Any science showing the vaccine reduces chance of infection or contagiousness?

Pro-vaxxers keep saying "Look at the Science, Look at the Science!"

This thread is for any scientific studies that show that the vaccine reduces the probability of infection, or the level of contagiousness if someone is infected.

(Please note that hospital rates are a completely separate matter. This thread is talking specifically about chance of infection, not chances of needing medical treatment for that infection. This thread is only about you being able to harbor and spread that infection)

So if anyone wants to post any scientific studies about this, go ahead.
I will be waiting.

I expect crickets.

 

Im sure there's studies funded by vaccine manufacturers that 'show' precisely that.

 

I've seen information about reduced infection risk/relative case rates but I'm not sure it was every expected that vaccination would necessarily impact contagion in the event of breakthrough infection. That would be much more difficult to measure and assess anyway.

Sure, I'll do the searching for you but you're on your own for the analysis. I'm just presenting the links I found as is, the kind you could have easily sought out on your own if you had really wanted an answer to your question;
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w

 

Crickets it will be.

The shots are the weapon, causing massive amounts of spike proteins to be produced by the test subject's body.

 

Hogwash.

Fact Check-No evidence spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccines are toxic | Reuters
"Research shows that spike proteins (here) remain stuck to the cell surface around the injection site and do not travel to other parts of the body via the bloodstream, they added. The 1% of the vaccine that does reach the bloodstream is destroyed by liver enzymes.

Bridle said his findings were corroborated by “cutting-edge science” from Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) (www.pmda.go.jp/0017.html), which he allegedly obtained through a freedom of information request (timestamp 4.41).

Turner’s website repeated the claim and linked this Japanese document as Bridle’s source (here). The article provided no further context, but research conducted by Reuters showed that the chapter was taken from this document (here), which featured the words ‘PFIZER CONFIDENTIAL’ in the footer.

When Reuters presented the document to Pfizer, however, a spokesperson wrote in an email that the file is a Common Technical Document (CTD) unrelated to Bridle’s claim.

Pharmaceutical companies are required to submit CTDs to regulatory authorities in the European Economic Area, Japan and the United States before medicines or vaccines can be approved (here). Pfizer submitted this CTD to be assessed by the PMDA before the shot was certified in February 2021 (here).

“We can confirm the document does not make any reference to spike proteins from the vaccine resulting in dangerous toxins that linger in the body – this claim is incorrect”, the spokesperson said."

 

You expect crickets? LOL There are literally dozens of scientific studies showing it. Just a few here for the sake of brevity, but there are many more:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html

"A new CDC study finds the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people. This adds to the growing body of real-world evidence of their effectiveness. Importantly, this study also is among the first to show that mRNA vaccination benefits people who get COVID-19 despite being fully vaccinated (14 or more days after dose 2) or partially vaccinated (14 or more days after dose 1 to 13 days after dose 2)."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w

The study above, even though the efficacy of vaccines for prevention of infection with Delta dropped significantly, it still resulted in 5X advantage against mere infection (and while this is not the topic of your thread, 10X against hospitalization and 10X against death).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.24.21263978v1

"Pre-vaccination, in 1493 participants, we scored 266 infections (17.8%) and 8 possible reinfections (3%). Post-vaccination, we identified 30 infections in 2029 vaccinated individuals (1.5%). We report that the probability of infection post-vaccination is i) significantly lower compared to natural infection, ii) associated with a significantly shorter median duration of infection than that of first infection and reinfection"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

"The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals."

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...kely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583

"People who are vaccinated against Covid-19 are less likely to spread the virus even if they become infected, a new study finds, adding to a growing body of evidence that vaccines can reduce transmission of the delta variant. British scientists at the University of Oxford examined national records of nearly 150,000 contacts that were traced from roughly 100,000 initial cases. The samples included people who were fully or partially vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the AstraZeneca vaccines, as well as people who were unvaccinated. The researchers then looked at how the vaccines affected the spread of the virus if a person had a breakthrough infection with either the alpha variant or the highly contagious delta variant. Both vaccines reduced transmission, although they were more effective against the alpha variant compared to the delta variant. When infected with the delta variant, a given contact was 65 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. With AstraZeneca, a given contact was 36 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1

"The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection. Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response."

While the study above is the only one partially off-topic because it talks about prevention of symptomatic and severe cases and not merely infection, the faster decline in viral load does show less infectiousness which is on-topic.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261991v1

"Index cases without vaccination (OR: 2.84, 95% confidence interval: 1.19, 8.45) or with one dose of vaccination (OR: 6.02, 95% confidence interval: 2.45, 18.16) were more likely to transmit infection to their contacts than those who had received 2 doses of vaccination."

-----------

Crickets? Are you satisfied? I could go on and on and quote pages and pages of studies showing both decreased likelihood of mere infections, and decreased likelihood of spreading the infection, like the ones above show.

Also do consider that these numbers should be added on top of each other, because if you are less likely to even acquire the mere infection to start with, you can't spread it if you don't have it. So, the studies that show smaller likelihood of spreading it if vaccinated, for those who are vaccinated but still get breakthrough infections, need to have their percentage of improved likelihood of spreading it, plotted on top of the fact that those individuals are less frequent to start with, so the effect of vaccination in reducing the spread is even higher than what the studies that are merely about spreading seem to indicate.

Aren't you tired of being always wrong?

 

And yet we are seeing the same surges we saw pre-vax. Funny.

 

Here's a quote from that article:

In the new analysis, 3,975 participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 17 consecutive weeks (from December 13, 2020 to April 10, 2021) in eight U.S. locations. Participants self-collected nasal swabs that were laboratory tested for SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes COVID-19. If the tests came back positive, the specimens were further tested to determine the amount of detectable virus in the nose (i.e., viral load) and the number of days that participants tested positive (i.e., viral shedding). Participants were followed over time and the data were analyzed according to vaccination status. To evaluate vaccine benefits, the study investigators accounted for the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the area and how consistently participants used personal protective equipment (PPE) at work and in the community. Once fully vaccinated, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 91 percent. After partial vaccination, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 81 percent. To determine whether COVID-19 illness was milder, study participants who became infected with SARS-CoV-2 were combined into a single group and compared to unvaccinated, infected participants. Several findings indicated that those who became infected after being fully or partially vaccinated were more likely to have a milder and shorter illness compared to those who were unvaccinated. For example, fully or partially vaccinated people who developed COVID-19 spent on average six fewer total days sick and two fewer days sick in bed. They also had about a 60 percent lower risk of developing symptoms, like fever or chills, compared to those who were unvaccinated.​

It sounds to me that this study suggests a medium rate of effectiveness.
But I will still point to the fact that those who received the vaccine could have been statistically more likely to have taken other excessive precautionary measures to avoid infection. So this study is suggestive, but the real effectiveness rate could be a little less.
The study was done at a time when people had just received the vaccines a few months ago, so is not necessarily indicative of longer-term effectiveness.

Thank you for posting an actual study.

 

so far, no effectiveness of vaccine has been observed according to basic statistics and arithmetic.

 

One actual study? There dozens and I posted more than one.
How do you explain the different rates in households with index cases? Do you think people actually are careful inside their homes? They come from outside, kick out their shoes, kiss their wives, hug their kids... spend hours in the living room watching TV together... and still, an infected non-vaccinated person transmits the virus to fewer household members than an infected vaccinated person. Care to you dismiss that one too?
But of course you'll find fault at whatever I post, and then you'll pose as very polite and say a thank you.
Sorry, you can keep your thank-yous; you and your agenda don't fool me.

 

I don't know but there is a lot of science proving it prevents death.

 

According to Trump, Hydroxy and Zinc will prevent an infection.

What was your response when he once stated the above?

 

Vaccines are not more effective then zinc.
Both give temporary boost to the immune system.

 

Well, they are pretty effective at spreading the disease, so there' that!

 

I don’t think anyone can honestly dispute the fact that in short term vaccines do prevent infection and in medium term they do seem to provide protection against severe case.
I think there there are plenty of areas where the vaccines can be questioned if you are willing to do your research and accept some things that go against your currently established understanding about this issue.
I think anyone who questions the vaccine should always keep in mind the possibility that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, at least just to stay honest with self and to keep your own biases in check. Time will heal this controversy.