“Keep The Faith”

at | 25 Replies

This morning.

Today with Claire Byrne
on RTÉ Radio One.

Giddy with power.

More restrictions may be needed before Christmas – Tánaiste (RTÉ)

Meanwhile…

Ratlicker!

Earlier: Mask Them

Sponsored Link

25 thoughts on ““Keep The Faith”

  1. spud

    https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/1125/1263032-coronavirus-vaccine/

    from the article:
    Compared with the first 90 days after a second dose, the risk of infection across all age groups was 2.37-fold higher after 90-119 days; 2.66-fold higher after 120-149 days; 2.82-fold higher after 150-179 days; and 2.82-fold higher after 180 days or more.

    Now, I was led to believe the vaccine didn’t stop transmission (‘risk of infection’) but just reduced risk of serious illness / hospitalisations.
    Or is this supposed to be ‘risk of infection to require hospitalisation’?

    Which the hell is it???

    I know it’s still early days on the research, but the comms to the general public has been awful of late. So many mixed messages.

    Reply
    1. alickdouglas

      The research referred to is only about whether or not people were positive under PCR, it takes no account of clinical symptoms. It appears to be a thorough enough analysis, but it is looking at a pretty niche topic. As you say, the vaccines acknowledged strength is in preventing clinical symptoms/hospitalisation, and the relationship between PCR status and symptoms/hospitalisation is unclear.

      Perhaps the more interesting finding from the study is that the further one gets from dose 2, the bigger the risk of becoming PCR+. This implies that the mRNA vaccines do induce a sterilising immune effect at least for some months. Suggests that high levels of serum IgA can prevent infection.

      There’s a decent enough review of the possible confounders in the BMJ paper: for example they accounted for the dynamics in the infection rate by adding case-controls into the analysis. They acknowledge however that they cannot account for a lot of what they term ‘sociological’ factors, such as what factors cause people to request a PCR test and whether there might be a difference in this behaivour between vaccinees and non-vaccinees

      Reply
      1. SOQ

        Has there been any research done on how fast the vaccines wane alick? I know that the J&J is the worst of them but a ‘booster’ every six months is looking increasingly likely.

        Reply
          1. SOQ

            There is no evidence that the efficacy of CoVid-19 booster shots are going to last any longer than the first two.

            Otherwise why are Israel already preparing for a forth?

          2. alickdouglas

            That’s a totally irrelevant comparison. Firstly, it’s factually incorrect, a 2 dose prime with first shot at 6 weeks and second shot at 14 weeks has been shown many times over to be enough to get kids protected out to 4 years. A 3 shot prime is recommended because a huge proportion of children miss one of the doses, so a 3 shot schedule helps to ensure 2 shots for most. Second not all the components of the 6 in 1 require boosting. The need for multiple doses is largely driven by the acellular pertussis component–which is a relatively poor immunogen–and paranoia relating to Hib: although illness due to hib is overall rare in Europe, outcomes are typically very poor, and there’s an association of better outcome in children who receive more doses. Diphtheria doesn’t particularly need boosting and anyway is boosted on receipt of a tetanus booster which is only available as a combined dT nowadays. IPV, HBV typically don’t need a boost beyond the 2 shot prime.

          3. Chris

            @alick You say they need to be improved? They need to be consigned to the bin.2.8 million adverse reactions and 30000 deaths in the EU, likely to be higher due to under reporting.

            Hubris to imagine a coronavirus can even be vaccinated against, as is evident with these ‘treatments’. If we weren’t in a position of total regulatory capture, they would have never been approved in the first place.

        1. alickdouglas

          Well, the problem with studying the vaccine ‘in the real world’ is finding vaccinees and non-vaccinees who are comparable. The reason that so many studies are emerging from Israel is that basically everyone who is vaccinated got Pfizer, so it’s a very homogenous population that lends itself to studying the impact of the Pfizer vaccine. If you compare that to the UK, you have a population that got AZ, Moderna and Pfizer, plus 30k Novavax recipents, and many of those got mixed schedules. J&J’s situation is even worse because there are comparatively few people who only got J&J vs. the others, and many of those would subsequently have been boosted with an mRNA. J&J did the right thing from a public health perspective by licensing a single-dose vaccine, but strategically and from a mid to long term comparison perspective it was an unfortunate choice because they now have a poor quality dataset that cannot be compared with mRNA.

          A further complication is that according to the limited dataset out of the Oxford and Spanish research group, mixed schedules that start with an adeno (ChAd) and are boosted with mRNA have a *much* better set of immune markers post dose 2 than homologous schedules, and even worse, mRNA boosted with ChAd gives by far the worst set of immune markers. Finally, almost all of these studies look at serum immune responses as they are the most straightforward to measure. However longer term protection is largely related to cellular responses, and transmission blocking reliant on mucosal responses. Personally I couldn’t care less if my antibodies wane and I become infected, I’m far more concerned about being protected vs. symptoms, and that’s much trickier to quantify (my own view is that J&J has the most potential if administered as a 2 dose schedule).

          Reply
          1. SOQ

            So measuring the impact of waning is messy because there is 3-4 vaccines on the go at once.

            Just one other thing, in my layman terms- and correct me if I am wrong- antibodies attack the virus once it has infected the body but T Cells prevent the infection from occurring in the first place?

            Also, would you agree that post infection immunity is better than vaccine?

          2. alickdouglas

            Yes, the reason that randomized controlled trials are held in such ‘high esteem’ by regulators is because you can keep a close eye on subjects and control for a lot of confounders, in particular natural infection and other vaccines. Running a randomized trial of 30k with close monitoring for the 4 months of active participation and the 1 year call back is already a logistical and financial nightmare. Vanishingly few health systems are capable of providing high enough quality data to provide real world evidence; Israel is one because of the manner in which they have constructed their healthcare database system, and Kaiser Permanente in the US is another. There are some others, but not many.

            Regarding infection, the broad brushstrokes are correct, but there are very important other factors you need to account for. One is that there are a huge range of cells that constitute cellular immunity, CD4 and CD8 are the main ones that we believe are relevant. However serum antibodies are MUCH easier to detect and quantify, indeed it is an enormous pain to correlate protection to measurable numbers of t-cells. Finally, the other factor is ‘mucosal immunity’. Your eyes, nasopharynx, lungs, guts etc. are all capable of producing immune responses that prevent infection. The best characterised case for this is for polio, in brief, the Salk IPV injectable vaccine prevents serious disease but not infection, the Sabin OPV oral vaccine prevents infection. IPV is assumed to do it’s job mainly by eliciting serum antibodies (almost no t-cells) but OPV hardly elicits any serum antibodies, mainly mucosal. Infecting the vaccinee with an attenuated virus often works well for intestinal viruses (OPV, rota), but less well for respiratory (flu). It’s somewhat unclear if this suggests that mucosal immunity is less potent against respiratory viruses or if vaccines to date just haven’t induced the right responses.

          3. alickdouglas

            Oh, I don’t think there’s enough data to say whether post infection immunity is better than vaccine. the fact that you can have multiple bouts of COVID is an indication that natural immunity is also a bit underwhelming. In principle there are a number of vaccines that elicit protection that is better than natural immunity, for example HPV and Shingles. The quality of the immune responses vs Sars-CoV-2 due to mRNA and the adenos is clearly different, but hard to quantify yet if either is ‘better’. That said, all the vaccines that are currently licensed could clearly be improved both from a reacto perspective and a quality of immune response perspective.

          4. f_lawless

            “I don’t think there’s enough data to say whether post infection immunity is better than vaccine”

            How much more data is needed at this stage? This is a useful article which contains a “comprehensive library list of 131 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow(s) you to draw your own conclusion.”

            https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/

            The list was put together by the following doctors:

            Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (Yale School of Public Health)
            Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, PhD ( Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto)
            Dr. Ramin Oskoui, MD (Foxhall Cardiology, Washington)
            Dr. Peter McCullough, MD (Truth for Health Foundation (TFH)), Texas
            Dr. Parvez Dara, MD (consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist)

    1. Janet, dreams of an alternate universe

      The Bible teaches that “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). So faith is being certain about realities we believe are true but we cannot see with our physical eyes. God’s Word also says that “without faith it is impossible to please God…or Leo” (Hebrews 11:6).

      Reply
      1. scottser

        ‘you can fool some people some times
        and while you can’t fool all the people all the time you can certainly evade getting caught out and blame someone else.’
        chancers, 3:12

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie