Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Zerosquare Not disputing that. However, we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen, and we should definitely be looking very carefully at whether we didn't introduce a completely different vulnerability in the process (not to mention checking whether our patch actually solves the problem to a meaningful extent).
That's sensible argument, and it's glaringly missing from the actual dilemma.
Is it? There are tens (probably more like hundreds, but to be
-safe about the "literally") of thousands of people who are literally doing nothing else during their work day.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The question thus becomes: were the pre-pandemic approval requirements too stringent?, or did we blow through decades of established practice because of political necessity?
Everyone with more than two brain cells should be able to see it's yes to both. The problem of regulatory agencies needlessly delaying perfectly safe drugs has been known for decades. At the same time, expediting COVID vaccine when it was most convenient (and blocking the research when it was least convenient) was pure politicking.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
most of the people who were predisposed to easily die of COVID have already died of COVID during the first wave
All waves combined managed to infect less than some 20% of the population - so the vast majority of the population did not have real contact with the beast upot now.
=> Plenty of people left who would easily die when naively infected.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
most of the people who were predisposed to easily die of COVID have already died of COVID during the first wave
All waves combined managed to infect less than some 20% of the population
That we know of. You'd have a point if we'd instituted mandatory daily testing of everybody. But we didn't.
-
@dkf in fairness she has one of those conditions that men can’t get so automatically less research has gone into it, and the medical advice she has had was… astounding to say the least.
Yes, stress has a factor, but that wouldn’t explain an underlying condition being present regularly for years…
-
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf in fairness she has one of those conditions that men can’t get so automatically less research has gone into it
Much less than you think.
-
@Gąska I already know it's not nearly enough. There's enough doctors that still believe certain entire sets of conditions don't exist - even when I as a non-doctor can clearly see evidence to the contrary. Just finding a doctor who doesn't assume it's BS is hard enough.
But I'm willling to bet it's even less than the not-nearly-enough I guessed at :(
-
@Arantor since medical studies are already hard enough as it is, most researchers cut corners by excluding trial participants who would be PITA to collect accurate data from, e.g. people with a condition that makes hormones frequently go haywire, with whom you'd first have to figure out which changes are due to the drug under test, which changes are due to hormones, and which changes are due to an interaction between drugs and hormones.
Question: what condition makes hormones frequently go haywire?
Menstrual cycle.
-
@Gąska sure, I get it, that particular cycle is also the one most heavily affected anecdatally by the vaccines.
I guess I'm just bitter about it on behalf of my wife who has had a thoroughly miserable six months since the vaccines for screwing up something that was already pretty messed up to begin with.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The null hypothesis (nothing we've done had any effect whatsoever) is still strong.
For the hospitalization and infection rates, the numbers show the vaccines to be very effective. A large majority of the people in hospitals here are unvaccinated.
For preventing the spread, it does sadly look like they’re less effective than the initial studies suggested.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The null hypothesis (nothing we've done had any effect whatsoever) is still strong.
For the hospitalization and infection rates, the numbers show the vaccines to be very effective. A large majority of the people in hospitals here are unvaccinated.
That's not the null hypothesis.
The actual claim worth defending is that the vaccine should be made mandatory because:
-
The virus is dangerous enough to a non-vaccinated person
-
The side effects of the vaccine itself are non-dangerous enough
-
The vaccine is sufficiently effective at preventing infection.
The proportion of people who are hospitalized that are vaccinated versus unvaccinated doesn't answer that question.
Imagine a voluntary vaccination regime, where only the people who want the jab get the jab. It's plausible that that strategy could bring overall infection numbers down, right? Even though you'd presumably still see mostly unvaccinated people getting infected?
I don't think anyone is against voluntary vaccination. It's the mandate that people are upset about, and your phrasing of the null hypothesis doesn't account for that at all.
-
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The question thus becomes: were the pre-pandemic approval requirements too stringent?, or did we blow through decades of established practice because of political necessity?
Everyone with more than two brain cells should be able to see it's yes to both. The problem of regulatory agencies needlessly delaying perfectly safe drugs has been known for decades. At the same time, expediting COVID vaccine when it was most convenient (and blocking the research when it was least convenient) was pure politicking.
On the one hand, the fact that it's true doesn't make it not Garage content.
On the other hand, it's not like anyone else cares about the distinction between Garage and non-Garage in this part of this thread.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The null hypothesis (nothing we've done had any effect whatsoever) is still strong.
For the hospitalization and infection rates, the numbers show the vaccines to be very effective. A large majority of the people in hospitals here are unvaccinated.
That's not the null hypothesis.
It is the nullest of all hypotheses. And if what @topspin says is true, then it's been sufficiently rejected. The thing is, I've seen data contradicting what @topspin says - granted, not in Germany, but in both USA and UK which last time I checked have similar vaccination rates to Germany.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it's not like anyone else cares about the distinction between Garage and non-Garage in this part of this thread.
If that's actually true, I have a very
response to a post 
that I didn't post because non-
.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it's not like anyone else cares about the distinction between Garage and non-Garage in this part of this thread.
I do, and I may not be the only one.
We already have several Garage threads about COVID, there's no need to turn this one into yet another.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it's not like anyone else cares about the distinction between Garage and non-Garage in this part of this thread.
I do, and I may not be the only one.
We already have several Garage threads about COVID, there's no need to turn this one into yet another.
Agreed
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
We already have several Garage threads about COVID, there's no need to turn this one into yet another.
Fair enough, although my
wouldn't have been about COVID, but about medical conditions affecting only one group of people or another, and about a 2021 solution by simply redefining the groups.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The null hypothesis (nothing we've done had any effect whatsoever) is still strong.
For the hospitalization and infection rates, the numbers show the vaccines to be very effective. A large majority of the people in hospitals here are unvaccinated.
That's not the null hypothesis.
It is the nullest of all hypotheses. And if what @topspin says is true, then it's been sufficiently rejected. The thing is, I've seen data contradicting what @topspin says - granted, not in Germany, but in both USA and UK which last time I checked have similar vaccination rates to Germany.
There's lots of data available, but finding just the one you want is still difficult. I tried to dig up relevant data for Germany from official statistics for ICU patients (calendar weeks 40-43):
Age 18 - 59 Age 60 Total vaccinated 71.9% 84.9% Total not vaccinated 28.1% 15.1% # in ICU 425 746 # vaccinated in ICU 53 257 # not vaccinated in ICU 372 489 vaccinated / total ICU 12.5% 34.5% not vaccinated / total ICU 87.5% 65.5% So in absolute numbers there's more unvaccinated people in the hospital than vaccinated people, even though the majority of people is vaccinated.
Factoring in the vaccination rate into the ratio of vaccinated / total ICU patients, I think we get:
Age 18-59: (12.5% / 71.9%) / (87.5% / 28.1%) = 0.056
Age 60+: (34.5% / 84.9%) / (65.5% / 15.1%) = 0.094
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it's not like anyone else cares about the distinction between Garage and non-Garage in this part of this thread.
I do, and I may not be the only one.
We already have several Garage threads about COVID, there's no need to turn this one into yet another.
I agree.
I'm a big supporter of the Garage/non-Garage divide.
Which is why it bothers me that people post Garage stuff in this topic.
But if it's OK for some people to post Garage stuff in this topic, I don't see why @Gąska shouldn't also be allowed to.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of the vaccines is in the differences in rates of serious complications (hospitalization, admission to ICU, intubation, death) relative to rates of infection.
There does not seem to be that much of a difference, actually.
Czechia actually has fairly good data—both hospitalizations and intensive care admissions, and both separated to vaccinated and not.
A bit less than half of the admitted to hospitals are vaccinated, but about 80% of the sensitive group are vaccinated, so the vaccine might be in the ballpark of 60–70% effective at preventing hospitalization. And some more on top of that in reducing the duration of hospitalization, because among all currently hospitalized vaccinated are only about a third.
The percentage of vaccinated in hospitals is also lower in the middle-aged group despite it being less vaccinated overall, suggesting the vaccine works better for them than for the elderly.
So the vaccines are clearly better than poke in the eye. As far as expectation and comparison with other vaccines goes, they are a huge disappointment though. Especially in the long-term effectivity.
Memory cells (that provide the specific immunity) live at least 10 years, and this does not depend on which disease they are against, because the only difference is the tiny mutation to the gene encoding the actual antibody or receptor. So vaccine losing efficiency significantly earlier suggests the memory cells it created are not that effective. What remains is the antibodies that are left in the serum after vaccination. Which leads to interesting question: how close to the same effect does treatment with synthetic antibodies get? Because that has much less side-effects still.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it's not like anyone else cares about the distinction between Garage and non-Garage in this part of this thread.
I do, and I may not be the only one.
We already have several Garage threads about COVID, there's no need to turn this one into yet another.
Agreed.
-
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Yes, stress has a factor, but that wouldn’t explain an underlying condition being present regularly for years…
Now I have a few more details (no need to supply any more!) I think you're right and the medics were full of shit.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
For preventing the spread, it does sadly look like they’re less effective than the initial studies suggested.
Alas, that's almost certainly due to the delta variant, which is known to be quite a lot more infectious than the earlier alpha and beta variants. It's also really hard to track what people actually do as opposed to what they say they do (this has been plaguing the soft sciences for centuries), so studies are super-sensitive to the exact methodology.
Shit's complicated yo!
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
As several people already pointed, we've effectively done the most extensive testing possible and the results are fine.
I wouldn't call elevated heart inflammation statistics in young people and athletes a "fine" result. Especially considering that those 2 groups were at the lowest risk from COVID in the first place.
Other results are still pending. For instance, we won't be seeing final miscarriage statistics until early summer next year.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Alas, that's almost certainly due to the delta variant, which is known to be quite a lot more infectious than the earlier alpha and beta variants.
Worse, it seems to have some trick up its sleeve that delays the immune system reaction. Especially that of T-lymphocytes, which are essential in actually defeating the infection. Combined with the fact that the vaccine only presents limited targets for T-lymphocytes—because fractions of all parts of the virus are presented during its replication for T-lymphocytes to act on, but the vaccine only has the spike protein—likely explains why the vaccine is so inefficient compared to other vaccines.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
As several people already pointed, we've effectively done the most extensive testing possible and the results are fine.
I wouldn't call elevated heart inflammation statistics in young people and athletes a "fine" result. Especially considering that those 2 groups were at the lowest risk from COVID in the first place.
ISTR something like a few thousand cases in the US, from around half a billion vaccine shots? Of which the vast majority weren't even hospitalized, with a few dozen who had long-term complications? That's absolutely minuscule even compared to their already low risk. In Germany, the (basically unvaccinated) age bracket 0-4 has currently more hospitalized COVID patients than the one 60-80.
Edit: 41 myocarditis cases per million seconds shots for males , 4 for females
Other results are still pending. For instance, we won't be seeing final miscarriage statistics until early summer next year.
If the final stats were at more than a few percent of what would be expected if they'd eventually gotten COVID, I think we'd be hearing about it. Statistics are pretty solid with several billion shots.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
For preventing the spread, it does sadly look like they’re less effective than the initial studies suggested.
And even the initial studies didn't really suggest that it'd be all that great at preventing spread. The study population wasn't an isolated village, but volunteers among normal society. So control of spread was hard to quantify in the first place. Also, the difference in recorded infections compared to the placebo group wasn't in the ballpark necessary to stop the spread of the original variant, IIRC.
-
@LaoC said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Other results are still pending. For instance, we won't be seeing final miscarriage statistics until early summer next year.
If the final stats were at more than a few percent of what would be expected if they'd eventually gotten COVID, I think we'd be hearing about it. Statistics are pretty solid with several billion shots.
There's simply no way to show either way yet, since the childbearing age women didn't get significant vaccine coverage until early summer this year. And safely carrying to term takes 9 months from there. Next year same time-ish the birth statistics will be interesting to read. Many countries collect birthing statistics by age.
We could speculate about reported rates of miscarriage. But that can always be twisted. Whereas people having sex is fairly constant, even over times of e.g. economix downturn, historically. As is the resulting rate of pregnancies. And the coming of the vaccine was a time of hope, so there should be an elevated rate of babies if anything.
-
@acrow that sounds like you’re going to equate fluctuations in child birth with miscarriages.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow that sounds like you’re going to equate fluctuations in child birth with miscarriages.
Not quite. Yes and no. If the fluctuation is not statistically significant, then there'll be no reason for me to try to drill into the miscarriage statistics. Getting the miscarriage statistics at the necessary level of detail requires some political use of a stick. Fluctuations in childbirth will provide that stick. And motivation.
It's not just miscarriages that we should look for either. Since there are not many (or any?) children born yet that were conceived after vaccination, we have no idea if there are changes in the rate of e.g. birth defects.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Memory cells (that provide the specific immunity) live at least 10 years, and this does not depend on which disease they are against, because the only difference is the tiny mutation to the gene encoding the actual antibody or receptor. So vaccine losing efficiency significantly earlier suggests the memory cells it created are not that effective. What remains is the antibodies that are left in the serum after vaccination. Which leads to interesting question: how close to the same effect does treatment with synthetic antibodies get? Because that has much less side-effects still.
Seems to be pretty decent.
https://www.disclose.tv/regeneron-says-single-dose-of-drug-cut-risk-of-covid-19-by-81-6/
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@LaoC said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Other results are still pending. For instance, we won't be seeing final miscarriage statistics until early summer next year.
If the final stats were at more than a few percent of what would be expected if they'd eventually gotten COVID, I think we'd be hearing about it. Statistics are pretty solid with several billion shots.
There's simply no way to show either way yet, since the childbearing age women didn't get significant vaccine coverage until early summer this year. And safely carrying to term takes 9 months from there.
If you assume the risk of miscarriage to be equally distributed over those 9 months, which is not the case. The vast majority occur in the first three months. Except if the COVID vaccine did something completely new and never seen before to those fetuses.
We could speculate about reported rates of miscarriage. But that can always be twisted. Whereas people having sex is fairly constant, even over times of e.g. economix downturn, historically. As is the resulting rate of pregnancies. And the coming of the vaccine was a time of hope, so there should be an elevated rate of babies if anything.
That's just reading tea leaves. People getting depressed and/or pissed off at their partners after lengthy lockdowns and having less sex is just as probable a theory. Strong effects of economic security on fertility are also known, so everybody can and will be reading whatever they want from those statistics.
-
@LaoC said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
everybody can and will be reading whatever they want from those statistics.
Ambiguous statistics are a great propaganda tool.
-
Study shows dramatic decline in effectiveness of all three COVID-19 vaccines over time
A study of 780,000 veterans shows a dramatic decline in effectiveness for all three COVID-19 vaccines in use in the U.S.
By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.
The effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech, which also employed two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.
And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months.
-
@Gąska "all three ... vaccines" - I wonder what the equivalent effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccines is by comparison (especially against Delta) but I don't think we've published numbers and even if we have, we don't have comparable volumes.
-
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska "all three ... vaccines" - I wonder what the equivalent effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccines is by comparison (especially against Delta) but I don't think we've published numbers and even if we have, we don't have comparable volumes.
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses the same technology as the Johnson and Johnson vaccine (the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, are different), so I'd expect its efficacy to be in line with the J&J.
-
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska "all three ... vaccines" - I wonder what the equivalent effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccines is by comparison (especially against Delta) but I don't think we've published numbers and even if we have, we don't have comparable volumes.
Almost a billion doses of Covishield have been given in India. I don't know about their studies re effectiveness though.
-
@LaoC they shit in the streets. I'm not sure if any studies there would be relevant to western countries.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@LaoC they shit in the streets. I'm not sure if any studies there would be relevant to western countries.
Proper Research™.
-
@LaoC I meant from sanitary standpoint re: pandemic but yes, that too.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska "all three ... vaccines" - I wonder what the equivalent effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccines is by comparison (especially against Delta) but I don't think we've published numbers and even if we have, we don't have comparable volumes.
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses the same technology as the Johnson and Johnson vaccine (the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, are different), so I'd expect its efficacy to be in line with the J&J.
It does not make that big difference whether the vector is a benign virus (AZ, J&J, Sputnik) or a lipoprotein (Pfizer, Moderna). They all carry basically the same RNA coding the spike protein as the only target for the immune system. The bigger difference is probably that some of the vaccines have the wild genotype and some have it slightly modified.
Either way it looks like that the antibodies produced during the vaccination is what provides most of the early protection, but it either fails to activate the actually desirable clones of T-lymphocytes (T-lymphocytes respond to fragments of the virus presented as it multiplies within infected cells, which gives them access to all its proteins, not just the surface ones), or the virus has a way to delay the immune response.
If the former, there is a chance that proper research will yield a new vaccine that will maintain long-term effect (and likely have less side-effects as it won't have to produce the dangerous spike protein). If the later, cure is the only thing that might help here.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@LaoC they shit in the streets. I'm not sure if any studies there would be relevant to western countries.
Relevant to San Francisco.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska "all three ... vaccines" - I wonder what the equivalent effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccines is by comparison (especially against Delta) but I don't think we've published numbers and even if we have, we don't have comparable volumes.
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses the same technology as the Johnson and Johnson vaccine (the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, are different), so I'd expect its efficacy to be in line with the J&J.
It does not make that big difference whether the vector is a benign virus (AZ, J&J, Sputnik) or a lipoprotein (Pfizer, Moderna). They all carry basically the same RNA coding the spike protein as the only target for the immune system. The bigger difference is probably that some of the vaccines have the wild genotype and some have it slightly modified.
Either way it looks like that the antibodies produced during the vaccination is what provides most of the early protection, but it either fails to activate the actually desirable clones of T-lymphocytes (T-lymphocytes respond to fragments of the virus presented as it multiplies within infected cells, which gives them access to all its proteins, not just the surface ones), or the virus has a way to delay the immune response.
If the former, there is a chance that proper research will yield a new vaccine that will maintain long-term effect (and likely have less side-effects as it won't have to produce the dangerous spike protein). If the later, cure is the only thing that might help here.
I read about the novavax vaccine actually keeping most of its efficacy across generations of the virus, and that's a different type of vaccine so there may already be such a vaccine.
Edit; not this, but it seemed fairly relevant at least. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/delta-variant-doubles-risk-hospitalization-novavax-vaccine-highly-effective-2021-06-14/
-
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I read about the novavax vaccine actually keeping most of its efficacy across generations of the virus, and that's a different type of vaccine so there may already be such a vaccine.
It's a “subunit” vaccine, which means “dead”. My understanding is that those can't trigger T-lymphocyte response at all, so I wouldn't expect it to be particularly efficient either. It might surprise, the system is complicated enough to provide surprises, but my hopes are low.
Also, by 2021-06-14 everything still looked effective due to the circulating antibodies.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska "all three ... vaccines" - I wonder what the equivalent effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccines is by comparison (especially against Delta) but I don't think we've published numbers and even if we have, we don't have comparable volumes.
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses the same technology as the Johnson and Johnson vaccine (the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, are different), so I'd expect its efficacy to be in line with the J&J.
J&J is a single-shot vaccine, AZ uses 2 shots several weeks apart. That's makes a vast difference for the immune system, mainly with regard to being prepared for a future return of the virus (instead of a one-time fight this thing now).
-
@BernieTheBernie It'll also depend on what adjuvants are used and how exactly the vaccine is packaged (e.g., what size of microdroplets, if that's being used). The only real result there is that every vaccine has to be evaluated separately for how long it lasts; different vaccines might be similar to each other, but it's absolutely not given.
-
@dkf There are a lot of factors that affect how likely the vaccine is to activate the relevant clones of lymphocytes, but in the end they are all trying to activate the same limited set of them. So it is not given they'll behave similarly, but rather likely.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Study shows dramatic decline in effectiveness of all three COVID-19 vaccines over time
A study of 780,000 veterans shows a dramatic decline in effectiveness for all three COVID-19 vaccines in use in the U.S.
By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.
The effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech, which also employed two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.
And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months.
But: The big drop was for effectiveness against infection. Effectiveness against death still seems to be pretty good. TFA links to TFA in Science:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620
Abstract:
We report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against infection (VE-I) and death (VE-D) by vaccine type (n = 780,225) in the Veterans Health Administration, covering 2.7% of the U.S. population. From February to October 2021, VE-I declined from 87.9% to 48.1%, and the decline was greatest for the Janssen vaccine resulting in a VE-I of 13.1%. Although breakthrough infection increased risk of death, vaccination remained protective against death in persons who became infected during the Delta surge. From July to October 2021, VE-D for age 65 years was 73.0% for Janssen, 81.5% for Moderna, and 84.3% for Pfizer-BioNTech; VE-D for age ≥65 years was 52.2% for Janssen, 75.5% for Moderna, and 70.1% for Pfizer-BioNTech. Findings support continued efforts to increase vaccination, booster campaigns, and multiple, additional layers of protection against infection.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Effectiveness against death still seems to be pretty good.
Exactly this: immune memory instead of "current fight".
With a fast virus like the 'rona, it can manage to yield some (mild) infection while the immune system looks up the memory cells, and starts production of fresh antibodies, killer cells, and what ever it takes to win.
-
I wonder what the Science behind this is.
