Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Corraleno 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. 

Knowing this is your take is validating.

My take as well, but I know which of us is better informed (and that ain't me).

I am SO HAPPY that I acted and got "boosters" for my wife and I.

As I was certain would be the case, my wife had a child in her autism room at school who came to school with a fever this week, tested positive for Covid, and now the students are quareenteening. 

I think CDC et al are being far to slow based on the evidence available and agree that pressure from WHO is likely a part of the problem. How are are they going to let the pandemic re-erupt before acting? It is nutz.

Bill

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

That's nuts.  All the studies they are basing this on are pre-Delta, ending with data from Jan/Feb of this year.  They need to look across the pond at the pediatric ICUs filling up.

NICE rules means American studies (let alone observational data such as "children filling American ICUs") can't be taken as read, since USA rules for a valid study are different from the rules for a valid British study. Both studies and observational data are helpful for framing British study questions and direction, but it will take some months for the data to come in because children currently don't make up a large proportion of the British COVID patients - either testing positive in the first place (7.1% of the total confirmed cases this week were in under-25s, and except for Scotland, the peak for under-25s is in the 16-19-year-old group who were allowed to get vaccinated recently enough that most are still on their first jab) or in hospital (even in Scotland, there are only 10 under-10s in hospital with COVID, meaning there are below 30 under-25s in Scottish hospitals with COVID, and some of those are children in for other reasons who also happen to have COVID).

I fully expect the former to change when English students go back to school this coming week due to intensive in-schools testing (Scottish students are already back, for them all school-age categories are close to the 16-19 level of case quantity) but are only perhaps 1/13 of the total students in the UK) and it remains to be seen whether the hospitalisations track that increase by the end of September.

 

7 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Not surprised; OxfordAstrazeneca has shown less reduction of protection over time, and it's possible that might also apply to other non-Pfizer vaccines (we'll likely know better in a couple of months, when early UK OxfordAstrazeneca recipients are as far removed from their doses as the early Israeli Pfizer recipients. Note the earliest UK recipients also got their vaccines on a three-week interval; the 12-week interval only got implemented a few weeks after the process got rolled out to the less urban care homes.
 

12 hours 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, 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.

COVID clogging up ER is relatively old news. Ivermectin for horses is the latest new mistake people make, and is more likely to yield attention.

Gunshot wounds make sense if people who are stuck at home (due to COVID/feeling unsafe, unemployment due to businesses not re-opening afterwards or any other reason) are getting depressed and there's a gun around.
 

12 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”? 

More perceived benefit to persuading vaccine-hesitant adults to vaccinate, of which Britain still has a few million. Especially since some of them are empowered to withhold consent for 12-15-year-olds to get vaccinated (16+ can override a parental objection to most medicines if they themselves want to be vaccinated). Vaccine-hesitant parents don't generally let their children be vaccinated until they are convinced the vaccine is suitable for adults to take (since pediatric medicine is frequently trickier than adult medicine). Whereas virtually every parent who has had at least one dose and not landed in hospital for it is likely, on past experience with other vaccines, to permit their children to have the same vaccine. As GPs start to have (in some cases) a bit more time to deliver personalised care, there's a feeling in some areas that the individual conversations with hesitators' own doctors that has been found to help so much with persuasion will gradually become more feasible.

If Britain's vaccine-hesitant were as a whole more fervent in their beliefs, which appears to be the case in the USA, then that would have changed the risk/benefit profile more in favour of vaccinating teenagers below the age of personal consent. If British schools were allowed to mandate vaccination, that would also change the risk/benefit profile, but that's unlikely ever to happen due to state schools being traditionally the backstop position for those who otherwise would get no education at all (including those with least access to medical care in general). Finally, if adults start taking fewer risks (this is the most likely to change, since the UK still holds lockdowns as a last-ditch reserve option), that changes the risk profile too - I think there are parts of the USA where people are more cautious than the UK, as well as some other parts where more risks are being taken.

 

At some point, the risk profile may change due to increasing rates of adult vaccination (the more adult vaccination, the less opportunity cost in giving the vaccine to children vs adults), so it's not just the benefit profile that makes it possible this position will be revised.
 

8 hours 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. 

Are we sure this scientist isn't a bot in disguise? Or at the very least a scientist who hasn't done the research when it comes to parsing vaccination outcomes (not all scientists work in biology, for a start)?
 

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

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.)


What percentage efficacy is CDC using for approvals? In the UK, it's 50%, so strictly speaking Pfizer would still be considered effective there at 56% - although boosters for groups of people who are definitely below 50% (e.g. immunocompromised people) would make sense (because people expect their vaccine to at least give them the minimum effectiveness they have been told to expect).

If CDC is using a stricter metric than the UK for defining efficacy, then boosters for everyone is a reasonable call politically, even if releasing vaccine batches to other countries might be more effective at reducing general risk levels.
 

3 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

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.

We don't know how many-shot a vaccine this is, and in the UK, resistance to COVID controls in general increased once it was realised that whatever it was, it wasn't a two-shot affair. Telling people to treat it as three-shot risks worse backlashes if it turns out to be more like a rabies vaccination (initial dose, then boosters every so often for the rest of one's life if needed).
 

3 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

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


COVID-19 itself has only existed for a little over 2.5 years - if he has information, that was the fastest vaccine development ever, and all by stealth too!

Edited by ieta_cassiopeia
Added paragraph explaining differences between Britain and the USA that may explain country-specific reasons why it is reasonable both countries have different answers regarding vaccine boosters.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 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.

This article mostly seems to be fluff. It’s not really  talking about the data, which is mostly coming out of Israel:

https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta

A quote from this article:

 

As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,” says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) who has consulted on COVID-19 for the government. “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’”

 

At this point, we basically know that elderly people ought to have boosters. But lots of people won’t get them against CDC advice and lots of doctors won’t prescribe them against CDC advice (that’s why my in-laws haven’t gotten theirs.) 

And I’m terrified about that. They had to go to the ER last night for something unrelated… they are no longer locked down. It’s only a matter of time until they get COVID. And if the two shots aren’t nearly as good protection against hospitalization for vulnerable folks, that’s just scary. 

(Yes, I can run the 59% number myself and see that this is still not bad at all given rates of vaccination in older folks. But the problem is that being 80% effective is a lot less comforting when the disease is rampant than when the disease is not.)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

 They need to look across the pond at the pediatric ICUs filling up.

But the UK had predominantly Delta before the US did and I'm not hearing about that here. This article suggests,  by comparing vaccination rates in different states, that background vaccination rates are protective of unvaccinated children. Quotation at foot of message.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/health/delta-children-hospitalization-rates.html

 

Around 52 percent  of the US population has been vaccinated vs. around 63 percent in the UK.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Screenshot_20210904-145100_NYTimes.jpg

Edited by Laura Corin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

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.

I agree, and noticed Fauci seems to be steering the conversation this way lately. 

If as they are saying immunity is higher after 3 doses than shortly after 2, that makes it a 3rd dose. Not a booster, which would just be taking it back up near the 2 dose level. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

What percentage efficacy is CDC using for approvals? In the UK, it's 50%, so strictly speaking Pfizer would still be considered effective there at 56% - although boosters for groups of people who are definitely below 50% (e.g. immunocompromised people) would make sense (because people expect their vaccine to at least give them the minimum effectiveness they have been told to expect).

The US was using 50% as well. I’m extremely glad we ended up with vaccines that are way more protective against hospitalization and death than that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? What doctor would say "We have a cancer treatment that is 90% effective, but we're going to give you one that is only 50% effective because we think that's good enough"? And in the case of vaccines during a pandemic, significantly reducing the number of people who get sick and/or transmit the disease has far more impact than just successfully treating one individual's illness. 

The question the FDA is pondering isn't "Will a 3rd dose of mRNA vaccines prevent many illnesses and reduce spread?" It's "Will a 3rd dose of mRNA vaccines save enough lives to offset the negative optics of using boosters in a 1st world country?" And that's a political decision, not a scientific or medical one.

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously concerning study on waning immunity from Qatar, where 80% of the eligible population (12+) is fully vaccinated and routine testing is widespread (roughly 5% of the population is tested weekly). The study period covers January 1 to august 15, with Beta being the dominant variant earlier in the period and Delta becoming dominant during the last few months.

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.

Efficacy against hospitalization and death was considerably better, staying in the 86-95% range up to 24 weeks, but fell to 72% after 25 weeks.

This study included 288K people, and roughly 3/4 of the cases were discovered through random testing, contact tracing, requests for testing before travel, etc., so it is not skewed by only including those who sought treatment for symptomatic infection. Also, since Qatar has such a large percentage of foreign workers, the median age in the study was only 31.5 — so these are mostly young healthy people  in whom immunity waned so quickly. This refutes the argument that some have made against boosters on the grounds that data from Israel is biased by the fact that the first to be vaccinated were elderly — the data from Qatar clearly show immunity against infection decreasing to literally nil after 6 months even in young healthy people.

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

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

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.

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.

i’m in the group that does not want to catch Covid at all if I can help it, and I do everything I can toward that end, but I think with these results it’s important for people to see that the vaccine is still doing an amazing job at what it was originally designed to do: preventing serious illness and death. It sure would’ve been nice if it had also persisted at the high levels of preventing asymptomatic infection that it initially did. It will be interesting to see if the other vaccines do better with that, but that’s also a tricky trade off of whether you take something that has a much higher protection against severe illness and death, but it’s  protection against milder illness wanes, or if you take something that’s less protective against severe outcomes, but lasts for longer. For me, I would go with the first, but I’m willing to get additional doses as needed, also.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 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.

i’m in the group that does not want to catch Covid at all if I can help it, and I do everything I can toward that end, but I think with these results it’s important for people to see that the vaccine is still doing an amazing job at what it was originally designed to do: preventing serious illness and death. It sure would’ve been nice if it had also persisted at the high levels of preventing asymptomatic infection that it initially did. It will be interesting to see if the other vaccines do better with that, but that’s also a tricky trade off of whether you take something that has a much higher protection against severe illness and death, but it’s  protection against milder illness wanes, or if you take something that’s less protective against severe outcomes, but lasts for longer. For me, I would go with the first, but I’m willing to get additional doses as needed, also.

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? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 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’d love to see data on that. Logically, that makes sense to me, though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by wathe
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by KSera
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by ScoutTN
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by regentrude
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by regentrude
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

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

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. 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Frances
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • 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...