Reposting this here as staff moved the other thread to the politics board. This is valuable information about the importance of mask wearing and social distancing after you receive the vaccination. Please spread the word. We need to remain vigilant with our social distancing practices even after vaccination to not infect others until the vaccination rollout is near completion. I know several posters that frequent this board will have issues, but please do not make this political.
-------------------------

Q: Can I stop wearing my mask after I receive my vaccination?

A: NO, you should not stop wearing your mask after vaccination.

We currently do not know if vaccination will keep you from replicating, producing and spreading virus. The vaccine is to prevent THE DISEASE COVID-19, and not provide sterilizing immunity against the virus SARS-COV-2. When the results of vaccine trials were announced by both Pfizer and Moderna, the primary end point (what was tracked to show efficacy) was development of disease, NOT ability to spread the virus. Thus, you can still spread the virus to other and masks need to be worn to protect the unvaccinated. Only when vaccinations reach a high level (that term herd immunity that gets thrown around here) should preventative measures like social distancing and mask wearing go away.

Quote:

---

"A lot of people are thinking that once they get vaccinated, they're not going to have to wear masks anymore," said Michal Tal, an immunologist at Stanford University. "It's really going to be critical for them to know if they have to keep wearing masks, because they could still be contagious."

In most respiratory infections, including the new coronavirus, the nose is the main port of entry. The virus rapidly multiplies there, jolting the immune system to produce a type of antibodies that are specific to mucosa, the moist tissue lining the nose, mouth, lungs and stomach. If the same person is exposed to the virus a second time, those antibodies, as well as immune cells that remember the virus, rapidly shut down the virus in the nose before it gets a chance to take hold elsewhere in the body.

....

Some of those antibodies will circulate in the blood to the nasal mucosa and stand guard there, but it's not clear how much of the antibody pool can be mobilized, or how quickly. If the answer is not much, then viruses could bloom in the nose and be sneezed or breathed out to infect others.

"It's a race: It depends whether the virus can replicate faster, or the immune system can control it faster," said Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. "It's a really important question."

---

LINK

One of the only studies we have to answer this question currently comes from vaccination of a rhesus macaque animal model that were given an mRNA vaccine. While the vaccinated animals did not develop disease compared to the controls when challenged with virus (showing the vaccine was effective in preventing disease), viral RNA could still be detected in nasal swabs up to 7 days after the challenge. Thus, it appears the virus can still replicate in the nose and potentially be spread from vaccinated individuals.

[url=https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2024671][/url]https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2024671

The problem is that there are now multiple vaccines from multiple companies and they have not completed these types of studies. So, we simply don't know and probably won't for a while. In that case, we need to wear masks and socially distance even after you have received the vaccine to not infect others (until the vaccine rollout has reached a high level).

curious as to what constitutes a high level of vaccination

and what about vaccination via the lower efficacy approaches? what's a high level there?

If people are going to believe statements like the above they need to be internally consistent. It starts out by saying we do not know if the vaccine prevents one from spreading the virus and then a couple sentences later states one can spread the virus after vaccinated.

These type of inconsistent statements is a big reason why people don't listen/trust what is being communicated.

I'm not going to argue that it's impossible for a vaccinated person to be exposed to the virus, have virus particles in their nose, breathe out those virus particles, and infect someone else.

Just about anything is possible in the realm of science, and particularly in the field of health/medicine.

However, I do think we need to be very careful with this message. Is the scenario above POSSIBLE or is it PROBABLE?

There is a big difference between those two, and frankly, the field of medicine does a terrible job of distinguishing between them.

Just look at the whole concept of vaccinations (not just C-19 vaccines, but those for polio, measles, flu, etc.). Is it possible to be killed or disabled by a vaccine? Of course - there are documented cases of this. But is it probable? No.

And that's why the statistical odds overwhelmingly show that you are much more likely to be harmed by not taking a vaccine than you are to be harmed from a vaccine.

I firmly believe we cannot wear masks forever. At some point, the experts need to step up and explain that the likelihood of contracting this virus from a vaccinated person, while possible, is not probable (hopefully there will be more data to support this very soon).

I appreciate what doctors and medical researchers do to keep us safe, but sometimes they get a little too caught up in what "could" happen rather than what's "likely" to happen (and what should be getting our main focus when it comes to prevention). An (admittedly crude) analogy that comes to mind is a doctor telling an overweight patient with blocked arteries and diabetes that they ~might~ die of skin cancer, so they should stay out of the sun.

If this message doesn't get cleared up, we are never going to get enough people vaccinated to get back to "normal life". As the discussion stands, we're giving people MORE reasons/excuses to avoid vaccination.

The fundamental concept of vaccination has been successfully used for over 200 years. Vaccine technology is arguably the one single development that has had the biggest impact on both life expectancy and quality of life. I cannot fathom why so many people think vaccines are some experimental technology, or worse, some sort of conspiracy.

AstroAg17 said:

---

It was clear what he meant. That's just nitpicking.

---

No, it's not. That's exactly what I mean by possible vs probable.

It's nitpicking to ask for messages to be communicated properly? I'd say it's pretty easy to do and over the past 10 months it hasn't been which is why there is such a problem with trusting anything said about Covid amongst a large portion of the population. Really unfortunate that is the case.

I think I found the NY times article from which the Q and A stuff was generated. In reading the comments (I still find the comment section in NYT articles to be readable and not totally destructive for my mental health) most readers agree masks will likely be worn/required for the foreseeable future. Thus widespread admission that vaccinations are actually changing very little socially or economically for the foreseeable future... And I found this comment relevant to the discussion of inconsistent reporting and awkward messaging:

Quote:

---

Doctor here. A vaccine enables your body to Identify and disarm a disease (pathogen). You Cannot transmit a disease for which you have been @successfully@ vaccinated. This means that you develop the intended immune response. Not all people will develop the appropriate response.

This article implies that we should all wear masks and not touch anyone forever - because even though we have been vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chicken pox, etc, we can still infect others. This is ONLY true for individuals who do not mount the appropriate immune response.

---

nortex97 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

It was clear what he meant. That's just nitpicking.

---

No, it's not. That's exactly what I mean by possible vs probable.

---

People (generally the elderly) will continue to get sick and die from complications related to upper respiratory viruses until the sun absorbs the earth some day.

---

I said something similar to a friend/coworker the other day. I'm ready to accept that this virus will become one of the "top 5" things that kills people every year, along with heart disease, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer's, etc.

It's not a pleasant thought, but we should never expect that there will be no more new diseases or that modern medical science can cure/prevent everything.

The idea that we should resort to wearing masks and social distancing for the long-term just isn't a viable solution. Now, people taking control of their health and trying to overcome pre-existing conditions like obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure IS a long-term viable solution.

But, it seems like there are too many people who would rather tell us to wear masks, stop traveling, and not spend time with family. And, honestly, that is the "solution" that makes it easier to blame others for the problem rather than taking ownership and accountability for your own health.

I'm very curious what your argument is here...I don't fully understand it. It seems like you are trying to lump many things into this conversation when its actually very simple.

The topic is mask wearing after vaccination, and how we need to be diligent with social distancing until most of the population is vaccinated, even if you are vaccinated yourself. There are several underlying issues with individuals removing social distancing practices as they themselves are vaccinated. One is the viral replication issue even for vaccinated individuals as discussed above. The second issue, if you view that as a low probability chance, is how to keep track of those that are vaccinated and those that are not. It makes zero sense to try to apply some rules to unvaccinated individuals and no rules to others. How would we keep track? Wear a "vaccinated" badge? Carry your vaccination card around? Pretty early in the pandemic we rejected those ideas as we should.

We all need to think about risk/reward outcomes here....the risk is continued spread of the virus while infection and hospitalization rates are at the highs during the pandemic. The reward is lowered infection. What is our burden for this reward? Continued social distancing practices for several more weeks/months while the vaccine rollout continues. That is not a high burden and one everyone can carry. After all, most have been diligent for almost a year now. A risk of continued rise in infection rates and hospitalizations for disregarding social distancing practices now, even if you view it as having low probability or it turns out to be very low probability, far outweighs the personal benefit for disregarding social distancing practices. Even if transmission risk from vaccinated individuals is low, the risk/reward pendulum swings really easily towards continued social distancing practices for the health and safety of everyone.

Nobody here, nor medical professionals, will ask us to wear masks or keep social distancing practices forever. There will be a time when those restrictions go away, and hopefully soon. That is why we need to increase the pace of the vaccine rollout - so we can get back to normal lives. That time is coming soon, but until then we can continue to do our best to protect others.

Quote:

---

That is not a high burden and one everyone can carry

---

Feel free to let all the small business owners and restaurants that are going out of business know that it's not a high burden. If they can just continue that not high burden for 2 weeks to months.... that would be great.

Well, my first post started out to basically make the same point that Alta did - namely the inconsistent statements about what protection vaccines do or don't provide.

In one place, your original post has a statement that says if you're vaccinated, you CAN still spread the virus. In other places it says COULD.

There is a big difference between those two.

This is where the "possible vs probable" point comes in, which is the subject of my first post. Personally, I feel like the mixed messages being sent regarding the vaccine are ultimately going to reduce the number of people who get vaccinated and perpetuate incorrect myths about how vaccines work.

I have also been simultaneously having a discussion with AstroAg17 about the details of virus transmission. Without reposting that entire discussion, I'll just say, go read the discussion on the virus transmission thread that I started.

I don't think it's helping the situation at all to say "Well, we don't know that this vaccine prevents transmission", when that's an effect observed for pretty much all other vaccines. So, while, we may need more data to completely characterize this specific vaccine, what do experts REALLY think the likelihood is of a vaccinated person spreading it? I tend to believe these statements about even vaccinated people needing to wear a mask are erring too far on the side of caution and are sending confusing messages about how vaccines work.

My last comment was in reply to a comment by Nortex97 that has since been deleted (and the quoted part of my reply has been edited).

As discussions sometimes do, this one changed direction slightly, and my last post is somewhat out of context because it's in reply to a comment that has been deleted.

This mixed messaging will reverberate for years through the anti-vaxx community, btw. Another unintended consequence of confused messaging.

coolerguy12 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is not a high burden and one everyone can carry

---

Feel free to let all the small business owners and restaurants that are going out of business know that it's not a high burden. If they can just continue that not high burden for 2 weeks to months.... that would be great.

---

What does mask wearing and social distancing have to do with businesses and restaurants? The two can (effectively) co-exist if everyone does their part. It could have since the very beginning if a greater number of people were more diligent. I'm not sure why all of these discussions must go to an extreme like this.

Ranger222 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is not a high burden and one everyone can carry

---

Feel free to let all the small business owners and restaurants that are going out of business know that it's not a high burden. If they can just continue that not high burden for 2 weeks to months.... that would be great.

---

What does mask wearing and social distancing have to do with businesses and restaurants? The two can (effectively) co-exist if everyone does their part. It could have since the very beginning if a greater number of people were more diligent. I'm not sure why all of these discussions must go to an extreme like this.

---

Many restaurants are required to operate at 50% to 75% capacity, which is directly related to distancing. I don't think that is an extreme statement.

People just don't trust "the experts" because it started with "don't wear a mask" then it became "wear one for a while" and then "until you're vaccinated" and now it is (per Ranger222) "until 'most' are vaccinated." Could...maybe....theoretically possible...are not helpful.

The reason that is true is that...we have anti-vaccers (and vaccine fence sitters) who if they don't get to stop wearing a mask...are even less likely to get vaccinated. In any discussion (as opposed to a sermon/monologue), different views/information have to be exchanged, and the reality is that the public confidence in public health officials is lower now than it was a year ago (much lower for some, such as Fauci, who has admittedly lied repeatedly, or Birx, who of course broke her own rules.)

We need officials we can trust, who can convey what the expectations are for this next stage. I don't see or hear from them, frankly. Moving the masking end-state further will only erode public confidence even more, not just in the virus, but the real motives for the moving goal posts.

Also, I work in an industry that puts a huge value on risk assessment. I disagree that we should blanketly do "easy" things, even if the risk is low, just because the "reward" may be high. There is never only a reward - there is always some trade-off. Similar logic was used to close schools. I disagreed with it then, and I disagree with it now.

I will agree that wearing a mask is a ~relatively~ easy thing for most people to do. But that doesn't mean vaccinated people should wear them "just to be safe". I'm not questioning the method, I'm questioning the reasoning behind it.

I'm also not one of the people who subscribes to the idea that this disease is "100% preventable" or the "If it saves even one life..." rationale. Maybe that explains my perspective a little better.

88planoAg said:

---

Ranger222 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is not a high burden and one everyone can carry

---

Feel free to let all the small business owners and restaurants that are going out of business know that it's not a high burden. If they can just continue that not high burden for 2 weeks to months.... that would be great.

---

What does mask wearing and social distancing have to do with businesses and restaurants? The two can (effectively) co-exist if everyone does their part. It could have since the very beginning if a greater number of people were more diligent. I'm not sure why all of these discussions must go to an extreme like this.

---

Many restaurants are required to operate at 50% to 75% capacity, which is directly related to distancing. I don't think that is an extreme statement.

---

Not to mention, there is no conclusive proof that these measures have done anything to significantly impact the spread (one way or another).

I had Covid. I know I didn't get it from going to a restaurant. I possibly got it in an environment where everyone was wearing masks and social distancing.

The only thing that really prevented spread was a total lockdown/closure of most businesses and everyone WFH. We cannot go back to that. It's economically devastating, and as we've seen, only provides a temporary delay in the spread.

TXTransplant said:

---

I don't think it's helping the situation at all to say "Well, we don't know that this vaccine prevents transmission", when that's an effect observed for pretty much all other vaccines. So, while, we may need more data to completely characterize this specific vaccine, what do experts REALLY think the likelihood is of a vaccinated person spreading it? I tend to believe these statements about even vaccinated people needing to wear a mask are erring too far on the side of caution and are sending confusing messages about how vaccines work.

My last comment was in reply to a comment by Nortex97 that has since been deleted (and the quoted part of my reply has been edited).

As discussions sometimes do, this one changed direction slightly, and my last post is somewhat out of context because it's in reply to a comment that has been deleted.

---

I don't think that "its an effect observed for pretty much all other vaccines". I don't think that is known at all and an assumption on your part that I have seen made on this thread and the other thread you have mentioned multiple times.

And I disagree about the messaging...the purpose for a vaccine has always been to prevent disease, not infection. Especially one developed this quickly. I don't know where this idea of confused messaging comes from. All vaccines prevent you from disease. There is no confusion about how vaccines work. If a vaccine is able to provide sterilizing immunity than that is great and something all vaccines should try to achieve -- but not all reach that point, nor are they tested for that effect. The primary end point is development of, or protection from, disease.

How is it that vaccinated people wearing masks is erring too far on the side of caution? Continuing this pandemic is too far on the side of caution? If one side is the annoyance of having to personally wearing a mask vs the infection of other unvaccinated individuals, even if that chance may be small, its not too far on the side of caution. That seems to be the disagreement.

I hate to say this but it seems to me that when people are unhappy about an answer, they want to blame "mixed messaging" or a "message not being consistent". Could we have done better about telling people this was how it was going to be ahead of vaccine distribution? Yes, and a problem I saw coming. But that is not mixed messaging. That is your assumptions being incorrect.

If you read that other thread, you read these same comments:

" To my knowledge there is no data that demonstrates that the COVID vaccine decreases your likelihood of being infected by coronavirus. At all. We can say that it obviously does, based on our understanding of how the world works, but we don't actually have data that supports that hypothesis."

" We have data to show that the vaccine is very effective at preventing coronavirus disease. That alone is a good enough reason to vaccinate the population. We expect, but do not have data, that the vaccine will reduce the risk of infection and transmission."

" Let's take as an example the carrier situation you describe in the OP. Is it possible for me to inhale virus particles, then later exhale that same particle and infect someone? Sure. It's conceivable. But I bet you, with no data to back it up, that that is a negligible transmission route. I won't say it's impossible, but I think we can safely say we don't need to worry about it."

I don't personally know that poster, but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that he/she is knowledgeable in a that field.

I'm reading those comments to say that vaccines do have a secondary effect of preventing infection. Maybe we don't have the data, but we don't have examples of vaccinated people spreading measles and chicken pox, either.

You are correct in noting that vaccines are studied forthe purpose of preventing disease. But, logically, to prevent disease, you have to prevent (significant) infection. And we know viral load plays a role in infection and spread (vaccination should keep viral load low).

So, I don't think my assumption/expectation about this vaccine is absolutely incorrect.

YOU may not get confused about how vaccines work, but I come into contact with people every day who don't understand how they work. The anti-vax movement in this country is significant. Heck, just look at the tons of posts across these forums from people who don't understand this vaccine!

As far as mixed messages and confusion are concerned, there has been a ton of flip-flopping and flat out hypocrisy exhibited by the people we call "experts" and "leaders" in this country. I really don't have the time to point out all of the ones I've seen.

As far as erring too far on the side of caution discussion is concerned, it does appear we disagree on that point. I think my previous comments about risk assessment sum up my position on that.

88planoAg said:

---

This mixed messaging will reverberate for years through the anti-vaxx community, btw. Another unintended consequence of confused messaging.

---

"Confused messaging" is generous. Fauci flat out lied about masks, either when he said they were pointless or crucial. He admitted to lying about the required herd immunity threshold. It's quite likely the push for masks after vaccination has more to do with the fact that it's impractical to ask people without masks if they're vaccinated or recovered, not the theoretical chance a vaccinated person can be contagious.

Ranger222 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is not a high burden and one everyone can carry

---

Feel free to let all the small business owners and restaurants that are going out of business know that it's not a high burden. If they can just continue that not high burden for 2 weeks to months.... that would be great.

---

What does mask wearing and social distancing have to do with businesses and restaurants? The two can (effectively) co-exist if everyone does their part. It could have since the very beginning if a greater number of people were more diligent. I'm not sure why all of these discussions must go to an extreme like this.

---

I would say that calling mask wearing and social distancing not a high burden is an extreme. You have chosen to minimize the impact those have to the community to the extreme minimum. Meanwhile restaurants and small businesses are going out of business due to what they might consider an extreme response.

As already pointed out, restaurants are forced to limit capacity so it's dishonest to say that restaurants can coexist with social distancing. They might survive if they are lucky but they will no doubt be impacted.

In terms of small business, do you think people are more or less likely to buy something from Amazon as opposed to a small business when you factor in wearing a mask and social distancing?

My only point is that people on your side of the fence are quick to point out how easy it is to do your part to help everyone out while completely minimizing the side effects of those actions, no matter how devastating they may be to others. You may say that the collateral damage is worth it, and that's fine to take that stance if that's what you believe, but it's wrong to pretend the collateral damage doesn't exist.

TXTransplant said:

---

I appreciate what doctors and medical researchers do to keep us safe, but sometimes they get a little too caught up in what "could" happen rather than what's "likely" to happen (and what should be getting our main focus when it comes to prevention). An (admittedly crude) analogy that comes to mind is a doctor telling an overweight patient with blocked arteries and diabetes that they ~might~ die of skin cancer, so they should stay out of the sun.

---

Your posts on this thread have been outstanding. Spot on and well written, thanks for taking the time. This paragraph summarizes one of the two primary problems we have had with Covid management: the mindset of physicians.

When your professional ethics have as a core tenet "first, do no harm", you have removed yourself from qualification to set overarching public policy IMO. Taking downside risk to ZERO is a terrible way to run an enterprise, for all the reasons you state. Yet, that is exactly what the medical profession is trained and sworn to do. This mindset needs to be better balanced in our messaging; I completely agree.