The question at hand: what is the relative transmission potential of a vaccinated person who becomes infected with delta? This 👇new report from Singapore is much more informative on this question than the CT data released so far from Ptown and Wisconsin. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
First, importantly, reducing transmission potential of a person who becomes infected is only one component on the transmission reduction effect of the vaccines. The other: reducing the likelihood of becoming infected in the first place. We discuss here👇 academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…
We still await definitive evidence from systematic sampling on the ? of overall infection risk reduction with vaccination, but w strong protection vs symptomatic disease, expect that there will still be substantial protection (50+%) vs overall infection nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
Back to the Singapore data - these investigators report features of 218 people hospitalized with delta (all covid is hospitalized in Singapore). 84 had received an mrna vaccine (71 fully vaccinated). Unlike ptown/wisconsin data, can see that vaxed significantly older.
Like ptown/wisconsin data, the CT values at diagnosis are similar (~19). This is 1 piece of data suggesting viral loads *might* be similar at diagnosis. However, there are a number of impt factors that continue to suggest substantially reduced transmission potential among vaxd:
1st, the pattern of CT measurements suggests more rapid viral decay (left). For alpha, increased transmission risk vs ancestral virus was mediated by longer (not higher) peak viral load (right, dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37366…). We don't know this yet for delta, some think an earlier peak
2nd, the vaccinated ppl infected with delta had greatly reduced symptoms (left=unvax), including a much greater likelihood of being asymptomatic. This will have substantial effect on transmission potential. Some refs: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33484843/ thelancet.com/journals/lance…
3rd, antibody testing showed high levels of neutralization activity in the vaccinated ppl who were infected. This is the most hypothetical mechanism of reduced transmission potential, but if this neutralization is occurring in the upper airway it is very plausible.
So, transmission reduction is much more complicated than the CT value at diagnosis. That why things like this 👇 are so misleading. If interested, discuss many more details here with @EricMeyerowitz and @mugecevik : academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…
We used >80 national surveys in 37 low- and middle-income countries to create longitudinal survival datasets for 4 million adults & 3 million children 2000-2019
About 1/2 the countries started cash transfer programs, & 1/2 the programs were unconditional (no strings attached) /2
We used difference-in-difference models to show these programs led to a 20% reduction in mortality for women, and an 8% reduction in risk of death for children under 5
/3
First, to review, vaccines can provide:
-direct protection (reduction in infx/disease among vaccinated ppl)
-indirect protection (reduction in infection among all community members through ⬇️ transmission)
/2 nature.com/articles/s4157…
Indirect protection can be generated by 1) ⬇️ risk of infection (if person not infected, cannot transmit) 2) ⬇️ infectiousness of vaccinated person w infection
As @mugecevik points out, despite the recent proliferation of vaccine studies using routinely collected testing data, the majority of these cannot be reliably be used to estimate VE vs all infections because they do not use systematic testing and/or control for confounding.
Vaccine protection against all infections is one important way (of several) that vaccines reduce transmission (discussed👇). Here is an updated table of high-quality studies assessing VE against infection, including just 3 from the delta era at the bottom academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…
When using regular (or cross-sectional) systematic testing to estimate VE, you are really measuring VE against a composite of infection and duration of PCR-positivity, as highlighted recently by @dylanhmorris.
Fascinating discussion of these methods here sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
This 👇claim arises principally from Israeli data (which is unpublished in any form so will withhold judgment) and from the UK REACT 1 study, rounds 12 & 13. But... is the REACT 1 data likely to be solely explained by delta? 🧵
(study link spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1…)
This is the table in question. You can see VE of a combination of AZ/MRNA vs symptomatic infection was 83% (19-97%) in round 12, but only 59% (23-78%) in round 13. The concern of course is that this drop in VE is due to delta, which had completely taken over by round 13 /2
However, while 100% of the isolates identified in round 13 were delta, 80% in round 12 were also delta (20% were alpha). Any effect of delta on VE should have been partially seen in round 12. /3
Interesting poll. Selection/response bias aside, majority picked a low probability, but 40% still thought there was 10+% prob that vaccines will not substantially prevent transmission. This is why I have become convinced this concern is highly unlikely (borderline implausible) 🧵
1. Data from screening PCR at the time of the 2nd moderna mrna vaccine, showing reductions in asymptomatic PCR positivity. This is before the 2nd dose and if anything will underestimate effect. Will have additional confirmation from unblinding pcr and ab
Thankful to Singapore for surveillance systems that allow for the detailed studies required to truly assess the relative transmission risk of asymptomatic vs symptomatic cov-2 👇, which they find to be much higher in those who develop symptoms /1