Printable View
Preventing an infection is one thing - I'm more concerned with just not getting very sick. What are the stats on that? We should be seeing a lot more vaccinated adults in the hospital now, wouldn't we? To my knowledge this isn't happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by skiJ
Guess I'll know around December/January up here, since most people completed their 2-dose schedule in June.
You want the first sentence of the first paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulster2626
End points matter?
It seems like Kaiser has the data to find out what the efficacy of immunity is for people who've tasted positive after vaccination. I hope someone is looking into that.
The study says it prevents serious complications up to 6 months from vaccination. Then it says it drops in preventing infection after 6 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
I want to know if it prevents serious complications after 6 months. I guess having a study on that would be impossible without a time machine. But all I'm saying is this isn't really something to be alarmed about yet, even though the antivax dummies will run hard with it. Asspenis has probably rubbed one out to it already.
Yeah, I guess the question is what's the takeaway with today's Kaiser Permanente data? Is this significant new info?
Kaiser's results are inline with what we've seen in Israel, UK and elsewhere: that Pfizer VE vs. infection wanes over time, down near 50%. It does not go to zero, so there is still protection vs. infection, it is just not as strong as it was closer to time of vaccination. Whereas according to Kaiser VE vs. hospitalization is still 93% which means so far we haven't seen evidence of any waning over time.
So obviously we'd all like protection vs. infection to be higher but 50% protection against infection and 93% protection against hospitalization still seems pretty good especially in comparison with vaccines for other diseases.
In addition to dramatically lowering hospitalizations, If vaccines lower the risk infection by 50% and also, according to other studies, lower transmission rates then at some point immunity will become widespread enough that another wave as large and damaging as the Delta wave will not be possible.
We sorta thought that when the vaccine rollout was booming.. However the number of breakthrough infections shows that these hosts are, in fact still available to some degree.. , even if not as productive for the virus as an unvaxxed host is..Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
First and second shot didn't impact me much. But damn...the booster hits hard.
You are focusing on humans, but (unfortunately) other reservoirs have been established at this point which harbor, spread, and potentially will evolve new variants.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
It's awesome that we live in a world with people who are more afraid of deer viruses than human ones.
Quick question: swine flu, avian flu, all those animal reservoirs--how'd they do at spreading flu when the humans started taking basic precautions? Just as much flu as ever, or nah?
To add to that, the flu has a massive animal reservoir — including swine, pigs, duck, birds, waterfowl — where mutations are constantly happening in close contact with humans. So far and unlike the flu, even though SARS2 has been detected in other animals, none of the vaccines have been substantially affected by mutations found in other SARS2 variants.
To quote MoFro, "What you're missing is the concept of genetic shift through recombination instead of genetic drift through accrual of mutations. When SARS2 starts recombining with the other Coronavirus strains shown to infect humans or present in animals, then we can start talking about "like the flu"."
That’s pretty coolQuote:
Originally Posted by Summer
(And inspiring)
Good for them!
guys...Quote:
Originally Posted by paulster2626
I will look for the study - not the press release --
I am reading this differently, And
I am determined Not to be alarmist -
first sentence -
"The Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine continues to be 90 percent effective in protecting against hospitalization and death from covid-19 up to six months after the second dose, even in the face of the widespread delta variant, a major study has found. "
I believe the answers we seek are not yet know ( per paulster's post )
intuitively, I expect If the immunity is still 47% efficacious ( If that's a word ), I would expect my immunity to also limit the severity of the disease - but
But as the press release states, their Conclusions apply for six months ( post Second dose ) -
I do read it differently than Multi -
to my reading, that 93% protection is compared to Unvaccinated, for the six month period of the study --
I do not read it as Protection After six months. ( above whatever accompanies 47%.
( intuitively, 88 is to 47, as 93 is to x ) )
' ,... merits further study... '
I will follow-up.
thanks. tj
still the press release.
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/o...anes-over-time
"A recent study led by Kaiser Permanente found the Pfizer-BioNTech, BNT162b2, mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine is highly effective against hospitalization for 6 months after full vaccination, even in the face of widespread transmission of the delta variant. The study was published in The Lancet. (An earlier draft of the study was previously posted on The Lancet preprint server.)
The study also shows that reductions in effectiveness against COVID-19 are likely primarily due to waning of effectiveness against infection, rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection.
The study combined robust epidemiologic data with variant-specific data from systematically sequenced positive COVID-19 swabs.
“This unique dataset allowed us to look at vaccine effectiveness over time, specifically for the delta variant versus other variants,” said Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research & Evaluation and lead author of the study. “When we looked at vaccine effectiveness against delta, we saw that protection against infection starts very high but declines over time. We see the same thing with other variants as well. If delta escaped protection, we would expect vaccine effectiveness to be very low at all time points, including the first month.”
In this study, researchers analyzed electronic health records from Kaiser Permanente members in Southern California between December 14, 2020, and August 8, 2021, to assess the Pfizer 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against infection and hospitalization. More than 3 million Kaiser Permanente members were included in the study. Among these members, 184,041 became infected with SARS-CoV-2 and 12,130 were hospitalized for COVID-19 during the study period.
For people fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, effectiveness was 73% against coronavirus infection and 90% against COVID-19-related hospitalization over the 6-month follow-up.
Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% during the first month after full vaccination to 47% at 5 to 6 months.
Vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was 93% after the first month of full vaccination and declined to 53% at 4 to 5 months.
Effectiveness against non-delta coronavirus variants declined from 97% in the first month after full vaccination to 67% at 4 to 5 months.
“What this study suggests is that the introduction of the delta variant may not be the primary driver of recently reported declines in effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the increasing rates of breakthrough infections among people who are fully vaccinated,” Dr. Tartof said.
In addition to Dr. Tartof, co-authors from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research & Evaluation were Jeff M. Slezak, MS; Heidi Fischer, PhD; Vennis Hong, MPH; Omesh N. Ranasinghe, MP; and Oluwaseye A. Ogun, MD. Other co-authors include Bradley K. Ackerson, MD, of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Harbor City, Calif.; Timothy B. Frankland, MA, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Integrated Health Care Research, Honolulu, Hawaii; and Joann M. Zamparo, MPH; Sharon Gray, MS; Srinivas R. Valluri, PhD; Kaije Pan, MS; Frederick J. Angulo, PhD; Luis Jodar, PhD; and John M. McLaughlin, PhD, of Pfizer Inc. "
to me, this sentence is key -
"Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% during the first month after full vaccination to 47% at 5 to 6 months. "
so., for six months, 73% of tests were Negative. but in the sixth month, 47% were negative.
there is nothing wrong with 'boosting' immunity, booster-ing a vaccination.
this was another data analysis study. there were more than 12000 hospitalizations ( out of millions ).
and the level of immunity After six months is not covered by the study.
I will get a booster when I can.
Just trying to be responsive ( mostly to Bunion's post ). tj
I think everyone should have the option to get a booster shot if they want one. The harsh reality however is regardless of vaccination status, severe breakthrough cases and deaths remain skewed towards people over the age of about 50, with the risk going up substantially over age 70.
Boosters lower the severe disease risk for older Americans too but getting boosted doesn’t deliver anyone into an entirely new category of pandemic safety the way higher overall population vaccination rates do.
On the other end of the age distribution, vaccination reduces the risk of hospitalization from about 3% to something approaching zero because according to the study VE vs. hospitalization remains strong at >90%:
Attachment 387921
Doesn't that say a lot about how good to go your immune system already was thanks to prior shots? Prolly didn't "need" the booster if it hit you so hard cuz your B cells were like "dammit. not these assholes again... ATTACK!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
At least that's what it seems like. Old people be like "What's the problem? I got my shots and it didn't effect me at all!" I'm like, "yeah assholes. That's because your immune system is past its expiration date." Young folks with functioning, young immune systems, however, get hit hard with each subsequent shot it seems. First shot was meh. Second shot was "Shit. I think I'd prefer just getting teh covaids again." Boosters for me so soon? Yeah, GFY. I'm out.
JFC, people are pussies. 24-hours of feeling a little under the weather is enough to be like "I'm not getting a booster to help society move on from this pandemic." We are a nation comprised of a lot of spoiled children.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontuckyFried
BS. It's obvious that not everyone needs boosters equally. Old or immunocompromised people should get them, sure. Younger, healthy folks, not so much. Like I said, if you get walloped by the booster more than the initial shots, then it's obvious you had plenty of immune response left over from the last round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush
I swear, it's never enough with you guys. I'm ok with the thought of an annual booster, a la the flu shot. But every few months or six months? Yeah, no. Have fun with that. It seems unnecessary that we treat all demographics the same on this one. Lets at least get some more data on it. "FoLLoW teH ScieNCE!", right?
You must be trolling. I fell for it, good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontuckyFried
It’s like he went and read the CDC recommendations and then thought to himself “I will cleverly present their recommendations as my own as if I have made a super secret discovery no one else has thought of!”Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush
Wife got the flu shot and booster and was feeling pretty rough for 2 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Didn’t have much reaction to the first two.
Ah. That's your take, huh? So when I'm more in line with CDC's recommendations, as opposed to some here are like "JUST GET YOUR BOOSTERS NOWWW!!!! DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE?!", NOW who's being "anti-science?" Hm?Quote:
Originally Posted by old_newguy
What?
I'm not sure it matters but I don't think "it's obvious you had plenty of immune response left over from the last round" is the right way to think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontuckyFried
Because it's not so much "left over" immune response as it is once a strong healthy immune system is primed to recognize a pathogen it is now trained to guard against future attack. Most of the so called side effects from vaccination are just the natural affects of a working immune system.
So even though it's not a perfect analogy, we can think about 2nd doses or boosters as training sessions, not depletion per se. In that sense like any athletic training more can help but people are still limited by their genetics and age.
I thought I heard that people who had COVID reacted harder to the vaccine than those that hadn't.. i.e. their existing antibodies went to war with the vaccine causing a storm. And for folks who hadn't, the first vaccine was present and 2nd dose caused a similar immune response storm. Booster is causing the same.. And the result of any/all these storms is going to be stronger protection. Bring it!
Yeah while your body builds stronger protection from additional encounters, all the evidence points to an upper limit. Once that limit is reached, even though a booster can still cause the immune system to produce antibodies it can't continuously build stronger cellular immunity.
Because boosters haven't been around for very long we don't yet know to what extent they improve the B cell & T cell response. Although, there's a fair amount of data suggesting a 6-8 month boost post prime is better than the typical 3-4 week boost (2nd dose).
MF is the Florida of TGRs.
Find it, and then own it dipshit. Like the crack and the posting. Other than you screaming again, no one else is been slinging boosters for all a requirement.