Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

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

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

12 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

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.

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98178_103214-565408--,00.html

I stopped counting after I found 5 churches on this list, fwiw. Maybe one is near you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98178_103214-565408--,00.html

I stopped counting after I found 5 churches on this list, fwiw. Maybe one is near you?

Nope.

 

But, my entire family is vaccinated. We don't need that. I was responding from the fact that the churches in my area are actually again public health measures and have been vectors of covid outbreaks. That's all. I know how disappointed Katie must be because it had been so hard in Florida this summer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Nope.

 

But, my entire family is vaccinated. We don't need that. I was responding from the fact that the churches in my area are actually again public health measures and have been vectors of covid outbreaks. That's all. I know how disappointed Katie must be because it had been so hard in Florida this summer!

Oh sorry, I thought you said you were in Michigan, and meant no churches  in Michigan were offering vax clinics. I misunderstood. Good they are there for people who do need them and might be skeptical, and like ksera said, dollar stores are probably great for many of the majority demographics of the unvaxxed.
 

Edited by BronzeTurtle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Oh sorry, I thought you said you were in Michigan, and these churches are in various cities in Michigan. Good they are there for people who do need them and might be skeptical, and like ksera said, dollar stores are probably great for many of the majority demographics of the unvaxxed.
 

I am in Michigan. I am in a remote area in which, unfortunately, churches have actually been against public health measures, preach that masks are a mark of the beast, and that the government is chipping people and taking the vax means you are not a christian. Many churches have had large, covid outbreaks. I was just expressing my thanks that her church was thinking of others and supporting vaccination. They also have lots of safety protocols for their children's programs. So I am just in general, impressed with her church. Just an expression of gratitude for a church taking such a proactive measure given how very hard things have been in Florida the last three months.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

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.

Yes it will.  I am sad that I don't have a choice.  I mean I do I guess.  But I got Pfizer for my teens back in May.  If I knew what I know now I would want them to have Moderna, but there isn't even that option.  I would want that for my younger kids too.  But again not an option right now.  That is really frustrating to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

This will be interesting when it comes to my next shot.  I do not plan to take another dose of Moderna.  Maybe they'll have to call it my 3rd shot instead of a booster, since I'd qualify for one of those whenever I decide to come off treatment to get another vaccine dose. 🤷‍♀️

I am so glad my DH and kids got Pfizer, as it's booster actually seems to be more effective, and the lesser side effects a bonus, especially with my male teens.  I don't think Moderna has hit their sweet spot between side effects and efficacy yet and look forward to what changes they may make in the future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I am in Michigan. I am in a remote area in which, unfortunately, churches have actually been against public health measures, preach that masks are a mark of the beast, and that the government is chipping people and taking the vax means you are not a christian. Many churches have had large, covid outbreaks. I was just expressing my thanks that her church was thinking of others and supporting vaccination. They also have lots of safety protocols for their children's programs. So I am just in general, impressed with her church. Just an expression of gratitude for a church taking such a proactive measure given how very hard things have been in Florida the last three months.

That is unfortunate. Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying about your state. Here it is the local unis/colleges that had bad outbreaks. The young feel invincible I suppose, and I guess they are not wrong as cases went high but hospitalizations remained manageable. They did a lot of testing but distancing was a joke. I mean, online class, but if you live and party together stuff gets spread. 

I do fear that things are going to get very hard in a lot of different places over fall and winter. I hope I am wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...