Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

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. 

This has been my experience. Most people I come into contact with here are convinced they had it at some point last year. Only a few had actual positive tests (I was one of these). Most use the terms "I'm convinced I had it...." then give dates such as December, January, February, etc... 

I have an appointment to get vaccinated next week. I'll be 4 months post infection so feel pretty comfortable about getting it, even if it ends up not doing anything for me. My parents live overseas and if I have to be vaccinated in order to travel there then I'm ok with it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

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.

And even in Brazil and India, the number of confirmed cases is still a small percentage of the population (8% and 2%, respectively).  This info came too late to help wealthier countries that could test more reliably, and testing hasn’t been good enough in most of the world to make it very useful right now. Enough covax vaccines have generally gone out to most of the world to vaccinate health care workers already, plus many covax countries have relatively small populations of elderly people (and they were much less likely to survive if they got sick than older people in wealthier countries). Here in Egypt, health care workers were vaccinated a couple of months ago and many older people (60 and over) have been able to get a vaccine in their neighborhood already. 
 

I do think this will make a difference later as we’re dealing with boosters, but it still seems like the initial round needs to be encouraged for everyone, just to make sure that people are really getting it, unless you’re doing antibody tests on everyone who thinks they don’t need the vaccine (which I’m fine with in theory, but practically speaking, I think it’s a waste of resources to add another layer to an emergency vaccination program).

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, importswim said:

This has been my experience. Most people I come into contact with here are convinced they had it at some point last year. Only a few had actual positive tests (I was one of these). Most use the terms "I'm convinced I had it...." then give dates such as December, January, February, etc... 

I have an appointment to get vaccinated next week. I'll be 4 months post infection so feel pretty comfortable about getting it, even if it ends up not doing anything for me. My parents live overseas and if I have to be vaccinated in order to travel there then I'm ok with it.

Same. My "COVID is a hoax" friend was convinced she had it in November 2019. 🙄 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

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. 

I think the idea is that an antibody test should be viewed as proof of vaccination, which is what I think @ktgrok is saying. 

If someone thinks they had it and that is the reasoning behind not getting vaccinated, fine, but that shouldn’t count to get on an overseas flight or avoid a college or healthcare work requirement. But positive antibodies should, and right now, it’s not clear that they do, or at least, most organizations are silent on natural immunity. 

If someone did have it but has no antibodies, then maybe a vaccine is still a good idea, though I guess we don’t know that for sure yet, either.
 

I don’t think that needs to mean that everyone gets a test before vaccination, either, but if you would prefer to and it’s positive, that should count. 
That was not part of the argument when the vaccine rollout began. The people that called for delaying vaccination for previously infected back in December and January were simply saying that if someone who isn’t in the highest risk group knows they have had PCR-confirmed Covid, they should have gotten in the back of the line when resources were limited, because with thousands per day dying, people who had no immunity should have been prioritized. Even that ten percent of known cases meant someone that didn’t really need it, while someone who did was having to wait.

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

1 minute ago, Penelope said:

I think the idea is that an antibody test should be viewed as proof of vaccination, which is what I think @ktgrok is saying. 

Yes, that seems reasonable. Or a proof of a positive PCR test. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-propose-1-dose-shortcut-to-herd-immunity-for-vaccine-poor-countries/
 

Quote

Israeli researchers are recommending that health authorities around the world take a shortcut to COVID-19 herd immunity: a single-dose vaccine protocol for all under-30s.

Their analysis has convinced them that this age group achieves a very high level of immunity with just one shot. Therefore, the researchers say, doctors would be making the most of often limited vaccine supplies if they gave each young person a single dose.

In addition, countries will achieve coverage far more quickly if a single dose is administered to under-30s, says the research group from Ben Gurion University.

 

Quote

“I’m recommending one dose for young people,” epidemiologist Prof. Nadav Davidovitch told The Times of Israel. He said that according to his research, the response among young people to the first dose is so strong that the second shot can be skipped with minimal impact.

The effectiveness of two doses on adults is well above 90% according to most studies. Among under-30s, around 80% of the protection has been shown to be in place after the first dose, Davidovitch’s team has calculated.

Quote

Rise of antibodies after one dose in young people is very close to the impact of two doses — and even higher than the full two doses for older people,” he said.

The main impetus for his research, which analyzed Israeli and British data on vaccine responses, was the scarcity of shots in many countries.

They go on to link this to the idea that one dose may also avoid most of the rare myocarditis cases after the second shot.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yes, that seems reasonable. Or a proof of a positive PCR test. 

Exactly. Seems a win win to me. 

5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

This is interesting. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-propose-1-dose-shortcut-to-herd-immunity-for-vaccine-poor-countries/
 

 

They go on to link this to the idea that one dose may also avoid most of the rare myocarditis cases after the second shot.

I'd be interested to see what level immunity they see after on vaccine in kids, particuarly. Might get a lot more buy in in the pediatric population if it were one and done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I think the idea is that an antibody test should be viewed as proof of vaccination, which is what I think @ktgrok is saying. 

 

19 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yes, that seems reasonable. Or a proof of a positive PCR test. 

^ Yes, this would be a great start.

The next step would be a widely-available test for people who THINK they've had Covid (NOT an antibody test, because a person can still be immune from a prior infection even after antibodies are no longer active). I've actually wondered for quite a while why such a test doesn't yet exist, but I do realize that (A) there's not a huge $$ motivator to develop it, and (B) this is the top-secret stuff of clinical trials. 

I actually wonder about the number of people who HAVE had asymptomatic covid - do we have scientifically reliable numbers behind that? (I'm guessing a LOT of children fall into this category - we actually know many, many families where some of the family tested positive and the rest tested negative, all together in a not-huge house. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

The next step would be a widely-available test for people who THINK they've had Covid (NOT an antibody test, because a person can still be immune from a prior infection even after antibodies are no longer active). I've actually wondered for quite a while why such a test doesn't yet exist, but I do realize that (A) there's not a huge $$ motivator to develop it, and (B) this is the top-secret stuff of clinical trials. 

I think the reason this is hard is because it's actually hard to access that information -- you have to use T-cells or something. I actually would guess there's plenty of monetary motivation for it: everyone would love to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

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

That's what I was saying...or trying to say. lol 

Now I have posted an NIH study that basically says antibody tests are only as good as the antibodies and proteins they are looking for, so YMMV. But there does need to be an honest look at natural immunity. Maybe people who have had it within a certain number of months can go about as if they were vaccinated for X number of months at the very least. 

 

Quote

Without accounting for natural immunity, we are far from Anthony Fauci’s stated target of 70% to 85% of the population becoming immune through full vaccination. But the effect of natural immunity is all around us. The plummeting case numbers in late April and May weren’t the result of vaccination alone, and they came amid a loosening of both restrictions and behavior.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power-of-natural-immunity-11623171303

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plum said:

But there does need to be an honest look at natural immunity. Maybe people who have had it within a certain number of months can go about as if they were vaccinated for X number of months at the very least. 

I feel like it's been relatively clear that natural immunity is quite robust for a while now. Interestingly, I've had people jump on me for saying that on some left-wing sites... it's interesting how political things get for no reason. (I think this came from a misguided pro-vaccine stance.) 

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

We can't use an antibody test to prove anything on previously infected individuals because our bodies respond to a slew of sites, but they are only testing for two antibodies.  Someone with previous infection might make those antibodies, but they will definitely make lots of others as well.  This is why they were originally saying that previously infected people need vaccines; the tests were not picking up enough of the n and s to show neutralization.  In the real world, however, all those other antibodies are doing something too.  AFAIK this is the first real world study that shows infections vs a lab experiment testing neutralizing antibodies.  A pcr positive test result would cast a broader net for proving immunity and and be cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I feel like it's been relatively clear that natural immunity is quite robust for a while now. Interestingly, I've had people jump on me for saying that on some left-wing sites... it's interesting how political things get for no reason. (I think this came from a misguided pro-vaccine stance.) 

Yes, have seen some of that too.  I haven't been particularly worried about those who have had covid getting the vaccine.  I was surprised they didn't ask that group to hold off when vaccines appointments were hard to come by.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I feel like it's been relatively clear that natural immunity is quite robust for a while now. Interestingly, I've had people jump on me for saying that on some left-wing sites... it's interesting how political things get for no reason. (I think this came from a misguided pro-vaccine stance.) 

What's clear on a rational, WTM-style message board & among reasonable people is not at all the same thing as "clear" in a broad-based policy-making sense.

I have NOWHERE near me either seen OR heard of any policy that respects natural immunity - maksing, distancing, vaccinating. None of those are at all useful for people who have recovered from covid.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

What's clear on a rational, WTM-style message board & among reasonable people is not at all the same thing as "clear" in a broad-based policy-making sense.

Let me rephrase that to "there's been decent scientific evidence that natural immunity is robust for a while now." 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 

I have NOWHERE near me either seen OR heard of any policy that respects natural immunity - maksing, distancing, vaccinating. None of those are at all useful for people who have recovered from covid.

To be fair, we also haven't seen data until pretty recently that those who are immune aren't generally spreading it and it wasn't (and still isn't) exactly clear how long immunity can and will last.  Policies have evolved as we've learned more.  I was surprised how fast mandates went for masks.  But when the data was solid, they were gone.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Plum said:

That's what I was saying...or trying to say. lol 

Now I have posted an NIH study that basically says antibody tests are only as good as the antibodies and proteins they are looking for, so YMMV. But there does need to be an honest look at natural immunity. Maybe people who have had it within a certain number of months can go about as if they were vaccinated for X number of months at the very least. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power-of-natural-immunity-11623171303

Right. We have said that in vet medicine for a long time - titers only tell us about the antibody we are testing for, not actual immunity. 

But given what we are seeing in real life regarding covid infection and immunity, even very super cautious still sprays her groceries with peroxide little old me feels that a card could be issued with proof of infection and a date. As we learn more about how long that immunity lasts, we can extend or change how long an "infection card" is good for. Or test for antibodies every say, 6 months or 1 yr or whatever. 

Wouldn't be perfect - some people would maybe have antibodies that wear off a bit sooner than their card is good for, and some will not show antibodies when retested even though they are immune and get a vaccine thy don't actually need, but those would be the outliers. From a public health standpoint it would work, and would make freaking sense. Which, likely, is why it won't happen, lol. 

But seriously, it wouldn't be THAT hard to have tables set up at vaccine clinics where you can bring proof of a positive test or antibodies and get your card, just like the vaccine card. And then we could collect real data on how many unvaccinated people are immune, which would let us make better policy decisions. Hell, it would let me make better parenting decisions. 

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

1 minute ago, FuzzyCatz said:

To be fair, we also haven't seen data until pretty recently that those who are immune aren't generally spreading it and it wasn't (and still isn't) exactly clear how long immunity can and will last.  Policies have evolved as we've learned more.  I was surprised how fast mandates went for masks.  But when the data was solid, they were gone.  

 

At this point though, we should be hearing something about "immune via infection" type programs - cards, or even just wording saying, "proof of vaccine or proof of infection within the last year OR proof of antibodies within the last 6 months"

There is, at this point, more evidence to support that idea than a heck of a lot of other policies. 

There are people who are immune and have no way to prove it, and I would LIKE to know they can prove it. And it would have the side benefit of encouraging all hose people that "swear they had it" to actually get an antibody test, so if they don't have antibodies they can make a more informed decision on vaccination. AND it would encourage those with minor symptoms going forward to bother getting tested, since although a positive test will mean inconvenience now, it will also mean more freedom later. 

Although I guess the fear is people will try to get infected on purpose to get the card?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

At this point though, we should be hearing something about "immune via infection" type programs - cards, or even just wording saying, "proof of vaccine or proof of infection within the last year OR proof of antibodies within the last 6 months"

There is, at this point, more evidence to support that idea than a heck of a lot of other policies. 

There are people who are immune and have no way to prove it, and I would LIKE to know they can prove it. And it would have the side benefit of encouraging all hose people that "swear they had it" to actually get an antibody test, so if they don't have antibodies they can make a more informed decision on vaccination. AND it would encourage those with minor symptoms going forward to bother getting tested, since although a positive test will mean inconvenience now, it will also mean more freedom later. 

Although I guess the fear is people will try to get infected on purpose to get the card?

A card for what though?  I haven't needed to show proof of vaccination anywhere at this point.  If you want to travel overseas, those countries set their own policies.  Spain is actually saying proof of vaccine or medical certificate of proof of recovery is accepted for Americans for proof of entry.  So this is actually happening.  

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2021/06/09/europe-travel-france-reopens-vaccinated-americans/7615814002/

Some states still have pretty pathetic positivity/infection rates IMO and should be holding back a bit yet, but whatever.  

I think we'll continue to see things change pretty rapidly.  Like my mom this week had eye surgery.  She has been fully vaccinated since March and our infection rate is like .6/positivity around 1.5%.  She has been laying low the last month so she wouldn't get anything before this surgery.  They still made her go get a PCR test in testing location.  I hope they drop that kind of thing soon for the vaccinated and recovered. 

Edited by FuzzyCatz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

A card for what though?  I haven't needed to show proof of vaccination anywhere at this point.  If you want to travel overseas, those countries set their own policies.  Spain is actually saying proof of vaccine or medical certificate of proof of recovery is accepted for Americans for proof of entry.  So this is actually happening.  

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2021/06/09/europe-travel-france-reopens-vaccinated-americans/7615814002/

Some states still have pretty pathetic positivity/infection rates IMO and should be holding back a bit yet, but whatever.  

I think we'll continue to see things change pretty rapidly.  Like my mom this week had eye surgery.  She has been fully vaccinated since March and our infection rate is like .6/positivity around 1.5%.  She has been laying low the last month so she wouldn't get anything before this surgery.  They still made her go get a PCR test in testing location.  I hope they drop that kind of thing soon for the vaccinated and recovered. 

My college student's school requires vaccination or a medical waiver. It would be nice for them to accept proof of recovery from infection since being vaccinated isn't recommended for at least a few months after recovery. There is a difference between the precautions needed by someone who cannot be vaccinated at all and someone who is almost certainly immune due to having been infected. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think the reason this is hard is because it's actually hard to access that information -- you have to use T-cells or something. I actually would guess there's plenty of monetary motivation for it: everyone would love to know. 

There actually is one approved by the FDA, but once I actually read about it, it didn’t sound as helpful as I had hoped. I don’t have time to read about it again right now, but I seem to recall it hadn’t been tested very far out from the participants infection, so it’s hard to know how long it actually is reliable for. If there was one that was accurate, I would want to take it.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-adaptive-biotechnologies-t-detect-covid-test

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dmmetler said:

My college student's school requires vaccination or a medical waiver. It would be nice for them to accept proof of recovery from infection since being vaccinated isn't recommended for at least a few months after recovery. There is a difference between the precautions needed by someone who cannot be vaccinated at all and someone who is almost certainly immune due to having been infected. 

I wonder if some of the colleges will evolve their policies by fall as this data becomes more clear and used?  At my kid's college, they were ALL testing twice a week spring semester.  I think those who had positive covid tests were given a 90 day reprieve after recovery on testing.  And then once they started vaccinating at the University hospital, those people didn't need to test either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

My college student's school requires vaccination or a medical waiver. It would be nice for them to accept proof of recovery from infection since being vaccinated isn't recommended for at least a few months after recovery. There is a difference between the precautions needed by someone who cannot be vaccinated at all and someone who is almost certainly immune due to having been infected. 

Oh...you know..in practicality maybe a doctor would give a medical waiver if someone has proof of a positive test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

A card for what though?  I haven't needed to show proof of vaccination anywhere at this point.  If you want to travel overseas, those countries set their own policies.  Spain is actually saying proof of vaccine or medical certificate of proof of recovery is accepted for Americans for proof of entry.  So this is actually happening.  

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2021/06/09/europe-travel-france-reopens-vaccinated-americans/7615814002/

Some states still have pretty pathetic positivity/infection rates IMO and should be holding back a bit yet, but whatever.  

I think we'll continue to see things change pretty rapidly.  Like my mom this week had eye surgery.  She has been fully vaccinated since March and our infection rate is like .6/positivity around 1.5%.  She has been laying low the last month so she wouldn't get anything before this surgery.  They still made her go get a PCR test in testing location.  I hope they drop that kind of thing soon for the vaccinated and recovered. 

I WISH proof was required though, to go unmasked. At least here where we are still over 4% positivity, and that rate (well, rolling 7 day average) did not go down this past week. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Oh...you know..in practicality maybe a doctor would give a medical waiver if someone has proof of a positive test?

I believe students with waivers have to have private rooms, and have to quarantine if exposed. I also think there are restrictions on internships, etc. The focus is on protecting such students from exposure, but It is likely overkill for those students who are immune due to having had COVID. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Penelope said:

+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.

This is fairly new information though right? Some decisions were made prior to this information being available. Maybe the guidelines need to be adjusted but it doesn’t seem fair to accuse people of making nonsensical and unethical decisions when they were making them with the knowledge available at the time. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, TCB said:

This is fairly new information though right? Some decisions were made prior to this information being available. Maybe the guidelines need to be adjusted but it doesn’t seem fair to accuse people of making nonsensical and unethical decisions when they were making them with the knowledge available at the time. 

Several sources have been saying for over a year now that natural infection confers immunity. NIH understood it well in January.

And for all those recovered from covid who have had positive antibody tests ever since (aka the convalescent plasma donors & most of their families) - the data has been there, ya know? 

I do hope we continue to see organizations and states and universities try to catch up.

(Edited to add: Sources = medical doctors, immunologists, and researchers, not just "average joes." They were routinely questioned, mocked, derided, and castigated by the media. Hoping that era is over, too, and that we can move forward with actual science as it continues to confirm.)

Edited by Lucy the Valiant
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Several sources have been saying for over a year now that natural infection confers immunity. NIH understood it well in January.

And for all those recovered from covid who have had positive antibody tests ever since (aka the convalescent plasma donors & most of their families) - the data has been there, ya know? 

I do hope we continue to see organizations and states and universities try to catch up.

(Edited to add: Sources = medical doctors, immunologists, and researchers, not just "average joes." They were routinely questioned, mocked, derided, and castigated by the media. Hoping that era is over, too, and that we can move forward with actual science as it continues to confirm.)

I realize that as time has gone on they’ve been more confident that immunity lasted more and more months.  Then you get the situation in Manaus, Brazil, where it seemed that reinfection might be happening. I’m always amazed to hear that some people knew all along about these things, despite it being a novel virus. I can understand making educated assumptions, but being absolutely sure way before everyone else not so much, and also not making policy decisions based on educated assumptions.
We feel like we are still continuously learning, looking after Covid patients, where I work. 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TCB said:

I realize that as time has gone on they’ve been more confident that immunity lasted more and more months.  Then you get the situation in Manaus, Brazil, where it seemed that reinfection might be happening. I’m always amazed to hear that some people knew all along about these things, despite it being a novel virus. I can understand making educated assumptions, but being absolutely sure way before everyone else not so much, and also not making policy decisions based on educated assumptions.
We feel like we are still continuously learning, looking after Covid patients, where I work. 

Manaus is definitely concerning and a good reason not to get cocky just because numbers are down right in the US right now (or to be too confident about natural immunity): https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)00183-5/fulltext

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TCB said:

I’m always amazed to hear that some people knew all along about these things, despite it being a novel virus. I can understand making educated assumptions, but being absolutely sure way before everyone else not so much, and also not making policy decisions based on educated assumptions.

I definitely haven't known all along and I hope I haven't sounded like I did. It's just looked like it for the last few months. The jury was out before then. 

And I'm not at all clear on what happens with variants, but then same goes for vaccines, so it seems unfair to ding natural immunity for that... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wathe,

I would  go with the first dose you can get.  I am in the states and haven't heard of mixing doses here at all so I don't know anything about the science of that.   

Delta becoming the main strain there this month is so scary.  Ugh.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

A card for what though?  I haven't needed to show proof of vaccination anywhere at this point.  If you want to travel overseas, those countries set their own policies.  Spain is actually saying proof of vaccine or medical certificate of proof of recovery is accepted for Americans for proof of entry.  So this is actually happening.  

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2021/06/09/europe-travel-france-reopens-vaccinated-americans/7615814002/

Some states still have pretty pathetic positivity/infection rates IMO and should be holding back a bit yet, but whatever.  

I think we'll continue to see things change pretty rapidly.  Like my mom this week had eye surgery.  She has been fully vaccinated since March and our infection rate is like .6/positivity around 1.5%.  She has been laying low the last month so she wouldn't get anything before this surgery.  They still made her go get a PCR test in testing location.  I hope they drop that kind of thing soon for the vaccinated and recovered. 

We have quite a few activities that are selling vaxxed sections of tickets and to get those oyu have to show proof.  Including things like graduations.  It allows venues to get more people in since their aren't distancing requirements.   It would make sense to say you could show your vax card or results from antibody test within x time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mommyoffive said:

wathe,

I would  go with the first dose you can get.  I am in the states and haven't heard of mixing doses here at all so I don't know anything about the science of that.   

Delta becoming the main strain there this month is so scary.  Ugh.  

I think so too.  I will feel terrible if he gets VITT though.  But I will also feel terrible if he gets covid while waiting......

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TCB said:

This is fairly new information though right? Some decisions were made prior to this information being available. Maybe the guidelines need to be adjusted but it doesn’t seem fair to accuse people of making nonsensical and unethical decisions when they were making them with the knowledge available at the time. 

I don’t think it’s new information.
I can’t fault colleges or businesses; I expect that they go by what public health agencies say. A lot of people, rightly or wrongly, have been saying that public health is extremely slow on this issue. But it is unethical to require an unnecessary medical treatment, so public health needs to act like this is also an emergency, to acknowledge natural immunity as protective in guidance to other organizations. 
 

Yes it’s a novel virus, but it’s not a new family of virus, and reading and listening to various scientists from the beginning, there was never any reason to think that getting infected would confer zero immunity, that you would get reinfected every couple of months, and most especially, that you would get very sick each time. That was IMO a fear-based narrative drummed up by rumor and a scientifically illiterate press.
 

What I primarily heard even over a year ago is that we seem to get reinfected with common cold Coronaviruses every few years, so that maybe that would happen with this one, maybe as little as every 1-2 years, or maybe it would be longer. But that generally, it would be milder after the first exposure, for most people. 
 

There is still the idea that many of us will get reinfected with very mild or asymptomatic infections over the years, boosting the immunity gained from vaccination or previous infection. This could be expected as we won’t all continue to have super high neutralizing antibody titers over time. 
 

I don’t know if the Manaus story has been fully resolved, but I thought the concern about huge numbers of reinfections with a variant is based on one problematic antibody survey that was not confirmed in other studies. There is a lot more on that than the January article someone else just linked. 

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

7 hours ago, Penelope said: 

I don’t know if the Manaus story has been fully resolved, but I thought the concern about huge numbers of reinfections with a variant is based on one problematic antibody survey that was not confirmed in other studies. There is a lot more on that than the January article someone else just linked. 

I think I read that they questioned some of the findings of the survey. Hopefully we will be able to get a clearer picture of that. We have many friends in the Manaus area and according to their experiences there were many, many people sick during the 2 big waves. It was extremely chaotic there though, because of lack of resources, so it may be difficult to figure out exactly what happened. I can’t remember if the studies linked above, showing prolonged immunity after infection, addressed the variants predominant in Brazil and India, sorry I know the latter is Delta but can’t remember the new name of the former.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdotally I have a friend clinically diagnosed with probable Covid last April when it was first going around here. She was unable to access testing, but had typical moderate symptoms, including losing her sense of taste and smell for almost 3 months. 

She recently got sick again, and tested positive for Covid. Similar symptoms, like the worst flu ever, but she did not need to be hospitalized.

How could the Cleveland Clinic research tell us what will happen when people encounter variants, especially Delta variant? It's only 6% of cases in the US now, and would have been somewhere between less than that and zero during data collection.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Penelope said:

What I primarily heard even over a year ago is that we seem to get reinfected with common cold Coronaviruses every few years, so that maybe that would happen with this one, maybe as little as every 1-2 years, or maybe it would be longer. But that generally, it would be milder after the first exposure, for most people. 

I think people did think this, yes, but there was also concern about generalizing from common cold coronaviruses? Like, it's a little dangerous to make the assumption that it's the same.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Acadie said:

Anecdotally I have a friend clinically diagnosed with probable Covid last April when it was first going around here. She was unable to access testing, but had typical moderate symptoms, including losing her sense of taste and smell for almost 3 months. 

She recently got sick again, and tested positive for Covid. Similar symptoms, like the worst flu ever, but she did not need to be hospitalized.

How could the Cleveland Clinic research tell us what will happen when people encounter variants, especially Delta variant? It's only 6% of cases in the US now, and would have been somewhere between less than that and zero during data collection.

The problem is that the vaccine research has similar issues, right? We never know how it responds to each new thing until we try. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK accepts two doses of approved vaccines as full vaccination, including mixed doses (trials, plus some people who were allergic to OxfordAstrazeneca/mRNA on dose #1 and given the opposite type to avoid allergies on dose #2), and other countries that accept proof of vaccination are accepting NHS-backed mixed doses as proof of full vaccination. Provided you can get both doses recorded, I do not think mixed doses will be a barrier to travel. At this point, the larger issue is that many countries don't take vaccination into account for their travel policies at all.

 

Can't comment on the effectiveness situation yet because the research is ongoing, but I've not heard any safety-related horror stories from mixed vaccination.

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

Germany approves Pfizer for 12-17 but only for those with pre-existing conditions. https://news.yahoo.com/german-panel-gives-limited-approval-145104409.html

Quote

Germany's vaccine advisory committee, known as STIKO, recommended on Thursday that only children and adolescents with pre-existing conditions should be given the coronavirus vaccine produced by Pfizer and partner BioNTech.

STIKO said in a statement that it recommends a vaccination only for those youngsters with an illness that raises their risk of a serious case of coronavirus.

It said it was not currently recommending the use of the vaccine for those aged 12-17 without pre-existing conditions, although noted doctors were allowed to give the shot if the individual accepts the risk.

Germany has said it plans to offer shots to children as young as 12 from June after the European health regulator authorised the vaccine for use in adolescents last month.

STIKO committee member Ruediger von Kriess, a paediatrics professor, said previously it might be preferable to endorse the vaccine for use in children only if they have risk factors given the lack of data on long-term effects.

There is an FDA vaccine advisory meeting today about what is appropriate re testing and approving Covid vaccines for children. 
Slides from myocarditis presentation are here. Info from 12-15 year olds largely still unavailable. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On TWIV last week Dr Daniel Griffin was talking about the possible myocarditis vaccine link. He said that the incidence was the same as (or ? less than) the usual incidence in the population, however the incidence of myocarditis in the general population has actually been lower than usual in recent times. Thought that was very interesting. He said usually it is a quite short illness and treated with ibuprofen for the inflammation. I’m getting a bit fuzzy about where I’ve heard different things, but I think he also said that a case he was personally aware of was after the young man had had the J&J vaccine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TCB said:

On TWIV last week Dr Daniel Griffin was talking about the possible myocarditis vaccine link. He said that the incidence was the same as (or ? less than) the usual incidence in the population, however the incidence of myocarditis in the general population has actually been lower than usual in recent times. Thought that was very interesting. He said usually it is a quite short illness and treated with ibuprofen for the inflammation. I’m getting a bit fuzzy about where I’ve heard different things, but I think he also said that a case he was personally aware of was after the young man had had the J&J vaccine.

This article seems to say that, among the young population (16-to-24 year olds) its actually twice the usual incidence.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/10/covid-vaccine-cdc-says-heart-inflammation-cases-in-16-to-24-year-olds-higher-than-expected-after-second-shot.html?fbclid=IwAR2GT7qu_s-Gzu0flo3J7piCjiNameF3LtVPZDQJvTdfhtlaPN2qh-y-mrE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

Interesting. I may have misunderstood him. He seemed to say that the incidence was more than background at the moment, because the background incidence is lower than usual, but the same as, and I thought he said maybe slightly lower, than the previous usual background incidence. But, as I say, I may have misunderstood. I’m pretty sure it was the TWIV clinical update #65 in case anyone wants to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TCB said:

On TWIV last week Dr Daniel Griffin was talking about the possible myocarditis vaccine link. He said that the incidence was the same as (or ? less than) the usual incidence in the population, however the incidence of myocarditis in the general population has actually been lower than usual in recent times. Thought that was very interesting. He said usually it is a quite short illness and treated with ibuprofen for the inflammation. I’m getting a bit fuzzy about where I’ve heard different things, but I think he also said that a case he was personally aware of was after the young man had had the J&J vaccine.

That is not accurate. They are finding higher than normal incidents.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/evidence-grows-stronger-for-covid-vaccine-link-to-heart-issue-cdc-says/ar-AAKV9eB?ocid=msedgntp

They are also following up on all of these in six months to make sure there are no lasting issues. The CDC is concerned enough that they are having an emergency meeting next week to discuss.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/evidence-grows-stronger-for-covid-vaccine-link-to-heart-issue-cdc-says/ar-AAKV9eB?ocid=msedgntp

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation in Brazil has made me very anxious about the potential for reinfection.  Also, frankly, Mrs. Tiggywinkle's experience, although I know that's anecdotal.  

I do think infection conveys protection, but I've been hesitant to say how much because of what happened in Brazil.  But maybe that was an issue with the variants?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

The situation in Brazil has made me very anxious about the potential for reinfection.  Also, frankly, Mrs. Tiggywinkle's experience, although I know that's anecdotal.  

I do think infection conveys protection, but I've been hesitant to say how much because of what happened in Brazil.  But maybe that was an issue with the variants?

It's so hard to get good data out of this all 😕 . A LOT of stuff is anecdotal. 

At the moment, it looks like people staying put mostly don't get reinfected within a small number of months. Butt no one's measured this for any lengths of time, either for the vaccines or for natural immunity. It wouldn't be surprising if a year in our current COVID-mutation-happy world would be enough for the virus to bypass both types of immunity 😕 . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

It's so hard to get good data out of this all 😕 . A LOT of stuff is anecdotal. 

At the moment, it looks like people staying put mostly don't get reinfected within a small number of months. Butt no one's measured this for any lengths of time, either for the vaccines or for natural immunity. It wouldn't be surprising if a year in our current COVID-mutation-happy world would be enough for the virus to bypass both types of immunity 😕 . 

Didn't an awful lot of people in Brazil get re-infected in a pretty short period of time? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

Didn't an awful lot of people in Brazil get re-infected in a pretty short period of time? 

I have no idea. Did they? Last time I looked for any kind of reliable Brazilian data, I came far short. But if you have a link for that, I'd love to see. 

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...