The Vaccine Discussion Thread

[DMMarla07860]

It's a great question. It means somebody who is fully vaccinated, including waiting the recommended time post vaccination, but who still gets the virus. The odds are very low, and you usually don't get a serious case if you have been vaccinated. The media reports them like the vaccine isn't working, but the numbers are inline with what we would expect, since no vaccine is 100% effective.

thanks for explaining. Honestly they think my one time getting the flu in 2014 was what woke up my lupus, not 100% sure but that's what we think. I say if the vaccine turns out to be line flu vaccine where I might not get in as bad as if not vaccinated then I am happy I didn't start getting the flu vaccine till after I had the flu

 

[soniam]

thanks for explaining. Honestly they think my one time getting the flu in 2014 was what woke up my lupus, not 100% sure but that's what we think. I say if the vaccine turns out to be line flu vaccine where I might not get in as bad as if not vaccinated then I am happy I didn't start getting the flu vaccine till after I had the flu

Autoimmune things are so strange. My mom got bitten by a brown recluse and within 2 weeks developed Rheumatoid Arthritis. They think it was related to the spider bite, because she felt bad for a while after getting bitten. Hope the vaccine or covid doesn't aggravate your condition.

 

[Birdie dog]

To the extent this report is accurate, this is great news for vaccines so far. Note the caveats that the data isn't necessarily fully accurate due to it being reliant on reporting and that it is probably skewed since some percentage (probably very high, in my opinion) of vaccinated individuals haven't actually been exposed to the virus post-vaccination. It is also worth noting, that even in breakthrough cases, the vaccine is likely to protect you from serious disease.

99.992% of fully vaccinated people have dodged COVID, CDC data shows

Cases of COVID-19 are extremely rare among people who are fully vaccinated, according to a new data analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among more than 75 million fully vaccinated people in the US, just around 5,800 people reported a “breakthrough” infection, in which they became infected with the pandemic coronavirus despite being fully vaccinated.

The numbers suggest that breakthroughs occur at the teeny rate of less than 0.008 percent of fully vaccinated people—and that over 99.992 percent of those vaccinated have not contracted a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The figures come from a nationwide database that the CDC set up to keep track of breakthrough infections and monitor for any concerning signs that the breakthroughs may be clustering by patient demographics, geographic location, time since vaccination, vaccine type, or vaccine lot number. The agency will also be keeping a close eye on any breakthrough infections that are caused by SARS-CoV-2 variants, some of which have been shown to knock back vaccine efficacy.

So far, the vaccines appear to be highly effective and working as expected, according to the CDC’s analysis—which the agency provided to Ars via email.

The vast majority of people in the US have been vaccinated with one of the mRNA vaccines, made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, which both had around 95 percent efficacy in Phase III clinical trials. Less than five percent of vaccinated people in the US have received the Johnson & Johnson adenovirus-based vaccine, which had a slightly lower efficacy of 72 percent in the US.

The extraordinary calculation that 99.992 percent of vaccinated people have not contracted the virus may reflect that they all simply have not been exposed to the virus since being vaccinated. Also, there are likely cases missed in reporting. Still, the data is a heartening sign.

“COVID-19 vaccines are effective and are a critical tool to bring the pandemic under control,” the agency said in its email. “To date, no unexpected patterns have been identified in case demographics or vaccine characteristics.”

In my experience, these vaccines are working and we are being exposed. I work approximately 50 hours a week in a SC ER. Between Spring Break and our mask aversion "and when I say our, I don't mean me", we see lots of covid. We also see lots of people who come in without typical covid symptoms who test positive when tested before being sent upstairs for admission (these are people we wouldn't be dressed out for). None of our staff have popped positive since being vaccinated.

One thing worth mentioning, we're seeing a lot of fully vaccinated people test positive with rapid antigen tests. They are testing negative with the more reliable PCR tests. Although it's known that antigen tests should be used for symptomatic patients, we had used them for quick results prior to admitting someone to the hospital. Now, we're changing our strategy. We had two positive antigen tests today (with negative PCR tests) in fully vaccinated people just today.

 

[DMMarla07860]

Autoimmune things are so strange. My mom got bitten by a brown recluse and within 2 weeks developed Rheumatoid Arthritis. They think it was related to the spider bite, because she felt bad for a while after getting bitten. Hope the vaccine or covid doesn't aggravate your condition.

well I got both doses, second one was March 8th and so far still good. Back at work now after a year off, still staying safe

 

[hubbard53]

My wife is in a FB group with PA's and one that works in the ER and has seen some people come to the ER with covid who are fully vaccinated. She also has had fully vaccinated coworkers come down with it. Everyone is at risk unless we bring our numbers down significantly

our numbers are relatively low as it is - how much lower can they go? It will never be fully eradicated and the stats with the most strict lockdowns, dining bans, and masking have some of the highest rate of infection. At some point we need to accept it, stop focusing on prevention, and focus on treatment & therapies.

 

[mevelandry]

our numbers are relatively low as it is - how much lower can they go? It will never be fully eradicated and the stats with the most strict lockdowns, dining bans, and masking have some of the highest rate of infection. At some point we need to accept it, stop focusing on prevention, and focus on treatment & therapies.

When you say « relatively low »... How many per 100 000?

 

[AquaDame]

When you say « relatively low »... How many per 100 000?

Oregon has been very strict and we're at 15 cases per 100,000... California is at 7 and NY at 32 and Hawaii at 7. Florida hasn't been as locked down and are at 29 per, Texas at 12 and Arizona at 7.

I'm just quoting numbers from here: https://covidactnow.org/?s=1761682

 

[Intr3pid]

our numbers are relatively low as it is - how much lower can they go? It will never be fully eradicated and the stats with the most strict lockdowns, dining bans, and masking have some of the highest rate of infection. At some point we need to accept it, stop focusing on prevention, and focus on treatment & therapies.

None that is approved exists at the moment.

 

[Maggie'sMom]

None that is approved exists at the moment.

Huh? While I don't totally agree with hubbard53's position, there are plenty of treatments and therapies that have emerged since this began. Treatment and therapies have doesn't necessarily mean drugs that need approval. Medical professionals have learned a ton in the last 14 or so months about treating COVID. Think about how focused we were on ventilators in the early days of the pandemic. Now those are seen as a last resort. Proning was discovered to be so beneficial. We've learned about how COVID produces micro-clots that damage organs. It's my understanding that blood thinners are now a standard of practice for patients being hospitalized, and I've seen it recommended for people with COVID who aren't sick enough to go to the hospital to take baby aspirin for the blood thinning capabilities.

I don't think it's reasonable to say we need to stop focusing on prevention and start focusing on treatment. I've always seen it as a 2 pronged defense with both fronts being equally important. As for getting treatments approved, you are correct that there are no pharmaceuticals that have full approval yet, but there are very promising options out there that just need additional study before they can be fully approved. The monoclonal antibodies being a perfect example. That will happen with time.

 

[brentm77]

The Israel study showing the South African variant may breakthrough the Pfizer vaccine was updated on April 16:

In an update to the study posted on April 16, the researchers noted that within the group of people who received two doses, which comprised eight people, all of the B.1.351 infections occurred within a week to 13 days after the second shot. None of them tested positive for it 14 days or more after the second dose.

"This may imply that there is a short window of susceptibility to B.1.351 infection limited to the immediate two weeks after the second dose – but we cannot be confident that this is indeed the case," Stern and Clalit's Ran Balicer said in an email to Reuters on Sunday.

Source here. I did confirm this is accurate in the updated study:

Notably, when focusing on the eight B.1.351 cases in the FE group, all tested positive during days 7-13 post the second dose, and none tested positive in days 14+ post the second dose. This observation suggests that increased breakthrough of B.1.351 in our cohort occurs mainly in a limited time window post vaccination. Further research is required to clarify these key issues.

The updated study is here.

One of the study's authors was saying as much on Twitter, but I was unable to find a reliable source until now. As noted above, that doesn't mean we won't see breakthroughs post 14 days at a higher rate than other breakthroughs. There is good reason to believe that may be the case. But, to the extent we need it, the early results of the Moderna booster show it to be very effective against the South African variant.

 

[Intr3pid]

Huh? While I don't totally agree with hubbard53's position, there are plenty of treatments and therapies that have emerged since this began. Treatment and therapies have doesn't necessarily mean drugs that need approval. Medical professionals have learned a ton in the last 14 or so months about treating COVID. Think about how focused we were on ventilators in the early days of the pandemic. Now those are seen as a last resort. Proning was discovered to be so beneficial. We've learned about how COVID produces micro-clots that damage organs. It's my understanding that blood thinners are now a standard of practice for patients being hospitalized, and I've seen it recommended for people with COVID who aren't sick enough to go to the hospital to take baby aspirin for the blood thinning capabilities.

I don't think it's reasonable to say we need to stop focusing on prevention and start focusing on treatment. I've always seen it as a 2 pronged defense with both fronts being equally important. As for getting treatments approved, you are correct that there are no pharmaceuticals that have full approval yet, but there are very promising options out there that just need additional study before they can be fully approved. The monoclonal antibodies being a perfect example. That will happen with time.

Proning and blood thinning have been used in helping the patient breathe better when a ventilator may not be at hand. They might give the patients extra time to engage their immune system, but they do nothing to kill the virus in the body. To imply that these are "treatments" that can allow us to 'stop focusing on prevention' is just plain irresponsible.

A real treatment that you can use while traveling - such as on a cruise - is still not at hand. Regeneron's cocktail is pretty close to EUA, and Eli Lily's is wrapping up clinical trials. They are a few more promising ones in development - they just aren't ready yet.

 

[Intr3pid]

The Israel study showing the South African variant may breakthrough the Pfizer vaccine was updated on April 16:

In an update to the study posted on April 16, the researchers noted that within the group of people who received two doses, which comprised eight people, all of the B.1.351 infections occurred within a week to 13 days after the second shot. None of them tested positive for it 14 days or more after the second dose.

"This may imply that there is a short window of susceptibility to B.1.351 infection limited to the immediate two weeks after the second dose – but we cannot be confident that this is indeed the case," Stern and Clalit's Ran Balicer said in an email to Reuters on Sunday.

Source here. I did confirm this is accurate in the updated study:

Notably, when focusing on the eight B.1.351 cases in the FE group, all tested positive during days 7-13 post the second dose, and none tested positive in days 14+ post the second dose. This observation suggests that increased breakthrough of B.1.351 in our cohort occurs mainly in a limited time window post vaccination. Further research is required to clarify these key issues.

The updated study is here.

One of the study's authors was saying as much on Twitter, but I was unable to find a reliable source until now. As noted above, that doesn't mean we won't see breakthroughs post 14 days at a higher rate than other breakthroughs. There is good reason to believe that may be the case. But, to the extent we need it, the early results of the Moderna booster show it to be very effective against the South African variant.

Yes, it's difficult to conclude anything on the timing other than that the breakthroughs took place early. It doesn't preclude, for example, their incidence later. A vaccine's efficacy at an individual level is dependent on that individual's immune system and the environment they are exposed to. If this combination can't prevent an infection early after full vaccination, it won't be able to do so later either. Generally, vaccines lose their efficacy over time.

What would be interesting to see is the subsequent breakthroughs, if any, in the remaining patents who didn't see one early. The authors haven't posted their data yet - just the results so far - so I would like to see how many more weeks after the second dose did they continue the study.

Finally, as I had suggested earlier, the UK variant is seemingly becoming the 'enemy of our enemy' against the spread of the South African one. A bit like the Winter Soldier or the Sokovia twins. The authors add this much to their discussion as well:

"...We suggest that there may be higher rates of vaccine breakthrough with B.1.351, but it is possible that (a) vaccine effectiveness coupled with enacted non-pharmaceutical interventions remain sufficient to prevent its spread, and/or (b) B.1.1.7 outcompetes B.1.351, possibly due to its high transmission rate."

 

[Maggie'sMom]

To imply that these are "treatments" that can allow us to 'stop focusing on prevention' is just plain irresponsible.

And I clearly stated that it wasn't reasonable to say we should stop focusing on prevention, and that we need both approaches. My point was that a lot has been learned in the last year or so, and I think it is disingenuous to be dismissive of the idea of putting attention into treatments and therapies just because there isn't a fully approved pharmaceutical treatment for COVID as of this moment. As you say yourself, there are promising options close to EUA. The death toll would undoubtably be worse if not for doctors figuring out ways to give patients their best chance at surviving until their immune systems can clear the virus. I just found your comment to be very flippant and dismissive of what has been done in the past year to improve the odds of survival.

 

[mevelandry]

Oregon has been very strict and we're at 15 cases per 100,000... California is at 7 and NY at 32 and Hawaii at 7. Florida hasn't been as locked down and are at 29 per, Texas at 12 and Arizona at 7.

I'm just quoting numbers from here: https://covidactnow.org/?s=1761682

Some of them are getting better, then! But by our standards, most would still be under partial lockdowns.

Here, any region between 6 per 100 000 and 10 per 100 000 (4 to 8 hospitalisation per million) is considered « orange zone »: restaurant dining rooms and gyms can open (but at minimum capacity)... but kids can go to school (with masks), working from home is highly recommended, masks are mandatory at work at all times (except during lunch or when alone in a closed room). Shows are permitted as long as everyone is seated over 2m max capacity being 250 and masks being mandatory at all times. No food allowed at the movie theater. No visitors at home. Curfew between 9:30 and 5:00 AM (work --you need a letter from your boss) and medical emergencies only) No visitors at home. But you are allowed to walk outside or play sports with other people (max 12)

I'm living in a red zone (over 10 per 100 000). We are therefore under a partial lockdown. Restaurants are only open for take out. Only shops are open (no movie theater, no gyms, no bars) We have a severe curfew (8:00 PM to 5:00 AM). No visitors at home. We are allowed to walk or play sports outside with others (max 8).

That being said, the vaccine roll out is really slow here by comparison. You guys are clearly "almost out of the woods"!

 

[wideeyedwonder]

Oregon has been very strict and we're at 15 cases per 100,000... California is at 7 and NY at 32 and Hawaii at 7. Florida hasn't been as locked down and are at 29 per, Texas at 12 and Arizona at 7.

I'm just quoting numbers from here: https://covidactnow.org/?s=1761682

It's even better than that in Los Angeles County and Orange County (where Disneyland is), both had a rate of ~3 per 100,000 as of last Tuesday, and that may be even lower when numbers are reported tomorrow.

 

[n2mm]

Just wanted to say that here in WV we are now offering the vaccine to anyone. 16+. You do not have to be a WV resident. Our state just can’t give it away now. We are not going to reach herd immunity either Because of this. Not enough residents are willing to step up and get the vaccine. my family, from 16 to 71, have all been vaccinated. Most of my neighbors and all of my friends have been vaccinated too. But too many people here are scared of it and get their medical advice from FB.

 

[hrhdhd]

Proning and blood thinning have been used in helping the patient breathe better when a ventilator may not be at hand. They might give the patients extra time to engage their immune system, but they do nothing to kill the virus in the body. To imply that these are "treatments" that can allow us to 'stop focusing on prevention' is just plain irresponsible.

A real treatment that you can use while traveling - such as on a cruise - is still not at hand. Regeneron's cocktail is pretty close to EUA, and Eli Lily's is wrapping up clinical trials. They are a few more promising ones in development - they just aren't ready yet.

Eh, never mind. I should know better.

 

[hrhdhd]

Just wanted to say that here in WV we are now offering the vaccine to anyone. 16+. You do not have to be a WV resident. Our state just can’t give it away now. We are not going to reach herd immunity either Because of this. Not enough residents are willing to step up and get the vaccine. my family, from 16 to 71, have all been vaccinated. Most of my neighbors and all of my friends have been vaccinated too. But too many people here are scared of it and get their medical advice from FB.

Your guesses as to why some people may prefer not to be vaccinated don't include several reasonable concerns and/or a perceived lack of need.

 

[Intr3pid]

And I clearly stated that it wasn't reasonable to say we should stop focusing on prevention, and that we need both approaches. My point was that a lot has been learned in the last year or so, and I think it is disingenuous to be dismissive of the idea of putting attention into treatments and therapies just because there isn't a fully approved pharmaceutical treatment for COVID as of this moment. As you say yourself, there are promising options close to EUA. The death toll would undoubtably be worse if not for doctors figuring out ways to give patients their best chance at surviving until their immune systems can clear the virus. I just found your comment to be very flippant and dismissive of what has been done in the past year to improve the odds of survival.

Here is original comment in the conversation you joined:

At some point we need to accept it, stop focusing on prevention, and focus on treatment & therapies.

I don't like to bring up reading comprehension. Maybe my comment is dismissive - or maybe we can take a moment to read the context of a conversation first before thinking it is dismissive. Yes, you have stated your alternate point of view in that second paragraph, and I have no disagreement with it. The first paragraph, however, contains the implication which is being called out.

We have had non-drug treatments and therapies for almost a year. Proning and blood thinning, for example, cannot replace external ventilation support in an emergency, and we have had ventilators for a while. Yet we have gone through second and third waves with corresponding death tolls and overwhelmed ICUs. The question is not whether proning or ventilation support helps; rather whether these treatments are adequate enough to allow us the luxury to 'stop focusing on prevention'.

 

[mevelandry]

Your guesses as to why some people may prefer not to be vaccinated don't include several reasonable concerns and/or a perceived lack of need.

"Lack of need" is still (to this day) an illusion though. Unfortunately, some people learned it the hard way*.

(People who thought they had a strong immune system capable of beating it easily.)