Vaccine was never really about stopping people getting it?

[SpringheelJack]

I've read so many threads on here from people baffled by the rise in numbers despite our vaccine rate that I'm starting to doubt myself. I'd be interested to hear from anyone with more expertise than the average layman - which is very much what I am!

My understanding was always that the vaccine we have was proven to reduce the effects of Covid - that is to prevent serious illness and reduce symptoms - which might help reduce transmission because if you're not coughing etc you'll pass it on less. But it was always a "reduce symptoms" type vaccine, not a "stop you getting it" vaccine. It's not the only vaccine of this type, though most of the common childhood vaccines are "stop you getting it" vaccines so that's what we tend to think all vaccines do. This is what I thought was the case from the beginning, although it didn't seem like the government did a very good job of explaining this.

Current infection trends seem to bear out my understanding - serious illness is reduced and there's some reduction in transmission - but it basically continues to circulate even in the fully vaccinated ( not just because "no vaccine is 100% effective" but because its main function is to reduce symptoms/severity of illness). Have I got it right?

Yep, you're right. This is part of the learning to live with it approach, how we do so is really important, and vaccines are a huge part of that.

No it was proven to reduce symptomatic covid, the mRNA vaccines by around 90 percent and Oxford by 60 (so reduce not prevent) no one new at the time whether the prevented asymptotic infection or transmission although earlier data was encouraging. The focus has changed a bit at the effects of both vaccines on symptomatic infection was reduced by the delta variant but originally yes we expected people to be much less likely to be sick (ie have any symptoms) with the vaccine and the focus has had to change a bit (because the virus did)

I agree. We are never going to be rid of it (because of the delta mutation), which possibly was the original hope for the vaccine, but at least the daily death rates have been slashed. I guess this is herd immunity at work.

Immunity from viruses are not a switch, the immune response is a spectrum formed of a range of responses by the body to a virus. All vaccines work by boosting that immune response so that it more quickly and effectively recognises, then manages, the threat. That means some people get a vaccine and their body clears the virus almost immediately; no symptoms and no transmission. Others get some symptoms still and/ or can still transmit the virus, but both of these are at a lower level than without vaccination; this is why there are still cases but with lower proportion of hospitalisations and deaths. For an unlucky few, for whatever reason their body doesn't mount an immune response from vaccination; this means they don't have protection and go on to get stronger infection symptoms as though they were unvaccinated. Luckily for covid vaccines, a tiny number of immune suppressed CEV seem to be in the latter category.

You can't prevent people from catching a virus if they're exposed. Having no symptoms and no further transmission is obviously the preferred outcome though, hence the plans around boosters for more vulnerable people, possible beta variant boosters etc.

Yes you are right. The vaccine is meant to lessen symptoms so that anyone vaccinated and then contracts Covid is unlikely to need an NHS hospital bed.

Surely in some diseases vaccines are almost 100%? This is a neutral question.
I was thinking about Yellow Fever and other tropical problems.

In time might these for C-19 improve or be replaced. All of these were invented and produced very quickly.

The mRNA vaccines were excellent at preventing you from catching the Kent strain of covid.

For a while, the vaccines did appear to be effective in reducing symptomatic disease and transmission too, so no, it wasn't just about severe illness and death. More recently they seem to be less effective at reducing transmission. It's not just Astra Zeneca as Israel used Pfizer and now finding it less effective. It's probably due to the Delta variant, but I'm also hearing that the Beta variant is causing problems too.

This definitely changes things in a big way, as it looks like herd immunity by vaccination isn't achievable any more (whereas a few months ago, it looked like we'd be there this summer).

Of course the purpose of a vaccine is to prevent people from catching the disease. Just it didn't really work, so now people are shifting the goal posts. That doesn't mean it was a waste of time, but it does mean that it's not the time to throw off our masks and party. The UK is heading towards a shit storm this summer. It won't be pretty.

Just it didn't really work, so now people are shifting the goal posts.
Nobody ever said vaccines had 100% efficacy. It's a shame you didn't understand, but that has nothing to do with "goal posts".

We will never have “herd immunity”

No you are wrong. The purpose is to prime the immune response and therefore prevent the virus from replicating in as many people as possible. If it can’t replicate it can’t cause Covid and it can’t spread. The vaccines are all fairly effective at this - some more than others, and for some variants more than others.

Some people will not mount a complete immune response so will develop Covid with symptoms ranging from negligible to severe. The vaccines are able to tip the scales so that more people have mild symptoms and fewer die than in an unvaccinated population.

Critically, though, it’s important that as low a number of people as possible are able to spread the virus because the more transmissions there are the greater the likelihood of developing a vaccine-evading variant that causes more severe disease.

@MRex

Just it didn't really work, so now people are shifting the goal posts. Nobody ever said vaccines had 100% efficacy. It's a shame you didn't understand, but that has nothing to do with "goal posts".

The efficacy for contracting the illness is surely very low? and no where nr 100%, probably 10% judging by the numbers contracting CV.

So i think you are wrong, many people assumed the vaccine would work like most vaccines and stop the vast majority getting CV at all.
After all, who gets mild smallpox or mild Polio?

I certainly thought that and so did everyone i know, its only in the last few weeks that that has proven to be completely wrong

I wonder how long it will be before CV mutates to make the current vaccines useless?

@MRex

Just it didn't really work, so now people are shifting the goal posts. Nobody ever said vaccines had 100% efficacy. It's a shame you didn't understand, but that has nothing to do with "goal posts".

There's no need to be patronising. I do understand very well how vaccines work. I mean people like the Op are changing the goal posts in saying that vaccines were never meant to stop people getting it, they were always about reducing symptoms. That simply isn't true.

Delta has sadly changed everything on this. The vaccines were trialled while the original Wuhan strain was dominant and they (particularly Pfizer) showed really good results against contracting Covid. There was hope that the vaccines would also slow transmission if they stopped you catching it in the first place. I think they were also quite effective against catching the Alpha variant. Thankfully they are still reducing hospitalisations and deaths from Delta, but seem much less effective against catching it in the first place and I've no idea about any reduction in transmission.

Anyone who wants to lead a full, 'normal' life is going to catch this at some point over the next few months in England.

people like the Op are changing the goal posts in saying that vaccines were never meant to stop people getting it, they were always about reducing symptoms
I am not changing the goal posts. This is how I believed the vaccine to work from the outset. I was not certain that was correct, hence this thread. Not sure where you got "changing the goal posts" from.

Most of the reading I did was when DH and about fifty percent of his workmates caught Covid after their first vaccine dose, which was several months before Delta.

In that case I apologise. My understanding is that the Pfizer vaccine, for example, was reported to be 95% effective against transmission; however, I think anecdotal data has shown that far more than 5% are testing positive, but, as you say, it does reduce symptomatic transmission and reduce hospitalisation. Cases in the UK seem to be spiralling out of control at the moment, so even if fewer people are getting seriously ill, there is still a danger that hospitals may become overwhelmed, I think.

Don’t forget huge swaths aren’t fully vaccinated yet.
I’m under 40 and mines not due for another month

No vaccine prevents you from getting a virus. It just primes your immune system to recognise and fight the virus. For for a lot of people this happens without them even knowing they had the virus (i.e they don't feel ill). For others it may take longer and depending on how long it take they might feel ill to various degrees.

So we could have situations where people who are not unwell could test postive for covid without going on to develop symptoms- which is why case numbers are only really important to track and prevent spread.

Hmmm. It's perhaps not as clear cut as I thought. I wish I could find the article I read that seemed to suggest there were two types of vaccine - and this was a "reduces severity" one as opposed to "stops you getting it". But I can see that that doesn't really make sense - your immune system fights it and the end result may be no infection (the virus not replicating in your system I think someone said?) or it might be a less severe illness but those things don't really stem from a distinct response to a different sort of vaccine....

I remember feeling reassured at the time that the vaccine was still working - but that was in the context of a bunch of people who were vaccinated quite early subsequently getting it - which seems to be a pattern that's continuing!

Cursory reading and limited understanding may have overlapped with desperate clutching at good news straws...

So many cases yet still low cases of death and hospitalization is good news enough for me, it clearly shows that vaccine is working.

I'm more worried about children who aren't vaccinated. Most won't be very ill, but there's no guarantee they won't get long covid.

I don't believe any vaccine stops 100% of those immunised from getting the virus it is designed to counter.

In the 1970s I was immunised against whooping cough. I still caught it, but had minor symptoms compared to an unvaccinated sibling.

I don't believe any vaccine stops 100% of those immunised from getting the virus it is designed to counter.

Exactly. If you don't have a virus then there's nothing for a vaccine to work on.

It can stop you passing it on but not getting it.

I have the flu jab every year. I still suffer flu symptoms but not bad enough to make me take to my bed.

The Covid jab(s) work in the same way. Vaccination only helps you to not need to be hospitalised. You can get mild Covid symptoms after having the jab(s).

The idea of the covid jabs is to prevent those who succumb to covid won’t need to be hospitalised. This means people who need urgent care can receive it, without their admissions being continually cancelled because the hospital is treating covid patients.

Everyone knows that people who are ill are more susceptible to getting life threatening symptoms from covid don’t they? Well, I thought they would until I read the many posts from anti covid vaccine posters on this site.

In short, if the NHS is overwhelmed with Covid patients it means nobody else can get the treatment to save their lives.

Thankfully, to date, the vaccine seems to be working. Let’s see what happens in the next few weeks after Wimbledon, Wembley, BJ’s announcement to scrap restrictions…