bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Thank you. Very informative, and in line with what I would expect as vaccination rates climb.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
Thank you. Very informative, and in line with what I would expect as vaccination rates climb.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
1) Yeah the thing about 'small percentage of cases is vaccinated people' was always so stupid! We absolutely want 100% of cases to be in vaccinated individuals (that would indicate we are doing the best we can possibly do with vaccination) and I'm not sure how we got fixated on this idea that we want a small % of cases to be vaccinated... They'll have a lot of communication work to do to resolve that simple issue unfortunately.
2) Still using NY Times for their plot of estimate of R0 for Delta. Definitely would be great to have some data on an actual estimate of R0 at some point.
3) For viral load, etc. I'll wait for the experts to go through the CDC sources here. They seem to be basing their recommendations/comments about breakthrough cases on some data from India (different vaccines, very select group of individuals receiving vaccine, etc.), and a few other sources in the US. We'll see. It doesn't appear to me to be definitive evidence.
I don't mean to suggest that Delta isn't worse - all the evidence suggests it is. I also don't mean to suggest we shouldn't mask up - my opinion is that everyone should because the unvaccinated caused us to lose our privileges. I just would like to see real solid data on efficacy against delta before we go off the deep end.
It doesn't make sense to me at all that viral loads would be the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, if the vaccines are effective. And the vaccine appears to be very effective against delta. So have to square that circle somehow.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I would like to know the source of these, but this jives with what I was taught (WAY back when in school) regarding effectiveness.
Highlighted in red - it's more effective to prevent spread if you can get the source to mask up, vs. everyone else.
Highlighted in red - it's more effective to prevent spread if you can get the source to mask up, vs. everyone else.
And given that the source is more likely to be unvaccinated, I doubt you can get the source to mask up without enforcement (which isn't likely to happen either).
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I'd like a source too. I suspect since they're model assumptions they are a bit arbitrary and a bit conservative.
I'll stick with my N95 and plenty of hand hygiene at work and hope for the best, in any case. I bet I can do better than 20-30%!
I also really want to see a study of mask efficacy in vaccinated individuals as compared to unvaccinated individuals. Seems like with typical models of infection we'd expect masks to work a lot better in vaccinated individuals than in unvaccinated individuals (due to dose required for infection). I view an N95 mask as a dose-reduction device.
Regardless, (universal*) masking helps a lot, even if it doesn't work very well. The wonders of exponentials...
* indoors, high transmission
Last edited:
Yes - that's what people have been saying since COVID started - though many said that masks were ineffective for PPE purposes. I also wonder what type of mask are they assuming there - is this a decent quality cloth or surgical style mask?
I wonder how it would change with a N95 or KN95 style mask?
Without masks, it appears that we need 90%+ vaccination rates or a nearly 100% effective vaccine. Get me that booster jab, stat!
I have to say that the presentation quality is excellent, and it's too bad they didn't have the data ready at the same time they recommended masking again indoors. One question I had in particular - in the R0=5 similar to Delta charts - what is the lighter purple area of the chart?
It is amazing though - the models predict that if Delta had hit sooner, masking alone would not be enough without vaccinations. As it is now, it's barely enough until we get to 75-80% vax rates...
I was just about to post the same article. The CDC document you linked has the chikenpox with an R0 of about 8. They estimate delta to be between 5 and 9 and slightly more deadly than original COVID, but not much. It's still much less deadly than smallpox, SARS, polio, Spanish flu, Bird flu, and Ebola.
I think the idea in much of the public's mind about vaccines is that they are like a fortress wall, nothing gets in. Vaccines (and the immune system) work more like traps in an Indian Jones movie. The virus gets in, but there are multiple lines of defense out to kill it that it has to breach before you're going to get sick. Instead of a fortress wall, it's more like a network of trenches full of soldiers with machine guns and rifles with bayonets. The Delta variant has some tanks aiding the assault which are tougher to take out, but for most people the trenchlines hold. Only a relative few vaccinated people end up having the trenches breached.
Being vaccinated is like France 1917. Unvaccinated is like Kuwait 1991.
We should be doing a better job of educating the public on this sort of thing so people know what to expect.
Yes, very few (hardly any) of the various disease vaccines entirely prevent infection (so-called sterilizing immunity) as I understand it.
Last edited:
Kind of like “don’t come to work if you’re sick” and “don’t take your sick kids to school.”
But many vaccines are effective enough that if you get exposed again, your body fights it off and you never know you had it again. So people get to believing that vaccines entirely prevent any level of infection.
A lot of COVID infections that are getting labeled as breakthrough are among people who need to get tested even though they feel fine and the test finds the virus in their system. Bill Maher is an example. He and his staff need to get tested constantly to do his show. He tested positive and had to isolate for two weeks, but never felt the least bit sick. If he was in a position like the rest of us that he wasn't getting tested all the time, he would have never known he had it.
We may have had a breakthrough infection 2 weeks ago. Both of us felt a bit like we were bug fighting for a few days (kind of blaw, something kind of off, tired) and it went away. It could have also been something else too. We didn't get tested so we'll never know for sure.
Interesting discussion going on here. I wanted to post an update on my wife and document a few things (someone here might find them useful). She's at, I'd say, around 95% recovered after three weeks since her initial exposure.
Saturday 07/10: what we think was her initial exposure to the virus
Sunday: no symptoms
Monday: no symptoms
Tuesday: some sneezing (unusual for her but we'd had a ton of rain and mildew/mold was everywhere)
Wednesday: minor sneezing
Thursday: no sneezing, felt fine
Friday: went to work, different symptoms (fatigue, aches and pains) rapidly progressed and she left around noon (went straight to bed)
Saturday: in bed the whole day, wiped out, bad headache (I took her to CVS for a test)
Sunday: started losing her senses of taste and smell, headache
Monday: taste and smell totally gone
At three weeks, the remaining symptoms are, in order of severity: loss of taste+smell, occasional headaches, and more easily fatigued. The loss of taste+smell is still significant. She can barely taste anything. We had some buffalo wings the other day that made my head sweat and she couldn't taste anything. She says it's gradually improving, so that's good.
I still don't understand why I wasn't infected (at least, to a detectable degree). I was massively exposed multiple times during that week. I didn't isolate her from me at all (e.g. we slept in the same bed every night with the exception of one). We had the same vaccine, Pfizer, back in March/April. We went together, so it was the exact same time and batch. It's my understanding that the mRNA vaccines are pretty "narrow" which means our immune systems were sensitized to the same narrow irritant.
Saturday 07/10: what we think was her initial exposure to the virus
Sunday: no symptoms
Monday: no symptoms
Tuesday: some sneezing (unusual for her but we'd had a ton of rain and mildew/mold was everywhere)
Wednesday: minor sneezing
Thursday: no sneezing, felt fine
Friday: went to work, different symptoms (fatigue, aches and pains) rapidly progressed and she left around noon (went straight to bed)
Saturday: in bed the whole day, wiped out, bad headache (I took her to CVS for a test)
Sunday: started losing her senses of taste and smell, headache
Monday: taste and smell totally gone
At three weeks, the remaining symptoms are, in order of severity: loss of taste+smell, occasional headaches, and more easily fatigued. The loss of taste+smell is still significant. She can barely taste anything. We had some buffalo wings the other day that made my head sweat and she couldn't taste anything. She says it's gradually improving, so that's good.
I still don't understand why I wasn't infected (at least, to a detectable degree). I was massively exposed multiple times during that week. I didn't isolate her from me at all (e.g. we slept in the same bed every night with the exception of one). We had the same vaccine, Pfizer, back in March/April. We went together, so it was the exact same time and batch. It's my understanding that the mRNA vaccines are pretty "narrow" which means our immune systems were sensitized to the same narrow irritant.
Glad your wife is getting better. Looks like your defenses stopped the invasion before it got very far (or you even noticed). Hope her sense of taste and smell comes back soon.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I would bet the reason you were not symptomatic was that your antibody titers are higher.
I saw an article yesterday, sorry no time this AM to dig it up, but it was from NEJM I believe and it was a reasonably well-run study looking at breakthrough infections in healthcare works. They took antibody titers as part of the surveillance, and those with lower antibody titers were the group that had symptomatic breakthrough infections.
This is in line with what we know about most other diseases and immunity, higher antibody levels leads to better protection, at least in the short term.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yes it is linked above in one of the tweets, it is from the study from the Israeli hospital system.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I agree with this summary of the CDC data. We’ll see about that Massachusetts data, which is the most interesting part. I have my doubts about it, but we’ll see (I hope they were comparing the same gene target and similar populations, haha):
And here is one for the “very bad and extremely inaccurate tweet” box. I can’t believe news organizations are still spreading disinformation like this (the tweet is completely false - this is not what the CDC said, at all):
And here is one for the “very bad and extremely inaccurate tweet” box. I can’t believe news organizations are still spreading disinformation like this (the tweet is completely false - this is not what the CDC said, at all):
Last edited:
As of yesterday in northern CA, plus Los Angeles Co. Doesn’t specify % that are breakthrough, but still interesting info.
Yellow highlight shows counties that have indoor mask requirements.
Yellow highlight shows counties that have indoor mask requirements.
And here it is….
Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, including COVID-19 ...
This report describes COVID-19 outbreaks associated with ...
www.cdc.gov
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
And here it is….
Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, including COVID-19 ...
This report describes COVID-19 outbreaks associated with ...
Interesting. Of course subject to many confounders, like any observational study. I guess we’ll see. My prior is that vaccination reduces viral load in those infected and I don’t see anything here to make me strongly reconsider that. You’d probably expect similar viral loads in symptomatic cases (though I guess I would still expect lower for vaccinated individuals which was not observed here - but plenty of confounders).
It’s too bad they did not break out the Ct values by vaccination type. There was a very large proportion of J&J here - ~16%.
The high proportion of infection in vaccinated individuals makes sense too from the dose model of infection - these were packed indoor events without masking it sounds like, likely reducing efficacy. You might also expect that to result in misleading results when it comes to viral loads.
Vaccination is a great barrier. Add masking on top (to lower dosage) and it’s probably a near impregnable defense. No idea for sure though! Makes sense to me so I’m rolling with it. (This is all for basic infection - beyond antibody protection of course vaccination provides substantial further benefit when it comes to severe illness, due to other immune system components.)
Last edited:
Yes, there seemed to be an outsized representation of J&J among the infected relative to the general population. Also, 3 out of the 5 hospitalized patients were J&J and the other fully vaccinated patient had received Pfizer.
Last edited:
What is the source for these numbers that are said to be from yesterday?
The numbers below are yesterday’s data from The NY Times and are substantially higher:
Similar threads
