The Vaccine Thread

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

Yeah, our church cannot go back to meeting in person until our community has either 70% or 75% of the community vaccinated.  (Not the church; the surrounding city.)  

I'm really glad that our church has met outside for the last year, but I would like us to return to normal at SOME point, and that requires vaccinations.  

I am sorry Terabith I did not mean to quote you and cannot seem to delete it. 
 

 

@ktgrok I was replying to this from you 

Expand  

“But...the point wasn't to find how many people were sick, it was to compare the vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Which it did” 

 

18 minutes ago, Pen said:

Well, I am not sure that that is true. 
 

Corraleno I think posted it here for the purpose you give—which I am dubious about being able to pull from that study in a reliable way for important life decisions...because I don’t know if there was apples to apples (so to speak) comparison being made . 
 

if I recall correctly, the actual purpose of the study was different, didn’t require an apples to apples comparison of the two groups, but then people have seen those figures and clung on to them in a way not originally the purpose of the study — but hey — I admit that I read tons on this stuff. I’ll go back and look as maybe I am wrong in which case I will apologize. 
 

ill come back and edit or add an extra post as I find actual study again and what they said was their purpose and conclusion.  Or apologize if I remembered that wrong. 

ok here’s the Discussion being quoted which I think gives the purpose and thrust of the study— it was NOT  (imo - again ymmv) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated people. As much as you may find posts and things I have put on these chats suspect, I continue to find posts and comments here to be disinformation as well . I suspect in your case you took Corraleno’s word for what the study was about and didn’t read it. But if you did read it, I think you should reread it and see if you really think it was intended as you think, or validly showed what you claim it to show. 
 

Afaik, for the purposes of this study as published, as actually intended, the high cycle amplification level is fine because they want to catch any breakthroughs and mutations, even if only non viable fragmentary bits are involved, and whether it was the cycle amplification level was exactly the same in the two groups (say 42 in both rather than 41 in one and 45 in the other or perhaps any levels scattered amongst the groups so long as all above the 40 as reported) does not matter because they were looking for breakthrough cases after vaccine and trying to learn about that (not trying to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated groups). The study itself seems okay to me so far as I can tell for its own purpose.

 

The problem is that people are using it for the reason you think the study was done and making possibly life and death decisions in part from that—not to mention making possibly life and death decisions for minor children, and trying to influence other adults to do what they think right — Imo by pulling figures out of this study or ones like it that weren’t even so intended or set up to be accurate for. Imo to try to use them as a basis for comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated is a very different thing than a study set up to examine breakthrough cases in vaccinated people...and for that purpose to be helpful, again, IMO (obviously ymmv as always) the levels have to be in a valid range for doing that (not over sensitive for that purpose) and I personally would have to know that cycle amplification was the exact same for vaccinated and unvaccinated to consider  it to be useful for such a comparison.

 

I have added bold on what seems to me to be the purpose of the study — which is further supported by the study’s own conclusions which I will also try to post in a next post. 
 

 

“

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections caused more than 83 million known cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) by the end of 2020, but tremendous progress has been made with the authorization and deployment of vaccines and antibody therapies. These strategies are directed at the viral spike protein, but the emergence of viral variants, particularly in the S gene, threatens their continued efficacy.

These concerns have provided an impetus to increase testing and sequencing of viral DNA in infected persons in order to understand the transmissibility, virulence, and ability of variants to evade current vaccines. New York City has seen a troubling increase in viral variants. Most of these variants, which accounted for more than 72% of new cases as of March 30, 2021, were the B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the United Kingdom (in 26.2% of the cases) and the B.1.526 variant first identified in New York City (in 42.9%).¹ Two areas of concern relate to the ability of variants to evade vaccine-induced immunity and cause asymptomatic infection (and thereby promote viral spread) or illness. Both consequences are important, both need to be considered independently, and both are largely unknown.

 

We describe two fully vaccinated persons in whom subsequent breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 variants harboring a number of substitutions of interest developed. Despite evidence that the first dose of vaccine led to a strong antibody response to spike protein in Patient 1, saliva-based polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) screening at Rockefeller University identified infection 19 days after the second dose (the booster vaccination). Testing was also positive for infection in Patient 2, who had completed vaccination 36 days previously. Together, these observations provide support for current strategies to monitor multiple variables proactively. These strategies include viral testing of symptomatic and asymptomatic persons, sequencing of viral RNA, and monitoring of neutralizing antibody titers, particularly in vaccinated persons who subsequently become infected

Edited May 4, 2021 by Pen
Quoted wrong quote

[Pen]

@ktgrok continued -

I fully recognize that the study authors are pro Covid vaccine and are using their study as suggesting a reason to hurry and vaccinate before variants evade vaccines too much — but never are their conclusions consistent with an idea that the study was meant :

 

Expand  

“But...the point wasn't to find how many people were sick, it was to compare the vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Which it did.” (Ktgrok quote — my quote function is glitchy today)

And it certainly was not to compare health and life outcomes for vaccinated compared to unvaccinated groups which is what I personally find most important.  Especially long term health and life outcomes. 

“

Discussion

Clinical symptoms of Covid-19 developed 19 days after Patient 1 received the second dose of vaccine and 36 days after Patient 2 received the second dose. Both patients had histories consistent with a clinical response to vaccine boost. In Patient 1, documented high titers of neutralizing antibodies were present shortly after the development of symptoms. Although a baseline antibody test before illness and after vaccination would have been ideal, it remains possible that she became infected before the booster shot took full effect. Considering the clinical history, time course, and neutralizing antibody titers measured, we conclude that it is very likely that both patients had effective immune responses to the vaccines. Although these patients presented with clinically mild symptoms, it will be very important to ascertain whether severe symptoms can or cannot develop in others despite vaccination as variants continue to evolve.¹⁰ Taken together, our observations support the conclusion that we have characterized bona fide examples of vaccine breakthrough manifesting as clinical symptoms. Moreover, data from Patient 1 indicate that infection with variant virus can be sustained with a high viral load despite high levels of neutralizing antibodies to variants.

Examination of the SARS-CoV-2 sequences revealed that both patients were infected with variant viruses. Rapid identification of sequence variants by targeted PCR amplification showed that neither sequence precisely fit any known clade. Some of the substitutions in Patient 1 (T95I, del144, E484K, A570D, D614G, P681H, and D796H) were shared with B.1.526 (T95I, E484K, and D614G⁶), and three substitutions were shared with Patient 2 (in whom the variants T95I, G142V and del144, F220I, R190T, R237K, R246T, and D614G were detected). Whole viral genome sequencing revealed several additional substitutions, including D796H, present in a guanine–cytosine–rich region not identified by targeted PCR. These substitutions may decrease sensitivity to convalescent serum¹¹ and may have some unique noncoding changes as compared with the clades first identified in Wuhan, the United Kingdom, and New York City.

Although more detailed analysis of whole-genome sequencing from Patient 1 was undertaken, we could not conclude that the variant in this patient was a Pango lineage because it was only present in a single person.¹² Its closest links on the phylogenetic tree were the variant first identified in the United Kingdom (B.1.1.7) and the variant first identified in New York City (B.1.526), but with considerable differences (Figure 2 and Figure 3). It will be of interest to determine whether this may have resulted from a recombination event between B.1.1.7 and B.1.526, as has been recently reported for recombination between the B.1.1.7 lineage and the “wild-type” lineage first identified in Wuhan.¹³ Alternatively, shared substitutions may be the result of convergent evolution.

These observations in no way undermine the importance of the urgent efforts being taken at the federal and state levels to vaccinate the U.S. population. They also lend support to efforts to advance a new vaccine booster (as well as a pan-coronavirus vaccine) to provide increased protection against variants. In January 2021, Moderna announced clinical efforts to target a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that was first identified in South Africa and includes three mutations (E484K, N501Y, and K417N) in the angiotensin-converting–enzyme 2 receptor-binding domain. These efforts are of critical value because recent studies have shown that immunizations are proving to be less potent against the variant first identified in South Africa (B.1.351), which might have acquired a partial resistance to neutralizing antibodies generated by natural infections or vaccinations.^14,15 At the same time, our observations underscore the importance of the ongoing race between immunization and the natural selection of potential viral escape mutants. During this critical period, our data support the need to maintain layers of mitigation strategies, including serial testing of asymptomatic persons, open publication and analysis of vaccination and infection databases (such as those accruing data in New York City), and rapid sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 RNA obtained from a variety of high-risk persons.

”

 

I know you guys (on WTM) are mostly pro Covid vaccine. That’s okay. You may even be right to be so.  I can go with the “you do you” idea. (and I’ll do me).   But I am frustrated when I see so much disinformation, or hyperbole.  Especially if your pro Covid19 side turns out to be wrong but we don’t learn that for sure until 5 years hence when minor children having gotten it show signs of harm greater (in greater numbers) than what they would have likely had if they had just gotten the illness itself.   Even then, That does not mean it would necessarily be wrong for a high risk child. But it might be wrong for a low risk child.  IMO it’s an experimental vaccine (all of them are) and we just don’t know. Yet. Again I accept that ymmv applies. 
 

Please tag me if you reply.  I’m otherwise bowing out for at least awhile. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Pen
Italics added to the quote from study to distinguish it from rest of post

[ktgrok]

17 minutes ago, Pen said:

And it certainly was not to compare health and life outcomes for vaccinated compared to unvaccinated groups which is what I personally find most important.  Especially long term health and life outcomes. 

 

Well, mostly because we can't afford to wait to see long term outcomes without a lot more people getting sick or dying. 

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, Pen said:

And it certainly was not to compare health and life outcomes for vaccinated compared to unvaccinated groups which is what I personally find most important.  Especially long term health and life outcomes

I feel like you’re getting way out in the weeds and losing the forest for the trees in answering the above question about health and life outcomes. People who are vaccinated have a very low chance of severe illness or death from Covid. Not dying early is the biggest long term health and life outcome I know of. Whether you want to quote relative or absolute risks, the fact remains that Covid is one of the leading causes of death right now, with it moving higher on the list the older someone is, and the vaccines can all but eliminate it from that list for each person who take it. People aren’t “pro-Covid” for thinking the vaccine works to drastically reduce Covid illness and death. It just very clearly does. Someone has to specifically not want the vaccine to work in order to come up with mental and verbal gymnastics to try to make it sound like the vaccine isn’t doing what it was made to do. 
 

I know you personally are against the Covid vaccine, and I get that, and have no intention or goal of trying to get you to get vaccinated anyway. I do however find it immoral during this pandemic for people to set out to actively try to dissuade others from being vaccinated. I’m not saying you are immoral as a person, Pen, this is more of a “love the sinner, hate the sin” kind of thing. The vaccines are already saving so many lives, and have the potential to prevent hundreds of thousands more, if not millions more deaths on a global level. I think it’s awful for some people to be actively trying to prevent all those lives being saved. When I see it coming from Christians, I can’t help but wonder what happened to loving your neighbor and putting others before yourself. I don’t know why all these lives suddenly no longer matter because they are believed to not meet the standard of health that makes them worthwhile (even though there are thousands of completely healthy younger people who have died as well). I just honestly can’t understand the thought process that seeks to stop people from protecting themselves and others and ending this pandemic. 

[Pen]

14 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Well, mostly because we can't afford to wait to see long term outcomes without a lot more people getting sick or dying. 

 That’s an understandable  view  - and so we have fast track vaccines and EUA.  

And yet IMO we really still don’t know long term or even medium term. And especially when considering healthy low risk children as seems to be the new direction, their personal risk from the CV19 itself seems tiny. Rarely life or death for them.

while the biggest life/death risk for them (MIS statistically tiny from CV19 infection) is itself on the vaccine potential risks page (afaikfrom back in 2020) as I took a screenshot of:   — oh well. I seem to have lost it. Anyway that Kawasaki disease and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children were on it. 

 

I also think it’s wrong to use a study like the one we were looking at to conclude that the vaccines are themselves driving new mutations and variants, but some people think that.  And it could be surmised as something that could be happening  (though again, I think no more validly than  that the study properly compares vaccinated and unvaccinated groups as its purpose) from this sort of finding:

 

“Although more detailed analysis of whole-genome sequencing from Patient 1 was undertaken, we could not conclude that the variant in this patient was a Pango lineage because it was only present in a single person.¹² Its closest links on the phylogenetic tree were the variant first identified in the United Kingdom (B.1.1.7) and the variant first identified in New York City (B.1.526), but with considerable differences (Figure 2 and Figure 3). It will be of interest to determine whether this may have resulted from a recombination event between B.1.1.7 and B.1.526, as has been recently reported for recombination between the B.1.1.7 lineage and the “wild-type” lineage first identified in Wuhan.¹³ Alternatively, shared substitutions may be the result of convergent evolution”

[KSera]

Also, @Pen, i’ve been curious if you watch what’s going on in the rest of the world, what your thoughts are on the situation in India right now, for example. Do you feel like that has any relationship to what’s happening here? Do you think it would be better if they had been able to have most of their population vaccinated before this happened, or do you feel like this is preferable?

[Pen]

10 minutes ago, KSera said:

I feel like you’re getting way out in the weeds and losing the forest for the trees in answering the above question about health and life outcomes. People who are vaccinated have a very low chance of severe illness or death from Covid. Not dying early is the biggest long term health and life outcome I know of. Whether you want to quote relative or absolute risks, the fact remains that Covid is one of the leading causes of death right now, with it moving higher on the list the older someone is, and the vaccines can all but eliminate it from that list for each person who take it. People aren’t “pro-Covid” for thinking the vaccine works to drastically reduce Covid illness and death. It just very clearly does. Someone has to specifically not want the vaccine to work in order to come up with mental and verbal gymnastics to try to make it sound like the vaccine isn’t doing what it was made to do. 
 

I know you personally are against the Covid vaccine, and I get that, and have no intention or goal of trying to get you to get vaccinated anyway. I do however find it immoral during this pandemic for people to set out to actively try to dissuade others from being vaccinated. I’m not saying you are immoral as a person, Pen, this is more of a “love the sinner, hate the sin” kind of thing. The vaccines are already saving so many lives, and have the potential to prevent hundreds of thousands more, if not millions more deaths on a global level. I think it’s awful for some people to be actively trying to prevent all those lives being saved. When I see it coming from Christians, I can’t help but wonder what happened to loving your neighbor and putting others before yourself. I don’t know why all these lives suddenly no longer matter because they are believed to not meet the standard of health that makes them worthwhile (even though there are thousands of completely healthy younger people who have died as well). I just honestly can’t understand the thought process that seeks to stop people from protecting themselves and others and ending this pandemic. 

I am against the vaccine for myself. I am not against it in general. You misunderstand me to think that.

for example,  My father, sister and a long time friend (best friend from 9th grade) have all taken it and I think each made the right decision for themselves personally. 

I am not trying to dissuade you  anymore than you are trying to convince me.  (ETA: I have specifically tried to dissuade about a dozen people where it seemed warranted, but have talked through the decision pro CV19 vaccine with others and agreed that it made full sense for them. ) ) 
 

I think both directions can have death or serious health consequences and that people should be clear on that.  Then do what they personally think is right. 
 

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Pen

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Pen said:

I think both directions can have death or serious health consequences and that people should be clear on that.

Yes, they can. So can driving to the store, which is about the rate of death from the vaccine. COVID, on the other hand... 

[Not_a_Number]

Experimental vaccine vs. brand-new virus: which one has more ways to hurt you in the long term? That's the question. The answer seems pretty clear-cut to me and the current data supports the logical answer. If the data changes, you should let me know, of course. But in the meantime, I'm going to go with what both makes sense and what we currently know. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Pen]

12 minutes ago, KSera said:

Also, @Pen, i’ve been curious if you watch what’s going on in the rest of the world, what your thoughts are on the situation in India right now, for example. Do you feel like that has any relationship to what’s happening here? Do you think it would be better if they had been able to have most of their population vaccinated before this happened, or do you feel like this is preferable?

Is this sort of a “when did you stop beating your wife” series of questions ?

in order to your points: : yes, it’s very disturbing, yes, I don’t know, I don’t think that you have set up a valid logical either / or comparison ... it seems to be so in your mind, but is not in mine.  I am pretty sure there is some one of the known logic fallacies there, but don’t know a name for it.  “Assuming a premise” and “assuming a conclusion” perhaps

[Soror]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Experimental vaccine vs. brand-new virus: which one has more ways to hurt you in the long term? That's the question. The answer seems pretty clear-cut to me and the current data supports the logical answer. If the data changes, you should let me know, of course. But in the meantime, I'm going to go with what both makes sense and what we currently know. 

 

This.

I don't understand why one is worried about the long term affects of the vaccine but not the virus. There are known long term affects of the virus- like mental health issues. But we're avoiding the vaccine for hypotheticals?

[Pen]

13 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Experimental vaccine vs. brand-new virus: which one has more ways to hurt you in the long term? That's the question. The answer seems pretty clear-cut to me and the current data supports the logical answer. If the data changes, you should let me know, of course. But in the meantime, I'm going to go with what both makes sense and what we currently know. 

 

I totally agree with you doing what is right for you! 

I am not even planning to correct your figures anymore.
 

If you post about a 10% risk of severe illness/ hospitalization rate or whatever, that’s up to you. Or for someone else to perhaps check and correct. 

I’ll just chalk it up to it’s right for you to have posted it (even if incorrect) and not my job to try to correct that.

 

Good luck every one. Genuinely. I mean that. These are tough situations. And probably some rough times ahead. 

[Pen]

4 minutes ago, Soror said:

This.

I don't understand why one is worried about the long term affects of the vaccine but not the virus. There are known long term affects of the virus- like mental health issues. But we're avoiding the vaccine for hypotheticals?

personally I am concerned about both

 

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, Pen said:

If you post about a 10% risk of severe illness/ hospitalization rate or whatever, that’s up to you. Or for someone else to perhaps check and correct. 

I didn't say that. I said that for people on the board, the rate of hospitalization plus the rate of long-haul COVID is probably of that order of magnitude. I think my personal rate is a bit lower, because I'm considerably younger than most people on the board. 

What would you say the rate of hospitalization is for a 50-year-old? 

[KSera]

15 minutes ago, Pen said:

Is this sort of a “when did you stop beating your wife” series of questions ?

in order to your points: : yes, it’s very disturbing, yes, I don’t know, I don’t think that you have set up a valid logical either / or comparison ... it seems to be so in your mind, but is not in mine.  I am pretty sure there is some one of the known logic fallacies there, but don’t know a name for it.  “Assuming a premise” and “assuming a conclusion” perhaps

Not at all. There’s no formal argument hidden in those questions at all. It’s just an honest wondering that has been coming to my mind as I watch the situationa unfolding around the world, and right now, specifically in India, with much sadness. When I’m on the one hand watching that and on the other hand seeing people in other places trying to cast doubt on the vaccine and talk people out of it, those are just the kind of questions that come to my mind. I’m wondering if they’re seeing the same things I am, what are they thinking about it, and do they think the vaccine question has a different answer for those places than it does in the US.

[Not_a_Number]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I didn't say that. I said that for people on the board, the rate of hospitalization plus the rate of long-haul COVID is probably of that order of magnitude. I think my personal rate is a bit lower, because I'm considerably younger than most people on the board. 

What would you say the rate of hospitalization is for a 50-year-old? 

If I run the risk calculator for myself, by the way, I get about 1% chance of hospitalization. If I run DH (who's in his 40s), I get 3%. 

I figure I should about double those to get the chance of hospitalization + long COVID, since those don't have a full overlap. So then I get something like 2% and 6% as an estimate for people in my family. Would I be able to swear that this is totally correct? No, but that's what I get from the data I have. 

[JennyD]

Pfizer expects to ask the FDA for EUA for ages 2-11 in September.

[Terabith]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Well, mostly because we can't afford to wait to see long term outcomes without a lot more people getting sick or dying. 

Right, if covid were like HPV, and you could avoid it by just not having non monogamous sex, I'd be inclined to wait a few years to know long term effects.  That is not the situation, however.

[Corraleno]

Ya'll, that blog post that Pen linked upthread that led to this weird tangent literally says that "the serious nature of this pandemic is a hoax" and "the world is being lied to on a scale never before seen in the history of man."

Some things are just not worth debating.

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Ya'll, that blog post that Pen linked upthread that led to this weird tangent literally says that "the serious nature of this pandemic is a hoax" and "the world is being lied to on a scale never before seen in the history of man."

Some things are just not worth debating.

Not debating is against my religion 😉 

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Ya'll, that blog post that Pen linked upthread that led to this weird tangent literally says that "the serious nature of this pandemic is a hoax" and "the world is being lied to on a scale never before seen in the history of man."

Some things are just not worth debating.

😞Very true. Sometimes certain things seem worth countering for the sake of other people reading along. But you’re right it’s likely wasted time. 

[whitestavern]

1 hour ago, Soror said:

This.

I don't understand why one is worried about the long term affects of the vaccine but not the virus. There are known long term affects of the virus- like mental health issues. But we're avoiding the vaccine for hypotheticals?

I'm not anti-vax and in fact had to convince my mother to get the vaccine. For me, personally, I can and have been doing whatever I can to avoid getting Covid. I've been living life pretty much as normal for over a year. The only difference is, I'm wearing a mask. So I've been out shopping, traveling, working in an office, etc. etc. I am just taking precautions during those activities. It seems to be working well. I do not think I am at high risk of getting Covid, and, if I do, I do not think I'm at high risk of dying from it. I do not feel that my only choices are to get the vaccine or die from Covid. Getting the vaccine is not something I can undo. I would rather, at this point in time, continue taking the precautions I've been taking all along, which I'd have to do anyway if I were to get the vaccine. That's not to say I wouldn't reconsider in the future should my risk level change or more information becomes available. I kind of resent being made to feel that I have to justify a choice I make about my own body. 😔

[Catwoman]

11 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

I'm not anti-vax and in fact had to convince my mother to get the vaccine. For me, personally, I can and have been doing whatever I can to avoid getting Covid. I've been living life pretty much as normal for over a year. The only difference is, I'm wearing a mask. So I've been out shopping, traveling, working in an office, etc. etc. I am just taking precautions during those activities. It seems to be working well. I do not think I am at high risk of getting Covid, and, if I do, I do not think I'm at high risk of dying from it. I do not feel that my only choices are to get the vaccine or die from Covid. Getting the vaccine is not something I can undo. I would rather, at this point in time, continue taking the precautions I've been taking all along, which I'd have to do anyway if I were to get the vaccine. That's not to say I wouldn't reconsider in the future should my risk level change or more information becomes available. I kind of resent being made to feel that I have to justify a choice I make about my own body. 😔

I can’t speak for others, but I have no problem with you not getting vaccinated, for one very important reason — you’re still being careful. You’re masking and taking other precautions, so that tells me you care about others’ health as well as your own. 

The people I get angry with, are the ones who act like Covid is no big deal, so they refuse to make or social distance, and who won’t even quarantine when they have symptoms. You aren’t that person — and neither is @Pen.

[Penelope]

3 hours ago, Pen said:

@ktgrok continued -

I fully recognize that the study authors are pro Covid vaccine and are using their study as suggesting a reason to hurry and vaccinate before variants evade vaccines too much — but never are their conclusions consistent with an idea that the study was meant :

 

Expand  

“But...the point wasn't to find how many people were sick, it was to compare the vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Which it did.” (Ktgrok quote — my quote function is glitchy today)

And it certainly was not to compare health and life outcomes for vaccinated compared to unvaccinated groups which is what I personally find most important.  Especially long term health and life outcomes. 

“

Discussion

Clinical symptoms of Covid-19 developed 19 days after Patient 1 received the second dose of vaccine and 36 days after Patient 2 received the second dose. Both patients had histories consistent with a clinical response to vaccine boost. In Patient 1, documented high titers of neutralizing antibodies were present shortly after the development of symptoms. Although a baseline antibody test before illness and after vaccination would have been ideal, it remains possible that she became infected before the booster shot took full effect. Considering the clinical history, time course, and neutralizing antibody titers measured, we conclude that it is very likely that both patients had effective immune responses to the vaccines. Although these patients presented with clinically mild symptoms, it will be very important to ascertain whether severe symptoms can or cannot develop in others despite vaccination as variants continue to evolve.¹⁰ Taken together, our observations support the conclusion that we have characterized bona fide examples of vaccine breakthrough manifesting as clinical symptoms. Moreover, data from Patient 1 indicate that infection with variant virus can be sustained with a high viral load despite high levels of neutralizing antibodies to variants.

Examination of the SARS-CoV-2 sequences revealed that both patients were infected with variant viruses. Rapid identification of sequence variants by targeted PCR amplification showed that neither sequence precisely fit any known clade. Some of the substitutions in Patient 1 (T95I, del144, E484K, A570D, D614G, P681H, and D796H) were shared with B.1.526 (T95I, E484K, and D614G⁶), and three substitutions were shared with Patient 2 (in whom the variants T95I, G142V and del144, F220I, R190T, R237K, R246T, and D614G were detected). Whole viral genome sequencing revealed several additional substitutions, including D796H, present in a guanine–cytosine–rich region not identified by targeted PCR. These substitutions may decrease sensitivity to convalescent serum¹¹ and may have some unique noncoding changes as compared with the clades first identified in Wuhan, the United Kingdom, and New York City.

Although more detailed analysis of whole-genome sequencing from Patient 1 was undertaken, we could not conclude that the variant in this patient was a Pango lineage because it was only present in a single person.¹² Its closest links on the phylogenetic tree were the variant first identified in the United Kingdom (B.1.1.7) and the variant first identified in New York City (B.1.526), but with considerable differences (Figure 2 and Figure 3). It will be of interest to determine whether this may have resulted from a recombination event between B.1.1.7 and B.1.526, as has been recently reported for recombination between the B.1.1.7 lineage and the “wild-type” lineage first identified in Wuhan.¹³ Alternatively, shared substitutions may be the result of convergent evolution.

These observations in no way undermine the importance of the urgent efforts being taken at the federal and state levels to vaccinate the U.S. population. They also lend support to efforts to advance a new vaccine booster (as well as a pan-coronavirus vaccine) to provide increased protection against variants. In January 2021, Moderna announced clinical efforts to target a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that was first identified in South Africa and includes three mutations (E484K, N501Y, and K417N) in the angiotensin-converting–enzyme 2 receptor-binding domain. These efforts are of critical value because recent studies have shown that immunizations are proving to be less potent against the variant first identified in South Africa (B.1.351), which might have acquired a partial resistance to neutralizing antibodies generated by natural infections or vaccinations.^14,15 At the same time, our observations underscore the importance of the ongoing race between immunization and the natural selection of potential viral escape mutants. During this critical period, our data support the need to maintain layers of mitigation strategies, including serial testing of asymptomatic persons, open publication and analysis of vaccination and infection databases (such as those accruing data in New York City), and rapid sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 RNA obtained from a variety of high-risk persons.

”

 

I know you guys (on WTM) are mostly pro Covid vaccine. That’s okay. You may even be right to be so.  I can go with the “you do you” idea. (and I’ll do me).   But I am frustrated when I see so much disinformation, or hyperbole.  Especially if your pro Covid19 side turns out to be wrong but we don’t learn that for sure until 5 years hence when minor children having gotten it show signs of harm greater (in greater numbers) than what they would have likely had if they had just gotten the illness itself.   Even then, That does not mean it would necessarily be wrong for a high risk child. But it might be wrong for a low risk child.  IMO it’s an experimental vaccine (all of them are) and we just don’t know. Yet. Again I accept that ymmv applies. 
 

Please tag me if you reply.  I’m otherwise bowing out for at least awhile. 

@Pen the discussion about this study is hard to follow since there is so much else going on in the thread.
 

You are right that the point of the study was not to compare infections in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. There was not even an analysis for this, just reporting of numbers.

The point was to describe two cases of breakthrough infection and their sequencing. 
 

But I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. If the cycle threshold for all participants was 40, then they are actually being very conservative in what they would call a breakthrough infection (the CDC, in contrast, has put the guidance for a level of 28 in breakthrough samples submitted for sequencing for which the level is available). And the level is the same for everyone; it was a surveillance program and that is the standard they used.

I don’t see that the authors of the paper are stressing speed of vaccination. They are just explaining in what ways they believe their work to be important and what this work would suggest, like in every other paper. It is pretty important to understand how many breakthrough infections they are, when more start to occur, and what is happening with the genetic evolution of the virus. It seems to me like that is something that everyone could agree on, whether or not they have positive feelings about the vaccine, because a lot of the population has been or will be vaccinated.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Penelope

[Penelope]

34 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Ya'll, that blog post that Pen linked upthread that led to this weird tangent literally says that "the serious nature of this pandemic is a hoax" and "the world is being lied to on a scale never before seen in the history of man."

Some things are just not worth debating.

I must have missed that. The only link I saw was the article about asymptomatic transmission, which was from a Bloomberg reporter.

[TCB]

44 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

I'm not anti-vax and in fact had to convince my mother to get the vaccine. For me, personally, I can and have been doing whatever I can to avoid getting Covid. I've been living life pretty much as normal for over a year. The only difference is, I'm wearing a mask. So I've been out shopping, traveling, working in an office, etc. etc. I am just taking precautions during those activities. It seems to be working well. I do not think I am at high risk of getting Covid, and, if I do, I do not think I'm at high risk of dying from it. I do not feel that my only choices are to get the vaccine or die from Covid. Getting the vaccine is not something I can undo. I would rather, at this point in time, continue taking the precautions I've been taking all along, which I'd have to do anyway if I were to get the vaccine. That's not to say I wouldn't reconsider in the future should my risk level change or more information becomes available. I kind of resent being made to feel that I have to justify a choice I make about my own body. 😔

I wasn’t sure from what you wrote, but does the risk of you passing on the virus to someone more vulnerable come into your calculation of whether to be vaccinated or not? That is quite a large part of it for me, especially as more information has come out about the strong possibility that it lessens transmission greatly. My individual risk is fairly low, although probably higher than some due to age, but making someone else sick, who might go on to suffer terribly or die, just seems of vital importance, hence the mask wearing, and now vaccination.

[whitestavern]

35 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I can’t speak for others, but I have no problem with you not getting vaccinated, for one very important reason — you’re still being careful. You’re masking and taking other precautions, so that tells me you care about others’ health as well as your own. 

The people I get angry with, are the ones who act like Covid is no big deal, so they refuse to make or social distance, and who won’t even quarantine when they have symptoms. You aren’t that person — and neither is @Pen.

Thank you for this. I am being very careful with myself and others. When DH's siblings and their families spent Christmas and Easter at MIL's, we stayed home, and tried to convince them not to get together as my MIL is 85 and in poor health. I have only had a couple of socially distanced, outdoor visits with my own mother. We went to Savannah and Charleston a few weeks ago but only ate outside, and wore masks whenever necessary. 

[Not_a_Number]

59 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

I'm not anti-vax and in fact had to convince my mother to get the vaccine. For me, personally, I can and have been doing whatever I can to avoid getting Covid. I've been living life pretty much as normal for over a year. The only difference is, I'm wearing a mask. So I've been out shopping, traveling, working in an office, etc. etc. I am just taking precautions during those activities. It seems to be working well. I do not think I am at high risk of getting Covid, and, if I do, I do not think I'm at high risk of dying from it. I do not feel that my only choices are to get the vaccine or die from Covid. Getting the vaccine is not something I can undo. I would rather, at this point in time, continue taking the precautions I've been taking all along, which I'd have to do anyway if I were to get the vaccine. That's not to say I wouldn't reconsider in the future should my risk level change or more information becomes available. I kind of resent being made to feel that I have to justify a choice I make about my own body. 😔

If you don’t mind me asking... why do you figure your risk of getting COVID is low? 

[Penelope]

29 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

If you don’t mind me asking... why do you figure your risk of getting COVID is low? 

I was thinking the same. I don’t think of my own risk as particularly low, and I am not even working outside the home at the moment. But otherwise I still do many of the things I did before, but masked and distanced. I don’t know how much the mask is helping anyone, because there has been a lot of masking in the last year AND a whole lot of infections, but I know that it can’t have super high effectiveness. 
 

There are plenty of people who have no idea how they got infected, mask and have no known exposure, so while I’m not an essential worker and have some privilege and am less at risk because of that, I don’t think risk is low. Right at the moment I feel at lower risk than I have for a long time, because of community spread being low, but also, I can see that people are loosening up more, so 

[Kanin]

2 hours ago, whitestavern said:

I do not think I am at high risk of getting Covid, and, if I do, I do not think I'm at high risk of dying from it. I do not feel that my only choices are to get the vaccine or die from Covid. Getting the vaccine is not something I can undo.

I guess I would just say, what do you think is more dangerous for you (and others around you) right now: COVID or the vaccine?

The followup question would be, Why do you think that?

This has been helpful to me during this whole thing. 

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, JennyD said:

Pfizer expects to ask the FDA for EUA for ages 2-11 in September.

Oh wow! That is sooner than expected and would be wonderful!!!!

That may explain why the President was so sure we could get schools open next fall - if the administration maybe knew it was going to be sooner than winter, which is what was publicly being said. 

[Terabith]

Out of curiosity, why is Pfizer beating Moderna at all of these?  Any ideas?

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

I was thinking the same. I don’t think of my own risk as particularly low, and I am not even working outside the home at the moment. But otherwise I still do many of the things I did before, but masked and distanced. I don’t know how much the mask is helping anyone, because there has been a lot of masking in the last year AND a whole lot of infections, but I know that it can’t have super high effectiveness. 

My personal guess is that a mask helps a bunch but maybe it's something like... it takes your chance of getting COVID down to half of what it was before? So a significant difference but it doesn't save you, either. 

(This is my personal estimate. I'm sure it's much better than that with a properly fitted medical masks and rigorous protocols like a doctor, but I doubt most of us are doing that.) 

I think my risk is very low the way we've been living so far, which is in a really rigorous pod where no one even went to the store. The problem is that I can't keep living like that, and neither can my kids -- we've managed surprisingly well to keep everyone's mental health reasonable, but my kids need real-life friends, not just Zoom ones. 

And as I soon as I think about socializing or my kid taking classes, I tend to assume that my risk goes way, way up.

 

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

There are plenty of people who have no idea how they got infected, mask and have no known exposure, so while I’m not an essential worker and have some privilege and am less at risk because of that, I don’t think risk is low. Right at the moment I feel at lower risk than I have for a long time, because of community spread being low, but also, I can see that people are loosening up more, so 

Exactly. 

I figure that in the Northeast, the summer will be a low risk time just like last year, due to the weather and everyone being outside. Plus, there's much less vaccine hesitancy over here... 

It's the fall I'm worried about. But if the vaccine will be approved for kids soon... that would be amazing. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Out of curiosity, why is Pfizer beating Moderna at all of these?  Any ideas?

Bigger company? Just a guess. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[ktgrok]

Just 4 more months and a kids vaccine would be...amazing. Holidays with the cousins, field trips? Heck yeah. 

 

[Corraleno]

16 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Out of curiosity, why is Pfizer beating Moderna at all of these?  Any ideas?

I know that Moderna was really struggling to find enough volunteers for their adolescent trial. I think there are probably multiple reasons for that, including the fact that Moderna's trial design called for a larger number of volunteers (3000) than Pfizer (2260). Also it may be that 16-17 year olds who were gung ho about getting vaccinated just went for the Pfizer vaccine, which was approved in that age group, vs taking their chances on getting a placebo by joining the Moderna trial. And now that US case rates have fallen dramatically thanks to adults getting vaccinated, the less transmission there is the longer it will take to get enough cases to meet the trial endpoints. 

[Terabith]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I know that Moderna was really struggling to find enough volunteers for their adolescent trial. I think there are probably multiple reasons for that, including the fact that Moderna's trial design called for a larger number of volunteers (3000) than Pfizer (2260). Also it may be that 16-17 year olds who were gung ho about getting vaccinated just went for the Pfizer vaccine, which was approved in that age group, vs taking their chances on getting a placebo by joining the Moderna trial. And now that US case rates have fallen dramatically thanks to adults getting vaccinated, the less transmission there is the longer it will take to get enough cases to meet the trial endpoints. 

I have friends who really wanted to enroll their kids in Moderna trials, but the locations were not particularly convenient.  My friend who wanted to enroll her 6 year old lives in Denver, and the closest location was Phoenix.  

[whitestavern]

2 hours ago, TCB said:

I wasn’t sure from what you wrote, but does the risk of you passing on the virus to someone more vulnerable come into your calculation of whether to be vaccinated or not? That is quite a large part of it for me, especially as more information has come out about the strong possibility that it lessens transmission greatly. My individual risk is fairly low, although probably higher than some due to age, but making someone else sick, who might go on to suffer terribly or die, just seems of vital importance, hence the mask wearing, and now vaccination.

It does, but not enough to convince me. Sorry if that sounds callous because I'm not a heartless person. I am VERY careful around others. When I do visit my mother or MIL or anyone else for that matter, I wear my mask (I only wear N95s btw) and socially distance. What are the odds that I would have Covid (no symptoms) and give it to a fully vaccinated person while wearing an N95 mask and socially distanced? I think it's miniscule. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, whitestavern said:

What are the odds that I would have Covid (no symptoms) and give it to a fully vaccinated person while wearing an N95 mask and socially distanced? I think it's miniscule. 

Probably pretty low 🙂 . I agree with your assessment there! 

[Catwoman]

7 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

It does, but not enough to convince me. Sorry if that sounds callous because I'm not a heartless person. I am VERY careful around others. When I do visit my mother or MIL or anyone else for that matter, I wear my mask (I only wear N95s btw) and socially distance. What are the odds that I would have Covid (no symptoms) and give it to a fully vaccinated person while wearing an N95 mask and socially distanced? I think it's miniscule. 

I don’t think you sound callous at all! You sound both caring and careful.

And I know @Penelope mentioned that she doesn’t think masks are all that effective, but I have seen the way a lot of people wear their masks and, quite frankly, I’m not surprised to see that supposedly-masked people are catching Covid. 

Also, just because people are wearing masks in stores doesn’t mean they’re not getting together with 25 of their closest friends every weekend.

I don’t think the effectiveness of the masks is the problem; I think the improper wearing of the masks and the lack of proper precautions in general are the problem.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Catwoman

[Penelope]

I’m not sure that Pfizer will be before Moderna for the younger children. I’m pretty sure I heard that Moderna started out ahead for that age group.
 

Here: They started phase 2-3 around the same time as Pfizer was beginning their phase 1 dosing study, in March. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/pfizer-launches-pediatric-trial-test-covid-vaccine-children-rcna500
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/16/health/children-vaccinated-moderna-covid-19-trial-bn/index.html

Of course who is first might depend on where the participants are and how much virus is going around, too. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Catwoman said:

I don’t think the effectiveness of the masks is the problem; I think the improper wearing of the masks and the lack of proper precautions in general are the problem.

I would personally guess that poorly fitted surgical masks are not close to 100% effective. From a public health perspective, a 50% effective mask is a big deal, don't get me wrong. From a personal perspective, it's really not great. 

But as everyone knows by now, I'm very data-oriented. If anyone knows differently, I'd love to see it. 

[whitestavern]

43 minutes ago, Kanin said:

I guess I would just say, what do you think is more dangerous for you (and others around you) right now: COVID or the vaccine?

The followup question would be, Why do you think that?

This has been helpful to me during this whole thing. 

I don't know, honestly. If I weren't being so careful, I'd say Covid, but I am. I'm not afraid of the vaccine in the present - it seems mostly safe - it's any potential long-term unknowns that I worry about. Again, I can't undo it. I also want to wait and see how effective it is longer-term, how often boosters will be needed, which vaccine looks to be the best, etc. And yes, I know there are hundreds of thousands of horrible deaths and many people with long-haul symptoms, but there are also hundreds of millions who've had it and recovered as well. I just feel like waiting is the best option for me right now. 

[whitestavern]

3 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I don’t think you sound callous at all! You sound both caring and careful.

And I know @Penelope mentioned that she doesn’t think masks are all that effective, but I have seen the way a lot of people wear their masks and, quite frankly, I’m not surprised to see that supposedly-masked people are catching Covid. 

Also, just because people are wearing masks in stores doesn’t mean they’re not getting together with 25 of their closest friends every weekend.

I don’t think the effectiveness of the masks is the problem; I think the improper wearing of the masks and the lack of proper precautions in general are the problem.

Dh and I were just talking about that. I truly do not think most of the masks that people were wearing were helping much. Most of them you can clearly see big side gaps. And there are so many people out there still not wearing them over their nose or they take them down every time they talk to someone, etc.

[Penelope]

2 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I don’t think you sound callous at all! You sound both caring and careful.

And I know @Penelope mentioned that she doesn’t think masks are all that effective, but I have seen the way a lot of people wear their masks and, quite frankly, I’m not surprised to see that supposedly-masked people are catching Covid. 

Also, just because people are wearing masks in stores doesn’t mean they’re not getting together with 25 of their closest friends every weekend.

I don’t think the effectiveness of the masks is the problem; I think the improper wearing of the masks and the lack of proper precautions in general are the problem.

No one knows whose hunch is right on this, because there aren’t any good studies showing a large effect. Not for self-protection, and certainly not as source control. I have to think it does something and there is a lot of suggestive evidence masks do something, especially when everyone wears them. 
But what I was trying to say in my post was in the context of thinking that masks = low risk; my sense is that some people assume it is more effective than even the experts think, practically full-proof. Even an N95 isn’t blocking everything, and most people that wear these do not wear them correctly, either.

My hunch is that masks do not equal low risk indoors with poor ventilation for more than a few minutes, if a highly infectious person is nearby. Maybe lowER risk.  But it doesn’t matter, since no one can show that this is true or false, and now we have vaccinations which are much more effective than masks.

[Catwoman]

26 minutes ago, Penelope said:

No one knows whose hunch is right on this, because there aren’t any good studies showing a large effect. Not for self-protection, and certainly not as source control. I have to think it does something and there is a lot of suggestive evidence masks do something, especially when everyone wears them. 
But what I was trying to say in my post was in the context of thinking that masks = low risk; my sense is that some people assume it is more effective than even the experts think, practically full-proof. Even an N95 isn’t blocking everything, and most people that wear these do not wear them correctly, either.

My hunch is that masks do not equal low risk indoors with poor ventilation for more than a few minutes, if a highly infectious person is nearby. Maybe lowER risk.  But it doesn’t matter, since no one can show that this is true or false, and now we have vaccinations which are much more effective than masks.

I agree! 

I feel safer in my well-fitting N-95 mask... but I still don’t feel SAFE.

Getting vaccinated PLUS wearing my mask is still not enough to make me comfortable going places where there is a good chance I could be exposed to Covid. If I lived alone, I might be willing to take more chances, but with my dh still being so high risk even after vaccination, I am still pretty much totally paranoid. 

[Catwoman]

45 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I would personally guess that poorly fitted surgical masks are not close to 100% effective. From a public health perspective, a 50% effective mask is a big deal, don't get me wrong. From a personal perspective, it's really not great. 

But as everyone knows by now, I'm very data-oriented. If anyone knows differently, I'd love to see it. 

I don’t think they are close to 100% effective, either, but when people make sure to close the gaps on the sides, I think they’re quite good. I wouldn’t even try to guess at a percentage for the level of effectiveness, though. 

They’re certainly more effective than those stupid single layer gaiters that I still see people wearing, though!

[TCB]

1 hour ago, whitestavern said:

It does, but not enough to convince me. Sorry if that sounds callous because I'm not a heartless person. I am VERY careful around others. When I do visit my mother or MIL or anyone else for that matter, I wear my mask (I only wear N95s btw) and socially distance. What are the odds that I would have Covid (no symptoms) and give it to a fully vaccinated person while wearing an N95 mask and socially distanced? I think it's miniscule. 

I don’t think it sounds heartless and you are obviously extremely careful. I’m just interested in what goes into people’s decision making.

I got vaccinated in December before there was really much information at all about transmission reduction from any of the available vaccines. I made my decision, at that time, because I researched the mRNA vaccines and really felt that they were safe. I had 2 main motivations then - I felt it would increase my safety (and that it would stop my parents being so worried about me lol), as I was continuously exposed to Covid at work at that time, and I hoped that getting it would reduce overall disease prevalence and encourage others around me to consider being vaccinated. I can’t tell you how fantastic to find out it did reduce disease and transmission.

[Harriet Vane]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

I don’t think you sound callous at all! You sound both caring and careful.

And I know @Penelope mentioned that she doesn’t think masks are all that effective, but I have seen the way a lot of people wear their masks and, quite frankly, I’m not surprised to see that supposedly-masked people are catching Covid. 

Also, just because people are wearing masks in stores doesn’t mean they’re not getting together with 25 of their closest friends every weekend.

I don’t think the effectiveness of the masks is the problem; I think the improper wearing of the masks and the lack of proper precautions in general are the problem.

Emphatic agreement here. Many, many people wear their masks so loosely that they cannot be particularly effective. I suspect loose masks do still catch larger droplets, but general breathing vapor cannot possibly be contained when there are large gaps. And don't even get me started on folks who leave their noses sticking out or who pull down their masks to talk.

I do wonder if past medical history has a bearing on some individuals' willingness to take precautions. In my case, my own medical trauma has made me more than willing to take precautions against severe illness. I spent a week in the hospital about five years ago, including some days in the ICU. I took big-deal medications for six months to clear the infection that hospitalized me. I have long-term effects from that infection and from sepsis. I also have a chronic condition separate from that infection. So I know what it is to fight for my life in the ICU, and I know what it is to thank God I am alive while still cursing the fact that my body is weaker in specific ways. I will do anything to avoid going back to the ICU. A mask seems a small price to pay compared to what I went through before. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Harriet Vane
pesky punctuation

[Not_a_Number]

35 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

I do wonder if past medical history has a bearing on some individuals' willingness to take precautions.

I'm sure it does. Having lived experiences is different from having theoretical reasons. 

That being said, I've definitely distanced for purely theoretical reasons. Maybe they just felt pressing... I knew I'd feel terrible if I passed COVID on to someone and they were hospitalized or died. And with the long COVID stories and the rates of hospitalization, I didn't feel all that safe myself eventually, either.