Disinformation about Corona: Foreign protection through vaccination was given

A video is spreading online that questions the protection of third parties from the corona vaccination at the beginning of the vaccination campaign. The vaccination also demonstrably protected against infection and transmission of the virus – unlike today.

A video of the Dutch politician Robert Roos, who is also a member of the European Parliament, is currently causing a stir. This is about a hearing by Janine Small, President for international markets at the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, who answered questions from the members of the special committee on the corona pandemic last week.

In the video, Roos can be seen asking the Pfizer employee whether the company tested the corona vaccine before it was launched in December 2020 to ensure that it also prevented transmission of the virus. Small denies this, arguing that Pfizer had to move at the “speed of science” to know what was going on in the market.

Roos posted the video on social media, writing that Small admitted the vaccine had never been tested to prevent transmission. The fact that vaccination not only protects oneself but also others has always been a lie. Measures such as the corona vaccination card would therefore only have had the purpose of forcing people to be vaccinated.

Roos’ video received more than 245,000 likes and more than 145,000 shares on Twitter alone. The video was also distributed in numerous conspiracy-ideological channels on Telegram – often with the reference that the institution-related vaccination requirement in Germany is based on a lie.

“False and Misleading”

The fact that at the time of the emergency approval of the Corona vaccine from BioNTech/Pfizer there was no reliable data on protection against transmission of the virus by a vaccinated person is by no means news – even if the numerous contributions to the hearing in the EU Parliament give the impression. In the BioNTech/Pfizer protocol for the initial analysis of the phase III study, published in November 2020 and can also be viewed onlinethere is no question of an investigation of transmission.

The primary endpoint for the effectiveness of the vaccine, i.e. the primary goal of the study, is the prevention of a symptomatic corona infection. Prevention of major disease is considered a secondary efficacy endpoint. Pfizer and BioNTech did not state that the vaccine also protects against the virus being passed on. “To claim that these findings are new is wrong and misleading,” said BioNTech on request.

Also in the US Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization from early December 2020 it said: “There is currently no data to make a statement on how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents human-to-human transmission of the virus.”

Foreign protection was still given

Nevertheless, based on the study results on the effectiveness of the vaccines, there were already strong indications that vaccination can also protect against the virus being passed on. Because with the alpha variant, which prevailed at the time the vaccine was approved, the two mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna showed protection against a symptomatic infection of more than 90 percent.

“The approval studies have shown that the likelihood of being infected with the coronavirus was significantly lower as a result of the vaccination,” says Carsten Watzl, head of the Immunology research department at the TU Dortmund and Secretary General of the German Society for Immunology (DGfI). “And if I don’t get infected, I can’t pass the virus on either.”

However, the problem with such clinical studies was to check the non-symptomatic infections. Further studies showed that these are also reduced by the vaccination. According to the RKI, protection against asymptomatic infections is between 80 and 90 percent. In people who tested positive despite vaccination, “a significantly lower viral load and also a shortened duration of virus excretion could also be demonstrated”.

Thus, from the point of view of that time, there was also protection from others through the vaccination. In addition, herd immunity was still the goal at that time – i.e. that from a certain point in time so many people would be immune to the virus through vaccination or surviving infection that it would no longer find a new host and die out. With herd immunity, there is also a form of protection from others, because people who cannot get vaccinated benefit from the fact that there are enough others who are immune to the virus and thus stop the spread.

Variants ensure more vaccine breakthroughs

With the advent of the new variants, the picture changed. Because they made sure that those who had already recovered and who had been vaccinated were also much more likely to be infected again. Especially due to the omicron variant, the foreign protection of a vaccination is now negligible. The RKI refers to household studies Norway and Denmarkwhich would show that primary vaccination reduces transmissibility by around six to 21 percent, and booster vaccination by another five to 20 percent.

“In principle, one can only say: The vaccination protects you because you are then less likely to become seriously ill,” says Watzl. In general, the protection of others through vaccination was given too much priority. Because this is only temporary. “Vaccinations are not so much intended to protect against infection, but rather against serious illness.” That should have been communicated more clearly.

Because the antibody level, which is very high in the weeks after a vaccination, drops again over time. Thus, if contact is delayed, the virus is no longer neutralized directly on the mucous membranes, which would prevent infection.

“It was to be expected that protection against a symptomatic infection would be lost at some point,” says Watzl. “With the delta variant, we noticed that the vaccinated people are no longer so well protected from infection.” The booster vaccination then counteracted this, but its effect was only temporary. Vaccination, on the other hand, also provides long-term protection against severe courses.

Facility-related compulsory vaccination still tenable?

The decreasing external effect of the omicron variant could be interesting, especially with regard to the institution-related vaccination obligation. Because in one Decision of the Federal Constitutional Courtt it said in May that at the time the law was passed, legislators assumed “that vaccinated and recovered people are less likely to become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and therefore less likely to transmit the virus”. It was also assumed “that vaccinated people are less infectious and shorter than unvaccinated people when they become infected.”

The court therefore considered the institution-related vaccination requirement to be suitable in the constitutional sense – also with regard to the omicron variant, about which little was known at the time. Watzl is skeptical:

The institution-related vaccination obligation is valid until the end of the year. The federal government has not yet decided whether it will be extended beyond that.