All populations regardless of age or comorbidities are vulnerable to Long Covid, a factor missing for the analysis here. Preventing infection from the latest strain is currently the only way to prevent Long Covid. Everyone should be vaccinated regularly to maintain neutralizing antibodies against currently circulating strains. Severe acute disease is not the only form of severe disease that SARS2 can cause.
I hate to break it to you, but the shot won't prevent infections. this is known widely as demonstrated by the cleveland clinic study of approx 50k healthcare workers + my other comment to this post about the recent german opthamology conference.
the latest revelation is the lack of effectiveness to prevent infection was known at the very beginning of the shot roll out.
Finally, the study from the Cleveland clinic of 50k healthcare workers showing the more doses of mrna covid gene therapies taken being highly correlated with more positive covid infection diagnoses
Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination
Results- COVID-19 occurred in 1475 (3%) of 48 344 employees during the 100-day study period. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was lower in the “not up-to-date” than in the “up-to-date” state. On multivariable analysis, not being “up-to-date” with COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.77; 95% C.I., 0.69-0.86; P-value, <0.001). Results were very similar when those 65 years and older were only considered “up-to-date” after receiving 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine.
Conclusions- Since the XBB lineages became dominant, adults “not up-to-date” by the CDC definition have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.
Summary- Among 48 344 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, those not “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination had a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date”.
I hate to break it to you but no vaccine stops infection, they prevent serious illness and death. Being vaccinated against measles doesn’t mean the virus has disappeared and that you cannot be infected with it, what you won’t get is the measles disease typified by the rash, you could feel under the weather with flu like symptoms but that’s all. The reason is because the vaccine produces its main response in the bloodstream with one type of antibodies along with memory cells. Measles virus enters the body through the upper airway, which is protected by a different set of antibodies and memory cells.
If you are vaccinated against tetanus, that definitely does not stop infection by the tetanus pathogen as the vaccine is not against the bacteria but the toxin produced by the bacteria.
thanks. you make a really good point: vaccines are imperfect & they dont stop infection. But didnt Rachel Maddow, Joe Biden, Rochelle Walensky among many others tell us over the course of 2021 that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus,"? That quote is from Rochelle March 2021 in an interview with Maddow. Wouldnt the casual obzerver beleive that do not carry the virus might mean immune from infection - meaning one would not get infected?
Also, didnt the CDC change the definition of vaccination & vaccine in 2021?
Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.
The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” "
all that said, you have a point: vaccines clearly do not make one 'not susceptible to an infectious disease'.
regarding prevention of severe illness and death - on capital hill, June 13, 2023 Rochelle said, "we still to this day do not have data on people who are coming to the hospital who are vaccinated."
So if the CDC does not have this data which would indicate a prevention of serious illness and death, do you?
I ask because the British Journal of Medicine in 2020 highlighted the fact that the covid clinical trials were not designed to evaluate severe disease nor death, link: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
"In all the ongoing phase III trials for which details have been released, laboratory confirmed infections even with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint definition."
the above article even quotes an exchange Paul Offit had with Eric Topol, but refutes both individuals' assertions that the clinical trials we aimed at ID'ing not merely a , "PCR + test & mild infection but rather moderate to severe illness to qualify as an event," in the clinical trial - to which Offit responded, "that's right."
As you can see - both cant simultaneously be true and the research papers show
"the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus."
BJM even quotes Moderna's Chief medical officer at the time who stated: “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions]." He is also quoted as saying: “Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission”.
finally, didnt pfizer report more deaths in its clinical trial dose group than its placebo group?
"During the blinded, controlled period of the study, 15 vaccine recipients and 14 placebo recipients died. In the open label period, three Pfizer recipients and two original placebo recipients who received Pfizer after unblinding died."
so, clearly, one cannot deduce that the covid shots reduce all cause mortality given the gold standard research protocol (randomized double blind placebo controlled) failed to demonstrate that point.
In a clinical trial it is all but impossible to test for transmission in an ethical manner. What do you do? Deliberately infect both the vaccinated and placebo arms with SARS-CoV-2, then determine whether there’s any difference in the spread of the virus in the two groups. Deliberately infecting someone with a potentially dangerous virus. Deliberately exposing others to that same virus. If any pharmaceutical company did that they would be rightly condemned for unethical practices.
I agree with the concept. Then why didnt personnel from pfizer, moderna, J&J, Astra zeneca correct misstatements by biden admin officials among other gov officials when Biden et al made claims that the shots stopped transmission; knowing there is no evidence nor an ethical and practical method to achieve such evidence? I appreciate the impossibility of answering that question - only those who created the mandate policies can explain his/her/their justifications/motivations.
the claim "the vaccinated do not carry the virus" was used as justification by the biden admin among others to mandate the shots for healthcare workers, fed gov employees including armed forces personnel.
it was repeated by many judges in their rulings initially justifying the policy. thankfully, many of the mandates have since been overturned, but at what cost? It appears many countries are compensating for injuries + highly restricting access to further doses.
per the recent FIOA'ed emails it appears the CDC, NIH & NIAID in the USA knew from the beginning of the roll out (Jan '21) that the shots would not disrupt the transmission cycle. so if the biopharma execs knew the trials could not prove disruption to transmission, certainly figures like fauci/collins/walensky were also aware and could have / should have informed policy makers.
for what it is worth, I appreciate this cordial/civil exchange.
Because vaccinated people generally wiped away the original COVID so quickly that they didn't pass it on.
The problem is that you're either disingenuous or a dipshit, so you're trying to pretend that the infectiousness and immune escape of Omicron is exactly the same as the original COVID virus. They're barely the same virus.
It’s interesting to note the original definition says “immunity to a specific disease” it doesn’t mention pathogen. I actually cannot see any difference in the meaning behind the two definitions.
“Product” becomes “preparation”
“Immunity to a specific disease” becomes “body’s immune response against diseases.”
This may be because more vaccines are actually mixtures against multiple diseases.
Product suggests a monovalent vaccine e.g. against Hepatitis B.
Whereas preparation suggests more than one vaccine is included in a mixture, for example MMR.
In the U.K. we have a 6 in 1 vaccine for infants which could be considered a preparation and is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.
...this is splitting hairs, because the meaningful question is whether an infection is cleared out by your body before it has time to either do damage or make you communicable to others.
What the antivax morons are lying about is that the COVID vacccines absolutely did do that for the earlier versions of the virus. It mutated, mostly in *their* bodies, to the point where the vaccine stopped being as effective in preventing people from getting symptoms or passing it on. And that's why we're at the point where guys like Offit are trying to pretend that COVID is no longer an issue, as people keep having strokes and heart attacks that have nothing to do with the "jab" and everything to do with the just-a-cold-brah.
The virus may have undergone changes but it still retains the antigen that it uses to access host cells (ACE2). Even if this were the only epitope it would still trigger the vaccine induced immune response, may be not as much but enough to block the virus. According to Brianne Barker there are about 20 epitopes on the original virus, which would elicit more immunity responses. If the ACE2 epitope disappeared along with all of the others it would no longer be SARS-CoV-2.
Vaccines work by preventing disease. They prime the immune system. However the primed immune system can only work if the pathogen is present, taking a couple of days to respond instead of a week.
The only disease that has been eradicated is smallpox, there’s an implicit assumption that No disease means No virus, but has anyone actually tested that?
This is why the shot needs to be administered every 4-6 months, updated with the latest variants. It also means that we have to continue layered protections: mask mandates, testing and tracing, sick leave, remote work, etc.
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections
This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
"Andrea Roberts was getting ready to submit a study for publication, and she was worried. A senior research scientist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, she had just written a paper suggesting that people with high stress levels were more likely to develop long COVID after an acute infection.
Roberts has spent the past decade studying the link between physical health and mental health. She knows that psychology can play a role in almost any illness; a few years ago, she discovered a link between PTSD and ovarian cancer. On paper, the new finding was no different from those in her previous studies, but this time she added a disclaimer to her article. “Our results should not be misinterpreted as supporting a hypothesis that post–COVID-19 conditions are psychosomatic,” she wrote."
the article continues & includes a link to a paper published in JAMA Psychiatry Sept 2022 title:
Associations of Depression, Anxiety, Worry, Perceived Stress, and Loneliness Prior to Infection With Risk of Post–COVID-19 Conditions
Question Is psychological distress before SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with risk of COVID-19–related symptoms lasting 4 weeks or longer, known as post–COVID-19 conditions?
Findings This cohort study found that among participants who did not report SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline (April 2020) and reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result over 1 year of follow-up (N = 3193), depression, anxiety, perceived stress, loneliness, and worry about COVID-19 were prospectively associated with a 1.3- to 1.5-fold increased risk of self-reported post–COVID-19 conditions, as well as increased risk of daily life impairment related to post–COVID-19 conditions.
Meaning In this study, preinfection psychological distress was associated with risk of post–COVID-19 conditions and daily life impairment in those with post–COVID-19 conditions.
I would concur with your thoughts regarding variants, providing there are sufficient epitopes that don’t change then T cell memory will suffice. Also SARS-CoV-2 uses ACE2 to enter cells, is this the only receptor that is used? Does influenza virus use more than one cell receptor to infect cells?
I totally agree with your highly scientific opinion.
The money spent / wasted it should better go (i) to improve immunity to respiratory infections in people susceptible for severe infection (e.g. free vitamin D during cold season), etc; (ii) to improve ventilation in public places and transportation, etc, etc.
Should a well controlled Type 1 diabetic 18 year old male who received the two primary series Pfizer vaccines in the summer of 2021 and contracted Covid in December 2021 , presumably omicron , before the boosters were available for 16yo. Then he contracted Covid again earlier this year. Both mild cases, especially the second one. He probably had it a third time again this summer but didn't test. Never had a booster, should he? He is starting college in September and his university is mandating a booster, thoughts? . Im a practicing internist not a antivaxxer and I question the benefit (mild disease in this age group ), (natural immunity )vs small risk (myocarditis)
It strains credulity that there's some magical age cutoff where vaccines are effective for anyone over that age, but useless for anyone under it. They may appear *more* effective for people over a certain age, but that's only because you've divided the population into arbitrary buckets.
What's needed is a more dynamic system for prioritizing shots, based on some sort of risk score (e.g. metabolic age). Let anyone go ahead and schedule their booster. If someone else comes along who has a higher priority and they want your appointment, you get rescheduled (say, with 48 hours notice).
The alternative is mangling millions with Long COVID and then pretending that it's just a psychological problem, which doesn't work when there's enough cases that it's wrecking the labor supply and causing insurers to pay very close attention.
And that's not even getting into all the COVID-related heart attacks and strokes and whatnot, as well as possible immunological damage: all of which are fuelling the antivax movement who can explain to the victims that it's due to "the jab". A movement that you seem bound and determined to aid and abet by echoing their "it's just the flu brah" talking points.
Are you seriously pretending to be a medical doctor who just wants to abandon people to their fates? This is some shameless shit, buddy.
I wonder if we are underestimating the mRNA vaccine strength.
Discomfort seems to keep many away from the vaccination clinics.
Some effort seems justified to titrate the dose down from the OMGolly it is a pandemic to *&% dangerous endemic virus for many is symptom free. Cellular immunity in addition to antibody titers.
A potential (UNDOCUMENTED) value from a lower titrated dose is less concern about general inflammation (myocarditis is one) from vaccines. A titrated dose two or three times a year can constantly present a variety of variation specific proteins and also maintain antibodies at a high enough level to dial back the need for Paxlovid that acts in the same time frame that antibodies act without cells being infected.
I just had routine blood drawn, one additional vial for antibody and cellular immunity would be painless and a useful random data point. Not zero cost but handy, Even if frozen and evaluated post mortem.
Titration down is an inversion of the influenza 4x dose for seniors mind set. It will need data.
If SARS-CoV-2 proves to not be seasonal then vaccinate once a year near birthdays aligned with annual health check strategies might help.
I love the idea of vaccinating near birthdays - that way we don't all wane simultaneously. A similar idea I had was to stagger vaccinations with household members.
From a compliance point of view this is less than ideal.
One parent and all the kids... one quick trip.
For this current COVID insanity if we could all vaccinate next Monday ten to twenty days later virus transmission might halt.
Staging or staggering administration reduces pressure on clinics and physicians.
With the punctuation of one lucky doctor serious infection is becoming a dull roar.
The good news is seasonal flu vaccination plans are planned and an opportunity to take advantage of scale and organization and a simple second jab is convenient.
I appreciate Paul's experience, expertise and thoughtful discussions. This is a novel virus and had we known then what we know now applies and will apply in 6 months, a year, two years, ten...
Was also thinking antibody tests would pair quite nicely with comprehensive metabolic panels, since the latter have a bearing on one's ability to get Paxlovid without a prescription
The question should be, who should get annual shots. The first three doses were timely, since the delta variant was particularly nasty. But right after that, in January 2022, I got the omicron variant, with no serious symptoms at all. Just one day of extreme tiredness. Since then, no one among my relatives and acquaintances has taken any precautions, and no one has had any illness worse than a mild cold. But no one is testing, so we might all be getting covid.
Several people in my family had strong reactions to the vaccine. Three of them lost a couple days work. I read that “everyone” has had omicron, but no one has been as sick as those who had side effects from the vaccine.
So again, should people with normal functioning immune systems be getting these updated vaccines?
Hi Paul. Is this the reason young people don't need an annual shot (from your article above): "Healthy young people who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 remain protected against severe disease the following year because, although new variants continue to evolve, the parts of the virus that are recognized by T cells have remained relatively unchanged. "
June 13, 2023 - Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection at a German Medical Congress During the Omicron Wave
"prior infection was significantly associated with testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection"
"8.0% of the participants surveyed reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test"
attendees covid vaccinated rate 97.8% - self reported via the survey "at least 2 doses"
from the discussion section: This study showed that a history of previously proven SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with a decrease in SARS-CoV-2 infection rate.
Should pregnant/expecting moms who have a history of prior covid infection get the shot?
I would suggest that it isn’t the mother that’s at risk as much as the baby. During the immediate post partum period the neonate is vulnerable to respiratory infections. The most obvious one is pertussis, which is why mum is vaccinated against it in the third trimester. Antibodies from mum cross the placenta thus providing protection to the baby whose immune system is weak. If the baby is born before 34 weeks then it’s even more vulnerable to respiratory infections because of the immature lungs.
Pregnancy is high risk for developing complications such as gestational diabetes.
The met-analysis linked here puts light on Covid risks to pregnant people. The study suggests SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity. My thanks you Dr. Offit and to Daniel Griffin, MD and the team at “This Week in Virology” (TWiV) podcast for bringing these investigations to the public’s attention. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9895919/
Thanks for the link. Pregnancy is a risky business, I think that people sometimes forget, and any infection can compromise that further. If you consider maternal infection of a widespread virus like cytomegalovirus can cause foetal injury.
All populations regardless of age or comorbidities are vulnerable to Long Covid, a factor missing for the analysis here. Preventing infection from the latest strain is currently the only way to prevent Long Covid. Everyone should be vaccinated regularly to maintain neutralizing antibodies against currently circulating strains. Severe acute disease is not the only form of severe disease that SARS2 can cause.
I hate to break it to you, but the shot won't prevent infections. this is known widely as demonstrated by the cleveland clinic study of approx 50k healthcare workers + my other comment to this post about the recent german opthamology conference.
the latest revelation is the lack of effectiveness to prevent infection was known at the very beginning of the shot roll out.
https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1670972522790092801
the above link is to an image of a FOIA'ed email from Rochelle to other leaders at CDC dated January 30th 2021:
"I had a call with Francis Collins this morning and one of the issues we discussed was that of vaccine breakthroughs."
approx half the email is redacted, but includes a final statement: "Francis is also discussing with Tony."
I appreciate the washington examiner 'leans right' - but read Rochelle's email for yourself.
here is an article discussing the new revelation: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/public-support-for-vaccine-mandates-hits-new-low
May I also recommend a series of short videos from Geert Vanden Bossche arguing the inverse of your resilience to covid strategy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqd-2Qdzeig
Finally, the study from the Cleveland clinic of 50k healthcare workers showing the more doses of mrna covid gene therapies taken being highly correlated with more positive covid infection diagnoses
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893v1
Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination
Results- COVID-19 occurred in 1475 (3%) of 48 344 employees during the 100-day study period. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was lower in the “not up-to-date” than in the “up-to-date” state. On multivariable analysis, not being “up-to-date” with COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.77; 95% C.I., 0.69-0.86; P-value, <0.001). Results were very similar when those 65 years and older were only considered “up-to-date” after receiving 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine.
Conclusions- Since the XBB lineages became dominant, adults “not up-to-date” by the CDC definition have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.
Summary- Among 48 344 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, those not “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination had a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date”.
I hate to break it to you but no vaccine stops infection, they prevent serious illness and death. Being vaccinated against measles doesn’t mean the virus has disappeared and that you cannot be infected with it, what you won’t get is the measles disease typified by the rash, you could feel under the weather with flu like symptoms but that’s all. The reason is because the vaccine produces its main response in the bloodstream with one type of antibodies along with memory cells. Measles virus enters the body through the upper airway, which is protected by a different set of antibodies and memory cells.
If you are vaccinated against tetanus, that definitely does not stop infection by the tetanus pathogen as the vaccine is not against the bacteria but the toxin produced by the bacteria.
thanks. you make a really good point: vaccines are imperfect & they dont stop infection. But didnt Rachel Maddow, Joe Biden, Rochelle Walensky among many others tell us over the course of 2021 that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus,"? That quote is from Rochelle March 2021 in an interview with Maddow. Wouldnt the casual obzerver beleive that do not carry the virus might mean immune from infection - meaning one would not get infected?
Also, didnt the CDC change the definition of vaccination & vaccine in 2021?
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html
"
Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.
The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” "
all that said, you have a point: vaccines clearly do not make one 'not susceptible to an infectious disease'.
regarding prevention of severe illness and death - on capital hill, June 13, 2023 Rochelle said, "we still to this day do not have data on people who are coming to the hospital who are vaccinated."
link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?528571-1/centers-disease-control-director-testifies-covid-19-policies
fast forward to 41:31.
So if the CDC does not have this data which would indicate a prevention of serious illness and death, do you?
I ask because the British Journal of Medicine in 2020 highlighted the fact that the covid clinical trials were not designed to evaluate severe disease nor death, link: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
"In all the ongoing phase III trials for which details have been released, laboratory confirmed infections even with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint definition."
the above article even quotes an exchange Paul Offit had with Eric Topol, but refutes both individuals' assertions that the clinical trials we aimed at ID'ing not merely a , "PCR + test & mild infection but rather moderate to severe illness to qualify as an event," in the clinical trial - to which Offit responded, "that's right."
As you can see - both cant simultaneously be true and the research papers show
"the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus."
BJM even quotes Moderna's Chief medical officer at the time who stated: “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions]." He is also quoted as saying: “Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission”.
finally, didnt pfizer report more deaths in its clinical trial dose group than its placebo group?
also from BJM: link: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1920
"During the blinded, controlled period of the study, 15 vaccine recipients and 14 placebo recipients died. In the open label period, three Pfizer recipients and two original placebo recipients who received Pfizer after unblinding died."
link to the published research paper:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.supplementary-material
so, clearly, one cannot deduce that the covid shots reduce all cause mortality given the gold standard research protocol (randomized double blind placebo controlled) failed to demonstrate that point.
In a clinical trial it is all but impossible to test for transmission in an ethical manner. What do you do? Deliberately infect both the vaccinated and placebo arms with SARS-CoV-2, then determine whether there’s any difference in the spread of the virus in the two groups. Deliberately infecting someone with a potentially dangerous virus. Deliberately exposing others to that same virus. If any pharmaceutical company did that they would be rightly condemned for unethical practices.
I agree with the concept. Then why didnt personnel from pfizer, moderna, J&J, Astra zeneca correct misstatements by biden admin officials among other gov officials when Biden et al made claims that the shots stopped transmission; knowing there is no evidence nor an ethical and practical method to achieve such evidence? I appreciate the impossibility of answering that question - only those who created the mandate policies can explain his/her/their justifications/motivations.
the claim "the vaccinated do not carry the virus" was used as justification by the biden admin among others to mandate the shots for healthcare workers, fed gov employees including armed forces personnel.
it was repeated by many judges in their rulings initially justifying the policy. thankfully, many of the mandates have since been overturned, but at what cost? It appears many countries are compensating for injuries + highly restricting access to further doses.
per the recent FIOA'ed emails it appears the CDC, NIH & NIAID in the USA knew from the beginning of the roll out (Jan '21) that the shots would not disrupt the transmission cycle. so if the biopharma execs knew the trials could not prove disruption to transmission, certainly figures like fauci/collins/walensky were also aware and could have / should have informed policy makers.
for what it is worth, I appreciate this cordial/civil exchange.
Because vaccinated people generally wiped away the original COVID so quickly that they didn't pass it on.
The problem is that you're either disingenuous or a dipshit, so you're trying to pretend that the infectiousness and immune escape of Omicron is exactly the same as the original COVID virus. They're barely the same virus.
oh boy... "Because vaccinated people generally wiped away the original COVID so quickly that they didn't pass it on."
can prove this statement?
you know what, don't waste time with me, better rush to get your updated booster.
you got your bivalent booster right? you aren't an anti-vaxer are you?
It’s interesting to note the original definition says “immunity to a specific disease” it doesn’t mention pathogen. I actually cannot see any difference in the meaning behind the two definitions.
“Product” becomes “preparation”
“Immunity to a specific disease” becomes “body’s immune response against diseases.”
This may be because more vaccines are actually mixtures against multiple diseases.
Product suggests a monovalent vaccine e.g. against Hepatitis B.
Whereas preparation suggests more than one vaccine is included in a mixture, for example MMR.
In the U.K. we have a 6 in 1 vaccine for infants which could be considered a preparation and is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.
...this is splitting hairs, because the meaningful question is whether an infection is cleared out by your body before it has time to either do damage or make you communicable to others.
What the antivax morons are lying about is that the COVID vacccines absolutely did do that for the earlier versions of the virus. It mutated, mostly in *their* bodies, to the point where the vaccine stopped being as effective in preventing people from getting symptoms or passing it on. And that's why we're at the point where guys like Offit are trying to pretend that COVID is no longer an issue, as people keep having strokes and heart attacks that have nothing to do with the "jab" and everything to do with the just-a-cold-brah.
The virus may have undergone changes but it still retains the antigen that it uses to access host cells (ACE2). Even if this were the only epitope it would still trigger the vaccine induced immune response, may be not as much but enough to block the virus. According to Brianne Barker there are about 20 epitopes on the original virus, which would elicit more immunity responses. If the ACE2 epitope disappeared along with all of the others it would no longer be SARS-CoV-2.
If no vaccine stops infection, then they could not have eradicated any diseases.
Vaccines work by preventing disease. They prime the immune system. However the primed immune system can only work if the pathogen is present, taking a couple of days to respond instead of a week.
The only disease that has been eradicated is smallpox, there’s an implicit assumption that No disease means No virus, but has anyone actually tested that?
This is why the shot needs to be administered every 4-6 months, updated with the latest variants. It also means that we have to continue layered protections: mask mandates, testing and tracing, sick leave, remote work, etc.
might be worth reading: Posted August 25, 2021
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full-text
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections
This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
...well yes if you died from Delta you had a very good shot at not passing it on
The problem with natural immunity is that you have to be infected to get it.
Is Long COVID Linked to Mental Illness?
The research is preliminary. The topic is charged. But the question has a very real basis.
https://slate.com/technology/2023/06/mental-illness-long-covid-body-mind.html#
"Andrea Roberts was getting ready to submit a study for publication, and she was worried. A senior research scientist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, she had just written a paper suggesting that people with high stress levels were more likely to develop long COVID after an acute infection.
Roberts has spent the past decade studying the link between physical health and mental health. She knows that psychology can play a role in almost any illness; a few years ago, she discovered a link between PTSD and ovarian cancer. On paper, the new finding was no different from those in her previous studies, but this time she added a disclaimer to her article. “Our results should not be misinterpreted as supporting a hypothesis that post–COVID-19 conditions are psychosomatic,” she wrote."
the article continues & includes a link to a paper published in JAMA Psychiatry Sept 2022 title:
Associations of Depression, Anxiety, Worry, Perceived Stress, and Loneliness Prior to Infection With Risk of Post–COVID-19 Conditions
link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2796097
Question Is psychological distress before SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with risk of COVID-19–related symptoms lasting 4 weeks or longer, known as post–COVID-19 conditions?
Findings This cohort study found that among participants who did not report SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline (April 2020) and reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result over 1 year of follow-up (N = 3193), depression, anxiety, perceived stress, loneliness, and worry about COVID-19 were prospectively associated with a 1.3- to 1.5-fold increased risk of self-reported post–COVID-19 conditions, as well as increased risk of daily life impairment related to post–COVID-19 conditions.
Meaning In this study, preinfection psychological distress was associated with risk of post–COVID-19 conditions and daily life impairment in those with post–COVID-19 conditions.
is it really long covd?
You're the one coughing plague on us, asshole.
Leave OUR bodies alone.
Thank you for such a clear and accessible read I can easily share with others!
I would concur with your thoughts regarding variants, providing there are sufficient epitopes that don’t change then T cell memory will suffice. Also SARS-CoV-2 uses ACE2 to enter cells, is this the only receptor that is used? Does influenza virus use more than one cell receptor to infect cells?
New Stanford University Study published re blindness I sent to my Aunt because she lost sight in one eye not long after the injection.
Thank you for this clarity! I keep reading various posts claiming Covid kills off T cells leaving us more vulnerable to other viruses. Is this true?
Thank you very much!
I totally agree with your highly scientific opinion.
The money spent / wasted it should better go (i) to improve immunity to respiratory infections in people susceptible for severe infection (e.g. free vitamin D during cold season), etc; (ii) to improve ventilation in public places and transportation, etc, etc.
Should a well controlled Type 1 diabetic 18 year old male who received the two primary series Pfizer vaccines in the summer of 2021 and contracted Covid in December 2021 , presumably omicron , before the boosters were available for 16yo. Then he contracted Covid again earlier this year. Both mild cases, especially the second one. He probably had it a third time again this summer but didn't test. Never had a booster, should he? He is starting college in September and his university is mandating a booster, thoughts? . Im a practicing internist not a antivaxxer and I question the benefit (mild disease in this age group ), (natural immunity )vs small risk (myocarditis)
It strains credulity that there's some magical age cutoff where vaccines are effective for anyone over that age, but useless for anyone under it. They may appear *more* effective for people over a certain age, but that's only because you've divided the population into arbitrary buckets.
What's needed is a more dynamic system for prioritizing shots, based on some sort of risk score (e.g. metabolic age). Let anyone go ahead and schedule their booster. If someone else comes along who has a higher priority and they want your appointment, you get rescheduled (say, with 48 hours notice).
To answer the question in your title:
Yes. Obviously. Fuck off.
The alternative is mangling millions with Long COVID and then pretending that it's just a psychological problem, which doesn't work when there's enough cases that it's wrecking the labor supply and causing insurers to pay very close attention.
And that's not even getting into all the COVID-related heart attacks and strokes and whatnot, as well as possible immunological damage: all of which are fuelling the antivax movement who can explain to the victims that it's due to "the jab". A movement that you seem bound and determined to aid and abet by echoing their "it's just the flu brah" talking points.
Are you seriously pretending to be a medical doctor who just wants to abandon people to their fates? This is some shameless shit, buddy.
People aren't pregnant. Only women are.
People aren't pregnant. Only women are.
I wonder if we are underestimating the mRNA vaccine strength.
Discomfort seems to keep many away from the vaccination clinics.
Some effort seems justified to titrate the dose down from the OMGolly it is a pandemic to *&% dangerous endemic virus for many is symptom free. Cellular immunity in addition to antibody titers.
A potential (UNDOCUMENTED) value from a lower titrated dose is less concern about general inflammation (myocarditis is one) from vaccines. A titrated dose two or three times a year can constantly present a variety of variation specific proteins and also maintain antibodies at a high enough level to dial back the need for Paxlovid that acts in the same time frame that antibodies act without cells being infected.
I just had routine blood drawn, one additional vial for antibody and cellular immunity would be painless and a useful random data point. Not zero cost but handy, Even if frozen and evaluated post mortem.
Titration down is an inversion of the influenza 4x dose for seniors mind set. It will need data.
If SARS-CoV-2 proves to not be seasonal then vaccinate once a year near birthdays aligned with annual health check strategies might help.
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary!
I love the idea of vaccinating near birthdays - that way we don't all wane simultaneously. A similar idea I had was to stagger vaccinations with household members.
From a compliance point of view this is less than ideal.
One parent and all the kids... one quick trip.
For this current COVID insanity if we could all vaccinate next Monday ten to twenty days later virus transmission might halt.
Staging or staggering administration reduces pressure on clinics and physicians.
With the punctuation of one lucky doctor serious infection is becoming a dull roar.
The good news is seasonal flu vaccination plans are planned and an opportunity to take advantage of scale and organization and a simple second jab is convenient.
I appreciate Paul's experience, expertise and thoughtful discussions. This is a novel virus and had we known then what we know now applies and will apply in 6 months, a year, two years, ten...
Be well...
Was also thinking antibody tests would pair quite nicely with comprehensive metabolic panels, since the latter have a bearing on one's ability to get Paxlovid without a prescription
The question should be, who should get annual shots. The first three doses were timely, since the delta variant was particularly nasty. But right after that, in January 2022, I got the omicron variant, with no serious symptoms at all. Just one day of extreme tiredness. Since then, no one among my relatives and acquaintances has taken any precautions, and no one has had any illness worse than a mild cold. But no one is testing, so we might all be getting covid.
Several people in my family had strong reactions to the vaccine. Three of them lost a couple days work. I read that “everyone” has had omicron, but no one has been as sick as those who had side effects from the vaccine.
So again, should people with normal functioning immune systems be getting these updated vaccines?
Hi Paul. Is this the reason young people don't need an annual shot (from your article above): "Healthy young people who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 remain protected against severe disease the following year because, although new variants continue to evolve, the parts of the virus that are recognized by T cells have remained relatively unchanged. "
or might it be:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2805969
June 13, 2023 - Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection at a German Medical Congress During the Omicron Wave
"prior infection was significantly associated with testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection"
"8.0% of the participants surveyed reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test"
attendees covid vaccinated rate 97.8% - self reported via the survey "at least 2 doses"
from the discussion section: This study showed that a history of previously proven SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with a decrease in SARS-CoV-2 infection rate.
Should pregnant/expecting moms who have a history of prior covid infection get the shot?
Many thanks.
Why is pregnancy in the at highest risk group?
I would suggest that it isn’t the mother that’s at risk as much as the baby. During the immediate post partum period the neonate is vulnerable to respiratory infections. The most obvious one is pertussis, which is why mum is vaccinated against it in the third trimester. Antibodies from mum cross the placenta thus providing protection to the baby whose immune system is weak. If the baby is born before 34 weeks then it’s even more vulnerable to respiratory infections because of the immature lungs.
Pregnancy is high risk for developing complications such as gestational diabetes.
The met-analysis linked here puts light on Covid risks to pregnant people. The study suggests SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity. My thanks you Dr. Offit and to Daniel Griffin, MD and the team at “This Week in Virology” (TWiV) podcast for bringing these investigations to the public’s attention. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9895919/
Thanks for the link. Pregnancy is a risky business, I think that people sometimes forget, and any infection can compromise that further. If you consider maternal infection of a widespread virus like cytomegalovirus can cause foetal injury.
No randomized data
Randomised data for what?
No Randomized data on how covid shots vs no covid shots will impact pregnancy