Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

In what might've been the most contentious deliberation, the committee said people 18 to 65 who work in a job or other setting where they are at high risk of exposure to COVID-19 should not yet be allowed to receive an extra Pfizer dose. 

Ugh. I was so hopeful when the FDA recommended it for teachers.

Edited by Longtime Lurker
spelling
  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, YaelAldrich said:

I was hoping they would open it up to those people in essential jobs, health care, and education. Because my DH and I got vaccinated in January (him) and February-March (me). And we're trying to be patient. But we're almost at our limit.

My "read" is that no one who shows up to get a shot after 6 months and say they feel at risk is going to be turned away. Just do it!

1 hour ago, Longtime Lurker said:

Ugh. I was so hopeful when the FDA recommended it for teachers.

You too.

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Walensky overruled the panel and is allowing boosters for those at risk due to their jobs.

Reuters --

Quote

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday backed a booster shot of the Pfizer (PFE.N) and BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for Americans aged 65 and older, some adults with underlying medical conditions and some adults in high-risk working and institutional settings.

The move comes after an advisory panel to the agency on Thursday did not recommend that people in high-risk jobs, such as teachers, and risky living conditions should get boosters. The panel had recommended boosters for elderly and some people with underlying medical conditions.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said her agency had to make recommendations based on complex, often imperfect data.

"In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good," she said in a statement.

"I believe we can best serve the nation’s public health needs by providing booster doses for the elderly, those in long-term care facilities, people with underlying medical conditions, and for adults at high risk of disease from occupational and institutional exposures to COVID-19. This aligns with the FDA’s booster authorization and makes these groups eligible for a booster shot," she said.

I can't find a link to Walensky's statement on the CDC site (yet), but WaPo and NYT are reporting the same thing as Reuters.

Edited by Pawz4me
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Looks like Walensky overruled the panel and is allowing boosters for those at risk due to their jobs.

Reuters --

I can't find a link to Walensky's statement on the CDC site (yet), but WaPo and NYT are reporting the same thing as Reuters.

Yes, it sounds like it’s essentially boosters for anyone who wants them. No verification of risk required.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Yes, it sounds like it’s essentially boosters for anyone who wants them. No verification of risk required.

That would be good. I will see if anyone has started boosters around here. Are they going to allow those of us with Moderna, the Pfizer booster? 

I have my medically fragile mother in law to deal with so though not paid, if asked, elder.care is my high risk job. Her doctor doesn't think she formed any immunity from her JnJ jab, so it would be pretty darn risky if one of us got covid and took it to her.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Spy Car said:

My "read" is that no one who shows up to get a shot after 6 months and say they feel at risk is going to be turned away. Just do it!

You too.

Bill

In my area when they did the initial shots and said anyone "high risk" could get them they required a form filled out by a doctor. I got around it by saying I was working in education...made myself a teacher ID on a lanyard for my homeschool, but yeah, it wasn't easy. 

Hopefully better this go round. 

Edited by ktgrok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

…Booster update - by Katelyn Jetelina - Your Local Epidemiologist (substack.com)

After midnight last night, Walensky (CDC Director) overturned the ACIP (external scientific advisory committee to the CDC) recommendation and approved the booster for high exposure occupations, like healthcare workers and teachers. The FDA and the CDC are now in agreeance that those that should get boosters are:

65+ years

Long term care residents

50-64 years with underlying condition

18-49 years with underlying conditions are recommended to weigh their individual benefits with risks

High exposure occupations

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

I went right after work and got my third Pfizer! I am so psyched! I wanted to get it before they changed their minds again 🙂 

So what is the current thinking on Tylenol use post-vax? After my second Pfizer, I had a splitting headache starting at the 27 hour mark, but I toughed it out because I was hearing that acetaminophen could dampen the immune response. That was back in February. I think later on I heard that it was okay to take it after the shot, just not before??

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Longtime Lurker said:

I went right after work and got my third Pfizer! I am so psyched! I wanted to get it before they changed their minds again 🙂 

So what is the current thinking on Tylenol use post-vax? After my second Pfizer, I had a splitting headache starting at the 27 hour mark, but I toughed it out because I was hearing that acetaminophen could dampen the immune response. That was back in February. I think later on I heard that it was okay to take it after the shot, just not before??

I think the guidance is it's fine but wait four hours post shot.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused Biden said (I don't know where I saw him talking about this, sorry) people who had Pfizer and are at risk (65 and older, diabetes, obese and essential workers (health care and teachers) are eligible for booster after 6 months of second vaccine.  What about the others if one had the other vaccines? Can they still get Pfizer booster?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lynn said:

I'm confused Biden said (I don't know where I saw him talking about this, sorry) people who had Pfizer and are at risk (65 and older, diabetes, obese and essential workers (health care and teachers) are eligible for booster after 6 months of second vaccine.  What about the others if one had the other vaccines? Can they still get Pfizer booster?  

Yes and no. The EUA for Pfizer boosters is strictly limited to those who have had Pfizer. But it is also legal for doctors to prescribe Pfizer off label, so if you can find a doctor who will do it off label you can get one. It may be more difficult to get it from a Walgreens or CVS or whatever if they want to see proof of your previous vaccines. If you already had Moderna, I'd probably wait and see if Moderna boosters are approved in the next month or so. Moderna seems to last longer anyway — which raises an interesting question of whether they will just approve all boosters at 6 months for the sake of consistency, or follow the data and possibly use a longer interval for Moderna.

I don't know what's going on with J&J or why they've sat on the data so long — they ran 1 & 2 shot trials in tandem and I suspect they have known for a long time that 2 doses were more effective. Maybe they were just waiting until the mRNA vaccines required boosters, so they could keep the "one & done" marketing angle as long as possible. Although it does look like there will now be boosters for J&J, to be honest if I'd had J&J I would get an mRNA vax for the second shot instead of another J&J. In the UK they found that AZ + Pfizer was more effective than two shots of AZ, and I would imagine J&J would be similar since they are both adenovirus vaccines.

Edited by Corraleno
typos
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Yes and no. The EUA for Pfizer boosters is strictly limited to those who have had Pfizer. But it is also legal for doctors to prescribe Pfizer off label, so if you can find a doctor who will do it off label you can get one. It may be more difficult to get it from a Walgreens or CVS or whatever if they want to see proof of your previous vaccines. If you already had Moderna, I'd probably wait and see if Moderna boosters are approved in the next month or so. Moderna seems to last longer anyway — which raises an interesting question of whether they will just approve all boosters at 6 months for the sake of consistency, or follow the data and possibly use a longe interval for Moderna.

I don't know what's going on with J&J or why have have sat on the data so long — they ran 1 & 2 shot trials in tandem and I suspect they have known for a long time that 2 doses were more effective. Maybe they were just waiting until the mRNA vaccines required boosters, so they could keep the "one & done" marketing angle as long as possible. Although it does look like there will now be boosters for J&J, to be honest if I'd had J&J I would get an mRNA vax for the second shot instead of another J&J. In the UK they found that AZ + Pfizer was more effective than two shots of AZ, and I would imagine J&J would be similar since they are both adenovirus vaccines.

Thank you.  I try to keep up with it all but information and studies seem to change daily.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Longtime Lurker said:

I went right after work and got my third Pfizer! I am so psyched! I wanted to get it before they changed their minds again 🙂 

So what is the current thinking on Tylenol use post-vax? After my second Pfizer, I had a splitting headache starting at the 27 hour mark, but I toughed it out because I was hearing that acetaminophen could dampen the immune response. That was back in February. I think later on I heard that it was okay to take it after the shot, just not before??

Yippie!!! 

Do hydrate well.

I tend to be a grunt it out, don't mess with the process type--but that's not an informed choice necessarily.

Anyway, great news. Congrats!

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Yippie!!! 

Do hydrate well.

I tend to be a grunt it out, don't mess with the process type--but that's not an informed choice necessarily.

Anyway, great news. Congrats!

Bill

 

 

I've been sipping water all afternoon, so doing well with the hydrating 🙂 I'm 5.5 hours out and haven't needed to take anything yet. My arm is sore but I can handle that no problem. If the headache tomorrow is as bad as last time, I will probably take some acetaminophen at that point. It was pretty awful last time, but only lasted a few hours. By the second morning, I felt normal again. So we'll see...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kbutton said:

Does anyone know the timeline for possible Moderna boosters? Is it in process at all? DH is the only one in our home that had Moderna, but he is a frontline HCW and got his early.

I've heard it could be a few days to a few weeks. I would be shocked for it to be a few days. I'm not hearing that anything is imminent, and we knew Pfizer was coming for a couple weeks before it finally happened.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Soror said:

My county health department just put out a release they can only do boosters for the immune compromised until they hear from the state. 

I encountered something similar to this when I went to our county health department to get the third dose recommended for immune compromised people. They said they couldn't give them until they got the order from their health director. I don't know if that meant somebody at the county level or the state. In any event--they started giving them a few days later. But less than an hour after the health department told me that I got one at Walgreens.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took a while for the information to go through the channels for our drug stores to offer the boosters. Can you call around and see if you can get it somewhere else? Otherwise hopefully it will be good to go next week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"An inaccurate Canadian study suggesting an extremely high rate of heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted due to a major mathematical error — but not before it spread like wildfire on anti-vaccination websites and social media"

Preprint (not peer reviewed) got the denominator wrong, and quoted a vaccine myocarditis risk of 1 in 1000 instead of 1 in 25 000.  

I think this study might have been discussed on this thread a few pages back?

ETA: I love the term "zombie paper" for discredited papers that continue to circulate despite retraction.

ETA: Retraction statement by the authors

 

Edited by wathe
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, wathe said:

"An inaccurate Canadian study suggesting an extremely high rate of heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted due to a major mathematical error — but not before it spread like wildfire on anti-vaccination websites and social media"

Preprint (not peer reviewed) got the denominator wrong, and quoted a vaccine myocarditis risk of 1 in 1000 instead of 1 in 25 000.  

I think this study might have been discussed on this thread a few pages back?

ETA: I love the term "zombie paper" for discredited papers that continue to circulate despite retraction.

ETA: Retraction statement by the authors

 

No words.

Can't count the # of times I've heard/seen this study flaunted about as a reason to avoid vaccination.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got my booster at Walmart. The paperwork is vague enough to qualify almost anyone, it seems (high risk due to being over 65, health conditions, occupation, or living in a congregate setting)-but from what the pharmacist said, I actually qualify under the prior requirements as well due to my autoimmune disorders. 
 

I will say I was impressed at how active Walmart was being-they have their shot clinic set up right inside the door with a pharmacy tech to help with paperwork and a pharmacist giving shots (which also means that ventilation is really good) and the greeters are directing people to get COVID and flu shots, and generally it was both very easy and very encouraged. I was kind of dreading having to go through the store-I only signed up there because it was the only place that I could get an appointment for a booster for this morning, so I have a decent interval for side effects to pass before going to work Monday afternoon. 
 

The pharmacist also strongly encouraged me to come back in a month for pneumonia and shingles-I’m just under 50, but with my health history, she said that it should be covered by insurance and is recommended. 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, wathe said:

"An inaccurate Canadian study suggesting an extremely high rate of heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted due to a major mathematical error — but not before it spread like wildfire on anti-vaccination websites and social media"

Preprint (not peer reviewed) got the denominator wrong, and quoted a vaccine myocarditis risk of 1 in 1000 instead of 1 in 25 000.  

I think this study might have been discussed on this thread a few pages back?

ETA: I love the term "zombie paper" for discredited papers that continue to circulate despite retraction.

ETA: Retraction statement by the authors

 

I know this was a preprint and hadn't been peer reviewed, but how in the world did they miss the difference between 32,000 and 800,000??? This preprint has caused so much damage — and even though it's been retracted, antivaxers will keep referencing it and claiming it was "suppressed" by government and Big Pharma. <smdh>

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wathe said:

"An inaccurate Canadian study suggesting an extremely high rate of heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted due to a major mathematical error — but not before it spread like wildfire on anti-vaccination websites and social media"

Preprint (not peer reviewed) got the denominator wrong, and quoted a vaccine myocarditis risk of 1 in 1000 instead of 1 in 25 000.  

 

 

After the past year and a half, I think maybe we need to rethink the standard high school math sequence to include an entire year just covering denominators.

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

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

I hear Moderna has a combined Covid/flu vaccine in the making. Anybody knows of a timeframe when it might be available? 

I doubt that will be available before next fall at the earliest, they are planning to test it "over the next 6-12 months." They also have an RSV vaccine in development and are hoping to eventually market a single shot that would cover flu, RSV, and a covid booster. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I know this was a preprint and hadn't been peer reviewed, but how in the world did they miss the difference between 32,000 and 800,000??? This preprint has caused so much damage — and even though it's been retracted, antivaxers will keep referencing it and claiming it was "suppressed" by government and Big Pharma. <smdh>

That is such an enormous (& obvious) error, and there are so many names on that paper (more people supposedly reviewing it), that I really am wondering if it was malicious. You know, put the paper out there, then, umpteen months later...."oops, so sorry".

FO. I hope it damages their careers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

National Post article with more details.

It looks like they pulled their denominator from a public database.  And either pulled the wrong number, or pulled the number before the data on the database were complete.

They didn't do the math wrong so much as use the wrong numbers to do the math.

I don't think this was malicious.  I think is was an honest mistake.  The authors did state that their finding was surprising, "That our data should suggest a tenfold higher incidence seems surprising" and put in all the usual disclaimers for preliminary work.

This sort of thing is what the preprint process is for, really.  For scientists to share data in fast-moving fields, to critically appraise each other's work, and to catch mistakes before formal publication.  

 I'm pretty sure that the authors are a bunch of cardiologists, not public health or epidemiology folks.  The denominator they used (tens of thousands, instead of hundreds of thousands) might not have felt obviously wrong to them the way it would to the public health and epidemiology.  It may have seemed like an appropriately big number.

Don't get me wrong; it's a big mistake that should have been obvious to the authors. But is was an error, not the willful spreading of misinformation.  

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

I just got my booster at Walmart. The paperwork is vague enough to qualify almost anyone, it seems (high risk due to being over 65, health conditions, occupation, or living in a congregate setting)-but from what the pharmacist said, I actually qualify under the prior requirements as well due to my autoimmune disorders. 
 

I will say I was impressed at how active Walmart was being-they have their shot clinic set up right inside the door with a pharmacy tech to help with paperwork and a pharmacist giving shots (which also means that ventilation is really good) and the greeters are directing people to get COVID and flu shots, and generally it was both very easy and very encouraged. I was kind of dreading having to go through the store-I only signed up there because it was the only place that I could get an appointment for a booster for this morning, so I have a decent interval for side effects to pass before going to work Monday afternoon. 
 

The pharmacist also strongly encouraged me to come back in a month for pneumonia and shingles-I’m just under 50, but with my health history, she said that it should be covered by insurance and is recommended. 

Hmmm.  I really don't know what to do booster/3rd shot.  I am wondering if I would qualify for a 3rd shot.  I am only 5 months out from my 2nd shot and it was Moderna.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my booster shot today. The pharmacist has already had to throw vaccine away because people didn't show up that had made online appointments. She also said there is no way to keep up locally with boosters. You can't keep up with the early mass vaccinations clinics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Hmmm.  I really don't know what to do booster/3rd shot.  I am wondering if I would qualify for a 3rd shot.  I am only 5 months out from my 2nd shot and it was Moderna.  

From what I understand, you don't need one yet, especially with Moderna. Probably by the time you need one, they will have more information out about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mommyoffive said:

Hmmm.  I really don't know what to do booster/3rd shot.  I am wondering if I would qualify for a 3rd shot.  I am only 5 months out from my 2nd shot and it was Moderna.  

I am in the same situation (except 5.5 months out) - and think I am going to wait a bit longer. I am concerned that getting it too early may actually dampen the immune/antibody response (I mentioned in an earlier thread that the flu vaccine is actually more effective in preventing flu when it was given the year prior; I am not sure they know exactly why - at least it wasn't explained in the paper I read; also, remember that they don't advise getting the vaccine until 90 days after monoclonal antibodies). If there is a situation where I have to expose myself frequently in an iffy situation, like a dental issue requiring root canals and crown etc., I will get it early. Will also get it before the holiday season no matter what they decide to do. And I maintain my right to change whatever I do at any time for any reason.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mom_to3 said:

I am in the same situation (except 5.5 months out) - and think I am going to wait a bit longer. I am concerned that getting it too early may actually dampen the immune/antibody response (I mentioned in an earlier thread that the flu vaccine is actually more effective in preventing flu when it was given the year prior; I am not sure they know exactly why - at least it wasn't explained in the paper I read; also, remember that they don't advise getting the vaccine until 90 days after monoclonal antibodies). If there is a situation where I have to expose myself frequently in an iffy situation, like a dental issue requiring root canals and crown etc., I will get it early. Will also get it before the holiday season no matter what they decide to do. And I maintain my right to change whatever I do at any time for any reason.

You make some good points. I will use them to make my mom feel better about the fact that I am waiting a little longer for my booster. I had Moderna and would like to wait and see what happens with their booster and not try to go around the rules to get a Pfizer.  I’m feeling okay about it right now anyway, but I’m only four months out from my second shot (and Moderna, as I said). I will keep the idea of getting one before having dental work, though. I might not be able to wait as long as I’d like to have a tooth looked at, and that might make me feel better if it’s a month or more away. And lol at your last line. Me too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

I hear Moderna has a combined Covid/flu vaccine in the making. Anybody knows of a timeframe when it might be available? 

I hope they keep the separate shots.  I always have side effects from even the flu shot, and after everything with Moderna I would be scared to see what a mess that would make of my immune response.

DH received his booster last night at 7.5 months from his first.  I was not waiting another minute in our community.  A co-worker lost his father to a breakthrough case this week. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

 A co-worker lost his father to a breakthrough case this week.

That scares me. I want my parents to get boosted as soon as possible. That would be so upsetting, especially with how hard they have worked to avoid it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got me and the DH appointments after the last set of Jewish holidays next Monday through Wednesday night (Shemini Atzeres and Simchat Torah for all those playing What Jewish Holiday Is It Now?). I'll bring my letter stating I do congregant care work and he'll bring his faculty ID. Flu shots as well. Never got mine this early before.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, melmichigan said:

DH received his booster last night at 7.5 months from his first.  I was not waiting another minute in our community.  A co-worker lost his father to a breakthrough case this week. 

I am also already 7.5 months out so I got the booster immediately after approval. I work in a masks-optional school.

I do think I wouldn't have wanted to get it before 6 months even if it was allowed as I want to maximize immunity through the winter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, teachers were all first eligible in late Feb, and the clinics for teachers did Pfizer so there are a bunch of us who were eligible as soon as they opened boosters. I wanted to get mine Sat AM so I would hopefully be past the worst of side effects by Monday, although so far, it’s mostly muscle aches and fatigue. I think hospitals, etc, are boosting HCW at work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paper published in Science on primate experiments with Moderna explains why protection against severe disease lasts longer that protection against infection: you need higher levels of antibodies to fight off upper respiratory infection, but lower levels are still effective against lower respiratory infection and severe lung disease.

"mRNA-1273 vaccine–induced antibody responses are a mechanistic correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in NHPs [non-human primates]. Protection in the lower respiratory tract was achieved at lower serum antibody concentrations than in the upper respiratory tract. These data explain in part the consistent finding that vaccine efficacy against severe lower tract disease is greater than that against mild upper tract disease. These findings have potential implications for how additional boosting may sustain protection against severe disease in the lower respiratory tract and limit mild infection and transmission by enhancing the immunity required in the upper respiratory tract."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj0299

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Paper published in Science on primate experiments with Moderna explains why protection against severe disease lasts longer that protection against infection: you need higher levels of antibodies to fight off upper respiratory infection, but lower levels are still effective against lower respiratory infection and severe lung disease.

"mRNA-1273 vaccine–induced antibody responses are a mechanistic correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in NHPs [non-human primates]. Protection in the lower respiratory tract was achieved at lower serum antibody concentrations than in the upper respiratory tract. These data explain in part the consistent finding that vaccine efficacy against severe lower tract disease is greater than that against mild upper tract disease. These findings have potential implications for how additional boosting may sustain protection against severe disease in the lower respiratory tract and limit mild infection and transmission by enhancing the immunity required in the upper respiratory tract."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj0299

I thought IgA (mucosal antibodies) wane much faster than IgG and that IgA drops considerably after 100 days (pretty sure there’s a paper about this). This would explain why a fully vaccinated person could have a breakthrough case. The particular antibodies in the nose, IgA, decrease allowing an infection to take hold. Meanwhile, IgG doesn’t ramp up until a short period of time after an infection has begun but IgG is able to eventually fight it. IgA is less duarble and IgG is more durable. Is that the gist of it?

Edited by BeachGal
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...