Initial report of decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load after inoculation with the BNT162b2 vaccine

Matan Levine-Tiefenbrun, Idan Yelin, Rachel Katz

Show all 14 authors

Esma Herzel, Ziv Golan, Licita Schreiber, Tamar Wolf, Varda Nadler, Amir Ben-Tov, Jacob Kuint, Sivan Gazit, Tal Patalon, Gabriel Chodick, Roy Kishony

2021 · Nature Medicine

Biology & medicine

Read the paper

HN score: 0
Mentions: 6
Readers: 5
Months: 3

What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

6 selected excerpts · 6 total mentions

Show

YZFOct 24, 2021

Neutral mention · rule

First let's deal with the nitpicky semantics. R0 is is the basic reproduction number while R generally denotes the effective reproduction number. I am talking about R. There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R. While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this. There are tons of studies, random…

Read the full comment

e.g.: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1245/pdf Trying to argue confounding factors vs. the observations is IMO very weak. Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain. It seems like the people who want proof here set the bar impossibly high, no proof will ever satisfy them. EDIT: adding some more references... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccin... https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests... https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ph...

Original comment YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

rmu09Oct 4, 2021

Neutral mention · rule

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7 I know of one other study (can't find it at the moment though) that specifically looked not for CT value but if they are able to infect cells. The outcome was something like vaccinated people do replicate virus, but the spikes of those viruses are (mostly) deactivated by antibodies and therefore not as infectious as virus obtained from unvaccinated people. In rt-PCR tests you can't really distinguish infectious from deactivated virus.

Original comment Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

criticaltinkerAug 28, 2021

Neutral mention · rule

The biggest flaw with this study is that it does not account for prior natural infection. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that individuals who acquire immunity through natural infection have a robust and durable immune response [1][2][3]. Recent vaccination on top of this immunity is likely to further prime and improve immune responses to subsequent infection [4][5]. Not accounting for this fact is a significant confounding factor in the study, and I'm disappointed the authors made no distinction between unvaccinated and immunologically naive. This is a distinction that every sensible scientific discussion needs to acknowledge. EDIT: please leave a comment down…

Read the full comment

voters, I’m starting to think there’s some sort of targeted campaign against this type of information > Vaccine breakthrough infections exhibited similar proliferation dynamics as infections in unvaccinated individuals (mean peak Ct: 20.5, 95% credible interval [19.0, 21.0] vs. 20.7 [19.8, 20.2], and mean proliferation time 3.2 days[2.5, 4.0] vs. 3.5 days [3.0, 4.0]); however, vaccinated individuals exhibited faster clearance (mean clearance time: 5.5 days [4.6, 6.6] vs. 7.5 days [6.8, 8.2]). > If the Ct values in vaccinated and unvaccinated infected individuals reflect the same amounts of infectious virus, then this implies that individuals with breakthrough infections may be as infectious as unvaccinated individuals in the early stage of the infection, but remain infectious for a shorter time, reducing the total degree of onward transmission. These findings are in keeping with the hypothesis that vaccination protects against the severe manifestations of disease but offers less protection against infection in the upper airway. Precautions are therefore necessary to prevent onward transmission even from vaccinated individuals. [1] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... [2] SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/ [3] Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... [4] Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9 [5] Initial report of decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load after inoculation with the BNT162b2 vaccine https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7

Original comment Viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 variants in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals

smt88Aug 17, 2021

Neutral mention · rule

You're correct that it's possible for vaccines to be distributed in a way that promotes mutations[1]. You're also correct that there are many factors, including number of times the virus replicates and also selective pressure. At this point, it looks like our mRNA vaccines: - leave a short enough window between doses to minimize mutations - reduce viral load within a vaccinated person[2] - prevent many transmissions entirely[3][4][5] ...which, added all up, appears to net out the way you'd expect: the vaccine reduces the risk of mutations. 1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/10/9659409... 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7 3. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... 4. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-breakthrough-infec... 5. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-crucial-vacci...

Original comment Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

cartoonworldJul 23, 2021

Neutral mention · rule

The vaccinated people can spread the disease like you can still get herpes when you use a condom. FYI, condoms grant you a 30% reduction of infection rate for the relevant type. We should definitely be vaccinated, and in in doing so, using the power and strengths of modern society to reap the benefits we are supposedly living in it for the purpose of creating for ourselves in the first place. Vaccinated people can spread the virus, but the rates are much[0] less[4] because the immune system is actively controlling[1] the outbreak. Viral load correlates strongly with ones ability to transmit Sars-CoV-2[5] This beats my herpes example like electricity beats wood gas for…

Read the full comment

lighting. Vaccinated people get and transmit the Sars-CoV-2 virus at much lower rates[3, page 10][4], and essentially never become very ill. Death is not the only effect of Sars-CoV-2, it has a variety of negative effects from the mild, to the bad, onward to the extremely taxing COVID, and critical hospitalization. This is aside from other secondary social, psychological and economic impacts. If you rate the risk of death as fine and think we should just take a chance, everybody in the world feeling very ill for a few weeks is not nothing. Those people are air traffic controllers, doctors, mechanics, chefs, pilots, nuclear safety officers, police, etc and their normal operation matters for the operation of society. [0] - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.12.21260377v... [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7 [3] - March 2021 representing early evidence: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Ris... [4] - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.11.21253275v... [5] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147330992...

Original comment Technical Introduction to the Use of Trusted Platform Module 2.0 with Linux [pdf]

criticaltinkerAug 23, 2021

Neutral mention · rule

GP's statement contradicts the scientific literature - vaccination does reduce viral load of subsequent infection, and consequently reduces transmission [1]. However folks should be aware that immunity acquired through natural infection is robust and durable, and also has the same effect of reducing viral load and transmission [2]. It has been documented that people with asymptomatic infection will clear the virus quickly compared to those who are symptomatic [3]. Recent meta-analyses [4] and large population serological studies [5] have estimated the asymptomatic proportion lower bound to be at least ~33%, and the upper bound to be ~65% (even higher for young adults).…

Read the full comment

Considering recent evidence that cases may be massively under-reported, the true asymptomatic proportion could be even higher than suggested [6]. Taken together, these results imply that a majority of the population has been already exposed to the virus, and either through natural infection or vaccination has acquired some degree of immunity that reduces the transmission of the virus. Analogous to antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance can evolve if vaccines are used indiscriminately [7][8][9][10]. So the benefits of compulsory mass vaccination may not outweigh the risks of such a policy, given the current state of affairs. > so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? It is an important question with tremendously complex factors that go beyond the expertise of most lay people. [1] Initial report of decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load after inoculation with the BNT162b2 vaccine https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7?origin=ap... [2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... [3] The Natural History and Transmission Potential of Asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266652472... [4] The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6976 [5] Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population: Analysis of nationwide serosurvey data in the Netherlands https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00768-y [6] Evaluating the massive underreporting and undertesting of COVID-19 cases in multiple global epicenters https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S253104372... [7] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ [8] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti... [9] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016... [10] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/

Original comment The Coronavirus Is Here Forever