3 ms·

But we really don't have an evidence that vaccine-induced immunity response prevents virus transmission. And we do have evidence that people recovered from COVI

But we really don't have an evidence that vaccine-induced immunity response prevents virus transmission. And we do have evidence that people recovered from COVID-19 months ago can bear high viral load in their respiratory system: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.13.21249642v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.13.21249642v...

wrycoder 6y ago
Two out of 6,614 previously infected were reinfected and showed documented high viral load. That’s a very low proportion. A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection
- SergeAx 6y ago
  I understand and hope that vaccination/natural immunity will prevent virus from spreading. But currently we only have evidence of decreased risk of sickness. Virus may still live in respiratory system and spread asymptomatically. BTW, vaccination strengthens lymph/blood system immunity, but not nose/throat lining, where viral aerosol producing.
  - wrycoder 6y ago
    I’ve not seen that last claim before. Do you have a reference?
    - SergeAx 6y ago
      It's in a paper I linked to upper in the thread.
      - wrycoder 6y ago
        > BTW, vaccination strengthens lymph/blood system immunity, but not nose/throat lining, where viral aerosol producing I don’t see that in the paper you referenced.
remarkEon 6y ago
>But we really don't have an evidence that vaccine-induced immunity response prevents virus transmission. What I have a problem with here is how the goalposts for going back to normal just continue to push out like this. First it was just reducing R0 to a certain level. Then it was vaccination. Now it's something else that is yet undefined. It's impossible to come up with a rule because someone will always bring up some extreme edge case and say "well we don't really know with P99 certainty". This isn't a reasonable way to manage a society. At some point we need to acknowledge and ingest the remaining risk so that, for mental health reasons and others, our society can return to something that resembles normalcy.

wrycoder 6y ago

Two out of 6,614 previously infected were reinfected and showed documented high viral load. That’s a very low proportion. A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection

SergeAx 6y ago
I understand and hope that vaccination/natural immunity will prevent virus from spreading. But currently we only have evidence of decreased risk of sickness. Virus may still live in respiratory system and spread asymptomatically. BTW, vaccination strengthens lymph/blood system immunity, but not nose/throat lining, where viral aerosol producing.
- wrycoder 6y ago
  I’ve not seen that last claim before. Do you have a reference?
  - SergeAx 6y ago
    It's in a paper I linked to upper in the thread.
    - wrycoder 6y ago
      > BTW, vaccination strengthens lymph/blood system immunity, but not nose/throat lining, where viral aerosol producing I don’t see that in the paper you referenced.

remarkEon 6y ago

>But we really don't have an evidence that vaccine-induced immunity response prevents virus transmission. What I have a problem with here is how the goalposts for going back to normal just continue to push out like this. First it was just reducing R0 to a certain level. Then it was vaccination. Now it's something else that is yet undefined. It's impossible to come up with a rule because someone will always bring up some extreme edge case and say "well we don't really know with P99 certainty". This isn't a reasonable way to manage a society. At some point we need to acknowledge and ingest the remaining risk so that, for mental health reasons and others, our society can return to something that resembles normalcy.