Covid vaxx efficacy after 8 months
science.org
science.org
Also, folks in the comments, calm down. The article in question proves that it is possible to have a reasoned, fact-focused discussion of the benefits and limitations of vaccines. This is HN, not Reddit. Please calm down.
The vaccine certainly helped, but the tide would have turned regardless. The Amish are a good example of a completely unvaccinated community that "beat" Covid.
We can compare areas of low versus high rates of vaccinations:
> The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death is higher in unvaccinated than vaccinated persons, and the incidence rate ratios are related to vaccine effectiveness.
* https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm
> The Amish are a good example of a completely unvaccinated community that "beat" Covid.
This works well if you're isolated away from the rest of society, and less so if you wish to mingle with everyone else. So if you wish to enact a self-imposed lockdown you're free to do so, but good luck with your social life.
"Rural Americans more likely to die from COVID-19"
* https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/09/rural-am...
"Covid is killing rural Americans at twice the rate of people in urban areas"
* https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-killing-rur...
Seems once it (eventually) gets into a community, it can spread quite quickly, and the more isolated nature of the community means reduced readily-available treatment options.
It's counter intuitive, but due to their religious practices they are all frequently in contact with each other.
Covid reportedly "ripped through" the Amish communities early on because they never locked down and continued going to church.
Being rural didn't prevent them from getting exposed to Covid, it's just their traditions resulted in early development of natural immunity.
I thought the unvaccinated were dying against vaccinated literally 99:1
Am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16/1017002907/u-s-covid-deaths-a...
https://medicalpartnership.usg.edu/covid-19-staggering-stati...
https://www.cnet.com/health/99-of-covid-deaths-are-now-of-un...
https://www.al.com/news/2021/08/99-of-alabamas-2379-covid-de...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-says-99-covid-dea...
I believe with Delta, the ratio is closer to 19:1.
But uh...still certainly a damn good reason to get vaccinated.
I don’t doubt your statement but do you have any sources or articles about this? I’d like to learn more detail.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Edit. Oh, I see now. From the fourth article: "99% of Alabama’s 2,379 COVID deaths from January to June were unvaccinated". Alabama had a covid wave in Jan, which then subsided. Mass vaccination only started in Jan, by the time the wave was over maybe 10-20% of the population was vaccinated. The numbers are dominated by the pre-vaccination wave, plus VE is high early on which limits the vaccinated deaths. Verdict: technically correct, but highly misleading.
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spr...
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
YES this right here is such a deliberate sleight of hand by the media, and as GP demonstrated they get away with it a lot!
> 1:9 unvax:vax
Shouldn't this be the other way around? 9 unvaxxed dying for every 1 vaxxed? Otherwise I'm not seeing the quoted claim in the report you linked.
The closest I've been able to find for the U.S. is this Connecticut report on hospitalization. Unfortunately it omits unvaccinated deaths, but we see hospitalizations at a rate of 4:1 (unvax:vax)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
Edit: The totals come at 669 unvax deaths vs. 3011 vax deaths. The raw numbers ratio is roughly 2:8 unvax:vax. This is not VE, as it is not adjusted to vax levels in the population. It is just a sanity check of certain claims in the US media.
age unvax double vax
<18 7 0
18-29 9 5
30-39 24 9
40-49 56 46
50-59 104 126
60-69 157 355
70-79 131 822
>80 181 1648
total 669 3011Yes, a lot of laypeople were expecting them to outright prevent infection at much higher rates, but that was never the deal from the start. Consider that the clinical trial protocols only called for testing participants for COVID if they started showing symptoms; the numbers presented were never about preventing infection entirely.
The lower percentages quoted in the article are still pretty fantastic, despite their drop from the initial 90%+ numbers from the clinical trials. Remember that the clinical trials were also done pre-delta variant. It's pretty impressive that they've held up so well against delta.
What was the deal? It seems like there was a lot of vague verbiage forecasting, and un-falsifiable predictions (which is unfortunately the norm).
It wasn't just laypeople, it's trivial to go back and find prominent public health officials promising that vaccinated people will not transmit the disease, the vaccines will be 100% effective against death, etc. They shouldn't have been saying that given that what you say about the trials is true, but hey, they haven't paid any price for getting it wrong since this whole thing began so why would they now?
In general I have noticed there's this pattern where the public will sometimes be clearly and strongly led to believe a certain thing, but if it later turns out to be false, 100% of the blame is placed on the masses. If there's any rebuke for the officials or institutions which led them into error it's always in the most vague and general terms, with no one ever indicted (or, heaven forbid, punished) by name.
"Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection"
* https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abi9915
> These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. Among previously infected Kentucky residents, those who were not vaccinated were more than twice as likely to be reinfected compared with those with full vaccination. All eligible persons should be offered vaccination, including those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, to reduce their risk for future infection.
It would certainly go against prior knowledge about human immune responses for a single spike protein (vaccine) to elicit a greater immune response than _the actual virus_.
That CDC study is so bad I'm surprised they had the gall to publish it with the conclusion they did. Testing positive says nothing about severity of infection.
> were about five times more likely to test positive for the infection than people who had been vaccinated
Testing positive is not a very good metric. Were they hospitalized? Was it severe? Did they even get sick, or just test positive?
They even admit to a sampling flaw in the discussion:
> Second, persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated.
The best study on this so far is from Israel with a much larger sample in a highly vaccinated country. Here's a Harvard doctor discussing the contradictory studies.
https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-...
> For a low-risk person, which includes most people with natural immunity, a 35% risk reduction is more marginal in terms of absolute risk.
> Based on the solid evidence from the Israeli study, the Covid recovered have stronger and longer-lasting immunity against Covid disease than the vaccinated. Hence, there is no reason to prevent them from activities that are permitted to the vaccinated. In fact, it is discriminatory.
"It's important to realize, though, that all immune responses to a viral infection generate a mixture of neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies. That's one of the things about the immune system - it revs up production of a wide variety of antibodies, selected from the untold billions of them circulating around in your bloodstream. Some of them bind to one part of the pathogen, and some to another. And they bind in different conformations, sticking to different parts of the surface of the invading virus from different directions."
It is conceivable that a targeted vaccine is more effective at shutting down an infection than natural immunity by focusing the immune system to produce a narrow band of very effective antibodies. The tradeoff is that a virus mutation can create a catastrophic situation where the same antibodies are less effective, possibly having negative efficiency enhancing the infection. The risk is amplified by vaccinating the entire population with the exact same protein sequence, creating hundreds of millions of living incubators for the virus to learn how to evade the narrow antibody response.
We are creating a biological landscape prone to black swan events. Good luck convincing any total vaxer that this is a very real risk. They will laugh and sneer and maybe call you criminal because obviously the data shows the vaccines are safe and effective. "Hahaha, I've been told that we're all going to be dead by now, look at those peddling conspiracy theories." Just like the Wall Street crowd created the run-up to the 2008 crisis. Who could have possibly predicted that CDOs were prone to a black swan?
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/antibody-dependent...
If you don't survive the problems of today, then there's no point in worrying about tomorrow's possibilities because you're dead.
The data does show that the COVID vaccines are generally safe and pretty effective. Not 100%, but the perfect is the enemy of the good, and so let's try to improve our lot now so we have a chance to fight for later.
Please spend a few minutes to refresh on the data. Some nice dashboards from Singapore (ongoing delta wave), but also e.g. King County, WA (Seattle) shows similar data, though you have to drill down a bit (Demographics tab, then Deaths metric). For example in the past 30 days a total 12 deaths in the under 50 population, for a total of 10% of total covid deaths. Or, since the pandemic started, a death rate of 22/100k or less in all age groups <50, going as low as 0-3/100k for under 30s.
This is not to say that people, especially the elderly, should not get vaccinated if they choose so. It is only a reminder that there is a perception problem around covid and that the long term risk calculus is more complicated.
https://www.moh.gov.sg/covid-19/statistics
https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/data/daily-summ...
These hopes were probably based on experiences with "normal" vaccines, which are apt to eradicate diseases through sterile immunity (though there are a bunch of exceptions to this, it's not like we're getting rid of the flu and some other stuff by vaccinations [2]). However, we since learned that a vaccine providing sterile immunity against COVID-19 seems to be off the table (as none of them are), so herd immunity against COVID-19 will likely never be a thing and eradicating COVID-19 is just not possible.
[1] Herd immunity was THE talking point in early 2021 in Germany. Also, remember a few countries trying to get herd immunity by intentionally letting the virus spread (great britain cough cough)?
[2] Sterile immunity seems to be difficult with respiratory diseases (flu, covid, cold, pertussis come to mind). Naively I'd guess that's because the critters have some time to multiply on the surface of the airways and be infectious before the immune system gets a chance to nuke 'em. If that's the explanation though I'm kinda wondering why the herd immunity theory was so common, so it's probably more complicated than that.
COVID cases are nearing all-time highs, but COVID deaths remain significantly lower than before. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data?country=~DEU
Ironically we also had a reduction in ICU capacity during COVID because working conditions didn't improve so people reasonably resigned instead of being continually exploited. There has also been a huge increase in hostility towards nurses, doctors and medical personnel in general (mostly driven by the small but aggressive anti-vaxx "community"), which certainly doesn't help retain people.
Is this true? I've heard claims in both directions but seen no sources for either.
> mostly driven by the small but aggressive anti-vaxx "community
Same question as above. There's a massive push to fire all the essential workers that took the brunt of the pandemic early on if they happen to believe the growing body of evidence showing that they don't need the vaccine if they've already recovered.
That certainly doesn't help retain people either.
The summer waves clobbered various hospital systems in the US on a region by region basis. Winter is likely to be worse. For example, right now Minneapolis is under heavy load, ICUs at >95% across the board. https://covidestim.org concurs, the Midwest is undergoing a wave.
https://datacentral.kitsapsun.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity...
It also isn't clear if these are patients in hospital for covid or they just happen to have covid (click on the links in the column headers to see the inclusion criteria).
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-hospitals-reach-critical-pande...
https://covid19.healthdata.org/germany?view=resource-use&tab...
https://www.thelocal.de/20211108/german-states-bring-in-toug...
https://www.dw.com/en/covid-german-health-chiefs-call-for-st...
https://thegermanyeye.com/hospitals%3A-the-intensive-care-un...
...
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-france-tightens-vac...
For every English article mentioning this situation, there are 100 in German.
The media landscape on this topic seems so polluted and untrustworthy that I can't help but wish for some kind of straightforward data supplement to go with statements like
> Several hospitals have said in recent days that they are again working at their limits and have ICUs so full of COVID-19 patients that they cannot admit new patients at the moment
where I can read that and then compare it to a spreadsheet and say yep that adds up. Your second link isn't quite that for me (and I realize its an unrealistic expectation). Another poster in this thread linked to something that was closer, but also didn't quite make the case imo.
Anyways, appreciate the links. It seems clear something is going on in Germany, and I may need to get a hold of my skepticism a bit.
Is this a manual thing done by the moderators, or are people mass-flagging it because it doesn't fit their world view?
Can someone explain this to me? What is "breakthrough infection"?
However, it's important to note that "breakthrough infection" is different from "breakthrough disease". It is possible, and likely common with the delta variant, to be a carrier with zero symptoms.
"A breakthrough infection is a case of illness in which a vaccinated individual becomes sick from the same illness that the vaccine is meant to prevent. Simply, they occur when vaccines fail to provide immunity against the pathogen they are designed to target."
As far as "breakthrough infection increased risk of death", that's explained a little further down on the page in the article linked here on HN:
Risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection was highest in unvaccinated Veterans regardless of age and comorbidity (Fig. 3). However, breakthrough infections were not benign, as shown by the higher risk of death in fully vaccinated Veterans who became infected compared to vaccinated Veterans who remained infection-free.
The importance of a study like this is to understand how the efficacy of the vaccine holds up over time, which can help inform public health recommendations and policy-making decisions.
This seems to be a longwinded way of saying that it's better not to get Covid than to get Covid, regardless of whether you're vaccinated or not.
I’m not sure how any of this has to do with using the term “pretext” to describe booster shots. They are a normal and accepted part of public health immunization plans and have been for as long as I’ve been alive. Pretext, at least to me, implies that there is no health reason for boosters and if anything this study suggests the opposite.
I know at least a couple of nurses who were able to get around the flu shot requirements, probably because it was pretty well understood they only reduce transmission marginally at best.
Look at the average number of flu cases and deaths per year, then look at how many COVID cases and deaths just this year, and maybe you'll understand why.
> The pharmaceutical industry doesn’t have a great track record of doing what’s best for you
This argument is so silly to me, because it's CLEARLY not thought through.
A vaccine is NOT in the best interest of Big Pharma. They stand to make MORE money by not making the vaccine and allowing the virus to rip through the population and selling treatments.
But what really irks me is the hypocrisy. Everyone crying about not wanting to get the jab because they don't trust the drug companies will run to the hospital and take everything they'll offer when they get COVID.
I just took another look at the numbers, the flu kills ~27k people total every year and Covid kills ~33k under 50's every year, which largely covers the attend a concert and eat in NYC crowd.
Not that it means anything, I'm deliberately comparing different age groups and those numbers would certainly be higher if not for lock-downs and vaccines. I just find it interesting how close the numbers are.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
The numbers aren’t remotely close.
but i think it's interesting context in terms of risk assessment to realize that under 50's account for 2/3 of the population yet only 6.7% of fatal covid cases.
I have never seen a more clear example of "The statistics don't fit my narrative, so I'm going to abuse them".
Compare the COVID deaths under 50 with the Flu deaths under 50.
I'd say it has a pretty damn good record if you look at the full picture and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There have been some terrible cases over the years, but At Large, companies have made thousands of new drug and S Saved hundred of millions of lives, let blind people see, and prevented horrible illnesses.
Sure, they did it for money, but that's how you motivate people to go to work in the morning.
Second, this should only be temporary until the burden on the health care is reduced. The fundamental problem is not enough people getting vaccinated. None of this would be necessary if more people were vaccinated.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates...