Yes.
The vaccines that address variants haven't gone through clinical trials and I haven't seen any plans to do so.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Coronavirus (Covid-19) informational thread
- Thread starter yaxomoxay
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes.
The vaccines that address variants haven't gone through clinical trials and I haven't seen any plans to do so.
Yes, the Pfizer booster is identical in formulation and dose to the first two doses. Pfizer worked on a booster tailored to Delta, but it appears they decided the original handles the variants well enough that the downsides to a new formulation outweigh the advantages of having something shown to be safe and proven.
I heard Fauci say last night that J&J is still being studied for a booster, so SF must be doing their own thing.
That strikes me as strange that SF would be doing this prior official CDC/FDA review. I don't doubt it, but it just seems like a strange thing to do.
EUA is per vaccine type. So you can get one JNJ or 2 PFE or 2 MRNA. I don't think that there's anything that says that you can't get JNJ + PFE or JNJ + MRNA. The updated EUA should say that you can get 3 PFE or 3 MRNA.
I got JNJ. So, are you saying I could add one shot of PFE or one shot of MRNA? Are the first and second doses of PFE or MRNA identical? I always thought there was a difference between the first and second dose, but I could easily be wrong.
BTW - when I asked my doctor about what SF was doing, he just added the antibody test to my blood panel for my physical. It came back positive, and he told me not to bother.
I was talking about how San Francisco could do a booster on top of a JNJ without CDC/FDA approval. In that they could technically do it but it isn't approved. The reason it isn't approved is lack of data on the JNJ. The JNJ came out sometime after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
So you might go somewhere else and try to get a booster but they may ask you questions and say no as it hasn't been approved for those with the JNJ (that's my current knowledge).
I've received emails from three hospitals detailing what they can do (two of them can do boosters now) and I'm not sure of the third as I didn't read it carefully. But I don't qualify for "moderately" to "severely". I'd say that I'm in the "slightly" category. So I will wait until December which will be eight months after my second dose.
Yeah, I got vaccinated in early April when I became eligible in my state. I liked the idea of one and done with J&J. Anyway, if recommended by CDC, I probably won’t be getting a booster until the end of the year. Which is fine.
I have no problem with the US prioritizing our population in vaccination planning. If this means that we need to give boosters to our elderly and work back through the population based on waning immunity, so be it. I also have no problem donating vaccine to other countries, so long as we can meet our national needs first. As I understand it, the US has been doing that. I believe we donate more vaccine than any other country….by like a factor of 5 or more.
People are doing that, and there is speculation that it might be beneficial, but from everything I've read (for what that's worth), there is very little evidence about it, both in terms of efficacy or safety. So it's in the realm of theory right now.
I heard Fauci say in an interview in the last few days that the antibody tests are not reliably good indicators of anything at this point, and shouldn't influence your decisions one way or another. Here is an earlier report on that.
I often think of the stat that 3% of the annual US military budget could end all starvation on earth.
I suppose the reality is the people who are paying to produce the vaccines are going to take care of themselves first. At least we will also pay to do most of the third-world vaccinations too.
The good news is it sounds like supply is ramping up so quickly, that logistics will soon be the bottleneck to worldwide distribution rather than supply.
Then again, maybe that doesn't qualify as good news.
Saw some research on people getting the vaccine after getting a natural infection and they have the best protection - though mainly on the variant that they were infected with. The question it poses is on the level of protection if you get two doses of the vaccine and then a mild breakthrough infection.
Indeed it is, but the choice of the booster shot right now isn't based on science but rather on politics. Your anger is misplaced, because of some of the misinformation you were told by the media and politicians. Booster shots are valid; but I will tell you why some people want it.
We need to refer to some very recent studies that just came out of the UK, since they are one of the few countries doing this type of research, is that of people who were naturally infected by COVID versus those who are vaccinated and their response to the virus and many variants of concern are very intriguing.
So, COVID 19 is a really simple virus with a total of 28 proteins. The spike protein that we are so focused right now is 1 of the 28 of that protein. With someone who was natural infected with COVID such as myself, that person who gets to live and tell will develop immunity in all of the 28 proteins. This immunity actually last 1 year (so far because that's how long the study been going on so far) and the B cells and T cells respond to ALL the 28 proteins of the virus, so it helps prevent and neutralize any infection or any variant of concerns, because you have immunity on all the 28 proteins. Another immunity a naturally infected gets is the Immunoglobulin A which resides on your mucous membrane (nose for instance) as well as the Immunoglobulin M and G which reside in the blood. So for a naturally infected person, the infection is dealt with and stopped at the source with no further transmission possible. The person's IgA is neutralizing the virus at the source. A naturally infected person that also have 2 doses of the vaccine will have a much stronger immunity response against COVID, which provides a strong and complete immunity to the virus.
A person who is vaccinated only gets 1 to 2 out of the 28 proteins of the virus of the neutralizing antibodies. While there are antibodies formed in the blood of the person, there are no immunity formed on the person's nose, so when a vaccinated person gets infected by the virus, the vaccine PREVENTS a symptomatic infection in the blood which then reduce hospitalizations and deaths, but does not prevent symptoms like runny nose, headaches, coughing etc. But once a vaccinated person is naturally infected by the virus and gets mild symptoms, that person NOW has all 28 of the virus proteins and the antibodies to neutralize ALL 28 of the proteins as opposed to just 1 to 2 through vaccination. Right now, the research in the UK is determining if a vaccinated person who gets infected naturally by the virus will have a similar immunity response as someone who had been infected first and then gotten 2 shots of the vaccine later. So far in the UK, it is actually bearing some truth, because the UK is free from lockdowns and virus mitigation.
And so the conclusion from the doctors who are doing the research in the UK is simply this.
1, Get fully vaccinated which will take the edge of COVID
2, Get infected naturally by being out there in the public
3, Build a "polyclonal" immunity towards COVID and all its variants without needing a vaccine booster
So far, many countries are adopting the booster shot mentality to boost the antibodies while prevent natural infection at the source by masking, but again antibodies don't mean a thing when you have antibodies as a result of vaccination to only neutralize 1 or 2 proteins of the virus, when the virus has 28 of them.
I can see Booster shots are valid for people who are at the highest risk group of COVID infection even when they are vaccinated. So they need some means to take the edge of COVID if and when they get infected. But once infected, they then build a complete immunity to COVID. Do you see an oxymoron to this debacle? You can't build a complete immunity to the virus without natural infection, and yet we are trying so hard not to get that natural infection.
So is this decision people make are based on science or rather, it is based on their personal fear of getting COVID and then getting really sick and potentially leading to death. I think the booster shot right now is mainly driven by fear, because the science shows that you can't get your body to mount an immune response to all 28 proteins of the virus through a vaccine.
Last edited:
Yes and this is called Polyclonal immunity. The more you're infected with different variants, the higher the level of protection you have. This had been researched in the past with Cow Pox and the cross immunity it gives to a person once infected with Cow Pox protects it against small pox.
The mild breakthrough infection is due to the lack of antibodies on the mucous membrane, because the needle based vaccine only provides immunity in the blood, but not the nose, which can only be vaccinated either by a natural infection (breakthrough case) or through an "internasal" spray vaccine.
Right now, the UK is doing research with people who were vaccinated and then got infected and they are trying to find out if these people have the same best protection as the naturally infected and vaccinated individuals. I don't see a reason why it should not be, but UK is a good place to do these kind of experiments because of their openness and high vaccination rates.
Last edited:
So, what I hear you saying is that breakthrough infections (of vaccinated individuals) are actually good, since these infected individuals recover with even better immunity. This seems logical. Provided, of course, that the vaccine continues to protect the infected individual from sever illness and death.
So, as I understand it, the CDC is concerned that waning immunity to infection might be a prelude to waning protection from sever illness and death, and the booster shots are a way of getting in front of this possibility before it occurs. Also, the CDC believes that transmission from breakthrough infections is enough of a concern that they now recommend that vaccinated individuals wear masks. Presumably, boosters would lower the likelihood of breakthrough infection, which would reduce the number of transmissible people.
This is just my understanding of the issues and debate. I am not really taking sides on it. Anecdotally, my daughter is getting her Masters in Public Health, and she told me that most of her professors have come out against boosters at this time. Just a data point.....not a scientific sampling. Personally, I will get the booster as soon as I am eligible.
So, what I hear you saying is that breakthrough infections (of vaccinated individuals) are actually good, since these infected individuals recover with even better immunity. This seems logical. Provided, of course, that the vaccine continues to protect the infected individual from sever illness and death.
So, as I understand it, the CDC is concerned that waning immunity to infection might be a prelude to waning protection from sever illness and death, and the booster shots are a way of getting in front of this possibility before it occurs. Also, the CDC believes that transmission from breakthrough infections is enough of a concern that they now recommend that vaccinated individuals wear masks. Presumably, boosters would lower the likelihood of breakthrough infection, which would reduce the number of transmissible people.
This is just my understanding of the issues and debate. I am not really taking sides on it. Anecdotally, my daughter is getting her Masters in Public Health, and she told me that most of her professors have come out against boosters at this time. Just a data point.....not a scientific sampling. Personally, I will get the booster as soon as I am eligible.
There are people that die from breakthrough infections but they are usually immunocompromised.
A lot of people also live with or care for people that aren't vaccinated (children or those who can't take the vaccine or get fully vaccinated).
So far from the UK studies, that's what it is pointing towards. Breakthrough infections are good to get better immunity.So, what I hear you saying is that breakthrough infections (of vaccinated individuals) are actually good, since these infected individuals recover with even better immunity. This seems logical. Provided, of course, that the vaccine continues to protect the infected individual from sever illness and death.
So, as I understand it, the CDC is concerned that waning immunity to infection might be a prelude to waning protection from sever illness and death, and the booster shots are a way of getting in front of this possibility before it occurs. Also, the CDC believes that transmission from breakthrough infections is enough of a concern that they now recommend that vaccinated individuals wear masks. Presumably, boosters would lower the likelihood of breakthrough infection, which would reduce the number of transmissible people.
This is just my understanding of the issues and debate. I am not really taking sides on it. Anecdotally, my daughter is getting her Masters in Public Health, and she told me that most of her professors have come out against boosters at this time. Just a data point.....not a scientific sampling. Personally, I will get the booster as soon as I am eligible.
The idea behind the booster shots is that some people think it can help take the edge off COVID and prevent or reduce hospitalizations and deaths on high risk individuals due to their low levels of antibodies after being fully vaccinated months later. Unfortunately, vaccines do not make you a superman nor superwoman. You will still get breakthrough infections, but you will fare better vaccinated with an average recovery time from mild symptoms with a healthy immune system between 2 to 2.7 days.
Boosters can not provide what natural infection can provide; a complete immunity response that produce all of the antibodies required to neutralize the virus effect. So all the boosters can do is to help you take the edge off COVID if you get infected.
If you look at vaccines in general; it had always been a money looser business. Which is why we don't make vaccines locally and let India and other low cost producers make them. The reason is that, our immune system can develop and mount an effective defence against a contagion and develop fully immunity afterwards. But once in awhile, we need a vaccine for this kind of novel virus. After that however, the UK research seemed to point to a virus infection as the last booster shot for complete immunity and the end point of this saga. So we shall see; UK with virus infection as the end point or US CDC with ongoing boosters as the end point.
Last edited:
There are so many things wrong in your post that I don't have time to address all of them. However, I will address a few.
You are also leaving out the fact that several of these SARS-CoV-2 proteins disrupt the immune response during infection (e.g., ORF7a, ORF8) and this likely leads to immune dysregulation that facilitates pathology from the virus. All pathogenic viruses have evolved immune evasion countermeasures and the coronaviruses are among the best at doing so. The vaccines do not have these viral proteins, thus there is no immune disruption that is observed in viral infections.
It's actually among the most complicated of the RNA viruses. You'd have to go to the large genome DNA viruses to find more complexity (e.g., poxviruses, herpesviruses). You want simple viruses? Try hantaviruses (4 or 5 proteins) or arenaviruses (4 proteins). Yet, these two groups harbor among the most dangerous viruses known.
Antibodies to most of these proteins are irrelevant. More important is that many of them contain peptide fragments recognized by T cells. But the practical issue is that most abundantly expressed SARS-CoV-2 protein is the nuclecapsid, and antibodies to it have no protective role (but are great for diagnostic purposes).
You are also leaving out the fact that several of these SARS-CoV-2 proteins disrupt the immune response during infection (e.g., ORF7a, ORF8) and this likely leads to immune dysregulation that facilitates pathology from the virus. All pathogenic viruses have evolved immune evasion countermeasures and the coronaviruses are among the best at doing so. The vaccines do not have these viral proteins, thus there is no immune disruption that is observed in viral infections.
The only meaningful neutralizing target is the spike protein. That's why it's the only gene in the mRNA vaccines.
IgG and IgM circulate in the blood, but they are dispersed in tissues, particularly near sites of infection. This is one reason why the vaccines protect so well against pulmonary disease. It is likely that IgA will be important for interruption of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others, but an oral vaccine will likely need to be developed to elicit an IgA response. A similar story evolved with polio vaccines; the inactivated and injected Salk vaccine produces a great IgG response that prevents paralytic polio but does little to prevent poliovirus shedding, but the attenuated oral Sabin vaccine generated both IgG and IgA, and IgA significantly prevented shedding of poliovirus.
This is a simpleton explanation. IgA is secreted across the epithelium and engages antigens (SARS-CoV-2, in this case) whereas IgG will engage antigens in tissues. It's also important to note that IgG has many more functions than does IgA because of its ability to act as a bridge between the virus and phagocytic cells of the immune response.
Can you provide a reference in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to substantiate this assertion?
Again, there is only one important target for neutralizing antibodies - the spike protein. All of the other SARS-CoV-2 proteins are inside the virus envelope and are thus not accessible to antibodies. There are a couple of others found in low levels on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 but I am unaware of any as significant targets for neutralizing antibodies.
This is misleading. Coronaviruses do not replicate in the blood - they replicate in tissues, principally the lungs and intestines of humans, and intestines of their bat reservoirs. They can be found in the blood if they manage to disrupt the endothelium (e.g., pathology in the lungs) and IgG can certainly neutralize the virus, but to be clear the work of IgG (and IgM) is done in the tissue where the virus is replicating. Few viral infections elicit robust IgA responses in the nasal epithelium, for reasons that are still not entirely clear.
Again, this is misleading because only the spike protein is a meaningful target of neutralizing antibodies.
No line by line comment just this:
Health officials rail against Pfizer’s push for COVID boosters—for many reasons
A peer-reviewed study on mask effectiveness against COVID was recently published. Not encouraging. Effective filtration efficiencies:
uwaterloo.ca
- Commonly used cloth masks: 10%
- Surgical masks: 12%
- KN95 masks: 46%
- R95 masks: 60% (R95? That's a new one to me.)
- "The results also suggest that, while higher ventilation capacities are required to fully mitigate aerosol build-up, even relatively low air-change rates lead to lower aerosol build-up compared to the best performing mask in an unventilated space" (i.e. opening windows may be as effective as the best masks)
Study supports widespread use of better masks to curb COVID-19 indoors | Waterloo News
A new study is highlighting a need for widespread use of better face masks and the importance of good ventilation to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 indoors. Engineering researchers at the University of Waterloo performed experiments using a mannequin to simulate a seated person breathing in a...
Last edited:
A peer-reviewed study on mask effectiveness against COVID was recently published. Not encouraging. Effective filtration efficiencies:
Also of note:
- Commonly used cloth masks: 10%
- Surgical masks: 12%
- KN95 masks: 46%
- R95 masks: 60% (R95? That's a new one to me.)
Press release:
- "The results also suggest that, while higher ventilation capacities are required to fully mitigate aerosol build-up, even relatively low air-change rates lead to lower aerosol build-up compared to the best performing mask in an unventilated space" (i.e. opening windows may be as effective as the best masks)
Study supports widespread use of better masks to curb COVID-19 indoors | Waterloo News
A new study is highlighting a need for widespread use of better face masks and the importance of good ventilation to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 indoors. Engineering researchers at the University of Waterloo performed experiments using a mannequin to simulate a seated person breathing in a...
That's disappointing on surgical masks but not surprising that better ventilation helps.
I have 100 4-layer surgical masks arriving this week as my previous order was lost in transit.
I may go back to shopping at 6 AM or 7 AM (seniors hours).
This morning the sign on the grocery store door was "Masks Strongly Recommended". I'd say that about 40% were wearing masks. Most people were trying to get in last-minute shopping before Henri hits. The sky opened up just as we were leaving the store.
I'm not familiar with R95 masks - are they from Russia?
I found this:
N95 and R95 Respirators - The Difference?
What's the difference between an N95 and R95 respirator? We go straight to NIOSH to find a straight forward answer. We also provide guidance on which one is right for your application - N95 or R95. We even talk about P95 and P100 ratings.
www.majorsafety.com
Looks like R95 masks are mainly used in industrial settings, they are designed to block "oily particles" (in addition to what N95 blocks). Apparently the COVID aerosols are blocked better by such filters... ?
Home Depot sells them.
This is an interesting chart from the CDC. It seems to show much fewer deaths from hospitalizations. Or, that hospitalizations and deaths were highly correlated until more recently.
It makes sense as we have over half that are vaccinated and that we have treatments that are effective on many people.