Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Pen said:


no

 

having a reaction to vaccine does not guarantee immunity  - having no reaction to vaccine does not mean no immunity

 

ALso

 

“relative risk reduction” was calculated as being around 95%  (what was looked at for reduction of what risk in trials I looked at was very specifically defined — basically was reduced risk of having a severe case — Not Immunity  . Absolute Risk Reduction “ was roughly only around    1%    for the various main vaccines I was following.

 

The 95% was not based on “immunity”  - though perhaps some will have immunity .

And in general a 95% Relative Risk Reduction does not mean what most people think it means. Does not mean 95% of people who take vaccine are now Immune . It’s a  mathematical formula to compare treatment group with control group, or sometimes to compare several treatments to each other - and comparison is based on the trial protocol.  (Some trial could have been looking at immunity, but the ones I read were not.)

 

I recommend spending a while reading about “Absolute Risk Reduction” versus “Relative Risk Reduction.”     I posted a few articles on that some time in past. But I don’t know on what thread . 

 

If you want help finding information about absolute versus relative risk reduction let me know and maybe I can help. I think it is very important to understand.

 

 

 

A good article from BMJ summarizing relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Penelope said:

More about myocarditis, from Israel.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/covid-health-ministry-finds-some-myocarditis-cases-linked-to-vaccines-669835


More here https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/israel-reports-link-between-rare-cases-heart-inflammation-and-covid-19-vaccination

I would like to know what “most” means, and what are the outcomes of those that aren’t considered “mild.” Mild here means hospitalized four days or fewer. 🤔

Interesting that so many had preexisting conditions. 
 

This is an especially good question as Israel has no set definition of "mild" (unlike the UK, whose definition boils down to "not outright preventing usual daily activities" and unlike Penelope's location, which defines it as "fewer than 5 days in hospital"). Thus it would be necessary to look at sciencemag.org's source to find the definition of "mild" they're talking about.

* - Israel does have a largely-set definition of "severe", primarily based on natural oxygenation level of below 90%, but some people in hospital with COVID don't meet that definition, so it doesn't give us much of a clue about how "mild" would be defined.

Edited by ieta_cassiopeia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

This is an especially good question as Israel has no set definition of "mild" (unlike the UK, whose definition boils down to "not outright preventing usual daily activities" and unlike Penelope's location, which defines it as "fewer than 5 days in hospital"). Thus it would be necessary to look at sciencemag.org's source to find the definition of "mild" they're talking about.

* - Israel does have a largely-set definition of "severe", primarily based on natural oxygenation level of below 90%, but some people in hospital with COVID don't meet that definition, so it doesn't give us much of a clue about how "mild" would be defined.

To clarify, it isn’t my location that defines mild that way. When I said “here, mild means...,”  I meant “here” as in the articles I linked, as well as a couple of others. 
 

The articles keep saying the cases are mild while at the same time saying they spend no more than four days in the hospital. 
 

Maybe that is considered “mild” for myocarditis, because the affected people get better. But most of us probably don’t think of something that lands a young person in the hospital as “mild.” 
It sounds like what they mean for myocarditis is that the heart isn’t (probably?) permanently damaged.
ETA now I’m looking at your post again and I’m confused. At the beginning I think you are talking about myocarditis, but then in the second paragraph you are talking about mild Covid. I think that mild will have a different definition depending on the condition and who is defining it.

Edited by Penelope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, ktgrok said:

It seems that almost half of the cases were not linked to the vaccine? If it is almost even in vaccinated and not, are we jumping the gun to think it is related to the vaccine. 

There will always be some myocarditis. They are saying that when they compare the numbers, the association with the vaccine seems to indicate a causal link. Even if they released all the numbers you’d need to do the analysis, it is complicated.

There is also the fact that the clustering is within a few days of the second dose, and that CDC says they do not see any association of cases after the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another article on the Israeli study.   

22 minutes ago, Penelope said:

But most of us probably don’t think of something that lands a young person in the hospital as “mild.” 

True, but my purely anecdotal impression is that the standard for hospital admission in Israel is considerably lower than that in the US.  So it's sort of apples and oranges.

My teens are due for their second shots tomorrow and I plan to quiz the doctor on exactly what to watch out for in the coming days. 

Edited by JennyD
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Penelope said:

To clarify, it isn’t my location that defines mild that way. When I said “here, mild means...,”  I meant “here” as in the articles I linked, as well as a couple of others. 
 

The articles keep saying the cases are mild while at the same time saying they spend no more than four days in the hospital. 
 

Maybe that is considered “mild” for myocarditis, because the affected people get better. But most of us probably don’t think of something that lands a young person in the hospital as “mild.” 
It sounds like what they mean for myocarditis is that the heart isn’t (probably?) permanently damaged.
ETA now I’m looking at your post again and I’m confused. At the beginning I think you are talking about myocarditis, but then in the second paragraph you are talking about mild Covid. I think that mild will have a different definition depending on the condition and who is defining it.

I agree — the word “mild” and the phrase “up to 5 days in the hospital” are not synonymous to me. I don’t think “mild” symptoms should require ANY hospitalization!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Penelope said: 
 

The articles keep saying the cases are mild while at the same time saying they spend no more than four days in the hospital 

If the definition is no more than 4 days does that mean they were all hospitalized for at least 1 day or could it be 0 days for some, and if so, how many had 0 days?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ktgrok said:

It seems that almost half of the cases were not linked to the vaccine? If it is almost even in vaccinated and not, are we jumping the gun to think it is related to the vaccine. 

Within the young men subgroup it is 5 to 25 times the background rate.  That is pretty strong evidence.  It is diminished to the background rate when you look at the whole group of all vaccinated people because the bulk of those vaccinated are older.  For the young men it's 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000.  If we go off cdc reports of 3 thousandish of the 3 millions kids who were infected with covid developed misc and covid rates remain at their current low levels (less than 5 per 100k per day by me) this is really looking like we shouldn't be going to get that second shot for my ds in that age group.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

Within the young men subgroup it is 5 to 25 times the background rate.  That is pretty strong evidence.  It is diminished to the background rate when you look at the whole group of all vaccinated people because the bulk of those vaccinated are older.  For the young men it's 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000.  If we go off cdc reports of 3 thousandish of the 3 millions kids who were infected with covid developed misc and covid rates remain at their current low levels (less than 5 per 100k per day by me) this is really looking like we shouldn't be going to get that second shot for my ds in that age group.

Ok, that makes more sense. 

That said, I'd want to know what the rates of myocarditis is in those infected with Covid, not just MISC, which is a whole other thing. 

This small study found 15% of athletes infected with Covid had myocarditis - a much higher rate than from the vaccine. https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-19-and-myocarditis-a-risk-for-athletes

Other link https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covid-19/

 

Edited by ktgrok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myocarditis was my biggest reason for getting DS21 vaccinated - his father died from heart failure caused by a virus. Knowing this new info, I'm still glad he got the vaccine. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Myocarditis was my biggest reason for getting DS21 vaccinated - his father died from heart failure caused by a virus. Knowing this new info, I'm still glad he got the vaccine. 

I’m so sorry. 🙁 

I can understand seeing it that way, too. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I’m so sorry. 🙁 

I can understand seeing it that way, too. 

 

Thank you. HIs aunt, his father's sister, is now a heart transplant survivor - she also had heart failure but in her instance they claim it was from untreated thyroid issues. 

Personally, I'm very suspicious that two siblings (only siblings in the family) had heart failure for totally unrelated reaons and it is just a coincidence. But she has never wanted to pursue any genetic testing, and ex DH died before he could. 

DS has been screened by a cardiologist, but will need to continue to be screened every few years for life, in the (likely) event this is a genetic susceptibility. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, TCB said:

If the definition is no more than 4 days does that mean they were all hospitalized for at least 1 day or could it be 0 days for some, and if so, how many had 0 days?

Good question! There just isn’t enough information about any of it. 

46 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

Within the young men subgroup it is 5 to 25 times the background rate.  That is pretty strong evidence.  It is diminished to the background rate when you look at the whole group of all vaccinated people because the bulk of those vaccinated are older.  For the young men it's 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000.  If we go off cdc reports of 3 thousandish of the 3 millions kids who were infected with covid developed misc and covid rates remain at their current low levels (less than 5 per 100k per day by me) this is really looking like we shouldn't be going to get that second shot for my ds in that age group.

I want to hear from US surveillance people, too. 
 

The other thing that seems concerning is that the risk seems higher the younger you go, with the highest age 16-19. So what happens in 12-15 year olds? If it is something to do with the vaccine response, and we know that the immune response is even higher in the 12-15 year olds than in the 16-25 year olds, then could the younger teens have a higher risk? 
 

And then we consider that right now, the risk of coming across Covid is much lower than it was, so that the risks of any Covid-related outcome are not what they were a few months ago or a year ago. It seems reasonable to take some time to look at this better. 

40 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Ok, that makes more sense. 

That said, I'd want to know what the rates of myocarditis is in those infected with Covid, not just MISC, which is a whole other thing. 

This small study found 15% of athletes infected with Covid had myocarditis - a much higher rate than from the vaccine. https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-19-and-myocarditis-a-risk-for-athletes

Other link https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covid-19/

 

I think that article is outdated. There are studies suggesting it is no more common than with other viruses, linked somewhere at WTM last week in one or the other of these mammoth threads, I can’t keep track. Which means it certainly does happen, just not like often like they were thinking it might. Still could be higher than the risk due to the vaccine, though.

————

Another article. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/israel-detects-link-between-myocarditis-and-covid-vaccine.html

Edited by Penelope
Add article
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Ok, that makes more sense. 

That said, I'd want to know what the rates of myocarditis is in those infected with Covid, not just MISC, which is a whole other thing. 

This small study found 15% of athletes infected with Covid had myocarditis - a much higher rate than from the vaccine. https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-19-and-myocarditis-a-risk-for-athletes

Other link https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covid-19/

 

Totally fair to compare myocarditis to myocarditis instead of mis-c, but the cases reported after vaccination are all symptomatic, while the studies are a sampling of people that may or may not have had symptoms. One might expect myocarditis rates in the young male subgroup to be higher if we sampled all vaccinated people in that group.  I don't think that's been done yet.  It looks that myocarditis is part of the mis-c buffet of symptoms, so I was kind of using it as a proxy for symptomatic cases in that group, but I agree that it's probably an under-representation of symptomatic  myocarditis from covid infection.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Thank you. HIs aunt, his father's sister, is now a heart transplant survivor - she also had heart failure but in her instance they claim it was from untreated thyroid issues. 

Personally, I'm very suspicious that two siblings (only siblings in the family) had heart failure for totally unrelated reaons and it is just a coincidence. But she has never wanted to pursue any genetic testing, and ex DH died before he could. 

DS has been screened by a cardiologist, but will need to continue to be screened every few years for life, in the (likely) event this is a genetic susceptibility. 

My friend whose husband got a heart transplant (Heart was damaged by a virus that went rapidly downhill) definitely feels there is a genetic element. His sister also has a heart disease and he lost a parent early to a heart attack.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

https://beta.isdscotland.org/media/9117/2021-06-02_sicsag_report.pdf

No intensive care admissions in Scotland at least 14 days after two jabs (Pfizer and AZ used).  The paragraph about this is on page 40 of the report.

That is wonderful. Our ICU admissions have all been unvaccinated people so far. It surprises me a bit how bummed out this makes me feel, but it is such a shame now there is a way of taming this horrendous virus.

  • Sad 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, vonfirmath said:

My friend whose husband got a heart transplant (Heart was damaged by a virus that went rapidly downhill) definitely feels there is a genetic element. His sister also has a heart disease and he lost a parent early to a heart attack.

 

Yes, my son's cardiologist feels it is genetic, but because they don't know enough about which genes, there is nothing he can do. He would have needed to have his father or aunt tested, to see waht genes they have, that match their clinical presentation, then see if DS has that gene. Otherwise it is a needle in a haystack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody know of an article addressing ADE and the Covid vaccinations? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen one posted here but can’t find it in the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TCB said:

Does anybody know of an article addressing ADE and the Covid vaccinations? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen one posted here but can’t find it in the thread.

This article is the best I've seen in terms of explaining very clearly what ADE is, how it works, and why it isn't an issue with the current covid vaccines. It also contains tons of direct links to scientific references:

https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/reasonabledoubt/ade-and-corona-vaccines

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting this case series of myocarditis in adolescents, from the US, here. All had chest pain, some with fever, shortness of breath, all admitted to hospital for several days, doing okay with follow-up though follow-ups only mentioned to one week. 
 

Some commentary at the end, there’s more in the link.

Quote

We report 7 cases of clinical myocarditis or myopericarditis that developed in 14- to 19- year-old males within 4 days of receiving the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine with no evidence of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and who did not fulfill criteria for MIS-C. Extensive diagnostic evaluation for other myocarditis etiologies was negative (Table 2), including respiratory pathogens from nasopharyngeal swabs, serum PCR tests, and infectious serologies. Additionally, all cardiac MRIs were diagnostic for myocarditis based on the modified
Lake Louise criteria rather than MIS-C characteristics described by Blondiaux et al (diffuse myocardial edema without evidence of late gadolinium enhancement)8,9. There was some suggestion of abnormal left ventricular myocardial echocardiographic strain corresponding to regions of myocardial necrosis on cardiac MRI (Patient 3).
All patients in this series had myocarditis or myopericarditis, which is the term for
diagnosis of both myocardial and pericardial inflammation. These terms are often used
interchangeably, which can make surveillance of these diseases challenging. Myocarditis and
pericarditis are rare diseases. The true baseline incidence of myocarditis is unknown and varies
by season, geography, and age: it has been reported to occur in 1.95/100,000 person- years in
children <15 years of age in Finland and in 2.16 cases per 100,000 US military service members
in a 30-day period10. It is more common in males, and among children demonstrates a bimodal
incidence pattern, with peaks at <2 years of age and in adolescence11. An evaluation for potential
viral causes is recommended, although a cause is usually not found12. There have been prior
reports of myocarditis following smallpox vaccination10. In patients with myocarditis, restriction
from competitive sports is recommended for at least 3 months until cleared by a cardiologist in
order to avoid sudden cardiac events while the heart muscle recovers13. Less is known about the
true incidence of pericarditis. Pericarditis can occur in the setting of a variety of infectious and non-infectious illnesses14. In a study of patients ≥16 years of age in Finland, the incidence rate of hospitalizations for acute pericarditis was 3.32/100,000 person-years, with males at higher risk than females15 and in 2007, the incidence of acute pericarditis in one study was 27.2 cases per 100,000 per year16. Treatment for myocarditis and pericarditis may vary considerably depending on the patient characteristics, clinical condition, underlying cause, and physician preference. Consistent with a known male preponderance of myocarditis and pericarditis, all seven of our cases were male10.

The Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trials demonstrated an increased systemic reactogenicity and immunogenicity in younger study participants following mRNA vaccine1. For example, 41.5% of adolescents developed chills after dose #2, compared to 35.1% of subjects 18-55 years of age1. In terms of immunogenicity, an analysis of SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing titers 1 month after dose #2 demonstrated higher geometric mean titer (GMT) in children 12-15 years of age (GMT = 1,239.5), compared to subjects 16-25 years of age (GMT = 705.1)1. Adverse events often occurred more frequently after dose #2 and within 2 days following vaccination and included injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, chills, arthralgia, fever, injection site swelling or redness, nausea, malaise, and lymphadenopathy1. It is possible that myocarditis or myopericarditis may be an additional rare adverse event related to systemic reactogenicity, but currently no causal association has been established between this vaccine and myopericarditis.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

This article is the best I've seen in terms of explaining very clearly what ADE is, how it works, and why it isn't an issue with the current covid vaccines. It also contains tons of direct links to scientific references:

https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/reasonabledoubt/ade-and-corona-vaccines

Thanks! That is a really good, clear explanation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wathe do you know anything about so called studies in Canada showing the dangers of Covid vaccinations? Saw something about it on the dreaded FB but no details or links or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TCB said:

@wathe do you know anything about so called studies in Canada showing the dangers of Covid vaccinations? Saw something about it on the dreaded FB but no details or links or anything.

Quoting myself to say that it was an interview with a Dr Byram Bridle apparently. He gave an interview saying that the spike protein produced from the mRNA vaccines would itself cause problems. I then read an article about the vaccine spike protein that seems to contradict that. Also found a few studies disputing some of the things he claimed.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/spike-protein-behavior

 

https://byrambridle.com/

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TCB said:

@wathe do you know anything about so called studies in Canada showing the dangers of Covid vaccinations? Saw something about it on the dreaded FB but no details or links or anything.

Not until you mentioned it.  

It looks like Byron Bridle is a PhD who teaches at a veterinary college, with experience in vaccine research.

A quick google shows him mentioned on this topic recently in tabloid-y newspapers and christian websites - not the sorts of places I read.  The few interviews I looked at seemed somewhat sensational and lacking references.

I see a few mentions on David Fisman's twitter that debunk Bridle's claims (Fisman is an epidemiologist and actively practising infectious disease specialist who has been super-active in my province's covid response and on social media wrt covid.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't believe it, but word is still not out to everyone that Covid vaccines in the US are completely free, no matter where you get them, even if you don't have insurance. [Family member expressed surprise yesterday that they were *free* at Walmart.]

  • Like 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

I didn't believe it, but word is still not out to everyone that Covid vaccines in the US are completely free, no matter where you get them, even if you don't have insurance. [Family member expressed surprise yesterday that they were *free* at Walmart.]

It's not surprising to me. As I've said on other threads, there's a lot of people out there that don't watch the news and are happily going about their life free from social media. Not everyone is so clued in on every aspect of the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Plum said:

It's not surprising to me. As I've said on other threads, there's a lot of people out there that don't watch the news and are happily going about their life free from social media. Not everyone is so clued in on every aspect of the pandemic.

It's really too bad. The gov't got it together to send everyone letters to explain the stimulus checks, couldn't they have sent everyone a 1-pager explaining the vaccines and that they're FREE? Ugh. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kanin said:

It's really too bad. The gov't got it together to send everyone letters to explain the stimulus checks, couldn't they have sent everyone a 1-pager explaining the vaccines and that they're FREE? Ugh. 

Did you get your letter anytime near when you got your stimulus? We got ours months later. lol I can only imagine some people were terrified the IRS made a mistake. 😳

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that reminds me someone on NextDoor asked where their 8 and 14 yo can get vaccinated. I have a feeling there's a lot that only read headlines and even then are only half paying attention.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Plum said:

Did you get your letter anytime near when you got your stimulus? We got ours months later. lol I can only imagine some people were terrified the IRS made a mistake. 😳

Ha, true.... it was so long after that I thought, Yay! Another check? But no. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2021 at 4:26 PM, Penelope said:

To clarify, it isn’t my location that defines mild that way. When I said “here, mild means...,”  I meant “here” as in the articles I linked, as well as a couple of others. 
 

The articles keep saying the cases are mild while at the same time saying they spend no more than four days in the hospital. 
 

Maybe that is considered “mild” for myocarditis, because the affected people get better. But most of us probably don’t think of something that lands a young person in the hospital as “mild.” 
It sounds like what they mean for myocarditis is that the heart isn’t (probably?) permanently damaged.
ETA now I’m looking at your post again and I’m confused. At the beginning I think you are talking about myocarditis, but then in the second paragraph you are talking about mild Covid. I think that mild will have a different definition depending on the condition and who is defining it.

The definition I was using for the UK's of "mild" covers any symptom believed to have been caused by a vaccine (on that system, myocarditis diagnosed as such requires a hospital visit long enough to get the diagnosis and is therefore automatically "severe"). I did not realise you or the articles to which you referred were defining degrees of myocarditis. Sorry for causing confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preprint from the Cleveland Clinic saying people who had covid are unlikely to benefit from vaccination. Wow. I wish they would test those that had it for antibodies before giving them the vaccine. Feel free to pick it apart. Maybe we'll see more studies like this come out, maybe we won't. 

Quote

 

Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

Summary Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Plum said:

Preprint from the Cleveland Clinic saying people who had covid are unlikely to benefit from vaccination. Wow. I wish they would test those that had it for antibodies before giving them the vaccine. Feel free to pick it apart. Maybe we'll see more studies like this come out, maybe we won't. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

Every time I read one of these, I’m blown away by how well these vaccines are working:

Of the 2154 SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study period, 2139 (99.3%) occurred among those not previously infected who remained unvaccinated or were waiting to get vaccinated, and15 (0.7%) occurred among those not previously infected who were vaccinated.” !!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When most people haven’t had corona, and when it takes time and money to test for antibodies, it seems like it’s probably more practical to have a policy of vaccinating everyone rather than testing for antibodies first.  Plus you don’t want people skipping the vaccine without proof of antibodies, but I think even more people would do so if they thought that their random nasty cold a year ago meant they didn’t need a vaccine. 
 

You could  test for antibodies only in people who had confirmed cases, but that wouldn’t speed things up in most of the world. In many countries, it’s pretty much accepted that confirmed cases are vastly below actual cases. In my current country, less than two percent of the population has had a confirmed case.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amira said:

When most people haven’t had corona, and when it takes time and money to test for antibodies, it seems like it’s probably more practical to have a policy of vaccinating everyone rather than testing for antibodies first.  Plus you don’t want people skipping the vaccine without proof of antibodies, but I think even more people would do so if they thought that their random nasty cold a year ago meant they didn’t need a vaccine. 
 

You could  test for antibodies only in people who had confirmed cases, but that wouldn’t speed things up in most of the world. In many countries, it’s pretty much accepted that confirmed cases are vastly below actual cases. In my current country, less than two percent of the population has had a confirmed case.

Sure. In the beginning when vaccines were in short supply, wouldn’t it have made more sense to put people who had a positive covid test on a later tier? So many HCW already had it. It’s not a surprise to me many are waiting. That alone would have sped things up. 

Or offer it as an alternative to the vaccine and give them a stamp and ask them to come back in X months. As it is right now, it only counts if you get the vaccine and we don’t have true numbers of natural antibody immunity. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FDA vaccine committee will be meeting tomorrow to discuss what information companies will need to submit to get approval for under-12s.  I do not understand why they are just now deciding this -- shouldn't this have been resolved months ago? -- but better late than never I suppose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Plum said:

Preprint from the Cleveland Clinic saying people who had covid are unlikely to benefit from vaccination. Wow. I wish they would test those that had it for antibodies before giving them the vaccine. Feel free to pick it apart. Maybe we'll see more studies like this come out, maybe we won't. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

Was coming here to share this - info matches the info out of UK's initial study and Israel's expanded study (Israel DID test for antibodies before mass vaccination). 

Now it's time for companies / schools / establishments in the USA need to update vaccine / mask requirements for the thousands and thousands who have already had covid.  $.02

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 

Now it's time for companies / schools / establishments in the USA need to update vaccine / mask requirements for the thousands and thousands who have already had covid.  $.02

+1000. Why should a young male, for example, take any small risk of vaccination to fulfill a college requirement if they already are protected from previous infection? It makes no sense and is unethical.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Was coming here to share this - info matches the info out of UK's initial study and Israel's expanded study (Israel DID test for antibodies before mass vaccination). 

Now it's time for companies / schools / establishments in the USA need to update vaccine / mask requirements for the thousands and thousands who have already had covid.  $.02

I do wish they would issue antibody cards like they do vaccine cards. Or even a card based on positive covid test result. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Plum said:

In the beginning when vaccines were in short supply, wouldn’t it have made more sense to put people who had a positive covid test on a later tier? So many HCW already had it. It’s not a surprise to me many are waiting. That alone would have sped things up. 

But this data did not exist 6 months ago when HCWs were being prioritized for vaccines. We had preliminary data from other countries suggesting that reinfection (with variants) was a potential threat, so it made sense to vaccinate the people who were not only the most likely to be exposed, but also critical to keeping the healthcare system running in the middle of a massive surge.

The other group that was prioritized was the elderly, and this study clearly states that it's unknown whether these results would apply to the elderly or immunocompromised, because those populations were not included — the average age in the study was around 40, and obviously all participants were at least fit and healthy enough to be actively working in healthcare.

But now that we have this data on non-elderly adults, it can help inform policy decisions going forward. It may be especially useful for countries like India and Brazil, where large numbers of people have had the disease but vaccines are still in short supply, to decide who to prioritize for the scarce vaccines.

I hope there will be more research in this area, especially as variants of concern become more widespread and boosters become available in the fall.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Plum said:

Preprint from the Cleveland Clinic saying people who had covid are unlikely to benefit from vaccination. Wow. I wish they would test those that had it for antibodies before giving them the vaccine. Feel free to pick it apart. Maybe we'll see more studies like this come out, maybe we won't. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

I'm having a really hard time reading their numbers. So some teeny fraction of the unvaccinated population who had COVID got reinfected with COVID, is that right? Can anyone figure out how the rate compares to the unvaccinated population who didn't have COVID?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm having a really hard time reading their numbers. So some teeny fraction of the unvaccinated population who had COVID got reinfected with COVID, is that right? Can anyone figure out how the rate compares to the unvaccinated population who didn't have COVID?  

No, NONE of the previously infected population who remained unvaccinated contracted Covid at all. 

 

"Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study."

Vaccination lowers risk for those who have NOT had covid, but does nothing at all for people who have already had covid.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Was coming here to share this - info matches the info out of UK's initial study and Israel's expanded study (Israel DID test for antibodies before mass vaccination). 

Now it's time for companies / schools / establishments in the USA need to update vaccine / mask requirements for the thousands and thousands who have already had covid.  $.02

Where I am the mask mandate has been lifted so masks are only suggested for non vaccinated people, but not required and there is no enforcement.  The schools will be unmasked next school year. I can’t think of any thing that could be updated to improve that.  Is it different where you are? 
 

The library still wants everyone masked, which is weird but 🤷‍♀️. And doctors offices, I think.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

No, NONE of the previously infected population who remained unvaccinated contracted Covid at all. 

 

"Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study."

Vaccination lowers risk for those who have NOT had covid, but does nothing at all for people who have already had covid.

Ah-ha, I see, I was misreading. So in this study, previous infection did better than vaccination. Very interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Where I am the mask mandate has been lifted so masks are only suggested for non vaccinated people, but not required and there is no enforcement.  The schools will be unmasked next school year. I can’t think of any thing that could be updated to improve that.  Is it different where you are? 
 

The library still wants everyone masked, which is weird but 🤷‍♀️. And doctors offices, I think.  

Yes, very different where I live - school children all still wearing masks (even in nearly 100 F heat), stores require all shoppers to wear masks, college kids required to have covid vaccine to be in person on campus, and some organizations not allowed to reopen until "herd immunity" hits a certain percentage (and they are only counting % of population vaccinated, not adding in the ones who have already tested positive & recovered).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Yes, very different where I live - school children all still wearing masks (even in nearly 100 F heat), stores require all shoppers to wear masks, college kids required to have covid vaccine to be in person on campus, and some organizations not allowed to reopen until "herd immunity" hits a certain percentage (and they are only counting % of population vaccinated, not adding in the ones who have already tested positive & recovered).

The problem is that the number of people who have confirmation of their COVID infection is probably like 10% of the number who will THINK they had it. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...