Latest Lancet Study Exposes Limits Of Vaccines At Preventing COVID Infection

[VySky]

Telling are some of the details.
—-

The Lancet has just released another study comparing the efficacy of COVID vaccines to the efficacy of protection provided by previous COVID infections. Their conclusion: while vaccines lower the risk of infections with the delta variant within households, those who are fully vaccinated are still vulnerable to a 'breakthrough' infection if somebody they live with gets infected.



What's more, people who have been vaccinated against COVID can be equally as infectious as the unvaccinated, the study showed.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Lycanthrope]

Emergency use authorisations granted by the US Food and Drug Administration for three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines represent an important milestone in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data presented from the VIVALDI study by Shrotri and colleagues and other phase 3 clinical trials have shown robust vaccine efficacies (>85%) at preventing severe symptomatic disease. Although rare, emerging reports describe breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in fully vaccinated individuals. [emphasis mine]

DEFINE_ME

 

[Mr Person]

Still trying to get people killed with COVID disinfo, huh?




What?

It's not like anyone could seriously believe that they should not get vaccinated because vaccines are not 100% effective magical shields. You could apply that idiotic unlogic to anything and get a completely hopeless result. Might as well attack the ideas of driving with necessary vision correction and while sober because you could still get in a fatal accident and promote driving blind drunk without one's glasses. You know, for freedoms.

 

[fireflygmf]

Telling are some of the details.
—-

The Lancet has just released another study comparing the efficacy of COVID vaccines to the efficacy of protection provided by previous COVID infections. Their conclusion: while vaccines lower the risk of infections with the delta variant within households, those who are fully vaccinated are still vulnerable to a 'breakthrough' infection if somebody they live with gets infected.



What's more, people who have been vaccinated against COVID can be equally as infectious as the unvaccinated, the study showed.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Yep, and also far less likely to need hospital resources and far less likely to die, which is really what we're after, isn't it?

 

[VySky]

The study showed that vaccination status doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the ability to pass COVID on to others.

 

[Grim17]

Telling are some of the details.
—-

The Lancet has just released another study comparing the efficacy of COVID vaccines to the efficacy of protection provided by previous COVID infections. Their conclusion: while vaccines lower the risk of infections with the delta variant within households, those who are fully vaccinated are still vulnerable to a 'breakthrough' infection if somebody they live with gets infected.



What's more, people who have been vaccinated against COVID can be equally as infectious as the unvaccinated, the study showed.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

I found this sentence in the article quite interesting:

"The data showed that vaccination status doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the ability to pass COVID on to others."​

​

If that's true, it takes away the primary reason used to justify implementing vaccine mandates. But knowing the people who support those mandates, including the Biden Administration, this will mean nothing to them and they will simply manufacture another reason to justify forcing people to take medicine against their will.

.

 

[fireflygmf]

The data showed that vaccination status doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the ability to pass COVID on to others.

I completely agree. Here is a hypothetical: Is this relevant if a population is made resistant to severe outcomes via vaccination?

 

[fireflygmf]

I found this sentence in the article quite interesting:

"The data showed that vaccination status doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the ability to pass COVID on to others."​

​

If that's true, it takes away the primary reason used to justify implementing vaccine mandates. But knowing the people who support those mandates, including the Biden Administration, this will mean nothing to them and they will simply manufacture another reason to justify forcing people to take medicine against their will.

.

The primary reason to me is to avoid hospitalization or death. It's only these outcomes that make people care about any virus...

Nobody cares when other common cold coronaviruses run rampant through our population, because it kills only a relative few. If the vaccines protect us from severe outcomes, who cares if it spreads?

 

[Lycanthrope]

“1. That viral peak viral is similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, though viral load declines somewhat more rapidly in vaccinated individuals. This finding is not surprising but could be subject to misunderstanding. What we do know is that vaccinated people are rather less likely to get sick from COVID compared to unvaccinated people. But when they do get sick the severity of illness is broadly corelated with viral load https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19057-5 and so it is not surprising that similarly ill people will shed roughly the same amount of virus whether vaccinated or not. So this finding does not mean that vaccinations are not doing an effective job and this can be seen in the secondary attack rates in household contacts where the protective effect of full prior vaccination prior to exposure is clear.

expert reaction to study on household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 looking at vaccination status and variant type | Science Media Centre

This study does not justify what you're trying to make it justify.

 

[JasperL]

From the study:

172 (18%) of 969 patients had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at the time of admission to hospital. Among these patients, 103 had received a partial vaccine course (one dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273), 15 had received a complete course (two doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 or one dose of Ad.26.COV2.S within 14 days before symptom onset or a positive PCR test), and 54 were fully vaccinated (appendix pp 1–2).

In other words, of 969 patients, 94.43% were not fully vaccinated.

"Patients deemed to have a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection—ie, the 54 patients who were fully vaccinated—were evaluated for illness severity. Among this cohort, we found that 25 (46%) patients were asymptomatic (admitted to hospital for a non-COVID-19-related diagnosis but with an incidental positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2), four (7%) had mild disease, 11 (20%) had moderate disease, and 14 (26%) had severe or critical illness. Among those with severe or critical illness, the median age was 80·5 years (IQR 76·5–85·0); four of 14 patients required intensive care, one required mechanical ventilation, and three died. Pre-existing comorbidities in the 14 patients with severe or critical illness included overweight (body–mass index >25 kg/m2; n=9), cardiovascular disease (n=12), lung disease (n=7), malignancy (n=4), type 2 diabetes (n=7), and use of an immunosuppressive agent (n=4; appendix pp 3). 13 of 14 patients had received BNT162b2 [ (appendix p 1–2)."

Of that small number of fully vaccinated, including those admitted for other reasons, only 26% had a serious case. What's interesting to me is of those fully vaccinated who had a serious case, 13 of 14 had the Pfizer vaccine..... Glad I was given Moderna.

So the study is a testament to how effective the vaccines are in preventing 1) cases ad 2) serious cases.

 

[Grim17]

The primary reason to me is to avoid hospitalization or death. It's only these outcomes that make people care about any virus...

Nobody cares when other common cold coronaviruses run rampant through our population, because it kills only a relative few. If the vaccines protect us from severe outcomes, who cares if it spreads?

The thing is, if being unvaccinated doesn't increase the ability to spread the virus, then the only threat the unvaccinated pose is to themselves... Therefore, the government has absolutely no right to mandate the vaccine and no right to punish anyone for not taking it.

.

 

[Jetboogieman]

The thing is, if being unvaccinated doesn't increase the ability to spread the virus, then the only threat the unvaccinated pose is to themselves... Therefore, the government has absolutely no right to mandate the vaccine and no right to punish anyone for not taking it.

.

Completely and totally untrue.

One of the greatest threats of covid is its infectious rate and the scale at which it puts so many people in the hospital simultaneously.

Therefore you do affect others when you do not do something simple to decrease your likelihood of ending up hospitalized, because waves of covid have overwhelmed healthcare resources in many places and puts others lives at risk who may not get the care they need, especially those non-essential procedures cancelled and backlogged now that will heavily impact the well being of people.

But you don't care, why care about your fellow man when you can pwn the libs?

amirite grim?

Selfishness, irresponsibility and sociopathic behavior are now the standard for American Conservatives it seems.

 

[Grim17]

Completely and totally untrue.

One of the greatest threats of covid is its infectious rate and the scale at which it puts so many people in the hospital simultaneously.

Therefore you do affect others when you do not do something simple to decrease your likelihood of ending up hospitalized, because waves of covid have overwhelmed healthcare resources in many places and puts others lives at risk who may not get the care they need, especially those non-essential procedures cancelled and backlogged now that will heavily impact the well being of people.

But you don't care, why care about your fellow man when you can pwn the libs?

amirite grim?

Selfishness, irresponsibility and sociopathic behavior are now the standard for American Conservatives it seems.

Again, I'm vaccinated... But just because I'm vaccinated, doesn't mean everyone should be forced to take the vaccine.

If the unvaccinated and vaccinated pose the same risk of spreading the virus, then there is no justification for mandating the vaccine. People are still free to protect themselves in any way they see fit, that includes whether or not they want to receive the vaccine.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's freedom and it's the American way.

 

[mike2810]

Looks like the OP article promotes the effectiveness of the vaccine along with the need for other safety protocals. (social distancing and masks).

Devil is in the details., OP.

 

[Jetboogieman]

If the unvaccinated and vaccinated pose the same risk of spreading the virus, then there is no justification for mandating the vaccine.

First of all, that's not set in stone.

And secondly thanks for completely bypassing my point because there's no way you can argue against it.

Not a chance in hell.

How small and pathetic American Conservatism has become, previous generations of Americans had to sacrifice through wars and oppression and here comes the modern American Conservative that doesn't want to lift a finger for their country.

Getting out of this situation has to cost us something and I'd say given what has had to have been sacrificed in the past... I'd call a needle in the arm a bargain.

 

[Grim17]

Looks like the OP article promotes the effectiveness of the vaccine along with the need for other safety protocals. (social distancing and masks).

Devil is in the details., OP.

Of course it promotes those things... If people fear contracting the virus, along with getting vaccinated they should wear a mask and practice social distancing. Hell, they can even self isolate if they think it's necessary... That's their choice.

.

 

[Grim17]

First of all, that's not set in stone.

That's why in my first response I said "If that's true...".

How small and pathetic American Conservatism has become, previous generations of Americans had to sacrifice through wars and oppression and here comes the modern American Conservative that doesn't want to lift a finger for their country.

Getting out of this situation has to cost us something and I'd say given what has had to have been sacrificed in the past... I'd call a needle in the arm a bargain.

Your condescending attitude and unprovoked insults are the reason I gave up trying to have a conversation with you long ago.

 

[roguenuke]

If out of 100 people, 10 have the virus, 1 vaccinated and the other 9 not, that means that you are less likely to get covid from a vaccinated person than unvaccinated person just from a single contact. Now, if over the course of 10 days, you have at least one contact per day with one person who was vaccinated/infected and one person unvaccinated/infected, each contact with that person while they are themselves infectious increases your risk of contracting covid. Yes, that vaccinated/infected person has a risk of giving you covid, but it is most likely (on average) for less/fewer days than the unvaccinated person because the vaccinated person is likely going to get over the infection, become unable to infect others faster than the unvaccinated person.

These calculations all go into actual risk.

 

[mrjurrs]

Telling are some of the details.
—-

The Lancet has just released another study comparing the efficacy of COVID vaccines to the efficacy of protection provided by previous COVID infections. Their conclusion: while vaccines lower the risk of infections with the delta variant within households, those who are fully vaccinated are still vulnerable to a 'breakthrough' infection if somebody they live with gets infected.



What's more, people who have been vaccinated against COVID can be equally as infectious as the unvaccinated, the study showed.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Will you ever do a thread on what vaccinations actually are supposed to do? They prevent death and serious cases (think hospitalizations). Do you dispute that also?

 

[Lex Talionis]

Your condescending attitude and unprovoked insults are the reason I gave up trying to have a conversation with you long ago.

His attitude is well founded. He also did not insult you. You should go back to school if that's your takeaway of what was said.

 

[JasperL]

That's why in my first response I said "If that's true...".

But the fact we don't know if or how much protection vaccines provide against infection of the vaccinated, then spread, is extremely relevant to vaccine decisions that are being made in conditions of uncertainty. If you're making the decision, should you assume vaccines do nothing to protect against spread when the data are not clear? If your duty is to save lives, of course not - that would be reckless and irresponsible to place a bet that way.

Furthermore, even if the vaccine offers zero protection against infection and spread, we know with very HIGH certainty that vaccines are incredibly effective against serious cases. Those serious cases, whether ending in death, lifelong complications or full recovery, all come with costs that go beyond the affected family member. Either the government is funding that $100,000 or $300,000 hospital bill and possible additional health problems for those who survive (e.g. blood clots requiring additional surgery for a friend of ours), or private insurance is, and either way those costs are being paid mostly by someone other than the person who got a serious case. If the unvaccinated and seriously ill had the courtesy to get very ill and possibly die at home, then we CAN say their decision impacts only them. But for obvious reasons they seek hospital care, and that impacts society well beyond the person and/or his or her family. Point is society broadly has a compelling interest in "just" preventing serious cases and deaths, with deaths coming with other lifelong impacts beyond the immediate family.

FWIW, the impact of the unvaccinated on the healthcare system is real and in fact another compelling reason for vaccine mandates. You ignored that. Second, even in a company, vaccines prevent serious cases, therefore labor shortages, disruption when a key person is out for weeks or months recovering, and the costs associated with the direct care and having employees, perhaps many, out sick. So, again, those impacts go beyond that employee, standing alone, and argue in favor of employer vaccine mandates.

So the argument you're making is essentially, "IF WE IGNORE all the many ways that COVID impacts society beyond the person directly infected, and focus only on spread, then mandates make no sense." But of course mandates consider all those costs, and should consider them all, even if vaccines do nothing to prevent spread and we simply cannot conclude that with the data available.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Telling are some of the details.
—-

The Lancet has just released another study comparing the efficacy of COVID vaccines to the efficacy of protection provided by previous COVID infections. Their conclusion: while vaccines lower the risk of infections with the delta variant within households, those who are fully vaccinated are still vulnerable to a 'breakthrough' infection if somebody they live with gets infected.



What's more, people who have been vaccinated against COVID can be equally as infectious as the unvaccinated, the study showed.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

A key takeaway is that the unvaccinated were 50% more likely to get infected IN A HOUSEHOLD SETTING. It is noteworthy that a household setting is a lot different than other settings in which people can get infected.

 

[fireflygmf]

The thing is, if being unvaccinated doesn't increase the ability to spread the virus, then the only threat the unvaccinated pose is to themselves... Therefore, the government has absolutely no right to mandate the vaccine and no right to punish anyone for not taking it.

.

There is the stress of society to handle the burden of death and severe illness to consider. Otherwise I agree that it's mostly the unvaccinated that suffer COVID directly... But the stress on the system is a side effect that affects everyone.

 

[KingLeo]

Vaccination protects against Covid-19 more strongly than previous infection does, CDC study finds​

Vaccination protects against Covid-19 more strongly than previous infection does, CDC study finds

Vaccination protects people against coronavirus infection much better than having been previously infected does, a team of researchers led by the CDC reported Friday.

www.cnn.com

 

[Slavister]

There is no surprises here. BTW, noone seems to have linked to the real study.

It showed that viral load despite being similar at first declined faster within vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

This means that in household setting, where you see closely interact with SAME people every day, chances are you'd infect them with similar frequency.

However in OTHER settings, outside the household, where you see different people at different times, you infect them LESS if you are vaccinated (since you are more likely LESS infectious when you see those other people).

In other words, for the first few days you might have similar viral shedding and thus infect people but after that vaccinated ones infect less. So if you meet infected vaccinated person when they happen to be shedding less, there is less chance of a bad outcome for you.

Side note - they also found that "SAR [secondary attack rate] in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals." So even in household settings, vaccinated ones appeared to be more protected from that infection.