If only someone had thought of this.

What I don't understand regarding the vaccine is that if you can still catch and pass on the virus then why has the government paid a company to develop a vaccination passport and Why have fit, healthy and young carers and nursing staff been vaccinated before the vulnerable? Both of these being the case it heavily suggests that it does provide actual immunity and stops you from carrying the virus and passing it on at all. But if that's the case why is the government saying it doesn't know what it does? How can a vaccine complete all its clinical trials without anyone actually knowing what it does?

 

Pure speculation but could it be that they are pretty sure it does, but can’t prove it yet.

Not like this government to wait for the facts before spouting off mind.

 

I think it's with us for the long run mate. We'll have to vaccinate regularly to keep it under control and that should allow us to develop better treatments for it when people get it. Maybe with time we may get it down to the same sort of level as the winter flu, but it's never going to disappear. Why would it with a huge and ever increasing supply of hosts to accommodate it?

 

I've got a feeling that's the case too. That or they know it does but prefer to pretend it doesn't so that they maintain control of the population more for longer. If they tell people they cannot spread it after the vaccine they've no chance of keeping them in their homes

 

Immunity is not binary. It's a continuum from no immunity (100% guaranteed to get the disease) through to complete immunity (100% guaranteed not to get the disease) with every possibility between the two. Our immune systems vary massively between individuals, some get colds at the drop of a hat whilst others don't. The immunity conferred on us by vaccines is no different to that, some may have a perfect immune response and be truly immune whilst others will have an imperfect response and will therefore be less protected.

 

That doesn't answer the question though. They gave an efficacy rate which means they must know the figures right? So how can they without knowing that fundamental question?

 

The effectiveness would be based on the percentage of people who get the disease after being vaccinated. It's basically an average effectiveness, for any individual it either protects you or it doesn't.

 

Which still begs the questions of why the vaccine passport and why do the UK government state that they don't know the answer as to whether it provides immunity from actually getting it or not?

 

Well I think I've explained it already, but I'll have another go.

Nobody can say for sure that any individual will be protected sufficiently or not, however, there is a very good chance that anyone vaccinated will be more protected and less likely to get the disease (and pass it on) than somebody who hasn't been vaccinated. Thus, by not letting in unvaccinated people you are reducing the overall transmission rate.

I'm really not at all sure what point you're trying to make mate.

 

I agree mate, people get the flu jab and still get the flue, you may not get it as bad or you may because of your immune system, I was speaking to a Royal Navy nurse who works at the hospital in Pompey and she told me ( which I never knew) their are over 200 strains of flu, and this years flu jab is last years variant plus one more which is a guess based on what they THINK it could be, I just thought it was the same as every year, never too old to learn lol

 

The developers of the vaccine will know the efficacy of the vaccine right? They will know the chance that someone who has been vaccinated will be more protected? Isn't that why they test it?
With that in mine why does the government state that it does not know the answer?

 

I’ve already explained this earlier in the thread, but will do again.

Transmissibility depends on a person’s viral load, which is the amount of virus they have in their body. A virus works by attaching to and entering cells. It replicates inside cells and creates more versions of the virus which go onto infect more cells. It is the accumulation of infected cells that eventually causes the COVID-19 disease.

Vaccines generally work by priming the immune system so it already has antibodies that can attach to and neutralise infected cells. This prevents them from creating copies of the virus so they can’t infect other cells. The fewer infected cells, the less viral replication, the lower the viral load and the lower the transmissibility (as well as the reduced likelihood of severe disease).

However, whilst the antibodies will prevent too many cells becoming infected with the virus to cause severe disease, there will be a period of time where the person still has some viral load, before the antibodies have had chance to neutralise all/enough of the infected cells. It is during this initial period that you could still pass on the virus, even if the vaccine means you have sufficient antibodies to prevent severe disease. The question is how quickly will the immune response activated by the vaccine reduce viral load.

In very broad terms, recent data suggests that the vaccine reduces transmission by 50%.

 

But that is not what the government have said. They haven't said that it prevents transmission (in 90% of cases as per the efficacy stats)matter a few weeks. They have stated quite clearly that they do not know if it does or not.

 

Arrggghhh!! Give it a rest mate. At least half a dozen people have explained immunity , vaccines and efficacy rates to you but you still argue. At what point do you admit you are wrong and they are right. You cleary don't understand how the immune system and vaccines work nor how the manufacturers of viruses work out efficacy (clue mass testing produces more accurate average results which over time yield even more accurate results.
You are, as you often do when posting posting for posting sake - always wanting the last word.

 

Nobody has even attempted to answer the actual question.ctheyve simply stated that it has an efficacy rate which everyone knows anyway. Nobody has answered why the UK government states that they "do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus"

Isn't that what is tested in trials? Isn't that what an efficacy of rate is for? Shouldn't the government be saying that the vaccine has an efficacy rate of X percent in preventing transmission which is what brush seems to be saying? Why are they instead saying they DO NOT KNOW?

You aren't thick, surely you can see the difference between saying it has X percentage of success in preventing transmission and saying they do not know the answer

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-transmission-idUSKBN29N1UH

 

But if the vaccine is given to everyone even if it (the virus) was still transmittable in a number of cases, it would have 'nowhere to go'. if you have a forest full of trees and every tree is vulnerable to a contagious deadly disease (viral) then the forest dies. if only a handful of trees scattered throughout the forest are still vulnerable then the virus has less chance of finding them and in the interim time without a viable host dies before it can replicate and jump to a new host. In effect it is an artificial form of herd immunity. The fewer viable host the less likely it spreads unchecked. That is the main difference between viruses and bacteria. Many of the latter e.g. tetanus, can survive dormant for years until they find an environment e.g. human body suitable for them to infect replicate and multiply.
Viruses have a relatively short time in which to find a host before they die. You seem to be questioning the whole concept of immunisation. Time and again you argue 'black and white' measuring efficacy is fine but is it working on the ground in the real World then percentages are meaningless. if the new cases fall as the vaccination program matures then it is working.. Besides what is the alternative? Lockdown and PPE is not the answer expect to delay the spread and try to help hospitals cope, so again I ask what is your solution then?

 

I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing against the use of a vaccine or saying it doesn't work. I'm simply asking the question of how are we in a position where the UK government are claiming that they don't know what it does? I believe they are lying because they want/need to retain control of the population for longer.

 

Why do they need to though?

 

Are you conspiracy theorist then ? What possible motive would a Govt (any Govt) have for damaging the Economy, destroying jobs, livelihoods, businesses and at the same time having to give billions in Furlough schemes etc. It makes absolutely no sense.

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound arguing that the whole vaccine strategy is a smokescreen to " control the population" ?

Lost patience with this thread which you seem to be trying, single handedly, to perpetuate.

I'm out!