null
...
when she used that specific term "carry" she means carry as in disease studies. there is a difference between the study of infectiousness (which is what the doctor means) and whether people actually have the virus in their body. i think we need to wait and see what consensus says about whether the vaccinated are ever short-term infectious rather than being "carriers" [tech].
for the group that could still "carry" you have those who refuse, people under 16, people with dangerous factors which prevent them from getting the vaccine and (possibly here) the %-age of people who are not covered by the stated efficaciousness of the vaccine(s).
reading these:
CDC Data Suggests Vaccinated Don’t Carry, Can’t Spread Virus
and
Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA
the second of which is the CDC study
quote:
"What is added by this report?
Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks. Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%."
so
TL;DR
i. she uses "carry in a very specific chain-of-infection way" rather than meaning "simply to have in body" - and she does not explicitly state how that conclusion is established.
ii. the CDC report states 90%
iii. from the study it looks like PCR checks were only done on symptomatic cases
iv. ruling out long term carrying (which this does not) would not rule out short term infectivity (such as in close quarters in a plane)
so good yes, but the good doctor is inferring too much. perhaps she was speaking idiomatically rather than scientifically.
the birthplace of Jesus is prospering.
Legendary Summer on the way. Keep enjoying life breh
