I am very pro vaccine but absolutely against mandates. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental civil liberty and constitutional right (as the ACLU previously asserted). Discrimination based on medical or health status is unacceptable. It is also illogical to institute such a mandate: COVID-19 has a very low IFR, and vaccines aren’t perfect. When comparing the risks with and without vaccination, we are talking about two low probability but nonzero risks. If people are scared, they need to take measures to protect or quarantine themselves, not demand that everyone else undergo a medical procedure against their will. Lastly, it is dangerous for cities like Chicago and Seattle, who are grappling with surging crime and a shortage of police officers, to risk further crime by losing trained and experienced police staff.
Sort of. They have been in force in some states for some applications (like K-12 schools) for some vaccines. Many of those states have also had broad exemptions for philosophical or religious reasons (https://vaccines.procon.org/state-vaccination-exemptions-for...). But we haven't had a federal mandate for vaccination across the board (in public agencies, private companies, events, stores, schools, universities, etc), especially without exemptions.
Even with that precedent, I feel the Jacbosen ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts) which enabled vaccine mandates was an incorrect one and that autonomy over one's physical body is the most basic level of civil liberty. The ACLU also agreed previously and pushed back on vaccine mandates (https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_...), although the more recent ACLU supports vaccine mandates and treats civil liberties as a gray area rather than a principled right.
Reminds me of air traffic controller strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Con.... If anyone think they are not replaceable they are in for a rude shock. City can easily hire private security/bring in the guard/hire new officers/reassign officers in desk jobs.
Except that police union contracts tend to be somewhat more constraining than the ATC contract, and municipalities don't have the power of the federal executive branch to back them up for capriciously terminating employees.
That’s an easy one: just play the stare-down game till the end. The day after the deadline it will turn out that only 0.5% of the cops are unvaccinated. Happened everywhere.
Good. It’s not like cops are hard to find. It’s basically an unskilled position with excellent benefits. It’s not even particularly dangerous unless you’re in very, very specific neighborhoods.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Obviously this entire topic is fraught (in more ways than one), but your comments have been noticeable steps hellward, and we're trying to go the other way here. Being right, or feeling you are, does not make it ok to break the rules!
Labelling someone as anti-"vaxxer" is not an argument. It's also fine to not want to get vaccinated against Covid and yes - even to argue against it. It's a perk of living in a liberal democracy, which implies freedom of speech.
This bears repeating, because this insult has become a form of bullying.
You literally said "makes me think you're an anti-vaxxer". What would labelling them anti-vaccine look like to you, literally writing - walterbell, you sir are an anti-vaxxer?
Furthermore "anti-vaxxer" is en ever-evolving term which expands in meaning to encompass whatever the pandemic zeitgeist deems undesirable. Before this pandemic it used to refer to parents which didn't want to vaccinate their kids against measles and to anti-vaccine activists.
Finally, the two statements which you labeled as anti-vaccine were those mentioning sterilising immunity (1) and natural immunity (2).
1. The former was broadly discussed in regards to anti-SARS-2 vaccines and for a brief time it looked like vaccines could completely prevent infection, not just disease. Obviously that's off the table now with Delta.
2. Natural immunity is officially recognised in many (most?) areas of Western Europe as an alternative to vaccine-acquired immunity.
Yes. I was being clear in my comments that the arguments presented were similar to ones presented by anti-vaxxers. However, that doesn't mean that walterbell is an anti-vaxxer. It could be that walterbell has other evidence, or simply presented things poorly.
For example, I recall one online exchange where I said something about evolution poorly enough that someone else commented I sounded like a creationist. I am not. I followed up by clarifying my original comment to ensure I did not sound like a creationist.
However, it does not appear to be a common term in the literature, with only about 176 matches in Google Scholar, and several of those specifically use "sterilizing vaccine" to mean a vaccine which causes sterility.
Even now with this new knowledge I do not understand how the qualifier "non-sterilizing" in walterbell's clause "If you've kept the public safe for months before the existence of non-sterilizing vaccines" improves understanding.
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475164 where in the subthreads we can read people objecting to walterbell's insistence on distinguishing between "sterilizing" and "non-sterilizing", such as how the polio vaccine is "non-sterilizing" but mandatory for school children.
[1] Your use of British English spelling reminded me to also check "sterilising vaccine". Google Scholar finds 29 matches, of which two refer to anti-vaccine hesitancy :
> 3.3.2 Sterilising vaccine: An international debate ... The basic principle of a contraceptive (or antifertility) vaccine is to use the body's own immune defence mechanisms to provide protection against an unplanned pregnancy. The contraceptive, however, became a weapon for the pro-life campaigners and in their narrative was transformed from an ‘antifertility vaccine’ into a ‘sterilising vaccine’. - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20966083190020...
I think there's a difference there. If I claim someone is a creationist, you can be pretty confident that I'm trying to tell you that person is a Christian and believes the world was created by god.
If I claim that someone is an "antivaxer", what can you confidently say I'm trying to convey to you?
This person is not vaccinated for covid? This person has never been vaccinated for the flu? This person has never been vaccinated for rabies, measles, various flavors of hepatitis, etc? This person tries to stop others from getting any or all of those? Maybe they think children shouldn't get any or some of these? This person is against mandates?
Someone could have every vaccine ever made but be against vaccine mandates, and some would consider them an "antivaxer".
I've said it before: the term is sloppy and it leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy discourse. The only reliable signal it sends is "I think they're one of the irredeemable bad guys and you should too".
My working definition of antivaxer: "someone who does not get a recommended vaccine, or who advocates that others should not get a vaccine, based in a general disbelief or suspicion of the judgment of the vast majority of infectious disease experts, and with no reasonable reason to believe the inoculation provider is acting under false pretenses." [1]
In this case we are specifically talking about COVID, and police who refuse to reveal their vaccination status, so there is no ambiguity of which vaccine we are talking about.
I've not been vaccinated for the flu, and I've only just now found out that the CDC recommends adults be vaccinated. My reason for not getting the shot was that I thought it was only recommended for certain risk groups and their caretakers, not because of general disbelief, and thus I am not an anti-vaxxer.
[1] As an example of 'false pretenses', the US used a fake vaccination program to search for Osama Bin Laden, making many unwilling to trust other vaccination programs, and slowing down the polio eradication effort. There's also the reverberating effects of historic systemic racism in the US at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Public... .
Did you already have this explicit definition worked out before replying? Or did you have more of a feeling which you then solidified because you needed to in order to put it to words?
I ask because my prediction is that a lot of people 1) don't have an explicit definition, and 2) whether they have an explicit definition or a vague feeling, it probably differs from your definition in some substantive way (maybe having more or fewer qualifiers, maybe just being against mandates but all for getting every vaccine, etc).
> I've not been vaccinated for the flu ...
This absolutely would make you an "antivaxer" to some unknowable number of people. Should we now discount everything you say?
It may have been a useful term at some point, but by now I think its lost all utility except as something to trigger our lizard brains and try to get us to take mental shortcuts.
Recent UK medical data for the week of 7th Oct reports possible Covid reinfection in the range of 0.005% (narrowly defined as specific genetic sequence) to an upper estimate of ~1% of 5.9 million people, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Comparing only these two examples, vaccinated people were infected by Covid at a rate somewhere between 7 times and 1000 times higher than those who previously recovered from Covid. As expected, the infected+vaccinated people did not suffer serious illness, because the vaccines provided protection against serious illness.
> Those who have been vaccinated are also "statistically immune", and through a lower risk route
This is a popular misconception that doctors, pharmaceutical companies and the CDC have attempted to correct, e.g. Sept 2021 CDC website clarification that vaccines provide "protection against serious illness" NOT immunity. Current, intramuscular Covid vaccines are explicitly stated by the CDC and manufacturers as NOT providing sterilizing immunity (which has a textbook definition). They provide protection via serum/blood antibodies, against serious illness. Recovery from Covid infection (of vax or unvax) provides nasal/mucosal immunity that can stop future infections in the upper respiratory tract. Future nasal Covid vaccines may provide sterilizing immunity, but current injections into the deltoid muscle do not.
> You think this 1/3rd of the police that refuses to state their vaccination status already had COVID? Where's your evidence?
We know that Covid swept through dense, urban areas like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, infecting large segments of the population, especially essential workers like police, firefighters, paramedics and healthcare workers who served the public in the challenging year of 2020. If an essential worker was exposed for nine months, including the peak periods of infection and transmission, and was not knowingly infected, they could have been asymptomatically infected.
Those who worked from home and avoided infection should avoid projecting their own experience onto those who kept them safe in 2020.
How many of the Chicago police who refuse to reveal their vaccination status have NOT HAD COVID?
> As you can see ...
Yes, we know that "The AZD1222 vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection." - quoting https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxf... . So of course we expect some people who have had the vaccine to still get infected. What is your actual point?
] Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.
If you have COVID, get vaccinated, and you're even less likely to get COVID again.
> We know that Covid swept ...
What does "swept" mean? Was it 30% of the police force? Was it the same 30% of the police force that do not want to reveal their vaccination status? Or did all of the police who got infected also get vaccinated, so only the anti-vaxxers are resisting?
Where is your evidence that your argument is even relevant to this topic?
> efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection
This sentence means the vaccine prevents symptoms, as stated on the CDC website. This sentence does not mean the vaccine prevents infection, no matter how much someone wants that to be true. Recovery from Covid prevented infection in 99% of 5 million UK people.
People who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatically infected, especially with Delta, are extremely contagious and thus dangerous to other people. For this reason, the CDC recommends testing of vaccinated people after exposure, since the vaccine suppresses symptoms that would otherwise cause people to self-isolate, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac...
> Based on evolving evidence, CDC recommends fully vaccinated people get tested 5-7 days after close contact with a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
In other words, vaccinated+infected+asymptomatic people are much more infectious and dangerous than Covid-recovered people.
> What does "swept" mean?
It means a 2020 graph like this one for New York, with a city-wide density of cases that is much higher than other parts of the USA in a comparable timeframe, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-totals.pag... Logic dictates that essential workers who were serving the public would have faced the highest risk of exposure.
If people in a high-risk subset of 2020 workers, in one of the highest-risk cities in the USA were not infected with Covid in 2020, why would they be infected in 2021 when overall rates of infection are dramatically lower? Either they got infected in 2020 and the survivors are now immune, or they didn't get infected during nine months of exposure, and now have a much lower chance of being infected.
> Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021"
Here's a detailed analysis of that study, https://satyameva.medium.com/analysis-of-reduced-risk-of-rei...: "this study doesn’t really look at the relative strengths of naturally acquired immunity Vs vaccination acquired immunity, it is looking at whether vaccination can add further to the robust protection elicited by covid infection ... they made no effort to show the protection elicited by prior infection in the first place."
> If you have COVID, get vaccinated, and you're even less likely to get COVID again.
That's a personal medical decision based on medical history, the marginally incremental (and rapidly declining trend: https://youtu.be/TSZMtSPX3iE) benefit of a vaccine over and above the immunity provided by recovery, and the still-evolving landscape of adverse events which are affecting a minority of vaccine recipients. From a recent FDA statement, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
Moderna risks
> Ongoing analyses from the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) safety surveillance systems have identified increased risks of inflammatory heart conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, following vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, particularly following the second dose. Typically, onset of symptoms has been a few days following vaccination. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age, particularly males 18 through 24, than among females and older males.
J&J risks
> Earlier analyses from the FDA and CDC safety surveillance systems suggest an increased risk of a serious and rare type of blood clot in combination with low blood platelets following administration of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. This serious condition is called thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). People who developed TTS after receiving the vaccine had symptoms that began about one to two weeks after vaccination. Reporting of TTS has been highest in females ages 18 through 49 years. In addition, safety surveillance suggests an increased risk of a specific serious neurological disorder called Guillain Barré syndrome, within 42 days following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine.
It would be irresponsible to recommend blind acceptance of all vaccines for all people. The FDA does not. Readers who are male between 18 and 40, or female between 18 and 49, please consider the above FDA statements when selecting a vaccine or booster, and carefully monitor health during the high-risk windows, e.g. it is safest to avoid heavy exertion for 14 days after a shot.
I again point out your lack of evidence that the police who refuse to get vaccinated are also those who have all had COVID.
You think if that was their issue, they would mention it, right?
I can't find a number about police specifically, so let's say 50% of them have had COVID, since that seems like a high number.
If the decision to not reveal vaccination status is independent of having COVID, then that's still 1/6th of the police force who haven't had COVID and who refuse to get vaccination. (Or, technically, refuse to reveal their vaccination status.)
Do you think the vast majority of the police who object have had COVID? What is the basis of your belief?
For those who object, and who haven't had the disease or the vaccination, tell me, should they be allowed to stay on the force and possibly infect the people they are required to be in close contact with?
> This sentence does not mean the vaccine prevents infection
Like, duh. I'm not ignorant. I do actually read the links I post.
> Here's a detailed analysis
Translation: here's a blog post from some anonymous self-described "Doctor" who has only ever made 4 posts. (Though is possibly also more known on Reddit?)
Still, I read it. You realize it makes no argument for why those who have had COVID shouldn't get a vaccination, right? The author writes only "Whether convalescent individuals should be vaccinated is still open to debate in my opinion." but gives no explanation of the basis for that opinion.
Why did you seemingly waste my time pointing me to that blog post?
tl;dr - outside of a specific medical context, scholarly publications describe the term "sterilizing vaccine" including in online forums, as a FUD term by anti-vaxxers.
walterbell previously used the term "sterilizing vaccine", and at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883691 commented "There's a stable definition in textbooks." / "If 2021 consumer media is offering variable definitions, Cui Bono?"
I decided to investigate.
Google Scholar reports about 176 uses of the phrase "sterilizing vaccine"; the infrequency suggests it is not a common phrase, especially given how it's sometimes given in quotes, like:
> Because of the ability of HIV to rapidly establish latent reservoirs and undergo immune escape, it has been proposed that an HIV vaccine will need to be a “sterilizing” vaccine, or a vaccine that prevents infection in the absence of an anamnestic response. To achieve sterilizing immunity, a vaccine needs to elicit persisting levels of Ab that are sufficient to block an incoming infection. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4019109/
Most of the references to "sterilizing" were either regarding HIV, or recent publications about COVID, but not all. Here's one for chlamydia:
> The holy grail is to produce a sterilizing vaccine that would completely prevent infection in the individual and hence also prevent transmission of infection to others. However, if 100% prevention of infection is not possible to achieve, then some consideration needs to be given to a vaccine that mainly prevents ascending infections that lead to disease pathology. In fact, one argument might be to focus on the disease pathology, as this is the major consequence of infection. - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1...
Do note that "sterilizing vaccine" is also used to describe (putative) sterility caused by vaccines . This is not some sort of recent '2021 consumer media' definition.
A third is "HPV Vaccine Representations on Online Discussion Forums in Romania" from 2013 :
> A subcategory of people postulated that the vaccine is promoted with the hidden intention to exterminate part of the population: “Some guys out there consider we are too many on this earth!…They want us dead.” (NS, 2009). They frequently mentioned words such as “genocide”, “Masonic vaccine”, “experiment”, “sterilizing vaccine” and they considered vaccination as “the biggest crime against humanity”.
> Aşılamaya uyumsuz aile reislerinin OPA’nın ilk dozunun ne zaman olduğunu bilmedikleri, OPA’nın güvenli olmadığı ve infertiliteye sebep olabileceğine inandıkları gösterilmiştir (1). - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/275883?_x_...
[Translation] "It has been shown that heads of families who do not comply with vaccination do not know when the first dose of OPA is, and they believe that OPA is not safe and may cause infertility (1)."
(This cites the Cameroon paper as previous precedent.)
And one is a non-scholarly report from the Baker Institute AnnualReport 2011-2012 on a vaccine to make dog sterile:
> The dream of a long term solution to pet overpopulation has remained unrealized, ... "Dogs are so reproductively efficient that it's hard to make an impact with spaying alone. A safe sterilizing vaccine for both males and females could rapidly reduce feral dog populations and significantly improve their welfare worldwide." - https://ecommons.cornell.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1813/482...
Thus, it seems best to avoid the terms "sterilizing vaccines" and "non-sterilizing vaccines" 1) in a non-clinical forum, and 2) in a context where the more specific term adds nothing.
> tl;dr - outside of a specific medical context, scholarly publications describe the term "sterilizing vaccine" including in online forums, as a FUD term by anti-vaxxers.
This sounds like a conspiracy theory. The first paragraph on the Wikipedia article on Vaccines ends with this sentence:[1]
> Some vaccines offer full sterilizing immunity, in which infection is prevented completely.
A "sterilizing vaccine" is a vaccine that prevents the vaccinated human/animal from spreading the infection to others. Everyone knows what sterilization means in the medical context.[2][3] It is not a highly technical term that only science-worshipers can understand.
That is, I provided my references. More specifically, yes, I am claiming that some people spread false conspiracy theories about vaccines, including using "sterilizing vaccine". As supporting evidence I pointed to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-013-9340-z ("conspiracy theories ... with the hidden intention to exterminate part of the population" .. "sterilizing vaccine").
(Granted, in Romanian, so not using the exact phrase 'sterilizing vaccine'.)
Is there something wrong with the evidence, or relevance to this thread?
At the very least, my citations disprove the claim that "2021 consumer media is offering variable definitions", given that pre-2021 scholarly media also offers variable definitions.
Your [2] refers to something different - "any process that removes, kills, or deactivates all forms of life".
Your [3] refers to something different - "is any of a number of medical methods of birth control that intentionally leaves a person unable to reproduce."
Yes, "everyone knows" about [2] and [3]. My references show people avoiding vaccines because of a belief that a given vaccine causes the sterility of [3], so since walterbell actually means [1], then my suggestion is to avoid "a highly technical term that only science-worshipers can understand" which is easily confused with [3] - a confusion that you, I, and others on HN have had!
> "conspiracy theories ... with the hidden intention to exterminate part of the population" .. "sterilizing vaccine"
walterbell didn't use the phrase "sterilizing vaccine." You did. He was talking about "non-sterilizing vaccines" which has a certain meaning in the context of vaccines and the spread of infectious diseases.
That said, I can understand the fear among some people that the pandemic and the vaccine are being used as tools of population extermination. Coercive population control strategies have been used in different parts of the world for a long time. China is using them against the Uyghurs today. Malthusians and groups that advocate aggressive population control strategies exist even today.
In early 20th century America, different groups and people across political lines supported the idea of eugenics for different reasons. This included progressives like Margaret Sanger, founder of the abortionist organization Planned Parenthood. The concept and practice became distasteful only around the time the Nazis adopted it with vigor.
> The one you want
Are the ones I linked to. Anyone who is aware of the concept of sterilization as applied to medical instruments and other daily use objects as well as reproductive systems of humans and animals can understand what the word means in relation to vaccines.
This is why I don't have a high opinion of "science-worshipers." They mistakenly believe that unless you use the technical term "neutralizing antibody," you are an idiot who does not understand how vaccines work.
You are correct that in this instance I was the first in this thread to use "sterilizing vaccine", after walterbell's use of "non-sterilizing vaccines".
As I've commented, the qualifier 'non-sterilizing' does not appear useful or relevant, and is demonstrably distracting. It certainly made me think there was an earlier 'sterilizing' vaccine, which is why I asked for clarification of what was meant.
I have pointed to several others who were similarly confused by the term, and pointed out that it is not a common term in the research literature. That makes us the idoits and you the science-worshiper.
I must be an idiot as I can't figure out what "non-sterilizing" of medical instruments might mean, despite knowing what "sterilizing" of those instruments means. Based on your links, I think it means to add life or other biological agents like prions to a medical instrument. But that's not what 'non-sterilizing vaccine' means.
> It certainly made me think there was an earlier 'sterilizing' vaccine, which is why I asked for clarification of what was meant.
The issue is not whether any previous vaccines for covid or any other infectious disease have been "leaky" or not. It is that vaccination of the entire human population of the planet against such a disease using a "leaky" vaccine has never been tried before and we don't know what effect this will have on the virus. We have already seen different strains bypassing protections conferred by the vaccine resulting in the introduction of booster doses and even mixing-and-matching of multiple vaccines.
Most vaccines often hit the "good enough" threshold and are pressed into service. In the case of covid, while the vaccines currently in service are "leaky," the intranasal varieties being trialed seem to have superior outcomes and, in animal studies at least, "almost entirely prevented SARS-CoV-2 infection in both the upper and lower respiratory tracts."[1]
> In a recent animal study involving human ACE transgenic mice, an intramuscular dose of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine encoding a prefusion stabilized spike protein (ChAd-SARS-CoV-2-S) induced robust systemic humoral and cell-mediated immune responses and protected against lung infection and pathology but failed to confer sterilizing immunity. In contrast, a single intranasal dose of the same vaccine-induced high levels of NAbs, promotes systemic and mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) and T cell responses, and almost entirely prevented SARS-CoV-2 infection in both the upper and lower respiratory tracts. Considering this and the fact that even natural SARS-CoV-2 infection induces mucosal IgA response, it would have been prudent had more vaccine manufacturers explored this route. This is especially crucial when a vaccine is being considered as an important strategy to halt the pandemic. Thus, the authors believe that it is unfortunate that none of the candidates that are currently under clinical trials is exploring the nasal route of vaccination, although it is recognized that many types of vaccines are intrinsically nonimmunogenic by the intranasal route.
Maybe they should have tried this first.
> it is not a common term in the research literature.
No one reads research literature because no one, other than those with training in the relevant fields, understands that literature. People argue and make assumptions based on conceptual similarity or parity. And it is perfectly fine to do that.
> "non-sterilizing" of medical instruments might mean
I have lived through times when you had to boil needles and glass syringes before reusing them to prevent pathogens and other biological material from entering the body through unclean or reused needles and syringes. This process is "sterilization." The idea is to eliminate life from the instruments, not add it.
Sterilization means “removes reproductive capability” in a medical and social context. Yes it has other meanings too. I can frighten many people by saying I’m going to give them a sterilizing anything.
You can use whichever phrase best represents the concept: "non-sterilizing vaccine," "leaky vaccine," "imperfect vaccine."
What you should not do is lie, obfuscate or pretend that everything is hunky dory with the vaccine situation. That creates and feeds paranoia. Anyone who does that should then stop complaining about misinformation and conspiracy theories.
Google Scholar reports about 8.390 uses of the phrase "sterilizing immunity"; the frequency suggests it is a common phrase:
> Sterilizing immunity is a unique immune status, which prevents effective virus infection into the host. It is different from the immunity that allows infection but with subsequent successful eradication of the virus [1]
When people talk about "sterilizing vaccines", they mean "vaccines that induce sterilizing immunity", which means "vaccines which prevent effective virus infection into the host".
> There is a whole different suite of antibodies (known as immunoglobulin As) in the nose and lungs, compared with those (immunoglobulin Gs) that we measure in the blood. The former is more important as a barrier to infection. Natural infection, because it is in the nose rather than a jab in the arm, may be a better route to those antibodies, and nasal vaccines are being investigated too.
> Whilst we feel that current vaccines are excellent for reducing the risk of hospital admission and disease, we propose that research be focused on vaccines that also induce high and durable levels of mucosal immunity in order to reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated individuals. This could also reduce the possibility of variant selection in vaccinated individuals.
When a layperson hears the term "immunity", they often equate this term with their experience of a vaccine like the MMR vaccine, which is one and done, rather than monthly reductions of effectiveness, followed by semi-annual boosters. This paper explains one cause of the confusion, i.e. blood/serum vs nose/mucosal immunity, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7733922/
> The mucosal immune system is the largest component of the entire immune system, having evolved to provide protection at the main sites of infectious threat: the mucosae. As SARS-CoV-2 initially infects the upper respiratory tract, its first interactions with the immune system must occur predominantly at the respiratory mucosal surfaces, during both inductive and effector phases of the response. However, almost all studies of the immune response in COVID-19 have focused exclusively on serum antibodies and systemic cell-mediated immunity including innate responses.
A layperson can understand that a respiratory virus is first encountered in the nose, not their arm muscle.
That's why recovery from Covid nasal infection provides nasal/mucosal immunity (i.e. prevention of infection via defenses in upper respiratory tract) and a muscle-injected vaccine provides symptom reduction after nasal infection, via blood/serum antibodies.
Sure. Are you going to stop using the terms "non-sterilizing vaccine" and "sterilizing vaccine", outside of any publication you may make in a medical journal?
> experience of a vaccine like the MMR vaccine, which is one and done
No, it absolutely isn't!
I have personal experience.
I had to get mumps booster shot in college because of a local outbreak.
https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html points out under "Mumps Outbreaks Still Occur" that "As most people are not routinely exposed to mumps, there is less immunologic boosting" so "During a mumps outbreak, public health authorities might recommend an additional dose of MMR vaccine for people who belong to groups at increased risk for getting mumps."
It also points out that mumps vaccinations require two shots, not "one and done".
People are regularly advised to get a tetanus booster every 10 years. Which reminds me, my last one was 10 years ago.
in those countries, nobody has guns - or at least, very few do. the genie's out of the bottle. the people you're policing have guns, so you need guns. the best you can do is to end qualified immunity, mandate always-on bodycams, and hold police accountable for their actions.
> Mayor Lori Lightfoot said Wednesday she will “never yield” to the voices who want to defund the police because the Chicagoans who make up what Police Supt. David Brown calls the “silent majority” overwhelmingly support the police.
