5 ms·

> We can maybe guess, but we don't know. There's no data. Nonsense. We have data that shows vaccine effectiveness wanes with time. We know boosters improve imm

> We can maybe guess, but we don't know. There's no data. Nonsense. We have data that shows vaccine effectiveness wanes with time. We know boosters improve immunity. We've been giving out bivalent booster for over a year and we have data that they're effective. > I'm not exaggerating. [...] "science" so bad that it wouldn't pass muster at a high-school science fair. You are exaggerating. You're engaging in hyperbole that's an embarrassment to yourself. Armchair scientists should leave the medical decisions to the professionals.

timr 3y ago
> We have data that shows vaccine effectiveness wanes with time. No, we don't. We have confounded, poorly controlled observational studies, and extrapolation from antibody titres. > We know boosters improve immunity. No, we don't. The necessary studies have never been done. Increasing antibodies for a while (in mice) does not equal "improving immunity" in humans. > We've been giving out bivalent booster for over a year and we have data that they're effective. Well, if you say so. But actually...no. Or you'd cite it, instead of just asserting things. > Armchair scientists should leave the medical decisions to the professionals. Such as Paul Offit, FDA VRBPAC member, co-creator of the Rotavirus vaccine, and director of the vaccine education center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia? https://time.com/6246525/bivalent-booster-not-very-effective-paul-offit/ https://time.com/6246525/bivalent-booster-not-very-effective... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780 > In his perspective piece, Offit cites data from two leading virologists—Dr. David Ho, director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University, and Dr. Dan Barouch at Harvard Medical School—who reported that when serum from people boosted with the bivalent Omicron booster was compared to that from people boosted with a dose of the original vaccine, their levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.4/5 were comparable. Ho’s work also showed that the bivalent booster did not produce appreciably different antibody responses against newer Omicron variants, such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and now XBB.1.5, which together account for 83% of new infections in the U.S. as of the first week of January. These are for antibodies, mind you...the most reactive short-term signal to a booster vaccination. There's simply no good evidence backing these new vaccines. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know the data.
- chimprich 3y ago
  The problem with these kind of debates is that someone can come along and dump a single paper they've found and claim that it backs up their argument. And maybe it does, but the experts at health agencies like the NHS and dozens or hundreds of others (to sidestep your claim about the US one taking the wrong decisions) get to review, full time, with relevant professional experience, all of the evidence. But, let's look at your link. First paragraph: "And the latest data show that the newest booster shot, which targets the Omicron BA.4/5 strain and original virus variants in a bivalent formulation, isn’t that much more effective in generating virus-fighting antibodies than the original vaccine when used as a booster." So this doesn't even back up your claim. It doesn't say boosters aren't effective, just that the bivalent vaccine isn't "that much more effective" than the original vaccine as a booster.
  - timr 3y ago
    I didn't "dump a single paper". I posted the opinion of an expert in the field, since you clearly don't trust my own assessment of the data. You don't have to trust me, but you just said we have to trust the experts, right? The "problem" with these kinds of debates is that people who have absolutely no ability to read or evaluate scientific literature confidently assert things that they cannot know, based on what they heard someone else say on social media. > So this doesn't even back up your claim. It doesn't say boosters aren't effective, just that the bivalent vaccine isn't "that much more effective" than the original vaccine as a booster. My "claim" was that there's no evidence supporting the dosing schedule for these boosters (this isn't a claim, it's a fact. The booster doses were approved without a single human efficacy trial [1]). Arguing that antibody titers go up after boosting is not a rebuttal...because that's what antibodies do when you inject things into the body. It's the entire topic of the thread. Antibodies go up, then they go back down. It's a poor proxy for immunity. [1] Here's the announcement from the FDA on the latest dosing recommendations: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-changes-simplify-use-bivalent-mrna-covid-19-vaccines https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi... You'll see fun facts such as: * the single-dose schedule for Moderna bivalent is based on antibody responses in about 1500 people, only 145 of whom had Covid in the past. This doesn't reflect any aspect of the real world, where most of us have had it at least once. * they didn't have enough data to justify their decision, so they just grouped together stuff from prior vaccines because "these vaccines are manufactured using the same process." * for Pfizer, effectiveness of a single dose is supported by OBSERVATIONAL DATA from England on the effectiveness of one dose of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. * "Among individuals 12 to 17 years of age who had received only one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, those who had evidence of previous infection with alpha, delta or omicron variants had increased protection against symptomatic omicron infection compared with those with no evidence of previous infection" That last one is an absolutely mind-blowing bit of doublespeak, by the way. They're literally saying that they're justifying this as a single-dose vaccine because people who were previously infected show more protection after one dose than those who were never infected. Think about that.

timr 3y ago

> We have data that shows vaccine effectiveness wanes with time. No, we don't. We have confounded, poorly controlled observational studies, and extrapolation from antibody titres. > We know boosters improve immunity. No, we don't. The necessary studies have never been done. Increasing antibodies for a while (in mice) does not equal "improving immunity" in humans. > We've been giving out bivalent booster for over a year and we have data that they're effective. Well, if you say so. But actually...no. Or you'd cite it, instead of just asserting things. > Armchair scientists should leave the medical decisions to the professionals. Such as Paul Offit, FDA VRBPAC member, co-creator of the Rotavirus vaccine, and director of the vaccine education center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia? https://time.com/6246525/bivalent-booster-not-very-effective-paul-offit/ https://time.com/6246525/bivalent-booster-not-very-effective... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780 > In his perspective piece, Offit cites data from two leading virologists—Dr. David Ho, director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University, and Dr. Dan Barouch at Harvard Medical School—who reported that when serum from people boosted with the bivalent Omicron booster was compared to that from people boosted with a dose of the original vaccine, their levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.4/5 were comparable. Ho’s work also showed that the bivalent booster did not produce appreciably different antibody responses against newer Omicron variants, such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and now XBB.1.5, which together account for 83% of new infections in the U.S. as of the first week of January. These are for antibodies, mind you...the most reactive short-term signal to a booster vaccination. There's simply no good evidence backing these new vaccines. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know the data.

chimprich 3y ago
The problem with these kind of debates is that someone can come along and dump a single paper they've found and claim that it backs up their argument. And maybe it does, but the experts at health agencies like the NHS and dozens or hundreds of others (to sidestep your claim about the US one taking the wrong decisions) get to review, full time, with relevant professional experience, all of the evidence. But, let's look at your link. First paragraph: "And the latest data show that the newest booster shot, which targets the Omicron BA.4/5 strain and original virus variants in a bivalent formulation, isn’t that much more effective in generating virus-fighting antibodies than the original vaccine when used as a booster." So this doesn't even back up your claim. It doesn't say boosters aren't effective, just that the bivalent vaccine isn't "that much more effective" than the original vaccine as a booster.
- timr 3y ago
  I didn't "dump a single paper". I posted the opinion of an expert in the field, since you clearly don't trust my own assessment of the data. You don't have to trust me, but you just said we have to trust the experts, right? The "problem" with these kinds of debates is that people who have absolutely no ability to read or evaluate scientific literature confidently assert things that they cannot know, based on what they heard someone else say on social media. > So this doesn't even back up your claim. It doesn't say boosters aren't effective, just that the bivalent vaccine isn't "that much more effective" than the original vaccine as a booster. My "claim" was that there's no evidence supporting the dosing schedule for these boosters (this isn't a claim, it's a fact. The booster doses were approved without a single human efficacy trial [1]). Arguing that antibody titers go up after boosting is not a rebuttal...because that's what antibodies do when you inject things into the body. It's the entire topic of the thread. Antibodies go up, then they go back down. It's a poor proxy for immunity. [1] Here's the announcement from the FDA on the latest dosing recommendations: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-changes-simplify-use-bivalent-mrna-covid-19-vaccines https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi... You'll see fun facts such as: * the single-dose schedule for Moderna bivalent is based on antibody responses in about 1500 people, only 145 of whom had Covid in the past. This doesn't reflect any aspect of the real world, where most of us have had it at least once. * they didn't have enough data to justify their decision, so they just grouped together stuff from prior vaccines because "these vaccines are manufactured using the same process." * for Pfizer, effectiveness of a single dose is supported by OBSERVATIONAL DATA from England on the effectiveness of one dose of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. * "Among individuals 12 to 17 years of age who had received only one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, those who had evidence of previous infection with alpha, delta or omicron variants had increased protection against symptomatic omicron infection compared with those with no evidence of previous infection" That last one is an absolutely mind-blowing bit of doublespeak, by the way. They're literally saying that they're justifying this as a single-dose vaccine because people who were previously infected show more protection after one dose than those who were never infected. Think about that.