CDC: Covid vaccine effectiveness fell from 91% to 66% with Delta variant
forbes.com
forbes.com
On one hand:
We are blessed to have access to mass genetic vector vaccines. Genetic vector vaccines are amazing at shaving off the sharp edge of the pandemic. Even after effectiveness drops against infection, they are still amazing at preventing severe infections. "VE for severe disease is *still high* after 6 months - 94% for ages 40-59, 86% for 60+.", https://twitter.com/_lewisy/status/1430291421085552641.
On the other hand:
* There is no path to ZeroCovid due to high airborne infectiousness, leaky genetic vector vaccines, immense human global population and reported animal reservoirs.
* The genetic vector vaccine effectiveness appears to diminish after ~6 months, thus booster shots.
* Leaky genetic vector vaccines are bound to give raise to vaccine-resistant variants, just like incomplete antibiotic courses give raise to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
* Every time a new genetic vector vaccine variant is developed, it takes a long time to pass the FDA tests and even then it carries a tiny, but not zero, risk of ADE. OK, we'll roll the Russian Roulette once. But we can't forever play Russian Roulette with a mutating virus.
“Zero COVID” was never possible.
Is there new research or something? I keep seeing people talk about this and no one ever provides a source.
source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.13.21249642v...
Additionally here's a bunch of data that makes me doubt your point about naturally immunity being superior to vaccines:
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrou...
I wish CDC would actually collect basic epidemiological data, but it seems completely disorganized and able to perform simple functions. Is there some alternative source, perhaps in some other country?
The study I linked earlier went on to be published in Lancet which is a super top tier medical journal. Here is the link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Also I find that the NHS over in England collects great data and personally I use them as a primary learning body for covid.
That 160+ days seems to come entirely from the study window itself and I don't see how it would give an indication of general immunity of the study cohorts. If you wait longer as more people wind up infected that number only goes up.
To provide some additional context from the linked study, only 5.7 per 100,000 people were reinfected during the study window while 57.3 per 100,000 were infected for the first time. To put it into vaccine effectiveness terms that is a 90% effective. I didn't read to see if the cohorts were demographic matched.
If I'm understanding it correctly, then I think you misrepresent that 160 number.
> Natural immunity is much better than the vaccines
The literature supports the fact that immunity acquired through natural infection is at least as effective as vaccination. I'm not aware of any strong evidence that one is better than the other in terms of individual health outcomes. It has been established that natural infection induces an immune response that includes nucleocapsid protein antibodies whereas vaccination with the current mRNA formulations does not. There are other subtle differences in the immune response, and those may have a significant long-term impact on both individual health outcomes and viral evolution at a population level, but scientific evidence on those points is extremely limited.
> The rate of severe infection with Delta among vaccinated is higher than the rate of severe infection of the general population a year ago with Original COVID
> Natural immunity has less than 1% reinfection rate vs a nearly 40% infection rate for fully vaccinated
I'm all for challenging the status quo but folks really need to start citing primary sources to support such claims, otherwise they will be dismissed as uninformed opinion.
hattmall 16 days ago | parent [–] | on: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patr...
All evidence shows it to be the other way around, the vaccinated are far more dangerous to the unvaccinated than vice versa, it isn't even close. Leaky vaccines create more virulent and deadlier viruses in the unvaccinated.
"
Looks like he is just an antivaxxer spreading unscientific lies.
No need for ad hominem rebuttals here.
The threat of vaccine resistance is real and acknowledged by many experts [1][2], but I agree he is not doing these ideas justice by making such simple and unbalanced comments without citing any primary sources.
[1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/
[2] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti...
https://www.insider.com/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-resistant-coronav...
Just go read what he linked me to supposedly support his argument:
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/
This paper states that covid will mutate due to "neutral variation" and evade the vaccine. This isn't a point against the vaccine, this is just stating the obvious that eventually we will need a different vaccine. The paper also recommends a combination of vaccination and therapeutics. "trategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities. "
They then go on to disclose that the authors have ownership in a therapeutics company.
[2]The second link he provided also recommends that we receive booster shots and again doesn't support the anti vax argument. Go actually read it if you want. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti...
These people are grifting.
> This isn't a point against the vaccine [...] and doesn't support the anti vax argument
You're attacking a straw man with an overly simplistic reductionist interpretation. I'm not "against the vaccine", but clearly your bias here is to defend vaccination and disregard any nuanced criticisms from experts at top institutions as "anti-vax".
I won't continue to discuss this with you because it's obvious you don't intend to cultivate an informed discussion.
Every healthy responsible person gets a flu shot every single fall, we already do this and no one complains about the long term flu plan.
You might be allowing the current discourse to knock your reasoning off track. Not trying to attack you, it's easy to get carried away with something so impactful to all of us.
The implication of your phrasing here is that people who do not get a flu shot every single fall are irresponsible - which seems pretty silly to claim given that seasonal influenza does not pose a significant risk to a majority of the population, especially healthy children and adults.
You're purposefully ignoring a piece of the "critical thinking" so that you can be anti-science.
I'm very disappointed in the anti science comments on HN as of late.
> Adjusted VE during this Delta predominant period was 66% (95% CI = 26%–84%) compared with 91% (95% CI = 81%–96%) during the months preceding Delta predominance
So it's not much accurate the 66%, it could be anywhere between 26% to 84%.
It's probably relevant that Pfizer spent over $200M lobbying politicians over the past 20 years, more than any other pharmaceutical [3]. And Biden's administration clearly weren't happy with the FDA - just last week they said they are looking for a new head for November [3]. Interesting how approval came the next week. How much money does Pfizer stand to gain, once mandates and boosters? $15/shot?
[1] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...
[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-19/janet-woo...
https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disea...
It's a little bit like mixing and matching vaccines to get better protection (which some countries are forced to do because they don't have access to the best single vaccine).
> It doesn't matter in countries like the US where the vaccine is free to anyone who wants it
How about the medical bills for a life-altering adverse event? Are those free for anyone who has to pay them? These considerations matter when we're talking about administering a vaccine which may provide very slim or no additional protection over natural immunity. There has already been one study suggesting the second dose of Pfizer even reduces cellular and humoral immune response.
What they don’t mention is that previous infection alone is at least as good as vaccination alone. According to data from Israel, previous infection is about 6x more effective in fact. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
Given that, I don’t at all agree with the conclusion of that CDC study that you HAVE to get vaccinated if you had a previous infection.
Like when you get seriously ill with Covid and have to be hospitalized in the ICU? That's more likely than an adverse reaction to a vaccine, if we're assuming that everyone will get Covid at some point.
Only as far as we're talking about reinfections from currently known variants. We've seen that current vaccines are still pretty good against Delta despite not being tailored to it. Is it not possible for vaccines to provide immunity against a future variant that's much deadlier upon reinfection?
> A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. [1]
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/
If you had asymptomatic or low symptoms and positive test there's a fair chance you didn't really have COVID. If you had symptoms with shortness of breath and loss of smell without heavy congestion you probably did have COVID.