In latest news, it is reported that:

if vaccinated people get infected anyway, they have as much virus in their bodies as unvaccinated people. That means they're as likely to infect someone else as unvaccinated people who get infected.

But vaccinated people are safer, the document indicates. "Vaccines prevent more than 90% of severe disease"

I've understood in general viral load is related to severity of the sickness. Do we know why would it not be in this case?


I believe the news report you cited is not accurate in its reporting. Of course, it's not actual science, and we will wait for the release of the actual science, but here's my understanding (which may end up being wrong):

if vaccinated people get infected anyway, they have as much virus in their bodies as unvaccinated people.

This seems to be incorrect. My understanding is that the CDC info looks at vaccinated people who were infected AND developed COVID symptoms, not all vaccinated and infected people. Also, the tests did not look at the virus levels in the whole body, just in the nose and throat. Obviously, the nose and throat release virus into breath which is exhaled, so that directly impacts how contagious a person might be. However, what should be important for the person's own level of illness is the amount of virus in the lungs and other internal systems, not the nose and throat.

This mis-reporting would seem to account for the apparent discrepancy you noted.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd say this is consistent with my understanding, too: there's a sampling bias here. I think the reporter misunderstood and should have written "if vaccinated people get infected anyway and are symptomatic, they can have as much virus in their bodies as some infected unvaccinated people". Those nuances don't always make it to the news articles. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Jul 30 at 22:34
  • $\begingroup$ I now found these links from CDC: 1 and 2, which claim "Real-time RT-PCR Ct values in specimens from 127 fully vaccinated patients (median = 22.77) were similar to those among 84 patients who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median = 21.54)." - so not sure if discrepancy is fault of the news report. $\endgroup$
    – eis
    Jul 31 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ @eis The data in your MMWR link seems consistent with my and Bryan's description. In particular, the MMWR did not discuss "if vaccinated people get infected anyway", but rather (mostly) symptomatic people who were then discovered to have been vaccinated. That is, the group studied was selected from among those who were already known to be sick, not a random sample from among vaccinated individuals in general. $\endgroup$
    – Armand
    Jul 31 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Armand however, I think "some" are not consistent - it would seem from the data that pretty much all examined people did have roughly as much virus (in their throats and noses). Of course, the amount of people involved in this study is small and there is selection bias, but at least in this study the levels seemed to be similar in all samples they had, if I'm reading this correctly. $\endgroup$
    – eis
    Aug 3 at 9:49
  • $\begingroup$ @eis You may have misinterpreted the whisker plots in Fig. 2 from CDC. The larger an RT-PCR Ct value, the less target was present. Normally, Ct values as small as 38-40 are considered very weak/negative results. The plot shows that some of the vaccinated infected had Ct values this small, while none of the unvaccinated group did. $\endgroup$
    – Armand
    Aug 3 at 12:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.