So 3 weeks for useful protection to emerge.
Incubation period 5-10 days.
Not enough time for vaccines to be that useful.
And again, we have no data to suggest *any* vaccine prevents infections or transmission. They reduce symptoms.
If you're fully vaccinated you can still catch it. That isnt the point of these vaccines. Most vaccines dont stop you catching the disease.
That's a critical point Splatt which isn't reaching widespread knowledge via the media.
People getting vaccinated (my father has had his first dose) expect the vaccine will prevent them getting Covid or its variants.
More widely, everyone else expects the vaccines to prevent transmission and or getting it so that "cases" fall we can reopen society and we can save the NHS.
If not and vaccines just reduce symptoms then on the basis the govt believes asymptomatic transmission is currently a massive problem (is it?) then will there not just be a swing from symptomatic to less and/or asymptomatic cases, - with the govt ad campaign is saying 1 in 3 people with Covid 19 have no symptoms. Won't it just go to 2 in 3 or 4 in 5?
Thus if the intention is the vaccines make people less ill, but don't make the virus less transmissable, it won't cut down on cases if mass testing continues (including testing in order to travel) as they'll just find more asymptomatic cases?
Or how accurate is talk of asymptomatic transmission being such a great risk?
It would be helpful if the govt scientists would actually summarise the relative benefits and intended effects of each type of vaccine. But I think they rely on people assuming vaccines stop the riak of getting it or spreading it, which seems to be a veneer.
That's a critical point Splatt which isn't reaching widespread knowledge via the media.
People getting vaccinated (my father has had his first dose) expect the vaccine will prevent them getting Covid or its variants.
Its not just the media - we have politicians thinking this.
We even have some high level doctors/consultants saying it.
There appears to have been no real effort or campaign to actually highlight this because presumably its not desirable.
More widely, everyone else expects the vaccines to prevent transmission and or getting it so that "cases" fall we can reopen society and we can save the NHS.
If not and vaccines just reduce symptoms then on the basis the govt believes asymptomatic transmission is currently a massive problem (is it?) then will there not just be a swing from symptomatic to less and/or asymptomatic cases, - with the govt ad campaign is saying 1 in 3 people with Covid 19 have no symptoms. Won't it just go to 2 in 3 or 4 in 5?
The focus on "cases" is dangerous. Its the slide into the "zero covid" insanity.
Assuming the vaccines massively reduce sickness (and it does seem to be the case), even if they dont affect transmission its not a problem
There's no issue with a large number of people catching and passing on a virus that makes almost none of them sick or seriously sick. Its how we live with all other diseases.
This focus on driving cases down means they've totally lost sight of the original claims for lockdown - to stop health services getting overwhelmed. Its mission creep and can never end.
Thus if the intention is the vaccines make people less ill, but don't make the virus less transmissable, it won't cut down on cases if mass testing continues (including testing in order to travel) as they'll just find more asymptomatic cases?
Or how accurate is talk of asymptomatic transmission being such a great risk?
Thats the issue. If (govt figure) 1 in 3 people currently asymptomatic then vaccination could make that 9 out of 10.
From a pandemic end point thats fine - game over. We've won.
But from a case focussed end point its potentially worse because almost everyone is now spreading it without realising.
There is a small but growing lobby/pressure group to focus policy on cases and that is very very dangerous.
I sincerely hope there are alternative scientists as well as smarter politicians who have a grasp of this...
