She refused to say if CDC staff were returning to work or what their vaccination rate was.
Not sure what they do all day. (My understanding is they have 3,000 staff.)
Just because “we the CDC” didn’t fund it doesn’t make it any less true.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369496/
Strange that the study would focus on individuals who received a 250-μg dose. The adult dose is 100-μg (https://reference.medscape.com/drug/mrna-1273-moderna-covid-...). Yes, the study states that key findings were validated with 8 participants who received the regular dosage, but still seems odd to me.
The comparison dataset is explained as: "The convalescent plasma samples were characterized in earlier studies (13–16) and grouped into an early time point of 15 to 60 days after symptom onset and a late time point of 100 to 150 days after symptom onset."
So the comparison was between vaccinated individuals, most of whom received a higher dose than is being given out, to infected individuals, and the time periods don't exactly line up. For the vaccinated dataset, the time periods were 7 and 90 days after the second dose. For the other dataset, the time periods were 15-60 days, and 100-150 days after symptom offset.
Deeper into the study, there is also this: "The escape maps of the 100-μg cohort resembled those of the 250-μg cohort and fell into the 456/484-targeting, core-targeting, or flat categories (fig. S6). Although the sample sizes are small, and a higher fraction of the 100-μg dose escape maps were flat than for the 250-μg cohort (4 of 8 versus 5 of 14, respectively), this suggests that 100- and 250-μg doses elicit antibody responses similar in the breadth of their RBD-binding specificity."
Source: https://youtu.be/AXHYgn3g-wQ?t=7715 (time 2:08:35)
https://thehill.com/video/senate/580032-watch-live-fauci-wal...
More specifically, the exchange ~46 minutes with Burr where she discusses how the CDC is studying infection derived immunity?
(I'm not gonna watch the 3 hours to figure out what timestamp you are referring to with the vaccination rate)
> This study found that among Kentucky residents who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, those who were unvaccinated against COVID-19 had significantly higher likelihood of reinfection during May and June 2021. This finding supports the CDC recommendation that all eligible persons be offered COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status.
We know the vaccine confers high immunity early on, and then wanes.
As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting.
I would really like to see if this 2.34x improvement lasts in individuals vaccinated 6+ months ago.
What are you basing this on? I'm aware of one (unpublished, widely criticized) study with something like this conclusion that people like to throw around.
Oct 28, 2021
> Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were identified in 97% of COVID-19 convalescent donors at initial presentation. In follow-up analyses, of 116 donors presenting at repeat time points, 91.4% had detectable IgG levels up to 11 months after symptom recovery
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089610/
Aug 25, 2021
> Model 1 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
> Model 2 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
> Model 3 ... found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural...
June, 2021
> The presence of IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid protein was associated with substantially reduced risk of reinfection in staff and residents for up to 10 months after primary infection.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-75...
Jan 26, 2021
> As with antibodies, the numbers of different immune cell types varied substantially between individuals. Neither gender nor differences in disease severity could account for this variability. However, 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
None of the other links indicate infection-acquired immunity is more robust or longer lasting than vaccine-acquired. Only that there is some lasting immunity in some people.
true, none of the other links are directly comparative to vaccine efficacy. my claim is in the context that _other_ studies show vaccine efficacy drops off after 6 months.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows...
overall im trying to make 2 points
1. many (all?) of the vaccine efficacy studies omit data for candidates who received the vaccine 6+ months prior to the time of study.
2. the vaccine is redundant for those with prior infection.
Or take a quote from this article: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
>“The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune.
I don't think your point 2. should be taken for granted. From the conclusion of the contested study:
>Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
we've officially come full circle!
my original complaint is that these studies all baseline against candidates that were vaccinated within the 6 months prior to publishing.
the gained improvement is already marginal in this scenario, but if the improvement diminishes even further, then it's hard to justify a mandate.
after that, who knows?
IF your immune system is strong enough and lucky enough to lock to the appropriate parts of the virus.
If your immune system doesn't do that, well, you wind up dead. So, yeah, immunity after recovery might be better because the other ones aren't part of your study as they're in a hole in the ground.