Scientists discover a highly potent antibody against SARS-CoV-2(actu.epfl.ch)
actu.epfl.ch
Scientists discover a highly potent antibody against SARS-CoV-2
https://actu.epfl.ch/news/scientists-discover-a-highly-potent-antibody-again/
202 comments
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
Also, since vaccines reduce death to almost 0, and a 'cure' on top of that reduces death by 80-90% (as you claim), if everyone is vaccinated that can be, and there is a treatment, there is no more disease, but thousands are still dying every day. So we need the vaccine mandates.
Additionally, death is only one of many of the devastating outcomes of Covid. In many cases there are profound and longterm effects. So we need the goddamn vaccine mandates.
Additionally, death is only one of many of the devastating outcomes of Covid. In many cases there are profound and longterm effects. So we need the goddamn vaccine mandates.
We still seem to have >1500 deaths/day in the US. Is treatment effective but not available? Or is it just not effective?
I don't think it's fully available, so it's rationed for high risk cases. And it's expensive (much more so than a vaccine, you need an IV and to go sit in a hospital room for awhile)
Rationed for high risk? I’ve read about multiple politicians receiving it. I suspect it must be rationed for other reasons
Rationed for the usual reason because it's hard to make and there isn't enough to go around. That's a usual problem with monoclonal antibodies. That's also the reason they tend to be so expensive. Also if they aren't administered soon enough they generally don't work very well.
> Rationed for the usual reason because it's hard to make and there isn't enough to go around.
The technology to make monoclonal antibodies is simpler than that for mRNA vaccines.
> That's also the reason they tend to be so expensive
Economies of scale play a big role. At similar scale mab should be cheaper than mRNA.
The technology to make monoclonal antibodies is simpler than that for mRNA vaccines.
> That's also the reason they tend to be so expensive
Economies of scale play a big role. At similar scale mab should be cheaper than mRNA.
> The technology to make monoclonal antibodies is simpler than that for mRNA vaccines.
It’s more mature technology, but unlike the mRNA vaccines it’s not cell free and as a result is harder to scale up. At similar scale mRNA will still be cheaper; that’s one if mRNA’s biggest selling points.
It’s more mature technology, but unlike the mRNA vaccines it’s not cell free and as a result is harder to scale up. At similar scale mRNA will still be cheaper; that’s one if mRNA’s biggest selling points.
You need about 30 ug of MRNA vaccine. For Regeneron the dosage is an initial dose of 600 mg followed by 300 mg every other week. Pfizer is $19.50/dose. Moderna is $15/dose. Regeneron is $2100/dose. And that's with the US govt having bought millions of doses of Regeneron.
worth remembering that we have > 8000 deaths a day under normal circumstances and with covid does not necessarily mean because of covid.
We're still getting ~15,000 excess deaths every week, compared to recent similar years and given our population size. [1]
I'd like to see how to explain all 15,000 deaths per week as being simply "with Covid" instead of caused by Covid. Is it all still lockdown-related stress causing the deaths? And all of them happened to die "with Covid?"
1. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
I'd like to see how to explain all 15,000 deaths per week as being simply "with Covid" instead of caused by Covid. Is it all still lockdown-related stress causing the deaths? And all of them happened to die "with Covid?"
1. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
This line of reasoning from the parent comment is tedious, I don't know where it originates from but I had to debunk the same statement made by Brazilians and used the same metric as you: excess deaths are still high as a kite.
It's exhausting to be facing this misinformation spread in different languages and cultures. Even here in Sweden I have had to put up with people using flawed statistics to make a point without considering the nuances of the metrics they choose to parade around.
I'm tired.
It's exhausting to be facing this misinformation spread in different languages and cultures. Even here in Sweden I have had to put up with people using flawed statistics to make a point without considering the nuances of the metrics they choose to parade around.
I'm tired.
The link you posted is just raw excess deaths. Whether they had COVID or not is unknown, so the "with COVID" vs" "from COVID" argument is irrelevant here.
While I agree with you that a significant part of those deaths are in fact from COVID, there's other explanations other than "lockdown stress" that could cause increased excess deaths - people avoiding medical treatment due to fear of catching COVID in healthcare settings, hospitals being overloaded in the first place and surgeries being delayed, or poorer health outcomes due to financial impact, which in extreme cases could cause food insecurity or homelessness.
While I agree with you that a significant part of those deaths are in fact from COVID, there's other explanations other than "lockdown stress" that could cause increased excess deaths - people avoiding medical treatment due to fear of catching COVID in healthcare settings, hospitals being overloaded in the first place and surgeries being delayed, or poorer health outcomes due to financial impact, which in extreme cases could cause food insecurity or homelessness.
Come on, it's been a year and a half now. Why are people still making these tired points which have been discounted all over
We all know with covid doesn't always mean because of covid, but it's statistically significant enough that dying shortly after covid gives a pretty damn good representation of the infection rate. It's statistically unlikely that you die from unrelated causes within 28 days of a positive covid test
We all know with covid doesn't always mean because of covid, but it's statistically significant enough that dying shortly after covid gives a pretty damn good representation of the infection rate. It's statistically unlikely that you die from unrelated causes within 28 days of a positive covid test
It's 100x more expensive than a vaccine.
> This is just a press release from another company wanting in on the action.
Was the URL changed? This is a press release from Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne and Lausanne University Hospital, both public institutions.
Was the URL changed? This is a press release from Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne and Lausanne University Hospital, both public institutions.
I would guess because covd patients are already taking up hospital resources (beds, vents, care staff) even with restrictions and vaccines. If the solution was cure rather than prevention, then the hospitals would become overwhelmed while they provide care until the antibody therapy kicks in
Also, it causes the spread to go exponential as there's no restriction to the spread, so the hospital admissions go exponential too
Plus, there's the whole US treatment costs thing too
Also, it causes the spread to go exponential as there's no restriction to the spread, so the hospital admissions go exponential too
Plus, there's the whole US treatment costs thing too
The vaccination centers can double as infusion centers. The therapy kicks in immediately, you’re back to normal the next day. It’s really a wonderdrug and weird we haven’t heard more about it.
Having a building is the least of the concerns, there's tons of buildings around. You need beds, medical staff, and vents/cpap.
And if you don't prevent the spread then your infection rate is exponential and collapse the healthcare system. Ignoring vaccines in favour of treating the critically ill is absolutely the wrong way to go about it
And if you don't prevent the spread then your infection rate is exponential and collapse the healthcare system. Ignoring vaccines in favour of treating the critically ill is absolutely the wrong way to go about it
Because a course of monoclonal antibody treatment costs $5000, whereas a vaccine could be had for dollars
This is the wrong way to do the math (setting aside that your numbers are wrong and other arguments).
The right way would be to compare number of people vaccinated to prevent one person falling so ill they require monoclonals. Since this >> 1, the financial calculations aren't so straightforward.
The right way would be to compare number of people vaccinated to prevent one person falling so ill they require monoclonals. Since this >> 1, the financial calculations aren't so straightforward.
That's also the wrong way to do the math which is even more complex - price is broadly based on supply and demand, so should vaccinations go down and demand for monoclonals raise, assuming supply cannot meet the demand, which will also raise price and change the economic modelling.
MCA therapy also needs to be started early after exposition (even prophylactically). It doesn't do much good for patients that are hospitalised because they have a bad case, that's too late.
It costs 1-2000€ in Europe. A day in the ICU costs 7-8000€.
The price is not relevant. The idea behind vaccine mandates is that it’s the only way to protect people so therefore it’s ethical to force people to take the vaccine. But this treatment has been available for almost a year…
No one should be forced to take something if there are alternatives.
Instead we should have ramped up production of these game changing drugs. Why didn’t we?
Instead we should have ramped up production of these game changing drugs. Why didn’t we?
What really protects people is herd immunity. Ethically malingers that don't voluntarily contribute to that need to be forced. You might not like that for ideological reasons, but really who cares.
What's wrong with letting them go out and get sick, if that's what they're comfortable with? You're telling them they need to either stay home or get a shot? Why not let them go out, and take the risk of getting sick? We already know, at a population level that complications from Covid happen in a very small percentage of people. At this point we have the knowledge and tools to manage things. Let everyone out, some get sick, many recover, and we get over this in 6 months.
Really it seems the lockdowns are the problem since it's letting this disease meander and figure out the best way to keep transmitting.
The people at most risk are the "Ethical malingers". The people at least risk are those who already have a low risk profile and/or those who take the vaccine.
I wonder what other populations you might compel to do things - or not - for the "herd" and their health. My guess is it would look cruel and capricious very quickly, much like any other tyranny.
I wonder what other populations you might compel to do things - or not - for the "herd" and their health. My guess is it would look cruel and capricious very quickly, much like any other tyranny.
...because MCA is a treatment, while the vaccine is a prophylactic. Every person who refuses the vaccine and winds up needing ICU treatment means resources unavailable for breakout cases and non-covid emergency conditions. It's absolutely ethical to compel vaccination in order to safeguard the health and safety of the overwhelming majority of Americans who are being individually and socially responsible by getting vaccinated; and the healthcare system and workers, which are under tremendous strain.
Also, prior to COVID, monoclonal antibodies were being tested in single digit numbers of patients with highly aggressive cancers at a cost of $500K per treatment. The cost has come down 100x, so it's inaccurate to claim production hasn't ramped up. It has, it's just still way more cost effective to get a vaccine.
Also, prior to COVID, monoclonal antibodies were being tested in single digit numbers of patients with highly aggressive cancers at a cost of $500K per treatment. The cost has come down 100x, so it's inaccurate to claim production hasn't ramped up. It has, it's just still way more cost effective to get a vaccine.
MCA can also be a prophylactic.
The assumption that vaccines would end the pandemic was also based on the idea they would stop transmission. This turned out to be wrong. Vaccines are excellent at preventing hospitalization but do a crappy job stopping transmission.
So when we have vaccines who are only excellent at self-protection and we also have a cure, I don’t see why we would compel anyone to take something they don’t want to.
The assumption that vaccines would end the pandemic was also based on the idea they would stop transmission. This turned out to be wrong. Vaccines are excellent at preventing hospitalization but do a crappy job stopping transmission.
So when we have vaccines who are only excellent at self-protection and we also have a cure, I don’t see why we would compel anyone to take something they don’t want to.
That is simply nonsense. The current vaccines are not completely effective at reducing transmission in a rapidly mutating virus when a significant minority is refusing to take it. If the vaccine was deployed to 95% of the population the virus would not have enough hosts to continue propagating and would reduce to background noise that can be easily handled by the medical systems with treatments like MCAs.
I'm also curious what is acceptable about monoclonal antibodies, but not the vaccine? They've been developed by the same types of scientists, on a similar timeline to the mRNA vaccine technology, and they work on similar fundamentals, but the MCAs are a less effective solution in terms of cost, production, deployment, and long term protection. The whole thing just seems like a temper tantrum with no rational basis.
I'm also curious what is acceptable about monoclonal antibodies, but not the vaccine? They've been developed by the same types of scientists, on a similar timeline to the mRNA vaccine technology, and they work on similar fundamentals, but the MCAs are a less effective solution in terms of cost, production, deployment, and long term protection. The whole thing just seems like a temper tantrum with no rational basis.
> I'm also curious what is acceptable about monoclonal antibodies, but not the vaccine?
I don’t know since I’m vaccinated. I just think people should have a choice.
I don’t know since I’m vaccinated. I just think people should have a choice.
> It's absolutely ethical to compel vaccination
It's never ethical to compel the innocent to do anything.
A shifting of the incentives would be far more ethical, but difficult politically - perhaps make people who are unvaccinated pay a greater percentage of their treatment, or need to take special insurance. I'd advocate that kind of thing for most things relating to personal/lifestyle choice, obesity being a good example, giving better premiums to non-smokers, vegetarians etc but when the numbers of (possible) patients becomes big then it's unlikely to be taken up either by an electorate nor by a politician.
That's ignoring how many health systems seem fundamentally broken for other reasons (e.g. US and UK).
It's never ethical to compel the innocent to do anything.
A shifting of the incentives would be far more ethical, but difficult politically - perhaps make people who are unvaccinated pay a greater percentage of their treatment, or need to take special insurance. I'd advocate that kind of thing for most things relating to personal/lifestyle choice, obesity being a good example, giving better premiums to non-smokers, vegetarians etc but when the numbers of (possible) patients becomes big then it's unlikely to be taken up either by an electorate nor by a politician.
That's ignoring how many health systems seem fundamentally broken for other reasons (e.g. US and UK).
> It's never ethical to compel the innocent to do anything.
What does that even mean? Innocent of what, having an immune system?
Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people. The government absolutely leaned on business to make that happen in order to avoid a direct mandate.
What does that even mean? Innocent of what, having an immune system?
Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people. The government absolutely leaned on business to make that happen in order to avoid a direct mandate.
> What does that even mean? Innocent of what, having an immune system?
Innocent of a crime. That's it's usual meaning, and we compel those guilty of crimes to do things they don't want to.
> Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people.
That's not an incentive, that's a punishment. I do agree, however, that it is a form of compulsion (a compulsion is never also an incentive).
Innocent of a crime. That's it's usual meaning, and we compel those guilty of crimes to do things they don't want to.
> Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people.
That's not an incentive, that's a punishment. I do agree, however, that it is a form of compulsion (a compulsion is never also an incentive).
Everyone is compelled to do many things they don't want to do every day.
Are they compelled by law to undertake invasive medical procedures?
From [1]:
> An invasive procedure is one where purposeful/deliberate access to the body is gained via an incision, percutaneous puncture, where instrumentation is used in addition to the puncture needle, or instrumentation via a natural orifice. It begins when entry to the body is gained and ends when the instrument is removed, and/or the skin is closed. Invasive procedures are performed by trained healthcare professionals using instruments, which include, but are not limited to, endoscopes, catheters, scalpels, scissors, devices and tubes.
Without the consent of the person it would constitute a serious form of assault and battery, a common law crime that stretches back at least 1000 years. I do hope that you or anyone else is not subject to such things on a daily basis.
Are you?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678000/
From [1]:
> An invasive procedure is one where purposeful/deliberate access to the body is gained via an incision, percutaneous puncture, where instrumentation is used in addition to the puncture needle, or instrumentation via a natural orifice. It begins when entry to the body is gained and ends when the instrument is removed, and/or the skin is closed. Invasive procedures are performed by trained healthcare professionals using instruments, which include, but are not limited to, endoscopes, catheters, scalpels, scissors, devices and tubes.
Without the consent of the person it would constitute a serious form of assault and battery, a common law crime that stretches back at least 1000 years. I do hope that you or anyone else is not subject to such things on a daily basis.
Are you?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678000/
What a strange way of looking at the world. When did you choose to have that perspective and why?
You need to be more specific, especially to keep within the commenting guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
I'm not sure what you are referring to with terms like "innocent", "crime", "compulsion" etc when the topic is a covid vaccine.
I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this particular vaccine. Kids around the world are given vaccines for polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hiaemophilus influenza type b (Hib), diarrhea, smallpox etc.
Why is everyone up in arms about this particular vaccine, esp. when the mRNA based ones don't even have any part of the virus? I can't think of any reason other than stupid/criminal politicians on the right using whatever slogans they can to influence their sheeple to maintain their foothold. Jeez.
I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this particular vaccine. Kids around the world are given vaccines for polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hiaemophilus influenza type b (Hib), diarrhea, smallpox etc.
Why is everyone up in arms about this particular vaccine, esp. when the mRNA based ones don't even have any part of the virus? I can't think of any reason other than stupid/criminal politicians on the right using whatever slogans they can to influence their sheeple to maintain their foothold. Jeez.
> I'm not sure what you are referring to with terms like "innocent", "crime", "compulsion" etc when the topic is a covid vaccine.
Why I'm referring to them is because the only members of society we usually compel to do anything are:
- children - those in the military - those guilty of a crime - those who have lost their mind
Adults innocent of a crime, not in the military, and who are compos mentis are not subject to compulsion - to compel them would likely be a crime.
> I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this particular vaccine.
I am not everyone and I am not up in arms about the vaccine, I am responding to the element of compulsion and violation of the normal situation of legal standing between an individual and the government (who would be the ones doing the compelling). If you compel someone to get any of the other vaccines listed, then I would be "up in arms" about that too.
Why I'm referring to them is because the only members of society we usually compel to do anything are:
- children - those in the military - those guilty of a crime - those who have lost their mind
Adults innocent of a crime, not in the military, and who are compos mentis are not subject to compulsion - to compel them would likely be a crime.
> I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this particular vaccine.
I am not everyone and I am not up in arms about the vaccine, I am responding to the element of compulsion and violation of the normal situation of legal standing between an individual and the government (who would be the ones doing the compelling). If you compel someone to get any of the other vaccines listed, then I would be "up in arms" about that too.
All laws and rules of a society are compulsions if you want to read it that way. Stopping at a red light, removing ones shoes at the airport, not going the other way on a one-way street, headlights turned on in the dark, stopping for pedestrians .... these are all compulsions and public safety measures. I see the covid vaccines (now that they have been so extraordinarily tested) as benignly ... I don't see why words such as 'compulsion' and 'crime' even enter the picture.
I find that when people need to expand the definitions of common words to render them virtually meaningless and, more importantly, strangely convenient to their point of view and the argument they are presenting, that is the point I realise that they’re not interested in a proper discussion and leave, entirely unpersuaded.
arrosenberg(1)
Monoclonal antibodies are expensive and hard to make and the manufacturing processes don't scale all that well.
Ok. So let's flatten the curve with mass produced MCA. You can't wait giving MCA until people are hospitalised, they're not effective anymore at that late stage.
So do we test everyone all the time to determine whether they need the stuff? If they test positive, how do we encourage them to take the MCA? Or we could give them to everyone all the time, continually, as a prophylaxis. I'm sure that would to over well.
You could also limit the prophylaxis to particularly endangered folks, but you'd still fill the hospitals with not particularly endangered people who drew the short straw.
That's essentially what we are doing, except the not particularly endangered people can just get the vaccination.
So do we test everyone all the time to determine whether they need the stuff? If they test positive, how do we encourage them to take the MCA? Or we could give them to everyone all the time, continually, as a prophylaxis. I'm sure that would to over well.
You could also limit the prophylaxis to particularly endangered folks, but you'd still fill the hospitals with not particularly endangered people who drew the short straw.
That's essentially what we are doing, except the not particularly endangered people can just get the vaccination.
Two reasons. Vaccines are waaaay cheaper, and second, covid patients are tying up limited medical resources (ICU beds, ventilators etc).
Also that vimy’s question seems to imply that vaccination blocks getting treated in the hospital with antibody therapy later. That seems obviously false, no? I assume that the effects are likely multiplicative, and not subtractive as vimy seems to be suggesting.
Also perhaps too because the MAB treatment may reduce your ‘natural immunity’ benefit that vaccination-hesitant people seem to be so hyped about getting from being very ill. Versus giving the vaccines that actually do give ‘natural immunity’ to you.
>Honestly surprising why so few people know about the antibody therapy we already have, reduces death by 80 to 90 %. Also unclear why we still need vaccine mandates when we have a cure.
Do promptly delivered monoclonals blunt your body's natural immune response and prevent natural immunity, as your body doesn't need to make its own antibodies?
If so, all the more reason to get vaccinated as soon as the engineered antibodies fade. Or before treatment, I don't see why having both wouldn't be extra effective?
Do promptly delivered monoclonals blunt your body's natural immune response and prevent natural immunity, as your body doesn't need to make its own antibodies?
If so, all the more reason to get vaccinated as soon as the engineered antibodies fade. Or before treatment, I don't see why having both wouldn't be extra effective?
> Also unclear why we still need vaccine mandates when we have a cure.
Corruption. It always have been the alpha and omega of this whole vaccine story, minus the part where governments went on-board as a way to restrict citizens right.
Corruption. It always have been the alpha and omega of this whole vaccine story, minus the part where governments went on-board as a way to restrict citizens right.
Based on the five or six "variants being monitored" that present actual threats, it seems like the virus adapts within 18 months, which is pretty fast for researchers to find new solutions, test them in a population safely, and then get the FDA to safely approve them.
Are we going to get to a situation like the annual Flu vaccine, where it is tested and released in (what I'm guessing) less than a year? Otherwise, it seems like we'll be chasing this virus with outdated solutions forever. Moderna and Pfizer are both currently testing a vaccine that is specific to Delta, but by the time it's approved (my guess: January/February) the current wave will be long behind us.
Are we going to get to a situation like the annual Flu vaccine, where it is tested and released in (what I'm guessing) less than a year? Otherwise, it seems like we'll be chasing this virus with outdated solutions forever. Moderna and Pfizer are both currently testing a vaccine that is specific to Delta, but by the time it's approved (my guess: January/February) the current wave will be long behind us.
On the question of whether we need to update the vaccines: Sara Gilbert spoke to this in some detail in her TWiV interview [813]. They have been testing versions specific to other variants, but haven't found a real need. Delta is not very different antigenically than the ancestral type - beta and gamma are more so, but delta is winning because it's more transmissible. The story becomes quite complex when you get into details - the T and B memory cells broaden the response, so are unlikely to need much updating.
[813]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_5o6qZyyQk&t=1145s
[813]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_5o6qZyyQk&t=1145s
There's some evidence that major mutations are happening in severely immunocompromised patients, since COVID is able to stick around longer. [0] The length of infection seems to be one aspect allowing for evolutionary success of the virus:
> A leading hypothesis is that these variants, characterized by a large number of nonsynonymous mutations, originated within individuals with long durations of infection during which the virus was subject to prolonged immune pressure (7, 8), and that this was potentially facilitated by the within-host emergence of deletions (49). [0]
Consequently, some have suggested that monitoring for new strains might focus on such patients as a way to predict future adaptations in the wild, as scientist have observed some mutations re-occurring within immunocompromised individuals. So it might be possible to predict some mutations.
[0] : https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/15/health/coronavirus-varian...
[1] : https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abg0821
> A leading hypothesis is that these variants, characterized by a large number of nonsynonymous mutations, originated within individuals with long durations of infection during which the virus was subject to prolonged immune pressure (7, 8), and that this was potentially facilitated by the within-host emergence of deletions (49). [0]
Consequently, some have suggested that monitoring for new strains might focus on such patients as a way to predict future adaptations in the wild, as scientist have observed some mutations re-occurring within immunocompromised individuals. So it might be possible to predict some mutations.
[0] : https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/15/health/coronavirus-varian...
[1] : https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abg0821
People usually aren't very contagious past the initial stage of the disease.
And yes, there are virologists who are studying the mutation-space of the virus and are planning a vaccine regimen which targets all possible mutations of SARS-CoV-2. Check out this absolutely terrific lecture by Paul Bieniasz about his work on exploring the mutation space of SARS-CoV-2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIcaSqQFrX0
And yes, there are virologists who are studying the mutation-space of the virus and are planning a vaccine regimen which targets all possible mutations of SARS-CoV-2. Check out this absolutely terrific lecture by Paul Bieniasz about his work on exploring the mutation space of SARS-CoV-2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIcaSqQFrX0
Right patients with normal immune systems aren't really contagious past 10 days from initial infection (often less). But the issue is that immunocompromised patients can have persistent infections lasting much longer, which both allows more opportunities for viral mutation and gives more time to transmit the infection to others.
There are evolutionary pressures on viruses that tend to weaken them over time. You get variants competing with each other and the more silent ones get advantages over the ones with worse outcomes.
It isn’t clear exactly what is going to happen, but as more people get vaccinated and natural immunity and the variants continue to evolve the situation might change a lot or become unnoticeable.
I would love to see an epidemic expert comment on the long term evolutionary effects of different mitigation strategies which might differ in preferences than short term trying to reduce number of infections.
It isn’t clear exactly what is going to happen, but as more people get vaccinated and natural immunity and the variants continue to evolve the situation might change a lot or become unnoticeable.
I would love to see an epidemic expert comment on the long term evolutionary effects of different mitigation strategies which might differ in preferences than short term trying to reduce number of infections.
> There are evolutionary pressures on viruses that tend to weaken them over time.
Those evolutionary pressures relate to transmissibility. Basically, a virus that kills its host before it can spread doesn't spread very far at all.
SARS-CoV-2's defining feature of asymptomatic spread decouples this and so far hasn't led to weakening – indeed, Delta is both substantially more transmissible and more likely to cause severe disease and death.
Those evolutionary pressures relate to transmissibility. Basically, a virus that kills its host before it can spread doesn't spread very far at all.
SARS-CoV-2's defining feature of asymptomatic spread decouples this and so far hasn't led to weakening – indeed, Delta is both substantially more transmissible and more likely to cause severe disease and death.
Presymptomatic might be a better term than asymptomatic, as the evidence for asymptomatic spread is weak and weakening. One example[1]:
> Research early in the pandemic suggested that the rate of asymptomatic infections could be as high as 81%. But a meta-analysis published last month, which included 13 studies involving 21,708 people, calculated the rate of asymptomatic presentation to be 17%. The analysis defined asymptomatic people as those who showed none of the key COVID-19 symptoms during the entire follow-up period, and the authors included only studies that followed participants for at least seven days.
There are many more I've read where the authors have tried to quantify asymptomatic spread and been found wanting (studies on children are particularly enlightening). I wouldn't be surprised if the final figure ends up being very close to, if not, zero, though we're still in the clutches of the initial panic so I suspect those findings to take time due more to social resistance than the frictions involved in actual science.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3?error=coo...
> Research early in the pandemic suggested that the rate of asymptomatic infections could be as high as 81%. But a meta-analysis published last month, which included 13 studies involving 21,708 people, calculated the rate of asymptomatic presentation to be 17%. The analysis defined asymptomatic people as those who showed none of the key COVID-19 symptoms during the entire follow-up period, and the authors included only studies that followed participants for at least seven days.
There are many more I've read where the authors have tried to quantify asymptomatic spread and been found wanting (studies on children are particularly enlightening). I wouldn't be surprised if the final figure ends up being very close to, if not, zero, though we're still in the clutches of the initial panic so I suspect those findings to take time due more to social resistance than the frictions involved in actual science.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3?error=coo...
Note that I said "asymptomatic spread", not "asymptomatic infection" – i.e. a host spreading SARS-CoV-2 without experiencing or showing symptoms from the active infection. Whether the host goes on to experience symptoms from said infection at some point in the future isn't what I was referring to.
Right, and that changes nothing about my response as that's what I was responding to, there is still weak and weakening evidence for transmission by those with asymptomatic infection.
For example[1]:
> We determined secondary attack rates (SAR) among close contacts of 59 asymptomatic and symptomatic coronavirus disease case-patients by presymptomatic and symptomatic exposure. We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure.
[1] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article
For example[1]:
> We determined secondary attack rates (SAR) among close contacts of 59 asymptomatic and symptomatic coronavirus disease case-patients by presymptomatic and symptomatic exposure. We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure.
[1] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article
You seem to be misunderstanding me here. When I say "asymptomatic transmission," I am referring to whether or not a person is displaying/experiencing symptoms at the time of transmission.
"Presymptomatic transmission" is asymptomatic transmission. Whether the infection itself becomes symptomatic later (which, as you've referenced, the research strongly suggests will happen) is of no relevance to the discussion.
"Presymptomatic transmission" is asymptomatic transmission. Whether the infection itself becomes symptomatic later (which, as you've referenced, the research strongly suggests will happen) is of no relevance to the discussion.
You're just using a definition that none of the papers I've read use when trying to make a useful distinction. Asymptomatic as a term is distinct from presymptomatic the moment presymptomatic is used, or there would need to be another word for those who remain asymptomatic, and that word is, unsurprisingly, asymptomatic.
> Whether the infection itself becomes symptomatic later (which, as you've referenced, the research strongly suggests will happen) is of no relevance to the discussion.
What's actually irrelevant is talking about asymptomatic infections - defined as those which do not become symptomatic - as if they do become symptomatic. Again, I'm yet to find a paper that does this. Whether or not an infection is more likely to become symptomatic or not is not relevant here, nor did I make reference to any such likelihood, because it's not relevant.
I can't tell if you're quibbling because you don't want to accept a minor correction or because you haven't bothered to read any of the literature.
> Whether the infection itself becomes symptomatic later (which, as you've referenced, the research strongly suggests will happen) is of no relevance to the discussion.
What's actually irrelevant is talking about asymptomatic infections - defined as those which do not become symptomatic - as if they do become symptomatic. Again, I'm yet to find a paper that does this. Whether or not an infection is more likely to become symptomatic or not is not relevant here, nor did I make reference to any such likelihood, because it's not relevant.
I can't tell if you're quibbling because you don't want to accept a minor correction or because you haven't bothered to read any of the literature.
The need to achieve immune escape can also pressure the virus to evolve antigenically which can promote transmissibility through escape, while impairing ACE2 binding or endocytosis compared to currently circulating variants.
So if the ancestral strain + variants all cannot spread epidemically any more due to the build up of immunity in the population, then a strain which achieves immune escape and an R0 of > 1.0 would be favored even though the virus might be much less "fit" and less virulent in a totally naive population.
Clearly though the major adaptation is going to be on the human side with most of the population eventually acquiring T-cells, which will greatly decrease the virulence going forwards.
So if the ancestral strain + variants all cannot spread epidemically any more due to the build up of immunity in the population, then a strain which achieves immune escape and an R0 of > 1.0 would be favored even though the virus might be much less "fit" and less virulent in a totally naive population.
Clearly though the major adaptation is going to be on the human side with most of the population eventually acquiring T-cells, which will greatly decrease the virulence going forwards.
> while impairing ACE2 binding
It appears that COVID-19 can also enter cells (these would be immune cells that came to 'help') via so called Fc-pathway.
Therefore allow the virus to multiply even more
"... In addition to viral entry via ACE2, antibodies against coronavirus spike proteins (anti-spike-S-IgG) can induce antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of viral entry via type II Fcγ receptors. ..." [1]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7406916/
It appears that COVID-19 can also enter cells (these would be immune cells that came to 'help') via so called Fc-pathway.
Therefore allow the virus to multiply even more
"... In addition to viral entry via ACE2, antibodies against coronavirus spike proteins (anti-spike-S-IgG) can induce antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of viral entry via type II Fcγ receptors. ..." [1]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7406916/
That really has nothing to do with what I wrote, other than for you to write about ADE, which is not a practical issue for anyone to worry about with SARS-CoV-2:
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-antibody-depen...
I can't flag you, but someone else really should since your followup is completely disingenuous.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-antibody-depen...
I can't flag you, but someone else really should since your followup is completely disingenuous.
sorry, but your assessment of what is genuine vs disingenuous, is very disingenuous in itself.
Perhaps, it is time to relinquish the presumptions of moral superiority -- and just discuss technical details without the drama ...
I am saying that you wrote does not cover full spectrum of how the virus replicates, therefore your comment does illuminate the complexity that's present in interaction with our immune system. Which includes, according to the NIH paper I referenced, antibody-dependent-enhancement (ADE).
Perhaps, it is time to relinquish the presumptions of moral superiority -- and just discuss technical details without the drama ...
I am saying that you wrote does not cover full spectrum of how the virus replicates, therefore your comment does illuminate the complexity that's present in interaction with our immune system. Which includes, according to the NIH paper I referenced, antibody-dependent-enhancement (ADE).
If you saw any form of antibody-dependent enhancement, signals would be far spread now, considering how much viral spread is occurring...
> However, using monkey and mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, none of the in vitro infection-enhancing Abs enhanced SARS-CoV-2 virus replication or infectious virus in the lung in vivo. Three of 46 monkeys had lung pathology or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cytokine levels greater than controls. However, repeat studies with dose ranges of in vitro enhancing Abs did not increase lung pathology. Thus, in vitro infection-enhancing RBD and NTD Abs controlled virus in vivo and was rarely associated with enhanced lung pathology. [1]
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8232969/
> However, using monkey and mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, none of the in vitro infection-enhancing Abs enhanced SARS-CoV-2 virus replication or infectious virus in the lung in vivo. Three of 46 monkeys had lung pathology or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cytokine levels greater than controls. However, repeat studies with dose ranges of in vitro enhancing Abs did not increase lung pathology. Thus, in vitro infection-enhancing RBD and NTD Abs controlled virus in vivo and was rarely associated with enhanced lung pathology. [1]
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8232969/
That isn't relevant to the discussion at hand in any way shape or form.
You're interjecting it because you want to talk about it because you're an antivaxxer.
It has no relevance outside of some narrow understanding of what happens during severe COVID itself and the mechanism behind why some people get very sick and most people do not.
And you're practicing sealioning acting like you're just innoccently interjecting.
You're interjecting it because you want to talk about it because you're an antivaxxer.
It has no relevance outside of some narrow understanding of what happens during severe COVID itself and the mechanism behind why some people get very sick and most people do not.
And you're practicing sealioning acting like you're just innoccently interjecting.
Right, and because of severe disease and death health authorities introduced more stringent rules to reduce transmission. Evolutionary this should eventually pressure the virus in to becoming less severe (assuming public health policy continues to be focused on preventing severe disease and death).
This assumes a uniform global response. Not even the US can get their pandemic under control. There are so many breeding grounds across the world where Covid is completely free to mutate that it doesn't matter if a handful of countries have it figured out. You also have an increasing pushback against measures even in European countries with high vaccination rates. If a high impact variant emerges, it's going to become harder and harder on a political (and even economic) level to contain it.
> Not even the US can get their pandemic under control.
That's because the vaccines don't effectively stop the spread of SARS2. This is one of the great lies still being shoveled on the public - despite the facts that prove otherwise.
See: Britain has a lot more cases per capita than the US, despite their high vaccination rates and more aggressive lock-down & restrictive measures taken.
Or see: the New England states with high vaccination rates and a recent record surge in cases.
Or see: Israel's recent epic case surge despite their very high vaccination rate.
The vaccines dramatically reduce mortality and that's the primary reason most people should get the jab. There's zero evidence so far that we can actually stop SARS2 via vaccine. It doesn't make sense to be forced to live in bomb shelters forever as eg Australia is doing, that's idiotic and tyrannical. What matters isn't the case counts, it's the number of deaths that matter and Britain's high vaccination rate is doing its job there for example.
That's because the vaccines don't effectively stop the spread of SARS2. This is one of the great lies still being shoveled on the public - despite the facts that prove otherwise.
See: Britain has a lot more cases per capita than the US, despite their high vaccination rates and more aggressive lock-down & restrictive measures taken.
Or see: the New England states with high vaccination rates and a recent record surge in cases.
Or see: Israel's recent epic case surge despite their very high vaccination rate.
The vaccines dramatically reduce mortality and that's the primary reason most people should get the jab. There's zero evidence so far that we can actually stop SARS2 via vaccine. It doesn't make sense to be forced to live in bomb shelters forever as eg Australia is doing, that's idiotic and tyrannical. What matters isn't the case counts, it's the number of deaths that matter and Britain's high vaccination rate is doing its job there for example.
> Or see: the New England states with high vaccination rates and a recent record surge in cases.
As a resident of New England, I've been expecting a fall surge for a while. In the north, we're all shutting windows and turning on our furnaces at night, which means much worse ventilation. The afternoons are still warm enough to socialize outside, but that will start to change in November. Followed by holiday travel. And we still have towns with low vaccination rates.
Our absolute numbers are still fairly low in many places, and we don't have people lined up in the corridors of the local hospitals.
> What matters isn't the case counts, it's the number of deaths that matter
I actually think that severe illness counts are important, too. I'll make some sacrifices to avoid hospitalization or merely being incapacitated for a couple weeks.
As a resident of New England, I've been expecting a fall surge for a while. In the north, we're all shutting windows and turning on our furnaces at night, which means much worse ventilation. The afternoons are still warm enough to socialize outside, but that will start to change in November. Followed by holiday travel. And we still have towns with low vaccination rates.
Our absolute numbers are still fairly low in many places, and we don't have people lined up in the corridors of the local hospitals.
> What matters isn't the case counts, it's the number of deaths that matter
I actually think that severe illness counts are important, too. I'll make some sacrifices to avoid hospitalization or merely being incapacitated for a couple weeks.
Which is what makes what happened with Marek's disease so interesting.
> tend to weaken them over time
Perhaps you could furnish us with some examples of such viruses? Every virus I can think of certainly hasn't weakened over time.
Perhaps you could furnish us with some examples of such viruses? Every virus I can think of certainly hasn't weakened over time.
The 1918 “Spanish” influenza pandemic that killed 1-5% of the human population still has descendants in circulation both direct and through horizontal gene transfers. Basically all influenza A infections contain at least a piece descended from 1918.
The latest papers suggest that delta has very little vaccine-evading ability. It’s more contagious in general, and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is less effective after several months than would be ideal.
Of course, this means that most breakthrough infections are delta.
Of course, this means that most breakthrough infections are delta.
I don't think that follows.
I don't see why rate of adaption would stay consistent with the early stages of a new virus in later stages.
I don't see how you conclude the virus adapted after 18 months due to six variants of concern existing. Especially because existing solutions are still very effective with the new variants, even if its somewhat of a decline. Even if you accept that as "adaption" its still a sample size of 1.
I don't see why rate of adaption would stay consistent with the early stages of a new virus in later stages.
I don't see how you conclude the virus adapted after 18 months due to six variants of concern existing. Especially because existing solutions are still very effective with the new variants, even if its somewhat of a decline. Even if you accept that as "adaption" its still a sample size of 1.
Sounds like a money machine.
While we may have some uncertainty about SARS-CoV-2 specifically, it seems clear to me that in the long run we'll need to treat coronaviruses in general much like influenza viruses. So, yes.
There are already 4 other endemic coronaviruses. We seldom treat them with anything stronger than chicken soup and Tylenol. Most of us get infected when we're young and the resulting immunity protects us as we age.
Remember SARS-CoV-1? There will be more. It's like "the big one" earthquake, just a matter of time. But, I suppose we stick our heads in the sand for all sorts of things, so we might ignore this one (again).
Is there any actual precedent for the scheme they present here (basically preventively give these antibodies to people who can’t mount their own response every 6 months)? Do we already do this with other diseases?
We do it with cancer already. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-dep...
That is indeed a fairly routine treatment for people with primary immunodeficiency. One of the ways they are diagnosed is inability to develop antibodies after a vaccine challenge.
Those people receive an infusion of human antibodies purified from donated blood (human immunoglobulins) every few weeks. It's been in use for several decades.
Those people receive an infusion of human antibodies purified from donated blood (human immunoglobulins) every few weeks. It's been in use for several decades.
I’ve heard about these MCA treatments in articles but am surprised to hear in these comments about it actually already being in use.
My father is an immunocompromised transplant patient and has been isolating now since the start of the pandemic. His first two vaccines had no antibody response and we will get results on his third dose in just over a month from now.
The situation has been really difficult for us as a family and he’s not had human contact this whole time (lives alone, I’m in another country). His renal consultant and local NHS consultants offer no hope or mention of MCA treatment. Has anyone more information on this in the UK?
My father is an immunocompromised transplant patient and has been isolating now since the start of the pandemic. His first two vaccines had no antibody response and we will get results on his third dose in just over a month from now.
The situation has been really difficult for us as a family and he’s not had human contact this whole time (lives alone, I’m in another country). His renal consultant and local NHS consultants offer no hope or mention of MCA treatment. Has anyone more information on this in the UK?
A quick google search suggests they should be available now. The article specifically talks about the situation your father is in:
https://www.pharmatimes.com/news/nhs_patients_gain_access_to....
>Initially, Ronapreve will be targeted at hospitalised patients who have not mounted an antibody response against COVID-19.
>This includes individuals who are immunocompromised, such as patients with certain cancer or autoimmune diseases.
https://www.pharmatimes.com/news/nhs_patients_gain_access_to....
>Initially, Ronapreve will be targeted at hospitalised patients who have not mounted an antibody response against COVID-19.
>This includes individuals who are immunocompromised, such as patients with certain cancer or autoimmune diseases.
Thanks for the reply Jonathan. Sadly just for those who it's probably too late for, and a reactive response rather than pro-active (i.e. to prevent being hospitalised in the first place, given the amount of damage getting to that point can cause to an immunocompromised patient's body in the long term).
"The newly identified antibody was isolated using lymphocytes from COVID-19 patients."
So currently, the only people who have this antibody are people who have had COVID, correct?
So currently, the only people who have this antibody are people who have had COVID, correct?
Once you have characterized an antibody that works, you can manufacture it.
Given that survivors have already manufactured a shed load of it can they have a vaccine pass?
How do you make money off of them if you give them a pass? I haven't seen any science at all that indicates vaccines are better than natural immunity. But beware saying that outloud. Other countries acknowledge this and treat natural immunity similar to being vaccinated, but the US will not due to economic interests.
I challenge anyone to show data otherwise before they reflexively down vote.
I challenge anyone to show data otherwise before they reflexively down vote.
Personally I'd be worrying about the negative long-term effects of actually contracting COVID-19 [1] [2].
In any case, you're the one making a claim here: can you show the benefits of natural immunity? Can you show the risk vs reward of catching COVID-19, potentially spreading it to thousands, and getting natural immunity rather than just getting a vaccine? Bringing money into it just colors your argument poorly. It's not like getting the vaccine costs you any money personally.
Vaccines seem to provide better immunity than previously being infected [3]. In fact, a lot of research shows that getting a vaccine after being infected actually improves your protection against reinfection [4].
Would you argue in good faith this way about any other vaccine? Measles? Mumps? Anthrax? Ebola?
[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/...
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
[4] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20211010/Research-finds-di...
In any case, you're the one making a claim here: can you show the benefits of natural immunity? Can you show the risk vs reward of catching COVID-19, potentially spreading it to thousands, and getting natural immunity rather than just getting a vaccine? Bringing money into it just colors your argument poorly. It's not like getting the vaccine costs you any money personally.
Vaccines seem to provide better immunity than previously being infected [3]. In fact, a lot of research shows that getting a vaccine after being infected actually improves your protection against reinfection [4].
Would you argue in good faith this way about any other vaccine? Measles? Mumps? Anthrax? Ebola?
[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/...
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
[4] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20211010/Research-finds-di...
But for the people who've already had it why bother vaccinating them against their will?
They've already run the gambit of heart problems and such, why make them run it again?
They've already run the gambit of heart problems and such, why make them run it again?
"why make them run it again" - the vaccine doesn't have nearly the likelihood nor the severity of complications that COVID has. And it still reduces their likelihood of catching COVID again, and the likelihood of serious symptoms even if they did. And the protections last longer and more predictably than natural immunity does.
We could probably list a thousand things that you could do now to reduce your risks of something. The question is around a mandate, and if the risk reduction is marginal or diminishingly small, why would you mandate it? That's the whole point of this thread.
We mandate lots of those too, since statistics says it is a good idea
So I’d ask the reverse question: if the risk reduction is scientifically demonstrated and quite clear, what responsibility do public officials have towards enforcing the safety of others? When should we let them take that right, and when should we refuse them that power? I won’t claim to know this answer either!
So I’d ask the reverse question: if the risk reduction is scientifically demonstrated and quite clear, what responsibility do public officials have towards enforcing the safety of others? When should we let them take that right, and when should we refuse them that power? I won’t claim to know this answer either!
Agreed, but how do we help people understand that ‘not make them run that risk again’ is currently demonstrated to mean getting vaccinated, and that living a normal life is repeating the risk of health issues from re-catching COVID? Their heuristic mental model seem to be getting tricked, by the magnitudes of the numbers involved, into swapping those.
Is there any science to back up anything you're saying?
Bonus points: Studies not funded by pharmaceutical companies.
Bonus points: Studies not funded by pharmaceutical companies.
I shared it elsewhere. Yes - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
There is also this here in the US, acknowledging "Kentucky’s local health departments, disease investigators, and regional epidemiologists; Kentucky Department for Public Health immunization and data team members; Suzanne Beavers, CDC" - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
There is also this here in the US, acknowledging "Kentucky’s local health departments, disease investigators, and regional epidemiologists; Kentucky Department for Public Health immunization and data team members; Suzanne Beavers, CDC" - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
A study in Israel shows the opposite of your link [3]:
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
Based on the information in your link, it's a absolutely tiny sample in a very small specific conservative community. I'm really skeptical that they controlled for the unvaccinated cohort that caught covid twice hanging out in anti-vaxxer communities where covid infection was high. The CDC should be embarrassed about using this as evidence.
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
Based on the information in your link, it's a absolutely tiny sample in a very small specific conservative community. I'm really skeptical that they controlled for the unvaccinated cohort that caught covid twice hanging out in anti-vaxxer communities where covid infection was high. The CDC should be embarrassed about using this as evidence.
That oft-cited paper out of Israel isn't yet published, and seems to have some issues on (informal) review: https://twitter.com/DGBassani/status/1431390188924768269
Or from the article you just linked:
> As for the Israel medical records study, Topol and others point out several limitations, such as the inherent weakness of a retrospective analysis compared with a prospective study that regularly tests all participants as it tracks new infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths going forward in time. “It will be important to see these findings replicated or refuted,” says Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University.
She adds: “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.
Or from the article you just linked:
> As for the Israel medical records study, Topol and others point out several limitations, such as the inherent weakness of a retrospective analysis compared with a prospective study that regularly tests all participants as it tracks new infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths going forward in time. “It will be important to see these findings replicated or refuted,” says Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University.
She adds: “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.
OP was not advocating for purposefully GETTING infected. They were advocating on behalf of those who had already GOT infected (past tense).
There are multiple studies that show previously infected are well protected, and Israel shows 13x better than Pfizer’s
There are multiple studies that show previously infected are well protected, and Israel shows 13x better than Pfizer’s
> I haven't seen any science at all that indicates vaccines are better than natural immunity.
That statement has multiple issues. What does "better" mean? Where did you look? How do you define immunity (risk, falloff time, etc.). There's a new paper every week comparing how the vaccination and infection responses are different. Generalising to one-dimensional "better" is not going to happen in serious publications.
We're still at the level of (for example) "Therefore, antibody immunity acquired by natural infection or different modes of vaccination may have a differing susceptibility to erosion by SARS-CoV-2 evolution." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
There's certainly a lot of research around different responses and they're a single pubmed query away. "But beware saying that outloud" is just FUD.
That statement has multiple issues. What does "better" mean? Where did you look? How do you define immunity (risk, falloff time, etc.). There's a new paper every week comparing how the vaccination and infection responses are different. Generalising to one-dimensional "better" is not going to happen in serious publications.
We're still at the level of (for example) "Therefore, antibody immunity acquired by natural infection or different modes of vaccination may have a differing susceptibility to erosion by SARS-CoV-2 evolution." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
There's certainly a lot of research around different responses and they're a single pubmed query away. "But beware saying that outloud" is just FUD.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
The study you cite has some major issues. First, it's a proposed benefit based on a hypothetical mechanism, and not empirical data. Second, it does not indicate the likelihood of mutations that would be better treated by the vaccine. Third, it does not indicate how much more effective it would be, just that it's "possible".
Please stick to the topic and facts rather than being sneeringly dismissive. I'm not part of some bloc of anti-vaxxers, and open to changing my mind based on new information. In fact I've had covid AND I'm vaccinated, so the intent of my post is to spark discussion and get more data. Dismissing my post as FUD is ad hominem.
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
The study you cite has some major issues. First, it's a proposed benefit based on a hypothetical mechanism, and not empirical data. Second, it does not indicate the likelihood of mutations that would be better treated by the vaccine. Third, it does not indicate how much more effective it would be, just that it's "possible".
Please stick to the topic and facts rather than being sneeringly dismissive. I'm not part of some bloc of anti-vaxxers, and open to changing my mind based on new information. In fact I've had covid AND I'm vaccinated, so the intent of my post is to spark discussion and get more data. Dismissing my post as FUD is ad hominem.
The paper was selected at random, it's not really relevant here, so I haven't read it. The point was that it's an example of levels of comparisons we see studied.
It can't be an ad hominem since I never said anything about you. Your post was FUD because you stated it very loosely and asked for hard data to refute it. You're quite likely right on infection providing better protection, but we neither have a hard confirmation of that (or you'd link it, right?) nor did you provide any support for "But beware saying that outloud." Not only there's ongoing research on differences (as we both provided), many people do say that outloud.
It can't be an ad hominem since I never said anything about you. Your post was FUD because you stated it very loosely and asked for hard data to refute it. You're quite likely right on infection providing better protection, but we neither have a hard confirmation of that (or you'd link it, right?) nor did you provide any support for "But beware saying that outloud." Not only there's ongoing research on differences (as we both provided), many people do say that outloud.
In case you weren't aware, the origin of the term FUD is from Slashdot and stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", usually in opposition to facts and indicating an agenda by the commenter. Sounds like an attack on my character rather than the argument itself, which is indeed Ad Hominem. And there was nothing indicating unfounded fear, uncertainty, or doubt in my comments. When probed for sources, I provided them, reputable ones at that.
When I say "beware saying that outloud", it's a pointer to the nature of discussion on covid, which should be obvious to anyone paying attention - and that is that if you counter a prevailing or official narrative, you will be belittled and brushed aside, often without any conclusive data to back it up. The irony is thick.
When I say "beware saying that outloud", it's a pointer to the nature of discussion on covid, which should be obvious to anyone paying attention - and that is that if you counter a prevailing or official narrative, you will be belittled and brushed aside, often without any conclusive data to back it up. The irony is thick.
One completely unrelated reason is that if you start telling people that they don't need to get vaccinated if they had covid... suddenly everyone who has a cough thinks they don't need to get vaccinated. Then all the anti-vaxxers will just say they had covid...
You saw a lot of this at the beginning of covid... lots of people saying "well I had a bad cough for a little while... maybe I already had it"
You could maybe specify that people who have had covid need a positive test to skirt any vaccine mandates... but any sort added complexity at this scale is going to create a bunch of additional nonsense. People aren't even capable of understanding how to wear masks correctly.
So just get the vaccine so we can all get on with our stupid lives. I get vaccines all the time, this one is free, and in the grand scheme of things if you're right... this is fairly minor when it comes to pharma grifts.
Not getting vaccinated because you don't want to support the pharma industry is like driving your car on the sidewalk because you don't want to support the department of transportation. You're not making a point to anyone, and you're putting a bunch of strangers at risk to do it.
You saw a lot of this at the beginning of covid... lots of people saying "well I had a bad cough for a little while... maybe I already had it"
You could maybe specify that people who have had covid need a positive test to skirt any vaccine mandates... but any sort added complexity at this scale is going to create a bunch of additional nonsense. People aren't even capable of understanding how to wear masks correctly.
So just get the vaccine so we can all get on with our stupid lives. I get vaccines all the time, this one is free, and in the grand scheme of things if you're right... this is fairly minor when it comes to pharma grifts.
Not getting vaccinated because you don't want to support the pharma industry is like driving your car on the sidewalk because you don't want to support the department of transportation. You're not making a point to anyone, and you're putting a bunch of strangers at risk to do it.
You are suggesting we mislead people to get them to be vaccinated because they are too dumb to understand. The whole point of this post and comment thread is that it doesn't work.
No, I'm not suggesting misleading anyone. I'm suggesting that a simpler system is easier to understand and leaves fewer ambiguities for compliance and enforcement... especially at national and international scale, where you are dealing with a significant number of very dumb people.
You can tell people that if they had covid they're at less risk because they've built up a resistance, but you can also tell them everyone is required to get the vaccine anyway.
You can tell people that if they had covid they're at less risk because they've built up a resistance, but you can also tell them everyone is required to get the vaccine anyway.
> suddenly everyone who has a cough thinks they don't need to get vaccinated.
But we can do testing.
For the record:
> Earlier estimates that 80% of infections are asymptomatic were too high and have since been revised down to between 17% and 20% of people with infections.[1]
> It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use.678 As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.[1]
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851
But we can do testing.
For the record:
> Earlier estimates that 80% of infections are asymptomatic were too high and have since been revised down to between 17% and 20% of people with infections.[1]
> It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use.678 As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.[1]
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851
Testing is less reliable than a shot in the arm, there's literally no reason for the additional complication. Get the shot.
Getting the shot is not reliable at all either. How would we know without testing anyway? As I said in another comment: nursing students got the hepatitis B vaccine, and it turns out they were still not immune after the 2nd shot. How do we know how many people are actually immune without testing? Having vaccinated is not exactly a certainty of anything.
I regularly run into people who claim they had Covid back in fall 2019, and it's vastly more likely that they had the flu.
And not getting vaccinated because you don't want to support the pharma industry misses that they get $20 per shot for the vaccine, but will get thousands per dose of the expensive meds you'll need if you wind up in the ICU.
And not getting vaccinated because you don't want to support the pharma industry misses that they get $20 per shot for the vaccine, but will get thousands per dose of the expensive meds you'll need if you wind up in the ICU.
> they get $20 per shot for the vaccine
Strengthening your argument further, the pharma industry already got $20 per shot for the vaccine.
The government signed a contract for the shots, so if you're letting them go to waste, you're just wasting your tax dollars which went to pharma companies anyways.
Strengthening your argument further, the pharma industry already got $20 per shot for the vaccine.
The government signed a contract for the shots, so if you're letting them go to waste, you're just wasting your tax dollars which went to pharma companies anyways.
Part of me wonders if anyone has run these numbers at big pharma. I would guess that at some point in July, unvaccinated people became the bigger cash cow, since not only did they have to discard that vaccine that Trump had already brought for them and been produced, we have perhaps gone past the point of having done that a second time with the dose that Biden bought and was produced for them. This comes as the percentage of doses in arms drops. And they are also much more likely to end up in the hospital and buying yet even more expensive experimental treatments such as this one. </rant> Sigh.
Moderna, I think, is the only company that gets a large chunk of its income from vaccines. Pfizer has far more lucrative drugs that provide most of their income: they've made tens of billions from Viagra alone.
Natural immunity for those who produce antibodies (I think I saw around 30% don't) probably -is- better than the vaccine, in terms of efficacy in preventing COVID again.
However, this is a false dichotomy. First, because the same studies that show this ALSO show that getting vaccinated on top of natural immunity is better still ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... ), second because natural immunity prior to the vaccine implies getting COVID and the extremely high risk of complications (from hospitalization, to long COVID symptoms, to death), and third, because there isn't any data around what happens if you get vaccinated first, then get COVID (i.e., is the combination of natural response + vaccine the same if the order is reversed).
There is no situation where getting vaccinated does not help reduce the likelihood of catching COVID, or suffering serious symptoms.
However, this is a false dichotomy. First, because the same studies that show this ALSO show that getting vaccinated on top of natural immunity is better still ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... ), second because natural immunity prior to the vaccine implies getting COVID and the extremely high risk of complications (from hospitalization, to long COVID symptoms, to death), and third, because there isn't any data around what happens if you get vaccinated first, then get COVID (i.e., is the combination of natural response + vaccine the same if the order is reversed).
There is no situation where getting vaccinated does not help reduce the likelihood of catching COVID, or suffering serious symptoms.
> better still
Not clear why this is an argument for vaccine mandates when natural immunity is already better than the vaccine alone, and puts individuals in the same or better place as the vaccine.
> second because natural immunity prior to the vaccine implies getting COVID and the extremy high risk of complications
What does this have to do with people who already had covid?
> there isn't any data around what happens if you get vaccinated first, then get COVID
Once again what does this have to do with people who already had covid?
> There is no situation where getting vaccinated does not help reduce the likelihood of catching COVID, or suffering serious symptoms.
If you are already in a state where you are at least as protected as vaccinated people, how is this an argument for mandate for those with natural immunity?
You won't be able to find any data comparing mandates for those who have had COVID vs no mandate having any real effect on the general population because those who have already had it are very well protected.
You can have had the j&j vaccine and be way less protected than natural immunity, and be considered compliant. This is absolutely inconsistent.
Not clear why this is an argument for vaccine mandates when natural immunity is already better than the vaccine alone, and puts individuals in the same or better place as the vaccine.
> second because natural immunity prior to the vaccine implies getting COVID and the extremy high risk of complications
What does this have to do with people who already had covid?
> there isn't any data around what happens if you get vaccinated first, then get COVID
Once again what does this have to do with people who already had covid?
> There is no situation where getting vaccinated does not help reduce the likelihood of catching COVID, or suffering serious symptoms.
If you are already in a state where you are at least as protected as vaccinated people, how is this an argument for mandate for those with natural immunity?
You won't be able to find any data comparing mandates for those who have had COVID vs no mandate having any real effect on the general population because those who have already had it are very well protected.
You can have had the j&j vaccine and be way less protected than natural immunity, and be considered compliant. This is absolutely inconsistent.
Except one can't reasonably opt in to "natural immunity".
Pretty major distinction.
It is absurd to suggest that someone deliberately getting covid is a safer way to get immunity.
Pretty major distinction.
It is absurd to suggest that someone deliberately getting covid is a safer way to get immunity.
It is absurd because I didnt say anything about deliberately getting covid.
I really don’t think it’s economic interests, it’s politicizing and moralizing science by people who don’t know enough.
The issue is that natural immunity is highly variable, while vaccine derived immunity is much less so. Some recovered patients have antibody levels 1000x lower than others.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/antibody-testing-sug...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/antibody-testing-sug...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
We will never know without an antibody testing. It can be under acceptable levels after having been vaccinated, too.
We have done such studies before with regarding to the hepatitis B vaccine. Most nursing students had no immunity against it after having received two doses of the vaccine.
I think antibody levels should be tied to the mandates. For what it is worth, I am against such mandates.
We have done such studies before with regarding to the hepatitis B vaccine. Most nursing students had no immunity against it after having received two doses of the vaccine.
I think antibody levels should be tied to the mandates. For what it is worth, I am against such mandates.
There's more to immunity than antibodies.
The body doesn’t keep antibodies around months after an infection but it knows how to create the antibodies if reinfection does happen. So of course a freshly vaccinated person will have more antibodies than a person who was infected months ago but that doesn’t mean the vaccine is more effective.
And how do you suppose we figure out who has natural immunity and thus doesn’t have to get vaccinated? Do we trust people to tell us (if they even know for sure that the fever/cough they had a year ago was covid)? That won’t work, I know people who have forged vaccine cards because a talk radio host told them the vaccine will make them sterile or whatever. Only sure fire way would be to first test for antibodies, which requires an additional appointment and test result, followed by the vaccine anyway, if it comes back negative. So that would likely be even more profitable for the drug/health companies.
A record of positive infection. I'm in LA county and they keep a database.
How do you make sure people aren't faking vaccination status, as you say? A positive PCR test on public record is in fact more trustworthy.
How do you make sure people aren't faking vaccination status, as you say? A positive PCR test on public record is in fact more trustworthy.
> A record of positive infection.
The tests used in most places have significant false positives/negatives on a population level. You may think you were infected when you weren't. With vaccination you know whether you were vaccinated.
The tests used in most places have significant false positives/negatives on a population level. You may think you were infected when you weren't. With vaccination you know whether you were vaccinated.
Except you don't, because lots of people are faking vaccination status. In fact it's probably less reliable than a positive PCR test. It's extremely common to fake vaccination cards among the anti-vaxx community.
_You_ know whether you've been vaccinated even if you're lying to others about it. Are you presuming now that antivaxxers are convincing themselves they've been vaccinated? I guess it's vaguely plausible.
No I'm suggesting that there shouldn't be a mandate for those who can reliably prove they have had covid.
That works in places that kept good records, but I have to imagine the vast majority of counties don't have those records. Plus I'm sure many people got infected and stayed home with mild/moderate cases and never got tested (because they knew they had it and/or didn't want to risk spreading to others), so there would be no record for them anyway. Or their cases were so early on in the pandemic that there were no tests available or the ones that were available were very unreliable (I remember the early ones only had ~50% accuracy)
My family had Covid in January 2020. All of the now known symptoms but there were no tests available yet. Our doctor later confirmed it based on symptoms a couple of months later but we were not eligible for tests then. A year and a half later we would certainly have B-cells but antibodies would likely have faded. So what do people in that situation do?
Given that there's significant overlap between COVID symptoms and those of other common winter diseases, you really can't "confirm based on symptoms".
(My son had a bout of severe pneumonia around the same time. We wondered, too. Not COVID, it turns out.)
Therein lies a significant problem with "I don't need the vaccine, I have natural immunity!"
(My son had a bout of severe pneumonia around the same time. We wondered, too. Not COVID, it turns out.)
Therein lies a significant problem with "I don't need the vaccine, I have natural immunity!"
T-detect can apparently read your t-cells, so it would be good for a while I would say.
Get vaccinated. This isn't a political two-sided issue.
Easy, don't excuse people who don't have a verifiable record or from a test with a known high false positive rate. What's so hard about that? Airlines have figured it out, limiting which tests you can use. Why can't public health officials?
You're in LA County, so you should be aware of https://myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov/
That's just as trustworthy. Probably more since what it asserts is less variable than how long you maintain antibodies.
That's just as trustworthy. Probably more since what it asserts is less variable than how long you maintain antibodies.
No, you can't prove a negative. People can fake vaccine status from other locations. You can't fake a PCR test result in a public DB.
...what are you even talking about with "you can't prove a negative?"
The link I provided "is an electronic vaccination record drawn from the data stored in the California immunization registry."
It doesn't accept user submissions; it only accepts data from recognized health organizations. The website allows you to put in your name and birthdate and get a QR code that can be scanned and will take you back to the website, showing dates you were vaccinated. It requires someone confirming that the QR code is directing them to the correct website, and confirm name and birthdate, but that's far more available to actually check than a PCR test.
Meaning no need to rely on easily faked vaccination cards; you instead ask for a QR code, scan it, and confirm it took you to the government site, with a name and birthdate that matches some government issued picture ID. Still 'beatable', if you have good fake ID for a person who has been vaccinated, but just as good in 'security' as relying on a PCR test (since it's still ultimately pulling from a publicly readable, only privately writeable DB), and probably a better assertion than "PCR test", since it can work for everyone, and tells you the date of vaccination (whereas date of antibodies being detected doesn't tell you anything about whether they still have natural immunity now).
The link I provided "is an electronic vaccination record drawn from the data stored in the California immunization registry."
It doesn't accept user submissions; it only accepts data from recognized health organizations. The website allows you to put in your name and birthdate and get a QR code that can be scanned and will take you back to the website, showing dates you were vaccinated. It requires someone confirming that the QR code is directing them to the correct website, and confirm name and birthdate, but that's far more available to actually check than a PCR test.
Meaning no need to rely on easily faked vaccination cards; you instead ask for a QR code, scan it, and confirm it took you to the government site, with a name and birthdate that matches some government issued picture ID. Still 'beatable', if you have good fake ID for a person who has been vaccinated, but just as good in 'security' as relying on a PCR test (since it's still ultimately pulling from a publicly readable, only privately writeable DB), and probably a better assertion than "PCR test", since it can work for everyone, and tells you the date of vaccination (whereas date of antibodies being detected doesn't tell you anything about whether they still have natural immunity now).
What I mean is that unless you only accept vaccination status if it's in a public database, any one can fake being vaccinated. Many if not most jurisdictions do not record it, and a piece of paper is all you need. And you can't force people to get it again if it's not on record, because the vaccines aren't approved for arbitrary numbers of shots. The anti-vaxx community is rife with fake covid vaccine cards.
So, you can't prove a negative, that being that someone has not been vaccinated. But you can prove that you had covid.
So, you can't prove a negative, that being that someone has not been vaccinated. But you can prove that you had covid.
You can prove that you were vaccinated in CA. I've already been in venues that required that if you had a CA driver's license (and required government issued photo ID).
But CA is not the entire world. What do you do with people who got vaccinated elsewhere? What about CA residents that claim they got vaccinated elsewhere? You can't do anything about that. It's a huge gaping hole in the logic.
Cheapest way is to donate blood/plasma via the Red Cross.
You do the society a favor, and the app they provide lets you know if you continue to have covid19 antibodies.
You do the society a favor, and the app they provide lets you know if you continue to have covid19 antibodies.
So that nobody gets angry, be aware that they've stopped doing this test quite recently. Still good to do: I’ve now done it several times this year, and my first time was selfishly motivated in part by the free antibody test. You could even be doing yourself or a friend a favor, you never know!
In principle, one could get a rapid antibody test and, if negative, get a vaccine a few minutes later.
For vaccines for which the vaccine has few side effects, this is, AFAICT, not usually considered worthwhile — providers seem to prefer giving an extra MMR dose to people with unknown vaccination status for example. For COVID, at least with current vaccines, maybe it would make sense.
(ISTM, based on available data, people who have had COVID ought not to be required to get two doses, but one might be reasonable from a public health perspective.)
For vaccines for which the vaccine has few side effects, this is, AFAICT, not usually considered worthwhile — providers seem to prefer giving an extra MMR dose to people with unknown vaccination status for example. For COVID, at least with current vaccines, maybe it would make sense.
(ISTM, based on available data, people who have had COVID ought not to be required to get two doses, but one might be reasonable from a public health perspective.)
That would create a perverse incentive to get infected to avoid the vaccine. The whole reason we want people to get vaccinated is to reduce the burden that infections cause on our health care system.
Oh, no! Not a perverse incentive!!?
To avoid that, we should definitely sweep basic immunology under the rug and lump all those who've caught and recovered from covid in with the other unvaccinated underclass. They should've thought twice about the ramifications of their actions before deciding catch and recover from covid.
Thank god for these mandates. I can't image how society would function, if at all, if a perverse incentive were to exist. People would want to get sick. COVID parties. It'd be like the days before the vaccines when..
when...
...
I forgot my point. Lock them all up.
To avoid that, we should definitely sweep basic immunology under the rug and lump all those who've caught and recovered from covid in with the other unvaccinated underclass. They should've thought twice about the ramifications of their actions before deciding catch and recover from covid.
Thank god for these mandates. I can't image how society would function, if at all, if a perverse incentive were to exist. People would want to get sick. COVID parties. It'd be like the days before the vaccines when..
when...
...
I forgot my point. Lock them all up.
And there are, according to the CDC over 160 _million_ of such people in the US: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
Under the "man dates" all 160M are considered "unvaccinated", even though "science" shows their immunity is longer lasting than that derived from the vaccine, and a lot of them are currently being thrown out of their jobs.
Under the "man dates" all 160M are considered "unvaccinated", even though "science" shows their immunity is longer lasting than that derived from the vaccine, and a lot of them are currently being thrown out of their jobs.
> And there are, according to the CDC over 160 _million_ of such people in the US
Your link says 120M. Not a big deal, but odd since you linked right to it.
> Under the "man dates" all 160M are considered "unvaccinated",
What? No, only the unvaccinated ones are considered unvaccinated. Are you suggesting that everyone who has been infected is unvaccinated?
> a lot of them are currently being thrown out of their jobs.
Actually, it looks like it's very few. [1][2]
1. Lots Of People Say They'll Quit Over Vaccine Mandates, But Research Shows Few Do. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041500566/vaccine-mandate-qu...
2. Only a fraction of U.S. health care workers are risking their jobs over vaccinations. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/science/covid-us-health-w...
Your link says 120M. Not a big deal, but odd since you linked right to it.
> Under the "man dates" all 160M are considered "unvaccinated",
What? No, only the unvaccinated ones are considered unvaccinated. Are you suggesting that everyone who has been infected is unvaccinated?
> a lot of them are currently being thrown out of their jobs.
Actually, it looks like it's very few. [1][2]
1. Lots Of People Say They'll Quit Over Vaccine Mandates, But Research Shows Few Do. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041500566/vaccine-mandate-qu...
2. Only a fraction of U.S. health care workers are risking their jobs over vaccinations. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/science/covid-us-health-w...
NPR and NY Times [1] are not valid sources of news. They have discredited themselves again and again. As of yesterday they were pushing the narrative that Southwest Airlines is affected by "weather" that no other airline seems to be affected by, for example, while pilots on the ground are flying Gadston flags out of their cockpits and Southwest CEO was backpedaling and saying he's not a fan of "man dates".
CDC says "1 in 4.2 (95% UI* 3.6 – 4.9) COVID–19 infections were reported". Your friendly coronavirus tracker says there were 45,431,167 confirmed cases in the United States. Simple arithmetic shows that there were, therefore, 45,431,167 * 4.2 = 190,810,901 total cases. 120M figure was computed months ago, when there were fewer confirmed cases, but the ratio still holds. Most people had it already. Moreover a lot of people had it _and_ had the vaccine as well. Kids and anyone healthy under 30 aren't at risk. Let's end this charade.
Lest you think I'm an anti-vaxxer, no - I think people 40 years old and older should definitely get vaccinated and I'm vaccinated myself (I have comorbidities). But I also think this must be strictly personal choice, and you _can't_ collect enough safety data over just 9 months, especially if you vaccinate your control groups.
[1] Just a few days ago: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10076925/NYT-report...
CDC says "1 in 4.2 (95% UI* 3.6 – 4.9) COVID–19 infections were reported". Your friendly coronavirus tracker says there were 45,431,167 confirmed cases in the United States. Simple arithmetic shows that there were, therefore, 45,431,167 * 4.2 = 190,810,901 total cases. 120M figure was computed months ago, when there were fewer confirmed cases, but the ratio still holds. Most people had it already. Moreover a lot of people had it _and_ had the vaccine as well. Kids and anyone healthy under 30 aren't at risk. Let's end this charade.
Lest you think I'm an anti-vaxxer, no - I think people 40 years old and older should definitely get vaccinated and I'm vaccinated myself (I have comorbidities). But I also think this must be strictly personal choice, and you _can't_ collect enough safety data over just 9 months, especially if you vaccinate your control groups.
[1] Just a few days ago: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10076925/NYT-report...
Then they’d need to prove that they were actually infected with covid and recovered. Most European countries have a “recovered” classification of their green pass — it’s not only for those vaccinated. However, it’s probably much easier and quicker simply to get vaccinated than to show evidence you were infected with covid in the past, especially after antibodies have waned.
They don't need to "prove" shit. If you're vaccinated, you're not in danger of dying. Moreover, you will get COVID anyway eventually, with or without the vaccine. It's endemic, and it'll be with us forever.
Exactly. Or... what about people who cannot get the vaccine for health reasons? Any news on that?
Some people who lack a driver license know how to drive and are quite capable of driving safely. A few of those, I'm almost certain, drive better than most people with a license.
When you need a ride home from the airport, do you want a licensed driver, or an unlicensed one?
When you need a ride home from the airport, do you want a licensed driver, or an unlicensed one?
It's a bad analogy. The current situation is akin to requiring that the _rider_ is a licensed driver or car will drive into a tree somehow.
I guess you'd take the unlicensed driver, then? Or maybe just ask if they're a good driver? The bureaucracy measures what it measures; if it was useless, you'd ignore it. It isn't perfect (it never is), but it's a simple measure.
What exactly is the reason for the COVID-19 passes?
To reduce the spread in communities.
Can you provide links to studies concluding that the vaccines make the vaccinated significantly reduce transmission as opposed to the non-vaccinated?
Plus, I would like to know if asymptomatic vaccinated do indeed have reduced spread as opposed to asymptomatic non-vaccinated.
Or to put it simply: can you give me studies supporting the claim that vaccinated people are less likely to spread COVID-19, whether asymptomatic or symptomatic vs. non-vaccinated?
---
By the way, does possessing the COVID-19 pass automatically imply that you are less likely to transmit?
Plus, I would like to know if asymptomatic vaccinated do indeed have reduced spread as opposed to asymptomatic non-vaccinated.
Or to put it simply: can you give me studies supporting the claim that vaccinated people are less likely to spread COVID-19, whether asymptomatic or symptomatic vs. non-vaccinated?
---
By the way, does possessing the COVID-19 pass automatically imply that you are less likely to transmit?
That's not a given. How strong an immunity you develop from getting a disease varies widely depending on how your case plays out.
Here's an article I just came across today on this [1]. It is originally from the NYT, but I saw it reprinted in the Seattle Times so that's where I'm linking (and I think their paywall is more lenient).
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/if-youve-already-h...
Here's an article I just came across today on this [1]. It is originally from the NYT, but I saw it reprinted in the Seattle Times so that's where I'm linking (and I think their paywall is more lenient).
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/if-youve-already-h...
Arstechnica did a rather great writeup of this, no paywall - https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
> The researchers next looked at a different group of 47 people who had gone a year since a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of those 47, 26 were still unvaccinated and 21 had received one dose of a vaccine. At that point, the unvaccinated 26 had extremely low levels of neutralizing antibodies against any SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly delta. Many people had no detectable levels of neutralizing antibody against delta. The vaccinated group, meanwhile, had high levels of neutralizing antibody similar to or above the levels seen in people who were fully vaccinated.
This is entirely normal. The immune system doesn't keep elevated neutralizing antibody levels forever, that is too expensive. The immune system relies on B cells to kickstart neutralizing antibody production if the need arises. How those people would react to a further infection event would be extremely interesting. Do they produce antibodies? How fast? But the researchers didn't look into that.
The linked article is overselling vaccine effectiveness and underplays natural immunity. This is borderline misinformation.
https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/learn-immuno-onco...
This is entirely normal. The immune system doesn't keep elevated neutralizing antibody levels forever, that is too expensive. The immune system relies on B cells to kickstart neutralizing antibody production if the need arises. How those people would react to a further infection event would be extremely interesting. Do they produce antibodies? How fast? But the researchers didn't look into that.
The linked article is overselling vaccine effectiveness and underplays natural immunity. This is borderline misinformation.
https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/learn-immuno-onco...
Why "borderline"? It _is_ misinformation written specifically to advance a narrative.
We will soon need new words for different flavors of misinformation, because the business model for generation of new flavors is proving extremely profitable, far beyond the dynamics of Soviet propaganda that only had a mere dysfunctional state as sponsor. PR agencies can (have already?) incorporate machine learning for real-time message adjustment based on social media tests and sentiment signals. Thanks Smith-Mundt Act! https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-the-vaccine-neurot...
> As a student in the Soviet Union I noticed subscribers to what Russians called the sovok mindset talked in interminable strings of pogovorki, i.e goofball proverbs or aphorisms you’d heard a million times before (“He who takes no risk, drinks no champagne,” or “Work isn’t a wolf, it won’t run off into the woods,” etc). This was a learned defense mechanism, adopted by a people who’d found out the hard way that anyone caught not speaking nonstop nonsense could be suspected of harboring original thoughts. Voluble stupidity is a great disguise in a society where silence is suspect.
> As a student in the Soviet Union I noticed subscribers to what Russians called the sovok mindset talked in interminable strings of pogovorki, i.e goofball proverbs or aphorisms you’d heard a million times before (“He who takes no risk, drinks no champagne,” or “Work isn’t a wolf, it won’t run off into the woods,” etc). This was a learned defense mechanism, adopted by a people who’d found out the hard way that anyone caught not speaking nonstop nonsense could be suspected of harboring original thoughts. Voluble stupidity is a great disguise in a society where silence is suspect.
Never thought of it this way TBH. Proverbs are common in Russia, so it might have been Taibbi's cultural misunderstanding. He's usually pretty astute about things, and he has lived in Russia for a while (and at an interesting time, no less), so he knows the mores and you can trust most of his observations, just not this one.
That said, I can confirm that even in USSR people did very much harbor original thoughts even though quite obviously there was no free press and one could pay dearly for speaking their mind. You just had to be sure that you know everyone you're speaking to really, really well. The KGB had lots of "secret collaborators" embedded within the populace (much like the FBI in the US today), so if you're not careful with your jokes or thoughts, you could easily get 5 years in the labor camp. I predict that the United States will be like that within 10 years or less.
There's even a Soviet joke about this: a judge is heard laughing when exiting the court, and a friend of his asks "why are you laughing?", "The guy on trial told a really funny joke.", "Could you tell it to me?", "No, I can't, I just gave him 5 years in the labor camp for it."
That said, I can confirm that even in USSR people did very much harbor original thoughts even though quite obviously there was no free press and one could pay dearly for speaking their mind. You just had to be sure that you know everyone you're speaking to really, really well. The KGB had lots of "secret collaborators" embedded within the populace (much like the FBI in the US today), so if you're not careful with your jokes or thoughts, you could easily get 5 years in the labor camp. I predict that the United States will be like that within 10 years or less.
There's even a Soviet joke about this: a judge is heard laughing when exiting the court, and a friend of his asks "why are you laughing?", "The guy on trial told a really funny joke.", "Could you tell it to me?", "No, I can't, I just gave him 5 years in the labor camp for it."
Thanks for sharing your experience. Let's hope the immigrant residents of the USA can help reverse the current trajectory. Those born in America have not seen how the current movie ended elsewhere.
Read "Heart of a Dog" by Bulgakov, or better yet watch the movie. Note that there are several movies under that name, you want the black and white one. The parallels between that and today's United States are plain as a day to see. I'm still stunned that the book got past Soviet government censors somehow. I'm sure US government censors won't make the same mistake when the time comes. It utterly eviscerates wokeness that preceded the Russian revolution of 1917 and intensified after it. Comrade Shvonder in particular is a classical SJW that you could just pluck from there and then and place here and now, and he'd be in his element immediately.
1988 version, directed by Vladimir Bortko?
(Wikipedia lists it as filmed in 'sepia', which could colloquially be called black & white)
(Wikipedia lists it as filmed in 'sepia', which could colloquially be called black & white)
Yes, that one. One of the most thought provoking movies you'll ever watch. I'm not sure how well it translates culturally to someone who never lived under an authoritarian communist regime, but it's a masterpiece even if just half the meaning gets through. Basically all works of Bulgakov are wonderful and worth reading.
To reduce the temperature on HN :) Technically the article is correct, alas it reads as a half-truth. Mark Twain had some words for half-truths, but those words won't advance a level-headed conversation.
How would it be different from the monoclonal antibody treatments already available?
Better cross variant effectiveness, longer lived in blood.
I thought "potent" was a term referring to the strength of a particular composition of a particular drug. I thought "powerful" was the term that you could use to compare one drug to another, irrespective of dose.
Have I got it back-to-front?
Have I got it back-to-front?
They're pretty close. If you're a descriptivist, then they're both interchangeable in practice.
I'm not a descriptivist! I think that everyone should speak English the way I speak it! (I'm right, and everybody else is wrong)
It's awful, being a prescriptivist. Everything you read howls at you "Ignoramus journalist!", and everyone you meet seems to be foreign. Every dictionary seems to have been compiled by an "algorithm", based on some irrelevant corpus; and the meanings of words I thought I knew keep shifting. I guess defending Norlins against a hurricane tidal surge must have felt a bit like this.
Maybe I should just chill a bit more.
It's awful, being a prescriptivist. Everything you read howls at you "Ignoramus journalist!", and everyone you meet seems to be foreign. Every dictionary seems to have been compiled by an "algorithm", based on some irrelevant corpus; and the meanings of words I thought I knew keep shifting. I guess defending Norlins against a hurricane tidal surge must have felt a bit like this.
Maybe I should just chill a bit more.
It is awful, you're rarely right as a prescriptivist because descriptivists decide what "right" is :)
I don’t think either word has a particularly strong definition behind it in this context. Happens a lot in science, some words have very strong very specific meanings in scientific contexts… others not much at all.
404?
@dang: this should be the proper URL: https://actu.epfl.ch/news/scientists-discover-a-highly-poten...
Thanks
Oops! Yep, looks like I mis-entered the URL and can't seem to edit. =/
No, you entered it fine, but our software has recently begun rewriting URLs to the canonical URL if the page has one, and this page has
//actu.epfl.ch/news/scientists-discover-a-highly-potent-antibody-again/
That's a valid URL, AFAICT.
https://www.paulirish.com/2010/the-protocol-relative-url/
https://www.paulirish.com/2010/the-protocol-relative-url/
As the other comment says, it's a valid URL but to really rub it in, the canonical link RFC (6596) says it's valid and then also uses a relative URL in an example like they were just waiting for someone to be wrong about this on the internet.
[deleted]
Honestly surprising why so few people know about the antibody therapy we already have, reduces death by 80 to 90 %. Also unclear why we still need vaccine mandates when we have a cure.
https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/monoclonal-antibody-therapy...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/covid-monoclonal-abbot...