Vaccines’ protection against virus infection is waning, C.D.C. studies suggest.
This is another article by Apoorva Mandavilli. It is not clear, she does not explain well and does not ask or answer the right questions.
I didn’t notice the studies.
But some experts said the new research did not support the decision to recommend booster shots for all Americans.
?
Taken together, the studies show that although the vaccines remain highly effective against hospitalizations, the bulwark they provide against infection with the virus has weakened in the past few months.
It’s unclear whether the decline in protection against infection is the result of waning immunity, a drop in precautions like wearing masks, or the rise of the highly contagious Delta variant — or a combination of all three.
…
Some scientists were deeply skeptical of the new plan.
“These data support giving additional doses of vaccine to highly immunocompromised persons and nursing home residents, not to the general public,” said Dr. Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist at Bellevue Hospital Center and a former adviser on the pandemic to the administration.
Wow, “deeply skeptical”. I’m not understanding if this is a food fight among scientists over just the data or if they are worried about side effects or something else.
Boosters would only be warranted if the vaccines were failing to prevent people from ending up hospitalized with Covid-19, she said.
Okay, WAIT. I would interpret that to mean the other scientists think CDC is, AGAIN, hiding the data on current hospitalizations, including among the vaxed. In this reading the other scientists are saying to CDC, “You aren’t recommending that everyone get a booster shot on this data; you’re recommending boosters for all on data you’re not showing us.”
I guess not. Damn this reporter:
“Feeling sick like a dog and laid up in bed, but not in the hospital with severe Covid, is not a good enough reason,” Dr. Gounder said. “We’ll be better protected by vaccinating the unvaccinated here and around the world.”
That’s not a good enough reason. Wow.
It’s unclear whether a third dose would help people who did not produce a robust response to the first two doses, said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The recommendation for boosters may also end up undermining confidence in vaccines, he warned: “A third shot will add to skepticism among people yet to receive one dose that the vaccines help them.”
Is that really a good reason to be "deeply skeptical" about the booster rec? My confidence has not been undermined by concern that my DNA is being changed or any other hocum. It has been undermined by the science on vaccine efficacy against Delta and particularly by the evidence on the transmissibility of the virus by those, like me, who are fully vaxed. By my confidence has not been undermined to the point that I will not get a booster and wear a goddamned mask if, as I take it, that is the recommendation.
Together, the new studies indicate overall that vaccines have an effectiveness of roughly 55 percent against infections, 80 percent against symptomatic infection, and 90 percent or higher against hospitalization, noted Ellie Murray, an epidemiologist at Boston University.
“Those numbers are actually very good,” Dr. Murray said. “The only group that these data would suggest boosters for, to me, is the immunocompromised.”
Do you see what I fucking mean? I’m sorry, 55% efficacy against infection is not what the public has in mind as “very good”. To the public, and this public specifically, 55% sucks. Dr. Murray makes her "very good" judgment and I my "sucks" judgment based on the data, not on bullshit. If you're concerned that judging 55% "sucks" "undermines confidence" in vaccines, then get better data. What about the mega-load of virus that the fully vaxed have in their noses? What about transmissibility of the virus by the fully vaxed, in other words? Is it not true, as another doctor said, that we need a new vaccine against transmissibility?
The drop in protection against infection could be the result of increased exposure to a highly contagious variant during a period of unfettered social interactions…
Dr. Murray said boosters would undoubtedly boost immunity in an individual, but the benefit may be minimal — and obtained just as easily by wearing a mask, or avoiding indoor dining and crowded bars.
Okay, but “may be minimal” isn’t “bad.” If I want to get a booster, is there any downside? I don’t want to wear a mask. I will and I do but I don’t want to. You're saying I'm still going to have to wear a mask even if I get boosted, I got that. Any downside to me doing both?
The administration’s emphasis on vaccines has undermined the importance of building other precautions into people’s lives in ways that are comfortable and sustainable, and on building capacity for testing, she and other experts said.
It certainly has put all of its eggs into the vaccine basket. A fun thing to do may be to develop another vaccine.
“This is part of why I think the administration’s focus on vaccines is so damaging to morale,” she added. “We probably won’t be going back to normal anytime soon.”
No, the damage to morale is in masking as a result of vax inefficacy, not in vaxing generally. Ergo, we need a new vaccine.
One of the new C.D.C. studies analyzed the effectiveness of vaccines among residents of nearly 4,000 nursing homes from March 1 to May 9, before the Delta variant’s emergence, and nearly 15,000 nursing homes from June 21 to Aug. 1, when the variant dominated new infections in the country.
The vaccines’ effectiveness at preventing infections dropped from about 75 percent to 53 percent between those dates, the study found. It did not evaluate the vaccines’ protection against severe illness.
A second study evaluated data from New York State from May 3 to July 25, when the Delta variant grew to represent more than 80 percent of new cases. The effectiveness of vaccines in preventing cases in adults declined from 91.7 percent to 79.8 percent during that time, the study found. But the vaccines remained just as effective at preventing hospitalizations.
And under the Gounder criteria, no hospital no prob!
During those weeks, New York recorded 9,675 breakthrough infections — roughly 20 percent of total cases in the state — and 1,271 hospitalizations in vaccinated people, which accounted for 15 percent of all Covid-19 hospitalizations.
Dr. Gounder, 15% fully vaxed hospitalizations--good enough reason or no?
...vaccine effectiveness [in the New York study] showed the sharpest drop, from 90.6 percent to 74.6 percent, in people aged 18 through 49 years — who are often the least likely to take precautions and the most likely to socialize.
How do you doctors not get the circularity of your position? Get vaxed! VAXED! VAXED! VAXED! Vaccine efficacy drops from 90%-76% among the vaxed, "Ah, you didn't mask up." If the vaccines worked we wouldn't have to mask. What about this is causing your brains to chase your tails? Why did we get vaxed if we still have to mask? If we had all stayed masked and unvaxed, would we have been better off?
The third study from the C.D.C. found that the vaccines showed 90 percent effectiveness against hospitalizations in the country, “which is excellent,” Dr. Gounder noted.
Right! The Gounder Rule, no hospitalization, no prob!
The vaccines were less protective against hospitalization in immunocompromised people. “But not all immunocompromised persons will respond to an additional dose of vaccine,” Dr. Gounder noted.
To protect these vulnerable individuals, everyone around them should be vaccinated and should continue to wear masks, she added.
The vaccines may appear to be less effective than they did in the clinical trials because the trials were conducted before the emergence of the highly contagious Delta variant. The vaccines can also seem to lose effectiveness as more unvaccinated people become infected with the virus and gain natural immunity.
Ms. Mandavilli just kicks my ass every time. I've spent an hour-hour and a half on this goddamned article. Her first sentence above I've already commented on so much. The second sentence, I have no idea what that means.
If preventing infection is the goal, it would be wiser to offer a booster of a nasal spray vaccine, which is better at inducing immunity in the nose and throat, where the virus enters, Dr. Gounder said.
