6 ms·

I have a few relatives in the medical field (all vaxxed and boosted) that have explained the booster shot is just more of the same stuff - they haven't had time

I have a few relatives in the medical field (all vaxxed and boosted) that have explained the booster shot is just more of the same stuff - they haven't had time to make a new recipe.. so isn't this just the same study all over again? i.e 2 shots had high protection in the beginning and waned over time. Can we expect the same from the booster shot?

base698 5y ago
Omicron the Pfizer marketing press release. Easy way to sell another 160 million doses.
glial 5y ago
My assumption at this point is: probably, but the immune system is complicated so nobody's really sure.
tgtweak 5y ago
They are comparing 3 weeks after second dose and 4 weeks after 3rd dose. Presumably efficacy drop over time after vaccination is not in scope. Not enough time has passed under observation to actually determine if it will wane similarly.
dom96 5y ago
The important bit is Omicron. Since as you say the recipe is the same it is an open question whether these vaccines can offer the same protection as for delta (and for how many doses)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gonehome 5y ago
I think immune response doesn’t necessarily work that way. It’s possible the third shot could improve immunity for a longer time frame of 1-3yrs. I think I read there is also a new omicron specific mRNA vaccine in the works too.
rich_sasha 5y ago
From reading around (not a biologist), I get the impression that there's some kind of super-linear immunity building, not just waning protection. Standard children's vaccines often have a few doses, and not evenly spaced. Soo... you're building up better immunity against the "baseline" virus with each dose. That immunity translates to some (reduced) immunity to the variants. But if the "baseline" is high enough, you can afford some drop in efficiency. Perhaps in some ideal world, the boosters would be tuned to the variants. But as you say, they would need to be re-tested etc. Cf. the AZ vaccine, which through some arcane process causes (extremely rare) blood clots, it's probably hard to verify ahead of time a modified vaccine wouldn't suffer from such side effects.
- lordlimecat 5y ago
  My understanding is that there is poor evidence that any of the vaccines cause a statistically significant increase in blood clots over any other vaccine-- that the act of getting an immunization can (very rarely) trigger a blood clot regardless of what it is and COVID just happens to be in the hyper-sensitive spotlight.
  - m0llusk 5y ago
    It is likely that the cause or at least a cause of rare blood clots has been found. There is a chance that adenovirus used to make vaccines can bind to a specific clotting factor in the blood which then in rare cases may be attacked by antibodies created by the immune system to fight the infection. https://www.biospace.com/article/researchers-find-possible-cause-of-rare-clotting-side-effect-in-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.biospace.com/article/researchers-find-possible-c...
maxerickson 5y ago
The immune response to the booster isn't necessary the same as the response to the second dose, so no, it isn't the same study. One impact is that antibody levels are higher after the booster than after the second dose.
CWuestefeld 5y ago
I think there are two schools of thought, with little evidence so far to make one dominant. What the press seems to be assuming is that it's as simple as the immunity from vaccination simply wearing out over time. But there's at least one alternative explanation. The alternative is that the timing of the second dose was less than optimal. With little experimentation to guide the authorities, the 4-week delay was chosen in part to give a quicker timeline for vaccination. If they'd said, say, 2 months or 6 months, then we would have been that much slower getting to even that level of immunity, so it was a conscious compromise. But what if the optimal gap between shots really is 6 months, and because the booster achieves that, the effect will be more permanent? Like I said, not enough is known for sure, but there is some reason to believe that the latter explanation may be true.
- tossstone 5y ago
  We should have the data to study that since some countries decided to wait longer between doses. The UK and Canada focused on getting as many first-doses into arms as possible before folks were eligible for a second jab.
_ink_ 5y ago
There are studies that show, that you do not have much protection against an infection half a year after your second dose. This is true for all available vaccines in the western world. You probably still have protection against a severe outcome, but not against getting infected and thus spreading the virus. A third dose, even of the same stuff, will again increase your amount of antibodies and therefore lessen the chance of an infection in the first place. Using a different vaccine as third dose seems to offer even more protection.
lb0 5y ago
Expert on tv explained it just yesterday.. 3 shots is actually what you need for most vaccines and is the common procedure for most if you remember.. 1st shot "warns" your immune system 2nd shot really triggers your immune system (that's also why most people see strongest side effects here) 3rd shot then makes your immune remind, and massively increases B+T lymphocytesmemory memory cells So yeah, you can expect a lot from it.
- pcbro141 5y ago
  That's strange. I seem to remember the Pfizer/Moderna being advertised as a 2 dose regimen earlier in the year, anyone else remember that? Seems like we'll be on to "akshually you need 4 shots to be fully vaccinated" like Israel in a few months.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  > Expert on tv explained it just yesterday.. 3 shots is actually what you need for most vaccines and is the common procedure for most if you remember.. The same so called experts that will say that now you need the 4th dose, the 5th etc. It's now obvious that it's a vaccine as a service. Pfizer ceo's hinted at it last year, saying it would probably be recurring every 6 months.
  - swayvil 5y ago
    Checking out your replies that got flagged and killed. Mob style censorship is alive and well here.
    - jmnicolas 5y ago
      It's a lost battle, the majority on HN decided to suspend doubt about the vaccines and the crooks at Pfizer (look at their judiciary past, the name crook is warranted). It's funny how smart people can read regularly articles that show that 90% of scientific papers aren't reproducible (so it's actually not science) then will proceed to trust blindly the next scientific paper they read.
choward 5y ago
It took just weeks after the virus was DNA sequenced to make the first vaccine. The trials are what took so long. The vaccine existed before we started shutting stuff down in the US. https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/vaccine-development https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/vaccine-development

base698 5y ago

Omicron the Pfizer marketing press release. Easy way to sell another 160 million doses.

glial 5y ago

My assumption at this point is: probably, but the immune system is complicated so nobody's really sure.

tgtweak 5y ago

They are comparing 3 weeks after second dose and 4 weeks after 3rd dose. Presumably efficacy drop over time after vaccination is not in scope. Not enough time has passed under observation to actually determine if it will wane similarly.

dom96 5y ago

The important bit is Omicron. Since as you say the recipe is the same it is an open question whether these vaccines can offer the same protection as for delta (and for how many doses)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gonehome 5y ago

I think immune response doesn’t necessarily work that way. It’s possible the third shot could improve immunity for a longer time frame of 1-3yrs. I think I read there is also a new omicron specific mRNA vaccine in the works too.

rich_sasha 5y ago

From reading around (not a biologist), I get the impression that there's some kind of super-linear immunity building, not just waning protection. Standard children's vaccines often have a few doses, and not evenly spaced. Soo... you're building up better immunity against the "baseline" virus with each dose. That immunity translates to some (reduced) immunity to the variants. But if the "baseline" is high enough, you can afford some drop in efficiency. Perhaps in some ideal world, the boosters would be tuned to the variants. But as you say, they would need to be re-tested etc. Cf. the AZ vaccine, which through some arcane process causes (extremely rare) blood clots, it's probably hard to verify ahead of time a modified vaccine wouldn't suffer from such side effects.

lordlimecat 5y ago
My understanding is that there is poor evidence that any of the vaccines cause a statistically significant increase in blood clots over any other vaccine-- that the act of getting an immunization can (very rarely) trigger a blood clot regardless of what it is and COVID just happens to be in the hyper-sensitive spotlight.
- m0llusk 5y ago
  It is likely that the cause or at least a cause of rare blood clots has been found. There is a chance that adenovirus used to make vaccines can bind to a specific clotting factor in the blood which then in rare cases may be attacked by antibodies created by the immune system to fight the infection. https://www.biospace.com/article/researchers-find-possible-cause-of-rare-clotting-side-effect-in-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.biospace.com/article/researchers-find-possible-c...

maxerickson 5y ago

The immune response to the booster isn't necessary the same as the response to the second dose, so no, it isn't the same study. One impact is that antibody levels are higher after the booster than after the second dose.

CWuestefeld 5y ago

I think there are two schools of thought, with little evidence so far to make one dominant. What the press seems to be assuming is that it's as simple as the immunity from vaccination simply wearing out over time. But there's at least one alternative explanation. The alternative is that the timing of the second dose was less than optimal. With little experimentation to guide the authorities, the 4-week delay was chosen in part to give a quicker timeline for vaccination. If they'd said, say, 2 months or 6 months, then we would have been that much slower getting to even that level of immunity, so it was a conscious compromise. But what if the optimal gap between shots really is 6 months, and because the booster achieves that, the effect will be more permanent? Like I said, not enough is known for sure, but there is some reason to believe that the latter explanation may be true.

tossstone 5y ago
We should have the data to study that since some countries decided to wait longer between doses. The UK and Canada focused on getting as many first-doses into arms as possible before folks were eligible for a second jab.

_ink_ 5y ago

There are studies that show, that you do not have much protection against an infection half a year after your second dose. This is true for all available vaccines in the western world. You probably still have protection against a severe outcome, but not against getting infected and thus spreading the virus. A third dose, even of the same stuff, will again increase your amount of antibodies and therefore lessen the chance of an infection in the first place. Using a different vaccine as third dose seems to offer even more protection.

lb0 5y ago

Expert on tv explained it just yesterday.. 3 shots is actually what you need for most vaccines and is the common procedure for most if you remember.. 1st shot "warns" your immune system 2nd shot really triggers your immune system (that's also why most people see strongest side effects here) 3rd shot then makes your immune remind, and massively increases B+T lymphocytesmemory memory cells So yeah, you can expect a lot from it.

pcbro141 5y ago
That's strange. I seem to remember the Pfizer/Moderna being advertised as a 2 dose regimen earlier in the year, anyone else remember that? Seems like we'll be on to "akshually you need 4 shots to be fully vaccinated" like Israel in a few months.
jmnicolas 5y ago
> Expert on tv explained it just yesterday.. 3 shots is actually what you need for most vaccines and is the common procedure for most if you remember.. The same so called experts that will say that now you need the 4th dose, the 5th etc. It's now obvious that it's a vaccine as a service. Pfizer ceo's hinted at it last year, saying it would probably be recurring every 6 months.
- swayvil 5y ago
  Checking out your replies that got flagged and killed. Mob style censorship is alive and well here.
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    It's a lost battle, the majority on HN decided to suspend doubt about the vaccines and the crooks at Pfizer (look at their judiciary past, the name crook is warranted). It's funny how smart people can read regularly articles that show that 90% of scientific papers aren't reproducible (so it's actually not science) then will proceed to trust blindly the next scientific paper they read.

choward 5y ago

It took just weeks after the virus was DNA sequenced to make the first vaccine. The trials are what took so long. The vaccine existed before we started shutting stuff down in the US. https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/vaccine-development https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/vaccine-development