The Vaccine Discussion Thread

[brentm77]

you can find an ‘expert’ to agree with you

This particular expert was a co-author of the study being used to claim low efficacy. His opinion is particularly relevant since he would be unusually familiar with the study. To be clear, I never claimed it would be effective. I was simply questioning the claim that it had been determined that the vaccine had low efficacy against the South African variant. That hasn't been determined yet, as pointed out by the coauthor of the study.

 

[Missingmypooh]

This particular expert was a co-author of the study being used to claim low efficacy. His opinion is particularly relevant since he would be unusually familiar with the study. To be clear, I never claimed it would be effective. I was simply questioning the claim that it had been determined that the vaccine had low efficacy against the South African variant. That hasn't been determined yet, as pointed out by the coauthor of the study.

I don’t think your making claims.


there is a fine line though, between what an expert truly believes is the best hypothesis, versus the absence of time to create the vetted data needed for definitive statements. Human bias is a very real threat, especially as people continue to die, and those bright minds capable of finding solutions capsize under the weight of responsibility.

until we can have a pragmatic attitude towards these discussions (which to be fair, there’s so much conjecture because we are still flying through the storm it’s hard to be cutting edge on the latest develops without some “educated guesses”) there will be heavy disagreements that continue to cause distrust and division. It is very hard to disagree with well collected data.

these public disagreements then cause further confusion and hesitancy about the efficacy of the vaccine against covid 19 and the various strains.

our new CDC director believes this spring, with lower deaths and pandemic fatigue, will lead to even greater vaccine hesitancy despite supply being very high.

The CDC is turning to marketing campaigns, and I genuinely hope they use simple well defined data to ease people’s fears over what the media and the constantly conflicting experts have to say.

 

[brentm77]

I don’t think your making claims.


there is a fine line though, between what an expert truly believes is the best hypothesis, versus the absence of time to create the vetted data needed for definitive statements. Human bias is a very real threat, especially as people continue to die, and those bright minds capable of finding solutions capsize under the weight of responsibility.

until we can have a pragmatic attitude towards these discussions (which to be fair, there’s so much conjecture because we are still flying through the storm it’s hard to be cutting edge on the latest develops without some “educated guesses”) there will be heavy disagreements that continue to cause distrust and division. It is very hard to disagree with well collected data.

these public disagreements then cause further confusion and hesitancy about the efficacy of the vaccine against covid 19 and the various strains.

our new CDC director believes this spring, with lower deaths and pandemic fatigue, will lead to even greater vaccine hesitancy despite supply being very high.

The CDC is turning to marketing campaigns, and I genuinely hope they use simple well defined data to ease people’s fears over what the media and the constantly conflicting experts have to say.

I think you may be missing the nuance of the issue we were discussing. Namely, the meaning of the study. The coauthor's opinion is extremely relevant. We aren't debating anything beyond the meaning. So your comments just aren't on point, even if true.

 

[Intr3pid]

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).

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:

Furthermore, the article states this:

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:

P.S. Moderna is reporting the same thing:

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

"Even if the antibodies are reduced, there is no effect on efficacy because they still are enough antibodies." Unfortunately, this is speculation. And, to be honest, a strawman using the co-author's media statement. Unlike you, I don't care much about his media statements. I read what he or his team wrote in the journal. The conclusion that they reached was that "neutralization of the B.1.351-spike virus was weaker by approximately two thirds". That study made no reference to the requisite levels of antibodies needed or reached in the body.

The 95% number is the published efficacy against the wild version. If a variant is influencing the efficacy, that's the only benchmark that will matter. Calling it a 'goalpost move' isn't going to alter how we benchmark this efficacy.

The lower efficacy is how Pfizer views it.

"Pfizer says South African variant could significantly reduce vaccine protection."

So, you need to read that article more closely. The study was jointly conducted by Pfizer and the UTMB researchers. There are two parties to that study. What you are quoting is the UTMB researcher's media statement. What I highlighted in my initial post was the statement Pfizer made. Both of these are opinions at this point. (The only facts are what I quoted from NEJM, that show a 67% poorer neutralization against the new variant.)

And this is the same issue with Moderna's study. Just that you are bringing in CNN's opinion this time. What the actual study says instead is pretty objective:

In contrast, we observed a decrease in titers of neutralizing antibodies against the B.1.351 variant and a subset of its mutations affecting the RBD. In serum samples obtained 1 week after the participants received the second dose of vaccine, we detected reductions by a factor of 2.7 in titers of neutralizing antibodies against the partial panel of mutations and by a factor of 6.4 against the full panel of mutations.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102179
Now, there are no brownie points for claiming 'we don't know'. (My outsized investment portfolio isn't where it is today for predicting the past.) Rather than the lazy approach - if I "don't know" - I research..

Here is what we do know:

- Both Pfizer and Moderna have publicly stated that they are working on or want to work on the boosters.
- Both their vaccines produce significantly less antibodies against the South African variant.
- AZ's vaccine has been shelved against the South African variant, while J&J's is less than 60% effective.
- Fauci and other experts agree that the vaccines will need tweaking against the new variants.

Versus the speculation:

- We don't know, but the reduced antibodies may still be enough to "protect" against the variant.
- We don't know, as we don't have any idea of the effect on efficacy yet
- We don’t know what the minimum neutralizing number is.
- etc.

Look at these two sets of arguments. Look at these objectively. Do you really think that claiming "we don't know" will change the trajectory of what we will know, say, a month or two from today? That the vaccines are less effective against the newer variants? That their revised efficacy will be low enough to warrant boosters next year?

 

[brentm77]

"Even if the antibodies are reduced, there is no effect on efficacy because they still are enough antibodies." Unfortunately, this is speculation. And, to be honest, a strawman using the co-author's media statement. Unlike you, I don't care much about his media statements. I read what his team wrote in the journal. The conclusion that they reached was that "neutralization of the B.1.351-spike virus was weaker by approximately two thirds". That study made no reference to the requisite levels of antibodies needed or reached in the body.

The 95% number is the published efficacy against the wild version. If a variant is influencing the efficacy, that's the only benchmark that will matter. Calling it a 'goalpost move' isn't going to alter how we benchmark this efficacy.

The lower efficacy is how Pfizer views it.


So, you need to read that article more closely. The study was jointly conducted by Pfizer and the UTMB researchers. There are two parties to that study. What you are quoting is the UTMB researcher's media statement. What I highlighted in my initial post was the statement Pfizer made. Both of these are opinions at this point. (The only facts are what I quoted from NEJM, that show a 67% poorer neutralization against the new variant.)

And this is the same issue with Moderna's study. Just that you are bringing in CNN's opinion this time. What the actual study says instead is pretty objective:


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102179
Now, there are no brownie points for claiming 'we don't know'. (My outsized investment portfolio isn't where it is today for predicting the past.) Rather than the lazy approach - if I "don't know" - I research..

Here is what we do know:

- Both Pfizer and Moderna have publicly stated that they are working on or want to work on the boosters.
- Both their vaccines produce significantly less antibodies against the South African variant.
- AZ's vaccine has been shelved against the South African variant, while J&J's is less than 60% effective.
- Fauci and other experts agree that the vaccines will need tweaking against the new variants.

Versus the speculation:

- We don't know, but the reduced antibodies may still be enough to "protect" against the variant.
- We don't know, as we don't have any idea of the effect on efficacy yet
- We don’t know what the minimum neutralizing number is.
- etc.

Look at these two sets of arguments. Look at these objectively. Do you really think that claiming "we don't know" will change the trajectory of what we will know, say, a month or two from today? That the vaccines are less effective against the newer variants? That their revised efficacy will be low enough to warrant boosters next year?

Actually, there are huge brownie points for saying we don't know in science. It's much better than making up answers. I have read the articles very closely. CNN's health reporter agrees with my understanding. Working on a specific booster is smart, since we don't know if the vaccine will be effective; it's not an admission it isn't.

I think you can see the point and have simply dug into your claim. For the sake of being right, you are literally disregarding one of the very authors of the study (and Pfizer). You want to use his study to support your position, but won't even give weight to him saying the study doesn't say what you think it does.

It's cool if you want to do that, but I am going to defer to him on this one instead of a person on disboards who thinks he/she knows better.

You know, sometimes it's ok to admit you made a mistake, like I did earlier about the UK variant reporting.

We have beaten this to death. We have both made our case. We can let others read each side and make up their minds.

 

[Intr3pid]

Actually, there are huge brownie points for saying we don't know in science. It's much better than making up answers. I have read the articles very closely. CNN's health reporter agrees with my understanding. Working on a specific booster is smart, since we don't know if the vaccine will be effective; it's not an admission it isn't.

I think you can see the point and have simply dug into your claim. For the sake of being right, you are literally disregarding one of the very authors of the study. You want to use his study to support your position, but won't even give weight to him saying the study doesn't say what you think it does.

It's cool if you want to do that, but I am going to defer to him on this one instead of a person on disboards who thinks he/she knows better.

You know, sometimes it's ok to admit you made a mistake, like I did earlier about the UK variant reporting.

We have beaten this to death. We have both made our case. We can let others read each side and make up their minds.

I very much doubt you have read the articles beyond what you want to read. As noted by others too.

You want to ignore Pfizer's own statement on the topic and instead hang your hat on one person's hesitation to a conclusion. Doesn't make you wrong - although you have been proven so on many occasions in the past - but I literally don't understand the point of your last 5 posts. Not that co-author's - your.

It looks like you want to take a quote out of the co-author's media statement - where he says he isn't certain yet - and paint this whole discussion with that brush. Sure, we can't be certain of the effect on efficacy without a directed study, but are you able to put 2+2 together yourself?

Because, if you can't, there is literally no value you are adding to the discussion here. And that's where you lose all your brownie points. Your entire set of arguments are simply repeating what another person has said to the media - for the reasons they have. Well, congrats, you can be a reporter - but I think you can do better than that.

So, once again, head back to my previous post and to the arguments listed at the bottom of it. Answer those questions, so this discussion can hopefully go beyond just what he said or she said.

 

[mevelandry]

Meanwhile, in Quebec (Canada): https://postmedia.us.janrainsso.com/static/server.html?origin=https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bigger-impact-on-death-rates-hospitalizations-with-first-dose-to-more-people-inspq

From what I understand, the first shot would offer a sufficient protection* so they want to try and give a « first shot » to as many people as possible right now (by delaying the second shot).

They are hoping that this would slow drastically the spread. As we are speaking, the projections for April are scary as the new variants would become more proeminent.

To be continued.

*(3 weeks after the shot for older people and 2 weeks after the shot for the rest of them)

 

[brentm77]

I very much doubt you have read the articles beyond what you want to read. As noted by others too.

You want to ignore Pfizer's own statement on the topic and instead hang your hat on one person's hesitation to a conclusion. Doesn't make you wrong - although you have been proven so on many occasions in the past - but I literally don't understand the point of your last 5 posts. Not that co-author's - your.

It looks like you want to take a quote out of the co-author's media statement - where he says he isn't certain yet - and paint this whole discussion with that brush. Sure, we can't be certain of the effect on efficacy without a directed study, but are you able to put 2+2 together yourself?

Because, if you can't, there is literally no value you are adding to the discussion here. And that's where you lose all your brownie points. Your entire set of arguments are simply repeating what another person has said to the media - for the reasons they have. Well, congrats, you can be a reporter - but I think you can do better than that.

So, once again, head back to my previous post and to the arguments listed at the bottom of it. Answer those questions, so this discussion can hopefully go beyond just what he said or she said.

From the study summary itself: "Protection against the B.1.351 variant conferred by the mRNA-1273 vaccine remains to be determined." Clearly I am not misreading the articles.

It's a non sequitur to say that because I was wrong about when cruising would resume, I, the co-author of the study, the study summary, and Pfizer are all wrong about what facts can be properly concluded from the study. It's a little lowbrow to use my admission of that mistake against me in discussions on entirely different topics. I see admission of past mistakes as a strength, not a weakness.

But let's get to what really matters.

Sure, we can't be certain of the effect on efficacy without a directed study

1) You finally acknowledge we can't be certain of the efficacy. This contradicts your initial claim that the study showed low efficacy, and is exactly the point of my last 5 posts. They would have been unnecessary if you had simply acknowledged you misstated the study's results by saying it showed low efficacy - or even if you simply stated it was your opinion that this will ultimately mean low efficacy. You are entailed to make predictions as much as anyone, even if the co-author of the study thinks the antibodies will still be sufficient. I am not making a prediction either way, but will give the co-author's opinion more weight than yours until data proves otherwise.

2) Low efficacy could be shown tomorrow, and that won't change what we actually know from the study today - which is simply that efficacy is not yet known. I, the co-author, and Pfizer would still be correct as of today, because nobody is claiming efficacy is a given.

3) I'm not ignoring Pfizer. Pfizer's own statement is that there is no real world evidence that the vaccine won't be effective against the variant.

4) You may not find that I am adding value to the discussion, but others might appreciate the accuracy and prefer truth over misstatements. I find value in accuracy. I hope others can see the subtle difference in what you originally stated and what we actually know today. We have had enough bad news that we don't need to get ahead of ourselves by creating inaccurate bad news. Furthermore, spreading misinformation about the vaccines may result in reduced use, ultimately harming people. My comments have value if they can help prevent that.

Again, I don't know why we must go around in circles every time we interact. Now that we agree on my only point - that efficacy is yet to be determined - I hope we can move on. You can have your prediction that efficacy will ultimately be low, and could very well be right.

I hope you have a good weekend.

 

[brentm77]

From the New York Times this morning, a good article about how spreading ambiguous negative information about the vaccines may be very harmful to our efforts to end the pandemic:

A couple of highlights:

Much of this message has some basis in truth, but it is fundamentally misleading. The evidence so far suggests that a full dose of the vaccine — with the appropriate waiting period after the second shot — effectively eliminates the risk of Covid-19 death, nearly eliminates the risk of hospitalization and drastically reduces a person’s ability to infect somebody else. All of that is also true about the virus’s new variants. Yet the alarmism continues. And now we are seeing its real-world costs: Many people don’t want to get the vaccine partly because it sounds so ineffectual.​

Many academic experts — and, yes, journalists too — are instinctively skeptical and cautious. This instinct has caused the public messaging about vaccines to emphasize uncertainty and potential future bad news. To take one example: The initial research trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines did not study whether a vaccinated person could get infected and infect another person. But the accumulated scientific evidence suggests the chances are very small that a vaccinated person could infect someone else with a severe case of Covid. (A mild case is effectively the common cold.) You wouldn’t know that from much of the public discussion. “Over and over again, I see statements that in theory one could be infected and spread the virus even after being fully vaccinated,” Dr. Rebecca Wurtz of the University of Minnesota told me. “Is the ambiguous messaging contributing to ambivalent feelings about vaccination? Yes, no question.” The messaging, as Dr. Abraar Karan of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said, has a “somewhat paternalistic” quality. It’s as if many experts do not trust people to understand both that the vaccines make an enormous difference and that there are unanswered questions. As a result, the public messages err on the side of alarmism: The vaccine is not a get-out-of-Covid-free card! What should the public messaging about the vaccines be? “They’re safe. They’re highly effective against serious disease. And the emerging evidence about infectiousness looks really good,” Grabowski said. “If you have access to a vaccine and you’re eligible, you should get it.”​

If you can safely get the vaccine folks, please do. It will help all of us get back to the things we love sooner, including cruising!

 

[brentm77]

Meanwhile, in Quebec (Canada): https://postmedia.us.janrainsso.com/static/server.html?origin=https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bigger-impact-on-death-rates-hospitalizations-with-first-dose-to-more-people-inspq

From what I understand, the first shot would offer a sufficient protection* so they want to try and give a « first shot » to as many people as possible right now (by delaying the second shot).

They are hoping that this would slow drastically the spread. As we are speaking, the projections for April are scary as the new variants would become more proeminent.

To be continued.

*(3 weeks after the shot for older people and 2 weeks after the shot for the rest of them)

It seems more and more that this is an approach worth considering while vaccine supplies are too light. Especially as locations start to get down into their lower-risk groups. We could probably significantly lower cases, add an additional layer of protection, and help more people that way. The second shot can be given as soon as supplies are readily available if necessary.

 

[brentm77]

More good news on the vaccine front that I missed recently:

Separately, the vaccine, which has been authorized in the U.S., the U.K., the EU and elsewhere, can be stored and transported at between minus 25 and minus 15 degrees Celsius, or minus 13 and 5 degrees Fahrenheit—similar to a consumer freezer—Pfizer and BioNTech said. Currently, the vaccine’s labels say it must be stored at between minus 80 and minus 60 degrees Celsius, requiring sophisticated equipment.

The companies said they were seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to change the vaccine’s storage rules, a move that would make it much easier to handle and potentially accessible to poorer countries with no access to ultracold distribution and storage equipment.

 

[sabrecmc]

My feeling, like the article brentm77 linked to above, is that the debate about efficacy is missing the significant point that the J&J vaccine, at least, prevented death/hopsitalization against all variants. I think most of us can live with a disease that, like flu, might make us feel poorly, but isn't a huge risk. The difference with COVID may be that there are some longer term effects that we don't understand yet. Obviously, the pharma companies will keep making the vaccine better as we get different variations in the disease, but this is all incredibly positive and I don't want to miss the big picture while debating the finer points of efficacy.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

I just saw an article on Forbes that a cruise line just announced that it is going to require vaccines. The article said that makes 4 cruise lines so far who are mandating them. None of the 4 were the big ones we know here in the States though.

 

[tidefan]

I very much doubt you have read the articles beyond what you want to read. As noted by others too.

You want to ignore Pfizer's own statement on the topic and instead hang your hat on one person's hesitation to a conclusion. Doesn't make you wrong - although you have been proven so on many occasions in the past - but I literally don't understand the point of your last 5 posts. Not that co-author's - your.

It looks like you want to take a quote out of the co-author's media statement - where he says he isn't certain yet - and paint this whole discussion with that brush. Sure, we can't be certain of the effect on efficacy without a directed study, but are you able to put 2+2 together yourself?

Because, if you can't, there is literally no value you are adding to the discussion here. And that's where you lose all your brownie points. Your entire set of arguments are simply repeating what another person has said to the media - for the reasons they have. Well, congrats, you can be a reporter - but I think you can do better than that.

So, once again, head back to my previous post and to the arguments listed at the bottom of it. Answer those questions, so this discussion can hopefully go beyond just what he said or she said.

Not to jump in here, but...

One thing to consider is that antibodies are only part of the body's defense mechanism. Studies show that T-cell memory can still be effective even when antibodies wane.

 

[Intr3pid]

From the study summary itself: "Protection against the B.1.351 variant conferred by the mRNA-1273 vaccine remains to be determined." Clearly I am not misreading the articles.

It's a non sequitur to say that because I was wrong about when cruising would resume, I, the co-author of the study, the study summary, and Pfizer are all wrong about what facts can be properly concluded from the study. It's a little lowbrow to use my admission of that mistake against me in discussions on entirely different topics. I see admission of past mistakes as a strength, not a weakness.

But let's get to what really matters.



1) You finally acknowledge we can't be certain of the efficacy. This contradicts your initial claim that the study showed low efficacy, and is exactly the point of my last 5 posts. They would have been unnecessary if you had simply acknowledged you misstated the study's results by saying it showed low efficacy - or even if you simply stated it was your opinion that this will ultimately mean low efficacy. You are entailed to make predictions as much as anyone, even if the co-author of the study thinks the antibodies will still be sufficient. I am not making a prediction either way, but will give the co-author's opinion more weight than yours until data proves otherwise.

2) Low efficacy could be shown tomorrow, and that won't change what we actually know from the study today - which is simply that efficacy is not yet known. I, the co-author, and Pfizer would still be correct as of today, because nobody is claiming efficacy is a given.

3) I'm not ignoring Pfizer. Pfizer's own statement is that there is no real world evidence that the vaccine won't be effective against the variant.

4) You may not find that I am adding value to the discussion, but others might appreciate the accuracy and prefer truth over misstatements. I find value in accuracy. I hope others can see the subtle difference in what you originally stated and what we actually know today. We have had enough bad news that we don't need to get ahead of ourselves by creating inaccurate bad news. Furthermore, spreading misinformation about the vaccines may result in reduced use, ultimately harming people. My comments have value if they can help prevent that.

Again, I don't know why we must go around in circles every time we interact. Now that we agree on my only point - that efficacy is yet to be determined - I hope we can move on. You can have your prediction that efficacy will ultimately be low, and could very well be right.

I hope you have a good weekend.

I cannot help you with reading comprehension. You have to learn to do it yourself. Pfizer's statement is the headline of the quoted CNBC article, but your selectivity bias is preventing you from reading it.

"Pfizer says South African variant could significantly reduce vaccine protection."

1. The study is funded by Pfizer, and there are 18 contributors to that study who are also funded by Pfizer. One of them talks to media and hedges his bet by saying we can't be certain of efficacy. The study shows a 67% drop in antibodies with data for everyone to see. If you want to fall for a hedged statement and ignore the study itself, I have a timeshare somewhere to sell you.

2. Pfizer itself is prepping a booster shot. Do as they do - not as they say. Why would they sow seeds of doubt in multi-billion dollar deals today? Why would Sony market PS5 if it still wants to milk PS4? Again, if you miss the obvious, do so on your own peril. You may not like my reference to it, but this is precisely why you were proven wrong a month ago as well.

3. All vaccine candidates with directed studies have shown better efficacy against the wild version and the UK variant - versus the South African variant. All of them attributed the difference to the production of lower antibodies in the immune response. Pfizer's study also shows the incidence of lower antibodies in the immune response. Simple deduction tells us the efficacy will be lower for Pfizer's too. Yet, you can't connect the dots and must defer to a hedged media statement.

 

[Intr3pid]

We have had enough bad news that we don't need to get ahead of ourselves

And that sums up your motivation in this debate. That "we don't get ahead of ourselves".

Unfortunately, this lazy approach is exactly the reason why we are here one full year later with the virus and its variants on a rampage. If we had removed these rose-colored glasses last year and acted more decisively sooner, this virus could have been nipped in the bud. The variants needed thousands of live hosts to cultivate, and our "let's not get ahead of ourselves" laziness provided the perfect 'culture' for it.

Understand the costs of the "let's not get ahead" laziness. You ignore the lower efficacy of a vaccine against a variant, you allow that variant to become dominant. You put the booster on a back burner, and you are back to lockdowns next fall. Your jobs, your re-opening, your cruising all have disappeared because of this laziness.

This virus has been ahead of us for all this time. The least we can do is to make an effort to pull ahead. And I am glad those who can make a difference are finally acting now. The leadership everywhere is making the virus a priority. The drug makers are on to the variants and prepping their boosters. The manufacturing is ramping up - with particular credit actually to Pfizer who bit the short-term bullet but decided to retool its manufacturing operations to allow production to get ahead.

Like I said before, no brownie points for restating the past or present. Getting ahead is the only way out of this.

 

[Intr3pid]

Not to jump in here, but...

One thing to consider is that antibodies are only part of the body's defense mechanism. Studies show that T-cell memory can still be effective even when antibodies wane.

That's a good point, but we don't have the B1351 T-cell data either way. I doubt they would withhold it if it contradicted the finding on antibodies.

Back in July last year, Pfizer claimed in Phase 1/2 studies that its vaccine candidate elicited a stronger T-cell response than Moderna's - yet their respective efficacy came out the same in the end.

 

[Intr3pid]

Meanwhile, in Quebec (Canada): https://postmedia.us.janrainsso.com/static/server.html?origin=https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bigger-impact-on-death-rates-hospitalizations-with-first-dose-to-more-people-inspq

From what I understand, the first shot would offer a sufficient protection* so they want to try and give a « first shot » to as many people as possible right now (by delaying the second shot).

They are hoping that this would slow drastically the spread. As we are speaking, the projections for April are scary as the new variants would become more proeminent.

To be continued.

*(3 weeks after the shot for older people and 2 weeks after the shot for the rest of them)

The problem with the one-shot-only approach is that the T-cells induced won't have similarly long-term memory. The immunity will be gone next year. Or even sooner if the variants have mutated enough.

I understand that vaccine supplies are tight right now. The short-term approach is to get as many people vaccinated, so we hopefully lower the spread as well. But the real immunity - the key to returning to a new normal - is still very much predicated on getting our two shots.

More on it:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/the...unity-infectious-disease-specialist-says.html

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

The problem with the one-shot-only approach is that the T-cells induced won't have similarly long-term memory. The immunity will be gone next year. Or even sooner if the variants have mutated enough.

I understand that vaccine supplies are tight right now. The short-term approach is to get as many people vaccinated, so we hopefully lower the spread as well. But the real immunity - the key to returning to a new normal - is still very much predicated on getting our two shots.

More on it:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/the...unity-infectious-disease-specialist-says.html

True, but a healthier society with less cases now is better able to manufacture and distribute more vaccines to get everyone both doses, and boosters in the future as needed.

 

[Intr3pid]

True, but a healthier society with less cases now is better able to manufacture and distribute more vaccines to get everyone both doses, and boosters in the future as needed.

Those who are involved in manufacturing and distribution of vaccines - the essential workers - will be vaccinated with two doses anyways.

Stopping the spread with tight supplies sounds better.