They've updated their guidelines to state that anyone who has received both doses of vaccine does not have to quarantine if exposed to someone with the infection, assuming the vaccinated person shows no symptoms.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-cdc-quarantine/vaccinated-people-need-not-quarantine-post-covid-19-exposure-cdc-says-idUSKBN2AB0EG

This is a big "Well of course they shouldn't have to!" from me, but it's good to see it in writing. This is a step in the right direction and bodes well for travel.

From the article:

"Individual and societal benefits of avoiding unnecessary quarantine may outweigh the potential but unknown risk of transmission (among vaccinated individuals)," the CDC said."

Hopefully that 3 months after shot you have to quarantine keeps getting pushed out as more data comes in.

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-updates-02-10-21/h_fb531acd5e7a48cb9b57b588a2a7379b

But the vaccinated are still supposed to wear a mask continuously and follow all social distancing protocol...

Unless it's been 3mo since vaccinated and then you're to assume you're back to the same risk factor as the unvaccinated...

shouldn't need a mask either then.

When they did the vaccine trials, they only tested whether vaccines 1. were safe and 2. were effective at preventing disease. Those two things have continued to prove to be true.

They did not test/measure whether vaccines prevent transmission. HOWEVER, early evidence points to vaccines significantly preventing transmission. It's important to remember that scientists and public health officials in this case will want to assume there is not prevention until the high quality data shows that it does for good reason. However, the optimism I have seen lately in the science community is high that it will (not 100% prevent transmission, but some significant percentage).

This whole thread from an vaccine and immune system scientist goes into the various bits of evidence existing:

I think this is the bottom line for most scientists:

https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3180528

RustyBoltz said:

---

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-updates-02-10-21/h_fb531acd5e7a48cb9b57b588a2a7379b

But the vaccinated are still supposed to wear a mask continuously and follow all social distancing protocol...

Unless it's been 3mo since vaccinated and then you're to assume you're back to the same risk factor as the unvaccinated...

---

This part is new to me. So at this point the full vaccine dosage is only "good" for 3 months? First I have heard of this. Granted, maybe it's just we don't fully know yet and expect it to be much longer. Anyone have clarification on this?

I don't have any inside knowledge so this is my best guess. Three months is what they have data for because of the trials. Once they have data for longer periods they will update. Spoiler alert: the vaccines will last longer than three months

But do they have to wear a mask?

Two weeks after the second dose they can ditch the mask and only wear a single mask

We also thought having COVID would provide more than 3mo immunity too. So how is the vaccine better at teaching the body than actually having it?

HotardAg07 said:

---

When they did the vaccine trials, they only tested whether vaccines 1. were safe and 2. were effective at preventing disease. Those two things have continued to prove to be true.

They did not test/measure whether vaccines prevent transmission. HOWEVER, early evidence points to vaccines significantly preventing transmission. It's important to remember that scientists and public health officials in this case will want to assume there is not prevention until the high quality data shows that it does for good reason. However, the optimism I have seen lately in the science community is high that it will (not 100% prevent transmission, but some significant percentage).

This whole thread from an vaccine and immune system scientist goes into the various bits of evidence existing:

I think this is the bottom line for most scientists:

---

you cannot transmit something you don't have. If the vaccine is effective at preventing disease then it is also effective at minimizing viral load such that transmission could not be possible.

RustyBoltz said:

---

We also thought having COVID would provide more than 3mo immunity too. So how is the vaccine better at teaching the body than actually having it?

---

It does provide more than three month immunity. I'm not digging it up but a study found people getting reinfected at a rate of two in ten thousand over a seven month period

Ragoo said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

When they did the vaccine trials, they only tested whether vaccines 1. were safe and 2. were effective at preventing disease. Those two things have continued to prove to be true.

They did not test/measure whether vaccines prevent transmission. HOWEVER, early evidence points to vaccines significantly preventing transmission. It's important to remember that scientists and public health officials in this case will want to assume there is not prevention until the high quality data shows that it does for good reason. However, the optimism I have seen lately in the science community is high that it will (not 100% prevent transmission, but some significant percentage).

This whole thread from an vaccine and immune system scientist goes into the various bits of evidence existing:

I think this is the bottom line for most scientists:

---

you cannot transmit something you don't have. If the vaccine is effective at preventing disease then it is also effective at minimizing viral load such that transmission could not be possible.

---

But there ARE potential mechanisms for a vaccinated person to spread the disease even if vaccinated:

Quote:

---

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.

The coronavirus vaccines, in contrast, are injected deep into the muscles and stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. This appears to be enough protection to keep the vaccinated person from getting ill.
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."
This is why mucosal vaccines, like the nasal spray FluMist or the oral polio vaccine, are better than intramuscular injections at fending off respiratory viruses, experts said.

---

This is the question scientists are trying to answer, but there is optimism and preliminary evidence that vaccination will help prevent transmission significantly.

I am so thankful that my school district didn't wait for peer reviewed science to catch up to what was obvious after 9 weeks of school. Namely, that kids didn't need to be quarantined for 14 days at home if they were in class with a positive and both were masked. (not meant to be a mask debate). After 9 weeks of none of the exposed testing positive, the district changed their policy and only quarantined those who were within 6 feet without masks (so lunch) instead. Has worked in our district just fine.

I realize the perils of moving away from peer reviewed scientific backing, but there is something to be said with using boots on the ground experience as well.

Related to the OP because scientists (I get it) are unwilling to get ahead of the science.

Scientists are really good at collecting data and reporting data.

They aren't so good at statistics and probability.

HotardAg07 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

When they did the vaccine trials, they only tested whether vaccines 1. were safe and 2. were effective at preventing disease. Those two things have continued to prove to be true.

They did not test/measure whether vaccines prevent transmission. HOWEVER, early evidence points to vaccines significantly preventing transmission. It's important to remember that scientists and public health officials in this case will want to assume there is not prevention until the high quality data shows that it does for good reason. However, the optimism I have seen lately in the science community is high that it will (not 100% prevent transmission, but some significant percentage).

This whole thread from an vaccine and immune system scientist goes into the various bits of evidence existing:

I think this is the bottom line for most scientists:

---

you cannot transmit something you don't have. If the vaccine is effective at preventing disease then it is also effective at minimizing viral load such that transmission could not be possible.

---

But there ARE potential mechanisms for a vaccinated person to spread the disease even if vaccinated:

Quote:

---

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.

The coronavirus vaccines, in contrast, are injected deep into the muscles and stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. This appears to be enough protection to keep the vaccinated person from getting ill.
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."
This is why mucosal vaccines, like the nasal spray FluMist or the oral polio vaccine, are better than intramuscular injections at fending off respiratory viruses, experts said.

---

This is the question scientists are trying to answer, but there is optimism and preliminary evidence that vaccination will help prevent transmission significantly.

---

If I remember correctly, the Disneyland measles outbreak a few years ago is thought to occur similarly; unvaccinated people on vacation and someone may have been an unknowing vector.