I just got an email from my healthcare organization, informing me that they are currently vaccinating their front line healthcare workers, and will begin vaccinating patients 75 and older (my age group) next week. This is sooner than I expected.
I very happy that my 95 year old and very active, independent, and sharp grandmother is now scheduled to get her first shot of the vaccination later this month. It will be a relief when she finally get it. Then she will be able to go back to doing all of the things she likes to do and stop sitting around her house.
Screw that. She's 95. Once she's fully vaccinated, I think she should go back to doing what she likes doing. While she is quite healthy and independent now, she can't count on being in such good health in perpetuity. The isolation is more likely to lead to a decline and ultimately her death.
Until there is sufficient data to tell us whether vaccination makes us unlikely to transmit the virus to others, I would think that at least mask wearing would be the responsible thing to do.
I brought up mask wearing because I think it's important, especially when people start resuming normal activities.
If I was 95 and 14 days after the second dose I would be out there in the world and take my chances. ...while wearing a mask. Just to be polite.
Can you cite a source for that? I’m not sure that’s true and, in fact, would think it’s the opposite, for several reasons. First, while the vaccines quote a 95% success rate, natural infection so far has resulted in what appears to be 99.999+% effective: the number of actual second infections worldwide seems to be in the single digits and I’m not sure anyone with an actual antibody response to the first infection has truly gotten a second infection. Second, and unlike almost all other vaccines, the Covid one presents the immune system with only one piece of the virus: the spike protein. A natural infection exposes the immune system to the spike protein plus the rest of the virus. I’m not sure immune response to those other bits adds protection BUT it seems there’s no less response than from the vaccine. One geeky technical footnote: exposure to Hepatitis B doesn’t necessarily give one immunity and the vaccine helps the body make an antibody to a component of the virus - an antibody not everyone who’s infected makes. I haven’t heard anything to suggest Covid has the same issue. As in a previous post of mine, don’t confuse a declining/low antibody TITER with decreased IMMUNITY. Decreased TITERs are common after infections yet the immunity persists, typically for years or decades. Not trying to be argumentative at all and am sincerely interested in seeing something which helps me learn otherwise. That said, it’s important for people to know when and how they’re truly protected or at risk. /A Family Practice physician but by no means an immunology or virology expert
My understanding is that the specific testing that has been done proves that the vaccines prevent people from getting seriously ill, but it doesn't prove that they prevent people from being contageous.
But it would seem quite likely that if a person has an immune response that it would kill off enough of the virus before it infects enough cells that the host would shed the virus in sufficient quantities to infect others, and that even if there was some period of infectiousness, the length of time the host would be infectious would be dramatically reduced.
From what I have read, the answer is likely. Basically, scientists so far have said the trials for the vaccines were designed around gathering data to around the numbers of people who need medical care. To gather the data to see if you are infectious requires a different protocol which is more intensive and takes longer to gather. So it was decided early on, to not focus on the virus shedding aspect, and instead glean this from follow up studies and meta-data. Again, assuming I follow the articles correctly. Historically, the majority of the vaccines do grant immunity, but there were from high profile ones which did not. Assuming I recall correctly, there was one in the 80s, and also a recent ones for teen girls to help prevent cancel in the future (I forget the names) which actually did not grant immunity but granted protection against medical care being required. So for now, they do not "know" the answer; but they do "suspect" an answer. Tim
Has there been enough time/date to study the relative infectiousness of (layman terms here) asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, symptomatic, and post-symptomatic people (before we even get to vaccinated people)? It's my understanding that the working assumption has been to just treat everyone as equally infectious if tested positive for the virus.
If the vaccine does not prevent someone from contracting/spreading Cv-19 than vaccinated "persons" do not automatically move into the "immune" group required for herd immunity. Dispensed amongst those with the highest risk, vaccines would reduce the number of deaths and associated complications but the total number of "contracted CV-19 and recovered, no longer can contract it and spread it" infections required for herd immunity remains the same with/without the vaccine.
Is that correct? Even if the vaccine does not make one immune, it could certainly reduce the risk of infection by a vaccinated person by reducing the amount of replication-competent virus, reducing the period of infectiousness, and the severity of new infections-- all of with would bring down the r0. Would that not change the total number necessary for effective herd immunity?
I suspect that bdtaz's 2nd paragraph (the one you quoted) was conditional... depending on the "if" in the first paragraph but I might be over-analyzing things...
If a vaccinated person sill can contract CV-19 and spread it at the same rate a non-vaccinated person can contract and spread it, then "Vaccinated" does not change that persons impact on herd immunity. Still will need around 60 to 70%(depends on the actual Ro of the virus; the WHO and CDC estimate of "around 2.7" sets it in that range) of the population to be immune to contracting and also unable to re-transmit CV-19. Again, not about reducing the total number of fatalities and complications(which the vaccine should do if administered quickly to "those at high risk" before they can contract Cv-19 "naturally"); it is about reaching herd immunity where the virus can no longer find hosts to infect.
And...If this is the case, there is no herd immunity to be gained by vaccinating. Until almost everyone catches it and is truly immune, it'll still spread through the community to vaccinated AND unvaccinated people at a more or less unchecked rate. The main difference will be that the vaccinated folks will be much less likely to suffer severe infections...Right?
Assuming I follow the subtle distinctions correctly, the vaccine efficacy is based on needing medical care, not "severity". Tim
That's the gist of it. In my understanding, it is "known" Vaccinations should minimize the impact of being infected but if it doesn't actually stop one from being infected/becoming contagious(which is unknown at this time) the total number of infected persons required for herd immunity wouldn't change.
At the risk of creating a, ahem, storm... if vaccinations don't slow transmission, and instead just prevents severe cases (and deaths), then once people are vaccinated shouldn't we dump the various NPIs (masks, distance, etc)? Otherwise we are just slowing the inevitable spread of the virus, yes? (and no, I'm not forgetting about the people who can't be vaccinated)
Maybe we should wait until we know what effect the vaccines have on transmissibility before we make that decision.
If the vaccine makes CV-19 a "non-event" if one is infected, and all that desire the vaccine have access to the vaccine, it would seem "NPIs" will have outlived their (arguable) usefulness at that time.
I suspect that many jurisdictions will base NPI continuance/discontinuance on specific metrics. Percentage of available hospital space is a big one in some states right now.
The premise was "If". No telling if the premise is accurate, and you're correct, we need an answer to this one so we can take the correct action(s) going forward.
What a quandary. 95% of people get vaccinated, but must continue social distancing out of respect for the 5%. Yowza.
Once the vaccine is available to all in the general population, then it would seem the onus would pass to individual members of that population to choose their risk tolerance. Just like they do for things like severe allergic reactions(shellfish and nuts for example), annual flu shots, alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy foods, etc.
The difference is the hard part. With smoking or doughnuts, you can choose not to partake of that particular thing. Going out into public doesn't put a cigarette in your hand or a doughnut in your stomach. You manage those individual things and live your life as you want. With CV, you don't know who has it, so your avoidance recourse is to stay locked up. Uggh.
Same as those with a deadly allergy to many other common things(like bee stings) or live with an already compromised immune system. They likely did not choose their challenge but they already have to manage their life as best they can. The world cannot be made perfectly safe for all.
Your perspective seems to suggest you feel there only two possible options. Either never leave the house or dramatically increase your risk of exposure. I work in the office 5 days a week. I patronize those local businesses that enforce their mask policies or offer curb side pickup. I am most definitely not staying locked up. But other than my wife I have not been within 6' of an uncovered mouth or nose for more than a few seconds in the last 10 months. Yes life is definitely different. We don't do any concerts or life performances, we don't do in restaurant dining. But we're also not staying locked up. Its possible to be relatively safe without being completely locked up.
