Does the Covid vaccine even work?

I am not trying to start flame war, so if this bothers you I am sorry, but just trying to get to the bottom of this…

I need to know, do any of the Covid vaccines actually work? after all Israel which is triple vaccinated for almost 100% of the population, has one of the highest Covid rates in the world

Here in the US one of our most prominent states, Florida, not only has made vaccine mandates illegal but they were at “masks optional” for most of 2020.. the media obviously promised they would experience a holocaust, but Florida proceeded to have one of the lowest Covid rates on record, multiples lower than the locked down states near by..

I hear that Norway, Finland, Denmark are banning Moderna and J&J vaccines because they’re actually causing more deaths than Covid itself

And now this evening I found this, on Twitter
https://twitter.com/ianmsc/status/1454882236315029504?s=21
“Singapore reported the equivalent of 305,000 cases in the US the other day with 85% of their entire population fully vaccinated and one of the world’s longest mask mandates”

 

We are seeing a number of vaccinated seniors test positive for COVID-19 in various groups that I belong to. I have my own questions as to the efficacy of any of these vaccines being pushed as needed. I am a senior-citizen. I remember getting the polio-vaccine and small-pox vaccine as a child. According to the experts, these diseases were nearly eradicated. Yet, now they call the annual influenza injections a vaccine and also the new COVID-19 injection a vaccine. When did the definition of vaccine change? These injections are recommended annually for season-influenza. Big Pharma, I suspect, plays a very large roll in what is marketed to us. I look at the public-records of elected officials and their share in Big Pharma going up tremendously. Public officials making less than $200,000 annually in the USA and yet reaping millions. I fear this is the impetus behind my being demanded to receive their injections. Sorry to have hijacked this thread.

 

The definition didn’t change. There is much variety among viruses and they don’t evolve in a uniform manner. A vaccine is simply the introduction of a “dead” or weakened virus to a subject to elicit an immune response. In some cases this results in total immunity, in others not. In some cases the immunity is permanent, in others it is temporary. It all depends on the virus in question and how it interacts with the immune system, and vice versa. Using a virus’ own DNA against it to prevent widespread disease, and having the technology to produce an effective delivery system, is simply ingenious and we should all be thankful we live in a time and place in which such feats are possible.

 

It depends on how you define "work". If you mean do they produce antibodies, then yes, they work. If you mean, do they make you completely immune from Covid-19 and all its variants and subvarients, then obviously, the answer is no.

There's evidence that shows fully vaccinated people have a lower indicence of symptom severity, hospitalization, and death than the unvaccinated, though effectiveness wanes over time. There's evidence that shows those with natural immunity gained from successfully fighting off a case can be as effective, or more so,as what is gained from a vaccine. But going through a bout is dangerous and very possibly deadly, as we well know.

Speaking as one who went through a case of the Delta variant, it's no fun at all. But the upside is I'm now immune and don't need the vaccine.

 

You likely have a far greater resistance to the virus (now) than a vaccinated person does, but whether you are fully “immune”, either permanently or temporarily, remains to be seen, to say nothing of the possibility of future variants which may have the ability to overcome current instances of immunity. Natural selection is a dangerous thing to play with.

 

So is the vaccine, if the VAERS numbers are accurate.

 

Rubbish. Independent UK and Israeli studies separately concluded that the Pfizer vaccine was 96% effective at preventing hospitalization from COVID-19. Your antivaxx ideology is a religion, not science, and causes direct harm to those unfortunate enough to follow it out of ignorance or prejudice. In this day and age, vaccination should simply be compulsory with only genuinely medical exemptions allowed, and this is a far more humane approach than forcefully quarantining the unvaccinated instead. People can entertain false beliefs all they like, but they don’t have a right to endanger others by that belief.

 

What endangerment does an unvaccinated person pose to a vaccinated if the vaccines are so effective? Forcing someone to take substances against their will, aside from being fascist, unethical, and an assault on their human rights, is an admission they are ineffective. It is akin to saying that my seasonal allergy medicine will only work if everyone else takes it.

I agree. False beliefs like refusing to recognize the vaccines do have side effects which, in some cases, have caused death (something the CDC and WHO have freely recognized). When you make vaccinations with deadly side effects universally mandatory, you are forcing some people, however small the number, to die for the greater glory of your of artificial immunity.

 

So by your logic, I can just create a chemical cocktail in my garage, call it a vaccine, and then it would become a vaccine? (To be forcefully injected into every person on the planet.)

It's that simple? And if you object, you're just an antivax ideologist.

Oh you'd try to rescue your position by saying that it needs to pass FDA approval. Okay, so if I have some friends at the FDA, will it become "a vaccine" if I can get them to approve it despite zero years, months, or even days, of trials and devil's advocate arguments?

Just calling something a vaccine makes it so? That's just pure nominalism. And nominalism has caused a lot of evil in Western history. You don't just get to make something into a thing, by calling it that thing.

 

He didn't say calling a thing a vaccine makes it a vaccine?

 

Well he did say that if something is "called" a vaccine, then it "is" a vaccine. Or else you're an antivaxxer, right? By definition. After all, you're opposing something which is "already" called a vaccine, so you're an antivaxxer.

He's so committed to this as to even be willing to inject every human on the planet, against their will.

 

@Stalwart, I said:

There is nothing even remotely controversial about this working definition, and it has nothing to do with “nominalism”. I don’t know how you even came up with that, it’s so wide of the mark. The examples cited by others above are all called “vaccines” because they fit the necessary criteria. It’s really not that difficult. I don’t where some people got the idea that vaccines by definition are supposed to confer total immunity, but that’s simply incorrect. Viruses evolve along with whatever they infect.

And yes, I favor compulsory immunization, with the only exemptions being purely medical ones. People can’t always be trusted to act rationally, and when their irrational behavior creates dangerous externalities, it is the State’s proper and legitimate role to correct those imbalances = fundamental injustices (because no one else can), to protect its citizens. Bogus objections to these vaccines, and holding out fake cures as alternatives, are not legitimate grounds for an entire society to be held hostage by a pandemic that for all practical purposes would have been behind us already if everyone had just done the right thing for the right reason from the start. I think that’s the right position to take here, and I make no apologies for it. There is no problem with this from a Lockean perspective because there is no "natural" right to spread disease. By the same token, I have been implacably opposed to lockdowns, viz., the outright closing of businesses, since the pandemic began, because there is an absolute natural right (and duty) to pursue lawful, gainful employment. The destruction of wealth and livelihoods, with all their concomitant effects, that occurred in the U.S. especially during the first half of 2020 was unconscionable and was a serious and grievous overreach from a due process standpoint. So I'm very pro-vaccine and also very anti-lockdown. Which part of the spectrum will that land me on? Like I said, I make no apology for either position.

 

Okay, if that's your definition, then none of the Covid chemical cocktails are vaccines. From a .gov article:

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/
"scientists have developed a new type of vaccine that uses a molecule called messenger RNA (or mRNA for short) rather than part of an actual bacteria or virus"

So this thing they are injecting you with, they're merely calling it a "vaccine", and you willingly accept it "as" a vaccine (and want to forcefully inject the entire world with it).

So yes, nominalism at the core and heart of this question.

 

I guess the reason that I am so not such a great supporter of these vaccines is that I had a now deceased uncle that was a pathologist for the FDA decades ago. He also had his own lab to do product studies. He always smiled whenever we spoke of a "cure" for cancer, the common-cold, influenza and such. I asked him why? He smiled back and said it is well known in the medical community that money talks and that the industry did not wish to lose their customers due to a "cure" of one thing or another. He asked, at that time, if I knew how many dollars were spent annually for OTC cold-remedies or flu-remedies? I did not and told him so. He said, "Well, just look at who the biggest contributors to politicians that make laws governing medicine comes from.....Big Pharma." This was decades ago. What is it now? This is why I voice my skepticism on what we are seeing world-wide.

 

That has been my concern... The president's spokeswoman, 100% vaccinated, has recently tested positive for Covid and so did her entire staff..

What is the point of these vaccines if they do not prevent the transmission of Covid?

Do we have any evidence that they actually prevent the transmission of Covid?...

 

Nowhere was I told that when I was vaccinated I would be immune. I WAS told that if I contracted COVID, that it would be a less severe case. That is enough for me to make it worthwhile as I am in a vulnerable group. If I get it, I would prefer not to die from it, or even end up on a respirator.

Will we have to have a booster? Maybe, but I already get annual shots for flu, pneumonia and this year, shingles.

I would be perfectly happy for others NOT to get the vaccine, if they stay away from the vulnerable and use precautions when this is not possible. It's ok for the unvaccinated to die since it is their choice, but it isn't right for them to infect others as well.

This kind of inflammatory news is usually just misinformation and scare mongering. Smallpox was wiped out because of vaccines and polio no longer cripples children. School children get vaccines for childhood diseases that can cause blindness and deafness and other things. And travellers get shots for all manner of diseases. It's just nonsense to get all hyped up over something that is science.

 

These are all Straw Men. That’s not how these things work and there’s really no excuse not to know that at this point. This is really about some adults insisting on acting like children when the government tells them what to do, even though they don’t question it in many other areas of their lives.

 

What’s this? Ugghhh
“https://winepressnews.com/2021/10/3...lta-variant-just-as-much-as-the-unvaccinated/

“According to a new study published in the medical journal The Lancet, researchers came to the conclusion that those who have received a Covid-19 vaccine can still transmit the reported Delta variant within their own households, just as easily as an unvaccinated person reportedly can.”

 

And yet that link is to a Christian site that offers no link to the actual scientific article. I call fake news. And even if it were true, which I strongly doubt, the vaccine would still have the effect of protecting the vaccinated from serious COVID complications. Nothing is perfect but vaccines are efficacious and have proven themselves to be helpful in stopping outbreaks of diseases.

EDIT

I found the link in your referenced website and read the article. It included this statement:

"Although vaccines remain highly effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination is not sufficient to prevent transmission of the delta variant in household settings with prolonged exposures. Our findings highlight the importance of community studies to characterise the epidemiological phenotype of new SARS-CoV-2 variants in increasingly highly vaccinated populations. Continued public health and social measures to curb transmission of the delta variant remain important, even in vaccinated individuals."

It seems to me that the article is suggesting further study along with continued social measures (such as masks and distancing I would imagine). It is like anything, interpretation in in the mind of the reader.

 

Since no vaccines have been developed for the Delta variant, even if this story is true, so what? Why do you guys insist on peddling this garbage despite these Straw Man “theories” being debunked again and again? Encouraging people not to take life-saving medicines amounts to complicity in their death. Think about that. Jesus wept. Next thing you know, you’ll be posting articles arguing for the reintroduction of leeches.