Coronavirus All Purpose Thread: moving on?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The fact is that without natural immunity, prior infection, you are not getting maximum protection.

But you understand how silly it is, right? The only way to get maximum protection from infection is to get infected...with that which you are trying to avoid...

Now, if you knew a far worse strain was coming and you wanted protection from that, and knew your Omicron infection would be very mild(can't know that), and that an Omicron infection would provide you better protection against this new variant, then you might have some ground to stand on, but since we can't predict the future it doesn't seem like a very good idea.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But you understand how silly it is, right? The only way to get maximum protection from infection is to get infected...with that which you are trying to avoid...

This is how nature and the body work. Something unwanted enters the body, the immune system kicks into gear, fights off the infection and stores a roadmap or blueprint for fighting that again in the future. The vaccines help in providing that initial blueprint but we have leaky vaccines. If you want the best you need to let nature happen.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This is how nature and the body work. Something unwanted enters the body, the immune system kicks into gear, fights off the infection and stores a roadmap or blueprint for fighting that again in the future. The vaccines help in providing that initial blueprint but we have leaky vaccines. If you want the best you need to let nature happen.

You really aren't getting how illogical that is...The best way to not get infected is to get infected...sure...then you have gotten infected and failed at your goal.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This is how nature and the body work. Something unwanted enters the body, the immune system kicks into gear, fights off the infection and stores a roadmap or blueprint for fighting that again in the future. The vaccines help in providing that initial blueprint but we have leaky vaccines. If you want the best you need to let nature happen.

There is a difference between letting nature "happen" and actively getting a disease for the purposes of boosting immunity against... that disease.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This is how nature and the body work. Something unwanted enters the body, the immune system kicks into gear, fights off the infection and stores a roadmap or blueprint for fighting that again in the future. The vaccines help in providing that initial blueprint but we have leaky vaccines. If you want the best you need to let nature happen.

Love the antivaxxer buzzwords. "Leaky vaccines". Are flu vaccines "leaky"?

And of course, being infected by Omicron provides very little protection against non-Omicron variants. So if the next variant is like every prior one that didn't descend from the current dominant one (they have to be antigenically different enough to really outcompete, so that's a likely possibility), then anyone who only has immunity to Omicron is at a significant disadvantage to anyone who was vaccinated (either before or after an Omicron infection) and who has have much broader immunity.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This is how nature and the body work. Something unwanted enters the body, the immune system kicks into gear, fights off the infection and stores a roadmap or blueprint for fighting that again in the future. The vaccines help in providing that initial blueprint but we have leaky vaccines. If you want the best you need to let nature happen.

Since your announcement that you don’t take these threads seriously I really don’t know if your just stirring the pot or an actual moron.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This is how nature and the body work. Something unwanted enters the body, the immune system kicks into gear, fights off the infection and stores a roadmap or blueprint for fighting that again in the future. The vaccines help in providing that initial blueprint but we have leaky vaccines. If you want the best you need to let nature happen.

This is a red herring argument.

The two relevant questions are

How best are you as an individual protected

and
How best is society protected

So you evaluate risk based on

Current state and get vaccinated then evaluate risks over next 6 months
or
Current state and intentionally get Covid then evaluate risks over next six months
or
Current state and do nothing then evaluate risks over next 6 months

The 2nd option would clearly be stupid as getting Covid is orders of madnitude more dangerous than getting vaccinated.

So then you can just look at the pre-print that Fuzz showed and assess your current situation.

Or you can follow NACI recommendations and let experts interpret rapidly changing information.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Love the antivaxxer buzzwords. "Leaky vaccines". Are flu vaccines "leaky"?

And of course, being infected by Omicron provides very little protection against non-Omicron variants. So if the next variant is like every prior one that didn't descend from the current dominant one (they have to be antigenically different enough to really outcompete, so that's a likely possibility), then anyone who only has immunity to Omicron is at a significant disadvantage to anyone who was vaccinated (either before or after an Omicron infection) and who has have much broader immunity.

Is the poor immunity of Omicron against older variants against infection or severe disease or both?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is the poor immunity of Omicron against older variants against infection or severe disease or both?

With how dominant Omicron is, there haven't really been enough Omicron recovered people who subsequently caught a non-Omicron variant to draw any conclusions about severe disease, but there likely would be some protection.

But against infection, even a recent Omicron recovery didn't produce antibodies capable of neutralizing Delta in most of cases that I've seen. This image illustrates it pretty well. On the right are unvaccinated people who caught Omicron and then had their blood tested for antibodies against Delta. Basically, the people who mounted any kind of real protective response against Delta were the people who already had antibodies at enrollment (i.e. a prior infection). The immunologically naive (with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions) failed to reach the threshold of protection against Delta:

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Love the antivaxxer buzzwords. "Leaky vaccines". Are flu vaccines "leaky"?

Here are some resources and definitions of leaky vaccines vs all-or-nothing vaccines:

We apply our analysis to two mechanisms of vaccine action, ‘all-or-nothing’ and ‘leaky’ vaccines [9]. An ‘all-or-nothing’ vaccine offers complete protection to a subset of the vaccinated individuals but does not take in the remainder of vaccinated individuals, whereas a ‘leaky’ vaccine offers partial protection to every vaccinated individual.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...9/#!po=1.28205

The mechanics of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases depend on the underlying disease process and the nature of the vaccine. Different types of vaccines can have different impacts on population-level dynamics. Consider three candidate imperfect vaccines:

Vaccine 1: Reduces the probability of infection upon exposure by a factor ε.

Vaccine 2: Provides no protection to a fraction ε of the vaccinees and perfect lifetime immunity to the remainder.

Vaccine 3: Provides perfect protection to each vaccinee for an exponentially distributed “waning time,” after which the vaccinee becomes as susceptible as unvaccinated individuals. The probability of immunity waning within a vaccinated host's lifetime is given by ε.

These examples illustrate the three different avenues of vaccine failure that are commonly considered in the literature. McLean and Blower [14] introduced the following terminology: when a vaccine only reduces the probability of infection upon exposure but does not eliminate it as in the case of vaccine 1, this is called failure in degree. When a vaccine has no effect on some individuals but confers complete protection in others as in the case of vaccine 2, this is called failure in take. When the protection conferred wanes over time as with vaccine 3, this is termed failure in duration. Halloran et al. [6] used the term leaky vaccine (inspired by the literature on malaria) to describe a vaccine that only exhibits failure in degree, and all-or-nothing vaccine for one that demonstrates failure in take. A vaccine that only displays failure in duration is called a waning vaccine. Farrington et al. [4] lists the vaccine for pertussis as a possibly leaky vaccine, those for measles and rubella as all-or-nothing vaccines, and that for cholera as a waning vaccine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...5/#!po=17.8571

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Here are some resources and definitions of leaky vaccines vs all-or-nothing vaccines:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...9/#!po=1.28205

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...5/#!po=17.8571

COVID vaccines (just like infection-derived immunity) are waning. The immunity works excellently for a period of time, but once antibodies wane you're at risk of getting infected. That's just how coronaviruses in humans work.

The "leaky" example in the paper you cite is different. It reduces the chance of infection per exposure, meaning an immune individual would become infected with enough exposures. That's not how immunity to coronaviruses work.

So-called leaky vaccines can lead to serious mutations, because they only reduce severity while tending to prolong the infection, viral replication, and amount of virus that's spread when compared to immunologically naive subjects that get infected. Which is why antivaxxers have taken to calling COVID vaccines "leaky", because they want to blame variants on the vaccines. But breakthrough infections of SARS-CoV-2 have repeatedly been shown to result in far lower viral replication and less spread than in unvaccinated people.

[djsFlames]

My neighbours all have COVID. Fun times.

We may be done with it, but it ain't done with us.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This is how nature and the body work. Something unwanted enters the body, the immune system kicks into gear, fights off the infection and stores a roadmap or blueprint for fighting that again in the future. The vaccines help in providing that initial blueprint but we have leaky vaccines. If you want the best you need to let nature happen.

HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria are some examples of pathogenic diseases that the human immune system in general cannot deal with.

[curves2000]

Anybody know if Novavax is available for people in Alberta yet? I know it has been approved by Health Canada for use but I do not know if there is any actually supply yet? A few friends who haven't been vaxxed yet and are looking at it as an option.

Also, has anybody come across any recent data on an AZ booster other than what I have been able to find that came out back in January showing a high level of effectiveness if given 6+ months after 2nd dose?

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...e-booster.html

Thanks!

[activeStick]

Well, finally ended up getting covid, tested positive last night after a friend's wife tested positive. A bunch of us (6) were at their place Friday night. But so far, only me and her have tested positive. The other 4, including her husband all tested negative.

No symptoms at all, feel perfectly fine. Friend's wife had a sore throat yesterday but its gone today and she says her voice is a bit raspy but nothing more. Vaccines are pretty impressive.

[Hockeyguy15]

Isn't that a little quick? Testing positive 2 days after exposure makes me think you had it before Friday. In our circles experience there was usually a 4 or 5 day lag between infection and positive test.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Isn't that a little quick? Testing positive 2 days after exposure makes me think you had it before Friday. In our circles experience there was usually a 4 or 5 day lag between infection and positive test.

Good point. Wasn't sure about time from exposure to a positive test.... Which means potentially, I got it on a Monday or Tuesday.

[opendoor]

2 days is certainly possible; and if you're not showing symptoms you could be pre-symptomatic. Omicron has a shorter incubation period than prior variants, so while it might be on the short side (particularly given rapid tests' weaknesses at picking up Omicron), it's not out of the question.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Anybody know if Novavax is available for people in Alberta yet? I know it has been approved by Health Canada for use but I do not know if there is any actually supply yet? A few friends who haven't been vaxxed yet and are looking at it as an option.

Also, has anybody come across any recent data on an AZ booster other than what I have been able to find that came out back in January showing a high level of effectiveness if given 6+ months after 2nd dose?

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...e-booster.html

Thanks!

Canada has the Novavax doses, but it doesn't seem like provinces are doing a very good job of rolling them out, so they're kind of just sitting there.

As for AZ boosters, few (if any) places are using them as 3rd doses so there isn't much real world data. And while that study that AZ linked showed in increase in immune response with a 3rd dose, it was still inferior to basically every other option for a 3rd dose. Here's an image that shows the antibody and cellular response of people who've had 2 AZ doses and then got a 3rd dose of AZ, Novavax, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, CureVac, or Valneva. So in terms of antibodies, Moderna is a best, followed by Pfizer. But Novavax is pretty good. And in terms of cellular response, Novavax is excellent (2nd behind Moderna for AZ recipients).

So if you're wanting to avoid mRNA vaccines for a 3rd dose, I'd try to see if you can get Novavax. The antibody response is quite good and the cellular response (even against variants) is basically as good as it gets. Whereas 3 doses of AZ doesn't look all that great. Adenovirus vaccines look like they can do a fantastic job of stimulating cellular immune response (which is important for protection against severe disease over the long term), but not on their own. They seem to really need to be part of a heterologous regime with a non-viral vector vaccine to achieve that excellent cellular response.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Canada has the Novavax doses, but it doesn't seem like provinces are doing a very good job of rolling them out, so they're kind of just sitting there.

As for AZ boosters, few (if any) places are using them as 3rd doses so there isn't much real world data. And while that study that AZ linked showed in increase in immune response with a 3rd dose, it was still inferior to basically every other option for a 3rd dose. Here's an image that shows the antibody and cellular response of people who've had 2 AZ doses and then got a 3rd dose of AZ, Novavax, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, CureVac, or Valneva. So in terms of antibodies, Moderna is a best, followed by Pfizer. But Novavax is pretty good. And in terms of cellular response, Novavax is excellent (2nd behind Moderna for AZ recipients).

So if you're wanting to avoid mRNA vaccines for a 3rd dose, I'd try to see if you can get Novavax. The antibody response is quite good and the cellular response (even against variants) is basically as good as it gets. Whereas 3 doses of AZ doesn't look all that great. Adenovirus vaccines look like they can do a fantastic job of stimulating cellular immune response (which is important for protection against severe disease over the long term), but not on their own. They seem to really need to be part of a heterologous regime with a non-viral vector vaccine to achieve that excellent cellular response.

Thank you for your very clear and well written response as this is helpful. The request for Novavax was for some friends so I will pass along the info and tell them to contact AHS and or the Health Ministry for more information.

Ironically I just came across this study on vaccine effectiveness and waning effectiveness that was published a week ago.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...seccestitle130

I was wondering, if you had the time or the interest, to potential breakdown some of the finer points of the results?

If you don't mind, may I ask your background or interest in the vaccine or medical field? Along with a few other posters, you have been instrumental to providing a ton of quality information and analysis on the vaccine topics that have been discussed.

Thanks again!