Why should I care about Covid? I'm vaccinated.

[marylander1940]

Me, me, me. It's all about me. I just hope your entitlement doesn't get anyone else sick. You may have gotten the vaccine, I got both doses already. That doesn't give me a pass to be careless. The vaccine doesn't guarantee that you won't get it (and pass it on). It only guarantees that you probably won't die from it or get the worse effects of the virus.

 

width=969pxhttps://thumbs.gfycat.com/FewRegalJanenschia-max-14mb.gif[/img]

[+ tassojunior]

Me, me, me. It's all about me. I just hope your entitlement doesn't get anyone else sick. You may have gotten the vaccine, I got both doses already. That doesn't give me a pass to be careless. The vaccine doesn't guarantee that you won't get it (and pass it on). It only guarantees that you probably won't die from it or get the worse effects of the virus.

 

What I'm trying to pique out of people is what are the best rational small steps out of total lockdown that are prudent after immunization. Indeed there is no guarantee yet that immune people can't pass the virus but there are plenty of recent reports that say it's all but impossible. So, for me, beginning to go maskless outdoors more is prudent because everything I've read says that is very low risk and, to me, the benefit and enjoyment is big.

 

Um, what?

Could you clarify?

 

I use CPAP at night and watch my blood oxygen level. My doctor told me that staying inside much more and wearing masks when outdoors does naturally decrease oxygen some amount and agreed that when outdoors I may want to try deep breathing exercises sometimes without masks. It feels great and my blood oxygen has gone back up a bit, although it's impossible for me to prove the connection . For the past year of lockdown it dropped to 92-95% but the past three weeks it's been 95-97%. I had tried deep breathing exercises outdoors with masks but it certainly didn't feel as good.

 

What I do worry about much more now is the ambiguous news that the vaccines are less effective against the South African variant. I saw one story yesterday that a new vaccine was 85% effective against the normal virus but only 60% effective vs. the South African variant. But other stories say otherwise. It's very confusing.

[mike carey]

@tassojunior I think moderation is the way ahead. All the social distancing measures we have used are still relevant, and that includes masks. Can you be more flexible in their application? Yes. Can you ignore them? No! One of the things that has happened in the last year is that all respiratory diseases are down. There have been comments in here. There has been less flu. Many haven't had a winter cold, me included. These measures have stopped or reduced these diseases. Vaccination may well reduce your susceptibility to Covid but we don't know by how much so why would we stop taking other precautions? Don't feel oppressed by it just accept that we need to be careful.

[marylander1940]

@tassojunior I think moderation is the way ahead. All the social distancing measures we have used are still relevant, and that includes masks. Can you be more flexible in their application? Yes. Can you ignore them? No! One of the things that has happened in the last year is that all respiratory diseases are down. There have been comments in here. There has been less flu. Many haven't had a winter cold, me included. These measures have stopped or reduced these diseases. Vaccination may well reduce your susceptibility to Covid but we don't know by how much so why would we stop taking other precautions? Don't feel oppressed by it just accept that we need to be careful.

 

and individual responsibility!

[Bacon]

Some people ARE just inconsiderate, obstinate ASSHOLES, always only thinking of THEMSELVES ! It's just WHO they are and it drives every aspect of their lives and viewpoints :mad:

 

Agree! I can't help but think that if Americans had the attitudes so many express today back in the 1940's, the outcome of World War II might have been drastically different. As a nation, we seem to have completely absolved ourselves from responsibility for the common good and abandoned any adherence to social compacts.

[SirBillybob]

What I do worry about much more now is the ambiguous news that the vaccines are less effective against the South African variant. I saw one story yesterday that a new vaccine was 85% effective against the normal virus but only 60% effective vs. the South African variant. But other stories say otherwise. It's very confusing.

This is American company Novavax. All over the news ... UK (15,000) and SoAfrica (4,400) cohorts. Might be best to look up their own press release because that is where other sources tend to extract their news summaries.

 

Novavax now recruiting closer to home for additional efficacy research. 30,000 in USA and Mexico. It’s also a chance to get vaccine (50:50?) in a study if you are a long way off current vaccination options and want to chance getting placebo.

[SirBillybob]

95% efficacy is not 95% real-world effectiveness.

 

For mRNA vaccines the antibody titres and T-cell response of the handful of vaccinated that got CoV were not compared to a subsample that did not contract infection. So we do not know for sure whether presence of antibodies is a solid indicator of sterilizing immunity. It would be reassuring, so why not produce such simple results? I suppose that serology aspects of the large Phase 3 trial were less comprehensive and the timing of immunogenicity in concert with early stage infection would be complex. Otherwise, there seems to be radio silence on the reason for breakthrough of infections.

 

It did not take long for the study cohort to reach enough cases for the acceptable threshold of statistical power, a few cases per 1,000 placebo group subjects. However, the duration used past Day 28 falls short of the ideal and planned minimum 2-month follow up for efficacy. A lot of subjects have passed Day 88, so we should be able to see more data based on another few months of infection occurrence. Where are the new figures? The placebo groups will not be offered vaccine for another few weeks.

 

95% efficacy is within a statistical confidence interval. For Pfizer/BioNTech, Age >55 years, the confidence interval is 80.6 to 98.8 ... the lower limit is further than the upper limit from the true estimate 93.7 ... anywhere from 1 in 5 vaccinated to 1 in 100 vaccinated can acquire infection. We simply do not know the true probability. Another reason to access longer-term data; the more cases in both assigned study arms, the narrower the confidence interval range.

Edited January 30, 2021 by SirBIllybob

[+ WilliamM]

What I'm trying to pique out of people is what are the best rational small steps out of total lockdown that are prudent after immunization. Indeed there is no guarantee yet that immune people can't pass the virus but there are plenty of recent reports that say it's all but impossible. So, for me, beginning to go maskless outdoors more is prudent because everything I've read says that is very low risk and, to me, the benefit and enjoyment is big.

 

 

 

I use CPAP at night and watch my blood oxygen level. My doctor told me that staying inside much more and wearing masks when outdoors does naturally decrease oxygen some amount and agreed that when outdoors I may want to try deep breathing exercises sometimes without masks. It feels great and my blood oxygen has gone back up a bit, although it's impossible for me to prove the connection . For the past year of lockdown it dropped to 92-95% but the past three weeks it's been 95-97%. I had tried deep breathing exercises outdoors with masks but it certainly didn't feel as good.

 

What I do worry about much more now is the ambiguous news that the vaccines are less effective against the South African variant. I saw one story yesterday that a new vaccine was 85% effective against the normal virus but only 60% effective vs. the South African variant. But other stories say otherwise. It's very confusing.

 

To be fair, millions of people use CPAC, so now I understand why you hope to eventually not wear a mask outdoors. But, please wait for definitive information about the dangerous strains of Covid19.

 

How are others coping here with sleep apnea during covid19?

Edited January 29, 2021 by WilliamM

[Luv2play]

But you weren't outdoors. I don't see the legal or social obligation outdoors (6 ft apart especially) anymore. I'm willing to take my 5% chance outdoors where there's less danger anyway. And most people over 65 look over 65. We have to start talking about the 1st steps back soon.

I find some irony in your motto, The French aristocracy didn’t see it coming either.

[samhexum]

Massachusetts congressman has COVID after getting 2 vaccine doses

 

U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch tested positive for coronavirus on Friday, after receiving both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.

 

A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Democrat, who attended President Biden’s inauguration last week, confirmed his diagnosis in a statement, CNN reports.

 

“This afternoon U.S. Representative Stephen F. Lynch received a positive test result for COVID-19 after a staff member in the Congressman’s Boston office had tested positive earlier in the week,” said Molly Rose Tarpey.

 

Lynch, who intends to isolate and vote by proxy in Congress next week, received his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot and tested negative for the disease before Biden was sworn in on Jan. 20, according to Tarpey.

 

She did not detail when the congressman received each of his vaccine doses.

 

The shot is meant to guard against illness resulting from the virus, but not necessarily the virus itself. The vaccine is considered effective if a fully vaccinated individual contracts COVID-19 and doesn’t experience illness brought on by the disease.

 

That said, immunity “typically takes a few weeks” to build post-inoculation, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

A trio of Democrats — Rep. Bonne Watson Coleman of New Jersey, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, and Rep. Brad Schneider of Illinois — tested positive for the virus earlier this month after sheltering in place during the Jan. 6 insurrection with members of Congress who refused to mask up, despite the raging pandemic.

[Luv2play]

I don't think we know all the ramifications of getting vaccinated against this virus. yet. Meaning, it's a good thing to get the vaccination but it may not be the silver bullet which some people think.

[Guest]

...

U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch tested positive for coronavirus on Friday, after receiving both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.

...

We've known since late last Spring (northern hemisphere) that it's very common for those recovering from Covid-19 to harbor viral particles/genetic material which will make them "test positive" for weeks during recovery. And we've also known since then that these people are NOT contagious--that the viral material recovered is not capable of spreading to others. It's not at all surprising that a vaccinated person can "test positive." What's important is that Representative Lynch (1) didn't get sick and (2) wasn't able to spread it to others. The whole point of vaccination is to (1) protect the health of the vaccinee, and (2) make sure those vaccinated can't spread the disease. It looks like the vaccine scored on both points. There is really no rational reason, outside of a scientific study to test people who have antibodies for the virus, since those people won't get sick and won't spread the disease to others. The CDC website clearly states that a person with Covid-19 is in the clear 7 days after he tests positive, as long as he hasn't had a fever in the last 24 hours, and that he shouldn't be tested again, for exactly this reason.

I had to write a number of letters to employers who tried to insist that employees "test negative" before returning to work. I had to refer these employers to CDC guidelines, and would also remind them that someone who's tested positive (over a week ago, no fever) was far safer to go back in the workplace than someone who tests negative. The same-day negative DFA has a 30% false negative rate. The next-day PCR test only has a 10% false-negative rate, but is only valid for the prior day (or earlier if the testing was done earlier). The safest person back in the workplace is someone who's tested positive (over a week ago), or someone who was vaccinated and did a blood test to confirm the presence of antibodies, not someone who recently (or otherwise) tested negative.

I know we're all used to thinking of these tests with the mind of HIV, syphilis, etc., in which you'd rather hook up with someone who tests negative. Before I got vaccinated, I only felt safe with those who tested positive (more than a week ago), not with those who said "I had a negative test 3 days ago." With this illness, having antibodies is the assurance for not being contagious. (As I've advised multiple times before, I would recommend those who've had both vaccine doses to do a blood test to confirm antibodies).

[SirBillybob]

What the misleading headline misses:

 

The Pfizer/BioNTech cumulative case incidence graph shows about equal symptomatic case occurrence for both vacc and placebo up until about Day 14, where they then diverge. There were about 2-dozen infections up to Day 28 among those vaccinated, far more than the 9 cases used in efficacy analysis.

 

The politician’s status is consistent with the (higher) number of asymptomatic cases that were not tracked in the study. Since symptomatic cases occurred both early in the vaccination cycle and, less frequently, later than 7 days post booster dose, it is no big surprise that we have a case making the headlines. But it was expected. If it occurred weeks following completed vaccination it would have been expected. It is not residual genetic material unless it is residual genetic material.

 

Asymptomatic CoV is less contagious. Absence of evidence of transmission at this particular stage in the vaccination dosing is not evidence of transmissibility absence. With luck, it is wimpy if not innocuous.

 

The later follow-up cases overall, that is, months after vaccination (as delineated below) would be more representative of earlier study entry ... with more vaccination group cases likely emerging among participants arriving later to the party, not included in the interim analysis.

 

Study efficacy was tracked from Day 28. The case occurrences for those vaccinated are placed at Day 28, 36, 44, 55, 58, 62, 66, 80, and 97. The sole case defined as ‘severe’ was Day 62. Severity is rare and there were 3 such designations in the placebo group, consistent with disease trends. But it is a ratio that is too small to analyze and did not support protection from severity for the vaccinated. That said, 2 additional cases of severity designation occurred in the placebo group prior to the Day 28 endpoint.

 

The news release is irresponsible and ambiguous. The headlines that say ‘after vaccination’ mislead those inclined to think vacc causes infection. The ones that say ‘despite vaccination’ do not subsequently clarify and remind that it is likely early days for his antibody durability and that infection following vaccination, across the spectrum of severity, occurred in the study, even weeks past the point at which inoculation will occur if in fact it is going to occur. Infection incidence will manifest in real-world vaccination uptake because sterilizing immunity eludes some recipients.

 

Several key educational points could have been better made, including the one perhaps implicit in the headline ... being particularly guarded early in the vaccination dosing.

Edited January 31, 2021 by SirBIllybob

[+ tassojunior]

What the misleading headline misses:

 

The Pfizer/BioNTech cumulative case incidence graph shows about equal symptomatic case occurrence for both vacc and placebo up until about Day 14, where they then diverge. There were about 2-dozen infections up to Day 28 among those vaccinated, far more than the 9 cases used in efficacy analysis.

 

The politician’s status is consistent with the (higher) number of asymptomatic cases that were not tracked in the study. Since symptomatic cases occurred both early in the vaccination cycle and, less frequently, later than 7 days post booster dose, it is no big surprise that we have a case making the headlines. But it was expected. If it occurred weeks following completed vaccination it would have been expected. It is not residual genetic material unless it is residual genetic material.

 

Asymptomatic CoV is less contagious. Absence of evidence of transmission at this particular stage in the vaccination dosing is not evidence of transmissibility absence. With luck, it is wimpy if not innocuous.

 

The later follow-up cases overall, that is, months after vaccination (as delineated below) would be more representative of earlier study entry ... with more vaccination group cases likely emerging among participants arriving later to the party, not included in the interim analysis.

 

Study efficacy was tracked from Day 28. The case occurrences for those vaccinated are placed at Day 28, 36, 44, 55, 58, 62, 66, 80, and 97. The sole case defined as ‘severe’ was Day 62. Severity is rare and there were 3 such designations in the placebo group, consistent with disease trends. But it is a ratio that is too small to analyze and did not support protection from severity for the vaccinated. That said, 2 additional cases of severity designation occurred in the placebo group prior to the Day 28 endpoint.

 

The news release is irresponsible and ambiguous. The headlines that say ‘after vaccination’ mislead those inclined to think vacc causes infection. The ones that say ‘despite vaccination’ do not subsequently clarify and remind that it is likely early days for his antibody durability and that infection following vaccination, across the spectrum of severity, occurred in the study, even weeks past the point at which inoculation will occur if in fact it is going to occur. Infection incidence will manifest in real-world vaccination uptake because sterilizing immunity eludes some recipients.

 

Several key educational points could have been better made, including the one perhaps implicit in the headline ... being particularly guarded early in the vaccination dosing.

 

I understand the 14-day ineffectiveness after shot and booster. 14 days after the first Moderna I consider myself maybe half as likely to contract and even less likely to die from the virus *except for the South African variant*. That SA variant has reports from tech journals (and the idiot press) that are way too confusing to figure out. Since that variant will soon be most covid cases and because Moderna is talking about the need for a "SA Variant booster" I'm starting to wonder if anything past baby steps to normal will happen the next year at least. In the west kids have been out of formal education for a year, the economy is worse than during the pits of the Great Recession and getting worse, take-home income has tanked, there are riots all over Europe against the lockdown, etc and I don't see the west easily surviving even another year like this if the South African variant nullifies much of the present vaccines' effectiveness.

 

Looking for any good news on the South African variant.

[SirBillybob]

I understand the 14-day ineffectiveness after shot and booster. 14 days after the first Moderna I consider myself maybe half as likely to contract and even less likely to die from the virus *except for the South African variant*. That SA variant has reports from tech journals (and the idiot press) that are way too confusing to figure out. Since that variant will soon be most covid cases and because Moderna is talking about the need for a "SA Variant booster" I'm starting to wonder if anything past baby steps to normal will happen the next year at least. In the west kids have been out of formal education for a year, the economy is worse than during the pits of the Great Recession and getting worse, take-home income has tanked, there are riots all over Europe against the lockdown, etc and I don't see the west easily surviving even another year like this if the South African variant nullifies much of the present vaccines' effectiveness.

 

Looking for any good news on the South African variant.

FWIW, in spite of the hoopla, the new case incidence and volume of active cases has dropped dramatically in South Africa over the past week or so, in spite of the supremacy of the variant there. It ranks as a country 65th globally in new cases per capita. Mortality tends to lag, taking longer to shift curve direction, but is now also consistently dipping. However, these trends could be due to the measures influencing people behaviour but not an indication of the variant losing thrust.

Edited January 31, 2021 by SirBIllybob

[+ tassojunior]

FWIW, in spite of the hoopla, the new case incidence and volume of active cases has dropped dramatically in South Africa over the past week or so, in spite of the supremacy of the variant there. It ranks as a country 65th globally in new cases per capita. Mortality tends to lag, taking longer to shift curve direction, but is now also consistently dipping. However, these trends could be due to the measures influencing people behaviour but not an indication of the variant losing thrust.

But why are Nova and J&J saying their tests show their vaccines much less effective in South Africa than elsewhere because of the prevalence of the variant there? Also I understand those two vaccines are traditionally-produced vaccines unlike the Moderna and Pfizer new tech which means, for better or worse, their experience may not be the same (I'm assuming/hoping Moderna and Pfizer will do better because they stimulate T cell production).

 

The 3rd American with the variant popped up today in Baltimore, 30 miles from me.

 

And today they've changed to saying immunity may not be best until a few weeks after the vaccines after a Congressman with both shots of Pfizer tested positive. https://www.businessinsider.com/lawmaker-contracts-coronavirus-after-second-vaccine-dose-2021-1

Edited January 31, 2021 by tassojunior

[SirBillybob]

I am following Novavax but no time for J&J right now. And my fingers are sore.

 

The SA variant contains an escape mutation wrt to immunity conferred by the previous predominating CoV. Many people in the placebo group had had SARS-CoV earlier but caught the new variant.

 

The genetic code used to manufacture spike protein facsimiles, contained in the vaccine, that is, proteins mimicking virus, would have not included the new variant’s genetic sequence. Hence, the efficacy differential relative to the UK study.

 

In addition, the SA study is small and had only 1% overall infections. The interim analyses are done too quickly because you ideally want more infections for more reliable results. The ratio is 15:29 but a small alteration in case numbers for either arm, not matched by a commensurate shift in the opposite group, has larger consequences for the overall efficacy metric ... 16:28 pushes it below the standard efficacy threshold.

 

Novavax introduces the viral genetic code into an insect virus that is given to moths. The vaccine protein is extracted from the sludge of a vat of moths that contains those insects’ genetically altered insect virus, but the proteins contain no actual CoV genetic material.

 

Insects or plants are the typical ingredients used because they very rapidly and efficiently grow immense volumes of the protein particles that bamboozle our immune systems into developing immunity as if we got the actual CoV.

 

Going forward, Novavax can simply tweak the CoV genetic code ‘spliced’ into the insect virus, for better variant coverage. It is a virus-like particle vaccine model (one of half a dozen overarching methodologies) and the quantities can be churned out very quickly and massively. Will be at India’s Serum Institute, good news for Canada

 

I have not looked into the vaccine product’s adjuvant.

 

If you get this vaccine, don’t wear your favourite cashmere for a while.

 

Will Novavax pivot to a new genomic sequence in just launched 30K trial USA and MX? I do not know. I read that they got behind in manufacturing study doses, and are anxious to roll. Are they locked in to proteins not covering escape mutations? Again, beats me. If I were a research participant I would want to know. I wouldn’t want to dilute the chance of vaccine arm assignment with efficacy watered down by inadequate variant coverage.

Edited February 1, 2021 by SirBIllybob

[+ Hoover42]

If you get this vaccine, don’t wear your favourite cashmere for a while.

[SirBillybob]

Pfizer/BioNTech or another company may be looking for a new reciprocity agreement, trading a country’s cohort data for high-volume supply chain. Israel brilliantly did this but it just got fucked up with a massive shoulder-to-shoulder funeral procession confounding the scientific tracking protocols. Outdoors, but we’ll see.

[Becket]

It's all new. We don't know everything there is to know about Covid, the vaccine, the virus, the disease. It's not just "poof" going away on Thursday or whenever. We are all gonna have to continue to be somewhat careful for the forseeable (sic) future. Sad. But probably somewhat true.

[samhexum]

[samhexum]

[Guest]

... anywhere from 1 in 5 vaccinated to 1 in 100 vaccinated can acquire infection. We simply do not know the true probability. Another reason to access longer-term data; the more cases in both assigned study arms, the narrower the confidence interval range.

Not quite. These are the actual data:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

"... Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups..."

 

So a few people in the vaccinated group had detectable virus, and none got seriously ill.

[Guest]

... anywhere from 1 in 5 vaccinated to 1 in 100 vaccinated can acquire infection. We simply do not know the true probability. Another reason to access longer-term data; the more cases in both assigned study arms, the narrower the confidence interval range.

Not quite. These are the actual data:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

"... Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups..."

 

So a few people in the vaccinated group had detectable virus, and none got seriously ill.

[+ WilliamM]

The VA hospital in Philadelphia cancelled my appointment for the covid vaccine on February 10 due to no vaccine left.

 

More sheltering in place, I guess

Edited February 6, 2021 by WilliamM