5 ms·

Does anyone have a summary of the current science regarding the third vaccine shot for covid? I had the impression that the safety effect for someone in good h

• elzbardico 5y ago
  Science like in peer-reviewed long term Randomized Clinical Trials? I couldn't find much, it looks like it is basically navigating from the seat of the pants and let's measure it later.
  • SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Well that seems dangerous. Imagine the reaction if they get something wrong, the next time it won’t be just divisive, it’ll be war.
• bryan0 5y ago
  Boosters are beneficial even if you’re under 45: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-12-09/large-studies-shows-huge-benefit-of-covid-19-booster-shots https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-12-09/large-studi... Edit: critical to beneficial
  • MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
    Your article says they are beneficial, not critical.
    • bryan0 5y ago
      Thanks I updated my comment
  • throwawaymedia 5y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • MrZander 5y ago
      > Post-vaccination CAE rate was highest in young boys aged 12-15 following dose two. For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate I'm I reading this wrong? The study is concluding that this population is more likely to have a CAE if they get the vaccine than being hospitalized without the vaccine?
      • yorwba 5y ago
        Yes, that's the conclusion. You could quibble a bit and compare CAE hospitalizations instead, but they'd still exceed the expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate. On the other hand, "expected" is based on past data, and their benchmark for "high" hospitalization risk is January 2021 in the US. Depending on how much higher the current wave will go, it might retrospectively turn out to be safer to have gotten vaccinated after all, even if you're a 12-year-old boy without comorbidities.
    • azth 5y ago
      Why are you being downvoted?
      • yorwba 5y ago
        Because the text in quotes is not in the paper.
      • bryan0 5y ago
        Maybe because the study has nothing to do with boosters or overall Covid risk. Myocarditis risk is lower with boosters than with 2nd shot in Israeli studies, but again the reason to get vaccinated is not just about myocarditis. More nuance and Israeli data here: https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/09/fda-expands-authorization-for-pfizers-covid-19-booster-to-cover-16-and-17-year-olds/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/09/fda-expands-authorizatio... (this is also about teens specifically and not <45 question in the GP)
• rhino369 5y ago
  I'm not really sure anyone knows for sure with Omicron since the data is too fresh and limited. The experts claim not to be able to tell how severe Omicron is yet, so I'm not sure how'd they know boosters are effective at reducing severity.
• woodruffw 5y ago
  My understanding as a layperson is that we're only just now (this week) entering the window for which Omicron cases should (in turns of trending with other variants) be turning into deaths. As a result, we don't have a great deal of high-quality data on how short-term dangerous Omicron is yet, other than knowing that it's more contagious than Delta and that vaccinated (and especially boosted) individuals seem to have milder symptoms when infected.
  • ed25519FUUU 5y ago
    That’s true from a USA-centric perspective. I guess we’ll soon see how dearly omicron is here.
• fairity 5y ago
  Here is a study that observes waning immunity over time for vaccinated individuals: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/11/09/israeli-study-shows-how-covid-19-immunity-wanes-over-time/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/11/09/israeli-study-shows... Long story short, the study observes that there are progressively higher rates of infection in vaccinated cohorts who were vaccinated 4, 5, and 6 months ago. There were 1.7 infections per 1000 people in the cohort vaccinated 4 months ago. There were 2.2 infections per 1000 people in the cohort vaccinated 5 months ago. There were 3.3 infections per 1000 people in the cohort vaccinated 6 months ago. Obviously, nobody knows how Omicron changes this.
• usaphp 5y ago
  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v... "For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two cardiac adverse event is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate at both moderate and high COVID-19 hospitalization incidence." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf "myocarditis after vaccination was higher than myocarditis after sars-cov-2 infection for people <40"
  • organsnyder 5y ago
    Why is it comparing CAE with hospitalization rate? What's the CAE for 120-day COVID-19 infection, or the hospitalization rate for post-vaccination?
    • mikeyouse 5y ago
      Because it's a garbage preprint of a paper written by unqualified anti-vaxxer weirdos. But it suits the "experts must be wrong" HN trope, so it's being posted all over this thread. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-diving-in-vaers-doctors-fall-into-the-same-trap-as-antivaxxers/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-diving-in-vaers-do...
      • usaphp 5y ago
        > “Dumpster diving” is a term used to describe studies using data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database by authors, almost always antivaxxers, who don’t understand its limitations. Is it really productive to just label people who wrote the paper researching data of vaccine side effects as "antivaxxers"? Does it mean that nobody can question the safety of vaccines now, because the only data that is being captured about side effects, apparently can't be used in data analysis?
        • mikeyouse 5y ago
          No - but there are good ways and bad ways to use the VAERS data. The linked paper is a perfect example of the bad ways for all of the reasons laid out in that post. Of course researchers should be questioning the safety and side effect profile of vaccines -- but that doesn't mean that everyone who purports to do so is acting in good faith or has the capabilities/expertise to do so.
• josephcsible 5y ago
  > the «no sense of smell» long-term complication A couple of weeks is "long-term"?
  • givinguflac 5y ago
    I personally know two people who have reduced or no sense of smell after a year post infection.
    • nickysielicki 5y ago
      I've been infected twice. I can smell, but it's muted relative to how it was previously. It also feels like the spectrum of smells was shifted -- I can smell stuff and identify it fine, but it's not how I remember things smelling before. I've been unable to really put this into words.
      • njmartina 5y ago
        This is my experience as well. Was infected February 2021 and was totally without smell for around 4 months until it slowly recovered. But like you said it's different now, where certain things smell differently but I can still identify them. Same goes for taste, in particular onions smell and taste almost entirely different than before I got sick.
      • dangom 5y ago
        Very curious. Is there anything that smells the same, or is absolutely everything different? Also, how much of a difference is it - slightly off, or completely new?
  • hedgehog 5y ago
    Most people have no obvious long term symptoms from infection. Some % have symptoms like no or distorted sense of smell, heart issues, lung issues, etc for more than a year. Vaccination seems to reduce the odds you'll have these problems. My guess is serious lingering symptoms 5% for kids and more like 10% for sub-50 adults. Hard to get good data though, the best I've seen is this survey from the UK: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1april2021 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... All this to say there will be fortunes built on the expansion of the market for chronic disease management tools.
• michaelrpeskin 5y ago
  There may be newer data, but I'm aware of this analysis https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/addendumcorrection-to-danish-ve-data https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/addendumcorrection-to-dan... My only criticism of that analysis is that the original study reported all the counts based on the population of over the age of 12. And when he back calculated the expected values he used the full population. The bias I see there is that it's highly likely that all of the under 12s would be unvaccinated which would change the denominator a bit. I re-did his analysis in the most drastic case by saying that all the under 12s were unvaccinated and I get a -59% VE. Not as big negative as he reports, but still negative. So that's a problem.
• nickysielicki 5y ago
  > although with a significant decrease in risk of catching or passing on the virus. With these effects waning on a time-scale similar to the first two doses. Food for thought: https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim... Or the actual paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v... The vaccine seems to result in less symptoms and makes your body clear the virus faster, but the evidence is coming in that peak viral load is not changed. To me, this is the nightmare scenario of us going forward with emergency use authorizations. The whole theory behind the vaccine was that if your body was primed to handle the spike protein, you'd clear it faster and you'd feel better and critically: that you'd actually spread less virus because your body won't collect as much of it waiting for your immune system to react. But only the first two parts of that ended up being true, because it appears that peak viral load isn't impacted. So now if you're vaaccinated, you feel fine so you don't test yourself and you don't isolate, but you're still spreading the virus as much as before, and r0 across the entire population is basically unchanged. It would almost be better for others if you weren't vaccinated, because you would have a lower chance of presenting asymptomatically and would be more likely to isolate. The only silver lining is that it seems to clear faster, so the timespan where you're walking around with a high viral load (ie: superspreader) is smaller. But this isn't what they wanted.
  • dangom 5y ago
    This interpretation is misleading. There is no significant viral load difference between groups, but only looking at the subset of vaccinated people who actually got infected. Also, the study also suggests lower viral loads for the symptomatic population - regardless of vaccination, which is counterintuitive; and a higher ratio of vaccinated people developing symptoms (see counts in fig 1.). Also, the individual variability in viral load within each group is enormous, such that finding a "significant difference" would probably require many more participants than what the study recruited.
• irthomasthomas 5y ago
  Some time ago I looked at the odds of dying from covid Delta, which was less virulent but more deadly than Omicron. Based on the Zoe study from the U.K. the odds of catching Delta where 17,000 to 1. https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/uk-rates-holding-steady-in-spite-of-indian-variant https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/uk-rates-holding-steady-in-sp... The odds of dying, I took from the CDC, because there are issues with counting deaths in U.K. For anyone up to 40 the odds of dying after catching covid are 1 in 5,000 for those with 2 or more co-morbid diseases, and 1 in 100,000 for those with fewer than 2 co-morbid diseases. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm That makes the chance of dying from covid for a 40 year old or younger = 1 in 83,333,333 for those with 2 co-morbid diseases and 1 in 1,700,000,000 for those with fewer than 2 co-morbid diseases. Omicron may be different, but as it spreads faster and kills fewer, I doubt it will be any worse in the end. Now you need to know the chance of dying from a vaccine adverse event but I don't have that to hand.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]