5 ms·

>they have the same (and sometimes higher) viral load as unvaccinated and can infect others. The higher part is categorically untrue. The 'same' part is only

>they have the same (and sometimes higher) viral load as unvaccinated and can infect others. The higher part is categorically untrue. The 'same' part is only true in a very narrow sense. Yes, vaccinated individuals have peak viral titers that are the same level as unvaccinated. But vaccinated individual titer levels drop off substantially faster than unvaccinated individuals. So, while an immunologically naive individual might be infectious for 5 or 6 days, a vaccinated individual may only be infectious for 1 or 2. This is exactly what one would predict based on our understanding of the human immune system. Memory B cells that respond to the antigen would start kicking out antibodies. Some will also undergo further affinity maturation with the Delta antigen. Affinity maturation of these B cells will occur much faster since the target is already very close. >And the vaccine is waning off in 3-6 months. So I don't see how me getting vaccinated is "for the common good". As stated above, you would be less infectious having had the vaccine. One thing to consider is that the outcome of COVID is not 'alive or dead'. There is a spectrum of outcomes that are not captured in official mortality statistics. While it's not clear exactly what that spectrum is (e.g. how many long covid cases really exist), I would note that there are a lot of anecdotes out there about athletes that can't climb a flight of stairs 12 months out after covid.

tehjoker 5y ago
This study by FAIR Health attempted to assess the prevalence of Long COVID from billions of US healthcare claims looking for problems that occurred 30+ days after a diagnosis of COVID-19: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A%20Detailed%20Study%20of%20Patients%20with%20Long-Haul%20COVID--An%20Analysis%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims--A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/as...
busymom0 5y ago
> The higher part is categorically untrue. The 'same' part is only true in a very narrow sense. 3 studies showing that vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated. When we are talking about many variable numbers, especially of a highly transmissible one, if something can be same, then there are also cases of them being higher. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.21260808v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.21260808v... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm > We find no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses. Our results, while preliminary, suggest that if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others. > One thing to consider is that the outcome of COVID is not 'alive or dead'. There is a spectrum of outcomes that are not captured in official mortality statistics. While it's not clear exactly what that spectrum is (e.g. how many long covid cases really exist), I would note that there are a lot of anecdotes out there about athletes that can't climb a flight of stairs 12 months out after covid. I am aware. And that's why I have made my own calculated decision. Things such as what to inject in my body are deeply personal choices and I have done my cost vs benefit analysis to conclude I will skip the current vaccine until it gets updated to be more effective for longer periods of time and when long term studies have been done. There's a certain risk we are all willing to take in making decisions. I am willing to take this risk. Especially when the data is consistently changing. What's the guarantee than the efficacy won't further drop in the next 3-6 months? Nor will there be any long term studies for a while. I can also sympathize with many in the black, hispanic and Philippine community who have severe distrust in the medical community. Just look at the number of deaths and serious injuries which happen in my age group of 20-29: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/motor-vehicle-safety/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2018 https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/motor-vehicle-sa... That doesn't mean I stop being in a car (even though I don't drive). Plus I have most likely already caught covid last year (I have never been sick in over 11 years except last year with very similar symptoms).
- dubyah 5y ago
  >When we are talking about many variable numbers, especially of a highly transmissible one, if something can be same, then there are also cases of them being higher. So, you went with your feelings as opposed to scientific backing on that one. By that rational, they could also be lower too. In fact, they could be on average lower. That statement, however, has some backing. From a vastly larger and more random survey: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/groups/react-study/real-time-assessment-of-community-transmission-findings/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/grou... >The 13th round of the REACT-1 study looked at swab test data from almost 100,000 people in England between 24 June and 12 July. The research found that infections were three times lower in people who were fully vaccinated, compared to unvaccinated people. The data also suggested that people who were fully vaccinated were less likely to pass the virus on to others, due to having a lower viral load on average and therefore shedding less virus.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    I states > they have the same (and sometimes higher) viral load The "same" is surely a fact as has been shown by 3 studies. The sometimes higher doesn't mean always higher - it means it can be sometimes higher, sometimes lower but on average, it's been determined to be the same. So it's not based on my "feelings". What matters is how these will turn out in 3-6 more months. When vast majority of people around the world still haven't gotten a single dose while us healthy and young people are being pushed to take it, it doesn't seem well advised in my eyes. They should be saving these for the elders and especially the ones in poorer countries.
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      > They should be saving these for the elders and especially the ones in poorer countries. dont they just throw away the vaccine if its not used? if that's true, im not sure how declining to get a free vaccine helps the elderly...
    - dubyah 5y ago
      The particular issue is, why specifically mention "sometimes higher" if there are no studies to back up that assertion or if you're going to rationalize your assertion on inferences about statistical noise? "Sometimes", "could", and "can" are doing the work of Atlas here. It's a genuinely pointless thing to say and somewhat bewildering to see someone continue to defend. It's important to note the population of those 3 studies. For generally symptomatic individuals that sought testing, were hospital system patients, or were contact traced individuals, respectively, viral loads(Ct values) are similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Even your first cited paper mentions deficiencies for asymptomatic individuals: >It is also difficult to determine the rate of asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic breakthrough infections and to ascertain whether viral loads in such cases are as high as those in symptomatic breakthrough infections. The “true” proportion of breakthrough infections with high viral loads would require comprehensive, frequent surveillance testing of vaccinated populations to identify these individuals. The REACT-1 study data is from a large, random sampling of the population.

tehjoker 5y ago

This study by FAIR Health attempted to assess the prevalence of Long COVID from billions of US healthcare claims looking for problems that occurred 30+ days after a diagnosis of COVID-19: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A%20Detailed%20Study%20of%20Patients%20with%20Long-Haul%20COVID--An%20Analysis%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims--A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/as...

busymom0 5y ago

> The higher part is categorically untrue. The 'same' part is only true in a very narrow sense. 3 studies showing that vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated. When we are talking about many variable numbers, especially of a highly transmissible one, if something can be same, then there are also cases of them being higher. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.21260808v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.21260808v... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm > We find no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses. Our results, while preliminary, suggest that if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others. > One thing to consider is that the outcome of COVID is not 'alive or dead'. There is a spectrum of outcomes that are not captured in official mortality statistics. While it's not clear exactly what that spectrum is (e.g. how many long covid cases really exist), I would note that there are a lot of anecdotes out there about athletes that can't climb a flight of stairs 12 months out after covid. I am aware. And that's why I have made my own calculated decision. Things such as what to inject in my body are deeply personal choices and I have done my cost vs benefit analysis to conclude I will skip the current vaccine until it gets updated to be more effective for longer periods of time and when long term studies have been done. There's a certain risk we are all willing to take in making decisions. I am willing to take this risk. Especially when the data is consistently changing. What's the guarantee than the efficacy won't further drop in the next 3-6 months? Nor will there be any long term studies for a while. I can also sympathize with many in the black, hispanic and Philippine community who have severe distrust in the medical community. Just look at the number of deaths and serious injuries which happen in my age group of 20-29: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/motor-vehicle-safety/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2018 https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/motor-vehicle-sa... That doesn't mean I stop being in a car (even though I don't drive). Plus I have most likely already caught covid last year (I have never been sick in over 11 years except last year with very similar symptoms).

dubyah 5y ago
>When we are talking about many variable numbers, especially of a highly transmissible one, if something can be same, then there are also cases of them being higher. So, you went with your feelings as opposed to scientific backing on that one. By that rational, they could also be lower too. In fact, they could be on average lower. That statement, however, has some backing. From a vastly larger and more random survey: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/groups/react-study/real-time-assessment-of-community-transmission-findings/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/grou... >The 13th round of the REACT-1 study looked at swab test data from almost 100,000 people in England between 24 June and 12 July. The research found that infections were three times lower in people who were fully vaccinated, compared to unvaccinated people. The data also suggested that people who were fully vaccinated were less likely to pass the virus on to others, due to having a lower viral load on average and therefore shedding less virus.
- busymom0 5y ago
  I states > they have the same (and sometimes higher) viral load The "same" is surely a fact as has been shown by 3 studies. The sometimes higher doesn't mean always higher - it means it can be sometimes higher, sometimes lower but on average, it's been determined to be the same. So it's not based on my "feelings". What matters is how these will turn out in 3-6 more months. When vast majority of people around the world still haven't gotten a single dose while us healthy and young people are being pushed to take it, it doesn't seem well advised in my eyes. They should be saving these for the elders and especially the ones in poorer countries.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    > They should be saving these for the elders and especially the ones in poorer countries. dont they just throw away the vaccine if its not used? if that's true, im not sure how declining to get a free vaccine helps the elderly...
  - dubyah 5y ago
    The particular issue is, why specifically mention "sometimes higher" if there are no studies to back up that assertion or if you're going to rationalize your assertion on inferences about statistical noise? "Sometimes", "could", and "can" are doing the work of Atlas here. It's a genuinely pointless thing to say and somewhat bewildering to see someone continue to defend. It's important to note the population of those 3 studies. For generally symptomatic individuals that sought testing, were hospital system patients, or were contact traced individuals, respectively, viral loads(Ct values) are similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Even your first cited paper mentions deficiencies for asymptomatic individuals: >It is also difficult to determine the rate of asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic breakthrough infections and to ascertain whether viral loads in such cases are as high as those in symptomatic breakthrough infections. The “true” proportion of breakthrough infections with high viral loads would require comprehensive, frequent surveillance testing of vaccinated populations to identify these individuals. The REACT-1 study data is from a large, random sampling of the population.