Thanks. I had actually liked that post back in August when it was posted but forgot about the part about actual average percentages of infectiousness
The averages were 84.9% infectious for unvaccinated and 68.6% for vaccinated (P = 0.005) so being vaccinated makes 1 in 6 COVID-positive people not infectious when they otherwise would have been - obviously on top of making it much less likely to get infected in the first place.
The study also specifically says that asymptomatic breakthrough cases have lower viral loads than in symptomatic breakthrough cases, which answers a question I had in the other thread
Table 1 shows the distribution of Ct-values of the breakthrough infections, as a proxy for the nasopharyngeal viral load. Ct-values were significantly lower in symptomatic breakthrough infections (Ī¼ = 23.2) than in asymptomatic breakthrough infections (Ī¼ = 26.7), corresponding to higher viral loads (p = 0.022, t-test).
Iām hoping they do the same study with the advent of Omicron shortly. Results should be similar now weāre + Booster but, I think itās fair to say, many boosters will now be waning hence so many triple vax ābreakthroughsā (remember them, we donāt even use the term now)
Today I was going to visit a friend whose immune system is very weak. To be extremely cautious, we took tests at home (cue tests). We have no symptoms so of course they were neg-. Woah, my wife tested positive! We did an immediate retest and it was negative. Now I really donāt know. So we both went out and got PCR tests. They promise results same day, so weāll see. We cancelled the visit for now.
Good luck. My wife tested positive and had symptoms and I never got it. Also those home tests can be false positive, especially if there was some contamination, so PCR verification is definitely the way to go here given your conflicting results.
Also crazy that we were literally just discussing how the vaccinated might be more likely to be more socially responsible and test (in situtations exactly like you did) than the unvaccinated, and then you had a real life example of it.
I donāt think the speculation was that unvaccinated people are more likely to be responsible and get tested, it was that since theyāre more likely to get seriously ill and require hospitalization theyāre more likely to show up as officially tested cases from hospital administered PCR tests as opposed to vaccinated people using home tests that end up unreported. For example the official advice from my county is that if I test positive on a home test, I should consider the test results accurate and isolate at home and NOT get a PCR test, and thereās no mention on their website of reporting your positive home test.
I feel like this is one of the easier get it in front of a jury and go for nullification plays Iāve seen. All you need is one anti-vaxxer. The nurses claim that they were just taking a stand against tyranny or whatever. Easiest hung jury ever.
I think the guy who wrote it (Makary) generally has pretty good takes on other topics, so he has more credibility with me than the average WSJ opinion writer. I havenāt really done a deep dive yet on the sources he quotes, but I suspect others here will already be familiar with them.
Well for the crux of his argument, that we shouldnāt have used vax mandates for workers, that a variant like Omicron (or more severe omicron) comes along and they are unvaccinated and dealing with vulnerable patients.
Also assumed that acute infection and vax are no different for long term effects.
Plus this is all part of continued WSJ oped gaslighting as they constantly argue that the US has dramatically overreacted to containing COVID
Thatās not how I took it. It sounded to me like his argument was that vax mandates are fine if prior infection meets the requirement. I donāt think he would say a previously uninfected person should not be vaxxed.
Also this has nothing to do with the long term effects. It doesnāt sound like he recommends getting COVID. Itās just that if you had it, that should satisfy the requirement.
Unless his situation has changed, Makary is not a professional opinion bot. He is a full-time academic who does legit research. I guess he has become famous enough that he does a lot of speaking gigs and writes more stuff like this than he once did. I get that WSJ is giving air to his opinion since it coincides with a message they seem to like to disseminate.
This is literally true, but if you have a positive antigen test, you should assume you have COVID, especially if youāre talking about visiting an at-risk person. False positives are really rare. Especially if youāre testing at homeā¦ where is the contamination supposed to be coming from?
Yeah, I donāt disagree, she should definitely assume sheās positive. That said, there is a false positive rate for those at home tests. I believe @anon38180840 linked to something a few days ago (mabye it was another poster) about some common household chemicals that could produce a false positive.
