18 ms·

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

223 points by jcarpio 5y ago

bordercases 5y ago
And yet this will not apply to the delta-variant.
beervirus 5y ago
We’ll still probably need periodic booster shots to deal with variants as they crop up. Still, very encouraging news if it holds up in practice.
- yazaddaruvala 5y ago
  We'll "need" to take periodic boosters to improve Moderna and Pfizer's profit margins. That said, given its safe, I'm happy to do it to help fund / drive investment into the mRNA supply chain.
  - anonfornoreason 5y ago
    I would caution you to reconsider "given it's safe" as a statement. I think the proper statement might be closer to "the benefits can outweigh the risks, depending on the disease being treated". There are growing bodies of evidence that spike proteins travel throughout your body, don't stay isolated at the injection site, and can cause severe reactions in some people (see incidents of heart inflammation, etc). I was skeptical myself until I got the first shot and am currently on day 5 of chest pain and shortness of breath. I have a family friend (30's, semi-professional athlete) who just had a massive heart attack 5 days after vaccination, with an otherwise healthy cardio system. Lots of anecdata, can't make good policy with it, but we are still flying by the seat of our pants and don't know the overall landscape. For what it's worth I'm optimistic, especially around customized cancer treatments, I am just cautiously pessimistic about the overall safety of causing your body to build a ton of spike proteins and have them float around. In other words, for "minor" illnesses like flu, it might not be a net benefit.
    - haswell 5y ago
      > There are growing bodies of evidence that spike proteins travel throughout your body, don't stay isolated at the injection site, and can cause severe reactions in some people Will you share citation(s) for the evidence you mention? I'm aware of the heart inflammation concerns, but as of yet, I have not seen this described as "the spike protein traveling throughout your body". > In other words, for "minor" illnesses like flu, it might not be a net benefit. The spike proteins exist only to provide immunity to this specific coronavirus. What are you suggesting re: illnesses like flu?
      - anonfornoreason 5y ago
        As mentioned previously, we are in the early days of fully understanding the science behind these vaccines. There are many reasonable speculations that the mechanism of the CDC acknowledged cases of myocarditis and pericarditis from both the vaccine and the virus itself, are caused by spike proteins. The only way the vaccine can cause that is if those proteins aren't limited to the injection site. It's actually extraordinarily difficult to find reasonable discussions on this topic, since it seems people want to suppress any conversation that puts a potentially negative light on covid vaccinations, which pushes any reasonable discussion into the cesspool of conspiracy theorist dialogue. Here's a couple links: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1.... https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-95587/v1_stamped.pdf https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-95587/v1_stamped.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162819/ Not hard to search and find reasonable studies in early stages. Once again, I have to give a disclaimer to avoid the brigade: I am optimistic about these vaccines for many things, but I would not be surprised if in 5 years we have a body of knowledge that refutes the "overall really safe" label. Still a super valuable medical tool, I mean no one would take chemo drugs if they didn't have cancer, but people take them because it's overall better than not taking them if you have a treatable version of cancer!
    - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
      For a lot of people, influenza is deadly, and so not at all "minor". Outside of pandemic, we should move slowly and cautiously, but yeah, if we can perfect this out to a better way to fight the flu, that'd save a lot of lives.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    I'm sorry, but you have no idea how vaccine economics work. Why do you think that researcher had so many problems at Pfizer getting funding to work on mRNA? Drug companies want to invent things like Viagra or Harvoni, not vaccines that are given to everyone a few times.
    - delecti 5y ago
      Hundreds of millions (or billions) of people getting annumal booster shots seems like a pretty good source of recurring revenue.
    - mizzack 5y ago
      Pfizer's CEO literally called the vaccine a "durable revenue stream" and talked about boosters through 2024 in the last earnings call.
    - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
      > not vaccines that are given to everyone a few times I agree, and therefore Pfizer and Moderna have an incentive to claim annual boosters are needed. To get recurring revenue. I'm not sure why you feel we disagree. I was just also saying, "I'm happy to get a useless booster, as long as its safe" because the extra volume of mRNA production should drive down long term manufacturing costs.
- cdolan 5y ago
  Source/Sauce?
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    I don't know why the original comment is being downvoted. It is not a conspiracy theory to assume that we need booster shots. Is it not like our situation with the flu? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavirus-variants-see-calls-for-third-shots.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavi... The news of this new study just came out today. Give the guy a break.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      There is simply no evidence we will need booster shots.
      - chaostheory 5y ago
        It's hard to determine that as a laymen when you have the CEO of Pfizer (who is likely being advised by Pfizer's own researchers) saying, "A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed. And again, the variants will play a key role"
    - M4v3R 5y ago
      > Is it not like our situation with the flu? No, as other commenters pointed out coronaviruses are different from the flu viruses in that they cannot mutate as easily as flu does. Hence it is possible that booster shots will not be required.
      - chaostheory 5y ago
        That also doesn't mean that that there's no longer a decent chance of immune escape. Before this research came out, it was a reasonable position to think that we needed boosters. It is NOT a conspiracy theory. If you read any of the articles I've cited one of them has the CEO of Pfizer stating that we will likely need a yearly booster shot.
- chrononaut 5y ago
  Could someone elaborate why this particular comment is being downvoted? Or I guess in other words, is there something unique about the mRNA vaccines that make it unnecessary to require "booster shots" (if "booster shots" equate to yearly shots we are used to with the flu variants)? (I legitimately don't know and I am curious. I see the article does reference protection against a variant during a study, but it's unclear to me if that means all future variants as well.)
  - chaosite 5y ago
    There's no basis to believe at this point that we'll need "booster shots" of any kind with COVID vaccination, and in fact the opposite seems to be the case, so this comment is being downvoted for spreading misinformation (amusingly, this specific comment will probably be disliked by both vaccination proponents and disease proponents :) The reason we won't need yearly vaccinations as with the flu shots isn't a property of the mRNA vaccine, it's a property of COVID-19. The watered-down explanation is that this particular sort of virus simply doesn't mutate as much as the flu virus because it has a mechanism that prevents it. We do see variants, but they're actually quite similar so the same vaccine still works (thankfully). It's also why we're talking about COVID "variants" and flu "strains". In this context, a different "strain" usually signifies different surface proteins, i.e., you need a different vaccine for it. I don't believe that we've seen a second COVID strain yet.
    - aix1 5y ago
      How do I reconcile this with the existence of, say, Moderna booster? https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-positive-initial-booster-data-against-sars-cov https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d... (Genuine question.)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - thehappypm 5y ago
        Of course the manufacturers would love for there to be a need for a booster for every man, woman, and child on Earth!
- gjs278 5y ago
  I will not be participating in a system that intentionally gets me sick 1-2 days out of the year to avoid an illness that barely did anything to me in the first place. people who are going to have a bad reaction to covid can get them if they need them. I don’t.
- standardUser 5y ago
  There is no evidence yet that boosters will be needed for either protection from variants or from diminishing immunity over time.
hammock 5y ago
This is great news, adding to a report in Nature that the natural immunity produced in people who have already had covid may last a lifetime.[1] In case you hadn't heard, the Cleveland Clinic--consistently regarded as one of the top hospital systems in the United States and in the world--recently shared a study of 52,238 patients showing zero incremental benefit from the jab to the previously infected, recommending that "people who’ve had COVID-19 don’t need to get vaccinated."[2] [1]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 [2]https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-study-determines-people-whove-had-covid-19-dont-need-to-get-vaccinated https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-study-determines-...
- jaywalk 5y ago
  It's time for the naturally immune to be treated the same as those who've been vaccinated. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to the contrary, and plenty of evidence to support it.
  - xadhominemx 5y ago
    It’s hard to reliably verify previous infection and very safe and easy to get vaccinated, so what’s the point? I’m going to check your profile — 90% chance you spread antivax propaganda. Edit: yup. Every time.
    - wait_a_minute 5y ago
      It’s not your business to verify anything. It’s up to the individual to do what is best for their own situation. Focus on decisions for your own self and family.
      - fra 5y ago
        Your vaccination status impacts the people around you. There are folks who cannot be vaccinated (or who are not able to develop immunity from the vaccine). It is dangerous for them to be around unvaccinated people. So no, it is not just up to the individual to do what is best for them.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
The mRNA vaccines have been the silver lining to the whole COVID-19 disaster. They seem “unreasonably effective” against COVID, basically if you had a genie that you could ask to make a vaccine, it would be hard to do much better, other than the requirement for 2 jabs. In addition, the mRNA technology has broad applicability to other issues such as other viruses (such as flu) and even cancer!
- polote 5y ago
  Do we have any proof that the second dose is useful at all ?
  - haswell 5y ago
    Yes, this was covered in the trials for both vaccines.
    - bryan0 5y ago
      pfizer trial showed first dose by itself was extremely effective. check out the chart here: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-well-pfizer-shot-works-against-covid-19-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-well-pfizer-shot-works-a... Much of the data comparing efficacy of 1 vs 2 doses doesn't wait until 10-days after the first dose, which defeats the point. That being said 2 doses is more effective, just not by as much as you'd might think. edit: replaced the above link because it was pay-walled
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    There's very strong evidence, particularly against the Delta variant[1]. That paper cites a 33.5% effectiveness after one dose, compared to 87.9% after two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. [1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v...
    - giantg2 5y ago
      That includes the lag time. A single dose is supposed to be about 80% effective once immunity develops. They don't know how long that will last and thus have the second shot to increase effectiveness and hopefully longevity.
aantix 5y ago
What about the new Delta variant?
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  vaccines have been effective against it as well
  - loceng 5y ago
    Quite a bit less effective and why the WHO is saying fully vaccinated should still mask up inside. Edit to add: 70% effective vs. 95%+ is a significant reduction.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      So you don’t get it and pass it on to the unvaccinated in the window that you are infected and your body is fighting it off.
    - M2Ys4U 5y ago
      Depends on what you mean by "effective" (i.e. are you talking about infection, hospitalisation or death?), and relative to what (i.e. ancestral wild type vs Alpha vs Delta). If you're talking Alpha vs Delta and about hospitalisation/death, then the vaccines are actually marginally more effective against Delta than Alpha according to data from Public Health England (although there's significant overlap in the confidence intervals).
- rolph 5y ago
  87.9% efficacy https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v...
  - undfg 5y ago
    That's for the Indian variant? How does it compare to the previous variants? Is it noticeably worse or similar?
chaostheory 5y ago
So there's no chance of immune escape? I thought at the very least, it'd be like the flu vaccines where the virus mutates often enough that we all need periodic booster shots.
- standardUser 5y ago
  The coronavirus does not mutate as rapidly as the flu, so there was always a good chance we wouldn't need frequent boosters.
- occamrazor 5y ago
  This article says that _if the virus doesn’t mutate_ the immunity is probably long lasting. It doesn’t directly address the orthogonal issue of immune escape.
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    Has it not already mutated?
    - occamrazor 5y ago
      Yes, but the mutations fortunately had only a limited effect on vaccine efficacy.
bluepanda928752 5y ago
What doesn't seem to be addressed is why COVID-19 germinal centre response might produce lasting immunity while, say, flu vaccination (which also produces germinal centre responses) doesn't
- drclau 5y ago
  I believe influenza viruses mutate at a much faster pace, hence defeating the immunity achieved from a previous infection, and from vaccines. Coronaviruses seem to mutate at a slower pace, in comparison.
r00fus 5y ago
Can someone tell me why we (US) don't have a vaccine passport yet?
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  We cannot force some to isolate and others not too. We have reached a point where the vaccine is proven effective. Virtually anyone in the US that wanted to get a vaccine by now has had ample opportunity to do so. Those who choose not too will either contract the virus or not, that is their call. I am fully vaccinated and would encourage everyone to get vaccinated but I don't see how we have the right to force anyone to take a novel medication if they don't want to or restrict their movements. It is their body and their right to do as they wish. If we force people to take this medication, what is to stop people being forced to take something else that another group may disagree with. The US has moved past isolation, its just not going to happen again, there is no political will for it. I fully support vaccination, I just don't support a police state asking to check our papers.
  - Terretta 5y ago
    And yet none of your argument applies to smoking, because it affects those around not just the smoker and imposes extraordinary costs on non-smoker’s insurance bill. Seems clear we can, and do, forbid individuals from physically and financially harming the community by their ‘personal’ choices. It is their body and their right to do as they wish — perhaps only as long as it harms no others who have the right to be unharmed.
- pkulak 5y ago
  30% of the population is violently (not a hyperbole) opposed to it.
  - fy20 5y ago
    Europe isn't doing much better. It has a lower % fully vaccinated (around 30% in each country, I can't find exact numbers for the whole EU). In a lot of countries the vaccines are now available to everyone over 18, and you can book appointments within a few days or just turn up. In Poland they are running a financial lottery to encourage people to be vaccinated. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/poland-dangles-lottery-jackpot-boost-covid-vaccination-drive-2021-05-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
kaiju0 5y ago
Has there been any work done on the severity of the COVID 19 variants? My understanding is variants of highly dangerous viruses rarely keep the high level of risk as the progenitors. Does the delta variant and others pose the same risks? Are we over responding to a virus family group?
- the8472 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2#Overvie... > My understanding is variants of highly dangerous viruses rarely keep the high level of risk as the progenitors. Even if that's a general trend that doesn't mean it's a rule. And the rationale "a dead host isn't as useful at spreading the virus" doesn't really apply to covid since only a small percentage gets hospitalized or dies, most infectees remain fit enough to spread it further.
freddealmeida 5y ago
they also found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I don't believe a word of this. Let's wait for the longitudinal studies yes?
- reedjosh 5y ago
  This is a one hundred percent relevant and accurate comment. I believe in ten years comments like this will be respected for saying it in a time when it was unpopular.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    It is true, the government did lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to gain popular support for an unpopular war. More relevant to this thread is the fake vaccination campaign CIA orchestrated in Pakistan[1] to achieve some militaristic and violent goals for the USA government. It is an interesting question indeed. Why should we trust them? We should also talk about this, and we should even be blaming the poor vaccination rates in the USA on this tendency of the government to lie in order to serve a narrow self interest. In my opinion this kind of behavior should not be expected from a government that calls it self democratic, and there needs to be some repercussions to the people responsible. Until then, it is totally understandable why people are skeptic towards any of their claims, including claims about the efficacy of Covid vaccines. That said, my answer to my previous question: “when should we trust the government,” is: on a case by case basis. When it comes to Covid vaccines, there have been ample studies, by many parties, independent agencies, etc. And the claim is consistent. The vaccines are safe and an effective protection against serious illnesses from Covid 19. In this case, the government appears not to be lying. 1: https://www.grunge.com/321975/the-tragic-true-story-of-the-cias-fake-vaccination-campaign/ https://www.grunge.com/321975/the-tragic-true-story-of-the-c...
metters 5y ago
The headline is wrong. The article is about mRNA vaccines in general. Moreover, Pfizer is partner of BioNTech, which developed the vaccine. I don’t understand why OP omits that and solely credits Pfizer.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  in America, the vaccine is referred to as the "Pfizer vaccine" in the majority of newsletters. I understand this varies based on what country you're in, but this isn't unique there and is common practice for this vaccine's name. Pfizer is easier to type than "Pfizer BioNTech" (there's 3 capital letters in that second word, 2 next to each other). Laziness wins.
- boc 5y ago
  "The process is the vaccine" aka manufacturing the vaccine is the hardest part. Saying that Pfizer is just a partner of the "real" vaccine developer downplays the importance of manufacturing to a significant degree. It's just as much Pfizer's vaccine as it is BioNTech's.
  - metters 5y ago
    But then why leaving them out? I accept your point but BioNTech is as much credible for this as Pfizer
  - adfass 5y ago
    It's still a bit unfortunate that this vaccine gets marketed as the sole achievement of a major us company while in reality the larger part of the funding for its development came from other parties, the single most biggest being german tax-payers.
variant 5y ago
So will natural infection. Resistance to SARS-CoV1 has lasted more than a decade. Coronaviruses mutates far less dramatically than influenza does.
- baq 5y ago
  SARS-CoV1 didn't have a pool of 8 billion people to mutate in. It'll get less deadly as time goes by giving fuel to the 'it's just a flu' crowd, killing millions in the meantime and potentially mutating beyond the scope of currently attained immunity, god forbid.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    There it’s just a flu crowd are the same people who call every little sniffle they get “the flu“. I’ve had the flu and I was out of it. I couldn’t even make it to the bathroom on my own.
    - baq 5y ago
      the 'it's just the flu' crowd probably doesn't realize how many people actually die from flu complications, but then, i wouldn't expect them to, unfortunately. perception of freedom trumps science for them.
dolmop 5y ago
There's no Pfizer vaccine. There's only a Biontech-Pfizer vaccine.
taeric 5y ago
What is the word on how much of an impact long term immunity had on how well some regions managed the virus? Edit: I should say I'm expecting to see that it was not impactful. Would still be nice to see papers on it.
archsurface 5y ago
Like my immune system.
- pacomerh 5y ago
  A friend of mine in his late 30's from work passed away from Covid and he was a healthy person. Sometimes your immune system needs help. Please stop the "my immune system is enough" nonesense
  - archsurface 5y ago
    Clearly not healthy.
throwitaway1235 5y ago
Someone should find out if natural antibodies provide long term immunity, including variants, since so many people already contracted Covid-19 and recovered. Especially among young adults teenagers and children since they have yet to be vaccinated at scale.
theknocker 5y ago
Oh that's weird that antibodies exist and that viruses are based on antibodies after all. That must be quite the discovery for the public health experts who spent the past 15 months telling everyone they're pseudo-intellectuals for thinking antibodies might have something to do with virus immunity and that getting a virus might help you be immune to it.
threesmegiste 5y ago
Science and “may” ???

223 points by jcarpio 5y ago

And yet this will not apply to the delta-variant.

We’ll still probably need periodic booster shots to deal with variants as they crop up. Still, very encouraging news if it holds up in practice.

yazaddaruvala 5y ago
We'll "need" to take periodic boosters to improve Moderna and Pfizer's profit margins. That said, given its safe, I'm happy to do it to help fund / drive investment into the mRNA supply chain.
- anonfornoreason 5y ago
  I would caution you to reconsider "given it's safe" as a statement. I think the proper statement might be closer to "the benefits can outweigh the risks, depending on the disease being treated". There are growing bodies of evidence that spike proteins travel throughout your body, don't stay isolated at the injection site, and can cause severe reactions in some people (see incidents of heart inflammation, etc). I was skeptical myself until I got the first shot and am currently on day 5 of chest pain and shortness of breath. I have a family friend (30's, semi-professional athlete) who just had a massive heart attack 5 days after vaccination, with an otherwise healthy cardio system. Lots of anecdata, can't make good policy with it, but we are still flying by the seat of our pants and don't know the overall landscape. For what it's worth I'm optimistic, especially around customized cancer treatments, I am just cautiously pessimistic about the overall safety of causing your body to build a ton of spike proteins and have them float around. In other words, for "minor" illnesses like flu, it might not be a net benefit.
  - haswell 5y ago
    > There are growing bodies of evidence that spike proteins travel throughout your body, don't stay isolated at the injection site, and can cause severe reactions in some people Will you share citation(s) for the evidence you mention? I'm aware of the heart inflammation concerns, but as of yet, I have not seen this described as "the spike protein traveling throughout your body". > In other words, for "minor" illnesses like flu, it might not be a net benefit. The spike proteins exist only to provide immunity to this specific coronavirus. What are you suggesting re: illnesses like flu?
    - anonfornoreason 5y ago
      As mentioned previously, we are in the early days of fully understanding the science behind these vaccines. There are many reasonable speculations that the mechanism of the CDC acknowledged cases of myocarditis and pericarditis from both the vaccine and the virus itself, are caused by spike proteins. The only way the vaccine can cause that is if those proteins aren't limited to the injection site. It's actually extraordinarily difficult to find reasonable discussions on this topic, since it seems people want to suppress any conversation that puts a potentially negative light on covid vaccinations, which pushes any reasonable discussion into the cesspool of conspiracy theorist dialogue. Here's a couple links: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1.... https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-95587/v1_stamped.pdf https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-95587/v1_stamped.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162819/ Not hard to search and find reasonable studies in early stages. Once again, I have to give a disclaimer to avoid the brigade: I am optimistic about these vaccines for many things, but I would not be surprised if in 5 years we have a body of knowledge that refutes the "overall really safe" label. Still a super valuable medical tool, I mean no one would take chemo drugs if they didn't have cancer, but people take them because it's overall better than not taking them if you have a treatable version of cancer!
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    For a lot of people, influenza is deadly, and so not at all "minor". Outside of pandemic, we should move slowly and cautiously, but yeah, if we can perfect this out to a better way to fight the flu, that'd save a lot of lives.
- xxpor 5y ago
  I'm sorry, but you have no idea how vaccine economics work. Why do you think that researcher had so many problems at Pfizer getting funding to work on mRNA? Drug companies want to invent things like Viagra or Harvoni, not vaccines that are given to everyone a few times.
  - delecti 5y ago
    Hundreds of millions (or billions) of people getting annumal booster shots seems like a pretty good source of recurring revenue.
  - mizzack 5y ago
    Pfizer's CEO literally called the vaccine a "durable revenue stream" and talked about boosters through 2024 in the last earnings call.
  - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
    > not vaccines that are given to everyone a few times I agree, and therefore Pfizer and Moderna have an incentive to claim annual boosters are needed. To get recurring revenue. I'm not sure why you feel we disagree. I was just also saying, "I'm happy to get a useless booster, as long as its safe" because the extra volume of mRNA production should drive down long term manufacturing costs.
cdolan 5y ago
Source/Sauce?
- chaostheory 5y ago
  I don't know why the original comment is being downvoted. It is not a conspiracy theory to assume that we need booster shots. Is it not like our situation with the flu? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavirus-variants-see-calls-for-third-shots.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavi... The news of this new study just came out today. Give the guy a break.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    There is simply no evidence we will need booster shots.
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      It's hard to determine that as a laymen when you have the CEO of Pfizer (who is likely being advised by Pfizer's own researchers) saying, "A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed. And again, the variants will play a key role"
  - M4v3R 5y ago
    > Is it not like our situation with the flu? No, as other commenters pointed out coronaviruses are different from the flu viruses in that they cannot mutate as easily as flu does. Hence it is possible that booster shots will not be required.
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      That also doesn't mean that that there's no longer a decent chance of immune escape. Before this research came out, it was a reasonable position to think that we needed boosters. It is NOT a conspiracy theory. If you read any of the articles I've cited one of them has the CEO of Pfizer stating that we will likely need a yearly booster shot.
chrononaut 5y ago
Could someone elaborate why this particular comment is being downvoted? Or I guess in other words, is there something unique about the mRNA vaccines that make it unnecessary to require "booster shots" (if "booster shots" equate to yearly shots we are used to with the flu variants)? (I legitimately don't know and I am curious. I see the article does reference protection against a variant during a study, but it's unclear to me if that means all future variants as well.)
- chaosite 5y ago
  There's no basis to believe at this point that we'll need "booster shots" of any kind with COVID vaccination, and in fact the opposite seems to be the case, so this comment is being downvoted for spreading misinformation (amusingly, this specific comment will probably be disliked by both vaccination proponents and disease proponents :) The reason we won't need yearly vaccinations as with the flu shots isn't a property of the mRNA vaccine, it's a property of COVID-19. The watered-down explanation is that this particular sort of virus simply doesn't mutate as much as the flu virus because it has a mechanism that prevents it. We do see variants, but they're actually quite similar so the same vaccine still works (thankfully). It's also why we're talking about COVID "variants" and flu "strains". In this context, a different "strain" usually signifies different surface proteins, i.e., you need a different vaccine for it. I don't believe that we've seen a second COVID strain yet.
  - aix1 5y ago
    How do I reconcile this with the existence of, say, Moderna booster? https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-positive-initial-booster-data-against-sars-cov https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d... (Genuine question.)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      Of course the manufacturers would love for there to be a need for a booster for every man, woman, and child on Earth!
gjs278 5y ago
I will not be participating in a system that intentionally gets me sick 1-2 days out of the year to avoid an illness that barely did anything to me in the first place. people who are going to have a bad reaction to covid can get them if they need them. I don’t.
standardUser 5y ago
There is no evidence yet that boosters will be needed for either protection from variants or from diminishing immunity over time.

hammock 5y ago

This is great news, adding to a report in Nature that the natural immunity produced in people who have already had covid may last a lifetime.[1] In case you hadn't heard, the Cleveland Clinic--consistently regarded as one of the top hospital systems in the United States and in the world--recently shared a study of 52,238 patients showing zero incremental benefit from the jab to the previously infected, recommending that "people who’ve had COVID-19 don’t need to get vaccinated."[2] [1]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 [2]https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-study-determines-people-whove-had-covid-19-dont-need-to-get-vaccinated https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-study-determines-...

jaywalk 5y ago
It's time for the naturally immune to be treated the same as those who've been vaccinated. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to the contrary, and plenty of evidence to support it.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  It’s hard to reliably verify previous infection and very safe and easy to get vaccinated, so what’s the point? I’m going to check your profile — 90% chance you spread antivax propaganda. Edit: yup. Every time.
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    It’s not your business to verify anything. It’s up to the individual to do what is best for their own situation. Focus on decisions for your own self and family.
    - fra 5y ago
      Your vaccination status impacts the people around you. There are folks who cannot be vaccinated (or who are not able to develop immunity from the vaccine). It is dangerous for them to be around unvaccinated people. So no, it is not just up to the individual to do what is best for them.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

The mRNA vaccines have been the silver lining to the whole COVID-19 disaster. They seem “unreasonably effective” against COVID, basically if you had a genie that you could ask to make a vaccine, it would be hard to do much better, other than the requirement for 2 jabs. In addition, the mRNA technology has broad applicability to other issues such as other viruses (such as flu) and even cancer!

polote 5y ago
Do we have any proof that the second dose is useful at all ?
- haswell 5y ago
  Yes, this was covered in the trials for both vaccines.
  - bryan0 5y ago
    pfizer trial showed first dose by itself was extremely effective. check out the chart here: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-well-pfizer-shot-works-against-covid-19-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-well-pfizer-shot-works-a... Much of the data comparing efficacy of 1 vs 2 doses doesn't wait until 10-days after the first dose, which defeats the point. That being said 2 doses is more effective, just not by as much as you'd might think. edit: replaced the above link because it was pay-walled
- raphlinus 5y ago
  There's very strong evidence, particularly against the Delta variant[1]. That paper cites a 33.5% effectiveness after one dose, compared to 87.9% after two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. [1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That includes the lag time. A single dose is supposed to be about 80% effective once immunity develops. They don't know how long that will last and thus have the second shot to increase effectiveness and hopefully longevity.

aantix 5y ago

What about the new Delta variant?

gameswithgo 5y ago
vaccines have been effective against it as well
- loceng 5y ago
  Quite a bit less effective and why the WHO is saying fully vaccinated should still mask up inside. Edit to add: 70% effective vs. 95%+ is a significant reduction.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    So you don’t get it and pass it on to the unvaccinated in the window that you are infected and your body is fighting it off.
  - M2Ys4U 5y ago
    Depends on what you mean by "effective" (i.e. are you talking about infection, hospitalisation or death?), and relative to what (i.e. ancestral wild type vs Alpha vs Delta). If you're talking Alpha vs Delta and about hospitalisation/death, then the vaccines are actually marginally more effective against Delta than Alpha according to data from Public Health England (although there's significant overlap in the confidence intervals).
rolph 5y ago
87.9% efficacy https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v...
- undfg 5y ago
  That's for the Indian variant? How does it compare to the previous variants? Is it noticeably worse or similar?

chaostheory 5y ago

So there's no chance of immune escape? I thought at the very least, it'd be like the flu vaccines where the virus mutates often enough that we all need periodic booster shots.

standardUser 5y ago
The coronavirus does not mutate as rapidly as the flu, so there was always a good chance we wouldn't need frequent boosters.
occamrazor 5y ago
This article says that _if the virus doesn’t mutate_ the immunity is probably long lasting. It doesn’t directly address the orthogonal issue of immune escape.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  Has it not already mutated?
  - occamrazor 5y ago
    Yes, but the mutations fortunately had only a limited effect on vaccine efficacy.

bluepanda928752 5y ago

What doesn't seem to be addressed is why COVID-19 germinal centre response might produce lasting immunity while, say, flu vaccination (which also produces germinal centre responses) doesn't

drclau 5y ago
I believe influenza viruses mutate at a much faster pace, hence defeating the immunity achieved from a previous infection, and from vaccines. Coronaviruses seem to mutate at a slower pace, in comparison.

r00fus 5y ago

Can someone tell me why we (US) don't have a vaccine passport yet?

wonderwonder 5y ago
We cannot force some to isolate and others not too. We have reached a point where the vaccine is proven effective. Virtually anyone in the US that wanted to get a vaccine by now has had ample opportunity to do so. Those who choose not too will either contract the virus or not, that is their call. I am fully vaccinated and would encourage everyone to get vaccinated but I don't see how we have the right to force anyone to take a novel medication if they don't want to or restrict their movements. It is their body and their right to do as they wish. If we force people to take this medication, what is to stop people being forced to take something else that another group may disagree with. The US has moved past isolation, its just not going to happen again, there is no political will for it. I fully support vaccination, I just don't support a police state asking to check our papers.
- Terretta 5y ago
  And yet none of your argument applies to smoking, because it affects those around not just the smoker and imposes extraordinary costs on non-smoker’s insurance bill. Seems clear we can, and do, forbid individuals from physically and financially harming the community by their ‘personal’ choices. It is their body and their right to do as they wish — perhaps only as long as it harms no others who have the right to be unharmed.
pkulak 5y ago
30% of the population is violently (not a hyperbole) opposed to it.
- fy20 5y ago
  Europe isn't doing much better. It has a lower % fully vaccinated (around 30% in each country, I can't find exact numbers for the whole EU). In a lot of countries the vaccines are now available to everyone over 18, and you can book appointments within a few days or just turn up. In Poland they are running a financial lottery to encourage people to be vaccinated. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/poland-dangles-lottery-jackpot-boost-covid-vaccination-drive-2021-05-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

kaiju0 5y ago

Has there been any work done on the severity of the COVID 19 variants? My understanding is variants of highly dangerous viruses rarely keep the high level of risk as the progenitors. Does the delta variant and others pose the same risks? Are we over responding to a virus family group?

the8472 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2#Overvie... > My understanding is variants of highly dangerous viruses rarely keep the high level of risk as the progenitors. Even if that's a general trend that doesn't mean it's a rule. And the rationale "a dead host isn't as useful at spreading the virus" doesn't really apply to covid since only a small percentage gets hospitalized or dies, most infectees remain fit enough to spread it further.

freddealmeida 5y ago

they also found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I don't believe a word of this. Let's wait for the longitudinal studies yes?

reedjosh 5y ago
This is a one hundred percent relevant and accurate comment. I believe in ten years comments like this will be respected for saying it in a time when it was unpopular.
- runarberg 5y ago
  It is true, the government did lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to gain popular support for an unpopular war. More relevant to this thread is the fake vaccination campaign CIA orchestrated in Pakistan[1] to achieve some militaristic and violent goals for the USA government. It is an interesting question indeed. Why should we trust them? We should also talk about this, and we should even be blaming the poor vaccination rates in the USA on this tendency of the government to lie in order to serve a narrow self interest. In my opinion this kind of behavior should not be expected from a government that calls it self democratic, and there needs to be some repercussions to the people responsible. Until then, it is totally understandable why people are skeptic towards any of their claims, including claims about the efficacy of Covid vaccines. That said, my answer to my previous question: “when should we trust the government,” is: on a case by case basis. When it comes to Covid vaccines, there have been ample studies, by many parties, independent agencies, etc. And the claim is consistent. The vaccines are safe and an effective protection against serious illnesses from Covid 19. In this case, the government appears not to be lying. 1: https://www.grunge.com/321975/the-tragic-true-story-of-the-cias-fake-vaccination-campaign/ https://www.grunge.com/321975/the-tragic-true-story-of-the-c...

metters 5y ago

The headline is wrong. The article is about mRNA vaccines in general. Moreover, Pfizer is partner of BioNTech, which developed the vaccine. I don’t understand why OP omits that and solely credits Pfizer.

t-writescode 5y ago
in America, the vaccine is referred to as the "Pfizer vaccine" in the majority of newsletters. I understand this varies based on what country you're in, but this isn't unique there and is common practice for this vaccine's name. Pfizer is easier to type than "Pfizer BioNTech" (there's 3 capital letters in that second word, 2 next to each other). Laziness wins.
boc 5y ago
"The process is the vaccine" aka manufacturing the vaccine is the hardest part. Saying that Pfizer is just a partner of the "real" vaccine developer downplays the importance of manufacturing to a significant degree. It's just as much Pfizer's vaccine as it is BioNTech's.
- metters 5y ago
  But then why leaving them out? I accept your point but BioNTech is as much credible for this as Pfizer
- adfass 5y ago
  It's still a bit unfortunate that this vaccine gets marketed as the sole achievement of a major us company while in reality the larger part of the funding for its development came from other parties, the single most biggest being german tax-payers.

variant 5y ago

So will natural infection. Resistance to SARS-CoV1 has lasted more than a decade. Coronaviruses mutates far less dramatically than influenza does.

baq 5y ago
SARS-CoV1 didn't have a pool of 8 billion people to mutate in. It'll get less deadly as time goes by giving fuel to the 'it's just a flu' crowd, killing millions in the meantime and potentially mutating beyond the scope of currently attained immunity, god forbid.
- rorykoehler 5y ago
  There it’s just a flu crowd are the same people who call every little sniffle they get “the flu“. I’ve had the flu and I was out of it. I couldn’t even make it to the bathroom on my own.
  - baq 5y ago
    the 'it's just the flu' crowd probably doesn't realize how many people actually die from flu complications, but then, i wouldn't expect them to, unfortunately. perception of freedom trumps science for them.

dolmop 5y ago

There's no Pfizer vaccine. There's only a Biontech-Pfizer vaccine.

taeric 5y ago

What is the word on how much of an impact long term immunity had on how well some regions managed the virus? Edit: I should say I'm expecting to see that it was not impactful. Would still be nice to see papers on it.

archsurface 5y ago

Like my immune system.

pacomerh 5y ago
A friend of mine in his late 30's from work passed away from Covid and he was a healthy person. Sometimes your immune system needs help. Please stop the "my immune system is enough" nonesense
- archsurface 5y ago
  Clearly not healthy.

throwitaway1235 5y ago

Someone should find out if natural antibodies provide long term immunity, including variants, since so many people already contracted Covid-19 and recovered. Especially among young adults teenagers and children since they have yet to be vaccinated at scale.

theknocker 5y ago

Oh that's weird that antibodies exist and that viruses are based on antibodies after all. That must be quite the discovery for the public health experts who spent the past 15 months telling everyone they're pseudo-intellectuals for thinking antibodies might have something to do with virus immunity and that getting a virus might help you be immune to it.

threesmegiste 5y ago

Science and “may” ???