151–160 of 717 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not deadly enough _to you_. I'm sure those who are vulnerable will thank you immensely for your compassion.
Do they actually prevent transmission significantly? Is there a study on this? I am curious.
It's good, but won't stop the virus from spreading even if everyone is vaccinated.
I have a few relatives in the medical field (all vaxxed and boosted) that have explained the booster shot is just more of the same stuff - they haven't had time to make a new recipe.. so isn't this just the same study all over again? i.e 2 shots had high protection in the beginning and waned over time. Can we expect the same from the booster shot?
What the press seems to be assuming is that it's as simple as the immunity from vaccination simply wearing out over time. But there's at least one alternative explanation.
The alternative is that the timing of the second dose was less than optimal. With little experimentation to guide the authorities, the 4-week delay was chosen in part to give a quicker timeline for vaccination. If they'd said, say, 2 months or 6 months, then we would have been that much slower getting to even that level of immunity, so it was a conscious compromise. But what if the optimal gap between shots really is 6 months, and because the booster achieves that, the effect will be more permanent?
Like I said, not enough is known for sure, but there is some reason to believe that the latter explanation may be true.
It's not deadly enough for me to consider a booster, I'll pass on this supplementary shot https://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-has-not-seen-any-repor...
Not deadly enough _to you_. I'm sure those who are vulnerable will thank you immensely for your compassion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Omicron isn't the only variant or even the dominate one outside of South Africa. If you've already gotten the initial doses, why wouldn't you complete your vaccination? There's only upside to it at that point
It's not at all clear that it's possible to complete this vaccination. Given the discussion around the 3rd booster shot, it seems likely that Pfizer and others are shifting the market to accept the vaccine as an annual product like the flu shot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not deadly enough _to you_. I'm sure those who are vulnerable will thank you immensely for your compassion.
Does the Pfizer jab infection and prevent transmission to others? I thought I saw Fauci and Walensky (CDC) recently lamenting that it doesn't. Most of what I hear people say is it prevents disease severity.
Once infected you’re right (at least last I read) that you still shed virus, but given lower infection rate on exposure it still helps reduce spread.
Product manufacturer recommends use of its product. Surprise!
If it were the opposite, that they didn't believe a third dose of their vaccine was effective, do you believe they would still be making the same announcement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they actually prevent transmission significantly? Is there a study on this? I am curious.
I saw one study, the transmission rate of the vaccinated was around 10% lower than of the non-vaccinated. It's good, but won't stop the virus from spreading even if everyone is vaccinated.
If everyone (or the majority) caught it and went through it, we would have pretty good immunity against the more harmful variants, right?
This is the scientific meat of the press release where it claims a 25 times neutralizing antibody titers against the Omicron strain with a third dose of Pfizer-BionTech: The sera were collected from subjects 3 weeks after receiving the second dose or one month after receiving the third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Each serum was tested simultaneously for its neutralizing antibody titer against the wi…
It's interesting, this differs from recent results suggesting that boosting with vaccines derived from the original Wuhan variant is relatively less effective against newer variants like delta: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261952v... .
This is consistent with other research showing that people who are vaccinated then infected are more likely to get reinfected than those who were simply infected and recovered. The alternative outlook here is that vaccinated people are more likely to be at risk populations with immune systems that don’t function as well (immune compromised/elderly)
Aren't antibody titers just one measure of immunity?
Since ~everyone with just two shots get them a while ago, and people receiving the boosters are receiving them now, wouldn't we expect must higher levels of neutralizing antibodies in boosted people? I know the number of antibodies fades over time, (whether from vaccine or infection) but this doesn't mean you don't have lasting protection after this, right?
Wouldn't it therefore be a mistake/misleading to conclude something specific about a level of protection from this titer data alone?