Anyone Get A 2d Booster?

[+ LIguy]

Got mine Thursday

[guy7777]

I plan to get mine in the next couple of weeks. 

[coriolis888]

On 3/31/2022 at 9:56 AM, BuffaloKyle said:

I'm 35 so I don't qualify right now but also thinking unless there's a crazy new variant come this Fall or sooner I'm good with just being fully vaxed and one booster. Plus I think I may have had a breakthrough infection before my booster too. 

If you think you had a "breakthrough" infection, you can confirm that very easily.  Just ask your physician for a lab test called "SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) AB IGG, SPIKE SEMI-QUANTITATIVE"

That test will let you know your antibody level. 

If you have a very high score on that lab test, you likely had a breakthrough infection.  Your doctor will discuss the results with you.  

I am fully vaccinated but I had a mild breakthrough infection in February.  I had a slight fever for one day but was not ill, otherwise.  

My lab test (described in the first paragraph above) result shows that my antibodies are so high that the laboratory could only show a symbol with a comment stating that I have an exceptionally high number of antibodies "in the thousands" whatever that is supposed to mean.

My personal physician told me that the lab test result confirms antibodies from a prior infection along with the vaccines I had.  

If anyone is interested in knowing their antibody level, the above mentioned test is the one to take.  Ask your physician for the test if curious or interested.  

Edited April 3, 2022 by coriolis888

[Guest]

1 hour ago, coriolis888 said:

If you think you had a "breakthrough" infection, you can confirm that very easily.  Just ask your physician for a lab test called "SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) AB IGG, SPIKE SEMI-QUANTITATIVE"

That test will let you know your antibody level. ....My personal physician told me that the lab test result confirms antibodies from a prior infection along with the vaccines I had....

Interesting. The last lecture I heard on that subject a few months ago stated that antibody levels could NOT be used to determine such information. I was unable to find any information online to corroborate your physician's statement. In fact, one of the lab which administers this test, Labcorp (my insurance company's lab, in fact), states:

https://www.labcorp.com/tests/164055/sars-cov-2-semi-quantitative-igg-antibody-spike

"...the FDA issued a safety communication reiterating that "antibody testing should not be used to evaluate a person's level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination..."

While your physician's statement makes some intuitive sense, I haven't seen the science behind it. I'm going to a major medical conference by Baylor and Harvard next week (in Houston), so hopefully someone will address this issue in one of the sessions. The latest I heard was that these tests are not at all standardized and we don't know the meaning of the levels. As far as I know, the only way to know if you have an infection is the antigen and/or PCR testing. 

[EZEtoGRU]

So mom and I have both had three vaccine shots so far...all Pfizer.  Mom is 94 and I am 62.  Neither of us have had Covid as far as we know.   We are currently planning for her to get the 4th shot this month (it's been about 6 months since she had the first booster).  My instinct tells me to go with another Pfizer shot.  Is there any medically-driven reason to go with something different for the fourth shot...say Moderna?  We have both tolerated the Pfizer jabs quite well.

[NJF]

1 hour ago, EZEtoGRU said:

So mom and I have both had three vaccine shots so far...all Pfizer.  Mom is 94 and I am 62.  Neither of us have had Covid as far as we know.   We are currently planning for her to get the 4th shot this month (it's been about 6 months since she had the first booster).  My instinct tells me to go with another Pfizer shot.  Is there any medically-driven reason to go with something different for the fourth shot...say Moderna?  We have both tolerated the Pfizer jabs quite well.

There are some early data from Europe that getting a different mRNA vaccine produced better immune response. This is based purely on the level of antibodies induced, not real life hospitalization or death data.

[coriolis888]

12 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Interesting. The last lecture I heard on that subject a few months ago stated that antibody levels could NOT be used to determine such information. I was unable to find any information online to corroborate your physician's statement. In fact, one of the lab which administers this test, Labcorp (my insurance company's lab, in fact), states:

https://www.labcorp.com/tests/164055/sars-cov-2-semi-quantitative-igg-antibody-spike

"...the FDA issued a safety communication reiterating that "antibody testing should not be used to evaluate a person's level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination..."

While your physician's statement makes some intuitive sense, I haven't seen the science behind it. I'm going to a major medical conference by Baylor and Harvard next week (in Houston), so hopefully someone will address this issue in one of the sessions. The latest I heard was that these tests are not at all standardized and we don't know the meaning of the levels. As far as I know, the only way to know if you have an infection is the antigen and/or PCR testing. 

At the end of my earlier post, I wrote "If anyone is interested in knowing their antibody level - - -" does not mean that knowing the antibody level should (quoting your post) " - - be used to evaluate a person's level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 - - - "

In my post I did not discuss immunity from the virus.  

I said if anyone is interested (curious) about their own antibody level, the test described in my earlier post might satisfy curiosity about whether a person has antibodies from vaccinations or also from the actual coronavirus illness.    

By the way, I find your posts very interesting and informative.  

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by coriolis888
spelling error

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, coriolis888 said:

At the end of my earlier post, I wrote "If anyone is interested in knowing their antibody level - - -" does not mean that knowing the antibody level should (quoting your post) " - - be used to evaluate a person's level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 - - - "

In my post I did not discuss immunity from the virus.  

I said if anyone is interested (curious) about their own antibody level, the test described in my earlier post might satisfy curiosity about whether a person has antibodies from vaccinations or also from the actual coronavirus illness.    

By the way, I find your posts very interesting an informative.  

 

Sorry I wasn't being clear in my last post. What I should have said is that from the last experts I heard discussing the matter, no information can be inferred regarding the antibody levels, including whether there was a recent infection or immunization. IgG levels can be stable for a long period of time. Intuitively, higher levels are better, but I haven't seen or heard of any science behind that. 

Here is the latest from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html

According to the CDC, "...antibody tests yielding qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative results have been issued EUAs; there currently is no recognized public health or clinical indication for preferential use of semi-quantitative or quantitative tests...".

It does look as though there is a test to find out if one has been infected in addition to vaccinated, and that's to look at the the S and N antibodies. Either vaccination or infection will induce S antibodies. In someone previously infected, both S and N antibodies will be present. So if you've NEVER been infected (only vaccinated), you'll have only S antibodies. If you've both been infected AND vaccinated, you'll have both S and N antibodies:

"...Current vaccines distributed in the United States induce antibodies to S protein. Thus, the presence of antibodies to N protein indicates previous infection regardless of a person’s vaccination status, while presence of antibodies to S protein indicates either previous infection or vaccination. The presence of antibodies to S protein and absence of antibodies to N protein in the same specimen indicates vaccination in a person never infected or could signal prior infection in a person whose antibodies to N protein have waned. Since vaccines induce antibodies to specific viral protein targets, post-vaccination antibody test results will be negative in persons without a history of previous infection if the test used does not detect antibodies induced by the vaccine...".

If I have a chance to speak to an expert during my conference (Tuesday to Thursday; if there's a Covid-19 update lecture, it will only be on one of those days for one lecture), I'll ask if there's any new info that hasn't yet made it to the CDC website (the CDC does, of course, take its time in analyzing and digesting recent studies, unless the need is urgent). 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, EZEtoGRU said:

So mom and I have both had three vaccine shots so far...all Pfizer.  Mom is 94 and I am 62.  Neither of us have had Covid as far as we know.   We are currently planning for her to get the 4th shot this month (it's been about 6 months since she had the first booster).  My instinct tells me to go with another Pfizer shot.  Is there any medically-driven reason to go with something different for the fourth shot...say Moderna?  We have both tolerated the Pfizer jabs quite well.

According to public health guidelines, there shouldn't be any difference. I got 3 Pfizers and one Moderna. I had some soreness at the injection sites for all of the Pfizers (no other symptoms), but not a hint of any soreness or other symptom from Moderna. My gut says that mixing it up might provide a broader immunity, but that's just a feeling. If you're very risk-averse, you could stick with the one you KNOW doesn't create side-effects. 

[SirBillybob]

It’s moot for me in terms of deciding because I have had two protein subunit doses in a RCT and considerably later a conventional mRNA prime series primarily for utilitarian purposes, ie, mandate requirements. I don’t typically post about CoV but I received this in my Twitter feed today and it seems à propos … she has a fair degree of stature in reviewing and summarizing research …

https://t.co/4tJ0o1fUC1

Edited April 3, 2022 by SirBillybob

[SirBillybob]

After I was protocol unblinded I did take the leap in terms of nAB testing with the Roche assay used by Labcorp, principally because the studies do utilize such markers for immunogenicity evaluation, in spite of the caveat made to the public to leave antibodies alone due to the uncertainty of true meaning quantitatively, and apparently vaccination counterintuitively may in some cases obscure N antibody detection for an infection latent to inoculation.

Many trial subjects broke protocol with DIY testing and went too far with interpreting the quant metric, apart from of course enrolment attrition (understandable) based on the subsequent knowledge of placebo assignment in a context of high background incidence or associated risks beyond the pale. 

Not everybody has the desired antibody response to vaccination in binary terms (S protein that is) but an arbitrary threshold seems to be selected for an immune response. Oddly, my study did not correlate vaccination breakthrough infections with the categorical assessment of that threshold binary. The N protein with the Roche test, for past infection possibility, is binary and I believe false negatives are not uncommon particularly the further on from recovery (in addition to vaxx Hx stated above); not a liability as cockiness is riskier if the assumption is the other way around.

Interestingly, my S antibodies were not much higher than the Roche semi-quantitative response threshold prior to prime mRNA dose (read 1st off-label booster) but were above the limit of quantification 8 weeks subsequent to it just prior to the mRNA boost dose (read 2nd off-label booster). It is anybody’s guess whether this suggests a mRNA series superiority immunologically because the study vaccine may have actually potentiated the second series response. 

A few volunteer peers have pursued off-label 5th dose uptake, as some require it to travel internationally where an official booster is required prior to 180-270 days elapsing give-or-take according to nation. I will likely wait a good while tracking re-engineered products, as the above deadline is far off in my case, and as I am already cross-platform heterologous I may end up doubling the heterogeneity playbook within-platform with a different mRNA, alternate protein subunit … or something snortified, or god knows what.

Edited April 3, 2022 by SirBillybob

[BabyBoomer]

I got my 2nd booster (Moderna) earlier today. It was at a city run site. The same place I got my first three shots. It was by appointment only. When I arrived, other than the staff, I was the only person there. While I wss waiting the 15 minutes after the shot an older woman arrived to get vaxxed. I was surprised it wasn't more crowded, since the age has dropped to 50+.

~Boomer~

 

[+ Tygerscent]

I have Clients who are compromised in one way or another. So, I will be getting my 2nd booster in a few days when I return home from my tour, (along with my quarterly STI screening). My previous vaccinations were three full moderna shots. Undecided whether I will get a fourth Moderna or seek out a Pfizer as a second booster. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Tygerscent

[+ WilliamM]

On 2/23/2022 at 1:47 PM, WilliamM said:

The New York Times in the article you posted

 

[marylander1940]

On 4/3/2022 at 11:01 AM, EZEtoGRU said:

So mom and I have both had three vaccine shots so far...all Pfizer.  Mom is 94 and I am 62.  Neither of us have had Covid as far as we know.   We are currently planning for her to get the 4th shot this month (it's been about 6 months since she had the first booster).  My instinct tells me to go with another Pfizer shot.  Is there any medically-driven reason to go with something different for the fourth shot...say Moderna?  We have both tolerated the Pfizer jabs quite well.

 I'm sure she at 94 would have had at least some symptoms previous to her vaccination. 

 

[+ Lucky]

Has my 2d booster shot already worn off? They don't sem to be effective for very long. From nytiimes.com:

A second booster shot of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine provides additional short-term protection against Omicron infections and severe illness among older adults, according to a large new study from Israel.

But the booster’s effectiveness against infection in particular wanes after just four weeks and almost disappears after eight weeks. Protection against severe illness did not ebb in the six weeks after the extra dose, but the follow-up period was too short to determine whether a second booster provided better long-term protection against severe disease than a single booster.

The study focused on adults ages 60 and older, and did not provide data on the effectiveness of a second booster in younger populations.

The findings, published on Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggest that additional boosters are likely to provide fleeting protection against Omicron infections in older recipients, and are consistent with evidence that vaccine effectiveness against infection wanes faster than against severe disease.

“For confirmed infection, a fourth dose appeared to provide only short-term protection and a modest absolute benefit,” the researchers wrote.

The results come in the midst of a debate over whether and when Americans might need additional boosters. The Food and Drug Administration is convening a panel of outside advisers on Wednesday to discuss the broader U.S. booster strategy.

The rapid spread of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which can evade some of the body’s immune defenses, has intensified the discussion of whether second boosters are broadly necessary.

Last month, the F.D.A. authorized second booster shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for adults ages 50 and older, as well as immunocompromised people ages 12 and older. The agency also authorized an mRNA booster for adults who have already received two doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

It’s likely to be a tough sell: While 66 percent of Americans have been vaccinated, just 30 percent have received a booster shot.

It is clear that the Omicron variant has blunted the effectiveness of Covid vaccines, but data on the benefits of a second booster remains limited. A previous study from Israel, which has not yet been published in a scientific journal, found that older adults who received a second booster were 78 percent less likely to die of Covid-19 than those who had received just one booster shot.

But scientists criticized the study’s methodology, and the benefits of a second booster for young, healthy adults are less clear. Some experts note that most adults who have been vaccinated and boosted once are already likely to be protected from severe illness and death.

On Jan. 2, Israel authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for adults ages 60 and older and members of other high-risk populations who had received their third shots at least four months earlier. Israel’s vaccination campaign has relied heavily on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The new study is based on records from the Israeli Ministry of Health on more than 1.2 million older adults who were eligible for the fourth shot between Jan. 10 and March 2, when Omicron was the dominant variant in the country.

The researchers compared the rate of confirmed virus infections and cases of severe Covid-19 among those who had received a fourth dose to those who had received just three doses.

Protection against infection appeared to peak four weeks after the fourth shot: the rate of confirmed infections was twice as high in the three-dose group as in the four dose group. By eight weeks after the fourth shot, however, the additional protection against infection had almost disappeared, the researchers found.

Rates of severe disease were 3.5 times higher in the three-dose group than the four-dose group four weeks after the booster shot, the researchers found. That protection did not appear to wane and actually ticked up slightly by the sixth week after the shot, when rates of severe disease were 4.3 times higher in the three-dose

[SirBillybob]

A 2nd booster dose reducing infection risk by half, and then less than that before long … well we know risk doubles and halves all the time based on background case incidence and many other variables. For example, it is the current difference between Vermont (among the highest) & Illinois, or between Louisiana and Kansas (among the lowest). Risk in many European nations is hundreds of times greater than many USA states. Obviously, it is impractical to equivalize an arbitrary vaccination-conferred protection factor by moving around according to community case prevalence, but there are many ways to reduce exposure risk by half, or you may be doing that anyway by behaving more prudently than a large proportion of folks undertaking no mitigation. This is not to say that the additional booster does not value-add protection, and of course lowers severity probability, but it is one thing to halve risk from low to negligible and another thing to halve from a wave peak to a level that might easily equate to previous peaks sobering at the time. It is a challenge to select the intersection between incidence increase trajectory and uptake whose protection peaks shortly following inoculation and subsequently wanes, but I add it to the mix. The added study information suggests to me that a consideration of infection case incidence might be a factor in terms of when to pursue uptake if that uptake provides but short-term additive protection to the first booster.

Returning to Quebec from Switzerland next week translates to 80% reduced infection risk, far greater improvement than having remained in Quebec. Hypothetically with the second booster at max protection, 90% reduced risk. However, Switzerland’s curve is descending and Quebec’s infection rate is catching up to that latest wave. 90% is a good result, but in the context of an upcoming incidence peak as well as ambiguity about frequency of even further sequential dosing, adding a booster later confers better bang for the buck because risk is not a constant. The on-demand concept is de-emphasized because it is too complex for the average person to wrap his mind around it. Perhaps a history of conceptualizing PrEP helps a small constituency within the general public. And hitting the older and vulnerable with the added booster right here right now irrespective of background incidence may be a valid imperative notwithstanding short-lived benefit. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by SirBillybob

[Isrhunter]

Haven’t even gotten the first booster

[fedssocr1]

getting mine tomorrow. I originally got the J&J one shot vaccine so it seems prudent to get another Moderna booster now that it's available. I'm planning to go to NYC in a few weeks so since I will be out and about more it made sense to get it now

[+ nycman]

Got my 2nd booster yesterday.

First 3 all Pfizer. Switched to Moderna for the 4th.

All with mild to no symptoms after each shot.

4th shot was just a mildly sore deltoid and a mild headache the following day.
 

[+ JEC]

I am fortunate enough to work with some brilliant medical and scientific minds.  Early data on the 2nd booster/4th shot is that it is only effective for about 8 weeks.   Too early to know if this data will hold, and if it does hold, why is the additional immunity so short-lived.  There is still so much to learn about this virus.....    I'm still glad I got mine, off to NYC for the weekend and want maximum protection.   I had zero reaction to the shot, not even a sore arm.   Hubs had flu-like symptoms for 1 day. 

[MscleLovr]

Like @nycman and @Unicorn I had Pfizer for the first 3 and Moderna as the 2nd booster

[Luv2play]

I won't be eligible for my second booster until the end of May. I'll see what the incidence rate of infection is in my area at that time. Right now it is high and climbing.

[SirBillybob]

2 hours ago, JEC said:

I am fortunate enough to work with some brilliant medical and scientific minds.  Early data on the 2nd booster/4th shot is that it is only effective for about 8 weeks.   Too early to know if this data will hold, and if it does hold, why is the additional immunity so short-lived.  There is still so much to learn about this virus.....    I'm still glad I got mine, off to NYC for the weekend and want maximum protection.   I had zero reaction to the shot, not even a sore arm.   Hubs had flu-like symptoms for 1 day. 

For any grade of infection it is most salutary at 3 weeks and then drops off to about nil benefit by 8 weeks. For severe disease, in contrast, the added protection progressively improves over time, and only when data are available past 6 weeks will it be easier to determine at what point severity prophylaxis begins to wane. (Web gremlins regarding the downloaded image, so I tried 2 methods)

Approximately 1% of cases in the 4-dose group met the severity criteria. 

3F1FC335-A3AC-4F0B-8105-1F6E22AB5ACA.webp

Edited April 8, 2022 by SirBillybob

[dcman]

Got my second booster today, six months after the last one.    All 4 shots have been Pfizer and no side effects.