Hacker News Reader

Comment by standardUser | Hacker News Reader

The first line says it all... "Vaccines reduce infection, severe disease, and death from SARS-CoV-2"

Viral load does not equal chance of transmission, and those who don't get infected thanks to a vaccine, or have a shorter illness thanks to the vaccine, are obviously less likely to spread the virus.

View on HN

A recent or pre-print study attempts to quantify the effect of vaccination on transmission. There appears to be some reduction (subject to multiple confounding factors) but transmission by vaccinated individuals is still common.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v...

So it's important to get vaccinated to protect yourself. Just don't expect it to reliably prevent you from infecting others.

Which underscores the importance of continuing masking, social distancing, and other positive steps toward preventing disease transmission by everyone (regardless of vaccination status) while simultaneously continuing vaccination initiatives to reduce the heavy load on the healthcare system, etc.

No question based on that quote that people should get vaccinated. But to make vaccine passports to eat in restaurants (popular in Canada right now), doesn’t seem to make sense in terms of vaccinated people being less likely to transmit the virus. Though I suppose as a carrot to encourage the unvaccinated to get vaccinated it might work.

Vaccinated people are less likely to be infected in the first place (never forget that pre-symptomatic transmission is a huge factor driving the spread of this virus). So a room full of vaccinated people, all else being equal, should include fewer infected individuals than a mixed or unvaccinated room. Additionally, all of those vaccinated diners are less likely to contract the virus if an infected person does happen to be in the same space.

So in that sense, having all-vaccinated people in any given indoor space is vastly preferable to alternative.

> Vaccinated people are less likely to be infected in the first place

Apologies, I was unaware of this. How does this work? I thought infection was equally likely and that viral load was the same for the first bit before the vaccinated body’s immune system took care of the infection, at which point outcomes differ.

After I posted my sister comment I saw your comment when the page refreshed.

I'm equally confused. The vaccine isn't like some force field that keeps the virus away and out of your body. It only helps if/when the virus gets into your body also known as being infected. Right?

If you already have an immune response to the virus, your body has a chance to destroy the virus before an infection can take hold. Same with any vaccine. Then normal course of any infection is for the infection to take hold and your body then works on an immune response, eventually killing the infection (one would hope). Previous infection means you already have the immune response ready and waiting (though that can fade over time). Vaccines simply mimic your bodies response when recovering from an infection.

It is referenced very clearly in the study.

Also from the CDC: "COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing infection, serious illness, and death" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...

I understand there is a lot of disinformation out there, but simple facts like this should be universally known.

"Vaccinated people are less likely to be infected in the first place"

What is your definition of infected? Do you mean contagious?

From the CDC: "COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing infection, serious illness, and death" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...

This study also mentions the same fact.

At some point in time after infection, viral load might be the same, but:

> the viral loads decreased more rapidly in vaccinated than unvaccinated individuals in Singapore [3], suggesting that vaccinated individuals may remain infectious for shorter periods of time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com