Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

That’s fair. But Pfizer was down to 86% for severe cases in Israel, right? So you’d kind of expect myocarditis risk to be off by one order of magnitude from unvaccinated people, not more.

That sounds like a reasonable guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I will need to check the numbers later, but my recollections (which may be wrong) are that myocarditis following vaccinations was very rare. Where post-Covid it is not that uncommon. With Delta the odds of evading Covid for the unvaccinated seem vanishingly small to me.

 

Right, but we're not talking about evading Covid for the unvaccinated, we're talking about evading Covid for the twice vaccinated. So, we would have to see what the rate of Catching Covid was for those with two shots, combined with the rate of myocarditis for a breakthrough case after 2 shots in order to see the overall probability of myocarditis for someone double vaccinated to compare it with the chance of myocarditis as a vaccine side effect. I still feel like the age is going to be significantly lower than 65 for the point at which the disease poses more of a risk of serious side effect vs a booster. Like, decades younger, )and quite possibly could end up being true across all age groups, except we really don't have data on kid breakthroughs enough to have even the slightest idea of that yet). But, I don't have any data to show that's the case, I'm just saying based on everything we know, my hunch is that's the way it's going to end up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm looking at a paper published Aug 4, 2021 in the JAMA network.

I'll link below.

2,000,287 vaccinated individuals monitored. Median age 57.

Only 11 cases of myocarditis with Pfizer (55% of cohort) and 9 with Moderna (45%). More details at link.

19 patients (out of the 2 million) were hospitalized with myocarditis, which isn't great, but none died and none was readmitted.

This study does not address lingering effects of myocarditis, but other writings I've seen suggest patients return to normal with no lingering issues.

An earlier study, cited by the linked one, has an incidence of myocarditis post-vaccination at 4.8 cases per million.

If this is the case, there seems to me to be very great concern about a relatively rare issue that is not causing long-term harm, while underplaying the risks of contracting Covid and Long Covid.

Bill

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

So I'm looking at a paper published Aug 4, 2021 in the JAMA network.

I'll link below.

2,000,287 vaccinated individuals monitored. Median age 57.

Only 11 cases of myocarditis with Pfizer (55% of cohort) and 9 with Moderna (45%). More details at link.

19 patients (out of the 2 million) were hospitalized with myocarditis, which isn't great, but none died and none was readmitted.

This study does not address lingering effects of myocarditis, but other writings I've seen suggest patients return to normal with no lingering issues.

An earlier study, cited by the linked one, has an incidence of myocarditis post-vaccination at 4.8 cases per million.

If this is the case, there seems to me to be very great concern about a relatively rare issue that is not causing long-term harm, while underplaying the risks of contracting Covid and Long Covid.

Bill

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900

 

 

 

The overall incidence was 4.8 per million (which these authors say they think is under-reporting), but the incidence in males under the age of 25 is over 50 per million--so over 10 times higher.  In fact over half of the cases of myocarditis in this study are in males under the age of 25.  (The incidence is only about 0.6 per million in the over 65 male population).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The overall incidence was 4.8 per million (which these authors say they think is under-reporting), but the incidence in males under the age of 25 is over 50 per million--so over 10 times higher.  In fact over half of the cases of myocarditis in this study are in males under the age of 25.  (The incidence is only about 0.6 per million in the over 65 male population).  

And if that is the case it would seem reasonable to recommend withholding boosters to males under 25 (or in that ballpark), where 65+ is hard to fathom.

Bill

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

6 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

And if that is the case it would seem reasonable to recommend withholding boosters to males under 25 (or in that ballpark), where 65+ is hard to fathom.

Bill

These numbers were from June and there is a note that more potential cases were under review (but they give no clue of how many that might be); in the meeting some of the committee members mentioned that there were different studies that had different results.  These results are after a second shot, so there is still a question about what happens after a third.  These results show the incidence increasing as age decreases, with even the 40-49 year old males have a rate over 6 times greater than those over 65.  

My perception is the committee sees evidence that the risk is higher in younger people and that the outcomes from a covid case are better in younger people, so as you move down the age spectrum the risk of vaccine increases and the benefit decreases--they do not know how stable those results are for a third dose.  I think a major issue is that it was Pfizer's job to provide evidence of benefit of a booster (and the committee found that some of the information that would generally be used to evaluate benefits was not provided) and it was Pfizer's job to provide evidence of low risk--and again the committee found that data lacking.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I think a major issue is that it was Pfizer's job to provide evidence of benefit of a booster (and the committee found that some of the information that would generally be used to evaluate benefits was not provided) and it was Pfizer's job to provide evidence of low risk--and again the committee found that data lacking.

 

I wonder if Pfizer was overconfident in approval, so didn’t bring as much data as they could or should have.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whitestavern said:

There was a question asked (IIRC - have been watching many videos) about age range for concern on cardio issues, and the answer was up to 40. So yes, they could've recommended perhaps 50+.

The UK is planning on giving boosters to over-fifties, the medically fragile, and staff working in health and social care. As our initial vaccination spacing was mostly 12 or 8 weeks, six months later will not come up for many for some time.  I was vaccinated as soon as my cohort became eligible, but my six months won't be up until late November. 

I would expect my 97 year old mother to get hers very soon though, as she had her second - on the four-week schedule - in January. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Dr. Steve Kirsh's testimony quite concerning. He is not on the FDA panel but was invited to testify. According to his data, one in 317 boys (16-17) will get myocarditis from the Pfizer vaccine. This rate could increase to 1 in 25 after those patients have received the booster. He also discussed concerning heart attack incidence in adult trial participants.

And Dr. Joseph Fraiman spoke after him, frustrated that Pfizer did not have clinical evidence to disprove the claim that covid vaccines are harming more people than they save. (He is not claiming the vaccines do injure people, just lamenting that science can't prove that.)

That testimony comes around the 4:20 mark of the 8 hr long video.

 

 

ETA: Maybe these are untrustworthy doctors or statistics; I have no idea how to evaluate. The FDA invited them to the meeting. I'm just a concerned parent trying like the rest of us to read and understand. 

Edited by Lucy the Valiant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, depends on rates when catching COVID while vaccinated, though.

Yes!  But it also makes sense to consider males and females separately.  If we don't boost males under a certain age, we could still provide them additional protection by boosting females.  I'm guessing this would make a big difference in household transmission with high inoculum.

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

2 hours ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

I found Dr. Steve Kirsh's testimony quite concerning. He is not on the FDA panel but was invited to testify. According to his data, one in 317 boys (16-17) will get myocarditis from the Pfizer vaccine. This rate could increase to 1 in 25 after those patients have received the booster. He also discussed concerning heart attack incidence in adult trial participants.

Interesting. Where is he getting that data, do you know? 

 

2 hours ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

And Dr. Joseph Fraiman spoke after him, frustrated that Pfizer did not have clinical evidence to disprove the claim that covid vaccines are harming more people than they save. (He is not claiming the vaccines do injure people, just lamenting that science can't prove that.)

Well, I don't know how Pfizer would even collect that data. I think it's a very good idea to follow vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people for a few years to see what happens, but I don't see how Pfizer would be able to do that right this instance. And of course, the trade-offs really depend on how many people wind up getting COVID! Like, if there was no COVID, a COVID vaccine would almost do more harm than good, lol. 

These sounds like slightly strange concerns. Does anyone know anything about those doctors? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish they would put people working in schools on the list along with healthcare. They are working with kids who are unvaccinated and unable to be vaccinated. The ONLY people who are as a group working with 100 percent unvaccinated people for hours all day, in a small room. (other than say, pediatricians, but even they see people one at a time, not 20 plus in a room, and pediatricians would be covered under health care workers anyway)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ktgrok said:

I wish they would put people working in schools on the list along with healthcare. They are working with kids who are unvaccinated and unable to be vaccinated. The ONLY people who are as a group working with 100 percent unvaccinated people for hours all day, in a small room. (other than say, pediatricians, but even they see people one at a time, not 20 plus in a room, and pediatricians would be covered under health care workers anyway)

Child care providers also do this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Interesting. Where is he getting that data, do you know? 

 

Well, I don't know how Pfizer would even collect that data. I think it's a very good idea to follow vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people for a few years to see what happens, but I don't see how Pfizer would be able to do that right this instance. And of course, the trade-offs really depend on how many people wind up getting COVID! Like, if there was no COVID, a COVID vaccine would almost do more harm than good, lol. 

These sounds like slightly strange concerns. Does anyone know anything about those doctors? 

 

Pfizer had just over 300 people TOTAL in their clinical trial.  They had no one under the age of 19.  Of course Pfizer cannot provide data at this point for what happens several years after vaccine, but they could include more people in their original trial.  You cannot conclude anything about the incidence of an adverse event after a third booster in 16-18 yearl old males when you had none in the group.  If an adverse event will happen in 1 in 500 shots, you are unlikely to pick that up when you have such a small sample size.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

I found Dr. Steve Kirsh's testimony quite concerning. He is not on the FDA panel but was invited to testify. According to his data, one in 317 boys (16-17) will get myocarditis from the Pfizer vaccine. This rate could increase to 1 in 25 after those patients have received the booster. He also discussed concerning heart attack incidence in adult trial participants.

So I've been googling this guy, and he is an antivax activist who claims the vaccine has killed more than 150,000 people in the US, that more people die from the vaccine than covid, that it causes infertility, and that the spike proteins are "cytotoxic." He also believes that ivermectin cures covid. He seems to be an engineer, with no medical expertise.

Anyway, in trying to find where that 1-in-317 statistic came from, I found the tweet below, and read the paper he linked. That study doesn't even include 16-17 year olds, and 25 of the 32 cases of myocarditis they found were from Moderna, not Pfizer! The overall rate for Pfizer was 1 in 2500, and for Moderna it was 1 in 625. All the cases resolved quickly, with no long term effects. Also, this study simply says "this many people were vaccinated and this many had myocarditis" — there is no control and no comparison to the normal background rate in the population, so they are not expressing the increase in risk of myocarditis after vaccination. Here is the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262182v1

Screen Shot 2021-09-22 at 7.44.16 AM.png

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

So I've been googling this guy, and he is an antivax activist who claims the vaccine has killed more than 150,000 people in the US, that more people die from the vaccine than covid, that it causes infertility, and that the spike proteins are "cytotoxic." He also believes that ivermectin cures covid. He seems to be an engineer, with no medical expertise.

Anyway, in trying to find where that 1-in-317 statistic came from, I found the tweet below, and read the paper he linked. That study doesn't even include 16-17 year olds, and 25 of the 32 cases of myocarditis they found were from Moderna, not Pfizer! The overall rate for Pfizer was 1 in 2500, and for Moderna it was 1 in 625. All the cases resolved quickly, with no long term effects. Also, this study simply says "this many people were vaccinated and this many had myocarditis" — there is no control and no comparison to the normal background rate in the population, so they are not expressing the increase in risk of myocarditis after vaccination. Here is the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262182v1

Screen Shot 2021-09-22 at 7.44.16 AM.png

How the heck did this guy get invited to talk at the panel?  How many people are going to assume he's legitimate just because he spoke there?

We are so friggin screwed.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

How the heck did this guy get invited to talk at the panel?  How many people are going to assume he's legitimate just because he spoke there?

We are so friggin screwed.  

I don't think he was invited — members of the public were allowed to speak at the hearing, just like they are at school board meetings or town council meetings or whatever.

ETA: he said in a tweet that he had to talk fast because he only had 3 minutes, which suggests that he was just some random member of the public, not a specialist who was invited to speak

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, [not a Doctor] Steve Kirsh is an anti-vaxx nutter who was NOT invited to speak. He's being promoted by lunatic-fringe Covid disinformation websites.

Makes one wonder where some people get their "news?"

Very sad.

Bill

 

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

He's also not a doctor, in any discipline. He has a masters in engineering and computer science and has started several tech companies. He has no background or experience whatsoever in medicine, virology, epidemiology, or any science other than computer science.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

He's also not a doctor, in any discipline. He has a masters in engineering and computer science and has started several tech companies. He has no background or experience whatsoever in medicine, virology, epidemiology, or any science other than computer science.

Thanks. Fixed my post.

I wonder how I will be "targeted" now by the Google algorithm? Ended up on some seriously scary websites by following search results for his name.

The disinformation load in this country is staggering.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the VAERS data handled? I understand that it is self-reported, which leads to a LOT of questions of validitiy / cause-effect, etc. Is there a better database for adverse vaccine reactions meta-analyzed from clinical trials? 

I don't want to read "quacks", but I want to better understand adverse reactions, especially in minors and in immunocompromised young people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I wish they would put people working in schools on the list along with healthcare. They are working with kids who are unvaccinated and unable to be vaccinated. The ONLY people who are as a group working with 100 percent unvaccinated people for hours all day, in a small room. (other than say, pediatricians, but even they see people one at a time, not 20 plus in a room, and pediatricians would be covered under health care workers anyway)

The advisory panel did vote that  people with high occupational exposure, such as teachers and healthcare professionals, should be eligible.

18 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

How is the VAERS data handled? I understand that it is self-reported, which leads to a LOT of questions of validitiy / cause-effect, etc. Is there a better database for adverse vaccine reactions meta-analyzed from clinical trials? 

I don't want to read "quacks", but I want to better understand adverse reactions, especially in minors and in immunocompromised young people. 

I don’t know of a database for that, but most of that is best covered with some of the large population studies that have been done since the vaccine was released. V Safe data is also something to look at, though I have been disappointed to find out how many people either didn’t know about or didn’t bother to sign up for V safe when they got their vaccine. That makes quite a bit toward people who had stronger reactions, because those people may have been more likely to go looking for somewhere to report it. Still, the V safe data looks a lot closer to what has shown up in studies versus VAERS, whose Data is wildly wacky and unreliable for this purpose. The guy who said more people have been harmed by the vaccine than saved by the vaccine is definitely from way out in Quacky land. That is clear from even the most cursory look at the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

So I've been googling this guy, and he is an antivax activist who claims the vaccine has killed more than 150,000 people in the US, that more people die from the vaccine than covid, that it causes infertility, and that the spike proteins are "cytotoxic." He also believes that ivermectin cures covid. He seems to be an engineer, with no medical expertise.

Anyway, in trying to find where that 1-in-317 statistic came from, I found the tweet below, and read the paper he linked. That study doesn't even include 16-17 year olds, and 25 of the 32 cases of myocarditis they found were from Moderna, not Pfizer! The overall rate for Pfizer was 1 in 2500, and for Moderna it was 1 in 625. All the cases resolved quickly, with no long term effects. Also, this study simply says "this many people were vaccinated and this many had myocarditis" — there is no control and no comparison to the normal background rate in the population, so they are not expressing the increase in risk of myocarditis after vaccination. Here is the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262182v1

Screen Shot 2021-09-22 at 7.44.16 AM.png

Thanks for doing the Googling. I kind of didn't even want to go there. 

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

Did Pfizer's data show that a booster would increase efficacy against Delta or just that it increased antibodies? That's not exactly the same thing. No one has yet (to my knowledge) determined that Pfizer's decreased efficacy is due to waning immunity rather than simply being less effective against Delta.

I understand all the arguments in favor of boosters. I want them for my parents, in-laws and high risk brother-in-law. But I think a some of the pressure for boosters is simply frustration that mRNA shots are no longer 95% effective. It'd be great if boosters could create that again. But I'm skeptical they would and, honestly, I don't see that Pfizer is providing evidence to that effect. In the last month, the number of people I know who've had break-through Covid19 cases has jumped exponentially. Some got their vaccines as long ago as February; some as early as June; most in April. Does that show waning immunity or is it just the Delta wildfire in my area?

At this point I think the FDA is right to wait on boosters for everyone. I don't see that they've completely rejected it. The panel just didn't receive the evidence they needed to convince them that the risks outweigh the benefits. Perhaps in the next few months the data will show that boosters are needed. Since vaccines do seem to be protecting against severe Covid19 and hospitalizations, waiting strikes me as a good thing.

Here's an article from The Atlantic that gives compelling evidence for a wait and see approach to boosters:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/when-you-should-get-your-covid-booster-shot/620123/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

How is the VAERS data handled? I understand that it is self-reported, which leads to a LOT of questions of validitiy / cause-effect, etc. Is there a better database for adverse vaccine reactions meta-analyzed from clinical trials? 

I don't want to read "quacks", but I want to better understand adverse reactions, especially in minors and in immunocompromised young people. 

I agree with you on the poor quality of the US data, and it seems purposeful to me that they pump the boys into groups like "under 40" to dilute the true risk for the adolescents and teens.  Israel has done a much better job keeping track of myocarditis.  I used their numbers in determining if and when to vaccinate my 12yo son.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ilera25 said:

Did Pfizer's data show that a booster would increase efficacy against Delta or just that it increased antibodies? That's not exactly the same thing. No one has yet (to my knowledge) determined that Pfizer's decreased efficacy is due to waning immunity rather than simply being less effective against Delta.

 

Define "efficacy." The panel seemed to accept that the only way to stop infections was by raising antibodies, which the boosters clearly do.

So is this "efficacy" against infections (and infectiousness) or "efficacy" against severe illness, hospitalization, and death?

Most of the panel seems willing to allow infections/infectiousness to rise, with no consideration of Long Covid among those with mild and moderate disease or without taking into account the very high transmissibility of the Delta variant.

Bill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ilera25 said:

Did Pfizer's data show that a booster would increase efficacy against Delta or just that it increased antibodies? That's not exactly the same thing. No one has yet (to my knowledge) determined that Pfizer's decreased efficacy is due to waning immunity rather than simply being less effective against Delta.

Yes, they have. That's exactly what the Israeli data shows -- that there's waning immunity. And there's also data that boosters increase immunity back to the normal effectiveness. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ilera25 said:

Some got their vaccines as long ago as February; some as early as June; most in April. Does that show waning immunity or is it just the Delta wildfire in my area?

April would be enough for serious waning immunity, since it's 5 months ago. 

Do I wish the darn vaccines would last longer? Yes. Do I also want to be protected during the Delta wave, especially while the kids are unvaxxed? Also yes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RootAnn said:

Child care providers also do this.

Oh, absolutely

1 hour ago, KSera said:

The advisory panel did vote that  people with high occupational exposure, such as teachers and healthcare professionals, should be eligible.

 

Thank you, the quick thing I read didn't mention teachers, or I missed it somehow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Oh, absolutely

Thank you, the quick thing I read didn't mention teachers, or I missed it somehow. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-covid-19-booster-debate-moves-fda-vaccine-advisory-committee-2021-09-17/

Quote

Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted on Friday to recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster shots for Americans 65 and older and those at high risk of severe illness, after overwhelmingly rejecting a call for broader approval.

The panel also recommended that the FDA include healthcare workers and others at high risk of occupational exposure to the virus that causes COVID-19, such as teachers.

Despite the narrowed scope of the proposed authorization, the panel's recommendation would cover most Americans who got their shots in the earliest stages of the U.S. vaccination campaign.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Thanks. Fixed my post.

I wonder how I will be "targeted" now by the Google algorithm? Ended up on some seriously scary websites by following search results for his name.

The disinformation load in this country is staggering.

Bill

I don't know if it helps or if I've been lucky to have relatively little backlash from my searches, but when I want to know about someone questionable, I search "who is x" vs. just their name (or "what is x" for a questionable organization). My top results often bring up an article about them vs. their crazy site. 

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

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I don't think he was invited — members of the public were allowed to speak at the hearing, just like they are at school board meetings or town council meetings or whatever.

ETA: he said in a tweet that he had to talk fast because he only had 3 minutes, which suggests that he was just some random member of the public, not a specialist who was invited to speak

Well that's a relief.  I thought he was the one someone mentioned before was invited.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

Well that's a relief.  I thought he was the one someone mentioned before was invited.  

That poster misunderstood and thought he was a speaker invited by the FDA. Maybe the FDA needs to make more clear that not everyone speaking there was invited by or speaking for them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017
 

Efficacy data for Moderna at the end of the Blinded Phase

The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group, and the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection starting 14 days after the second injection was 63.0% (95% CI, 56.6 to 68.5), with 214 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 498 in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy was consistent across ethnic and racial groups, age groups, and participants with coexisting conditions. No safety concerns were identified.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017
 

Efficacy data for Moderna at the end of the Blinded Phase

The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group, and the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection starting 14 days after the second injection was 63.0% (95% CI, 56.6 to 68.5), with 214 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 498 in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy was consistent across ethnic and racial groups, age groups, and participants with coexisting conditions. No safety concerns were identified.

 

Super interesting. Very good for severe disease, but not great for asymptomatic stuff. What was it at earlier points? I remember better numbers for that, but I don't remember how many months in that was. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Super interesting. Very good for severe disease, but not great for asymptomatic stuff. What was it at earlier points? I remember better numbers for that, but I don't remember how many months in that was. 

I mean it’s still 60pc and I remember a point where 60pc protection was all we were going for.  I think 60pc is also the minimum for approval but I think that’s for disease not infection.  I must admit it doesn’t allay my worries about being an asymptomatic spreader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

I mean it’s still 60pc and I remember a point where 60pc protection was all we were going for.  I think 60pc is also the minimum for approval but I think that’s for disease not infection.  I must admit it doesn’t allay my worries about being an asymptomatic spreader though.

That's the kind of thing that has me reaching for boosters, lol. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martha in GA said:

I don't know if this has been posted, but this kind of data fascinates me (about a prison outbreak in TX):

https://www.macon.com/news/coronavirus/article254435113.html?ac_cid=DM535667&ac_bid=1839955727

3 out of 4 hospitalized prisoners were unvaccinated and this is significant as there were only 42 unvaccinated prisoners vs 185 who had vaccines.

The only prisoner to die was unvaccinated. One death out of 42 unvaccinated prisoners. None among the 185 vaccinated prisoners.

The infection rate was significantly lower for vaccinated prisoners 70% vs 93%. 

A pretty compelling case for vaccinations.

Bill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

3 out of 4 hospitalized prisoners were unvaccinated and this is significant as there were only 42 unvaccinated prisoners vs 185 who had vaccines.

The only prisoner to die was unvaccinated. One death out of 42 unvaccinated prisoners. None among the 185 vaccinated prisoners.

The infection rate was significantly lower for vaccinated prisoners 70% vs 93%. 

A pretty compelling case for vaccinations.

Bill

 

But, the infection rate was even lower for partially vaccinated prisoners than for fully vaccinated prisoners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoping that the local places will start giving boosters by this weekend. If I could get an appointment Friday after work, that would be ideal. 

 

I'm averaging 10% of my students  out sick every week, and we're only a month in. Last year I didn't have 10% get sick the entire school year put together. Schools were in person, with masks last year, and theoretically are the same this fall. 

  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dmmetler said:

Hoping that the local places will start giving boosters by this weekend. If I could get an appointment Friday after work, that would be ideal. 

 

I'm averaging 10% of my students  out sick every week, and we're only a month in. Last year I didn't have 10% get sick the entire school year put together. Schools were in person, with masks last year, and theoretically are the same this fall. 

Ugh. But you have much higher rates of community transmission, too, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, the infection rate was even lower for partially vaccinated prisoners than for fully vaccinated prisoners. 

Could that be caused by requiring masks until people are fully vaccinated, but not after full vaccination, so that the half-vaxed were masked?

There are so many possible moving parts and confounding factors on these things. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Ugh. But you have much higher rates of community transmission, too, right? 

Yes. TN is "Covid? What's that?" Country and we have community events, football, etc happening at pre-pandemic levels, and while we have a county mask mandate apparently that doesn't include noses :(. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 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...