chip in them, but they're just a profit scheme for the pharma industry.
              7. Covid vaccines work, and don't have a tracking chip in them, and aren't really a big profit point for the pharma industry, but they're part of an elaborate scheme to get people in free countries to accept restrictions on their movements and behaviors they might not otherwise.
              8. Doctors are all liars.
              9. Except the like 3 doctors that I found somewhere in the world that say I'm right, even if their specialty has nothing to do with Covid or public health and even if they aren't legally able to practice medicine anymore because they're quacks (which is taken as "proof" that the lying doctors are trying to protect their profession, of course).
              And if you call them on their BS they'll Gish gallop around these points, forever.

              And if they're rich powerful people, they'll quietly get the vaccine as soon as they can, all while telling poorer less-powerful people that they shouldn't.

              --
              The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @03:47PM (10 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @03:47PM (#1145696)

                That you, presumably genuinely, think *anybody* genuinely holds the set of views you just laid out, says for much more about you than it might about whatever you are trying to critique.

                And as an aside which of these do you believe more accurately represents science, and which represents religion?

                A) Treat everything with skepticism, trust only in verifiable data, keeping in mind that even data itself can, lacking context, be misleading.
                B) Blindly trust authority figures. Not only ignore the words of non-believers, but actively work to demonize them to a comically absurd degree.

                • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday May 03, @04:01PM (9 children)

                  by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 03, @04:01PM (#1145704)

                  Who is more likely to be right about a particular issue:
                  A) Me, a person with no particular education in that issue and no professional experience whatsoever dealing with it, but I have Google and can find articles and studies somewhere that I can pretend to understand and read past the headline, or
                  B) People who have spent years or decades studying the issue in question and risk having their careers destroyed if they're wrong or lying. Especially in cases where, such as my own case, one of the people who knows something about what they're talking about is a sibling I have a good relationship with and every reason to trust.

                  To suggest that you are better at this than people who have a lot more training and experience than you is extremely arrogant. It's like suggesting you could play basketball 1-on-1 with an NBA player and have a chance of winning: It's theoretically possible, but I know who I'd bet on.

                  --
                  The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
                  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:26PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:26PM (#1145710)

                    The NBA doesn't exist and even if it does exist they don't play basketball. Just another big government scam to concentrate the sheeple in urban centers for mind control.

                    • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:36PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:36PM (#1145739)

                      I thought it was Antifa that didn't exist. That's what the Democrat politicians say.

                  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:12PM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:12PM (#1145776)

                    You're not really helping your case. Shall we also add appeals to authority to the religion/science contrast?

                    Science is about skepticism, logic, facts, and rationale. Religion is about appealing to dogma, authority, faith.

                    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday May 04, @02:14AM (3 children)

                      by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday May 04, @02:14AM (#1145920)

                      You've got that so wrong.

                      Science is not about skepticism at the sake of all else. Science is about keeping an open mind. If the theory fits all observable phenomena, then we should base our actions upon assuming the theory is correct. If a different theory comes up with a better match for the observable phenomena then it's time to adjust our understanding and possibly our actions.

                      You have offered no alternative scientific theory to replace our current understanding of COVID and the best means to combat it. Instead, you are basically just telling people to not believe anything ever while trying to sound scientific. You are a troll. And not a very good one.

                      • (Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Tuesday May 04, @04:29PM (2 children)

                        by Socrastotle (13446) on Tuesday May 04, @04:29PM (#1146214) Journal

                        The issue is that "better" is frequently in the eye of the beholder. My favorite example here is Einstein. Einstein believed that the universe was driven by a clean and causal system of structures. His discovery of relatively no doubt cemented that idea in his mind. About the time quantum mechanics was discovered this ran into problems though. While relativity is beautiful, elegant, and "clean" - quantum mechanics is pretty much the opposite in every single way. At least the Copenhagen Interpretation of such is.

                        Einstein rejected the Copenhagen Interpretation not because it failed to explain what we observed, or because he found some technical flaw in it, but because he felt that it ran contrary to the nature of the universe as he saw it. This is where the famous quote of "spooky action at a distance" comes from. It wasn't Einstein describing something, but actually mocking the Copenhagen Interpretation, and quantum entanglement in particular. Einstein went to his deathbed rejecting the Copenhagen Interpretation. Today the Copenhagen Interpretation remains the dominant view, yet if Einstein were revived there's no doubt he'd continue to reject it. He's probably wrong. And that's perfectly fine.

                        If people simply accepted the dominant view then the dominant view would never change, and we'd still believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. People should believe what is logical to them. Of course that means some people will be wrong, and that's perfectly fine because it also means that, almost certainly, some people will be right. When you look back at society the big threats to humanity have never come from diversity of thought, but from when lots of people all agree to believe something that and that belief ends up being wrong. Diversity of thought will never result in the most optimal outcome because you are effectively embracing some people being wrong, but it will also never result in the worst of outcomes because you are also effectively ensuring that some people will also be right and be able to act accordingly.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @11:56PM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @11:56PM (#1146326)

                          I know what you're saying but you picked an example that doesn't illustrate it.

                          The issue is that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't disprovable. Since many-worlds and other interpretations also cannot be disproved, it literally is a leap of faith as to which we choose.

                          Unless we discover new physics that lets us, for example, leap between multiverses or otherwise discriminate between interpretations, which would be incredibly exciting and which Einstein would've rolled with. He was never one to deny data itself.

                          • (Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Wednesday May 05, @06:45PM

                            by Socrastotle (13446) on Wednesday May 05, @06:45PM (#1146544) Journal

                            He did not just adopt a competing theory equally validated by the evidence in existence. He outright rejected the notion that any of the theory that fit what we observed were correct. He refused to accept the notion of a world driven by probability and other forms of 'quantum weirdness'. These are where all of the famous Einstein quotes you're probably familiar with come from, such as:

                            Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.

                            Ironically, it's more well known because of deistic allusions rather than anything to do with what he was talking about, but such is the nature of society. He simply didn't believe any of the prevalent theories, which have persisted to this day, were valid. And largely because they did not fit his notion of how the universe "ought" be. He would spend the remainder of his life trying to develop an alternative theory, and failing.

                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:22PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:22PM (#1145778)

                    Your retort to "B" is non-sequitur. "Emergency Use" more or less indicates that this is a beta, and you duly sign away your ability to hold either companies, the developers, or the marketers liable for any injury. Moreover if you look at, say, the GFC - how many people had their careers "ruined"? I don't think any of the people calling the shots on CDOs or NINJAs got put to the street, just forced into an early and comfortable retirement in the worst case. And spending decades studying x doesn't make you competent, period.

                    It's about context in any case. What happens when you put a pugilist into a knife fight? They're trained to play fair and hit fair, they're not trained for dirty knife fighting in a dark alleyway.

                    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday May 03, @08:00PM

                      by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 03, @08:00PM (#1145794)

                      Yes, this is a beta test. It can have side effects (it certainly did when I took it). There is a non-zero chance that it will be imperfect in some important way. Probably, based on the tests and millions of people who already have it, that non-zero chance is lower than if you get Covid-19.

                      There's a non-zero chance that any car you enter to go somewhere will be imperfect in some important way. And yet you do it anyway.
                      There's a non-zero chance that whatever device you're using to access SN will explode or catch fire. You don't seem to be having trouble doing that either.

                      Spending decades studying X doesn't necessarily make you competent, but it does make it much more likely that you're competent than somebody who is completely new to the subject. This is the completely normal idea that most people get better at whatever they're doing after they've practiced for a while.

                      What happens when you put a pugilist into a knife fight? They're trained to play fair and hit fair, they're not trained for dirty knife fighting in a dark alleyway.

                      There's no shortage of stories of idiots and/or crooks picking fights with MMA fighters, boxers, and even TV martial artists like Chuck Norris and winding up in the hospital. Just because someone knows how to fight fair doesn't mean they can't put that knowledge to use to fight dirty.

                      --
                      The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:03PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:03PM (#1145773)

            You're volunteering or submitting for/to the rigors of lockdowns, distancing and every other modality of social prophylaxis that has thus far been developed and deployed. I've said this before and will again, you're submitting to this. There are places in the US and elsewhere that have elected to take near-zero precautions and they're not facing an existential crisis. Not to mention the fact that the initial CFR (which moves) was .9% in the "no co-morbidities" class (which quite probably had hidden disorders) prior to any of the treatment advancements since established. Another inference to be gleaned is that the statistics you see are misleading, they say COVID-caused deaths, but the actuality is that they're COVID correlated deaths. The vast majority of fatalities (80%) fall into the 65+ group, which has a massively increased risk profile for the diseases like diabetes, chronic pulmonary, and cardiovascular disorders (which also kill). This is all readable as: COVID acts as a risk modifier for people with disease - which means they should be isolating, vaccinating, and handling their own personal health as they see fit. There are also plenty of means to handle day-to-day errands and practical matters while isolating, and business has been very accommodating to develop these services, like pick-up and delivery grocery, food delivery services. You can live your whole life in your house without ever necessitating contact with another person - whether that's a desirable outcome is another question.

            Insofar as the question of vaccination: it's a question of empirical method, and skepticism. You need a control group, I'll gladly act as the guinea pig for that. It's not unreasonable to question the unknown unknowns. It's not unreasonable to question the authority, to wonder about the effect this will have on bodily autonomy. Certainly it's not strange to ponder the necessity - anecdotally, I haven't had a flu shot in many years and I also haven't had the flu in many years. I do keep up with tetanus booster, got my HepB shot - those are very consequential personal risks, which, while possessing a low probability of contraction are serious enough for consideration at my age and level of fitness. Sometime things can take a long time to precipitate: consider Mad Cow disease, it's a proteopathy that can take years to present, it's a terminal degenerative disease. Of course I'm not even going to conjecture that the mRNA vaccines would or even could cause the emergence of such a dramatic disease, but just illustrating that disease can be wholly unseen for years. And considering how the vaccines function perhaps we'll see cases where the vaccinated exhibit a syndromatic pattern. Perhaps, and likely not, but altogether not an impossibility given the nature of... Nature. It's not anti-scientific to be skeptical about jamming a novel vaccine for a novel pathogen made with a novel process into your body and being leary of the potential outcomes when you never had skin in the game e.g. healthy 18-45 people.

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday May 03, @08:02PM (3 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 03, @08:02PM (#1145797)

              "Not to mention the fact that the initial CFR (which moves) was .9% in the "no co-morbidities" class (which quite probably had hidden disorders) prior to any of the treatment advancements since established."

              So, if everybody in the world gets infected, that's about 70 million people who end up dead. Or, if you just care about USAians for some reason, that's about 3-4 million people who end up dead. You know, the kind of scale of death that makes WWII seem like a picnic. Glad to know you don't see that as maybe a problem governments should maybe do something to stop from happening.

              --
              The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:33PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:33PM (#1145812)

                You may want to read the rest of his post. I understand you've professed to being unable to understand basic science above, but his post is relatively straight forward and extremely insightful.

                Hint: what you said he said, is not what he said.

              • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday May 04, @03:46PM (1 child)

                by Freeman (732) on Tuesday May 04, @03:46PM (#1146188) Journal

                According to data from the CDC 4,488,220 people died from Heart Disease in 2019. Where's the outrage for that? In fact, most of those are likely due to the fact that people like fatty foods, sugar, etc. Thus, they ended up fat and died from heart disease. Down with Pepsi! Down with Coca-Cola! Down with Olive Garden! Down with Outback Steak House! Down with Taco Bell! Down with extra creamy Ice Cream! Down with Steak! Down with Coffee!

                12Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. 13Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.

                14So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. 15And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. 16Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.

                Daniel 1:12-16 https://biblehub.com/kjv/daniel/1.htm [biblehub.com]
                https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/food-nutrition/pulses-the-perfect-food-healthy-to-eat-healthy-to-grow-peas-lentils-chickpeas [ndsu.edu]

                --
                "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @12:00AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @12:00AM (#1146329)

                  Ok, I know you're posting in good faith so I won't be snarky.

                  I am, however, a bit upset by what you say.

                  We have been trying to fight this fight. Our board (Christian high school) agreed to our parent-led arguments and, for explicitly Christian reasons, got rid of the pop machines in 2004-2005. But the fact that this is one of our wins, that I still cite, should tell you how well received our efforts generally are.

                  Turns out "eat well" and "respect your body" are about as well received as "abstain from purile sex" and "don't shun the poor."

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @10:28PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @10:28PM (#1145831)

              It's not anti-scientific to be skeptical about jamming a novel vaccine for a novel pathogen made with a novel process into your body and being leary of the potential outcomes when you never had skin in the game e.g. healthy 18-45 people.

              I'm not going to bother to look it up for you but I seem to recall reading that mRNA has been in clinical use--albeit not as a vaccine for virii--for at least a decade or two. While SARS-CoV-2 is novel, viruses are not. Doctors have been treating/vaccinating for these quite a while now. Also, the current evidence is that you are much more likely to die from the disease than you are to die from the vaccine. And, while all of you 18-45 year olds might be far less likely to die from COVID than some old fogeys, you most likely have friends/relatives that are much more at risk. If you care about them, get the vaccine.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @12:49AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @12:49AM (#1145880)

              So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're telling me I've got to choose between:

              a) no vaccine and about a 1 in 500 chance of dying from the Covid-19.

              b) vaccine and about a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of dying from a blood clot, or some unknown chance of a suffering a never seen, never suspected variant of Mad Cow Disease, for which there is no vaccine-causation demonstrated in the history of the world.

              [...thinking...]

              Yep, I'm gonna have to go with the vaccine.

              --
              Even if the vaccine mutates me into a kangaroo, maybe I can get work in the Australian film industry.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @10:50AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @10:50AM (#1146074)

                Even if the vaccine mutates me into a kangaroo, maybe I can get work in the Australian film industry.

                Not that big a change...sheep to roo.

                You do know the Aussies are more likely to eat the things?, and there was a time when some of their meat was sold unintentionally (aye, right) to consumers internationally as something else, caused a bit of a fuss, don't know why.

                Anyway, Good luck in your future career as a plate of Kangaburgers

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @05:12PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @05:12PM (#1146236)

                If you're young and healthy the odds of dying from COVID are practically zero. It's difficult to find the exact number because these people basically do not exist. And also keep in mind that young people are even more likely to be asymptomatic meaning the reported death rate is going to be even lower due to this sample bias. As per the GP post well above us, COVID is something that is pretty brutal on preexisting conditions, but in and of itself is relatively harmless. If you have diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer, etc - then I would 100% recommend vaccinating at the first possible opportunity.

                And, by contrast, the odds of dying due to a side effect of the vaccine are unclear. But what we can say for certain [openvaers.com] so far is that for each ~41,000 people that are vaccinated - one death is reported as a potential adverse effect to the vaccine. Potential is the keyword here. Those data are raw and causality has not yet been established. But the numbers are disconcertingly high and far higher than is normal for other vaccines.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday May 03, @02:04PM (15 children)

          by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @02:04PM (#1145664)

          I think it is trolling to claim that something is toxic when there have been significant wide spread trials which show no such evidence; and when there have been many similar medicines distributed that do not show any negative effects.

          • (Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:58PM (13 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:58PM (#1145676)

            Trials by? Big Pharma. The group of companies that have already been responsible for numerous travesties cast upon society for the sake of profit. And their punishments? A slap on the wrist, because the people punishing are also the same ones profiting from said schemes, just like now. And the amount of money at stake here is unimaginable. In direct compensation we're looking at what may be trillions of dollars if the virus does not go away and/or continues mutating. In financial money, the numbers have already gone into lala land. Moderna [yahoo.com], for instance of a single stock, is already up 900% and a number of people high up in politics were investing in them just before shit hit the fan. Great optics.

            You can see the raw data on reported adverse effects to vaccines by perusing VAERS - vaccine adverse effects reporting system. It's all open source. You can view a public presentation of the data here [openvaers.com]. As always the disclaimer is that those data are indeed raw and any potential adverse effect caused by the vaccines are reported, this does not mean that the vaccine did cause these effects. For instance if somebody dies of a stroke, completely independent of the vaccine, right after taking it - that would end up being reported as a death + stroke.

            Causality can only be assessed much later. And for now the government is stating that the data are not indicative of causal issues, besides the rare and frequently fatal brain blood clots which have been determined to be caused by the vaccines. That said, there have been an *immense* number of adverse effects that greatly outweigh those typically reported for vaccines. You're looking at around one adverse effect per 1200 vaccinations, including about 1 death per 40,000. Those numbers are quite extreme. This does not mean the vaccines are "toxic" but they are most certainly showing many extremely negative side effects, up to and including death.

            • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:49PM (10 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:49PM (#1145724)

              (Sarcasm)

              Yes, let us put an end to big Pharma. How dare they try to make a profit in a capitalist country. Remove those liability exemptions so we can sue them out of existence. We don't need their stinking vaccines. Let people die the way God has intended.

              And 0.6 % of the population receiving vaccinations have peanut allergies, and nearly 100 people are dying from those every year. These numbers are outrageous!

              Why take a chance of side-effects from the vaccines when we can die peacefully and predictably from Covid-19. Don't be stupid sheeple!

              (/Sarcasm)

              • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:34PM (9 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:34PM (#1145737)

                COVID is far from deadly on a numbers basis. There are certain classes of people who are high risk, and they definitely ought to get vaccinated. For the rest... they should do a risk/reward analysis. Some of them will catch COVID and become immune, thus edging us to herd immunity anyway: a combination of recovered COVID cases plus vaccinations.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:59PM (6 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:59PM (#1145746)

                  If only we had somebody as brilliant as you directing our response to the threat of Covid-19 deaths! No one else in the world has ever considered this strategy and run the numbers and realized how absolutely successful that would be compared to what we are undertaking now.

                  Step right up folks! Lay down your lives and takes your chances at the big karmic wheel! You - the medically untrained - should assess your risk/reward chances and face the inescapable consequences of it. Pay no attention to the medical establishment, because they only studied medicine to make money.

                  Remember, we cannot reach herd-immunity until the weak ones among you succumb, and we can only find you weak ones by trial and error.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:16PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:16PM (#1145777)

                    I had it and didn't die, coward. (Vaccine was not yet available.)
                    You are lying through your teeth about the very low fatality rate.

                  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:35PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:35PM (#1145783)

                    The people assessing and deploying the strategies in play are not the "medical establishment", but politicians and corporate executives making backdoor deals and getting very very rich in the process of it all.

                    Actual healthcare workers have little no voice in all of this. And, unsurprisingly, some of the highest rates of "vaccine hesitancy" are from among healthcare workers. Nearly half [cbsnews.com] of people whose occupation puts them regularly in contact with COVID patients are choosing to delay or forego vaccinating.

                    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:01PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:01PM (#1145796)

                      (sarcasm)
                      How dare people try to get rich in a capitalist country! I would rather we withhold a proven vaccine that saves thousands - maybe millions - of lives than permit that travesty.
                      (/sarcasm)

                      Of course there are laws against corruption, but you cannot employ them because all you have is allegation and innuendo.

                      And this is the USA, so people are free to take their chances if they choose, but don't pretend that an anti-vax choice is medically wise from an ultimate death-count point of view. Else, publish your results and your credentials.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @05:37AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @05:37AM (#1146002)

                      Some pertenint quotes from that study:

                      The survey was conducted online and via telephone from February 11- March 7, 2021.

                      Frontline health care workers are defined for the purpose of this project as individuals who work in a health care delivery setting and have direct contact with patients or their bodily fluids.

                      Majorities of health care workers working in hospitals (66%) and outpatient clinics (64%) say they have received a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to half of those working doctors’ offices (52%), or in nursing homes or assisted care facilities (50%), and just one in four (26%) home health care workers.

                      It is also worth noting that the vast majority of people who weren't vaccinated or planning to become vaccinated at the time of being surveyed (30% of the sample) worked in "Administrative duties" or "bathing, eating, cleaning, exercising, housekeeping" and they also didn't have a college degree by a very large margin.

                  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by choose another one on Monday May 03, @08:09PM

                    by choose another one (515) on Monday May 03, @08:09PM (#1145802)

                    If only we had somebody as brilliant as you directing our response to the threat of Covid-19 deaths! No one else in the world has ever considered this strategy and run the numbers and realized how absolutely successful that would be compared to what we are undertaking now.

                    Brazil?

                    Tanzania seems to have worked it out - deny it exists, claim you have zero, fine anyone who even mentions it, or diagnoses it - result: practically zero covid deaths. Quite a lot of people dying of new unknown respiratory disease, but people die anyway. It was all going fine until the architect of the policy died, officially of heart disease, unofficially of covid - but no one can say that without being fined...

                    Oh and North Korea maybe - no one's really sure.

                  • (Score: 2) by nostyle on Monday May 03, @08:27PM

                    by nostyle (11497) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @08:27PM (#1145807) Journal

                    ...compared to what we are undertaking now.

                    I see what you did there.

                    --
                    Armchair warriors often fail
                    And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales
                    - Don Henley, “The End of the Innocence”

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:42PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:42PM (#1145786)

                  And OBTW, I'm sure you've actually run the numbers to show how many deaths your strategy would prevent in comparison to other strategies. Where actually have you published your results? Or perhaps you could publish them here so that we all might be enlightened. And do add your credentials in that posting, so that we may be completely convinced.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Monday May 03, @08:21PM

                  by Tork (3914) on Monday May 03, @08:21PM (#1145806)

                  COVID is far from deadly on a numbers basis.

                  Why is deadly the operating metric, here?

                  --
                  Slashdolt Logic: "23 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
            • (Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday May 04, @02:39AM (1 child)

              by ChrisMaple (6964) on Tuesday May 04, @02:39AM (#1145933)

              The Oxford vaccine is the one that has gotten the most bad press (statistically unwarranted) on side effects. The Oxford vaccine is explicitly NOT-FOR-PROFIT.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:43PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:43PM (#1146224)

                Not quite. They "promised" to sell it without profit while COVID was declared a pandemic.

                And that compromise was likely because their background is far dirtier. Oxford wanted to create the world's first completely open source vaccine. They were going to use all of their available resources to research, develop, and make available all the technical information to create a COVID vaccine and then release it to the public so people around the world could freely adapt, modify, and produce it as they saw fit - all from day 0. Bill Gates, who was the primary financial backer of the vaccine, rejected this idea and demanded they keep the intellectual property rights private and commercialize it. And so they did.

                So you end up with this watered down "we promise not to *immediately* profit off it" deal.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:00PM (#1145727)
            I actually don't put much weight on the early trials. The statistics that matter more to me are from the millions of people who have already been vaccinated.

            There were some deaths with the Pfizer vaccine but I think most of those were where they gave terminally ill old people the vaccine... Seems more like a reasonably successful attempt at legal euthanasia...

            There were some people who died or had serious complications after taking the Astra Zeneca vaccine and a number of them were young. While the death rates for the Astra Zeneca vaccine are low they're not that low for a vaccine that's supposed to be for billions of people.

            So given I'm not old and terminally ill. I'd prefer the Pfizer vaccine to the Astra Zeneca (or the other vaccines with similar delivery mode - J&J and Sputnik)

            I'm wondering if the Chinese vaccines will be proven safer and effective enough in other countries than China. I wouldn't trust any stats about Chinese vaccines from China or from countries too bound to China...
      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @11:21AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @11:21AM (#1145632)

        Do have any that it's not?

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @01:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @01:34PM (#1145657)

          Come on ass holes. Answer the question.

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by driverless on Monday May 03, @11:50AM

        by driverless (4770) on Monday May 03, @11:50AM (#1145635)

        I wouldn't say it's harmful, but since I've been vaccinated I've had this sudden urge to buy dozens of copies of Microsoft products, and my 5G reception has improved out of sight.

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 03, @12:58PM (7 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @12:58PM (#1145646) Homepage Journal

        Blood clots. If you've missed the evidence for that, you haven't been paying attention.

        No one KNOWS what the harmful side effects of the vax might be. Of course, no one yet knows the long term harmful effects of the disease, so how can they possibly know the effect of the vax?

        It's exasperating. The disease wasn't even heard of until ~17 months ago. There is VERY LIMITED DATA!! Yet, everyone is sitting on the edge of their seat waiting to hear the latest and most misinformative data available.

        --
        "I didn't lose to him!" - The Donald referring to Trippin' Joe
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday May 03, @03:38PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 03, @03:38PM (#1145692)

          Blood clots, which are often a treatable condition, and less common as a side effect to some but not all of the vaccines being distributed than as a side effect to birth control pills and a lot less common among vaccine recipients than Covid-19 patients, and based on how frequent they are it's more dangerous to risk a car crash traveling to the appointment to get the vaccine than it is to take that shot.

          As for why people, including everybody who actually knows what they're talking about (with letters like "M.D." and "Ph.D." after their name) are choosing to operate on the admittedly incomplete information available, it's very simple: We have the equivalent of 1-2 plane crashes worth of deaths happening every single day in the US alone, and yesterday's numbers were the equivalent of 3 Sept 11th terrorist attacks. And a lot more experiencing long-term disability. Delays are costing lives, almost definitely more lives than any unknown unknown side effect might be.

          --
          The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:28PM (#1145711)

          Car accidents. People driving to the vaccination appointments risk DYING. Nobody knows if this is significant. That's the point - NOBODY KNOWS.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday May 03, @04:46PM (3 children)

          by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Monday May 03, @04:46PM (#1145721)

          OK, I don't have the citation handy, but of all the negative vaccine effects like heart muscle inflammation from the smallpox vaccine, absolutely all have shown up in days or weeks. Nobody in the field could think of an example of a vaccine negative effect that showed up more than two months later.

          Yes, it's new technology, but consider. The mRNA vaccines fall apart if not kept at dry ice temperatures. How long do you think they last at body temperature? A virus vector, you might wonder if it would stick around for a long time and you might speculate about it being the first vaccine in history to have long term effects.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:30PM (#1145809)

            My first bet here would be on the yellow fever vaccine related neurological disease. Does it manifest later than 2 months? Unsure, but it certainly took far far longer than 2 months to finally connect it to the vaccine, especially given the fact it can manifest in a huge number of not immediately obviously connected ways.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:58PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:58PM (#1145815)

            When everybody smoked, or was constantly exposed to second hand smoke, it was difficult to provably link smoking to cancer simply because it's a rare longterm effect and you had no especially good control. Large amounts of healthy people choosing not to vaccinate is ideal for an extremely large scale longitudinal study. Sample biases abounds, but it's certainly better than trying to suss out difficult to evaluate effects with no effective control.

            So I think it would be more accurate to state that it would be the first vaccine in modern history to have *proven* long term negative effects. Without a proper and at least somewhat randomized control for other vaccines, actually assessing causality at the macro level is near impossible. Hence when you read the massive NAS assessment report on vaccines, a phrase that ends up getting repeated hundreds of times is: 'There is insufficient evidence to confirm or reject a causal relationship of [x] to [y].'

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @10:34PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @10:34PM (#1145833)

              When everybody smoked, or was constantly exposed to second hand smoke, it was difficult to provably link smoking to cancer simply because it's a rare longterm effect and you had no especially good control.

              Hint: it's hard for people to notice the connection when they are being paid not to notice it.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 04, @04:29AM

          by dry (223) on Tuesday May 04, @04:29AM (#1145982) Journal

          OTOH, people hospitized with Covid have about a 25% chance of blood clots

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @10:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @10:48AM (#1145629)

      Your comment very much reminds me of a propaganda technique that Josef Goebbels liked to employ, and I very much do know why.
      (link omitted, read his book yourself)
      Surely nowadays's agitprop will cause much less millions of deaths than it did then.

      (I'm aiming for "+5 counter-troll", BTW)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @11:27AM (19 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @11:27AM (#1145633)

      Vaccines are given to pregnant women already so they don't pass potential infections to their children. An example is Hepatitis B vaccine. And now COVID vaccine works similarly - children born of vaccinated mothers have immunity to virus.

      But I do enjoy a nice conspiracy theory of an old kook worried about pregnant women. Is that why you don't like them vaccines because of your pregnancy at age 67 or are you simply scared of the needles and afraid of saying so?

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @12:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @12:35PM (#1145643)

        And some pregnant women who were given the vaccine miscarried days later.
        THE COVID VACCINES ARE NOT APPROVED FOR PREGNANT WOMEN. It is not advisable to take well-established vaccines even while pregnant. This is mind-bogglingly stupid.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 03, @01:00PM (17 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @01:00PM (#1145647) Homepage Journal

        Actually, no. Vaccines are NOT routinely given to pregnant women. Think about all the vaxes you were given. Unless you're a military veteran, I think almost all were given prior to starting school, and maybe a couple more thrown in before you were a teenager. Instances of pre-teen pregnant women are exceedingly rare. (Not completely unheard of, but exceedingly rare.)

        --
        "I didn't lose to him!" - The Donald referring to Trippin' Joe
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Monday May 03, @01:08PM (16 children)

          by helel (2949) on Monday May 03, @01:08PM (#1145648)

          Actually it is standard practice to vaccinate pregnant women. Specifically is is recommended that you get the Tdap vaccine between 27 and 38 weeks [cdc.gov]. The yearly influenza vaccine is also generally recommended.

          --
          Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 03, @01:21PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @01:21PM (#1145654) Homepage Journal

            It's a good thing I never got pregnant - I didn't know that.

            --
            "I didn't lose to him!" - The Donald referring to Trippin' Joe
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:30PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:30PM (#1145713)

              Then why you so fat?

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:36PM (13 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:36PM (#1145672)

            Wrong. It is only approved to give CERTAIN vaccines to pregnant women, and other vaccines are OFF LIMITS to pregnant women.

            Here is an example from
            https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/acip/89390 [medpagetoday.com]

            ---Quote
            As well, the recommendations include cosmetic changes meant to streamline their presentation. For example, the pink "delay" box for vaccines in pregnancy is now a red box, with an asterisk and additional wording indicating that clinicians should delay HPV, MMR, and varicella vaccines until after pregnancy.
            ---EndQuote

            So should the COVID vaccines fall in the prohibited or suggested category during pregnancy? NO CLINICAL TRIALS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT ON PREGNANT WOMEN. Let that soak in. By choosing to get this vaccine as a pregnant woman, you are rolling the dice. YOU are now part of an uncontrolled clinical trial...

            • (Score: 2) by helel on Monday May 03, @02:47PM (12 children)

              by helel (2949) on Monday May 03, @02:47PM (#1145675)

              Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. Because the CDC recommends against certain vaccines in pregnant women we should ignore the CDC's recommendation that the COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant women [cdc.gov]. That is your stance?

              --
              Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
              • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @03:07PM (6 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @03:07PM (#1145679)

                I assume you got that link from somebody else who claimed that the CDC is stating the vaccines are safe for pregnant women, and neither you nor presumably anybody else in whatever outlet you found that at bothered to actually read it.

                Read it.

                The CDC does not state the COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant women - that would be utter madness at this point. They state that they have extremely limited data, but have not yet identified any risks based on those data. And conclude that getting vaccinated is a personal choice for the person. It comes down to measuring the possible risks of the vaccines vs the possible risks of COVID and chances for exposure, exactly as is the case for everybody else.

                • (Score: 2) by helel on Monday May 03, @07:50PM (5 children)

                  by helel (2949) on Monday May 03, @07:50PM (#1145788)

                  "If you are pregnant, you can receive a COVID-19 vaccine."

                  "Based on how these vaccines work in the body, experts believe they are unlikely to pose a risk for people who are pregnant."

                  "Studies in animals receiving a Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy found no safety concerns in pregnant animals or their babies."

                  "These data did not identify any safety concerns for pregnant people who were vaccinated or for their babies."

                  --
                  Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:33PM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @08:33PM (#1145811)

                    You left out this part: "<H1>Limited data are available about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant</H1>"

                    The part you omitted is in a type face four or five times the normal size right above all that stuff you said, and all the stuff boils down to "our best guess". So, once we take out all the pretty poli/corp-speak, it boils down to this: "our best guess is that the vaccine is safe for pregnant people [gotta be woke about this and not call them women] but we don't really know for sure, and if you get fucked by it, tough, there's no liability on our part for guessing wrong and pressuring you to take it."

                    • (Score: 1, Troll) by helel on Monday May 03, @11:50PM (3 children)

                      by helel (2949) on Monday May 03, @11:50PM (#1145859)

                      I'm glad we agree. The CDC thinks the vaccines are safe for pregnant people.

                      As for all the "big companies get immunity from liability" stuff, it's not great. Maybe don't elect Republicans next time?

                      --
                      Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
                      • (Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday May 04, @03:13AM (2 children)

                        by ChrisMaple (6964) on Tuesday May 04, @03:13AM (#1145941)

                        "Immunity from liability" is absolutely necessary. No U.S. manufacturer would be willing to produce vaccines if they were not protected from idiots and villains suing them. Not just civil suits, either; there are plenty of state attorneys general and district attorneys that would love to make a name for themselves by bringing a murder accusation against a pharma CEO.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @06:17AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @06:17AM (#1146015)

                          Are you asserting ALL vaccines carry no liability, even down to the person who does the injection as is the case with the COVID vaccines? If so, please provide a citation.

                          There is of course this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program [wikipedia.org]
                          Or this: https://www.forthepeople.com/dangerous-drug-lawyers/zostavax-shingles-vaccine-lawsuit/ [forthepeople.com]

                          The liability issues with the covid vaccines are more extensive, including everyone in the chain. Which makes sense considering its experimental and the normal safety studies haven't been done.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:52PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:52PM (#1146227)

                          If what you were saying was true, it would be literally impossible to release any sort of product in the US without immunity. And that is rather obviously not the case.

                          The legal system sets standards for liability. The "problem" for these vaccines is that they knew very well that those standards might be met by a sufficient number of people to be economically compromising. So instead we get this, where numerous individuals are trying to receive compensation for the deaths of their loved ones now believed to be caused by the vaccines (brain blood clots in particular) and running into brick walls. Because of course that pile of paper you sign before the vaccination effectively states, 'If this kills you - tough luck.'

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday May 03, @04:53PM (4 children)

                by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Monday May 03, @04:53PM (#1145725)

                Something we know for sure is that pregnant women are at increased risk for bad outcomes if they catch COVID.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:28PM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:28PM (#1145734)

                  "If" they catch COVID. It may never happen. Contagion rates are already falling due to herd immunity. Pregnant women do not need to get vaccinated to achieve hard immunity in America.

                  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:32PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:32PM (#1145782)

                    There is not going to be "herd immunity" in America.

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html [nytimes.com]

                    Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe

                    Widely circulating coronavirus variants and persistent hesitancy about vaccines will keep the goal out of reach. The virus is here to stay, but vaccinating the most vulnerable may be enough to restore normalcy.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @06:18AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @06:18AM (#1146017)

                      How convenient. If there will never be herd immunity, what's the fucking point of the vaccines?

                      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:57PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:57PM (#1146229)

                        Cynical view? To make sure those poor big pharma companies and their shareholders can profit. Moderna stock [marketwatch.com] is only up 900% so far. Don't they and their brave shareholders, including our politicians, deserve better?

                        Pragmatic view? If you get vaccinated - do it to protect yourself and only yourself. You don't get a small pox vaccine to protect Bubble Boy Billy, you do it to protect yourself. Bubble Boy being indirectly protected is just a nice social bonus. The vaccines aren't even especially promising in terms of reducing spread anyhow, with the UK showing a slightly less than 50% decline in spread within households. So you still pose a major risk to "gramma" even when vaccinated.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 03, @12:53PM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @12:53PM (#1145644) Homepage Journal

      Uhhhhm, I get your point. And, I intend to fix that troll mod. BUT, surely you realize that thalidomide had just about nothing to do with vaccines?

      The especially evil bit about thalidomide was, doctors handed it out like candy to pregnant women to relieve morning sickness and other unpleasant side effects of pregnancy. They thought it was as harmless as aspirin.

      --
      "I didn't lose to him!" - The Donald referring to Trippin' Joe
      • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:48PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:48PM (#1145722)

        Are we not handing out covid vaccines like candy?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @10:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @10:38PM (#1145835)

          Yes, because we are in the midst of a pandemic. Surely you must have noticed by now?

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday May 03, @01:12PM (6 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @01:12PM (#1145649) Journal

      This one current vaccination campaign marketing strategy reminds me of Contergan marketing camapaign long time ago, but I don't know why.

      It doesn't for me.

      Surely those vaccines now have no such severe effects on pregnant and fetuses like then.

      Covid also harms [cdc.gov] pregnant women:

      The overall risk of COVID-19 to pregnant women is low. However, pregnancy increases the risk for severe illness and death with COVID-19. Pregnant women who have COVID-19 appear more likely to develop respiratory complications requiring intensive care than women who aren't pregnant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Pregnant women are also more likely to be placed on a ventilator.

      In addition, pregnant women who are Black or Hispanic appear to be disproportionately affected by infection with the COVID-19 virus. Pregnant women who have underlying medical conditions, such as diabetes, also might be at even higher risk of severe illness due to COVID-19.

      Some research suggests that pregnant women with COVID-19 are also more likely to have a premature birth and cesarean delivery, and their babies are more likely to be admitted to a neonatal unit.

      I see they aren't advising against vaccination for pregnant women:

      If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, you may choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine. While further research is needed, early findings suggests that getting an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy poses no serious risks. The findings are based on data from the CDC’s coronavirus vaccine safety monitoring system.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:25PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:25PM (#1145668)

        The COVID vaccines were NEVER TESTED on pregnant women.
        They were thus not approved for pregnant women. If pregnant women want to be part of an uncontrolled vaccine trial... they should at least know that that is what they are doing. Frankly, given the risks, if I were a pregnant woman, I would opt to stay the hell away from most people and NOT take the vaccine. As I said in another post, there have been women who miscarried within days of receiving the vaccine. This was not necessary. You might not even catch COVID with herd immunity starting to take over in America. Let those people keep getting vaccinated. A pregnant woman can always get vaccinated AFTER giving birth.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Mojibake Tengu on Monday May 03, @03:02PM (3 children)

          by Mojibake Tengu (8598) on Monday May 03, @03:02PM (#1145677) Journal

          get vaccinated AFTER giving birth

          A 5-month-old infant died after receiving breast milk from his vaccinated mother who recently received her second dose of Pfizer vaccine, CDC VAERS data shows

          According to the latest data from CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a breastfeeding five-month-old infant has died of Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP)- a rare clotting disorder linked to, yes, low platelets. This is one of the saddest news we ever reported.

          The story first the infant’s death was first reported by Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter after he analyzed data and the report of the death in the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Berenson added, “This is an authentic and highly detailed report.”

          In a tweet this afternoon, Berenson wrote:

                  “VAERS reports a breastfeeding five-month old infant has died of TTP – a rare clotting disorder linked to, yes, low platelets. He became ill one day after his mother received her second
                  @pfizer shot. This is an authentic and highly detailed report.”

                  VAERS reports a breastfeeding five-month old infant has died of TTP – a rare clotting disorder linked to, yes, low platelets. He became ill one day after his mother received her second @pfizer shot.

                  This is an authentic and highly detailed report. pic.twitter.com/oNeWeFyYdp

                  — Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) April 23, 2021

          The report came from VAERS 1166062 data shown below.

                  “Patient received second dose of Pfizer vaccine on March 17, 2021 while at work. March 18, 2021 her 5 month old breastfed infant developed a rash and within 24 hours was inconsolable, refusing to eat and developed a fever. Patient brought baby to local ER where assessments were performed, blood analysis revealed elevated liver enzymes. Infant was hospitalized but continued to decline and passed away. Diagnosis of TTP. No known allergies. No new exposures aside from the mother’s vaccination the previous day.”

          And yes, we have screenshots of cdc.gov VAERS database entry for this case.

          --
          The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @03:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @03:27PM (#1145684)

            I am aware that breast milk is a risk. I probably wouldn't get vaxxed if I were breast feeding an infant.
            Perhaps in the future they will know how many weeks after getting vaxxed you need to wait before breastfeeding.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:09AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:09AM (#1145972)

            According to VAERS reports, vaccinations cause people to get hit by cars, get congenital diseases as adults, commit homicide, and even turn you into the Hulk.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 04, @05:57PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday May 04, @05:57PM (#1146253) Journal

            Also, according to the latest data from CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the influenza vaccine turns people into the Incredible Hulk. [vice.com]

            So you might want to take that self-reported data with a grain of salt before we even get to the part where we point out that correlation != causation.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:22PM (#1145779)

          The COVID vaccines were NEVER TESTED on pregnant women. .... As I said in another post, there have been women who miscarried within days of receiving the vaccine

          Fake news. Reality are reasons for miscarriage that may have nothing to do with vaccine. If vaccines cause miscarriage, it would have popped up statistically in the trials. It did not. So, fake news AGAIN to try to link things that are shown not to be linked in the first place. Covid is actually a cause of miscarriage, mother death and still birth. YMMV, so good luck with your choices.

          https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983 [nejm.org]
          https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2020/12/vaccinating-pregnant-and-lactating-patients-against-covid-19 [acog.org]
          https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/new-study-shows-pfizer-and-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-are-safe-in-pregnancy [pharmacytimes.com]

          In a White House press conference on April 23, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, discussed the positive safety findings of the study.

          “As such, CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine. We know that this is a deeply personal decision, and I encourage people to talk to their doctors or primary care providers to determine what is best for them and for their baby,”

          I'd rather trust real world data than some randoms on the internet that may or may not be real. And I'm not about to go through a milliard of internet posts to determine if someone's medical history led them to miscarriage or death.

    • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday May 03, @04:38PM (2 children)

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Monday May 03, @04:38PM (#1145719)

      We have data about vaccinating pregnant women. Outcomes are the same as without the vaccine, except for one difference.

      The babies are born with antibodies to SARS COV 2.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:25PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:25PM (#1145731)

        Not true for everyone. Look at the side effect reporting database mentioned elsewhere in the comments. Side effects have included terminated pregnancy. The reported side effect rate for the COVID vaccines are far higher than for other vaccines we have been administering for years.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday May 03, @06:14PM (2 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Monday May 03, @06:14PM (#1145753) Journal

      If the vaccine is harmful to a fetus, an actual COVID infection would be many times worse.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:29PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:29PM (#1146215)

        I heard yesterday (from the youtube channel "Dr. Mike," who is an actual doctor and strongly recommends vaccines) that the current medical evidence is that COVID typically does not spread from pregnant mother to fetus. So this entire statement is faulty, in that it assumes that the child could get COVID.

        Whether the vaccine could pass into the fetus is unknown (to me) at this time, but there is a non-zero chance it could pose a higher risk to the fetus than COVID. I'm guessing the risk is extremely low... but I'm not a doctor and that is an evidence-free guess.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:30PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:30PM (#1145670)

    Yep. It's true. Incinerated human corpses tend not to transmit infectious diseases.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @04:33PM (#1145714)

      But if you inject the ash into your brain, there's a risk of prion transmission.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:31PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:31PM (#1145671)

    From: https://khub.net/documents/135939561/390853656/Impact+of+vaccination+on+household+transmission+of+SARS-COV-2+in+England.pdf/35bf4bb1-6ade-d3eb-a39e-9c9b25a8122a?t=1619601878136 [khub.net] which is linked in the main article in the summary.

    The exclusion criteria did not overlap substantially, although contacts in households where
    the index case was vaccinated prior to 4 January 2021 were more likely to have been
    vaccinated (28.6% vs. 3.7%).
    ...
    Exclusions
    Index case vaccinated prior to 4 January 2020: households: 21475, contacts: 54904, secondary cases: 4991

    It appears people with early vaccination are running rates of secondary infection at about 9.1%

    In households where the index case was not vaccinated before testing positive, there were
    96,898 secondary cases out of 960,765 household contacts (10.1%).

    Perhaps someone with a better understanding of statistics can explain why it made sense to exclude people who were vaccinated early.

    Which vaccine does seem to matter -- the risk of secondary infection was increased for the vaccinated where the secondary case had age 60+, the vaccinated people were age 16-39, and the vaccine was the Astra-Zeneca version.

    • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday May 03, @07:41PM (1 child)

      by choose another one (515) on Monday May 03, @07:41PM (#1145785)

      Perhaps someone with a better understanding of statistics can explain why it made sense to exclude people who were vaccinated early.

      I haven't read all of it yet, but there are some comments about the very early vaccinations not being representative of the rollout as a whole. Early vacs were basically doctors / nurses and care home residents which means that their risk profile for catching it is very unrepresentative (doctors) or their domestic environment is unrepresentative (care homes).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @11:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @11:53PM (#1146325)

        Thanks for explaining that. Here in Canada we also vaccinated First Nations with priority, which might skew numbers for very many reasons including a disproportionate amount of poverty and diabetes.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @07:49PM (#1145787)

      Vaccination commenced in England in December 2020 targeting priority groups 1 and 2 (Box 1) (those at highest risk of mortality from COVID-19 and frontline health and social care workers) with BNT162b2. Rollout expanded from 4 January 2021 with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, targeting the top 4 priority groups (Box 1). .... Households in which any individual was vaccinated prior to the 4 January were excluded, so that our analysis would be as broadly generalizable as possible to the overall vaccination campaign

      Hint: they didn't want to include frontline workers at highest risk and this was the simplest.
      Hint2: title: Impact of vaccination on household transmission of SARS-COV-2 in England

      They wanted impact of vaccine on regular households that did not include high risk individuals. It's kind of obvious. Like if you want to analyze impact of gun violence in a city on families, you may want exclude police and active military personnel as they are more likely to skew your data without giving any insights about impact of gun violence on a community. You even see that in your data!! Secondary infection is lower for complex reasons, including probably early exposure (all last year) and some early vaccinations.

(1)