Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
health

Can people vaccinated against COVID-19 still spread the coronavirus?

24 Comments
By Sanjay Mishra

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

Quite a long article, for those to lazy to read it all, I'll summarize it for you ......

GET THE VACCINE!

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Quite a dance around. If the inoculation is effective then until the body's defenses are fully in charge the virus will be shed and the vaccinated can be infectious until the virus is knocked out. Both the level of spread and the time infected are an individual event. Multiple factors come into play, like Covid variant, vaccine effectiveness, health of the individual and the autoimmune response. Bottom line is to mask up and don't get Covid...

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If you have a compromised immune system, be careful.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Yes.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The answer is of course YES. Having the virus (being infected), doesn't equal to being sick. If you have the virus, when you cough, you'll still spread the virus, you just won't get sick from it because the virus can't use your cells to replicate, because the antibodies - your body made after you vaccinate - attaches themselves to the virus, and the virus' ability to attach to your cells is decreased.

Now imagine the virus with these antibodies attached got into another person's body - who hasn't vaccinate -, the virus will still have decreased effectiveness. This is what "herd" immunity means, virus is still spreading, but they find it hard to attach to cells, thanks to antibodies from people who vaccinated.

So, get vaccinated! When you catch it, your body will protects yourself and others around you as well.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Mr KiplingMay 29  08:00 am JST

Quite a long article, for those to lazy to read it all, I'll summarize it for you ......

GET THE VACCINE!

The problem is, there's so many liars, conspiracy theorists and loudmoths and the CoVidiots who believe them. Last year this time the irresponsible sassybrat Dirtbag had those 'freedumb' rallies and he was sending those racist militia crud to turn the George Floyd demonstrations into riots, hoping to ignite a race war that most Americans don't want.

We still a planet of 8 billion to vaccinate. I got mine but until things truly are settled I'm not going anywhere or anyplace where's alot of people. How do I know if someone else got vaccinated? Recently a family vacationed in Hawaii and the 10 y/o son got CoVid and died. I don't want to risk being a carrier.

GET THE DAMN VACCINE! For your sake, for your family's sake, for others' sake, for God's sake. DO IT.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

”Can people vaccinated against COVID-19 still spread the coronavirus?"

Highly unlikely.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Biden, said the new guideline is “based on the evolution of the science” and “serves as an incentive” for the almost two-thirds of Americans who are not yet fully vaccinated to go ahead and get the shot.

And we will soon see the incompetence and fraud behind Fauci. He’s getting close to his expiration date. Call it “herd immunity” from his dubious behavior..

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

And we will soon see the incompetence and fraud behind Fauci. He’s getting close to his expiration date. Call it “herd immunity” from his dubious behavior..

What exactly is the difference from this specific person and the general opinion of science that you feel you can call him incompetent? is it only because you don't like the scientific consensus but it would be too obvious if you say so, so you target one single person as if he was saying something different?

Big news, science is self correcting and not immobile, if the evidence contradicts a previous conclusion then the conclusion will change, this is normal and desired.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It’s best to ask the people that manufactured the problem.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629563/Chinese-scientists-created-COVID-19-lab-tried-cover-tracks-new-study-claims.html

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Big news, science is self correcting and not immobile, if the evidence contradicts a previous conclusion then the conclusion will change, this is normal and desired.

Except under one condition: When the evidence was actually available a long time ago. And it was kept secret to push another conclusion.

“Correcting Science” is a bit disingenuous when it gets caught in the act.

As for Fauci, we will see how science treats his “scientific” methods.

But thank you for the words of wisdom nevertheless. I enjoy the levity.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

“Correcting Science” is a bit disingenuous when it gets caught in the act.

That would be like a teacher getting caught teaching people. This is what science is, what it does routinely, thinking differently only evidences not knowing the process of science.

As for Fauci, we will see how science treats his “scientific” methods.

What are you talking about, he is not originating data (something for which the methods would have any importance) he is just repeating what other people have found and that has been accepted as scientifically accurate, you are free (again) to put here official communications from any respected medical or scientific institutions that contradicts what he says, if you cannot do it then you are just trying to criticize the scientific consensus while trying to make it as if you were criticizing a single person.

It’s best to ask the people that manufactured the problem.

Better wait until the paper is at least published, at least for the moment none of the arguments used make a strong case, the lack of a clear ancestor is proof of nothing when the samples to work with are as limited as they are now, there is no law of physics that says 4 positive charged amino acids can't be togheter (the Four lysines sequence is even a well known motif) the gain of function work on coronaviruses predicted a very different (and efficient) way for the spike protein to gain better attachment to human ACE2 and there is no mention of the conflicting evidence against the laboratory origin (such as the first human cases ever found not coming from the city of Wuhan).

3 ( +7 / -4 )

And like the “Science” teacher being charged with incompetence and possibly criminal negligence.

https://news.knowledia.com/US/en/articles/fauci-s-failures-pile-up-republican-introduces-fired-act-fauci-d69f6daa3a460e94cbd6636ad3c22980970d311

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

And like the “Science” teacher being charged with incompetence and possibly criminal negligence.

Again, what about he said was against the consensus of science? not a single thing was mentioned in the article where he contradicted the available best data of the time. Of course you don't believe that political reasons actually can define what is scientifically correct or not, do you?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Readers can judge the science of the CDS based on their activities. They are politicized government body that has wandered far off a health science mandate.

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2021/03/two-federal-judges-declare-cdc-eviction-moratorium-unenforceable

The CDC reference links are nice. But they are not trustworthy. As with the “Science” teacher

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Readers can judge the science of the CDS based on their activities. They are politicized government body that has wandered far off a health science mandate.

And again you keep making the same antiscientific mistakes, what things the CDC say that are against the consensus of science. In reality they are just repeating the same thing that every other important organization are saying, but since you don't like the scientific conclusions your exit is to misrepresent on single example as if it were alone in what it says. In reality you just cannot accept what science in general have concluded as correct

But don’t believe me. Believe the “scientists”.

I asked you to provide proof that he is going against the best available evidence, you provided no such thing. Anybody involved with science even on an amateur level should understand the huge difference of giving a recommendation that goes against scientific knowledge (something you have not provided) and giving a recommendation in absence of scientific knowledge. At this point both opening or keeping closed the economy are decisions that cannot be taken only on scientific knowledge, because there is not enough of it.

A decision has to be made anyway, so that is what is being done, there is no problem with recognizing this, maybe this is something new for people that are used to their leaders lying about their decisions but scientifically speaking this is not justified.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

And again you keep making the same antiscientific mistakes, what things the CDC say that are against the consensus of science. In reality they are just repeating the same thing that every other important organization are saying, but since you don't like the scientific conclusions your exit is to misrepresent on single example as if it were alone in what it says. In reality you just cannot accept what science in general have concluded as correct

Don't you understand this simple premise? The science that you reference are from sources that cannot be trusted. Period. And we will soon see to what extent.

At this point both opening or keeping closed the economy are decisions that cannot be taken only on scientific knowledge, because there is not enough of it.

For someone that keeps expousing facts, it seems you are a little shy on ones that have a real impact. But the fact is, the decisions are being made. And they are destroying businesses, livihoods, and probably additional lives as a result of diminished services during ill-concieved lockdowns. Based on your thesis that leadership is about making decisions. Except for one caveat: Leadership is about making informed decisions.

A decision has to be made anyway, so that is what is being done, there is no problem with recognizing this, maybe this is something new for people that are used to their leaders lying about their decisions but scientifically speaking this is not justified.

OK - Back to science again, are we? I propose to think twice regarding "science" that I believe is inconclusive. " Anybody involved with science even on an amateur level should understand the huge difference of giving a recommendation that goes against scientific knowledge (something you have not provided) and giving a recommendation in absence of scientific knowledge."

Lol

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Tests have shown the vaccinations reduced the chances of catching the covid and passing it on by more than 50%.

That they do. In the short term, I wouldn't be surprized if they even excel those numbers. In the absence of longer term testing, that's about all we can claim.

I recall the days when Big Pharma first pushed opoids as non-addictive to solutions pain relief. In the short term, it worked out well.

I really have no reservations on what people choose to take as medicine. It only concerns me when I see everyone singing from the same hymm book based on certain narratives. And that I must take an experimental compound to save me and the society around me from an illness that i had previously contracted and recovered from without hardly even noticing.

As I said, if it relieves your concerns please take your jab and be content. And allow others to make their own decisions when they are good and ready.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

There is no pandemic for certain demographics.

And there is no need to innoculate children with experimental medicines.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105162/japan-patients-detail-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-cases-by-age-and-gender/

Protect the ones that require protection. Something that government consistently neglects to do.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Don't you understand this simple premise? The science that you reference are from sources that cannot be trusted. Period. And we will soon see to what extent.

So according to you every single source of scientific knowledge can't be trusted, and you think this is something anybody can actually believe?

Based on your thesis that leadership is about making decisions. Except for one caveat: Leadership is about making informed decisions.

Obviously, but there is such a thing as having no scientific information to precisely decide something. You failed repeatedly to produce any scientific information that contradicts the decisions made, openly accepting there is no information to decide at this moment is completely different from what you said, as it was very easy to demonstrate. You said specific persons were against science, then could not prove it and ended up saying all science is wrong because they say something you don't like, that is not an argument, that is just moving the goalposts when you are proved mistaken.

There is no pandemic for certain demographics.

And there is no need to innoculate children with experimental medicines.

You are mistaken for both things, the pandemic exist for everybody, it is just more dangerous for some people, so anybody with decency and empathy can feel the need to make sure to do anything they can possibly do to avoid spreading the disease, including a safe and efficient health measure according to all the scientific community in general.

Also, age is not the only factor that make people specially vulnerable, there is nothing wrong with inoculating children that deeply need that protection after the vaccines are deemed safe enough to be used on them (you know, after they stop being used experimentally but therapeutically on them). You may feel fine letting those children be exposed to an infection that can actually kills them, their parents have other ideas.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Don't you understand this simple premise? The science that you reference are from sources that cannot be trusted. Period. And we will soon see to what extent.

So according to you every single source of scientific knowledge can't be trusted, and you think this is something anybody can actually believe?

Hmmm, this reminds me of unscientific people that automatically reject the 100's of studies (calling them "bad" studies) showing the beneficial effects of HCQ and only accept those few studies that show a negative effect ("good" studies).

Anyway, the pro pharma biase in studies has been well documented, including by the Cochrane Library, Raoult's group, and many others.

There is no pandemic for certain demographics.

And there is no need to innoculate children with experimental medicines.

Exactly! In Japan, there is yet to be any serious cases or deaths due to Covid19 among the below 20 year olds (after over 75,000 confirmed infections). There is no need for them to take any of these vaccines for which nobody knows the long term effects (except perhaps that few that have certain health issues).

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Hmmm, this reminds me of unscientific people that automatically reject the 100's of studies (calling them "bad" studies) showing the beneficial effects of HCQ and only accept those few studies that show a negative effect ("good" studies).

The consensus of science is that HCQ was shown to not be useful for COVID at all, precisely because the best studies proved the supposed benefit was just noise from limited studies (and some unethical manipulations from bad scientists). Still the same situation, some people choose to be irrational about it without thinking why no single respected institution of science or medicine seems to support their views. That is what being unscientific means.

Exactly! In Japan, there is yet to be any serious cases or deaths due to Covid19 among the below 20 year olds (after over 75,000 confirmed infections).

No "reported" death or serious case, a very important distinction from a country where active efforts are being made to not have documentation of cases. It is more important for children not to be exposed to a disease for whom nobody knows the long term effects (specially when some have already appeared), in this respect the vaccines still represent a lower risk because they are based on technology already being used for many years and do not expose the vaccinated people to the comparatively huge amounts of viral proteins the natural infection do.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites