15 ms·

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

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.
- chimprich 3y ago
  > since you clearly don't trust my own assessment of the data. Clearly. > people who have absolutely no ability to read or evaluate scientific literature assert things that they cannot know. That's quite an assumption on HN. Half the people on here have a significant scientific background. I've got a PhD (computational biology), papers published etc. I'm quite happy to read and get the gist of scientific literature in this field. What I don't have is the specific expertise that comes from being a medical expert, having years of experience in the field, and having the time to look at this in great detail full-time. For that I am happy to defer to the experts here. Is your claim that all the experts from all of the countries who have approved the booster programmes are all incompetent? > The booster doses were approved without a single human efficacy trial I don't think that's true at all. I seem to remember several studies. How about this CovBoost one? https://www.covboost.org.uk/results https://www.covboost.org.uk/results
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - timr 3y ago
    > I don't think that's true at all. I seem to remember several studies. I linked the FDA announcement for the latest dosing changes. You can see how they justify it. It's funny that you link the CovBoost thing. They're summarizing this paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02717-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Which is not about the bivalent vaccines (it's from 2021, concerning dose 3, not...6? 7?), and it's by this fellow, who...let's just say that he's not taking your side of the argument: https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1466707690332340227 https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1466707690332340227 It's a good paper, it just doesn't support the argument you're making. Overall, it shows that third dose boosting seems to play a minimal role in otherwise healthy people who have had two doses and been infected.

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.

chimprich 3y ago
> since you clearly don't trust my own assessment of the data. Clearly. > people who have absolutely no ability to read or evaluate scientific literature assert things that they cannot know. That's quite an assumption on HN. Half the people on here have a significant scientific background. I've got a PhD (computational biology), papers published etc. I'm quite happy to read and get the gist of scientific literature in this field. What I don't have is the specific expertise that comes from being a medical expert, having years of experience in the field, and having the time to look at this in great detail full-time. For that I am happy to defer to the experts here. Is your claim that all the experts from all of the countries who have approved the booster programmes are all incompetent? > The booster doses were approved without a single human efficacy trial I don't think that's true at all. I seem to remember several studies. How about this CovBoost one? https://www.covboost.org.uk/results https://www.covboost.org.uk/results
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 3y ago
  > I don't think that's true at all. I seem to remember several studies. I linked the FDA announcement for the latest dosing changes. You can see how they justify it. It's funny that you link the CovBoost thing. They're summarizing this paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02717-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Which is not about the bivalent vaccines (it's from 2021, concerning dose 3, not...6? 7?), and it's by this fellow, who...let's just say that he's not taking your side of the argument: https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1466707690332340227 https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1466707690332340227 It's a good paper, it just doesn't support the argument you're making. Overall, it shows that third dose boosting seems to play a minimal role in otherwise healthy people who have had two doses and been infected.