The discussion, in my opinion, is puzzling. Isn't it enough that the vaccine prevents the vast majority of those who receive it from getting a serious illness? But since the question comes up so often, it's worth addressing
From the moment the vaccines arrived in the Holy Land, one can find an eternal commotion around one critical issue: do they prevent disease, or only prevent infection?
The discussion, in my opinion, is puzzling. Isn't it enough that the vaccine prevents the vast majority of those who receive it from getting a serious illness? But since the question comes up so often, it's worth addressing.
Well, what is the truth? Do the vaccines provide protection only to those who receive them, or also to everyone around him?
First of all, let's sort out the concepts.
Sterile immunity and effective immunity
Vaccines can provide two types of protection to the body. The first type is called "sterile immunity", because it prevents any case of infection completely. The virus enters the body - and is killed almost immediately, without having a chance to replicate too much. People who enjoy sterile immunity do not develop signs of illness and cannot infect others, simply because the virus is eliminated from their bodies shortly after it enters them. It is clear why sterile immunity is the holy grail of any vaccine developer.
The second type of protection is "effective immunity". In this case, the vaccine helps the immune system prepare for the virus to enter the body, but the protection is not perfect. Yes, the immune system will react faster and stronger, but the virus will still have enough time to penetrate some of the body's cells, multiply and maybe even cause weak symptoms of the disease. The trouble is that the immunized can still infect others with the virus, because it is in their bodies and can be released into the environment with every breath, cough or sneeze.
It is surprising to find that "sterile immunity" is a relatively rare achievement. Vaccines against the bacterium Neisseria meningitidis, for example, may provide only effective immunity, so those infected with the bacterium can continue to carry it in their bodies for a long time and infect others through sneezing, kissing, or even eating from the same plate[1]. Similarly, even people who have been vaccinated against whooping cough, hepatitis B, mumps and other viruses, often develop effective immunity that protects them from the disease - but still allows the viruses to multiply in their bodies.
And what is happening with the vaccine for the corona virus?
The vaccine for the corona virus
Sterile immunity - absolute protection also from infection - is achieved through the release of neutralizing antibodies, which stick to certain sites on the surface of the viruses so that they cannot come into contact with the cells. And if there is no contact with the cells - then the virus cannot infect them, and peace will come to Israel. The vaccines must trigger an early immune response strong enough so that high levels of the appropriate antibodies are produced in the body and can immediately capture any recalcitrant virus.
The problem is that we do not yet know for sure whether the corona vaccines provide sterile immunity. There are suspicions - which I will review later - but the vaccines are still too new. And to tell the truth - no one demanded that the vaccines provide us with sterile immunity. The goal was first of all to protect those who receive them, assuming that if they do work - then everyone will agree to receive them.
At this point I want to say that - "Yes, we saw how successful it was". But the truth is that Israel's vaccination campaign was an incredible success, and more than eighty percent of the people over the age of sixty were actually vaccinated. So I really have nothing to complain about.
There is reason to think that the vaccines do not prevent infection with the virus. In one of the studies from the United Kingdom, it was discovered that 17 percent of the medical workers who were infected with the virus in the past and developed antibodies against it - managed to get infected again, approximately 160 days after the original infection. The positive side? Two-thirds of them did not express any symptoms[2]. That is, they gained effective immunity, but not sterile.
But things get even more complicated.
The two types of immunities - effective and sterile - are only two ends of a long bar, and the vaccinated and vaccinated can be located along its entire length. There are those, for example, that completely prevent disease, but almost never prevent infection. And there are those that prevent disease and infection completely. In the middle you can find all kinds of variations. For example, vaccines that do not prevent infection, but still help the body fight against the virus - and as a result, the viral load in the body decreases, and the chance of infecting others is also small.
In simpler words, even if you were infected with a certain virus, your vaccinated immune system will deal with it faster, kill it more successfully, and therefore your chances of infecting others with the same virus will also decrease. He is busy fighting for his life anyway, poor thing. He doesn't have time to do much more than that.
Well, where does the corona vaccine stand along that line? Does it provide effective immunity, sterile, or somewhere in between?
I want to focus in this article on only one vaccine given in Israel in large quantities: the BNT162b2 vaccine, known by its affectionate nickname - "Pfizer's vaccine".
Primary reasons for optimism
Let's start with Sipa: There is still no unequivocal evidence that Pfizer's vaccine can provide sterile immunity. But there are certainly very encouraging signs in this direction.
Let's start with the basics: according to Pfizer's CEO, animals that received the vaccine have "significant protection from the transmission of the virus..." but, "we haven't proven [this] in humans yet."[3]
This is an almost marginal piece of information. We have to rely here on the CEO of Pfizer and his very general statement that has almost no meaning. What animals are these? How long were the experiments conducted? What type of vaccine did they receive, how many doses and at what times? And what is "significant protection" anyway? A fifty percent drop in infectivity? Ninety percent? Ten percent?
In short, there is not much to rely on here.
More serious information comes from the land of Zebat Halav and Corona. In Israel, more than two million citizens have already received the vaccine, and the results are starting to become clearer these days, in studies that have been published in recent weeks. The studies are still relatively small, and have not yet undergone peer review. But they certainly hold out hope for sterile immunity. I remind you that sterile immunity requires the presence of high levels of antibodies in the body - so this is definitely evidence in favor of having sterile immunity [4]. It is interesting to note, by the way, that most of the vaccinated enjoyed higher levels of antibodies than could be found in people who were infected with Covid-19 and recovered. That is, they should be more protected than even ex-patients.
As Prof. Gili Regev-Yohai from Sheba Hospital, who headed the study, said -
"There is definitely reason for optimism. ... It's likely that they won't catch on either, but that's not a direct conclusion."[5]
The big mess
At this point begins the great confusion in the reports. The Ministry of Health, for example, reviewed the medical data of almost a million citizens who received their two doses of the vaccine and acquired immunity to the disease. But what kind of immunity - effective or sterile? Here the opinions are divided. For some unknown reason, review articles in English claim that of the 715,425 vaccinated, only 317 were found to be infected. If this is true, then it seems clear that the vaccine provides sterile immunity[6].
But wait. Did the Ministry of Health really conduct tests on almost a million vaccinated people, a week after receiving the second vaccine? That doesn't sound likely. And really, in Calcalist it is claimed that it is 317 -=patients=-. This is a completely different matter, since there is always a theoretical chance that tens or hundreds of thousands more from the same group were infected with the virus, but we simply did not have clear symptoms. Or in other words - they acquired effective immunity.
Similar confusion also appeared in coverage in English and Hebrew about the ongoing studies conducted by the Maccabi Health Insurance Fund on the vaccinators. From the latest report I found on Ynet from February 4th, it is described that out of 416,900 fully vaccinated people who belong to the Maccabi CPF, only "only 254 people were infected with Corona".[7]
But again: Did Maccabi recheck all those 416,900 vaccinated? It doesn't seem likely. It seems more logical to me that the 254 people who were infected with Corona were only discovered because they experienced symptoms severe enough to go to a clinic for treatment. For all we know, many others may have been infected with the virus, but did not develop symptoms.
In short, a mess.
But there is a light in the darkness.
The good news
The best evidence for sterile immunity comes from a study conducted by researchers from the MyHeritage company in collaboration with the institute and the central laboratory for viruses in Tel Hashomer. They examined the results of the tests conducted among Israelis who were suspected of having corona. The researchers checked the viral load - that is, in a rough generalization, the number of viruses in the body - among those aged 40 and over, and compared it to the results among those aged 60-XNUMX. Why? Because the sixty and older received the vaccine in December and January, while the rest have not yet received it [8].
Until January 15, no differences were found in the tests that came from the two groups. But then a miraculous thing happened: between mid-January and early February, you could see a drop in the viral load among the sixty-plus-year-olds. The drop can almost certainly be attributed to the benefit of the vaccine, and if the study is accurate, then the meaning is that the vaccine reduces the viral load by 1.6-20 times. A wide range of uncertainty, of course, but the final conclusion is clear: yes, the vaccine reduces the viral load. And if he does this - if he reduces the number of viruses in the body - then he necessarily also damages the ability of the virus to spread from person to person.
But not everything is benign in the Kingdom of Denmark. People are not going to be tested just like that. It is quite possible that the tests came from vaccinees who developed a mild illness after being infected with the virus. Even if the viral load decreased and they became less contagious, it is clear that the virus is still present in their bodies - and that the danger of infection remains.
That is, it is not a question of complete sterile immunity. And yet - there is reason for optimism if the vaccine reduces the risk of infection by reducing the viral load.
Does the Pfizer vaccine prevent infection?
I admit: a lot of words have been spilled here, but the results are still inconclusive. Despite this, there are very encouraging signs that indicate that Pfizer's vaccine may reduce the infectivity of the virus. One study showed that the vaccinated produce large amounts of antibodies that are supposed to catch the corona virus once it enters the body. Another study revealed that the vaccine significantly reduces - up to twenty times - the viral load.
Both of these studies are still preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed, but they are certainly encouraging. And when they add to the no-less-amazing data regarding the drop in the incidence of morbidity among the sixty-plus-year-olds - a drop that may also be the result of a reduction in the infectivity of the virus - it seems more and more likely that the Pfizer vaccine does provide a certain degree of sterile immunity.
Dr.Roey Tsezana is a futurist, lecturer and author of the books "The Guide to the Future" and "Those Who Control the Future"
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5989891
[2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.13.21249642v1
[3] https://www.thejournal.ie/pfizer-ceo-5323949-Jan2021/
[4] https://www.shebaonline.org/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-is-highly-effective/
[5] https://news.walla.co.il/item/3412369
[6] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/31/israel-covid-vaccination-data-offers-hope-exit-pandemic
[7] https://www.ynet.co.il/health/article/rkYOloYeu
[8] https://www.ynet.co.il/health/article/rk46fkeWu?fbclid=IwAR2Pcf0cMIw7nilo66biefH9j4sLuuJJfX6Xb2Jfm6A_neu-_n7K2D14Q9E
More of the topic in Hayadan:
3 תגובות
If the vaccine protects against infection by 90 percent, which means there is a 10% risk of infection, then it takes ten unvaccinated people to infect one person for every vaccinated person who infects one person.
It's not a zero sum game, where if everyone catches it's the same.
A vaccinated person who has no symptoms or has mild symptoms moves around and infects those around him. (See the teacher who infected her students at school)
An unvaccinated person is usually more seriously ill and therefore lies in his bed and does not infect people outside.
In addition, since the RNA vaccine is a new and untested way of vaccination, the long-term side effects are not known. It is not known how long-term the damage will be in people. Also, it is very difficult to find studies and numbers of the side effects and death as a result of the vaccine that are already known.
The confusion is great, but before there are proven and clear facts, each person should be able to decide for himself.
1. Opening statement
Your opening statement was that it is surprising to you that there is a need to have a discussion on the subject (in which the information is partial - a double-edged sword).
It is puzzling to me why the entire public discussion only refers to the vaccination of the herd,
And completely ignores a fairly clear segmentation that exists within the herd: the condition of the thymus gland of the elderly, and their sensitivity to exposure in the year and two years before complete eradication and vaccination of the entire population, including the lack of serological tests that identify the weak within the risk group.
Other diseases also have information about the ability of vaccinated people to infect others, and there are also quantitative serological tests (of the kind that are done to me several times a year), which warn the weak about a borderline situation, in order to encourage him to take precautionary measures (corrective, or just preventive).
In any development (even going to war...), those who do not develop at the same time the dealing with the problems that will arise after the victory
(In our case - getting the herd vaccinated which is indeed the important immediate goal) - gets complicated.
And here it is explicitly said that Pizer did not address this in the development, in our country people are tempted to do serological tests for a fee (and if you get back to me on a personal channel I will reveal to you the super strange information I received in such a test that indicates a deliberate silencing of the subject), and no one warns in the information (perhaps because of "economic and political" considerations ”, in the absence of “independent” channels)
2. Now to COMMON SENSE and facts that are published (analyzed by an engineer who was engaged in analyzing "threats" of other types, but the logic is similar):
A. After (any) vaccination, those memory cells are formed, which accelerate the production of antibodies. But the graphs show that the reaction is not in zero time. The logic - I'm vaccinated and they sneezed on me with Corona, and for a few days I'll sneeze (albeit with a reduced amount of bacteria). This is assuming that the vaccine does destroy everything (which is not true in several vaccines for several diseases such as polio, jaundice,...)
B. It was explicitly stated that these tests were not done during development (and this, in light of world knowledge, - a resounding omission with an equally resounding silence in my opinion)
third. The fact that the public (who can read and write where high school education is mandatory) who does not receive any organized information to understand who the enemy is, receives only zigzagging "instructions" that caused a complete loss of trust - this is the root of the disease. I expect the knowledgeable explainers (I do not belittle your professional abilities, on the contrary - I hope for you) - not to fall for the "disease of statistical lies", and to give this matter public attention, which might lead to a change in the public discourse (and in my estimation - save more than one soul)
d. And I would be happy to share with you the (documented) information I have about the corona serological jokes (the spelling error is not accidental)
Greetings - Yigal