The Vaccine Thread

[Matryoshka]

21 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm kind of hoping there's a regimen that's good at both. It was looking kind of likely that mixing up the vaccines might be best, right? 

I sure hope so.  I'm kind of wanting a dose of Moderna to top off my Pfizer...

[Corraleno]

16 minutes ago, KSera said:

This part is super disappointing. This part:

”Effectiveness against any severe, critical, or fatal disease increased rapidly to 67.7% (95% CI: 59.1-74.7) by the third week after the first dose, and reached 95.4% (95% CI: 93.4-96.9) in the first five weeks after the second dose, where it persisted at about this level for six months.”

is super good news though, that the protection against severe disease persisted throughout the six-month study. I think it’s important to note that this doesn’t mean that after six months, protection did Wayne, it’s just that that was as far as the study measured. They had a very small number of cases that had been in the study long enough to show any results further than 25 weeks out.

They had a very small number of cases at 20 weeks as well, so if you only look at the figures for 0-19 weeks, the progression for each one-month period is 95 -> 94 -> 92 -> 86% in weeks 15-19. In Table 2 they report 72% efficacy against hospitalization after 25 weeks, which is not out of line with the other numbers, and makes sense given how rapidly efficacy against infection fell from 30% to 0% during that time.

 

[wathe]

31 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm kind of hoping there's a regimen that's good at both. It was looking kind of likely that mixing up the vaccines might be best, right? 

An awful lot of Canadians got first dose of Pfizer and  second dose of Moderna 8-16 weeks later (including both my parents).  Data exists for this.  I hope someone pulls it together and publishes something.

 

Correction: 4-16 weeks later, depending on when in the winter/spring they got their first shot relative to the change in eligibility for second doses as supply improved.

Edited September 4, 2021 by wathe

[Corraleno]

Moderna and Pfizer use the exact same mRNA, so I don't think that counts as "mixing vaccines" in the same way that combining an mRNA vaccine with an adenovirus vaccine does (multiple studies in Europe looked at this), or when using two different adenoviruses (2 different human viruses in the case of Sputnik doses 1 & 2, or 1 human + 1 chimp virus when mixing Sputnik with AZ). 

AFAIK, all of the studies on mixing vaccines so far have reported results based solely on measurements of antibody & T cell levels, they do not measure actual efficacy in reducing or preventing infection or death. Spain and Germany both recommend following one dose of AZ with a dose of an mRNA vaccine based on their own studies, and the Com-Cov study in the UK found that:

(1) AZ followed by Pfizer induced higher antibodies and T cell responses than Pfizer followed by AZ
(2) Both of these mixes induced higher antibodies than two doses of AZ
(3) The highest antibody response was seen after two doses of Pfizer
(4) The highest T cell response was from AZ followed by Pfizer

[wathe]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

Moderna and Pfizer use the exact same mRNA, so I don't think that counts as "mixing vaccines" in the same way that combining an mRNA vaccine with an adenovirus vaccine does (multiple studies in Europe looked at this), or when using two different adenoviruses (2 different human viruses in the case of Sputnik doses 1 & 2, or 1 human + 1 chimp virus when mixing Sputnik with AZ). 

AFAIK, all of the studies on mixing vaccines so far have reported results based solely on measurements of antibody & T cell levels, they do not measure actual efficacy in reducing or preventing infection or death. Spain and Germany both recommend following one dose of AZ with a dose of an mRNA vaccine based on their own studies, and the Com-Cov study in the UK found that:

(1) AZ followed by Pfizer induced higher antibodies and T cell responses than Pfizer followed by AZ
(2) Both of these mixes induced higher antibodies than two doses of AZ
(3) The highest antibody response was seen after two doses of Pfizer
(4) The highest T cell response was from AZ followed by Pfizer

There are a lot of Canadians who had AZ followed by mRNA too.  The real world data is there waiting to for something to be done with it.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Moderna and Pfizer use the exact same mRNA, so I don't think that counts as "mixing vaccines" in the same way that combining an mRNA vaccine with an adenovirus vaccine does (multiple studies in Europe looked at this), or when using two different adenoviruses (2 different human viruses in the case of Sputnik doses 1 & 2, or 1 human + 1 chimp virus when mixing Sputnik with AZ). 

AFAIK, all of the studies on mixing vaccines so far have reported results based solely on measurements of antibody & T cell levels, they do not measure actual efficacy in reducing or preventing infection or death. Spain and Germany both recommend following one dose of AZ with a dose of an mRNA vaccine based on their own studies, and the Com-Cov study in the UK found that:

(1) AZ followed by Pfizer induced higher antibodies and T cell responses than Pfizer followed by AZ
(2) Both of these mixes induced higher antibodies than two doses of AZ
(3) The highest antibody response was seen after two doses of Pfizer
(4) The highest T cell response was from AZ followed by Pfizer

I'm curious about something like AZ followed by Pfizer or J&J followed by Pfizer or vice versa. The mRNA vaccines seem to have great early responses followed by precipitous drops, so... one does wonder. 

I hope someone puts the real-world data together for us.

[mommyoffive]

Anti-vaxxers are targeting pregnant women with misinformation that can lead to tragedy, experts warn (msn.com)

 

Unvaccinated man attacks health workers who refuse to issue him a vaccination card (msn.com)

[Kassia]

34 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Anti-vaxxers are targeting pregnant women with misinformation that can lead to tragedy, experts warn (msn.com)

 

This is so sad.  My friend's coworker just died after giving birth to her 5th child because she was afraid of getting the vaccine while pregnant.  She was 37.

 

[whitestavern]

How will mandates work when we are getting to 3, 4+ doses/boosters? Will everyone need up-to-date vaxx records in order to continue working, traveling, dining out, etc.? Seems like it will get more difficult to track if we really need to get vaxxed every 5 to 6 months and/or the timing of doses/booters is based on the original date of vaccination. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/virus-czar-calls-to-begin-readying-for-eventual-4th-vaccine-dose/

 

[mommyoffive]

QAnon and anti-vaxxers brainwashed kids stuck at home — now teachers have to deprogram them (msn.com)

[mommyoffive]

Some booster shots may be delayed; study finds affluent, white neighborhoods have higher vaccine rates: COVID updates (msn.com)

 

 

US officials optimistic Covid booster rollout will start on 20 September (msn.com)

Edited September 5, 2021 by mommyoffive

[KSera]

1 hour ago, whitestavern said:

How will mandates work when we are getting to 3, 4+ doses/boosters? Will everyone need up-to-date vaxx records in order to continue working, traveling, dining out, etc.? Seems like it will get more difficult to track if we really need to get vaxxed every 5 to 6 months and/or the timing of doses/booters is based on the original date of vaccination. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/virus-czar-calls-to-begin-readying-for-eventual-4th-vaccine-dose/

 

I don’t expect it will end up being that way. But, if boosters are needed longer term, I expect it will work like it does for people who have always needed yearly flu shots for work. If most people all have them, then I don’t expect anyone would need to show them for dining or things like that. That’s only for this current pandemic stage and while we have so many unvaccinated that the rates are still out of control.

[RootAnn]

58 minutes ago, KSera said:

That’s only for this current pandemic stage and while we have so many unvaccinated that the rates are still out of control.

Could you explain what you mean by "rates"?

I don't understand the purpose of places requiring proof of vaccination when so far, it appears the science is showing that vaccinated people can contract the Delta variant and transmit it. I understand employers requiring vaccination from an employee health and health insurance cost perspective. I just don't get the "you can't eat here / attend this concert unless you are vaccinated" position with the current science knowledge. 

Is it because the science is showing there may be less transmitting of the virus by vaccinated individuals (depending on where in the infection process the person is)? I can understand that except for I personally wonder how much that is traded off by asymptomatic-but-infected vaccinated individuals continuing to do their normal activities because they don't know they are infected. This obviously occurs with asymptomatic-but-infected non-vaccinated individuals, too, especially during that early infection period. And, yes, symptomatic infected individuals who continue activities regardless of CDC guidelines.

I'd honestly rather see the use of rapid (saliva or other cheap/easy) tests at the door for sport events, concerts, or even eat-in restaurants. The (hopefully minimal) cost could be built-in to the activity like a cover charge for eat-in restaurants or $5 added to concert tickets (many are astronomical $$$ anyway) and crowded (indoor?) pro & college sports venues.

Speaking of indoor/outdoor, have we determined definitively that Delta can transmit outside, for example when people are in close, congested areas? 

[bookbard]

34 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Speaking of indoor/outdoor, have we determined definitively that Delta can transmit outside, for example when people are in close, congested areas? 

Yep. I posted an article the other day about outdoor transmission in Australia. It's happened at the football, the beach (which wouldn't have been as crowded as a US beach), at an outdoor winery, at a playground (I believe). If someone breathes in your infected breath, you can get covid. 

 

[KSera]

43 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Could you explain what you mean by "rates"?

I don't understand the purpose of places requiring proof of vaccination when so far, it appears the science is showing that vaccinated people can contract the Delta variant and transmit it. I understand employers requiring vaccination from an employee health and health insurance cost perspective. I just don't get the "you can't eat here / attend this concert unless you are vaccinated" position with the current science knowledge. 

Is it because the science is showing there may be less transmitting of the virus by vaccinated individuals (depending on where in the infection process the person is)? I can understand that except for I personally wonder how much that is traded off by asymptomatic-but-infected vaccinated individuals continuing to do their normal activities because they don't know they are infected. This obviously occurs with asymptomatic-but-infected non-vaccinated individuals, too, especially during that early infection period. And, yes, symptomatic infected individuals who continue activities regardless of CDC guidelines.

I'd honestly rather see the use of rapid (saliva or other cheap/easy) tests at the door for sport events, concerts, or even eat-in restaurants. The (hopefully minimal) cost could be built-in to the activity like a cover charge for eat-in restaurants or $5 added to concert tickets (many are astronomical $$$ anyway) and crowded (indoor?) pro & college sports venues.

Speaking of indoor/outdoor, have we determined definitively that Delta can transmit outside, for example when people are in close, congested areas? 

I think there are mulitple reasons for the vaccine requirements at this point. One is that vaccinated people are still 5-6 times less likely to be infected in the first place. That's significant. Two is that they are less likely to transmit (there was another study this week about this)--they are infectious for a shorter period of time, and it is now appearing don't tend to transmit much while asymptomatic (meaning that while a lot of vaccinated people are asymptomatic, it tends to be the symptomatic ones who transmit). This is in contrast to unvaccinated people, who largely transmit before showing symptoms. So the reason about vaccinated people being more risky due to being asymptomatic has never made sense to me, given that unvaccinated people have a high rate of transmission while asymptomatic/presymptomatic. In addition to those two reasons, I personally think that people who have not participated in trying to make this pandemic better and who are contributing to overflowing hospitals and burnt out healthcare workers and all the other misery of this pandemic really shouldn't expect that they should do so little and then expect all the privileges everyone else enjoys for doing their part. Why should they, you know? Maybe it should have some consequences, like their choices are having on the rest of us.

I agree greater use of at the door testing would be good. It does seem like that might help catch a lot of cases, even though those tests are far from perfect. We can't let perfect be the enemy of good (the problem has been when testing is used instead of other mitigation measures--it's not good enough for that).

The outdoor Delta transmission question is a good one. I had read of multiple confirmed cases, but the only ones I can find that are absolutely verified have happened in crowded outdoor conditions. And the one on a park bench where the two people had a long conversation. I would like to know more about some of the others--the New Zealand public walkway and the two people out for a walk together, for example.

Oh, to answer your first question, the "rates" I mean are the rates of Covid. If Covid rates were low enough, I think it would be sufficient to require vaccines for things like employment, without having to do them for entry into restaurants and other venues. Like with measles--there are enough places that require people to have measles vaccination that we don't tend to get outbreaks. If there was ever a big one, maybe people would need to show proof, but otherwise, it's just not necessary with it at low background rates.

Edited September 5, 2021 by KSera

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, bookbard said:

Yep. I posted an article the other day about outdoor transmission in Australia. It's happened at the football, the beach (which wouldn't have been as crowded as a US beach), at an outdoor winery, at a playground (I believe). If someone breathes in your infected breath, you can get covid. 

 

Any chance you remember where you posted it? I've done a lot of looking for updated information on this, and came up mostly empty. We're back to masking if we're going to be talking directly with other people outdoors. Bah.

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

Any chance you remember where you posted it? I've done a lot of looking for updated information on this, and came up mostly empty. We're back to masking if we're going to be talking directly with other people outdoors. Bah.

Masking outdoors sucks. But yeah, I'm doing it. And at least double masking indoors makes single masking outdoors feel like a relief. 

I'd like to know more about outdoor transmission also, as being outside forms a big part of my 'going back to school's safety planning. 

[SKL]

I am not really familiar with what a vax passport looks like, since I have never needed to prove anything so far.  But ... when are they going to admit that having had Covid is actually better protection against Delta than having had the vax?  Also, I really don't see the point any more with the rather quickly diminishing returns of the mRNA vaxes.

So I have had two Pfizer jabs, and my close relative has had Covid but no jabs.  You are way safer with her than with me.  Yet she is the Delta scapegoat.  And no, she should not have to get vaccinated in order to appease people who are not living in reality.

To me, all that vax checks at public places will do is create an excuse to boycott businesses.  Boycotts of some by people who don't believe in vax checks, boycotts of others by people who do believe in them.

Fully vaxed me will be in the former group.  I will not patronize businesses who require a "vax passport" unless I have no realistic choice.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, RootAnn said:

Could you explain what you mean by "rates"?

I don't understand the purpose of places requiring proof of vaccination when so far, it appears the science is showing that vaccinated people can contract the Delta variant and transmit it. 

Because they are so much less likely to catch it and transmit it. 

[KSera]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

Also, I really don't see the point any more with the rather quickly diminishing returns of the mRNA vaxes.

So far, there are no quickly diminishing returns of the mRNA vaccines against serious illness and death. They are highly protective against those. Which means, suddenly our hospitals are all available again if everyone is vaccinated.

I agree we need to come up with some way to account for people who have protection via past infection. The fact that people were so upset about the idea of electronic vaccine passports that the idea was scrapped in the US has made implementing those kinds of things more difficult. Other countries are able to make that part of their app. I think US should consider revisiting the idea. It really allows people more privacy that way as well. A simple red or green system with no need to show how or why you are coded red or green.

I don’t think our main problem is people not willing to get vaccinated after having had Covid (though it’s clear they will be better protected if they do, and it seems pretty common that people who have had serious Covid are suddenly eager to be vaccinated once they recover. I know another person who only had mild Covid after having refused the vaccine, but having seen his older family members catch it as well, and knowing he might have been the vector, he went out and got vaccinated after recovering.) The big problem we need to address is people not willing to be vaccinated at all. They are the ones getting very ill and dying and prolonging the pandemic stage for everyone else. 

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

So far, there are no quickly diminishing returns of the mRNA vaccines against serious illness and death. They are highly protective against those. Which means, suddenly our hospitals are all available again if everyone is vaccinated.

I agree we need to come up with some way to account for people who have protection via past infection. The fact that people were so upset about the idea of electronic vaccine passports that the idea was scrapped in the US has made implementing those kinds of things more difficult. Other countries are able to make that part of their app. I think US should consider revisiting the idea. It really allows people more privacy that way as well. A simple red or green system with no need to show how or why you are coded red or green.

I don’t think our main problem is people not willing to get vaccinated after having had Covid (though it’s clear they will be better protected if they do, and it seems pretty common that people who have had serious Covid are suddenly eager to be vaccinated once they recover. I know another person who only had mild Covid after having refused the vaccine, but having seen his older family members catch it as well, and knowing he might have been the vector, he went out and got vaccinated after recovering.) The big problem we need to address is people not willing to be vaccinated at all. They are the ones getting very ill and dying and prolonging the pandemic stage for everyone else. 

But how Person X is going to fare if Person X gets Covid is not a reason to exclude or include Person X in a public gathering place.  The only way it even arguably makes any sense is if it's about protection of those around us.

(Also, I'm not so sure the protection against serious illness and death will last much longer than the protection against infection.  Nobody knows.  Only time will tell.  I just hope it lasts long enough to outlast the high rates of transmission we are seeing.)

[KSera]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

But how Person X is going to fare if Person X gets Covid is not a reason to exclude or include Person X in a public gathering place.  The only way it even arguably makes any sense is if it's about protection of those around us.

(Also, I'm not so sure the protection against serious illness and death will last much longer than the protection against infection.  Nobody knows.  Only time will tell.  I just hope it lasts long enough to outlast the high rates of transmission we are seeing.)

Sure it does. Our hospital system is failing all over the country. People have died because of it. Preventing unvaccinated people from gathering in public places is in all of our interest to try to reclaim a functioning hospital system that has been taken over by unvaccinated people. Besides that, as said many times, an unvaccinated person is still much more likely to transmit infection.

And I'm not sure why you don't think protection against serious illness or death will last much longer than protection against infection, since it has already shown that it does.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

Sure it does. Our hospital system is failing all over the country. People have died because of it. Preventing unvaccinated people from gathering in public places is in all of our interest to try to reclaim a functioning hospital system that has been taken over by unvaccinated people. Besides that, as said many times, an unvaccinated person is still much more likely to transmit infection.

And I'm not sure why you don't think protection against serious illness or death will last much longer than protection against infection, since it has already shown that it does.

It's been less than a year and the 2-shot vax is wearing off.  What do you mean by "it has already shown that it does"?  Do you mean that because there are still fewer vaccinated people than unvaccinated people dying today, that means this effect has lasted "much longer" than the protection against infection?  The reports of the vax wearing off are rather recent.

As for the hospital overload, to the extent reports are not exaggerated or invented for political reasons, these are not happening in most places, at least not so far.  Also, how about requiring proof that the person doesn't have RSV, the other (often main) reason for hospital overload?

[ScoutTN]

Ancedotal, but I know of many people who had an earlier variant of covid, are unvaxed, and are currently quite ill or in the hospital with delta. 
 

My husband had it at the very beginning, then again this year. He was much sicker the second time. Having had it is not a guarantee against getting another variant nor against serious illness. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by ScoutTN

[SKL]

I mean if you don't want to be around someone who might be sick, then just stay away from everyone, because no piece of paper is a guarantee.

[KSera]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

As for the hospital overload, to the extent reports are not exaggerated or invented for political reasons, these are not happening in most places, at least not so far. 

Seriously? Are you denying this is actually happening? It doesn't have to be happening everywhere for it to be a Very Big Problem. Tell it to the family of Daniel Wilkinson.

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

It's been less than a year and the 2-shot vax is wearing off.  What do you mean by "it has already shown that it does"?  Do you mean that because there are still fewer vaccinated people than unvaccinated people dying today, that means this effect has lasted "much longer" than the protection against infection?  T

I mean to the point that we have now had many months where the vast majority of the deaths were preventable. Tens of thousands at this point. Whereas the vaccine protection against illness lessened when Delta arrived in May-June. The most recent studies show only a slight reduction in protection from deaths still.

[regentrude]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

As for the hospital overload, to the extent reports are not exaggerated or invented for political reasons, these are not happening in most places, at least not so far.  Also, how about requiring proof that the person doesn't have RSV, the other (often main) reason for hospital overload?

Hospital overwhelm is happening in plenty of places. People have already died because they could not receive medical care for other issues because the damned Covid-is-a-hoax-and-masks-are-for-sheep idiots are taking up the beds. 
In our ER, patients had to lie on the floor because there are no beds.
Did you read a board member's harrowing account of her ER visit with her mother? But sure, that's all exaggerated and invented...  are you saying she's making this up???

Btw, there is no vaccine for RSV. There are several options for Covid.

Edited September 6, 2021 by regentrude

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

I mean if you don't want to be around someone who might be sick, then just stay away from everyone, because no piece of paper is a guarantee.

Yep, that's what I'm doing, unfortunately. But I still don't know why people not participating in the solution think they should have all the benefits of those who do. Also, btw, this is one of those examples of what I referred to awhile back that you wanted me to point out, where someone who has gotten vaccinated seems at the same time to post in ways to undermine support of the vaccine.

[regentrude]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

I mean if you don't want to be around someone who might be sick, then just stay away from everyone, because no piece of paper is a guarantee.

says the person who has the immense privilege of working from home.

Seriously?

Because there is no perfect protection, we should just say screw it and let it rip?

Edited September 6, 2021 by regentrude

[SKL]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Yep, that's what I'm doing, unfortunately. But I still don't know why people not participating in the solution think they should have all the benefits of those who do. Also, btw, this is one of those examples of what I referred to awhile back that you wanted me to point out, where someone who has gotten vaccinated seems at the same time to post in ways to undermine support of the vaccine.

I support the vaccine, but I don't support discrimination based on a piece of paper.  A piece of paper that doesn't even tell much.  Especially when we know that the protection represented by that piece of paper is waning.

You seem to have trouble understanding what I am saying sometimes.  Maybe it's your bias, maybe it's my poor communication style.

I knew it was me you were talking about, btw, I just wanted to challenge you to actually see if you had any real evidence to back up your accusation.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, regentrude said:

says the person who has the immense privilege of working from home.

Seriously?

I'm talking about going to restaurants, shows, etc.

[kokotg]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm talking about going to restaurants, shows, etc.

The people working at those restaurants, theaters, etc. don't have the option of avoiding other people. But we do have the option of making their workplaces as safe as possible. As safe as possible certainly isn't a guarantee, but it's a whole lot better than nothing. 

[kokotg]

19 minutes ago, regentrude said:

 

Because there is no perfect protection, we should just say screw it and let it rip?

I'm so mystified by this line of reasoning. Like, yeah, it would be awesome if the vaccines were 100% effective against transmission, variant-proof, and 2 doses lasted forever. But that was never a realistic thing to expect. What we have is better than most people were hoping for a year ago. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I knew it was me you were talking about, btw, I just wanted to challenge you to actually see if you had any real evidence to back up your accusation.

I didn’t think that was hidden at the time I brought it up. I still feel you use a lot of anti vax talking points, such that it’s a bit mystifying to me, but I’m glad at least you’re vaccinated. Almost seems like you’re begrudgingly vaxed and don’t think highly of it. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

I didn’t think that was hidden at the time I brought it up. I still feel you use a lot of anti vax talking points, such that it’s a bit mystifying to me, but I’m glad at least you’re vaccinated. Almost seems like you’re begrudgingly vaxed and don’t think highly of it. 

Don't think highly of it?  Am I supposed to think highly of the fact that I got a vaccination?

I have my reasons for getting vaxed, but I know other people who have valid reasons to either wait or opt out of the vax.  I would rather that more people were vaxed, but I don't deny that some of those who haven't done it have good reasons.

If you think my talking points are anti vax, then you don't understand them.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, regentrude said:

Because there is no perfect protection, we should just say screw it and let it rip?

There's a big space between demanding a vax proof card and "let it rip."

But if it makes you happy, then please go and patronize all of the places that demand a vax card.

[Frances]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

As for the hospital overload, to the extent reports are not exaggerated or invented for political reasons, these are not happening in most places, at least not so far.  

WTF!?! Do you think the frontline healthcare workers and spouses of frontline healthcare workers on this board are lying about what they are seeing at their hospitals? Do you think people on this board like Spryte who have accompanied family members to overwhelmed hospitals are lying? 
 

Your post is reprehensible and completely disrespectful to all of the frontline healthcare workers dealing with hospital overwhelm due to unvaccinated covid patients.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Frances

[KSera]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Don't think highly of it?  Am I supposed to think highly of the fact that I got a vaccination?

Not of the fact that you got it. I mean of the benefits of the vaccine itself. 

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

WTF!?! Do you think the frontline healthcare workers and spouses of frontline healthcare workers on this board are lying about what they are seeing at their hospitals? Do you think people in this board like Spryet who have accompanied family members to overwhelmed hospitals are lying? 
 

Your post is reprehensible and completely disrespectful to all of the frontline healthcare workers dealing with hospital overwhelm due to unvaccinated covid patients.

A COVID Surge Is Overwhelming U.S. Hospitals, Raising Fears Of Rationed Care

[regentrude]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

There's a big space between demanding a vax proof card and "let it rip."

But if it makes you happy, then please go and patronize all of the places that demand a vax card.

Sadly, I don't have that luxury in the rural Midwest. Because of the political views of my state legislature, my workplace is not permitted to have this extra layer of protection for its students and faculty. I am grateful my kids study and work at institutions that are not required to appease politicians who only care about appealing to their anti- vaxx/anti- mask/Covid-is-a-hoax base.

Edited September 6, 2021 by regentrude

[ieta_cassiopeia]

On 9/4/2021 at 4:50 PM, Corraleno said:

50% efficacy is the absolute minimum standard for approval of a vaccine — it's just an arbitrary figure selected as the cut-off for a bureaucratic licensing process. It basically means "better than nothing." If there are no other options, then 50% efficacy is indeed better than nothing, but when there are options that can increase efficacy to 80-90%, there is no reason to settle for something that is only 50% effective.

Under what other circumstances would medical professionals purposely recommend a treatment that is only 50% effective when there is a much more effective option with little to no increased risk?

Logically, if 50% is the absolute minimum standard for vaccine approval, then a vaccine efficiency dropping to below 50% after a certain time would meet the latter threshold (since that would enable the counter-optic of "the booster is enabling the vaccine to be as effective as advertised to the FDA, and most likely every country will need to follow suit in about the same timeframe").

In the NHS, 50% frequently gets recommended over 90% in treatments if the latter is vastly more expensive or comes with other significant caveats - which may be a problem for Pfizer if it is concluded boosters are necessary, as it is much more expensive than OxfordAstrazeneca. 3 doses of Pfizer is the same price to the NHS as 90 doses of OxfordAstrazeneca, and apparently protection with the latter lasts longer (at least the way the NHS did it). And no, one cannot in that case go private to get a medicine rejected on value-for-money grounds (hence why you sometimes hear of British people going to the USA for treatment).

[ieta_cassiopeia]

On 9/4/2021 at 9:42 PM, Corraleno said:

Seriously concerning study on waning immunity from Qatar...

They found that Pfizer's efficacy against infection (including asymptomatic infection) peaked at 72% in the first 5 weeks after the 2nd dose, gradually declined to around 30% in weeks 15-19, and fell to 0% (yes ZERO) after 20 weeks.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.25.21262584v1.full.pdf+html

I wonder why Qatar never got the efficiency peak that the UK and USA got? (Starting 20 percentage points lower means they effectively know what happens in the Pfizer dose's future for the UK and USA). To put this into perspective, the UK figure for Pfizer effectiveness at 6 months was 74% - slightly above what Qatar had at peak. Which certainly supports boosters at 9-10 months for the UK and USA for people who had that vaccine - plus more research into the different experiences.

  

13 hours ago, SKL said:

I am not really familiar with what a vax passport looks like, since I have never needed to prove anything so far.  But ... when are they going to admit that having had Covid is actually better protection against Delta than having had the vax?  Also, I really don't see the point any more with the rather quickly diminishing returns of the mRNA vaxes.

Given that current research suggests the vax is better than having COVID in terms of preventing illness (95% peak for vaccines vs 83% peak for infection), protection endurance (6-10 months for vaccine vs 4-6 months for infection), transmission risk (reduced by 60% vs reduced by 0%) and severity of illness (hardly any hospitalisations vs quite a few hospitalisations and deaths), don't expect science to claim natural infection is better until the facts change.

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by ieta_cassiopeia

[SKL]

1 hour ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

I wonder why Qatar never got the efficiency peak that the UK and USA got? (Starting 20 percentage points lower means they effectively know what happens in the Pfizer dose's future for the UK and USA). To put this into perspective, the UK figure for Pfizer effectiveness at 6 months was 74% - slightly above what Qatar had at peak. Which certainly supports boosters at 9-10 months for the UK and USA for people who had that vaccine - plus more research into the different experiences.

  

Given that current research suggests the vax is better than having COVID in terms of preventing illness (95% peak for vaccines vs 83% peak for infection), protection endurance (6-10 months for vaccine vs 4-6 months for infection), transmission risk (reduced by 60% vs reduced by 0%) and severity of illness (hardly any hospitalisations vs quite a few hospitalisations and deaths), don't expect science to claim natural infection is better until the facts change.

 

I did not say it is better to have COVID, but that people who have had COVID are less likely to catch and spread Delta than people who had a vax only.  Also, since one jab of J&J also counts as fully vaxed, we should use  the worst results among the 3 US vaxes when discussing whether previous COVID infection should be taken into account re immunity status.

[TexasProud]

12 hours ago, SKL said:

 

As for the hospital overload, to the extent reports are not exaggerated or invented for political reasons, these are not happening in most places, at least not so far.  Also, how about requiring proof that the person doesn't have RSV, the other (often main) reason for hospital overload?

You have got to be kidding. This comment makes me so angry. My mom spent 9 hours in a crazy ER this weekend. Sent home with reports of cancer all over her body. She will call tomorrow to see if they can schedule the tests she needs. They were so overwhelmed when my sis calked, they put her on hold for an hour. We went up there and the couldn’t find my mom . ( She had just been released)

 

My husband’s friends tgat are practicing are no longer doing elective surgery because their wards are being turned into Covid wards.  Now the stats still show available beds, but tgat is because these extra wards that should be holding regular patients  are now Covid wards. 

I am not thinking nice thoughts about you.  Off to pray. How dare you !!  You are heartless. You are mean. 

[Faith-manor]

13 hours ago, SKL said:

 

As for the hospital overload, to the extent reports are not exaggerated or invented for political reasons, these are not happening in most places, at least not so far.  Also, how about requiring proof that the person doesn't have RSV, the other (often main) reason for hospital overload?

This is a really disgusting post. Just gross!

Do the medical world a big favor since you think millions of healthcare workers are all lying, don't seek medical attention for anything. Stay the hell away from HCW's.

Just wow!

[mommyoffive]

Fauci says it's likely only Pfizer vaccine will be used at outset of booster campaign (msn.com)

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

I wonder why Qatar never got the efficiency peak that the UK and USA got? ... To put this into perspective, the UK figure for Pfizer effectiveness at 6 months was 74% - slightly above what Qatar had at peak. 

The dominant variant in Qatar when vaccination began was Beta (South Africa), which has mutations similar to Delta that help the virus evade antibodies. In the UK the dominant variant when vaccines rolled out was Alpha, which does not have the same ability to evade antibodies. For comparison, Astra Zeneca's efficacy was 66% against Alpha but only 10% against Beta. So Qatar's vaccination program began with a variant against which vaccines are much less effective.

[Acadie]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

The dominant variant in Qatar when vaccination began was Beta (South Africa), which has mutations similar to Delta that help the virus evade antibodies. In the UK the dominant variant when vaccines rolled out was Alpha, which does not have the same ability to evade antibodies. For comparison, Astra Zeneca's efficacy was 66% against Alpha but only 10% against Beta. So Qatar's vaccination program began with a variant against which vaccines are much less effective.

Thanks so much for sharing the depth of your reading and understanding with the Hive, @Corraleno! With uncanny frequency your posts answer questions that have crossed my mind when I just haven't had the bandwidth to suss it out myself.

Just wanted to express my gratitude for the way your posts so often help me understand what's happening with the pandemic and make better decisions for my family. 

[ieta_cassiopeia]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The dominant variant in Qatar when vaccination began was Beta (South Africa), which has mutations similar to Delta that help the virus evade antibodies. In the UK the dominant variant when vaccines rolled out was Alpha, which does not have the same ability to evade antibodies. For comparison, Astra Zeneca's efficacy was 66% against Alpha but only 10% against Beta. So Qatar's vaccination program began with a variant against which vaccines are much less effective.

This is useful information. It also means that a possible factor is the amount of work a protection type (vaccine or natural) has had to do since it happened. At which point, it becomes a lot harder to predict the point at which a given group of people will need boosters, since that's not only going to vary according to the country, but by local and individual risk profile.

[kokotg]

Hmm. Waning immunity vs. Delta ruins everything. This guys comes down strongly in favor of the latter and says we need to slow down re: boosters because of it:

Quote

It is now clear to me that the surge in breakthrough Covid-19 cases in the United States is almost entirely a result of the Delta variant, and not an indication of waning immunity. Yes, measured antibody levels in vaccine recipients are now lower than they were right after vaccination. But that does not necessarily have clinical meaning, nor is it unexpected. By analogy, someone standing in three feet of water is not “nearly drowning” just because that person was previously standing in two feet of water; nor are they necessarily destined to soon be standing in eight feet of water.

Quote

the data from New York show that breakthrough cases rose in all age groups at the same time and right as Delta took over in the region. The absence of an age-specific sequence—in which older people succumbed first—virtually eliminates the waning immunity theory as the driver of the breakthrough surge. If anything, it appears that breakthrough infections increased among the younger population somewhat before older adults. Another very recent study that includes data from 13 states reports that breakthrough hospitalizations rose in all age groups simultaneously, both this spring and this summer. That makes no sense if this is all just waning immunity.

https://insidemedicine.bulletin.com/537599687311876/?fbclid=IwAR3R_-gM-WatKZGMtCWIhD8P0CjDMeVEWyy5Bclq54LAMqUZA1b32_ce428