Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

Our local vaccination rate is 37% fully vaxxed. Our hospital puts out statistics and it seems admissions/ICU/ and ventilator use is running about 13% vaccinated vs. 87% unvaccinated. 
 

I am not good enough at math to figure out what the effective usefulness is of the vaccine here but I am smart enough to realize with more of the population unvaccinated, even if all other things were equal the number of unvaccinated in the hospital would be higher than the vaxxed. But it seems as if that is a higher number of vaccinated in the hospital than I would have hoped for. We are all vaccinated here and I am glad for it but it seems the numbers are not as great as I would have hoped for and initially believed they would be. 
 

Ugh. We got involved in some things based on the idea we were pretty protected by our vaccines but now I am uncomfortable with some things I made a commitment to. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

Ugh. We got involved in some things based on the idea we were pretty protected by our vaccines but now I am uncomfortable with some things I made a commitment to. 

Same here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

Our local vaccination rate is 37% fully vaxxed. Our hospital puts out statistics and it seems admissions/ICU/ and ventilator use is running about 13% vaccinated vs. 87% unvaccinated. 
 

I am not good enough at math to figure out what the effective usefulness is of the vaccine here but I am smart enough to realize with more of the population unvaccinated, even if all other things were equal the number of unvaccinated in the hospital would be higher than the vaxxed. But it seems as if that is a higher number of vaccinated in the hospital than I would have hoped for. We are all vaccinated here and I am glad for it but it seems the numbers are not as great as I would have hoped for and initially believed they would be. 

From what I've read, the vast majority of vaccinated hospitalized people are elderly — one report I saw said 87% of hospitalized vaccinated people were over 65, but I don't remember if that was for one hospital system or a whole state or what. That is not really surprising since that population is mostly likely to have been vaccinated 6-8 months ago, to have had a poor immune response to begin with, and to have multiple underlying conditions that could affect their ability to fight off infection.

ETA: My father & stepmother are in their 80s, and each has a long list of serious health conditions. They are both fully vaccinated, but if either of them caught covid they would definitely be hospitalized and would very likely die. So they would count as fully vaccinated hospitalizations and/or deaths, but those stats would be totally irrelevant to most vaccinated people.

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

18 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

From what I've read, the vast majority of vaccinated hospitalized people are elderly — one report I saw said 87%, but I don't remember if that was for one hospital system or a while state or what. That is not really surprising since that population is mostly likely to have been vaccinated 6-8 months ago, to have had a poor immune response to begin with, and to have multiple underlying conditions that could affect their ability to fight off infection.

Thank you. One case I know of someone who has been vaccinated and in and out of the hospital over the last month is a transplant recipient. So I suppose there are cases like that in the numbers that doesn’t really reflect on my situation. I just feel defeated. I go back and forth between wanting to hunker down and thinking that if being infected is inevitable we might as well get it before our vaccines wear off any more than they have. And it is hard to hunker down or expect modifications when you are in an area that just is anti all of it. 

Edited by teachermom2834
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

Our local vaccination rate is 37% fully vaxxed. Our hospital puts out statistics and it seems admissions/ICU/ and ventilator use is running about 13% vaccinated vs. 87% unvaccinated. 
 

I am not good enough at math to figure out what the effective usefulness is of the vaccine here but I am smart enough to realize with more of the population unvaccinated, even if all other things were equal the number of unvaccinated in the hospital would be higher than the vaxxed. But it seems as if that is a higher number of vaccinated in the hospital than I would have hoped for. We are all vaccinated here and I am glad for it but it seems the numbers are not as great as I would have hoped for and initially believed they would be. 
 

Ugh. We got involved in some things based on the idea we were pretty protected by our vaccines but now I am uncomfortable with some things I made a commitment to. 

Are you able to see a more detailed breakdown that separates our hospitalized/iCU/ventilated? I’m wondering which of those is 13%, because that does make a difference. All the hospital dashboards I’ve seen have a very tiny percentage of hospitalized vaccinated patients in the ICU or on a ventilator. Nurses have said their vaccinated patients tend to have much shorter stays and rarely progress to that level of seriousness (not that just being hospitalized isn’t a super big deal that I and everyone I know I want to avoid at all costs.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

Are you able to see a more detailed breakdown that separates our hospitalized/iCU/ventilated? I’m wondering which of those is 13%, because that does make a difference. All the hospital dashboards I’ve seen have a very tiny percentage of hospitalized vaccinated patients in the ICU or on a ventilator. Nurses have said their vaccinated patients tend to have much shorter stays and rarely progress to that level of seriousness (not that just being hospitalized isn’t a super big deal that I and everyone I know I want to avoid at all costs.)

It has been pretty consistently about 13% for total hospitalizations and 11% for ICU/ventilator. 
 

I also think there is some kind of bias in here that the unvaxxed wait longer to seek treatment. Part of the denial of the whole thing whereas the vaxxed people are more likely to seek treatment sooner. I don’t know. I just know that the anti-vaxxers I know don’t even want to be tested or seek any kind of treatment unless it is dire. They want to prove it is just a cold and will go away. So does that influence the fact that the unvaccinated that come to the hospital are in worse shape?

I don’t know. I’m just trying to make sense of the numbers and frame them in a way that is better for the vaccinated than what it looks like. But it just doesn’t look as promising as I thought it would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whitestavern said:

Do you have articles you could link? That is surprising to me. Everything I've read indicates it can occur but it's rare. 

I will look, but the sources are infectious disease docs at the teaching hospital in my city, who are friends of our family, as well as friends who are ER nurses in the 3 largest hospitals here.

 

Having had alpha in mid 2020 is not lots of protection.

Edited by ScoutTN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the latest CDC stats (as of 8/23) on breakthrough hospitalizations and deaths. Note that 1 in 4 hospitalizations and 1 in 5 deaths in vaccinated patients were not caused by covid. So of the 175,000,000 fully vaccinated people in the US, 6782 have been hospitalized for covid and 1623 have died of covid, and the vast majority of those hospitalizations and deaths have been in the elderly, who generally have poorer immune response and more high risk factors.

CDC data.png

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

35 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

It has been pretty consistently about 13% for total hospitalizations and 11% for ICU/ventilator. 

That’s an unusual breakdown compared to all the other ones I’ve seen, so maybe it would be reassuring to you to look at the ones from other hospitals. I’ve never seen that high a percentage of those hospitalized being in ICU and on a ventilator. There’s usually a significant gap between those three numbers. (But also don’t discount that even those numbers would show a very significant protective effect from being vaccinated.)

I shared some hospital dashboards the other day, but don’t have time to look them up right now. I can try later. I haven’t found anywhere that has them all in one place. That would be really handy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is promising:

"Breakthrough infections are less likely to lead to long covid, study suggests"

It was a prospective case control study published in The Lancet. Link to paper

ETA quote:

The study, which was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal on Wednesday, also provides more evidence that the two-shot Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines offer powerful protection against symptomatic and severe disease.

“This is really, I think, the first study showing that long Covid is reduced by double vaccination, and it’s reduced significantly,” said Dr. Claire Steves, a geriatrician at King’s College London and the study’s lead author.

 

Edited by wathe
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, teachermom2834 said:

Our local vaccination rate is 37% fully vaxxed. Our hospital puts out statistics and it seems admissions/ICU/ and ventilator use is running about 13% vaccinated vs. 87% unvaccinated. 
 

I am not good enough at math to figure out what the effective usefulness is of the vaccine here but I am smart enough to realize with more of the population unvaccinated, even if all other things were equal the number of unvaccinated in the hospital would be higher than the vaxxed. But it seems as if that is a higher number of vaccinated in the hospital than I would have hoped for. We are all vaccinated here and I am glad for it but it seems the numbers are not as great as I would have hoped for and initially believed they would be. 
 

The stats aren’t very informative without the numbers from which they come. If your hospital system is rather small, for instance and the total number of hospitalized patients and available beds are low, than the numbers aren’t much better than anecdotes. If we’re looking at thousands of patients, then the numbers are more significant. 
 

Anecdotally, I know more people who’ve had breakthrough infections than I am comfortable with. None of them have been hospitalized however.
 

 

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

50 minutes ago, wathe said:

Well, this is promising:

"Breakthrough infections are less likely to lead to long covid, study suggests"

It was a prospective case control study published in The Lancet. Link to paper

ETA quote:

The study, which was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal on Wednesday, also provides more evidence that the two-shot Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines offer powerful protection against symptomatic and severe disease.

“This is really, I think, the first study showing that long Covid is reduced by double vaccination, and it’s reduced significantly,” said Dr. Claire Steves, a geriatrician at King’s College London and the study’s lead author.

 

That doesn't seem like great news to me — full vaccination only cuts the risk in half? I've seen estimates of long covid that range from 5% to 20%, depending on the definition. Even at the very lowest rate, if fully vaccinated people have a 1 in 40 chance of getting long covid, that really sucks, and at the high end it's a seriously scary 1 in 10. That is not what I would call good news.

I think the biggest issue with getting good, useful data on long covid is that everyone defines it differently. IMO, studies (like this one in the Lancet) that define long covid as "still having some symptoms at 4 weeks" are not very helpful. It's not uncommon for someone with, say, a bad case of flu, to feel pretty bad for a couple of weeks and still have lingering symptoms, like tiredness or the remnants of a cough, at 4 weeks from onset. I have had that happen myself a few times, but symptoms always resolved completely within another week or two. I don't think that's what people who are concerned with "long covid" are really worried about.

One of the reports I saw on long covid interviewed a woman who was a triathlete and a physical therapist, who had a moderate case of covid but ended up completely debilitated. She could barely get off the couch and could not handle basic daily tasks like cooking or cleaning, let alone return to work. That's the sort of thing I think most people are worried about. I would love to see a study that looked at symptoms 3, 6, 9, 12 months later, where it's clear this is a separate, long-term condition, distinct from temporary residual covid symptoms, and these symptoms directly impact the person's ability to complete normal daily tasks. That's what I think most people are concerned with, not that they may still have a bit of a cough at 4 weeks.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FDA calls meeting of its advisers to discuss Covid vaccine boosters (msn.com)

 

Ugh I am not happy they are going to halve the dose of Moderna.  

"We are pleased to initiate the submission process for our booster candidate at the 50 microgram dose with the FDA. Our submission is supported by data generated with the 50 microgram dose of our COVID-19 vaccine, which shows robust antibody responses against the Delta variant," Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement.

That's a half dose -- Moderna's vaccine provides 100 micrograms in each dose for initial vaccinations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wathe said:

Well, this is promising:

"Breakthrough infections are less likely to lead to long covid, study suggests"

It was a prospective case control study published in The Lancet. Link to paper

ETA quote:

The study, which was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal on Wednesday, also provides more evidence that the two-shot Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines offer powerful protection against symptomatic and severe disease.

“This is really, I think, the first study showing that long Covid is reduced by double vaccination, and it’s reduced significantly,” said Dr. Claire Steves, a geriatrician at King’s College London and the study’s lead author.

 

Unfortunately it's very much a self selected self reporting study. I'm a big fan of Zoe, but I  think it's difficult to get good data on Long Covid from their design.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

FDA calls meeting of its advisers to discuss Covid vaccine boosters (msn.com)

 

Ugh I am not happy they are going to halve the dose of Moderna.  

"We are pleased to initiate the submission process for our booster candidate at the 50 microgram dose with the FDA. Our submission is supported by data generated with the 50 microgram dose of our COVID-19 vaccine, which shows robust antibody responses against the Delta variant," Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement.

That's a half dose -- Moderna's vaccine provides 100 micrograms in each dose for initial vaccinations.

 

I think the half dose is better.  Lots of people had side effects with the 100 micrograms that were bad enough to discourage them from getting boosted (my dh, for example, was in rough shape for a full week and said there's no way he's doing that again if what he has now is enough to keep him out of the hospital) and now we have the myocarditis concern as well.  I don't want a microgram more than I need, lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

FDA calls meeting of its advisers to discuss Covid vaccine boosters (msn.com)

 

Ugh I am not happy they are going to halve the dose of Moderna.  

"We are pleased to initiate the submission process for our booster candidate at the 50 microgram dose with the FDA. Our submission is supported by data generated with the 50 microgram dose of our COVID-19 vaccine, which shows robust antibody responses against the Delta variant," Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement.

That's a half dose -- Moderna's vaccine provides 100 micrograms in each dose for initial vaccinations.

 

 I'm guessing they didn't get any better response with 100 than they got with 50, and probably had significantly fewer adverse effects. Their booster dose is still considerably higher than Pfizer's original dose (30 micrograms).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I think the half dose is better.  Lots of people had side effects with the 100 micrograms that were bad enough to discourage them from getting boosted (my dh, for example, was in rough shape for a full week and said there's no way he's doing that again if what he has now is enough to keep him out of the hospital) and now we have the myocarditis concern as well.  I don't want a microgram more than I need, lol.

Ha, I want all the micrograms.  Dh and I had no reaction to the Moderna shots.  Me just a slight sore arm but I get that with everything.  And with how things have been coming out about M. being more protective than P. I would rather have more.   With Delta and the next variant coming around I would rather have more then find out the lower dose wasn't enough.  But I get I am not the scientist and everything is new and changing everyday.  

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

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

That doesn't seem like great news to me — full vaccination only cuts the risk in half? I've seen estimates of long covid that range from 5% to 20%, depending on the definition. Even at the very lowest rate, if fully vaccinated people have a 1 in 40 chance of getting long covid, that really sucks, and at the high end it's a seriously scary 1 in 10. That is not what I would call good news.

I wish it was much lower than that also, though the nature of the data does make it hard to know just what we’re talking about, yet I also think it’s better than you say above. People vaccinated may have a 1 in 40 to one in 10 chance of getting long Covid if this is to be believed, but the chances of getting Covid are still much lower than if they weren’t vaccinated, so together, that reduces the overall risk a good deal.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard yesterday that the unvaxxed husband of a co-worker just got vaccinated. A few months ago, they were adamant about not getting vaxxed. I didn't ask why because I didn't want to get into it with her. 

Vaccination rates keep going up even in red states. I think the tide has shifted towards vaccination except for the most hard-core anti-vaxxers. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in rural Oklahoma, ERs are overrun... with people ODing on horse wormer:

"Dr. Jason McElyea said patients are packing his eastern and southeastern Oklahoma hospitals after taking ivermectin doses meant for a full-sized horse, because they believed false claims the horse de-wormer could fight COVID-19. “The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated,” he said.

That’s something McElyea said is now backing up ambulance systems as well. “All of their ambulances are stuck at the hospital waiting for a bed to open so they can take the patient in and they don’t have any, that’s it,” said Dr. McElyea. “If there’s no ambulance to take the call, there’s no ambulance to come to the call.”

“Some people taking inappropriate doses have actually put themselves in worse conditions than if they’d caught COVID,” said the doctor.... Patients are suffering from nausea, vomiting, muscle aches and cramping, and that’s only in minor cases. “The scariest one that I’ve heard of and seen is people coming in with vision loss,” he said.

https://kfor.com/news/local/patients-overdosing-on-ivermectin-backing-up-rural-oklahoma-hospitals-ambulances/

 

  • Sad 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Meanwhile in rural Oklahoma, ERs are overrun... with people ODing on horse wormer:

"Dr. Jason McElyea said patients are packing his eastern and southeastern Oklahoma hospitals after taking ivermectin doses meant for a full-sized horse, because they believed false claims the horse de-wormer could fight COVID-19. “The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated,” he said.

That’s something McElyea said is now backing up ambulance systems as well. “All of their ambulances are stuck at the hospital waiting for a bed to open so they can take the patient in and they don’t have any, that’s it,” said Dr. McElyea. “If there’s no ambulance to take the call, there’s no ambulance to come to the call.”

“Some people taking inappropriate doses have actually put themselves in worse conditions than if they’d caught COVID,” said the doctor.... Patients are suffering from nausea, vomiting, muscle aches and cramping, and that’s only in minor cases. “The scariest one that I’ve heard of and seen is people coming in with vision loss,” he said.

https://kfor.com/news/local/patients-overdosing-on-ivermectin-backing-up-rural-oklahoma-hospitals-ambulances/

 

Okay, let's review what this article seems to be saying are overloading the ERs in rural Oklahoma...

1. Unvaxxed people with Covid (okay, this doesn't point this out specifically, but...)
2. People OD'ing on horse dewormer
3. People with gunshot wounds

Not people, with strokes, heart attacks, appendcitis, car accidents - all three seem to be self-inflicted (in the case of the unvaxxed people, if they got vaxxed they might still get sick but they wouldn't be clogging the hospital ER...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

@Matryoshka  where are you seeing the gsw victims are self-inflicted?  I'm not finding that anywhere.  Or do you mean that other lifestyle choices result in a higher likelihood of being shot?

Running around with guns is a choice. I don't think this is, say, gang violence.  How are there so many gunshot wounds in a rural ER that they're a bigger problem than anything else after Covid and apparently horse dewormer ODs? If they're all hunting accidents, and maybe they are, perhaps they need more range/target practice if they keep hitting their friends instead.  Don't run around with a gun unless you can hit what you're aiming at...

Maybe I just lack imagination.  What do you think that quantity of gunshot wounds would be from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

Okay, let's review what this article seems to be saying are overloading the ERs in rural Oklahoma...

1. Unvaxxed people with Covid (okay, this doesn't point this out specifically, but...)
2. People OD'ing on horse dewormer
3. People with gunshot wounds

Not people, with strokes, heart attacks, appendcitis, car accidents - all three seem to be self-inflicted (in the case of the unvaxxed people, if they got vaxxed they might still get sick but they wouldn't be clogging the hospital ER...)

I thought the story was really odd for that reason. I would want to see something backing up what he says. He doesn’t even say anything about Covid clogging the ER. It’s ivermectin overdoses and gun shop wounds. That seems really odd to me, and dare I say, implausible. (I don’t doubt they’re dealing with ivermectin overdoses, I’m just thinking it seems more likely that maybe there was one particular instance where a gunshot wound couldn’t get into a small ER that was currently dealing with a couple ivermectin doses on top of whatever else. But it’s hard to imagine that’s the general situation in Oklahoma right now.

Edited by KSera
Implausible—autocorrect fail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KSera said:

I thought the story was really odd for that reason. I would want to see something backing up what he says. He doesn’t even say anything about Covid clogging the ER. It’s ivermectin overdoses and gun shop wounds. That seems really odd to me, and dare I say, impossible. (I don’t doubt they’re dealing with ivermectin overdoses, I’m just thinking it seems more likely that maybe there was one particular instance where a gunshot wound couldn’t get into a small ER that was currently dealing with a couple ivermectin doses on top of whatever else. But it’s hard to imagine that’s the general situation in Oklahoma right now.

Yes that's what stuck out to me... why mention that in particular as the big problem with ER clog... so many ivermectin ODs that the gunshot victims can't be seen. Like that's the next biggest group of acute cases.  Who is shooting all these people???

Edited by Matryoshka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KSera said:

Since they acknowledge the benefit is greater than the risk, what is the reason thought to be that they don’t find it to be a big enough benefit to be worth it? Is that a financial meaning of “worth”? 

I think the issue might be that the risk is fixed, but the benefit is constantly changing depending on rates, hospital capacity, personal exposure level, and comorbidities.  When the risk and benefit are closer together you will get more kids who are better off without it.  When they're further nearly all kids are better off getting the vaccine.  I think they could recommend it for all 12-15 year old girls and possibly only do the first shot for the boys.  Maybe that will be forthcoming, or maybe that is too complicated for the general public to grasp, idk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 11:47 AM, teachermom2834 said:

It has been pretty consistently about 13% for total hospitalizations and 11% for ICU/ventilator. 
 

I also think there is some kind of bias in here that the unvaxxed wait longer to seek treatment. Part of the denial of the whole thing whereas the vaxxed people are more likely to seek treatment sooner. I don’t know. I just know that the anti-vaxxers I know don’t even want to be tested or seek any kind of treatment unless it is dire. They want to prove it is just a cold and will go away. So does that influence the fact that the unvaccinated that come to the hospital are in worse shape?

I don’t know. I’m just trying to make sense of the numbers and frame them in a way that is better for the vaccinated than what it looks like. But it just doesn’t look as promising as I thought it would. 

I have a friend who is a doctor in central IL. She shares her hospital's Covid stats weekly now that Delta has started ramping up. 

https://www.facebook.com/SBLHS/photos/a.520985247916001/4790361574311659/

 

26 hospitalized, 1 of those vaccinated.

8 of the 26 are in ICU, all of them unvaccinated. 

That seems to be pretty close to the usual amounts if I remember correctly. 

Edited by historically accurate
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually had a neighbor call me today to discuss vaccines. She has a tendency to believe some whacky stuff, so I've been distancing myself. I very simply told her that my youngest has pretty much been in quarantine since school started and I decided I needed to get vaccinated because I do not want my child thinking he did something if I get covid. I told her why I chose the vaccine I did and how I felt after. She seemed to be listening. We discussed the neighbor that passed away last week, then that another neighbor was in ICU. She then started talking about them not being safe.....after a few minutes I said I had to go. I don't think anything I said had any effect on her. 😟 

Please don't quote

 

  • Sad 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had some local guy tell me that he saw on the internet that you had 2.5 years to live once you were vaccinated. He then looked it up on his phone to show me. I said sharply, "I don't want to see that, that's nonsense. You can't believe everything that's on the internet.'

He stared at me blankly and said, 'But it's a scientist.' I don't think anyone had ever called him out before. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 5
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bookbard said:

I had some local guy tell me that he saw on the internet that you had 2.5 years to live once you were vaccinated. He then looked it up on his phone to show me. I said sharply, "I don't want to see that, that's nonsense. You can't believe everything that's on the internet.'

He stared at me blankly and said, 'But it's a scientist.' I don't think anyone had ever called him out before. 

who makes up this nonsense???

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

They are going to have blood on their hands at this rate. I have no patience with them.

I don’t know. In this case, I think there are good reasons to not be overly hasty with the decision. We want decisions to be data driven, right? OTOH, in the middle of a pandemic, making the wrong decision on this has big consequences, so it’s hard. If this is the wrong decision in hindsight, it will become evident and that could be bad. But it may be that enough data comes in soon enough to make a good decision. This article was just published in the Atlantic and seems relevant here (it’s not paywalled):

What We Actually Know About Waning Immunity Reports of vaccines’ decline have been greatly overstated.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, KSera said:

IMO that article just dances around the issue without actually addressing what it claims to address.

First the author discusses how the immune system works, emphasizing that we have T and B cells, not just antibodies, so a decline in antibodies doesn't necessarily mean you have no immunity. Which is true, but it is also generic information that doesn't answer the specific question of whether immunity from the US-approved covid vaccines continues to provide adequate protection, in the real world, in people who were vaccinated 6-8 months ago.

Then, after admitting that efficacy has fallen to "the 60s and 70s," she claims that vaccines are still really effective against symptomatic illness even with Delta, saying that recent studies show efficacy rates "in the 80s" against symptomatic illness — but the data in the two studies that are cited as evidence are from May or earlier, when most of the study population would have been recently vaccinated, so again this is not really relevant to the question of whether immunity is waning at 6-8 months. (And actually one of the two studies she cites had Pfizer's efficacy against Delta at only 56%, not "in the 80s" — and that was in recently vaccinated people.)

She then largely dismisses the data from Israel by saying that the people who got the first vaccines were elderly or HCWs, so they probably would be more likely to get sick anyway, and she cites one person who thinks the data from Israel might be overestimating the problem. The case rate in Israel right now is literally the highest it has ever been, despite the high level of vaccination; I don't think it can be dismissed as easily as "well it's mostly old people and it's probably not as bad as it seems."

And then in conclusion she states that rich countries shouldn't do boosters when so many other countries don't have enough. So there's no real science in that article that actually addresses the question of whether immunity from covid vaccines is significantly waning after 6-8 months.

My personal belief is that the folks at the CDC and FDA know that boosters after 6 months or so will decrease both transmission and breakthrough cases. But there is a lot of pressure from the WHO not to do boosters, and as long as vaccinated Americans aren't getting hospitalized or dying at high rates, they may consider that "good enough" from a public health standpoint. But "good enough from a public health standpoint" and "optimal protection for me as an individual" are two different things.

If the FDA refuses to approve boosters, primarily for political rather than scientific reasons, then all that will do is force people to either find a doctor who will do it off-label or they will do what a million people have already done and cheat by pretending they haven't already had 2 shots. So people with means or connections will get boosters anyway, but it will be difficult or impossible to track who's had boosters, and the data will be a total mess. Most likely what will happen is that the CDC & FDA will hem and haw and drag their feet until it's really obvious that boosters are needed, and It's obvious that people are already getting them, and then they'll approve them. I sure wish they would be proactive for once, instead of always waiting until reality smacks them in the face and then reacting in slow motion. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I sure wish they would be proactive for once, instead of always waiting until reality smacks them in the face and then reacting in slow motion. 

 I can agree with this for sure. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KSera said:

I don’t know. In this case, I think there are good reasons to not be overly hasty with the decision. We want decisions to be data driven, right? OTOH, in the middle of a pandemic, making the wrong decision on this has big consequences, so it’s hard. If this is the wrong decision in hindsight, it will become evident and that could be bad. But it may be that enough data comes in soon enough to make a good decision. This article was just published in the Atlantic and seems relevant here (it’s not paywalled):

What We Actually Know About Waning Immunity Reports of vaccines’ decline have been greatly overstated.

A lot of health Twitter peeps seem to be on the fence about boosters for now.

I know I quote him a million times here but coronacast the other day suggested maybe we should think of them less as boosters and more as a three shot vaccine.  That if things hadn’t been as rushed it would always have ended up with three shots.  I know I’d feel better about a third shot than six monthly ones though there’s no evidence either way yet.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KSera said:

Since they acknowledge the benefit is greater than the risk, what is the reason thought to be that they don’t find it to be a big enough benefit to be worth it? Is that a financial meaning of “worth”? 

Could be. Or could be to do with more general resources - strain on the health system through all those extra appointments when so many people are waiting for other treatment. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Laura Corin said:

And how would anyone claim to know it was 2.5 years since no one has been vaccinated that long?

Yep. I mean, the local guy could have completely misunderstood the viral video - he is not intelligent or educated - he wouldn't be able to follow anything much with an argument. But I think I'm the only one who has said clearly to him that it's nonsense and that just because it's on the internet by a 'scientist' doesn't mean it's true. 

  • Like 1
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...