CDC: Covid vaccine effectiveness fell from 91% to 66% with Delta variant(forbes.com)
forbes.com
CDC: Covid vaccine effectiveness fell from 91% to 66% with Delta variant
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/08/24/cdc-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-fell-from-91-to-66-with-delta-variant/
36 comments
Everyone’s going to get COVID eventually. Natural immunity + 3 rounds of the vaccine are probably enough to make it acceptable level of deadly.
“Zero COVID” was never possible.
“Zero COVID” was never possible.
Only for New Zealand who locked down an entire country over one case
Unless they lockdown forever it's literally not going to matter. Additionally the longer they delay the acquisition of natural immunity the worse it will eventually be. The best course of action in the begining would have been to encourage only the vulnerable to isolate. Natural immunity is much better than the vaccines. COVID currently is worse for vaccinated people than it was for unvaccinated a year ago. 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. We talk about how all the current deaths of unvaccinated people could be prevented with vaccines, but skip that they could have also been prevented in 99% of cases by them simply catching COVID last year. Im all for vaccines and vaccine + COVID infection is currently the best protection, but that is an actually riskier proposition than simply having caught COVID in the begining for normal healthy people.
Last medical paper I read was using a cohort of 20,000 people. This paper concluded that natural covid immunity doesn't last forever. Median time to reinfection was 160+ days.
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...
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...
Appreciate your effort to link to sources. We fundamentally suffer from lack of data: what are the morbidity and mortality by age group, by comorbidity (obesity and diabetes), by unvax / unvax + covid / vax? Furthermore, being 'published' on medrxiv is not a guarantee for accuracy or reproducibility. Cue in the Ivermectin saga...
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?
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?
Sure apologies for linking a preprint.
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.
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.
Thank you!
Please tell me if my understanding is incorrect, I assert ....
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.
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.
I'm with you on your general point - however you made some strong claims which are not supported by any literature I've seen (and I read a lot of literature on the topic, but of course I haven't read it all).
> 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.
> 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.
Looks like we responded to him in basically the same way at the same time. I had a check of his profile and he has a comment claiming that: "
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
Recently in the news: "Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla says that a vaccine-resistant COVID variant will “likely” emerge.", while touting that his company can design a new vaccine in 95 days when the dreaded variant arises.
https://www.insider.com/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-resistant-coronav...
https://www.insider.com/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-resistant-coronav...
It won't let me reply to this "criticalthinker" guy anymore, but I will post this for anyone looking at this before they get sucked into these purposeful lies.
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.
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.
So I say "The threat of vaccine resistance is real and acknowledged by many experts" and provide citations to support this claim - then you reply:
> 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.
> 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.
We pretty much can play with vaccines forever.
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.
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.
> Every healthy responsible person gets a flu shot every single fall
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.
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.
We get flu shots to reduce the incidence of the flu in the population so that we don't kill a bunch of old people a decade too early.
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.
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.
It's anti-science to say not everyone should necessarily be expected to get a flu shot now?
Will journalist ever report confidence intervals? The report says:
> 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%.
> 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%.
In the FDA's press release yesterday [1], they justified Pfizer approval by saying the vaccine had a 91% effectiveness. But everyone knows that number is no longer true - the data was from March, before Delta. If the FDA were acting responsibly and credibly, they would have used the latest data, but then approval doesn't look so favorable.
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...
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...
Approval of a vaccine isn't contingent on a specific percentage effectiveness. Less effective drugs are approved all the time as long as the health benefits outweigh the risks and side effects.
Does anyone know how the 66% effectiveness of the vacine compares to people who were exposed to COVID but never got the vaccine?
Immunity acquired through natural infection confers protection that is at least as effective as vaccination [1]. However, the delta variant and other VOCs have mutations that will reduce this protection in both vaccinated and naturally immune individuals.
> 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/
> 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/
Reinfection rate is less than 1%. The biggest issue is that there were lots of false positives with certain tests if you had Flu or other coronavirus colds even if asymptomatic. Even current antibody testing can't distinguish COVID-19 from other coronavirus based colds.
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.
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.
It doesn't matter in countries like the US where the vaccine is free to anyone who wants it. We know the vaccine improves survival regardless of previous infections.
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).
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).
Nothing in your link supports the claim "we know the vaccine improves survival regardless of previous infections."
> 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.
> 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.
There’s a CDC study that shows vaccinating while previously infected, further boosts your immunity by more than double https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
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.
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.
What that study shows is that unvaccinated people in the study cohort were twice as likely to experience a reinfection. A lot of things could explain that and it's a far cry from establishing that it boosts immunity. The study period was also during the point when effectiveness of the initial mRNA vaccine doses was probably peaking.
> How about the medical bills for a life-altering adverse event?
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.
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.
We're specifically discussing people with immunity from having recovered from a prior Covid infection, in whom serious life-altering illness from a reinfection is also extraordinarily rare.
> in whom serious life-altering illness from a reinfection is also extraordinarily rare.
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?
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?
oh sorry how many of those life altering adverse events have there been as a percentage of people vaccinated?
How many extremely bad disease outcomes have there been as a percentage of all Covid reinfections?
Link the study or delete your comment.
Here you go. Wonder what a third dose will do!
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1
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.