Talk:Vaccine shedding

Removed
Due to recent reports of immunization effectiveness dropping to 10%, a study of individuals vaccinated for influenza shed at a rate six times higher than those who took no vaccine.

Issues: "Due to [...] a study [found]" is WP:SYN. The sources do not make this link. Next: the study considered only symptomatic individuals, so is irrelevant to those who received vaccine and did not contract disease. Third, the individuals were statistically likely to be asthmatic, which is a group specifically targeted for influenza vaccination, because they are more likely to contract influenza and suffer lung infection as a result. Fourth: The article is not about vaccine shedding. It's about the technical term viral shedding which means infectious particles leaving the body, and it is actually about fine versus coarse aerosol particles as an indicator of lung versus IRT infection. ''Lack of human data on influenza virus aerosol shedding fuels debate over the importance of airborne transmission. We provide overwhelming evidence that humans generate infectious aerosols and quantitative data to improve mathematical models of transmission and public health interventions. We show that sneezing is rare and not important for—and that coughing is not required for—influenza virus aerosolization. Our findings, that upper and lower airway infection are independent and that fine-particle exhaled aerosols reflect infection in the lung, opened a pathway for a deeper understanding of the human biology of influenza infection and transmission. Our observation of an association between repeated vaccination and increased viral aerosol generation demonstrated the power of our method, but needs confirmation.'' The closest you get to vaccine shedding is an association between multiple years of vaccines and chest infection, which is just as likely to be due tot he study population's higher than usual proportion of asthmatics. The authors make no claim that the vaccines shed. These are symptomatic individuals, they have flu. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Live virus
User:JzG I'm a bit confused by this edit, just because antivaxers say shedding happens after inactivated vaccines dosen't mean we should remove the fact that it is only after live vaccines, does it? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We already discuss the specifics lower down. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Flag on the lede
I think that the lede is open to intrepretation by anti-vaxxers. Sorry if this is a drive by editing but my point still would be valid that a quick read of this would suggest that ANY vaccines could produce vaccine shedding.

---there have only been a few documented cases of vaccine-strain virus infecting contacts of a vaccinated person. --Akrasia25 (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think it should be clear from the lead that this can only happen from a live virus vaccine. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed
I've removed mRNA vaccines from the second paragraph as the source given does not mention mRNA. Furthermore the potential for spike protein shedding has not yet been ruled out, and is a possibility given that mRNA vaccines work by inducing cells to produce spike proteins. Testmenowthen (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Oral polio vaccine
I am not sure where this comes from but the currently article strongly implies that Vaccine-derived Poliovirus was a problem of the 1950s and does not exist any more. This is clearly not true, at best it is simply US-centric, at worst it is highly misleading see. It seems that only in 2016 was the vaccine switched to remove the type 2 virus and the oral vaccine is still used in Africa and Asia. --hroest 13:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Rename?
Should this article be moved to Vaccine-induced viral shedding, since that is the correct name, and "Vaccine shedding" be made a redirect? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the term "vaccine shedding" is used in a number of reliable sources (both before and during COVID, eg.   ), while I can find very few sources using the term "Vaccine-induced viral shedding" (in fact, just one from Verywell Health which I am unable to link to because that domain is blacklisted on Wikipedia) So based on my understanding of WP:COMMONNAME the title "vaccine shedding" seems more appropriate, and the article should not be moved. In fact this appears to indicate that "vaccine shedding" should not be described as "erroneously termed" in this article, and I would propose changing the first sentence to reflect this. Fiwec81618 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there are two categories: Vaccine-induced viral shedding and also the theory, whether correct or not, that the covid mRNA vaccines shed the spike protein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.43.150.129 (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Nevertheless, not all pathogens are shed;; and transmission does not always cause disease. I thought about simply removing those details but the clarification needed tag says that it's of particular concern for hesitancy ("Please explain the distinction here, in layman's terms, because it is at the crux of the vaccine hesitancy concern"). So that it's possible to improve: But still, why is it of direct concern if current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not attenuated live virus and cannot cause shedding? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) If viral shedding occurs (as a result of infection or from live virus vaccination) it does not guarantee transmission (may not be its usual transmission mode/route)?
 * 2) Would be about asymptomatic infection?


 * Perhaps Wikiuser100 would like to weigh in? I think this is the user who added the clarification needed tag. From what I see I agree that the sentence quoted above doesn't have much to do with vaccine hesitancy in the context of COVID-19 vaccines. It's possible this might be relevant for live virus vaccines for other diseases. Fiwec81618 (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

More evidence of shedding in this study
Evidence for Aerosol Transfer of SARS-CoV2-specific Humoral Immunity | medRxiv

What about this? 170.133.25.44 (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.28.22274443v1.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.133.25.44 (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Preprint of a primary study. Even after it has been peer-reviewed, it will not be WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)