Two Triple Vaccinated Israeli Doctors Infected with Omicron

> "By analyzing viral loads of over 16,000 infections during the current, Delta-variant-dominated pandemic wave in Israel, we found that BTIs in recently fully vaccinated individuals have lower viral loads than infections in unvaccinated individuals. However, this effect starts to decline 2 months after vacci- nation and ultimately vanishes 6 months or longer after vac- cination. Notably, we found that the effect of BNT162b2 on reducing BTI viral loads is restored after a booster dose. These results suggest that BNT162b2 might decrease the infectious- ness of BTIs even with the Delta variant, and that, although this protective effect declines with time, it can be restored, at least temporarily, with a third, booster, vaccine dose."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4.pdf

However, we also know that the viral loads are also very high in elders, in the obese, comorbidity as well as males. The drop in effectiveness happens the fastest in males, elderly and those with comorbidities.

Also expecting everyone to keep getting boosters every 2-6 months (Canada is allowing after 2 months) is entirely unreasonable.

There's other studies which found same viral loads in vaccinated vs unvaccinated even in mild cases (though it's not clear after what period did they perform the study).

Highly vaccinated Dane County in Wisconsin, US found no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated infections, the viral load was consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...

Similarly, data from 36 Wisconsin counties found that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the infection. Infectious virus is found even in vaccinated when specimen Ct values are low, meaning mild cases in vaccinated individuals can spread the virus too.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...

Houston Methodist Hospital of Texas also found similar viral loads and low Ct values in vaccinated vs unvaccinated infections.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.21260808v...

Similar finding in Massachusetts:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

Overall, there's no logical reasoning to not allow tests as a reasonable accommodation and not testing both vaccinated and unvaccinated if the goal is to prevent the spread of COVID.

Also these minute differences in viral loads for maybe 1 to 2 months after inoculation won't be sufficient to justify discrimination based on perceived disability.

That said, I don't see that as egregious and of interest because the effectiveness of the vaccine against this mutation is as well. It does not provide answers and the focus on the researchers is questionable, but I don't really see it as a problem or fear mongering.

You are right, regular (as in, weekly or more frequently) testing should also prove effective at preventing the spread amongst both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

But, the key there is you would have to trust people to do the right thing, and actually get tested, and isolate if they test positive. I'm not confident that enough people who won't get vaccinated would comply with that.

And you are misusing statistics when you say that a greater growth of cases amongst the vaccinated proves the vaccine doesn't prevent the spread. Everyone knows the vaccine doesn't 100% prevent you catching covid, no surprise there. But it does slow it somewhat, and most crucuially it does greatly reduce your chances of dying or being hospitalized. I'm too lazy to link references, but a quick google would show you plenty of reputable sources with statistics showing you are much safer vaccinated than unvaccinated.

Regarding the greater growth of cases amongst the vaccinated, many, many things explain this. For a start, 76% of Canada's population is vaccinated. So, if the vaccine had no effect then you'd expect 76% of all new cases would be amongst the vaccinated. You stated the actual measure is 53%, so clearly the vaccine is preventing a lot of the spread.

But in the end of the day, setting aside the whole issue of should the vaccine should be mandated or not, disagreeing with the mandate is not a valid reason to not get vaccinated. Just get vaccinated. Once you disregard all the crazy, crazy conspiracy theories about the vaccine "magentizing" your body, or changing your DNA or causing infertility then you are left with a real, but infantesimal risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine. A rational comparison of the risks of getting vaccinated vs the risks of not getting vaccinated cleary shows there is no valid reson to not get vaccinated except a tiny fraction of people who cannot get vaccinated due to valid medical advice.

No, that isn't the case. Studies have shown there's no difference in infectiousness or viral loads between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and the original clinical trials didn't even measure infectiousness at all let alone reduce it.

But this hardly matters. Even if there was some small improvement in infectiousness, so what? Vaccines aren't free. They cause collateral damage: some people end up injured, other people end up dead. Given that the virus/viruses are endemic at this point there is no real benefit to reducing infectiousness by some percentage, as vulnerable people will (supposedly) end up getting it anyway no matter what.

Also re: morality. This idea that refusing a vaccine is selfishness is itself enormous selfishness. You are asking healthy young people who are not at risk of COVID to take a risk of getting sick from the vaccine. It seems often that people who push this "vaccines are moral purity" angle cannot really handle this fact and go into denial about it, but there are many such stories out there, and databases filled with reports of such injuries. When you are demanding healthy young people risk sacrificing their own health, just to make you a bit less scared or to give an 80 year old another 8 months of life, it doesn't look like any recognizable morality to me.