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?

@middleager I agree it's not a cold, more of a flu, you can carry ok with a cold, not Covid even if you were allowed to.

@tellittomeslowlyandclearly

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.

If you test positive then you do have it! It's possible to have Covid without symptoms. That was one of the points of the vaccine; they can't eradicate transmission but that can drastically reduce the consequences - fewer cases of transmission and greatly reduced symptoms, severe illness, hospitalisations and deaths

Double jabbed here too and got positive PCR this morning
I feel like 💩 so very glad to be vaccinated - dread to think how I would feel if I wasn't...

Oh for goodness’ sake. Where have you been for the past 10 months, since the vaccination programme started?

The vaccines do not prevent you from contracting the virus. They will, other than in the extremely vulnerable, prevent you from becoming seriously unwell.

(Which of course you know full well. Handy tip: if you’re trying to slip under the radar as someone with no agenda, maybe avoid phrases like “Government control thing”. Idiot)

tellittomeslowlyandclearly

Uhhh I have heard that you could still catch it, but I didn't think I would catch it once jabbed. I thought it was all a load of bollocks.

I would say that having Covid is comparable to having swine flu, which I didn't have a jab for.

So is it fair to say whatever strain I have the jab wasn't made for ?”

No. For example of “load of bollocks” please read your post, conveniently quoted above.

@riveted1

Sounding a bit defensive on the ADE front. It's only one of many possible explanations, and has been seen in other (failed) attempts at producing Coronavirus vaccines so is at least a possibility. Once again, all I am doing is keeping my mind open to the various possibilities, while all you are doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la as soon as anyone even mildly criticises your precious vaccines.

This is legitimately an insane reply @IncredulousOne

There are obviously limitations and side effects associated with the vaccines which I've posted about. I'm beginning to think this is either a deliberate smear campaign on your part or you're just confusing me with someone else.

I'm not "defensive" about ADE, I'm just sick of people repeating nonsense on social media they don't understand, which initiated from anti-vaxxer groups. You realise that myths like this cause death & disability by putting high risk people off vaccination, and cause considerable anxiety in those already vaccinated?

There have been thousands of experts, with far more experience than you, involved in the design and the roll out the vaccines. I don't know why you think, if ADE was a genuine concern, and people were going to get more sick and die because they'd been vaccinated, this would have gone ahead.

I mentioned ADE as one item in a list of about half a dozen possibilities for why the poster might have experienced Covid worse during a second infection, and you felt the need to write multiple derogatory paragraphs. I'm not the one getting my knickers in a twist here, hun.

ADE has been seen in previous (failed) attempts to develop vaccines against other coronaviruses. I agree that there is no evidence that ADE is the reason why the poster got it worse the second time, but it would be unscientific to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

You (or possibly someone else but I think it was you) also jumped down my throat when I previously suggested that vaccination could have made the poster more susceptible to infection - claiming that there was no mechanism for this to occur. I then linked to an MSM article which demonstrated an increased risk to infection in the period following the first dose of vaccine, along with a thorough justification of my comment. Whoever it was didn't have the good grace to publicly acknowledge that they were wrong - they just went silent but will undoubtedly surface again at some point in the future to erroneously accuse me of having an anti-vaxx agenda...

Just check - it was you, riveted1 who jumped down my throat in your post on Thu 07-Oct-21 13:56:23.

@IncredulousOne Totally understand it's confusing, there's a lot of mis information out there.

Immunity means the bodies ability to resist a pathogen and protect itself. Immunity does not mean 100% protection although it's often used incorrectly in this way.

No vaccines ever make you '100% immune' just the same as some people get chickenpox and then are 'immune' whereas some people get it multiple times.

Hi hotelharibo

I agree with what you have written, and fully accept that vaccines (even the non-controversial ones!) do not guarantee 100% immunity.

It is not the 100% guaranteed bit that I have issue with, it is the "we don't claim the vaccines would stop you catching it, just that they stop you from getting seriously ill". My understanding is that this is the definition of a prophylaxis.

I don't want to get into a huge semantic argument where we compare definitions from difference sources but, at risk of giving an oversimplified definition, most people (including the OP, it would appear) understand the words as:

vaccines produce immunity to stop you getting infected (albeit not 100% guaranteed)

prophylaxes reduce the severity of an infection (albeit with varying degrees of success)

When the CDC definition of the word "vaccination" changes (at about the same time that it is becoming obvious from Israel data that the "vaccines" are not preventing infection) then you can understand why people get suspicious.

(Please note: I'm not saying that vaccines don't offer protection - I'm just saying that they're not living up to what they were claimed to be. It would be better if TPTB acknowledged that and said "they're not working as well as we hoped, but they're still useful" rather than engaging in Orwellian Newspeak).

@Lweji I'm not saying the jabs made me get a worse case of COVID, I've always been a supporter of vaccinations and remain so.

Just for whatever reason (false positive the first time/different strains/lowered immune system etc) my second reinfection was far worse than the first.

Even so, I still recovered in a few days and would have worked throughout it all had it not been COVID and had been a normal cold/cough.

Also interestingly, I didn't get any side effects from either jab except a very sore arm.

And I didn't have any antibodies after I had COVID the first time but I did after just one dose of the jab. I had been taking part in a study which tracked antibodies. I don't know now what my antibody status is.

@tellittomeslowlyandclearly - where have you been for the last year?

Government control thing? This government couldn't control anything if their lives depended on it. I don't know who these conspiracy theorists think are in charge of all this supposed controlling, but it's not the 'masterminds' in power!

@IncredulousOne

Most vaccines, by definition, are prophylactic. Or part of prophylactic measures.
Some vaccines are therapeutic, when they are given post-infection. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_vaccines)

Prophylaxis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_healthcare

Most prophylactic measures are designed to completely prevent infection. See, for example, condoms or malaria prophylaxis.

Not sure where you're getting your definitions from.

I'm not saying that vaccines don't offer protection - I'm just saying that they're not living up to what they were claimed to be. It would be better if TPTB acknowledged that and said "they're not working as well as we hoped, but they're still useful" rather than engaging in Orwellian Newspeak).

I'm afraid you're the one using Orwellian Newspeak.
If you look back, or had been paying enough attention, it was ALWAYS claimed that vaccine efficacy was in relation to severity and death. That the efficacy against illness (symptomatic infection) was lower. And that efficacy against infection WAS NOT KNOWN, because the participants in the studies were not tested for infection.
There were NEVER claims against infection.

As new variants emerged, there was ALWAYS a discussion about possible loss of efficacy with those new variants. New studies have shown that there is some loss of efficacy in particular against the Delta variant.
More recent studies, and upon vaccine implementation, it has been shown that vaccines can also reduce transmission.

I haven't followed all the communications by certain members of the UK government, and it is possible that they have sold vaccines for more than what they were, but if you take what they say as gospel, then it's your problem. The UK government hasn't been the best at dealing with the pandemic and have blatantly lied (and still do) in relation to many things.
But we can, and should, look elsewhere for more reliable information.

Iv'e just had Covid, caught from my son who was sitting next to an infected person at school. I have been iller than I have ever been before and I still have mild breathing issues and reduced liver function.

But I could cry with relief that I have been fully vaccinated, the thought of what might have been. Also I didn't pass it on to Dh and Dd.

@IncredulousOne

You tried to claim that:

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

And you then linked to an article which quoted the ONS data showing higher rates of infection (not severity of illness), in the first 21 days after vaccination.

I didn't bother replying as the article was irrelevant - the ONS publication very clearly explains they do not think this is because vaccination causes you to be more susceptible to illness. They state that it's likely over half of the participants tested positive before vaccination, if you had bothered to read the details.

They also outline other reasons that someone is more likely to test positive after vaccination, including exposure to COVID-19 at busy vaccination centres, changes in behaviour following vaccination, or prompts to get vaccinated because family/friends & other close contacts were testing positive.

They also clearly state:
Those who became infected post vaccination were less likely to have symptoms and less likely to have a high viral load compared with individuals who tested positive but have not been vaccinated.

So again, it's just a case of you doing a quick websearch to cherry pick statements that back up your views, which quickly fall apart when you look at the information in context.

I also linked to an article that explicitly stated that risk of infection increases up to 16 days after first dose of vaccination.

You seem to be the one who selectively dismisses any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative...

Here's that link again for you revited1

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

Increased susceptibility to infection which peaks at 16 days post 1st dose of vaccine, and which then plummets 21 days post vaccination.

That doesn't at all say that there is increased susceptibility to infection!

It says there is a greater risk of infection in the weeks immediately following vaccination, which - as they go on to discuss briefly - may be because people were already infected, or became infected at the vaccine centre, or because they were less careful after having the vaccine despite the benefits of the vaccine only developing gradually over the two weeks.

Risk of getting infected is not just your body's susceptibility to infection. Risk of infection covers all sorts of reasons such as the prevalence of the virus in your environment, your behaviour/mitigations, and the behaviour of others around you. If you were vaccinated, and then your employers decided to immediately send you into a covid-positive ward to work, your risk of covid would increase for a couple of weeks before falling as the vaccine started to work - but this is not because the vaccine did anything to your susceptibility.

That sounds an awful lot like fishing around for alternative explanations to fit a pre-existing narrative, when the Occam's razor explanation is far more likely.

If the increase in susceptibility was due to any of the behavioural explanations you have mentioned, PeppermintMocha, then there wouldn't be a sudden reversal from increased to decreased susceptibility between 16 and 21 days.

yes of course there would, as that's when the vaccines take effect.

You can't apply Occam's razor to something that has no plausible scientific mechanism. The simplest explanation is that there are environmental and behavioural changes, and then the vaccine takes effect and infections drop.

@IncredulousOne

Here's that link again for you revited1

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

Increased susceptibility to infection which peaks at 16 days post 1st dose of vaccine, and which then plummets 21 days post vaccination.

oh my goodness, this is ridiculous.

I explained to you in my post why this does not mean what you think it does, going back to the actual data they are quoting in the article you linked. I have no interest in any "narrative", but your posts make no sense.

..........

And you then linked to an article which quoted the ONS data showing higher rates of infection (not severity of illness), in the first 21 days after vaccination.

I didn't bother replying as the article was irrelevant - the ONS publication very clearly explains they do not think this is because vaccination causes you to be more susceptible to illness. They state that it's likely over half of the participants tested positive before vaccination, if you had bothered to read the details.

They also outline other reasons that someone is more likely to test positive after vaccination, including exposure to COVID-19 at busy vaccination centres, changes in behaviour following vaccination, or prompts to get vaccinated because family/friends & other close contacts were testing positive.

They also clearly state:
Those who became infected post vaccination were less likely to have symptoms and less likely to have a high viral load compared with individuals who tested positive but have not been vaccinated.

So again, it's just a case of you doing a quick websearch to cherry pick statements that back up your views, which quickly fall apart when you look at the information in context.

@IncredulousOne

That sounds an awful lot like fishing around for alternative explanations to fit a pre-existing narrative, when the Occam's razor explanation is far more likely.

If the increase in susceptibility was due to any of the behavioural explanations you have mentioned, PeppermintMocha, then there wouldn't be a sudden reversal from increased to decreased susceptibility between 16 and 21 days.

Well no, this is the obvious explanation, outlined by the ONS statisticians from the data you linked

Fishing around around an alternative explanation is exactly what you're doing - trying to find a way a vaccine could somehow increase susceptibility when there is no plausible mechanism or precedent for this happening.

I'm not going to have a pop for not understanding that you can still get Covid after vaccination. I do think a lot of people thought this.

The frustration for me is that you come across as looking for someone to blame and show up some sort of mistake as a result. Look I get it to a point. I have a full time job two DC (one being SEN) I barely have enough time to work out the instructions on my own boiler to make me less cold today. However I don't start trying to find a way that someone has "lied" to me. I accept that I didn't pay enough attention or I got it wrong or anything else.

Noone is lying about this particular point. Seriously question whether you think the government is actually capable of a long held and thought out conspiracy. They got blindsided by a news report that managed to plunge the country into a petrol crisis and spent 3 days dithering on what to do whilst weakly whispering if people could possibly not panic buy, pretty please if they would be so kind.

Seriously , the government don't even understand the word misogyny. They are not capable of complicated mind manipulation.

I get that you were unaware of this. Fair enough but stop trying to find someone to blame and start reading up about it now. There job done. Blood pressure can reduce.

The key miracle of the vaccines is that you don't die. You are also less likely to get infected but the instructions the govt gave to Kate Bingham was to stop people dying of covid. And that she and they did unless they are crazy enough to refuse the vaccine..