Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I’m not sure what I’m missing. A drop in efficacy doesn’t mean the vaccines don’t work. JnJ had lower efficacy in South Africa than it did in the US but the efficacy was still high enough to gain approval. It was also still 100% effective at preventing hospitalization and death. There is no study anywhere that shows Pfizer or Moderna is not effective vs the S African variant. It’s not my spin, the studies don’t exist.
We’re obviously failing to understand each other. At any rate, I’ve posted the scientists’ own words above as well as a link to the full study. Others here can decide for themselves what they make of their findings and conclusions.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
I’m not sure what I’m missing. A drop in efficacy doesn’t mean the vaccines don’t work. JnJ had lower efficacy in South Africa than it did in the US but the efficacy was still high enough to gain approval. It was also still 100% effective at preventing hospitalization and death. There is no study anywhere that shows Pfizer or Moderna is not effective vs the S African variant. It’s not my spin, the studies don’t exist.
My takeaway is that, if the vaccines don’t eradicate the virus quickly enough to prevent mutations, we may have to end up constantly tweaking the vaccines on a level of what happens with annual flu vaccines. I didn’t read anything particularly alarming.

It’s helpful to read down to the end of the Webmd article where it talks about the small sample size and the results of a second study.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
We’re obviously failing to understand each other. At any rate, I’ve posted the scientists’ own words above as well as a link to the full study. Others here can decide for themselves what they make of their findings and conclusions.
The study supports my statement. The vaccines being less effective vs the S African variant does not mean they don’t work at all. From the article you attached:

That study showed the Pfizer vaccine effectively neutralized the coronavirus strain first detected in Brazil, as well as the U.K. variant, and had a “robust but lower” effectiveness against the South Africa variant, according to a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
The study supports my statement. The vaccines being less effective vs the S African variant does not mean they don’t work at all. From the article you attached:

That study showed the Pfizer vaccine effectively neutralized the coronavirus strain first detected in Brazil, as well as the U.K. variant, and had a “robust but lower” effectiveness against the South Africa variant, according to a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
I didn’t say it didn’t work at all—nothing remotely like it. My words were very clear and in keeping with the scientists’ own.

The part you quoted relates to a different study from the one I foregrounded and shared.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
The study supports my statement. The vaccines being less effective vs the S African variant does not mean they don’t work at all. From the article you attached:

That study showed the Pfizer vaccine effectively neutralized the coronavirus strain first detected in Brazil, as well as the U.K. variant, and had a “robust but lower” effectiveness against the South Africa variant, according to a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
In fairness, you’re quoting a part pertaining to a second study. The first showed less effectiveness, but researchers noted the small sample size and lack of real-world analysis. Basically, it’s saying the vaccines may have to be tweaked, something the vaccine makers know and are already doing.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
There’s an all-or-nothing mentality here that I think really impedes productive discussion. One can be in favour of vaccines and optimistic about their overall impact while still acknowledging that scientists themselves have expressed concerns about their effectiveness against certain variants. We really don’t have to limit ourselves to “It’s all great” or “It’s all doom and gloom” thinking.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
In fairness, you’re quoting a part pertaining to a second study. The first showed less effectiveness, but researchers noted the small sample size and lack of real-world analysis. Basically, it’s saying the vaccines may have to be tweaked, something the vaccine makers know and are already doing.
I guess I don’t consider any drop in effectiveness to mean they don’t work and maybe that’s where the disconnect is. When the original poster asked if the vaccines still worked against the variants I said yes, there is no evidence anywhere that they don’t. That‘s 100% true. AstraZenneca did fail the efficacy test in S Africa so that vaccine does not work vs that variant.
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
Can someone tell Michigan that whatever it is they are doing, they should try the exact opposite, it's not working.

View attachment 541355
It's as if when people were told that as the new variants became dominant in the US we would see an increase in cases in places because we have not yet vaccinated enough people to stop transmissions, people didn't believe it. I posted earlier that experts were watching Michigan because they had the 2nd most incidents of B.1.1.7.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
I guess I don’t consider any drop in effectiveness to mean they don’t work and maybe that’s where the disconnect is. When the original poster asked if the vaccines still worked against the variants I said yes, there is no evidence anywhere that they don’t. That‘s 100% true. AstraZenneca did fail the efficacy test in S Africa so that vaccine does not work vs that variant.
Seems to always turn out that the end results and conclusions of these articles are far less dramatic or alarming than their headlines. Pfizer’s like “yeah we got that.”
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Seems to always turn out that the end results and conclusions of these articles are far less dramatic or alarming than their headlines. Pfizer’s like “yeah we got that.”
I quoted the scientists’ own conclusion, which I don’t believe the article’s headline misrepresents or sensationalises in any way. Neither Pfeifer nor Moderna would be developing a booster for the South African variant if there were nothing to be gained from having one.
 

correcaminos

Well-Known Member
I quoted the scientists’ own conclusion, which I don’t believe the article’s headline misrepresents or sensationalises in any way. Neither Pfeifer nor Moderna would be developing a booster for the South African variant if there were nothing to be gained from having one.
“I don't necessarily think we have to deploy the booster until we kind of cross the threshold of someone who's vaccinated getting hospitalized with one of the variants, so I think it’s important to have this ready to go if necessary, but I don't think we've crossed the threshold where this is absolutely going to be needed because even in the face of the variants, our vaccines do very good at preventing severe disease hospitalization and death,” Dr. Amesh Adalja, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health said.


"Laboratory studies have shown that some vaccines that work well against earlier variants are less effective — though they still offer significant protection — against the variant known as B.1.351, which was first found in South Africa in December and has become the dominant one there."
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
“I don't necessarily think we have to deploy the booster until we kind of cross the threshold of someone who's vaccinated getting hospitalized with one of the variants, so I think it’s important to have this ready to go if necessary, but I don't think we've crossed the threshold where this is absolutely going to be needed because even in the face of the variants, our vaccines do very good at preventing severe disease hospitalization and death,” Dr. Amesh Adalja, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health said.


"Laboratory studies have shown that some vaccines that work well against earlier variants are less effective — though they still offer significant protection — against the variant known as B.1.351, which was first found in South Africa in December and has become the dominant one there."
And again, I’ve said or posted nothing to contradict this. I’m all for vaccinations—I got my first shot the other day. I think they’re our best way out of this mess, and I’m beyond grateful that we’ve got so far so quickly. To point out that the South African variant is potentially of some concern is to report what scientists themselves have said. I’m really bewildered by the reactions I’m getting.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
I don't see an "all or nothing" mentality so much as an effort to influence behavior by controlling the message. I could be wrong, but it seems that posters who are less risk tolerant and favor restrictions farther into the future tend to post articles that discuss possible problems with the vaccines, the prevalence of variants, etc. Those who are more risk tolerant and favor ending restrictions in the near future tend to post articles that center more on the successes of the vaccines, vaccination rates, etc. Luckily, with COVID dominating the news there's something for everyone. No harm done as long as the articles that are posted are accurate and substantiated.
 

correcaminos

Well-Known Member
And again, I’ve said or posted nothing to contradict this. I’m all for vaccinations—I got my first shot the other day. I think they’re our best way out of this mess, and I’m beyond grateful that we’ve got so far so quickly. To point out that the South African variant is potentially of some concern is to report what scientists themselves have said. I’m really bewildered by the reactions I’m getting.
I wasn't saying you were against vaccines. Life is not that black and white. I certainty never try to promote that mentality either. You made a statement and I showed why they are testing different boosters... to be safe. Not sure why my response is bewildering. It was simply a response. They are indeed trying to do real world testing the best way they can to either confirm or deny what was found in the lab. How that is bewildering is really baffling to me.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I wasn't saying you were against vaccines. Life is not that black and white. I certainty never try to promote that mentality either. You made a statement and I showed why they are testing different boosters... to be safe. Not sure why my response is bewildering. It was simply a response. They are indeed trying to do real world testing the best way they can to either confirm or deny what was found in the lab. How that is bewildering is really baffling to me.
I apologise for grouping your response together with some of the others I’ve received, which suggested that I was saying the vaccines didn’t work at all or that I was sharing stories with sensational headlines. Those responses I did find bewildering.
 

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
The air doesn't but the large respiratory droplets do. Almost nothing we go can prevent infection, but it can do a lot to reduce it.

As for the pandemic "running it's course", without vaccines that would mean huge numbers of people getting infected, huge numbers of dead, and likely the rise of new variants that would keep the cycle going for years.

Large droplets yes, but those are expelled through coughs and sneezes.
We're being / have been lead to believe that the wearing of non n95 surgical masks presents an effective barrier when groups of people are among each other simply breathing, and talking.
We have little idea how effective this practice actually is.
I'm 100% for vaccines, my reference to covid running its course is that it doesn't seem as though our mitigation efforts ('cept for locking ourselves inside away from each other) have much ultimate effect at all.
 

correcaminos

Well-Known Member
I apologise for grouping your response together with some of the others I’ve received, which suggested that I was saying the vaccines didn’t work at all or that I was sharing stories with sensational headlines. Those responses I did find bewildering.
No worries at all. I get your view and those who see it as sensationalized. Headlines are meant to draw in and the headlines don't always match the story causing us to read deeper to find out what the real news is. Some are far more sensitive about wording than others. Some read the meanings differently too. Testing has shown in the lab at least with Pfizer a reduction doesn't mean it's not working well enough. Hopefully the real world numbers confirm. I wait and see personally. I don't discount a need for figuring out what is what though. I just chill now until I'm told not to. It's where I am emotionally though. I figure also if my trial calls me in for variant booster trials then we need to worry lol. Of course I just want to ditch these masks forever so I could be in la la land ;)
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Large droplets yes, but those are expelled through coughs and sneezes.
We're being / have been lead to believe that the wearing of non n95 surgical masks presents an effective barrier when groups of people are among each other simply breathing, and talking.
We have little idea how effective this practice actually is.
I'm 100% for vaccines, my reference to covid running its course is that it doesn't seem as though our mitigation efforts ('cept for locking ourselves inside away from each other) have much ultimate effect at all.

This thread may help.


Lots of the confusion and differences in reports is more about term definitions than actual mechanics happening. Basically anything that reduces exposure helps some. Even if people are fighting about the terms used to describe it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom