5 ms·

66% effectiveness in one shot is better than 50% - 1/2 shots where there is not enough vaccines to go around. In some places people are not getting both shots

66% effectiveness in one shot is better than 50% - 1/2 shots where there is not enough vaccines to go around. In some places people are not getting both shots of vaccines. FDA approved two different shots of 2 shot vaccines. At this time they should just immunize everybody with one shot at least.

cj 6y ago
Have any trials been done to determine the efficacy of just 1 shot for the double dose vaccines?
- yread 6y ago
  Not yet, but you can kinda see it from the data. For Pfizer it was 60-70 after one dose already, iirc
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    That's only if you include all infections within the two week window between shots. If you look at the tail end (ie, after the shot has time to be effective) it seems more like 90.
    - zeku 6y ago
      The issue with this is that it's the SECOND shot that gives you your long term immunity. If you only get one shot your immunity is allegedly going to wane somewhat quickly. edit: for pfizer & moderna.
      - randomopining 6y ago
        Where did you see that part? Any reason why the 2nd one makes it last that much longer?
        bluGill 6y ago
        That is typically how the second shot works. We don't actually know. It is possible the second shot isn't needed at all. It is possible that the first shot works for 45 days and then stops working completely. Experts doubt both of these extremes, but cannot actually say they are false because they don't know.
- GizmoSwan 6y ago
  Yes they have data for results of 1 shot of 2 shot vaccines. Moderna has 80% in single shot I believe but it degrades over time so there is a second shot. The 66% that does not degrade and can be kept in room temperature is not bad at all. Most vaccines are not 90%. Most flu vaccine don't cover all different types but they still protect people as they get some sort of immunity to major types A,B etc.
fattire 6y ago
Would a partial or half immunized population not end up culturing a more resistant strain?
- elliekelly 6y ago
  Or could it end up culturing a more mild strain? More like a common cold?
  - eganist 6y ago
    Worth pointing out that two of the viruses[0][1] responsible for the Common Cold share the same exact Family (in fact, the exact Genus[2]) as SARS-CoV-2 [3]. This isn't to say that the progression is certainly in this direction (better evidence of that dates back to 2009 [4]), but hey, there's hope that that's the direction. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr... [4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-payoff/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-payoff/
- syntheticnature 6y ago
  This isn't like antibiotics. The 66% is how many people are provided some level of immunity, just reducing the infectible population; it doesn't directly cause issues for the virus the way an antibiotic interferes with the functioning of a bacterium. It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it. It is not yet known if any of the vaccines completely prevent infection; there are concerns the vaccinated might still be able to be asymptomatic carriers.
  - fattire 6y ago
    Yeah I guess I was asking if having only partial-immunity effectively acts as a filter or creates pressure so that rarer mutated strains make it through and are given a pathway to infection/reproduction. From your response: "It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it." it sounds like the answer is yes.

cj 6y ago

Have any trials been done to determine the efficacy of just 1 shot for the double dose vaccines?

yread 6y ago
Not yet, but you can kinda see it from the data. For Pfizer it was 60-70 after one dose already, iirc
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  That's only if you include all infections within the two week window between shots. If you look at the tail end (ie, after the shot has time to be effective) it seems more like 90.
  - zeku 6y ago
    The issue with this is that it's the SECOND shot that gives you your long term immunity. If you only get one shot your immunity is allegedly going to wane somewhat quickly. edit: for pfizer & moderna.
    - randomopining 6y ago
      Where did you see that part? Any reason why the 2nd one makes it last that much longer?
      - bluGill 6y ago
        That is typically how the second shot works. We don't actually know. It is possible the second shot isn't needed at all. It is possible that the first shot works for 45 days and then stops working completely. Experts doubt both of these extremes, but cannot actually say they are false because they don't know.
GizmoSwan 6y ago
Yes they have data for results of 1 shot of 2 shot vaccines. Moderna has 80% in single shot I believe but it degrades over time so there is a second shot. The 66% that does not degrade and can be kept in room temperature is not bad at all. Most vaccines are not 90%. Most flu vaccine don't cover all different types but they still protect people as they get some sort of immunity to major types A,B etc.

fattire 6y ago

Would a partial or half immunized population not end up culturing a more resistant strain?

elliekelly 6y ago
Or could it end up culturing a more mild strain? More like a common cold?
- eganist 6y ago
  Worth pointing out that two of the viruses[0][1] responsible for the Common Cold share the same exact Family (in fact, the exact Genus[2]) as SARS-CoV-2 [3]. This isn't to say that the progression is certainly in this direction (better evidence of that dates back to 2009 [4]), but hey, there's hope that that's the direction. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr... [4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-payoff/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-payoff/
syntheticnature 6y ago
This isn't like antibiotics. The 66% is how many people are provided some level of immunity, just reducing the infectible population; it doesn't directly cause issues for the virus the way an antibiotic interferes with the functioning of a bacterium. It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it. It is not yet known if any of the vaccines completely prevent infection; there are concerns the vaccinated might still be able to be asymptomatic carriers.
- fattire 6y ago
  Yeah I guess I was asking if having only partial-immunity effectively acts as a filter or creates pressure so that rarer mutated strains make it through and are given a pathway to infection/reproduction. From your response: "It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it." it sounds like the answer is yes.