4 ms·

> They get into the details of why we know annual influenza boosters are effective, and that we really don't know yet whether COVID boosters will have the same

> They get into the details of why we know annual influenza boosters are effective, and that we really don't know yet whether COVID boosters will have the same effect. Let me stop you right there, let's quote famous antivaxxer site called CDC: "Recent studies show flu vaccine can reduce the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well matched to the flu vaccine viruses."[1] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm So 40% efficacy IF WELL MATCHED to virus, if not matched it's somewhere between 0-40%. I'm not sure why you think COVID boosters not matched to current variant will have somehow bigger efficacy than influenza boosters which have only 0-40% efficacy, if not lucky. That's one of the reasons why it's pretty much pointless to get vaxxed against influenza/coronavirus for healthy people, the efficacy is next to zero in both cases for healthy people. For seniors, if they are lucky it will help them, if not it hopefully won't do more damage than good.

gambiting 4y ago
>>I'm not sure why you think COVID boosters not matched to current variant will have somehow bigger efficacy than influenza boosters which have only 0-40% efficacy, if not lucky. I just don't see how you came to that conclusion. They aren't remotely similar viruses, they aren't the same vaccines, yet you confidently declare that if X is true for the influenza vaccine, it must also be true for the coronavirus vaccine? How come?
Pooge 4y ago
> I'm not sure why you think COVID boosters not matched to current variant will have somehow bigger efficacy than influenza boosters which have only 0-40% efficacy, if not lucky. Let me stop you right there. I'm not sure why you think he thinks Covid boosters not matched to the current variant will have bigger efficacy, or the comment doesn't display correctly on my screen.
noir_lord 4y ago
> So 40% efficacy IF WELL MATCHED to virus That's a disingenuous reading of the thing you just quoted. It's 40% to 60% if well matched - assuming that that the range is evenly distributed then the middle point is 50% not 40% and reducing overall risk of flu by 50% is a good thing since flu is much more a killer of the old and young (usually - there have been exceptions, 1918 Flu (aka Spanish Flu) killed younger people at a much higher rate).
- throwntoday 4y ago
  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but is it not 40-60% effective if well matched and 0% effective otherwise? Flu shot efficiacy is typically under 50% so if they guessed the wrong strains you happen to be exposed to that season it is totally worthless. There seems to be a common misconception that it will somehow help you even if they guessed the wrong ones but I'm not sure why that is so prevalent. If there are 5 viruses, and they got 4 of them, you still have 0% protection against the missing one. I don't know why COVID would be any different.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    > https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/02/studies-shed-light-effects-serial-flu-shots-current-vaccines-benefits https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/02/studies-... Some years it nets highly negative efficacy depending on your previous years vaccination (see 2014 flu).
  - Markoff 4y ago
    you are understanding it correctly, if they are well matched (if lucky) they have at best 40-60% efficacy, if they are NOT well matched (if not lucky) their efficacy is somewhere between 0-40%, simple as that, but these pro-vaxxers will ignore science if it doesn't suit their interest
scoofy 4y ago
The entire point of my post is that parroting CDC statements without context and nuance is legitimately counterproductive.

gambiting 4y ago

>>I'm not sure why you think COVID boosters not matched to current variant will have somehow bigger efficacy than influenza boosters which have only 0-40% efficacy, if not lucky. I just don't see how you came to that conclusion. They aren't remotely similar viruses, they aren't the same vaccines, yet you confidently declare that if X is true for the influenza vaccine, it must also be true for the coronavirus vaccine? How come?

Pooge 4y ago

> I'm not sure why you think COVID boosters not matched to current variant will have somehow bigger efficacy than influenza boosters which have only 0-40% efficacy, if not lucky. Let me stop you right there. I'm not sure why you think he thinks Covid boosters not matched to the current variant will have bigger efficacy, or the comment doesn't display correctly on my screen.

noir_lord 4y ago

> So 40% efficacy IF WELL MATCHED to virus That's a disingenuous reading of the thing you just quoted. It's 40% to 60% if well matched - assuming that that the range is evenly distributed then the middle point is 50% not 40% and reducing overall risk of flu by 50% is a good thing since flu is much more a killer of the old and young (usually - there have been exceptions, 1918 Flu (aka Spanish Flu) killed younger people at a much higher rate).

throwntoday 4y ago
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but is it not 40-60% effective if well matched and 0% effective otherwise? Flu shot efficiacy is typically under 50% so if they guessed the wrong strains you happen to be exposed to that season it is totally worthless. There seems to be a common misconception that it will somehow help you even if they guessed the wrong ones but I'm not sure why that is so prevalent. If there are 5 viruses, and they got 4 of them, you still have 0% protection against the missing one. I don't know why COVID would be any different.
- peteradio 4y ago
  > https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/02/studies-shed-light-effects-serial-flu-shots-current-vaccines-benefits https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/02/studies-... Some years it nets highly negative efficacy depending on your previous years vaccination (see 2014 flu).
- Markoff 4y ago
  you are understanding it correctly, if they are well matched (if lucky) they have at best 40-60% efficacy, if they are NOT well matched (if not lucky) their efficacy is somewhere between 0-40%, simple as that, but these pro-vaxxers will ignore science if it doesn't suit their interest

scoofy 4y ago

The entire point of my post is that parroting CDC statements without context and nuance is legitimately counterproductive.