Research on Coronavirus Transmission
A team of researchers from the UK recently studied how fully vaccinated individuals transmit the coronavirus compared to unvaccinated individuals. The study shows similarity when it comes to vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of peak viral load.
The study was published on the Lancet Infectious Diseases on October 29. You can check the full text here.
The researchers used the contact tracing system of the UK to follow the household contacts of 471 individuals who tested positive for Covid-19. The researchers collected upper respiratory test samples from the household contacts daily for 20 days and measured the viral load.
[wpadcenter_adgroup adgroup_ids=141 align=’none’ num_ads=1 num_columns=1]
In epidemiology, the main concept that was used was secondary attack rate, or the proportion of the household contacts who test positive following contact to the primary case.
It was funded by the National Institute for Health Research of the UK. Notable interests declared by researchers are with GAVI, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank, and WHO.
Findings
The findings of the study show that faster viral load growth correlates to higher peak viral load, regardless of vaccination status. We do not know what determines faster viral load growth, but the study suggests that age is a factor.
During early days of infection, the virus is particularly infectious and increases as it takes over host cells. The faster the virus infects the cells, the higher the peak of viral load will be. In their findings, it shows that vaccinated individuals also follow the same trajectory as unvaccinated individuals. In short, the vaccine does not prevent the cells from getting infected.
The study goes on to say, “SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated)”.
It also states, “The SAR 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.”.
In simple terms, if a household member is vaccinated and is infected, he has 25% chance of infecting others in the household. Otherwise, if the household member is not vaccinated, he has a 23% chance of infecting others in the household. Pretty much the same.
On the other hand, if you are a household member exposed to infection from the one who first got infected, the results say that you have 25% chance of getting the infection if you are vaccinated; 39% chance of getting it if unvaccinated.
Are Mandates Worth it?
The study says that ‘Host-viral interactions’ early in infection may shape the entire viral load trajectory. In light of the mandates are being imposed in many states, it is worth revisiting the data. The findings does not directly say it, but the researchers say that “Although peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type, it increased modestly with age (difference of 0·39 [95% credible interval –0·03 to 0·79] in peak log10 viral load per mL between those aged 10 years and 50 years).” From that statement, we can somehow infer that the natural immunity that wanes with age may affect infectiousness.
The study also says that “12 (39%) of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases, further confirmed by genomic and virological analysis in three index case–contact pairs.”. This means that there are certain cases which can be traced backed to fully vaccinated cases.
The study also shows that there is some protection given against Delta cases by vaccination. Nevertheless, you can still transmit it by a chance of 1 every 4 household contact in 20 days. In this light, what’s the point of mandates in terms of public health?
None.
Reactions to Lancet Study
Flatly undermines Vaxports. Again. Luke O Neill and Pat Kenny both ought to read The Lancet and use plain critical thinking to reach conclusion that Vaxports are chocolate teapots, their only benefit is coercion if you are of authoritarian mind.
Flatly undermines Vaxports. Again. Luke O Neill and Pat Kenny both ought to read The Lancet and use plain critical thinking to reach conclusion that Vaxports are chocolate teapots, their only benefit is coercion if you are of authoritarian mind. https://t.co/oUUnwWReN8
— Eddie Hobbs 🙂 (@RealEddieHobbs) October 29, 2021
The Lancet study which shows that fully vaccinated people are equally as infectious as unvaccinated should signal the end of #VaccinePassports . There is no scientific basis for them. But will Government and NPHET admit they are wrong? #Covid19 @CMOIreland @LeoVaradkar
The Lancet study which shows that fully vaccinated people are equally as infectious as unvaccinated should signal the end of #VaccinePassports . There is no scientific basis for them. But will Government and NPHET admit they are wrong? #Covid19 @CMOIreland @LeoVaradkar
— Irish Freedom Party (@IrexitFreedom) October 28, 2021
In other words: Guardian implicitly admits that the Lancet has admitted that the unvaxxed pose no health threat to the vaxxed. That's the arguments for mandatory vaxxing in the workplace and schools blown to smithereens by the very purveyors of those spurious suppositions.
In other words:
— Michael O'Bernicia (@TheBernician) October 29, 2021
Guardian implicitly admits that the Lancet has admitted that the unvaxxed pose no health threat to the vaxxed.
That's the arguments for mandatory vaxxing in the workplace and schools blown to smithereens by the very purveyors of those spurious suppositions. https://t.co/IjmfLvVV4L
[wpadcenter_adgroup adgroup_ids=141 align=’none’ num_ads=1 num_columns=1]