Jabbed adults infected with Delta ‘can match virus levels of unvaccinated’

[Northerner]

Fully vaccinated adults can harbour virus levels as high as unvaccinated people if infected with the Delta variant, according to a sweeping analysis of UK data, which supports the idea that hitting the threshold for herd immunity is unlikely.

There is abundant evidence that Covid vaccines in the UK continue to offer significant protection against hospitalisations and death. But this new analysis shows that although being fully vaccinated means the risk of getting infected is lower, once infected by Delta a person can carry similar virus levels as unvaccinated people.

The implications of this on transmission remain unclear, the researchers have cautioned. “We don’t yet know how much transmission can happen from people who get Covid-19 after being vaccinated – for example, they may have high levels of virus for shorter periods of time,” said Sarah Walker, a professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at the University of Oxford.

“But the fact that they can have high levels of virus suggests that people who aren’t yet vaccinated may not be as protected from the Delta variant as we hoped.”

Jabbed adults infected with Delta ‘can match virus levels of unvaccinated’

Researchers say implications for transmission remain unclear but reaching herd immunity even more challenging

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bruce Stephens]

“We don’t yet know how much transmission can happen from people who get Covid-19 after being vaccinated – for example, they may have high levels of virus for shorter periods of time,” said Sarah Walker, a professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at the University of Oxford.

That seems to be the view of experts on twitter: some vaccinated people might get high viral loads, but that's likely to fall quickly.

For example,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1423601882933698564

 

[mikeyB]

A PCR test WILL tell you if infection by the virus is present because it tests for the presence of the specific virus. You keep repeating this comment that a PCR test won’t test for Covid 19, but that is precisely what it does do.

It isn’t a test that has originated in the Covid pandemic, it’s a routine way of finding specific viruses. What it does not do is check for antibodies, or anything else, because it’s not designed to do.

Where you got this idea from, I really don’t know, but it seems to be fixed and you state it is a fact. So don’t keep repeating it, it will only confuse people because it is completely untrue.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Sorry MikeyB, the PCR tests can pick up OLD infections too, not just not current ones, hence, how can we assume a positive pcr test confirms if someone has an infection OR is infectious?

Yes, that's understood. As far as I'm aware we don't have tests to distinguish, so I think we just have to accept PCR testing as a good and useful test, if imperfect. (There's occasional claims that lateral flow tests are better for detecting infectious infections but I think that's still a bit controversial.)

Also, it doesn't test for covid19, it only tests for sars-cov-2

I think that ship sailed a while ago. We have Covid-19 vaccines, Covid-19 Passes, Covid-19 tests, etc. And while COVID-19 is really common it's not unusual to just see "coronavirus" even though there are many of those. (Obligatory XKCD: https://m.xkcd.com/2275/ back from when the COVID-19 name was newer.)

(Something similar happened with AIDS and HIV, I think, though for a collection of quite different reasons. The AIDS name stuck around for a while in places where HIV would have been better.)

 

[mikeyB]

@Amity Island, your ignorance of science appears boundless. A test that picks up “dead viruses”???

Give me strength, no virus is either dead or alive.It’s nothing but a bit of RNA or DNA.

And Viruses that have been tagged by antibodies, preventing them from entering our cells, are consumed by macrophages, clearing up the rubbish in the bloodstream. Away from the view of a PCR test. If that didn’t happen our bloodstreams would be full of all the “dead” viruses we’d ever encountered. That is basic physiology. Which I have to assume you haven’t studied.

Furthermore, the PCR test does test for the virus that causes the illness we call Covid 19, whatever you care to call the virus. Scientists would not create a test by the millions if it it didn’t.

 

[mikeyB]

I assume, then, you think if anybody who comes into contact with someone who is symptomatic, should be free as a bird and not isolate themselves for a few days to see if they develop symptoms. Or get a PCR test, even with the unlikely event it is a false positive or negative? You appear to be conflating LFT rapid test statistics with PCR tests. A LFT positive test is always followed by a PCR test whether symptomatic or not.

And test accuracy doesn’t change whether people are symptomatic or not. Saying people who don’t have symptoms are more likely to produce false positives is a truism, the very definition of a false positive. They are the only people who can get a false positive.

You appear to think that the occasional false positive is a reason to abandon testing, or gathering data to monitor the spread of infection. That’s a hard sell to a concerned population.

 

[mikeyB]

The trouble is that the population who are the working poor can’t afford to stay in bed if they feel a bit unwell. It’s no good telling them to stay at home, otherwise their kids will be going without food.

And you still believe that the PCR test is so unreliable that it is worthless. Setting that nonsense aside, If you fell ill and a PCR test showed you have Covid, would you believe it?