COVID-19 Vaccine Talk, 2nd Dose

[looooob]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

that's what I'm wondering about, too. I'm double Pfizer and I read this article yesterday

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...tudy-1.5612595

The effectiveness of the Pfizer Inc /BioNTech SE vaccine in preventing infection by the coronavirus dropped to 47% from 88% six months after the second dose, according to data published on Monday that U.S. health agencies considered when deciding on the need for booster shots.

granted I'm still not likely to need hospitalization.

as I think others have mentioned, an interesting consideration is the US dosing interval (3 weeks) versus the reality for most of us here 8-10 weeks (*although certainly there would be some in Alberta for various reasons legitimate or otherwise that were dosed closer to 3 weeks) and whether ultimately that will have an impact?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by looooob

as I think others have mentioned, an interesting consideration is the US dosing interval (3 weeks) versus the reality for most of us here 8-10 weeks (*although certainly there would be some in Alberta for various reasons legitimate or otherwise that were dosed closer to 3 weeks) and whether ultimately that will have an impact?

The most dangerous element of all of the vaccine coverage by the media is and has been making it seem like fully vaccinated people will not get covid. Now you get vaccine hesitant or antivaxx degenerates reading this material and further reinforcing their stance.

I could care less if the protection rate falls to 50% or whatever, provided I am still highly unlikely to suffer severe illness and wind up in the hospital or ICU. Much better coverage is required in terms of making clear what the typical fully vaccinated case of covid really looks like to keep the misinformation and fear mongering down.

[cgy-sk-import]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why are people still pretending like getting the vaccine is some kind of risk? The risks of serious complications are greater than the chance of getting struck by lightning.

Because, idiot, moron, freedumb antivaxx idiots.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

The most dangerous element of all of the vaccine coverage by the media is and has been making it seem like fully vaccinated people will not get covid. Now you get vaccine hesitant or antivaxx degenerates reading this material and further reinforcing their stance.

I could care less if the protection rate falls to 50% or whatever, provided I am still highly unlikely to suffer severe illness and wind up in the hospital or ICU. Much better coverage is required in terms of making clear what the typical fully vaccinated case of covid really looks like to keep the misinformation and fear mongering down.

You have a valid point. But there is a danger of messaging like that too. If the only reason to get a vaccine is to protect yourself, that opens up the anti-vaxxers to say why should a vaxxed person care if I get my vaccine since you are protected and the purpose is more to save the live of the vaccinated person, not control the spread.

The right message is that it is beneficial to individuals to not get as severely sick or die, and beneficial to society since it is not 100%. To be fully effective in saving everyone's lives, everyone or almost everyone needs to get it. 50% efficacy means even a higher percentage of people need it to end this mess.

That message is too complicated and nuanced to reach everyone it needs too though. I don't think there is a message that would work well. It's either mandate it somehow or deal with the fact that the vaccine won't be the end of it and hope this delta wave is the last wave.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why are people still pretending like getting the vaccine is some kind of risk? The risks of serious complications are greater than the chance of getting struck by lightning.

Because they’re stupid, they buy into bull****, or both. Pick one.

[Azure]

Sweden and Denmark decided to halt vaccinations with Moderna Inc.’s Covid-19 shot for younger people because of potential side effects.

The Swedish health authority Wednesday cited new data on the increased risk of heart inflammation as a reason for the pause for those aged 30 and under. Denmark will stop giving the shot to those younger than 18.

Moderna shares fell as much as 5.3% in New York trading.

“We are monitoring the situation closely and are acting rapidly to ensure that Covid-19 vaccinations are constantly as safe as possible, while also providing protection,” said Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ed-30-or-under

[Fuzz]

I wonder if Moderna is just too strong a dose? Pfizer's 5-11 year old dose is 1/3rd as strong as the adult dose. Moderna's normal dose 3x as strong as Pfizer's. Too much?

[Firebot]

You know what has much higher increased risk of heart inflammation?

Covid-19

Also turns out the calculations from at least one of the cited sources which made anti-vaxxer rounds were a mistake, so Sweden and Denmark just made a knee jerk decision on bad data.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/...nflammation-to

In the original paper, published on the preprint site medRxiv on Sept. 16, they identified 32 patients with the heart problem and 32,379 doses administered in total, leading to an estimated 1 in 1,000 rate.

However, the actual number of administered doses during the period was over 800,000, the researchers note in their retraction statement. That would put the correct incidence rate at about 1 in 25,000, or 4 in 100,000. A recent peer-reviewed study based on data in Israel has put the risk of myocarditis for Pfizer and BioNTech’s Comirnaty at 2.7 events per 100,000 persons.

In its short life on the medRxiv site, the study with the wrong data was retweeted over 15,000 times, according to Almetric.

With the decision coming from the same chief epidemiologist that said that Stockholm was going to reach heard immunity in May...2020

This is the misguided crap that continues to destroy vaccination efforts and works against the greater good.

[opendoor]

I seriously doubt Sweden and Denmark are making decisions primarily based on retracted papers. Scandinavian countries have world-leading surveillance systems for safety signals, which is why they were the first to pick up on AZ's clotting issues and the 2009 swine flu vaccine's link to increased rates of narcolepsy. So they're likely seeing increased rates of heart issues among their own population. Some data I've seen suggests it's about 7x higher in Moderna vs Pfizer, so why not use the latter for younger people?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wonder if Moderna is just too strong a dose? Pfizer's 5-11 year old dose is 1/3rd as strong as the adult dose. Moderna's normal dose 3x as strong as Pfizer's. Too much?

I'd assume that's it. Moderna trialed a 25μg dose (pretty similar to Pfizer's 30μg one), and it had lower adverse reactions than the 100μg dose they eventually settled on, but it didn't produce quite enough antibodies so they went with the higher dose. Unfortunately they never trialed a 50μg dose until later on, because that would have probably been the sweet spot, and it's what they're likely using for boosters.

Knowing what we know now, these vaccines would likely have been 3+ doses (and Moderna with a lower dosage) from the start with longer intervals.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I seriously doubt Sweden and Denmark are making decisions primarily based on retracted papers. Scandinavian countries have world-leading surveillance systems for safety signals, which is why they were the first to pick up on AZ's clotting issues and the 2009 swine flu vaccine's link to increased rates of narcolepsy. So they're likely seeing increased rates of heart issues among their own population. Some data I've seen suggests it's about 7x higher in Moderna vs Pfizer, so why not use the latter for younger people?

In first world countries where vaccine supply is no longer limited it makes sense to consider these risks of the vaccines versus each other even though in the absence of another option taking Moderna would be the correct choice.

It’s just like AZ. When the choice was AZ or wait a month for pfizer during the peak of a wave the risk based decision said get AZ. When there is no time lag you take the lowest risk product.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I seriously doubt Sweden and Denmark are making decisions primarily based on retracted papers. Scandinavian countries have world-leading surveillance systems for safety signals, which is why they were the first to pick up on AZ's clotting issues and the 2009 swine flu vaccine's link to increased rates of narcolepsy. So they're likely seeing increased rates of heart issues among their own population. Some data I've seen suggests it's about 7x higher in Moderna vs Pfizer, so why not use the latter for younger people?

I'm only skeptical of Sweden's decision-making based on their approach to COVID-19 to begin with.

[Manhattanboy]

Very positive news on J&J single dose vaccine (although the press release is from the company), but not great news on the Pfizer vaccine, the research suggesting that unless the population gets their third booster shot immunity could essentially be negated over time, resulting in recurring waves.

https://www.jnj.com/positive-new-dat...ty-of-response

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/healt...ity/index.html

“ Pfizer's immunity effectiveness declines steadily, hovering at around 20% after the four-month mark, per the researchers.

"These findings suggest that a large proportion of the vaccinated population could lose its protection against infection in the coming months, perhaps increasing the potential for new epidemic waves," wrote the report.”

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'm only skeptical of Sweden's decision-making based on their approach to COVID-19 to begin with.

How are the results of their approach different from say the Canadian approach?

I know it was debated for a long time, but now we should actually have some data to go on versus being in the middle of a wave.

From what I can tell, they never had the same lockdowns or restrictions, never closed schools and their case count at this moment is low? How has their vaccination policy fared?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Very positive news on J&J single dose vaccine (although the press release is from the company), but not great news on the Pfizer vaccine, the research suggesting that unless the population gets their third booster shot immunity could essentially be negated over time, resulting in recurring waves.

https://www.jnj.com/positive-new-dat...ty-of-response

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/healt...ity/index.html

“ Pfizer's immunity effectiveness declines steadily, hovering at around 20% after the four-month mark, per the researchers.

"These findings suggest that a large proportion of the vaccinated population could lose its protection against infection in the coming months, perhaps increasing the potential for new epidemic waves," wrote the report.”

I would take those (both good and bad) with a big grain of salt. J&J's own data (which was a tiny sample of 8 people) shows waning antibodies (dropping by about half from their peak at 2.5 months to 8 months), and they weren't all that high to begin with. And real-world data shows that vaccine only having about 80% efficacy against hospitalization and death. There's a reason they're applying to have their booster approved.

As for Pfizer, protection clearly wanes over time, but 20% after 4 months is contrary to basically every bit of real-world evidence. If that were remotely accurate, we would be seeing huge amounts of breakthrough infections everywhere, but we're not. In fact, Italy just came out and estimated that effectiveness for mRNA vaccines for people without comorbidities was still 89% after 7 months:

The report led by ISS and the health ministry examined data up to Aug. 29 from more than 29 million people who had received two doses of an mRNA vaccine such as those produced by Pfizer and Moderna.
It said that in the general population, effectiveness against infection after seven months remained at 89%, while against hospitalisation and death, this time six months after the second dose, it remained at 96% and 99% respectively.

https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...rce=reddit.com


The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, but further doses are going to be a reality for all vaccines if we want to maintain protection against infection. It's really just a matter of when that needs to happen.

[photon]

"A year and a half after Sweden decided not to lock down, its COVID-19 death rate is up to 10 times higher than its neighbors"

https://www.businessinsider.com/swed...th-rate-2021-8

Comparing case counts directly is difficult because as we well know in Alberta they can be low until they aren't.

[Azure]

Yes, I remember that as well.

Interestingly enough, had they followed the Danish strategy they would have saved a lot off lives, however at some point we need to factor in the cost of the lockdown.

We use two approaches to evaluate counterfactuals which transpose the transmission profile from one country onto another, in each country’s first wave from 13th March (when stringent interventions began) until 1st July 2020. UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies. Danish policies were most effective, although differences between the UK and Denmark were significant for one counterfactual approach only. Our analysis shows that small changes in the timing or effectiveness of interventions have disproportionately large effects on total mortality within a rapidly growing epidemic.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9

[Manhattanboy]

OpenDoor your knowledge and calming influence continues to be of incredible value.

[Azure]

Iceland is joining its Nordic peers in halting inoculations with Moderna Inc.’s Spikevax shot on concern over side effects.

The Moderna jab, which has mostly been used in Iceland for second doses, won’t be used until more information over its safety has been collected, the chief epidemiologist said on Friday.

Sweden, Denmark and Finland have this week suspended the jabs for younger people because of the risk of heart inflammation as a potential side effect. Norway said men under 30 should consider choosing the Pfizer Inc.’s and BioNTech SE’s rival vaccine, and the other Nordic nations also recommended that as an alternative. Both vaccinations use messenger RNA technology to prompt an immune reaction.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-vaccinations

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1447385124291624963