Booster Doses are Powerful, May Fight Omicron, Researchers Find (theweek.co.uk) 399
Last week researchers at Northwestern University calculated that one week after a Covid-19 booster shot, median antibody levels were 23 times higher than before the shot.
This Thursday the Times of London reported that another study found similar results: Booster jabs "massively" strengthen the body's defences against Covid, according to key results that have raised hopes of strong protection from the Omicron variant. A third dose not only increased antibody levels thirtyfold, but roughly tripled levels of T-cells, a part of the immune system that experts believe could be the critical weapon against the heavily mutated Omicron strain.
Professor Saul Faust, who led the study, emphasized to the Guardian that "These are remarkably effective immunological boosters, way above what is needed to prevent hospitalisation and death."
And speaking to The Week, Faust also added that "This T-cell response gives us hope," because although Omicron was not specifically analysed during the research, their data suggested the triggered T-cells "are recognising a much broader range of antigens that might... be common to all of the variants."
And earlier this week long-time Slashdot reader destinyland shared more booster/Omicron news from The Hill: On Sunday, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who sits on Pfizer's board of directors, said vaccine developers have "a pretty good degree of confidence" that people who have received booster doses on top of their initial COVID-19 vaccinations are protected against omicron. "If you talk to people in vaccine circles, people who are working on a vaccine, they have a pretty good degree of confidence that a boosted vaccine, so three full doses of vaccine, is going to be fairly protective against this new variant," he said.
Meanwhile, new Omicron-specific vaccines are also just months away, Business Insider reports: Pfizer said it will be able to manufacture and distribute an updated version of its COVID-19 vaccine within 100 days if the new variant Omicron is found to be resistant to its current vaccine... "Pfizer and BioNTech have taken actions months ago to be able to adapt the mRNA vaccine within six weeks and ship initial batches within 100 days in the event of an escape variant," the company said in a statement...
"We expect more data from the laboratory tests in two weeks at the latest. These data will provide more information about whether B.1.1.529 could be an escape variant that may require an adjustment of our vaccine if the variant spreads globally," a spokesperson told Reuters.
Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are also preparing to respond to the Omicron's possible threat. Moderna on Friday said it plans to test a variant-specific booster in the event that its current vaccine is found to be ineffective against the Omicron.
And The Hill also reports: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Monday he has "a very high level of confidence" that his company's COVID-19 treatment pills are effective against the omicron variant... Bourla said Paxlovid was designed in anticipation of future possible mutations. "So that gives me very, very high level of confidence that the treatment will not be effected, our oral treatment will not be effected by this virus."
This Thursday the Times of London reported that another study found similar results: Booster jabs "massively" strengthen the body's defences against Covid, according to key results that have raised hopes of strong protection from the Omicron variant. A third dose not only increased antibody levels thirtyfold, but roughly tripled levels of T-cells, a part of the immune system that experts believe could be the critical weapon against the heavily mutated Omicron strain.
Professor Saul Faust, who led the study, emphasized to the Guardian that "These are remarkably effective immunological boosters, way above what is needed to prevent hospitalisation and death."
And speaking to The Week, Faust also added that "This T-cell response gives us hope," because although Omicron was not specifically analysed during the research, their data suggested the triggered T-cells "are recognising a much broader range of antigens that might... be common to all of the variants."
And earlier this week long-time Slashdot reader destinyland shared more booster/Omicron news from The Hill: On Sunday, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who sits on Pfizer's board of directors, said vaccine developers have "a pretty good degree of confidence" that people who have received booster doses on top of their initial COVID-19 vaccinations are protected against omicron. "If you talk to people in vaccine circles, people who are working on a vaccine, they have a pretty good degree of confidence that a boosted vaccine, so three full doses of vaccine, is going to be fairly protective against this new variant," he said.
Meanwhile, new Omicron-specific vaccines are also just months away, Business Insider reports: Pfizer said it will be able to manufacture and distribute an updated version of its COVID-19 vaccine within 100 days if the new variant Omicron is found to be resistant to its current vaccine... "Pfizer and BioNTech have taken actions months ago to be able to adapt the mRNA vaccine within six weeks and ship initial batches within 100 days in the event of an escape variant," the company said in a statement...
"We expect more data from the laboratory tests in two weeks at the latest. These data will provide more information about whether B.1.1.529 could be an escape variant that may require an adjustment of our vaccine if the variant spreads globally," a spokesperson told Reuters.
Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are also preparing to respond to the Omicron's possible threat. Moderna on Friday said it plans to test a variant-specific booster in the event that its current vaccine is found to be ineffective against the Omicron.
And The Hill also reports: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Monday he has "a very high level of confidence" that his company's COVID-19 treatment pills are effective against the omicron variant... Bourla said Paxlovid was designed in anticipation of future possible mutations. "So that gives me very, very high level of confidence that the treatment will not be effected, our oral treatment will not be effected by this virus."
I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
50 years ago it probably wouldn't have happened. Lab leak or not, Nixon had just begun to open trade with China and international travel to Wuhan was probably just about nil. Within China itself, mobility was much lower. It probably would have been quarantined locally and even the news wouldn't have gotten out. There's a distinct possibility that outbreaks have happened in remote villages before with no record.
Compare and contrast this with the 1918 flu which hitched a ride out on the perfect storm: s
Re: (Score:3)
50 years ago it probably wouldn't have happened.
No, it would just have happened more slowly. The Black Death managed to spread out of China in medieval times even though it took almost five decades to reach as far as the UK.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Insightful)
But 50 years ago we didn't have cheap air travel, and so the pandemic wouldn't have happened in the first place. 50 years ago, more countries were less developed, and so a disease that might have started in a wet market wouldn't travel far beyond the city that it originated from.
Pandemics have historically been quite able to spread even on slow boats. Give the large number of asymptomatic carriers, I think COVID would have spread globally just fine. Spanish flu made people very ill very quickly, and still managed to get everywhere (though admittedly WW1 helped in that regard).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather than Spanish flu you mean, of course, the Kansas Flu. H1N1 did not start in Spain -- they merely got mouthy about it and were rewarded by having that particular version of the Influenza virus be called by the moniker "Spanish Flu".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But 50 years ago we didn't have cheap air travel, and so the pandemic wouldn't have happened in the first place.
You don't need air travel to be cheap, you just need travel at a speed fast enough for a virus to not kill the host or alert the authorities before arrival, and 50 years ago we had that in spades.
The first transatlantic flight happened a year after the *global* pandemic known as the Spanish flu, a pandemic which affected Europe, America, Australia, India, and Japan in the first wave, then South Africa, South America, West Africa, Russia, China and the Middle East in the second wave.
Re: (Score:3)
If this pandemic had happened 50 years ago, it would have been far more devastating.
For one thing, conspiracy theorists posting flyers and mailing letters to each other would have caused a shortage of paper and overloaded the Postal Service.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Daily Wire? Really?
Take your right wing rags somewhere else if you're trying to convince anyone.
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Informative)
Australia: 27 million people, 2,000 covid deaths
Texas: 29 million people, 75,000 covid deaths
There are real civil rights concerns with Australia's approach, but it has been effective.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. Just sign over your freedom.
You'll get it back (eventually). We promise!
Oh! Wanna buy a bridge?
Re: (Score:2)
Erh... what freedom exactly am I giving up?
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom to die an agonizing death in a hospital with no relatives because they cannot be allowed near you. The right-wing is big on freedoms which mostly translate in their freedom to force everyone to march to their drummer, i.e., Dear Leader.
Re: (Score:2)
crickets.mp3
Re: (Score:2)
Read Gulag Archipelago to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you make a point by yourself or do you need to rely on others to make it for you?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't actually know, but they're very upset about it!
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:4, Insightful)
--
Signed,
A Card Carrying Cynical Bastard
Re: (Score:3)
COVID in Texas didn't even double the death rate.
Well, no biggy then.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way anyone could consider what happening in Australia is reasonable is if they absolutely don't understand the idea of risk management AND ignore the costs of these restrict
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Insightful)
Approximately 50K per year die of cardiovascular disease in Australia.
That is not contagious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You speak of fighting wars. You previously mentioned the amount of people who died in wars to protect your personal idea of freedom.
785,000 Americans have died of COVID.
That makes it about as deadly as the Civil War and WW1 combined.
Before this fuckery is over, probably the Civil War, WW1, and WW2 combined.
Compulsory health measures (including enforced quarantine) existed in the US colonies prior t
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:4, Insightful)
COVID in Texas didn't even double the death rate.
Well, no biggy then.
Correct. It is no biggie becaue all those "pro life" people don't really care about life. They care about a body. What happens to that body is immaterial. So long as there's a body.
Even better, when you tell these same folks the key to reducing waste, CO2 emissions, more affordable housing and so on is fewer people, suddenly they're up in arms you would even suggest such a thing. While claiming 72,000+ dead from one virus is no big deal.
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Insightful)
Flaw in your thinking is that you completely ignoring what it takes to prevent these 72,000+ deaths. You must not ignore the costs. At the very basic level, at least pause to consider if 29 million people losing a year+ of life is a good trade off to to extend the life for 72,000 people by average of 16 years (before vaccine data)?
No, there is no flaw. The vast majority of the 75,000+ (I misquoted in the original post) would not have died if a) people had followed basic protocols last year such as social distancing and wearing a mask, b) had gotten vaccinated since nearly 95% of all people now dying are unvaccinated.
But thank you for confirming "pro life" people don't care about life. Otherwise, any "cost" to prevent these deaths wouldn't eve be brought into the discussion.
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:4, Insightful)
What cost would that be, exactly? Seems like nothing to me, particularly when compared to 70,000+ lives.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what Texas is like but in the UK we lost 2 years of our lives AND 150k people died.
With hospitals overwhelmed and COVID running wild we didn't exactly have a lot of freedom, even outside the lockdowns.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how when certain kind of people is faced with something that isn't specifically addressed in the talking point cheat sheet for their side, they just start spamming random talking points for their side as if they somehow address the novel point they haven't been told about yet.
Literally, shit flinging in hope something will stick.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, pretending that COVID restrictions, especially in context of discussing draconian lockdowns in Australia, have no other costs is insane levels of denying reality. At the very least acknowledge that some people lost jobs. See? Its a cost. Only there are a lot more than just that.
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, pretending that COVID restrictions, especially in context of discussing draconian lockdowns in Australia, have no other costs is insane levels of denying reality. At the very least acknowledge that some people lost jobs.
Right. Money is more important than lives. Got it.*
* Last I checked, part of people's paycheck is taken in case they go unemployed. They're getting their own money back so until that money runs out and the government has to pick up the tab, there is no "cost".
Also, unless I'm mistaken, a very large percentage of all the people dying from covid had jobs. Now that they're dead, companies, and governments, have to spend money (i.e. a cost) to go find a replacement for that person. Imagine how much lower those "costs" would have been had a large portion of the dead didn't die, or for that matter, weren't in a hospital for weeks or months racking up bills trying to keep them alive. If you're so worried about "costs" associated with a lockdown then you would agree not spending money on people who got infected would be the more cost effective measure. Such as for this guy [thedenverchannel.com].
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, keeping people safe from COVID is very low on my list of things government wastes money on.
Re: (Score:3)
Much of the damage that you post about is not from COVID but from Barr-Epstein virus reactivation
"We find a high incidence of EBV coinfection in COVID-19 patients. EBV/SARS-CoV-2 coinfection was associated with fever and increased inflammation. EBV reactivation may associated with the severity of COVID-19." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
"we found that 66.7% (20/30) of long COVID subjects versus 10% (2/20) of control subjects in our primary study group were positive for EBV reactivation based on positive
Re: (Score:3)
Let me fully emphasize the last sentence
"and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines"
Why is this not well known? We are hearing one side of the story.
Re: (Score:2)
Insane: thinking "it didn't double the death rate" is an actual argument.
You do not have an absolute freedom to spew deadly viruses at people; you have never had that right. There are legitimate arguments to be had about what restrictions are appropriate for the threat level, but you're obviously too emotional to engage in a real discussion.
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Informative)
Our ancestors fought and died in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW1, WW2 in MUCH GREATER numbers to protect freedoms of future generations and you are pissing it all away. Shame on you.
More people have died in the U.S. in less than 2 years than died in any war we fought in, including the Civil War.
Also, George Washington (name ring a bell?) forced soldiers [frauncestavernmuseum.org] to undergo what would be considered vaccinations as well as sealed off Boston to prevent the spread of smallpox. He even set up involuntary detention camps [medium.com] for civilians who exhibited symptoms.
Would you like to know more?
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, their dads. Which is even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
We get it. You don't value life. The rest of us do.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether I value life or not has nothing to do with the fact that by now about twice as many people died of Covid in the US than throughout the second World War.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we now attributing a value to a life? In this case, we should hope that more children die of Covid, after all, if they die before school age, no money was wasted on their education.
If that sounds cynical, care to reread what you wrote there? Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't replying to you.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no leftist rags that reporting on what is happening in Australia. This is why you never heard that Australian government built large detention camps and arrest anyone that was even potentially exposed to the COVID and detain them for 14 days in what is effectively a solitary confinement. Now you know too.
Read it again there's no original reporting in that part, it's sourced from the Guardian.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no leftist rags that reporting on what is happening in Australia.
Why do you suppose that is? Think deeply for a minute here...
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:4, Insightful)
Gibraltar had 100 dead people by now. Less than 10 of those deaths were since vaccinations became available.
But I'm sure you have an explanation for that, too, right? Can't be that vaccinations keep people alive. It just MUST NOT be!
Re: I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:2)
10 people is WAY more than 0, dude...
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out! We've got badass over here!
LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Trevor Noah Questions Impartiality Of Moderna CEO, Gets Called âoeAnti-Vaxxerâ By His Own Fans"
https://tradeforprofit.net/202 [tradeforprofit.net]...
Even the left wing tags are starting to wake up. You'll be the last man standing, calling everyone an anti-vaxxer, lol.
Your link is broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks...
"Trevor Noah Questions Impartiality Of Moderna CEO, Gets Called an 'Anti-Vaxxer' By His Own Fans"
https://twitter.com/TheDailySh... [twitter.com]
https://twitter.com/NickAPappa... [twitter.com]
https://twitter.com/FrostZyzz/... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can ignore it anyway. It looks to be just some made-up nonsense thing shared around various conspiracy websites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:5, Insightful)
An inconvenient two week quarantine for hundreds or the suffering and death of millions?
We tried that idea, it didn't work
We didn't try that. Only China, Taiwan and New Zealand really tried it. They effectively completely eliminated the virus in their countries for long periods. We tried a namby pamby snowflake "on no, I can't stay home for a week" approach where we banned Chinese people from travelling whilst allowing all our own residents to fly home with minimal controls (applies both to my own idiot nation of the UK and your idiot nation too).
With proper action in March 2020 this whole thing could likely have been over by July 2020. Rember, we didn't even have the Alpha variant at that time so the virus was much less transmissible than it is now. The virus also hadn't spread to animal populations so there was also much less chance of new variants turning up.
Re:I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:4, Insightful)
We didn't try that.
Exactly.
Even the peppers, who claimed they could live for years isolated in their basement, started crying about wanting haircuts inside a week.
Re: I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:2)
If only every government and every person and every healthcare professional and every technology could just act perfectly in tandem for 2 weeks, we'd live in a magical fantasy where we could eliminate diseases just by staying home.
If only...
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the right wingnuts willingly ignore the evidence of vaccine success and anti-vaccine failure. Y'all are not the brightest bulbs on the tree.
Re: (Score:2)
> And yet the left wingnuts willingly ignore the evidence...
Sputnik V came out with a vaccine for pets. Animals carry the disease yet were NEVER vaccinated. That is quite a hole in your eradication plan, LOL.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal... [msn.com]
"I'm surrounded by infected reservoir animals, but I don't know it because science is hard." - gtall
"It came from a bat carrying it, but then I refuse to believe animals can carry it again, duh, my name is gtall"
Even the most optimistic idiots thought the quarantine
Something's fishy about those camps (Score:3, Insightful)
This might just be because due to extreme poverty they're living 10-15 to a home. Seems to me the actual solution is to build housing for them. I don't know Australian politics, but I do know that even in Canada the indigenous people took it in the shorts.
The whole thing stinks of an attempt to control the solution without actually spending the money to address the underlining problems.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
But our health care as a system is now able to cope and maintain a large community of science and health deniers who would have died off in earlier decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the insanity in Australia, where they built involuntary detention camps [dailywire.com] for people that were contact traced to COVID exposure even if they negative test for COVID. I am willing to bet the same would be happening if California or New York was its own country.
What you call "involuntary detention camps" the article you cite call "quarantine camps", the original article in turn https://www.theguardian.com/au... [theguardian.com] explains the quarantine measures.
Re: I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:2)
Were people being detained involuntarily at these quarantine camps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean from WWII?
You people are beyond hope...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The term "wet market" might not have been in use, but I can guarantee that seafood and meat have been sold in open-air markets in every city as long as there have been cities. The wet market in the middle of my city (Seattle) is a major tourist attraction to this day.
Re: I'm happy to be living in the 21st century (Score:2, Troll)
This pandemic has a PR department and a marketing budget.
Re:Last Major Global Pandemic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Today we can do it in one year and, one year later, ...
Actually we did it in less than 6 weeks. But then we needed trials
What's measured? (Score:2, Insightful)
Higher antibody levels = better protection against infection?
Better protection against hospitalization?
Against winding up on ICU?
Against death?
Ah right... none of the above. Just a metric, that may, or may not apply to currently circulating Covid variants. No data on the emerging variant of interest (Omicron).
Yes - currently circulating in most parts of the world is the Delta variant. Against which vaccination (2 doses, for most vaccines) was supposed to give sufficient protection?
So these boos
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
It makes no sense to people who don't understand the immune system.
There are many spike epitopes. Antibodies aren't just binding to one from the original. That doesn't make sense. Antibodies also go through somatic hypermutation to improve their binding.
Omicron CAN'T escape all T-Cell immunity. The spike mutations don't really affect the antigens recognized by T-Cells.
A study was previously done on a spike with 20 naturally occurring mutations (omicron only has 7) and it didn't escape neutralizing Antibodies.
https://www.biorxiv.org/conten... [biorxiv.org]
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Booster doses is the same vaccine that was developed against the original COVID strain. If Omicron is shown to both escape natural immunity and vaccinations, how would more of the same end up "powerful"?
Reality isn't as black and white as you indicate. Say for instance the vaccine produced an immune response that was 90% effective against alpha, and 80% effective against delta, and 20% effective against omicron, and then the booster doubles its effectiveness - maybe that'd get up to 95% against alpha, 90% against delta, 60% against omicron.
Why might it not be black and white? You talk about "original COVID strain". An impressive Nature paper in September 2021 observed that the vaccine still had high effectiveness against variants with single mutations in its spike protein, but they were able to synthesize a version that combined lots of mutations such that vaccines were now 32-fold less effective. That's not completely ineffective, just less effective. How much does that "32-fold less effective" get mitigated by the booster shot "30 times higher level of antibodies"? How much does it get mitigated by booster shot "higher level of T-cell" since the T-cell response is more robust to mutations?
Conclusion: there are reasons (validated as plausible by laboratory experiments) as to why "more of the same" could end up more powerful, but as to whether it works out in practice - that's a question that requires experiment and epidemiology, not armchair logic based on quotes.
Re: (Score:3)
"If" .. Anyway, the way your T-cells and antibodies work is they only lock onto and bind to a small fragment of the spike protein -- they don't recognize the spike as a whole -- just parts of it. Those are called "epitopes." The spike protein structure has many epitopes. As in, your body makes antibodies that bind to many different parts of the spike protein. However due to a variety of factors I won't get into, some epitopes get bound to by their corresponding antibody weaker than others. When a virus evol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it can easily make sense if you understand the science involved. the key concept to understand is "binding affinity". If you are looking for antibody-mediated neutralization of the spike protein, then you need a lot less antibody if the affinity is high to ensure 100% is neutralized. If your affinity is lower, then you may need more antibody. Anyone who has ever done antibody-mediated imaging (flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry) knows this concept very well, since we have to use different amounts of antibody to achieve good resolution depending on how good the antibodies are. Since the antibodies developed either by natural immunity or by vaccination against the spike protein are a polyvalent mix this is often less important than monoclonal antibodies, but if the target epitope has changed due to mutation the affinity may decrease. However, the amount it decreases matters. We know that antibody levels after vaccination are higher than after infection. Therefore, it's not hard to imagine a situation that even if the affinity drops by 100X, if you have a 100X excess of antibody compared to levels needed for neutralization previously, then you'll still have sufficient antibody to do the job.
This also explains why the Regeneron reps are questioning whether their product will work against Omicron, since this is a mix of two monoclonal antibodies. As opposed to polyclonal immunity (many different specific antibodies) derived from infection or vaccination, the treatment consists only of a cocktail of two. Therefore there is a much higher chance that a change in the target protein will affect the binding sites for these antibodies and render them less effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you in advance for taking time to
Re: Makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
Vaccines may or may not produce complete neutralization. This is extraordinarily variable, and depends on both the virus as well as the immune system of each vaccine recipient. Clearly vaccination against COVID-19 appears to offer imperfect protection against infection. However, that's actually the case for most vaccines, it just hasn't been as carefully studied previously since for many other diseases mild infections in vaccinated individuals were not significantly studied because they were clinically irrelevant.
To answer your second question there isn't a magic threshold unless you're going to start measuring single monoclonal antibody activity against specific virus in-vitro, since there is so much variability in host response. There is some literature on effective antibody concentrations against SARS-CoV-2 and you're welcome to peruse pubmed.gov for it, but that's highly specialized literature.
To answer your third question completely I would have to explain to you how you develop B-cell immunity. In short, you form a large panel of immature B-cell receptors through targeted mutation. When antigen presenting cells encounter B-cells in the lymph nodes, the ones that happen to have some binding activity (under specific circumstances) are activated. These then undergo affinity maturation where further mutations refine the sequence to maximize binding efficiency. These cells are then precursors to plasma cells that produce antibody and memory cells that remain quiescent till next infection. The spike protein has multiple antigenic sites, and there can be many linear or conformational epitopes that can be recognized differently by numerous B-cell receptors (out of a random pool). Thus EVERY induced immunity is by definition polyclonal (meaning comprised of antibody with a different binding site sequence that result from different B-cell receptor sequences). Monoclonal antibodies are made by inducing polyclonal immunity, then isolating the B-cells individually to produce a large number of monoclonal lines, and then these are tested against the original antigen and the best candidates are selected through sequential rounds of affinity testing. The best candidates then undergo transformation into immortal cell lines which can be scaled up indefinitely under laboratory conditions to produce what we know as antibody-mediated biological drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
There is a very strong case for boosters in regards to a third shot of either Pfizer or Moderna.
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines... [webmd.com]
"Tal Patalon, MD, with the Kahn Sagol Maccabi Research and Innovation Center in Israel, led a study of 306,710 Israeli adults 40 years and older. The results were published online Tuesday in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The researchers found that the estimated odds of becoming infected with the coronavirus were significantly reduced within a few weeks for those who got the booster compared with those who received only two primary shots.
Comparing those groups, there was an 86% reduction in the odds of testing positive after the booster.
“This reduction comes on top of the reduction in the risk conferred by the first two doses,” the authors write.
“Biologically, this is what we might expect. The magnitude of the effect is impressive,” Stuart Ray, MD, professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, says
Yeah there may be an updated, more specific booster at sometime in the future but chances are if you've had two shots enough time has passed for you to qualify for a third. A modified vaccine is an indeterminate time away, even with an accelerated approval process. There is no reason to wait and let existing protetion wane if your area is giving out booster shots. Getting a third now is in no way going to "disqualify" anyone from an updated shot down the line. 99.9% of everything in the shot is metabolised away in a matter of days.
Re: Makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
Again, good question, but complicated answer. Adaptive immunity has two major components - the B-cell response (antibody production) and T-cell response (regulatory, cytokine production, and direct cytotoxic activity against infected cells). Both play an important role in response to SARS-CoV-2, and measurement of antibody levels doesn't address the T-cell immunity aspect. However, the data from 50k or so healthcare workers in Israel shows that after immunization with the Pfizer vaccine the antibody levels do decline precipitously after 6 months. This is definitely correlated with more breakthrough infections, including some associated with severe disease (but much lower percentage than in unvaccinated patients). Doing a 3rd shot raises the antibody levels something like 50-100 fold. There is no data about how that level behaves over time. What should happen is that each cycle of exposure should generate a more robust response lasting longer, but there's no data so far to confirm that. Decreased antibody level combined with clinical evidence for breakthroughs means that likely there isn't enough antibody to neutralize the incoming virus and block infection. That means the body will rely on mobilizing memory cells to induce response after infection in breakthrough cases. That is MUCH faster than generating a new response (such that occurs when you have no immunity, either natural or induced), so that difference likely accounts for lower severity, but is obviously less than ideal. I think that for someone who is contemplating a booster, I would say that timing should also play a role. If you're exactly 6 months out, you may choose to wait a few weeks to see what the data shows about protection against Omicron. If you're one of the first people to have been vaccinated and you're approaching a year, chances are you'll be served better with getting your booster now since your immunity likely waned even more, and then looking at a subsequent vaccine later.
P.S. Since you had a specific medical question, I have to disclaim since I am not your physician so consider all my answers educational and not medical advice.
Re: Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Your answers remind me of why I still come back to Slashdot -- amidst all the dross are people who actually know a huge amount about a topic, and it's great to see that knowledge at work here. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Or, maybe fighting viruses is difficult .. especially with people like you who have willful blindness to logic and science slowing it down. You don't understand how viruses work, you don't understand how vaccines work even though it has been explained here a million times 10 different ways and dumbed down to your "failed all my science classes" level.
Re: (Score:2)
They have no actual data relevant to Omicron. Their assumptions are purely inductive.
Right, so the best thing to do is nothing. Don't take any precautions, do nothing at all until weeks go by waiting for study results to be published.
It's not like we actual data from the current versions of covid floating about. Can't make any deductions from that, can we?
Re: (Score:2)
purely inductive
So called science is not even pretending anymore.
Yer two smert fer inductive lojik thay kant fuul yew!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"And most studies are still saying that natural immunity beats vaccine-granted immunity. "
Citations please. An "still saying"! LOL
Re: (Score:3)
...most studies are still saying that natural immunity beats vaccine-granted immunity ...
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
And most studies are still saying that natural immunity beats vaccine-granted immunity
Since most studies are showing the exact opposite, let's see a citation.
Re:A cynic might say.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A cynic might say.... (Score:5, Insightful)
People conditioned to be fearful are much more likely to willingly relinquish their civil liberties.
Name one civil liberty you don't have. Last I checked, everyone was out and about, going to restaurants, going to grocery stores, going to movies, having parties, driving and flying all over the country, and in general leading their normal, everyday life.
So kindly tell us what civil liberty we don't have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People conditioned to be fearful are much more likely to willingly relinquish their civil liberties.
You mean wearing a thin paper mask at the mall? Maybe a private employer requiring vaccinations? Being unvaccinated is not a protected class, end of story. If you don't like the terms of your employer you are free to leave. Isn't at will employment great?
Re: (Score:2)
I frankly don't get the pharma corps. Do you know that it's MAGNITUDES more profitable to sell medication for people who contract Covid than vaccines are?
Next shareholder meeting some heads will roll. It's time they stop preventing and start concentrating on pumping out the far more profitable cures. Not to mention that the deals they struck with the various governments are crap, they really got hosed there. But they're allowed to sell the cures at normal rates.
Another fake rsilvergun account. (Score:3)
Is it russian or chinese disinfo attempting to rile people? Hard to tell.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have an agenda.
Time doesn't care about your politics.
The human immune system doesn't care about your politics.
The human immune system contracts antibody levels after about 6 months. It is natural, not political. Things change over time. A primary response has lower Ab titers than a secondary, which is lower than a tertiary. But they all contract over time. It is natural.
Here is a graph.
https://www.virology.ws/wp-con... [virology.ws]
Re: (Score:2)
It sure did. So get vaccinated and move the fuck on. But the Democrats will not. They will literally keep this going until you get rid of them. Enough is enough.
Because it's Democrats who are out whining about vaccines. It's not like hordes of right-wing collaborators keep dying because they refuse to get the vaccine [al.com] or keep lying about it [cnn.com] in general.
Re: African leaders turn down additional vaccine (Score:2)