Posted by: tashi
This is the article the Jerusalem Post I linked to was discussing.
The peak viral load is similar but other characteristics, some of which affect transmission, like how fast the viral load builds and cleared, are different. The likelihood is only similar while at peak viral load, the vaccinated are sick (and therefore infectious ) for a much shorter period of time. So overall, vacced people will spread less than unvacced. To me this is an Important distinction, particularly when talking to someone questioning the value of vaccination WRT transmission.
“Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory.”
“In our cohort of densely sampled household contacts exposed to the delta variant, SAR (secondary attack rate) was 38% in unvaccinated contacts and 25% in fully vaccinated contacts.”
I agree that it's an important distinction and I've been arguing that very point to people who seem to think there is no difference or as you say feel that it's another sign the vax's are useless or a scam. The lines after the last one you quote suggest that the viral load decline among vaxed is not "much faster" than unvaxed though.
"SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated). Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections."
The other thing that seems to be changing and/or is proving to be a thorn is the VAERS data not being reported correctly among other things and some anti-covid people are stringing that argument out to faulty places. I think that's part of what the Kyle Warner thread/story is about - getting all the info out there. The CDC VAERS page talks about myo/pericarditis and has a link to a separate page for more info: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
The stuff I've looked at today said that most people who get pericarditis will recover fully with treatment and some don't even need any treatment at at. The POTS that Warner refers to is typically a result of medication for the pericarditis and that clears up too. So I'm not going to say he's incorrect about the ending of his career as I can't find enough details about the whole thing, but on a different web page he say it may be 12-18 before he's fully recovered. There is also the question of whether his vaccination was administered incorrectly and this may actually have been what caused the pericarditis, not necessarily the vax itself. In Warner's situation it would be a lack of aspiration (pulling back on the plunger before injecting) by the person administering the injection that potentially caused his problems. The interview Warner did with Dr. John Campbell, who's got some great vids out about covid is apparently pretty good but I haven't watched it yet. There's a couple of pages out there about the Warner story but you won't find them with google, gotta search on DuckDuckGo. Reading about his story sucks, and he's not the only person having issues which is why he's trying to be a voice in all of this.
https://thecovidworld.com/kyle-warner-professional-mountain-biker-develops-pericarditis-shortly-after-receiving-the-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/
https://www.fastrope.com/pro-mountain-biker-kyle-warner-shares-his-horrific-covid-19-vaccine-injury-story/
I'm having a hard time with some of the negative views of these things and the restriction of access to info or the outright refusal of MSM to cover some of it or explore questions that go against the mainstream narrative. I get why they may not want to as it's potentially dangerous by adding fuel to the fire of the wingnut deniers. However, between the pro and con camps there is grounds to talk about these uncertainties and we should be doing it, not hiding or dismissing them. But maybe doing that qualifies as rESuRch™ according to Scnickelpuss and we wouldn't want to do that cause he might get upset or confused by the words on the screen.
Link to Warner/Campbell vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7inaTiDKaU