[nudephil (OP)]

We got this question from listener Jo:

Am I right in thinking vaccines are designed to work on one of three outcomes? 1) a vaccine for the illness, or 2) a vaccine for transmission, or 3) a vaccine for stopping symptoms? And that a vaccine cannot work on all three?

Within this framework the Oxford vaccine is a number 3), a vaccine to stop symptoms. However, symptoms tell us we have COVID and that we are at risk to others as we can transmit the virus. These signs and symptoms allow us to make the right decision to protect others by conducting a test and self-isolating. Therefore, does this not suggest that those having the new vaccine can become super spreaders of the virus as they will not know they have it because they have are asymptomatic? Asymptomatic does not mean they are not transmitting the virus to others.

My mother, an 80 year old diabetic, is having her vaccine next week. My partner has MS and will not be vaccinated for at least 4 months. Therefore, does this now mean my mother can be a walking talking COVID super spreader and by visiting her I now put my partner at risk?

By not focusing on the anti-transmission vaccine, could this cause a new strain of the virus?

[alancalverd]

A vaccine alerts the recipient's immune system to identify and destroy the virus.

It does not relieve symptoms, treat existing disease, or prevent transmission from an infective carrier, nor does it make an uninfected person infectious.

However it takes time for a vaccine to confer immunity and in that period it is entirely possible for a person to become infected and infect others, but to no greater extent than if they were not vaccinated.

The reason COVID is so successful is that active carriers may have no symptoms, ever, and 80% of those infected do not become seriously ill. The problem is that the 20% who do, can get very sick for a very long time, and 20% of them, die.

 

[set fair]

We got this question from listener Jo:

Am I right in thinking vaccines are designed to work on one of three outcomes? 1) a vaccine for the illness, or 2) a vaccine for transmission, or 3) a vaccine for stopping symptoms? And that a vaccine cannot work on all three?

No, and I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

Vaccination gives your immune system a headstart if you you become infected. We don't know what percentage of vaccinees become infectious nor for how long. So yes, we should be concerned that vaccinees may go on to spread CoV2 and it's possible that this could be a signifficant factor

[Petrochemicals]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55784199

Looks alot like transmission is not stopped, so really it must just be the stopping of the illness. I suppose it now gives the vacinee the immune response of a child, happily spreading it hither and thither

[Bored chemist]

I suppose it ...

You suppose that alot is the the right spelling for a lot.
 Neither supposition is based on evidence.

[alancalverd]

I'm thinking of starting a reverse-gullibility campaign with a "Jabs for Jesus" T-shirt. 

[Bored chemist]

I'm thinking of starting a reverse-gullibility campaign with a "Jabs for Jesus" T-shirt. 

Go for it; I wish you every success.