Promising New Vaccine from Walter Reed Enters Trials

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
To say it differently, the state of being "asymptomatic" is no different for an unvaccinated person say +16 hours after contracting the virus versus a vaccinated person being "asymptomatic" +96 hours after contracting the virus. Both people are not hacking or feverish or visibly ill (the unvaccinated person will eventually get there at say +96 hours while the vaccinated person may never become symptomatic), but if they have virus particles on their person, .... they are still spreaders.

Like I said, I am very curious about the data that suggests this, and I'd like to understand how the explain/rationalize it.

i think this is where you're making an unwarranted assumption, and the difference is, i think, due to viral load. basically, everyone is not carrying or shedding equal amounts of virus.

i believe, and i do not have a source at my fingertips for this right now, that the amount of viral load a person carries makes the difference in whether they get sick and how sick they get, so while some people may technically have a few particles of virus in their system, it is not enough that they could reasonably infect another person. that is just me theorizing based on what i've learned about how viruses spread in general.

there is data out there about whether vaccinated people test positive for covid and they have shown that vaccinated people are less likely to be asymptomatic carriers as well. again, apologies for not having it at my fingertips... my folder of covid bookmarks has gotten a bit unwieldy in the last few weeks.

Presumably there is more recent data you're referring to that you feel will substantiate your claim regarding vaccinated individuals and their 'viral load'/capability to spread the virus, but I wanted to point you to this document published by Pfizer & WHO earlier in the year. It is entitled Interim recommendations for use of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2, under Emergency Use Listing.

In particular, you should direct your attention to page 5, "Other Considerations" section, paragraph under "Role of vaccines among other preventive measures"

Role of vaccines among other preventive measures
As there is not yet any evidence of an effect of the vaccine on transmission, non-pharmaceutical interventions must continue,
including use of face masks, physical distancing, handwashing and other measures based on the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in
particular settings. Government advice on non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be followed by vaccinated
individuals, as well as those who have not yet been vaccinated. This advice will be updated as information on the impact of
vaccination on virus transmission and indirect protection in the community is assessed.

Basically, Pfizer refrained from publishing the claim you're making (i.e. vaccinated individuals are less likely to spread the virus); they're position was to claim 'insufficient data'.

Even if there are newer studies that contradict this stance, a) I'd want to hear the commentary/reaction from the vaccine manufacturers themselves on the data and b) I'd expect this claim to be peer reviewed and the study repeated numerous times to confirm validity of the results.

In time, it may turn out that your claim is in fact TRUE, and that vaccinated individuals DO "shed/spread" the virus in a diminished capacity, but right now, there is little evidence to support this claim, and any studies that DO make this assertion have not had much time to gestate with others in the scientific community, nor be repeated and confirmed.

In the meantime, I've been assurred by numerous individuals that it's an unassailable FACT that vaccinated people DON'T spread the virus (contradicting what Pfizer themselves printed earlier this year), which tells me that the news outlets they get their "facts" from are strongly pushing this narrative, with AT BEST young and unsubstantiated/verified data.

Whenever you get around to it, it'd be useful if you can post some backing research that bolsters your claim that vaccinated people do NOT spread the virus or do so at significantly smaller rate than un-vacccinated individuals.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

For instance, according to Vox, a working paper—not yet peer-reviewed—released Friday in The Lancet assessed thousands of Covid-19 screenings among health care workers at a hospital in Cambridge, England, including both unvaccinated staff and staff who had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

The researchers found that, among the unvaccinated staff, 0.80% tested positive for the coronavirus. In comparison, among staff who had received the vaccine, only 0.37% tested positive less than 12 days after their vaccination, and just 0.20% tested positive more than 12 days after vaccination.

According to Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University and co-leader of the study, the results suggest the risk of developing asymptomatic Covid-19 is four times less among health care workers who have been vaccinated for at least 12 days.

Meanwhile, a press released on a pre-published, not-yet-peer-reviewed paper from the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer found that the vaccine appeared to reduce all coronavirus infections—including asymptomatic infections—by 89.4% and symptomatic infections by 93.7%.

Do Covid-19 vaccines stop coronavirus transmission? Here's what research says.

During the trial of Moderna's vaccine, produced in Boston, researchers swabbed all participants to see if they had any viral RNA. They saw a two-thirds drop in the number of asymptomatic infections among people who received the first shot of the two-dose vaccine, compared with those who received a placebo

The UK trial of the vaccine produced by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca swabbed participants every week, and estimated a 49.3% reduction in asymptomatic infections among a subset of vaccinated participants compared with the unvaccinated group.

Can COVID vaccines stop transmission? Scientists race to find answers

hopefully these can get you started

originally posted by: fiverx313

For instance, according to Vox, a working paper—not yet peer-reviewed—released Friday in The Lancet assessed thousands of Covid-19 screenings among health care workers at a hospital in Cambridge, England, including both unvaccinated staff and staff who had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

The researchers found that, among the unvaccinated staff, 0.80% tested positive for the coronavirus. In comparison, among staff who had received the vaccine, only 0.37% tested positive less than 12 days after their vaccination, and just 0.20% tested positive more than 12 days after vaccination.

According to Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University and co-leader of the study, the results suggest the risk of developing asymptomatic Covid-19 is four times less among health care workers who have been vaccinated for at least 12 days.

Meanwhile, a press released on a pre-published, not-yet-peer-reviewed paper from the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer found that the vaccine appeared to reduce all coronavirus infections—including asymptomatic infections—by 89.4% and symptomatic infections by 93.7%.

As mentioned, "pre published, not-yet-peer-reviewed" studies are not going to convince me. When this is peer reviewed and positively confirmed by multiple independent teams (especially research bodies NOT linked/funded by the vaccine manufacturers themselves), that will become more convincing to me.

originally posted by: fiverx313
Do Covid-19 vaccines stop coronavirus transmission? Here's what research says.

During the trial of Moderna's vaccine, produced in Boston, researchers swabbed all participants to see if they had any viral RNA. They saw a two-thirds drop in the number of asymptomatic infections among people who received the first shot of the two-dose vaccine, compared with those who received a placebo

The UK trial of the vaccine produced by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca swabbed participants every week, and estimated a 49.3% reduction in asymptomatic infections among a subset of vaccinated participants compared with the unvaccinated group.

Can COVID vaccines stop transmission? Scientists race to find answers

hopefully these can get you started

The subtitle of the nature piece you linked is...

Controlling the pandemic will require shots that prevent viral spread, but that feature is difficult to measure.

The piece from Nature is merely re-hashing the joint Israeli-Pfizer study you referenced in the link above. There is mention in this story of other studies from a Brazilian team and a team in the UK, but I'm not seeing where they published results yet.

To summarize, from the Nature article...

But whether these observed reductions in viral load are sufficient to make someone less infectious in real life is not yet clear, say researchers.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
As mentioned, "pre published, not-yet-peer-reviewed" studies are not going to convince me. When this is peer reviewed and positively confirmed by multiple independent teams (especially research bodies NOT linked/funded by the vaccine manufacturers themselves), that will become more convincing to me.

then i suppose you will have to wait a bit longer

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
As mentioned, "pre published, not-yet-peer-reviewed" studies are not going to convince me. When this is peer reviewed and positively confirmed by multiple independent teams (especially research bodies NOT linked/funded by the vaccine manufacturers themselves), that will become more convincing to me.

then i suppose you will have to wait a bit longer

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.

However, the negative stigma of being labeled an "anti-vaxer" (even though I've been fully vaccinated for all previous serious pathogens, and I've had my children vaccinated for all of the usual suspects) is growing every day, in the media, and in the people that consume that "information" as gospel.

I am in fact PRO VACCINE for those that feel they are high-risk or feel that the vaccine improves their prognosis on dealing with the virus.

My position is:

1) I prefer to wait for more data on the vaccines before I take it, especially as I'm not currently in any risk categories for comorbidity

2) My children will NOT receive this vaccine until either sufficient time has passed to accumulate data to definitively prove its safety, ~OR~ more deadly strains of the virus surface ~OR~ they are old enough to decide on their own.

As I said, though, the negative pressure and artificial urgency for an otherwise healthy, low-risk individual to take the jab is building by the day, despite insufficient evidence that getting the vaccine will even prevent me from spreading the virus to those around me.

That is not a "data driven" argument.

The media is pushing a narrative that getting vaccinated is a social imperative WITHOUT all the facts.

It's just another example of how the MSM is not a trustworthy source of information as it pertains to decisions like this, and everybody should endeavor to do their own research on what's best for them personally and their loved ones.

The thumbnail for the video in the OP is horrifying. Those faces are the last thing you see before you die lol.

Other than that cool vaccine i guess. I hope they test this one more thoroughly than the others.

a reply to: incoserv

Same here, all this "scientist" knows the cold virus have not cure but is good to make all kind of "vaccines" to lure people to get injected so this companies makes money.

Meanwhile "corona is a cold virus" and is been around for a long time and will be around long after our life time, but is one thing for sure the darn synthetic crap that is been injected into humans will be in people's body for life and still will get sick with the cold virus name covid.