SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:47 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:20 pm
I don't think permanent immunity is a condition of sterilizing immunity. I say that because of the following statement in the article at
https://theconversation.com/coronavirus ... lem-152204:
So, at least in that author's opinion, it is possible to have sterilizing immunity that wanes. The author is described as a "Clinical Research Fellow in Viral Immunology and Veterinary Surgeon, University of Cambridge." So I have no reason to believe she doesn't know what she is talking about.
So I don't know if it's correct to say that a vaccine does not induce sterilizing immunity because the immunity wanes and boosters are needed.
Amazing dude! You need to reach out to the International Union of Immunological Societies and let them know they have been wrong all these years as to what sterilizing means!
I don't think I have an issue with what a vaccine causing sterilizing immunity means. It looks like it means that it stops you from becoming infected. My question is more about the point at which a vaccine is considered "leaky." That is because I don't know if ANY vaccine stops 100% of the persons receiving it from becoming infected. If the standard for not being "leaky" is that nobody who receives the vaccine can ever become infected, I don't know if there is any such thing as a vaccine that is not "leaky."
You keep barking up that tree of some mathematical model that perfectly fits into your definition of 100% and forever when that was never stated.
I'm not talking about mathematical models. I am just looking up vaccines to see if any of them are considered to be 100% effective. What I have not seen stated is the point at which a vaccine becomes "leaky." I also wonder if "leaky" refers more to a vaccine that is not expected to stop infection in any cases.
The COVID vaccines are leaky, and your article is clearly outdated as it was published in Jan of 2021, when the vaccines first came out. But they do ask the question, albeit they have an incorrect assumption as an answer, because we see cases, hospitalizations and deaths happen...not just infected without symptoms like they hypothesized.
Again, your position appears to be premised on the idea that a vaccine has to prevent infection in 100% of individuals or it is "leaky." I think it's quite possible that, if that's the standard, there is no such thing as a vaccine that is not "leaky."
From your article:
What would a lack of sterilising immunity mean for those vaccinated with the new COVID vaccines? Quite simply it means that if you encounter the virus after vaccination, you may get infected but show no symptoms. This is because your vaccine-induced immune response is not able to stop every virus particle from replicating.
So what if 60% of the people who are vaccinated have responses that prevent infection completely for 4 months. For 4 months the vaccine induces responses in that 60% are able to stop every virus particle from replication. That 60% has sterilizing immunity for 4 months.
You also never answered my question in regards to vaccine effectiveness at the 240 day mark on the graph I provided. What's happening there? What's the effectiveness at the 240 - 270 day mark?
I will go back and look at that. But I doubt if the authors claim there is a "negative' effectiveness at any point.