Antibodies, Vaxes, and Restrictions

[SKL]

I've seen a number of professional research articles indicating that people who already have antibodies from Covid do not need 2 doses of the mRNA vaccine.  I've also seen some suggestions that getting a 2nd dose in that case can lead to more dangerous reactions.

A friend of mine has antibodies and is scheduled for her 2nd shot.  (She also has health issues that could put her at risk for worse reactions.)  I suggested that she ask her MD family member (who seems pretty up on Covid topics) whether she should forego the 2nd shot.

Her response was that she wants the shots for the documentation, so that she can do things like travel.

I'm concerned that some people are feeling forced to get "fully vaccinated" even if it's contraindicated given their personal health situation.

I know the whole "vaccine passport" thing is not really official, but they make it seem so with the vax cards and all that.  What are the alternatives for people who have had 1 shot + previous Covid antibodies?  The CDC doesn't seem to provide specific guidance on this, because research is ongoing.

The knee jerk reaction I see is that more is better with respect to the vax.  Easy to say if it's not an individual you care about who's being asked to ignore the noise and take one for the team.

[Pawz4me]

A friend of a friend had Covid in January, was hospitalized and from what I'm told barely avoided ICU. He was advised to wait to be vaccinated until his antibodies reached a certain level. Apparently he was tested regularly as part of his Covid/hospitalization follow up care until he got clearance to get the vaccine. He had some side effects from the second, but no more than what many people are experiencing. From what I understand he has a complicated medical history--a cancer survivor and some sort of lung condition. So I don't know if the antibody testing he received is because of his medical history.

[SKL]

On a somewhat related topic, I have been wondering if people would have grounds for a lawsuit if their employer required them to get vaccinated and the vax caused them unreasonable harm.  (I know, I know, you can always quit your job instead, but let's be realistic.)

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

A friend of a friend had Covid in January, was hospitalized and from what I'm told barely avoided ICU. He was advised to wait to be vaccinated until his antibodies reached a certain level. Apparently he was tested regularly as part of his Covid/hospitalization follow up care until he got clearance to get the vaccine. He had some side effects from the second, but no more than what many people are experiencing. From what I understand he has a complicated medical history--a cancer survivor and some sort of lung condition. So I don't know if the antibody testing he received is because of his medical history.

Interesting.  Do you know the source of the advice re what level of antibodies makes it safe?  I assume they would not have known much about it in January though.

[Pawz4me]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Interesting.  Do you know the source of the advice re what level of antibodies makes it safe?  I assume they would not have known much about it in January though.

No.  I do know he was hospitalized at a university affiliated hospital with a very good infectious diseases department.

ETA: From what I understand he just within the past couple of weeks received his second vaccine. So apparently it took awhile for his antibodies to fall to what was considered an acceptable level for vaccination.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Pawz4me

[ktgrok]

35 minutes ago, SKL said:

On a somewhat related topic, I have been wondering if people would have grounds for a lawsuit if their employer required them to get vaccinated and the vax caused them unreasonable harm.  (I know, I know, you can always quit your job instead, but let's be realistic.)

I don't know...I mean, if the job requires you to wear shoes, and you get bunions from the shoes, you can't sue. Or if you get in an accident on the way to work, etc. 

That said, I'd think that the best solution to say, travel, would be to have labwork (recent) showing antibody levels. 

[Not_a_Number]

So... I both had the impression that someone with antibodies may not need a second shot and that the second shot was actually quite low-impact if you've already had COVID. 

Anyone know data to the contrary? This isn't from studies, this is from anecdata from the board. 

[Not_a_Number]

23 minutes ago, Plum said:

As much as the world wants to pressure everyone to comply, the decision to vaccinate must be made on an individual basis. 

Except that of course employers won't feel that way, lol. Having a COVID outbreak on one's premises is detrimental to one's bottom line, so I'm sure there's a lot of incentive for employers to pressure people. And I don't blame them, frankly. This isn't to say that this would cause me to vaccinate if I believed it to be a bad idea for myself, but it's unrealistic to expect employers to care that much about individual rights. Generally, employers have to be forced to treat their employees as people; it's not automatic. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

No.  I do know he was hospitalized at a university affiliated hospital with a very good infectious diseases department.

ETA: From what I understand he just within the past couple of weeks received his second vaccine. So apparently it took awhile for his antibodies to fall to what was considered an acceptable level for vaccination.

But all the info I read says you shouldn't wait more than 6 weeks to get the second shot, or it may be ineffective.  So why bother at that point?  Wouldn't you then need to start over and get 2 more vaxes?

[SKL]

14 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Except that of course employers won't feel that way, lol. Having a COVID outbreak on one's premises is detrimental to one's bottom line, so I'm sure there's a lot of incentive for employers to pressure people. And I don't blame them, frankly. This isn't to say that this would cause me to vaccinate if I believed it to be a bad idea for myself, but it's unrealistic to expect employers to care that much about individual rights. Generally, employers have to be forced to treat their employees as people; it's not automatic. 

As an employer, I disagree and find this kind of statement unhelpful.

Edited April 28, 2021 by SKL

[Farrar]

The first shot confers a lot of immunity, just not as much. 

The first shot reaction doesn't predict the second shot reaction. It can be better or worse. That includes people who have had Covid.

I've also read things suggesting that one shot may be "enough" for people who have had Covid. But there's not trials of that question yet and until there are, you can't really know for sure.

The thread rating system seems like it's literally only a way to bully people on the boards. It's simply not used enough to be for anything but mistakes and quiet nastiness and trying to suss out which it is isn't all that fun when you're the poster.

[mommyoffive]

I have no idea.  But I would think that people who had Covid and didn't know it and got the vaccine. I didn't test myself for antibodies before I got the vaccine and I could have had it without knowing.  I think if she has real questions she should go to a doctor and ask them. Not an MD friend, but her doctor who has all her history.  

[Pawz4me]

35 minutes ago, SKL said:

But all the info I read says you shouldn't wait more than 6 weeks to get the second shot, or it may be ineffective.  So why bother at that point?  Wouldn't you then need to start over and get 2 more vaxes?

Sorry for not being more clear -- He waited to begin the vaccination process until his antibodies reached a certain level. So he didn't get the first vaccine until his doctor(s) gave him the go-ahead, and then he had the second one right on time. I'm not sure if he got Pfizer or Moderna.

 

[CanaryCass]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I don't know...I mean, if the job requires you to wear shoes, and you get bunions from the shoes, you can't sue. Or if you get in an accident on the way to work, etc. 

That said, I'd think that the best solution to say, travel, would be to have labwork (recent) showing antibody levels. 

American corporations have a long, illustrious history of forcing their workers into high risk and dangerous situations, so this is one in where perhaps using the status quo of employers being allowed to require whatever they want is not the best argument. Asbestos, cancer causing chemicals and many others were also part of the work requirement people were required to deal with in order to work, and were told they were “safe” for decades. Of course the corporations should be held accountable if something they forced ended up causing harm. The only problem in America is more often that not, the company gets away scott free and the workers are left to deal with the fall out. If they want to force the issue, they should be prepared to pay up for potential fall out. If they can’t stand behind that, perhaps they shouldn’t force the issue. Corporations forcing vaccine should not enjoy the same immunity vaccine developers are covered by for developing one in an emergency situation. If you require it, be prepared to support those injured by your requirements. 

[vonfirmath]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

But all the info I read says you shouldn't wait more than 6 weeks to get the second shot, or it may be ineffective.  So why bother at that point?  Wouldn't you then need to start over and get 2 more vaxes?

Where do you see waiting more than 6 weeks makes it ineffective? In the UK they are waiting longer than that.

[SKL]

Just now, vonfirmath said:

Where do you see waiting more than 6 weeks makes it ineffective? In the UK they are waiting longer than that.

I think it's on the CDC website, and I've seen it in at lease one article.

Not that it's definitely ineffective, but that they aren't sure, and they strongly recommend getting it within the 6 weeks.  If you don't, I don't know that they would consider you "fully vaccinated."

[Farrar]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think it's on the CDC website, and I've seen it in at lease one article.

Not that it's definitely ineffective, but that they aren't sure, and they strongly recommend getting it within the 6 weeks.  If you don't, I don't know that they would consider you "fully vaccinated."

Often, the CDC (and thus states, hospitals, doctors, etc.) are bound ethically to recommend the thing that has been tested in clinical trials. They tested the vaccine a certain way. Thus, that's the way they know for sure it works and that's the thing they're going to put on the guidelines. Other things that seem to work may be supported by increasingly strong evidence, and scientists may begin arguing based on studies that policies and recommendations change. Eventually, as the data piles up, some of those recommendations may begin to change. We're seeing some of that with recommendations about masking and people who are fully vaxxed just yesterday, for example. And about whether people who are fully vaxxed can effectively transmit Covid. When the evidence is less, sometimes the recommendations make it sound like "X does NOT work" or "you must wait X time to do this" or whatever. The CDC knows this advice is likely to get revised, but until they have the evidence, they have to put it that way. Once the evidence is there, they change it. "X works EXCEPT..." and "you are only required to wait Y time to do this..." or whatever.

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, Plum said:

pulled from another thread 

• After a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, people with a prior COVID-19 infection had antibody levels similar to those of people without prior infection after two vaccine doses.
• The results, which need to be confirmed in large, diverse populations, may point to a strategy to stretch the currently limited supply of vaccines against COVID-19.
   

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-response-vaccination-after-covid-19
 

PHILADELPHIA—People who have recovered from COVID-19 had a robust antibody response after the first mRNA vaccine dose, but little immune benefit after the second dose, according to new research from the Penn Institute of Immunology. The findings, published today in Science Immunology, suggest only a single vaccine dose may be needed to produce a sufficient antibody response.
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2021/april/penn-study-suggests-those-who-had-covid19-may-only-need-one-vaccine-dose

 

The original trials were for healthy adults within an age range. They are just now beginning to study it in people with compromised immune systems. Pregnant women weren’t a part of the original trial. Pregnancies happen so they had some data. They didn’t test it on people who already had covid. They didn’t test it on people that had long covid. 

There’s a lot of unknowns. The only reason we have to stick to  the schedule and dosing we have currently is because that’s what the trials were set at and so that’s is what is approved.  Before the vaccines were approved, the vaccine czar and other pharma said that dosing and timing will continue to be tweaked to get the maximum efficacy. So far, the only tweaking I’ve seen is the possibility for stretching out the 2nd dose. 

Gawande wrote this week that the Biden administration should delay second vaccine doses until 12 weeks following the first dose, as opposed to the current three- or four-week interval. Two other members, Emanuel and Michael Osterholm, have argued for delaying second doses since February. A fourth, Céline Gounder, recently announcedshe was reconsidering her stance after months of vocally opposing the strategy.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/02/democrats-and-republicans-alike-pressure-biden-administration-to-pursue-single-dose-vaccine-strategy/

Interesting, though they seem to be more focused on availability, which is not an issue where I live.

I wonder why our CDC continues to talk about 6 weeks.  If there's evidence that 12 weeks works, then we should go with 12 weeks IMO.

[JennyD]

There is so much that we still don't understand about this virus works, and it is very likely that down the line these vaccines will be significantly fine-tuned for different populations -- people who have had covid, the elderly, the young, etc.   It seems entirely plausible that the current dosage and/or timing isn't optimal for everyone.  

However, nothing about our current situation is optimal.  We are living through a worldwide pandemic of a highly-contagious, dangerous respiratory virus.  Through the extraordinary efforts of scientists and not a little bit of luck, though, we now have a very safe medical intervention that almost completely stops people from getting sick, dying, or even passing on this virus.   Over a billion people worldwide have already gotten a Covid vaccine.  Millions of them had already had Covid.  We know that both doses of the vaccine are not dangerous to people who have had Covid.  

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Her response was that she wants the shots for the documentation, so that she can do things like travel.

If your friend wants to wait for a better, more targeted vaccine, she can do so.  It will probably take another year, possibly longer.  Or she can wait until we know more about efficacy for people who have had covid + one dose.   In the meantime, no, she likely won't be able to travel, at least not internationally, and she should definitely continue wearing masks and distancing.  

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by JennyD

[Terabith]

I will admit to having hit the thread rating thing by accident but then been unable to get rid of it.  I don't think it was me in this instance, but honestly, I almost always assume ratings are mistakes, since they aren't really used.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

As an employer, I disagree and find this kind of statement unhelpful.

Sure. I’m sure that if I were hiring a small number of people, it’d be fine. But take a look at any large corporation and think about how well people do with “abstract people.” Then you can see what happens IRL. 

[Dmmetler]

When I've had to be vaccinated to teach in the school system, they have allowed vaccination OR titer showing enough antibodies to be likely immune. I assume the same will be the case for COVID. The goal is immunity, and the vaccination is a way to get it. 

[Lucy the Valiant]

6 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

When I've had to be vaccinated to teach in the school system, they have allowed vaccination OR titer showing enough antibodies to be likely immune. I assume the same will be the case for COVID. The goal is immunity, and the vaccination is a way to get it. 

In some areas of the country (mine), though, this is definitely not being communicated through social news channels. People who have already have covid can still have antibodies 9+ months later. It makes sense to put those people in the same "category" as vaccinated people, but many places / people do not consider that. I hope good information continues to filter down - it really is true that there's just so much about covid that nobody actually knows.

[ieta_cassiopeia]

It's tricky, because some people who have had COVID have, 4 weeks later, not enough antibodies to be distinguishable from people who never had it, while others have highly raised antibody levels. (The UK's Blood Service has had to put tests in to distinguish these, since convalescent plasma can be donated by people who still have raised antibodies for that point. It's at the point where women who weren't hospitalised with COVID aren't even allowed to apply, because they've found - anecdontally - a difference along gender lines about antibody reactivity to COVID). Presumably the people with highly raised antibodies 9+ months after infection are a subset of those for whom it was raised after 4 weeks, but it's not like one can assume one number will work for everyone who has recovered from COVID.

[*Jessica*]

1 minute ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

It's tricky, because some people who have had COVID have, 4 weeks later, not enough antibodies to be distinguishable from people who never had it, while others have highly raised antibody levels. (The UK's Blood Service has had to put tests in to distinguish these, since convalescent plasma can be donated by people who still have raised antibodies for that point. It's at the point where women who weren't hospitalised with COVID aren't even allowed to apply, because they've found - anecdontally - a difference along gender lines about antibody reactivity to COVID). Presumably the people with highly raised antibodies 9+ months after infection are a subset of those for whom it was raised after 4 weeks, but it's not like one can assume one number will work for everyone who has recovered from COVID.

Interesting.  Do you have any links where I could read more? 

[Lucy the Valiant]

1 hour ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

It's tricky, because some people who have had COVID have, 4 weeks later, not enough antibodies to be distinguishable from people who never had it, while others have highly raised antibody levels. (The UK's Blood Service has had to put tests in to distinguish these, since convalescent plasma can be donated by people who still have raised antibodies for that point. It's at the point where women who weren't hospitalised with COVID aren't even allowed to apply, because they've found - anecdontally - a difference along gender lines about antibody reactivity to COVID). Presumably the people with highly raised antibodies 9+ months after infection are a subset of those for whom it was raised after 4 weeks, but it's not like one can assume one number will work for everyone who has recovered from COVID.

In the U.S., the Red Cross has stopped collecting convalescent plasma (at least the one in my area). They said their current supply out-paces the current demand, due to falling cases here.

Maybe I misunderstood, but - diminishing antibodies do not necessarily indicate diminished immunity (this is the part currently being studied, right?) due to the memory cells' ability to recreate specific neutralizing antibodies when challenged. 

[Corraleno]

https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/02/democrats-and-republicans-alike-pressure-biden-administration-to-pursue-single-dose-vaccine-strategy/

RE: delaying vaccines up to 3 months, as mentioned in this article that was linked upthread....

Note that that article is already a month old, and likely represents data from even earlier than that, when 100,000,000 fewer doses had been distributed and vaccines were still hard to get in most areas. At this point, when most American adults who want a vax have either already gotten it or would have no problem getting an appointment, it really makes no sense to delay the second shot for 3 months.

First, there is no data suggesting that a 3 month gap even provides equal protection, let alone better protection, for mRNA vaccines, while we have excellent data showing high levels of protection with a 3-4 week gap. The UK can use a 3 month gap because they have actual (if accidental) data from Brazil showing significantly better efficacy for AZ with a longer gap.

Second, the UK has a National Health Service that tracks everyone's vaccine status, where they live, who their GP is, etc., so following up with everyone 3 months later to schedule a second shot is quite straightforward. The US vaccine program, on the other hand, is a chaotic hodgepodge of state/county/local health departments, hospitals, and a dozen or more private pharmaceutical chains, all of which have separate scheduling portals. We already have a serious issue with people not returning for their second shot 3-4 weeks later, even when those are scheduled at the first appointment; if second shots were moved to 3 months out, the number of people who likely would not bother scheduling the second shot is likely to be much higher. And who would be responsible for those reminders? Is it really WalMart's job to track everyone who got a first shot there and call or email them three months later to schedule a second shot? Or would it just be up to each individual to remember when the second shot is due and get online and hunt around like they did with the first shot?

With vaccine demand already waning, the US program is getting to the point where the big mass vax sites are going to be winding down and the program will shift to local health departments and pharmacies. A 3 month gap would either require keeping the mass vax sites open long after they're needed, or require people who got their first shots there to figure out on their own how to get a second shot somewhere else after the mass sites close. It makes far more sense for the US, which no longer has a shortage of vaccines and is not using the one vaccine (AZ) that has shown better efficacy with a longer gap, to switch to a 3 month gap when that would significantly increase logistical problems (in a system that is already a mess) with no payoff in increased efficacy.

[Terabith]

@SKL, how did things turn out for your child who was quarantining?  

[melmichigan]

On 4/28/2021 at 8:08 AM, Pawz4me said:

A friend of a friend had Covid in January, was hospitalized and from what I'm told barely avoided ICU. He was advised to wait to be vaccinated until his antibodies reached a certain level. Apparently he was tested regularly as part of his Covid/hospitalization follow up care until he got clearance to get the vaccine. He had some side effects from the second, but no more than what many people are experiencing. From what I understand he has a complicated medical history--a cancer survivor and some sort of lung condition. So I don't know if the antibody testing he received is because of his medical history.

My understanding is that we know what levels to look at from those that have received BAM infusions, but that we don't yet know what levels we are looking for when testing for the spike protein antibodies after vaccine in the general population.

 

[ieta_cassiopeia]

On 5/1/2021 at 11:19 PM, StillJessica said:

Interesting.  Do you have any links where I could read more? 

The Red Cross has items mentioning that men having more antibodies from COVID recovery on average than women (6th paragraph), as well as one indicating Asian people generate more antibodies from COVID recovery on average than white people. However, I've just seen an article that says the Red Cross has stopped collecting convaelescent plasma due to a randomised trial indicating there is no benefit from this sort of plasma for treating COVID-19.

 

 

[prairiewindmomma]

Can you link studies, OP?

What I've read is this: https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2021/april/penn-study-suggests-those-who-had-covid19-may-only-need-one-vaccine-dose  which states that those who have had covid previously may need only one dose as they are showing memory B cells and antibodies after a single dose....but not that they are being harmed.

I'd love to see the studies showing harm.....because theoretically that would mean that future boosters would also be harmful if there are memory B cells and antibodies remaining between dosing.  And, that doesn't make sense because otherwise immunity would need to wane entirely between dosing, and that is pretty awful also.

FWIW, on my end, I'm being told I'm at prime risk for reactions---and that is putting me in the 30 min wait line, with oxygen and epinephrine and doctors immediately on hand---and a doctor who will write for prednisone if I have a later bad reactions---but no one is telling me not to vaccinate. In fact, they are telling me I should vaccinate because the risk factors that make me likely to react are the same inflammatory factors that would make getting covid awful for me.  It's the same reason I continue to get influenza vaccines yearly even though I react badly nearly every year. 

I'm not discounting whatever info you may have---I welcome it--but I want to dig deep into the info to study it better.  I think we're going to be seeing boosters on the regular, especially since we aren't likely to ever reach herd immunity here with so many refusing to vaccinate.

 

[Penelope]

There are several studies in support of one dose of vaccine after having Covid. I don’t think there is anything indicating harm for taking more than one dose.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01325-6

Quote

In a cohort of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) mRNA vaccine recipients (n = 1,090), we observed that spike-specific IgG antibody levels and ACE2 antibody binding inhibition responses elicited by a single vaccine dose in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 35) were similar to those seen after two doses of vaccine in individuals without prior infection (n = 228). Post-vaccine symptoms were more prominent for those with prior infection after the first dose, but symptomology was similar between groups after the second dose.

Another one: from this link https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210419/Just-one-mRNA-vaccine-dose-sufficient-for-people-with-prior-SARS-CoV-2-infection.aspx

Quote

SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals required both vaccine doses for optimal increases in antibodies, particularly for neutralizing titers against the B.1.351 variant. Memory B cells specific for full-length spike protein and the spike receptor binding domain (RBD) were also efficiently primed by mRNA vaccination and detectable in all SARS-CoV-2 naive subjects after the second vaccine dose, though the memory B cell response declined slightly with age. In SARS-CoV-2 recovered individuals, antibody and memory B cell responses were significantly boosted after the first vaccine dose; however, there was no increase in circulating antibodies, neutralizing titers, or antigen-specific memory B cells after the second dose. 

More:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777171
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00501-8/fulltext

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3812375

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/29/science.abh1282 - this one shows best response against certain variants was in those who had prior infection plus one dose vaccine, compared to vaccination alone.

Couldn’t someone who wanted this option discuss with their doctor and then get a medical exemption for the second dose if anyone is insisting they show proof of two doses? That seems like a reasonable option and not impossible. 

I think that guidelines should acknowledge those who have antibodies from natural infection as having proof of immunity. Maybe eventually they will. Positive serology has been used in lieu of proof of vaccination for some other infections, historically. 
 

Added in edit- I think there are more of these studies;  I knew about the first few and started looking and found lotsbefore I had to do something else!

Edited May 4, 2021 by Penelope

[prairiewindmomma]

Historically, for international travel, one either had to show proof of vaccination or positive titers.  And, generally, it's been proof of vaccination. I know in some countries people have had to re-do vaccination sets if they didn't have the paperwork to prove it.

I will be totally interested to hear what the long-term studies show on illness + one dose. I suspect that it's going to be like influenza, immunity will fade with time or with relevance (the virus will continue to mutate). Right? This is why my friends who had covid early on no longer have remaining antibodies....

[SKL]

19 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Can you link studies, OP?

What I've read is this: https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2021/april/penn-study-suggests-those-who-had-covid19-may-only-need-one-vaccine-dose  which states that those who have had covid previously may need only one dose as they are showing memory B cells and antibodies after a single dose....but not that they are being harmed.

I'd love to see the studies showing harm.....because theoretically that would mean that future boosters would also be harmful if there are memory B cells and antibodies remaining between dosing.  And, that doesn't make sense because otherwise immunity would need to wane entirely between dosing, and that is pretty awful also.

FWIW, on my end, I'm being told I'm at prime risk for reactions---and that is putting me in the 30 min wait line, with oxygen and epinephrine and doctors immediately on hand---and a doctor who will write for prednisone if I have a later bad reactions---but no one is telling me not to vaccinate. In fact, they are telling me I should vaccinate because the risk factors that make me likely to react are the same inflammatory factors that would make getting covid awful for me.  It's the same reason I continue to get influenza vaccines yearly even though I react badly nearly every year. 

I'm not discounting whatever info you may have---I welcome it--but I want to dig deep into the info to study it better.  I think we're going to be seeing boosters on the regular, especially since we aren't likely to ever reach herd immunity here with so many refusing to vaccinate.

 

I saw one link, but it was more of an opinion piece (from a Dr) than a study.  It is possible they haven't done serious studies on this.  However, that doesn't mean it's not a concern.

[*Jessica*]

21 hours ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

The Red Cross has items mentioning that men having more antibodies from COVID recovery on average than women (6th paragraph), as well as one indicating Asian people generate more antibodies from COVID recovery on average than white people. However, I've just seen an article that says the Red Cross has stopped collecting convaelescent plasma due to a randomised trial indicating there is no benefit from this sort of plasma for treating COVID-19.

 

 

Thank you.  

[SKL]

11 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Historically, for international travel, one either had to show proof of vaccination or positive titers.  And, generally, it's been proof of vaccination. I know in some countries people have had to re-do vaccination sets if they didn't have the paperwork to prove it.

I will be totally interested to hear what the long-term studies show on illness + one dose. I suspect that it's going to be like influenza, immunity will fade with time or with relevance (the virus will continue to mutate). Right? This is why my friends who had covid early on no longer have remaining antibodies....

From what I'm hearing, immunity is expected to wane over time from the vax as well as the virus.  That doesn't change the fact that if you've recently had the virus and have antibodies, you don't need both vaxes.  And it seems more sensible to postpone vaxes you don't need yet, as that would also mean more time before a booster is needed.

[hopeallgoeswell]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7402625/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427556/

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-00902-8

[frogger]

On 4/28/2021 at 6:35 AM, Holmesschooler said:

American corporations have a long, illustrious history of forcing their workers into high risk and dangerous situations, so this is one in where perhaps using the status quo of employers being allowed to require whatever they want is not the best argument. Asbestos, cancer causing chemicals and many others were also part of the work requirement people were required to deal with in order to work, and were told they were “safe” for decades. Of course the corporations should be held accountable if something they forced ended up causing harm. The only problem in America is more often that not, the company gets away scott free and the workers are left to deal with the fall out. If they want to force the issue, they should be prepared to pay up for potential fall out. If they can’t stand behind that, perhaps they shouldn’t force the issue. Corporations forcing vaccine should not enjoy the same immunity vaccine developers are covered by for developing one in an emergency situation. If you require it, be prepared to support those injured by your requirements. 

It's more likely that they would get sued for someone getting sick and ending up with long term effects or dying from Covid. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

I really don't understand why anyone wants to be a business owner at this point. My husband and I have discussed owning a business but honestly, I'd never want to have employees. 

I can't help but think of nursing home residents. It seems like people would want to choose vaccinated employees to care for their elderly parents rather than non vaccinated workers who could kill them. If we get to go around sueing people why can't I sue an unvaccinated worker who chose to risk giving a deadly disease to an elderly person and killed them.

Edited May 5, 2021 by frogger

[prairiewindmomma]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

From what I'm hearing, immunity is expected to wane over time from the vax as well as the virus.  That doesn't change the fact that if you've recently had the virus and have antibodies, you don't need both vaxes.  And it seems more sensible to postpone vaxes you don't need yet, as that would also mean more time before a booster is needed.

Right, but the only way you will know when that immunity wanes is if you have titers run on the regular. Feasibly, that’s not likely. 
 

It’s like the influenza vaccine. Some people have a less than ideal immunoresponse but we don’t run titers on them monthly through the winter. We just plan on a February booster. (Some elderly and people on immunosuppressants do this.)
 

Having a vaccine you don’t need in and of itself isn’t causing harm in the sense that the vaccine with its adjudivant is poisoning people. It’s a persons response to the vaccine that may be uncomfortable—but all of that is person dependent. Right? My parents had no reaction to either of their shots. My sister had a fever for a few hours. Who knows what mine will be. But, likely, whatever non-reaction or reaction they had with #2 will be consistent with later boosters. In other words, for many, it will be a non-issue entirely.