3 ms·

Is this surprising? We know that vaccines are effective, but breakthrough infections are definitely possible. Given this information, a household environment (n

Is this surprising? We know that vaccines are effective, but breakthrough infections are definitely possible. Given this information, a household environment (no masks, frequent contact, indoors) would be the worst case scenario for spread. Even the best sunscreen won't protect against 48 straight hours in the sun.

mdp2021 5y ago
Agreed - and very well put with the sun exposure metaphor -, but I found it an interesting and important piece of information to define the scenario, especially given the recent studies about the decline in time of some products in some of their effects (which seemed (sketchy numbers) to lower the reduction of the chances of transmission of a post-3-month Pfizer to roughly one third the chance of an unvaccinated individual, composing the relative chance of infection and the relative chance of re-transmission), and that the numbers still swing wildly - only hours ago, on The Conversation similar ratio of chances was reported as 1/20.¹ In some cases (freshly vaccinated) we seem to get a dramatic (? from memory) decrease in relative chances of infection and transmission, in other cases (months after) both relative chances seem to roughly halve the values for the unvaccinated: this study suggests that the difference relative chance of transmission can consistently be lost. It is still part of the puzzle. One part which is more surprising is that of the viral load being «the same» from vaccinated to unvaccinated: the initial theories of some were that the vaccinated infected should have had less viral load and for less time (the left hand is shaken with this study). -- ¹https://theconversation.com/your-unvaccinated-friend-is-roughly-20-times-more-likely-to-give-you-covid-170448 https://theconversation.com/your-unvaccinated-friend-is-roug... The author (Christopher Baker, Uni-Melbourne) uses a very rough 50% as the chances of the infected vaccinated to transmit infection relative to the infected unvaccinated, then uses a value of 10% the relative chances of infection of the vaccinated and comes to the 5%. That value indication as 10% comes from the Victorian Department of Health. As noted, other studies (e.g. about effects changes in time) provide different values.

mdp2021 5y ago

Agreed - and very well put with the sun exposure metaphor -, but I found it an interesting and important piece of information to define the scenario, especially given the recent studies about the decline in time of some products in some of their effects (which seemed (sketchy numbers) to lower the reduction of the chances of transmission of a post-3-month Pfizer to roughly one third the chance of an unvaccinated individual, composing the relative chance of infection and the relative chance of re-transmission), and that the numbers still swing wildly - only hours ago, on The Conversation similar ratio of chances was reported as 1/20.¹ In some cases (freshly vaccinated) we seem to get a dramatic (? from memory) decrease in relative chances of infection and transmission, in other cases (months after) both relative chances seem to roughly halve the values for the unvaccinated: this study suggests that the difference relative chance of transmission can consistently be lost. It is still part of the puzzle. One part which is more surprising is that of the viral load being «the same» from vaccinated to unvaccinated: the initial theories of some were that the vaccinated infected should have had less viral load and for less time (the left hand is shaken with this study). -- ¹https://theconversation.com/your-unvaccinated-friend-is-roughly-20-times-more-likely-to-give-you-covid-170448 https://theconversation.com/your-unvaccinated-friend-is-roug... The author (Christopher Baker, Uni-Melbourne) uses a very rough 50% as the chances of the infected vaccinated to transmit infection relative to the infected unvaccinated, then uses a value of 10% the relative chances of infection of the vaccinated and comes to the 5%. That value indication as 10% comes from the Victorian Department of Health. As noted, other studies (e.g. about effects changes in time) provide different values.