Moderna Recommends Covid-19 Vaccine Booster To Protect Against New Variants (wsj.com) 189
Moderna says it expects people who received its two-dose Covid-19 vaccine to need a booster shot in the fall [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source] to keep strong protection against newer variants of the coronavirus. From a report: The company said its vaccine remains 90% effective against preventing Covid-19 disease for at least six months, but said it sees a decline in antibody levels after six months, especially against newer strains of the coronavirus including the Delta variant. In a Phase 2 study, a third shot of the original formulation showed robust antibody responses against Covid-19 variants of concern, Moderna said. Moderna Chief Executive Stephane Bancel said in an interview Thursday that the company plans to seek regulatory approval for its booster shots in September, after it analyzes data from ongoing trials.
He said the boosters are necessary because immunity will continue to wane over time and some vaccine recipients show a drop in neutralizing antibodies when exposed to some variants, including Delta. "We're playing it safe, not only for Delta but also for what's coming after," he said. "I don't think the virus is done." Moderna, whose vaccine was authorized for emergency use in December, said Thursday it intends to complete in August its submission to the Food and Drug Administration for full approval of its shot. Its larger rival Pfizer completed its submission in July and the FDA aims to approve it by next month. FDA officials say the vaccines are safe but acknowledge full approval could help combat vaccine hesitancy and ease the way for vaccine mandates as cases in the U.S. fueled by the Delta variant surge.
He said the boosters are necessary because immunity will continue to wane over time and some vaccine recipients show a drop in neutralizing antibodies when exposed to some variants, including Delta. "We're playing it safe, not only for Delta but also for what's coming after," he said. "I don't think the virus is done." Moderna, whose vaccine was authorized for emergency use in December, said Thursday it intends to complete in August its submission to the Food and Drug Administration for full approval of its shot. Its larger rival Pfizer completed its submission in July and the FDA aims to approve it by next month. FDA officials say the vaccines are safe but acknowledge full approval could help combat vaccine hesitancy and ease the way for vaccine mandates as cases in the U.S. fueled by the Delta variant surge.
Independent research (Score:2)
I suspect we need independent research on vaccine efficacy over time & which vaccination strategies will yield the best protection. We certainly can't afford to rely on big pharma to lead public policy on this. What they seem to be suggesting is a permanent state of alarm where everyone needs vaccines every 6 months.
And yeah, sad fact remains that having reservoirs of millions of people infected with COVID means that new variants will continue to evolve. Any news on how much the vaccines reduce infectio
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, but just how much can it evolve before it changes itself out of a job?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect we need independent research on vaccine efficacy over time & which vaccination strategies will yield the best protection. We certainly can't afford to rely on big pharma to lead public policy on this.
We already have those. That's why it's not enough for a company to say its vaccine is effective to get regulatory approval. And once the vaccine is approved, immunization committees decide who should get it, in which order, and when.
The 3rd dose could be approved, but end up only being recommended for say, those over 60. They could say a 3rd dose is recommended 1 or 2 years after the second dose.
Any news on how much the vaccines reduce infection rates or is it only the rates of serious illness & death?
We have some numbers on mild to moderate infections. Even some on asymptomatic infections but they are not as rel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every household dog and cat can have it.
And they are usually completely asymptotic.
A little bit scary: my wife has 11 cats (no worries it is on farm not in a living room), nearly all of them were sick lately - with inconclusive symptoms. Except for fever and hiding in a corner they had nothing spectacular.
Re: (Score:2)
Both Moderna and BioNtech/Pfitzer are mRNA based vaccines that only fire up anti body production
Obviously you need a booster as long as the sickness is around.
You could use a real virus based vaccine, that also boosts memory cells to remember the virus and remember how to produce the antibody.
Any news on how much the vaccines reduce infection rates
That is a kind of stupid question. Strictly speaking: reduction is ZERO.
However if you are the peak of anti body levels in your body, the infection has no foot ho
Re: (Score:2)
Both Moderna and BioNtech/Pfitzer are mRNA based vaccines that only fire up anti body production
No.
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Obviously you need a booster as long as the sickness is around.
No, see above.
That is a kind of stupid question. Strictly speaking: reduction is ZERO.
No, lowest reported efficacy for Delta is 39% and the highest is 88% depending on which study you believe. There are zero studies that assert the answer is 0.
Wait ten years: when definitely no one who ever got Moderna/BioNtech has no anti bodies anymore: it is just like if they were not vaccinated.
Not likely. People still have acquired immunity to SARS-CoV from nearly two decades ago.
update (Score:2)
Seems like by Fall they might want to have an update. The Moderna codes for the spike protein but the Delta spikes are different. And there are more variants now.
Re: (Score:2)
A booster will probably be needed but since we have new variants emerging frequently, I'll wait until the vaccines are updated to be effective against the new strains.
Assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
- Not a random sample
- Test with high cycle counts were thrown out of the data
- Poor statistical analysis
This type of event is expected. It sounds counterintuitive, but with very high vaccination rates, most cases will be in vaccinated individuals
Say you start with 1000 people, 85% get vaccinated, the rest don't. Of the 150 in the unvaccinated group, 60% come down with Covid-19. Of the 850 in the vaccinated group, the same proportion, 60%, would have come down with Covid-19. However, the vaccine prevents 80% of those cases. The final tally is 90 unvaccinated people with Covid-19, and 102 vaccinated people with Covid-19. More vaccinated people with Covid than unvaccinated. The higher the vaccination rate goes, the larger proportion of people with Covid will be vaccinated, until the virus dies out.
Re: (Score:2)
So many problems with the Provincetown analysis.
Tell me more!
- Not a random sample
Why is that a problem with that particular study? (Hint: You don't always want a random sample. You should have learned that in grad school.)
- Test with high cycle counts were thrown out of the data
What reason did the researchers give for excluding those? Why do you disagree?
- Poor statistical analysis
What was wrong? Did they select inappropriate tests? What should they have done differently?
Re: (Score:2)
But the numbers will tell, we only need to wait. It won't be an unknown.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be one of those things that depends on context. If COVID cases were falling off or remaining at a very low level, it certainly wouldn't make sense to be talking about booster shots. But it's quite evident transmission is out of control; seven day case rates are rising basically everywhere, even places that have high vaccination rates. As antibody levels begin to drop in the vaccinated population, we'd expect vaccinated people to transmit more virus, even if they still have enough of an immune res
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Assumptions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe they mean in terms of 'neutralizing antibodies'. So basically when you have a high amount of neutralizing antibodies the virus is DoA entering your body.
Not all antibodies are the same - in the mucosa, where the virus enters and replicates first, it would take IgA antibodies to provide sterilizing immunity. But intra-muscular vaccinations are known to primarily trigger IgG antibody production, not so much IgA.
Instead of yet another intra-muscular booster shot, either some nasal spray vaccine or exposure to the actual virus would more easily trigger IgA production and thus lower transmission rates.
Re: (Score:2)
With mRNA based vaccines like BioNTech/Pfitzer and Moderna, there are no T-cells ready to fight infected cells: as there are basically no infected cells (and no you do not need to give a smart ass nitpicking answer).
The "infected cells" only produce spike proteins which are free floating in the blood and lymph system. Hence they trigger antibody production. But don't teach T-cells how to find an infected cell.
Those vaccines are for "minimal invasive" intervention during a pandemic (after all you do not want
Re: Assumptions (Score:2)
Could the problem be the short interval (Score:2)
Could the problem be the short interval between the two doses? 3-4 weeks is short, and studies have shown that a 12 weeks interval gives higher immune response.
I wouldn't be surprised if a third dose was only required for those who respected the manufacturer's short wait time before the second dose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We know it's at least 6 months. We do not know much beyond that. Chances are it's longer.
If they are going to recommend a 3rd dose, I hope they are going to change the recipe for the variants.
Remember folks (Score:2)
That which does not kill will mutate and try again. And again. And again.
Re: (Score:2)
nah, viruses don't have "goal" of death just successful reproduction. It will mutate and might get better at infection. Death of hosts hinders reproduction and so I'd not expect deadlier virus in terms of percent infected dying. This is pretty much what we're seeing. Of course, nonfatal damage to organs might change.
Boosters tuned to new variants, and shoving vaccine into people into people whether they want it or not, seems best.
My plan to be the last Republican standing (Score:2)
Because I have several long trips coming up starting this month, I just took an antibody test to see if my Moderna shots (Feb-Mar) were holding up. They are, apparently. I will take a booster if it turns out that one is needed.
From the way that Delta is scything through the unvaccinated population, I'm about to survive into a strange new world. By Thanksgiving, there will be a lot of empty time slots on talk radio. Will Jason Momoa win the bidding for Hannity's slot? In 2022, Congress will pass the new tax
J&J news (Score:2)
I'm beginning to wonder about having got the J&J vaccine.
I read that some of the pharmacies are beginning to stop issuing it (maybe they profit more from the 2-dose regimen) and I hear about Moderna and Pfizer testing boosters but nothing about J&J. I can't see any of the companies bothering to test their booster to a competitor's initial shot.
subscription model (Score:2)
Re:Novavax (Score:5, Insightful)
Novavax was studied during a period of significant Alpha, but not Delta. Alpha wasn't particularly immune evasive. Also, I'm not sure about Moderna's progess, but Pfizer recently submitted for approval an updated vaccine which specifically targets some of the more recent mutations (though, again, not Delta yet).
That said, Novavax is a good vaccine. The EU just made a 200M dose purchase agreement, and the US would be wise to follow suit to give people more options.
However, you seem to be implying that you think Novavax is a "traditional vaccine ... which uses more parts of SARS-CoV-2 than just the spike protein". It is not. What you're describing is something like Sinovac, except Sinovac's efficacy is god-awful. Literally half of old people don't develop any measurable antibodies at all in resposne to it. There are some newer, better whole dead virus vaccines, but their efficacy still isn't great. I'm not sure of the specific problem, but it should be noted that one of the main goals of this virus - or any virus - is to hide from the immune system. Oh, and re: immune targeting of the nucleocapsid: I mean, that's not a bad thing, but the nucleocapsid is poorly exposed to the immune system. Spike proteins are targeted because they're so highly exposed (and have to be, for binding... though they try to cloak the non-binding domains in sugars)
Novavax is a protein subunit vaccine that involves a modified spike protein (produced in moth cells) an an adjuvant. mRNA and vector vaccines, the spike protein is not membrane fused, but rather, free floating (but generally confined to the injection site). In addition to the normal double proline substitution, it's also modified to prevent furin cleavage of S1/S2. So it can bind to ACE2, but TMPRSS2 can't sever S1/S2.
Re: (Score:2)
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
Still an improvement for me.
Re: (Score:2)
>Also, I'm not sure about Moderna's progess, but Pfizer recently submitted for
> approval an updated vaccine which specifically targets some of the more
> recent mutations
It was reported yesterday that Moderna has three different booster candidates in stage 2 testing. All are apparently 50 instead of 100 mg (or whatever the measure was in)
Re:Novavax (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, all the following vaccines use exactly the same modified spike protein with the proline proline pair, and that other mutation to make it stable in the prefusion conformation:
- Pfizer (mRNA)
- Moderna (mRNA)
- Johnson and Johnson (viral vector)
- Novavax (protein subunit + saponin based adjuvant)
- Sputnik V (viral vector)
- CanSinoBio (viral vector)
Notably absent is AstraZeneca/Oxford.
The design of said modified spike protein was by Jason McLellan. His lab published the first Cryo-EM trimeric structure of the spike protein [nih.gov]. I think the design is the same as the HexaPro in this paper by him [nih.gov], among others (published later due to peer review process).
Listen to the first hour of this TWiV episode #714 [microbe.tv] for McLellan discussing the design.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true. Novavax modified the furin cleavage site [nature.com] to prevent cleavage of S1/S2. 682-QQAQ-685.
Note that I stated that they used double proline substitution, so I'm not sure why your post is talking like I argued otherwise. :)
Re: (Score:2)
My comment was not contradicting what you said. It is adding information to what you said.
You can listen [youtu.be] to Jason himself saying that proline-proline and S1/S2 mutations are in all the vaccines that I mentioned. His entire interview is very informative (minute 3 to minute 59).
There is also a presentation format video [youtube.com] on the same topic by McLellan.
Novavax could indeed have added their own thing on top of Jason's design.
Like you, 8 or so months ago, I was waiting in anticipation for the Novavax vaccine, since
Re: (Score:2)
It is something I've been concerned about. Membrane fusion seems to be really important here. At least there were no major safety signals in the clinical trials.
Re:In the meantime in Israel (Score:5, Informative)
Those who are vaccinated can and do get sick, but their symptoms are significantly milder [businessinsider.com] and last a shorter time than those who contract the virus and are unvaccinated.
At this point, the U.S. is at 100,000 confirmed cases per day, the same number from back in June. Our daily death count has risen from ~220 to over 400 in just a few weeks. Hospital workers are telling their stories of people still arguing with them that they're not dying from covid. In Tennessee, the Department of Health has said all ICU beds in children's hospitals will most likely be full by the end of next week [usatoday.com]. Texas and Florida, the two leading states for infections and deaths, are both seeing soaring patient numbers with covid [usatoday.com], overwhelmingly from the unvaccinated, with Florida now having a higher number of hospitalizations than they did last year at the peak of infections.
Also, in Texas, schools are not required to notify parents if the school has people with covid [texastribune.org]. So much for giving parents the information they need to make informed choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In the meantime in Israel (Score:4, Informative)
They did not "dilute" and "cut corners"; they were a Pfizer case study. It's the US's numbers that are the odd-ones out. In the UK for example, 40% of hospitalized patients [healthfeedback.org] were vaccinated, for example. And the UK used a longer spacing between doses (including with Pfizer) than the US, up to 12 weeks (Israel used only 3). Longer spacings increase efficacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if there is some loss of efficacy on the timescale of a half year or so, Israel would start seeing it wear out before US health systems would notice, since Israel got to their current vaccination level months before the US did.
I of course need a bit more coverage to have confidence in that reporting, but I can see a mechanism for it being true that could concern us in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland vaccinated quite recently, and we're flooded with breakthrough cases. Our healthcare system is getting overwhelmed, with 2/3rds of hospital patients vaccinated.
Re:In the meantime in Israel (Score:4, Interesting)
Your first link is misrepresented. It's 94% of people in ICUs, not hospitals. The ratio for generalized hospital patients can be expected to be significantly lower than for ICU patients.
Iceland doesn't have a statistically large enough sample size to comment about ICUs, but among hospitalized, patients, 2/3rds are vaccinated [www.ruv.is] (our base rate is about 75% vaccinated). We were at one point, when we had 2 ICU patients, given out data that both were unvaccinated, but that's way too small of a dataset.
You want to tell the 2/3rds of hospital patients (admission generally means low blood oxygen levels) that their symptoms are mild? And FYI, in the first study in Long COVID in breakthrough cases they found it in 19% of them [nejm.org].
The main problem is that the US does not track mild and moderate breakthrough cases [cnbc.com], so this creates an inherent bias. Additionally, the heavy messaging from the US that "vaccination makes you bulletproof", to try to encourage uptake, inherently discourages people to go in for testing when they get sick (believing that they surely don't have COVID).
I do expect, however, that the US can be expected to have a more extreme ratio of unvaccinated to vaccinated hospitalizations and especially ICU cases than Iceland, and not just because Iceland has a higher base rate at a national level; Iceland has an extreme base rate among the elderly. While at a national level it's only ~75%, 98-99% of 70+yos are fully vaccinated. Also: 22% of 70-79yos got AstraZeneca, which isn't as high efficacy as Pfizer (though it wasn't used on 80+).
Regardless of ratios, though, we're still having a lot of breakthrough infections (60-80% of new daily infections, mostly among young and middle aged groups), and still a concerning level of hospitalizations, which is overloading our system. We're tracking like 2,5x higher infections than in our last major wave, but actually tracking higher on hospitalizations, despite all this vaccination. That's not what anyone wants to see. We already have 3 in the ICU right now; in our last major wave it never exceeded 4.
Several days ago I used our publicly available data to calculate "net real world efficacy" of our vaccines (protective efficacy minus behavioral changes impact on efficacy). The results were (with respect to infection):
Pfizer: 62%
Moderna: 69%
AstraZeneca: 22%
J&J/Janssen: negative 89%. Nearly double the risk of getting infected.
Re: (Score:3)
So when exactly can we expect you to start caring about the truth?
Re: (Score:2)
You're projecting.
Thank you for your insight! (Score:4, Insightful)
Im sure the trained scientists at Pfizer/Moderna have NEVER even considered your hot take, and will be sure to pass on your armchair expertise to them!
Re: (Score:2)
The armchair industry considers him an expert. Why, oh why didn't we listen?
Re: (Score:2)
Im sure the trained scientists at Pfizer/Moderna have NEVER even considered your hot take, and will be sure to pass on your armchair expertise to them!
Did the scientists make the recommendation, or did the executives?
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the veracity of your "let's suggest another vaccine cocktail", Novavax has inadequate manufacturing capabilities at this time.
8/5 S.E.C. filing on Thursday “The U.S. government has recently instructed the company to prioritize alignment with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the company’s analytic methods before conducting additional U.S. manufacturing and further indicated that the U.S. government will not fund additional U.S. manufacturing until such agreement has been mad
Re: (Score:2)
one which uses more parts of SARS-CoV-2 than just the spike protein.
I don't know if that's better or not.
Part of the theory, as I understood it, is they focused on the specific portion of the virus that actually makes it able to sicken people. The hope being that as inevitable variants came along, the variants would at least likely have that part in common, as if that part changes, then it's probably going to make the virus no longer 'work'. So if your immune system is fixated on that specific part, then the immunity may be more durable.
If there's a chance for the immune sy
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that is why the current mRNA vaccines are still decently useful against the delta variant.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more comfortable with a traditional vaccine anyway
That's like saying you're more comfortable with a car that has traditional brakes, and not ABS. People in the know consider the mRNA vaccine a huge step up in *safety* due to the uncertainties and risks of traditional vaccine developments. As for the targeting, no thank you. For a vaccine you want to target the most specific component of a virus that causes it to spread. It's dangerous to try and generalise your immune system attacking cells.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You're the idiot, you can't figure out what efficacy means, but you're trying to give medical advice.
Your windmill is broken, dumbfuck. Shut up and listen to Fauci.
I'd be surprised if you even know what "tilting" is, because if you did, you'd probably use the normal word for what it means. You're just repeating what you heard without any clue.
Re: Tilting at Windmills (Score:2)
"Don Quixote" by Cervantes
It's a line translated from quite literally the first novel ever written. Most folks get the reference, even if you didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, duh. Now re-read my comment with the assumption that I know that.
People know what book they're quoting from. But they didn't read it.
And most other people didn't read it. And nobody has used the word "tilting" that way in the US for a couple hundred years. So if you actually read that book, and you want to say the thing from the book, you'd use the modern English words for the thing you're saying. So that what you say, means what happened in the book!
Fuck an A you're an intellectual child if everything
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems genuine scientific inquiry into the vaccines - particularly the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines - is not allowed. Promote the orthodoxy or be attacked.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. One shot of most vaccines against old strains provides similar or better protection than two shots against Delta. Delta has changed the game. Two shots really isn't very "vaccinated" anymore. In Iceland, 60-80% of our cases every day are breakthrough, and 2/3rds of those in the hospital are vaccinated, vs. a base rate of about 75%.
(If you're wondering why this is so different from numbers in the US... the US doesn't track mild or moderate breakthrough cases, only severe ones. IMHO, on purpose,
To anyone: Mod this up please (Score:2)
Sorry to ask "anyone", but I checked, I currently have no mod points to do so.
Rei's post isn't trolling at all, it is a very precise description of the status quo of SARS-CoV2-vaccines in the face of the delta variant.
Thanks, btw.
Re:To anyone: Mod this up please (Score:4, Informative)
No, he misrepresents the stats of J&J, I wouldn't call it rubbish compared to what most vaccines in the history of mankind do, it has saved many lives:
https://www.politico.eu/articl... [politico.eu]
And even in Israel, only 2.6 percent of vaccinated with Pfizer are getting the breakthrough. Sure, vaccines can (and will) be better tuned for it but the lives saved and prevention of maiming make it resounding success thus far again all variants.
Re: (Score:2)
71% efficacy against hospitalizations implies low (~25-40%) efficacy against preventing infection. And this is a double-blind study, so it doesn't factor in behavioral changes once people get vaccinated. Our experience here has been that J&J people have been nearly twice as likely to get infected per capita as unvaccinated people, because they stop protecting themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
If I were the devil and I were trying to create a vaccine-busting strain, I'd vaccinate a country, but not well enough for herd immunity or to make breakthrough cases rare, and then let the virus run rampant through there.
You mean you'd do exactly what the USA has done, with only 50% vaccinated and no sign of large improvement despite doses being available?
Re: (Score:2)
If one is going to take the argument that people in developed countries shouldn't be getting three shots because some people have zero, why stop there?
Because diminishing returns.
Re: (Score:3)
If one is going to take the argument that people in developed countries shouldn't be getting three shots because some people have zero, why stop there? Why not say they should only get one dose so that more people can get their first dose? Or why not half a dose so more people can get half a dose?
Isn't that exactly what we did (at least in countries where we weren't hoarding the vaccines from the world)? The second dose got pushed back as far as possible to get as many people their first dose as quickly as possible. Because two weeks in it was approaching the effectiveness of a two-dose regimen.
And the reason we should be sending as many vaccines to the developing world is that we don't want them breeding new, faster and stronger variants. Otherwise we'd be on variant Omega by christmas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had zero domestic restrictions at the start of this wave. Note that children here never had to wear masks, and mask wearing for adults wasn't started until the fall wave last year. Our chief epidemiologist was still saying last summer that they don't work, probably one of the last chief epidemiologists in the world to change his mind. And mask wearing was eliminated this year when almost half the country hadn't even gotten a chance to
Re: (Score:2)
Pfizer don't want to release their parents or licence the vaccine at a price countries can afford. They don't even want to sell it at a price that half the world can afford, they are raking it in.
Sinovac isn't as bad as you make out. It's actually better than the British AstraZenica vaccine. It had some low efficacy numbers early on because it was deployed in Brazil where the beta variant was running wild, and other vaccines were poor against that. AZ was only 30% against it.
Pfizer is the best. Best protect
Re: (Score:3)
1. Sinovac literally is that bad [apnews.com]. Antibody levels don't lie. I follow this closely. It's been a disaster literally everywhere it's been used - South America, Southeast Asia, E/SE Europe, etc. One country after the next that put their trust in it has been scrambling to come up with a better solution.
2. Thusfar Pfizer has been struggling with raw materials limitations [fortune.com] in their scaleup, and they sell their vaccine at-cost in poor countries. Having other competitors fight over the same raw materials, but wit
Re:But of course... (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree. One shot of most vaccines against old strains provides similar or better protection than two shots against Delta. Delta has changed the game. Two shots really isn't very "vaccinated" anymore. In Iceland, 60-80% of our cases every day are breakthrough, and 2/3rds of those in the hospital are vaccinated, vs. a base rate of about 75%.
This is expected in a country with high vaccination rates. To save time, I'm posting a link to how the math works out. [twimg.com] Bottom line, with very good (but not perfect) vaccines, and very high (but not perfect) vaccination rates, you will see the majority of cases in vaccinated people.
If one is going to take the argument that people in developed countries shouldn't be getting three shots because some people have zero, why stop there? Why not say they should only get one dose so that more people can get their first dose? Or why not half a dose so more people can get half a dose?
Half doses were considered early in distribution. [reuters.com] It was abandoned because there wasn't enough evidence it would be effective. All of the development was done with two doses.
At this point, we know there is at least some loss of protection over time, and some due to the delta variant. However, I have not seen much evidence (other than the strange Israeli study) that the efficacy is reduced below the 70% target originally outlined.
The numbers should be put into the reproduction model calculation to be sure, but I suspect there will be a much greater benefit getting unvaccinated people vaccinated (0-90% immunity), than giving vaccinated people a booster (80-90% immunity). As someone else mentioned, there are diminishing returns on boosters.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, reality is imitating exactly what you said ...
Some countries don't have enough vaccines, while others do have them, but a significant portion don't want them due to misinformation. That portion is as high as 30% or more in certain countries.
A virologist that I listen to as p
Re:But of course... (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to have some made up standard. Pfizer, moderna and J&J are doing awesome job preventing against severe illness and death. Even in Israel, 2.6 percent of breakthroughs of Pfizer vaccinated... that's outstanding. Elsewhere J&J doing great job preventing against death and severe disease even with Delta in most cases. Mankind has achieved something amazing with all three of those vaccines.
https://www.politico.eu/articl... [politico.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. 55% of Israeli cases are breakthrough [medscape.com]. Even though they're near 100% Pfizer.
39% average efficacy of Pfizer against infection in Israel [cnbc.com].
Re:But of course... (Score:5, Informative)
One shot of most vaccines against old strains provides similar or better protection than two shots against Delta.
[Citation Required]. I looked into this last week and found every single source disagreed with your. With regards to hospitalisation protection against Delta fell in the single digits about 5% for each vaccine. With regards to transmission the drop was closer to 10%.
But even the study with the *worst* numbers I could find didn't remotely get to the level of what you're describing. One shot for the old strains was below 50%. Worst case study I found for the AZ after two jabs against Delta is 65%, and Pfizer closer to 80%. I can't find that study anymore, but here's some links to studies with even higher numbers:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/... [nejm.org]
Here's another from a different country with very similar results.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
I've shown you mine, now show me yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Israeli net efficacy [medscape.com] of 2x Pfizer against infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and severe disease are 39%, 41%, 88%, and 91% respectively.
One shot previously in Israel [sciencedirect.com]: 75% against all infection, 85% against symptomatic.
That's Israel vs. Israel, apples vs. apples.
As for your links:
#1: This study is versus Alpha, not versus old strains.
#2: This study is also vs. Alpha, and says: "Against symptomatic infection caused by Alpha, vaccine effectiveness with partial vaccination (14 days after dose 1)
Re:Moderna and Pfizer are also raising prices. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Drug companies shouldn't be making a profit from disease. Too many conflicts of interest.
They are just sucking profits from government financed research and development.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that effective price controls for drugs would be a good solution.
Re: (Score:2)
No I begrudge them for thinking that their margins should be HIGHER than 25-30%, which is enough for humanitarian reasons during a pandemic. My recollection is that shareholders were wondering why their profits weren't even higher, and Pfizer was looking into how they can increase it. Pfizer and Moderna of course are trying their best to make sure that they don't look like they are profiteering from a pandemic.
Re:Moderna and Pfizer are also raising prices. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Pfizer is an asshole for a 25% margin, what's Apple and its ~50% margin, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple might be an asshole, but they don't get the government to recommend that you use their product.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfizer/Biontech didn't get the government to recommend people they use their product. The government recommended people get an approved vaccine that works in most people -- only Moderna and Pfizer stepped up so far. It's not Pfizer's fault this virus came.
The FCC approved the iPhone. The government and FCC approved the iPhone's chip .. so in a way, Apple they did the same thing btw. You can't make a 5G chip that causes interference can you? The FCC will not approve it. If you are OK with the FCC, why not t
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You're going to try to argue that selling iPhones is the same as selling vaccines?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You're going to argue that making an iPhone should be rewarded more than protecting millions of people from death and disease?
Re: (Score:2)
I am avoiding the specifics of debating the pharma and apple margin legitimacy personally, I don't know, but margin by itself is a poor indicator.
Margin generally is referring to per-unit gross margin, but that metric omits fixed costs (notably, research and development) that some products incur more than others. If I'm making dinnerware, I don't need a large R&D budget and can have very thin gross margins. If I'm needing to flesh out some nanotechnology science to even begin making my product, then I
Re:Moderna and Pfizer are also raising prices. (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have already pointed out, 25-30% profit margin is not crazy at all.
These companies deserve to make money, they made something we all needed and wanted and needed and wanted quickly.
I'm certainly happier to see them make money than bitcoin miners.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you can just live in a country that doesn't require its citizens to pay for recommended vaccinations.
Just sayin'....
Re: (Score:3)
Like in the United States? If you're insured -- about 87% of the population -- then vaccinations are usually covered 100%. Just two weeks ago I checked my insurance on vaccines and went down the list of what was recommended vs what I don't have: Tetanus booster and, since I'm over 50 and had Chicken Pox as a child, Shingles.
Zero cost, same day appointment within 5 miles of my house -- and I live in a small town (1,500 in town, 50,000 in entire county).
There are things about US Healthcare that are downright
Re: (Score:2)
I think the primary reason the drug companies are promoting boosters is to increase demand and make more money. I'll wait until they come up with a new vaccine that addresses the new variants.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part is, Pfizer is supposed to be making anywhere from 25-30% profit margin as is (https://qz.com/1967638/pfizer-will-make-15-billion-from-covid-19-vaccine-sales/).
Not even in the US a vaccine can be so expensive that this quote makes any sense.
As far as I know, if you go to a regular clinic and get the vaccine from a doctor, the cost per shot is 30EURO in Europe. And that is: the doctor, his nurse, the clinic, the shipping - and at the very end the 3 - 7 EURO cost you pay for the vaccine itself.
W
Re: For when vaccines can't get it up. (Score:2)
No man, all immune responses fade with time.
Specifically, it is the time since the immune cells were last faced with that particular challenge. Some immunity fades faster than others immunity, but if you got some disease twenty years ago you will have less immunity now than if you had it ten years ago, for instance. This is true of vaccine induced immunity and natural immunity.
Re: UK Stat update (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish all the supposed defenders of liberty, such as yourself, also had the responsibility to private pay for their covid medical care once they become infected and didn't rely upon socialist public money to cover their bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, specifically?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew all it takes is a thin paper mask to oppress you.
Re: (Score:2)
If Moderna announcing "you should buy our product again" is going to impact anyone's freedom, then it sounds like we have been suppressed by advertising all our lives. Are you sure we have any freedoms left to lose? Merchants have been recommending their own products since before I was even born!
Re: (Score:2)
Get a yearly flu shot has been a thing for decades... not really that big of deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that most people don't get a flu shot every year. And we could need something like 85-90% of the people (including kids) to get one for COVID-19.
Re: (Score:2)
There is already work done to combine the yearly flu shot with a COVID shot, especially with mRNA.
A broad spectrum vaccination yearly wouldn't be a bad thing, especially if a flu variant that was deadlier than usual started making its rounds, or SARS flared up.
Re: (Score:2)