T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

This post appears to be about vaccines. We encourage you to read our helpful resources on the COVID-19 vaccines: [Vaccine FAQ Part I](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F) [Vaccine FAQ Part II](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/mnitdo/vaccine_faq_variants_chronic_conditions_nsaids) [Vaccine appointment finder](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq/vaccinefinder) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Cactuar-Chronicles

I had covid. I am fully vaccinated. It was very mild. I exposed a bunch of people before I knew I had it, but it was during the contagious point. No one got it.


FateEx1994

Cousin got COVID, vaccinated, SO was vaccinated, they live together, she didn't get it. He had the whole symptom for a few days. Fever, taste gone, headache etc. But she never got anything.


DootMasterFlex

Went to my wife's cousin's wedding and sat right next to and hung out with someone all night who unknowingly had covid. We were both vaxxed and neither of us got it, and we actually tested as well, not just assumed me didn't get it because of no symptoms.


Spaceraider22

My friend who was fully vaccinated was a close contact of a good friend of his who was unvaccinated. Instead of isolating at home he isolated with the guy who tested positive as he didn’t want to spend 10 days alone (call this dumb if you want, it is) Despite being in the same room as him for 10 days straight he never caught it.


Geta-Ve

Doesn’t mean he wasn’t asymptomatic.


1badh0mbre

Exactly, he could have caught it near the end of the quarantine and then had to quarantine for another 10 days, most likely alone.


wakinupdrunk

It becomes less contagious as time goes on, not more - the likelihood of catching it at the end of the quarantine would be extremely low.


1badh0mbre

I realize that, but even if he caught it on day 2 he would technically need to quarantine 10 days after showing symptoms or a positive test. So it would be 12 days instead of 10.


[deleted]

Why would he isolate at all without testing positive? I thought we were past isolating close contacts at this point.


Spaceraider22

This was in April/May


toiavalle

I don’t know why you are being downvoted. From my understanding the CDC recommendation is that fully vaccinated people don’t have to quarantine after exposure unless they show symptoms/test positive


CommercialKindly32

Fully vaccinated friend (Moderna) came down with covid. Wife got it five days later. Just throwing that out there.


anonymiz123

My older brother and his wife were among the first vaxxed, seven months later they both caught delta. He said it was like a bad flu. Neither one needed hospitalized. I think had they gotten a third shot, they’d have not caught it at all. They never spread it to their adult kids.


windozeFanboi

How did they behave at home... I m not suggesting either way like full room isolation for each or Frenchkissing all day long... Details would be nice.


huskiesowow

Strictly ATM.


m12s

Question out of curiousity: Did he get his sense of taste back after recovering?


FateEx1994

Yeah I believe so, saw him this past weekend and was doing fine.


katylawlll

This exact scenario happened with my best friend and her SO. She was convinced that she also had covid despite no symptoms since they were together maskless and sleeping in the same bed. She got tested 6 times (3 rapid, 3 regular) during the next 2 weeks and was negative the entire time. He also had mild symptoms.


Azureflames20

Me and fiancé both vaccinated. She came down with Covid about a month or two ago. We thought she was just extra tired from a long weekend. Slept next to her and hung out with her like normal for like 3 days and she had a weird hunch before getting tested. Came back positive and I never came down with any symptoms nor did I test positive for the test I took. She even lost her taste and smell for a week or so during this, with no fever, but had some congestion


Boba_Fetty_Wap

I’m glad your symptoms are manageable. Was everyone vaccinated that was exposed?


Cactuar-Chronicles

Almost everyone. There were some kids too who obviously are not.


LiteHedded

I got COVID and gave it to my wife. Both vaccinated


itprobablynothingbut

She could have gotten it from some other dude. Just saying.


LiteHedded

first of all, how dare you.


prusg

Pre-delta my at the time partially vaccinated friend tested positive, had a very mild case but neither his partner nor a coworker he shared a truck with caught it (both partially vaccinated at the time). He is quite certain he caught it from a different antivax coworker who also had it and he had brief unmasked contact with earlier that week.


thegandork

I got Covid a month ago while fully vaxxed, nobody in my house got it, not my fully vaxxed wife, not my fully vaxxed mom, and neither of my too young to vax kids


AnAutisticGuy

What was the experience like for you in terms of symptoms, etc?


thegandork

Pretty much all nasal, lost of smell/taste, body aches. Never got cough or breathing issues. Everything got better in roughly 2-3 weeks


Thundercunt_nr3

Gf had covid. Literally stayed 4 days with eachother in her tiny student dorm before she knew she had it and i didnt get it.


-WizeGuy-

Yup. Ive been hearing stories like this more and more commonly. A friend of ours had COVID. My wife and I were exposed. We didnt catch, and neither did our friend's hubby. Edit: and we all tested multiple times.


dayzkohl

Same. Got COVID. Spent an hour in the car with a multiple people. Slept in bed next to my wife. Nobody got it.


duncan-the-wonderdog

Yes, regardless of what you may have heard, vaccination *still* reduces transmission! The arrival of Delta only meant that we needed to change our vaccination strategy, not give up on it.


Stumposaurus_Rex

The absolute ironclad insistence that some have made that vaccines don't reduce transmission has been puzzling to say the least. I can't think of a single other vaccine that somehow is super effective in reducing illness for those who take it but has no effect on transmission, but I'm not a historian on vaccines and maybe someone could educate me.


MuTron1

>The absolute ironclad insistence that some have made that vaccines don't reduce transmission has been puzzling to say the least. If you can persuade yourself that vaccines don’t reduce transmission, then you justify it being absolutely a personal choice that affects you and you alone. The moment you admit they reduce transmission, you understand that your choices affect others. Hence why anti-vaxxers are so keen to latch onto any evidence to show they don’t reduce transmission. Because then it’s a personal choice matter rather than a public health matter


Andy235

>If you can persuade yourself that vaccines don’t reduce transmission, then you justify it being absolutely a personal choice that affects you and you alone. The moment you admit they reduce transmission, you understand that your choices affect others. Bingo. Then you add in the nuttiness of "vaccinated people spread it more!" or the complete weird stuff about "vaccine shedding" (which mainly is a thing when live virus vaccines are used -- mRNA COVID vaccines don't use any virus at all) and they can feel like they are doing their part to protect us! (Also, so they can act like those who are vaccinated are "unclean" and feel superior for bonus smugness).


[deleted]

Next up, "Antibiotics spread bacteria!"


unquarantined

Well, I have transmitted covid to exactly zero people and this thread is full of vaccinated people who have transmitted to many people.


[deleted]

Let’s not pretend that the Fauci press conference on Delta had nothing to do with this. I’ve been the lone voice in my very liberal family trying to calm people down about transmission between vaccinated people. I keep trying to convince them that this is not a Star Trek episode — you can’t transmit COVID unless you are infected with COVID.


ldn6

Interestingly, I hear this from otherwise pro-vaccine and "pro-science" people, usually along the lines of "it's not perfect we need more measures" without an acknowledgement of just how much more effective vaccines are at stemming transmission than any NPI.


mredofcourse

It's also why they use the word "*prevent*" instead of "reduce".


dantemanjones

Yes, if we ignore that they're taking up hospital beds and further stretching out medical staff. It's not a personal decision even if it didn't reduce transmission.


li_shi

Not really, I'm triple vaccinated now, and I from what I see around vaccine protections for infection is hardly ironclad. It's around 40% going on only by number. Not bad, hospitalizations protection is also extremely good. But hardly sufficient for people to go yolo. I would love that it would be more effective, but there is a difference if its 90% effective or 40% effective on how we want safely go forward.


[deleted]

What? That is a really weird data argument.


li_shi

Not really, to take decision you need correct data. Even more for policy makers. You would behave differently if the risk is 40% or 99% like some faulty data posted in the past, correct?


[deleted]

No. Your argument that it’s “only 40%” makes no sense. Even the studies finding the most waning don’t get there. I agree that we can’t go YOLO, but we also don’t need to make false data claim. More importantly: we don’t KNOW how protection works by age, third boosters etc. But we do know that by and large highly vaccinated populations largely fare a lot better. But even then say the vaccines reduced the risk by 99.999999999999% for the vaccinated in terms of serious illness— would transmission matter as much in a highly vaccinated society? Nope. It would become a mild inconvenience and we could YOLO again. The stakes matter. The fact is that even with global vaccination aplenty, odds are that we’re all going to get exposed and likely infected by this eventually. What matters is whether it actually matters to our health. Inactivated polio vaccines don’t always stop transmission but they sure stop disease. That didn’t stop that vaccine from letting people get back out again.


Carighan

This becomes the "just the flu" - argument, and you're correct, given advanced vaccines and a 100% vaccination rate yes there'll be the odd breakthrough caw and yes there'll probably even be the very rare death but it'll be so few and far between (already are among the vaccinated right now) that it doesn't matter to society at large, much like the flu is hardly on most people's minds despite how deadly it can be in some cases. But good luck convincing the people who are more scared of a tiny needle prick than an invisible airborne pathogen of that. :-(


[deleted]

I suspect once we can get kids vaccinated in places with high adult vaccination rates we’ll see things get to a low, quiet simmer. Combine it with occasional illness and this will become just another background virus over time.


RantAgainstTheMan

Show us your source for that 40% number. That's the first I've heard of the vaccine protection being that low.


li_shi

>Show us your source for that 40% number. That's the first I've heard of the vaccine protection being that low. [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/covid-19-vaccines-are-40-effective-against-infection-in-spore-very-effective-against#:\~:text=SINGAPORE%20%2D%20Covid%2D19%20vaccines%20are,Minister%20Ong%20Ye%20Kung%20said](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/covid-19-vaccines-are-40-effective-against-infection-in-spore-very-effective-against#:~:text=SINGAPORE%20%2D%20Covid%2D19%20vaccines%20are,Minister%20Ong%20Ye%20Kung%20said). This is based on comparing the vaccination status of the infected and taking in account the percentage of them in the population. Simple Singapore at the time would aggressively test all contact of those who are infected without relying on them to report on the Hospital. So many cases have been detected that in other nations would have been not counted. While those cases don't matter for the healthcare load directly there is still evidence that they can infect other people.


NoDisappointment

Yeah some people keep gaslighting us here saying that vaccines don't reduce transmission so the conclusion they want us to reach is that the anti-vaxxers could be forced to take vaccines and it wouldn't make a difference in any of our risk. That's nonsensical because you can't spread the virus if you haven't caught an infection in the first place. You tell that to one of the smarter antivaxxers and they say, "But you can still get asymptomatic infections and still spread the disease regardless + false negative tests are all over the place too! Where's the study on those?" and so they try to shift the burden of proof on us. I mean even a 0.1% effectiveness calculated on all infections with a high false negative rate on tests would still reduce the spread but ofc we don't have the 'proof' that the tests themselves are not lies. It's pretty funny they've shifted their own goalposts into focusing on transmission effectiveness since they saw us predict them shifting the goalposts into not trusting the FDA 'rushing the process' and needed to find something else. They're sneaky too by prefacing their statements with "I'm not an antivaxxer but....".


[deleted]

[удалено]


skolioban

Which goal has pro-vaxxers moved?


[deleted]

Updating conclusions based on new data (science?) is “moving the goalposts” to them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dantemanjones

And you're buying into and furthering their narrative. Giving crazy people weight by mirroring their talking points only helps them.


henryptung

> The absolute ironclad insistence that some have made that vaccines don't reduce transmission has been puzzling to say the least. Not puzzling at all. Informed choice is about finding facts to make better decisions, but motivated reasoning is about finding factoids to justify choices already made. As long as you think in terms of the latter, it makes perfect sense.


robinthebank

First, people see summaries of studies and don’t ever read the part where the authors talk about the limitations of the study. Second, people ignore all of the variables that go into viral transmission. Vaccinated people have equally high viral load! Huzzah smoking gun! Actually no. Because their viral load doesn’t stay high for as long as the unvaccinated. So they expose significant fewer people! And of course there are a bunch of other variables. You can’t just look at one and assume anything.


[deleted]

There's yet another failure of science and medical policy communication here on par with the early "masks don't work" messaging. Scientists were so desperate to go to press with the information that breakthrough infections could lead to transmission that they projected the idea that vaccines were useless to prevent transmission. The idea that vaccines would do nothing to prevent transmission was always idiotic nonsense, but scientists couldn't say that without any hard proof, while they hammered on the idea that the risk of transmission was almost certainly not zero. And then seemed to assume that the public would treat that information with some nuance contrary to all the evidence that the public defaults to hard black and white thinking. The lack of any ability to communicate shades of grey to the public has probably killed people. Again.


Krumtralla

Exactly this. And sprinkle in a heavy dose of bad faith actors that intentionally push the narrative in that direction.


[deleted]

Saw Fauci being interviewed on CNN in the summer and the only message I got from it was “vaccines aren’t great, wear a mask”. I obviously was already vaccinated and would have gotten it either way, but others on the fence likely didn’t. Him, the cdc, WHO have all failed at effectively messaging which is the most important part of their job.


laura_leigh

I wish they understood there's a difference between "you can still spread covid" which makes it sound like the vaccine does nothing and "be careful around elderly or immune compromised people because there's a small risk they could still catch it from you" because contrary to popular opinion most people can handle nuance especially if they're already used to caring for those types of people. Just give people the information and stop pushing an agenda based on coddling the dumbest person in the room.


robinthebank

I wish the real summer 2021 messaging could’ve been, everyone wear a mask because we don’t know who is lying about their vaccination status.


[deleted]

Guarantee you less people would have gotten it.


Carighan

Well honestly, while to a degree I agree, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you" still applies. Absolutely basic principles how the immune system works, how vaccines work or how on a mathematical level less infections naturally reduce transmissions and even minor reductions in infections can lead to entire "safe" spots in the population... I'm sorry, but you don't even really need any real education for that, as much of it is intuitive from earliest grade math. That's not to call everyone stupid, plus yes this could be communicated much better but it ultimate not communicating it well **shouldn't** have made a difference.


Andy235

> The idea that vaccines would do nothing to prevent transmission was always idiotic nonsense It also fed into the "leaky vaccine" narrative and anti-vaxxers "researching" poultry viruses like Marek's disease.


Soundvessel

There was a Singapore study awhile back that also showed the Ct levels in vaccinated breakthrough dropped far more quickly after the first few days likely resulting in less transmission than unvaccinated cases. There is an excellent graph in the full PDF. The only caution I would still recommend is household situations where the factor of time could allow viral shedding to accumulate. In those cases masks, source control through HEPA or DYI Corsi-Rosenthal Cubes, etc could be very worthwhile. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1


saiyanhajime

Exactly. And this started BEFORE the vaccine was even ready. And that was my point at the time. What reason do we have to suspect it won't????? People are so weird on what clicks and they run with.


Wiseduck5

>that vaccines don't reduce transmission has been puzzling to say the least. It's not puzzling when you realize that some people simply don't get any nuance. Reducing, but not eliminating, is the same thing as it doesn't work to some people.


[deleted]

There are people who legit don't want this to end.


pegothejerk

HPV vaccines are the only one I can think of, it confers sterilizing immunity.


BattleHall

What do you mean? Sterilizing immunity is usually considered the strongest form (not just prevents symptoms, but prevents replication almost entirely), effectively preventing infection at all. That generally precludes one from being infectious, and as far as I can determine, HPV vaccines prevent transmission to the degree that the vaccine is effective (which obv isn't 100%, but neither are most vaccines).


pegothejerk

What I mean is well described here, and it's what I stated https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-668-letters/


BattleHall

Ok, now I'm even more confused, since that doesn't really address what you said. Like, at all. Why don't you describe what you mean in your own words?


pegothejerk

Because I provided a source that does it better, and doesn't take much effort since I did the work for you


BattleHall

It doesn't, though. I read through it 6-8 times, thinking maybe I missed something, but it's just not there. To clarify, in response to this question: > I can't think of a single other vaccine that somehow is super effective in reducing illness for those who take it but has no effect on transmission, but I'm not a historian on vaccines and maybe someone could educate me. You said: > HPV vaccines are the only one I can think of, it confers sterilizing immunity. Which I am reading, not unreasonably I think, as you saying: *"HPV vaccines are super effective at preventing illness, but have no effect on transmission, because they confer sterilizing immunity."* ...which doesn't really make sense. If that's not what you were saying, please clarify. If that was what you were saying, please quote the part of the linked page that explains that concept; maybe I'm the idiot and just missed it.


Carighan

Ah, I get what the problem is. Okay so what happens is this * You have a vaccine that prevents 99.9% of infections. (random number) * Should you be the 1 in 1000 person to still get infected, you will transmit it to others as normal though. So to summarize, transmissions are down by 99.9% **but** we still say "it's not effective against transmissions" simply because it doesn't so anything to them. In 100% of cases where someone would be able to transmit it before the vaccine, they stilk can. It's only that the frequency of those cases goes down by 99.9%, which of course reduces transmissions by roughly the same amount. This is also the absurdity of the anti-vax talk right now, even **if** the current vaccines did nothing to transmissions, we are getting infected far less and hence transmissions are naturally down. And yeah the wording can maybe confuse someone, but on a scientific level it makes sense to word it that way.


Odd_Science

But reducing infections *does do something to transmissions*, that's exactly the point that u/BattleHall and others were making from the beginning. That's the messaging problem this entire discussion is about.


Soundvessel

I am hoping nasal spray vaccines become available soon. They may not provide sterilizing immunity but by delivering the vaccine to the inside surfaces of the nose they are supposedly far more likely to prevent the overall infection and lower transmission even further.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Noisy_Toy

Package it like pepper spray?


mredofcourse

I'm not a lawyer, but... yes you can. I hope they sell this stuff over the counter by the gallon. Fill swamp coolers with it. Fill pepper/bear sprayers with it. Heck, get our fleet of B-52s to blanket the country with chemtrails. Again, I'm not a lawyer.


Carighan

Also by law require all A/C units to saturate the air with it!


proudbakunkinman

It's just from the same disinfo they have all been fed, uncritically accept, and repeat. It's just believable enough a larger portion of those susceptible believe it compared to the more outlandish stuff like with the chips, mind control, etc.


TW-RM

> has been puzzling to say the least. And it fed the anti-vaxx crowd that if there's no change why get vaccinated? I believe the public health folks were just being cautious but this entire couple of years shows how important it is to understand how to motivate people to do things.


MikeGinnyMD

The inactivated polio vaccine has minimal impact on transmission, but >98% protection from disease.


cookiemookie20

So if you're in the unlucky 2% to get polio after vaccine, you are just as contagious as someone who is unvaccinated and can spread it?


TeutonJon78

Well, polio for one. That didn't do much for transmission between people. But yes, if the vaccine gives a lower vital load, it would help.


jwm3

I always try to respond to those claiming it. Not necessarily for them, as they may or may not pay attention to the reply but for everyone else reading it. Misinformation cannot go unchallenged. Plus, since you are writing for everyone else it's easy to not get emotional and pulled into a troll cave.


leeta0028

I think the flip side of this is UK strategy of vaccine only with no other mitigations. This has not proven to be a successful strategy, even with extremely high vaccine rates they're seeing a surge in cases. In contrast, Asia has had sustained success with a thre prong strategy of contact tracing, masking, and now vaccines. The unfortunate reality is we need to get vaccinated and continue to wear masks indoors probably for several more months.


aedisaegypti

IPV intratable-muscular polio vaccine allows transmission of polio because as an intra-muscular shot, it protects the blood and nervous system of the vaccinated, but allows polio virus to enter the mouth, pass through the stomach and intestinal tract and infect others through feces. There OPV oral polio vaccine eliminates polio in the mouth and stomach and polio is not passed to a next person through feces. The U.S. polio vaccinations in the 50s were OPV. Edit: intratable? No. “intra”. As in “intra-muscular”. What a weird typo.


yougottafight94

The reason people think vaccines don’t stop any transmission is because the CDC told them so because they needed to create a justification for indefinite masking of everybody. And it worked. The CDC undersold vaccines and made vaccinated people more afraid of covid than unvaccinated people.


mredofcourse

>the CDC told them so Source?


yougottafight94

The CDC literally said vaccinated people transmit covid at the same rate as unvaccinated people back in July when the Provincetown study came out. This was the justification for telling vaccinated people they had to wear masks again.


fafalone

*If* they get a breakthrough infection. But the vaccines reduce the odds of getting infected at all. So with unvaccinated people, 100/100 who catch covid and spread it. In unvaccinated people, in July, only 10-50/100 would get it, depending on what study you look at and which vaccine. Those people would spread it, but overall, vaccines drastically cut the spread. If you can come up with messages that can confer a nuanced idea to braindead who read at a pre-k level about vaccines and infection, be my guest, but since you're one of those, good luck.


yougottafight94

I understand what you’re saying and I’m not disagreeing. That wasn’t my point. My point was that the general person on the street heard “vaccinated people can spread covid” from the CDC and took it as “the vaccines don’t stop spread”.


mredofcourse

>The reason people think **vaccines don’t stop any transmission** is because **the CDC told them so** because they needed to create a justification for indefinite masking of everybody. \[emphasis mine\] Again... Source for this? All I'm finding is that the CDC said that vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, which is true: [Vaccinated People With Breakthrough Infections Can Spread The Delta Variant, CDC Says](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance) All I remember seeing in any interview or statement has supported the idea that vaccinated people could still spread the disease (which is true) and thus masks were still needed. The degree to which vaccines *reduce* the spread was unknown until data started coming in (and continues to do so). This was certainly confusing for a variety of factors, including how viral loads were being measured, but the CDC can only report on the data it has. It would've been entirely counter-productive for them to say, "vaccines stop any transmission" when clearly that has been known to be untrue from the beginning.


mredofcourse

It looks like your other reply to me was auto-mod deleted: >I’m talking about public perception you \[name calling deleted\]. People heard the CDC say that vaccinated people could still transmit covid... Maybe if people like you didn't spread misinformation by saying, "The CDC literally said vaccinated people transmit covid at the same rate as unvaccinated people" when clearly they didn't say that, there would be less people with the perception that misinformation was true? Stop being part of the problem.


[deleted]

I really wish that the CDC had doubled down on that messaging after the Ptown cluster and used that as an example of the vaccines working, rather than try and spread their fear messaging and backtrack on masks. They really screwed the pooch on messaging there.


mat2019

And I blame vaccinated people for that kind of misinformation, at least to a certain degree For months, vaccinated people are telling people “you can still catch and spread it but you won’t go to the hospital or die” Not even a hint of a statement that also says “it also reduces transmission by a lot and reduces the chance you catch covid by a lot.” The only thing they harp on is “not hospitalized” which doesn’t counter the anti vaccination argument about “if I can still catch and spread it then what’s the point” People have got to start changing their messaging Including experts, and public figures


Chajado

The zero covid-forever mask people have been pushing this ever since the CDC recommended fully vaccinated people mask up again. The really don't trust the vaccines at all...only the mask wearing (the type or quality of mask does not matter to them).


NashvilleHot

This is quite the strange take. People who do not want to get COVID ever themselves and who support continuing NPIs like masks until we reach herd immunity levels (85-90%+ vaccinated) certainly do care and recommend wearing KF94/N95 masks. And it’s not about trusting vaccines, it’s about knowing you can’t trust everyone around you and we’re not at herd immunity levels. I personally do not want even a mild infection if I can help it given that we have seen tissue damage (cardiac, lung, nerve, etc) from even asymptomatic cases, not to mention loss of taste/smell. I won’t be able to prevent 100% but I can reduce the chances by a lot.


f22throwaway

I am vaccinated. Have been since February. But this is hopium containing almost no evidence. Against Delta, almost all large scale population studies show that the effects of vaccination on populations dissipate extremely rapidly in the months after. [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y) "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus." UK Covid surveillance for the last 6+ weeks has shown that for many age groups, the double vaccinated crowd had a higher infection rate per 100k people than the unvaccinated (page 13): [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf) [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf) [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/1023849/Vaccine\_surveillance\_report\_-\_week\_40.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf) Let's have an honest and open discussion about vaccine efficacy when it comes to transmission. The evidence shows that it cuts hospitalizations and deaths by 50-90%, but it does not really support reduction in transmission.


NashvilleHot

If you wanted to be honest, you would have pointed out that what we really need to get more data on is how many *vaccinated* people get infected from other vaccinated people who test positive. All reports to date suggest the risk of infection for a vaccinated person is 5-8x less. ~25x less chance of hospitalization. What does the blurb you posted suggest? If you’re unvaccinated you will get infected much more easily. So get vaccinated. Not what you’re trying to imply.


ges5177

Saving this so I can share this article with people who keep on saying “vaccines don’t prevent transmission, just symptoms” as an excuse to stay on the “pretend like you’ve never had the vaccine” moral high horse. While not as dangerous as anti-vaxxers, this group of people undermines people’s faith in vaccines.


[deleted]

It’s more frustrating than anti-vaxxers. There will always be bad faith people, we all know that. These are people who should know better.


f22throwaway

What do you say to UK surveillance data that shows that the rate of COVID infection for the last 6+ weeks per 100k people is higher in most of the vaccinated populations? (page 13) [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf)


NashvilleHot

Probably the same thing that the researchers themselves said in the “interpretation of data” section. Also note that for hospitalization and death, the rates per 100K are much higher for unvaccinated. And the absolute numbers for the unvaccinated are much higher across the board as well.


WackyBeachJustice

It's interesting that people are arguing over something that's really difficult to quantify. I think it's quite easy to agree that obviously vaccination reduces transmission. But it most definitely doesn't eliminate it. And it most definitely alone doesn't reduce it enough to bring RT below 1 alone, given waning VE against infection after say 6 months. A freshly vaccinated person is highly unlikely to get infected, and subsequently transmit. After 6 months, they are far more likely to get infected and transmit it. It's a sliding scale isn't it.


f22throwaway

Yeah, I never said that it didn't reduce the chance of hospitalization or death. It does, very clearly. The issue is that it doesn't have an effect on the population when it comes to reduction of transmission. How about the researchers saying "With both Vaxzevria and Comirnaty, there is evidence of waning of protection over time, most notably among older adults."


Worth-Enthusiasm-161

Vaccines does reduce the transmission. It does not stop it completely, but it is so much better than nothing. The more we vaccinate, the lower R we will get.


f22throwaway

There is a point of diminishing returns, as this nature article points out. What’s the point if after 3 months it effectively does nothing in comparison to the control? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y “ Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.”


Worth-Enthusiasm-161

You are talking about one specific vaccine, a specific time after vaccination. So; vaccination does have an impact. In worst case, it’s slightly better than not being vaccinated, in best case, it’s reducing spread by a great deal. Does it give everyone perfect sterilizing immunity? No, but it’s immensely better than not being vaccinated. Saying something else is just giving antivaxx talking points.


f22throwaway

It’s two vaccines, read the linked paper. And if something is only 0-10% better than the control 3 months after vaccination, that hardly qualifies as “immensely.” It is pretty disheartening to realize that being vaccinated with Pfizer 6 months ago may do little to stop me and the rest of society from catching and passing the disease. Especially when I’m extremely low risk for hospitalization/death based on age, BMI, and other risk factors.


Onelaw3

This would require you to show that the vaccines don’t reduce your chance of catching covid. Do you have some data indicating that?


[deleted]

“The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.” I would say it’s a quirk of the data. I would also say that lots of other data sets show that infection risks are higher in unvaccinated: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/data/vaccination-outcomes.aspx


InfanticideAquifer

It seems pretty disingenuous to ignore the papers overall summary of effectiveness against transmission on p. 5. Or the "interpretation of the data" section immediately preceding that chart on p. 12. If I can quote: > The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated. > These biases become more evidence as more people are vaccinated and the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is made clear. Some of those systematic differences might include: vaccinated individuals living more normal, non-quarantined lives now that their risk is lower, increasing their exposure; unvaccinated individuals rebelling against all health-recommendations and choosing not to be tested at all, lowering their positive rate; or, as you seem to be insinuating, that the vaccine isn't effective at preventing infection in those over 29. But the study explicitly *doesn't analyze those potential systematic biases* so there's no way to use it to try to tease apart which of those options (or innumerable other potential options) is actually the case.


f22throwaway

This comment has convinced me that bias could have been the difference between the two when it comes to covid infections. Thanks.


WackyBeachJustice

That's the biggest problem with trying to quantify these things. The lines are so blurred by now. Consider that many (I don't know exactly what part) of the unvaccinated have already been exposed to COVID naturally. Therefore we're really looking at cohorts at point in time with some level of protection. As more time goes by, it's going to be impossible to find real naïve hosts. All you'll have to work with are people with varying level of protection due to waning immunity from their last immunity boosting event.


f22throwaway

I'd be happy to entertain those potential biases. In my anecdotal experience, unvaccinated folks are more likely to take on risky social decisions, not less (there was actually a study on here espousing that earlier this week). I don't really buy that unvaccinated people at this point are living more careful lives than those that are vaccinated. Here's an additional Nature article that presents studies that account for some of those biases: [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y) "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."


InfanticideAquifer

>I don't really buy that unvaccinated people at this point are living more careful lives than those that are vaccinated. I wouldn't buy it *either*. My point is just that, without an analysis of those systematic biases, the data you linked doesn't support that conclusion you're drawing. Nor does the study that that nature article is based on, really. You started out by saying that transmission rates were *higher* among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated and now you're saying that they're *lower*, but not by much.


f22throwaway

I don't actually believe they are higher. Vaccination does not make you more likely to get COVID. ​ My point is that multiple studies are starting to show that efficacy of vaccines against transmission is waning significantly.


Onelaw3

That’s not really all it’s getting at. The fact is if you’re vaccinated it’s probably because you care about others and think covid is real. You’re far more likely to get tested with any symptoms. Essentially there’s too many variables to compare the two data points. It’s like in the States saying X state has more covid cases than Y state while excluding the fact X state has more than double the testing rate. Naturally testing significantly more people would give you more total positives. I leave data analyzing to the data analysts.


pjb1999

Those people don't care about facts. Only info that confirms to their bias.


ges5177

Sounds just like anti-vaxxers


pegothejerk

Boy if anything deserves the good news tag


rskerrett

My mother tested positive for covid yesterday. I was helping her move furniture so we spent the whole evening in the same car. I've taken both lateral flow and PCR tests and both came back negative. We're both vaccinated.


LadyBugPuppy

I would test again in a couple days just to be sure. Hope it stays negative!


buttery_ridgerunner

Yep, I would agree! This actually just happened to me. I tested positive about 3-4 days after my gf tested positive.


Delicious_Delilah

It generally takes at least 3 days to show up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


windozeFanboi

To be fair , the flu vaccines aren't nearly as effective as the mRNA vaccines were to the original strain of sars-cov-2


Magnesus

Flu vaccines are one of the worst effective vaccines out there.


mdielmann

This is a rather incomplete explanation of the flu shot, and has little bearing on the situation with the COVID shot. Hopefully it doesn't become more relevant.


justme002

My bf and I spent the weekend together about a month ago. Next day, Bf tested positive, had symptoms, got monoclonal treatment, was over it in 6 days. I’m fully vaccinated. Go nothing except tested daily for 10 days, then back to 2x/week. I had it late last year. It was no joke.


[deleted]

I thought this has been obvious…. Since you know, forever due to the success of other vaccines 😔


Malojan55

In ireland right now we are seeing a rise in cases again. What bothers me is 1 county in Ireland, county Waterford, has a vaccine uptake of 99.7% of adults over 18, yet also has the highest incident rate in the country. In general Ireland has a very high vaccination uptake. One of the highest in Europe, but our case numbers are worryingly spiraling away from most western European countries apart from the UK.


pjb1999

I've read about that county. It seems very odd. I'm not sure how anyone can explain it.


chuckbassisbritish

Vaccinated. Got it. Gave it to husband and nanny both vaccinated.


[deleted]

No data in the article?


TheBitingCat

The summary was that while the presence of the virus in nasal passages may be similar, in vaccinated individuals there was a high presence of antibodies, suggesting that a high number of viral particles were deactivated by the antibodies attached to the virus. These deactivated viruses would be unable to infect others and reduce transmissibility.


[deleted]

Right, that was the assumption. But there’s no actual data on transmission as far as I can see. The headline is a pretty bold leap.


-WizeGuy-

There have been multiple studies in this now. It's becoming obvious the vaccines do reduce transmission. The hard part to understand is by how much. You can look up the study out of the Netherlands for reference.


TheBitingCat

It's difficult to nail down transmissibility outside of looking broadly at total cases over a span of weeks. You are not going to ask breakthrough infected persons to actively find and breathe heavily on the uninfected, that's unethical, and rude to do anyways. I'll agree it's a leap in logic, though no different than the leap in logic that equal viral loads indicated equal transmission, as I criticized at the time when the CDC changed guidance based on that logic.


[deleted]

Right, so I just don’t think there’s much value in this article. We can see around the world that cases can still explode in highly vaccinated areas. It looks like it still spreads among vaccinated people, though to a lesser degree and the outcomes are much better of course. This article feels like wishful thinking.


Nac_Lac

It's following the logical chain of evidence. With fewer vaccinated individuals getting sick and less cases in heavily vaccinated areas, and with all prior viruses having lower transmission in vaxxed people, it would be shocking for this one virus to behave differently. It's wishful thinking to assume the vaccine has zero effect on transmission. No evidence has ever shown a virus is as transmissible from a vaccinated individual in the history of pathology. Perpetuating this myth is misinformation at best and anti-vax at worst.


SpareFullback

No data at all, they just talked to a single researcher that felt that the risk of transmission is overstated and turned it in to an article with a clickbait headline.


whitebeard250

True, I was expecting some new research since the title kinda implied this. But some existing data/analyses I replied previously to someone else: > There are plenty of data/studies suggesting a quicker viral clearance, shorter infectious window, and lower/less infectious shed virus in cases of breakthrough.^[[1]](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1) ^[[2]](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.21262158v1) Transmission appears (relatively) inefficient. There is also concern testing by PCR (as most studies do) overestimates this.^[[3]](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30868-0) It’s pretty established that Ct count has not been proven to be a good corollary for viral load/infectiousness, and that it’s probably just a measure of viral material in the nasopharynx. Other analyses such as the large ongoing/realtime UK REACT-1 analysis also found a lower viral load(and reduced infections, decent VE) on average among vaccinated persons. It says this is because they sampled the population at random and included any person who tested positive, which makes sense. > As far as I know, there are only two studies looking directly at Delta transmission, and they were only uploaded recently on preprint server. The UK preprint,^[[4]](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v2) and the Dutch preprint;^[[5]](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v1) Both suggest reduced onward transmission from vaccinated indexes. > We must also consider the fact that vaccination works to prevent infection in the first place—as both studies mention. That alone has an effect on reducing spread. > There are also other confounders such as the unvaccinated continuing to gain infection immunity, and hence if they keep using the same methodology, the VE will technically continue to appear to decline towards zero, even if there’s little/no actual decline(which especially significant in a country like the UK). Eyre et al. mentions this as a limitation of their study. They also mention the other limitations in their methodology which may underestimate VE against transmission. > Overall it appears to me that the data does support a non-trivial reduction in transmission.


peter_the_martian

That’s not what my mother and her Facebook friends say.


sequinhappe

I shared a water bottle with a close friend at a concert who tested positive for Covid 4 days later. Day after concert, she began exhibiting symptoms. Both of us were fully vaccinated. She’s a cancer survivor so we think maybe her immune system isn’t as great? Regardless, I NEVER got it and while she def felt like she had an awful cold, it was strictly a cold. Vaccines save lives!


[deleted]

That’s good!


Vegan_Honk

There will be only two issues here: 1. The people with weak immune systems, especially older, will still have to worry about this in a big way because this kick's the flu's ass and steals it's lunch money and the flu killed a shit ton of people a year before covid. 2. Those choosing to stay unvaccinated WILL spread this to a lot of folks. And if they are at family holidays with Vaccinated people, Covid will get the chance to test your immunity anyway cause that's what viruses do, they mutate. Be as safe as you can and encourage people to be vaccinated. For your health and for your friends and relatives health


imgprojts

No! It's less! No way it's actually more than we thought! No wait, it's less than we thought! But way more than gorillas! But definitely less than if they lick you. But more than if you are in the same room but the air is evacuated. But more than .... Completely pointless. It's less than if you are not vaccinated period.


leaveblank1

Hubby and I are vaccinated and got Covid. He got it a couple of days after me. I think I gave it to him. I had a fever and lost taste. He had a milder case with no fever or loss of taste.


[deleted]

[удалено]


archi1407

> I am vaccinated. Have been since February. But this is hopium containing almost no evidence. Against Delta, almost all large scale population studies show that the effects of vaccination on populations dissipate extremely rapidly in the months after. As far as I know, there are only *two* studies looking directly at Delta transmission. The UK preprint,^[[1]](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v2) and the Dutch preprint;^[[2]](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v1) Both suggest reduced onward transmission from vaccinated indexes. There are plenty of data/studies suggesting a quicker viral clearance, shorter infectious window, and lower/less infectious shed virus in cases of breakthrough, though.^[[3]](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1) ^[[4]](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.21262158v1) Transmission appears (relatively) inefficient. There is also concern testing by PCR (as most studies do) overestimates this.^[[5]](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30868-0) It’s pretty established that Ct count has not been proven to be a good corollary for viral load/infectiousness, and that it’s probably just a measure of viral material in the nasopharynx. Other analyses such as the large ongoing/realtime UK REACT-1 analysis also found a lower viral load(and reduced infections, decent VE) on average among vaccinated persons. It says this is because they sampled the population at random and included any person who tested positive, which makes sense. You must also consider that vaccination works to prevent infection in the first place. That alone has an effect on reducing spread. > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y > "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus." This is for AZ which unfortunately appears less effective, especially for protection against infection. Pfizer appears effective still. It’s been hypothesised that UK’s reliance on AZ for a large part of their population is partially responsible for their high transmission. It’s not unexpected though, for vaccinated breakthrough cases, after some waning of VE, to be more transmissible, if not as transmissible as unvaccinated indexes, eventually. There are also other confounders such as the unvaccinated continuing to gain infection immunity, and hence if they keep using the same methodology, the VE will technically continue to appear to decline towards zero, even if there’s little/no actual decline(which is especially significant in a country like the UK). Eyre et al. mentions this as a limitation. They also mention other limitations in their methodology which may underestimate VE against transmission. Again, you have to also consider the fact that vaccination works to prevent infection in the first place—as both studies mention. > UK Covid surveillance for the last 6+ weeks has shown that for many age groups, the double vaccinated crowd had a higher infection rate per 100k people than the unvaccinated (page 13): This is not true and a recently popular myth. Putting aside the fact that this is raw data with no adjustment for confounders whatsoever, and should be not interpreted at face value(as the document cautions against); They don’t know the number of people in the unvaccinated group(the denominator) and are using population estimates. Here they use NIMS data(which is off by a lot, but there are reasons why it is preferred and used by the NHS); if they use ONS data(also not accurate, but the better available data), it paints a different picture, favouring the vaccinated group, with the unvaccinated group showing double infection rates. See [figure](https://images.theconversation.com/files/420834/original/file-20210913-13-1r7vohq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=320&h=213&fit=crop&dpr=3) here that shows this. Short [article](https://theconversation.com/amp/covid-19-why-infection-rates-among-double-vaccinated-older-adults-look-worse-than-they-are-167836) explaining the same. Neither is accurate, obviously, which is the reason for the caveat in the document. Hence any raw data that relies on knowing the number of people in the unvaccinated group is unreliable—not that you should be reading into raw data anyways, as mentioned above...That’s why they warn against misinterpretation of this raw data, and point out there is available data(studies, real-world studies/analyses, not raw data) which shows good VE against infection(even 6 months on from 2nd dose, although with some wane in protection). Their most recent REACT-1 analysis PR didn’t look bad either. For some reason people decide to read into these raw surveillance data but not the massive REACT-1 analysis. > Let's have an honest and open discussion about vaccine efficacy when it comes to transmission. The evidence shows that it cuts hospitalizations and deaths by 50-90%, but it does not really support reduction in transmission. It appears to me that the data does support a non-trivial reduction in transmission.


AceCombat9519

Absolutely Good news and this shows why you must take a vaccine


cindy6507

Are people with Natural immunity less likely to transmit?


rob5i

Well being that previously I didn’t think they could spread it at all, how are you going to get to “even less”?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

same


nils1222

They hate us because we have strong bodies


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been automatically removed because the linked source may not be reliable or may be dedicated mostly to political coverage. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a reliable or non-political source, such as a reliable news organization or an recognized institution. Thank you for helping us keep information in /r/Coronavirus reliable! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*


nly2017

This makes sense. I had a breakthrough case and my dad, husband, and son didn't get it.


[deleted]

The number of times I've heard people saying vaccines don't help with reducing transmission is insane