Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Question - DD is 11. She turns 12 in November. She's going back to school in August and I don't think they will have any COVID precautions at the school. It's a Catholic school so I don't think will be high vaccine compliance amongst the teachers. It's a K-8 school so most kids will not be vaccinated. 

What do you think about lying about DD's birthday and getting her vaxxed with the Pfizer vaccine? There is a surplus of vaccines now so it wouldn't be taking a vaccine from someone else. 

 

I get the temptation, but I wouldn't do it.   I think the complications with the kids doesn't have to to do with weight because there are small size adults getting the same dose as 300lbs adults.  I think it has to do with their immune systems and the reactions.  I sure wouldn't just test on my own kid when that hasn't been approved yet.  

But also you would probably  have trouble tying her vaccination record to her.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

I get the temptation, but I wouldn't do it.   I think the complications with the kids doesn't have to to do with weight because there are small size adults getting the same dose as 300lbs adults.  I think it has to do with their immune systems and the reactions.  I sure wouldn't just test on my own kid when that hasn't been approved yet.  

Eh, I'd go with common sense and assume that a big kid who's started puberty is actually a good candidate for the vaccine and is likely to do better than smaller kids that are actually 12. 

 

2 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

But also you would probably  have trouble tying her vaccination record to her.  

This would be the deterrent for me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Question - DD is 11. She turns 12 in November. She's going back to school in August and I don't think they will have any COVID precautions at the school. It's a Catholic school so I don't think will be high vaccine compliance amongst the teachers. It's a K-8 school so most kids will not be vaccinated. 

What do you think about lying about DD's birthday and getting her vaxxed with the Pfizer vaccine? There is a surplus of vaccines now so it wouldn't be taking a vaccine from someone else. 

 

I wouldn't do it, because we don't even know what amount of vaccine is needed for it to work in an 11-year-old yet (it may well be less than for a 12-year-old), nor whether there will be reactions in that age group not seen (or not yet seen) in the 12-15 crowd. While it's not likely that there would be adverse consequences since trials in 12-year-olds have been successful, there could be a lot of problems if DD turns out to be the exception (especially since, being in the USA, getting the vaccine against medical advice).

Is there a trial to which DD can be signed, or is it feasible to defer returning to school until January? Indeed, if there are some special reasons why DD should be an exception, is there a doctor who would be willing to grant a medical exemption [EDIT: exemption to the conventional rules regarding vaccine administration] (if an exemption is to be granted, it definitely shouldn't be by internet forum but by professional medical opinion)?

Edited by ieta_cassiopeia
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Eh, I'd go with common sense and assume that a big kid who's started puberty is actually a good candidate for the vaccine and is likely to do better than smaller kids that are actually 12. 

 

This would be the deterrent for me. 

Yeah I bet it would probably be fine.  Probably.  But if your kid has any side effects and has to go to the doctor you have to report that you lied.  I am 100% a rule follower.   There is no way I would do it. I also am not going to  teaching my kids to not follow rules.  I have younger kids who I would love to have vaccination, but there isn't a way in the world that I would test them on something that hasn't been approved for their age (outside of being in a vaccine study). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kanin said:

So... This says that 117 people have died from Delta in the UK, and half of them were fully vaccinated? 

That seems bad on the surface, but over 85% of adults over 50 are vaccinated in the UK. That means 57% of the cases came from the less than 15% who were not fully vaccinated. 
 

eta: while this shows the vaccines are working very well, they’re not perfect and it illustrates why I don’t think anyone should think poorly of the fully vaccinated elderly who are still masking everywhere. Or the fully vaccinated young people, for that matter. 

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

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

That seems bad on the surface, but over 85% of adults over 50 are vaccinated in the UK. That means 57% of the cases came from the less than 15% who were not fully vaccinated. 

My brain hurts from constant analyzing. Thanks for this!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpt from today's NYT article with some really excellent news about the mRNA vaccines:

"Dr. Ellebedy’s team sought to address that question by looking at the source of memory cells: the lymph nodes, where immune cells train to recognize and fight the virus. After an infection or a vaccination, a specialized structure called the germinal center forms in lymph nodes. This structure is an elite school of sorts for B cells — a boot camp where they become increasingly sophisticated and learn to recognize a diverse set of viral genetic sequences. The broader the range and the longer these cells have to practice, the more likely they are to be able to thwart variants of the virus that may emerge.

 
“Everyone always focuses on the virus evolving — this is showing that the B cells are doing the same thing,” said Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “And it’s going to be protective against ongoing evolution of the virus, which is really encouraging.”
 
After infection with the coronavirus, the germinal center forms in the lungs. But after vaccination, the cells’ education takes place in lymph nodes in the armpits, within reach of researchers. Dr. Ellebedy and his colleagues recruited 41 people — including eight with a history of infection with the virus — who were immunized with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. From 14 of these people, the team extracted samples from the lymph nodes at three, four, five, seven and 15 weeks after the first dose. That painstaking work makes this a “heroic study,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale. “This kind of careful time-course analysis in humans is very difficult to do.”
 
Dr. Ellebedy’s team found that 15 weeks after the first dose of vaccine, the germinal center was still highly active in all 14 of the participants, and that the number of memory cells that recognized the coronavirus had not declined. “The fact that the reactions continued for almost four months after vaccination — that’s a very, very good sign,” Dr. Ellebedy said. Germinal centers typically peak one to two weeks after immunization, and then wane. “Usually by four to six weeks, there’s not much left,” said Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona. But germinal centers stimulated by the mRNA vaccines are “still going, months into it, and not a lot of decline in most people.” Dr. Bhattacharya noted that most of what scientists know about the persistence of germinal centers is based on animal research. The new study is the first to show what happens in people after vaccination.
 
The results suggest that a vast majority of vaccinated people will be protected over the long term — at least, against the existing coronavirus variants. But older adults, people with weak immune systems and those who take drugs that suppress immunity may need boosters; people who survived Covid-19 and were later immunized may never need them at all.
 
Exactly how long the protection from mRNA vaccines will last is hard to predict. In the absence of variants that sidestep immunity, in theory immunity could last a lifetime, experts said. But the virus is clearly evolving. “Anything that would actually require a booster would be variant-based, not based on waning of immunity,” Dr. Bhattacharya said. “I just don’t see that happening.”
 
People who were infected with the coronavirus and then immunized see a major boost in their antibody levels, most likely because their memory B cells — which produce antibodies — had many months to evolve before vaccination. The good news: A booster vaccine will probably have the same effect as prior infection in immunized people, Dr. Ellebedy said. “If you give them another chance to engage, they will have a massive response,” he said, referring to memory B cells.
 
In terms of bolstering the immune system, vaccination is “probably better” than recovering from the actual infection, he said. Other studies have suggested that the repertoire of memory B cells produced after vaccination is more diverse than that generated by infection, suggesting that the vaccines will protect better against variants than natural immunity alone.
 

 


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

3 hours ago, Penelope said:

There are questions about whether people who got J&J should get an mRNA booster shot because of Delta, or just because it’s one dose, and mixed opinions with no data. Andy Slavitt said he asked several experts and some said wait for data, while others said you could get a booster if you want. I don’t know how feasible that is to do if you are already in a registry as having been vaccinated.

I wish there was a firm recommendation about this.  I would get a booster today if it was recommended. I haven't seen anything about the two dose J&J trials, either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also news on AZ that is being widely reported today, but many of the stories miss or gloss over the actual significance of the study. What is being reported is that a 3rd dose of AZ further boosts immunity, but there's no reason to believe that a booster is currently necessary. What's really important about the study, though, is that it alleviates concerns that boosters for adenovirus vaccines might not work well because the body would react to the adenovirus rather than the coronavirus. That's why Sputnik uses two different adenoviruses in the first & second doses, and why there are trials combining mixed vaccines to see if those work better than repeated doses that use the same adenovirus. This small (n = 30) AZ trial showed that a 3rd shot of AZ continued to stimulate an immune response.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/28/world/astrazeneca-vaccine-booster-shot.html

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Germinal centers typically peak one to two weeks after immunization, and then wane. “Usually by four to six weeks, there’s not much left,” said Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona. But germinal centers stimulated by the mRNA vaccines are “still going, months into it, and not a lot of decline in most people.” 

Any ideas why it would be that the mRNA vaccines would stimulate the germinal centers differently than other vaccines? It seems like the mRNA is just the method for getting the spike protein produced by the body so the immune system can respond to it. I’m trying to think why the method by which the spike protein comes about would change the immune response to it  (I’m not an immunologist, clearly). I would think they would need to look at the same germinal centers in people who have been given different kinds of COVID-19 vaccines, to see if it’s specific to the type of vaccine, or if it’s more to do with to this particular spike protein, and similar would be seen with any of the vaccines that introduce the spike protein in one way or another. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I'm curious where you read that, because that's not what the preprint says: 

"Vaccination status was considered as dose 1 for symptom onset 21 days or more after the first dose up to the day before the second dose was received; dose 2 for symptom onset = 14 days or more after the second dose."

So the 33% stat for 1 dose actually covers days 21 to 120.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v1.full.pdf

There are higher numbers for hospitalization.

https://khub.net/web/phe-national/public-library/-/document_library/v2WsRK3ZlEig/view_file/479607329?_com_liferay_document_library_web_portlet_DLPortlet_INSTANCE_v2WsRK3ZlEig_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fkhub.net%3A443%2Fweb%2Fphe-national%2Fpublic-library%2F-%2Fdocument_library%2Fv2WsRK3ZlEig%2Fview%2F479607266

 

I did see something else on an article and some feed that said personal communication with the authors showed analysis of the 33% after dose one was higher after 14 days, but maybe they meant something else, or I am confused. I don’t see it in the paper. 
But there is this unpublished from India that showed workers had about the same percentage of infections after one dose as they did after two doses.https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/covid-vaccines-provided-protection-in-over-95-pc-of-vaccinated-healthcare-workers-says-study20210616200420/


From this report, though, with alpha there was only 49% effectiveness of first dose, but I didn’t seem to hear as much concern then about the one dose strategy. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997418/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf
page 38-39.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Penelope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, KSera said:

Any ideas why it would be that the mRNA vaccines would stimulate the germinal centers differently than other vaccines? It seems like the mRNA is just the method for getting the spike protein produced by the body so the immune system can respond to it. I’m trying to think why the method by which the spike protein comes about would change the immune response to it  (I’m not an immunologist, clearly). I would think they would need to look at the same germinal centers in people who have been given different kinds of COVID-19 vaccines, to see if it’s specific to the type of vaccine, or if it’s more to do with to this particular spike protein, and similar would be seen with any of the vaccines that introduce the spike protein in one way or another. 

AFAIK there is no similar research on other covid vaccines yet, so the comparison is to other types of vaccines. This is from the preprint:

"More robust [germinal center] responses are consistent with antigen dissemination to multiple [lymph nodes] and the self-adjuvating characteristics of the mRNA/lipid nanoparticle vaccine platform compared to nonadjuvanted inactivated vaccines used for seasonal influenza virus vaccination."

and 

"GC responses induced by immunization with more robust adjuvants such as sheep red blood cells, complete Freund’s adjuvant, or saponin-based adjuvants tend to peak slightly later, 2–4 weeks after vaccination, and can persist at low frequencies for several months. Although studies of extended durability are rare, antigen-specific GC B cells have been found to persist for at least one year, albeit at very low levels. In this study, we show SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-induced GC B cells are maintained at or near peak frequencies for at least 12 weeks after secondary immunization."

I know that Novavax uses a saponin-based adjuvant, but I don't know what adjuvants (if any) the other vaccines use.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that is saying that mRNA has a timeline of germinal center development similar to adjuvanted vaccines? 

I have seen comments by immunologists and virologists suggesting that the lipid particle may be acting as a kind of adjuvant. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

So that is saying that mRNA has a timeline of germinal center development similar to adjuvanted vaccines? 

I have seen comments by immunologists and virologists suggesting that the lipid particle may be acting as a kind of adjuvant. 

It seems to suggest that the "self-adjuvanting" characteristic of the lipid particle is significantly better than the other adjuvants mentioned, because the GC B cells persist at peak levels for at least 12 weeks after the 2nd shot, instead of peaking and then quickly waning to very low levels, as occurs with other adjuvants.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

I wouldn't do it, because we don't even know what amount of vaccine is needed for it to work in an 11-year-old yet (it may well be less than for a 12-year-old), nor whether there will be reactions in that age group not seen (or not yet seen) in the 12-15 crowd. While it's not likely that there would be adverse consequences since trials in 12-year-olds have been successful, there could be a lot of problems if DD turns out to be the exception (especially since, being in the USA, getting the vaccine against medical advice).

Is there a trial to which DD can be signed, or is it feasible to defer returning to school until January? Indeed, if there are some special reasons why DD should be an exception, is there a doctor who would be willing to grant a medical exemption [EDIT: exemption to the conventional rules regarding vaccine administration] (if an exemption is to be granted, it definitely shouldn't be by internet forum but by professional medical opinion)?

They determined dosing in phase 1&2.  The current phase 3 Pfizer trial is 10 micrograms for 5-11 year olds and 5 micrograms for the under 5.  The adult dose is 30 micrograms.  I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, just adding more info.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines Likely to Produce Lasting Immunity, Study Finds - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

The vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna set off a persistent immune reaction in the body that may protect against the coronavirus for years, scientists reported on Monday. The findings add to growing evidence that most people immunized with the mRNA vaccines may not need boosters, so long as the virus and its variants do not evolve much beyond their current forms — which is not guaranteed. People who recovered from Covid-19 before being vaccinated may not need boosters even if the virus does make a significant transformation. “It’s a good sign for how durable our immunity is from this vaccine,” said Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis who led the study, which was published in the journal Nature. The study did not consider the coronavirus vaccine made by Johnson & Johnson, but Dr. Ellebedy said he expected the immune response to be less durable than that produced by mRNA vaccines.

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

18 hours ago, Corraleno said:

It seems to suggest that the "self-adjuvanting" characteristic of the lipid particle is significantly better than the other adjuvants mentioned, because the GC B cells persist at peak levels for at least 12 weeks after the 2nd shot, instead of peaking and then quickly waning to very low levels, as occurs with other adjuvants.

I read through parts of it a few times and read another article about it. I need an immuno-translator, LOL. If it is significant maybe they will discuss on TWiV or Immune. 

But I’m not sure it can be concluding the above, or what I said before, either, because most of the other work discussed and referenced was in animals or cell cultures, as far as I can tell. Maybe there is significance in the study beyond what it says about SARS-CoV2 vaccines. 
 

I guess the good news takeaway is that vaccine-induced immunity should last a long time without need for boosters anytime soon, which parallels nicely with everything they have learned so far about persistence of immunity with T-cells, memory B-cells, antibodies following infection. 

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

Major outbreak in unvaccinated teens and staff at a church camp in Illinois:

"The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) is now reporting 85 teens and adult staff tested positive for COVID-19 while attending a summer youth camp in mid-June in central Illinois. One unvaccinated young adult was hospitalized. Although all campers and staff were eligible for vaccination, IDPH said it was aware of only a handful of campers and staff receiving the vaccine.

The camp was not checking vaccination status and masking was not required while indoors.

A few individuals who were at the camp also attended a nearby conference, which resulted in 11 additional cases. At least 70% of those cases were unvaccinated.

While the state's news release didn't name the camp, the Peoria Journal Starciting county health officials, reported the outbreak at Crossing Camp in Rushville, a church camp located in Schuyler County."

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/06/28/covid-19-summer-camp-illinois/

  • Sad 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the latest official figures on Covid cases (which will be mostly Delta) in Scotland, with the relevant vaccine status below.  There seems to be a correlation, but there may be behavioural aspects too - younger people going out more and perhaps taking more risks.  I don't know the percentage of the population in each group, but we are not a young society.  In the vaccine graph, the dark bars are one jab, the light bars two.

image.png.03f77a17db2df6986f46b7f9d36f8c2c.png

image.png.e93a77ed47679fb7d61d386cc693e2ea.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report on J&J breakthrough infections in South Africa, mostly Delta and Beta variants. Press release, study pending.

https://www.samrc.ac.za/media-release/vast-majority-breakthrough-infections-vaccinated-health-workers-are-mild

Quote

Cape Town | Given the intensity of the third wave and spread of the delta variant, the Sisonke investigators would like to update health workers and the public regarding new data on the JnJ vaccine, and the pattern of breakthrough infections in our health workers vaccinated as part of the phase 3b study.  

Breakthrough infections following the JnJ vaccine are defined as a positive COVID-19 test more than 28 days following vaccination. Some people test positive on routine screening (for example when being admitted to hospital for a non-COVID-19 procedure or following exposure at work) and some following development of symptoms or contact with another person with COVID-19. We track these through daily linkages to national COVID-19 registries of laboratory and hospitalisation data and through reports to the Sisonke desk. These are then passed onto our breakthrough infection team who confirm the infection and timing, make contact with the health worker and if appropriate attending doctor, and establish the severity of the infection. Consistently we are finding that 94% of breakthrough infections are mild, 4% are moderate and only 2% severe.

Report breakthrough infections: We encourage health workers who get COVID-19 or admit a vaccinated health worker to be in touch so that we can assess severity of infection, and if severe arrange for immediate sequencing of the virus from the affected health worker. We aim to sequence all severe infections. This week sequencing shows a similar pattern of variants to that in the general population with predominance of beta and delta variants. These findings are in line with other new data suggesting that a single-dose of the JnJ vaccine protects against variants of concern including the delta variant.

Quote

New laboratory and immunogenicity (antibody) studies from the United States show that over time that immune responses induced by the JnJ vaccine mature and covers variants of concern such as the beta and delta variants. More details will be available within the next week following scientific publication. We are replicating laboratory virus neutralisation studies using serum from health workers who enrolled in our more detailed Sisonke sub-studies.

Co-principal investigator Professor Glenda Gray notes that “the single dose vaccine, designed for emergency use is safe and easy to use. We have mounting data to suggest that immunity increases over time and that it retains its efficacy against important variants such as beta and delta.”

Co-principal investigator Professor Linda-Gail Bekker adds “keeping individuals out of ICU and off ventilators is an important outcome. I’m very reassured that the vast majority of breakthrough infections in Sisonke are mild. We believe that recommending booster top-ups with another vaccine is premature. We hold in mind that South Africa has only vaccinated 3 of the 41 million people it needs to safeguard its people against severe COVID-19”.

 

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

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

...

 Consistently we are finding that 94% of breakthrough infections are mild, 4% are moderate and only 2% severe.

Unfortunately that article doesn't include any info about the actual rate of breakthrough infections, nor what the percentages of mild/moderate/severe cases are in the unvaccinated. E.g., if 6% of breakthrough cases are moderate to severe, compared to 30% of unvaxxed cases, that is a much greater benefit than if only 9% of unvaxxed cases are moderate to severe. It's also critical to know what percentage of vaxxed people are having breakthrough cases to begin with — if the percentage of vaxxed people with breakthrough infections is very low, then the moderate to severe cases are 6% of 15% (or whatever) vs something like 6% of 50%. Without those numbers, it's impossible to put the 94/4/2 rates in context.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Unfortunately that article doesn't include any info about the actual rate of breakthrough infections, nor what the percentages of mild/moderate/severe cases are in the unvaccinated. E.g., if 6% of breakthrough cases are moderate to severe, compared to 30% of unvaxxed cases, that is a much greater benefit than if only 9% of unvaxxed cases are moderate to severe. It's also critical to know what percentage of vaxxed people are having breakthrough cases to begin with — if the percentage of vaxxed people with breakthrough infections is very low, then the moderate to severe cases are 6% of 15% (or whatever) vs something like 6% of 50%. Without those numbers, it's impossible to put the 94/4/2 rates in context.

Yes, if they know the percentages, they also know the raw numbers, so I wish they would have been more specific. In order for the numbers to mean much to us, we need to know how many people were vaccinated, and how many of those people had breakthrough infections. If the study was only 100 people and all 100 had breakthrough infections, that would be much different than if the study included 1 million people and there were 100 breakthrough infections. Details matter!

I hate these snippets of information that seem designed to encourage us, but end up making us more frustrated and confused than we already were. 

Don't get me wrong — I am still pleased to hear that the vaccine seems to be preventing the most severe cases of Covid; I would just like them to release more details about the actual number of breakthrough cases and how many people were vaccinated in total.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Catwoman said:

Yes, if they know the percentages, they also know the raw numbers, so I wish they would have been more specific. In order for the numbers to mean much to us, we need to know how many people were vaccinated, and how many of those people had breakthrough infections. If the study was only 100 people and all 100 had breakthrough infections, that would be much different than if the study included 1 million people and there were 100 breakthrough infections. Details matter!

I hate these snippets of information that seem designed to encourage us, but end up making us more frustrated and confused than we already were. 

Don't get me wrong — I am still pleased to hear that the vaccine seems to be preventing the most severe cases of Covid; I would just like them to release more details about the actual number of breakthrough cases and how many people were vaccinated in total.

Some published numbers will reportedly be released tomorrow, and word is that something else about J&J and Delta will be published shortly. 

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

20 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

The update I saw this morning showed J&J is mathematically predicted to be 55-60% effective against symptomatic disease with delta.  You can find the update and the relevant links here

Thanks! I have read other articles that have said J&J is anywhere between 72 and 88% effective against the Delta strain. 

It would be nice to hear more consistent information.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That 60% is based on a model, not real data.

This is the discussion from the neutralization study. Since it did have a high effectiveness against the most severe outcomes with Beta and Gamma, and Delta doesn’t seem to reduce the neutralization as much as those (similar to results with other vaccines), this seems positive.

ETA in trial, 64%  symptomatic disease for S Africa (almost all cases beta), 68% Brazil (69% of cases P1). So theoretically should be slightly better numbers, or at least higher 60’s, for Delta.

Quote

As compared to the neutralizing activity in Ad26.COV2.S elicited immune sera against the B.1 virus, neutralizing activity is more strongly reduced against the Beta (B.1.351) and Gamma (P.1) variants than against the rapidly spreading Delta (B.1.617.2) variant. These results are in line with recently published studies in which sera from subjects who received the Moderna, Pfizer‐BioNTech, or Oxford‐ AstraZeneca COVID‐19 vaccines were tested for neutralizing activity against VOCs 7, 8. For all the vaccines, the reduction in neutralization titer was greater for the Beta (B.1.351) than observed for the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant.
At this point, no vaccine efficacy against the Delta variant is available although Real World Evidence studies have suggested that Pfizer‐BioNTech and Astra‐Zeneca vaccines are effective against this new variant 9. The Janssen COVID‐19 vaccine efficacy (VE) against the Delta variant of concern is currently unknown and may become available from our ongoing phase 3 trials only later this year. However, we have observed high VE against severe COVID‐19 in South Africa, with full protection against COVID‐19 related hospitalization and death 1, while >95% of cases with available sequence information were classified as the Beta (B.1.351) variant against which neutralizing activity on day 29 was more severely impacted. This strongly suggests that VE of a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S against Delta variant will be preserved as well, either because lower neutralizing antibody titers are still sufficient to protect or by the contribution of non‐neutralizing antibody functions and the strong cellular immune responses that Ad26.COV2.S elicits.

 

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

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, melmichigan said:

The update I saw this morning showed J&J is mathematically predicted to be 55-60% effective against symptomatic disease with delta.  You can find the update and the relevant links here

I have wondered about some things this blogger writes that seem to be at odds with what others are saying, at least overstating things. She got her PhD a few years ago, and her dissertation was on bullying; her degree is in Violence and Injury epidemiology. She is very knowledgeable, but she is not an infectious disease epi., and so many specialists are publicly sharing info these days, that IMO there are better sources of info for these things, YMMV.
(We can see with someone like Eric Feigl-Ding that being an epidemiologist doesn’t mean your Covid information isn’t as inaccurate as some of the conspiracy theorists, LOL, not that this blog is anything like that). 

Anyway, she bases the 60% on a paper that was published six weeks ago and does not specifically address any variant, so maybe it’s useful, but I am not worrying about a number based on it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8

 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I have wondered about some things this blogger writes that seem to be at odds with what others are saying, at least overstating things. She got her PhD a few years ago, and her dissertation was on bullying; her degree is in Violence and Injury epidemiology. She is very knowledgeable, but she is not an infectious disease epi., and so many specialists are publicly sharing info these days, that IMO there are better sources of info for these things, YMMV.

Anyway, she bases the 60% on a paper that was published six weeks ago and does not specifically address any variant, so maybe it’s useful, but I am not worrying about a number based on it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8

 

I think that there is very much a "pick and choose" amongst data points from various scientists, one only has to look at the Canadian vaccine file on Pfizer's effectiveness studies to see that in play.  I don't think we will have adequate, reliable, real world numbers for some time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

Thanks! I have read other articles that have said J&J is anywhere between 72 and 88% effective against the Delta strain. 

It would be nice to hear more consistent information.

The other problem I see most is that we are continually talking about different things.  The numbers are different when speaking of symptomatic disease versus serious disease and death.  So while 55-60% may be against all symptomatic disease, however mild, the number would then be higher when it comes to hospitalization and deaths.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

I think that there is very much a "pick and choose" amongst data points from various scientists, one only has to look at the Canadian vaccine file on Pfizer's effectiveness studies to see that in play.  I don't think we will have adequate, reliable, real world numbers for some time. 

Oh, probably. But someone with much more domain expertise knows what is relevant and when, and what to toss. Even infectious disease epidemiologists could have an issue with this when they don’t know as much about immunology and vaccines, when that isn’t their usual area of work. 

The South African Sisonke trial, where apparently the little vaccination they’ve done has been mostly (or all?) with J&J is supposed to provide some real world numbers today, we’ll see.
 

I’m curious now what the Canadian vaccine files say that might be picking and choosing. 

51 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

The other problem I see most is that we are continually talking about different things.  The numbers are different when speaking of symptomatic disease versus serious disease and death.  So while 55-60% may be against all symptomatic disease, however mild, the number would then be higher when it comes to hospitalization and deaths.

 

Yes, like how mRNA and AZ are both somewhere in the mid-90’s for the latter, despite differences in preventing symptomatic disease. J&J will likely be very high for that metric, also, but hope the info comes soon. But now that we have info for Delta with other vaccines since that model was published, I wonder about its relevancy.
 

I am not as concerned about younger people I know who got one dose (and may be at higher risk from nasty effects from a second dose of either type of vaccine), because any relative risk reduction isn’t going to be such a big problem when the absolute risk from Covid is already so low. But for the elderly or otherwise high risk person who only got one dose, I really hope we get more data soon. 
 

ETA- and I wish they would have all used exactly the same definitions for any symptomatic, moderate, severe, etc. It gets a little confusing.

Maybe that’s why I tend to think more about hospitalization, too, because it’s a harder endpoint. I hope to avoid even “moderate” illness at home, and sure, I don’t want to catch this even mildly and give it to someone else, but on the practical level, I do not care at all about a functional case of the sniffles and am not worried I will get long Covid from a very mild case while having pre-existing immunity. 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did someone posts this yet about Moderna? Modest reductions of neutralizing antibody titer in lab compared to wild type and alpha, similar to that seen with Pfizer and J&J, but vaccine should still work. 

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.449914v1

Quote

Sera from participants immunized on a prime-boost schedule with the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine were tested for neutralizing activity against several SARS-CoV-2 variants, including variants of concern (VOCs) and variants of interest (VOIs), compared to neutralization of the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus (designated as D614G). Results showed minimal effects on neutralization titers against the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant (1.2-fold reduction compared with D614G); other VOCs such as B.1.351 (Beta, including B.1.351-v1, B.1.351-v2, and B.1.351-v3), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and P.1 (Gamma) showed decreased neutralization titers ranging from 2.1-fold to 8.4-fold reductions compared with D614G, although all remained susceptible to mRNA-1273–elicited serum neutralization.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-29/moderna-s-covid-shot-produces-antibodies-against-delta-variant

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

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, melmichigan said:

I think that there is very much a "pick and choose" amongst data points from various scientists, one only has to look at the Canadian vaccine file on Pfizer's effectiveness studies to see that in play.  I don't think we will have adequate, reliable, real world numbers for some time. 

Can you point me to this please?  Is this referring to efficacy after first dose?

Canada definitely has adopted a certain amount of make-it-up-as-we-go-along (in a calculated and well-reasoned fashion, I think) with respect to delayed first dose and miseducating dose regimens, because of poor/unreliable supply.

Edited by wathe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Singapore’s government recommended that vaccinated people avoid strenuous physical activity for a week after getting the shots, as a few cases surfaced of mostly young men experiencing heart problems from receiving jabs while a teenager suffered from cardiac arrest.

The Health Ministry updated its guidance on Monday for all those seeking vaccinations, particularly adolescents and men below 30 years, to avoid strenuous exercise for week after either the first or second dose as a “further precautionary measure.” Initially, it was a 12-24 hour period for refraining from exercise and on June 11, it was extended to one week after getting the second dose.

Quote

Singaporean health officials will investigate the case of a 16-year-old student who suffered from cardiac arrest after lifting weights to determine if there was a link to his Covid-19 vaccination, the government said.

The student got his first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine on June 27 without incident. Prior to his collapse on July 3, he weightlifted at the gym using very heavy weights.

“The preliminary diagnosis of his condition is an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Clinical and laboratory tests are in progress to understand the underlying cause,” the Health Ministry said. “This will include a thorough consideration of whether there was acute severe myocarditis, which is severe inflammation of the heart muscles affecting the heart function, as a possible diagnosis.”

Singapore’s Health Science Authority disclosed it received reports of heart problems experienced by 12 people after their vaccinations as of June 30. Seven of the cases involved males 30 years and below, which the government said was higher-than-expected for this age group.

About 61% of the Singapore’s population have received the first vaccine jab, according to July 3 data compiled by Bloomberg, while 37.6% are fully inoculated. The government has made high vaccination rates a key condition for reopening the economy safely, including the resumption of leisure travel.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-05/singapore-investigates-cardiac-arrest-of-vaccinated-teenager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2021 at 2:53 PM, wathe said:

Can you point me to this please?  Is this referring to efficacy after first dose?

Canada definitely has adopted a certain amount of make-it-up-as-we-go-along (in a calculated and well-reasoned fashion, I think) with respect to delayed first dose and miseducating dose regimens, because of poor/unreliable supply.

 It was posted here on the board when Canada approved the Pfizer vaccine and included a list of studies/trials on the vaccine.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

86.6 percent of adults in Scotland have had at least one jab. 62.4 have had two. The UK is not using J and J. The youngest adults can book, but not all have had their first appointment and there doesn't seem to be a plateau in demand yet. Vaccination has not been opened to children  - vaccine supplies are being reserved for adults.

Screenshot_20210706-125453_Chrome.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

My husband had J&J back in April. He would like to boost that with the Pfizer. Has anyone done this? Or heard whether its even allowed? I'm wondering if our insurance would reject it. 

In light of the article about Germany shared above....if one does follow up the AZ or J&J with a mRNA vaccine, would one just get one dose or two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, popmom said:

 

My husband had J&J back in April. He would like to boost that with the Pfizer. Has anyone done this? Or heard whether its even allowed? I'm wondering if our insurance would reject it. 

In light of the article about Germany shared above....if one does follow up the AZ or J&J with a mRNA vaccine, would one just get one dose or two?

The protocol here (Canada) in my province AZ first dose is  followed by mRNA single dose only at 8 weeks.  If, down the line, data suggest that a second mRNA dose is required, then the protocol will likely be adjusted, but so far the plan is for a single mRNA dose only.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say….until they work out the myocarditis thing the vaccine is a hard no here for both me and my DD.  I have two male cousins who have had heart transplants due to myocarditis.  One is a second cousin who had a transplant when I was a teen, the other is my direct cousin who received his transplant around the same age as our second cousin was when he had his.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, popmom said:

 

My husband had J&J back in April. He would like to boost that with the Pfizer. Has anyone done this? Or heard whether its even allowed? I'm wondering if our insurance would reject it. 

In light of the article about Germany shared above....if one does follow up the AZ or J&J with a mRNA vaccine, would one just get one dose or two?

I’ve heard some people have managed to have it done, but others have been told no because it’s not CDC recommended yet. Hopefully they will remedy that, because we have enough vaccine and it’s looking like a good idea. (I wouldn’t expect insurance to come into it, since the shots are free and you don’t have to provide insurance information if you don’t want to.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sdel said:

I have to say….until they work out the myocarditis thing the vaccine is a hard no here for both me and my DD.  I have two male cousins who have had heart transplants due to myocarditis.  One is a second cousin who had a transplant when I was a teen, the other is my direct cousin who received his transplant around the same age as our second cousin was when he had his.

In your case, I would wait for Novavax. 

  • Like 2
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...