Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

So message is to not bother with the hobo vaccine

 

Interesting study of functional capacity differences between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines:

In short Moderna produced higher concentrations of receptor binding domain and N-terminal domain specific IgA (antibodies found in the mucosal membranes - where SARS-CoV-2 primarily attacks). Additionally, natural killer cell activation was higher from the Moderna vaccine.

In listening to a podcast discussing this paper, there was no agreement of the experts as to whether or not the differences were significant enough to really allow one to say that the Moderna vaccine was "better".

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abm2311

 

My question is for those with the 2 dose primary series mRNA vaccines, why would there not be a more broad based immune response to then boosting with the Ad.26 vaccine vs. a 3rd mRNA dose?

 

Fascinating study of T-Cell responses, T-Cell cross reactivity and conservation in those previously infected, vaccinated and infected+vaccinated.

Data is very encouraging. Previously, it has been shown that CD8+ T-cells play a critical role in reducing the severity of infection from SARS-CoV-2. This is no longer in dispute.

What this study confirmed is that despite the changes on the spike and non-spike proteins on the Omicron variant, the T-Cell (both CD4+ and CD8+) are conserved strongly against the Omicron variant. T-cell germinal centers were shown to be the strongest in those who were previously infected, as opposed to vaccinated and boosted, yet those vaccinated and boosted still showed very strong responses of the T-cells.

Another observation is that the booster following the primary series OR a single vaccination shot following infection significantly broadened the T-Cell and resulted in advanced maturation of the response in people.

Finally, and this is the only weird fact, in 20% of people, whether vaccinated + booster or previously infected and survived, those people showed a dramatic drop in T-Cell generation and consequently opened up those people to severe infection from Omicron.

T cell reactivity to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is preserved in most but not all individuals - ScienceDirect

 

Going to be super immune from the alpha variant! Just think if Andy had Covid as well. We are talking super duper duper immunity!

 

Utterly remarkable that you could post this one post after the study posted in the Science Direct Link. The study demonstrates the stronger protection measured by the immune response and that corroborates the age controlled data in studies. Your post is a lie. Shame on you for the disinformation you have spread and anyone who has been hurt by listening to your lies. But that is just my human judgment. There is a world of truth where souls have to answer for the hurt they cause and that is not for me to judge in the physical world.

 

Sorry you don’t like the direct hard data. ::shrug::

 

I gave up arguing with people who cannot understand, and thus willfully post non-sense.

On a different note, as more and more T-Cell studies/papers come out, it is becoming more and more obvious that the mRNA vaccines were far more wildly successful than anyone first anticipated. Further, we will not know the just how good they are long term in protecting human from severe disease, but we have reason to believe that 15-20 years is not out of the question.

Long term studies of those who had SARS-CoV-1 (where there was no vaccine, so only patients who were infected and survived) have demonstrated effective generation of T-Cells against protecting against disease 17 years after original infection. Early returns (1 year studies) are suggesting that the human immune system, whether provoked by infection or successful mRNA vaccines will likely also have extended protection from disease based on T-Cell response.

That is what makes it so much more curious about the FDA announcement of booster #2 for the general population over 50 without an advisory committee recommendation. Unless people are in a high risk group, there does not really seem to be a case for a 4th shot at this time.

 

He understands. It is Agenda driven propaganda. It isn’t for you. It is for people who can’t distinguish between the fact that if more people who are vaccinated than not, the raw numbers will show a higher number of infections than unvaccinated just because there are more of them versus that data broken down by age and risk factors. That stupidity has been very effective in suppressing vaccination, which in turn hurt people who listened. You are seeing propaganda play out. You literally posted data about Omicron infections and his next post right after your post was about the vaccines being designed for an alpha variant. So, his post was a flat lie about the effectiveness of the vaccines. And, worse, it is a lie about the vaccines, which were designed to recognize a protein. The protein hasn’t changed even if it’s shape changed. But, that is too complex; much easier to say, “it was designed for alpha.”

 

Sorry you don’t like truth. I don’t like lies that hurt people.

 

So the number of vaccinated who died is greater than the number who were vaccinated . . . . . . makes sense

 

Nonsense!

 

Yes.

If you assume 100 people in England (UK)…72 would have been vaccinated in January of the 67 million people (I use UK for population and vaccination rate because that is how I could get it at the end of January).

and

If we assume 100 people in England 82 died with Covid fully vaccinated/3 died with Covid partially vaccinated of the 4508 people who died in England with Covid during January.

 

Let use some other hypothetical numbers. Out of 100 people 90 are fully vaccinated, 10 are unvaccinated. Two of the fully vaccinated people die of Covid, one of the unvaccinated dies of Covid. Based on the raw numbers twice as many of the vaccinated died from the virus when compared with the unvaccinated. Using percentages 2.2 percent of the vaccinated died from the virus compared with 10 percent of the unvaccinated. While the actual percentages are much smaller in both cases, the hypothetical illustrates the fallacy of using raw numbers to reach a desired albeit very inaccurate conclusion.

 

Don't forget age is a variable too. Take 100 unvaccinated kids under 12 all with COVID, and 100 vaccinated octogenarians, all with COVID. Because of the nature of the virus, we expect to see more deaths among the elderly, even though they are vaccinated. But compare 100 vaccinated elderly and compare with 100 unvaccinated in the same age range, all data points to the vaccinated faring significantly better.

 

I guess I am confused. I reading stuff like this from you and other places, but then occasionally see it written that protection from hospitalization diminishes significantly after 4-5 months. How do you reconcile those two?

 

I am using the actual numbers. They are not hypotheticals…

 

Then you must be misrepresenting something, or something in your post is otherwise unclear. How could there be 72 vaccinated people per 100, but 82 vaccinated people died with covid?

 

You are, but you are leaving out some very important analysis. When it comes to COVID, for example, you treat an unvaccinated 4-year old the same as a vaccinated 80-year old. Not a fair comparison. Even vaccinated, the 80- year old is more likely to die from COVID than the 4-year old, who can't get vaccinated yet. But compare unvaccinated 80-year old with a fully vaccinated 80-year old, who will more likely survive COVID?

In short, using raw numbers leaves out important factors such as age and population size. It's the silly kid choosing the stack of 100 quarters over the 1 $100 bill because the kid only knows 100 > 1. But actual dollar value, $100 > $25.