Vaccines do reduce transmission. From studies I've seen VE against transmission is around 60-80%, though it wanes quickly after 4 months. Not as good as 95% VE against hospitalization but not nothing either.
Can you explain the mechanism by which vaccines injected into muscle tissue impart mucosal immunity? The humeral immunity these vaccines impart doesn't stop the virus replicating in the nose and throat where it can spread to others via respiration. Mucose is not connected to the blood stream where the antibodies from the vaccine are.
Naumova EA, Dierkes T, Sprang J, Arnold WH. The oral mucosal surface and blood vessels. Head Face Med. 2013 Mar 12;9:8. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-9-8. PMID: 23497446; PMCID: PMC3639856.
It also has antibodies (humoral immune response).
Immunoglobulin A (IgA) is the most abundant antibody isotype in the mucosal immune system.
Li Y, Jin L, Chen T. The Effects of Secretory IgA in the Mucosal Immune System. Biomed Res Int. 2020 Jan 3;2020:2032057. doi: 10.1155/2020/2032057. PMID: 31998782; PMCID: PMC6970489.
And the vaccine triggers the development of those antibodies.
We evaluated the serum anti-spike (anti-S) IgG, anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) IgG and anti-S IgA response following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of first-responders. Among the 378 completely vaccinated participants, 98% were positive for anti-S IgG and 96% were positive for anti-S IgA.
Montague, B.T., Wipperman, M.F., Chio, E. et al. Elevated serum IgA following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of high-risk first responders. Sci Rep 12, 14932 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19095-7
I haven't been updated on this in a while, but the prevailing idea early on seemed to be that the reduction is achieved through shortening the infectious time, not so much by doing anything about the level of transmission before it's suppressed.
Essentially the current vaccines wouldn't give any mucosal protection worth mentioning in itself, but since there are (hopefully) relevant lymphocytes in circulation, the host has more in the way of specific countermeasures ready to infiltrate from the bloodstream and shut down the worst of the shedding, sooner than if the specific immunity had to be developed first.
So we'd have more or less unfettered susceptibility for getting infected (superficially) and pretty much just as high levels of infectious excretions, but for maybe half as long a time at the highest levels.
Would you happen to know if that picture still holds?
The FDA says there isn't enough evidence to say that the vaccines reduce transmission:[1]
> "While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission."
That is not what the FDA source you linked to says. You either had a massive error in comprehension or are deliberately misleading others.
What the FDA said, simplified, is there is no evidence either way whether a breakthrough COVID case in a vaccinated person poses a greater risk of infection to other vaccinated people, BUT past vaccinations have shown that those other vaccinated people are still protected and therefore that should be the assumption here until refuted.
Original:
Q: If a person has received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, will the vaccine protect against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination?
A: Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.
The FDA and CDC are slow. They didn't admit for months that covid is airborne, way after it was well established. It's obvious looking at the data that vaccines reduce transmission.
Yeah cause this type of vaccine doesn't provide immunity and the protection lasts a couple of months at most. Not to mention that repeated doses are started to be weakening the immune system
The vaccine doesn't provide immunity. It doesn't prevent transmission, just lowers it. This is well known. It may lower sickness severity in older population. It also only lasts 2-3 months.
You probably live in the US, where nobody is boosted and 30% of the population isn't vaccinated.
I don't.
I know 2 people that caught covid after being vaccinated. I've never caught it. Most people I know never caught it. And it would be even worse without vaccines. Y'all are doing something wrong over there.
No, that's not science. That's you weaponizing science in your crusade against things you don't like. You don't like vaccines, so you make bullshit claims that are unsubstantiated but hard to disprove, and then eventually people get tired of arguing with you and you have your way.
They were very slow to confirm side effects (remember when people suffering with heart issues were ridiculed and ignored?).
Very slow to let everyone know that it wouldn't actually stop transmission (remember when we were told to get it to protect grandma? Or how about the messaging that 'breakthrough cases are very rare').
Very slow to reveal that effectiveness waned quite quicky.
These issues were quite obvious from the beginning. It's taken two years and only now can these be openly discussed without becoming a social pariah.
This study doesn't prove what you're saying. Some vaccinated people had asymptomatic covid != vaccines don't prevent spread
If you find a study that takes comparable samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, tests all of them, and reports how many were infected, then let me know.
Until then you should be more diligent in gathering evidence.
"These findings suggest that, although vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals remain highly infectious upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in this prison setting, their infectiousness is reduced compared to individuals without any history of vaccination or infection. This study underscores benefit of vaccination to reduce, but not eliminate, transmission."
