4 ms·

True, but this is consistent with several other studies[0..3] which show waning immunity from pfizer in hospitalized patients. This is why Israel is requiring

by bryan0 5y ago

True, but this is consistent with several other studies[0..3] which show waning immunity from pfizer in hospitalized patients. This is why Israel is requiring boosters and the US is following suit. [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262423v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262423v... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02261-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02261-8 [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm7037e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm... [3] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... Edit: added more studies outside of Israel

timr 5y ago
The Israel study (not "studies") is an outlier, and is inconsistent with the other studies that have been done so far: https://nitter.net/mugecevik/status/1430218372348878860?lang=en https://nitter.net/mugecevik/status/1430218372348878860?lang... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z This one in NEJM, from today, just being the latest: https://nitter.net/davidwdowdy/status/1438268969211744256#m https://nitter.net/davidwdowdy/status/1438268969211744256#m https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345?query=featured_home https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345?query=fe... ...which is why, also today, the FDA recommended against boosters for healthy adults: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-says-covid-19-vaccines-remain-effective-without-boosters-11631726504 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-says-covid-19-vaccines-rema... We'll see where this goes after ACIP, but this is now highly politicized, and the recommendation of boosters for healthy adults is far from a sure thing.
- bryan0 5y ago
  > The Israel study (not "studies") is an outlier, and is inconsistent with the other studies that have been done so far. This is not accurate. There have been several studies demonstrating waning inline with Israel’s data: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-vaccine-protection-fading https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-vaccine-protection-fadi... https://www.axios.com/pfizer-moderna-coronavirus-vaccines-effectiveness-data-4a681617-d887-4b21-93a3-d6c2d9d51b31.html https://www.axios.com/pfizer-moderna-coronavirus-vaccines-ef... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed.
  - timr 5y ago
    > There have been several studies demonstrating waning inline with Israel’s data: You cite three links: the first is self-reported data, which is problematic. Nevertheless, it still finds effectiveness against infection of 74%. This is a bit lower than the other studies (consensus is around 80%), but not dramatically so. If anything, it is evidence that the vaccines remain effective against the most challenging endpoint (infection), with only minor declines in effectiveness that might just as easily be statistical noise. The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. The third is the Mayo clinic study (covered in the Twitter thread from Muge Cevik) and explicitly says that vaccinations remain highly effective against infection and hospitalization over the study period, and tries to extrapolate from a fluctuation in infection data in the final month of the study. This is sketchy: > Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%). Again, this claim is an outlier. When you have an outlier based on questionable methodology, you must be skeptical of the claim. > The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed. The NEJM is just the latest study, not the only study. Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Essentially, you're projecting doom based on two studies that disagree with the ~dozen others that have been conducted, that have methodological problems, and are inconsistent with known biology. When given evidence to the contrary, you dismiss it, in favor of speculation about what might happen tomorrow. You're latching on to outliers which confirm your biases.
    - bryan0 5y ago
      > The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. These second link references a few studies including this one from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm7037e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm... > Again, this claim is an outlier. When there are several independent studies showing the same thing, they are no longer outliers. > Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Here is another study published in nejm about the affects of boosters in Israel in August: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 > Essentially, you're projecting doom Ok let me be clear here. I am not intending to project doom, what I am trying to project is that there is real data which shows boosters are beneficial. Of course the vaccines even without boosters are clearly extremely effective. Even as breakthrough cases increase because of waning immunity, the prognosis for someone fully vaccinated is very different compared to someone who is unvaccinated. The main thing I disagree with you with, and would use your argument against you, is that there clearly is real data showing waning effectiveness and the benefit of boosters. The main argument for not recommending them is that the vaccines would be better off for people that have not been vaccinated in the first place. Well no shit, but if that population is refusing to take them then the point is moot.
- Kiro 5y ago
  Israel used to be an outlier but no more. The data from Mayo Clinic is very consistent with Israel's: https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210908/Immunity-induced-by-PfizerBioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-declines-with-time-Mayo-Clinic-study-finds.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210908/Immunity-indu...
  - timr 5y ago
    The Mayo clinic study is the other major outlier. The Mayo clinic study found that the vaccines were highly effective, but nonetheless tried to extrapolate from a trend seen in a subset of the data from the final month: > Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%). There are many problems with this, and it shouldn't be given much weight.
MuffinFlavored 5y ago
does the booster buy you another 6 months?
- rock_artist 5y ago
  Since covid 19 is new. No one really knows how much time a booster can give or if it'll be similar to flu when each year there will be a need to a shot relevant for this year variants. What so far seems reliable enough is that the vaccination itself reduce chance for complications when you do get it.
- kuhewa 5y ago
  Not enough time has elapsed to say, but it certainly does appear to put immunity back up to original levels, which were against wild-type, even though delta is worst. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255
- raducu 5y ago
  Completely wild speculation, but I think it will be more than 6 months, because covid variance is much less than flu. There is emerging proof that dissease+vaccine immunity is much better than dissease or vaccine alone, but it might also be the booster effect. After all, there are other vaccines -- such as hepatitis B where you need a booster after one year (booster 3), before you get your long-lasting antibodies.
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  Hep B is a 3 shot vaccine. One of the medical podcasts I listen to is speculating that maybe it was always going to take 3 shots with Covid.
  - Leparamour 5y ago
    >that maybe it was always going to take 3 shots with Covid Why does it feel like that there is constant retconning going on when it comes to these Covid vaccines? Have we truly always been at war with Eastasia?
jonathanstrange 5y ago
Elderly and at risk people also get booster shots in Germany. My mother is scheduled for one in October.

by bryan0 5y ago

timr 5y ago

The Israel study (not "studies") is an outlier, and is inconsistent with the other studies that have been done so far: https://nitter.net/mugecevik/status/1430218372348878860?lang=en https://nitter.net/mugecevik/status/1430218372348878860?lang... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z This one in NEJM, from today, just being the latest: https://nitter.net/davidwdowdy/status/1438268969211744256#m https://nitter.net/davidwdowdy/status/1438268969211744256#m https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345?query=featured_home https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345?query=fe... ...which is why, also today, the FDA recommended against boosters for healthy adults: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-says-covid-19-vaccines-remain-effective-without-boosters-11631726504 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-says-covid-19-vaccines-rema... We'll see where this goes after ACIP, but this is now highly politicized, and the recommendation of boosters for healthy adults is far from a sure thing.

bryan0 5y ago
> The Israel study (not "studies") is an outlier, and is inconsistent with the other studies that have been done so far. This is not accurate. There have been several studies demonstrating waning inline with Israel’s data: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-vaccine-protection-fading https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-vaccine-protection-fadi... https://www.axios.com/pfizer-moderna-coronavirus-vaccines-effectiveness-data-4a681617-d887-4b21-93a3-d6c2d9d51b31.html https://www.axios.com/pfizer-moderna-coronavirus-vaccines-ef... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed.
- timr 5y ago
  > There have been several studies demonstrating waning inline with Israel’s data: You cite three links: the first is self-reported data, which is problematic. Nevertheless, it still finds effectiveness against infection of 74%. This is a bit lower than the other studies (consensus is around 80%), but not dramatically so. If anything, it is evidence that the vaccines remain effective against the most challenging endpoint (infection), with only minor declines in effectiveness that might just as easily be statistical noise. The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. The third is the Mayo clinic study (covered in the Twitter thread from Muge Cevik) and explicitly says that vaccinations remain highly effective against infection and hospitalization over the study period, and tries to extrapolate from a fluctuation in infection data in the final month of the study. This is sketchy: > Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%). Again, this claim is an outlier. When you have an outlier based on questionable methodology, you must be skeptical of the claim. > The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed. The NEJM is just the latest study, not the only study. Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Essentially, you're projecting doom based on two studies that disagree with the ~dozen others that have been conducted, that have methodological problems, and are inconsistent with known biology. When given evidence to the contrary, you dismiss it, in favor of speculation about what might happen tomorrow. You're latching on to outliers which confirm your biases.
  - bryan0 5y ago
    > The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. These second link references a few studies including this one from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm7037e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm... > Again, this claim is an outlier. When there are several independent studies showing the same thing, they are no longer outliers. > Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Here is another study published in nejm about the affects of boosters in Israel in August: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 > Essentially, you're projecting doom Ok let me be clear here. I am not intending to project doom, what I am trying to project is that there is real data which shows boosters are beneficial. Of course the vaccines even without boosters are clearly extremely effective. Even as breakthrough cases increase because of waning immunity, the prognosis for someone fully vaccinated is very different compared to someone who is unvaccinated. The main thing I disagree with you with, and would use your argument against you, is that there clearly is real data showing waning effectiveness and the benefit of boosters. The main argument for not recommending them is that the vaccines would be better off for people that have not been vaccinated in the first place. Well no shit, but if that population is refusing to take them then the point is moot.
Kiro 5y ago
Israel used to be an outlier but no more. The data from Mayo Clinic is very consistent with Israel's: https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210908/Immunity-induced-by-PfizerBioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-declines-with-time-Mayo-Clinic-study-finds.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210908/Immunity-indu...
- timr 5y ago
  The Mayo clinic study is the other major outlier. The Mayo clinic study found that the vaccines were highly effective, but nonetheless tried to extrapolate from a trend seen in a subset of the data from the final month: > Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%). There are many problems with this, and it shouldn't be given much weight.

MuffinFlavored 5y ago

does the booster buy you another 6 months?

rock_artist 5y ago
Since covid 19 is new. No one really knows how much time a booster can give or if it'll be similar to flu when each year there will be a need to a shot relevant for this year variants. What so far seems reliable enough is that the vaccination itself reduce chance for complications when you do get it.
kuhewa 5y ago
Not enough time has elapsed to say, but it certainly does appear to put immunity back up to original levels, which were against wild-type, even though delta is worst. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255
raducu 5y ago
Completely wild speculation, but I think it will be more than 6 months, because covid variance is much less than flu. There is emerging proof that dissease+vaccine immunity is much better than dissease or vaccine alone, but it might also be the booster effect. After all, there are other vaccines -- such as hepatitis B where you need a booster after one year (booster 3), before you get your long-lasting antibodies.
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
Hep B is a 3 shot vaccine. One of the medical podcasts I listen to is speculating that maybe it was always going to take 3 shots with Covid.
- Leparamour 5y ago
  >that maybe it was always going to take 3 shots with Covid Why does it feel like that there is constant retconning going on when it comes to these Covid vaccines? Have we truly always been at war with Eastasia?

jonathanstrange 5y ago

Elderly and at risk people also get booster shots in Germany. My mother is scheduled for one in October.