A debatable subject - to take a quote out of context:
"But your body also produces antibodies as a response to vaccination. That’s the way it can recognise SARS-CoV-2, the next time it meets it, to protect you from severe COVID. So as COVID vaccines are rolled out, and people develop a vaccine-induced antibody response, it may become difficult to differentiate between someone who has had COVID in the past and someone who was vaccinated a month ago."
Will the COVID vaccine make me test positive for the coronavirus? 5 questions about vaccines and COVID testing answeredMeru Sheel, Australian National University; Charlee J Law, Australian National University, and Cyra Patel, Australian National University
Do the vaccines give you COVID, or make you test positive for COVID? Does the vaccine affect other tests? Do we still need to get COVID tested if we have symptoms, even after getting the shot? And will we still need COVID testing once more of the population gets vaccinated?
We look at the evidence to answer five common questions about the impact of COVID vaccines on testing.
1. Will the vaccine give me COVID?
The short answer is “no”. That’s because the vaccines approved for use so far in Australia and elsewhere don’t contain live COVID virus.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine contains an artificially generated portion of viral mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid). This carries the specific genetic instructions for your body to make the coronavirus’s “spike protein”, against which your body mounts a protective immune response.
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a different technology. It packages viral DNA into a viral vector “carrier” based on a chimpanzee adenovirus. When this is delivered into your arm, the DNA prompts your body to produce the spike protein, again stimulating an immune response.
Any vaccine side-effects, such as fever or feeling fatigued, are usually mild and temporary. These are signs the vaccines are working to boost your immune system, rather than signs of COVID itself. These symptoms are also common after routine vaccines.
2. Will the COVID vaccine make me test positive?
No, a COVID vaccine will not affect the results of a diagnostic COVID test.
The current gold-standard diagnostic test is known as nucleic acid PCR testing. This looks for the mRNA (genetic material) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. This is a marker of current infection.
This is the test the vast majority of people have when they line up at a drive-through testing clinic, or attend a COVID clinic at their local hospital.
Yes, the Pfizer vaccine contains mRNA. But the mRNA it uses is only a small part of the entire viral RNA. It also cannot make copies of itself, which would be needed for it to be in sufficient quantity to be detected. So it cannot be detected by a PCR test.
The AstraZeneca vaccine also only contains part of the DNA but is inserted in an adenovirus carrier that cannot replicate so cannot give you infection or a positive PCR test.
3. How about antibody testing?
While PCR testing is used to look for current infection, antibody testing — also known as serology testing — picks up past infections.
Laboratories look to see if your immune system has raised antibodies against the coronavirus, a sign your body has been exposed to it. As it takes time for antibodies to develop, testing positive with an antibody test may indicate you were infected weeks or months ago.
But your body also produces antibodies as a response to vaccination. That’s the way it can recognise SARS-CoV-2, the next time it meets it, to protect you from severe COVID.
So as COVID vaccines are rolled out, and people develop a vaccine-induced antibody response, it may become difficult to differentiate between someone who has had COVID in the past and someone who was vaccinated a month ago. But this will depend on the serology test used.
The good news is that antibody testing is not nearly as common as PCR testing. And it’s only ordered under limited and rare circumstances.
For instance, when someone tests positive with PCR, but they are a false positive due to the characteristics of the test, or have fragments of virus lingering in the respiratory tract from an old infection, public health experts might request an antibody test to see whether that person was infected in the past. They might also order an antibody test during contact tracing of cases with an unknown source of infection.
4. If I get vaccinated, do I still need a COVID test if I have symptoms?
Yes, we will continue to test for COVID as long as the virus is circulating anywhere in the world.
Even though the COVID vaccines are looking promising in preventing people from getting seriously sick or dying, they won’t provide 100% protection.
Real-world data suggests some vaccinated people can still catch the virus, but they usually only get mild disease. We are unsure whether vaccinated people will be able to potentially pass it to others, even if they don’t have any symptoms. So it’s important people continue to get tested.
Furthermore, not everyone will be eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. For instance, in Australia, current guidelines exclude people under 16 years of age, and those who are allergic to ingredients in the vaccine. And although pregnant women are not ruled out from receiving the vaccine, it is not routinely recommended. This means a proportion of the population will remain susceptible to catching the virus.
We also are unsure about how effective vaccines will be against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. So we will continue to test to ensure people are not infected with these strains.
We know testing, detecting new cases early and contact tracing are the core components of the public health response to COVID, and will continue to be a priority from a public health perspective.
Minimum numbers of daily COVID tests are also needed so we can be confident the virus is not circulating in the community. As an example, New South Wales aims for 8,000 or more tests a day to maintain this peace of mind.
Continued vigilance and high rates of testing for COVID will also be important as we enter the flu season. That’s because the only way to differentiate between COVID and influenza (or any other respiratory infection) is via testing.
5. Will testing for COVID stop as time goes on?
It is unlikely our approach to COVID testing will change in the immediate future. However, as COVID vaccines are rolled out and since COVID is likely to become endemic and stay with us for a long time, the acute response phase to the pandemic will end.
So COVID testing may become part of managing other infectious diseases and part of how we respond to other ongoing health priorities.
Meru Sheel, Epidemiologist | Senior Research Fellow, Australian National University; Charlee J Law, Epidemiologist | Research Associate, Australian National University, and Cyra Patel, PhD candidate, Australian National University
MORE QUESTIONS & A FEW ANSWERS
Firstly, allow me a bit of self-promotion - we get to the serious questions after this:
As I am doing research, I am asking questions to which I do not always receive adequate answers.
So I keep digging. Here are some ABSTRACTS from which I hope to build my case:
FROM CONVERSATIONS I HAD ON WHATSAPP AND FACEBOOK:
(translate to English and show side by side with German)
Angst vor CoV bremst Öffi-Verkehr
(▲ article in German)
The latest news from Prof. Hendrik Streeck and the Heinsberg Study
published June 7th 2020 in RP-ONLINE
article is in German, use Google Translate:
Bonner Virologe Streeck plädiert für „mehr Mut“ im Sommer
Bonn virologist Streeck pleads for "more courage" in summer
I am quoting short excerpts from these articles
please click the links to read more:
ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD MAKES TESTING KEY FOR COVID-19 FIGHT
MAY 15TH, 2020
POSTED BY JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
The prevalence of asymptomatic cases—people infected with the virus who can spread it to others but don’t feel sick—is one of the most challenging aspects of the coronavirus pandemic, researchers say.
Current testing methods can detect asymptomatic cases. When you are infected with the coronavirus, the tests are pretty sensitive to any presence of the virus. The most common test at the moment is a PCR test, which looks for the presence of the virus’s genetic material, and some of these are more sensitive than others.
What it means to be immune to the coronavirus
April 14th 2020 in MASHABLE
"The golden rule of immunology is if you are infected with a virus, get sick, and recover, you probably won't get reinfected with the same virus," said Mark Cameron, an immunologist at Case Western Reserve University who previously helped contain the outbreak of another deadly coronavirus, SARS, in 2003.
Why, though, might a significant number of people have such mild (or no) symptoms to this new coronavirus? There could be genetic or health differences that make it more difficult for the coronaviruses to infect a cell. It's also possible that people with milder infections were only exposed to a tiny amount of the virus (like someone picking up just a few particles off a piece of mail versus an ER doctor getting sprayed with millions of viral particles). "It's possible that asymptomatic people were exposed to a much lower dose," said Brian Baker, a biochemist at the University of Notre Dame.
At the end of the day, this coronavirus may unwittingly help humanity tame the pandemic. While it's true that asymptomatic people can spread the virus when they're infected (that's why everyone must social distance right now), if one in four infected people are truly asymptomatic, that means that likely millions of people will ultimately develop immunity — whether they know it or not — and won't be able to spread the virus around until we get a vaccine. "That would be a good thing," said Baker.
"We can count on the fact that the vast majority of COVID infections will cause immunity," said Cameron, noting that a vaccine will then only add to the number of immune people. Ultimately, this is how we end this grim pandemic, now that we've failed to contain it.
Genetic vaccines against COVID-19: hope or RISK?
Biologist Clemens Arvay elaborately explains the risks of genetic vaccines such as DNA- and RNA-vaccines. He warns of shortened admission procedures as they were recommended by Bill Gates and some experts. Beyond the specific risks are autoimmune diseases and an increased cancer risk.
The video was originally uploaded in German on May 3rd, he has now dubbed it in English and posted on May 10th. Thus, this important information is available to a much wider audience.
If you go to the original videos on YouTube, you will find a lot of documentation in the respective descriptions.
For best viewing, go to full screen.
Some corroborating evidence I selected here:
Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees
We must urgently develop measures to tackle the new coronavirus
— but safety always comes first, says Shibo Jiang.
Shibo Jiang is a professor of virology at the School of Basic Medical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China,
and at the New York Blood Center, New York, USA.
Around the world, I am seeing efforts to support ‘quick-fix’ programmes aimed at developing vaccines and therapeutics against COVID-19. Groups in the United States and China are already planning to test vaccines in healthy human volunteers. Make no mistake, it’s essential that we work as hard and fast as possible to develop drugs and vaccines that are widely available across the world. But it is important not to cut corners.
Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, polio, smallpox and influenza have a long history of safe use and were developed in line with requirements of regulatory agencies.
I have worked to develop vaccines and treatments for coronaviruses since 2003, when the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak happened. In my view, standard protocols are essential for safeguarding health. Before allowing use of a COVID-19 vaccine in humans, regulators should evaluate safety with a range of virus strains and in more than one animal model. They should also demand strong preclinical evidence that the experimental vaccines prevent infection, even though that will probably mean waiting weeks or even months for the models to become available.
Preclinical and clinical safety studies on DNA vaccines
Journal Human Vaccines Volume 2, 2006 - Issue 2
DNA vaccines are based on the transfer of genetic material, encoding an antigen, to the cells of the vaccine recipient. Despite high expectations of DNA vaccines as a result of promising preclinical data their clinical utility remains unproven. However, much data is gathered in preclinical and clinical studies about the safety of DNA vaccines. Here we review current knowledge about the safety of DNA vaccines. Safety concerns of DNA vaccines relate to genetic, immunologic, toxic, and environmental effects. In this review we provide an overview of findings related to the safety of DNA vaccines, obtained so far. We conclude that the potential risks of DNA vaccines are minimal. However, their safety issues may differ case-by-case, and they should be treated accordingly.
On a more personal note:
There were discussions on Facebook about the subject of vaccines, lock-downs and possible second and third waves of COVID-19. I just want to pick out one, followed by my answer.
Yes by all means be free to assemble, hug who ever, go to crowded restaurants and pubs, be 'normal'. Let's wait to see how the second wave and then the third finds you.
I haven't been hit by any "wave" at any time before, and I lived through several pandemics without hardly noticing. What makes this one different - other than it is milder than those stupid scaremongering forecasts (i.e. where I live, they talked about 100.000 deaths - reality is a bit over 600 last stand).
What do you know about SARS? Where is it now, how many "waves" of it since 2003 - just for an example. Pandemics such as these run their course in due time. By the time they have a vaccine (if ever - i.e. there never was one found for SARS*) it will have run its course and the vaccine irrelevant to go on the trash heap - but if it mutates, then the vaccines will be useless anyway, the same as many of the flu vaccines were useless, and some, like the swine flu, were even dangerous. But Pharma will have made billions in profit.
The way it is going now (with exceptions of a few bad pockets that are cited as scare stories) the curves are flattening, so in order to keep up the pharma propaganda, there has to be the specter of new waves projected, and as some say, much worse than the original - because without fear (which by itself lowers your immune system) they cannot exert the type of desired control to turn people into obedient robots.
Lets just drink the Cool-Aid.
To illustrate my point (and the reference made to the 100.000 deaths claim) - I live in Austria, and you can check the current official situation right here, on the Dashboard COVID-19 and there are tabs to check fatality rates and hospitalization. To this I might want to also mention that no more than 10% of intensive care unit beds in Austria are currently actually in use by patients.
So any claim that we can never return to normal unless there is a vaccine and everyone is vaccinated, is
irresponsible scaremongering. The fact hat such comes from the chancellor of Austria is however alarming.
To speculate what is behind all this, I leave to others - and you, dear reader: what does your common sense tell you?
* Footnote about SARS:
As of 2020, there is no cure or protective vaccine for SARS that has been shown to be both safe and effective in humans. According to research papers published in 2005 and 2006, the identification and development of novel vaccines and medicines to treat SARS was a priority for governments and public health agencies around the world. In early 2004, an early clinical trial on volunteers was planned. A major researcher´s 2016 request, however, demonstrated that no field-ready SARS vaccine had been completed because likely market-driven priorities had ended funding. ............ Wikipedia - SARS Treatment
It is not the flu - they say
well, yeah, but it is a strain of SARS
so what about SARS?
SARS Revisited - AMA Journal of Ethics
By 2004, SARS cases had slowed just as mysteriously as they had started in Guandong province of southern China 2 years earlier, in December of 2002. Yet the legacy of unanswered questions the pathogen left behind should keep scientists, public health officials, epidemiologists, and ethicists occupied for a long time to come. Why, exactly, should we revive discussion if it is no longer a pressing threat? After all, the SARS death toll is relatively low with 812 deaths worldwide. What’s more, the looming H5N1 avian flu virus is currently front page news. Even so, the SARS epidemic should not be filed away without appreciation of the lessons it taught.
Although short-lived, SARS forced us to face the unpleasant reality of global pandemics and to address the ethico-legal dilemmas that result from hasty public health measures.
Bold and underlined what I find the most relevant to our situation today!
gratuitous click-bait - it just takes you to my home page.
Don't forget, I am first and foremost a artist.