COVID-19 vaccine discussion

[Guest]

2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Cross pasting from vaccine roll call thread because I was pretty surprised and curious if anyone else has experienced this:

Have held off on my booster because I did the first draw for the UT Health antibody study in late August and wanted to do my second draw before getting the booster. Pfizer’s second dose in early April and antibodies around 850 on the test in August.

My antibody level increased to 925 as of this past Saturday, eight months after my second dose. Still negative for natural infection.

Same timeline as you, but slightly different circumstance. Took the second draw after getting COVID and the antibodies were through the roof.

So 1,600 in August, got COVID in late September, second draw was >2,500 in November. 

Went ahead and got the booster a week ago as I was there anyway.

Wife went from 1,200 in August to around 800 (I think?) in November. She did not get the 'rona.

[Anastasis 23469]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/08/world/omicron-variant-covid#pfizer-says-blood-samples-showed-a-third-dose-of-its-vaccine-provides-significant-protection-against-omicron

Pfizer and BioNTech said Wednesday that laboratory tests suggest that three doses of their coronavirus vaccine offer significant protection against the fast-spreading Omicron variant of the virus.

The companies said that tests of blood from individuals who received only two doses found more than a 25-fold reduction in antibody levels against the Omicron variant compared to an earlier version of the virus. That finding indicates that two doses alone “may not be sufficient to protect against infection” by the new variant, the companies said.

But the blood samples obtained from people one month after they had received a booster shot showed neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant comparable to the levels of antibodies against a previous version of the virus after two doses, the companies said in a statement.

At the same time, the tests suggested that the mutations in Omicron do not appear to significantly affect T cells — another critical part of the immune system’s response. That suggests “vaccinated individuals may still be protected against severe forms of the disease” after only two doses, the companies said.

[utee94 15823]

Wealthy drug company urges purchase of more of its product!  Film at 11.

 

Just kidding around, of course.  Mostly.

[Anastasis 23469]

[Brisketexan 105142]

Woohoo!  Feeling better about having joined team Pfizer.  Now I don't have to put my name in the transfer portal for team Moderna.  But I'm still waiting for some of that sweet NIL money.  Anyone need Brisketexan as their spokesman?  I have some solid testimonials about the fried gizzards at Chicken Express....

[Neonmoon 38129]

Which one was the Beta? England or South America?

[XYZ 2154]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Which one was the Beta? England or South America?

You’re the beta.

[Chewbacca 7779]

More CO data. Boosted people are almost 50x less likely to be hospitalized than unvaxxed. Turns out vaccines work. Who knew?

https://coloradosun.com/2021/12/07/covid-vaccine-booster-colorado-hospitalizations/

[Stringer 1439]

On 12/8/2021 at 8:34 AM, Anastasis said:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/08/world/omicron-variant-covid#pfizer-says-blood-samples-showed-a-third-dose-of-its-vaccine-provides-significant-protection-against-omicron

Pfizer and BioNTech said Wednesday that laboratory tests suggest that three doses of their coronavirus vaccine offer significant protection against the fast-spreading Omicron variant of the virus.

The companies said that tests of blood from individuals who received only two doses found more than a 25-fold reduction in antibody levels against the Omicron variant compared to an earlier version of the virus. That finding indicates that two doses alone “may not be sufficient to protect against infection” by the new variant, the companies said.

But the blood samples obtained from people one month after they had received a booster shot showed neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant comparable to the levels of antibodies against a previous version of the virus after two doses, the companies said in a statement.

At the same time, the tests suggested that the mutations in Omicron do not appear to significantly affect T cells — another critical part of the immune system’s response. That suggests “vaccinated individuals may still be protected against severe forms of the disease” after only two doses, the companies said.

From my understanding, Pfizer and Moderna are pretty similar vaccines right?  Would it be likely that Moderna would show the same result, but they may not have data back yet?

Getting my third Moderna today, so don't know if it's worth moving it to a Pfizer.

[Anastasis 23469]

52 minutes ago, Stringer said:

From my understanding, Pfizer and Moderna are pretty similar vaccines right?  Would it be likely that Moderna would show the same result, but they may not have data back yet?

Getting my third Moderna today, so don't know if it's worth moving it to a Pfizer.

I would not make a switch to Pfizer, I would just stick with Moderna. I would consider PFE and MRNA largely interchangeable, with the key difference being that MRNA is slightly high dose (1st dose/second/booster; PFE: 30/30/30, MRNA 100/100/50). 

That being said, if they were out of MRNA, I'd have no problem jumping over to PFE. And vice versa. 

[utee94 15823]

59 minutes ago, Stringer said:

From my understanding, Pfizer and Moderna are pretty similar vaccines right?  Would it be likely that Moderna would show the same result, but they may not have data back yet?

Getting my third Moderna today, so don't know if it's worth moving it to a Pfizer.

Pfizer is the gimp of the two.  Stick with Moderna for #3.  I feel sorry for all those Pfizer losers.

[statsman 5470]

Interesting- the comorbidities may just be correlations of obesity and not causes of bad outcomes. Message- fat people should be vaccinated. (They should also lose weight). From the NYT-

 

From the start of the pandemic, the coronavirus seemed to target people carrying extra pounds. Patients who were overweight or obese were more likely to develop severe Covid-19 and more likely to die.

Though these patients often have health conditions like diabetes that compound their risk, scientists have become increasingly convinced that their vulnerability has something to do with obesity itself.

Now researchers have found that the coronavirus infects both fat cells and certain immune cells within body fat, prompting a damaging defensive response in the body.

“The bottom line is, ‘Oh my god, indeed, the virus can infect fat cells directly,’” said Dr. Philipp Scherer, a scientist who studies fat cells at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

“Whatever happens in fat doesn’t stay in fat,” he added. “It affects the neighboring tissues as well.”

The research has not yet been peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal, but it was posted online in October. If the findings hold up, they may shed light not just on why patients with excess pounds are vulnerable to the virus, but also on why certain younger adults with no other risks become so ill.

The study’s senior authors, Dr. Tracey McLaughlin and Dr. Catherine Blish of the Stanford University School of Medicine, suggested the evidence could point to new Covid treatments that target body fat.

“Maybe that’s the Achilles’ heel that the virus utilizes to evade our protective immune responses — by hiding in this place,” Dr. Vishwa Deep Dixit, a professor of comparative medicine and immunology at Yale School of Medicine, said.

The finding is particularly relevant to the United States, which has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world. Most American adults are overweight, and 42 percent have obesity. Black, Hispanic, Native American and Alaska Native people in the U.S. have higher obesity rates than white adults and Asian Americans; they have also been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, with death rates roughly double those of white Americans.

 

“This could well be contributing to severe disease,” Dr. Blish said. “We’re seeing the same inflammatory cytokines that I see in the blood of the really sick patients being produced in response to infection of those tissues.”

Body fat used to be thought of as inert, a form of storage. But scientists now know that the tissue is biologically active, producing hormones and immune-system proteins that act on other cells, promoting a state of nagging low-grade inflammation even when there is no infection.

 

Inflammation is the body’s response to an invader, and sometimes it can be so vigorous that it is more harmful than the infection that triggered it. “The more fat mass, and in particular visceral fat mass, the worse your inflammatory response,” Dr. McLaughlin said, referring to the abdominal fat that surrounds internal organs.

Fat tissue is composed mostly of fat cells, or adipocytes. It also contains pre-adipocytes, which mature into fat cells, and a variety of immune cells, including a type called adipose tissue macrophages.

Dr. McLaughlin, Dr. Blish and their colleagues carried out experiments to see if fat tissue obtained from bariatric surgery patients could become infected with the coronavirus, and tracked how various types of cells responded.

The fat cells themselves could become infected, the scientists found, yet did not become very inflamed. But certain immune cells called macrophages also could be infected, and they developed a robust inflammatory response.

Even stranger, the pre-adipocytes were not infected, but contributed to the inflammatory response. (The scientists did not examine whether particular variants were more destructive in this regard than others.

The research team also obtained fat tissue from the bodies of European patients who had died of Covid and discovered the coronavirus in fat near various organs.

 

The idea that adipose tissue might serve as a reservoir for pathogens is not new, Dr. Dixit said. Body fat is known to harbor a number of them, including H.I.V. and the influenza virus.

The coronavirus appears to be able to evade the body fat’s immune defenses, which are limited and incapable of fighting it effectively. And in people who are obese, there can be a lot of body fat.

A man whose ideal weight is 170 pounds but who weighs 250 pounds is carrying a substantial amount of fat in which the virus may “hang out,” replicate and trigger a destructive immune system response, said Dr. David Kass, a professor of cardiology at Johns Hopkins.

“If you really are very obese, fat is the biggest single organ in your body,” Dr. Kass said.

The coronavirus “can infect that tissue and actually reside there,” he said. “Whether it hurts it, kills it or at best, it’s a place to amplify itself — it doesn’t matter. It becomes kind of a reservoir.”

As the inflammatory response snowballs, cytokines trigger even more inflammation and the release of additional cytokines. “It’s like a perfect storm,” he said.

Dr. Blish and her colleagues speculated that infected body fat may even contribute to “long Covid,” a condition describing troublesome symptoms like fatigue that persist for weeks or months after recovery from an acute episode.

 

The data also suggest that Covid vaccines and treatments may need to take into account the patient’s weight and fat stores.

“This paper is another wake-up call for the medical profession and public health to look more deeply into the issues of overweight and obese individuals, and the treatments and vaccines we’re giving them,” said Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who has studied the heightened risk that Covid poses to those with obesity.

“We keep documenting the risk they have, but we still aren’t addressing it,” Dr. Popkin said.

[Anastasis 23469]

 

[scottsins 1966]

2nd CARES results just in.

For reference, I had Moderna #2 on 2/26.
First CARES result was drawn on 9/3. The “S Protein” value was 412.

Received Moderna booster on 10/26.

Second draw was December 9th: 113

I must have lupus or something?

[Caponata 151]

Seems most people here got vaccinated and moved on with their lives. It's odd seeing people act like it's June 2020 

[DaysOff 7951]

Pfizer/Pfizer in February/March

735 first draw in September

Moderna in November

2500+ yesterday

Boosters work

[Deej 76793]

57 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Boosters work

Not for scottsins, apparently. 

[XYZ 2154]

2 hours ago, Caponata said:

Seems most people here got vaccinated and moved on with their lives. It's odd seeing people act like it's June 2020 

I got vaccinated and I moved on with my life…then I got covid. Now I really moved on with my life.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

I wish we had a clearer picture on natural immunity. Like everything with SARS-CoV-2, it seems like the studies and "experts" say polar opposite things. I realize scientific examination is not always clean, but this feels like something that we should  have a pretty clear and aligned POV at least directionally.

[Pato del Muerto 52498]

Are we doing boosters on the younger sets or is that not approved yet?  My kids are rolling up on 6 months and it seems that a booster is a good idea. 

[Celery Man 20950]

2 hours ago, Caponata said:

Seems most people here got vaccinated and moved on with their lives. It's odd seeing people act like it's June 2020 

I’m still mostly masking at the store and similar places. Baby can’t get the vaccination yet and since I’m healthy/normal wearing a mask isn’t a problem for me so why not be cautious.

[InkaUtexas 25942]

 Going to HEB I wear one. Shit, it is a piece of face covering. It is not NBC masks (MOPP 4 sucks). Weighs nothing and people cannot see when I curse them silently for being in the middle of an aisle. Wear to stop the spread. Pretty simple. 

[Dontshootrude 374]

1 hour ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

I wish we had a clearer picture on natural immunity. Like everything with SARS-CoV-2, it seems like the studies and "experts" say polar opposite things. I realize scientific examination is not always clean, but this feels like something that we should  have a pretty clear and aligned POV at least directionally.

What's not clear?  Serious question.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

27 minutes ago, Dontshootrude said:

What's not clear?  Serious question.

I have seen studies and "experts" say both it is superior and inferior to unnatural immunity. There does not seem to be a clear consensus, at least in the US.

[Bevo 13577]

1 hour ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

I wish we had a clearer picture on natural immunity. Like everything with SARS-CoV-2, it seems like the studies and "experts" say polar opposite things. I realize scientific examination is not always clean, but this feels like something that we should  have a pretty clear and aligned POV at least directionally.

What is it that you want to know?

 

If I have natural immunity do I still need a COVID vaccine?

Yes, the COVID-19 vaccines are recommended, even if you had COVID-19. At present, evidence from Johns Hopkins Medicine and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports getting a COVID-19 vaccine as the best protection against getting COVID-19, whether you have already had the virus or not.

Here are recent research studies that support getting vaccinated even if you have already had COVID-19:

Vaccines add protection.

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report on Oct. 29, 2021, that says getting vaccinated for the coronavirus when you’ve already had COVID-19 significantly enhances your immune protection and further reduces your risk of reinfection.
• A study published in August 2021 indicates that if you had COVID-19 before and are not vaccinated, your risk of getting re-infected is more than two times higher than for those who got vaccinated after having COVID-19.
• Another study published on Nov. 5, 2021, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) looked at adults hospitalized for COVID-like sickness between January and September 2021. This study found that the chances of these adults testing positive for COVID-19 were 5.49 times higher in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 in the past than they were for those who had been vaccinated for COVID and had not had an infection before.
• A study from the CDC in September 2021 showed that roughly one-third of those with COVID-19 cases in the study had no apparent natural immunity.

Immunity varies for individuals: Immune response can differ in people who get COVID-19 and recover from the illness. The FDA-authorized and approved vaccines have been given to almost 200 million people in the U.S. alone, and have strong data supporting their effectiveness.

Delta variant and future coronavirus variants: Hospitalizations of people with severe COVID-19 soared over the late summer and into fall as the delta variant moved across the country. People infected with earlier versions of the coronavirus and who haven’t been vaccinated might be more vulnerable to new mutations of the coronavirus such as those found in the delta variant. To date, the authorized vaccines provide protection from serious disease or death due to all currently circulating coronavirus variants.

Should I hold off getting a COVID vaccine to see if there is new research on natural immunity?

Holding off on getting vaccinated for COVID-19 is not a good idea. Here’s why:

1. Getting COVID-19 is very risky and can result in long-term disease, lasting organ damage, hospitalization or even death.
2. Even if your own infection is mild, you can spread it to others who may have severe illness and death.
3. The authorized and approved vaccines are safe and highly effective against severe illness or death due to COVID.
4. Risks of COVID-19 vaccine side effects are extremely low.

For the reasons above, the CDC recommends and Johns Hopkins Medicine agrees that all eligible people get vaccinated with any of the three FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines, including those who have already had COVID-19.

Johns Hopkins Research on Natural Immunity for COVID-19 and COVID Vaccines

Johns Hopkins has conducted a large study on natural immunity that shows antibody levels against COVID-19 coronavirus stay higher for a longer time in people who were infected by the virus and then were fully vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines compared with those who only got immunized. (The results of the study were published in a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association on Nov. 1, 2021.)

The data show that one month after they got their second shot, participants who had had COVID-19 more than 90 days before their first shot had adjusted antibody levels higher than those who had been exposed to the coronavirus more recently than 90 days. Three months after the second coronavirus vaccine, the antibody levels were even higher: 13% higher than those who were exposed to the virus less than or equal to the 90-day mark.

These study results suggest that natural immunity may increase the protection of the shots when there is a longer time period between having COVID-19 and getting vaccinated.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Are we doing boosters on the younger sets or is that not approved yet?  My kids are rolling up on 6 months and it seems that a booster is a good idea. 

Same. Mine turn 16 in 2 months, which would be 8 months out from their second shot. 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

4 minutes ago, Bevo said:

What is it that you want to know?

 

If I have natural immunity do I still need a COVID vaccine?

Yes, the COVID-19 vaccines are recommended, even if you had COVID-19. At present, evidence from Johns Hopkins Medicine and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports getting a COVID-19 vaccine as the best protection against getting COVID-19, whether you have already had the virus or not.

Here are recent research studies that support getting vaccinated even if you have already had COVID-19:

Vaccines add protection.

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report on Oct. 29, 2021, that says getting vaccinated for the coronavirus when you’ve already had COVID-19 significantly enhances your immune protection and further reduces your risk of reinfection.
• A study published in August 2021 indicates that if you had COVID-19 before and are not vaccinated, your risk of getting re-infected is more than two times higher than for those who got vaccinated after having COVID-19.
• Another study published on Nov. 5, 2021, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) looked at adults hospitalized for COVID-like sickness between January and September 2021. This study found that the chances of these adults testing positive for COVID-19 were 5.49 times higher in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 in the past than they were for those who had been vaccinated for COVID and had not had an infection before.
• A study from the CDC in September 2021 showed that roughly one-third of those with COVID-19 cases in the study had no apparent natural immunity.

Immunity varies for individuals: Immune response can differ in people who get COVID-19 and recover from the illness. The FDA-authorized and approved vaccines have been given to almost 200 million people in the U.S. alone, and have strong data supporting their effectiveness.

Delta variant and future coronavirus variants: Hospitalizations of people with severe COVID-19 soared over the late summer and into fall as the delta variant moved across the country. People infected with earlier versions of the coronavirus and who haven’t been vaccinated might be more vulnerable to new mutations of the coronavirus such as those found in the delta variant. To date, the authorized vaccines provide protection from serious disease or death due to all currently circulating coronavirus variants.

Should I hold off getting a COVID vaccine to see if there is new research on natural immunity?

Holding off on getting vaccinated for COVID-19 is not a good idea. Here’s why:

1. Getting COVID-19 is very risky and can result in long-term disease, lasting organ damage, hospitalization or even death.
2. Even if your own infection is mild, you can spread it to others who may have severe illness and death.
3. The authorized and approved vaccines are safe and highly effective against severe illness or death due to COVID.
4. Risks of COVID-19 vaccine side effects are extremely low.

For the reasons above, the CDC recommends and Johns Hopkins Medicine agrees that all eligible people get vaccinated with any of the three FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines, including those who have already had COVID-19.

Johns Hopkins Research on Natural Immunity for COVID-19 and COVID Vaccines

Johns Hopkins has conducted a large study on natural immunity that shows antibody levels against COVID-19 coronavirus stay higher for a longer time in people who were infected by the virus and then were fully vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines compared with those who only got immunized. (The results of the study were published in a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association on Nov. 1, 2021.)

The data show that one month after they got their second shot, participants who had had COVID-19 more than 90 days before their first shot had adjusted antibody levels higher than those who had been exposed to the coronavirus more recently than 90 days. Three months after the second coronavirus vaccine, the antibody levels were even higher: 13% higher than those who were exposed to the virus less than or equal to the 90-day mark.

These study results suggest that natural immunity may increase the protection of the shots when there is a longer time period between having COVID-19 and getting vaccinated.

If you re-read the quotation I thought it was pretty clear.

[Dontshootrude 374]

15 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

I have seen studies and "experts" say both it is superior and inferior to unnatural immunity. There does not seem to be a clear consensus, at least in the US.

When I see people discussing vaccination vs natural immunity, I often feel like people are treating the argument like a sporting event or a race.  I believe the entire argument should be reframed.  We don’t need to know which one is better, we need to know if they are adequate, and at this point we can conclusively say that both are adequate and are roughly equivalent for our end goals.  We know the vaccines are generating good long-term immunity.  We see that with the clinical, immune response, and booster studies.  Natural immunity is producing similar results, but like the vaccines, it isn't some magic shield that will protect you from getting COVID forever.  I'm certain we will see reinfections in recovered individuals as well because antibody response/immunity wanes after an infection is cleared just like after vaccination.  And I think natural immunity is a lot harder to study clinically, because enrollment of applicable patient groups, selecting controls, etc is much more challenging compared to designing the same studies looking at vaccine efficacy. As such we don't have the same data that shows reinfection rate vs time from recovery like we do with the vaccines, and that might be muddling the message some. 

The example I like to give is to pretend there are two firing squads.  In one firing squad you put 12 soldiers on the firing line, and in the second you put ten.  Are the outcomes appreciably different?  This is closer to the reality of the differences between vaccinated and natural immunity. 

 Why our public health officials don’t recognize natural immunity is beyond me.  The data is there to support that decision, and several other countries around the world are doing so.  In the European Union, for example, their COVID digital certificate allows for travel and access to public places and it can be obtained from infection recovery.  At the very least, people in this category should only be required to receive one mRNA shot as there has been almost no documented benefit from getting a second shot that close after the first when recovered from infection. And again, many countries around the world have adopted this policy. I think we should too, especially now that people's jobs are on the line and we are already facing significant labor and supply chain issues.

With all that being said, if you haven't had the infection and are left with the choice of the vaccine or infection, the choice clearly favors vaccination. The small added benefit from natural immunity is not worth the substantially increased risk and unknown long term effects of the actual infection.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

That's exactly my frustration. We seem to be one of the few countries that can't seem to align on a POV about natural immunity. Some say it's exponentially better than unnatural and some act like it's not a thing. SCIENCE seems to be running the same playbook that made him enemy #1 among the HIV/AIDS community in the 80s.

[Pato del Muerto 52498]

We still can’t decide if eggs are good for us

Although the dairy council has been remarkably consistent on this issue over the decades. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Pato del Muerto

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

We still can’t decide if eggs are good for us

Although the dairy council has been remarkably consistent on this issue over the decades. 

That's a perfect analogy. 

We still can’t decide if natural immunity is good for us

Although Big Pharma has been remarkably consistent on this issue over the decades. 

[Bevo 13577]

1 hour ago, Dontshootrude said:

When I see people discussing vaccination vs natural immunity, I often feel like people are treating the argument like a sporting event or a race.  I believe the entire argument should be reframed.  We don’t need to know which one is better, we need to know if they are adequate, and at this point we can conclusively say that both are adequate and are roughly equivalent for our end goals.  We know the vaccines are generating good long-term immunity.  We see that with the clinical, immune response, and booster studies.  Natural immunity is producing similar results, but like the vaccines, it isn't some magic shield that will protect you from getting COVID forever.  I'm certain we will see reinfections in recovered individuals as well because antibody response/immunity wanes after an infection is cleared just like after vaccination.  And I think natural immunity is a lot harder to study clinically, because enrollment of applicable patient groups, selecting controls, etc is much more challenging compared to designing the same studies looking at vaccine efficacy. As such we don't have the same data that shows reinfection rate vs time from recovery like we do with the vaccines, and that might be muddling the message some. 

The example I like to give is to pretend there are two firing squads.  In one firing squad you put 12 soldiers on the firing line, and in the second you put ten.  Are the outcomes appreciably different?  This is closer to the reality of the differences between vaccinated and natural immunity. 

 Why our public health officials don’t recognize natural immunity is beyond me.  The data is there to support that decision, and several other countries around the world are doing so.  In the European Union, for example, their COVID digital certificate allows for travel and access to public places and it can be obtained from infection recovery.  At the very least, people in this category should only be required to receive one mRNA shot as there has been almost no documented benefit from getting a second shot that close after the first when recovered from infection. And again, many countries around the world have adopted this policy. I think we should too, especially now that people's jobs are on the line and we are already facing significant labor and supply chain issues.

With all that being said, if you haven't had the infection and are left with the choice of the vaccine or infection, the choice clearly favors vaccination. The small added benefit from natural immunity is not worth the substantially increased risk and unknown long term effects of the actual infection.

Ha, I traveled to Cancun during the ice storm earlier in the year. The government required proof that you had COVID previously along with a letter from a physician stating that you were no longer contagious or a negative PCR test within a few days of travel, regardless of vaccination status.  That policy later changed. But the point remains, for a long time public health basically only recognized natural immunity and did not recognize the vaccine. I bitched about it on this thread because I was fearful that someone in my group would get a false positive PCR result that would lead in us getting stuck in Mexico.

[Dontshootrude 374]

Just now, Bevo said:

Ha, I traveled to Cancun during the ice storm earlier in the year. The government required proof that you had COVID previously along with a letter from a physician stating that you were no longer contagious or a negative PCR test within a few days of travel, regardless of vaccination status.  That policy later changed. But the point remains, for a long time public health basically only recognized natural immunity and did not recognize the vaccine. I bitched about it on this thread because I was fearful that someone in my group would get a false positive PCR result that would lead in us getting stuck in Mexico.

Along the same lines, why does a US citizen need a negative test to reenter the country if they are fully vaxxed AND boosted?  The policies are way out of line.  

[Bevo 13577]

7 minutes ago, Dontshootrude said:

Along the same lines, why does a US citizen need a negative test to reenter the country if they are fully vaxxed AND boosted?  The policies are way out of line.  

Yeah, I don't even know what the policies are so I'm going to have to do research this weekend. I am flying to Portugal via Frankfurt and since I'm not leaving the airport I don't need to follow Germany's rules. On the way back, I overnight in Sweden and Iceland so I will have to follow US' rules, Sweden's rules, and Iceland's rules. Frankly, I don't even know if it is possible as more than 72 hours will have passed from when I get tested in Portugal on my return.

"What did you do in your 24 hours starting on a Sunday in Sweden?" Well, I looked for a place to get PCR tested where I could see my results online as soon as I landed in the US. Fuck that shit.

[Dahobbs 17534]

9 hours ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

That's exactly my frustration. We seem to be one of the few countries that can't seem to align on a POV about natural immunity. Some say it's exponentially better than unnatural and some act like it's not a thing. SCIENCE seems to be running the same playbook that made him enemy #1 among the HIV/AIDS community in the 80s.

It seems like what you're wanting is for someone to tell you that natural immunity is better and if you have it, you don't need the vaccine. 

The real answer is that it is complicated. Immune response varies by person. Some people might have very robust immunity after infection, others may not. And generally, the data are that immunity after recovery + vaccination is more effective than either alone. As a result, everyone should get vaccinated even if they recovered from a prior infection. There is essentially no cost or risk in doing so. And  From a public health standpoint, since the American public cannot tolerate nuance, the message has to be simplified to "get vaccinated." Otherwise, the idiots will look for reasons to not get vaccinated, or worse look for reasons to get infected. 

 

[Anastasis 23469]

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

28 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

I'd be curious about a theoretical explanation of how two doses could confer little protection and yet a third dose could confer a fairly high degree of protection. I know dose response is a thing, but that seems a little too much all or nothing. I assume it is partly because we have limited data. But assuming the observations are somewhat real, what is the best explanation for the results? 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Dontshootrude 374]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I'd be curious about a theoretical explanation of how two doses could confer little protection and yet a third dose could confer a fairly high degree of protection. I know dose response is a thing, but that seems a little too much all or nothing. I assume it is partly because we have limited data. But assuming the observations are somewhat real, what is the best explanation for the results? 

There is going to be little protection from becoming infected, but protection from severe disease/hospitalization/death is going to remain very high.  This aligns with what we are seeing on the ground as omicron is resulting in very few hospitalizations and deaths.

To reinforce this, T cell data was released examining how well they should recognize omicron.  TL;DR, the T cell epitopes are largely conserved.  T cells recognize more of the protein than B cells/antibodies, so it makes sense that they should be harder for the variants to escape.  This will allow our immune systems to rapidly recognize, respond, and adapt to this variant.

[Sawbonz 27562]

17 hours ago, Deej said:

Not for scottsins, apparently. 

It’s all the sins

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I'd be curious about a theoretical explanation of how two doses could confer little protection and yet a third dose could confer a fairly high degree of protection. I know dose response is a thing, but that seems a little too much all or nothing. I assume it is partly because we have limited data. But assuming the observations are somewhat real, what is the best explanation for the results? 

It may be timing. I’m not sure if they have looked at more recently vaccinated two dose individuals versus those who got their first two doses in early part of the year and then more recently got boosted. Also I guess there could be more T cell mediated immunity for the people with three doses, though I’m not sure how the mechanism on that would work

Edited December 11, 2021 by Sawbonz

[Heme Doc 417]

23 hours ago, scottsins said:

2nd CARES results just in.

For reference, I had Moderna #2 on 2/26.
First CARES result was drawn on 9/3. The “S Protein” value was 412.

Received Moderna booster on 10/26.

Second draw was December 9th: 113

I must have lupus or something?

You have AIDS

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I'd be curious about a theoretical explanation of how two doses could confer little protection and yet a third dose could confer a fairly high degree of protection. I know dose response is a thing, but that seems a little too much all or nothing. I assume it is partly because we have limited data. But assuming the observations are somewhat real, what is the best explanation for the results? 

I had the same question - seems counter-intuitive to keep taking the same thing over and over again unless there is something particular about the mRNA technology. I can't think of another vaccine where multiple regimen's / year are required. Part of it might be frankly that SCIENCE'S answer always has been:
 

Spoiler

 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

On 12/10/2021 at 3:46 PM, scottsins said:

I must have lupus or something?

Strange personal anecdote from a good friend. His wife has lupus so cannot get vaccinated. He and his two kids had post-vaccination Covid-19. She is the only one in the family that never caught it despite being severely immunocompromised. As part of her lupus treatment, for years she has been taking

<trigger warning>

Spoiler

hydroxychloroquine.

 

[Anastasis 23469]

3 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Strange personal anecdote from a good friend. His wife has lupus so cannot get vaccinated. He and his two kids had post-vaccination Covid-19. She is the only one in the family that never caught it despite being severely immunocompromised. As part of her lupus treatment, for years she has been taking

<trigger warning>

  Reveal hidden contents

hydroxychloroquine.

 

cool starry bra. 

[Bevo 13577]

1 hour ago, Heme Doc said:

You have AIDS

I think I have it to. I finally got the booster yesterday along with tetanus and influenza. Today has absolutely sucked other than the Banks news which is hard to read because of my splitting headache.

[Deej 76793]

5 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Strange personal anecdote from a good friend. His wife has lupus so cannot get vaccinated. He and his two kids had post-vaccination Covid-19. She is the only one in the family that never caught it despite being severely immunocompromised. As part of her lupus treatment, for years she has been taking

<trigger warning>

  Reveal hidden contents

hydroxychloroquine.

 

 

[scottsins 1966]

Strange personal anecdote from a good friend. His wife has lupus so cannot get vaccinated. He and his two kids had post-vaccination Covid-19. She is the only one in the family that never caught it despite being severely immunocompromised. As part of her lupus treatment, for years she has been taking

Spoiler

hydroxychloroquine.

 

Weird. My wife’s best friend has lupus and got her vax as soon as she possibly could, recommended by her doctor.

[scottsins 1966]

You have AIDS

I LOL’ed until I remembered that you are a doctor and therefore, I’ve now been medically diagnosed has having full blown AIDS.

[Dahobbs 17534]

13 minutes ago, scottsins said:

I LOL’ed until I remembered that you are a doctor and therefore, I’ve now been medically diagnosed has having full blown AIDS.

Depends on the type of doctor. Instead of a diagnosis it could be a curse. 

[Bevo 13577]

1 hour ago, scottsins said:

I LOL’ed until I remembered that you are a doctor and therefore, I’ve now been medically diagnosed has having full blown AIDS.

I don't think that takes a doctor

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

2 hours ago, scottsins said:

Weird. My wife’s best friend has lupus and got her vax as soon as she possibly could, recommended by her doctor.

My buddy's wife might be vaxxed - I thought he said no but wouldn't be the first thing I misremembered at my age lol.