In the messengers, a mailing list is dispersed about the article of British scientists who allegedly demonstrated the uselessness of vaccination to protect against infection. We decided to check if the content of this message is true.

Spreading the newsletter channel In Telegram, “Doctors for Truth” has almost 40,000 subscribers. Her also reposting Actress and TV presenter Maria Shukshina (more than 230,000 subscribers). A similar post appeared in "VKontakte", "Classmates", Livejournal, Facebookas well as on numerous city forums and in the comments to materials Media. There was also a newsletter marked How often sent to WhatsApp. As stated in the text, it is based on an article by British scientists published on October 29, 2021. The main theses of the mailing list are as follows:
- “The peak viral load in vaccinated and unuscinated does not differ. That is, both of them can suffer from coronavirus equally difficult, regardless of vaccination status. Vaccination does not save from coronavirus, especially its new strains, and a vaccinated (and revaccinated patient) can hurt as difficult as unevaccinated ”;
- “The only identified vaccination bonus is, according to the authors of the article, a faster decrease in the viral load and vaccinated, that is, they recover a little faster (slightly faster), at the same time undergoing post -vaccination risks (complications, etc.)”;
- Scientists speak out against coercion of vaccination.

The article was indeed published on October 29 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, its full text Available On the website of the magazine. Its name is “Contact infection and kinetics of the viral load of the Delta-stamp (B.1.617.2) SARS-COV-2 in vaccinated and non-evacuated persons in the UK: forecast, prolonged, co-cohort study”. The study was conducted from September 13, 2020 to September 15, 2021, 602 volunteers took part in it, each of which passed the PCR test from the nasopharynx within 20 days after the detection of the disease.

In the first paragraph, the authors report that they studied only diseases "in vaccinated and unique persons with a slight infection of the Delta-Skamm in the community." The article also notes that for the study, those whose PCR test after contact with the infected turned out to be positive. From these two statements it follows that people with other degrees did not take part in the study, except for easy, scientists also did not include those who were in contact with infected and did not get sick (being vaccinated or not). Already in this place it is not clear where the passages about the different severity and the equally effective transfer of the virus came from in the Russian -language mailing. But let's deal with each statement separately.

“The peak viral load in vaccinated and unuscinated does not differ,” they write in the newsletter. “Completely vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections have a peak viral load similar to unevacidized and can effectively transmit infection at home, including completely vaccinated contacts,” the article writes. True, preceding this with a different sentence: "vaccination reduces the risk of infection with a delta variant and accelerates the elimination of the virus." What are the key differences in these statements? Firstly, scientists talk about a similar peak viral load only in cases Breakthrough infections, not any. Breakthrough called those few Cases when completely vaccinated people are still get sick (The reason for this Maybe There is a decrease in immunity some time after vaccination, the spread of a new option or prolonged contact with the one who selects the virus in large quantities). That is, as correctly as possible, but at the same time, the thesis of scientists can be formulated as follows: “vaccines work and protect well from infections. However, there are few exceptions. If the vaccineed is still infected, then the highest concentration of the virus, which he will distinguish during illness, is almost the same as if an unvaccinated person was sick. ”

It is worth noting that the definition of the concentration of the virus in this study was carried out by the PCR method, and today scientists Not proved The direct dependence between the concentration of the virus in the nasopharynx and the severity of the disease. However, it is during the high load period that a person is the most contrast. So the translation into a simple language would be supplemented with another phrase: “At the time when the vaccinated sick person determines the peak viral load, he infects others as effectively as an unuscined patient with the same indicators of peak viral load.”

The second part of this statement in the newsletter states that “both of them (both vaccinated and unuscinated. - Approx. Ed.) Coronavirus are equally difficult, regardless of vaccination status.” However, this thesis is simply not in the study, the severity of the disease vaccinated and unvaccinated in it was not compared at all. Words from the mailing list that “vaccination does not save from coronavirus”, they do not find confirmation in the article at all. Moreover, scientists are of the opposite opinion, reporting that "vaccination reduces the risk of infection with an inspection."

We will move on to the second thesis: “The only vaccination bonus identified, according to the authors of the article, is a faster decrease in the viral load and vaccinated, that is, they recover a little faster (slightly faster), at the same time undergoing post -extraction risks (complications, etc.)”. As can be seen from the previous paragraph, scientists believe that a faster decrease in the viral load is by no means the only bonus, because they say that vaccination reduces the risk of infection. But there is not a word about post -vaccination risks and complications in the article of scientists. The authors of the newsletter simply added this statement from themselves.

Finally, the third thesis is that the authors of the article against compulsory vaccination. What really? There is no question of the forcedness of speech vaccination in the article at all, however, researchers about vaccination Report The following: “Although vaccines remain a highly effective tool to prevent severe diseases and deaths from Covid-19, our developments suggest that vaccination is not enough to prevent the distribution of the Delta option in the home-owned contact. <...> Further actions in the field of public health and social measures are important to reduce the spread of the virus even among vaccinated. ” We will translate again into an understandable and simple language: “vaccines work, however, even in fully vaccinated groups, prevention is needed, and in case of distribution, quarantine.”

At the same time, the authors of the newsletter missed (deliberately or inaccurately) a rather important conclusion of the authors of the study. Scientists Reportthat "the risk of infection increased over time two to three months after the introduction of the second dose of the vaccine." This proposal suggests that the effectiveness of even two doses of the vaccine decreases over time, which leads us to the idea of the need for revaccination. This idea is consistent with the fact that in many countries Mira revaccination already recognized necessary For Stop distribution infections. At the same time, the study does not speak directly about revaccination, because revaccination in the UK Started Only on September 16, and the study ended on September 15. However, for some reason, the authors of the newsletter attribute to scientists the words that the revaccinated are as difficult as the unuscinated.

Summarizing the above, the authors of the mailing list, calling themselves "doctors for the truth", arbitrarily pulled out the words of scientists from the context for them, while completely ignoring those conclusions that do not coincide with their views. In addition, they added their own, inquired thoughts to the text, in particular that the only bonus of vaccination is a faster elimination of the virus from the nasopharynx, and entitled the post with a screaming heading.