How much will non-vaxxing by GOP reduce the population of voting age republicans

[Omy]

Thanks for all of this info...very helpful! If anybody here has had the Moderna booster (after having a rough reaction to Moderna #2), I'd love to hear if the 1/2 dose booster was better or just as rough as shot #2.

[RetiredAt63]

Hmm, my first 2 shots were Pfizer, and odds are my booster shot will be too.  Not sure I will have any choices.

I know someone who had the AstraZeneca first and second shots.  She is taking immune-compromising drugs and was just eligible for a booster, she got Moderna.  She was wiped the next day, which I suppose is good, shows her immune system reacted.

[Malum Prohibitum]

Thanks for all of this info...very helpful! If anybody here has had the Moderna booster (after having a rough reaction to Moderna #2), I'd love to hear if the 1/2 dose booster was better or just as rough as shot #2.

My secretary received the Moderna booster - her shoulder and arm swelled up and were painful.   The swelling is starting to go away (only a day later).

[Abe]

I had the booster for Pfizer a few weeks ago and it was similar but less severe symptoms (muscle pain in the receiving shoulder and fatigue).

[dang1]

I had pfizer booster on left arm, flu shot right arm yesterday. woke up very sore, but got less as day went on.

[PeteD01]

Despite of the decent immunity conferred by COVID infection, immunity acquired by vaccination is very much preferable and infection should be followed up by vaccination in the survivors.
The virus in its Delta variant will inevitably infect every single unvaccinated person eventually and they will end up either immune and fully recovered, permanently disabled to varying degrees or dead.
As there appears to be a general lack of knowledge and imagination on what the acquisition of natural immunity via infection might entail, some more graphic illustrations of the journey to the bitter end when things are not going well might be in order.

The first link is to an edited version of a series of video clips Amy posted on TikTok. Amy was a 47 year old anti-vaxxer who left four children behind. I think it is appropriate to keep the footage available as Amy has published the videos herself and it may help persuade some to opt for the vaccine.
The clinical course is typical for a patient becoming chronically critically ill with COVID-19. Amy spent a total of 40 days in the ICU of which 19 days were spent on high flow oxygen and noninvasive mechanical ventilation (BiPAP, at least 8 days of the 19).
The videos end on September 30 just prior to her being intubated and put on a ventilator for the subsequent 21 days until her demise. The video is the best illustration of the course of COVID in up to forty percent of COVID patients entering the ICU that I have seen so far and I believe it could speak to the lay person as well.
I should emphasize that the outcome of Amy´s illness is not an uncommon complication of COVID-19 and should put the common side effect of vaccination, which is a sore and swollen arm for a couple of days, into perspective.

https://tinyurl.com/jvrcc4j9


As we have no account of what happened between the last clip and her death, I have included a link to an article about an embalmer reporting on the condition of the bodies of COVID victims after prolonged critical illness with fatal outcome. It does not take much to imagine how Amy´s last 21 days turned out.


Texas Embalmer Shares Nightmare COVID Experiences: 'Unlike Anything I've Seen Before'

https://tinyurl.com/nu452ydd


In conclusion, acquiring immunity via infection by foregoing vaccination is a terrible idea and if things go wrong in that quest there likely is no merciful quick death but a long period of living in terror, severe pain and regrets.

Many thanks to Amy for recording and publishing these clips so diligently. Although Amy may have hurt or killed people by spewing anti-vaxxer nonsense on social media and by blocking an ICU bed for 40 days, she might inadvertently help convince some people to go for the vaccine.

[OtherJen]

Good lord, she was a single mom of 5 kids. Those poor children, and her poor family stuck with grieving her, raising her kids, and dealing with her medical bills. Her unrepentant anti-vax stance is even more infuriating when you consider the level of irresponsibility even to her own dependents.

[RetiredAt63]

Side effects -  can anti-vaxxers listen to this and decide that not being vaccinated is worth it?

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-79-breakaway/clip/15873932-we-waited-long-long-covid-19-victim

[ChpBstrd]

Good lord, she was a single mom of 5 kids. Those poor children, and her poor family stuck with grieving her, raising her kids, and dealing with her medical bills. Her unrepentant anti-vax stance is even more infuriating when you consider the level of irresponsibility even to her own dependents.

Imagine the kids getting their annual COVID shot for the next few decades just as routinely as we get the flu shot, thinking of their mother every single time, and wondering how this became the hill she died on.

[Sibley]

Side effects -  can anti-vaxxers listen to this and decide that not being vaccinated is worth it?

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-79-breakaway/clip/15873932-we-waited-long-long-covid-19-victim

They won't listen to it.

[GuitarStv]

Good lord, she was a single mom of 5 kids. Those poor children, and her poor family stuck with grieving her, raising her kids, and dealing with her medical bills. Her unrepentant anti-vax stance is even more infuriating when you consider the level of irresponsibility even to her own dependents.

Imagine the kids getting their annual COVID shot for the next few decades just as routinely as we get the flu shot, thinking of their mother every single time, and wondering how this became the hill she died on.

Vaccinated individuals are 11 times more likely to survive covid than unvaccinated . . . but even unvaccinated, it's somewhere below 1% of people who contract it will end up dying from the disease.

We're at a weird place with covid.  It's just at the point where it's very dangerous . . . but not so dangerous that it can't be ignored and wished away by people who want to deny reality.  If mortality was higher, this would be an easier sell.

[former player]

It's also interesting in the USA that the prospect of avoiding high medical bills for yourself (or for your family members if you die after 3 weeks in intensive care) doesn't seem to be an incentive either.

[ChpBstrd]

It's also interesting in the USA that the prospect of avoiding high medical bills for yourself (or for your family members if you die after 3 weeks in intensive care) doesn't seem to be an incentive either.

Maybe the legacy of COVID will be less about demographic change due to deaths and more about the increased impoverishment of the hardest hit demographics, due to medical bills, long-term symptoms, and disability.

But yes, it’s strange to watch people who would drive an extra mile to pay 5 cents less per gallon of gas refusing to accept the tens of thousands of dollars in savings that could be had by wearing a mask or getting vaccinated.

[PeteD01]

More on natural immunity, vaccine immunity and hybrid immunity:

"While the concept of natural immunity has often been misused by people opposed to vaccine mandates, public health officials and scientists should be open to the evidence. Research, including my team’s study of the immune responses of nearly 2,150 health care workers in Sweden after infection with SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — and vaccination, suggests that the protection gained from infection is long-lasting and that it can be significantly bolstered by a single Covid-19 vaccine dose."


https://tinyurl.com/azmfhper

https://ki.se/en/kids/community

[jrhampt]

It's also interesting in the USA that the prospect of avoiding high medical bills for yourself (or for your family members if you die after 3 weeks in intensive care) doesn't seem to be an incentive either.

Maybe the legacy of COVID will be less about demographic change due to deaths and more about the increased impoverishment of the hardest hit demographics, due to medical bills, long-term symptoms, and disability.

But yes, it’s strange to watch people who would drive an extra mile to pay 5 cents less per gallon of gas refusing to accept the tens of thousands of dollars in savings that could be had by wearing a mask or getting vaccinated.

Yes, very odd.  The 1% mortality doesn't tell the whole story, either, as previously noted.  My parents have been unable to work for two months now and counting.  So in addition to medical costs, they have unemployment and disability to contend with vs a vaccine which would have cost them nothing.

[SunnyDays]

More on natural immunity, vaccine immunity and hybrid immunity:

"While the concept of natural immunity has often been misused by people opposed to vaccine mandates, public health officials and scientists should be open to the evidence. Research, including my team’s study of the immune responses of nearly 2,150 health care workers in Sweden after infection with SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — and vaccination, suggests that the protection gained from infection is long-lasting and that it can be significantly bolstered by a single Covid-19 vaccine dose."


https://tinyurl.com/azmfhper

https://ki.se/en/kids/community

If it can be "significantly bolstered" by one shot, then it wasn't optimal to begin with?

I've been told by a pharmacist that if you keep your arm moving for 20 minutes after the shot, the pain will be less.  No harm in trying that.  But yeah, I'll take brutal pain over Covid symptoms any day.

[Ladychips]

N = 1...

I got my booster on Tuesday, all three shots moderna.  After second shot, I had fever, chills, and nausea.  Not horrible but not great. 24 hours after second shot, felt perfectly normal.  After third shot, no fever, chills or nausea.  Had a headache and was super tired.  24 hours later, felt normal. Way less reaction than 2nd shot. Easy peasy.

[MudPuppy]

48h from booster (Moderna initial series, Pfizer booster) I still haven’t had any constitutional symptoms. My arm is still a little sore. My spouse thinks that deltoid feels somewhat warmer to the touch than the other but I don’t have any redness or anything.  My symptoms are overall very similar to my symptoms following my initial Moderna doses.

[Villanelle]

More on natural immunity, vaccine immunity and hybrid immunity:

"While the concept of natural immunity has often been misused by people opposed to vaccine mandates, public health officials and scientists should be open to the evidence. Research, including my team’s study of the immune responses of nearly 2,150 health care workers in Sweden after infection with SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — and vaccination, suggests that the protection gained from infection is long-lasting and that it can be significantly bolstered by a single Covid-19 vaccine dose."


https://tinyurl.com/azmfhper

https://ki.se/en/kids/community

If it can be "significantly bolstered" by one shot, then it wasn't optimal to begin with?

I've been told by a pharmacist that if you keep your arm moving for 20 minutes after the shot, the pain will be less.  No harm in trying that.  But yeah, I'll take brutal pain over Covid symptoms any day.

I tired the moving arm.  Of course, I don't know what it would have been like if I'd not moved my arm, but I had very, very significant arm soreness anyway. 

[PeteD01]

More on natural immunity, vaccine immunity and hybrid immunity:

"While the concept of natural immunity has often been misused by people opposed to vaccine mandates, public health officials and scientists should be open to the evidence. Research, including my team’s study of the immune responses of nearly 2,150 health care workers in Sweden after infection with SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — and vaccination, suggests that the protection gained from infection is long-lasting and that it can be significantly bolstered by a single Covid-19 vaccine dose."


https://tinyurl.com/azmfhper

https://ki.se/en/kids/community

If it can be "significantly bolstered" by one shot, then it wasn't optimal to begin with?

I've been told by a pharmacist that if you keep your arm moving for 20 minutes after the shot, the pain will be less.  No harm in trying that.  But yeah, I'll take brutal pain over Covid symptoms any day.

That´s the point, optimal protection requires vaccination after recovery from infection - according to current expert consensus.

[GuitarStv]

More on natural immunity, vaccine immunity and hybrid immunity:

"While the concept of natural immunity has often been misused by people opposed to vaccine mandates, public health officials and scientists should be open to the evidence. Research, including my team’s study of the immune responses of nearly 2,150 health care workers in Sweden after infection with SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — and vaccination, suggests that the protection gained from infection is long-lasting and that it can be significantly bolstered by a single Covid-19 vaccine dose."


https://tinyurl.com/azmfhper

https://ki.se/en/kids/community

If it can be "significantly bolstered" by one shot, then it wasn't optimal to begin with?

I've been told by a pharmacist that if you keep your arm moving for 20 minutes after the shot, the pain will be less.  No harm in trying that.  But yeah, I'll take brutal pain over Covid symptoms any day.

That´s the point, optimal protection requires vaccination after recovery from infection - according to current expert consensus.

The bolded seems like a misleading statement.  Vaccination prevents worst case outcomes for people.  Exposure to the virus first carries with it much higher risk of dying, higher risk of being hospitalized, and higher risk of long covid.

If you're planning on going with hybrid immunity (a mix of exposure and vaccination), I'd think that exposure to covid after vaccination would be a much safer course of action as this mitigates the risks of the approach.

[MudPuppy]

I don’t read that in Pete’s post at all. They said that optimum protection isn't obtained from infection alone. Vaccination is still needed.


Judging by the results I’ve called out today that are second go-round positives, I will confirm that with personal anecdata.

[PeteD01]

More on natural immunity, vaccine immunity and hybrid immunity:

"While the concept of natural immunity has often been misused by people opposed to vaccine mandates, public health officials and scientists should be open to the evidence. Research, including my team’s study of the immune responses of nearly 2,150 health care workers in Sweden after infection with SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — and vaccination, suggests that the protection gained from infection is long-lasting and that it can be significantly bolstered by a single Covid-19 vaccine dose."


https://tinyurl.com/azmfhper

https://ki.se/en/kids/community

If it can be "significantly bolstered" by one shot, then it wasn't optimal to begin with?

I've been told by a pharmacist that if you keep your arm moving for 20 minutes after the shot, the pain will be less.  No harm in trying that.  But yeah, I'll take brutal pain over Covid symptoms any day.

That´s the point, optimal protection requires vaccination after recovery from infection - according to current expert consensus.

The bolded seems like a misleading statement.  Vaccination prevents worst case outcomes for people.  Exposure to the virus first carries with it much higher risk of dying, higher risk of being hospitalized, and higher risk of long covid.

If you're planning on going with hybrid immunity (a mix of exposure and vaccination), I'd think that exposure to covid after vaccination would be a much safer course of action as this mitigates the risks of the approach.

The context for my statement is the hypothetical subject who has had COVID-19 and for whom vaccination would then result in optimal protection. Of course, pursuing natural immunity without previous vaccination is a terrible idea, but it is what the vaccine refusers are actually doing.
Now there is some evidence that vaccination after infection might be superior to straight vaccination, but, given the high effectiveness of vaccines, that is probably not very relevant.
As for hybrid immunity overall: everyone will eventually get infected with SARS-CoV-2 making hybrid immunity the norm - it is only a matter of time.

[dandarc]

You don't see the problem with stating "optimal protection requires vaccination after infection" without also saying "everyone - infected or not - should go get vaccinated if they aren't yet"?

What PeteD01 posted (I'm going the initial post quoted there and ensuing thread) is a statement of fact "best covid protection comes from infection followed by vaccine". And for people who are already vaccinated, or at least not vaccine-hesitant for dubious reasons, it is super easy to fill in the blank with the rest of the point - "so even if you've had Covid, get vaccinated once you're eligible - talk to your doctor about the best time to get the shot".

But that's not what is written - what my unvaccinated sister will inevetibly fill in the blanks with is "so I should wait and if I happen to catch covid, then go get vaccinated."

In case I'm not being clear - anyone reading this should go get your covid vaccine if you're eligible and haven't yet, and get a booster if you're eligible forthwith! Only exceptions are if your doctor has given you advice not to for medical reasons.

[GuitarStv]

What PeteD01 posted (I'm going the initial post quoted there and ensuing thread) is a statement of fact "best covid protection comes from infection followed by vaccine". And for people who are already vaccinated, or at least not vaccine-hesitant for dubious reasons, it is super easy to fill in the blank with the rest of the point - "so even if you've had Covid, get vaccinated once you're eligible - talk to your doctor about the best time to get the shot".

But that's not what is written - what my unvaccinated sister will inevitably fill in the blanks with is "so I should wait and if I happen to catch covid, then go get vaccinated."

That was basically my concern with the post as it was written.

[PeteD01]

What PeteD01 posted (I'm going the initial post quoted there and ensuing thread) is a statement of fact "best covid protection comes from infection followed by vaccine". And for people who are already vaccinated, or at least not vaccine-hesitant for dubious reasons, it is super easy to fill in the blank with the rest of the point - "so even if you've had Covid, get vaccinated once you're eligible - talk to your doctor about the best time to get the shot".

But that's not what is written - what my unvaccinated sister will inevitably fill in the blanks with is "so I should wait and if I happen to catch covid, then go get vaccinated."

That was basically my concern with the post as it was written.

You don't see the problem with stating "optimal protection requires vaccination after infection" without also saying "everyone - infected or not - should go get vaccinated if they aren't yet"?

What PeteD01 posted (I'm going the initial post quoted there and ensuing thread) is a statement of fact "best covid protection comes from infection followed by vaccine". And for people who are already vaccinated, or at least not vaccine-hesitant for dubious reasons, it is super easy to fill in the blank with the rest of the point - "so even if you've had Covid, get vaccinated once you're eligible - talk to your doctor about the best time to get the shot".

But that's not what is written - what my unvaccinated sister will inevetibly fill in the blanks with is "so I should wait and if I happen to catch covid, then go get vaccinated."

In case I'm not being clear - anyone reading this should go get your covid vaccine if you're eligible and haven't yet, and get a booster if you're eligible forthwith! Only exceptions are if your doctor has given you advice not to for medical reasons.

I hear you but will add that this is not Facebook or any of the other open sewer social media environments and therefore your unvaccinated sister is extremely unlikely to read any of this. In fact, there is some of that low attention span poison noticeable even here: I specifically quoted all the relevant parts of the subthread to provide context without repeating the same thing over and over again.

[PeteD01]

What PeteD01 posted (I'm going the initial post quoted there and ensuing thread) is a statement of fact "best covid protection comes from infection followed by vaccine". And for people who are already vaccinated, or at least not vaccine-hesitant for dubious reasons, it is super easy to fill in the blank with the rest of the point - "so even if you've had Covid, get vaccinated once you're eligible - talk to your doctor about the best time to get the shot".

But that's not what is written - what my unvaccinated sister will inevitably fill in the blanks with is "so I should wait and if I happen to catch covid, then go get vaccinated."

That was basically my concern with the post as it was written.

My post was a specific answer to a specific question and does not make much sense as a freestanding statement:

SunnyDays: If it (natural immunity) can be "significantly bolstered" by one shot, then it wasn't optimal to begin with?

PeteD01: That´s the point, optimal protection requires vaccination after recovery from infection - according to current expert consensus.

[dandarc]

I'd agree this isn't quite as big a deal here vs. Facebook, but there are definitely a few folks inclined to believe and spread anti-vax stuff here. Plus for every poster we have, how many lurkers are there - that's a wider audience, though still not Facebook level.

Seems like that is a bit lower lately though - maybe mods are shutting it down a little more harshly or something?

And I'd point out - the post that Sunny responded to also shared a statement of the same fact without the context. The answer to the question was briefer / more emphatic, but the first post you made about this particular fact didn't state anything interpreting what actions might be appropriate from the information shared. Maybe one of the articles got into that, but not everyone clicks through to the links, and some pretty dense reading even if you click through.

The quote you shared is almost antagonistic in tone towards public health officials - what is a vaccine hesitant non-scientist going to think reading that quote?

So you've got two opportunities to write out the between-the lines conclusion that seems obvious (to me anyway, but I haven't spent approaching a year talking myself out of getting vaccinated), and neither time did that happen.

[deborah]

Interesting podcast about long covid19 - coronacast is a daily podcast from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and each day it looks into something about covid19.

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/coronacast/will-vaccines-stop-me-getting-long-covid/13603902

[PeteD01]

The quote you shared is almost antagonistic in tone towards public health officials - what is a vaccine hesitant non-scientist going to think reading that quote?

And here is the problem: Public health officials will continue to lose credibility if they do not address this issue of strong natural immunity but they will continue to avoid the issue in fear of having people fill in the blanks the wrong way. I do not have any of those concerns. The number of third shots in the vaccinated is now higher than first shots in the unvaccinated of all shots given per day in the US. That signals that the still unvaccinated are pretty much set and will have to suffer through COVID. I am also not concerned about minority vaccine resistant people reading this as the dynamics of vaccine resistance in those populations is independent of internet information and can only be overcome through trusted informal or formal channels. 


So you've got two opportunities to write out the between-the lines conclusion that seems obvious (to me anyway, but I haven't spent approaching a year talking myself out of getting vaccinated), and neither time did that happen.

My credibility among the still unvaccinated is definitely going to be enhanced by knowing as much as possible about natural immunity and the role of vaccines to improve on that immunity, whereas repeating some boilerplate exhortations is likely going to do the opposite.
It has been the delusional right that has been talking about natural immunity and herd immunity etc.; it is time to own this subject because the vast majority of the unvaccinated is now beyond reach, but the anti-vaxxers will use it to further their agenda.

[SunnyDays]

The way I read the quote was that a study was providing evidence to the medical community that infection was sufficient to result in long term immunity.  Which makes their next statement that a vaccine will significantly bolster it appear contradictory.  I think the wording of this conclusion is poor - confusing at best and supporting the anti-vaxx side at worst.  I did not read the full study.

[PeteD01]

The way I read the quote was that a study was providing evidence to the medical community that infection was sufficient to result in long term immunity.  Which makes their next statement that a vaccine will significantly bolster it appear contradictory.  I think the wording of this conclusion is poor - confusing at best and supporting the anti-vaxx side at worst.  I did not read the full study.

Ah, now I understand the problem. Immunity can be long lasting but only protect moderately (let´s say 70%). Bolstering immunity may mean pushing protection to 90%+. There really is no contradiction between long term immunity and being able to bolster it if immunity is notunderstood as a binary issue.
I also did not just provide the link to the study but also to an opinion piece by the principal investigator which is an easy read.

[teen persuasion]

The way I read the quote was that a study was providing evidence to the medical community that infection was sufficient to result in long term immunity.  Which makes their next statement that a vaccine will significantly bolster it appear contradictory.  I think the wording of this conclusion is poor - confusing at best and supporting the anti-vaxx side at worst.  I did not read the full study.

+1

That is precisely my response, too.

[PeteD01]

The way I read the quote was that a study was providing evidence to the medical community that infection was sufficient to result in long term immunity.  Which makes their next statement that a vaccine will significantly bolster it appear contradictory.  I think the wording of this conclusion is poor - confusing at best and supporting the anti-vaxx side at worst.  I did not read the full study.

+1

That is precisely my response, too.

We have good evidence that immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection is robust and results in protection from COVID19 comparable to full vaccination for at least 9 months. We also know that vaccination after infection results in much higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than vaccination in the not previously infected.
So the statement that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces strong long term immunity that can be bolstered by post infection vaccination is simply true according to current knowledge.
But what is also true is that the recommendation of getting vaccinated after having been infected does not have as strong evidence behind it as has vaccination in the not previously infected. The recommendation essentially is based on that we do not know if the robustness of the immunity after infection is enjoyed by all comers with all kinds of health issues and risk factors and that we do not yet know how long natural immunity lasts. The recommendation thus tends to veer towards "better safe than sorry" - which is good enough for me but may not be good enough for a young healthy person who had mild COVID a couple of months before and is vaccine hesitant. This has to be acknowledged in order not to lose such an individual´s trust and to keep the option of vaccination at a later date open.


Broad and efficient SARS-CoV-2 immunity 8 months post mild infection. Journal of Internal Medicine 2021 (PMID: 34459525):

Robust humoral and cellular immune responses and low risk for reinfection at least 8 months following asymptomatic to mild COVID-19

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13387


Considerable decline in neutralizing antibodies after both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination over 3-7 months. Vaccination following SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in higher antibody titers at all sampling time points when compared to SARS-CoV-2 naive vaccinees. Neutralizing antibody titers against all ten tested SARS-CoV-2 variants were at least 2 respectively 3-fold higher in SARS-CoV-2 recovered as compared to naive vaccinees following BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively. MedRXiv 2021 (doi: 10.1101/2021.10.16.21264948):

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on longitudinal vaccine immune responses

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.16.21264948v1

[Just Joe]

It's also interesting in the USA that the prospect of avoiding high medical bills for yourself (or for your family members if you die after 3 weeks in intensive care) doesn't seem to be an incentive either.

Maybe the legacy of COVID will be less about demographic change due to deaths and more about the increased impoverishment of the hardest hit demographics, due to medical bills, long-term symptoms, and disability.

But yes, it’s strange to watch people who would drive an extra mile to pay 5 cents less per gallon of gas refusing to accept the tens of thousands of dollars in savings that could be had by wearing a mask or getting vaccinated.

Kind of goes hand in hand with voting against one's best interests too doesn't it? Lots of people out there will be influenced to make worse choices on many topics all because they don't like a certain group of other people.

[RetiredAt63]

And on a lighter note:      ;-)

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2021/10/misinformed-horse-uses-covid-19-vaccine-to-treat-worm-infestation/

[SunnyDays]

And on a lighter note:      ;-)

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2021/10/misinformed-horse-uses-covid-19-vaccine-to-treat-worm-infestation/

Snort.  (Pun intended.)  That’s great!

[teen persuasion]

The way I read the quote was that a study was providing evidence to the medical community that infection was sufficient to result in long term immunity.  Which makes their next statement that a vaccine will significantly bolster it appear contradictory.  I think the wording of this conclusion is poor - confusing at best and supporting the anti-vaxx side at worst.  I did not read the full study.

+1

That is precisely my response, too.

We have good evidence that immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection is robust and results in protection from COVID19 comparable to full vaccination for at least 9 months. We also know that vaccination after infection results in much higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than vaccination in the not previously infected.
So the statement that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces strong long term immunity that can be bolstered by post infection vaccination is simply true according to current knowledge.
But what is also true is that the recommendation of getting vaccinated after having been infected does not have as strong evidence behind it as has vaccination in the not previously infected. The recommendation essentially is based on that we do not know if the robustness of the immunity after infection is enjoyed by all comers with all kinds of health issues and risk factors and that we do not yet know how long natural immunity lasts. The recommendation thus tends to veer towards "better safe than sorry" - which is good enough for me but may not be good enough for a young healthy person who had mild COVID a couple of months before and is vaccine hesitant. This has to be acknowledged in order not to lose such an individual´s trust and to keep the option of vaccination at a later date open.


Broad and efficient SARS-CoV-2 immunity 8 months post mild infection. Journal of Internal Medicine 2021 (PMID: 34459525):

Robust humoral and cellular immune responses and low risk for reinfection at least 8 months following asymptomatic to mild COVID-19

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13387


Considerable decline in neutralizing antibodies after both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination over 3-7 months. Vaccination following SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in higher antibody titers at all sampling time points when compared to SARS-CoV-2 naive vaccinees. Neutralizing antibody titers against all ten tested SARS-CoV-2 variants were at least 2 respectively 3-fold higher in SARS-CoV-2 recovered as compared to naive vaccinees following BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively. MedRXiv 2021 (doi: 10.1101/2021.10.16.21264948):

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on longitudinal vaccine immune responses

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.16.21264948v1

How effective is Covid infection with one strain vs another?

Anecdotally, I know individuals who have had confirmed cases of Covid more than once, before vaccines were widely available, and before the delta variant arrived here.  Given the timing, it seemed likely they had different variants each time.

At least the unpleasant side effects of each bout convinced them to get vaccinated as soon as they could!

[PeteD01]

The way I read the quote was that a study was providing evidence to the medical community that infection was sufficient to result in long term immunity.  Which makes their next statement that a vaccine will significantly bolster it appear contradictory.  I think the wording of this conclusion is poor - confusing at best and supporting the anti-vaxx side at worst.  I did not read the full study.

+1

That is precisely my response, too.

We have good evidence that immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection is robust and results in protection from COVID19 comparable to full vaccination for at least 9 months. We also know that vaccination after infection results in much higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than vaccination in the not previously infected.
So the statement that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces strong long term immunity that can be bolstered by post infection vaccination is simply true according to current knowledge.
But what is also true is that the recommendation of getting vaccinated after having been infected does not have as strong evidence behind it as has vaccination in the not previously infected. The recommendation essentially is based on that we do not know if the robustness of the immunity after infection is enjoyed by all comers with all kinds of health issues and risk factors and that we do not yet know how long natural immunity lasts. The recommendation thus tends to veer towards "better safe than sorry" - which is good enough for me but may not be good enough for a young healthy person who had mild COVID a couple of months before and is vaccine hesitant. This has to be acknowledged in order not to lose such an individual´s trust and to keep the option of vaccination at a later date open.


Broad and efficient SARS-CoV-2 immunity 8 months post mild infection. Journal of Internal Medicine 2021 (PMID: 34459525):

Robust humoral and cellular immune responses and low risk for reinfection at least 8 months following asymptomatic to mild COVID-19

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13387


Considerable decline in neutralizing antibodies after both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination over 3-7 months. Vaccination following SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in higher antibody titers at all sampling time points when compared to SARS-CoV-2 naive vaccinees. Neutralizing antibody titers against all ten tested SARS-CoV-2 variants were at least 2 respectively 3-fold higher in SARS-CoV-2 recovered as compared to naive vaccinees following BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively. MedRXiv 2021 (doi: 10.1101/2021.10.16.21264948):

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on longitudinal vaccine immune responses

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.16.21264948v1

How effective is Covid infection with one strain vs another?

Anecdotally, I know individuals who have had confirmed cases of Covid more than once, before vaccines were widely available, and before the delta variant arrived here.  Given the timing, it seemed likely they had different variants each time.

At least the unpleasant side effects of each bout convinced them to get vaccinated as soon as they could!

Good question but fortunately academic by now because Delta has outcompeted previous variants. It looks though as previous Alpha infection resulted in lower neutralizing antibodies for Delta than previous Delta infection. I would say that this is not unexpected and one might expect a similar situation with new variants appearing. The good news is that everything appears to indicate that infection with any variant followed by vaccination improves immunity to Delta dramatically and I think that might pan out for future variants as well. That is one reason why vaccination a few weeks after infection is likely the best way to deal with this issue.
Now where variants come into play is when an otherwise healthy young person after having had recent infection with Delta is vaccine hesitant. As long as Delta is the predominant variant in the community, a strong case for immunization right away can honestly not be made. I would recommend to such a patient to speak again to a trusted health care provider at the 8 months after recovery mark or whenever a new variant emerges, whichever comes first. 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782139

[PeteD01]

CDC review from 10/29/2021 of the evidence supporting induction of robust immunity for at least six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The recommendation of vaccination following infection is unchanged:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html

[GuitarStv]

CDC review from 10/29/2021 of the evidence supporting induction of robust immunity for at least six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The recommendation of vaccination following infection is unchanged:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html

Yes?  They very clearly explain why that is the case in the second bullet point:

• Substantial immunologic evidence and a growing body of epidemiologic evidence indicate that vaccination after infection significantly enhances protection and further reduces risk of reinfection, which lays the foundation for CDC recommendations.

[PeteD01]

The way I read the quote was that a study was providing evidence to the medical community that infection was sufficient to result in long term immunity.  Which makes their next statement that a vaccine will significantly bolster it appear contradictory.  I think the wording of this conclusion is poor - confusing at best and supporting the anti-vaxx side at worst.  I did not read the full study.

+1

That is precisely my response, too.

We have good evidence that immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection is robust and results in protection from COVID19 comparable to full vaccination for at least 9 months. We also know that vaccination after infection results in much higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than vaccination in the not previously infected.
So the statement that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces strong long term immunity that can be bolstered by post infection vaccination is simply true according to current knowledge.
But what is also true is that the recommendation of getting vaccinated after having been infected does not have as strong evidence behind it as has vaccination in the not previously infected. The recommendation essentially is based on that we do not know if the robustness of the immunity after infection is enjoyed by all comers with all kinds of health issues and risk factors and that we do not yet know how long natural immunity lasts. The recommendation thus tends to veer towards "better safe than sorry" - which is good enough for me but may not be good enough for a young healthy person who had mild COVID a couple of months before and is vaccine hesitant. This has to be acknowledged in order not to lose such an individual´s trust and to keep the option of vaccination at a later date open.


Broad and efficient SARS-CoV-2 immunity 8 months post mild infection. Journal of Internal Medicine 2021 (PMID: 34459525):

Robust humoral and cellular immune responses and low risk for reinfection at least 8 months following asymptomatic to mild COVID-19

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13387


Considerable decline in neutralizing antibodies after both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination over 3-7 months. Vaccination following SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in higher antibody titers at all sampling time points when compared to SARS-CoV-2 naive vaccinees. Neutralizing antibody titers against all ten tested SARS-CoV-2 variants were at least 2 respectively 3-fold higher in SARS-CoV-2 recovered as compared to naive vaccinees following BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively. MedRXiv 2021 (doi: 10.1101/2021.10.16.21264948):

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on longitudinal vaccine immune responses

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.16.21264948v1

How effective is Covid infection with one strain vs another?

Anecdotally, I know individuals who have had confirmed cases of Covid more than once, before vaccines were widely available, and before the delta variant arrived here.  Given the timing, it seemed likely they had different variants each time.

At least the unpleasant side effects of each bout convinced them to get vaccinated as soon as they could!

Good question but fortunately academic by now because Delta has outcompeted previous variants. It looks though as previous Alpha infection resulted in lower neutralizing antibodies for Delta than previous Delta infection. I would say that this is not unexpected and one might expect a similar situation with new variants appearing. The good news is that everything appears to indicate that infection with any variant followed by vaccination improves immunity to Delta dramatically and I think that might pan out for future variants as well. That is one reason why vaccination a few weeks after infection is likely the best way to deal with this issue.
Now where variants come into play is when an otherwise healthy young person after having had recent infection with Delta is vaccine hesitant. As long as Delta is the predominant variant in the community, a strong case for immunization right away can honestly not be made. I would recommend to such a patient to speak again to a trusted health care provider at the 8 months after recovery mark or whenever a new variant emerges, whichever comes first. 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782139

Ok, time´s up.
Millions have survived COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant and have enjoyed robust natural immunity even without being vaccinated as well.
Now a new variant (Omicron) with multiple new mutations has emerged. The effect of these mutations on virulence and transmissibility are not yet known.
However, given the excellent safety profiles of the available vaccine and what we know about reinfections with new variants in COVID-19 survivors, there is now no time to lose to get vaccinated even with a history of COVID-19 within the last 6-9 months.
All COVID-19 survivors (without any contraindication, which extremely rare) need to be vaccinated upon recovery. Natural immunity cannot be relied on anymore and cannot justify procrastination with the impending spread of the Omicron variant in US.
The same is true for the third vaccination. Everyone needs to receive the third shot ASAP.
A high level of immunity of vaccination after post-COVID-19, as well as of a third shot after initial vaccination can be expected within 7-10 days - just in time for the arrival of Omicron.

(and to prevent any confusion, I am a retired pulmonary and critical care physician and I am still publishing  and mentoring junior faculty in the field.)

[GuitarStv]

Have the various vaccines proven effective against the Omicron variant?

[former player]

Have the various vaccines proven effective against the Omicron variant?

Too soon to know.  The Omicron variant was only identified this week.   It seems to be more infective than Delta.   I've seen suggestions that it is more likely to create re-infections in people who have previously had other variants of covid, which is a bad sign. I've also seen suggestions that it is more likely than earlier variants to cause serious disease in younger people, in their 30s and 40s.    It's going to take a few weeks to start getting decent stats.   But many countries in Europe are finding cases now so it looks inevitable that large statistical analysis will follow sooner or later.

[PeteD01]

Have the various vaccines proven effective against the Omicron variant?

Effectiveness of the vaccines is not an either/or quality, making this question unanswerable.
Vaccinations after infection and third shorts have been shown to greatly increase antibody titers and variety as well as improve cellular immunity (T-cell). An incremental increase of effective protection from COVID-19after such immunizations is expected.
To dig a little deeper into your question, the idea that "proof" plays any role in the process of science is actually incorrect. Scientists are generally satisfied if their conclusions allow predictions about future events and that broadly consists of reproducibility of the experiments or correct predictions in the uncontrolled environment the real world represents.
In this specific context and in consideration of the available evidence, we can predict an incremental positive effect of vaccinations on protective immunity which is likely sufficiently large to be meaningful for the individual and for society.

[sui generis]

re: rage at anti-vaxxers and their treatment for COVID overwhelming hospital capacity to the detriment of others who need care (which I believe was a somewhat spirited topic off and on in this thread): https://www.npr.org/2021/11/28/1058988220/once-rare-lung-transplants-for-covid-19-patients-are-rising-quickly

Predictably, I am annoyed at the idea of anti-vaxxers getting a lung transplant (to the exclusion of someone else).  Although this article talks about some much more sympathetic characters, primarily people that got COVID prior to vaccine availability and are not anti-vaxxers.  As was discussed in this thread, organs are often given to other people that have caused their own problems, like smokers or people who abuse alcohol.  I still feel like this is a big difference.  Addiction is such a complicated thing and not only do we not have the most effective approaches to handling addiciton (like nowhere near as effective as the vaccines are in preventing death and hospitalization for COVID), but we also certainly don't make them widely available for free to people to ensure they aren't killed or ruined because of them.  Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.  I guess we don't know, empirically, but I am skeptical.

[PDXTabs]

Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

[OtherJen]

Transplant organs aren't given to people with active addiction. Someone who is still drinking won't be given a new liver to treat cirrhosis. My uncle wouldn't have been given a lung transplant if he'd been an active smoker. He'd quit well over a decade before, and his progressive, terminal lung damage was a gene-related side effect of the chemotherapy he was taking for rheumatoid arthritis (his two non-smoking sisters with RA were promptly pulled off of the same drug when they started showing symptoms of lung damage).

[MudPuppy]

Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didn’t actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didn’t care be because vote$

[Travis]

Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didn’t actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didn’t care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones. Oh, and they believe in personal responsibility over government hand outs. They're not "uneducated and gullible" in a vacuum. Their choices affect other people. Recall that some of them swore on their deathbeds that it wasn't COVID killing them, they're attacking people just for wearing masks in public, they're suing hospitals for not prescribing unproven livestock medication, and the people they elected are leading the charge.

If a choice has to be made to allocate scarce resources between someone who has made every attempt to do right by themselves and their community, and someone who ignores medical advice and defiantly/recklessly/violently gets sick and injured and swears by their personal decisions? No question.