It can seem paradoxical, but people who don't make antibodies after a vaccine can be better protected than those who do, if the reason for their not making antibodies is that their lymphocytes were so efficient that they destroyed the vaccine virus before any antibody have been necessary. At least, these are better protected as long as they are in good health. If for a reason or another (illness, exhaustion...) their lymphocytes weaken, they are likely to catch everything because they have so few antibodies. This might be rarer with athletes, who basically get exhausted 6 days per week.
As to those who do have antibodies, it doesn't prevent them from catching the illness, it allows their body to fight it better (unless they have ADE or ERD etc), and whatever the maker, I have seen no test of contagiosity to this date. Intuitively we think that they must be less contagious, but 1) they may think it too and become imprudent (true for natural as well as artificial immunity), 2) a survey has shown (for flu, not for CoViD, but a similar survey should be conducted about all immunity devices proposed for CoViD) that when somebody catch flu in spite of being vaccinated, they shed in average 6 times more virus than those who caught it without being vaccinated, therefore they are more contagious, and we have no graph, no model showing a) how much more a person who catches CoViD in spite of two doses sheds virus, compared to a person who had no dose and caught it too; b) from what level of efficacy this allows a lowering of the number of cases (and of serious cases); 3) the apparition of those three strains of variants in the same three countries (UK, South Africa and Brazil) where one vaccine (which had proven quite inefficient, at least in its first modality) has been tested last Summer and Autumn, with most mutations concentrated on the spike protein targeted by vaccines, shows there is a possibility of contagion, as these strains, to accumulate mutations, must have circulated chiefly among vaccinated people (not necessarily after the second jab), as well as the apparition of the "very latest" variant in UK, where so many people got only one jab (the E484K mutation had also appeared, among others on the same person, on a Boston patient who got both spike-targeted antibodies at the same time as Remdesivir, a known mutagen, he was treated just as a laboratory mouse except nobody seems to have made murine tests); 4) the potential presence of new strains among participants and staff, for which I saw no efficiency data from any vaccine/device would likely make vaccinated people become super-incubators of newer strains, given past experience.
Also, the trials tested the presence of antibodies and the apparition of mild symptoms, nothing else, particularly not hospitalisations and deaths.
Also, there were plans to test ADE on mice, ferrets and non-human primates, and most were not done — or not released. It must be said that we had communications asserting there wouldn't be ADE because CoViD didn't attack macrophages, which happened to be wrong (but WHO had forbidden any autopsy of CoViD patients, very few scientists managed to escape the prohibition; why?) It was also planned to check ADE during one year for trial participants, this was not done either : as tests didn't check ADE, and furthermore, 2-3 months after their injections, the placebo groups for Moderna and Pfizer received proposals for a "true jab", thus crushing any chance of complying with this (already light) plan.
As to the efficiency of the Russian vaccine. It is, like Oxford/AstraZeneca an adenovirus-based recombined vaccine, and of course those who already have antibodies against the type of adenovirus (common cold) in such vaccines, are likely to fight it with these antibodies they already have, without building antibodies against CoViD 19 spike protein. BUT the Russian one has a different sort of adenovirus in each jab, which reduces the rate of unprotected people, compared with those which rely on only one sort of adenovirus in both jabs. This is why, compared with others, the efficiency rate they published seemed quite realistic and I have no reason to doubt it more than the others (mind you, big business doesn't bring perfect honesty when billions are at stake, remember Remdesivir). Surveys are usually published without testing replicability by other teams, it is after publication that these tests occur.
This being said, as anything targeting specifically the spike protein in CoViD 19, this published efficiency is only for "normal strains" and the efficiency against new strains is likely to be lower, or very much lower, as said above.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2031364
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7247514/
https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/568/eabe0948
It is likely that CoViD vaccines/devices offer a very partial protection for oneself and others, particularly against new strains, and particularly when compared to prevention, whether mechanical (social distanciation, washing hands, wearing masks in some places/times, air filtration in closed spaces...) or (for people with regular immune system) by keeping good levels of nutrients essential to immunity (I have seen surveys only about each of them, irrespective of participants other nutrients status, a good level of all of them must grant a high level of immunity) such as vitamins C, D3, K2 and Zinc, quercetin and maybe melatonin. For people at risk, or taking care of frail people, Ivermectin alone too, has shown a level of protection of 90% in prophylaxy, some trials have shown that treated people have a lower viral charge if they get infected in spite of it, and there is no reason for their shedding more virus when ill, or for being less efficient against new strains, which are strong advantages, the inconvenient being, from the protocols seen and advice read regarding new strains, they must be taken weekly (after a day 1 + day 3 start) while vaccines would have to be taken "only" twice yearly or yearly. The combination of all must be very very high.
https://scitechdaily.com/encouragin...in-clinical-trial-for-reducing-mild-covid-19/
https://ivmmeta.com/
(too many surveys about vitamins and minerals, for CoViD and other infections diseases)
There's quite a lot of concern because someone who tested positive worked at a cafe in the Melbourne Airport, so basically the warning is out for anyone who was in the airport at the time to get a test and be extra careful. 7,000 people from my state (New South Wales) could have been exposed. Quite concerning.
