FDA asked both Pfizer and Moderna to increase their age 5-11 covid vaccine clinical trial sample sizes in order to see if myocarditis is an issue and to what degree. The article estimates this could add a few months to the timeline…a federal official estimated Oct/Nov approval, while a Moderna rep said late winter '21/early '22.
Spouse is a pediatrician and seeing a big surge in children testing positive for COVID. It’s running through the summer camps and daycare here. Also noticing more vaccinated parents catching COVID after their kids get it.
4 Likes
I’m not sure of the sequence but that happened to Rich Eisen. He had to take a Covid test because they were traveling to Italy. Tested positive even though he is vaccinated. His 7 year old also has Covid. Not sure who was infected first but kid and vaccinated adult-Covid +
Rich Eisen of the NFL Channel for those who don’t know 
Between what I’ve been seeing as anecdotes and the data Israel has put out, I’m leaning a lot more toward the vaxes main pro is preventing severe Covid. This then has me back to wondering are we contagious with Delta if we get it and never know it like the unvaccinated are.
For us it matters the most when visiting FIL due to his age (93), one lung, and heart issues. He’s vaccinated, but the older folks seem to be those who the vaxes don’t work the best for.
If anyone sees any data about being able to spread Covid post vaccination, please share.
1 Like
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html
There isn’t enough data yet for conclusions, but the CDC recommends that vaccinated individuals who develop Covid symptoms after a known exposure or who test positive for Covid even if asymptomatic should isolate for 10 days.
To me, that sounds like you should consider yourself contagious and able to spread the virus.
4 Likes
From the Washington Post this morning reporting on the new CDC mask guidelines
“But the CDC said the delta variant is different from earlier versions of the virus, and new research, not yet published, suggests that fully vaccinated people who have breakthrough infections may have similar viral loads to unvaccinated people who become infected. That suggests that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections can spread the virus. That is the main reason the mask rules have been changed.”
Ugh, I’m so tired of this - but maintaining a good supply of masks!
1 Like
I would love to see this data. Even DH who is an infectious disease doc and PhD in immunology, who has a lot of connections in science, media and medicine, can not find any information beyond what CDC director Walensky said yesterday.
If they used PCR to determine the viral load of vaccinated people, they could have been counting viral fragments or neutralized viral particles, neither of which can cause disease. Did they factor in the CT value? (Number of spins it takes to find anything in the sample. The higher the number, the less likely the person is to be contagious.) Best would be to use antigen testing which detects a protein that viable virus produces. The basic question is, do vaccinated people really have the same level of viable virus present in the nose/throat as unvaccinated?
9 Likes
This has been the problem this entire pandemic. The CT value should’ve shown positives only over 45 and should have been included on EVERY test, the entire time. But yet, here we are.
There MUST be data showing vaccinated people can spread the virus otherwise they wouldn’t have changed the recommendation. Jen Psaki clearly stated yesterday that their administration has the data which is why the guidance was changed. They are the experts. Right? 
I don’t think CDC knows, despite what Dr. Walensky claimed yesterday. Instead of making a claim that can, or may even likely, be proven later to be unscientific to justify a reversal in policy, she should have admitted that CDC’s prior recommendation was premature and an error in judgment.
1 Like
Yes! I listened carefully, and she never admitted she made a big mistake back in May.
And this is exactly why people have lost trust in the CDC. They are not providing the data , and yes , the virus is changing (Delta really messed things up), but saying “we have information…” but not giving this data is going to lose any trust that is left.
9 Likes
Not exactly correct. The higher the Ct value, the lower the number of initial copies of the target nucleic acid. Each cycle of amplification (such as PCR) doubles the target. A Ct value of 45 should not be used for a diagnostic test. It is basically noise. Test developers usually shoot for 30 and ideally below. And to detect a viable virus, a viral culture is the best way (not ideal). Here is an excellent summary.
https://www.aphl.org/programs/preparedness/Crisis-Management/Documents/APHL-COVID19-Ct-Values.pdf
“ Do Ct values correlate with viral load?
Short Answer: Often, but not always.
There is a relationship between Ct values and amount of virus in a patient specimen, but they are not equivalent. There are many variables that impact Ct values (see above). Although Ct may be used as a proxy for viral load, caution must be taken when interpreting in this manner. A high Ct value often correlates with a low viral load, but not always.
A specimen could have a very high viral load, but also a high Ct value (i.e., it took more cycles to detect the viral RNA) because the extraction was inefficient, the patient just drank something that inhibited the real-time PCR reaction, or the specimen was packaged inappropriately and reached a high temperature during transportation to the lab and the viral RNA in the specimen degraded in the heat.
Any specimen that generates a result that is defined as “positive” by the test manufacturer is considered positive. As with any diagnostic test, the result should be interpreted in the clinical context.
The process of viral replication and infection must be taken into consideration as well. If a specimen is collected very close to the time of the initial infection the viral load may be very low as the virus has not had a lot of time to replicate; a specimen collected in the coming days may have a much higher viral load. A specimen collected many days to weeks after the initial infection may have a low viral load, and viral RNA can be detectable for many weeks after infection in some patients. Limited epidemiological and culture data indicate that patients are not infectious more than 10-15 days post-onset of symptoms.”
6 Likes
I haven’t lost confidence in the CDC. Unfortunately science changes and I feel like the CDC is doing the best it can.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
A changing situation can’t be perfect. It’s ridiculous if “people” think it can be. Just remember there are people out there trying to sabotage anything this government agency is trying to do.
10 Likes
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
1 Like
How do we know that the May recommendation for vaccinated people to unmask was an error in judgement? There has been no surge of hospitalizations and deaths in vaccinated people, nor was there any evidence from January to May that vaccinated people were getting infected and spreading. It seems to me that the recommendation was fine, although I personally stuck to masking indoors unless I was with vaccinated people only, and I still kept that to under ten people.
Now, it’s up to seven months post vaccination, and two-three for most of us. Neutralizing antibodies in our mucus membranes are likely diminishing. Also, delta is dominant now, and delta seems to cause a higher viral load in the nose/mouth. Together, these things may lead to more vaccinated people getting infected, and possibly spreading the virus. So, the recommendation shifts. I don’t see how that’s a reversal. My view of the situation could be partially due to my life experience and relationships with many scientists, doctors and public health experts. I trust that most of them are doing their best to protect us, while also avoiding causing more harm than they’re preventing. Predicting the future is not easy.
7 Likes
I feel like the majority of people got vaxxed in April and May (before that it was mostly first responders, the elderly and those with comorbidities). Maybe they should have waited a bit longer before doing the no mask thing. My opinion, they wanted to provide a carrot for the unvaxxed, which was the wrong reason for removing the recommendation.
It’s an error in judgment because the first rule of containing a pandemic is to err on the side of caution and stay well ahead of the curve. We made that classic mistake at the early stage of the pandemic and we’re still paying a price for it. We don’t want to repeat the same mistake (which we may have already done). There’s always an information lag (even though there’s already some indication of significantly higher number of breakthrough cases in other countries). If CDC has to wait for full confirmation, it’d be too late.
7 Likes
Tried to give your post 100 up-votes but was limited to 1.
I’m reading that CDC Director Walensky is saying that for Delta variant infections of vaccinated people, the amount of virus found in them was “pretty similar to the amount of virus in unvaccinated people.” 
As always I’m left asking questions. Since the CDC stopped tracking non-hospitalized cases of breakthrough covid in vaccinated people, is that statement based only on hospitalized cases of vaccinated people? Are they extrapolating that to asymptomatic vaccinated people? Wouldn’t it have been nice to have data about “mild” breakthroughs in vaccinated people?
I understand the data is changing in real time and we’re learning new info in real time. But it is frustrating when the CDC shoots itself in the foot by not tracking all pertinent information and then claim the decisions are based on the science. Yay, science, but when your data is incomplete then how informed are your decisions?
Back when Pfizer was making noises about needing a booster, the CDC quickly stomped on that idea. Why couldn’t they just wait for more information before giving that knee jerk reaction? And now given information from Israel supporting waning protection over time and the other article above indicating a booster raises antibody levels tremendously, it’s looking like a booster would make a lot of sense. If the CDC now recommends a booster, it will again appear to be changing its mind and doesn’t know what it’s doing. It’s an unforced error. smh
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html
6 Likes
The CDC does not have unlimited resources. I agree with their decision to focus on preventing hospitalization and death. There are many things I would love to know about the pandemic, but we don’t have enough money to study everything, and setting up surveillance takes time, coordination, training and a lot of manpower.
Here is the CDC’s July 8th statement about boosters:
Americans who have been fully vaccinated do not need a booster shot at this time. FDA, CDC, and NIH are engaged in a science-based, rigorous process to consider whether or when a booster might be necessary. This process takes into account laboratory data, clinical trial data, and cohort data – which can include data from specific pharmaceutical companies, but does not rely on those data exclusively. We continue to review any new data as it becomes available and will keep the public informed. We are prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed.
I don’t think that’s an error. IMO, Americans need to stop expecting black and white answers to complex questions. Do we want the nuanced, messy truth, or do we want the CDC to pretend they have an infallible crystal ball?
6 Likes