Omicron Has Potential to Stop the Pandemic, but That's Not the End of the Story | Hacker News Reader

Omicron Has Potential to Stop the Pandemic, but That's Not the End of the Story

spiegel.de

22 pointsricc29 comments

> Less than half of those vaccinated have received their booster shot.

It will become endemic with or without a booster, it is just personal risk at this point. To be honest, currently not keen on taking it. My vaccination was just 3 month ago and I don't want to test another manufacturer. So, no thank you. Give my dose to someone in a risk group.

If you got your vaccination 3 months ago, I don't think you qualify for a booster yet anyway? Maybe in Germany, but not in the States.

(deleted)

> Also, you get the same vaccine as first two

Not necessarily. I had (in Germany) first 2 shots with Biontech (Pfizer), and the booster with Moderna. They had both Biontech and Moderna doses available, but gave me the latter.

No, I would get Comirnaty instead of Spikevax. I got Spikevax the first time around.

Two more boosters then I am going rehab, I promise.

I experienced a severe reaction (essentially long covid) to the first dose. Not taking another and it seems ridiculous to train my immune system on a non-existent alpha strain with further doses. I'll treat early with ivermectin and I use nasal spray after risky environmental exposure.

Why would you bother with something risky like Ivermectin, especially when it has not been shown to have any beneficial effect on COVID?

So where has it been shown to be risky?

Safety profile of ivermectin is well established over decades and millions of doses. On the WHO list of essential medicines.

It has a growing list of impressive rct results. The initial take down of the treatment was based on under powered trials (too low of dose, not enough doses and too late in progression). One can easily surmise it was discredited to promote more lucrative vaccines and on patent similar anti viral drugs. Just follow the money and look at who owns media, pharmaceuticals, and big tech. Gates, Fauci, black rock, vanguard, state street...

I know it works from personal experience, millions of observational data points, and anecdotal reports from hundreds of trusted people.

From what I know, Merck, the manufacturer of Ivermectin, discredited its use as a Covid-19 treatment [1]. If there's any one with the incentive to promote it, it's them, but they didn't. It strikes me as weird that some people still stubbornly tout the drug.

1- https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use...

They definitely did their best to discredit it. It's off patent, they have no financial incentive to promote it and huge incentive to burry it.

They stand to make a lot of money off of their newer competitor to ivermectin called molnupiravir, just approved under emergency use authorisation.$700 per dose if I remember correctly vs less than a penny per dose to manufacture ivermectin.

Do you have a link to these millions of data points?

Sure, here you go: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epide...

They link to the source data for each region analyzed so you can check it yourself if inclined.

Data validity aside, not sure I like the look of the disclaimer:

“Information is not intended as a replacement for diagnosis or treatment by your doctor. Nothing on this Website provides medical advice or any form of diagnosis or treatment of any kind to web users.”

Why? Typical disclaimer and probably good advice in general.

You can't switch manufacturers. Once your body produces an antibody response to one vaccine, that is it's response from then on. It won't create a different response to another vaccine. Repeated 'infections' just strengthen the preexisting response

Different manufacturers use different compounds at different concentrations. What do you mean "you can't switch"?

Plenty of people are getting moderna boosters after the first two being pfizer

What I meant is you won't develop separate antibody responses to each individual vaccine. You can mix and match the initial vaccine and boosters, and it'll strengthen your immune response. You just can't switch and expect the same response as someone taking that particular vaccine for the first time

>separate antibody responses

Of course not, they use the same mRNA. There's no reason to suspect they would in the first place.

The difference in response in the degree/intensity of response to the detected antigen. This is due to the concentration of mRNA in the vaccine (and therefore the concentration of antigen produced by the vaccine)

Moderna creates a greater response than Pfizer due to concentration (100mcg vs 30mcg). I don't think there's a reason to believe that a moderna booster on top of a Pfizer initial vaccination would not increase the degree of response when an actual infection is detected. Immunology is not my field however so my knowledge is a bit limited.

Yes you can, it is possible in most country, even sometimes recommended.

For now, in most of the western world, only mRNA boosters are recommended, especially if your first dose(s) are of another vaccine. Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech shots can be mixed, Pfizer/BioNTech is recommended if you are a young man (risks of myocardite), and for others, there is a slight preference for using the other one.

I have no idea where you read this, but it's not right. The immune system doesn't know anything about the brand of a vaccine. It remembers proteins and how to make antibodies to bind to proteins. Pretty much all vaccines are based on the exact RNA sequence of the spike protein from the first published COVID sequence. Immune systems can and do adapt to mutations in the spike protein by generating slightly different antibodies. It's how we fight colds and the flu, since these are constantly changing.

The main difference between the vaccine brands is the delivery mechanism. There were concerns in the beginning about mixing and matching; those were concerns about dosage, which was carefully determined in trials. Clearly a totally different mechanism screws with dosage. But nowadays I don't see many concerns about mixing and matching, particularly if just the booster differs from the (e.g. two first doses).

What I mean is you can take two different vaccines, but it won't result in two different antibody responses. If you take a less effective vaccine like the J&J, doubling up on the Pfizer vaccine isn't expected to 'upgrade' your antibody response, though it can still strengthen immune response. If spike proteins change the immune response may change, but in this situation all vaccine are based on the same spike protein.

The science is always developing, but mixing and matching vaccines tends to lead to more side effects according to at least one study. From what I remember personally in the beginning doctors were recommending people keep the same manufacturer but that isn't considered necessary anymore

https://www.verywellhealth.com/side-effects-mix-and-match-co...

Strange article.

Endemic: (of a disease or condition) regularly found among particular people or in a certain area.

Article: “There are only two paths that can get us to endemic status: mass infection, along with the illness and deaths that entails. Or mass vaccination.”

It’s already endemic.

Seriously. It's not like "endemic" means harmless--it has absolutely no bearing on the symptoms, severity, or survivability. The word literally just means commonplace. The term "herd immunity" fell out of fashion pretty quick, so now they are shooting for merely endemic.

It does mean exponential/rapid growth spikes are less likely, which means hospital resources are less likely to be strained, which is generally better for health workers, covid patients, and general society.

Many of the definitions I found so far explicitly include that to reach an "endemic state", the reproduction number of a disease must be around 1. This implies that local outbreaks may still happen but will eventually burn out with no additional intervention, which characterizes the endemic state.

I don't think it is fair to attack an article on semantics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com