He'll have a test against the viruses themselves next week, but he'll need to wait 2 weeks for the result for that test.
Anyways that's why there are specific, slower test that can test his protection against specific virus mutations.
tia
The "95% protection rate" doesn't really mean people don't get infected. Vaccinated people get in contact with as much virus as others.
What it means is their immune system defeats 95% of the infections before you notice you're sick.
But if you get a test while your body is in the middle of crushing such a small infection, you'll test positive.
2. Vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce severity by training the body's immune system. Natural exposure works the same way. This it is not surprising that 8/9 Yankees which tested positive were asymptomatic
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0329-COVID-19-Vacci....
> while this study evaluated vaccine effectiveness against infection, including infections that did not result in symptoms.
and also:
> The study demonstrates that these two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections.
You'll note that this implies a somewhat different definition of "infection" than the one I think you're reaching for.
> Vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce severity by training the body's immune system
You said:
> I don't know where this misinformation came from, but it is absolutely false. COVID vaccines have been shown to prevent infection...
and cited a link which stated that
> "... two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections."
So, the vaccines reduce the risk of being the virus being present, as well as the risk that the virus being present will cause symptoms (and by implications, the risk of severe symptoms).
Your link uses the term "infection" to cover both:
* virus present, no symptoms
* virus present, symptoms present
So in that sense, GP is correct: the vaccine does not necessarily prevent the vaccine from being present in the body, but it is effective at reducing the risk that this will cause symptoms.
Of course, your link also implies that there a reduction in the risk that detectable virus will occur after exposure to the virus (which is great!). But my reading of the whole document suggested that the authors are keen to allow for the possibility that a fully vaccinated person may still have detectable viral load in their body. Ergo, it does not "prevent infection".
This entire argument feels pedantic and is based on the idea that the researchers are just playing fast and loose with words.
"The word infection can denote any presence of a particular pathogen at all (no matter how little) but also is often used in a sense implying a clinically apparent infection (in other words, a case of infectious disease).This fact occasionally creates some ambiguity or prompts some usage discussion; to get around this it is common for health professionals to speak of colonization (rather than infection) when they mean that some of the pathogens are present but that no clinically apparent infection (no disease) is present. "
The Yankees are reported to be using the J&J vaccine, which is a viral vector product.