The title is misleading. Humoral immunity is not the only aspect of immunity but it was the only aspect measured. Cellular immunity is generally much longer lived than antibodies. The title should be something like “losing 80% of Covid-19 antibodies after 6 months...”
This is why Israel is requiring boosters and the US is following suit.
[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262423v...
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02261-8
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm...
[3] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v...
Edit: added more studies outside of Israel
https://nitter.net/mugecevik/status/1430218372348878860?lang...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z
This one in NEJM, from today, just being the latest:
https://nitter.net/davidwdowdy/status/1438268969211744256#m
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345?query=fe...
...which is why, also today, the FDA recommended against boosters for healthy adults:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-says-covid-19-vaccines-rema...
We'll see where this goes after ACIP, but this is now highly politicized, and the recommendation of boosters for healthy adults is far from a sure thing.
This is not accurate. There have been several studies demonstrating waning inline with Israel’s data:
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-vaccine-protection-fadi...
https://www.axios.com/pfizer-moderna-coronavirus-vaccines-ef...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v...
The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed.
You cite three links: the first is self-reported data, which is problematic. Nevertheless, it still finds effectiveness against infection of 74%. This is a bit lower than the other studies (consensus is around 80%), but not dramatically so. If anything, it is evidence that the vaccines remain effective against the most challenging endpoint (infection), with only minor declines in effectiveness that might just as easily be statistical noise.
The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information.
The third is the Mayo clinic study (covered in the Twitter thread from Muge Cevik) and explicitly says that vaccinations remain highly effective against infection and hospitalization over the study period, and tries to extrapolate from a fluctuation in infection data in the final month of the study. This is sketchy:
> Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%).
Again, this claim is an outlier. When you have an outlier based on questionable methodology, you must be skeptical of the claim.
> The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed.
The NEJM is just the latest study, not the only study. Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs.
Essentially, you're projecting doom based on two studies that disagree with the ~dozen others that have been conducted, that have methodological problems, and are inconsistent with known biology. When given evidence to the contrary, you dismiss it, in favor of speculation about what might happen tomorrow. You're latching on to outliers which confirm your biases.
These second link references a few studies including this one from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm...
> Again, this claim is an outlier.
When there are several independent studies showing the same thing, they are no longer outliers.
> Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs.
Here is another study published in nejm about the affects of boosters in Israel in August: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255
> Essentially, you're projecting doom
Ok let me be clear here. I am not intending to project doom, what I am trying to project is that there is real data which shows boosters are beneficial.
Of course the vaccines even without boosters are clearly extremely effective. Even as breakthrough cases increase because of waning immunity, the prognosis for someone fully vaccinated is very different compared to someone who is unvaccinated.
The main thing I disagree with you with, and would use your argument against you, is that there clearly is real data showing waning effectiveness and the benefit of boosters. The main argument for not recommending them is that the vaccines would be better off for people that have not been vaccinated in the first place. Well no shit, but if that population is refusing to take them then the point is moot.
The data from Mayo Clinic is very consistent with Israel's: https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210908/Immunity-indu...
> Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%).
There are many problems with this, and it shouldn't be given much weight.
What so far seems reliable enough is that the vaccination itself reduce chance for complications when you do get it.
There is emerging proof that dissease+vaccine immunity is much better than dissease or vaccine alone, but it might also be the booster effect.
After all, there are other vaccines -- such as hepatitis B where you need a booster after one year (booster 3), before you get your long-lasting antibodies.
Why does it feel like that there is constant retconning going on when it comes to these Covid vaccines? Have we truly always been at war with Eastasia?