Tenman
Well-Known Member
Just found out. No booster for me cause I got Moderna.
Not yet. They're supposed to be working on the release date. I'm a Modernite also.Just found out. No booster for me cause I got Moderna.
Thanks for finding something, Not very conclusive though. And not enough evidence to support the absolute statements on vital load. Look at their own graph.Mak10 said:
Please, show me where vaccinated people have a lesser viral load.
From the March edition of Nature Medicine
Initial report of decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load after inoculation with the BNT162b2 vaccine - Nature Medicine
Breakthrough infections of SARS-CoV-2 occurring 12 or more days after the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine were associated with lower viral loads than those found in unvaccinated individuals, suggesting that the vaccine might reduce infectiousness.www.nature.com
This is not a controlled experiment and the authors are very careful to note the short comings of the information available. If you read the full article, it is interesting and in my amateur opinion, well done in the data analysis for what was available. I encourage you to read the full article. I pulled the following excerpt.
"The results show that infections occurring 12 d or longer after vaccination have significantly reduced viral loads at the time of testing, potentially affecting viral shedding and contagiousness as well as the severity of the disease13. This report is based on an observational study, not a randomized controlled trial, and has several associated limitations. First, the group of vaccinees might differ from the demographically matched control group in ways that could affect the observed viral load, such as behavior, tendency to get tested and general health status. Second, the different viral variants, which could be associated with different viral loads, might affect different parts of the population. Third, by including only the first positive test for each patient, we attempted to minimize the effect of long-term, low-viral-load infections, but it is still possible that the association we observed, especially in the early post-vaccination days, reflects infections lasting from pre-immunization transmission events9,10,11,12. The average viral load might, therefore, continue to change in longer post-vaccination times, when infections are more strongly enriched for post-immunization transmissions, or due to change in vaccinee behavior, especially upon obtaining a vaccination certificate. Fourth, given that vaccines prevent symptomatic disease, post-vaccination tests might be enriched for cases of asymptomatic carriage characterized by lower viral load, although we note that the association of vaccination with low viral load remains even when adjusting for symptomatic disease (Extended Data Fig. 7). Finally, the oro-nasopharyngeal test does not distinguish the viral load in the nose from the one in the oral cavity and does not account for virus viability, which would be a better measure of potential infectiousness. Moreover, the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 in humans is presently unknown."
I should have realized that the conditions the Israeli's agreed to for early access would have generated a study of this nature.
Also note the date. This is rather early on so we do not know about the effect after time
I wasn't arguing. It was a just question. Just trying to understand. The only thing I know for sure, is that the vaccine goes a long to keeping me alive. It doesn't matter what the vaccine causes years down the road. . . . if I don't survive those years in the first place.@Sierra1
I don't believe he is arguing for either. . . .
Regarding viral loading, this recent study indicates substantially lower viral loading by vaccinated individuals.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210906/Israeli-study-on-viral-load-Delta-infections-vaccinations-and-boosters.aspx
This was based on data from June-August 2021, covering adults 20 years of age and older using the Pfizer vaccine. A mix of unvaxed, third-shot boosted, and initial vaccines over a range of time. Importantly, this study found that:
"The findings revealed that the two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 vaccine is highly effective in reducing viral loads of delta breakthrough infections during the initial two months post-second dose vaccination. Compared to unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals exhibited 15-fold lower viral loads, which is similar to that observed in breakthrough infections by non-delta variants. However, the protection against viral load started reducing after two months of the second vaccine dose, followed by a complete diminution after 6 months."
I think the passage, when speaking to reduced effects of the initial vaccine, is referring to viral loading. I don't think that the study was attempting to address the severity of reaction from vaxxed/unvaxxed/boosted individuals. However, with reduced viral loading, this indicates less opportunity for transmission. The impact of the vaccine on reducing the severity of the reaction to COVID-Delta has been pretty well established elsewhere. As noted here: https://elifesciences.org/articles/63537 "Viral load is recognized as a strong determinant of transmission risk (Watanabe et al., 2010). " For those concerned that a 2010 study might not represent COVID and viral loading/transmission risk, please feel free to peruse:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210203/Viral-load-the-main-driver-of-SARS-CoV-2-transmission.aspx
My takeaway is that the vaccine:
1) Reduces the severity of COVID from the vaxxed individual
2) Reduces the viral loading of the vaxxed individual
3) Reduces the risk of transmission from the vaxxed individual to others
Now, keep in mind that I'm not a virologist or even life scientist. But I also use synthetic oil with much less evidence that it really makes a difference. So I'm kinda good with what these studies are telling us, coupled with the direct and substantial experience we have with the reduced serverity of COVID amongst the vaxxed.
Eville Rich
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to insinuate that you were arguing. It is just a figure of speech and I should have used "suggesting." Sorry if I offended.I wasn't arguing. It was a just question. Just trying to understand. The only thing I know for sure, is that the vaccine goes a long to keeping me alive. It doesn't matter what the vaccine causes years down the road. . . . if I don't survive those years in the first place.
Nope, my fault. It's sometimes hard to get one's intent across with just the written word. I obviously did not word it correctly. I'm easier to read/understand in person . . . . much to my wife's chagrin.Sorry, it wasn't my intention to insinuate that you were arguing. It is just a figure of speech and I should have used "suggesting." Sorry if I offended.
You are correct, the six month window, longer with a booster, is not great news. Maybe boosters will keep working, maybe not. The flu vaccine get replaced each year. Nothing new here. But when enough people continually refuse an opportunity right in front of them they pretty decide the fate of everyone else and guarantee failure at being able to manage the ongoing spread and variants.I read these links and keep running into inconclusive findings like “might” and disclaimers.
The problem I have is that people take these and make them absolute truths. People are guilt shaming, and ridiculing people not yet vaccinated.
There is no “win” in this argument. If this vaccine is only viable for 6 months, that’s not good news.
Yeah. And I can only apologize that 10 minutes of Internet research is inadequate to present the body of medicall knowledge that's out there. In the end it doesn't matter. We could go get medical degree in virology and pop back to the forum and won't make a difference to the discussion. I'm just glad this forum and thread exists. While a motorcycle forum is not my first choice for medical advice, at least it demonstrates the hill we have to climb in the U.S.It just comes down to "you're not gonna tell me what to do".
InterestingYou are correct, the six month window, longer with a booster, is not great news. Maybe boosters will keep working, maybe not. The flu vaccine get replaced each year. Nothing new here. But when enough people continually refuse an opportunity right in front of them they pretty decide the fate of everyone else and guarantee failure at being able to manage the ongoing spread and variants.
I'm pretty sure there's no standard of evidence that is going to be good enough for the holdouts. If that's not the case, then I'm curious about what the standard of evidence actually is. For the record, we cannot prove:
1) Water is wet
2) How gravity works
3) How motorcyles and bicycles stay upright
4) Myriad other things that we accept and use every day
I'm not sure how people function with a standard of proof that is impossible for everyday things to prove. Must be difficult.
Eville Rich
2016 S10
I don't see that at all. What about lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing, travel restrictions, etc. The vaccine is just one tool in the bag, though probably one of the most effective ones, even if it only lasts 6 - 8 months. That might be enough time for the virus to die out, or at least be reduced to the point where it is no longer considered a pandemic.What I am seeing is that we are putting all our faith in the “vaccine” as a he cure all, end all solution. If you look at the data and want to believe it , it shows the vaccine provides some protection initially, but degrades rapidly.