What are the odds of the Yankees have 7 staff test Covid positive who have been vaccinated?

[pinball]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31434171/new-york-yankees-7-covid-19-positives-coaching-support-staff-aaron-boone-says

 

Six of the seven people who have tested positive are asymptomatic, Boone said. All seven people who tested positive have been vaccinated for COVID-19.

 

[kokotg]

I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere, but someone on twitter said the Yankees used J&J vaccines--which isn't nearly as effective against mild covid as moderna or pfizer. We'd need to know how many people had been exposed total to know whether 7 infections is notable or not, I think. If there were a ton of exposures and a handful of mild/asymptomatic infections, then the vaccine's still doing what it's supposed to do. A baseball team is an unusual setting because everyone is getting tested frequently, right? (I assume it's still true that they're testing everyone every couple of days like last year?) So it should yield some interesting information, since that's not being done most places and wasn't done during the vaccine trials either. My dad works at a nursing home and has also reported mild/asymptomatic cases in vaccinated people there--but everyone there is tested weekly, so they're catching asymptomatic cases most places wouldn't.

[Pawz4me]

I've wondered about the risk of getting vaccinated from a vial that hasn't been stored or handled properly--like not kept cold enough, or too long out of the freezer, etc. Not in relation to this specific incident, but the overall chance of that happening. I haven't looked into it closely, but if the Yankees staff were all vaccinated at the same time I would wonder if something like that is a possibility. 

[Junie]

10 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere, but someone on twitter said the Yankees used J&J vaccines--which isn't nearly as effective against mild covid as moderna or pfizer. We'd need to know how many people had been exposed total to know whether 7 infections is notable or not, I think. If there were a ton of exposures and a handful of mild/asymptomatic infections, then the vaccine's still doing what it's supposed to do. A baseball team is an unusual setting because everyone is getting tested frequently, right? (I assume it's still true that they're testing everyone every couple of days like last year?) So it should yield some interesting information, since that's not being done most places and wasn't done during the vaccine trials either. My dad works at a nursing home and has also reported mild/asymptomatic cases in vaccinated people there--but everyone there is tested weekly, so they're catching asymptomatic cases most places wouldn't.

Yes, they received the J&J vaccine.  https://abc7ny.com/yankees-phil-nevin-third-base-coach-covid/10621690/

We also don't know how many people are on the Yankees staff.  Probably at least 100?  If the efficacy rate of the vaccine is around 70 percent, 7 Covid cases is not really unreasonable.  These are people who spend a great deal of time together, sometimes in very close contact.  

[HeartString]

How accurate are the tests?  What is the false positive rate?  

[Arcadia]

My country of origin is seeing similar cases of people who has already been vaccinated getting Covid. The majority are asymptomatic though which makes it easier to spread the virus unaware.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/30-fully-vaccinated-individuals-test-positive-for-covid-19-with-mild-to-no

“AMONG the 1.2 million individuals who have been fully vaccinated against Covid-19 in Singapore, 30 have so far tested positive for the coronavirus as of May 10, with the majority of them asymptomatic, Health Minister Gan Kim Yong said in Parliament on Tuesday.

…

This is because recent clusters at TTSH, the Immigration Checkpoints Authority and Tuas South community care facility were, according to sequencing results, driven by the B.1.617.2 variant, a more transmissible strain first detected in India.

On the whole, there were also 26 cases assessed to be re-infections, the minister said.

"We are still investigating whether these are due to general waning of immunity over time or the lack of cross-protection against specific variants of Covid-19 that the individual is naive to," said Mr Gan, adding that an update will be provided when there is more information.”

[Happy2BaMom]

I don’t find that remarkable. My understanding was that the vaccine wouldn’t keep you from catching Covid, but, from the stats so far, it is now clear that it keeps you from having a severe case or from being in the hospital.  

People should continue to mask but they won’t, and states are eliminating all mandates, so.....

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I've wondered about the risk of getting vaccinated from a vial that hasn't been stored or handled properly--like not kept cold enough, or too long out of the freezer, etc. Not in relation to this specific incident, but the overall chance of that happening. I haven't looked into it closely, but if the Yankees staff were all vaccinated at the same time I would wonder if something like that is a possibility. 

I’ve had this worry before as well. It’s a lot of trust to put in the location that does your vax that they’re doing everything right. The real world numbers are looking good enough that I expect overwhelmingly they are.

[Farrar]

I think we all need to get better at thinking about this. Covid is still circulating. Until we vaccinate so many people that we prevent it from effectively circulating, then people will keep getting it. The vaccine isn't completely effective. Therefore, some vaccinated people will get it. In a large organization of hundreds, of course several of them will get it if it circulates among the organization/business.

One of the major benefits of the vaccine is that in addition to preventing you from getting Covid in the first place a lot of the time, if you do get it anyway, it prevents you from getting really sick nearly all the time. Virtually no one who has gotten the J&J has died or needed ICU care from Covid. That's a huge benefit.

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

My country of origin is seeing similar cases of people who has already been vaccinated getting Covid. The majority are asymptomatic though which makes it easier to spread the virus unaware.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/30-fully-vaccinated-individuals-test-positive-for-covid-19-with-mild-to-no

“AMONG the 1.2 million individuals who have been fully vaccinated against Covid-19 in Singapore, 30 have so far tested positive for the coronavirus as of May 10, with the majority of them asymptomatic, Health Minister Gan Kim Yong said in Parliament on Tuesday.

30 people out of 1.2 million is 0.0025%, which suggests excellent efficacy, especially given that the current outbreak there is led by the Indian variant, which is both more transmissible and more capable of evading certain antibodies. The rate of reinfection in people who previously had covid is nearly 17 times higher than in vaccinated people — 26 reinfections out of 61K prior cases. It's also significant that in one hospital cluster, all 9 of the vaccinated people who were infected were either asymptomatic or had mild cases, compared to 34 unvaccinated people, 6 of whom needed oxygen, two were in ICU, and one died.

[Penelope]

I think a better question is why are they testing asymptomatic people if they have been vaccinated?

That is no longer recommended. What purpose does it serve anymore, outside of a controlled study? 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Penelope

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

We are seeing it in local nursing homes, but the patients are all asymptomatic. They only know due to routine testing and then quarantine those people. 

I honestly don’t know if it’s good or bad.  It’s good that the patients don’t have symptoms and are not dying; but I worry what it means for continued spread. The vaccine hesitancy in my area is a large problem and I don’t see it changing.  Even if mask rules are relaxed for the vaccinated, the people who are unvaccinated are largely the people who think Covid is not that serious and aren’t going to stay masking because they’re supposed to. And how are businesses and such to know who’s vaccinated and who isn’t?

 

[Corraleno]

8 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I think a better question is why are they testing asymptomatic people if they have been vaccinated?

That is no longer recommended. What purpose does it serve anymore, outside of a controlled study? 

There's just a whole different level of exposure with athletes who are in close physical contact for hours every day, which generally includes shouting, hugging, sharing a locker room, etc. I assume the entire team is being tested daily when they are training, traveling, or playing; that is likely an MLB requirement. I think it's an NCAA requirements as well — DS is fully vaccinated, but all varsity athletes who are training on campus over the summer are still required to test 3x week regardless of vaccine status. I believe that will continue in the fall, although nonathletes who are fully vaccinated will only be tested randomly a few times during the fall semester.

[Jean in Newcastle]

If they are being around vaccinated people (ie the rest of the vaccinated team(s)) , then even if asymptomatic,  they aren't spreading this rampantly.  Another reason for EVERYONE WHO CAN to get vaccinated.  A bunch of asymptomatic people will not be a problem for society then. 

[Pawz4me]

26 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I think a better question is why are they testing asymptomatic people if they have been vaccinated?

 

My guess is that it's some sort of requirement from the MLB players' union.

[Resilient]

The J&J vaccine worked.  They 7 didn't get sick.  

Vaccines don't mean you won't ever ever ever get COVID.  They are intended to keep you from getting a bad case.  

That's what I understand, anyway.  

Our local hospital tracks inpatient care for COVID. They should track how many inpatients had been vaccinated and how many were not.  Not announcing names, just tracking numbers.  That would be decision-making information whichever way it went.

[kokotg]

 

43 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I think a better question is why are they testing asymptomatic people if they have been vaccinated?

That is no longer recommended. What purpose does it serve anymore, outside of a controlled study? 

MLB isn't requiring anyone to get vaccinated, so there are plenty of unvaccinated people around on the teams (I read that the Yankees hit some threshold (85% maybe?) vaccinated that allowed them to operate under less strict precautions), so it certainly makes sense to me to continue with regular testing. I know the early evidence on vaccines preventing transmission is good, but presumably the people who DO get breakthrough cases can still spread it to unvaccinated people--which would be a major headache in this kind of situation with so many people in close contact and traveling all over the country. 

[alisoncooks]

I want to know, along with being asymptomatic, if the positive yet vaccinated people will avoid long Covid. That's what I'd really like to avoid by being vacc'd. 

[Penelope]

8 minutes ago, kokotg said:

 

MLB isn't requiring anyone to get vaccinated, so there are plenty of unvaccinated people around on the teams (I read that the Yankees hit some threshold (85% maybe?) vaccinated that allowed them to operate under less strict precautions), so it certainly makes sense to me to continue with regular testing. I know the early evidence on vaccines preventing transmission is good, but presumably the people who DO get breakthrough cases can still spread it to unvaccinated people--which would be a major headache in this kind of situation with so many people in close contact and traveling all over the country. 

You’d think there was at least a chance, right? But I think it is teeny tiny. Remember in March or April CDC director said that vaccinated people do not transmit the virus. And then it was slightly walked back to say, it isn’t impossible, but extremely unlikely. 
 

It might even be zero if the person is also asymptomatic. I have read just this week that there aren’t any documented cases of asymptomatic breakthrough infections infecting anyone else in the US, so although they can still catch it and theoretically if it’s in their nose, it shouldn’t be impossible to pass it along, it is the tiniest of risks, if any risk at all. From what I understand, they have lower viral loads and eliminate it faster. 

[Penelope]

10 minutes ago, alisoncooks said:

I want to know, along with being asymptomatic, if the positive yet vaccinated people will avoid long Covid. That's what I'd really like to avoid by being vacc'd. 

I am most interested in knowing this about MIS-C for kids, especially since it seems this can occur even when a child had an unrecognized, asymptomatic infection. 
 

But I don’t know if we will ever know, at least not soon. There will probably be less of it as time goes on just because of lower community infections, so I wonder we will find out if the vaccine changes the risk of MIS-C on an individual level. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Penelope

[whitestavern]

11 minutes ago, alisoncooks said:

I want to know, along with being asymptomatic, if the positive yet vaccinated people will avoid long Covid. That's what I'd really like to avoid by being vacc'd. 

It looks like there are some cases, though it looks like a very small percentage as of now. (scroll down towards bottom of the article)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-limits-review-of-vaccinated-but-infected-draws-concern/ar-BB1gx1au?ocid=uxbndlbing

[kokotg]

5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

You’d think there was at least a chance, right? But I think it is teeny tiny. Remember in March or April CDC director said that vaccinated people do not transmit the virus. And then it was slightly walked back to say, it isn’t impossible, but extremely unlikely. 
 

It might even be zero if the person is also asymptomatic. I have read just this week that there aren’t any documented cases of asymptomatic breakthrough infections infecting anyone else in the US, so although they can still catch it and theoretically if it’s in their nose, it shouldn’t be impossible to pass it along, it is the tiniest of risks, if any risk at all. From what I understand, they have lower viral loads and eliminate it faster. 

The studies I've read about so far have suggested that vaccines prevent transmission because they prevent infections in the vast majority of people, even mild and asymptomatic cases. That's always been my biggest concern about J&J, particularly in a still largely unvaccinated population. That's great news that there aren't any documented cases of transmission in breakthrough infections, and I certainly hope it holds up, but I can also understand why MLB is going to take a cautious approach, given the stakes involved (i.e. a whole, whole lot of money, for one thing).

[Terabith]

10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

You’d think there was at least a chance, right? But I think it is teeny tiny. Remember in March or April CDC director said that vaccinated people do not transmit the virus. And then it was slightly walked back to say, it isn’t impossible, but extremely unlikely. 
 

It might even be zero if the person is also asymptomatic. I have read just this week that there aren’t any documented cases of asymptomatic breakthrough infections infecting anyone else in the US, so although they can still catch it and theoretically if it’s in their nose, it shouldn’t be impossible to pass it along, it is the tiniest of risks, if any risk at all. From what I understand, they have lower viral loads and eliminate it faster. 

The CDC never said vaccinated people don't spread the virus.  They said they are much less likely to contract and spread the virus.  It wasn't tested in the trials.  Evidence is coming from real life.  It IS much less likely to spread, but less is certainly not zero, especially with high numbers total and close contact.  

[ktgrok]

20 minutes ago, alisoncooks said:

I want to know, along with being asymptomatic, if the positive yet vaccinated people will avoid long Covid. That's what I'd really like to avoid by being vacc'd. 

Well, Phizer looks to prevent even asymptomatic infection by 90% or so, so getting vaccinated definitely reduces your chances of long Covid. 

[Penelope]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

The CDC never said vaccinated people don't spread the virus.  They said they are much less likely to contract and spread the virus.  It wasn't tested in the trials.  Evidence is coming from real life.  It IS much less likely to spread, but less is certainly not zero, especially with high numbers total and close contact.  

Dr. Walensky said exactly that, quoted here. I remember seeing clips from her press conference. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-don-t-carry-can-t-spread-virus/ar-BB1f8ofp

Some criticized her for stating it so strongly.

Quote

“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus – they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddowon Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real world data.”

Walensky was referring to a new CDC study that suggests those fully inoculated with the vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer don’t transmit the virus. 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Penelope

[Corraleno]

32 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Dr. Walensky said exactly that, quoted here. I remember seeing clips from her press conference. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-don-t-carry-can-t-spread-virus/ar-BB1f8ofp

Some criticized her for stating it so strongly.

 

She said that off the cuff in a single interview, and the CDC immediately walked it back and said she was "speaking very broadly," and that some people can get infected after vaccination and that the "evidence isn’t clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.”

I think Walensky was reacting to the argument that was widely spread by anti-vaxxers that vaccines don't provide any protection against catching or transmitting the virus, only against severe symptoms, therefore not getting the vaccine is totally an individual choice that doesn't affect anyone else. So she was saying "yes it does protect against asymptomatic infection and therefore transmission" but it came out sounding like she thought it was 100% effective, which is not what she meant.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Corraleno
so many typos, oy

[Not_a_Number]

31 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Dr. Walensky said exactly that, quoted here. I remember seeing clips from her press conference. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-don-t-carry-can-t-spread-virus/ar-BB1f8ofp

Some criticized her for stating it so strongly.

 

That was more about the mRNA vaccines, though.

[Arcadia]

From WHO (B.1.617 is the India variant) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20210511_weekly_epi_update_39.pdf?sfvrsn=b66ba70d_11&download=true

page 4

”At the present time, WHO has designated B.1.617 as a VOC based on early evidence of phenotypic impacts compared to other circulating virus variants, namely:

• B.1.617 sublineages appear to have higher rates of transmission, including observed rapid increases in prevalence in multiple countries (moderate evidence available for B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.2), and

• Preliminary evidence suggests potential reduced effectiveness of Bamlanivimab, a monoclonal antibody used for COVID-19 treatment, and potentially slightly reduced susceptibility to neutralisation antibodies (limited evidence available for B.1.617.1).”
   

page 6 (the a to i are referring to the References)

”Potential impacts of B.1.617 lineage on effectiveness of vaccines or therapeutics, or reinfection risks, remain uncertain. Preliminary laboratory studies awaiting peer review suggest a limited reduction in neutralisation by antibodies; however, real-world impacts may be limited.e One study found a seven-fold reduction in neutralization effectiveness against B.1.617.1 of antibodies generated by vaccination with Moderna - mRNA- 1273 and Pfizer BioNTech-Comirnaty vaccines.f A second study also found a reduction in neutralization against virus carrying the E484Q mutation (contained in B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.3) for Pfizer BioNTech - Comirnaty vaccine, similar to that found with the E484K mutation.g A third study reviewing a limited sample of convalescent sera of COVID-19 cases (n=17) and sera from recipients of the Bharat - Covaxin vaccine (n=23) concluded that most neutralizing activity against B.1.617 was retained.e A fourth study reported an approximately three-fold decrease in neutralization activity by plasma from recipients of Pfizer BioNTech - Comirnaty vaccine (n=15) against B.1.617, and a limited two-fold decrease by convalescent sera from cases with severe COVID-19 (n=15). The same study showed that B.1.617.1 (with additional spike mutations R21T, and Q218H) mediates increased entry into certain human and intestinal cell lines, and was resistant to the monoclonal antibody Bamlanivimab; however, it was efficiently inhibited by Imdevimab and by a cocktail of Casirivimab and Imdevimab.e”

”References

a Outbreak.info. SARS-CoV-2 Mutation Reports: Lineage Mutation Tracker. https://outbreak.info/situation-reports

b Ranjan, R., Sharma, A., Verma, M.K., 2021. Characterization of the Second Wave of COVID-19 in India. medRxiv 2021.04.17.21255665. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.17.21255665

c Cherian, S., Potdar, V., Jadhav, S., et al 2021. Convergent evolution of SARS-CoV-2 spike mutations, L452R, E484Q and P681R, in the second wave of COVID-19 in Maharashtra, India. bioRxiv 2021.04.22.440932. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.22.440932

d Yadav, P.D., Mohandas, S., Shete, A.M., et al 2021. SARS CoV-2 variant B.1.617.1 is highly pathogenic in hamsters than B.1 variant. bioRxiv 2021.05.05.442760. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.442760

e Yadav, P.D., Sapkal, G.N., Abraham, P., et al 2021. Neutralization of variant under investigation B.1.617 with sera of BBV152 vaccinees. bioRxiv 2021.04.23.441101. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.23.441101

f Edara, V.-V., Lai, L., Sahoo, M., et al 2021. Infection and vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody responses to the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.1 variant. bioRxiv 2021.05.09.443299. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.09.443299

g Ferreira, I., Datir, R., Papa, G., et al 2021. SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617 emergence and sensitivity to vaccine-elicited antibodies. bioRxiv 2021.05.08.443253. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.08.443253

h Public Health England, 2021. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. (Technical Briefing No. 10). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984274/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_T echnical_Briefing_10_England.pdf

i Public Health England, 2021. Variants: distribution of cases data https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-variants-genomically-confirmed-case-numbers/variants-distribution-of-cases-data#Variant12”

[ScoutTN]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

I think a better question is why are they testing asymptomatic people if they have been vaccinated?

That is no longer recommended. What purpose does it serve anymore, outside of a controlled study? 

Because it is required by their employer. 

[Penelope]

52 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

She said that off the cuff in a single interview, and the CDC immediately walked it back and said she was "speaking very broadly," and that some people can get infected after vaccination and that the "evidence isn’t clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.”

I think Walensky was reacting to the argument that was widely spread by anti-vaxxers that vaccines don't provide any protection against catching or transmitting the virus, only against severe symptoms, therefore not getting the vaccine is totally an individual choice that doesn't affect anyone else. So she was saying "yes it does protect against asymptomatic infection and therefore transmission" but it came out sounding like she thought it was 100% effective, which is not what she meant.

I think you’re right about why, but this idea was not only spread by antivaxxers. That was what was said in the mainstream news in the first couple of months, probably because of the interpretation of cautious comments by experts saying “we don’t know yet” as meaning “they probably don’t reduce transmission.”

The idea is that the number is tiny. They wouldn’t be removing mask recommendations for the vaccinated today if it weren’t super tiny. Since mask benefit is unknown but likely small, the chance that masks on vaccinated people is going to substantially alter risk must be negligible, or they wouldn’t do this. 

I did say she overstated and it was walked back. I don’t think her comments were off the cuff, as they were part of a televised statement. 
 

Side note, but I like her and think she’s doing a great job, considering. It is such a hard job right now. I think that generally, harm is done when her comments have been walked back, even if they aren’t perfect. 

This is a chart showing some of the relevant studies about asymptomatic transmission in vaccinated and viral load with breakthrough infections. https://hividgm.ucsf.edu/covid-19-vaccines

 

 

[cintinative]

I just had an epidemiologist tell me yesterday that they don't think that vaccinated people can contract even mild versions of COVID or spread it. I had made a comment that dropping mask restrictions in Ohio could mean a greater possibility of vaccinated folks getting mild illness and I was told this was not correct.  I am so confused. And then today the CDC announces that vaccinated people don't need masks indoors or outdoors.  Can someone help explain this to me?

From: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

 

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I think you’re right about why, but this idea was not only spread by antivaxxers. That was what was said in the mainstream news in the first couple of months, probably because of the interpretation of cautious comments by experts saying “we don’t know yet” as meaning “they probably don’t reduce transmission.”

The idea is that the number is tiny. They wouldn’t be removing mask recommendations for the vaccinated today if it weren’t super tiny. Since mask benefit is unknown but likely small, the chance that masks on vaccinated people is going to substantially alter risk must be negligible, or they wouldn’t do this. 

I did say she overstated and it was walked back. I don’t think her comments were off the cuff, as they were part of a televised statement. 
 

Side note, but I like her and think she’s doing a great job, considering. It is such a hard job right now. I think that generally, harm is done when her comments have been walked back, even if they aren’t perfect. 

This is a chart showing some of the relevant studies about asymptomatic transmission in vaccinated and viral load with breakthrough infections. https://hividgm.ucsf.edu/covid-19-vaccines

 

 

I agree that the chance of asymptomatic transmission in vaccinated people is likely really tiny, but personally I wish the CDC hadn't changed the mask recommendations since (1) I don't think we have good data on the extent that the J&J vaccine blocks transmission, (2) we don't know what transmission may be like with some of the more virulent variants, and (3) if the vaccinated half of the population stops wearing masks, the unvaccinated half will surely stop as well. But I think the CDC was under tremendous pressure to lift the mask requirements for vaccinated people.

Walensky's quoted comment was in response to question from Rachel Maddow in an interview on MSNBC (the comment starts at 1:29). And she said that the data "suggest that vaccinated people don't carry the virus, don't get sick..." It wasn't an official CDC statement, and it wasn't as definitive as it was reported in so many headlines. Obviously she should have said "Data suggest that the vast majority of vaccinated people don't carry the virus..." but I think there was a huge overreaction to an off-the-cuff statement in a single interview.

 

[Penelope]

Yes I hope we see more on J and J. There was some info in their trial showing reduction even in asymptomatic cases, though. And any vaccine that results in fewer infections will result in less transmission from the vaccinated. And I think I saw that the UK has that kind of data for Astra Zeneca. 
 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Penelope

[ktgrok]

13 minutes ago, cintinative said:

I just had an epidemiologist tell me yesterday that they don't think that vaccinated people can contract even mild versions of COVID or spread it. I had made a comment that dropping mask restrictions in Ohio could mean a greater possibility of vaccinated folks getting mild illness and I was told this was not correct.  I am so confused. And then today the CDC announces that vaccinated people don't need masks indoors or outdoors.  Can someone help explain this to me?

From: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

 

Well, that epidemiologist is flat wrong. No vaccine is 100 percent effective. Of course some people will have breakthrough infections. We know this. Were they high? Living in a cave? Like, we KNOW vaccinated people have contracted it - just in MUCH MUCH lower numbers. Sort of like birth control isn't 100 percent - works most of the time but we all know someone (or are someone) that got pregnant anyway! 

As for the CDC, they are operating on a public health level, not individual level. If we drop cases low enough, that makes them happy. But it's not fun if you are one of those few that get sick. So from a public health standpoint, if we reduce cases by 95%, that's a huge win and worth it to them. But if you are that 5%, you won't likely be sick enough to be in the hospital or anything, but still not fun. 

[kokotg]

21 minutes ago, cintinative said:

I just had an epidemiologist tell me yesterday that they don't think that vaccinated people can contract even mild versions of COVID or spread it.

I see a ton of different takes on this, and the messaging hasn't been at all clear, and it's totally confusing. I see a LOT of people saying, "the vaccine doesn't mean you won't get covid, it means you won't die from it." And I think they understand this to mean that the vaccines aren't really stopping transmission at all, just making symptoms so mild people aren't noticing?  My understanding is that our best evidence right now is that this isn't true--the vaccines DO stop the vast majority of people from contracting even mild or asymptomatic cases. 

BUT I also think that in correcting this, some people swing too far in the other direction and say things that suggest that it's literally impossible to contract covid if you're vaccinated. Which obviously is also not true; no vaccine is 100% effective, and no one's claiming covid vaccines are. I think that distinction is getting lost: for the vast majority of people, the vaccine stops you from contracting covid at all, not just serious cases (what "the vast majority" means varies somewhat between different vaccines), but there will be some small percentage of vaccinated people who do still contract covid, but even for most of THOSE people, the cases will be milder than they would be without the vaccine. 

And I'm not at all sure I just said it any clearer than anyone else, so maybe that's why the messaging is so tricky.

Edited May 13, 2021 by kokotg

[Penelope]

4 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

 

As for the CDC, they are operating on a public health level, not individual level. If we drop cases low enough, that makes them happy. But it's not fun if you are one of those few that get sick. So from a public health standpoint, if we reduce cases by 95%, that's a huge win and worth it to them. But if you are that 5%, you won't likely be sick enough to be in the hospital or anything, but still not fun. 

Right, but at some point, some level of risk will still be present, but it will be time to move on. We have flu seasons every year without any restrictions, just individuals being more careful according to their own personal risk assessment. So when we are at that level of hospitalizations with Covid, that is when it is time to pivot. I can’t say that every place in the US is at that point as I don’t have that expertise, but I think the very conservative CDC is sending the message that we are getting close.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Penelope

[Catwoman]

19 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Right, but at some point, some level of risk will still be present, but it will be time to move on. We have flu seasons every year without any restrictions, just individuals being more careful according to their own personal risk assessment. So when we are at that level of hospitalizations with Covid, that is when it is time to pivot. I can’t say that every place in the US is at that point as I don’t have that expertise, but I think the very conservative CDC is sending the message that we are getting close.

Personally, I think the CDC is WRONG.

I think their focus should remain on getting more people vaccinated, rather than buckling to public pressure and changing their recommendations about masking. 

The US is nowhere near the point where Covid is not a significant problem, and I have been quite disappointed in the CDC throughout this crisis.

[pinball]

What are the odds of Gleyber Torres getting Covid, recovering, getting vaccinated from Covid and then testing positive again?

i know I supposed be a better thinker about this...

[forty-two]

I was discussing this with dh, and he was wondering if the positives were found on rapid tests or PCR tests, because the rapid tests, as we understand it, are looking for antibodies.  So we wondered if it's possible for vaccine-induced antibodies to be found by the rapid test - anyone have any thoughts?

[pinball]

Just now, pinball said:

What are the odds of Gleyber Torres getting Covid, recovering, getting vaccinated from Covid and then testing positive again?

i know I supposed be a better thinker about this...

Quoting myself to add he is an infielder on the Yankees

[Corraleno]

What makes the Yankees case so interesting is that everyone who tested positive so far was vaccinated — so either they were all coincidentally infected by the same unvaccinated person, who for some reason hasn't been tested or is testing negative, or one (or more) of the vaxxed people transmitted it to other vaxxed people.

I don't think the fact that there were a bunch of breakthrough cases in people who got a vaccine that is only 66% effective against moderate illness is all that remarkable, but the transmission question seems to be a much bigger issue. Unless they can find an unvaxxed patient zero who had close contact with all eight positive cases, it seems more likely that people who were vaxxed with J&J have in fact transmitted the virus to others.

[ktgrok]

9 minutes ago, pinball said:

What are the odds of Gleyber Torres getting Covid, recovering, getting vaccinated from Covid and then testing positive again?

i know I supposed be a better thinker about this...

That would say to me that his body, for whatever reason, doesn't mount a good immune response to the spike protein. Maybe a genetic thing, maybe a medication he takes, I don't know. 

9 minutes ago, forty-two said:

I was discussing this with dh, and he was wondering if the positives were found on rapid tests or PCR tests, because the rapid tests, as we understand it, are looking for antibodies.  So we wondered if it's possible for vaccine-induced antibodies to be found by the rapid test - anyone have any thoughts?

No, rapid tests are looking for antigens, not antibodies. 

[kokotg]

19 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Personally, I think the CDC is WRONG.

I think their focus should remain on getting more people vaccinated, rather than buckling to public pressure and changing their recommendations about masking. 

The US is nowhere near the point where Covid is not a significant problem, and I have been quite disappointed in the CDC throughout this crisis.

The school district next door to mine jumped on this immediately and has already lifted the mask mandate for people who are vaccinated. As far as I can tell, they're requiring no proof whatsoever of said vaccination, which means that tomorrow there will be a bunch of unvaccinated 14 and 15 year olds going to school with 16 and 17 year olds who can now say, "oh, I'm vaccinated" and not wear masks. I understand what the CDC is trying to do, and I understand the fine line they're trying to walk, but I'm not so sure about this one.

[ktgrok]

An hour after the CDC's announcement my son said a client came in demanding to know why there was still a mask's required sign on the door. That the CDC says he doesn't have to mask, etc. Of course, he didn't offer proof of vaccination, and private businesses can make whatever restrictions they want. But yeah, not even an hour later and the irate demands had begun. 

[bookbard]

Don't know, but my first thought was maybe the vaccine they got hadn't been stored properly and hadn't worked. Is that a possibility?

[Catwoman]

6 minutes ago, bookbard said:

Don't know, but my first thought was maybe the vaccine they got hadn't been stored properly and hadn't worked. Is that a possibility?

I’m thinking the vaccine did work, because 6 out of the 7 people who tested positive were asymptomatic. 

[RootAnn]

Now it says 8 tested positive?

[pinball]

12 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Now it says 8 tested positive?

I think Gleyber Torres, the player I mentioned upthread is #8

[Penelope]

3 hours ago, Catwoman said:

Personally, I think the CDC is WRONG.

I think their focus should remain on getting more people vaccinated, rather than buckling to public pressure and changing their recommendations about masking. 

The US is nowhere near the point where Covid is not a significant problem, and I have been quite disappointed in the CDC throughout this crisis.

I was really surprised. But I think that motivation to get vaccinated must be part of it, now that supply has exceeded demand. I thought it was coming soon, but not yet, until it had been a couple of months past the time vaccines were opened to all adults. 

But I also think that they are well aware of the implications of what they put out today and must have figured all of that into their calculations and models. 

I remember reading an article sometime last year about one or two of the Nordic countries not calling for masks,  and it was because when public health figured how much of a benefit they estimated masks would have and did the calculations, their cases were then at a level where they did not think masks would make a significant difference, but that at a higher level of spread, the answer would be different. So I feel sure there are some judgments involved in decision making, where they know that some percentage of people who are unvaccinated will also not wear cloth masks, and they have been watching areas that have not ever had mask mandates, as well. 

Of course, on an individual level, it will still make sense for some to wear masks. And as mentioned in another thread, I do not like the idea of children having to stay masked when adults are not and unvaccinated adults pose a higher risk to others than unvaccinated children do. 
 

[HeartString]

I saw this and thought about this thread.