The vaccines work. That's a problem.

Who should win when public narratives are at odds with the science?

Dec 05, 2021

“Each of us might be a ‘Typhoid Mary’. We just don’t know.” This is not the comforting rejoinder you want to hear from a federal microbiologist in reference to our state of knowledge on the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines on infection and transmission. Nevertheless, this was the response to my enquiry to interpreting the national scientific advisory. I think we all know what this means. But I’m jumping to the end of the story. Let’s get there together.

There is little remaining doubt that these magnificent vaccines do that for which they were designed. When exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus drifting about in aerosol flight, you draw it into your nasal passage, your throat, and your lungs. It can settle into the mucus and epithelial layers of your airways. The virus can reproduce there for days before shedding. If this happens to you, congratulations, you are infected.

You might then travel home, to work, or to meet an assortment of companions at a restaurant. As you talk moistly you re-initiate the viral flight and expose your fellow patrons to the viral circle of life. You have now participated in transmission.

You aren't sick yet though. Only if the virus migrates beyond your surface layers does it enter your bloodstream and circulate. Upon encountering this invader, your body reacts with symptoms, the collection of which we call a disease. Specifically, we call this symptomatic infection Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019, aka, COVID-19.

You can avoid this viral migration, symptoms, and suffering. If you take a COVID-19 vaccine, the resulting antibodies can keep the virus at bay at your epithelial layers, most of the time. Taking these vaccines protects your health much like putting on sunscreen protects you from sunburn and skin cancer. I know what you are thinking: false analogy. Sunscreen only protects you; vaccines also protect other people by stopping infection and transmission, right? If anyone doubts it, we'll point them to the science.

Canada's vaccine brain trust is centred at the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and delivered in Advisory Committee Statements (ACS), the latest which summarizes,

There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

There is also a section entitled “Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission”. It notes the data is preliminary, that “current data is insufficient to draw conclusions”, and “Exploratory analyses for the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection”.

That can't be right. Perhaps if we find something more credible, like the Lancet. There's a nice summary paper from Mostaghimi et al., “Prevention of host-to-host transmission by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines”. It notes,

The most striking outcome of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials was their effectiveness at preventing symptomatic infection and severe-to-lethal COVID-19. Nevertheless, the impact of reduced disease severity among vaccinated individuals on the risk of causing secondary infections has, to our knowledge, not been systematically investigated.

That can't be right either. At least it says there is some evidence that some vaccines on some variants seem to reduce viral loading in your airways. That's something. But then it suggests real-world effects might be more important, such as being asymptomatic may keep people from isolating.

These sources imply the vaccines might only do what they were designed to do, keeping the virus from migrating into your bloodstream and causing COVID-19, and not stopping infection or transmission.

Ah, but I see what's missing. The risk another person might transmit the virus to you is the product of three components: the probability they are exposed in the first place, the probability – if exposed – that they get infected, and the probability – if infected – of transmitting it to you. The NACI and Lancet only refer to infection and transmission. What does the science say about exposure? From Health Canada:

[T]he virus is most frequently transmitted when people are in close contact with others who are infected with the virus (either with or without symptoms). We also know that most transmission occurs indoors. Reports of outbreaks in settings with poor ventilation suggest that infectious aerosols were suspended in the air and that people inhaled the virus at distances beyond 2 metres. Such settings have included choir practice, fitness classes, and restaurants …

Wait. Don't we exclude unvaccinated people from these venues? Aren’t they filled with vaccinated people now, often maskless while eating and drinking?

I see the problem now. If we are to believe NACI, the Lancet, and Health Canada, we should believe that vaccinated people might be exposed to the virus at their exclusive venues, infected, carry it elsewhere, infect other people, and not even know it as a result of being asymptomatic because the vaccines work as designed. But if that is true, neither they nor we ever know they were infected or spread it to some unknown number of people. Meanwhile, unvaccinated people are much less likely to be in areas of high exposure and if they do get infected they are more likely to become symptomatic and isolate, and we’ll likely collect data on those cases.

Believing these scientists means believing that unvaccinated people may be safer to be around, even if they are taking chances with their own health. That would mean we could stop vilifying unvaccinated people, and return to being civilized, inclusive, and united in our fight against COVID-19. Clearly that is at odds with the public narrative. The conclusion is clear; these scientists are spreading misinformation. We must cancel them.

2021-12-21: Follow-up. To update the list of scientists to cancel, consider the 29 authors in the CDC-funded study, “Transmission potential of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a federal prison, July—August 2021“. Their conclusion:

“As this field continues to develop, clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons. These findings are critically important, especially in congregate settings where viral transmission can lead to large outbreaks.”

See. They are trying to sneak in claims that go against the public narrative. That’s why it is a pre-print, not yet peer-reviewed. Once the “real” scientists — aligned with RightThink(TM) — tear the study apart in peer review, we’ll rid ourselves of this nonsense belief that vaccines may not reduce infection or transmission of the virus and only protect the recipient from getting the symptoms/disease of COVID-19. These Bleeding Hearts just want to fabricate an excuse to treat their fellow humans humanely, even if unvaccinated. How barbaric.

While we’re at it, we should perhaps cancel the funding agency too.