Jump to content

Will vaccines now be required?


Recommended Posts

An interesting article from a Canadian perspective on whether or not vaccinations should be mandatory. Federal and provincial health authorities are unanimous in encouraging everyone to get one once the vaccine is available, but none have any intention of having their respective governments make it mandatory. The article doesn't address the issue of private entities making vaccinations mandatory.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/mandatory-covid-19-vaccine-canada_ca_5fc7eb7fc5b6933ec7dc09b1?08q&ncid=newsltcahpmgnews

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

An interesting article from a Canadian perspective on whether or not vaccinations should be mandatory.

Not unexpected. However the federal government could still make it a requirement for visitors entering the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, KEG21552 said:

I don't have a specific time table that I could say right now.  At the very least, I would want more information on adverse reactions and side effects that occur upon administration

Interesting. Between just Pfizer and Moderna, and not counting all if the other vaccine trials that are being studied, well over 70,000 people have been trial subjects. Do you consider that a small sample size compared to other vaccine or drug trials?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mom says said:

Interesting. Between just Pfizer and Moderna, and not counting all if the other vaccine trials that are being studied, well over 70,000 people have been trial subjects. Do you consider that a small sample size compared to other vaccine or drug trials?

 

It's a large sample size. But I'm not going to argue with anyone's comfort level. I'll probably get the vaccine as soon as there's a consensus that my particular health concern will be best served by early vaccination. But I'm at risk. Under the circumstances, I'm willing to accept the risk of long term safety risks, which take long term studies. But I'll respect anyone who wants to take their time.

 

The acute safety data that I've seen looks very good. I have no reason to believe there will be long term safety concerns. It will take time to vaccinate a significant percentage of the population, and those who don't want to be first just help spread that out. And I don't read anything in their comments as suggesting they plan on jumping on a cruise ship unvaccinated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mom says said:

Not unexpected. However the federal government could still make it a requirement for visitors entering the country.

I suppose they could, but I doubt that they would ever insist on visitors having the vaccination while allowing its own residents to go vaccine free. Part of the issue is that once you start, other countries might demand reciprocity. Personally, I'd have no problem with that, requiring anyone travelling internationally by land, sea or air to be vaccinated, but it's not a politically palatable solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

I suppose they could, but I doubt that they would ever insist on visitors having the vaccination while allowing its own residents to go vaccine free. Part of the issue is that once you start, other countries might demand reciprocity. Personally, I'd have no problem with that, requiring anyone travelling internationally by land, sea or air to be vaccinated, but it's not a politically palatable solution.

I agree that the “vaccination visa” scenario may not be a politically palatable way to go about welcoming visitors but perhaps something like what the EU cooked up over the course of the summer.  Visitors only from countries with a new case load of such and such per capita over the preceding two weeks.  That may not identify individuals who have or have not been vaccinated but it does indicate they’re coming from a country that, at least on a macro scale, has had some demonstrable success at reducing the CV-19 case load.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

I agree that the “vaccination visa” scenario may not be a politically palatable way to go about welcoming visitors but perhaps something like what the EU cooked up over the course of the summer.  Visitors only from countries with a new case load of such and such per capita over the preceding two weeks.  That may not identify individuals who have or have not been vaccinated but it does indicate they’re coming from a country that, at least on a macro scale, has had some demonstrable success at reducing the CV-19 case load.

Yes, that's certainly another viable option. With vaccinations just around the corner in many countries, it will be interesting to see whether or not Ottawa will introduce new preventative entry measures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2020 at 8:48 AM, TeeRick said:

In the very unlikely event that some cruise lines let passengers board without a vaccine, the ports and country entry points and airlines and airports might in fact require vaccination proof.  We will be living in a very cautious world the next few years.  Let's not fight it- just get vaccinated for all of our sakes!

 

Agreed.  Hell, there are certain countries that will deny you entrance unless you're vaccinated for various diseases already.  I don't recall too many people crying about their rights being all trampled on.

 

They really need to adopt your saying:  Let's not fight it- just get vaccinated for all of our sakes!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nomad098 said:

A vaccination may well be required to cruise and travel but I think it will be difficult to implement until a long way into 2021 or even ever depending on what happens further down the line.

 

How long can cruise lines wait for enough people to be vaccinated to justify needing a certificate to board.

 

If by Easter only those at the highest risk are vaccinated will they exclude a huge part of their markets to wait for the rest. It would be ok for high end cruises who's market are targeted at the older cruiser but for the mainstream cruise lines it would be more difficult.

 

I can imagine a scenario where anyone over a certain age or with health conditions would be required a vaccine certificate to travel come Easter with those at low risk of covid being allowed to travel without a certificate and then close to the end of the year everyone required to have one.

 

The UK Government has hinted that there may not be a need to vaccinate the under 50's without underlying comorbidities

 

If covid-19 is similar to influenza where you can still carry and transmit the virus, a vaccine passport would be pointless as it would only prove your symptoms will not be as bad. If it is more like Yellow Fever then it would make sense even if it only gives you a limited time coverage.

 

 

I keep trying to found out where this "influenza where you can still carry and transmit the virus" comes from. Because it seems to be being misused.

 

My understanding of the influenza vaccine is that it is  effective against the strains that are included. That, in fact, it does prevent both infection and transmission for those specific strains.

 

Where the confusion comes in with the flu vaccine is that it does not include all possible strains that might be circulating in any given year.  While the flu vaccine during any given year does not prevent infection or transmission for other strains, those not included in the vaccine for that year, it does often reduce the symptoms when one does encounter one of those other strains.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nocl said:

I keep trying to found out where this "influenza where you can still carry and transmit the virus" comes from. Because it seems to be being misused.

 

My understanding of the influenza vaccine is that it is  effective against the strains that are included. That, in fact, it does prevent both infection and transmission for those specific strains.

 

Where the confusion comes in with the flu vaccine is that it does not include all possible strains that might be circulating in any given year.  While the flu vaccine during any given year does not prevent infection or transmission for other strains, those not included in the vaccine for that year, it does often reduce the symptoms when one does encounter one of those other strains.

 

 

 

It comes from the fact that the influenza vaccine is between 40% - 60% effective depending on year if you can catch the disease your vaccinated against and have symptoms then it's possible to transmit the disease as some of the symptoms are involved with the reproductive cycle of the virus. But I will admit after a quick look for supporting evidence it does seem to be a bit thin on the ground, there must be evidence somewhere either supporting or disproving transmission in a vaccinated individual. The best I can come up with is a quote from the CDC.

 

"Unfortunately, some people can become infected with a flu virus a flu vaccine is designed to protect against, despite getting vaccinated. Protection provided by flu vaccination can vary widely, based in part on health and age factors of the person getting vaccinated"

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/keyfacts.htm

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

It comes from the fact that the influenza vaccine is between 40% - 60% effective depending on year if you can catch the disease your vaccinated against and have symptoms then it's possible to transmit the disease as some of the symptoms are involved with the reproductive cycle of the virus. But I will admit after a quick look for supporting evidence it does seem to be a bit thin on the ground, there must be evidence somewhere either supporting or disproving transmission in a vaccinated individual. The best I can come up with is a quote from the CDC.

 

"Unfortunately, some people can become infected with a flu virus a flu vaccine is designed to protect against, despite getting vaccinated. Protection provided by flu vaccination can vary widely, based in part on health and age factors of the person getting vaccinated"

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/keyfacts.htm

 

 

People are taking the fact that the flu vaccine does not contain and cannot contain all of the possible strains, and misinterpreting what the vaccine does.

 

For the strains included it does prevent infection and does prevent transmission with a high efficacy. Though efficacy does drop off in older patients.

 

For the strains not included in that year it does not provide such protection, but it still provides some benefit in reducing the seriousness of infection.  Because there are so many flu strains, some closer than others. the protection level is more granular than included vs not included.  Some closer to the included strains will get more protection, those more genetically different get less protection.

 

So for one to say that the flu vaccine is not designed to prevent transmission or infection is incorrect.

 

The efficacy numbers are based upon all of the strains circulating in any given year, those that the vaccine protects against and those that are not included.  The variation in efficacy from year to year is driven largely by how well they predict what major strains will be circulating in that year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

It comes from the fact that the influenza vaccine is between 40% - 60% effective depending on year if you can catch the disease your vaccinated against and have symptoms then it's possible to transmit the disease as some of the symptoms are involved with the reproductive cycle of the virus. But I will admit after a quick look for supporting evidence it does seem to be a bit thin on the ground, there must be evidence somewhere either supporting or disproving transmission in a vaccinated individual. The best I can come up with is a quote from the CDC.

 

"Unfortunately, some people can become infected with a flu virus a flu vaccine is designed to protect against, despite getting vaccinated. Protection provided by flu vaccination can vary widely, based in part on health and age factors of the person getting vaccinated"

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/keyfacts.htm

 

 

Vaccines are not 100% Effective.  Nobody says that and it should not be expected.  We are all different genetically and have immune systems in various states of health.  A COVID vaccine with 95% efficacy in large clinical trials in different age groups is a great advance.  But nobody is sure yet how exactly that efficacy translates to Effectiveness in the general population after widespread vaccinations.  Maybe a minimum of 5/100 vaccinated people might still get the virus and have symptoms and possibly pass it on, but for them it will be much milder and likely to save them from hospitalization or worse.  That is still a very highly Effective vaccine.  Compared to the nothing that we have now.    As for influenza vaccines, the 40-60% number is thrown around all the time.  But it is a blended number since there are several circulating strains every year.  Many mistake this to mean that an influenza vaccine does not have Effectiveness.  An influenza vaccine that you receive that was matched correctly to the circulating strain(s) in your area is much more than 40-60% effective for an individual personally.  It will also help you from getting a severe case of flu or worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, KEG21552 said:

Please allow me one point, just because someone disagrees with your opinion does not make them a troll.  I have read and respected some of the post by people here, but calling someone who continues to come back to defend (whether you agree or not) their opinion a troll is the equivalent to sticking your tongue out on the playground and taking your ball and going home.  

 

There are a lot of differences of opinion here.  Most are respected and good back and forth conversations happen all the time.  Posting things that are not entirely factual in multiple threads over and over is quite different.  But everybody has an opinion as do you.  

 

Here is the Wiki definition of Troll.  

"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] either for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, nocl said:

People are taking the fact that the flu vaccine does not contain and cannot contain all of the possible strains, and misinterpreting what the vaccine does.

 

For the strains included it does prevent infection and does prevent transmission with a high efficacy. Though efficacy does drop off in older patients.

 

For the strains not included in that year it does not provide such protection, but it still provides some benefit in reducing the seriousness of infection.  Because there are so many flu strains, some closer than others. the protection level is more granular than included vs not included.  Some closer to the included strains will get more protection, those more genetically different get less protection.

 

So for one to say that the flu vaccine is not designed to prevent transmission or infection is incorrect.

 

The efficacy numbers are based upon all of the strains circulating in any given year, those that the vaccine protects against and those that are not included.  The variation in efficacy from year to year is driven largely by how well they predict what major strains will be circulating in that year.

 

11 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Vaccines are not 100% Effective.  Nobody says that and it should not be expected.  We are all different genetically and have immune systems in various states of health.  A COVID vaccine with 95% efficacy in large clinical trials in different age groups is a great advance.  But nobody is sure yet how exactly that efficacy translates to Effectiveness in the general population after widespread vaccinations.  Maybe a minimum of 5/100 vaccinated people might still get the virus and have symptoms and possibly pass it on, but for them it will be much milder and likely to save them from hospitalization or worse.  That is still a very highly Effective vaccine.  Compared to the nothing that we have now.    As for influenza vaccines, the 40-60% number is thrown around all the time.  But it is a blended number since there are several circulating strains every year.  Many mistake this to mean that an influenza vaccine does not have Effectiveness.  An influenza vaccine that you receive that was matched correctly to the circulating strain(s) in your area is much more than 40-60% effective for an individual personally.  It will also help you from getting a severe case of flu or worse. 

 

I am not being funny, but you keep questioning what I post and I provide evidence but you keep posting with no evidence and expect me and others to accept your statements without question. As a matter of fair play please provide links to your assertions.

 

Please provide evidence that the influenza jab breaks transmission as I can find none. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

 

I am not being funny, but you keep questioning what I post and I provide evidence but you keep posting with no evidence and expect me and others to accept your statements without question. As a matter of fair play please provide links to your assertions.

 

Please provide evidence that the influenza jab breaks transmission as I can find none. 

nomad098 I am not questioning what you post.  Where do you see that? I am responding to your post with an opinion which tries to offer an explanation for your questions- and many other people have the same ones, including me.  It is truly difficult to measure virus transmission in a general population and some have tried retrospectively in more isolated populations (vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated).  But very few have succeeded or reported.

https://www.medpagetoday.org/infectiousdisease/uritheflu/18910?vpass=1

 

I guess the true hallmark of whether a vaccine can reduce actual viral transmission significantly is to see, if after introduction of the vaccine, the pandemic or endemic infection rate as measured by testing becomes very much reduced in the vaccinated population.  And maybe this can be correlated with certain immunity indicators such as highly specific antibodies and T-Cells. Acquired herd immunity. 

 

I have been trying to comment here more about Effectiveness of a vaccine, COVID or Influenza.  Not about stopping transmission.  Little is known (yet) about viral transmission from vaccine recipients for the about-to-be-approved COVID vaccines.  Lots of discussions and various opinions on this but no data.  

 

Your own references will lead to the CDC's discussions on Influenza vaccines but mostly about Effectiveness.  Not about transmission.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

 

I am of the opinion anyway that if COVID vaccines significantly reduce hospitalizations and deaths they will be considered highly Effective.  Transmission aside.  The transmission issue will only be able to be evaluated after millions of people get vaccinated and epidemiologists and population scientists figure out how to evaluate it.  Ultimately, did vaccination slow or stop the pandemic?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TeeRick said:

nomad098 I am not questioning what you post.  Where do you see that? I am responding to your post with an opinion which tries to offer an explanation for your questions- and many other people have the same ones, including me.  It is truly difficult to measure virus transmission in a general population and some have tried retrospectively in more isolated populations (vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated).  But very few have succeeded or reported.

https://www.medpagetoday.org/infectiousdisease/uritheflu/18910?vpass=1

 

I guess the true hallmark of whether a vaccine can reduce actual viral transmission significantly is to see, if after introduction of the vaccine, the pandemic or endemic infection rate as measured by testing becomes very much reduced in the vaccinated population.  And maybe this can be correlated with certain immunity indicators such as highly specific antibodies and T-Cells. Acquired herd immunity. 

 

I have been trying to comment here more about Effectiveness of a vaccine, COVID or Influenza.  Not about stopping transmission.  Little is known (yet) about viral transmission from vaccine recipients for the about-to-be-approved COVID vaccines.  Lots of discussions and various opinions on this but no data.  

 

Your own references will lead to the CDC's discussions on Influenza vaccines but mostly about Effectiveness.  Not about transmission.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

 

I am of the opinion anyway that if COVID vaccines significantly reduce hospitalizations and deaths they will be considered highly Effective.  Transmission aside.  The transmission issue will only be able to be evaluated after millions of people get vaccinated and epidemiologists and population scientists figure out how to evaluate it.  Ultimately, did vaccination slow or stop the pandemic?  

Hi,

I totally agree with your points.

One of the MAJOR issues of decreasing transmission of 

viruses (eg Flu) is due to low numbers of vaccinated individuals

in the community. To achieve herd immunity by vaccines you

need to immunize a large proportion of the population.

Some estimate 90%. Since this is usually not achieved it

often looks like herd immunity doesn't work (or poorly).

Also the Flu viruses swap pieces and new strains arise 

which also complicates transmission effectiveness.

However, after getting immunized with different strains

over different years you get partial immunity (cross reactivity)

that will offer you some protection against some newly arising strains.

It is well known that immunization decreases the virus shedding

and decreases the ability to pass the virus (transmission).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TeeRick said:

nomad098 I am not questioning what you post.  Where do you see that? I am responding to your post with an opinion which tries to offer an explanation for your questions- and many other people have the same ones, including me.  It is truly difficult to measure virus transmission in a general population and some have tried retrospectively in more isolated populations (vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated).  But very few have succeeded or reported.

https://www.medpagetoday.org/infectiousdisease/uritheflu/18910?vpass=1

 

I guess the true hallmark of whether a vaccine can reduce actual viral transmission significantly is to see, if after introduction of the vaccine, the pandemic or endemic infection rate as measured by testing becomes very much reduced in the vaccinated population.  And maybe this can be correlated with certain immunity indicators such as highly specific antibodies and T-Cells. Acquired herd immunity. 

 

I have been trying to comment here more about Effectiveness of a vaccine, COVID or Influenza.  Not about stopping transmission.  Little is known (yet) about viral transmission from vaccine recipients for the about-to-be-approved COVID vaccines.  Lots of discussions and various opinions on this but no data.  

 

Your own references will lead to the CDC's discussions on Influenza vaccines but mostly about Effectiveness.  Not about transmission.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

 

I am of the opinion anyway that if COVID vaccines significantly reduce hospitalizations and deaths they will be considered highly Effective.  Transmission aside.  The transmission issue will only be able to be evaluated after millions of people get vaccinated and epidemiologists and population scientists figure out how to evaluate it.  Ultimately, did vaccination slow or stop the pandemic?  

 

I agree it has been difficult to find information on transmissibility of influenza in a vaccinated person 

 

The point I was making in the first post you replied to is that if you have been vaccinated but you then can still catch the virus you were vaccinated against it is possible to still be transmitting the virus.

 

As far as 40%-60% being a blended number I can find no evidence for this, the best statement i have seen is from the CDC.

 

"While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine"

 

Without knowing how many strains of flu there are in any given year how would you work out a blended number

 

I agree with your post about covid-19 vaccine and here is a link to an article in The British Medical Journal that raises my concerns on the OP's post "will vaccines now be required"

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/

 

Until we know whether the covid-19 vaccines can stop transmission everyone that we come in contact with will need to be vaccinated. It's no good having everyone on the ship vaccinated if your transmitting the virus to poorer countries that have not had the vaccine.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read an article posted by NBC News, about the Covid19 vaccines.  Who will get the vaccine and in what sequence?  I had hoped that my number would come up in the 2nd or 3rd group.  However, after reading, I worry how states will set the standards for sequencing.  Also, logistics to accomplish any of this are sketchy at best.  And, having to get 2 shots each, this is a nightmare!  I don't see how any cruise can depend totally on a vaccine till all the details in scheduling can be worked out.  I'd love to get the shots, but no idea how any of us will do this unless we are deemed "essential"!

Edited by DragonflyCruiser
add info
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

I agree it has been difficult to find information on transmissibility of influenza in a vaccinated person 

 

The point I was making in the first post you replied to is that if you have been vaccinated but you then can still catch the virus you were vaccinated against it is possible to still be transmitting the virus.

 

As far as 40%-60% being a blended number I can find no evidence for this, the best statement i have seen is from the CDC.

 

"While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine"

 

Without knowing how many strains of flu there are in any given year how would you work out a blended number

 

I agree with your post about covid-19 vaccine and here is a link to an article in The British Medical Journal that raises my concerns on the OP's post "will vaccines now be required"

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/

 

Until we know whether the covid-19 vaccines can stop transmission everyone that we come in contact with will need to be vaccinated. It's no good having everyone on the ship vaccinated if your transmitting the virus to poorer countries that have not had the vaccine.

 

 

 

OK now I understand. Sorry.   You were talking about influenza illness risk reduction at 40-60% which is the overall effectiveness using a tri or tetravalent blended vaccine chosen before influenza season.  I was under the wrong assumption that you were referring to the efficacy of the actual influenza vaccine in controlled studies.  In my posts I have been trying to express the concept of vaccine effectiveness (real world) vs. vaccine efficacy (highly controlled clinical measurement).  We really only care about vaccine effectiveness since that is what truly counts.  The efficacy is only one component of effectiveness.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DragonflyCruiser said:

I just read an article posted by NBC News.  Who will get the vaccine and in what sequence?  I had hoped that my number would come up in the 2nd or 3rd group.  However, after reading, I worry how states will set the standards for sequencing.  Also, logistics to accomplish any of this are sketchy at best.  And, having to get 2 shots each, this is a nightmare!  I don't see how any cruise can depend totally on a vaccine till all the details in scheduling can be worked out.  I'd love to get the shots, but no idea how any of us will do this unless we are deemed "essential"!

Yes that is my worry too and it is a common worry at this point.  Maybe not a nightmare.  COVID is the nightmare.  But I realize that I might have to wait quite some time for my turn to be vaccinated.  Maybe another 4-6 months.  But at least all of the health care workers who are truly overworked and in danger will get the vaccine and be protected from serious illness.  I will wait a bit longer for my leisure cruise for that any day.  To put it in perspective, the virus was identified and the sequence released in January 2020.  If I can get vaccine shots (even in my lower priority group) only 15 months later that is truly remarkable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

I agree it has been difficult to find information on transmissibility of influenza in a vaccinated person 

 

The point I was making in the first post you replied to is that if you have been vaccinated but you then can still catch the virus you were vaccinated against it is possible to still be transmitting the virus.

 

As far as 40%-60% being a blended number I can find no evidence for this, the best statement i have seen is from the CDC.

 

"While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine"

 

Without knowing how many strains of flu there are in any given year how would you work out a blended number

 

I agree with your post about covid-19 vaccine and here is a link to an article in The British Medical Journal that raises my concerns on the OP's post "will vaccines now be required"

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/

 

Until we know whether the covid-19 vaccines can stop transmission everyone that we come in contact with will need to be vaccinated. It's no good having everyone on the ship vaccinated if your transmitting the virus to poorer countries that have not had the vaccine.

 

 

 

 

That's because studying influenza vaccine effectiveness is very problematic

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6594904/#R42

 

There is also the issue that vaccination to one strain may give more or less protections to other strains.

 

Basically, what you are looking for, no one really has had an interest in influenza until this year.

 

What people cared about was "if you got a flu vaccine, was is the chance you got flu" regardless of what strains the vaccine contained and what flu you ended up with.  It is very expensive and challenging to document what strain of flu people end up with, because it is not routinely done in a clinical setting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

 

I am not being funny, but you keep questioning what I post and I provide evidence but you keep posting with no evidence and expect me and others to accept your statements without question. As a matter of fair play please provide links to your assertions.

 

Please provide evidence that the influenza jab breaks transmission as I can find none. 

How many articles/studies would you like?

 

 

 

These all deal with the strain matching issues and discussions of the impact on strain selection to the efficacy of the vaccine.

 

 

https://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/supplements/2019/July2019/influenza-vaccine-efficacy-through-the-years

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350141/

 

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200902/how-effective-is-the-flu-vaccine

 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the-flu-vaccine-might-be-mismatched-but-you-still-need-your-shot#Recent-flu-trends-in-Southern-Hemisphere

 

Here is one from UAB Medicine that includes very similar comments to what I have been saying

 

https://www.uabmedicine.org/-/flu-strains-explained-and-how-the-vaccine-works

 

The effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies from year to year and also may depend upon the age and health of the person receiving the vaccine. It also depends upon the similarity between the actual flu virus affecting a community and the specific flu viruses that the current year’s vaccine was manufactured to protect against

 

 Even if you are infected by a strain of the flu that isn’t covered by this year’s vaccine

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Try this study:

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081

 

"Results

 

We screened 355 volunteers with acute respiratory illness; the 178 volunteers who met enrollment criteria provided 278 visits for sample collection. We confirmed influenza infection in 156 (88%) of the enrolled participants

 

"In adjusted models, we observed 6.3  times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons."

 

 

Let that sink in.  Vaccinated people were seen to shed Flu virus 6.3 times more than un-vaccinated people !    Who knew ?!    Seems it's the vaxxers that are the threat to society rather than the un-vaccinated to me!

 

Note also that even when the Flu vaccines are well matched to the prevailing strains circulating, they are still only about 50%-60% effective according to some sources.

 

The Cochrane Institute did a systematic review of Flu vaccines involving lots of studies that involved 1000s of people.  They concluded that:

 

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults

 

Main results

"Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost."

 

A pretty damning result.   Yet we continue to administer millions of Flu shots year after year.   Imagine selling cars where only 1 in 71 actually worked !

 

 

A couple of issues with the links.

 

First the report does not say that there was 6.3 times more virus shedding.  It says that there was more in fine aerosol samples, not total virus shedding.  The paper also states

 

"Several researchers have recently shown that exhaled aerosol particles are frequently generated from normal healthy lungs by small airway closure and reopening (1921)r"

 

In other words those that have been vaccinated recently (this or previous year) are more likely to shed virus in fine aerosols, than those that have not been vaccinated because their lungs are healthier even when infected.  

 

So the report really does not support your position.  The report also does not deal with strains and if the person was infected with one of the strains included in their vaccination

 

As far as the second you are making an error in interpreting the results. You are really off base in your interpretation of the data.

 

  Not everyone gets the flu every year. Using their data from a number of studies.  According to their analysis f you are not vaccinated you have a 2.3 percent change of catching the flu.  If you are vaccinated your odds improve to .9%.  So taking the vaccine has reduced ones odds of getting the flu by over 60%.  The 71 number comes that the reduce in the chance of catching the flu is reduces by 1.4%    100/1.4 = 71.2   which means that if the illness incidence is 2.3% of the population and you reduce it to .9%  then you will prevent one person from getting sick if you vaccinate 71 people.  After all 97.7% will not get the illness at all even if infected.

 

Apply this stats to the the vaccinated population of 150 million the same stats would indicate that 2.11 flu infections would be prevented.  Reducing the number of infections by over 60%.

 

Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.47;  .

 

 

 

Edited by nocl
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team: New Ship Ultramarine
      • Register Now for Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...