12-15 year olds vaccine experiences

[Penelope]

14 minutes ago, kokotg said:

This states the numbers in Israel a little more clearly than the other article, I think. It is 62 identified cases out of more than 5 million vaccinated--not just teens: https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-vaccine-heart-inflammation-myocarditis

 

 

No one ever said it was only teens. It is young people. They haven’t even vaccinated 12-15 yet, only 16 and up. 
 

Most of the cases were in men under 30, as stated in the news reports, so it is not 62 out of 5 million. 

[Not_a_Number]

35 minutes ago, Katy said:

The military released supporting information last week.

Interesting. Is there an article? And is the idea that COVID is much like other viruses in this regard or worse than others?

[kokotg]

20 minutes ago, Penelope said:

No one ever said it was only teens. It is young people. They haven’t even vaccinated 12-15 yet, only 16 and up. 
 

Most of the cases were in men under 30, as stated in the news reports, so it is not 62 out of 5 million. 

They found 62 cases of myocarditis out of more than 5 million vaccinated. The fact that it's more likely to happen in younger men doesn't mean that the total number of cases they found isn't 62 out of 5 million. Maybe this is just semantics at this point. I mean, sure, you could say it's x out of x number of males aged 16-35 (or whatever), and it would be a different but still tiny percentage. But we can't say that because we don't know those numbers. We just know that there have been 62 cases out of over 5 million vaccinated and that some unstated majority of those have been in younger men. ETA: I mean, it's clearly not ALL men under 30, because of the people who died was a 35 year old man and the other was a woman. So you could also say that 0% of the deaths have been in men under 30.

Edited May 26, 2021 by kokotg

[whitestavern]

7 hours ago, Katy said:

Almost anything can cause myocarditis.  A virus, a vaccine, any kind of immune reaction. What we know so far from younger adults in the military is the vaccine related myocarditis resolves itself in less than a month.  People are much more likely to get myocarditis from Covid, and it is much more likely to cause damage that lasts longer than a month.  My kid with cardiac issues will be much less likely to have additional problems with the vaccine than with catching the virus. 

I'm just sharing facts/passing information along. There were 18 cases in my small state. The CDC is investigating if there is a link, so it has not been ruled out yet. I drew no conclusions from the article so there is nothing you need to convince me of.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

They found 62 cases of myocarditis out of more than 5 million vaccinated. The fact that it's more likely to happen in younger men doesn't mean that the total number of cases they found isn't 62 out of 5 million. Maybe this is just semantics at this point. I mean, sure, you could say it's x out of x number of males aged 16-35 (or whatever), and it would be a different but still tiny percentage. But we can't say that because we don't know those numbers. We just know that there have been 62 cases out of over 5 million vaccinated and that some unstated majority of those have been in younger men.

These are almost certainly underreported, since they are self-selected. It’s not like a study.

[SeaConquest]

On 5/23/2021 at 12:01 PM, Pen said:

So like 50% of people in trial get an at least theoretically inert placebo and no Covid, and the other 50% get Covid?

 I would agree that in that hypothetical if a large enough number of people got wild original Covid compared to an inert placebo and no Covid that the supposedly Inert placebo no Covid  group would be expected to do better, in theory .      
 

Yet even “just”  “normal saline” injection may not be benign:
 

see https://www.rxlist.com/normal-saline-side-effects-drug-center.htm

Common side effects of Normal Saline include:

• fever, 
• injection site swelling, 
• redness, or 
• infection. 

Contact your doctor if you experience serious side effects of Normal Saline including:

• fast heartbeat, 
• fever, 
• rash, 
• joint pain, or 
• shortness of breath.

And  (bold added) 

ps://www.rxlist.com/normal-saline-side-effects-drug-center.htm

SIDE EFFECTS. Reactions which may occur because of the solution or the technique of administration include febrile response, infection at the site of injection, venous thrombosis or phlebitis extending from the site of injection, extravasation, and hypervolemia.. If an adverse reaction does occur, discontinue the infusion, evaluate the patient, institute appropriate therapeutic countermeasures ...

 

 

It sounds so innocent yet it has been known for a long time that saline injection is NOT without its own potential problems and risks. So vaccines being trialed against it are not actually being trialed against a completely innocent inert substance. And I am sure that if I know this, so do Vaccine company people, and WHO, and so forth. Or if they do not I personally wonder  whether they should have their jobs. 
 

 

Lister Institute 1911:  (problems encountered in animal studies included fever, convulsions, hemorrhage, sudden death) 

 

 

ETA:
If someone on “control” side of trial had a fever from saline and then got a positive result from a >40 cycle PCR test for SARS2 it could easily look like that person came down with Covid when it might actually be saline reaction plus inflated PCR test . And that person might have been just fine but for being a “control” dosed with placebo. 
 

 

 

Apologies, but this is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board. Normal saline is an isotonic solution. In someone with normal hemodynamic status, normal saline isn't going to do anything other than make you pee. Sure, you might get an infection or phlebitis from the IV itself, if some critters come along for the ride into your bloodstream or you cause trauma to the vein (which may happen with very hypertonic solutions, which is why they should be given via a central vs peripheral line), but that's not due to sterile saline at 0.9%. If you've got some underlying reason for IV hydration, that reason could certainly make it more likely that you would experience a fever, DVT, convulsions, hemorrhage, etc., but again, that doesn't make the NS the cause.  My guess is that we have learned a bit more since 1911.

Edited May 26, 2021 by SeaConquest

[kokotg]

BTW (I should be cleaning my house), I found you a study with a control group, @Not_a_Number: https://discover.vumc.org/2021/01/covid-19-related-myocarditis-in-athletes/ 

Small study, but they've got 3% of college athletes. Frustratingly, I've looked two different places and I don't see them saying how many cases in the control group? Which seems weird if you're going to brag about how you're the first study with a control group.

[kokotg]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

These are almost certainly underreported, since they are self-selected. It’s not like a study.

Sure. That's why I was interested to hear how they're coming up with 1 in 3-6 thousand. But I haven't seen that anywhere other than on this thread, so I dunno.

[Pen]

On the numbers— I thought someone quoted and challenged me, but I cannot find it  — not sure specifics I am trying to reply to but seemed to have to do with my less than 1% figure as risk of severe case for unvaccinated children. 
 

I used this https://riskcalc.org/COVID19Hospitalization/

and put in both figures for known child relatives and also a few other variables.

In general for various children I got around 0.4% chance of hospitalization for someone who already has proven CV19 - variations if I changed gender, BMI, zip code, race, age.   (I did not go to severely obese type BMI because we don’t have that in my family and I was considering it for our family and close extended - not for everyone in the world or country.) 
 

Some people may have severe or long lasting cases without being hospitalized, but I left the figure as a rough average of hospitalization equating to severity.

 

that’s for people who already have it though .

 

Then there is a question of how likely someone is to contract  it in the first place. 
 

Because I am assuming we have to use both risk of getting it in first place and then risk of it being severe combined. 
 

(Eta: because unlike vaccine where once it is injected it is 100% injected, risk of getting CV does not seem to be 100%. Not even in superspreader situations iirc did 100% seem to get it, and relatively few people worldwide were at superspreader situations.) 
 

I do not have an online calculator for that—maybe someone does. 
 

so I have to guess - 
 

2% in an area like where I live (maybe less since it already seemed to have swept through our area back during lockdowns?) Maybe 20% in a very high infection area?

 

What are you using as your figures?

 

What are you comparing to for vaccine risk? 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Pen
Clarity? Another thought?

[Penelope]

2 minutes ago, kokotg said:

They found 62 cases of myocarditis out of more than 5 million vaccinated. The fact that it's more likely to happen in younger men doesn't mean that the total number of cases they found isn't 62 out of 5 million. Maybe this is just semantics at this point. I mean, sure, you could say it's x out of x number of males aged 16-35 (or whatever), and it would be a different but still tiny percentage. But we can't say that because we don't know those numbers. We just know that there have been 62 cases out of over 5 million vaccinated and that some unstated majority of those have been in younger men.

Oh, I see.

I don’t think it is semantics, but a question of what is the risk of a certain group. I’ve been seeing things about this for a few weeks, and wherever mentioned, the cases are in the same age group of concern. 
 

Not to beat a dead horse, but when the clots after J &J were first reported, the reports were that it was about 1 in a million. But if you are a 30 year old woman, your individual risk of a clot seems to work out to substantially higher than that, so if you are that person, the one in a million is meaningless. 

[kokotg]

2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Oh, I see.

I don’t think it is semantics, but a question of what is the risk of a certain group. I’ve been seeing things about this for a few weeks, and wherever mentioned, the cases are in the same age group of concern. 
 

Not to beat a dead horse, but when the clots after J &J were first reported, the reports were that it was about 1 in a million. But if you are a 30 year old woman, your individual risk of a clot seems to work out to substantially higher than that, so if you are that person, the one in a million is meaningless. 

Yes. I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing in any substantive way. I think I just didn’t want to go clean 😂

[Penelope]

12 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Yes. I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing in any substantive way. I think I just didn’t want to go clean 😂

For me, it’s the workout I don’t feel like doing. 😁

[Syllieann]

@Pen I was playing around with that hospitalization risk calculator you linked.  There is something wrong with it.  If you put in an obese bmi for a child and then a healthy bmi with all other parameters the same, it says the obese child is less likely to be hospitalized.   You were probably just using it to make the point that the risk of a healthy child being hospitalized from covid is extremely low, but I feel I need to point it out in case you or anyone else might be using it to estimate risk of hospitalization from covid vs vaccine risk as a major factor in their decision wrt vaccination.

[Pen]

3 hours ago, Syllieann said:

@Pen I was playing around with that hospitalization risk calculator you linked.  There is something wrong with it.  If you put in an obese bmi for a child and then a healthy bmi with all other parameters the same, it says the obese child is less likely to be hospitalized.   You were probably just using it to make the point that the risk of a healthy child being hospitalized from covid is extremely low, but I feel I need to point it out in case you or anyone else might be using it to estimate risk of hospitalization from covid vs vaccine risk as a major factor in their decision wrt vaccination.

interesting - I see that if I put in higher BMI levels up to about 30 the probability of hospitalization it gives seems to go down, then it goes up again if I go higher yet, like 35.    Thank you for catching that.

Does anyone have a better estimator to use?

There are some figures for risk of death, but I think we are concerned with more than just death (both as regards illness and vaccine reactions) so I thought bad enough for hospitalization was better to try to use than just death.   Anyway speaking for myself I am concerned about more than just death.
 

 The death risk is something like 0.002% avg for children in things I have read. 

 

For deaths,  the figure for children in the ~ 12-15 age range is 1 in 100,000  — and again, this is *for infection* not total population. 
If we are going to compare to vaccines, We have to further modify that imo by the likelihood  in an area of getting infected in the first place. 
 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Pen

[Ausmumof3]

I will freely admit I haven’t followed this whole discussion.  Vaccination is so far away for my kids that I will research later when the info should be more complete anyway.   I don’t have the mental space to think about much data right now.  But I’m not sure if hospitalisation is the right way to look at long term impacts.  It seems that there can be long term effects (long Covid and possibly long term vaccination effects who knows) even in people who experienced very mild symptoms at the time.  
 

In terms of comparing infection risk - I agree and this is a big deal down here because there’s little local transmission but presumably in countries with widespread transmission most people will contract it over a period of 5 to 10 years unless it somehow dies a natural death due to some unknown factor but that seems unlikely at this point.  If you are relying on other peoples vaccination status to protect you I get that but it does seem kind of ethically questionable.   Or do we think it’s less contagious than that and will never infect everyone even given enough time?

 

And of course we don’t know yet if the vaccine is going to be a yearly thing which may multiply the risk there as well right?

Edited May 27, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Pen]

8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I will freely admit I haven’t followed this whole discussion.  Vaccination is so far away for my kids that I will research later when the info should be more complete anyway.   I don’t have the mental space to think about much data right now.  But I’m not sure if hospitalisation is the right way to look at long term impacts.  It seems that there can be long term effects (long Covid and possibly long term vaccination effects who knows) even in people who experienced very mild symptoms at the time.  
 

In terms of comparing infection risk - I agree and this is a big deal down here because there’s little local transmission but presumably in countries with widespread transmission most people will contract it over a period of 5 to 10 years unless it somehow dies a natural death due to some unknown factor but that seems unlikely at this point.  If you are relying on other peoples vaccination

 

I think, personal curbstone  opiilniin, for most people it would be better not to get vaccinated. Just to clarify, this is my personal feeling about it, not intended as advice to anyone here. I believe strongly in free will and that each person needs to look into it and evaluate it for him or herself (or minor children if responsible for minor children). 

I am not shunning the vaccinated but I am very very very very very concerned that the “leaky” vaccines are making things worse for everyone, not better.

 

 I think specific people who can benefit from vaccines getting it makes sense  ( I have given my father as example - probably not long to live due to cancer - any short term quality of life gains were good ). 

 

Quote

status to protect you I get that but it does seem kind of ethically questionable.   Or do we think it’s less contagious than that and will never infect everyone even given enough time?

 

 

can’t speak to “we” 

I think between innate immunity and past infections to similar illnesses and possible Cv19 itself when lots of people were sick but no testing was done unless someone had traveled to China, that it is likely that a lot more people had immunity to it already. And this fit my observations of  what has happened in families I know where (confirmed due to contact tracing) only one or two people got it and the rest did not (without having guest rooms or anything like that to do isolation) that it was not infecting everyone.  It was not even infecting most people even in close quarters.    For example, 9 children 2 parents, 2 people sick, bedroom mates did not get it. Not clear why the second person did get it, but attack rate seemed to be less than 20% even in close quarters, over extended time (not casual and brief encounters).  
ETA: And remember too cruise ships where some couples in same stateroom had one get it, one not. When I’ve written that people have tried to “debunk” by implying maybe they weren’t having intercourse and that that explains it. But I think for a usually respiratory spread illness, even aerosol spread one, being in same room means that TeA isn’t the relevant consideration. Breathing within the shared enclosed airspace is. Vitamin D level may have been more relevant than TeA. Maybe one partner was using sunscreen and hats, slip, slap, slop (?) and the other was sunning bare unsunscreened skin. It would have been nice to know things like that. ) 
 

Back to initial example: More than 80% of family seemed to have some natural immunity.  I personally know several situations like that.  And more where it was 1 member of family only (that was pretty common it seemed) often with smaller families. 
 

How is Sweden doing lately?  And what percentage of population is accepting vaccines? 

 

I had originally thought Sweden was  making a mistake (and do think they wrongly treated people in nursing homes) but then for main population I came to think they may have been right. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

And of course we don’t know yet if the vaccine is going to be a yearly thing which may multiply the risk there as well right?

Right.
And I have even heard maybe a 6 monthly booster thing. 
 

eta once upon a time you and I were following the growing world cases and deaths with I think similar consternation. If it helps you to understand, my consternation about what the results will be from the “vaccine” approach, not immediately but over time.  It’s like 100 times greater than watching the growing worldometer graphs a year or more ago. 
 

I know people say it has been considered and formulated to avoid the bad results of older similar approaches such as the ferrets problems.
Or Marik chicken problems with/for leaky vaccines -  

but no one seems to know how it can be known that those types of problems will be avoided. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Pen
Additions, clarifications Fixed typo that changed meaning

[Ausmumof3]

@Pen
According to this Sweden have the highest vaccination rate in Europe

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/swedish-vaccination-rates-among-highest-in-eu-now-ecdc-data-shows

From the worldometer stats they are pretty much at the end of the nasty second wave they had.  Their death rates were lower than some higher than others in Europe at around 1400 per million people but well higher than most Asia Pacific countries.  From memory they implemented more restrictions during second than first wave.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Ausmumof3]

Some information on current restrictions in Sweden can be found here

https://www.thelocal.se/20210512/sweden-delays-relaxation-of-covid-19-events-restrictions-until-at-least-june-1st/?amp

its quite a bit stricter than I realised.

[Pen]

@Ausmumof3 could you use my edited post as what you reply to. I don’t want the pre-edit version quoted where I had not clarified that my feelings about the vaccine are personal and not advice for anyone.   Or cut the unedited  sentence out of the quote 

 

several edits I was doing and your replies crossed each other

Edited May 27, 2021 by Pen

[Ausmumof3]

@Pen I have removed the quote altogether and tagged you instead.  I hope that’s ok.

[Pen]

7 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

@Pen I have removed the quote altogether and tagged you instead.  I hope that’s ok.

Thank you!  I just made yet more changes . 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Pen

[wathe]

On 5/25/2021 at 2:48 PM, crazyforlatin said:

What's the maximum time between first and second shots that you would feel comfortable? 

I need to wait until the AP exam and other events are over. All of Dd's friends have had barely a reaction from the second shot, but I still prefer to wait. 

Dd has food allergies, but she didn't react to the first shot, so I know she's not allergic to the vaccine. Is that safe to conclude? I thought I read that the second dose is more potent.

Well, my entire country is doing **12 weeks **between doses ( with very limited exceptions), and so is the UK, I think.  It seems to be working well so far.

the second dose is exactly the same as the first.  Same product, same volume.  People do seem to have more side effects.

i haven’t seen anything suggesting any difference in allergic reactions dose 1 vs dose 2.

** ETA nope, it's 16 weeks!

Edited May 27, 2021 by wathe

[Pen]

1 hour ago, wathe said:

Well, my entire country is doing 12 weeks between doses ( with very limited exceptions), and so is the UK, I think.  It seems to be working well so far.

the second dose is exactly the same as the first.  Same product, same volume.  People do seem to have more side effects.

i haven’t seen anything suggesting any difference in allergic reactions dose 1 vs dose 

 

My impression is that longer gap increases immune reaction, antibodies production, etc? 

 

Is that a good thing in children?  Or maybe “too much of a good thing”?

 

revised: I found online that Canada rolled out vaccines for 12-15 on May 5 .    That suggests that there is not yet substantial experience with the 12 weeks between 

(Eta I think your country = Canada ) 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Pen

[Arcadia]

@Not_a_Number@SKL no idea why males are more affected but that's to your favor since both of you have daughters. 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/work-groups-vast/technical-report-2021-05-17.html

”

VaST concluded that there are relatively few reports of myocarditis to date and that these cases  seem to occur:

• predominantly in adolescents and young adults,
• more often in males than females,
• more often following dose 2 than dose 1, and
• typically within 4 days after vaccination”

[wathe]

51 minutes ago, Pen said:

Is Canada using 12 weeks between doses for 12-15 year olds? 
 

My impression is that longer gap increases immune reaction, antibodies production, etc? 
 

Is that a good thing in children?  Or maybe “too much of a good thing”?

(Eta I think your country = Canada ) 

For the time being, yes.  12-year-olds just became eligible in my province this week.  Those who had their shot this week are being booked for second doses in September.  Though I expect that the interval might shorten as supply improves. 

ETA:  Data don't yet exist for 12 (Edited to correct: 16 week spacing) spacing for 12-17-year-old.   The national strategy is to get as many first doses into arms as possible and worry about second doses later.   This was necessary because we have had extremely limited supply, and supply continues to be an issue.  From a public health point of view, it's a very reasonable and ethical choice (and IMO, the only reasonable choice policy-wise).

Edited May 27, 2021 by wathe

[Pen]

Just now, wathe said:

For the time being, yes.  12-year-olds just became eligible in my province this week.  Those who had their shot this week are being booked for second doses in September.  Though I expect that the interval might shorten as supply improves. 

 yes I looked it up and was revising my prior post as this came in. 
 

So perhaps not until September do we start learning effects on children of 12 week interim.  If it’s better, worse, or makes no difference. Unless maybe another country started it or already tested it out earlier

[wathe]

Just now, Pen said:

 yes I looked it up and was revising my prior post as this came in. 
 

So perhaps not until September do we start learning effects on children of 12 week interim.  If it’s better, worse, or makes no difference. Unless maybe another country started it or already tested it out earlier

edited to add more

[wathe]

57 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

revised: I found online that Canada rolled out vaccines for 12-15 on May 5 .    That suggests that there is not yet substantial experience with the 12 weeks between 

(Eta I think your country = Canada ) 

Approved for 12-17.  Not eligible to receive the vax in most provinces until much more recently than that.  My province 12yo eligibility started May 23, and most weren't able to get appointments immediately.   We booked our 13yo online the minute (literally)he became eligible, and the soonest appointment we could get for him isn't until early June.  ETA with second dose booked for September.

Edited May 27, 2021 by wathe

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, wathe said:

Approved for 12-17.  Not eligible to receive the vax in most provinces until much more recently than that.  My province 12yo eligibility started May 23, and most weren't able to get appointments immediately.   We booked our 13yo online the minute (literally)he became eligible, and the soonest appointment we could get for him isn't until early June.

Ontario?

 

[wathe]

So, in my head I conflated 4 months with 12 weeks, which is obviously wrong!  The spacing here is 16 weeks, not 12.  Sorry everyone. 

[wathe]

24 minutes ago, Pen said:

Ontario?

 

yes

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

@Not_a_Number@SKL no idea why males are more affected but that's to your favor since both of you have daughters. 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/work-groups-vast/technical-report-2021-05-17.html

”

VaST concluded that there are relatively few reports of myocarditis to date and that these cases  seem to occur:

• predominantly in adolescents and young adults,
• more often in males than females,
• more often following dose 2 than dose 1, and
• typically within 4 days after vaccination”

Interesting.  The fact that it happens more often following dose 2 than dose 1, and typically within 4 days after vaccination, makes me even more concerned that it's a vax side effect.

[SKL]

Anyone know if they are testing longer wait times between shots in the US?

[AmandaVT]

On 5/24/2021 at 4:54 PM, AmandaVT said:

Vermont is 70% with 1 dose and 53% fully vaccinated. The governor dangled a "the day we hit 80%, is the day he will lift all restrictions" as a carrot to get more people in. 

DS got his first shot today - went well. Will report back w/ side effects.

No side effects - not even sore at the injection site. 

[Arcadia]

On 5/25/2021 at 11:48 AM, crazyforlatin said:

What's the maximum time between first and second shots that you would feel comfortable? 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/second-shot.html

“You should get your second shot as close to the recommended 3-week or 4-week interval as possible. However, your second dose may be given up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose, if necessary. You should not get the second dose early. There is currently limited information on the effectiveness of receiving your second shot earlier than recommended or later than 6 weeks after the first shot.

However, if you do receive your second shot of COVID-19 vaccine earlier or later than recommended, you do not have to restart the vaccine series. This guidance might be updated as more information becomes available.”

For those of us with elderly relatives over 80 years old.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2021/05/covid-pfizer-vaccination-interval-antibody-response.aspx

“First author Dr Helen Parry, NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Birmingham, said: “SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been remarkably effective in providing large-scale protection against infection and symptomatic disease - but many questions remain regarding their optimal delivery for provision of effective and sustained immunity.

“This is the first time antibody and cellular responses have been studied when the second vaccine is given after an extended interval. Our study demonstrates that peak antibody responses after the second Pfizer vaccine are markedly enhanced in older people when this is delayed to 12 weeks.

“This research is crucial, particularly in older people, as immune responses to vaccination deteriorate with age. Understanding how to optimise COVID-19 vaccine schedules and maximise immune responses within this age group is vitally important.”

Corresponding author Paul Moss, Professor of Haematology at the University of Birmingham and Principal Investigator of the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium, added: “ The enhanced antibody responses seen after an extended interval may help to sustain immunity against COVID-19 over the longer term and further improve the clinical efficacy of this powerful vaccine platform.

“Our research findings may be important in the development of global vaccination strategy as extension of interval of the second vaccine dose in older people may potentially reduce the need for subsequent booster vaccines.”

The research saw the team taking blood samples for analysis in the lab after participants’ first vaccine and then again two to three weeks after participants had received their second vaccine. Of the cohort, 99 participants had the second vaccine at three weeks, while 73 had the second dose at 12 weeks.

Participants who had previous infection (10 in the three-week interval group and five in the 12-week interval group) were excluded from the analysis as previous infection has been shown to have a major impact on the immune response to vaccination.

After their second vaccine, spike-specific antibodies were detected in all participants no matter how far apart their doses were. However, after the second vaccine the average concentration of antibodies was 3.5 times higher in the 12-week interval group (4,030 U/ml) compared to the three-week interval group (1,138 U/ml).

In relation to the cellular (or T cell) immune response, which plays an important role in supporting and maintaining antibody production, the team found that within the three-week interval group, 60% had a confirmed cellular response at two to three weeks following the second vaccine - although this fell to only 15% eight to nine weeks later.

The proportion of participants showing a cellular response in the 12-week-interval group was only eight per cent at five to six weeks after the first vaccine, but this rose to 31% two to three weeks after the second vaccine. Research is required to further explore these variations in responses.

Dr Gayatri Amirthalingam, Consultant Epidemiologist at PHE, said: “The higher antibody responses in people receiving two doses of the Pfizer vaccine using an extended 12 week interval provides further supportive evidence of the benefits of the UK approach to prioritise the first dose of vaccine. This analysis shows better antibody responses in those receiving their second dose at 12 weeks compared to the standard three-week schedule.“

[Corraleno]

28 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

For those of us with elderly relatives over 80 years old.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2021/05/covid-pfizer-vaccination-interval-antibody-response.aspx

“First author Dr Helen Parry, NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Birmingham, said: “SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been remarkably effective in providing large-scale protection against infection and symptomatic disease - but many questions remain regarding their optimal delivery for provision of effective and sustained immunity.

“This is the first time antibody and cellular responses have been studied when the second vaccine is given after an extended interval. Our study demonstrates that peak antibody responses after the second Pfizer vaccine are markedly enhanced in older people when this is delayed to 12 weeks.

“This research is crucial, particularly in older people, as immune responses to vaccination deteriorate with age. Understanding how to optimise COVID-19 vaccine schedules and maximise immune responses within this age group is vitally important.”

Corresponding author Paul Moss, Professor of Haematology at the University of Birmingham and Principal Investigator of the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium, added: “ The enhanced antibody responses seen after an extended interval may help to sustain immunity against COVID-19 over the longer term and further improve the clinical efficacy of this powerful vaccine platform.

“Our research findings may be important in the development of global vaccination strategy as extension of interval of the second vaccine dose in older people may potentially reduce the need for subsequent booster vaccines.”

The research saw the team taking blood samples for analysis in the lab after participants’ first vaccine and then again two to three weeks after participants had received their second vaccine. Of the cohort, 99 participants had the second vaccine at three weeks, while 73 had the second dose at 12 weeks.

Participants who had previous infection (10 in the three-week interval group and five in the 12-week interval group) were excluded from the analysis as previous infection has been shown to have a major impact on the immune response to vaccination.

After their second vaccine, spike-specific antibodies were detected in all participants no matter how far apart their doses were. However, after the second vaccine the average concentration of antibodies was 3.5 times higher in the 12-week interval group (4,030 U/ml) compared to the three-week interval group (1,138 U/ml).

In relation to the cellular (or T cell) immune response, which plays an important role in supporting and maintaining antibody production, the team found that within the three-week interval group, 60% had a confirmed cellular response at two to three weeks following the second vaccine - although this fell to only 15% eight to nine weeks later.

The proportion of participants showing a cellular response in the 12-week-interval group was only eight per cent at five to six weeks after the first vaccine, but this rose to 31% two to three weeks after the second vaccine. Research is required to further explore these variations in responses.

Dr Gayatri Amirthalingam, Consultant Epidemiologist at PHE, said: “The higher antibody responses in people receiving two doses of the Pfizer vaccine using an extended 12 week interval provides further supportive evidence of the benefits of the UK approach to prioritise the first dose of vaccine. This analysis shows better antibody responses in those receiving their second dose at 12 weeks compared to the standard three-week schedule.“

That article sort of buried a key fact about that research — although antibodies were higher after the second dose with a 12-week interval, T-cell response was significantly LOWER in the 12-week group versus the standard 3 week interval.

The actual preprint, which is here, says:
"In donors without evidence of previous infection the peak antibody response was 3.5-fold higher in donors who had undergone delayed interval vaccination. Cellular immune responses were 3.6-fold lower."

Since this study involves the elderly, I'll x-post it in the vaccine thread so we don't derail the 12-15 yr olds thread.

[JennyD]

DS16 and DS13 got their second shots today at the children's hospital.  DS13 was quite nervous but the staff are total pros, and there even were signs all around about how to stay calm -- as I pointed out to him, obviously lots of other kids have been nervous, too!  

I talked at length to one of the nurses about the reports of myocarditis and what to watch for.  She said the key symptoms of myocarditis generally are breathlessness, extreme fatigue (as in, not able to walk across the room or climb a flight of stairs) and erratic pulse.  She also emphasized that I should trust my mom instincts and that if anything just doesn't seem right, call the ped or come in to the ED.  

The nurses were also urging all the kids to really move their arms around today to prevent soreness, perhaps by helping their parents with yardwork or vacuuming. All the teenagers in the room (including mine) seemed to find this hilarious.  🙂

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by JennyD

[Shoeless]

2nd shot in the books! Kiddo was excited about it yesterday and told everyone on his zoom activities! He's currently polishing off a large, bakery cookie as a post-vax treat. 😄

[purpleowl]

Well, that was an interesting few pages of posts to read since I last checked in on this thread.

Anyway...DD#1 (12yo) got her second dose yesterday. We're at about 15 hours since she got it, and her arm is "sore, but not as much as last time" (and last time it was sore, but she declined the offer of ibuprofen for it, so not awful). She is not reporting any other symptoms currently. With the first dose, the sore arm was her only side effect.

[Tenaj]

DS 12 and DS 15 received second doses last night.  DS 12 reports a slightly sore arm but feels fine.  15yo has yet to surface.  We were the only people at the mobile clinic last night.  They were waiting on one more appointment and were shutting down early.  It was at our local fire station.  They were expecting a better turnout on Saturday at the local ice cream place because you get free ice cream there 🤣. 

It was a good experience since we all just sat and talked during the 15 minutes.  My 12yo got very anxious during the first shot but the relaxed atmosphere last night helped him tremendously!  

I was very happy because my 19yods didn't receive a card after his first dose and I was concerned about whether the health dept.  had a record of it.  They looked it up, found it and filled out a card for him and gave it to me (which I'm sure they weren't supposed to legally do 🙄) but anyway, now we have it and he can get his second shot done this weekend.

[purpleowl]

Oh, JanOH's post reminded me about two things I meant to share about DD's appointment yesterday.

First, there was zero line. With her first dose we were waiting FOREVER and it was very poorly run, but this time we walked in and it was her turn.

Second, we walked up to the lady and she said, "First dose or second?" Second. "You have her card?"

And then I looked like a deer in headlights, because I totally left it at home. *facepalm* I said, "I guess we'll have to come back another time." Lady asked if the first dose had also been at the same location and I said yes, so she looked it up and was able to fill out a new card with info for both doses. She was very gracious, she said "it happens," and I felt like an idiot but it worked out fine. We didn't have to drive back across town to get it or schedule a different appt.

[SKL]

44 minutes ago, purpleowl said:

Oh, JanOH's post reminded me about two things I meant to share about DD's appointment yesterday.

First, there was zero line. With her first dose we were waiting FOREVER and it was very poorly run, but this time we walked in and it was her turn.

Second, we walked up to the lady and she said, "First dose or second?" Second. "You have her card?"

And then I looked like a deer in headlights, because I totally left it at home. *facepalm* I said, "I guess we'll have to come back another time." Lady asked if the first dose had also been at the same location and I said yes, so she looked it up and was able to fill out a new card with info for both doses. She was very gracious, she said "it happens," and I felt like an idiot but it worked out fine. We didn't have to drive back across town to get it or schedule a different appt.

This happened to me also.

Note to self:  remember to keep the kids' cards ready to take this afternoon.  We are going to a different provider for the second shot.

[Danae]

Thank you all, I just checked to make sure the boy's cards are in my purse for Sunday.  

[YaelAldrich]

2nd shot in my daughter on Wednesday after school. Pfizer.  Some soreness in arm and a little nausea but she went to school and dance and did her first exam today (in person high school).  She is VERY excited about going to a cloth mask from the Totobobo PRO she has been using.

[KSera]

2 hours ago, purpleowl said:

Second, we walked up to the lady and she said, "First dose or second?" Second. "You have her card?"

 

Thank you for the reminder! I think I would’ve totally spaced on remembering to bring it.

[El...]

Dd13 got her second shot Wednesday. She felt crummy and had a low fever most of the day Thursday, but woke up feeling fine today, Friday. She's hugely relieved to have it done. 

[Shoeless]

22 hours ago, MissLemon said:

2nd shot in the books! Kiddo was excited about it yesterday and told everyone on his zoom activities! He's currently polishing off a large, bakery cookie as a post-vax treat. 😄

Kiddo had a slight headache this am. He got a drink and went back to bed, and just woke up. He says he feels fine now. 

[strawberries]

DD got her second shot earlier today. No dizziness this time! That was a pleasant surprise, since she had dizziness with the first dose and has a history of dizziness/fainting with other shots.  She says her arm itches and hurts more than it did the first time. It doesn't seem to be too bad as she is energetically singing and digging through a Lego bin at the moment. 😆 Will update tomorrow  - wondering if she will get the same body aches that DS, DH and I all had the day after our second doses. 

[Loowit]

My 15 year old DS got his second shot yesterday afternoon.  He had a slight headache last night, but not too bad.  Today his is having a lot of fatigue, and he said he is feeling hot.  I haven't taken his temperature, but he says he feels feverish.  I am letting him just rest up.

[maize]

My 13 and 15 year olds who got their second shots yesterday are both feeling a bit under the weather today. Just general ick.