Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

Just now, Spy Car said:

One we could have fended off. Feels to me like watching a slow motion train wreck.

Same here. 

Really, I agree with your entire post. I think you're right and I wish you weren't. 

Of course, I could be wrong. So far, school has been going OK in places that take precautions, so it's possible I was wrong about that! (I'm still wondering what'll happen when the rates of community transmission are higher, though. But so far, I'll note I was wrong.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are being too pessimistic.  I think they're approving the higher risk people knowing that kids will be eligible soon and that the data from the higher risk people will be helpful in deciding on boosters for younger people.  For example, if kids and high risk people are vaxed and boosted, the risk/benefit may no longer support boosting a 16 year old male.  They can always say a month later that there is sufficient evidence at that point.

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

37 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I do agree that Israel isn't really more vaccinated than the Northeast, for example. But it's quite similar vaccinated to the Northeast, and this didn't prevent a really big spike. When the spike started, they immediately started boosters and tamped things down. I think they are currently claiming the boosters made a really big difference... and yet even with the booster, they had a lot of deaths. 

So what I'm worried about is that we're going to have a similar spike as Israel did, without the prompt response on the part of our government 😕 . I don't want things to get bad here again. I'm worried about my in-laws. I'm worried about other people we know who are not that young and who are DONE being careful. 

What I want most of all is to feel like the FDA is right, OK? I wish I felt safe with their decision. And I really don't. I don't have faith that they did the right thing. 

Goodness knows I don’t want another spike here either. I haven’t looked Enough at the Israel data, I need to do some more in order to have more definitive thoughts on their situation there. It’s hard to compare because their overall numbers are so many orders of magnitude less than ours. If I’m calculating right from quick numbers, their current spike has had a lower rate of death per population than our current spike. I don’t doubt the boosters are helping, I would think particularly by boosting those who are older and at high risk. Which we will be doing as well. I need to look at that more later. 
 

Again, I’d love a booster and will take one of offered (I might qualify under high risk, but depends how they define). 

14 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

But what about places where their cases declined without boosters? Within the same sort of time frame relative to the start of the wave? You're making a claim of causation of booster efficacy being the reason their wave declined, no? Do we know that the efficacy of boosters is the reason their wave peaked and then went down I guess is what I'm asking. And if we know that, why do other waves seem to ebb and flow at a similar rate without boosters?

We do have separate data showing that the boosters have been effective in reducing illness and death, without relying on a decrease in their overall case numbers at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Syllieann said:

I think you guys are being too pessimistic.  I think they're approving the higher risk people knowing that kids will be eligible soon and that the data from the higher risk people will be helpful in deciding on boosters for younger people.  For example, if kids and high risk people are vaxed and boosted, the risk/benefit may no longer support boosting a 16 year old male.  They can always say a month later that there is sufficient evidence at that point.

I hope so. I hope they actually approve Pfizer for kids soon and don’t drag their feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I think you guys are being too pessimistic.  I think they're approving the higher risk people knowing that kids will be eligible soon and that the data from the higher risk people will be helpful in deciding on boosters for younger people.  For example, if kids and high risk people are vaxed and boosted, the risk/benefit may no longer support boosting a 16 year old male.

Getting vaccines approved for children will be huge--assuming parents are not anti-vaxers. And let's hope the final FDA guidelines are pretty broad for adults who are at risk either due to high exposure on the job or due to underlying conditions.

*If* there is widescape immunization of children and the booster requirements are broad, I'd be more optimistic about the prospects of the vaccinated. 

Bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I hope so. I hope they actually approve Pfizer for kids soon and don’t drag their feet.

I will feel a lot better when the elementary school kids can get vaxxed.

Two weeks into school, it doesn't seem to be an unmitigated disaster yet (there is a mask mandate in school, but they're off for lunch).  Reports by the end of the last week are that there are about 1400 school cases statewide, with about 1200 of those being kids, the rest adults.  I cannot find the stats broken down by age (I would love to know if those are mostly among the kids too young to be vaxxed), nor what they're doing about any possible quarantining.  Which is annoying.  I am less and less impressed with our governor's handling of things as time goes on.  

People here at least don't seem to be shy about getting their kids vaxxed.  The percentage of kids 16-19 who have the vax is actually higher than any age group under 75 (it's 95+%), so I feel pretty good about high schools...  the lower age group (12-15) is less fully vaxxed, but over 90% have their first dose, so I'm thinking that's partly a timing thing.

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

35 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

No one said they don't "deserve" help. The US provides $8.5 billion in aid to sub-Saharan Africa every year.  We are donating half a billion doses of vaccine, more than the entire EU combined.

 

Most of the 450,000 vaccines doses that were destroyed were Astra Zeneca, which doesn't have unusual storage requirements. If you think the distribution was "stupid" or a "deliberate" attempt to sabotage African counties, then blame the WHO and the African Union, not the US.

I definitely did not see the "blame Africa for problems with aid from the West" argument coming. Definitely got the impression that people here were more progressive than that. I don't have the energy for a different thread though. I will say that in my opinion, providing aid means making sure our half a billion doses get into arms. Providing 450k vaccines is not providing aid if the doses don't get into arms. Same with the US providing half a billion. It is a meaningless figure without them actually being used. In any case, this is very far off your original question.

 

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You can compare the rates of COVID in people who did and didn't get boosters for that. They've done that. 

As for a similar rate, they have a lower death rate than almost anywhere in the US. 

You've asked a lot of questions here. My question is whether you've given any thought to what kinds of answers you'd find convincing or acceptable. Like, what would convince you that boosters made a difference in Israel? How would you check the hypothesis that they didn't? 

You're asking how I would prove a negative? Or how I would prove causation with many, many confounders? I would look at Israel's wave in the context of other countries waves and compare them, for one. I would look at places that vaxxed more recently that don't have waning immunity yet. THis is all hypothetical, of course, because I don't know from research, but I think even the biggest brains have trouble with correlation, causation, and proving negatives. "I'm not sure it was the boosters that cause the wave to decline looking at waves of covid in other places," "But how do you know it *isn't* boosters?" Okay, you've got me there. You've already said you're willing to get a 3rd shot regardless for yourself. As many have pointed out, I guess we all just have to make the best decisions for ourselves as individuals based on what we view is right. That works for me. I think individuals will always do what they think is in their best interest anyway. I was initially surprised that people here were willing to write off the fda advisory panel, but I think I sort of get it now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are talking about approval for kids coming around Halloween, which means the very first kids to line up for the shots will be getting the first dose in early November and the second in early December, and full immunity kicks in 2 weeks after that. Any kids who aren't vaxxed right away in early November are not going to have immunity by Christmas.

 

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

1 hour ago, BeachGal said:

The general public does not seem to understand that some of the problems caused by vaccines also can be caused by the infection.

Frustratingly true. A lot of people do not understand that damage from viruses can be cumulative as well, so if you've had the flu multiple times, for instance, that your body could be primed for that one next thing (virus, illness, stress, vaccine) could put you over the top for some kind of complication. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

We do have separate data showing that the boosters have been effective in reducing illness and death, without relying on a decrease in their overall case numbers at all.

Yes, but the people who are at high risk for severe illness and death from covid are being recommended boosters in the US too, right? That was the recommendation of the committee? It's not like the fda said boosters shouldn't be given to anyone. Just that you likely don't need one if your immune system functions normally and you already got 2 shots.

To me it makes sense. But then again, the 1 dose regimen the uk is recommending for young men 12-15 also makes sense to me, and I bet I'm in the minority here for that as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Right. Whereas the data suggests that they are effective and safe. 

DH said he read the meeting minutes and they basically discounted the Israeli data because it's not peer-reviewed yet 😕 . I don't see why they couldn't have done some kind of review process themselves... that seems so arrogant. 

I am currently watching the meeting recording.  It is 8 hours long so I am not to any conclusions or any possible comments of discounting the Israeli data in final analysis.

However, I have watched about 45 minutes of presentation and questions and answers regarding the Israeli data.  So, the individuals on the committee did look at, consider, and raise questions regarding the data.  I don't see how one could conclude that they were being arrogant.  In an eight-hour meeting, when they are presented on the spot with the data, there is only so much review process that they can do.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I definitely did not see the "blame Africa for problems with aid from the West" argument coming. Definitely got the impression that people here were more progressive than that. I don't have the energy for a different thread though. I will say that in my opinion, providing aid means making sure our half a billion doses get into arms. Providing 450k vaccines is not providing aid if the doses don't get into arms. Same with the US providing half a billion. It is a meaningless figure without them actually being used. In any case, this is very far off your original question.

That is one of the most ridiculous straw man arguments in a thread full of straw men.

The US is not. the. one. distributing. the. vaccines. The WHO is distributing the vaccines.

You say you agree with the WHO that the US should forgo boosters and send them to poor countries, a process that is largely controlled by the WHO. Then you call the WHO's distribution process "stupid" and claim they are purposely distributing vaccines in a way that gives rich countries an excuse not to send more. 

The US has never said they won't send vaccines because hundreds of thousands have been destroyed. The US has pledged a freaking half-billion doses, and ee have also donated millions in cash to the COVAX program. I pointed out the FACT that many doses are going to waste in poor countries due to lack of infrastructure in order to explain that the issue is far more complex than just "if 200 million Americans don't get boosters, that means 200 million Africans will get them." That's not how it works. You have totally misunderstood the point.

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

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

In an eight-hour meeting, when they are presented on the spot with the data, there is only so much review process that they can do.  

But Pfizer sent the data to the FDA a month ago. The FDA claims that the reason the process is so slow is that they have to send copies of the data to all committee members so they have enough time to review everything before the formal approval meeting.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

You're asking how I would prove a negative? Or how I would prove causation with many, many confounders? I would look at Israel's wave in the context of other countries waves and compare them, for one.

How would you compare them?? There are so many confounders there: different behaviors, and cultures, and climates, and rates of natural immunity. Comparing people with or without boosters in the same country is much sounder and removes lots of confounders (especially if you try to control for obvious stuff like age and pre-existing conditions.) 

 

23 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I would look at places that vaxxed more recently that don't have waning immunity yet. THis is all hypothetical, of course, because I don't know from research, but I think even the biggest brains have trouble with correlation, causation, and proving negatives.

You can't really "prove" anything in the context of statistics. But you can see whether there's a measurable difference or not. But again, that's best done in cases where the populations are broadly similar except for one variable you're studying. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

"I'm not sure it was the boosters that cause the wave to decline looking at waves of covid in other places," "But how do you know it *isn't* boosters?"

Let me just make sure I get this straight. You are aware there's evidence of seriously decreased immunity 6 months after the vaccine and you're aware there's evidence that boosters get immunity back up to 95% efficacy against INFECTION (not hospitalization or severe cases), but you think it's possible boosters have nothing to do with the cases going down?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

But Pfizer sent the data to the FDA a month ago. The FDA claims that the reason the process is so slow is that they have to send copies of the data to all committee members so they have enough time to review everything before the formal approval meeting.

 

The Israeli data that is being presented at the meeting is a study done through September 13.  I do not see how that data could have been sent to the committee members a month ago.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering ....

For those who have kids turning 12 after October, what will you do about vaccines if they approve (EUA) the kiddy vax in October?  From what I'm reading, it seems the kiddy vax only has one-third of the [potency/strength/whatever] of the vax we give 12yos.  At what point would you rather wait and get the adult vax?  Is there any thought of getting the kiddy vax as a bridge and then getting the adult vax, and is that likely to be allowed??  What about getting the kiddy vax as the first dose and the adult vax as the second dose??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I'm wondering ....

For those who have kids turning 12 after October, what will you do about vaccines if they approve (EUA) the kiddy vax in October?  From what I'm reading, it seems the kiddy vax only has one-third of the [potency/strength/whatever] of the vax we give 12yos.  At what point would you rather wait and get the adult vax?  Is there any thought of getting the kiddy vax as a bridge and then getting the adult vax, and is that likely to be allowed??  What about getting the kiddy vax as the first dose and the adult vax as the second dose??

I would get the higher adult dose after turning 12 if it's a girl with low exposure risk.  For a girl with high exposure or any boy I would do the lower child dose of its available sooner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The Israeli data that is being presented at the meeting is a study done through September 13.  I do not see how that data could have been sent to the committee members a month ago.  

The Israelis may have included additional information in their testimony, but the paper was available last month:

"A US government advisory panel met Friday to decide whether to approve administering booster shots of Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine, with Israeli health officials presenting figures indicating waning immunity against infection among all age groups around six months after vaccination.

Israeli experts presented the FDA with the findings of an Israeli study uploaded last month to online journal medRxiv ahead of peer review, comparing rates of infection and severe COVID during a several week period in July among people vaccinated at different times."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/fda-panel-weighs-covid-boosters-israeli-officials-present-data-in-favor/

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Yes, but the people who are at high risk for severe illness and death from covid are being recommended boosters in the US too, right? That was the recommendation of the committee? It's not like the fda said boosters shouldn't be given to anyone. Just that you likely don't need one if your immune system functions normally and you already got 2 shots.

To me it makes sense. But then again, the 1 dose regimen the uk is recommending for young men 12-15 also makes sense to me, and I bet I'm in the minority here for that as well.

Personally, I think that if I'm old enough that my immune system is flagging to the extent that they recommend a Shingles shot, that should be the same rec for booster age... and that pretty much lines up with the Israeli data of the more vulnerable age groups. (So that's 50+ instead of 65+)

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matryoshka said:

Personally, I think that if I'm old enough that my immune system is flagging to the extent that they recommend a Shingles shot, that should be the same rec for booster age... and that pretty much lines up with the Israeli data of the more vulnerable age groups. (So that's 50+ instead of 65+)

And frankly, 50+ has looked like the right call for ages, even just using US data. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

But what about places where their cases declined without boosters? Within the same sort of time frame relative to the start of the wave? You're making a claim of causation of booster efficacy being the reason their wave declined, no? Do we know that the efficacy of boosters is the reason their wave peaked and then went down I guess is what I'm asking. And if we know that, why do other waves seem to ebb and flow at a similar rate without boosters?

Cases declined here in the early summer bc of the vax and because Delta was not here in force yet.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The Israelis may have included additional information in their testimony, but the paper was available last month:

"A US government advisory panel met Friday to decide whether to approve administering booster shots of Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine, with Israeli health officials presenting figures indicating waning immunity against infection among all age groups around six months after vaccination.

Israeli experts presented the FDA with the findings of an Israeli study uploaded last month to online journal medRxiv ahead of peer review, comparing rates of infection and severe COVID during a several week period in July among people vaccinated at different times."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/fda-panel-weighs-covid-boosters-israeli-officials-present-data-in-favor/

 

 

This paper suggests waning immunity but gives no information about the safety or benefit of a third injection.  It also does not attempt to separate out the impact of Delta and time since immunization.   There is more information provided in the meeting.  

I wonder if it is accurate to conclude that the members questioned how much to consider this information simply because it was not peer reviewed.  Or, if they did see what was published online last month and saw all of the items that were not considered and how limited this paper is (which often characterizes non-peer reviewed material).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Personally, I think that if I'm old enough that my immune system is flagging to the extent that they recommend a Shingles shot, that should be the same rec for booster age... and that pretty much lines up with the Israeli data of the more vulnerable age groups. (So that's 50+ instead of 65+)

Yes! 
Extra for anyone with a higher risk health condition like diabetes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ScoutTN said:

Cases declined here in the early summer bc of the vax and because Delta was not here in force yet.

And also, there are definitely weather patterns happening. The Northeast has fewer cases in the summer due to different behavior -- everyone's outside! 

We've been test-driving the "spend all your time either at home or outdoors" form of infection control, with masks added on when we're outside and it's crowded. It's incredibly effective, I have to say. 4 months in and not a single cold. 

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

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

If I were you, I'd just go get a booster 😛 . But you know that already. 

I've considered. Especially for dh, who is almost 63 (lol, now I feel like someone with an 11yo...). But we're both 'healthy', so I'm not sure we could if we wanted to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matryoshka said:

I've considered. Especially for dh, who is almost 63 (lol, now I feel like someone with an 11yo...). But we're both 'healthy', so I'm not sure we could if we wanted to.

Who's gonna stop you? 😛 

Yeah, yeah, I know I'm starting to sound like a total renegade. I try not to do stuff that's not approved on average. But I'm really tired and frustrated here, and Pfizer has been approved in general, so I'm sure if one really wanted to do some doctor-shopping, one could find someone to prescribe it. 

Or you could just go to the pharmacy and ask for one 🤷‍♀️.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Who's gonna stop you? 😛 

Yeah, yeah, I know I'm starting to sound like a total renegade. I try not to do stuff that's not approved on average. But I'm really tired and frustrated here, and Pfizer has been approved in general, so I'm sure if one really wanted to do some doctor-shopping, one could find someone to prescribe it. 

Or you could just go to the pharmacy and ask for one 🤷‍♀️.

You don't think the pharmacy would ask for age?  LOL, one time where looking young for our ages will work against us...  And I have a feeling my dr would follow the 'rules'.  

I'd feel a lot better if dh and I had gotten Moderna...  at least my folks did, and they can get boosters too.

Edited by Matryoshka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yes. And there'd be another 200 at the pharmacy that would probably be tossed anyway! 😛 We aren't having a shortage here. 

My new church held a vaccine clinic last Friday and NO ONE showed up. Not a single person. Now, I don't know how well it was advertised outside the church, but man. 

  • Sad 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matryoshka said:

You don't think the pharmacy would ask for age?  And I have a feeling my dr would follow the 'rules'.  

I'd feel a lot better if dh and I had gotten Moderna...  at least my folks did, and they can get boosters too.

They would probably ask. Or they'd ask if you're immunocompromised. 

But honestly? By being in your 50s, you're immunocompromised 😛 . Your immune system is much less effective than it used to be. It's now compromised. Ta-da. Just because the FDA isn't recognizing this fact doesn't make it false. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

You don't think the pharmacy would ask for age?  And I have a feeling my dr would follow the 'rules'.  

I'd feel a lot better if dh and I had gotten Moderna...  at least my folks did, and they can get boosters too.

Actually, those who had Pfizer should be able to get a "booster" dose pretty soon (like in a week). Hopefully the requirements (beyond the age cut off) are broad enough to qualify you and your husband.

Those with Moderna can only get 3 doses not "boosters" (even though the shots are identical) under the approval for those who are immunocompromised, which are technically not "boosters."

Moderna boosters will take longer for approval. Pfizer, in whatever form, is imminent. 

Bill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Pfizer said a review of data for 2,268 children in the trial showed that those who received two 10 microgram doses had antibody levels one month after the second dose similar to those found in people aged 16 to 25 years who received 30 microgram doses in a separate Pfizer study.

There appeared to be fewer side effects such as fever and chills among younger children who got the vaccine compared with 16-25 year olds, according to Pfizer. There also were no cases of myocarditis, an inflammatory heart condition that has so far been found to be a rare side effect primarily in young men.

It will be interesting to compare the long term efficacy of Pfizer and Moderna in kids. They both tested 100 µg doses in adults as well as lower doses, but Pfizer decided to go with 30 µg due to lower side effects, while Moderna stuck with 100, and it appears that Moderna does not wane as quickly. The difference in the dose for kids is even greater: Pfizer is using 10 µg for ages 5-11 and Moderna is using 50 µg for ages 6-12. So 6 year olds who get Moderna will be getting a much higher dose than adults who got Pfizer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Yeah, the peak of vaccine uptake in the US was in April, when everyone under 65 became eligible in every state, so there is going to be a huge number of people hitting that 6-8 month mark, when data suggest that vaccine efficacy will have dropped to 30-40% or less, just as the holidays hit. I fear we may see another big spike this winter, and the FDA will be sitting there going "wow, who could have possibly predicted this?"

 

The US has the advantage that roughly 40% of the vaccinated got Moderna. That vaccine was 3x the strength of Pfizer and has shown that it takes 8 to 12 months for immunity to wane.

That buys us some extra time.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Actually, those who had Pfizer should be able to get a "booster" dose pretty soon (like in a week). Hopefully the requirements (beyond the age cut off) are broad enough to qualify you and your husband.

Those with Moderna can only get 3 doses not "boosters" (even though the shots are identical) under the approval for those who are immunocompromised, which are technically not "boosters."

Moderna's "booster" dose is actually 50 µg vs 100 µg for a "third" dose. I'm not sure why they went for a half dose for boosters; it's interesting that their booster only increased antibody levels to where they were after the 2nd dose, while Pfizer's booster (which is the same dose as the first two shots, 30 µg) pushed antibody levels much much higher (5-10x higher) than after the second dose. Maybe 3 doses of 100 µg were just too much in terms of side effects? I'm kind of surprised they're going with 50 µg for kids as young as 6.

It's also frustrating that the FDA will not allow people to get boosters (or even a second shot) from a different brand, even though there is tons of data on this from many different countries, all of which have found that it's totally safe. I think Germany is planning to authorize mRNA boosters for anyone who had AZ or J&J. But the FDA won't allow someone who originally got Moderna to get a Pfizer booster, even if they are over 65 with multiple risk factors. I'd be tempted to get a Moderna booster myself if they are approved by the time I hit the 6 month mark, even though I had Pfizer to begin with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Actually, those who had Pfizer should be able to get a "booster" dose pretty soon (like in a week). Hopefully the requirements (beyond the age cut off) are broad enough to qualify you and your husband.

They're not that broad, are they?  I mean, beyond age (which as NaN points out, by itself puts us in a immune-diminished position, but that's being discounted by itself), we're really not in bad shape.  Normal BMI, blood pressure, AIC, etc.  But yeah, age alone diminishes immune response.

Edited by Matryoshka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

Yep. They aren't fully tamped down. However, the efficacy is very high -- it's just that some people won't take them. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/15/covid-boosters-pfizer-says-israel-data-shows-third-shot-restores-efficacy-to-95percent.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Moderna's "booster" dose is actually 50 µg vs 100 µg for a "third" dose. I'm not sure why they went for a half dose for boosters; it's interesting that their booster only increased antibody levels to where they were after the 2nd dose, while Pfizer's booster (which is the same dose as the first two shots, 30 µg) pushed antibody levels much much higher (5-10x higher) than after the second dose. Maybe 3 doses of 100 µg were just too much in terms of side effects? I'm kind of surprised they're going with 50 µg for kids as young as 6.

It's also frustrating that the FDA will not allow people to get boosters (or even a second shot) from a different brand, even though there is tons of data on this from many different countries, all of which have found that it's totally safe. I think Germany is planning to authorize mRNA boosters for anyone who had AZ or J&J. But the FDA won't allow someone who originally got Moderna to get a Pfizer booster, even if they are over 65 with multiple risk factors. I'd be tempted to get a Moderna booster myself if they are approved by the time I hit the 6 month mark, even though I had Pfizer to begin with.

Same here. My mom and I had Moderna, and are eager for a third dose. Dh and one son had JnJ along with mother in law (at the time, the only vax option with open appointments), and two sons have pfizer. I really want my JnJ'ers to have the option of a Pfizer or Moderna shot. One son, due to mess ups with his work and college schedule, didn't get his Prizes until July/August so he is probably still pretty immune. But 6 months from now, I would really like him to have a third Pfizer or a shot of Moderna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Faith-manor said:

Same here. My mom and I had Moderna, and are eager for a third dose. Dh and one son had JnJ along with mother in law (at the time, the only vax option with open appointments), and two sons have pfizer. I really want my JnJ'ers to have the option of a Pfizer or Moderna shot. One son, due to mess ups with his work and college schedule, didn't get his Prizes until July/August so he is probably still pretty immune. But 6 months from now, I would really like him to have a third Pfizer or a shot of Moderna.

Our one family member who got J&J is SIL, who also has MS.  But apparently her dr says the meds she's on for that aren't technically immune-supressing, so between that weird data point plus the J&J, she's sadly far down the list for a booster (even though she also works at a high school...).  They really need to do something for the J&J folks...

  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matryoshka said:

They're not that broad, are they?  I mean, beyond age (which as NaN points out, by itself puts us in a immune-diminished position, but that's being discounted by itself), we're really not in bad shape.  Normal BMI, blood pressure, AIC, etc.  But yeah, age alone diminishes immune response.

The standard has not yet been established for the "boosters." The recommendation of the advisory group (off the top of by head) was something like "those at at high risk of contracting severe COVID-19." 

I'm hoping the full FDA will explicitly include those who are at high risk of exposure and theat the final language of who is at "high risk" is broad (vs being highly restrictive).

The final wording is pending. My gut check, and what I've been reading, is that the full FDA is likely to create more wiggle room for the vaccine motivated. Let's hope so.

Bill

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matryoshka said:

Our one family member who got J&J is SIL, who also has MS.  But apparently her dr says the meds she's on for that aren't technically immune-supressing, so between that weird data point plus the J&J, she's sadly far down the list for a booster (even though she also works at a high school...).  They really need to do something for the J&J folks...

Has she tried going into a pharmacy and truthfully declaring that she has MS? Might take visiting more than one location, but I think she'd eventually get her shot if she persisted.

Bill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Our one family member who got J&J is SIL, who also has MS.  But apparently her dr says the meds she's on for that aren't technically immune-supressing, so between that weird data point plus the J&J, she's sadly far down the list for a booster (even though she also works at a high school...).  They really need to do something for the J&J folks...

This makes me angry. The MS alone should be enough to get her a Pfizer or Moderna shot. Good grief! 😠

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

Unfortunately, Israel has a very large percentage of its population who not only refuse to vaccinate but who also refuse to take the most basic of countermeasures.

Crowded mass indoor gathers associated with the recent High Holy Days are sure to drive up infections, hospitalizations, and death.

Bill

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

This makes me angry. The MS alone should be enough to get her a Pfizer or Moderna shot. Good grief! 😠

6 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Has she tried going into a pharmacy and truthfully declaring that she has MS? Might take visiting more than one location, but I think she'd eventually get her shot if she persisted.

She's very much a rule-follower, and her doctor says she doesn't qualify, and she doesn't question. ☹️  Honestly it makes me angry too.

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yep. They aren't fully tamped down. However, the efficacy is very high -- it's just that some people won't take them. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/15/covid-boosters-pfizer-says-israel-data-shows-third-shot-restores-efficacy-to-95percent.html

Exactly. They still have a large percentage of the population unvaxxed (same percentage as my county, actually), and they only started boosting over 60s in July, and everyone else two weeks ago. The protection of boosters in younger people, who are responsible for most of the spread, hasn't even kicked in yet and won't impact the case rate for several more weeks. But the data on over 60s who were boosted in July shows an 11-fold reduction in infections, and a 20-fold reduction in severe cases and hospitalizations.

Edited by Corraleno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Yeah, the peak of vaccine uptake in the US was in April, when everyone under 65 became eligible in every state, so there is going to be a huge number of people hitting that 6-8 month mark, when data suggest that vaccine efficacy will have dropped to 30-40% or less, just as the holidays hit. I fear we may see another big spike this winter, and the FDA will be sitting there going "wow, who could have possibly predicted this?"

 

I’m hoping that between over 65s, high risk and high exposure folks getting boosters and the fact that almost half of those vaccinated got Moderna, that we’re going to be in better shape. I hadn’t been  considering the fact that this only applies to Pfizer though, even though I knew that if I had thought about it. I hope that they can get the approval for the Moderna ones soon. It’s fortunate that Moderna is holding up much better than Pfizer, since it’s taking longer.  I’ve been thinking I might qualify for a booster, but I had Moderna, so I guess not. I’m glad for the good data on Moderna though. Makes me feel better about waiting. 

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Yes, but the people who are at high risk for severe illness and death from covid are being recommended boosters in the US too, right? That was the recommendation of the committee? It's not like the fda said boosters shouldn't be given to anyone. Just that you likely don't need one if your immune system functions normally and you already got 2 shots.
 

Correct. Except that’s only for those who had Pfizer at this point. 

1 hour ago, Matryoshka said:

Personally, I think that if I'm old enough that my immune system is flagging to the extent that they recommend a Shingles shot, that should be the same rec for booster age... and that pretty much lines up with the Israeli data of the more vulnerable age groups. (So that's 50+ instead of 65+)

That makes sense to me as well.  I wonder what the reason is that 65 is the age that seems to get used by default here. I’m thinking it’s just a function of the way they set up the study groups, so that’s the data they have. If they had divided it differently, maybe they would have decided differently?

38 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Those with Moderna can only get 3 doses not "boosters" (even though the shots are identical) under the approval for those who are immunocompromised, which are technically not "boosters."

 

They’re identical in technology, but not in dose or timing. One or both of those factors is likely why it is not waning at the same rate Pfizer is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Let me just make sure I get this straight. You are aware there's evidence of seriously decreased immunity 6 months after the vaccine and you're aware there's evidence that boosters get immunity back up to 95% efficacy against INFECTION (not hospitalization or severe cases), but you think it's possible boosters have nothing to do with the cases going down?

lol, I said pretty much none of this. You asked me to prove a negative.

It's like a previous poster said that their cases were low during summer because of the vax and because there was no delta (which I think by early july it was pretty widespread, but I could be misremembering). cases in my area were low the summer before the vax. They were also low this summer when people had been vaxed. How do I know it was or wasn't the vax that was keeping cases low? Because I can look at two summers and say not having the vax didn't mean an increase in cases. I can't say that the vax in summer here is what kept cases low. I can't prove that it didn't either. but your statement above would be, "You're telling me a vax that is 95% effective didn't make cases lower in the summer of 2021?!" I'm telling you, based on history that I can't prove they did or didn't, same with boosters.

There is plenty of side-by-side data to compare, though.

Waves of covid come and go in about two months time on average. When I compare Israel's case graph with any other country with a recent wave (with delta), they look almost exactly the same. they peak and decline at about the same times. No, I can't prove that boosters are *not* what made Isreal peak and decline. I know other places that peaked and declined without vaccinations (India) or without boosters (pretty much everywhere besides Israel). 

I honestly don't think that cases are ever going away. I think even with 95% immunity you're not going to prevent someone from testing positive with a bunch of little sars2 particles throwing a party in their upper respiratory tract before antibodies get to them if you're testing healthy people who have been vaxxed. You'll get a lot more cases that are asymptomatic, and maybe you see a decrease in cases overall because those guys don't get to party in there very long, but if we're testing a bunch of vaccinated people regardless of symptoms, I think we'll see the same cases rise and fall seasonally. Just my theory, I'm fine with being wrong about it. I am also fine, as a vaccinated person, being exposed to covid and getting an immunity boost, again, having already been vaccinated and being young enough and not immunocompromised in anyway or not having other risk factors.

Here is the other problem with public health -- what may be best for you as an individual may not be best for public health concerns, especially just one specific public health concern. So convincing people they shouldn't act in their own best interest to further public health goals is probably never going to happen (as seen here). It may be a bad idea vis a vis covid for adults to hang out together this winter indoors in groups. It may be best for an individual to do that because they need to go to their AA meeting to keep from killing themselves. It may be best for the general public to not get illicit 3rd shots, but it may be hard to convince an individual whose goal is to not get covid that they shouldn't go out and find one. Depending on what corner of the internet you're in, you'll see a lot of sympathy for one but not the other, or advocating to get one legitimized but not the other. I don't envy officials who have to make policy balancing all of it.

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

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

My new church held a vaccine clinic last Friday and NO ONE showed up. Not a single person. Now, I don't know how well it was advertised outside the church, but man. 

Katie, 😥😥😥

But tell them wholeheartedly that an acquaintance from Michigan wants to say "Thank you so much for living Love your Neighbor, and making that effort!" We don't have churches in this area making any kind of an effort at all, and if anything, actively work against public health measures.

  • Like 6
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...