Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

Could someone please explain to me, how - if the vaccine doesn't stop transmition, you are told to have it to protect others? 

Good question to be fair, I'm sure some of the posters in here will be able to give a decent educated answer.

 

My first question would be has it been proved that it doesn't stop/lessen transmission?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

Could someone please explain to me, how - if the vaccine doesn't stop transmition, you are told to have it to protect others? 

Vaccines stop you getting it which means, if you've not got it, you can't transmit it so consequently you are protecting others. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supermarkets is the one constant thats not really been effected by any restrictions put in place, that's where the spread is happening and if people aren't at least getting some tinned kebabs or those vicious little microwaved ham and cheese pockets that you have to wear a balaclava to eat then you're an absolute disgrace and heads should roll. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

Could someone please explain to me, how - if the vaccine doesn't stop transmition, you are told to have it to protect others? 

Because if it is the case that it doesn't have much effect on transmission (and I think the jury is still out on that), it certainly still *does* still stop the symptoms from killing or otherwise maiming you.

 

The main purpose, of course, being that with that in place the pressure on the NHS will ease drastically, and if the virus is rendered no longer actually threatening people can resume a semblance of normal life...thus helping other people.

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

I honestly don't get the logic around this. Me and the missus shop together because we want different things. If we didn't go together we'd go in separate, exposing our 2 person bubble to more people than necessary. I get it if it's a crowd of people going shopping together but jeez, for the past year our weekly shop is as much of a day trip we get. :facepalm:

The point of restrictions is to limit contact with others to the bare minimum. Two people going together is not the bare minimum.  There is no reason why you can’t make a list and then one of you go and do it. I’m not saying you need to do that but to say you can’t see the logic is silly. The logic is that you are not limiting I contact with others to the bare minimum and that is what is needed at the moment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Vaccines stop you getting it which means, if you've not got it, you can't transmit it so consequently you are protecting others. 

I thought this vaccination doesn't stop you getting it and transmitting it, but because you have the antibodies you can fight it and not feel the pits? That's why I train my body to withstand grotty foods like cheese in a can and rustlers because when this apocalypse arrives there's a lot of you that are going to have upset bottoms from the food available and it's a tough place to go and I will love it when that happens, love it. 

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Because if it is the case that it doesn't have much effect on transmission (and I think the jury is still out on that), it certainly still *does* still stop the symptoms from killing or otherwise maiming you.

 

The main purpose, of course, being that with that in place the pressure on the NHS will ease drastically, and if the virus is rendered no longer actually threatening people can resume a semblance of normal life...thus helping other people.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-effective-spread-immunity-antibody-13937600

 

This is a pretty good summary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I thought this vaccination doesn't stop you getting it and transmitting it, but because you have the antibodies you can fight it and not feel the pits? That's why I train by body to withstand grotty foods like cheese in a can and rustlers because when this apocalypse arrives there's a lot of you that are going to have upset bottoms from the food available and it's a tough place to go and I will love it when that happens, love it. 

Ahh. Well it won't matter anyway once we've all been vaccinated.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Vaccines stop you getting it which means, if you've not got it, you can't transmit it so consequently you are protecting others. 

You can still get this with the vaccine I think, it just doesn't make you ill because it can't attack your body. Its still there though and can be transmitted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Facecloth said:

You can still get this with the vaccine I think, it just doesn't make you ill because it can't attack your body. Its still there though and can be transmitted.

So, at the end of the day, it's going to be a case of if you don't get vaccinated and you catch it, it's your own silly fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Can't transmit it if you don't have it :dunno:

From what I've been seeing on the news, they're saying that the vaccine will simply stop you being hospitalized, but you're still able to transmit it. Otherwise, why would you still be required to wear a mask and social distance if you have had the vaccine?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Good question to be fair, I'm sure some of the posters in here will be able to give a decent educated answer.

 

My first question would be has it been proved that it doesn't stop/lessen transmission?

The way vaccines normally work (and I doubt this disease is any different) is that it stops the virus from multiplying.

 

In the normal way, a virus (or several million virus particles) enter your body and gleefully start multiplying away while your body has no defences.  Then your body spots the invaders and puts its immune system to work creating antivirus softwate, or antibodies as they are more technically called, to kill off all these little virus characters.  The virus characters are multiplying as fast as they can, the antibodies are fighting back, and the end of the war is when the virus is defeated and you recover, or else your body is unable to fight back against the viruses or has to use so much effort to do it that it can't carry out some other function necessary to life, and you die or suffer irreparable damage.

 

But the point of the antibodies is that either they stop the virus multiplying or that they stop it establishing itself in your body.  Either way, instead of the original millions multiplying merrily, they don't multiply and you don't get a big dose of virus.  The initial virus enters your body in exactly the same way, but if your body already knows how to deal with it (either by vaccine or by having had it before) then it can kill the invaders before they multiply like mad.

 

So it's certainly possible to pass it on after you have been vaccinated.  With most viruses, you don't pass it on because you never have enough of the virus to seriously hurt someone - it's the "viral load" issue.  The theory goes that people who are seriously ill, have received a large "viral load" of this virus so it gets a really good hold before the antibodies fight back.  If the "viral load" theory is correct, then people who have had the vaccination will not pass on the disease to any significant degree.

 

But it hasn't been tested yet.  Most viruses, people who are immune can (in practive) not pass it on.  Few exceptions.  In this case, the chances are it's the same as other viruses, but it hasn't been tested yet, so it's all supposition based on other viruses, it's not based on practical knowledge of this one.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

From what I've been seeing on the news, they're saying that the vaccine will simply stop you being hospitalized, but you're still able to transmit it. Otherwise, why would you still be required to wear a mask and social distance if you have had the vaccine?  

It's going to come down to the green hat if you've had it and the red hat if you haven't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

From what I've been seeing on the news, they're saying that the vaccine will simply stop you being hospitalized, but you're still able to transmit it. Otherwise, why would you still be required to wear a mask and social distance if you have had the vaccine?  

That is not uncommon with a virus, people can be carriers of all kinds of viruses and not have any symptoms. The vaccine will theoretically allow vaccinated people's immune system recognise elements the protein before the virus has a chance to properly infect them, so If you get it you will probably feel like you have a cold for a few days before recovering. Social distancing measures will still need to be followed initially to allow the vaccine to be rolled out without any adverse whole backlashes that could compromise the integrity of the vaccine, it needs to work so we need to be as cautious as possible. Once the vaccine is driving the infection rates down, we should be safe to start resuming normal life, that's the key, the vaccine needs to be reducing the infection rate, just because it is in circulation does not mean it will automatically have an impact it millions are still being infected. 

Edited by Pliskin
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Vaccines stop you getting it which means, if you've not got it, you can't transmit it so consequently you are protecting others. 

Not always. Some just lessen the severity of the disease if you do get. However, even in these circumstances it protects others. Lower symptoms usually mean you shed less of the virus when you're infectious, which means less chance of you passing it on to others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The way vaccines normally work (and I doubt this disease is any different) is that it stops the virus from multiplying.

 

In the normal way, a virus (or several million virus particles) enter your body and gleefully start multiplying away while your body has no defences.  Then your body spots the invaders and puts its immune system to work creating antivirus softwate, or antibodies as they are more technically called, to kill off all these little virus characters.  The virus characters are multiplying as fast as they can, the antibodies are fighting back, and the end of the war is when the virus is defeated and you recover, or else your body is unable to fight back against the viruses or has to use so much effort to do it that it can't carry out some other function necessary to life, and you die or suffer irreparable damage.

 

But the point of the antibodies is that either they stop the virus multiplying or that they stop it establishing itself in your body.  Either way, instead of the original millions multiplying merrily, they don't multiply and you don't get a big dose of virus.  The initial virus enters your body in exactly the same way, but if your body already knows how to deal with it (either by vaccine or by having had it before) then it can kill the invaders before they multiply like mad.

 

So it's certainly possible to pass it on after you have been vaccinated.  With most viruses, you don't pass it on because you never have enough of the virus to seriously hurt someone - it's the "viral load" issue.  The theory goes that people who are seriously ill, have received a large "viral load" of this virus so it gets a really good hold before the antibodies fight back.  If the "viral load" theory is correct, then people who have had the vaccination will not pass on the disease to any significant degree.

 

But it hasn't been tested yet.  Most viruses, people who are immune can (in practive) not pass it on.  Few exceptions.  In this case, the chances are it's the same as other viruses, but it hasn't been tested yet, so it's all supposition based on other viruses, it's not based on practical knowledge of this one.

That's how I had it figured in my head but wasn't sure if I was thinking along the right lines. The theory makes sense to me though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

It's going to come down to the green hat if you've had it and the red hat if you haven't.

So why would it be deemed selfish if you wasn't to have the vaccine, if they don't stop transmition. If you're a 'green hat' you should be fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...