New Studies Show Covid-19 Vaccines' Effectiveness Against Variants (cnn.com) 155
CNN recently reported on "a batch" of new studies published Wednesday — with one quantifying how much immunity improves after the second dose, and others showing how well coronavirus vaccines work against new variants of the virus:
The first nationwide study of coronavirus vaccination, done in Israel, showed Pfizer/BioNtech's vaccine works far better after two doses. Two shots of the vaccine provided greater than 95% protection from infection, severe illness and death, Dr. Eric Haas of the Israel Ministry of Health and colleagues reported in the Lancet medical journal. "Two doses of BNT162b2 are highly effective across all age groups in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-related hospitalizations, severe disease, and death, including those caused by the B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant," they wrote. The B.1.1.7 variant, first seen in Britain, has spread widely and is now the most common new variant seen in the US. It was also common in Israel when the study was done...
"By 14 days after vaccination, protections conferred by a second dose [of the Pfizer vaccine] increased to 96.5% protection against infection, 98% against hospitalization, and 98.1% against death," the team wrote. But people who got only one dose of the vaccine were far less protected. One dose alone gave just 57.7% protection against infection, 75.7% against hospitalization, and 77% against death....
Separately, a team in the Gulf state of Qatar looked at the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine in the population there when B.1.351 and B.1.1.7 were both circulating. They found reassuring results. "The estimated effectiveness of the vaccine against any documented infection with the B.1.1.7 variant was 89.5% at 14 or more days after the second dose. The effectiveness against any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant was 75%," the researchers wrote in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine...
Vaccine maker Moderna reported Wednesday that a booster shot delivering a half-dose of its current vaccine revs up the immune response against both B.1.351 and P.1. And a booster dose formulated specifically to match B.1.351 was even more effective, Moderna said in a statement...
In another study, vaccine maker Novavax confirmed earlier findings that showed its vaccine protects against B.1.351.
"By 14 days after vaccination, protections conferred by a second dose [of the Pfizer vaccine] increased to 96.5% protection against infection, 98% against hospitalization, and 98.1% against death," the team wrote. But people who got only one dose of the vaccine were far less protected. One dose alone gave just 57.7% protection against infection, 75.7% against hospitalization, and 77% against death....
Separately, a team in the Gulf state of Qatar looked at the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine in the population there when B.1.351 and B.1.1.7 were both circulating. They found reassuring results. "The estimated effectiveness of the vaccine against any documented infection with the B.1.1.7 variant was 89.5% at 14 or more days after the second dose. The effectiveness against any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant was 75%," the researchers wrote in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine...
Vaccine maker Moderna reported Wednesday that a booster shot delivering a half-dose of its current vaccine revs up the immune response against both B.1.351 and P.1. And a booster dose formulated specifically to match B.1.351 was even more effective, Moderna said in a statement...
In another study, vaccine maker Novavax confirmed earlier findings that showed its vaccine protects against B.1.351.
Well come on (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot geniuses. Tell me how this data is wrong and you know better. Don't keep me waiting!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The measurement I was recording may have been inaccurate. Who knows? But that data entered is definitely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a car runs across my keyboard>p>
Or a cat...
Both are possible depending on where you're entering your data. Such as in your garage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well come on (Score:2)
You seem to twist thost words into a convenient misuse to suit your purposes.
*Everything* is interpretation. That is a brain's only function.
So when we say "the data is wrong" that is the same thing as saying "it is interpreted wrong", and it means "I am not being told the same thing as you or I observed". Which can be because that person interpreted it differently, because that person lied to you, because communication failed due to different definitions of terms, or *you* interpreting it work, or you lyin
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you trying to make people die? That must be your goal because you're saying silly things to scare people away from the vaccine.
The first damned paragraph of the link YOU provided refutes your entire post. A vague understanding of how viral infections and vaccines work plus the headline would be enough to refute your post.
Now go stick your fingers in mousetraps.
Re: Well come on (Score:2)
Maybe he's a pro planet and anti overpopulation guy who isn't that smart about it.
I'd say contraception and wealth for everyone is the best way, but hey, decimating humanity undoubteldy *does* get the job done, even if it is incompatible with my moral standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm not trying to make people die, nice strawman. The discussion under that disclaimer link article shows this is not nearly as straightforward as you pretend.
If pharma cos were required to report all of their study results, they weren't given liability immunities, and if skepticism of the vaccines wasn't so heavily censored, I could have some faith in the vaccines. Without those, I'll quarantine and wait for long term vaccine results.
Re: (Score:2)
First paragraph, bolding is mine:
LA JOLLA—Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself.
Then there's the amount of protein produced by the vaccine vs the vastly greater quantity from an active infection, and that the protein in an active infection is attached to a virus particle.
So what is your justification for vaccine fear mongering again?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm stating my skepticism.
This protein causing these results at all was unexpected and was discovered very recently; this is an extremely complex system, and the long term effects of this new technology on it are not known.
Re: (Score:2)
Then perhaps you shouldn't state your skepticism as if it was established fact and shouldn't pretend that your appeal to authority fully backs your position, especially when it explicitly disclaims it..
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was fact, and I learned from this exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing the only way to get exposed to that protein is getting the vaccine.
Re: Well come on (Score:2)
It's not the only way. Only almost the only way.
His argument is still wrong. Your argument is just really bad, compared to how much better ones you could jave used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Literally the second sentence of the article you apparently didn't actually read: "Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself." which also links to this article completely debunking your bunk theory: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/p [sciencemag.org]...
I checked the way back machine the other day and the disclaimer about Covid vaccines in the first paragraph was added sometime AFTER the article about this less was first published on their website.
They clearly added the text explicitly in response to the letter receiving significant amounts of undesired attention.
It isn't at all clear from the paper that they actually studied any of vaccine produced spike analogues so I'm not sure what the evidentiary basis of the disclaimer even is. Is it just a PR goon
Re: (Score:3)
What does this mean if you're continuously exposed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Herd immunity may be politically impossible right now in the United States. But if we have enough incentivesthe US might get there.
"No vaccine and no legit medical excuse for not getting it? Fine. No sending your kid to school. No international travel. No getting into theatres or concerts. Heck, no driver's license renewal." Also, positive images on social media of fully-vaccinated people going out and having fun can help instill FOMO in the anti-vaxxers and sway some of them.
I'm in Canada. About
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't support forcing people to inject unapproved substances into their arms in exchange for "freedom".
I would agree with you if having unvaccinated people didn't affect the health of others. If you want to live in a society with other people, you sometimes have to give up some freedom. That's just how society works; you can't decide to take advantage of living in a society while refusing to do what's needed for the society to function well (pay taxes, educate your kids, get vaccinated.)
If people
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree with you if having unvaccinated people didn't affect the health of others. If you want to live in a society with other people, you sometimes have to give up some freedom.
If people who didn't want to get vaccinated would isolate themselves on an island and not expect outside help with regards to medical care, then I'd be all for vaccine choice. You want to risk it? Go nuts, but don't put the rest of us at risk.
This is an incomplete analysis. Every member of society also has to accept some risk to function in society.
I completely reject absolutist ideologies that demand freedom give way to any and all risk no matter how small or costly.
An analysis has to be done to determine (objectively) costs and benefits then those costs and benefits must be weighed (subjective) accordingly.
The facts as far as I can tell is that the personal reduction of receiving risk by taking vaccine is far superior (~95% against symptomati
Re: (Score:2)
The facts as far as I can tell is that the personal reduction of receiving risk by taking vaccine is far superior (~95% against symptomatic infection) to the reduction of transmitting risk (~50% reduction) of by taking the vaccine.
I don't know where that 50% number came from, but most of the numbers I've seen say 75–80%.
Further the 50% risk reduction only applies to those exposed within a window of two days where one is typically asymptomatically infectious.
Each time. There's no realistic way to know how often people are reinfected asymptomatically, because it is, after all, asymptomatic.
This may of course vary by days depending on the individuals course. However 95% risk reduction applies continuously for months, years and perhaps decades TBD.
Based on this I characterize vaccination as mostly a personal risk reduction measure and see no evidence that would lead me to support curtailment of personal freedoms based on vaccination status. If you know of any compelling evidence to the contrary please feel free to provide it.
That all depends on how high the percentage of unvaccinated people is. Viruses mutate every time they spread to a new person. Thus if more people catch it, the virus mutates more quickly. Eventually, the protection from the vaccine will be zero, because the virus will be differ
Re: (Score:3)
Each time. There's no realistic way to know how often people are reinfected asymptomatically, because it is, after all, asymptomatic.
No, once. The relevant basis of comparison for the purpose of my commentary is acquired immunity vs. no immunity at all.
The reinfection angle is a NOOP since the vaccinated can be "reinfected" same as the previously infected.
That all depends on how high the percentage of unvaccinated people is. Viruses mutate every time they spread to a new person. Thus if more people catch it, the virus mutates more quickly. Eventually, the protection from the vaccine will be zero, because the virus will be different enough that it evades your immune system's knowledge obtained from the vaccine.
Unfortunately, the absolute risk from that is impossible to quantify, because mutation is, by its very nature, random. The vaccines could be completely effective for 100 years, or they could be useless tomorrow.
What makes this problematic is that the more they mutate, the more unique strains you end up with concurrently. One of the things that makes flu so hard to keep under control (beyond the fact that it mutates several times faster than coronavirus) is that there are so many different strains simultaneously circulating, each of which looks different enough that your immune system thinks it is seeing the virus for the first time.
This is all hand waving. For all anyone knows cold virus could mutate tomorrow into something that kills off everyone on earth.
The issue at hand is the relative threat posed by an unvaccinated individual in context of protection from being vaccinated not endless conjecturing about wha
Re: (Score:2)
This is all hand waving. For all anyone knows cold virus could mutate tomorrow into something that kills off everyone on earth.
No, that's not hand waving. A cold virus mutating to be deadly is extraordinarily unlikely. Viruses almost never mutate to be more deadly, because that results in a lower rate of spread and the virus is more likely to die out. Viruses almost always mutate in ways that make it better at evading the immune response, because variants that are better at infecting people with prior immunity are more likely to spread to other people and thus less likely to die out.
So the automatic assumption should be that the
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's not hand waving. A cold virus mutating to be deadly is extraordinarily unlikely.
It is hand waving. All you are saying is a bunch generalized of shit about viral mutations and what could happen without offering any specific substantive information. You don't even so much as bother to quantify the risk other than to suggest outright that it can't be quantified. So we're left with basic evolutionary dynamics and 0 substantive information specific to this virus and no way of reasoning about risk. That's not worth much.
So the automatic assumption should be that the virus *will* eventually evolve in a way that causes it to be able to spread to people who are currently immune if it mutates enough times, and the only thing we can do to prevent that is to limit its replication. And the only reasonable way to do that is by getting as many people as possible immunized.
Well heck, if you don't care about what happens to the world, you could just completely isolate yourself and guarantee that you'll never get it. The whole point of vaccination is shared responsibility for the welfare of others, including people who for whatever reason legitimately *cannot* be vaccinated.
I've been vaccinated and I disagree. For this particular virus curr
Re:What does this mean if you're continuously expo (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find amazing about this position is that to this day not a single COVID-19 vaccine has received FDA approval.
Pfizer applied. Approval should be coming soon. You've already got 3 vaccines that got the fast track approval. Standard approvals are coming.
Vaccinations primarily protect the individual far more than they are individually effective at reducing infectiousness. COVID-19 vaccination is a personal choice with mostly local personal consequences.
That's true if you're talking about vaccinating just one person. It's completely wrong when you're talking about the overall population and herd immunity.
People keep forgetting to count infection acquired immunity for some reason.
People aren't forgetting it. We can't measure it accurately, and that group overlaps with people who get vaccinated. We deal with it by putting a range on the estimates of what % of people need to get vaccinated for herd immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true if you're talking about vaccinating just one person.
The individuals effect on the population is all I'm addressing in this case as parents arguments are about individuals deserving to lose their freedom because they pose a risk.
It's completely wrong when you're talking about the overall population and herd immunity.
No its just incomplete.
People aren't forgetting it.
This has not been my experience. I've yet to see the issue mentioned let alone accounted for in any article I've seen on the topic of heard immunity and vaccinations.
We can't measure it accurately
It can be measured accurately enough to get a rough idea via statistical sampling.
and that group overlaps with people who get vaccinated.
This is obvious yet the extent is not.
We deal with it by putting a range on the estimates of what % of people need to get vaccinated for herd immunity.
The range is to account f
Re: (Score:3)
Well there is a city in Brazil where everyone pretty well caught the original strain of Covid and then most everyone caught the P.1 (or was it P.0) variant.
This points to natural immunity not being very high against at least one variant.
There's other evidence I've seen but too lazy to refind it that the immunity from the vaccines works much better against some of the variants then naturally acquired immunity. Time will give more evidence in one direction or the other.
Myself, I don't want to be responsible f
Re: (Score:2)
What I find amazing about this position is that to this day not a single COVID-19 vaccine has received FDA approval.
All of the vaccines now in circulation did get FDA approval. Because this was a global emergency, the FDA was forced to shortcut the normal years of foot-dragging it puts new compounds through to keep Big Pharma patents on old moneymakers going for longer. Now we can stop calling the streamlined procedure "emergency approval" and make it the new normal.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the vaccines now in circulation did get FDA approval.
The vaccines received emergency use authorization which is not equivalent to FDA approval.
Re: (Score:2)
What I find amazing about this position is that to this day not a single COVID-19 vaccine has received FDA approval.
I read that it's because of the length of time that the vaccine has been in use and collecting data about how long the protection lasts. They set aside a bunch of non-safety related regulations in order to bring the vaccines to market. They were able to get safety and short term efficacy information so fast because the damn virus is so contagious. Once that happened the big push was over and other approvals are happening at something closer to their usual pace.
Re: (Score:2)
And there are a whole bunch of viruses that just kept coming around, from smallpox, which we actually did wipe out through vaccinations to measles, which we almost wiped out before it returned. There's also a bunch that we got under control by not doing things like shitting in the drinking water.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the study is done with dice rollers, not people locked in cage. Just as birth control effectiveness is done with fertile couples actually having sex, not for example geek forum incels living in mom's basement.
Sorry, I don't think I was clear (Score:2)
Because if it's the latter then it's only a matter of time before you get sick, vaccinated or not. And yeah, it'll likely keep you out of the hospital, but that doesn't mean you won't get sick, or suffer lasting effects. It just means you're not sick enough to be hospitalized, which in America means you're *very* sick (or wealthy and well connected like Chris Christy).
Re: (Score:2)
In the phase 3 studies these rates come from, effectiveness of the vaccine is computed by comparing the infection rate of the experimental group (vaccinated) vs that of the control group (unvaccinated; placebo). A 96.5% rating, for example, would mean that the vaccinated group got sick at about 3.5% the rate of the unvaccinated group. This is over a period of time -- generally until some previously determined number of total infections are recorded among all study subjects. So in all, the effectiveness i
Re: (Score:2)
is it 96.5% effective overall across all exposure events or is it 96.5% effective per exposure. That's what I've never been clear on.
It couldn't possibly be per exposure. Since we don't even know how many exposures each person had. Plenty of asymptomatic people the can be exposed to.
What do you even mean by per exposure anyway. How close to an exposed person counts as 'an exposure' 1cm 1m? How long is 'an exposure' per hour, per minute, per second?
Or do you mean per virus particle your body encounters? Likewise we could never measure that either.
Sensibly it could only mean all exposure events during the time of the study.
How did you
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that death is only one of the negative results from catching the virus. Quite a few people don't quickly recover and might not recover at all. Where I am, the new variants are filling the hospitals with young (30-50) people.
Think of polio, which as often as not,left people crippled rather then dead.
Re: (Score:2)
but you keep rolling those dice won't you roll a natural 1 eventually
It's the same things with masks. Masks just reduce the probability of becoming infected (since they are not N95 grade or better which are designed to filter virus-sized particles). So if the probability of becoming infected after spending t amount of minutes in an enclosed area (v cubic feet of air) is t / v, and a mask decreases that risk by m, you get t / (v * m). However, it's pretty much moot when t becomes large.
Students spending 6-7 hours in a classroom together, employees spending 6-7 hours in an
Re: (Score:2)
Masks just reduce the probability of becoming infected
Even that statement is meaningless until you define what you mean by "infected". Do you mean:
1. Infected in the normal sense of ingesting enough of a virus to become obviously ill;
2. Infected in the sense of having enough bits and pieces of something to score a positive test;
3. Or infected in the sense of having a few billion viruses of the relevant type in your body - as we all do for many viruses (possibly thousands of different types)?
Re: (Score:2)
Most people here are wearing masks and there is still a lot of cases. Some of those outbreaks are in work spaces where masks are required and some seem to be in homes and such where people aren't wearing masks.
Shit, the one household I know where it went through, was brought home from the hospital where mask wearing was very strict. The guy who brought it home died, he wasn't that healthy which is why he was in the hospital, one household member is now virus free but still in the hospital, one spent a coupl
Re: What does this mean if you're continuously exp (Score:2)
Yeah, you're gonna eventually die. Hate to tell ya. ;))
Just ponder those dice the next time you swallow a burger with a sip of coke a while crossing an intersection on your way to work. :)
Do you have kids, by the way? Or any work that will leave a mark on the world? ;))
If no, then, frankly... what's the difference anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
That only applies if the vaccines are distributed evenly over the entire population.
If there continue to be communities of people with large proportions of anti-vaxers and anti-maskers (who may even be proclaiming that "The crisis is over!!!!"), the pandemic may never peter out.
Not to mention, new strains will continue to infiltrate from outside our borders until most of the people people in every single community across the entire world get vaccinated. Don't hold your breath.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I'm sure you also nodded your head in agreement in January 2020 when our illustrious former leader said that we had the outbreak "totally under control", along with the following months of baseless rosy misrepresentations and denials.
You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
Ironically, the crisis will not end any time soon largely because there are so many people like you in this world.
Re: Notes on herd immunity (Score:2)
The R value on any given day isnâ(TM)t indicative of what it will be tomorrow. A superspreader event among a less-vaccinated cohort could still easily happen and send the R value back up above 1. That R value is the sum of all the effects including people still observing mask wearing rules and distancing. Thereâ(TM)s no reason to believe that will stay at the same level. There is indeed good reason for hope, but âoeif we do nothing it will disappearâ is not a good analysis when the R va
We're doing that with lock downs (Score:2)
Covid-19 is unlikely to disappear. The question is will we see an India style spike if we stop our lock down measures with only 60-70% vaccinated.
But forget all that, of your vaccinated what I want to know is what's your risk of one of those 30% getting you sick if you're stuck working with them
mRNA vaccines (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the good things to come out of this pandemic is the development of mRNA vaccines. I think they're a game-changer for many diseases, and their incredibly efficacy and safety is really encouraging.
Once the infrastructure for producing mRNA vaccines is in place, spinning up a new vaccine to deal with a new threat can be done very, very quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the good things to come out of this pandemic is the development of mRNA vaccines.
I agree, but at the same time this focus on novel vaccines has resulted in a lack of affordable and easy-to-mass-produce vaccines for poorer countries. Some are working on it, but are barely getting attention or funding for it [democracynow.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The focus is on novel vaccines because they are faster to develop. Classic vaccines simply take longer. But be not afraid, they are coming. China has two already approved, Russia has one, India has one as well. France will get theirs finished one day too.
Re: (Score:2)
The focus is on novel vaccines because they are faster to develop. Classic vaccines simply take longer.
From the article:
I often think, though, if I hadn’t had to spend the first few months of the pandemic going out trying to raise money, we could have maybe had something ready to go right now.
Perhaps it's true in the general case, but it doesn't seem to hold here (provided their phase 2/3 trials complete successfully).
Re: (Score:2)
We had this kind of a doctor here in Germany as well, but nobody was impressed with what he developed. Sanofi had the money. They still haven't finished their classic vaccine. The problem with the classic vaccines is that it takes lots of tries to get their efficacy to the required 50% and even though any university lab can make such a vaccine, most of them won't work anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
This one claims great efficacy in the phase 2 trials at least.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but at the same time this focus on novel vaccines has resulted in a lack of affordable and easy-to-mass-produce vaccines for poorer countries. Some are working on it, but are barely getting attention or funding for it [democracynow.org].
Now that we have taken the initiative to be first with mRNA, there is no reason why everyone else can't make such vaccines too, and against an increasing variety of conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from manufacturing capabilities, costs and patent rights, yes. Again: I fully agree it's a great and useful achievement. But when there's a global pandemic where you need massive amounts of cheap and easily manufactureable and distributable vaccines, having access to other options is handy.
Re: mRNA vaccines (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people don't realize it's as big a deal as penicillin!
Basically, we can now deliver immune system updates.
This will also literally be the cure for cancer.
We can even set up a distributed immune system update network between humans that way. Just like mothers give immune updates to their babies via breast milk.
(Of course it can be abused for nefarious purposes. But so can anything powerful, from nuclear fission over chemistry to neuro-psychology and central water supply. Anyone who wants to be evil, could alread do so since forever. It would be crazy to waste it just because of being a pussy.)
I don't trust anyone (Score:2)
Estimated effectiveness against all outcomes at 14â"21 days after the first dose was lower than that of two doses at 7 days or longer or at 14 days or longer after the second dose, demonstrating the importance of fully vaccinating adults.
If you are going to compare a single dose with two doses at least wait the same absolute length of time in each group so that you are comparing outcomes on an equitable apples to apples basis. This is especially true given we know even from original trial data effectiveness continues to improve for some two months after a single shot.
I can only assume people who are pulling this shit have an agenda and are doing it intentionally to promote a pre-ordained preference.
Additionally, little is known about the duration of protection of one dose and how it compares with the durability after two doses. It is possible that one dose will provide a shorter duration of protection than two doses, particularly in an environment where new SARS-CoV-2 variants continue to emerge.
Nothing like baseless conjecturbation fro
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you have degrees in medicine and statistics?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for WaffleMonster, but I know for certain that Newton had no degree in physics, Leibniz had no degree in mathematics, and Euclid, Archimedes, Leonardo da Vinci, Darwin and Einstein had no degrees at all.
What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I overlooked Faraday. That would never do.
Re:I don't trust anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
They published ground breaking theories and discoveries. Shit posters here just say "nuh uh" to try and sound contrary and intellectual while offering no proof of their claims.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point usually is all those very smart fellows you listed didn't pop off to the local town square and declare things because of "common sense", "I say so", "I believe this" or "You guys are all wrong", they went and did the work of science and proved their conclusions in the way that one would prove something against the greater scientific consensus.
Our friend here has claimed the authors of this study have "an agenda" based on the use of a data point and/or method he doesn't like. Now instead o
Re: (Score:2)
Our friend here has claimed the authors of this study have "an agenda" based on the use of a data point and/or method he doesn't like.
I don't like it. I think its sloppy and inappropriate and I explained why. I certainly welcome evidence on the merits explaining why it is not the case but I know that this is asking way too much.
Instead it will be nonsense like how dare WaffleMonster EXPLICITLY make an ASSumption, what is his credentials, blah blah blah.
Now instead of laying out why this is bad,
I would think based on my comment the why is fairly clear. They are comparing two things (e.g. single vs double dose) while not accounting for other variables (e.g. elapsed time) that ar
Re: (Score:2)
Well I would ask what's the agenda? Two shots is double the money?
If they had tested the 2 dose people at 21 days also that would have cleared up the issue for you? You may have a point but but I would not chalk that up to "agenda", this was not a controlled study, this was a study of public data They also can't study a single dose in Israel for longer than 21 day's since they have mandatory 2 dosing at that point.
They are pretty upfront about not knowing how this will work against future variants or dura
Re: (Score:2)
And the most mediocre physics student who graduates with a bachelor's degree knows far more about physics than Newton ever did. He may not have Newton's *creative* genius, but he's much more qualified to answer a question about atomic physics or electromagnetism.
And it's probably safe to say that nobody here is as talented a physicist as Newton. Using Newton as an example that *anyone* can have an opinion about *anything* and it's just as valid as any expert's is kind of silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you have degrees in medicine and statistics?
Can you address the issue on the merits or not? I have no interest in appeals to authority.
Re: (Score:2)
They gave a single dose longer to be effective than the two-dose combination. It would be unethical to withhold a second dose just to find out what the effectiveness of a single dose would be after more weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
They gave a single dose longer to be effective than the two-dose combination. It would be unethical to withhold a second dose just to find out what the effectiveness of a single dose would be after more weeks.
Two points.
1. The opposite is true. You get way better bang for your vaccine supply by staggering vaccinations.
https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
2. If you don't have evidence to make a claim but go ahead and do so anyway don't cry when you are called out on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the experiment is being done in Canada, though it might change. I, along with most, are due for the 2nd shot after 16 weeks (15 now in my case). This is based on the theory that it is better for everyone to have one dose then half the people to have 2 doses. If we get more vaccine, that 16 weeks will likely be shortened.
Another thing the medical people are quite interested in is mixing vaccines and how well that works. I believe there is a bit of a study on it in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it is scary how split America is, but then again, we have Alberta.
"Quantity has a quality all its own" (Score:3)
Antibodies to previous versions still have some affinity for the variants. They can still neutralize an infection in principle by sheer numbers.
If you've studied "dynamic equilibrium" in chemistry this will all be intuitive. Otherwise, an easy way to see it is that if an antibody falls off like an old sticky note, as long as there's lots more nearby to take its place the virus still has an unwanted friend who will introduce it to a macrophage.
The extraordinary increase in antibody levels from a second dose could explain why second-dose people are so much more resistant to variants.
Re: (Score:3)
We've had a measles vaccine for 50+ years, measles is far from eradicated, and it's one of the most contagious viruses we have, even worse than flu or covid-19.
Yet, the world isn't swept by vaccine-resistant measles pandemics every few years.
The immune system isn't dumb at the thing it does. It can generalize to similar pathogens, especially the long-term part of it. If all a virus had to do to bypass our defenses was to evolve a slightly different spike protein, we'd have a big problem.
Some viruses have tr
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, every year there are new flu (and cold) strains, some bad. Different viruses mutate (in a bad way) at different rates. Measles doesn't seem to mutate, at least in a way that changes the infection. Covid seems to be somewhere in between, doesn't mutate quick like the flu but does mutate eventually. There are now about half a dozen variants of concern that are more infectious and hit the younger people harder, circulating here in Canada. It did take a year for these to show up.
More data... (Score:3, Informative)
https://noqreport.com/2021/05/... [noqreport.com] /...
Abstract
Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the race for testing new platforms designed to confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2, has been rampant and unprecedented, leading to emergency authorization of various vaccines. Despite progress on early multidrug therapy for COVID-19 patients, the current mandate is to immunize the world population as quickly as possible. The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding the safety of these vaccines. The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein Spike for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce the production of Spike glycoprotein in the recipients. Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects, and the wide range of types of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in the groups that were excluded in the clinical trials. Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. We appeal to the need for a pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health. /...
Discussion
The risks outlined here are a major obstacle to continuing global SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Evidence on the safety of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is needed before exposing more people to the184 risk of these experiments, since releasing a candidate vaccine without time to fully understand the resulting impact on health could lead to an exacerbation of the current global crisis [41]. Risk-stratification of vaccine recipients is essential. According to the UK government, people below 60 years of age have an extremely low risk of dying from COVID-191 187 . However, according to Eudravigillance, most of the serious adverse effects following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination occur in people aged 18-64. Of particular concern is the planned vaccination schedule for children aged 6 years and older in the United States and the UK. Dr. Anthony Fauci recently anticipated that teenagers across the country will be vaccinated in the autumn and younger children in early 2022, and the UK is awaiting trial results to commence vaccination of 11 million children under 18. There is a lack of scientific justification for subjecting healthy children to experimental vaccines, given that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that they have a 99.997% survival rate if infected with SARS-CoV-2. Not only is COVID-19 irrelevant as a threat to this age group, but there is no reliable evidence to support vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in this population or to rule out harmful side effects of these experimental vaccines. In this sense, when physicians advise patients on the elective administration of COVID-19 vaccination, there is a great need to better understand the benefits and risk of administration, particularly in understudied groups.
In conclusion, in the context of the rushed emergency-use-authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the current gaps in our understanding of their safety, the following questions must be raised:
Is it known whether cross-reactive antibodies from previous coronavirus infections or vaccine206 induced antibodies may influence the risk of unintended pathogenesis following vacci
Re: (Score:3)
Who the fuck modded this piece of bunk up?
Wasn't the huge MyPillow ad on the right warning enough?
Or the "gab", "telegram", "parler" links below?
Or the "Our worldview is driven by a conservative, Christian ideology." on the about page?
Nothing says "trustworthy medical advice" than all of the above.
What I want to know ... (Score:2)
... is how it differs from mixing two vaccines.
Like if you got AstraZeneca for the first shot, and Biontech for the second one. Will it still be as good?
Or is it a case of quanitzation, where the body does not consider them the same in terms of memorizing what to attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are it's at least as good as the average of the two. Can could be up to even better than two doses of any of them.
We should get results from the UK study on mixed doses soon.
South African variant (Score:4, Informative)
The Lancet study does not address South African b.1.351 variant so it's just confirming things we already knew. CNN's article, as you would expect, muddies this by talking about the effectiveness of hypothetical vaccines no one has received yet, leaving out vaccine/variant combinations we know work poorly like Oxford/b.1.351.
It does not inform an American which of the three approved vaccines has the broadest variant coverage, which is the actionable question for their audience.
I get better information from twitter than Slashdot-reposting-CNN. Sad.
Single dose data (Score:2)
Is the single dose data coming from data from days 0-21 after first dose? If so, it would explain why the numbers are so low. When you take numbers starting day 14+, it's usually almost as good as two dose.
Re:No recovery once in hospital? (Score:5, Informative)
You have misunderstood what those numbers mean. Public health measures vaccine effectiveness [cdc.gov] by comparing the ratios of the outcome among the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group. The denominator is the the number of people in the unvaccinated group.
Applying this to the numbers you quoted, the vaccine is most effective in protecting against death, almost exactly as effective in protecting against hospitalization, and slightly less effective in protecting against infection.
Re: (Score:2)
What it's saying is once you get to hospital (avoided 49/50 times) your odds get just as bad (within a tenth of a percent) as someone not vaccinated. Which makes sense if you bucket it as "the vaccine just didn't work for that 2% of the population", although that's probably a bad mental model to overlay on the data.
Another way to read it is: given an exposure causing X% of infection, Y% of hospitalization, Z% of death, 14 days after the second dose those numbers are X*(1-0.965)% of infection, Y*(1-0.98)% o
Re: No recovery once in hospital? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I care? Oh no, the number of daily injections change from 1 to 3. Horror!
Actually, this might be a good thing. It might get the government to pay for biannual doctors visits for my free shot.
Re: Two vaccines yearly for the rest of our lives (Score:2)
Wait, you get 2 injections a day?
How close to death are you, mate?
I do care, because I'm not ill, and highly unlikely to get any symptoms from Covid, and will definitely get symptoms from the vaccine (note: I'm pro vaccines.), and most of all, it will be another masive burden on the finances of my society and hence on my well-being, to a point where it must be studied if it's worse than just getting Covid once a year and being done with it.
Plus, ir's not like granny (or you) who actually benefits from the v
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I meant annual, not daily. COVID shots on flu shots, oh well.
The profit part doesn't make sense. Vaccines aren't very profitable in general and the US and EU governments just said that competitors for COVID vaccines can ignore patents/IP.
Sure, we won't get the boosters forever. Eventually there will be enough immunity it'll just suck for a few days. But over the next decade or so we probably will. Meanwhile, I don't want to subsidize lazy selfish people who refuse to vaccinate and damage herd i
Re: (Score:2)
I'd gladly take a couple of shots a year to prevent serious illness. That's a no-brainer.
Re: Two vaccines yearly for the rest of our lives (Score:2)
What if it is very expensive, in the most general sense, and the disease is barely a danger? Not saying that's the case now, because even with all the efforts we got four times more deaths than our worst years before, but for big groups of society and less harmful strains it is definitely the case.
Nothing is a no-brainer. Ever.
Get your vaccine now. As it makes sense now. Keep getting it, if it keeps making sense. Stop getting it if it stops making sense. We don't want it to turn into a religious socially-co
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Canada. The vaccine is free and the shot I received cost my government around $30, so I guess that comes out of my taxes.
I'd happily pay $60/year to avoid COVID-19.
Re: (Score:3)
We just don't know that yet.
The one thing we can be sure of is that virus will continue to circulate among humans for the foreseeable future. We simply don't have the political will to eradicate it. So we will continue to have exposure and new variants will continue to emerge. However there's good reason to think that *vaccinated* immunity is likely to be conserved as the virus evolves -- in fact it's more likely to be conserved than natural immunity.
What we don't know is how effective the adaptive immu
Re: (Score:2)
To those who think two vaccines are more than enough, this will happen every year from now on. It's just the beginning.
Of course it's just the beginning, and I wouldn't have it any other way. More vaccines against more diseases, and using a technology that gets them to market faster. This will be especially effective against fast-mutating viruses. Influenza could be history.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be that if you got such a huge exposure to SARS-CoV-2 that it blasted through all your vaccine antibodies to the point you needed to be hospitalized, you don't have much chance to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close to what those numbers mean. They mean that your chance of being hospitalized (or dying) is 1/4 what an unvaccinated persons is.
Re: Experience with vaccine appointments (Score:2)
At least it's digital.
Here in Germany, country of chaotic bureaucracy, you might have registered online, in a process like you descibed, but with MOAR 90s-era site design . . .
But when you arrive there, you still need to fill a paper form with the exact same information. But you only get to do that after showing them your QR code! Which they miggt or miggt not scan. Gotta fill the form in any case.
But wait, there's more! The form only enters you into the system, that allows you to queue for the actual vacci
Re: (Score:2)
This is what got Germany in trouble after World War II. They kept too good records.
Re: (Score:2)
Having witnessed firsthand the insanity of what people have to go through to register to get a vaccine, it's no wonder states are cutting back ordering supplies of vaccines [apnews.com]. Aside from the usual items such as name, address, phone and birth date, in many cases you have to create an account with the company (Walmart for example) then jump through screen after screen of bull shit such as are you above the age of 16 (if they've already asked for your birth date why do you need verify you're above the age of 16?).
It's not the amount of personal info they want, but that the hastily cobbled-together vaccine reservation sites just don't work well. It's the clumsiness of the registration procedure, not ideology-driven vaccine avoidance, that is keeping so many of the unvaccinated from getting their shots.
Because my state is one of the few that support the MyIR vaccination validation system that will simplify traveling in the newly reopening world, I tried registering for it. The newly coded MyIR site erased every field
Re: (Score:2)
Here in BC, it was very simple besides that the site only wanted to work in Chrome, so I ended up using my phone. Basically enter the simple info like name, date of birth, whether a native (wife and son are and son got put to front of line due to it) a contact SMS or Email and medical number.
Shortly after in our cases, got a message to pick a vaccination site and book an appointment, went to another page and chose. Showed up for appointment, showed a copy of the SMS (nothing taken from it, just a glance to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not giving the vaccine for free to the population of a foreign country that is at an actual shooting war with Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada, we're giving the those foreign indigenous people that lived here for thousands of years the vaccine first. They are reluctant considering the re-education schools where medical experimentation was normal. The shooting has mostly changed to protesting.
It's a shame that the Israelis are so anti-semantic.