Got my vaccine

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Remember there is no usable antibody test." Curious why you say this? Is there a problem with the testing that is currently available? You can get such a test here for $80 or free if they perform it as part of a blood donation. There is good data that antibodies are present in convalescent serum for greater than 8 months.
BTW somehow they measured antibody titers during the clinical trials for both current vaccines and they believed that data so certainly there is some kind of accurate antibody test available. If there is a specific test that is flawed, please let us know your thoughts.
Robert
 
I will also throw out that there is some evidence getting covid does not provide permanent immunity. There are people who have gotten sick with covid twice. I think giving the health care workers a vaccine to improve their chances of not getting covid a second time is a good use of vaccine. The number of health care workers is a small percentage of the population so you are not depriving many people of a dose.
 
"I will also throw out that there is some evidence getting covid does not provide permanent immunity."
There is definite evidence that getting either vaccine does not provide full immunity or permanent immunity since they are 95% effective. One strategy: if you know for sure you had Covid based on an antibody test you could hold off on the vaccine for 6-12 months to see how the results shake out. In a year there will be a lot more safety and efficacy data and one vaccine may stand out as superior. I think the CDC is terrified of people taking this approach because of people who are "certain" they already had the virus when in fact they did not. I see that logic (by CDC) but I am not sure it is fair to young people who have already convalesced. They have very minimal risk.
Robert
 
Last edited:
There is no vaccine that is 100% effective and there are a multitude of factors and variables that you cannot draw any specific conclusions. You also need to look at the outcomes and severity of infections in the treated vs. placebo, and there was a significant difference. In the Pfizer trial, the few individuals that did develop COVID did not require hospitalization vs. some on placebo.

Normally, and this may be the case in other countries more so than the US, there are post marketing surveillance reporting which looks at adverse effects (serious) to try to determine side effects (like anaphylaxis) that occur in very low frequency that your sample size needs to be in the millions and if further specific recommendations can be made. When you look at the trial data for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines they do what is called an intent to treat analysis, which in general is that if you received treatment, 1 or more doses you are counted in the analysis and often if you are lost to follow-up that is considered an endpoint or failure. It varies on how the data is reported and analyzed, but the primary and secondary endpoints are set before the trial starts. We are also dealing with a virus that has a high mutation rate and selective pressures will cause it to mutate quickly. To say that a vaccine will be effective against X number of mutations, I do not know of any science that supports that theory and probably just statistically modeling that can be anything you want it to be.

Data on COVID incidence for the Pfizer and Moderna studies as aggregate data from Dose 1.
Cumilative Incindence of COVID.jpg

The US ranks very poorly in having a systemic plan and guidance for who gets vaccinated, distribution, priority, notification, etc. The CDC has set guidelines but the states seem to do it all differently in each state and most healthcare providers in the community do not have a clue of how and when. The current guidelines are:
CDC recommends giving COVID-19 vaccine in phases:
1a: Healthcare personnel and Long-term care facility residents
1b: Frontline essential workers and People age 75 years and older
1c: People aged 65 through 74 years and People aged 16 through 64 years with underlying medical conditions and Other essential workers

The 1a ranks Healthcare personnel and Long-term care facility residents in the same rollout. There may be some logistical issues with the cold storage and distribution that requires distribution points to be major hospitals st this point. The Moderna product is a bit more easily stored and probably accounts for the differences in who is receiving one or the other vaccine. As far as the option to be vaccinated or not, that is an individual right, but employer's may have specific guidelines depending on risk to other's that one may be in contact with. There is also the question of determining previous history of COVID.

As far as the COVID testing kits and positivity, this is a very murky area, in that we talk about specificity and sensitivity of the tests, they vary widely and also when one becomes positive. The current PCR type are the most specific and sensitive, ironically many people that test positive are after the infectious period of the virus. They are still useful as a trend to the of the virus in the population, but clearly only represent a fraction of the total number of individuals that have had COVID, in particular when you factor in the number of asymptomatic individuals. Having had previous exposure to COVID, and survived, does not tell/factor in the risk for a recurrence from a different mutation and also it is unclear as to how this will compare to those vaccinated. If you look at the current CDC recommendations for individuals that had a previous history of Herpes Zoster, they still recommend individuals to get the Shingrix vaccine which is 97% effective at preventing herpes zoster (shingles) in folks over 50. I have run a number of these clinical trials and often you would see shingles recurrence in those not vaccinated.

So it is all a matter of choice, worthwhile to know that at least there are effective vaccines available and that the vaccination programs have started. It is helpful for those who have been vaccinated to share their experience positive or negative.
 
Thanks for the write up Mark, I had close to zero side effects as you could possibly get. I even had to force range of motion to even feel the injection site.
 
I really don't mean to sound argumentative. I find all this discussion quite interesting.
I think you are making my point by saying " they still recommend individuals to get the Shingrix vaccine which is 97% effective at preventing herpes zoster (shingles) in folks over 50 ". In other words, they do NOT recommend the vaccine if you have already had the disease until some decades (40 years?) later. There are vey few instances where a vaccine gives better immunity than the actual disease. In this case, the mRNA vaccines expose you to a more limited set of antigens than actual infection. It does not make sense that the vaccine would give better immunity against a mutated strain and in fact, it is probably worse. Having said that, if you are older or have risk factors, I would not screw around with this virus! I really think there is going to be one vaccine that becomes the clear winner over time. I wish I had the luxury of waiting!
As an aside the antibody tests are getting better.
Robert
 
Last edited:
The incidence of shingles increases with age, but it is also a factor of immune competence. When I treated HIV patients, it was often one of the intial presenting symptoms in an otherwise healthy young individual. Immunity and the immune system is a complex issue, and having had exposure to HZV zoster does not provide prevention of a future recurrence, so it is the reason they recommend vaccination. The risk/incidence vs. cost are a factor in determining the age at which it is recommend. But there are recommendations for other vaccines much earlier such as HPV vaccine. In contrast, exposure to multiple proteins from a virus that may be bound to cells or fragments is more likely to result in autoimmunity and viruses are constantly mutating and finding ways to evade the immune system. The design and delivery of the vaccine, is an evolving science. In this case they seem to have achieved a very high efficacy, how this compares to individuals that have already had COVID remains to be seen. I agree that there is very little information on COVID reinfection, but there are documented cases. In HIV neither the immune system, nor any vaccines to date has been effective in minimizing the development/progression of infection. There is no simple answer.

In medicine there is nothing that is absolute, as I like to say just shades of grey. Ironically there are many treatments that have been approved, that years later the efficacy came into doubt, or long term ramifications were found. Between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine, there is no clear superior candidate that I see from an efficacy point of view and the current data available, I prefer the latter because I do some consulting for them and feel their science is sound. The same (mRNA) vaccine has been used and is being developed for a numerous other indications, so this is not the first occurence of this technology.
 
"Remember there is no usable antibody test." Curious why you say this? Is there a problem with the testing that is currently available? You can get such a test here for $80 or free if they perform it as part of a blood donation. There is good data that antibodies are present in convalescent serum for greater than 8 months.
BTW somehow they measured antibody titers during the clinical trials for both current vaccines and they believed that data so certainly there is some kind of accurate antibody test available. If there is a specific test that is flawed, please let us know your thoughts.
Robert

There are a lot of science prerequisites for a conversation like this. I am sure there are lots of direct-to-consumer antibody tests; the reason I said “there is no USEABLE antibody test” is because it is not clear how to interpret the result, and how it informs action. Suffice it to say that hospitals do not rely on antibody tests for clinical decision-making.

Trials can use them as part of efficacy measures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Had my first vaccine (pfizer) on the 17th. Due for my next one on the 7th. Had some very minor soreness for 36 hours. Not really more than I would expect from just getting an IM injection. Certaianly note as painful as yellow fever or anthrax vaccines were. My daughter had hers yesterday. She says she feels achy and sore all over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top