Why do I have Covid if I had both jabs ?

[tellittomeslowlyandclearly]

I thought it was all a government control thing to say you can still catch covid once jabbed, but here I am and I have it. I caught from my DS getting it from school. The class has multiple cases, I tested when he did and I was clear. Then symptoms started 3 days later. DH has it too. So far DD is clear, I don't know how.

I just don't understand surely you're either immune or not? Or is it a different strain?

@Lweji First time I got COVID I was completely asymptomatic and unjabbed. This time I've had all the classic symptoms and felt like death warmed up for a few days. So a lot worse!

[quote Miseryl]@Lweji First time I got COVID I was completely asymptomatic and unjabbed. This time I've had all the classic symptoms and felt like death warmed up for a few days. So a lot worse! [/quote]
You don't know if that's due to the vaccine or to already having had covid once.
It looks like, either way, your body mounted an immune response to the virus and it reacted strongly now. Like people react to the second jabs.
The key thing to look for is whether you needed a hospital at all in either case.

🍿

Had a little chuckle at this not so subtle anti-vax misinformation post @IncredulousOne

Now there are two hypotheses that can be drawn:

The subsequent vaccination has somehow degraded the immunity that the poster acquired as a result of natural infection.

Obviously, as we don't know all the relevant medical details, we can't draw any firm conclusions as to which of those hypotheses is the more likely.

No, we can draw firm conclusions that your hypothesis 2 is nonsense, given that there is no plausible mechanism by which a vaccine would "degraded" prior immunity from infection. Don't get vaccinated if you don't want to, stop trying to put others off. You seem to post a lot of stuff like this.

@Bunn5 well what other jabs do we have they don't stop you catching it? I can't think of any. I mean the flu jab doesn't always predict the strain, but they don't say you'll get a bit of flu so they. Pretty rubbish really.

Ermmm pretty much all vaccines

@riveted1

Had a little chuckle at this not so subtle anti-vax misinformation post *@IncredulousOne*

Now there are two hypotheses that can be drawn:

The subsequent vaccination has somehow degraded the immunity that the poster acquired as a result of natural infection.

Obviously, as we don't know all the relevant medical details, we can't draw any firm conclusions as to which of those hypotheses is the more likely.

No, we can draw firm conclusions that your hypothesis 2 is nonsense, given that there is no plausible mechanism by which a vaccine would "degraded" prior immunity from infection. Don't get vaccinated if you don't want to, stop trying to put others off. You seem to post a lot of stuff like this.

So @riveted1 I assume that you're going with the other hypothesis - that the poster is just incredibly unlucky to have been reinfected with Covid after a natural infection.

That is a reasonable conclusion to draw, but I find it amazing how many huge coincidences I'm seeing - a friend "coincidentally" had a coronary embolism 2 days after AZ vaccination, another friend "coincidentally" had menstrual disturbances after vaccination, another acquiantance "coincidentally" had long-Covid like symptoms after 2nd vaccination, lots of people I know have had Covid with heavy-flu symptoms post vaccination (but not hospitalisation), I had Covid pre-vaccines being available and it was like a bad cold for 3 days.

Yes, anecdote /= data.
Yes, I cannot prove a causal relationship.
But yes, I am seeing a hell of a lot of coincidences...

[quote hotelharibo]**@Bunn5 well what other jabs do we have they don't stop you catching it? I can't think of any. I mean the flu jab doesn't always predict the strain, but they don't say you'll get a bit of flu so they. Pretty rubbish really.

Ermmm pretty much all vaccines
[/quote]
Erm, no.

Up until these Covid vaccines, the literal definition of a vaccine was something that gave you immunity from a pathogen.

Given the abject failure of the Covid vaccines to provide immunity from infection, they changed the definition of s vaccine!

Newspeak at its best.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia..."

so now you've moved on from your claims that vaccines "degrade" existing immunity and are have neatly side stepped into vaccine adverse effects.

We know that the vaccines can cause some types of blood clots, we know they are associated with differences in menstruation which may be causal and is being investigated. Not sure why you're trying to imply all of this is being brushed off as a coincidence.

All your individual examples are cherry picked in a very obvious attempt to make the vaccines sound dangerous and ineffective. Fortunately, your anecdotes are not reflected in population-wide data, which is why the vaccines were and continue to be rolled out.

the above directed to @IncredulousOne and their misinformation

Up until these Covid vaccines, the literal definition of a vaccine was something that gave you immunity from a pathogen.

Given the abject failure of the Covid vaccines to provide immunity from infection, they changed the definition of s vaccine!

Your confusion is evident. What the facebook posts clearly haven't explained very well is that "immunity" does not equal prevention of infection. So yes that is the correct definition of a vaccine, and nope, "they" haven't changed the definition of a vaccine.

Plenty of existing vaccines aim to lessen severity of illness rather than prevent infection, depending on the pathogen they're targeted against.

As opposed to your head-in-the-sand pro-vaxx propaganda, @riveted1

We already know that vaccines leave you more vulnerable to Covid in the fortnight after they are given (even the PHE vaccine surveillance reports say as much). That is why you're not counted as "fully vaccinated" until 14 days after your second dose.

So there clearly is a mechanism for vaccines to (at least temporarily) degrade immune function. That could be what has happended to the infected-recovered- vaxxed-reinfected poster above. But, as I said, I don't know the details of the case, so I can draw any conclusions.

But I am at least keeping an open mind - unlike you, riveted1 who is determined to deny any negative news about the vaccines... Just as the authorities initially denied any link between AZ and clots, Pfizer and myocarditis, or any of the other very widely reported vaccine side effects.

The vaccines were good enough to near enough block transmission of the original variant. When the UK gov put it's eggs firmly in the basket of vaccinating our way out of it (around last summer), it was looking very promising. Then the Alpha, and then the Delta variants came about and moved the goalposts. When the delta variant was first identified, scientists were saying that they thought it was able to 'evade' the vaccines. But this was soon hushed up by Govts because they realised that if people thought the vaccines wouldn't stop them catching covid, it'd mean a lot of people wouldn't bother getting vaccinated. So they continued to push vaccines as a preventative measure rather than just to alleviate serious illness and death.

Don't get me wrong, the vaccines are an absolutely essential tool since the pandemic was allowed to spread out of control, but it's not the 'magic pill' solution that it was original pitched as (which it probably would have been if these new variants hadn't emerged).

Maybe we'll get some improved vaccines in the future, or maybe we'll get more variants that help evade it? Or maybe the status quo will prevail, and we'll all end up catching it at some point despite being vaccinated. It's effects will get weaker and weaker as we all build up immunity to it, and a few years from now it'll just become another cold variant.

@IncredulousOne

As opposed to your head-in-the-sand pro-vaxx propaganda, *@riveted1*

We already know that vaccines leave you more vulnerable to Covid in the fortnight after they are given (even the PHE vaccine surveillance reports say as much). That is why you're not counted as "fully vaccinated" until 14 days after your second dose.

So there clearly is a mechanism for vaccines to (at least temporarily) degrade immune function. That could be what has happended to the infected-recovered- vaxxed-reinfected poster above. But, as I said, I don't know the details of the case, so I can draw any conclusions.

But I am at least keeping an open mind - unlike you, riveted1 who is determined to deny any negative news about the vaccines... Just as the authorities initially denied any link between AZ and clots, Pfizer and myocarditis, or any of the other very widely reported vaccine side effects.

Please give any example of my "pro-vaxx" propaganda? Or "denial of any negative news"? You are literally talking nonsense.

Already said this on the adverse events

We know that the vaccines can cause some types of blood clots, we know they are associated with differences in menstruation which may be causal and is being investigated. Not sure why you're trying to imply all of this is being brushed off as a coincidence.

@altmember

The vaccines were good enough to near enough block transmission of the original variant. When the UK gov put it's eggs firmly in the basket of vaccinating our way out of it (around last summer), it was looking very promising. Then the Alpha, and then the Delta variants came about and moved the goalposts. When the delta variant was first identified, scientists were saying that they thought it was able to 'evade' the vaccines. But this was soon hushed up by Govts because they realised that if people thought the vaccines wouldn't stop them catching covid, it'd mean a lot of people wouldn't bother getting vaccinated. So they continued to push vaccines as a preventative measure rather than just to alleviate serious illness and death.

Don't get me wrong, the vaccines are an absolutely essential tool since the pandemic was allowed to spread out of control, but it's not the 'magic pill' solution that it was original pitched as (which it probably would have been if these new variants hadn't emerged).

Maybe we'll get some improved vaccines in the future, or maybe we'll get more variants that help evade it? Or maybe the status quo will prevail, and we'll all end up catching it at some point despite being vaccinated. It's effects will get weaker and weaker as we all build up immunity to it, and a few years from now it'll just become another cold variant.

Wow, a balanced viewpoint - that's a rarity here on MN!

More vulnerable to covid in the 2 weeks after vaccine than at any other time Incredulous? Where does that information come from?

@riveted1

Up until these Covid vaccines, the literal definition of a vaccine was something that gave you immunity from a pathogen.

Given the abject failure of the Covid vaccines to provide immunity from infection, they changed the definition of s vaccine!

Your confusion is evident. What the facebook posts clearly haven't explained very well is that "immunity" does not equal prevention of infection. So yes that is the correct definition of a vaccine, and nope, "they" haven't changed the definition of a vaccine.

Plenty of existing vaccines aim to lessen severity of illness rather than prevent infection, depending on the pathogen they're targeted against.

They have changed the definition of a vaccine. Here, have a link...

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html

As far as I am aware the two weeks post vaccine is the time it takes for your immune system to fully protect you. It's so people don't assume that they are immediately protected and drop all precautions. It has nothing to do with being more vulnerable.

@knittingaddict

As far as I am aware the two weeks post vaccine is the time it takes for your immune system to fully protect you. It's so people don't assume that they are immediately protected and drop all precautions. It has nothing to do with being more vulnerable.

yup this!

You also don't want to be infected with COVID just after being vaccinated, as it's an increased load on the IS

What's even worse than getting ill when jabbed is treat the ten days isolation isn't even 10 days, my DC has been given 12 days by test and trace. I mean how can you test positive, but not have it yet if you don't have symptoms? Uhhh why do they say people spread it before symptoms then ignore this time.

@knittingaddict

More vulnerable to covid in the 2 weeks after vaccine than at any other time Incredulous? Where does that information come from?

Here you go, article from new scientist:

www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/2281512-risk-of-covid-19-infection-plummets-21-days-after-a-vaccination/amp/

The study they quote says infection risk increases up to 16 days post 1st dose, and then drops rapidly after that.

Yo are not immune- the vaccine makes the whole process of having Covid easier for your body to cope, if you get it.

The reason for it was mainly so the hospitals will be not overloaded with people needing ventilators and running out of space.

@knittingaddict

As far as I am aware the two weeks post vaccine is the time it takes for your immune system to fully protect you. It's so people don't assume that they are immediately protected and drop all precautions. It has nothing to do with being more vulnerable.

Nope, see the article I linked above. It clearly says:

"They suggest that the risk of infection initially increases following a first dose, peaking at around 16 days."

@RosieRoww

Yo are not immune- the vaccine makes the whole process of having Covid easier for your body to cope, if you get it.

The reason for it was mainly so the hospitals will be not overloaded with people needing ventilators and running out of space.

It's actually quite a bit more complicated with that.

You need to appreciate that the body has an innate immune system (basically keeping bad stuff out) and an active immune system (killing had stuff that has got in).

The vaccines bypass the innate system (because they are injected directly into you) but they teach your active immune system how to produce antibodies to the original spike protein.

Vaccinated people can still get infected, but they should generally get less serious disease because their active immune system already knows how to produce the antibodies to kill the spike protein.

(Apologies to any immunologists for the gross oversimplification!)

They've changed the definition from immunity to protection. So what? What relevance do you think that has to anything?