Will vaccination of health care workers (HCWs) lead to accidental silent spreading of COVID-19?

Big possible downside to vaccine allocation recommendations w/out data on whether vaccines reduce infectiousness.
Thread
The justification for vaccinating HCWs is that they are at high risk of exposure from patients & if infected, removing them from workforce has huge impact on care for patients. So vaccinating them 1st seems like an obvious choice, right? Not w/ available data.
We currently know that 2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna) reduce symptomatic infections by ~95%. But we have zero data on whether they reduce infectiousness (& primate studies indicate vaccine didn't eliminate it: nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.105…; biorxiv.org/content/10.110…)
What might happen if we vaccinate HCWs? Vaccination might prevent disease/symptoms but not infection/infectiousness & this could lead to them silently spreading virus to co-workers or non-COVID patients or their families.
Is this worse than what is currently happening? In a few states: No - nurses testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 that are asymptomatic can keep working.
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/n…
But in places where this isn't done, vaccination could mask symptoms & lead to infected health care worker infecting others (family, patients, other HCW). Essentially, vaccination could lead to more asymptomatic infections that are transmissible.
What can we do about this?
1) Make data on vaccine efficacy on infection & viral loads available to assess importance of this issue. If vaccines greatly reduce viral loads or duration infectious, then issue is minor.
2) Test all vaccinated (& unvaccinated!) health care workers daily to catch infections.
Daily testing of HCW is of no use if results aren't immediately available so need rapid tests & is a substantial ask (~2M people). This is huge issue @michaelmina_lab has been trying to address.
If we don't have tests to prevent silent spreading, then data on infectiousness is critical, especially in HCWs that work in nursing homes.
Clarification: Yes, HCWs are always trying to avoid transmitting the virus to their patients, coworkers & family. But it happens nonetheless.
Infection is often detected by HCWs developing symptoms. If symptoms are masked by vaccination, more chance for asymptomatic spread.
Some unfortunate spread by HCWs despite efforts to avoid doing so:
nytimes.com/2020/09/10/us/…
chcf.org/blog/why-nursi…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with A Marm Kilpatrick

A Marm Kilpatrick Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DiseaseEcology

3 Dec
What fraction of people have been infected w/ SARS-CoV-2?
Are cases in some states (e.g. ND) declining b/c they've reached herd immunity?
Some have suggested that a large fraction of the population in these states have been infected & this is important part of decline. Image
For example @trvrb recently shared @youyanggu estimate that 30% of ND was infected by Nov 8. There has been another 20K cases (+33% compared to 60K then), so this would suggest ~40% have been infected by now. But how are these calculations being done?
@youyanggu nicely provides details of his calculations here: covid19-projections.com/estimating-tru…
& how they result in a ratio of infections/case on a given day (ratio is assumed to decline over time) given a test positivity. ImageImageImage
Read 12 tweets
1 Dec
Why haven't data been released from vaccine trials on viral loads to assess reduced infectiousness? Since trials include testing cases for SARS-CoV-2, wouldn't all have 1+ sample from each case? N=185(Vac),11(Plac) (Moderna);162(V),8(P) (Pfizer/BioNtech)?
@nataliexdean @mlipsitch
These aren't huge sample sizes for the vaccinated group, but I'm betting there have been more cases in both groups since these results were reported & big effects could be detected even with smallish sample sizes. Given importance of reducing transmission this is big Q.
More explanation: we still have no data on whether Pfizer/Moderna vaccines reduce infection/infectiousness. All we know is it reduces chance of symptomatic infection. If they don't reduce infectiousness, then they don't protect pop around vaccinated person.
Read 5 tweets
29 Nov
Very happy to see announcement to re-open elementary schools in NYC. When preventative measures are in place, transmission in schools has been low. Unfortunately only subset of children will be able to return (minorities lose again).
Thread @elizashapiro
nytimes.com/2020/11/29/nyr…
The importance of in-person school for young children's learning has been a recurring them of the pandemic. It was beautifully laid out in article by @meiralevinson @mugecevik @mlipsitch
nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
A key question early in pandemic was whether schools would be hotspots for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as they are for influenza. Early papers suggested children were much less likely to be infected, but these studies had flawed methodology.
Read 15 tweets
27 Nov
This tool to calculate risk of becoming infected w/ COVID19 is being promoted by some loud (& not well informed) folks. It gives ridiculously precise probabilities & data simply do not exist to quantify things this precisely.
Short thread
zeit.de/wissen/gesundh…
Tool allows you to adjust 1 or more: size of room, duration, # people, ventilation (4 levels!), masks (3 kinds!), speaking duration&volume. Online tool then gives prob of becoming infected & # infected through aerosols w/ precision (e.g. 21%, 2 people infected).
It then gives examples of risk calculation for 5 settings (classroom, restaurant, choir, office, living room). 4 shown here.
Read 9 tweets
3 Nov
Interesting new preprint trying to assess surface transmission of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2.

tl;dr RNA is everywhere but in very low amounts; surface sampling could be useful for surveillance. Risk of infection unknown b/c study didn't look at live/infectious virus.
Short thread
Background
One of the huge early questions about transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was if the virus could be easily transmitted on surfaces. We all heard 1000s of times how much we should wash our hands, in part, to protect us against surface transmission. But...
Epidemiological evidence rarely suggested surface transmission was major issue. The best evidence for the absence of its importance (which is a hard thing to study!) was that (nearly?) all early cases in some locations (e.g. Singapore) could be traced back to known close contact.
Read 14 tweets
31 Oct
New paper showing very high household transmission of COVID-19 in US. I haven't seen detailed summary, so here's one. There's a ton here to think about. Kids, culture, COVID.
Thread.
cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6…
Background
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs primarily through sustained close contact. Certainly there are rarer more distant spreading events, but study after study shows that close contacts have an order of magnitude higher chances of becoming infected.
In case you want refs for this very well supported claim, here's a couple (& some data):
wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26…
thelancet.com/action/showPdf…
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!