Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant • Hacker News Board

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#571

Post by q1w2 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #270

avsteele wrote: post #160

If there is an expert in immunology here I'd really like to ask a question: 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 th…

Not an immunology expert, but the focus on antibody titers seems to reek of corporate conflict of interest. It's pretty well understood that antibodies will break down and mostly fall to undetectable levels after a few months of an infection (in most cases, and in individuals who actually produce antibodies, not everyone will such as immune-compromised people) , but there's a huge financial incentive for vaccine prod…

Your first sentence is contradicted by the last sentence in your first paragraph (which is correct).

B-Cell immunity is much much harder to detect and cannot be done in any test given to the public. It's also difficult to determine from a positive b-cell result whether that person will have a strong or weak immune response - and how soon.

I think everyone in the immunology community is aware of the limitations of antibody tests, but I think it's wrong to attribute how it's portrayed in the media as corporate conflict of interest.

My impression is that it the media needs simple stories to build their narratives and cannot complicate things with b-cell immunity.

I agree with everything else you said, but I think the story for yearly (maybe bi-yearly) covid vaccines, as we have with flu, have a very strong case even given immunity memory cells.

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#572

Post by hcurtiss » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

ohyes wrote: post #549

artificialLimbs wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/04/fed... despite this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepqvdXoA2E&feature=youtu.be Oops, you can't watch that. Senators holding an expert panel is "dangerous misinformation". Here you go: https://rumble.com/vokrf7-sen.-johnson-expert-panel-on-feder...

Just so it is clear to you, the Forbes article you link is an opinion piece.

Premised on the undisputed fact that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for adverse reactions, leaving the victim with no remedy.

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#573

Post by ethbr0 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #520

ethbr0 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you think of any virus even close to COVID mortality that we take these kinds of draconian measures to prevent? SARS-CoV-1 (2002), MERS (2012+) "Of the 7 coronaviruses, the former four can cause common cold symptoms, but SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV can lead to severe respiratory syndromes, with about 6.76%, 9.6%, and 35.5% mortality rates, respectively." [0] We just dodged a bullet because they were regi…

That paper was a meta-study from July of last year based on papers even older, and it's loaded with problems. This paper in the Lancet [1] and this paper in BMJ on Delta [2] both have mortality at significantly lower. World-o-meter has the mortality rate in New York at 0.28%. [3] [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... (Among RT-PCR-confirmed cases tested by Oct 1, 2020, 342 (2·4%; 95% CI…

You're confusing case fatality rate (detected infection denominator) with infection fatality rate (total population denominator).

The study I cited was (broadly) CFR. That Lancet study is (broadly) IFR. If you proactively surveillance test 13.5% of Madurai's population, you're going to get a different class of people in your denominator, and your calculated mortality is going to decrease.

The BMJ study is probably the most broadly compatible, which leaves us at 2.5% (non-Delta) or 4.1% (Delta), which appears to be case fatality rate?

If we want to argue apples:apples, we should use EMR-based studies that attempt to calculate IFR, as at least they're reasoning with the same population composition.

This [0] has SARS-CoV-2 at somewhere between 0.26% and 0.83% IFR. Which for context, is compared to respiratory flu at 0.0088% (estimated total population EMR due to flu) [1]. So we'd expect about 29.5x as many people to die from SARS-CoV-2 (using the high end estimate of flu and the low end estimate of SARS-CoV-2, to generate the lowest possible multiple). If you want to, you can probably dig European numbers out of this excess mortality calculation [2], although that's all-cause mortality, with no attempt to isolate cause.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7543961/

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5935243/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7346364/

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#574

Post by disambiguation » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

mentat wrote: post #185

stolenmerch wrote: post #146

If I'm reading this correctly, this is "protection against severe disease" and has little to do with transmission. The National Airport Data from Israel seems to suggest "the absolute number of infected individuals in the Vaccinated (boosted) group is likely to be at least as high as in the Unvaccinated" [0] So it seems to me that as long as we all remain obsessed with case numbers and not actual hospitalizations and…

"Remain obsessed" with transmission of a highly contagious virus that has shown significant ability to mutate at scale? That sure seems worth being obsessed about. When it mutates to spread past all current defenses then consistently kill because we failed to stop current spread it will indeed be "depressing".

I seriously question whether we're at a level technologically that "control" was ever an option here.

With things like covid and the flu, vaccines will always be playing catch up with variants. Its not like the measles which doesn't mutate. Infection and hospitalization rates for vaccinated with covid are already significantly higher than the flu as far as baselines go .. it's reasonable to say we can't expect vaccines to snuff out this kind of disease.

Therefore, the only realistic way to stop the spread is with ruthless targeted testing, tracking, and quarantining. But the problem with that method is by the time we're aware of a problematic strain, its already spread too much for quarantining to be effective.

Nature is inevitable. Once we've done all we can, all that's left is to learn to live with it.

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#575

Post by cbhl » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #429

sho_hn wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Fosun Pharma has been licensed by BioNTech to exclusively develop and commercialize COVID-19 vaccines based on its mRNA technology platform in Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan region." https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det... (2020)

Searching the CDC in Taiwan, I was unable to find any press releases announcing they bought vaccines from Fosun Pharma. Everything I could find said they only received BioNTech vaccines when they were donated . Please correct me if wrong. I assume "Taiwan region" is simply something to satisfy the PRC gov't (CCP) which believes Taiwan is a part of its country and governed by PRC. TW CDC PR: https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/…

My understanding is that folks locally didn't trust the Fosun-made batches, but Taiwan couldn't purchase vaccines from Pfizer due to Fosun holding the distribution rights

Hence the donations

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#576

Post by freemint » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #486

TechBro8615 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not necessarily true. If you suddenly start testing low risk people you weren’t testing before, then you can get an increase in cases without necessarily an increase in death. For example, if you implement a travel rule that every traveler needs to get tested a day before they leave and a day after they arrive, then you’re going to see an increase in cases (both real and false positives).

Yeah, but in practice that hasn’t been relevant. It’s important to be cautious, but it’s also important to not be a know-it-all who just because they can think of a limitation of a data collection / statistical method they can suddenly cast doubt on the whole thing, even though people who know much more about it already probably did exactly the same thing. Finden a limitation of some data is extremely easy. Extremely…

For a successful technology(/medical intervention), reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#577

Post by ohyes » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

bavell wrote: post #397

ohyes wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had the vaccine so you recovered quickly, if you didn’t have the vaccine you might not have recovered and needed hospitalization. I mean, the alternative where you don’t get the vaccine includes much higher risk of lung damage, nervous system damage and total organ failure. I think even if there was data to back this up (that somehow vaccine gives less protection than a real infection…), getting a booster every y…

> I don’t think that your model of how vaccines work really makes sense. I believe OP is referencing "Original antigenic sin" [0]. "This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections." [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

I thought about this a bit more… there’s no reason this wouldn’t apply to a secondary infection with a different strain of covid is there? I don’t see what’s special about the vaccine that would make this effect noticeably worse than simply being infected twice.

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#578

Post by q1w2 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

lambdaba wrote: post #193

avsteele wrote: post #160

If there is an expert in immunology here I'd really like to ask a question: 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 th…

Not the expert you were asking but one thing I know is natural immunity isn't just antibodies, which is why traditional inactivated vaccines yield more robust and long-lasting protection.

> traditional inactivated vaccines yield more robust and long-lasting protection

This is wrong. The formation of memory T/B cells has nothing to do with the vaccine tech. Both create lasting T/B cell memory immunity.

The problem is that it takes a week or so for T/B immunity to kick in - so you still get sick.

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#579

Post by sjg007 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

fluidcruft wrote: post #544

sjg007 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t make sense. If the infection continues the immune system will generate new antibodies and responses. After all it’s a new thing not seen before.

The linked article both describes the mechanism and has plenty of recent references observing and studying the effect whether or not you think it makes sense. The general mechanism is that recognition of the antigen by memory B cells produces a response that also inhibits (non-memory) B cells from reacting to the antigen. So when the antigen has drifted enough that memory B cells still recognize it, but the antibodie…

Eventually you clear the infection in most cases. How do you think that happens?

Re: Pfizer and Biontech provide update on Omicron variant

#580

Post by timr » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #535

timr wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and? The comment to which I'm responding said there's little evidence that natural immunity is better than vaccines. That's just not true. There's pretty strong evidence, actually. That natural immunity plus a booster is better than either is interesting, but not responsive to the question.

No there is not strong evidence. The Israeli study highlighted previous infection versus vaccinated but not (yet) infected. Note the "previously infected" category did not exclude the vaccinated, but the vaccinated category did exclude the previously infected. The only solid conclusion to make from that is: that even if you have been previously infected, get a vaccine.

> The Israeli study highlighted previous infection versus vaccinated

Yes, they did this, and showed that natural infection was superior to vaccination alone.

> but not (yet) infected.

Incorrect.

> Note the "previously infected" category did not exclude the vaccinated, but the vaccinated category did exclude the previously infected.

No. You only have to read the link to see that your understanding of the study is entirely incorrect.

> The study...found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

> The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.