The Vaccine Discussion Thread

[Snowwhyt]

If she had a positive test, she has Covid. The symptoms may be from the shot though, and the first shot should still help her have a milder case than she would’ve without any vaccination.

Her second test yesterday came back as negative.
she was tested Thursday-negative
Saturday-positive
Sunday-negative
And she will test again tomorrow.

 

[cgolf]

I have an update on my twice vaccinated DD. She had always tested negative for Covid Every-Other-Day as per her University. But she had second vaccine on Friday and tested positive on Saturday morning(got positive results Saturday night) freaked out and asked to come home in the morning.

On her way home, She got a drive through CVS test on her way to our basement quarantine we set up for her. Test came back today as negative today!! She will still quarantine until she takes a second test with a negative result.

This testing thing is crazy.

Unfortunately it sounds as if false positives do happen. I truly hope that is what happened in her case. The testing systems aren't perfect, but very good. Is the school doing one of the quick tests? Hopefully the next test comes back as negative so she no longer has to quarantine. Good luck

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

Dh got his first Pfizer shot yesterday. Feeling fine. Went to work, no complaints. Hopefully the 2nd one is this good for him too!

My dad is scheduled for March 20 if I can't find him one sooner. Once he gets his 2nd shot, I will feel a little better about traveling. I haven't had a vacation in 1.5 years. I really think it will help. I'm so long overdue.

Yay! I got my dad an appt for Monday!
Such a relief.
It's an hour drive vs. the very close location for March 20 and I'll need to take a few hours off work and drive him but it's worth it. I'll put some music on that he likes and we'll sing along. It will be good for him to get out a little too.
He's been so sad since my mom died just under 2 years ago. One of the hardest parts of losing a parent is seeing what it does to the surviving parent, and knowing you can't fix it.

 

[Snowwhyt]

Unfortunately it sounds as if false positives do happen. I truly hope that is what happened in her case. The testing systems aren't perfect, but very good. Is the school doing one of the quick tests? Hopefully the next test comes back as negative so she no longer has to quarantine. Good luck

Actually they have the spit test. And I’m the one who’s going to lift her quarantine at home if she gets a second negative test. But both will have have been from outside the UW system after her positive test. Although we will have to work on the UW system to see that they get her back to class. She needs to go to anatomy lab/class I do not have that kinda stuff around the house if you know what I mean.
PS you were on our FE exchange so you met us both.

 

[cgolf]

Actually they have the spit test. And I’m the one who’s going to lift her quarantine at home if she gets a second negative test. But both will have have been from outside the UW system after her positive test. Although we will have to work on the UW system to see that they get her back to class. She needs to go to anatomy lab/class I do not have that kinda stuff around the house if you know what I mean.
PS you were on our FE exchange so you met us both.

Not sure which UW school she goes to, but hopefully they have a plan in place to deal with false positives. Guessing with the number of tests they are doing they would, and have to believe outside tests are ok to clear someone. Since my DD graduated last semester (did last two semesters from home), I hadn't paid attention to what the UW system was doing this semester other than what I hear at work or sometimes catch on the news.

 

[DMMarla07860]

This is exactly why I didn't name the ones that were ok and not ok for them. They can't even get the flu shot because it uses live virus. So hopefully with the different kinds of vaccines out there, there is at least one that most will be able to take and the number of people that can't get one at all is low.

yeah, if it live I can't either. Though my Allergist office gives me a flu shot not live

 

[CampbellzSoup]

I had the Moderna shot. What’s funny is that some of my friends have felt side effects and some have it when I asked my doctor how I was feeling the next day he said it’s a good thing I’m feeling this way it’s my body recognizing and fighting for immunities for me and that I should be fine by the next day and he was right!

 

[Snowwhyt]

Not sure which UW school she goes to, but hopefully they have a plan in place to deal with false positives. Guessing with the number of tests they are doing they would, and have to believe outside tests are ok to clear someone. Since my DD graduated last semester (did last two semesters from home), I hadn't paid attention to what the UW system was doing this semester other than what I hear at work or sometimes catch on the news.

She is Madison, was your DD Milwaukee? We sailed with you and your daughter either Thanksgiving 2010 or maybe NYE 13/14/15 can’t remember. (Magic and maybe Wonder)
My DD was able to get her vaccine at UW but working at local Madison ambulance company.
We should be able to sail again in August with everyone vaccinated.

 

[cgolf]

She is Madison, was your DD Milwaukee? We sailed with you and your daughter either Thanksgiving 2010 or maybe NYE 13/14/15 can’t remember. (Magic and maybe Wonder)
My DD was able to get her vaccine at UW but working at local Madison ambulance company.
We should be able to sail again in August with everyone vaccinated.

She went to Platteville. I think you have us confused with another family. We sailed in January, but never new years eve. you may have been debarking as we were embarking We are hopeful we can get the vaccine in mid summer, but not holding out hope for me. My wife's job may move her up and I work in biotech and we support the covid testing, so not sure what that means for our timeline for getting vaccinated, as we were essential workers and onsite as needed since the pandemic started.

 

[ChicosWife]

We've been signed up on on the "wait list" for the county vaccination sites for about 3 weeks now. They're only up to Jan 19th registrants. Kaiser in our area is only doing health care workers, long term care residents, and 75 and over (starting with those most at risk within that group). My husband thinks it's going to be close to 6 weeks before they MIGHT be getting to us.

You're absolutely right, it is 75 and older. Typo on my part.

 

[Intr3pid]

The Pfizer vaccine is coming out low in efficacy against the South African variant, and they are mulling over whether it can remain as an approved jab against that variant.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/17/pfi...-significantly-reduce-vaccine-protection.html
The good news is, the vaccine is still effective at keeping people out of hospitals.

They are looking to start work on a booster shot next.

 

[mevelandry]

And now this. A new challenge for our vaccines?

https://globalnews.ca/news/7643533/covid-uk-california-hybrid-mutant-variants/

 

[brentm77]

The Pfizer vaccine is coming out low in efficacy against the South African variant, and they are mulling over whether it can remain as an approved jab against that variant.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/17/pfi...-significantly-reduce-vaccine-protection.html
The good news is, the vaccine is still effective at keeping people out of hospitals.

They are looking to start work on a booster shot next.

I think your representation isn't exactly right, and luckily the news isn't as bad as it sounds yet. They found a 2/3 reduction in antibodies, but it isn't yet known if that will effect efficacy of the vaccine (one co-author thought it was likely to still be effective):

Researchers tested the engineered virus against blood taken from people who had been given the vaccine, and found a two- thirds reduction in the level of neutralizing antibodies compared with its effect on the most common version of the virus prevalent in U.S. trials.

Their findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

Because there is no established benchmark yet to determine what level of antibodies are needed to protect against the virus, it is unclear whether that two-thirds reduction will render the vaccine ineffective against the variant spreading around the world.

However, UTMB professor and study co-author Pei-Yong Shi said he believes the Pfizer vaccine will likely be protective against the variant.

“We don’t know what the minimum neutralizing number is. We don’t have that cutoff line,” he said, adding that he suspects the immune response observed is likely to be significantly above where it needs to be to provide protection.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-variants-idUSKBN2AH2VG
Remember, there were many reports that the vaccine might not work against the UK variant, but it turns out it is very effective, thank goodness.

On the positive front, I am starting to see reports of the Pizer vaccine being very effective after just one jab. If true, that means we are going to see even more rapid change and reductions in deaths in the near future. It may even get to the point where the second jab is dropped (or delayed) so more people can get their first. What happens in the UK will be telling in this regard.

 

[brentm77]

And now this. A new challenge for our vaccines?

https://globalnews.ca/news/7643533/covid-uk-california-hybrid-mutant-variants/

I think it is too early to worry about this variant from what I am reading from reputable sources.

First, it is acknowledged that the two viruses may have actually merged in the sample, after it was taken from the patient. Second, it isn't one of the variants that has been show to be functionally or biologically significant at this point, like the UK and South African variants. Finally, recombination is normal and there is no reason to believe this one will have any particular advantage, despite the media hysteria. In other words, let's wait and see.

 

[insureman]

So Massachusetts just opened vaccines for 65 and older and people 16 and older with 2 or more comorbidities. Here's what you get when you try to log on for an appointment. Must be the same company that does the IT for Disney.

 

[Intr3pid]

I think your representation isn't exactly right, and luckily the news isn't as bad as it sounds yet. They found a 2/3 reduction in antibodies, but it isn't yet known if that will effect efficacy of the vaccine (one co-author thought it was likely to still be effective).

I'm not clear how this doesn't show reduced efficacy against the South African variant? A 2/3rd reduction in antibodies is a clear signal the vaccine isn't as effective against this variant as it is against the others.

Whether the lower efficacy is still good enough for the FDA to keep its use against the South African variant is not certain yet. The hope is that since it guards against severity, it remains a key part of the arsenal - but, there is absolutely no question that the jab's efficacy as a vaccine is much lower against the South African variant.

Remember, there were many reports that the vaccine might not work against the UK variant, but it turns out it is very effective, thank goodness.

Not quite. Early indications were encouraging against the UK variant because that variant didn't really change the spike protein. The South African variant does, and that's the main reason behind the companies looking into boosting/tweaking their own vaccines.

 

[brentm77]

I'm not clear how this doesn't show reduced efficacy against the South African variant? A 2/3rd reduction in antibodies is a clear signal the vaccine isn't as effective against this variant as it is against the others.

In this case, efficacy refers to the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing cases and severe cases/death from the new strain, not the total antibody count detected when the blood is exposed to the strain. If the lower antibody count still provides sufficient protection against the virus, it would still be effective. Its a subtle, but important difference. It's like saying a shield that is 2/3's less thick, but still stops a bullet, isn't effective. As long as the 1/3 lower antibodies are sufficient to stop the virus, it can be just as effective. Nobody knows what the antibody count needs to be at to be effective yet.

but, there is absolutely no question that the jab's efficacy as a vaccine is much lower against the South African variant.

Your statement isn't consistent with a coauthor's own opinion. Efficacy is yet to be determined, but he thinks it will still be effective against the variant.

Not quite. Early indications were encouraging against the UK variant because that variant didn't really change the spike protein. The South African variant does, and that's the main reason behind the companies looking into boosting/tweaking their own vaccines.

The mutation did change the spike protein, but not in a way that made the vaccine ineffective. That is probably what you meant by "didn't really." Despite many experts saying there was reason to think it would be just as effective, my memory is reports saying it was unknown or how dangerous it could be if the vaccine was not effective. But to be honest, a quick search of the news just now turned up many early reports saying it would likely be effective, so I will concede that my memory may have been wrong or the overall reporting was encouraging even if there were isolated scare stories.

 

[Intr3pid]

In this case, efficacy refers to the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing cases and severe cases/death from the new strain, not the total antibody count detected when the blood is exposed to the strain. If the lower antibody count still provides sufficient protection against the virus, it would still be effective. Its a subtle, but important difference. It's like saying a shield that is 2/3's less thick, but still stops a bullet, isn't effective. As long as the 1/3 lower antibodies are sufficient to stop the virus, it can be just as effective. Nobody knows what the antibody count needed to be effective is yet.

Antibodies is how a vaccine brings out your immune response. If your immune response is 67% less in magnitude, the virus is going to find it easier to attack your body. This is simple logic, and this is exactly why AZ, Vaxart, and other vaccine candidates - with studies already completed - have been prevented from being used in some instances.

Feel free to reference an author or a scientific opinion claiming that the Pfizer vaccine will still remain 95% or similarly effective against the South African variant as against the others.

Your statement isn't consistent with a coauthor's own opinion. Efficacy is yet to be determined, but he thinks it will still be effective against the variant.

The co-author feels the vaccine will be "protective" against the variant. We don't know what he means by that, but there is no indication of a belief that it will remain as effective as it has against the prior variants. The study's formal statement:

Thus, as compared with neutralization of USA-WA1/2020, neutralization of Δ242-244+D614G virus was similar and neutralization of the B.1.351-spike virus was weaker by approximately two thirds. Our data are also consistent with poorer neutralization of the virus with the full set of B.1.351-spike mutations than virus with either subset of mutations and suggested that virus with mutant residues in the receptor-binding site (K417N, E484K, and N501Y) is more poorly neutralized than virus with Δ242-244, which is located in the N-terminal domain of the spike protein .

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102017

The mutation did change the spike protein, but not in a way that made the vaccine ineffective. Despite knowing this information early, many media reports questioned whether the vaccine would be effective, without reporting that it was likely to be effective. The media sales fear. That is why it is better to go to the sources and see what is really happening. It is clear you do that, as you are highly informed on these issues. But I disagree that media reports were encouraging early on, despite many experts saying there was reason to think it would be just as effective.

The genome study on B117 (the UK variant) was completed on Dec 20, and the Pfizer study showing good efficacy against it came out on Jan 20. Sure, some media outlets would have had a field day in that one month, but there weren't many reputable sources claiming the UK variant would escape the mRNA vaccines.

There is a marked change in tone in reporting on the mRNA vaccines' efficacy against the B117/UK variant vs the South African version - the authors of those studies included.

 

[Missingmypooh]

Your statement isn't consistent with a coauthor's own opinion. Efficacy is yet to be determined, but he thinks it will still be effective against the variant.

This is not to single you out.

this statement is the entire reason people have an issue with the news and what is being disseminated into lamens terms from expert opinion pieces, meta data studies and peer reviewed articles.

so many expert opinions on what will and will not work has the regular person in an absolute tailspin ( to the point where covid talk is up there with religion, politics and choice)

there’s some that believe it will be effective against all variants, some with most variants, some stick to actual hypothesis’s and confirm that more testing is necessary. (And all the while, the news is capitalizing on panic pron)

there’s experts shouting about ADE and lack of animal trials and other experts highlighting the need to ‘rush’ pediatric trials.

Whatever your opinion or beliefs (and really, even data) you can find an ‘expert’ to agree with you.

I truly hope the vaccine(s) is effective against the other variants, because now there are people who might be subconsciously lax when prudence is still the best course given the unknowns.

 

[brentm77]

Antibodies is how a vaccine brings out your immune response. If your immune response is 67% less in magnitude, the virus is going to find it easier to attack your body. This is simple logic, and this is exactly why AZ, Vaxart, and other vaccine candidates - with studies already completed - have been prevented from being used in some instances.

Feel free to reference an author or a scientific opinion claiming that the Pfizer vaccine will still remain 95% or similarly effective against the South African variant as against the others.

Your still missing the point. I don't know how to make it more clear. We don't know how much antibody someone needs to be protected. 1/3 may be enough. In fact, the coauthor thinks it will be significantly more than needed.

Think of it this way - if we didn't have the original virus to compare it to, we might be saying, "this is great, we are getting antibodies at X level, now let's see if that is sufficient to provide protection." It is only because we have a comparator that it may appear to be disappointing. But, it may not matter that it produces 2/3 less antibodies for the variant.

You moved the goal posts by bringing in 95%. Nowhere did I claim that it would be 95% effective. I claimed we don't know how effective it will be yet, versus your claim that it would have "low" efficacy. Where is your source for that? And again, as pointed out by the coauthor of the study, lower antibody response is not necessarily the same thing as low efficacy in protecting people (the only efficacy that matters for a vaccine).

The co-author feels the vaccine will be "protective" against the variant. We don't know what he means by that, but there is no indication of a belief that it will remain as effective as it has against the prior variants. The study's formal statement:

I don't know what else "protective" may mean if not effective. What else is a vaccine supposed to do if not protect individuals? You claimed the vaccine was going to provide "low" efficacy (i.e. offer low protection against the variant). He disagrees with you and says he thinks it will be protective:

We don’t know what the minimum neutralizing number is. We don’t have that cutoff line,” he said, adding that he suspects the immune response observed is likely to be significantly above where it needs to be to provide protection."

Furthermore, the article states this:

Because there is no established benchmark yet to determine what level of antibodies are needed to protect against the virus, it is unclear whether that two-thirds reduction will render the vaccine ineffective against the variant spreading around the world.

Efficacy is exactly what is being discussed and what is unknown.

Your citation doesn't add anything new to the conversation. It points out there were less neutralizing antibodies. We agree on that. But, again, you can have less neutralizing antibodies and still prevent cases or severe cases/death. Maybe even at the same efficacy level. Nobody knows yet. That's the point.

Also, CNN Health in interpreting that matter the same as me:

Lab studies suggest Pfizer, Moderna vaccines can protect against coronavirus variant

A new report published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday suggests that Pfizer-BioNTech's Covid-19 vaccine can protect people against concerning new coronavirus variants, including one first seen in South Africa called B.1.351.

For the study, researchers at Pfizer and the University of Texas Medical Branch genetically engineered versions of the virus to carry some of the mutations found in B.1.351. They tested them against blood samples taken from 15 people who had received two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as part of a clinical trial.

While the blood serum samples produced less neutralizing antibody activity, it was still enough to neutralize the virus, they wrote in a letter to the journal. This is in line with other studies. And it's well within what is seen with other viruses, one of the researchers said.

"The reduction in the levels of neutralization against the South African variant of about 2/3 is fairly small compared to variations in neutralization levels generated by vaccines against other viruses that have even more variability in their protein sequences than SARS-CoV-2," Weaver added.

P.S. Moderna is reporting the same thing:

Separately, a team at the National Institutes of Health and Moderna published a letter in the same journal outlining findings from an experiment they reported last month. They also reported a reduction in the antibody response to viruses genetically engineered to look like the B.1.351 variant -- but not enough of a reduction to make the vaccine work any less effectively.

Since they used the word "effective" instead of "protection," maybe you won't argue about that one?