transient infectors

[Anonymous No.12557674]

>Research has shown that the biotech firm’s shot is effective at preventing people from getting sick with COVID-19, but there’s no hard evidence that it stops them from carrying the virus “transiently” and potentially infecting others who haven’t been vaccinated, according to Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer.

https://nypost.com/2020/11/24/moderna-boss-says-covid-shot-not-proven-to-stop-virus-spread/

As I understand it, the vaccine is a new type of vaccine never before approved for use on humans, so we really don't know what to expect. The question now is what this new form of vaccine shedding should be called. Obviously 'vaccine shedding' isn't exactly correct because that's when the vaccine gives the person the virus, and the risk from the Covid vaccine is different in that even if you get the vaccine there is absolutely no protection for carrying an asymptomatic infection and spreading it.

So its not even technically a vaccine because all it does is mask the symptoms but you still catch the targeted vaccine and are contagious with it.

Discuss? What should this new form of vaccine shedding be called? What should this new type of pseudovaccine be called?

[Anonymous No.12557710]

Operation Warp Speed took a sizeable chunk of the stimulus package in March to fund

>Among its other objectives, Operation Warp Speed aims to have substantial quantities of a safe and effective vaccine available for Americans by January 2021.

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/05/15/trump-administration-announces-framework-and-leadership-for-operation-warp-speed.html

Pfizer did not recieve any funding, or seek it out, because their "vaccine" is proven neither to be safe nor effective. It is impossible that a type of vaccine never before approved for use on humans is safe an effective. If Pfizer had taken the money it would have been fraud.

[Anonymous No.12557720]

The greatest concern is that getting the vaccine will not prevent mutation. Say 100% of all humans get the vaccine: we don't know if it will still spread between humans in an unseen pandemic. The end result will invariably be a superstrain which the pseudovaccine cannot control.

[Anonymous No.12557763]

How do you test this? Give 100 people the vaccine then two weeks later intentionally subject them to the virus and see if their saliva from 1 to 21 days later at any point contains the virus with daily testing?

[Anonymous No.12557772]

>>12557674
No proof of X =/= ~X is true or even likely

Schizo.

[Anonymous No.12557777]

>>12557763
Then one of two outcomes is possible: the vaccine is proven to be a true vaccine OR the "vaccine" is proven to be Nyquil PreM, an over-the-counter cough supressant.

Of those 100 people it is important that some may have already gotten the virus and cannot get it again yet, vaccine or no. This can skew the results as the vaccine is claiming a 10% fail rate, so 10 of those 100 in the test are expected to get the virus, but it would in reality be 5% if 50 of those 100 have already been infected qnd recovered before the test.

[Anonymous No.12557783]

>>12557772
Yeah, so since the burden of proof isn't on me then you can't call it a vaccine until you prove its a vaccine. The boss of the company who developed it said he doesn't even know if its a vaccine. It might just be cough supressant.

[Anonymous No.12557784]

>>12557777
Stop samefagging OP.

[Anonymous No.12557800]

>>12557772
>>12557784
These are both you.

Since you're obviously not intelligent enough to continue this conversation please leave.

[Anonymous No.12557813]

Now that dumbo is gone would anyone like to help out here? With any luck the shills won't be calling anyone else schizo or faggot from here on out.

[Anonymous No.12557814]

>>12557783
>Yeah, so since the burden of proof isn't on me
It is since you're directly claiming the vaccine doesn't stop virus shedding, without evidence.

>you can't call it a vaccine until you prove its a vaccine.
It has been proven.

>The boss of the company who developed it said he doesn't even know if its a vaccine.
No, he said he doesn't know if it prevents virus shedding. Most vaccines do and nasal swab testing suggests that the vaccine protects all relevant areas.

[Anonymous No.12557817]

>>12557800
>These are both you.
Yes, and?

[Anonymous No.12557821]

>>12557720
this
This vaccine is starting to look like a very dangerous idea.

[Anonymous No.12557826]

>>12557674
So basically you either need to get coronavirus now, or you need to get this vaccine and risk unknown side effects else you will have it passed on to you when it might have mutated into a much deadlier strain?

[Anonymous No.12557921]

>>12557814
A vaccine is defined as preventing the spread of a virus by making a person unable to contrqct the virus and become sick. The covid 'vaccine' has only been proven to negate symptoms of infection. That's not a vaccine.

You're really bad at reading. In OP I said that its not technically vaccine shedding, just something very similar. A vaccinated person cannot be contagious, but the covid 'vaccine' offers no such promise.

[Anonymous No.12557936]

>>12557826
That would be vaccine shedding, and the current situation is slightly different. The covid 'vaccine' on the market today is not promised to do anything other than reduce symptoms of catching the virus. A true vaccine stops you from catching a virus. So if you catch the virus now or later it will be the same strain(or one of them).

Speaking of new strains: I was just watching the news and one company has produced another strain of covid by combining two previous strains. This brings the current number of strains worldwide to four?

[Anonymous No.12557947]

The COVID vaccine works by making neutralising antibodies against the spike receptor binding domain. If you incubate virus with neutralizing ABs, their infectivity is greatly reduced.
Go figure what the vaccine does and keep in mind that viruses die out at R<1.

[Anonymous No.12558293]

>>12557921
>A vaccine is defined as preventing the spread of a virus by making a person unable to contrqct the virus and become sick.
No, it's defined as conferring immunity from the virus.

>The covid 'vaccine' has only been proven to negate symptoms of infection.
No, it has also been proven to eliminate or reduce viral load.

You're really bad at basic facts.

[Anonymous No.12558295]

>>12557921
>In OP I said that its not technically vaccine shedding, just something very similar.
Where did I say anything about vaccine shedding? You're the one who can't read.

[Anonymous No.12559107]

>>12558293
Yes, exactly. "conferring immunity" means you won't contract the virus from a contqgious sick person. The covid 'vaccine' hasn't been proven to do that. In fact they have tried and can't prove it. It is therefore not a vaccine.

[Anonymous No.12559115]

>>12559107
THE GOYIM KNOW SHUT IT DOWN!!!

[Anonymous No.12559439]

>>12559107
It's not clear whether you're talking about the effect of the vaccine on the person who got the vaccine or the effect on others. It has been definitively shown that the vaccine has ahigh rate of conferring immunity, regardless of the possibility of viral shedding, which is improbable. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.12559460]

Trump lost.

[Anonymous No.12559467]

>lived long enough to see /sci/ unironically being host for anti-vaxxers
Please just go back to whence you came.

[Anonymous No.12559673]

>>12559467
What is the point if transmission still being possible means that we still have to isolate?
That is supposing the vaccine even works which is very much doubtful with the immense reduction of the development time.

[Anonymous No.12559686]

>>12559673
>What is the point if transmission still being possible means that we still have to isolate?
Because it increases immunity. Dumb schizo.

[Anonymous No.12559713]

>>12559686
Only if it were true isolation, not the gay kind where people are still allowed to meet each other as long as the contacts can be traced.
Then a vaccinated person likely infects more people. Especially when they have the mindset of a fed up boomer that needs to travel to a sunny country every year.

How would we even be able to reliably spot the sick/carriers when they themselves are unaware of having it? This is a useless tech demo, namecaller.

[Anonymous No.12559742]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2024671
>Viral replication was not detectable in BAL fluid by day 2 after challenge in seven of eight animals in both vaccinated groups. No viral replication was detectable in the nose of any of the eight animals in the 100-μg dose group by day 2 after challenge, and limited inflammation or detectable viral genome or antigen was noted in lungs of animals in either vaccine group.

That's the results of the Moderna vaccine in primates. No guarantees it will work the same way in humans, and without challenge trials it's going to take some time to find out.

[Red Wizard QM No.12559912]

Direct from the mouth of Moderna:

>Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine may not get life back to normal right away because it hasn’t yet been proven to prevent the deadly bug from spreading, the company’s top doctor says.

So you can get the 'vaccine' and then catch the virus but be asymptomaticly contagious.

[Anonymous No.12560086]

>>12559912
>So you can get the 'vaccine' and then catch the virus but be asymptomaticly contagious.

However, you can also get the vaccine and be exposed to the virus and not be contagious.

[Anonymous No.12560138]

>>12559713
>Only if it were true isolation
No. Anything else?

[Anonymous No.12560141]

>>12559912
That statement is outdated, from before the studies were finished. Try again.

[Anonymous No.12560169]

>>12560138
This is not how an argument works. Not that it surprises me to see this behavior coming from a government bootlicker.

[Anonymous No.12560279]

>>12559912
See >>12559742. It likely does prevent transmission in humans if we have a similar immune response to that of other primates, but it's very hard to test without challenge trials (intentionally attempting to infect people), and vaccine manufacturers can't make the claim for something they haven't tested.

[Anonymous No.12560310]

>>12557821
the whole thing was a dangerous idea,
now imagine what happens when the stop handing out the vaccine, you've fostered and circulated an increasingly dangerous strain and now you can charge people to get the top up vaccine

[Anonymous No.12560378]

>>12560169
Right, you making blatantly false claims is not how an argument works.

[Anonymous No.12560742]

>>12560310
Very dangerous.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-immunity-3-months

Not only does the vaccine only last 3 months: 2 doses apiece means that to be properly vaccinated you need 8 shots per year. 300mil Americans: that's 2.5 billion doses per year. That's an insane qmount of unknown fluid in your body with untested side effects.

[Anonymous No.12560818]

>>12560279
So...why has it been approved for widespread use on humans if it hasn't been tested? Or...is this the test, and why Trump only ordered enough vaccines for some Americans but not all?

[Anonymous No.12560881]

>>12557674
>As I understand it, the vaccine is a new type of vaccine never before approved for use on humans
>>12557710
>type of vaccine never before approved for use on humans
That's where you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.12560886]

>>12560742
>vaccine only last 3 months
That source says AT LEAST, we now know it's at least six months you fucking troll.
>That's an insane qmount of unknown fluid in your body
It is quite literally less than fly shit.

How much money to make you leave this place forever?