Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

nejm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#31

Post by mrtksn »

jimmyearlcarter wrote: post #27
mrtksn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you can consider another vaccine as a booster if this one did not acted well on you? I don't see how the booster is guaranteed to be the final answer as the virus keeps mutating and spreading among the very large unvaccinated population. I personally think that it will become endemic, thanks to the vaccine we would have enough immunity to keep us out of hospital and each time we get the virus it would act as a…

Its actually the 'leaky' vaccine that is causing the problematic mutations. In the same sense that bacteria mutate to evade antibiotics, the virus mutates to evade the vaccine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwPKnOhJRYg&list=PL2FOgJ3tfG...

I guess we can solve this by issue by going back to days with no vaccine and no antibiotics.

I never get this antivaxxer argument for ”naturalism”.

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#32

Post by nkurz »

timr wrote: post #17
actually_a_dog wrote: post #3

Here's a summary, quoted from the article: > RESULTS > A total of 843,208 participants met the eligibility criteria, of whom 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period. Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day). The adjusted hazard ratio for death du…

> I'll take a 90% lower mortality rate any day. Really? Any day? Read the part you quoted carefully: the death rate in the control group is 3 per 100,000. And if you read the rest of the paper, you'll see that the study population was entirely over age 50. Remember that the risk of death from Covid-19 goes up exponentially with age -- something like 90% of all fatalities are over age 50 [1]. If you're in the typical…

Your comparison points are great, but I think you are misreading the quote: "Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day)."

The death rate of the control group is .16 vs 2.98 per 100,000 people per day. If you annualize this by multiplying by 365 to make it comparable to your other figures, I think this means you get 65 deaths per 100,000 people per year for the booster group versus over 1000 deaths per 100,000 people per year for the double vaccinated but not boosted. Which is to say, the Covid risk is higher than all of the specific risks you mentioned with or without a booster. This might (or might not) suggest a different conclusion of the relative benefit of taking the booster.

Or am I the one who is misreading the numbers?

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#33

Post by ahartmetz »

whb07 wrote: post #20
kelnos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could they answer #2? Boosters have only been a thing for, what, a couple months now?

Israel is effectively forcing everyone to be at the 4th booster by now. Guess how things are looking? Ready to take the 5th booster shortly. Lol, “never again” and Nuremberg code are just words easily forgotten.

> Lol, “never again” and Nuremberg code are just words easily forgotten

Being a bit over-dramatic here, aren't we? Never mind factually wrong about

> Israel is effectively forcing everyone to be at the 4th booster by now.

How do you come up with this stuff?

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#34

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #6
fxtentacle wrote: post #2

TLDR it works as expected. Participants who received a booster at least 5 months after a second dose of BNT162b2 had 90% lower mortality due to Covid-19 than participants who did not receive a booster.

Although the 3 per 100,000 death rate after 2 vaccinations is already very low. It's great that an additional vaccination would reduce it further, but after 2 vaccinations does it make sense to mandate a booster with these risk profiles? Especially given that there are rare heart inflammation issues caused by the vaccine, I can see people having a difference of opinion about whether the booster is worth it compared t…

I agree with your point that with low death rates it's important to try to determine which subpopulations are at highest risk of both (a) succumbing to the virus should they become infected and (b) vaccine-related side effects.

With respect to myocarditis, though, note that it is rare, and those affected recover quickly [1], and there are some recommendations about potentially changing the injection site to be further from the heart to lower the incidence of this side effect [2].

1. https://newsroom.heart.org/news/young-people-recover-quickly...

2. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/artic...

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#35

Post by mrtksn »

dimgl wrote: post #30
jimmyearlcarter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its actually the 'leaky' vaccine that is causing the problematic mutations. In the same sense that bacteria mutate to evade antibiotics, the virus mutates to evade the vaccine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwPKnOhJRYg&list=PL2FOgJ3tfG...

Your source is a random YouTube video? AFAIK viruses are nothing like bacteria…

It’s not exactly random, it includes Robert Melone who is early researcher in the mRNA technology who was part of a team that got some patents but he likes to call himself the inventor of everything mRNA.

So the guy somehow got bitter with the people involved and turned it into media battle. He tries to portray himself as an insider who is not afraid or has higher morals to tell the truth about mRNA.

He says stuff like “This research shows that virus spike proteins damage the heart, the vaccine produces spike proteins therefore vaccines are dangerous”.

Doesn’t have any actual research on his claims, he simply invents things from thin air and says them from the position of inventor of the mRNA.

Very popular guy in the antivaxx community.

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#36

Post by Wowfunhappy »

jimmyearlcarter wrote: post #27
mrtksn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you can consider another vaccine as a booster if this one did not acted well on you? I don't see how the booster is guaranteed to be the final answer as the virus keeps mutating and spreading among the very large unvaccinated population. I personally think that it will become endemic, thanks to the vaccine we would have enough immunity to keep us out of hospital and each time we get the virus it would act as a…

Its actually the 'leaky' vaccine that is causing the problematic mutations. In the same sense that bacteria mutate to evade antibiotics, the virus mutates to evade the vaccine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwPKnOhJRYg&list=PL2FOgJ3tfG...

Vaccines are different from antibiotics in that they are designed to use your own immune system. Whereas an antibiotic targets a bacterial weakness which the bacteria can fix, the immune system watches for both specific invaders and possible variations of those invaders.

Kurzgesagt made a good explainer video on this recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmpuerlbJu0

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#37

Post by disruptalot »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #29
disruptalot wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why wouldn't you want to get something that showed such high efficacy against death and hospitalization that had such a low, temporally finite cost? Because they've already determined that their current health is already highly effective at keeping them out of hospital and death. So you want them decrease their risk from 0.2% to 0.1% and in exchange expose them to a vaccine that's: - Expires in a few months - They'…

Taking your points 1-by-1: > So you want them decrease their risk from 0.2% to 0.1% The linked study said those that had gotten a booster had 10% of the risk of those that didn't, so using your first number it would be like 0.2% to 0.02%. > Expires in a few months It's unknown how long the booster would last, or if after the booster the recommendation would be to move to something annual like flu shots. > They've alr…

> It's unknown how long the booster would last

It's well within reason to expect that it won't be longer than the 2nd dose.

> The person I responded to didn't say what their reaction was

I kind of extrapolated based on the parent's parent. I had a personal example in mind. Chest pains after first shot, heart palpitations after 2nd, checked at ER. These are myocarditis signs and a booster makes me very uneasy. This I would guess is the most commonly brought up examples of potentially serious side effects.

> Relatively has higher risk of side effects among their profile

Just generalising, assuming young healthy male with no underlying health conditions.

> Vs. the now well-known long-term risks of contracting Covid, which given its prevalence seems highly likely that your long term choices are (a) never leave your house, (b) reduce likelihood and severity of infection with a vaccine, or (c) get Covid.

It's inaccurate to have "Never leave your house" as an option, situations are different. Different case numbers based on location, different personal lifestyles. On the other hand, the vaccine risk is fixed, you either take it or don't.

I'm personally happy doing continuous risk assessment and acting accordingly and if I did catch Covid then so be it, risks are extremely low already.

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#38

Post by TechBro8615 »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #11
avalys wrote: post #8

Is it too early to conclude whether booster effectiveness will also wane in 6 months? I had some mild but persistent side effects from the second Pfizer dose (ear ringing and Eustachian tube dysfunction). It's gotten about 98% better - but not 100% - and I'm a bit nervous about the booster given that many people are reporting the side effects are somewhat more intense than the second shot. If the booster is the final…

I’m in a similar boat and I hate it. I did both vaccines and I’m otherwise healthy, very low risk of hospitalization or death. My workplace has said vaccination is a requirement (even though I’m remote!) and I think boosters will be part of that. I don’t want to file a religious or medical exemption because I don’t have one. I want to file a “I shouldn’t have to do this” exemption.

Do the moral thing and quit. Don’t let someone coerce your into a decision you don’t feel is right for yourself.

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#39

Post by disruptalot »

newsbinator wrote: post #28
disruptalot wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why wouldn't you want to get something that showed such high efficacy against death and hospitalization that had such a low, temporally finite cost? Because they've already determined that their current health is already highly effective at keeping them out of hospital and death. So you want them decrease their risk from 0.2% to 0.1% and in exchange expose them to a vaccine that's: - Expires in a few months - They'…

All valid points except the last one. Unknown long term risk is silly because Covid and Omicron specifically also come with unknown long term risk.

I wish there was a more concerted effort on following up on both covid patients and vaccine administrations and presenting the data on the outcomes in the general media. Instead, the only widely decimated message is "get your vaccine".

Re: BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster and Mortality Due to Covid-19

#40

Post by exegete »

jimmyearlcarter wrote: post #25

I want to know what percentage of those who died also suffered form comorbidities. Also this is for people aged 50 and above, what about healthy young people? Do the math, death rate is 0.008% (boosted) vs 0.16% (unboosted) for aged 50 and above. Still super low. And we're getting better and better at treating this thing. Get it if you *want* it. Don't if you don't. I do not want it or need it thank you very much.

Agree that we’re getting better at treating it. You seem to be praising those treatments and not wanting to get the vaccine. I don’t understand the idea that medicine that prevents the disease is bad but medicine after the disease is ok?
Post reply on HN