ADVERTISEMENT

The Atlantic: How Easily Can Vaccinated People Spread COVID?

z_ape

HR Heisman
Mar 8, 2010
8,843
7,322
113
Vaccination is the best protection against infection. But when breakthroughs do occur, a very basic question still has an unsatisfying answer.
By Yasmin Tayag




The fear of breakthrough COVID-19 infections spoiled the summer. In the early days of vaccine bliss, many Americans had thought that the shots were a ticket to normalcy—and at least for a while, that’s precisely what public-health experts were telling us: Sure, it was still possible for vaccinated people to get COVID-19, but you wouldn’t have to worry much about spreading it to anyone else. Interim guidance shared by the CDC in March stated that these cases “likely pose little risk of transmission,” and a few weeks later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus.”


And then came Delta. The hyper-contagious variant sent cases skyrocketing and led ICUs to yet again fill up with COVID patients. And it also spurred a full-on freak-out that our understanding of who could spread the virus was all wrong. In early August, the CDC published its findings on a huge cluster of COVID cases in Provincetown, Massachusetts, concluding that 74 percent of cases had occurred in vaccinated people. The supposed implication of that finding was even more ominous: Vaccinated people were just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. The CDC quickly went back to recommending that vaccinated people wear masks indoors while news outlets ran headlines such as “Vaccinated People With Breakthrough Infections Can Spread the Delta Variant, CDC Says.” The worst-case scenario—that vaccinated people might be going about their lives only to be seeding tons of new coronavirus cases—all of a sudden seemed possible.

Three months later, we have fortunately not seen this doomsday scenario come to pass—the fears raised by the Provincetown report were largely overblown. But that doesn’t mean that the vaccinated are in the clear, either. Breakthrough infections are still happening, and they can lead to transmission. But we still don’t know just how widely that spread actually happens.

Read: No, vaccinated people are not ‘just as likely’ to spread the coronavirus as unvaccinated people

Vaccinated people spread the virus less overall because they are significantly less likely to get infected in the first place. In early September, the CDC found that six unvaccinated people were testing COVID-positive for every one vaccinated person. But there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic beyond that. Some recent research shows that even once they’ve been infected, the vaccinated are less likely to spread the coronavirus than the unvaccinated. “We’re back in this category of Yeah, it can happen, but it seems to be a very rare event,” Ross Kedl, an immunology professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, told me.


He pointed me to two studies, neither of which has been peer-reviewed, to make his point. One shows that although transmission did occur among the vaccinated in Provincetown, those cases represent what Kedl calls a “very limited” proportion out of the total number of infections that occurred as part of that outbreak. In the other study, researchers in the United Kingdom found that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines consistently reduced transmission downstream of breakthrough cases. Much of the original Delta concern was based on something called “viral load”—the amount of virus a person carries while infected. But the researchers concluded that viral load is just one of many factors correlated to transmission reduction. In other words, even if vaccinated and unvaccinated people have the same viral load, it may not necessarily mean they are just as likely to spread the virus.

One reason for this may be that vaccinated people carry less infectious virus particles, as (not-yet-peer-reviewed) research from the Netherlands has recently illustrated. Although it’s widely assumed that virus particles carried by the vaccinated and unvaccinated are the same, basic principles of immunology actually predict otherwise, Kedl told me. Virus particles expelled by a vaccinated person are thought to be coated in antibodies—some of which are produced in the nose and mouth and are considered part of “mucosal” immunity—so “we can expect less of a downstream transmission,” he said.

Other researchers have come to similar conclusions. “The data are very clear that vaccinated individuals are less likely to spread the virus to others than unvaccinated individuals,” Christopher Byron Brooke, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told me in an email. A recent paper Brooke co-wrote showed that vaccinated people shed less virus, stop shedding virus sooner than the unvaccinated, and shed particles that are less infectious—supporting the notion that they’re less likely to transmit disease. One study from the Netherlands found a 63 percent reduction in household transmission among the vaccinated. That’s a testament to our vaccines: Homes are a “setting where the deck is heavily stacked towards transmission since members of a household are in extremely close contact for long stretches of time,” Brooke said. (However, another recent study didn’t find a statistically significant difference in household transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.) Ultimately, Brooke said, you can certainly say the transmission risk for vaccinated people is lower, “but I don’t really know how you define ‘low.’”


Read: Post-vaccination infections come in 2 different colors

The new research so far hasn’t swayed the CDC, which remains cautious. A spokesperson for the agency told me in an email that the data that have come out since the Provincetown study make it clear that fully vaccinated people with a breakthrough infection can spread the virus to other people, including the vaccinated. Although the science is still emerging, the spokesperson said that “it seems that at least early after infection, fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infection can be equally as infectious and more likely somewhat less infectious to others than unvaccinated people who are infected.”

Other public-health experts are wary too. “I think that the jury is still out about the extent to which vaccination might reduce the risk of transmission, but we do know that transmission does occur,” Lisa Maragakis, the senior director of infection prevention at the Johns Hopkins Health System, told me. “I wouldn’t say it’s low [risk].” She alluded to data showing similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

All the researchers I spoke with agreed on one thing: Vaccination is still the best way to protect against infection and transmission. The vaccines may not be perfect, but they are by far the best tool we have in the fight against COVID-19—for protecting both yourself and others. Moreover, vaccinated people can tamp down on spreading the virus by steering clear of situations in which that’s more likely to happen. When it comes to breakthrough infections, “one thing that’s not discussed enough is behavior,” said Syra Madad, an epidemiologist at New York City Health and Hospitals. The Provincetown event—which included tightly packed indoor parties during the rise of Delta—wasn’t exactly conducive to preventing breakthroughs. Precautions such as masking and ventilation are still important. For those reasons, Maragakis will be “watching the data in a concerned way” as the holidays approach: If people begin to gather indoors more, that might lead to more breakthrough infections—and more spread.

[continued...]
 
[continued...]

Another wild card is how long we’ve gone since getting our vaccine. As the U.K. paper showed, protection against transmission started to wane after about three months, though most data indicate that overall protection is still quite strong. For people under 60, a breakthrough infection might entail feeling miserable for a week, but it does not often result in a hospitalization. This age group is not as likely to spread the virus—especially not to other vaccinated people—by virtue of their stronger immunity, Kedl told me. But the same can’t be said for vaccinated people 65 and older, who have weaker immune systems that make them more vulnerable to serious illness and transmission—hence, the need for booster shots. The “million-dollar question” now, Maragakis said, is how often we’ll need boosters in the months and years ahead.

Read: Should you mix and match your booster shot?

We might not reach a consensus on just how contagious breakthrough infections are, and that’s okay. Uncertainty is part of living with the coronavirus, even some 20 months into the pandemic. As long as we’re unsure, erring on the side of caution is the best way to keep the people around you safe. That means that “anybody who has an infection needs to isolate,” Maragakis said. “I would be very hesitant to tell them that they’re not at risk of giving it to others.” Unfortunately, although getting the vaccine does let you safely do lots of activities, it does not give you carte blanche to act as if it’s 2019.

In the best-case scenario, getting a breakthrough infection will someday be akin to catching the flu. “At the end of the day, everyone will get infected with this virus at some point, regardless of vaccination status, as the virus goes endemic,” Brooke said. If enough people get the shot—and if immunity continues to stick around—eventually the consequences of vaccinated people potentially spreading the virus will be nothing to panic about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
I'm pushing the epsom salts soak with a dash of borax to the unvaxxed. Get vaccinated then suck the poison out and disable the tracking chips with a nice, hot, relaxing bath.

giphy.gif
 
I thought this bit was really interesting and worth looking more into:


One reason for this may be that vaccinated people carry less infectious virus particles, as (not-yet-peer-reviewed) research from the Netherlands has recently illustrated. Although it’s widely assumed that virus particles carried by the vaccinated and unvaccinated are the same, basic principles of immunology actually predict otherwise, Kedl told me. Virus particles expelled by a vaccinated person are thought to be coated in antibodies—some of which are produced in the nose and mouth and are considered part of “mucosal” immunity—so “we can expect less of a downstream transmission,” he said.
 
[continued...]

Another wild card is how long we’ve gone since getting our vaccine. As the U.K. paper showed, protection against transmission started to wane after about three months, though most data indicate that overall protection is still quite strong. For people under 60, a breakthrough infection might entail feeling miserable for a week, but it does not often result in a hospitalization. This age group is not as likely to spread the virus—especially not to other vaccinated people—by virtue of their stronger immunity, Kedl told me. But the same can’t be said for vaccinated people 65 and older, who have weaker immune systems that make them more vulnerable to serious illness and transmission—hence, the need for booster shots. The “million-dollar question” now, Maragakis said, is how often we’ll need boosters in the months and years ahead.

Read: Should you mix and match your booster shot?

We might not reach a consensus on just how contagious breakthrough infections are, and that’s okay. Uncertainty is part of living with the coronavirus, even some 20 months into the pandemic. As long as we’re unsure, erring on the side of caution is the best way to keep the people around you safe. That means that “anybody who has an infection needs to isolate,” Maragakis said. “I would be very hesitant to tell them that they’re not at risk of giving it to others.” Unfortunately, although getting the vaccine does let you safely do lots of activities, it does not give you carte blanche to act as if it’s 2019.

In the best-case scenario, getting a breakthrough infection will someday be akin to catching the flu. “At the end of the day, everyone will get infected with this virus at some point, regardless of vaccination status, as the virus goes endemic,” Brooke said. If enough people get the shot—and if immunity continues to stick around—eventually the consequences of vaccinated people potentially spreading the virus will be nothing to panic about.
These are not vaccines. Can we stop calling them that yet? The best protection is those that already have acquired immunity which is over 145M people in the US. Stop the shot madness already.
 
These are not vaccines. Can we stop calling them that yet? The best protection is those that already have acquired immunity which is over 145M people in the US. Stop the shot madness already.
Boosters aren't vaccines?

And it's not clear that acquired immunity is better. It could be, depending on the strain you get, from the perspective of long term immunity. I think most of the studies of short term immunity point towards the vaccines producing a more consistently robust antibody response.

But is stuff we're still putting together.

And it's not clear that 145m already have acquired immunity. (and even then, having had the virus does not necessarily mean you developed immune memory, although most seem to)
 
Boosters aren't vaccines?

And it's not clear that acquired immunity is better. It could be, depending on the strain you get, from the perspective of long term immunity. I think most of the studies of short term immunity point towards the vaccines producing a more consistently robust antibody response.

But is stuff we're still putting together.

And it's not clear that 145m already have acquired immunity. (and even then, having had the virus does not necessarily mean you developed immune memory, although most seem to)
It is VERY clear that acquired immunity is better. And NONE of the shots are vaccines, there is no short term immunity you can catch it an spread it at any time. More antibodies <> more protection as you need to look for neutralizing antibodies.

CDC's estimate is 145M+, if you believe anything they continue to say. Acquired immunity has continued to show lasting protection. This is not a new thing.
 
It is VERY clear that acquired immunity is better. And NONE of the shots are vaccines, there is no short term immunity you can catch it an spread it at any time. More antibodies <> more protection as you need to look for neutralizing antibodies.

CDC's estimate is 145M+, if you believe anything they continue to say. Acquired immunity has continued to show lasting protection. This is not a new thing.

So you've done some nice meta analysis of all the relevant studies to date you're ready to share with us all?

Because that's what you'd have to do. I'm not even saying that acquired couldn't be better, but I don't see any obvious evidence that it is.

Leaving aside your point about what qualifies as a vaccine...

There absolutely appears to be significant (although it wanes over time) in protection from re-infection from the vaccine. (or from acquired immunity)

This is because it prompts your body to produce neutralizing antibodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3boysmom
So you've done some nice meta analysis of all the relevant studies to date you're ready to share with us all?

Because that's what you'd have to do. I'm not even saying that acquired couldn't be better, but I don't see any obvious evidence that it is.

Leaving aside your point about what qualifies as a vaccine...

There absolutely appears to be significant (although it wanes over time) in protection from re-infection from the vaccine. (or from acquired immunity)

This is because it prompts your body to produce neutralizing antibodies.
You can read all 128 studies for yourself. Oh and it's virology 101 as the article states. And I didn't say reinfection from vaccines. These vaccines do not get you "infected" when you take them. Reinfection rate is extremely rare (far less than 1%). The "vaccine" does not prevent anyone from getting infected nor transmitting the disease. This comes directly from the CDC and overlord Fauci.

 
  • Like
Reactions: KFSuperStar
Vaccines were designed against the original variant of COVID. Delta is a different variant (as well as newer versions of COVID) with a slightly different structure which makes the vaccines less effective. However, to engineer an updated version of the vaccine would require redoing the entire testing process the original had to go through. Since the vaccines are still highly effective at keeping people out of the hospital and from dying from the disease, it was deemed better for the population to continue with the current vaccines rather than wait for a new version to be tested and released.
 
Vaccines were designed against the original variant of COVID. Delta is a different variant (as well as newer versions of COVID) with a slightly different structure which makes the vaccines less effective. However, to engineer an updated version of the vaccine would require redoing the entire testing process the original had to go through. Since the vaccines are still highly effective at keeping people out of the hospital and from dying from the disease, it was deemed better for the population to continue with the current vaccines rather than wait for a new version to be tested and released.
So the “entire testing process” for this vaccine lasted only 90 days; seems almost...criminal. But that’s how long the head of Pfizer said it would take to produce a vax “tailor-made” for a new variant.

Sounds like just another empty marketing claim, but I guess if you can’t trust a horse doctor for medical advice in the middle of a people pandemic then just who can you trust?
 
So the “entire testing process” for this vaccine lasted only 90 days; seems almost...criminal. But that’s how long the head of Pfizer said it would take to produce a vax “tailor-made” for a new variant.

Sounds like just another empty marketing claim, but I guess if you can’t trust a horse doctor for medical advice in the middle of a people pandemic then just who can you trust?
It won't take long to produce a vaccine, especially with the new technology. However, to go through 3 phases of testing takes many months. It is amazing how uninformed you are about this yet try to pass yourself off as some guru of knowledge on it.

And I trust Pfizer's peer reviewed results and the experts at the CDC far more than right wing websites or news broadcasts. You should too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawked and torbee
Since the vaccines are still highly effective at keeping people out of the hospital and from dying from the disease, it was deemed better for the population to continue with the current vaccines rather than wait for a new version to be tested and released.

the CT nursing home stuff is admittedly not good.

On one hand, I’ve seen it already stated that those that died had many other complications. That may be true. If that’s what we’re going with, however, it’s time to discuss every other Covid death too, isn’t it?
 
the CT nursing home stuff is admittedly not good.

On one hand, I’ve seen it already stated that those that died had many other complications. That may be true. If that’s what we’re going with, however, it’s time to discuss every other Covid death too, isn’t it?
I'm not sure what you are saying here or how it applies to what I was talking about.
 
You can read all 128 studies for yourself. Oh and it's virology 101 as the article states. And I didn't say reinfection from vaccines. These vaccines do not get you "infected" when you take them. Reinfection rate is extremely rare (far less than 1%). The "vaccine" does not prevent anyone from getting infected nor transmitting the disease. This comes directly from the CDC and overlord Fauci.


You always LOVE to link the unreliable sources, dontcha?

 
So you've done some nice meta analysis of all the relevant studies to date you're ready to share with us all?

Because that's what you'd have to do. I'm not even saying that acquired couldn't be better, but I don't see any obvious evidence that it is.

Leaving aside your point about what qualifies as a vaccine...

There absolutely appears to be significant (although it wanes over time) in protection from re-infection from the vaccine. (or from acquired immunity)

This is because it prompts your body to produce neutralizing antibodies.
 
You can read all 128 studies for yourself. Oh and it's virology 101 as the article states. And I didn't say reinfection from vaccines. These vaccines do not get you "infected" when you take them. Reinfection rate is extremely rare (far less than 1%). The "vaccine" does not prevent anyone from getting infected nor transmitting the disease. This comes directly from the CDC and overlord Fauci.


Just randomly chose ONE of your "sources". Brownstone DID NOT emphasize this in their snippet they selected:

The was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection.
 
What if we think of covid as a virus and realize that it will be spreading no matter if you are vaxxed vs unvaxxed? The severity of Covid goes down a lot if you get the vaccine. Time to treat it like the flu and move on with our lives

If only we could do that.

Unvaccinated will be, again, overwhelming hospitals this winter.

Now, IF we can set them aside and prioritize ICUs for flu and other patients, and any unvaccinated Covid patients get unhooked and set in a room to fend for themselves, to minimize disruptions to those who also need ICU care, I'm all for that. Let them take up ICU space, until there is none and then let them "ride it out" with their HCQ and Ivermectin. ONLY those unvaccinated who CANNOT be vaccinated still get priority care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
You can read all 128 studies for yourself. Oh and it's virology 101 as the article states. And I didn't say reinfection from vaccines. These vaccines do not get you "infected" when you take them. Reinfection rate is extremely rare (far less than 1%). The "vaccine" does not prevent anyone from getting infected nor transmitting the disease. This comes directly from the CDC and overlord Fauci.


Seems like the actual re-infection rate data are NOT supported by your propaganda article:


In an analysis of cases recorded from 12 April to 27 June this year, there were a total 83,197 people who tested positive for COVID-19 in the 11-week period covered by the study. Of those, 980 were possible reinfections.
According to the briefing, the data suggests the risk of reinfection does not increase until 180 days after the first infection. (Huh....JUST LIKE THE VACCINES!!!)
The authors write that ‘preliminary analysis of national surveillance data finds an increased risk of reinfection with Delta, compared to Alpha’, with the overall chances around 46% higher compared to the Alpha variant.
 
Boosters aren't vaccines?

And it's not clear that acquired immunity is better. It could be, depending on the strain you get, from the perspective of long term immunity. I think most of the studies of short term immunity point towards the vaccines producing a more consistently robust antibody response.

But is stuff we're still putting together.

And it's not clear that 145m already have acquired immunity. (and even then, having had the virus does not necessarily mean you developed immune memory, although most seem to)
Unless there is some real testing done, a fake virus or just part of a real virus, meant to induce your body to create a reaction, in no way would I believe it to do that better than getting the real thing. There's no way that your body makes better antibodies or whatever, from the vaccine.
 
Unless there is some real testing done, a fake virus or just part of a real virus, meant to induce your body to create a reaction, in no way would I believe it to do that better than getting the real thing. There's no way that your body makes better antibodies or whatever, from the vaccine.

It's why polio and smallpox still hit us year after year.... 🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
I thought this bit was really interesting and worth looking more into:
I wish I could find the article I read a few months ago that touched on this.

The belief is that in vaccinated people, the virus of course can still get into the nasal and oral passages -- and while it is there, that person can also then transmit to others -- however, because anti-bodies and T-cells attack the virus in the nose and throat quickly and effectively, the virus rarely spreads beyond there and down into the lungs and that is a big reason why hospitalizations and serious illness are so rare in the vaccinated. That would also mean they are contagious for a much shorter time (basically only until the vaccine does its job in the nasal/throat area).

Makes a lot of logical sense, when you think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
I'm not sure what you are saying here or how it applies to what I was talking about.

Sorry, I thought I quoted the part I was talking about, where you said the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital and from dying. That’s not true, as evidenced by the CT nursing home… It would seem the vaccine wears off, which is why boosters are being administered. Israeli studies are saying this anyway.
 
It won't take long to produce a vaccine, especially with the new technology. However, to go through 3 phases of testing takes many months. It is amazing how uninformed you are about this yet try to pass yourself off as some guru of knowledge on it.

And I trust Pfizer's peer reviewed results and the experts at the CDC far more than right wing websites or news broadcasts. You should too.
You would be better off debating this issue with a duck. His brain is broke on this subject.
 
You can read all 128 studies for yourself. Oh and it's virology 101 as the article states. And I didn't say reinfection from vaccines. These vaccines do not get you "infected" when you take them. Reinfection rate is extremely rare (far less than 1%). The "vaccine" does not prevent anyone from getting infected nor transmitting the disease. This comes directly from the CDC and overlord Fauci.


You said it was "VERY clear" that acquired immunity was better. That article does not support that contention. Only points out studies that point to acquired immunity indeed providing protection. I never doubted this.

I still don't have good evidence that acquired immunity is obviously better. (apparently the writers of the article agree)

The vaccine, like acquired immunity, usually results in neutralizing antibody production. This will keep you protected from re-infection, for a while.

Hence vaccines providing much protection against re-infection early, but that level of protection declining with time. (same for acquired immunity)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Sorry, I thought I quoted the part I was talking about, where you said the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital and from dying. That’s not true, as evidenced by the CT nursing home… It would seem the vaccine wears off, which is why boosters are being administered. Israeli studies are saying this anyway.
So you need a booster. It means the vaccine works at preventing death but the effects need to be reinforced after time. I'm guessing it's because antibody production declines over time, although I haven't read up on that. Sure, getting a shot is kind of annoying, but it's better than dying or getting severely ill. The fact they are recommending boosters is evidence of the vaccine working. If it did not work, they wouldn't be giving more shots.
 
I wish I could find the article I read a few months ago that touched on this.

The belief is that in vaccinated people, the virus of course can still get into the nasal and oral passages -- and while it is there, that person can also then transmit to others -- however, because anti-bodies and T-cells attack the virus in the nose and throat quickly and effectively, the virus rarely spreads beyond there and down into the lungs and that is a big reason why hospitalizations and serious illness are so rare in the vaccinated. That would also mean they are contagious for a much shorter time (basically only until the vaccine does its job in the nasal/throat area).

Makes a lot of logical sense, when you think about it.

I think I remember that. It may have been an Atlantic article now that I think of it. They explained why vaccination is trickier against upper respiratory viruses in general.

I've enjoyed following the science on this topic, sort of getting a real-time glimpse into us trying to figure out what the heck is going on exactly. You find out what we really know, and what we don't. I think it's been a mess for media to try and track and stay on top of, makes public messaging really hard. I think science flows in a way that isn't very friendly to as-it-happens reporting.
 
What if we think of covid as a virus and realize that it will be spreading no matter if you are vaxxed vs unvaxxed? The severity of Covid goes down a lot if you get the vaccine. Time to treat it like the flu and move on with our lives


It’s way past time to move on and treat Covid like any other sickness. The absurdity of some people wanting to keep pushing Covid crap is beyond ridiculous.

Move on with your lives people.
 
So you need a booster. It means the vaccine works at preventing death but the effects need to be reinforced after time. I'm guessing it's because antibody production declines over time, although I haven't read up on that. Sure, getting a shot is kind of annoying, but it's better than dying or getting severely ill. The fact they are recommending boosters is evidence of the vaccine working. If it did not work, they wouldn't be giving more shots.
The delusion is real.

How about this: if the two-shot regimen worked they wouldn’t need to give you a third...or a fourth (or more).
 
I wish I could find the article I read a few months ago that touched on this.

The belief is that in vaccinated people, the virus of course can still get into the nasal and oral passages -- and while it is there, that person can also then transmit to others -- however, because anti-bodies and T-cells attack the virus in the nose and throat quickly and effectively, the virus rarely spreads beyond there and down into the lungs and that is a big reason why hospitalizations and serious illness are so rare in the vaccinated. That would also mean they are contagious for a much shorter time (basically only until the vaccine does its job in the nasal/throat area).

Makes a lot of logical sense, when you think about it.
I don't know if this is the article you are thinking of, but I heard this on NPR a few weeks ago.

NPR Story on Breakthrough Transmission
 
  • Like
Reactions: z_ape
The delusion is real.

How about this: if the two-shot regimen worked they wouldn’t need to give you a third...or a fourth (or more).
Just because you want something to work a certain way doesn't mean it will but that doesn't mean it's useless. It's looking more and more likely we will need yearly or even twice a year COVID shots. It's not like we don't do this for other things, like the flu. It's a minor inconvenience to put yourself in the best situation to not die from this disease. That's how medicine works sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
You always LOVE to link the unreliable sources, dontcha?

Well, in his defense, if he tried to link to reliable sources he would never be able to push his political agenda.
 
I don't know if this is the article you are thinking of, but I heard this on NPR a few weeks ago.

NPR Story on Breakthrough Transmission
Love the part I bolded here. We see that a lot around here, lol:

Ross Kedl, an immunologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, will point out to anyone who cares to listen that basic immunology suggests the virus of a vaccinated person who gets infected will be different from the virus of an infected unvaccinated person.

That's because vaccinated people have already made antibodies to the coronavirus. Even if those antibodies don't prevent infection, they still "should be coating that virus with antibody and therefore helping prevent excessive downstream transmission," Kedl says. And a virus coated with antibodies won't be as infectious as a virus not coated in antibodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
So you need a booster. It means the vaccine works at preventing death but the effects need to be reinforced after time. I'm guessing it's because antibody production declines over time, although I haven't read up on that. Sure, getting a shot is kind of annoying, but it's better than dying or getting severely ill. The fact they are recommending boosters is evidence of the vaccine working. If it did not work, they wouldn't be giving more shots.

Huh.....almost like how children with very responsive immune systems need 4-5 polio shots to ensure they could not catch and transmit polio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BioHawk and torbee
Huh.....almost like how children with very responsive immune systems need 4-5 polio shots to ensure they could not catch and transmit polio.
I'm old enough to remember having to line up annually in elementary school to get "booster shots"

Still have that weird round scar on my arm.

Ahh, the good old days, when Americans still believed in science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT