Early this summer, as the number of Minnesotans reaching full vaccination status increased rapidly and COVID-19 case numbers dropped, things seemed to be looking better in the pandemic forecast. Many Minnesotans who hadn’t traveled or gone to the grocery store maskless in more than a year started loosening up on pandemic restrictions. Things felt almost normal.
Then came the delta variant and reports of a COVID-19 outbreak among mostly vaccinated people in Provincetown, Mass. in July. Leaked Centers for Disease Control slides suggested the delta variant may be similarly transmissible in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Ever since, people skeptical of the vaccines or their efficacy, and some chafing against vaccine mandates have cited the CDC’s report and others with similar findings.
“It’s my belief that vaccinated individuals are spreading COVID and catching COVID,” one state employee said in a Minnesota Senate committee last week, arguing for frequent testing for both vaccinated and unvaccinated state employees covered by the state’s vaccine requirement.
Following her testimony, Minnesota Sen. Jim Abeler held up an article citing CDC research. “It says in there, fully vaccinated people with delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others,” he said, also citing research in Israel that found breakthrough infectious among the vaccinated.
[image_caption]State Sen. Jim Abeler[/image_caption]
Limitations of the CDC study
Dr. Jill Foster, a pediatric infectious disease physician at the University of Minnesota Medical School and M Health Fairview, noted some limitations of the CDC study.
The study measured the viral load in specimens from vaccinated and unvaccinated people with COVID-19 infections. Levels of virus were measured using a metric called cycle threshold, which refers to the number of times a test machine has to run to find viral particles. The fewer the cycles, the more virus that’s in the sample. The cycle threshold — or number of times the machine had to run — to find viral particles was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated specimens.
[image_caption]Dr. Jill Foster[/image_caption]
“When I swab your nose and I swab somebody else’s nose, I might not get the same amount of material,” Foster said. If someone has a runny nose, a sample taken via nasal swab could be diluted, for example.
Furthermore, Foster said molecular tests that are used to detect COVID-19 are not good at detecting whether the viral particles in a sample are dead or alive like the cultured tests used for infections like strep throat, which grow out bacteria over time, are.
“[They] can’t differentiate between somebody who has live virus and their nose versus somebody who, the virus went into their nose and their immune system killed it,” Foster said. That factor is among the reasons many researchers are dubious that similar levels of virus found in vaccinated and unvaccinated samples indicate similar transmission patterns.
A study released late last month that looked at COVID-19 transmission rates among people vaccinated with the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines again acknowledged similar viral loads in samples taken from unvaccinated and vaccinated people with delta variant COVID-19 infections, but it also found transmission rates lower in the latter population.
Less likely to be infected
At some level, vaccinated and unvaccinated people can still spread COVID-19. However, leaving it at that is a massive oversimplification of the issue for another big reason: People who are vaccinated against COVID-19 are far less likely to be infected with the virus in the first place.
Of the more than 3.2 million Minnesotans who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of September 12, the most recent data available, 1.2 percent had confirmed breakthrough infections. Roughly six in 10,000 vaccinated people had ended up in the hospital with COVID-19, and seven in 100,000 people who have been fully vaccinated had died.
Unvaccinated, the risk of dying of COVID-19 is 11 times higher, the CDC found.
Foster said she likes to use a grocery store analogy to explain the relative risk of transmission by vaccinated versus unvaccinated people.
If you live in an area where vaccination rates are high, on any given trip to the grocery store, many, many fewer of those patrons are likely to be infected with COVID-19. If they are infectious, their infectiousness period is likely to be shorter than an unvaccinated person. So you’re much safer at the grocery store in this scenario than in an area with more unvaccinated people, who are more likely to be infectious for longer.
A study released in August found vaccinated people clear the virus from their system more quickly than unvaccinated people, at an average of 5.5 days, compared to 7.5 days for the unvaccinated.
Vaccinated people should still be careful because they can still become infected with COVID-19 and transmit the virus to others. But breakthrough infections remain relatively rare in the first place, and they appear to be less likely to cause infections of others.
The bottom line, said Dr. Frank Rhame, Allina Health infectious disease specialist, is that vaccinations work.
“We clearly know that people who are vaccinated don’t get very sick and don’t die,” he said.
It would seem that a reliable antibody test would be the final word: better than a vaccination card: You have antibodies in this amount, right now. As the herd immunity goal post moves from 70% to 90%??? knowing the true number making up the herd would be very useful.
Too many folks declining vaccination because “I’ve had COVID and am now immune” get the chance to put up or shut up.
Of course, I am vaccinated and had a test and they offered to include the antibody test and it came back zero. Like I said a RELIABLE antibody test…
Yeah. The tests aren’t reliable if you didn’t mount a huge response. And it turns out that the antibodies made from a natural infection are different than those from vaccination. I’m not sure that the antibody tests can test for both, let alone differentiate the 2. Also, antibodies are not the be all, end all of immunity. You might not have enough antibodies to detect, but still have immune memory. Of course, you might also be one of the few unlucky individuals that didn’t actually develop immunity. I hope that’s not the case.
T cell and B cell memory is more important than antibodies for long term immunity from COViD. Antibodies will wain in a matter of months, memory T cell and B cell are long lasting and will start the bodies immune system fighting COViD immediately as it recognizes the virus.
Joe, B-cell memory, is by definition antibody memory. Secreted antibody does, indeed decrease (but it’s still typically detectable for 6+ months after vaccination or infection), but the B-cells that form a memory have antibodies on their surface (termed B-cell receptors). The antibody test can’t detect those antibodies, though, so Mr. Blaise was lamenting that the antibody test can’t accurately test whether someone has developed immunity so the anti-vaxxers who want to claim immunity because they got COVID and survived can prove it. Or, as he put it, “put up or shut up.”
Rachael, B cells are different than antibody. B cells produce antibodies when a virus is detected by the bodies immune system. If you have B cell memory immunity you will produce antibodies when needed. It is a bit more complex than that, involving transmembrane receptors versus protein molecules. Bottom line is B cell memory is part of the absolutely amazing immune system humans are born with to ward off viruses and other invaders to our health.
Mr. Smith, here and elsewhere I’ve seen you assuming that acquiring some new vocabulary is equivalent to acquiring expertise or understanding of a subject matter. There is a difference between adding new vocabulary to your debate game and actually learning to understand a subject. Facile arguments aren’t converted into brilliant arguments or observations by new vocabulary… you can simply end up making the same mistakes with different words and terms.
Again, pure nonsense. This is what the article is describing – people taking bits and pieces of the science out of context and coming up with, well, pure nonsense.
Jeo, it might surprise you to find out that I know exactly what I’m talking about. I graduated from the University of Minnesota’s Microbiology, Immunology, and Cancer Biology Ph.D. program. And while I focused on Cancer Biology, I have pretty firm understanding of the major players in the immune system without having to hunt Google for a convenient bit of information to copy. You might have just discovered the neato function of memory B cells, but memory B cells don’t exist to spit out antibodies when they’re needed unless memory B cells are made in the first place. You are NOT born with memory B cells (except to the degree that you MIGHT get some from your mom in the womb). Memory B cells only develop AFTER exposure to an antigen, such as from a vaccine or a virus. And that “complex” bit about “transmembrane receptors versus protein molecules” bit is barely comprehensible from a technical perspective. Transmembrane receptors ARE protein molecules. What your convenient Google source maybe meant to say is that the difference is that what we call antibodies differ from B cell receptors in that antibodies are soluble protein molecules, while B cell receptors are protein molecules bound to the surface of a cell, rather than soluble, and act as transmembrane receptors. It IS complex, but your source showed that they either simplified it too much, or didn’t understand it fully in the first place.
Complete nonsense
I would never base my decisions on antibody levels fo most diseases.
Serology is better at determining exposure status then protection
Gawd, the scientific illiteracy of journalists irks me. They just toss quotes out without understanding them. There is no evidence that vaccinated people are less likely to be infected. You are equating the rarity of hospitalizations and illness in vaccinated people with lack of infection. That’s not the same thing at all. Here’s what has actually been observed: vaccinated people are less likely to be symptomatic, and therefore less likely to be tested. Thus, there are fewer people who are vaccinated who have tested positive.
Here are the caveats. Those who are symptomatic very well could have as high of a viral load as those who are not vaccinated, because their immune system is likely overwhelmed, hence the symptoms. But it is important that they not only clear it faster (most of the time), but their symptoms are less severe and thus less likely to contribute to transmission.
At some point, and we might already be there, the Covid “immune” (whether by infection or by vaccination) will be the source of nearly all new infections. Thanks anti-vax/anti-maskers. The Delta surge is the result of that foolishness. Hopefully, as covid becomes endemic, new variants be less problematic (but hey, there’s room for a 1918 flu pandemic – style mutation) . But in the meantime, the Covid “naive” (those not previously exposed, or otherwise unable to form an effective immune response) will continue to get sick and sometimes die. And some of the Covid “immune” will also get sick and sometimes die, just fewer as a percent. The bad news is that the “worker shortage” is gonna get worse. The good news is all those Millenials feeling hopeless about their futures might have not just opportunity, but also power, to fill the jobs that 700,000+ dead Americans just left open and get paid better, too.
Rachael, the average age of those dying from COViD in America is around 80. How many 80 year olds do you know that work full time? Doubt Millenials are taking heart from 80 year olds leaving the workforce.
Joe–spell my name correctly if you wish to use it. Second, even if you had that data (you don’t), it’s lower for non-white populations, and the median age is getting lower. Third, at least 160,000 people who died were between 18 years and 64 years of age, and another 150k+ were between 65 and 74. But no worries, even if not enough young people died for your satisfaction, there will be plenty who will not return to work for whatever reason. Fourth, in this country, you don’t automatically get to retire simply because you reached 80 years of age–no, not a whole lot of them work full time, but 6.8% of people 75 and older still work full time, so that adds another 30k+ open jobs. And sixth, maybe my cynicism should jive with your views and I should think that Millennials should be depressed that a ton of low paid, overworked elder care jobs (that they totally want!) will be gone because, yay, all the olds died. (I honestly think we’re a doomed species based on arguments like yours, Joe.) Finally, I would like to point out the OBVIOUS sarcasm in the particular part of my response that you’re responding to, Joe. You might want to recalibrate your sarcasm meter.
Not likely to have a influenza like mutation , flu virus is much more promiscuous.
Or should I say not as likely.
Who woulda thought two years ago we would be sitting here.
Greg, if you’re trying to claim that a SARs virus is less prone to mutation than a flu virus you’re simply mistaken. And the number of mutations isn’t a significant as the nature of the mutation. We’ve seen with Delta and couple other variants that a one or three more deadly and transmissible mutations trigger new waves of death and illness.
As usual you miss the point.
I was referring to the promiscuous nature of Influenza.
Sorry
Prior to this pandemic Psterholm made the same point influenza is the most likely agent for Pandemics.
I’m not suggesting that any COVID mutation would look like a flu mutation, but coronaviruses are RNA viruses, which do mutate quite readily (which we’ve already seen, hence the delta surge). And we also know that coronaviruses can be quite deadly, like SARS and MERS. COVID is the third known major coronavirus-associated illness to emerge in 20 years. Prior to that, coronaviruses were pretty much dismissed as cold-causing nuisances. I’d like to remind you that the fatality rate of SARS was more than 10% and MERS was over 30%. Probably the most important difference between those extremely deadly diseases and COVID is that you pretty much had to be symptomatic to spread the other two, while the COVID coronavirus is much more stealthy. It’s likely that MOST transmission of COVID-19 is via individuals that are presymptomatic or asymptomatic. That is, you don’t have to feel sick (yet or ever) in order to get someone else sick. If the COVID coronavirus managed to maintain its stealth while developing the lethality of either SARS or MERS, we’re going to have one holy hell of a mess. Especially with the anti-vaxxer/anti-masker nonsense. But those of us who believe in science and the importance of protecting those more vulnerable than ourselves will probably have our validity of our belief grimly affirmed when all is said and done.
My point still stands, Influenza is more
Likely to get us.
9f course in the ned it may not matter
On average the US sees around 40k estimated flu deaths per year compared to over 700k COVID 19 fatalities, So I don’t see how we can say the flu more likely to get us during this pandemic. Even in terms of hospitalizations and illness the rates for annual flu are lower than they’ve been for COVID 19. Part of that has been due to the fact that COVID mitigations (i.e. masking, distancing, crowd avoidance, etc.) have actually reduced flu infections for the last two years. This fact is one reason why anyone claiming that masks don’t work is clearly not paying attention. In the US our cold and flu seasons have been significantly milder during the pandemic, obviously our precautions “work”, they interrupt airborne transmission.
Osterholm has been notably wrong a few times during this pandemic, and predicting that a COVID virus wouldn’t cause a pandemic was one of those. On the other hand it’s always important to remember that probability never determines actual outcome, as improbable as something may be, it can always happen. A COVID virus doesn’t have to be more “promiscuous” than the flu… it just has to promiscuous enough.
Racheal, I don’t find much sarcasm in 80 year olds dying. The workforce is not being decimated by this virus, workforce is being decimated by the country’s response to the virus. Folks are not going back to work for multiple reasons, being paid to stay home, folks afraid of the virus, employer mandates to get vaccinated (look at Southwest Airlines),working age folks dying is not even on the radar. There are 10 million job openings in USA and working age folks are not dying from COViD. Just a side note to you, CDC director Walensky said vaccinated folks are getting and passing COViD.
Well, the virus certainly hasn’t helped the workforce. A couple hundred thousand of them are dead, and likely at least a few tens of thousands have long COVID and are now disabled.
Paid to stay home…that’s expired.
Afraid of the virus…yes, probably still some of that around, and for good reason for a few (the vaccinated with solid immune systems should be over it, and if the freeloaders refusing vaccines would step up and accept the responsibilities of citizenship then the more fragile among us could enjoy more freedom in their lives.
Employer mandates…certainly far overblown. People with jobs worth keeping, minus a few nutballs we’re probably better off without, have decided to get their shots and keep their jobs.
That leaves the unfilled crappy jobs. It’s important to keep in mind those jobs were going begging BEFORE the pandemic. The pandemic only accelerated an underlying trend of very low unemployment, stagnant labor force (that’s just demographics), and rising wages (especially for low paying jobs).
Here’s my guess. We’re experiencing two things simultaneously: first, a death spiral in daycare. We either need to decide we’re going to subsidize the daylight out of daycare, or decide that we’re okay with a whole bunch of two earner households turning back into one earner households (and single parent households turning into zero earner households). Some number, likely significant, of non-returning workers are not returning because they can’t find day care for their kids. Not just at a reasonable price, at any price.
Some other number won’t return, because the finally figured out that it was better financially and personally to stay home with their kids. They realized that the cost of day care, plus lunch downtown, plus the cost of that second car they no longer need exceeded their after tax earnings. Quit your job, enjoy your kids, cook better food for the entire family (at lower cost), and the family has more money than they did before! You think that worker’s going back? Never gonna’ happen, at least not until the math starts to work. (So, I guess, in a sense, they are being paid to stay home…but not by the government…but by finally having done the math for themselves).
The staffing ratios for daycare are staggering: 1:4 for infants; 1:10 for pre-schoolers, and in between for kids in between. That’s the low end of the scale. The day-care needs to over staff a bit to cover breaks, staff to cover at least a 12 hour day, food, facility, administration, and maintenance. There’s no way a low- or middle-income paycheck covers the cost of daycare unless either employers decide to subsidize it for their employees, or we all decide to subsidize it.
The second thing: I suspect a number of people discovered they didn’t need as much money as they thought. They spent months without going to the bar, going out to eat, going to the mall as a hobby (and buying a bunch of crap they never needed), getting whatever lessons for their kids, getting their hair cut, etc. The world didn’t end. In fact, turned out, a bunch of those things weren’t really missed much at all. They were just habits. Expensive habits. Eliminate the expensive habits, and maybe you can eliminate that second job. Not just during COVID, but forever. I think a lot of second jobs, whether second job in the household or second job of an individual will also never be coming back. Not because they were paid to stay home, or afraid, but because they learned they just didn’t want the things that job afforded them enough to put up with that job.
All of that’s actually good news, except the part where people who would prefer to work can’t find daycare they can afford. Something’s going to have to give eventually, and the market cannot fix it (unless we’re willing to significantly lower standards, which I guess is an option).
Absolutely!
Were is the proof that only the unvaxxed are spreading covid? I can’t find any study that says only the unvaxxed are the spreaders.
Come now Jo, don’t you realize the new talking point is that “companies aren’t hiring due to uncertainty about MASSIVE tax increases in an as yet undelivered Joe Biden tax plan”? I mean I heard it on the Fox noisebox this morning. If one is gonna push nonsense, shouldn’t they at least make sure its the current nonsense as dictated from the party betters?
Well played, Sir.
Jeo, that’s mostly nonsense. And as for your last talking point, I already addressed that bit of silliness in my first post in response to this article. It started out with “Gawd.” Feel free to read that one.
Virus in someone’s nose is not going to infect someone else. Virus transmitted in the air will impact others. The issue not addressed is whether the unvaccinated cough and sneeze harder and more frequently and despite not feeling perfect go out in public anywhere without a mask on. Pre pandemic, people were very casual about exposing others to their illness. Those who value their freedom than the health and survival of other likely still retain these bad habits.
When we have a cold and flu season, it will be interesting to observe whether sick people stay home and whether people put on their masks and maintain social distance, because what we learned to do for COVID clearly works for diseases. Will people be better about getting the flu vaccine this year? I suspect that those who are vaccinated for COVID who haven’t gotten flu shots in the past will consider it this year.
Some employers expect you to come to work sick or not. Being a healthcare employee, if we don’t test positive for Covid, you are to be at work. Having a cold doesn’t afford the luxury of staying home.
Well, I’m not sure what Mr. Stegner is trying to say but here the relevant facts:
This COVID virus and specially the Delta variant populate the nasopharyngeal area in incredibly high levels, and those super high levels of virus do in fact make transmission much more likely. In other words the virus in your nose is EXACTLY the virus that gets transmitted and makes other people sick. Coughing and sneezing are NOT required for transmission, you will recall that one of the most alarming features of this virus is it’s transmission by asymptomatic infected people.
Several differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who get infected have been documents. Vaccinated people with breakthrough infections suffer less serious illness, and their illness has a shorter duration. Furthermore the nasopharyngeal population of COVID virus in vaccinated people decreases as significantly faster rate, they are contagious for an average of 5 days rather the 7 days among un-vaccinated people.
Finally, even if you want to talk about coughing and sneezing for some reason, since unvaccinated people get more severely ill, and remain contagious for longer periods of time… you actually predict that if they will cough and sneeze, they will cough and sneeze more than vaccinated people.
Headline:
“What’s wrong with the claim that vaccinated people can spread COVID-19 just as readily as the unvaccinated”
From the article:
“breakthrough infections… appear to be less likely to cause infections of others”
The article did not make a good case and is confusing. How much are vaccinated less likely to spread, 3%, 30%, 100%? The article does not say.
This is one of the reasons why people don’t get vaccinated. The headline talks about spreading Covid while most of the data in the article is about chances of dying with or without the vaccine. Very confusing. If there is no case, don’t write the article.
The point is that it’s irrelevant how much the vaccinated spread the disease because spreading it to other vaccinated people is unlikely to have a significant impact. The real impact (95%+ of the impact) is on the unvaccinated. If you don’t get vaccinated you can get it from pretty much anyone. And you’re WAY more likely to die. That is, saying that vaccinated people spread the disease as an excuse not to get vaccinated is like encouraging people to step out in front of busses because busses get in accidents, too.
I agree. Your comment, “it’s irrelevant how much the vaccinated spread the disease because spreading it to other vaccinated people is unlikely to have a significant impact” would have been a great headline!
And if you come up with actual data to support your claim, I would love to read that article. For instance, what do you mean by ‘significant impact”? Would the “impact” lower covid deaths by 3%, 30%, or 100%?
Ray, Ms. Kahler’s observation is well documented. The fact that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections are symptomatic and infectious for shorter durations is well established in dozens of studies at this point. Furthermore the fact that vaccinated people are far less vulnerable to infection breakthrough or otherwise, is well established. It’s also been documented that the number of breakthrough infections among the vaccinated is far far less than those who didn’t get vaccinated. And again, we’re not talking about one or five CDC studies here, we’re talking about dozens and hundreds of studies and reports worldwide. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to observe that vaccinated people causing serious illness in other vaccinated people is unlikely enough to be very nearly irrelevant. The unvaccinated are clearly in the most danger here, and their existence in sufficient numbers has caused a fourth wave of Delta variant illness.
I’m not going to cite any studies for you because this has all been reported in the regular media over the last few months, and you can find that for yourself. I know it might be frustrating for people that I keep mentioning dozens and hundreds of studies they can’t get to because those studies are behind journal pay-walls or just not circulated publicly for a variety of reasons, but the basic summations in the regular media all reflect these findings and they are widely reported. You have to go out of your way to find the misinformation and garbage anti-pandemic/vax/mask, whatever keep trying to use.
At any rate, the journals and studies and reports aren’t written for the general public, so they may not be useful even if you got them. It’s kind of like these folks who say they refuse to get the vaccine because they don’t know what’s in them… Well you CAN look up what’s in them but unless you know what: (2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide is; the ingredient list isn’t going to do you much good. And I hate to tell you this but you don’t really know what-all is in your Big Mac or your blood pressure medication either do you? Do you know what the PDR is? Have you ever looked at one? Whatever.
The point is anything anyone really needs to know is/has been available for months if not longer. If you don’t know this stuff it’s either because you didn’t pay attention or you’re not trying.
The headline mentions the difference in vaxed and non-vaxed spreading the virus. Your comment was filled with vaccine ingredients and breakthrough infections, but little on spreading the virus. Plus, no numbers.
Why write an article claiming a reduction without any references or mention of how much of a reduction? If there are numerous articles out there, one would think that including one or two would be an easy task for the author.
Ray, I think you missed the part of my comment where I stated the numbers you want are easy find if you really want look at them, or maybe I didn’t say it clearly enough. There’s an entire body of hundreds of COVID vaccine efficacy studies, reports, and documented observations right now, there’s no real scientific controversy here.
My thing is I won’t dig up links on demand because even though the ENTIRE body of literature isn’t publicly available, thanks to journalist like Ms. Kaul this information is ubiquitous at this point.
From the article:
“breakthrough infections… APPEAR to be less likely to cause infections of others”
Well there go you Ray, you should’ve read the article sooner.
One of, if not THE biggest problem this pandemic has revealed is ridiculous levels of scientific illiteracy. Combine that basic illiteracy with debate gamming dunder-heads who think they can study “t” and “b” cells on the internet and the argue about immunity and virology and you have the most absurd pandemic response of the modern era.
Unfortunately journalist aren’t always as helpful as they could be. The problem with this particular article is that it promotes the misconception that vaccine/COVID/transmission research revolves around what? 3 “studies”? The problem with picking one or two or three studies and then interviewing some expect about them is that such an approach focuses on a handful of trees at the expense of the forest. The fact is there are not just 3 or 6 or 10 studies and ongoing surveillance looking at vaccine efficacy, breakthrough infection and contagion, or viral loads and immune responses… there are hundreds of studies and reports. All of these studies and reports all point in the same direction: he vaccines we use in the US are safe and effective and they provide more robust immunity than infections. Yes there are breakthrough Delta variant infections, that’s why even if we’ve vaccinated isn’t just “theater”, that was all explained what? 8 months ago? We know that when vaccinated people get infected they are far far far less like to suffer serious illness much less death. We also know that when vaccinated people get infected they are contagious for a much shorter period of time.
This practice of picking one or two CDC “studies” and then analyzing them one way or another ignores the overwhelming and crushing evidence represented by hundreds and thousands of studies and observations worldwide.
As far as that “leaked” CDC slide back in July… that wasn’t a “study”, it was a visual aid (hence- “slide”) displaying ongoing observations and analysis. It was a snapshot of data from one of many data sets being monitored at the time. Epidemiologists and other routinely use slides like this to share their observations and there are THOUSANDS of slides like this associated with this pandemic. No, it’s not raw data, there is some analysis, but these aren’t publication ready peer reviewed “studies”. Dozens and dozens of subsequent studies, observations, and analysis have been performed since then.
It’s hard for anyone to report all of this because reporters are rarely scientists themselves, and even if they are, they’re not scientists working on this problem in this field. You see a handful of “studies” simply because you’re not plugged into the day to day ongoing crush of massive analysis and observations taking place. The people who ARE working on it don’t have time to summarize dozens of new studies and analysis on a weekly basis in a useful format for journalists or even the public.
So the “problem” with the claim that vaccinated people can be contagious isn’t whether or not the claim is true or what the CDC said or didn’t say. The problem is that anti-vaccine/mask/whatever dunderheads try to claim that these vaccines are unnecessary or irrelevant simply because they aren’t 100% effective preventing infection and transmission of the Delta variant. No matter what you think a CDC or Israeli study is saying, it’s simply idiotic to claim that the vaccines aren’t reducing transmission and saving lives. If you’ve managed to survive this pandemic thus far and your STILL arguing about this… you have managed to live through almost two years of a pandemic without learning ANYTHING about this COVID virus and illness it causes.
I believe the data says breakthrough infection has as much virus an unvaccinated person
Not surprising, since it is a breakthrough infection. They will have virus. But what everyone ignores is most exposed vaccinate won’t have a breakthrough and the time.of shedding for.a vaccinate is shorter.
Our the vaccines perfect, nope. What is so ironic is those hollering about herd immunity miss that point that is what herd immunity is all about , leasing the number and severity cases to stop.the pandemic
Greg, by the way when I refer to “Mr. Smith” in my comment below I’m referring to Joe, not you. 🙂
Yes, months ago now it was observed and documented that when vaccinated people get a breakthrough infection, the virus may colonize their nasopharyngeal area as much those who have not been vaccinated. However, as you point out- it has also been documented that despite that equivalent viral levels, vaccinated don’t get a sick as unvaccinated people, and those viral populations drop off much more quickly in those that have been vaccinated. And of course vaccinated people are dramatically less likely to get infected in the first place. The rate of breakthrough infections among the vaccinated is dramatically lower than “natural” infections.
I agree regarding those hollering about “herd immunity”… near as I can tell the never really understood the concept and how we were trying to reach it. Unfortunately this isn’t the only concept or principle of the pandemic they’ve failed to understand.
Mr. Smith (and couple others), just a couple quick points:
We’ve seen that throughout this pandemic you guys have wanted to see more people die of COVID before you would support a response to the pandemic. The fact that you continue this demand despite seeing over 700,000 Americans dies and 44 million suffer illness and infection simply speaks to a tendency towards perverse priorities. To the extent you think that dying is preferable to applying for unemployment insurance; you have spoken for yourselves and you’re priorities have been duly noted.
The Delta variant is killing more young people so your constant claims regarding people 80 or older are simply out of date. Not only is Delta killing younger people, but it’s more and more people without underlying risk factors that used to predict COVID mortality. And COVID is killing far and away more unvaccinated than unvaccinated. However, we don’t expect people who consider death and mortality to notice these facts since human death and suffering appear to be irrelevant when compared to commerce.
Regarding commerce, we have to note that in terms of recessions, the COVID recession has actually been quite mild. The COVID recession only lasted for a couple quarters in 2020 and government stimulus plan made that recession far less painful for Americans than most previous recessions. The wealthy have seen record growth in their income and wealth during the pandemic. These ongoing claims that our attempts to save lives has inflicted more damage than COVID death and illness are simply fatuous. Furthermore, this little if any evidence that States or countries that prohibited mitigation performed better economically that those who enforced mitigation efforts. Yeah, some states and countries looked like they were doing better or just as well… until they didn’t.
So maybe YOU think collecting unemployment is worse than dying… but I suspect you haven’t died recently.
By the end of this year more Americans will have died from COVID-19 under President Biden than died under President Trump, and in less time despite the presence of three effective vaccines. What we know about the virus continues to evolve and eventually we’ll learn enough to reduce the annual death rate to manageable levels or get used to the idea of it being the third highest cause of death behind cancer and heart disease.
This is actually one the weirdest attempts to restart the debate game about the pandemic we’ve seen this far.
Just statement of fact related to the subject of the article. There is no debate. The pandemic exists.
Tom, the fact is that you guys have spent the entire pandemic trying to sabotage the response. From vaccines to masks Trump and followers have to increase the suffering and death, and to the extent you’ve succeeded now you want to brag about your success in order to score a political point against Biden? We’ll let the morality of your efforts speak for themselves but we may have to talk about this the next time you claim to be the pro-“life” guys in the room.
Republicans and Fascists have always preferred to have a stable of permanent crises at their disposal but I have to admit, this cavalier celebration of a new permanent crises seems a little more…. evil. So you wanted to create the worlds most deadly permanent pandemic… and you think you succeeded? Despite multiple vaccines and extremely effective mitigation strategies, you manage to turn this into the most deadly permanent pandemic in human history. And it’s Biden’s fault! So congratulations… you won?
Whatever. For the rest of us it’s important to note the regardless of all of the unnecessary deaths and illness Trump and his minions have inflicted upon he world and our nation, no pandemic is forever. Their dream of yet another permanent crises crashes upon the rocks of reality (as they often do). No pandemic lasts forever, eventually viral infections like this burn through population and subside. The fact that we have so many people hell bent on promoting so much more death and suffering than was or is necessary is the problem we’ll have to address in the future.