Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge

[canpakes]

.
From site: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/conte ... accination

College of Physicians of Philadelphia
Last update 25 January 2018

Why aren’t all vaccines 100% effective?

Vaccines are designed to generate an immune response that will protect the vaccinated individual during future exposures to the disease. Individual immune systems, however, are different enough that in some cases, a person’s immune system will not generate an adequate response. As a result, he or she will not be effectively protected after immunization.

That said, the effectiveness of most vaccines is high. After receiving the second dose of the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella) or the standalone measles vaccine, 99.7% of vaccinated individuals are immune to measles. The inactivated polio vaccine offers 99% effectiveness after three doses. The varicella (chickenpox) vaccine is between 85% and 90% effective in preventing all varicella infections, but 100% effective in preventing moderate and severe chicken pox.

If a definition posted by the CDC implied 100% protecton, then clarification would be preferred, in my opinion.

From the CDC website now, on their Healthy Schools ‘Vaccine Basics’ page: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/bam/ ... basics.htm
(Last reviewed June 28, 2019)

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Is the complaint about the recent change that the CDC was previously supposedly asserting that a vaccine was always 100% effective at preventing infection? It doesn’t read that way, based on the examples shown upstream.

[canpakes]

.
Is the complaint about the recent change that the CDC was previously supposedly asserting that a vaccine was always 100% effective at preventing infection? It doesn’t read that way, based on the examples shown upstream.

The CDC does not use a percentage. That is just your interpretation. Also, there is no complaint made in this thread about the change, that I am aware of. There is no supposed assertion by the CDC, just an actual description or definition, which was changed. Looks to me like you set up some points (complaint, supposed assertion, 100%) that were not there and then you knocked them down or said you did not see them.

Damn. You were doing OK right up until the last sentence, which talks about things that didn’t happen in my post. Take another look at what I wrote versus your straw man here.

But, none of things you claim to not see were ever there in the first place. You imagined them not existing and then said you do not see them, or something like that.

Nah. I think that your eyes - or your own imagination - are playing tricks on you.

I would look at the timeline and the events and conclude that the CDC changed their definition of vaccination from one that included "immunity" to one that replaced it with "protect." I would also conclude that this change is significant and that it takes a spectacular amount of collusion to try and pull that off under cover and without an explanation. The process here matters - and the process was fer poo.

Tell me how this jives with your comment below, and what ‘not working’ means to you.

CDC says:

Looks as if the CDC changed the definition of vaccination on 9/1/2021. Based on the previous definition, the vaccination was not working.

[Jersey Girl]

BOOM.

With 75% of Colorado's eligible residents having initiated vaccination, the governor pointed out it's "an important accomplishment, but it also means that there's 25%, one in four Coloradans, who are eligible, who still need to go out and get protected so that we can end this pandemic."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/12/health/u ... index.html

[DaveIsHere]

Crapbaskets... Sorry, my sarcasm detection isn't yet calibrated for this board. If missidentified you as an antivaxxer, I apologize.

I didn't refuse the vaccines.

Hokay, what exactly does that mean. I'm assuming you were to young to give consent or not and parents decided for you?

[Gadianton]

I don't get why the CDC matters so much in a serious discussion of whether vaccines or masks work. Not that it's not important for the overall situation but I'm more interested in whether or not they actually work, not whether a government agency thinks they do. Lex seems to side unanimously with science, however, he believes that Fauci and the CDC have massively failed as the public face of the effort, and that if people would have gotten good information and an ounce of humility from the beginning, that we wouldn't have the hesitancy problem. I half suspect that he's saying this as a concession, in order for the unhinged GQP to feel validated, and to be more open to actual scientists that do better on the humility spectrum. If true, that's understandable. Of course, I don't actually think his observations, if true, really explain that much. This behavior has been in the making for years, and I can't imagine any type of communication effort from a government agency to people who proudly identify as anti- government that would matter. Libertarians believe as a matter of principle governments fail, not merely that they have failed in situations x, y, and z.

Lex has mentioned the CDC's reversal of recommendations on masks as a (the?) prime example. But he doesn't go far enough, as he only mentions that first, they said masks didn't work and then later said they did. The CDC was hugely concerned about the shortage of N-95 masks for healthcare workers, and so they had a tremendous vested interest in masks not working (you have to have a lot of practice putting them on right) so that people wouldn't buy them up. And they made it completely obvious, sometimes even with exclamation points saying to "save masks for healthcare workers!!!" In a rigid rule utilitarian society, lying to the public about masks for the greater good works, but that's not the kind of "left-wing" liberalism we're supposed to be about. It's a pretty good moral dilemma, actually.

CNN backed up the CDC wholeheartedly, 'the science just isn't there' for masks. A few years earlier, however, CNN had a writeup recommending masks to stop flu transmission, and praised Asian countries for their mask wearing. Of course, that article was also political because the subtext was that we Americans are selfish and should look at socially conscious socialist countries as an example of how to behave. That article had a vested interest in masks working even if they don't.

Anyway, in a fascinating plot twist, in a situation where the GQP had this awesome chance to show that the government was lying and use their brains to discern the correct science, and then move forward and buyout N-95 masks (which were getting bought out anyway) like TP, they ended up going with the CDC's original politicized advice, and agreeing with government in one of the most obvious cases where the government was actually wrong for reasons libertarians fear; lying for 'the greater good' etc.

[Jersey Girl]

I didn't refuse the vaccines.

Hokay, what exactly does that mean. I'm assuming you were to young to give consent or not and parents decided for you?

It means there were no vaccines available.

[Jersey Girl]

Lex seems to side unanimously with science, however, he believes that Fauci and the CDC have massively failed as the public face of the effort, and that if people would have gotten good information and an ounce of humility from the beginning, that we wouldn't have the hesitancy problem.

How does that fall on Fauci's shoulders when Trump intentionally created doubt about his own experts from nearly the beginning of the pandemic in the minds of the public and intentionally leveraged the expert's respect for the office of the President in that effort?

[DaveIsHere]

I don't get why the CDC matters so much in a serious discussion of whether vaccines or masks work.

Lemme ask ya this, if your leg was broke would you go to the ER or to an Auto Mechanic? Because the CDC is literally an org filled with subject matter experts whose sole purpose is to find, classify, catagorize, and plan measures to protect American society from biological threats. They exist just to help combat this exact thing.

So maybe list to them like how sane people when hurt or injured will seek out a doctor.

P.S. a lot of them are doctors.

[Gadianton]

Fauci and Trump could both fail in their respective ways. Lex's beef with Fauci in particular, oh man, I think arrogance or something, talking from his high horse; not being patient with concerns and scoffing attitude. I'd have to go back and listen, though.

I don't agree with Lex, but I mainly brought that up to make a point that the mask problem went way beyond arrogance, not being able to admit being wrong etc., and actually was a full-blown instance of 1984 -- lying to the public for the greater good.

[Res Ipsa]

In the meantime. The CDC apparently had the same expectation for the vaccine as normal people kind a did. But, ya know, dang, it didn't work so they just edited it while nobody was looking.

Jersey. Did you check out the links? Or, should I ask - did you assess them?

That’s simply not true. The CDC has never said that it expected the COVID vaccines to be 100% effective. Its description of every vaccine includes the rate of efficacy. Go look them up. The clinical trials did not result in an effectiveness rate of 100%. The CDC has never said otherwise.

This is the typical bad faith, misleading argument used by the anti-vax movements and now, unfortunately, by much of the Trump wing of the Republican Party. I’m pretty confident that the CDC reworded the definition to avoid people being mislead by people misrepresenting the CDCs view of efficacy of the COVID vaccines.