General COVID-19 Vaccine Discussion

[Lynda2475]

here are also some possibly disturbing things coming to light with the Pfizer vaccine. In cell cultures the vaccine can get into the nucleus of liver cells and be incorporated in the cells DNA which we have been assured can't happen. This is a study from Sweden.

ABC Fact check says it is highly questionable: Anti-vaxxers are using a new study to claim mRNA vaccines can alter your DNA. Is it possible?

 

[drron]

ABC Fact check says it is highly questionable: Anti-vaxxers are using a new study to claim mRNA vaccines can alter your DNA. Is it possible?

That is just being politically correct. The study did show that the vaccine got into the nucleus of liver cells. That needs to be studied further not ignored.
Yes what that does to the cell is conjecture and also needs a lot more study

 

[wandering_fred]

ABC Fact check says it is highly questionable: Anti-vaxxers are using a new study to claim mRNA vaccines can alter your DNA. Is it possible?

Is it equally questionable that if true that the outcome would be "positive for the patient"?
The numbers of medically trained people voicing "concern" about the mRNA testing and approval process is perhaps being under reported?
It might seem that too many alternative opinions have gone wandering
Fred

 

[Lynda2475]

Not seeing any reports of an increase in liver disease or other liver issues following an MRNA vaccine.

If its an issue with Pfizer then it will be an issue with Moderna both are same technology - there are hundreds of millions of people world wide who have had doses, so we wont be short of real world data if it proves to be harmful.

Looking at Atagi report higher incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis effects from Moderna than Pfizer (but both tiny numbers overall) and not significant enough to preference other vaccines for most cohorts at this stage.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

That is just being politically correct. The study did show that the vaccine got into the nucleus of liver cells. That needs to be studied further not ignored.
Yes what that does to the cell is conjecture and also needs a lot more study

Obviously any potential adverse effects or merely the appearance of a potential adverse effect needs to be investigated and we need to follow the truth wherever it takes us. That being said, so far, empirically from the hundreds of millions of doses so far given of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA based vaccine, the number of side effects is limited and the efficacy of the vaccine against infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and death is quite clear.

The sad fact of the matter is we have no choice in getting vaccinated. Everyone will get vaccinated whether they like it or not. The only question will be whether that vaccine comes from the tip of a needle or through an infection that takes weeks if not a lifetime to clear up. Long COVID is real and the data we have thus far is that it is overwhelmingly worse than the side effects we're seeing from vaccines.

-RooFlyer88

 

[drron]

Not seeing any reports of an increase in liver disease or other liver issues following an MRNA vaccine.

If its an issue with Pfizer then it will be an issue with Moderna both are same technology - there are hundreds of millions of people world wide who have had doses, so we wont be short of real world data if it proves to be harmful.

Looking at Atagi report higher incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis effects from Moderna than Pfizer (but both tiny numbers overall) and not significant enough to preference other vaccines for most cohorts at this stage.

Sometimes the side effects are long term. That is may take years to develop. As was the case with the dengue vaccine.

 

[ketsuzei]

The sad fact of the matter is we have no choice in getting vaccinated. Everyone will get vaccinated whether they like it or not. The only question will be whether that vaccine comes from the tip of a needle or through an infection that takes weeks if not a lifetime to clear up.

Might make a tad more sense if you said “immunized”.

 

[drron]

When considering whether vaccination is essential you must also consider the risk of the disease. For young children that risk is minimal. Here are some stats on deaths. The Australian figures are from ages 0-11. The USA are 0-17.

.

Those marked with b are for the whole pandemic until 1/2/2022 and are said to be with covid. The USA of course has far higher levels of one particular co morbidity.

 

[drron]

And more results from Denmark. Not absolutely convincing stats for booster shots in older folks as well.

Updated data from Denmark showing highest rates of infection in those who have received *boosters* who are >40 yo
booster
2 doses
previously infected
unvaccinated
But see adjustment for test # s below
Denmark now w/around 85% omicron
@SSI_dk (Covid-19 smitteudvikling i Danmark)

.

So by December 1st when Omicron had taken off the highest rates of infection in those aged 40+ was in those who had received boosters.

So the vaccine message should change from vaccinate to save society to vaccinate to save yourself from severe infection. these figures suggest vaccine mandates and admission to sites only if vaccinated should end.

 

[andye]

And more results from Denmark. Not absolutely convincing stats for booster shots in older folks as well.



View attachment 273021.

So by December 1st when Omicron had taken off the highest rates of infection in those aged 40+ was in those who had received boosters.

So the vaccine message should change from vaccinate to save society to vaccinate to save yourself from severe infection. these figures suggest vaccine mandates and admission to sites only if vaccinated should end.

The potential confounder in this is that the older frail (and other high-risk groups) have very high vaccination rates and (as you will know) can end up in hospital with sequelae of a mild infection
(falls, dehydration etc as well as pneumonitis)

There is also the survivor effect in that the unvaccinated frail may have died in earlier waves making the age groups potentially imbalanced in their risk profiles

Nevertheless does seem to support the view that widespread vaccination is less effective at protecting the small group who genuinely can't have a jab as one would have hoped. Spread will likely still happen even if vax rates in the population are high

 

[Lynda2475]

But if vaccines are stopping serious illness and death, why worry about spread?

 

[drron]

But if vaccines are stopping serious illness and death, why worry about spread?

Therefore why have vaccine mandates?
And the figures are starting to come out for vaccine effectiveness for the third dose after 5 months. It is less than 40% against hospitalisation.

 

[Lynda2475]

why have vaccine mandates?

To reduce burden on healthcare.

It is less than 40% against hospitalisation

Maybe in the very oldies but i sincerly doubt we will see 60% of all cases hospitalised, that never even happened pre vaccine.

 

[mviy]

Maybe in the very oldies but i sincerly doubt we will see 60% of all cases hospitalised, that never even happened pre vaccine.

I think it is a relative figure. So take two equally sized similar populations where one is boosted, and the other is not and see what the hospitalisation figures are i.e. to determine how less likely you are to be hospitalised if you are boosted than if you are not.

 

[drron]

To reduce burden on healthcare.



Maybe in the very oldies but i sincerly doubt we will see 60% of all cases hospitalised, that never even happened pre vaccine.

40% effectiveness means that 0.6% of the 1% that would have been hospitalised will likely still be hospitalised. That would not overpower our health system. It has nothing to do with 60% of cases.

The increase in Rate of infections was for those over 40 years of age that had had a booster. The rate was slightly lower for the unvaccinated. so if no difference in catching covid why a vaccine mandate. Why insist that those who have recovered from covid have more than 1 shot of vaccine when several studies show that extra shots to not improve antibody production.

The science has changed from 12 months ago. The reason to be vaccinated is to save yourself from more severe disease and not now to save the rest of society. that is no longer achievable by vaccination alone. If people don't want to be vaccinated it is basically now only themselves that they will harm.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

There's a lot of things that could explain why we're seeing high cases in Denmark despite the vaccination. For one thing, Danish people suffer from low Vitamin D levels which we know represent an important immunomodulator. Even in sunny places like Australia, we can still suffer from low Vitamin D levels, particularly in this English weather we've been having on the East coast. If I'm not mistaken, Denmark has mostly focused on vaccinating with a single type vaccine, the mRNA Pfizer and Moderna. However, it has been shown that mixing vaccine types can result in greater immunity than sticking with one brand. One benefit Australia has is we've got access to 4 different vaccines and 3 vaccine technologies: mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna), vector based (AstraZeneca) and protein based (Novavax). I would be curious what antibody immunity will look like for those of us who have received one of each type of vaccine technology. Other things to consider as well are the effects of N95 mask use and social distancing on reducing your likelihood of catching COVID.

The way I see it with COVID being as endemic as it is now is you need to wear multiple layers of protection. So no, we don't need to pull a Mark McGowan and be in biohazard suits but there are sensible measures we can take now to substantially reduce the likelihood of catching COVID including vaccination, masking, social distancing, ensuring our levels of Vitamin D are topped up.

-RooFlyer88

 

[Lynda2475]

The reason to be vaccinated is to save yourself from more severe disease and not now to save the rest of society

My reason for getting vaccinated was always primarily to protect myself from severe disease, as was my reason for wearing a mask (i still one when i need to be the great unwashed indoore i.e at the super market or in an uber etc).

I also do not believe that getting a booster has made me more vulnerable to covid, given you are talking about a fraction of 1% the number is too small to be meaningful.

Each to their own, dont bother with future booster if you dont feel they achieve anything, I on the otherhand am happy to get an annual or bi-annual jab of an MRNA given the side effects for me amount to nothing more than a lack of energy for a day. I may consider Novovax (when a decent number of people have had it).

 

[drron]

@Lynda2475 you keep mixing up the numbers I give. the 1% was for hospitalisations -though the actual numbers are almost certainly less than 1% now.
The graph for the number of infections which are very much higher.Basically if you are over 40 then the booster is not really doing much to prevent infection from those figures. As the vast majority of infections now are mild or asymptomatic the practical result is that your infection will work better than a booster. It is extremely likely it will produce a more robust cellular immunity as well as being able to produce IgA antibodies from the nasal mucosa which vaccines don't produce.
The protection from the booster starts waning from the second month and after 5 months drops dramatically to ~30% in both US and Israel experience. That is a month earlier than the dramatic drop after the second dose.

The vaccine was 91 percent effective in preventing a vaccinated person from being hospitalized during the two months after a booster shot, the study found. But after four months, protection fell to 78 percent.

Protection faded more in preventing trips to urgent care and emergency departments, falling from 87 percent in the first two months to 66 percent after four months. After more than five months, vaccine effectiveness fell to roughly 31 percent, but researchers noted that estimate was “imprecise because few data were available” for that group of people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/02/11/covid-boosters-omicron-protection/

And the news isn't good for a 4th dose. From Israel.

Although the extra shot boosted antibody levels to about the level observed right after the third shot, the rise in antibodies didn't translate into strong protection against infection. The extra dose reduced the risk of an infection by only about 10% to 30%, Regev-Yochay and her team report. During the 30-day study period, about 20% of the people who received the extra shot became infected with the omicron variant of the coronavirus, compared with about 25% of the people who received only three shots. The extra dose also didn't appear to activate T cells, which are critical for clearing out a future infection.

Who might benefit from a 4th shot — and who might not

Some countries are moving ahead with plans to offer a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccine. But studies are raising questions about the potential advantages of this extra booster.

www.npr.org

 

[Lynda2475]

@Lynda2475 you keep mixing up the numbers I give. the 1% was for hospitalisations -though the actual numbers are almost certainly less than 1% now.

No I'm not. Avoiding getting seriously ill (i.e. not ending up dead or in hospital) is the whole point of getting vaccinated in the first place. There is no need for the vaccinated to be concerned with getting covid when less than 1% will end up in hospital, getting the omicron sniffles doesn't cause me any worry at all.

You clearly don't see the point in any further doses, so don't get one.

However, getting boosted annually isn't going to make people more vulnerable to Covid, so if some want to boost their protection further they should have the option even if it is paid like all the other travel vaccinations.

 

[drron]

Everyone has the right to do what they want as far as 4 or 5 shots ov covid vaccine goes even though for most it is pointless.

But there is a wider moral question. Why do we have the right to insist on a 4th or 5th shot when in a lot of the world haven't even had a first shot. I agree with the BMJ and WHO on this one. It is after all One World.

The World Health Organization has called for a moratorium on covid-19 booster shots until the end of September to help vaccines reach poorer nations facing shortages.

Wealthier countries with widespread vaccine coverage should prioritise sending doses to those facing shortages before they start to administer extra doses to their own population, senior WHO officials said on 4 August.1

“These populations need vaccines urgently, especially health workers, older people, and other vulnerable groups,” WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, told reporters. “And yet even while hundreds of millions of people are still waiting for their first dose, some rich countries are moving towards booster doses.”

Four billion vaccine doses have been administered globally, but more than 80% of them have gone to high and upper middle income countries, which make up less than half the world’s population. In Africa—which saw deaths increase by 80% for the period of 19-30 July— only 2% of people are fully vaccinated, and many healthcare workers and elderly people remain unprotected.2

Covid-19: Focus should be on new vaccines rather than boosters, says WHO

Giving repeated booster doses of existing covid-19 vaccines in developed countries is not a sustainable global strategy for tackling the pandemic, the World Health Organization has said. Instead, WHO argues that the focus should shift towards producing new vaccines that work better against...

www.bmj.com