4 ms·

Could someone please explain how this can be the case? I understand the vaccine works by stimulating antibody production, which prevent you from becoming ill by

Could someone please explain how this can be the case? I understand the vaccine works by stimulating antibody production, which prevent you from becoming ill by binding to the virus and disabling it should it enter your system. How then could the virus be spread further if it's already been disabled?

doovd 6y ago
You are asking why an already infected person who receives the vaccine may still be able to spread it? The virus is still able to spread while the body fights it. In fact I'm not even sure there is a significant advantage of giving the vaccine to someone who already has the virus (as after all the vaccine teaches the body what the virus looks like and therefore how it can be tackled). This specific vaccine looks as if it simulates certain aspects of the virus, therefore not entirely necessary for someone who already has the virus I believe. But yeah - it's not like you get jabbed and you have instant immunity. Your body needs to learn to fight it, and then actually fight it - and if you already have it you are still infectious during this period.
throwawaycovi5 6y ago
The vaccine teaches your immune system to respond to a particular protein that surrounds the virus. If you contract the virus you are still infectious until it can kill all of the virus. The time between the immune response and OG infection can mean the virus has time to replicate and spread/ be shed I’m guessing.
kmm 6y ago
Different tissues are protected by different types of antibodies. A vaccine injected subcutaneously will mostly induce an IgG response, a type of antibody present in blood and extracellular fluid. This could still possibly allow a virus to infect mucous membranes, which rely on a different type of antibody, sIgA[0], to protect them. If this is the case, you could be protected from having a serious systemic infection, but could still suffer a mild upper respiratory infection, and be infectious until the immune system mounted defense in the mucous membranes. Some flu vaccines come in the form of a nasal spray, which does induce an IgA response. I don't know why COVID vaccines are administered parenterally instead, I'm sure there are good technical reasons. Given the virus's possible neurological involvement, maybe it's a bad idea to deposit it so close to the olfactory bulb. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A#Secretory_IgA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A#Secretory_IgA
yread 6y ago
Virus can infect cells in areas that are difficult to reach for immune system - epithelial cells lining the nasal mucosa for example - but they still would produce viral particles that could be sneezed on someone else. Indeed this paper found association between viral load and symptoms - hospitalized patients are shedding less virus https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332909/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332909/
Slartie 6y ago
There is the virus replicating itself in a body, which leads to the body being able to spread the virus to others. And there is the body getting sick. The second often follows the first, but the two are not necessarily connected, which is proven by asymptomatic spreaders. In the vaccine phase 3 tests, it was only determined whether people get sick, and the vaccine was found to prevent 95% of people from getting sick. It was not tested whether the viral load in vaccinated people who don't get sick, but still had virus exposure, was high enough for a real likelihood of transmission to others. This now results in those warnings regarding potential transmission even through vaccinated people: scientifically that's a possibility that hasn't been ruled out. However, the science is the easy part here. It gets complicated once politics comes into play. Pretty much all scientists I've spoken or listened to say that they assume that the spread will most likely be at least severely limited through the vaccines. That's because they don't have any other explanation than a reduced viral load that could explain how the vaccines actually work in preventing sickness, and a reduced viral load would also mean a reduced spreading capability. However, not knowing something does not mean it can't exist: it is not impossible for there to be some unknown way in which these vaccines may potentially prevent sickness without also limiting viral spread. And scientists usually want to be scientifically correct, so they don't go out and declare something as fact that they just carefully "assume" to be the case. This "known unknown" of effectiveness in limiting viral spread is now actively being used by politics, especially those people coordinating protective measures in governments, as a convenient escape hatch out of a problematic situation. That situation is: how do you explain to someone who just got vaccinated that he/she should still adhere to all the protective measures like universal mask-wearing and limiting personal contacts? Because even though there are rational reasons for doing so (first, the vaccines need two shots and some weeks of time to actually build up protection, and second, if a significant portion of the populace is exempt from all the protective measures and their burdens, this incentivizes the remaining, non-vaccinated part to also "exempt themselves", because constraints enforced on all citizens are much easier to follow than constraints only enforced on half of all citizens) there will be a strong impetus within each individual to not follow protective measures and rules anymore, once vaccinated and thus "protected" from the virus. And besides that psychological effect there's the overarching problem of the constitutional impossibility of enforcing wide-ranging limitations on constitutional rights onto people that is not justifiable anymore, once an individual in question can provably no longer spread the virus. Because of all of this, politicians (rightfully) fear the situation that we're going to be in in a few months time, when a significant part of the populace, but not enough for herd immunity, is already vaccinated. An assumption of a possibility of transmission even with vaccination is a godsend in that situation.

doovd 6y ago

You are asking why an already infected person who receives the vaccine may still be able to spread it? The virus is still able to spread while the body fights it. In fact I'm not even sure there is a significant advantage of giving the vaccine to someone who already has the virus (as after all the vaccine teaches the body what the virus looks like and therefore how it can be tackled). This specific vaccine looks as if it simulates certain aspects of the virus, therefore not entirely necessary for someone who already has the virus I believe. But yeah - it's not like you get jabbed and you have instant immunity. Your body needs to learn to fight it, and then actually fight it - and if you already have it you are still infectious during this period.

throwawaycovi5 6y ago

The vaccine teaches your immune system to respond to a particular protein that surrounds the virus. If you contract the virus you are still infectious until it can kill all of the virus. The time between the immune response and OG infection can mean the virus has time to replicate and spread/ be shed I’m guessing.

kmm 6y ago

Different tissues are protected by different types of antibodies. A vaccine injected subcutaneously will mostly induce an IgG response, a type of antibody present in blood and extracellular fluid. This could still possibly allow a virus to infect mucous membranes, which rely on a different type of antibody, sIgA[0], to protect them. If this is the case, you could be protected from having a serious systemic infection, but could still suffer a mild upper respiratory infection, and be infectious until the immune system mounted defense in the mucous membranes. Some flu vaccines come in the form of a nasal spray, which does induce an IgA response. I don't know why COVID vaccines are administered parenterally instead, I'm sure there are good technical reasons. Given the virus's possible neurological involvement, maybe it's a bad idea to deposit it so close to the olfactory bulb. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A#Secretory_IgA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A#Secretory_IgA

yread 6y ago

Virus can infect cells in areas that are difficult to reach for immune system - epithelial cells lining the nasal mucosa for example - but they still would produce viral particles that could be sneezed on someone else. Indeed this paper found association between viral load and symptoms - hospitalized patients are shedding less virus https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332909/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332909/

Slartie 6y ago

There is the virus replicating itself in a body, which leads to the body being able to spread the virus to others. And there is the body getting sick. The second often follows the first, but the two are not necessarily connected, which is proven by asymptomatic spreaders. In the vaccine phase 3 tests, it was only determined whether people get sick, and the vaccine was found to prevent 95% of people from getting sick. It was not tested whether the viral load in vaccinated people who don't get sick, but still had virus exposure, was high enough for a real likelihood of transmission to others. This now results in those warnings regarding potential transmission even through vaccinated people: scientifically that's a possibility that hasn't been ruled out. However, the science is the easy part here. It gets complicated once politics comes into play. Pretty much all scientists I've spoken or listened to say that they assume that the spread will most likely be at least severely limited through the vaccines. That's because they don't have any other explanation than a reduced viral load that could explain how the vaccines actually work in preventing sickness, and a reduced viral load would also mean a reduced spreading capability. However, not knowing something does not mean it can't exist: it is not impossible for there to be some unknown way in which these vaccines may potentially prevent sickness without also limiting viral spread. And scientists usually want to be scientifically correct, so they don't go out and declare something as fact that they just carefully "assume" to be the case. This "known unknown" of effectiveness in limiting viral spread is now actively being used by politics, especially those people coordinating protective measures in governments, as a convenient escape hatch out of a problematic situation. That situation is: how do you explain to someone who just got vaccinated that he/she should still adhere to all the protective measures like universal mask-wearing and limiting personal contacts? Because even though there are rational reasons for doing so (first, the vaccines need two shots and some weeks of time to actually build up protection, and second, if a significant portion of the populace is exempt from all the protective measures and their burdens, this incentivizes the remaining, non-vaccinated part to also "exempt themselves", because constraints enforced on all citizens are much easier to follow than constraints only enforced on half of all citizens) there will be a strong impetus within each individual to not follow protective measures and rules anymore, once vaccinated and thus "protected" from the virus. And besides that psychological effect there's the overarching problem of the constitutional impossibility of enforcing wide-ranging limitations on constitutional rights onto people that is not justifiable anymore, once an individual in question can provably no longer spread the virus. Because of all of this, politicians (rightfully) fear the situation that we're going to be in in a few months time, when a significant part of the populace, but not enough for herd immunity, is already vaccinated. An assumption of a possibility of transmission even with vaccination is a godsend in that situation.