Immunocompromised May Need a Fourth COVID-19 Shot, CDC Says 207
According to updated CDC guidelines, people with compromised immune systems may get a fourth mRNA COVID-19 shot. CNN reports: The CDC authorized a third dose for certain immunocompromised people 18 and older in August. It said a third dose, rather than a booster -- the CDC makes a distinction between the two -- was necessary because the immunocompromised may not have had a complete immune response from the first two doses. A study from Johns Hopkins University this summer showed that vaccinated immunocompromised people were 485 times more likely to end up in the hospital or die from Covid-19 compared to most vaccinated people. In small studies, the CDC said, fully vaccinated immunocompromised people accounted for about 44% of the breakthrough cases that required hospitalization. People who are immunocompromised are also more likely to transmit the virus to people who had close contact with them. The US Food and Drug Administration has also authorized booster shots of all three available vaccines for certain people and that would include the immune compromised, the CDC says.
Research showed that a booster dose enhanced the antibody response to the vaccine in certain immunocompromised people. That would make for a fourth shot at least six months after completing the third mRNA vaccine dose. At this time, the CDC does not have a recommendation about the fourth shot. People should talk to their doctors to determine if it is necessary, the CDC says. People who are immunocompromised who got the single-dose Johnson & Johnson shot should get a booster at least two months after their initial vaccine. People who choose a Moderna vaccine as a booster, even if they received a different vaccine as the first dose, should get the half-dose sized shot that was authorized as a booster for Moderna's vaccine, the CDC said.
Research showed that a booster dose enhanced the antibody response to the vaccine in certain immunocompromised people. That would make for a fourth shot at least six months after completing the third mRNA vaccine dose. At this time, the CDC does not have a recommendation about the fourth shot. People should talk to their doctors to determine if it is necessary, the CDC says. People who are immunocompromised who got the single-dose Johnson & Johnson shot should get a booster at least two months after their initial vaccine. People who choose a Moderna vaccine as a booster, even if they received a different vaccine as the first dose, should get the half-dose sized shot that was authorized as a booster for Moderna's vaccine, the CDC said.
How is this still news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Immunocompromised people are literally what they are labeled as: Immunocompromised!
This means their immune systems do not work per normal. It means they are prone to contracting fatal infections of otherwise benign diseases that a normally functioning immune systems would fight off with ease. If they want to mainline drip covid boosters for the rest of their lives, that is their choice, but I'm done paying for it indirectly via my tax bill. They can (and should) start filing claims with their insurance for
Re:How is this still news? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to mainline drip covid boosters for the rest of their lives, that is their choice, but I'm done paying for it indirectly via my tax bill.
Why the fuck the parent was modded as 'Insightful'?
COVID vaccines cost $15 per shot and the price is likely to go down. The "tax bill" from immunocompromosed is negligible. Meanwhile, unvaccinated snowflakes are running up TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars in hospital bills. That will be eventually be paid by everyone else.
Re:How is this still news? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they want to mainline drip covid boosters for the rest of their lives, that is their choice, but I'm done paying for it indirectly via my tax bill.
Why the fuck the parent was modded as 'Insightful'? COVID vaccines cost $15 per shot and the price is likely to go down. The "tax bill" from immunocompromosed is negligible. Meanwhile, unvaccinated snowflakes are running up TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars in hospital bills. That will be eventually be paid by everyone else.
Meanwhile the U.S. government pays $2100 per dose for Regeneron's monoclonal antibody treatment. The really funny part of this is that in order to avoid using vaccines so that they can 'own the libs' the Republicans are actually resorting to a $2100 laboratory-made treatment that mimics at great expense what the immune system does for free when you inject a human with a $15 vaccine shot. I have often wondered what would happen if the Dems got Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden to declare that breathing is very healthy for you and the most liberal possible activity to engage in.
Re: (Score:2)
go be outraged that people are allowed to exercise their freedom of choice elsewhere, like in Hell, or Portland, where you belong, you couldn't possibly project harder, you cryptofascist.
I'm a libertarian, and I fully support everyone's right to exercise their freedom to do their own body whatever they do, or don't, want.
On the other hand, the Non Aggression Principle says that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, or in this case, that you don't have the freedom to infect me with potentially-deadly viruses you may be carrying around. In an ideal world, we could track exactly who infected whom and hold those who infect others fully liable for every penny of the damage
Re: (Score:2)
that is their choice, but I'm done paying for it indirectly via my tax bill.
You are not paying that with your tax bill.
Or did you get an extra bill? For some guys who need a vaccine?
That is not only an typical american attitude, it is annoying as hell that you can be such an antisocial asshole.
You paid your taxes. And thats it. It is no longer of your business what the "state" or the "government" is doing with your taxes.
If they feel fit that it is necessary to protect someone and do it with that measure o
Re: (Score:2)
You paid your taxes. And thats it. It is no longer of your business what the "state" or the "government" is doing with your taxes.
Sorry. It *IS* the business of the taxpayer what the government is doing with that money. If taxpayers feel the officials are not good stewards of the money, it is incumbent on them to vote out those officials or in extreme cases force a recall.
And for all those other authoritarians bleating about denying health care coverage for those who refuse the vaccination, those people *PAID* for their insurance too.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
This blind trust that the government is unassailable and has our best interests at heart is nuts.
The reality is that the country's been usurped by so-called public servants who're nothing more than career-minded bottom-feeders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they've pretty much ALWAYS been the "trust the government" types.
Except when it suited them to be obstructionist, such as when they weren't in power.
Re: (Score:2)
> Now the govt is telling the rest of us that we must limit or freedoms instead of telling the fat person to put down the twinkie.
uhh, no. The CDC is saying that they're allowing immunocompromised people to get a 4th shot where previously they couldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Immunocompromised also includes the overweight, smokers, and a long list of totally preventable reasons.
Holy crap man, where do you source your information from? Fat people aren't generically immunocompromised -- period. Are they overweight? Sure! Could they potentially have adult onset type 2 diabetes (a covid co-morbidity)? Sure! Does this mean the CDC is now saying all fat people need yet another shot? Uh.. nope!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have spent quite some time with and around doctors and in the hospital due to a host of issues.
The one thing I have learned: Never trust a doctor to be smart OR updated on current scientific findings.
If you ever wondered how anybody can cram so much knowledge into their brain and then go use that knowledge in a high risk environment, where they add stress by overworking.... they simple answer is they can't.
Always, ALWAYS be wary of a doctor. Use them as your assistants. Use their professional opions and a
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing I have learned: Never trust a doctor to be smart OR updated on current scientific findings.
What do you call a doctor that graduated at the bottom of their class?
Doctor.
Re: (Score:3)
No. But you SHOULD be educating yourself on your medical conditions.
You SHOULD be asking intelligent questions.
And when something doesn't jibe, SPEAK UP.
Physicians aren't infallible.
And with the depth and breadth of the information they need to retain, they as likely, if not more, to fuck something up as the next person.
Re:Following scripts (Score:4, Informative)
Assuming you're in the US, you can likely blame good 'ol Quality Measure #111 [cms.gov] for your vaccination anecdote. Physicians and their employers are incentivized to get a pneumococcal vaccine into the arms of as many of their patients over 65 as possible.
If you take a look at the document I linked, you'll see that there's no exclusion for immunocompromised patients. In fact, there's a citation for a study recommending 3 vaccine doses for the immunocompromised. By "following scripts", your doctor was actually following clinical best practice.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I have immune system issues and had a very bad reaction to the AZ vaccine. Pfizer was bad for a day and then fine. I am hearing similar things from people with the same condition (CFS). So while the plural of anecdote is not data, it seems worth investigating further.
Re: (Score:2)
This is modern medicine.
Instead of testing and diagnostics to figure out the actual problem(s), it's just "You might have this." and throw a bunch of popular drugs at it.
This kind of shit thinking is why we have antibiotic resistant super-germs like MRSA and VRE.
Equity vs Egality (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So, do you believe that the wealthy nation governments are to blame because they are protecting their constituents, or because the drug companies have effectively refused to open source the solution so that they may continue to bilk the wealthy nations for those government paid doses?
Re: (Score:3)
Drug companies definitely carry a lot of the blame in this regard, IMO.
For the time being, I believe that the patents should be suspended. They can be reinstated after the crisis is over.. Some would argue that this would discourage future innovation because it lowers the potential for immediate return on investment, but I maintain that this would really only dissuade future development if people generally expected that there was going to be a global medical emergency corresponding to every new develop
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with making a profit.... but we are talking about a global health emergency here. It's about priorities.
Yes, it means that a drug company doesn't get to make as much money in a real crunch as they might otherwise, but this sort of thing fortunately doesn't fricken happen very often.
Or are you seriously suggesting that drug companies today necessarily count on global health emergencies such as this to happen every once in a while simply so they can remain profitable?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea was that drug companies decide how to respond to final health emergencies based on the existing rules. It is not reasonable to change those rules mid-emeregency. A lawyer would say the drug companies have a "reliance interest" in the original rules, because they took actions and incurred costs because of those rules.
Suspending patents after the companies dedicated a lot of effort to creating vaccines means they will expect patents to be suspended next time. They will only create more vac
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. A reel emergency is precisely where it is reasonable to make exceptions to the rules.
This happens otherwise in the real world all the time. Emergency vehicles can run red lights and even drive on the wrong side of the road when it is safe to do so.
Only if you are generally expecting another glob
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you believe that the wealthy nation governments are to blame because they are protecting their constituents, or because the drug companies have effectively refused to open source the solution so that they may continue to bilk the wealthy nations for those government paid doses?
No I think wealthy nations are stupid. They can vaccinate themselves and withhold vaccines to poorer countries all they want so they can vaccinate themselves ten times over. All that will achieve is one COVID variant wave after the other coming out of the vaccinated areas that is increasingly resistant to the vaccines and other treatments available. If the rich countries did what is in their own enlightened self interest as Ayn Rand would put it, they'd build giga-factories to make vaccines and kill this pa
Re:Equity vs Egality (Score:2)
Only 3.1% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose
It's not that simple, though. My understanding is that many of those countries don't have the infrastructure to store (in cold temperatures) and to deliver the vaccines to the entire population.
It's not like you could just drop vaccines off at a doorstep.
Booster should have been based on Delta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe, but given the months it would have taken to get those updates through the process, the benefits may very well have been moot.
I'm laughing a little though. This is a long-haul, vaccinate-the-planet (potentially including susceptible non-human hosts) virus at this point. Boosters for Americans et al are probably statistically insignificant in the petri dish of mutation pool in the rest of the world.
Re:Booster should have been based on Delta (Score:5, Interesting)
Trials of a delta variant vaccine have been in progress for months. [ft.com]
Maybe someday we'll get to a point where the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines can be taken for granted, and we can spin up new vaccines in a few weeks or months. We're unfortunately not quite there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Booster should have been based on Delta (Score:4, Insightful)
And then they'd have to wait months while the clinical trials were conducted. Remember, Moderna had it's vaccine design done literally just days after the virus's genome was published. It took them 11 months of intensive work to get from that to an emergency use authorization. They'd have to go through all that again.
And that would have been for uncertain benefit. These mRNA vaccines are to traditional vaccines what a sniper's bullet is to a land mine; they are molecularly engineered to aim the immune system at a very specific target. That target was chosen to be both easily accessible to the immune system and to be *highly likely to be conserved by evolution*. The guys who design these things know what they're doing.
The problem with Delta isn't that the vaccine doesn't work, the problem is Delta is it's like a brute force response by the pandemic: overwhelm the population's growing immunity by sheer infectiousness. The existing vaccines work fine. It may be that a Delta-specific virus might be better, but it's only going to be *marginally* better. The existing vaccines *now* followed by updated vaccines *later* is a better response than waiting months for a better vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have made the booster based on the delta genetic sequence, not the original.
Yeah, because we all know new vaccines are overnighters, get instantly approved, and that people inherently trust them. /s
Variant Boosters May Not Be Needed At All (Score:2)
While in theory, this is better than the original Wuhan ancestral strain (with the few changes to stabilize the spike), it may not be needed at all.
See this correspondence to NEJM: Differential Kinetics of Immune Responses Elicited by Covid-19 Vaccines [nejm.org].
Antibody levels go down 6 and 8 months, as they should with any vaccine o
and a fifth (Score:2)
Get used to never-ending boosters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd only need a card for your most recent booster.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely it'll just be a vaccine in the past X-months
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, my COVID-19 card is full after getting my booster shot yesterday. :(
Need to really get educated (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes we will need to get more. Probably a shot every year we want to live. But the drug companies DO NOT MAKE MONEY ON VACCINES.
Why we need a new shot every year: .05% and 3%, but are highly contagious diseases. That prevents them from killing all their hosts, allowing evolution, but kills enough that you want a yearly vaccine.
This is the nature of vaccines for diseases that evolve. Typically they have a death rate between
Why the drug companies do not make money on vaccines:
1) They are always designed to be mass produced, one for every person ideally. But because everyone gets one, they can not charge a lot. It is a COMMODITY, and as such gets a minimal profit margin.
2) Because multiple companies offer it, there will be large competition, keeping prices low. Insurance will easily mandate Pfizer or Moderna, or J&J, whichever is cheaper by a penny.
3) The government can and will take over. Too many lives at stake to let them over-charge for something everyone needs.
Drug companies make money when
a) few people need it, so there is no competition and not enough mass anger to demand changes.
b) They have a patented advantage, such as easy dosing for insulin.
c) The process itself is hugely expensive or required decades of research.
None of these apply, drug companies will make minimal profit on Covid vaccines, with the possible exception of the first year or too (as the government made promises to get people to do research).
Re: Need to really get educated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Talking to someone yesterday about vaccines he needed, flu and a prevnar23 (pneumonia) booster. seems prevnar23 is every 5 years.
Others like the MMR need a couple of shots.
Then there's the new malaria vaccine, after 3 shots, 30% efficiency and that is considered pretty good with 30% less kids getting malaria.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Big Pharma isn't making money off the COVID innoculations, I have a bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
I clearly told you it was making money this year, but that it would not next.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case it's not necessarily evolution that makes the booster necessary; immunity to coronaviruses just doesn't last very long. The same strain of COVID can infect you again, probably within a year or so. This is also true of common cold viruses in the coronaviridae family [nature.com] too.
Influenza is a vast and diverse clade of viruses that have been hopping between humans and animals for thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of years. The reason you need a flu shot every year is that this year's flu is *v
Re: (Score:2)
In this case it's not necessarily evolution that makes the booster necessary; immunity to coronaviruses just doesn't last very long.
Do you know of evidence of waning protection from hospitalization and death due to time? I don't. Not even Israeli data shows change beyond error margins in this dept.
There is evidence of nearly two decades of protection to SARS1 the closest virus to SARS2.
The same strain of COVID can infect you again, probably within a year or so.
Symptomatic reinfection is rare.
Influenza is a vast and diverse clade of viruses that have been hopping between humans and animals for thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of years. The reason you need a flu shot every year is that this year's flu is *very* different from last year's.
Most don't get flu shots. Less than 10% of the population gets symptomatic infection in a given year.
While we can see SARS-COV-2 evolve before our very eyes, all the of that virus circulating in the world descends from a single infectious event that probably occurred less than three years ago. While the virus is evolving rapidly, it's still relatively uniform compared to flu, which has an enormous head start.
Not rapid evolution but plucking of low hanging fruit. SARS2 mutates much slower than flu.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we will need to get more. Probably a shot every year we want to live. But the drug companies DO NOT MAKE MONEY ON VACCINES.
You have to properly quote your sarcasm tags or they will be eaten alive by Slashdot.
< is entered as < and > for >
Re: (Score:2)
Also, vaccines are way, way less profitable than the drugs given to treat someone in a hospital. "Big pharma" would make the most profit off us being sick instead of vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
several billion last quarter from the covid jabs alone, wasn't it?
i will never understand the 180 about face regarding big pharma. the most vitriolic critics of them have, within the last 18 months turned into god damn fanboys (similar to the situation regarding questionable mandates and authoritarianism...)
Re: (Score:2)
The the cult of the germaphobes.
Re: (Score:3)
Pbbbt. Yeah right, pharmabot...
COVID vaccine profits have already minted 9 new pharma billionaires. [cnn.com] And you want us to believe the drug companies do not make money on these jabs? Give me a break.
Actual truth is that most of the companies do make profit, but for example Astra-Zenica did it on a costs only basis in collaboration with Oxford. Notice how the vaccine that gets the must unjustified attacks is exactly that one, so it's not the profits that are setting up this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
The attacks are no unjustified, the AZ vaccine is quite poor in many respects. It made me extremely ill, and many people report quite bad side effects compared to the mRNA based ones. It is also one of the least effective with the Delta and newer variants.
Still worth having if you can't get anything better, and if you don't have immune system problems that might react to it like mine did.
Re: Need to really get educated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. All I can tell you is it caused a major relapse of CFS/ME and I am a long way from recovering from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Isnt the AZ nested inside an adenovirus? Have you not had adenovirus before? I would expect nothing short of feeling like shit. I would expect the T-cell response to AZ to be better than others though. Typical fully active adenovirus is on of those 21 day colds.
It's a chimpanzee adenovirus, so almost nobody has had it. It's also the shell of the virus without the active genetics inside (which are replaced with the spike protein RNA) so it doesn't cause adenovirus infection. I had a brief slight temperature.
Re: (Score:3)
If we talk anecdote, then I and everyone I know who's had Astra have had at most one day out with a temperature. I know a couple of people who had several days out after Pfizer. This personal experience is of course completely irrelevant to you and rightly.
I remember we've discussed your situation before and I hope you've now managed to find a doctor or similar that'll put you on a Pfizer; your situation is the exception that almost fits into the mass program and that's where the underfunded NHS with it's
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the medical profession has been very slow to investigate these issues. We need hard data to separate the truth from the rubbish, but there isn't any because nobody is even looking.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how the vaccine that gets the must unjustified attacks is exactly that one
It did not get any "unjustified" attacks.
In Europe hundreds of people died to it, Germany alone close to 30.
And since it is clear that people above 60, are pretty safe getting it: it has clearance for them since months again.
My father took it btw, so did the mother of his wife.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, âcost.â(TM) No Hollywood style book manipulation at all.
This comment is a perfect example of the shit spreading that goes on in our society now and is undermining everything. By making ignorant accusations that "must be true" you make it so that when people actually do something bad they can point at the other, innocent people and say they are being treated the same. The situation is that we actually know the per-dose prices [theguardian.com] for the various vaccines and Astra is charging about 1/10 of the price of anyone else.
Even if we said, "it's not as popular - the price wo
Re: (Score:2)
Money well spent.
Activists said the wealth generation highlighted the stark inequality that has resulted from the pandemic. The nine new billionaires are worth a combined $19.3 billion, enough to fully vaccinate some 780 million people in low-income countries, campaigners said.
How many poor people would that money vaccinate if those companies didn't make any vaccines? I'm guessing somewhere around zero...
It's not even vaccine profits they are talking about anyway. But stock prices being pushed up by speculation.
Re: Need to really get educated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or worse, just keep dying of Covid and have the economy crash anyway?
Even if we use the upper end of 3% dying, that is not enough to crash the economy. Most of those are retired people and even if it wasn't, it's just not a large enough percentage to significantly affect the economy. The economic fallout was caused by our reaction to covid not covid itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Let it roar and a lot more then 3% are dying once the health system is overwhelmed.
There's a fair amount of infected who only need some oxygen to survive, take that away and they don't make it. Then there are all the other people who need healthcare for other reasons who don't get it.
There's also a lot of people who are sane enough to stay home when a disease is spreading, which doesn't help the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
A worker dying isn't the only way COVID removes someone from the labor pool.
First, a whole lot of people don't die but are disabled. About 6 months ago, there were popular media stories about 3.4M people in the US with "long COVID", which was greatly limiting or eliminating their ability to work. For scale, 3.4M people was the total number of fast food workers in the US in 2019.
Second, a fair number of people looked at dealing with anti-maskers and other assholes, the risks of COVID, and their 401k, and d
Re: (Score:2)
second of all, the flu shot doesn't come with a risk of heart infection like these shots do.
I don't know this for sure but I'm assuming that if you've gotten 2 shots with no bad side effects that a 3rd shot will likely also not cause this side effect.
But I agree that the mandate is a bad idea. My brother got his first moderna and was out of work for a month. It basically gave him really really bad
arthritic like symptoms. He will never be getting the second shot and shouldn't be forced to because it is unsafe for him to do so.
They're going to need more shots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why, when I wear a mask, I only carry a rapier or a saber.
Having a dashing mustache also helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Please inform us on the facts of the efficacy of cloth masks.
Re: (Score:2)
Please inform us on the facts of the efficacy of cloth masks.
It depends. "Cloth" is a pretty broad range of materials. An old t-shirt of thin cotton that's full of holes is pretty close to 0% effectiveness. A couple layers of tight-weave cotton works pretty well, certainly well enough to be very helpful in places like grocery stores. One experiment I read about last year found that combining certain materials, such as a layer of cotton and a layer of silk, was around 90% effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, here's a 3.5 minute video [youtube.com] from a Ph. D at Duke University talking about a simple experiment they designed and executed, with video results that are very easy to see the efficacy of various mask materials.
Cotton cloth masks substantially reduce the amount of droplets crossing the light field. No, it's not as much as an N95, but nobody ever said it was. He also shows that fleece doesn't do shit, and in fact probably makes it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
This is the kind of response I'm looking for. Rather than maxims and blurbs.
Re:They're going to need more shots (Score:4, Informative)
- Their name is the Democratic Party
- Unsurprisingly, your 'I recall' is BS: https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
- It isn't poison. That's a sociopathic lie.
Re:They're going to need more shots (Score:5, Informative)
No Luckyo, they were saying not to trust Trump.
But listen to the recommendations of the experts instead.
Doesn't seem that unreasonable when your head isn't wedged up your arse and you can see and hear clearly. You should give it a try.
Re: (Score:2)
If there were so many people saying that shit, throw a couple links into your shitpost to them. Cite some sources, or shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I recall a year ago the Democrats were saying that you couldn't trust the vaccine and that the science was compromised and that anything that the Trump administration developed would be unsafe.
You should really see a doctor for that faulty memory. It could be a sign of all sorts of serious problems that need to be treated before they become worse.
What Harris actually said was that she would not trust a vaccine that Trump said was safe, and experts said was unsafe.
After all, as I recall, an important plank of the left-wing platform is "your body, you choice"
Abortion is not contagious, dumbass. Your choice to not get vaccinated means you're going to be putting virus into a lot of other people against their will. And then you're going to catch it again in about 18 months.
apparently except when it comes to being injected with literal poison
More than 3 billio
Re:They're going to need more shots (Score:5, Insightful)
the vaccinated can and do still spread COVID
So wear your fucking mask and distance you retard !
I swear Trumpers are getting stupider by the day.
Must be one of them long covid side effects I keep hearing about.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute. Someone says "It Prevents transmission!" Then someone responds with what is now common knowledge that it doesn't prevent the spread.
Infection is best thought of as probabilistic. It's not truly probabilistic, but whether or not it happens depends on so many independent factors that it's best to think of each of those factors as contributing to a probability. Vaccination is a powerful anti-infection factor, multiplying all of the rest by something like 0.2, but that's not remotely the same as multiplying by zero.
We should say that vaccination dramatically reduces transmission, and that if enough people were vaccinated the virus would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, claiming that the vaccine slows the spread is demonstrably false. It also kills any justification for vaccine mandates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
"Vaccinated people do transmit the virus in some cases, but the data are super crystal-clear that the risk of transmission for a vaccinated individual is much, much lower than for an unvaccinated individual".
By much it is basically a coin flip (52% Pfizer, 64% Moderna, Whopping 3% for J&J). Viral loads are similar in those infected despite having previously acquired immunity. While viral phase is shorter it is less often artificially truncated by symptomatic infection.
The reason why CDC wants everyone to wear masks again is because post delta vaccines are not efficacious enough to prevent community transmission even if absolutely everyone were to be fully vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" Variation in Ct values (indicative of viral load) explained 7-23% of vaccine-associated transmission reductions. Transmission reductions declined over time post-second vaccination, for Delta reaching similar levels to unvaccinated individuals by 12 weeks for ChAdOx1 and attenuating substantially for BNT162b2. Protection in contacts also declined in the 3 months post-second vaccination."
Re: (Score:2)
When people have to choose between rent or a booster shot that has no benefit for 99.7% of people
Hey look, a statistic! Now link some research to this claim. Or shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Name checks out.
Re: (Score:2)
Name checks out.
Nice zinger - couldn't have caught an easier connection on a slow pitch, but maybe you're prone to narcolepsy. Btw, have you considered that their statement isn't wrong?
Not immunocompromised, so they don't need yet another free shot on the tax dime of the general American population. Also, 'immunocompromised' are a special class of medical patients, and they had a world full of daily challenges to face every day, long before covid was a thing.
Might die in 40-50 years (knockin' on that wood) of something ver
Re:Two Minutes Vaxx (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, this comment is actually funny so I'll hang off it. There's no need to look there are other ones that are equally stupid but raise the same question:
We know that people like Trump and Carlson have happily, in semi-secret got vaccinated; that the actual facilities where there people that manipulate them work have ultra-strict bio-security measures [theguardian.com] so at the top there's no illusion about the pandemic.
a) what do the leadership get off on telling their own people to get sick, get long-COVID, get long term heart and lung problems and so on.
b) how stupid can these people be? In the last story there was a person acting as if vaccinations in Australia had increased spread, as if the fact that Australia locked down for months and months and limited spread wasn't the one of the biggest stories in the right wing press for the whole of the last year and a half? Could be a troll but I think they honestly believed that and even if it was a troll there are plenty of real believers
c) what kind of level of maladjustment does it take to deliberately spread anti-vax / anti-mask stories knowing that they are untrue and going to lead to more and more lock-down? I mean, the people that are either just trolling or, in a bunch of cases, clearly doing it deliberately for small profit.
Without group b the other groups are usels. By now everybody directly knows someone who died extra of COVID. Group b have to be so disconnected from reality that their ancestors should have been eaten on the Savanna saying "watch this, the Elders always lie about the 'big cat' danger - there are no 'Lions', it's just big kitten propaganda".
Re: (Score:2)
s/usels/useless/
Re: (Score:2)
Over the last year or so around 6000 people have died from complications related to COVID vaccine injections
[Citation Required]
Because the actual number is zero. There is one case that is being investigated, but they have not determined if it was an underlying problem or the vaccine yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one being that since the vaccine reduces or eliminates symptoms there are probably more people unknowingly spreading it.
Except they're also infectious for a far shorter period of time, and produce a much lower amount of virus.
Actual data shows that the R0 for an unvaccinated person is about 8, and for a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection is about 1 to 1.4.
It should also be noted in that comparison that breakthrough infections are significantly less likely than unvaccinated infections.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don't know what leadership is. Stop posting.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He tried to promote vaccines at a rally once, got booed by his own sycophant audience
Wait is his audience a bunch of unthinking sycophants or do they have opinions of their own and let Trump know when they don't agree with him?
Honestly you Trump haters are just embarrassingly lacking in any kind of self awareness. #45 was unquestionably the best leader we have had since Regan. You guys were wrong about literally everything since the start from 'Russia' onward. You just can't admit it. You even cling to your caricature of a Trump supporter when it forces you write oxymorons in black and whit
Re: (Score:2)
We have COVID which mostly was only a hazard to the old and sick, we prevented healthy people from getting it, which would have given them stronger and more lasting immunity than the vaccines (hey the science is in) and instead waited for mutant strains more hazardous to younger healthier people to emerge and continue to cling disparately to the notion a bunch of vaccines that provide non-sterilizing immunity are going to somehow end the pandemic.
So the implication here is that the US (691,281 deaths in 330m) should have been less like Germany (93,711 in 83m) and more like Brazil (596,122 in 210m). Are you sure that Brazilians are in such great shape, immunologically speaking, compared to Germans?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Listen to the science!
NO NO! Not THAT Science!
Welcome to the ascendancy of the Cult of The Germaaphobe.
"We're afraid of air!"
Re: (Score:2)
And for those of you that appreciate science, you might be happy to learn about several drugs that work as vaccines for covid and have much better results than horse-ass paste
Re: (Score:2)
The Moderna vaccine as you say is 90% effective with only two shots. That's pretty good.
Ivermectin, on the other hand, is basically useless according to any reputable study and requires taking pills continuously. Just look up the site you linked "ivnmeta" and you'll find a number of sources that cite SIGNIFICANT statistical and scientific problems with the site and its results. Another meta-analysis found opposite results [oup.com].
Worse, the people producing these studies are not neutral scientists, they're advoca
Re: (Score:2)
I'd read this book.