Covid breakthrough data based on vaccine type?

[luv2fly]

Anyone familiar with data showing the type of vaccine given to those who have experienced breakthrough covid infections?

[lapucelle]

1. Data is not available yet.

CDC is monitoring COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases for patterns

CDC is working with state and local health departments to investigate COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases. The goal is to identify any unusual patterns, such as trends in age or sex, the vaccines involved, underlying health conditions, or which of the SARS-CoV-2 variants made these people sick. To date, no unusual patterns have been detected in the data CDC has received.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

[luv2fly]

2. Thanks I bookmarked that CDC page

I wonder though, there are data, and it seems like maybe no one wants to share yet.

[lapucelle]

12. For the latest reports and studies, subscribe to CDC MMWR email updates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/about.html

[Jarqui]

3. There is a study in Israel

There is also a study in the UK

I've seen other studies in the media

No Covid vaccine I've seen assures nor has tested 100% efficacy.

Delta appears to have a higher breakthrough rate though the consequences for the vaccinated are generally subdued.

[luv2fly]

5. Right, but of those vaccinated...

that have experienced a breakthrough infection, which vaccine did they get? I'd like to know.

[Jarqui]

6. All vaccines have had breakthrough infections that I've seen

You can see those in the studies and in some country's data

You can see some of them in the UK data (mainly Pfizer and AstraZeneca) and Israel's data (mainly Pfizer) for example.

And again, when they were in clinical III trials, they had breakthrough infections. Nobody offered 100% efficacy after those trials that I am aware of.

Now the frequency of breakthrough varies by the variant and the vaccine. Some vaccines do better against some variants than others. And those other vaccines may do better against some other variants.

[GregariousGroundhog]

35. The only study I know of that answers this questions comes from the U.K.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891?query=featured_home

This study only covers the Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2) and the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) since it was based in the U.K. During a roughly three month period, 7.6% of the unvaccinated study participants were infected with the COVID-19 alpha variant and 4.2% with the delta variant. Of the people vaccinated with two doses of Pfizer, those numbers are 0.3% (alpha) and 0.8% (delta). Of the people vaccinated with two doses of AstraZeneca those numbers are 1.1% (alpha) and 2.6% (delta).

When they statistically adjust the data to adjust for age, travel history, and various other variables, the Pfizer vaccine is 93.7 effective at preventing infection from the alpha variant 88% against the delta variant. Those numbers are 74.5% and 67% for AstraZeneca.

[RussBLib]

4. I would also like to hear ....

How are these "breakthrough" cases resolving?

I hear that some have died. Some report symptoms of a bad cold. Some report no symptoms at all. Some get hospitalized.

In general, it seems that being vaccinated does give you some protection if you develop a "breakthrough" case, but I don't hear much about it.

Always gathering data.

[Ms. Toad]

8. My understanding is that they experience the full range of disease expression

as the unvaccinated.

The reason deaths and hospitalization are primarily among the unvaccinated is that deaths (for example) are about 2% of the outcomes - for 1000 cases in the unvaccinated population, there would be expected to be 50 breakthrough cases and 2 deaths (as opposed to 20 deaths in the unvaccinated cases).

In a 50-50 vaccinated population, that would put the unvaccinated deaths at 95% of the total. That is consistent with the Alabama statistics posted in another article:

Disease Control and Prevention. In Alabama, state officials report 94% of COVID hospital patients and 96% of Alabamians who have died of COVID since April were not fully vaccinated.

https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

[lapucelle]

15. How are those figures being calculated, and are other factors are being considered

and weighted?

Where do those predictions come from?

The CDC understands the limitations of the data and proceeds with appropriate measure:

COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting

How to interpret these data

The number of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC likely are an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons. National surveillance relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data might not be complete or representative. These surveillance data are a snapshot and help identify patterns and look for signals among vaccine breakthrough cases.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

[Ms. Toad]

17. The case death rate

is from a number of sources. While I suspect it will be decreasing if we look only at more recent cases, it has been relatively steady.

The percentages in Alabama are a snapshot in time, and intended only to demonstrate the deaths in breakthrough cases occur in roughly equal percentages to the deaths in other cases.

I concur that the breakthorugh infections are likely an undercount. Many people who are vaccinated believe themselves invulnerable and don't get tested when exposed, or when they have symptoms - coupled with that the CDC, as a whole, is not uniformly tracking asymptomatic breakthrough cases.

As to whether they are proceeding with appropriate measures - we'll have to disagree on that.

[lapucelle]

18. Can you link to your sources? Is there anywhere I can find the data you're relying on?

Do you have a citation for the case fatality rate from any of your number of sources?

The percentages in Alabama are not just a snapshot in time; they're a snapshot of a specific place. Where are the studies that support the predictions?

Even when the CDC was tracking all breakthrough cases (January 1-April 30, 2021), it reported,

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, the number of reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases is likely a substantial undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons. The national surveillance system relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data might not be complete or representative. Many persons with vaccine breakthrough infections, especially those who are asymptomatic or who experience mild illness, might not seek testing. Second, SARS-CoV-2 sequence data are available for only a small proportion of the reported cases.

Beginning May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections to investigating only those among patients who are hospitalized or die, thereby focusing on the cases of highest clinical and public health significance.

CDC will continue to lead studies in multiple U.S. sites to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and collect information on all COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections regardless of clinical status.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm

The collection and analysis of epidemiological data is complex and best left to experts. That's why I rely on them.

[Ms. Toad]

20. First, I'm not making predictions based on Alabama (or anything else).

It is a snapsnot in time - but it is snapshot in time that compares two populations that are subject to the same circumstances (fixed period of time in which all deaths are classified as vaccinated or not). Unlike the snaphots touted in LA (which compared infections to vaccinated population), and which are widely beng inaccurately touted as predictive, this merely compares vaccinated to unvaccinated - the comparison used to determine the effectiveness of the vaccines.

My observation (not prediction) is that what is being reported out of Alabama is consistent with other sourcs that have suggested that the reduction in deaths comes from infection prevention, not from a reduction in severity. In other words, if you work backwards from the actual deaths usin gan assumption of a consistent case fatality rate of 2% (regardless of vaccination status), you will arrive at a ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated that is close to the actual vaccination rate.

As to the 2% - here's one source: it's just below 2% currently.

The problem with the CDC ignoring asymptomatic cases is that we know people with asymptomatic cases are still infectious. Right now vaccinated individuals have an exaggerated sense of safety - and now assume that mild COVID symptoms are something else, because they believe their vaccine provides perfect protection. This a dangerous assumption, because it allows COVID to spread silently in our communities - including to the 15% who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated. This is no time to stick our heads in the sand.

As to relying on the CDC - in each instance when I have disagreed with the CDC on COVID I have later been proven correct. It would be nice to be pleasantly surprised - and to be wrong. But I don't really expect that, since far too many people have decided that personal comfort is more important that the discomfort that is likely to be required to protect or children and others who cannot be vaccinated.

We are on track to be every bit as bad by October as we were in late 2020/early 2021. Unless we wake up and alter the course of this pandemic, with that level of community infection the number of (and harm from) breakthrough infections will be devastating.

[lapucelle]

23. Please stop saying that the CDC is "ignoring asymptomatic cases". That is not true,

and borders on misinformation.

Beginning May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections to investigating only those among patients who are hospitalized or die, thereby focusing on the cases of highest clinical and public health significance.

CDC will continue to lead studies in multiple U.S. sites to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and collect information on all COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections regardless of clinical status.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A suspicion that something will happen is not an "observation". It's a prediction.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of your "observations" appear to be based on your personal analysis of open source raw data , including the CFR (what you call the "case death rate" ), a ratio that is routinely characterized as a "poor measure of the mortality risk of a disease" while a pandemic is ongoing.

From your link:

The Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is the ratio between confirmed deaths and confirmed cases.
During an outbreak of a pandemic the CFR is a poor measure of the mortality risk of the disease

.

From the WHO:

Reliable CFRs that can be used to assess the deadliness of an outbreak and evaluate any implemented public health measures are generally obtained at the end of an outbreak, after all cases have been resolved (affected individuals either died or recovered). However, this calculation may not hold in an ongoing epidemic, because it makes two assumptions:

Assumption 1: The likelihood of detecting cases and deaths is consistent over the course of the outbreak.
Assumption 2: All detected cases have resolved (that is, reported cases have either recovered or died).

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

[LisaL]

24. US is not massively testing the population (unlike some other countries).

Thus, our case numbers don't reflect asymptomatic cases, since most people in US test for a reason (having symptoms).

[lapucelle]

26. I'm not sure what you mean by "massively testing the population".

How does that work, and which countries are doing that? Who is being tested? Everyone? Representative samples? Special populations?

It is more or less a given that the reported number of breakthrough cases is likely an undercount, but our case numbers do include asymptomatic cases if the asymptomatic person has tested positive.

CDC will continue to lead studies in multiple U.S. sites to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and collect information on all COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections regardless of clinical status.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm

[LisaL]

29. What I mean is some countries are distributing free covid tests to their populations.

That can be taken often. US is not doing anything like that.

[lapucelle]

30. Free covid testing is available to everyone in the US

through the The Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/community-based-testing-sites/index.html#ny

England has also made twice weekly testing available to anyone who wants it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/twice-weekly-rapid-testing-to-be-available-to-everyone-in-england

The WHO has a global partnership to make rapid testing available.
https://www.who.int/news/item/28-09-2020-global-partnership-to-make-available-120-million-affordable-quality-covid-19-rapid-tests-for-low--and-middle-income-countries

I don't think that a country distributing free covid tests is the same thing as a country "massively testing its population". If the goal is to collect meaningful data about an entire population, you would still have an unrepresentative self-selected sample, unless testing is mandated. In addition, unless the country was also collecting data on the number of people who are confirmed as having participated in the testing and tested negative, the data would be incomplete.

The CDC is leading controlled studies at several US sites in an effort to collect reliable and meaningful data.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm

[LisaL]

31. UK is sending free test to people.

US is not doing it.
Many people don't even know about free testing available in the US and how to accomplish it.

[lapucelle]

33. The UK is sending them to people who order them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51943612

[Ms. Toad]

28. Good Lord.

The number i used was 2%. I was not using a prediction that it Wii be lower in the future, for anything other than nothing the very thing you accuse me of ignoring: acknowledging that in an ongoing pandemic the case fatality rate is not stable. The predicted instability (i.e. That it will change on The future, or was different I. The past) does not figure into the the calculations I made to compare the number of deaths expected from a vaccinated population if the deaths were due to a reduction in severity v. a reduction in infection at all. I used the current case fatality rate on current data. It would be invalid to use it on data from the beginning of the pandemic. It would be invalid to extrapolate into the future. I an not doing either of those.

Yes. When data collection is in the early stages, my observations are based on my personal analysis out raw data. It is what i have been doing accurately for the entire pandemic and what i am trained to do. (Once data has been analyzed, and more detailed analysis is published in medical and scientific journals, I compare my observations to that. By and large my data driven observations match, and I (and anyone who has watched what I've been doing for the last year) has had the benefit of early insight that largely marched where scientists have ended up anyway).

Aside from my scientific and mathematical training, this is the same essential process i have used for decades to make decisions about care for the medical unicorns my family collects. Our diseases are so rare that we often have to make life and death decisions based on case studies, rather than peer reviewed studies, or on preliminary data, rather than the final outcome of a study. I'm pretty good at it. As with the pandemic, the observations I make, by and large, are later confirmed as accurate. They have never been wildly off.

Whether you choose to pay attention is obviously up to you.

As to the CDC, ongoing studies are different from the behavior-based recommendations for the general population. It's recommendations to vaccinated people are to ignore exposure unless we become symptomatic. This is dangerous given how easily the delta variant breaks through vaccination, and is transmitted to others, including while symptomatic, and given that our children don't yet have the benefit of that good (but imperfect) protection.

This is a perfect example of the CDC lag in reacting to predominant data, and why i do what i do. I didn't wait for the CDC to tell me to put on a mask to start wearing one. I didn't wait for the CDC to wake up to aerosolized transmission, to start avoiding being unmasked in indoor spaces - even when 6 foot distanced are maintained, nor did i wait to share my insights with others. Similarly, I am not waiting to share my insights that we need to be more aggressive in guarding against asymptomatic transmission of the delta variant by vaccinated individuals - or my insight that failing to do so will result in a lot of unnecessary severe illness and death among vaccinated individuals, many of whom are currently acting on information I fully expect to be proven wrong as to the extent of protection the vaccine offers against the delta variant. 2% of 5% seems really minuscule, until it plays out in 200,000 or more cases a day, and in the severe illness and death of our children who we believe are safe both because they are young, and because we believe asymptomatic transmission by a vaccinated individual to be rare.

[lapucelle]

32. Please stop saying that the CDC is recommending that people ignore exposure unless symptomatic.

That might be what you (or other people) are hearing, but it is not what the CDC is saying.

It mischaracterizes the CDC interim public health recommendations for fully vaccinated people. There is a distinction between "recommending that people ignore" and recommending that they "can refrain from".

Fully vaccinated people can:

- Resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance

- Resume domestic travel and refrain from testing before or after travel and from self-quarantine after travel

- Refrain from testing before leaving the United States for international travel (unless required by the destination) and refrain from self-quarantine after arriving back in the United States

- Refrain from testing following a known exposure, if asymptomatic, with some exceptions for specific settings

- Refrain from quarantine following a known exposure if asymptomatic

- Refrain from routine screening testing if feasible

For now, fully vaccinated people should continue to:

-Get tested if experiencing COVID-19 symptoms

- Follow CDC and health department travel requirements and recommendations

snip=======================================================================

Guiding Principles for Fully Vaccinated People

- Indoor and outdoor activities pose minimal risk to fully vaccinated people.

- Fully vaccinated people have a reduced risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to unvaccinated people.

- Fully vaccinated people should still get tested if experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.

- Fully vaccinated people should not visit private or public settings if they have tested positive for COVID-19 in the prior 10 days or are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.

- Fully vaccinated people should continue to follow any applicable federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html

The situation is fluid, the recommendations have changed and will continue to change, and people are free to take whatever additional precautions they see fit based on their comfort level and their anticipation of what the future may bring. I am fully vaccinated and I still mask. (Quite recently I was followed down a street in NYC by a group of unmasked anti-vaxxers who were harassing me for being masked in an outdoor space.)

It is perfectly fine to critique the CDC and important to note that they are not infallible and that they have made mistakes. What I object to is undermining confidence in public health professionals by mischaracterizing what they are doing and what they are saying. There are many, many people who are "doing their own research" and then "reporting their findings" in public spaces. It can be a dangerous thing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I didn't wait for the CDC to wake up to aerosolized transmission to start avoiding being unmasked in indoor spaces "

In 2021, a long-accepted medical principle was revised by the work of a group of tenacious scientists and researchers who challenged the standard model concerning aerosols. Their collaboration began in the late winter/early spring of 2020. In July 2020, the group went public with an open letter expressing their concerns about the standard model.

On April 14, 2021 an editorial was published in the BMJ entitled "Covid-19 Has Redefined Airborne Transmission", based on the April 2021 publication of the group's research, "How Did We Get Here: What Are Droplets and Aerosols and How Far Do They Go? A Historical Perspective on the Transmission of Respiratory Infectious Diseases".

On April 30, 2021 the WHO updated its section on how the coronavirus is transmitted, stating that the virus can spread via aerosols as well as larger droplets. The CDC followed suit in early May 2021.

The CDC made its recommendation that people wear masks in public on April 3, 2020, at the same time the science-changing research was fully undertaken and a full year before the findings were published. There was no "lag in reacting to predominant data".

The CDC mask recommendation predated both the publication of the groundbreaking data and indeed its own updated science-based information of how covid spreads.

https://bit.ly/3wSKVUo
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3829873
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/373/bmj.n913.full.pdf
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-expected-recommend-masks-americans-coronavirus-hotspots-n1175596

[Ms. Toad]

34. It is not just what I am hearing, it is what they are saying

In fact your first block quote, intended to prove me wrong, says exactly that.

Unless you have symptoms, you do not have to isolate or test following exposure.

That's irresponisible given that 15% of the population cannot yet be vaccinated, and both infection and asymptomatic transmission can occur in vaccinated individuals with Delta.

[lapucelle]

36. In the interest of accuracy, perhaps people should directly quote

rather than rephrase.

Fully vaccinated people can refrain from testing following a known exposure, if asymptomatic, with some exceptions for specific settings.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html

[The CDC's] recommendations to vaccinated people are to ignore exposure unless we become symptomatic

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100215646050#post28

Those statements are not "exactly the same"; some might argue that they are not even remotely the same.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the CDC's recommendations being irresponsible, while I am educated and have covid-related certifications and experience in covid-response in institutional settings, I am not a public health professional.

I understand the limits of my personal expertise, read the recommendations carefully, stay apprised of updates through the MMWR, take whatever additional precautions that I feel are prudent, and proceed accordingly.

[Ms. Toad]

37. Enjoy your word games. n/t

[lagomorph777]

10. In the US (as of a few days ago) 99.5% of COVID deaths are in unvaccinated people.

Roughly 50% are vaccinated, which would imply that you are about 100x as likely to die from COVID if you remain unvaccinated.

Now, asymptomatic or "mild" infections are definitely higher than 0.5%, but there is just no rational argument to be made for being unvaccinated, if you are over 12, and don't have some horrible medical problem that would make you an unusual risk for vaccine reactions.

[LisaL]

25. Only they start counting from December of January, when post people were still un-vaccinated.

I would like to know what the numbers are like in June, July (when most people who wanted to get vaccinated are vaccinated).

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. Everything I've seen so far indicates that all three of the vaccines

being given here in the U.S. are highly and equally effective.

Apparently some others are not quite as good.

[mnhtnbb]

9. There is a recent study suggesting the J & J one shot may not be as effective

against the Delta variant.

The Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine may not be as effective against the delta variant as those with mRNA technology, according to a new study. The study, posted by bioRxiv, says that the 13 million people who received the one-shot J&J vaccine may need to receive a second dose, ideally of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Although the study has not been peer-reviewed nor published, the findings align with studies of the AstraZeneca vaccine that concludes one dose of the vaccine is 33% effective against symptomatic disease of the delta variant and 60% effective against the variant after the second dose. The results contradict studies published by Johnson & Johnson that say a single dose of its vaccine is effective against the variant.

“The message that we wanted to give was not that people shouldn’t get the J&J vaccine, but we hope that in the future, it will be boosted with either another dose of J&J or a boost with Pfizer or Moderna,” Nathaniel Landau, a virologist at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine who led the study, told the New York Times.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/07/21/covid-vaccine-delta-variant-mask-cdc-hospitalizations/8035920002/

[lagomorph777]

11. "Although the study has not been peer-reviewed nor published" - let's wait for peer review.

[mnhtnbb]

14. A more detailed report is in the NY Times article

for anyone who can access it

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/health/coronavirus-johnson-vaccine-delta.html

The new study has not yet been peer reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. But it is consistent with observations that a single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine — which has a similar architecture to the J.&J. vaccine — shows only about 33 percent efficacy against symptomatic disease caused by the Delta variant.

Other experts said the results are what they would have expected, because all of the vaccines seem to work better when given in two doses. “I have always thought, and often said, that the J.&J. vaccine is a two-dose vaccine,” said John Moore, a virologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Very few vaccines are given as a single dose, because the second dose is needed to amp up antibody levels, noted Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University. People who were inoculated with the J.&J. vaccine “are relying on that primary response to maintain high levels of antibodies, which is difficult, especially against the variants,” she said.

Boosting immunity with a second dose should raise the antibody levels high enough to counter the variants, she said.

Turning to an mRNA vaccine for the second shot, rather than another J.&J. shot, may be better: Several studies have shown that combining one dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine with a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines kicks up the immune response more effectively than two doses of AstraZeneca.

[lapucelle]

16. Here's a link to the actual study.

From the Discussion section of the paper:

The data presented here emphasize the importance of surveillance for breakthrough infections with the increased prevalence of highly transmissible variants. If an increase in breakthrough infections accompanied by severe COVID-19 is found following adenovirus vector or mRNA vaccination, this would provide a rationale for public health policy-makers and manufacturers to consider booster immunizations that would increase protection against the VOCs and Lambda variant. As such a need is not currently evident, the public health apparatus should focus on primary immunization in the U.S. and globally.

You can read the full study here:

Original:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.452771v1.full

With July 21 corrections and an additional reference:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.452771v2.full.pdf

[lagomorph777]

27. I know CDC/FDA are afraid to allow J&J recipients to add an mRNA dose, but...

...wouldn't it be a much lower hurdle to at least add another J&J dose? If the biggest problem is that they were too optimistic about single-dose protocol, just fix it!

[lapucelle]

13. It's a preprint article, available for comment before it is submitted for publication

and peer reviewed.

From the Discussion section of the paper:

The data presented here emphasize the importance of surveillance for breakthrough infections with the increased prevalence of highly transmissible variants. If an increase in breakthrough infections accompanied by severe COVID-19 is found following adenovirus vector or mRNA vaccination, this would provide a rationale for public health policy-makers and manufacturers to consider booster immunizations that would increase protection against the VOCs and Lambda variant. As such a need is not currently evident, the public health apparatus should focus on primary immunization in the U.S. and globally.

You can read the study here:

Original:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.452771v1.full

With July 21 corrections and an additional reference:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.452771v2.full.pdf

[helpisontheway]

19. Family member tested positive after being fully vaccinated with Moderna

She had symptoms that lasted about a week.

[triron]

21. What were her symptoms and how severe (or lack thereof)?

[helpisontheway]

22. Few days before test she

had cold symptoms. Then she had a couple days with cough and shortness of breath. She also complained of body aches and lack of energy. Her symptoms lasted a week.