Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Saying they can have a variant-specific booster ready within three months is then... quite misleading.  Yeah, ready in three months, but not in arms for another... year?  I thought the whole idea is that with the variant tweaking, it's still the same basic vaccine so it wouldn't have to go through the full approval time-line as for the original one.  With this timeline, Delta will have ripped through the population and be done before they get anything ready for use...

I guess I'd be surprised if they could skip the information-gathering like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

How many hours reserve so they typically run with?  Is it a just in time thing or is there normally a supply?

I don't know how many usually, but we have multiple cities saying that they are having to divert oxygen used to purify water to hospitals to be used for covid patients. To the point that multiple places may have no clean water soon. 

so no, this is NOT normal. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Here's one that isn't: 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties

Super interesting. And I'd guess most of those people were infected right around the time when the vaccinations started, so the length of the immunity looks like it's longer for the natural infection, too. 

I talked about this in another thread where someone linked to it, but the abstract says that the best protection was natural infection followed by at least one dose of the vaccine. Which is the same thing that study in KY showed. I'm very curious if the reverse is true: does a breakthrough case boost immunity and provide more protection against future infection? (I would imagine it does; I don't see why it wouldn't)...since obviously a vaccine followed by a probably mild breakthrough case is a lot better than taking one's chances with natural infection before a vaccine. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Saying they can have a variant-specific booster ready within three months is then... quite misleading.  Yeah, ready in three months, but not in arms for another... year?  I thought the whole idea is that with the variant tweaking, it's still the same basic vaccine so it wouldn't have to go through the full approval time-line as for the original one.  With this timeline, Delta will have ripped through the population and be done before they get anything ready for use...

It doesn't have to go through the same approval process as the first iteration of the vaccine, there is supposedly an "expedited approval process" for variant tweaks, but as we've seen so far, "expedited" can mean several months instead of several years. With as fast as this virus mutates, I imagine there may be some hesitance to immediately switch all manufacturing processes over to a new variant-specific vaccine that may not even be the dominant one once everything is ready to go. If a booster of the existing vaccines significantly improves protection and can be deployed immediately without having to wait for new trial data, that actually may be the most efficient and cost-effective way to go.

IMO what might make the most sense would be to look at the most common and dangerous mutations that have occurred across the whole spectrum of variants, and try to tailor a vaccine towards a sort of "frankenvirus" that combines all those traits, in the hopes that that may provide decent protection against many emerging variants.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I talked about this in another thread where someone linked to it, but the abstract says that the best protection was natural infection followed by at least one dose of the vaccine. Which is the same thing that study in KY showed. I'm very curious if the reverse is true: does a breakthrough case boost immunity and provide more protection against future infection? (I would imagine it does; I don't see why it wouldn't)...since obviously a vaccine followed by a probably mild breakthrough case is a lot better than taking one's chances with natural infection before a vaccine. 

I'm hoping so. Me, I'm planning to go out and not worry about Delta as soon as we're all vaxxed 😛 . Unless I hear alarming things about long COVID in breakthroughs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Our state's covid vax dashboard (as of yesterday) shows total number of vaccinations, all ages, as 126 more than total number of vaccinations, ages 12+.  What could that mean, other than some providers are vaxing kids under 12?  (Unless there are people for whom they don't have the age.?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

Our state's covid vax dashboard (as of yesterday) shows total number of vaccinations, all ages, as 126 more than total number of vaccinations, ages 12+.  What could that mean, other than some providers are vaxing kids under 12?  (Unless there are people for whom they don't have the age.?)

Data entry error.  
 

Edit:  or the different parts of the dashboard getting data from different sources and one updates faster than another.

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

9 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

How many hours reserve so they typically run with?  Is it a just in time thing or is there normally a supply?

This is what I wondered when I read that as well, and still haven’t found an answer. I did read they are having trouble with getting their deliveries due to drivers being out sick, so a hospital might get down to 12 hours of oxygen left and be waiting for their driver who is 12 hours overdue. 

1 hour ago, mommyoffive said:

I read a discussion of this last night that emphasized the survivor bias in this data. It’s great news that people who have been infected and recovered have decent protection against Delta, at least for a good while, but a whole lot of people didn’t make it out the other side of that experience, and many more endured being very sick and hospitalized in order to get that immunity. So, while it’s good news for those who have survived, it’s not at all a reason that people should pursue getting infected rather than getting vaccinated. The immunity difference is clearly not at all worth that risk. And still, being vaccinated after being infected more than doubles the protection from repeat infection.  

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

18 minutes ago, KSera said:

I read a discussion of this last night that emphasized the survivor bias in this data. It’s great news that people who have been infected and recovered have decent protection against Delta, at least for a good while, but a whole lot of people didn’t make it out the other side of that experience, and many more endured being very sick and hospitalized in order to get that immunity. So, while it’s good news for those who have survived, it’s not at all a reason that people should pursue getting infected rather than getting vaccinated. The immunity difference is clearly not at all worth that risk. And still, being vaccinated after being infected more than doubles the protection from repeat infection.  

This is like the argument that we don't need car seats because we all survived childhood without them.  But the people saying this also almost universally weren't in serious crashes - most of kids who got into crashes without carseats didn't survive to tell us about their experience.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kokotg said:

I talked about this in another thread where someone linked to it, but the abstract says that the best protection was natural infection followed by at least one dose of the vaccine. Which is the same thing that study in KY showed. I'm very curious if the reverse is true: does a breakthrough case boost immunity and provide more protection against future infection? (I would imagine it does; I don't see why it wouldn't)...since obviously a vaccine followed by a probably mild breakthrough case is a lot better than taking one's chances with natural infection before a vaccine. 

This is what i'm hoping - that my most exposed person, 22 yr old DS is now pretty super immune after vaccination plus breakthrough infection. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KSera said:

This is what I wondered when I read that as well, and still haven’t found an answer. I did read they are having trouble with getting their deliveries due to drivers being out sick, so a hospital might get down to 12 hours of oxygen left and be waiting for their driver who is 12 hours overdue. 

I read a discussion of this last night that emphasized the survivor bias in this data. It’s great news that people who have been infected and recovered have decent protection against Delta, at least for a good while, but a whole lot of people didn’t make it out the other side of that experience, and many more endured being very sick and hospitalized in order to get that immunity. So, while it’s good news for those who have survived, it’s not at all a reason that people should pursue getting infected rather than getting vaccinated. The immunity difference is clearly not at all worth that risk. And still, being vaccinated after being infected more than doubles the protection from repeat infection.  

I also wonder whether someone is likelier to have a documented infection if one had a bad case. Probably lots of people don't wind up with it recorded... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is undoubtedly survivor bias in the data, but I kind of think there is a plausible mechanism as well.  In an infection we make antibodies to a whole bunch of different places on the pathogen.  They are more or less effective depending on where they bind, but in vax we only make a very specific type of antibody.  It does seem logical that having a mishmash of antibodies would better protect against variants, even if there are fewer antibodies overall, because the virus would have to have a functional change in multiple places to evade all of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Pfizer says a 3rd shot of the original vaccine significantly boosted antibodies above the level of the original shot, and it was even more effective for the elderly — I think it was something like 10x increase in over 65s and 5x in younger people. Moderna's booster though just brought the antibody levels back up to where they were after the original two doses.

 

I thought I heard that the original shot as a booster gave better protection than the Delta specific one as a booster, but I might have dreamt that lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TexasProud said:

Every 5 months? Forever? Not comfortable with those chemicals in my body that often. I never take medicine 

I don’t think there is any reason to believe that the time frame between doses 2 and 3 will then be repeated.  What other vaccines work that way besides dog rabies? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

I don’t think there is any reason to believe that the time frame between doses 2 and 3 will then be repeated.  What other vaccines work that way besides dog rabies? 

and even rabies we now have ever 3 year boosters

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Every 5 months? Forever? Not comfortable with those chemicals in my body that often. I never take medicine 

They discussed the pros and cons of shortening the interval of time between the second and third (the booster) doses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

All other sources I have seen say AT five months after primary vaccination.  Huge difference! Prepositions matter.

"Every" makes no sense since we don't know yet how effective one booster is. But th NY post isn't exactly the pinnacle of journalism 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 12
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

Biden and Fauci discussed Israel’s data after administering the third booster there. The US was planning to recommend waiting eight months and might change that to five or six months.

I wonder if the only reason they're hesitating about 5-6 months is that it would mean so many lower risk people all eligible right away, and they want to give the higher risk people who got their first round early on a chance to get in there first. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

I wonder if the only reason they're hesitating about 5-6 months is that it would mean so many lower risk people all eligible right away, and they want to give the higher risk people who got their first round early on a chance to get in there first. 

The science pretty clear that it's 5-6 months. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I wonder if the only reason they're hesitating about 5-6 months is that it would mean so many lower risk people all eligible right away, and they want to give the higher risk people who got their first round early on a chance to get in there first. 

I think they could say 5-6 months, do special clinics for health workers and elderly adults in group settings, do some pop ups for those who also qualified early, but aren't in those groups, and let the rest of us find our way to an Appointment at CVS or Walmart. There are so many more vsccination sites and options now than back in Dec/Jan/Feb. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I wonder if the only reason they're hesitating about 5-6 months is that it would mean so many lower risk people all eligible right away, and they want to give the higher risk people who got their first round early on a chance to get in there first. 

Possibly. We should definitely give priority to our HCWs.

Those who are immunocompromised should also be prioritized because they don’t have a robust enough response with just two doses.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

Possibly. We should definitely give priority to our HCWs.

Those who are immunocompromised should also be prioritized because they don’t have a robust enough response with just two doses.

immunocompromised are eligible now, and hopefully getting the third dose already. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

I love this analogy from that article: 

We need to think about the vaccine as a very good raincoat. If it's drizzling outside — if the level of infection isn't very high — the vaccines will protect very well. But if it's a constant thunderstorm, then there's a higher chance of getting wet. A vaccinated person is at higher risk when surrounded by a lot of people who could be infected with Covid-19, and that's what occurring throughout the US right now.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you guys see this? 

 

The NRB's policy is "neutrality" about the vaccine. That's insane. What's next? "Neutrality" about the measles vaccine? 

I used to belong to the women's Orthodox group on FB. Two topics were completely forbidden; headcoverings and vaccinations. 

  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

I think the longer interval yields better results but not sure. They might change to a shorter interval if necessary, though.

"Well, we're still sticking with the eight months," Fauci, the chief medical adviser for the White House, told ABC "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz. "However, as we've said, even in the original statement that came out, we're gonna have to go through the standard way of the FDA looking at the data and then the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. So although we're sticking with eight, we're remaining flexible, that if the data tells us differently, we'll make adjustments accordingly. But for now, we're sticking with the eight."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kbutton said:

May be an image of one or more people and text that says '6:57 Paul Cogan @PaulCogan Who's vaccinated? 1. Donald Trump and every other living US president 2. All 50 governors- both R and D 3. Nearly 100% of US Congress 96% of American physicians 5-80% of the military (soon 100%) Who's not vaccinated? 99.2% of all people currently dying of Covid-19 @woke_capdiva78'

I'm curious about the 4% of unvaccinated doctors.  The medical contraindication rate can't be that high, I don't think?  I wonder if some of the doctors who were already infected decided not to get vaccinated.

Edited by Syllieann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I'm curious about the 4% of unvaccinated doctors.  The medical contraindication rate can't be that high, I don't think?  I wonder if some of the doctors who were already infected decided not to get vaccinated.

I don't know, but I think that a similar stat has been referenced on the boards before. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I just saw this meme and thought I should post it in this thread...but then I realized I saw it in this thread. LOL.

Clearly not enough coffee for this lunkhead.

Bill

This made my day. I am sure I've done the same. Enjoy your coffee!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I'm curious about the 4% of unvaccinated doctors.  The medical contraindication rate can't be that high, I don't think?  I wonder if some of the doctors who were already infected decided not to get vaccinated.

I know several. One, not in Texas, whose wife is deep into Q theories. The others (3) 2 have already had it. Don’t know exactly why other one hasn’t . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2021 at 6:40 PM, Not_a_Number said:

The science pretty clear that it's 5-6 months. 

Can someone link to the studies that show the 3rd shot is leading to less infection or less hospitalization or less transmission than "full immunization" (after 5, 6, 8, whatever months). The last I saw from Israel (a few weeks ago) was that a 3rd shot wasn't reducing infection.

ETA: I'm surrounded by lots of anti-mask, not pro-vax people. I know several few doctors & nurses who are not vaccinated.

Edited by RootAnn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RootAnn said:

Can someone link to the studies that show the 3rd shot is leading to less infection or less hospitalization or less transmission than "full immunization" (after 5, 6, 8, whatever months). The last I saw from Israel (a few weeks ago) was that a 3rd shot wasn't reducing infection.

 

I can’t find the actual study data, just many articles reporting four times greater protection overall and six times greater protection against serious illness for those 60 and over. I’m guessing that must be based on antibody levels from the way it’s worded, and because it seems too early to know actual case count differences, but that’s just my guess. https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/8/23/22637687/third-covid-vaccine-lower-risk-israel

  • 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...