ImageImageImage

Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2

Moderators: djFan71, ParticleMan, Froob, canman1971, The Comedian, Parliament10, sully00

User avatar
Green89
RealGM
Posts: 22,967
And1: 20,728
Joined: Apr 01, 2013

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1801 » by Green89 » Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:12 pm

truth18 wrote:
CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:Ex, should we be concerned about the cases of myocarditis being seen in young men who were given the Moderna or Phizer vaccines?


Nope. Less than 500 people have reported symptoms, which is barely anyone. The effects of long covid are worse as well and can include strokes and heart attacks.

Watch your health closely as you normally would but I wouldn't worry.

Ex, hmu on PM for a discord invite if you want one.


But if 500 were reported, that is not the true number, which would always be higher. Also, how many strokes and heart attacks have 16 to 30 yo men suffered from covid? That's got to be pretty minute.
Curmudgeon
RealGM
Posts: 32,722
And1: 14,887
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1802 » by Curmudgeon » Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:21 pm

As I've said before, thousands of people worldwide die every year die because they have allergic reactions to penicillin and penicillin derived antibiotics. Does that mean we should stop prescribing these antibiotics and let millions die or suffer from the infections that penicillin would otherwise have cured?

And what's worse, most infections cured by penicillin are not contagious, like covid-19. That would make forgoing antibiotics even more deadly.

Finally, the number of vaccinated people who have caught covid-19 after having been vaccinated and who have subsequently been hospitalized is infinitesimally small-- literally a handful worldwide. That alone would justify its use.
"Numbers lie alot. Wins and losses don't lie." - Jerry West
"You are what your record says you are."- Bill Parcells
"Offense sells tickets. Defense wins games. Rebounding wins championships." Pat Summit
User avatar
zoyathedestroya
RealGM
Posts: 13,982
And1: 34,502
Joined: Nov 05, 2017

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1803 » by zoyathedestroya » Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:16 am

Probably just a coincidence. :P
Read on Twitter
Curmudgeon
RealGM
Posts: 32,722
And1: 14,887
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1804 » by Curmudgeon » Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:23 am

But look at the bright side, if you refuse the vaccine and subsequently become seriously ill or die for Covid-19, you could be in the running for a Darwin Award.
"Numbers lie alot. Wins and losses don't lie." - Jerry West

"You are what your record says you are."- Bill Parcells

"Offense sells tickets. Defense wins games. Rebounding wins championships." Pat Summit
User avatar
moonie_mcgee
Pro Prospect
Posts: 956
And1: 644
Joined: Mar 12, 2021
       

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1805 » by moonie_mcgee » Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:33 am

The big news is that the smoking gun was found.
As usual, the truth always comes out eventually.
That's the Way of the World
User avatar
moonie_mcgee
Pro Prospect
Posts: 956
And1: 644
Joined: Mar 12, 2021
       

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1806 » by moonie_mcgee » Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:39 am

Curmudgeon wrote:But look at the bright side, if you refuse the vaccine and subsequently become seriously ill or die for Covid-19, you could be in the running for a Darwin Award.


No doubt curm. The dirty trick is that entities aren't necessarily liable for side effects due to mandatory vaccines. And they absolutely should be.
That's the Way of the World
Curmudgeon
RealGM
Posts: 32,722
And1: 14,887
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1807 » by Curmudgeon » Tue Jun 15, 2021 2:17 am

The covid vaccine isn't mandatory. Neither is penicillin. I had a good friend in HS who was a Christian Scientist. Excellent football player. He died at 49 from a very preventable disease.
"Numbers lie alot. Wins and losses don't lie." - Jerry West

"You are what your record says you are."- Bill Parcells

"Offense sells tickets. Defense wins games. Rebounding wins championships." Pat Summit
User avatar
SuperDeluxe
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,692
And1: 14,643
Joined: Feb 23, 2003
Location: Celtic Nation
   

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1808 » by SuperDeluxe » Wed Jun 16, 2021 7:17 pm

Interesting thing that the government of Quebec posted on their website:

Vaccination for people who have had COVID-19
For people who have had COVID-19, a single dose of the vaccine is required. The infection triggers the immune system's response the same way a 1st dose of the vaccine does. The dose of vaccine given to someone who has had COVID-19 has a booster effect the same way a 2nd dose of the vaccine does.

Note that giving two doses of vaccine to someone who has had COVID-19 is not dangerous, but the risk of having adverse reactions is higher. In addition, the 2nd dose does not provide any additional protection for these people.

For people with a weakened immune system or who had COVID-19 when they were given the 1st dose or in the days after they were vaccinated, two doses are required.

https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advice-and-prevention/vaccination/covid-19-vaccine#c88272

No idea if this is accurate or if it applies to all the vaccines available worldwide. (For reference, here in Quebec we're getting the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines.)
exculpatory
RealGM
Posts: 11,501
And1: 7,527
Joined: Nov 10, 2008

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1809 » by exculpatory » Wed Jun 16, 2021 7:45 pm

SuperDeluxe wrote:Interesting thing that the government of Quebec posted on their website:

Vaccination for people who have had COVID-19
For people who have had COVID-19, a single dose of the vaccine is required. The infection triggers the immune system's response the same way a 1st dose of the vaccine does. The dose of vaccine given to someone who has had COVID-19 has a booster effect the same way a 2nd dose of the vaccine does.

Note that giving two doses of vaccine to someone who has had COVID-19 is not dangerous, but the risk of having adverse reactions is higher. In addition, the 2nd dose does not provide any additional protection for these people.

For people with a weakened immune system or who had COVID-19 when they were given the 1st dose or in the days after they were vaccinated, two doses are required.

https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advice-and-prevention/vaccination/covid-19-vaccine#c88272

No idea if this is accurate or if it applies to all the vaccines available worldwide. (For reference, here in Quebec we're getting the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines.)


More & more data is accumulating suggesting that natural infection affords excellent immunity.

Cleveland Clinic 6/5/2021
Pfizer & Moderna

medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176; this version posted June 5, 2021.

DISCUSSION
This study shows that subjects previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 are unlikely to get COVID-19 reinfection whether or not they receive the vaccine. This finding calls into question the necessity to vaccinate those who have already had SARS-CoV-2 infection.

It is reasonable to expect that immunity acquired by natural infection provides effective protection against future infection with SARS-CoV-2. Observational studies have indeed found very low rates of reinfection over the following months among survivors of COVID-19 [6–8]. Reports of true reinfections are extremely rare in the absence of emergence of new variants. When such reinfections occur, it would be purely speculative to suggest that a vaccine might have prevented them. Duration of protective immunity from natural infection is not known. However, the same also can be said about duration of protective immunity from vaccination. Uncertainty about the duration of protective immunity afforded by natural infection is not by itself a valid argument for vaccinating previously infected individuals. This study provides direct evidence that vaccination with the best available vaccines does not provide additional protection in previously infected individuals.
A prior study concluded that natural infection cannot be relied on to protect against COVID-19 [9]. That study was based on comparison of PCR-positivity rates during a second COVID-19 surge in Denmark between those who tested positive and negative during the first COVID-19 surge, and indirectly calculated that prior infection provided 80.5% protection against repeat infection, and that protection against those older than 65 years was only 47.1%. The study did not compare vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and it is therefore an assumption to consider that a vaccine would have provided better protection in that particular population. Furthermore, there was a gap of only seven weeks between the end of the first surge and the beginning of the second in that study. It is now well-known that a small number of people can continue to have positive PCR test results for several weeks to a few months after infection, one study finding that 5.3% remained positive at 90 days [15]. It is possible that some of the positives picked up in the early part of the second surge were not necessarily new infections but residual virus from the tail end of the first surge. Since the actual number of infections was small, a few such misclassifications could change the rates substantially.

Our study examined rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals and showed that those previously infected who did not receive the vaccine did not have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection than those previously infected who did, thereby providing direct evidence that vaccination does not add protection to those who were previously infected.


There are several strengths to our study. Its large sample size and follow-up of up to 5 months provide us with an ample degree of confidence in its findings. A major strength of our study is that we adjusted the analyses for the phase of the epidemic at all time points. The risk of acquisition of infection is strongly influenced by the phase of the epidemic at any given time, and it is important to adjust for this for accurate risk analyses. Given that was this a study among employees of a health system, and that the health system had policies and procedures in recognition of the critical importance of keeping track of the pandemic among its employees, we had an accurate accounting of who had COVID-19, when they were diagnosed with COVID-19, who received a COVID-19 vaccine, and when they received it.
The study has its limitations. Because we did not have a policy of asymptomatic employee screening, previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. It should be noted though, that 12% of the subjects classified as previously infected did not have a symptom onset date recorded, suggesting that at least some of those classified as previously infected might have been asymptomatic infections. It is reassuring that none of these possibly asymptomatically infected individuals developed COVID-19 during the duration of the study. The study follow-up duration was short, being only five months, but this was longer than published mRNA vaccine efficacy studies [1,2], and longer than the follow-up duration of the largest published vaccine effectiveness studies to date [3,4]. Median freedom from reinfection (time from initial infection until end of follow-up) in this study, for those previously infected, of almost 10 months, is consistent with findings in an earlier study that immunoglobulin G (IgG) to the spike protein remained stable over more than six months after an episode of infection [16]. Our study included no children and few elderly subjects, and the majority would not have been immunosuppressed. Data governance policies in our institution precluded us from obtaining detailed clinical information on employees. While one cannot generalize this study’s findings to assume that prior infection would provide adequate immunity in these groups, there is also no reason to expect a vaccine to provide additional protection in these same groups. Lastly, it is necessary to emphasize that these findings are based on the prevailing assortment of virus variants in the community during the study. It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent. However, if prior infection does not afford protection against some of the newer variants of concern, there is little reason to suppose that the currently available vaccines would either. Vaccine breakthrough infections with variants have indeed been reported [17].

Our study’s findings have important implications. Worldwide, COVID-19 vaccines are still in short supply. As of March 9, 2021, dozens of countries had not been able to administer a single dose of the vaccine [18]. As of May 17, 2021, only 17 countries had been able to reach ten percent or more of their populations with at least the first dose of vaccine [19]. Given such a scarcity of the vaccine, and the knowledge that vaccine does not provide additional protection to those previously infected, it would make most sense to limit vaccine administration to those who have not previously had the infection. In addition to profession, age, and comorbid conditions, previous infection should be an important consideration in deciding whom to prioritize to receive the vaccine. A practical and useful message would be to consider symptomatic COVID-19 to be as good as having received a vaccine, and that people who have had COVID-19 confirmed by a reliable laboratory test do not need the vaccine.

In conclusion, individuals who have laboratory-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
SamIam 2010: Truth's ability to play so incredibly efficiently is so UNDERAPPRECIATED. Bballcool 2012: Amazing how great Pierce has been for so long. Continues to defy age! KG 2013: P is original Celtic. Wherever he goes, we go. This is The Truth's house.
exculpatory
RealGM
Posts: 11,501
And1: 7,527
Joined: Nov 10, 2008

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1810 » by exculpatory » Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:21 pm

exculpatory wrote:
SuperDeluxe wrote:Interesting thing that the government of Quebec posted on their website:

Vaccination for people who have had COVID-19
For people who have had COVID-19, a single dose of the vaccine is required. The infection triggers the immune system's response the same way a 1st dose of the vaccine does. The dose of vaccine given to someone who has had COVID-19 has a booster effect the same way a 2nd dose of the vaccine does.

Note that giving two doses of vaccine to someone who has had COVID-19 is not dangerous, but the risk of having adverse reactions is higher. In addition, the 2nd dose does not provide any additional protection for these people.

For people with a weakened immune system or who had COVID-19 when they were given the 1st dose or in the days after they were vaccinated, two doses are required.

https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advice-and-prevention/vaccination/covid-19-vaccine#c88272

No idea if this is accurate or if it applies to all the vaccines available worldwide. (For reference, here in Quebec we're getting the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines.)


More & more data is accumulating suggesting that natural infection affords excellent immunity.
When this data further solidifies & is further replicated, the CDC will very likely adjust its vaccination recommendations.

Cleveland Clinic 6/5/2021
Pfizer & Moderna

medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176; this version posted June 5, 2021.

DISCUSSION
This study shows that subjects previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 are unlikely to get COVID-19 reinfection whether or not they receive the vaccine. This finding calls into question the necessity to vaccinate those who have already had SARS-CoV-2 infection.

It is reasonable to expect that immunity acquired by natural infection provides effective protection against future infection with SARS-CoV-2. Observational studies have indeed found very low rates of reinfection over the following months among survivors of COVID-19 [6–8]. Reports of true reinfections are extremely rare in the absence of emergence of new variants. When such reinfections occur, it would be purely speculative to suggest that a vaccine might have prevented them. Duration of protective immunity from natural infection is not known. However, the same also can be said about duration of protective immunity from vaccination. Uncertainty about the duration of protective immunity afforded by natural infection is not by itself a valid argument for vaccinating previously infected individuals. This study provides direct evidence that vaccination with the best available vaccines does not provide additional protection in previously infected individuals.
A prior study concluded that natural infection cannot be relied on to protect against COVID-19 [9]. That study was based on comparison of PCR-positivity rates during a second COVID-19 surge in Denmark between those who tested positive and negative during the first COVID-19 surge, and indirectly calculated that prior infection provided 80.5% protection against repeat infection, and that protection against those older than 65 years was only 47.1%. The study did not compare vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and it is therefore an assumption to consider that a vaccine would have provided better protection in that particular population. Furthermore, there was a gap of only seven weeks between the end of the first surge and the beginning of the second in that study. It is now well-known that a small number of people can continue to have positive PCR test results for several weeks to a few months after infection, one study finding that 5.3% remained positive at 90 days [15]. It is possible that some of the positives picked up in the early part of the second surge were not necessarily new infections but residual virus from the tail end of the first surge. Since the actual number of infections was small, a few such misclassifications could change the rates substantially.

Our study examined rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals and showed that those previously infected who did not receive the vaccine did not have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection than those previously infected who did, thereby providing direct evidence that vaccination does not add protection to those who were previously infected.


There are several strengths to our study. Its large sample size and follow-up of up to 5 months provide us with an ample degree of confidence in its findings. A major strength of our study is that we adjusted the analyses for the phase of the epidemic at all time points. The risk of acquisition of infection is strongly influenced by the phase of the epidemic at any given time, and it is important to adjust for this for accurate risk analyses. Given that was this a study among employees of a health system, and that the health system had policies and procedures in recognition of the critical importance of keeping track of the pandemic among its employees, we had an accurate accounting of who had COVID-19, when they were diagnosed with COVID-19, who received a COVID-19 vaccine, and when they received it.
The study has its limitations. Because we did not have a policy of asymptomatic employee screening, previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. It should be noted though, that 12% of the subjects classified as previously infected did not have a symptom onset date recorded, suggesting that at least some of those classified as previously infected might have been asymptomatic infections. It is reassuring that none of these possibly asymptomatically infected individuals developed COVID-19 during the duration of the study. The study follow-up duration was short, being only five months, but this was longer than published mRNA vaccine efficacy studies [1,2], and longer than the follow-up duration of the largest published vaccine effectiveness studies to date [3,4]. Median freedom from reinfection (time from initial infection until end of follow-up) in this study, for those previously infected, of almost 10 months, is consistent with findings in an earlier study that immunoglobulin G (IgG) to the spike protein remained stable over more than six months after an episode of infection [16]. Our study included no children and few elderly subjects, and the majority would not have been immunosuppressed. Data governance policies in our institution precluded us from obtaining detailed clinical information on employees. While one cannot generalize this study’s findings to assume that prior infection would provide adequate immunity in these groups, there is also no reason to expect a vaccine to provide additional protection in these same groups. Lastly, it is necessary to emphasize that these findings are based on the prevailing assortment of virus variants in the community during the study. It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent. However, if prior infection does not afford protection against some of the newer variants of concern, there is little reason to suppose that the currently available vaccines would either. Vaccine breakthrough infections with variants have indeed been reported [17].

Our study’s findings have important implications. Worldwide, COVID-19 vaccines are still in short supply. As of March 9, 2021, dozens of countries had not been able to administer a single dose of the vaccine [18]. As of May 17, 2021, only 17 countries had been able to reach ten percent or more of their populations with at least the first dose of vaccine [19]. Given such a scarcity of the vaccine, and the knowledge that vaccine does not provide additional protection to those previously infected, it would make most sense to limit vaccine administration to those who have not previously had the infection. In addition to profession, age, and comorbid conditions, previous infection should be an important consideration in deciding whom to prioritize to receive the vaccine. A practical and useful message would be to consider symptomatic COVID-19 to be as good as having received a vaccine, and that people who have had COVID-19 confirmed by a reliable laboratory test do not need the vaccine.

In conclusion, individuals who have laboratory-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
SamIam 2010: Truth's ability to play so incredibly efficiently is so UNDERAPPRECIATED. Bballcool 2012: Amazing how great Pierce has been for so long. Continues to defy age! KG 2013: P is original Celtic. Wherever he goes, we go. This is The Truth's house.
exculpatory
RealGM
Posts: 11,501
And1: 7,527
Joined: Nov 10, 2008

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1811 » by exculpatory » Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:06 pm

More!

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01557-z

A long-term perspective on immunity to COVID
Andreas Radbruch & Hyun-Dong Chang - Nature - 6/2021
Determining the duration of protective immunity to infection by SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for understanding and predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical studies now indicate that immunity will be long-lasting.
SamIam 2010: Truth's ability to play so incredibly efficiently is so UNDERAPPRECIATED. Bballcool 2012: Amazing how great Pierce has been for so long. Continues to defy age! KG 2013: P is original Celtic. Wherever he goes, we go. This is The Truth's house.
User avatar
SuperDeluxe
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,692
And1: 14,643
Joined: Feb 23, 2003
Location: Celtic Nation
   

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1812 » by SuperDeluxe » Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:00 pm

exculpatory wrote:More!

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01557-z

A long-term perspective on immunity to COVID
Andreas Radbruch & Hyun-Dong Chang - Nature - 6/2021
Determining the duration of protective immunity to infection by SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for understanding and predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical studies now indicate that immunity will be long-lasting.

Fantastic article. I've just shared with two friends who recovered from this thing.

Summary:
The good news is that the evidence thus far predicts that infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces long-term immunity in most individuals. This provides a welcome positive note as we wait for further data on memory responses to vaccination.

Finally, Wang and colleagues show that immunity can be boosted even further in convalescent individuals by vaccinating them after a year. This resulted in the generation of more plasma cells, together with an increase in the level of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that was up to 50 times greater than before vaccination.
exculpatory
RealGM
Posts: 11,501
And1: 7,527
Joined: Nov 10, 2008

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1813 » by exculpatory » Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:24 pm

SuperDeluxe wrote:
exculpatory wrote:More!

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01557-z

A long-term perspective on immunity to COVID
Andreas Radbruch & Hyun-Dong Chang - Nature - 6/2021
Determining the duration of protective immunity to infection by SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for understanding and predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical studies now indicate that immunity will be long-lasting.

Fantastic article. I've just shared with two friends who recovered from this thing.

Summary:
The good news is that the evidence thus far predicts that infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces long-term immunity in most individuals. This provides a welcome positive note as we wait for further data on memory responses to vaccination.

Finally, Wang and colleagues show that immunity can be boosted even further in convalescent individuals by vaccinating them after a year. This resulted in the generation of more plasma cells, together with an increase in the level of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that was up to 50 times greater than before vaccination.


SD, take a look at this fascinating, very important & very relevant 6/22/2021 editorial by the NIH Director Francis Collins (Fauci’s boss) - following a critical publication by Bloom et al at the Fred Hutchinson CRC in Seattle.

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/

As opposed to the Cleveland Clinic publication & the Radbruch editorial in Nature that I provided to you all last week, it suggests that vaccination of the previously infected WILL indeed be of value - in that it will result in greater protection from current AND future variants.

Clearly, this issue needs to be further sorted out & elucidated. In the meantime, I would definitely get vaccinated - even if I was previously infected. It would appear that MONTREAL public health has decided to split the difference & administer 1 rather than 2 mRNA vaccinations.
SamIam 2010: Truth's ability to play so incredibly efficiently is so UNDERAPPRECIATED. Bballcool 2012: Amazing how great Pierce has been for so long. Continues to defy age! KG 2013: P is original Celtic. Wherever he goes, we go. This is The Truth's house.
User avatar
SuperDeluxe
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,692
And1: 14,643
Joined: Feb 23, 2003
Location: Celtic Nation
   

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1814 » by SuperDeluxe » Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:36 pm

exculpatory wrote:As opposed to the Cleveland Clinic publication & the Radbruch editorial in Nature that I provided to you all last week, it suggests that vaccination of the previously infected WILL indeed be of value - in that it will result in greater protection from current AND future variants.

The Nature article actually said that vaccinating the previously infected would be of value. That's why I shared it with two people who had contracted the virus.
exculpatory
RealGM
Posts: 11,501
And1: 7,527
Joined: Nov 10, 2008

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1815 » by exculpatory » Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:42 am

SuperDeluxe wrote:
exculpatory wrote:As opposed to the Cleveland Clinic publication & the Radbruch editorial in Nature that I provided to you all last week, it suggests that vaccination of the previously infected WILL indeed be of value - in that it will result in greater protection from current AND future variants.

The Nature article actually said that vaccinating the previously infected would be of value. That's why I shared it with two people who had contracted the virus.


I was not clear enough.
The Cleveland Clinic publication suggested that 2 shot mRNA vaccination of the previously infected may not be necessary.
The Radbruch editorial cited a paper by Wang et al in the same issue of Nature - which demonstrated long term immunity in the previously infected AND, as you ABSOLUTELY correctly point out, that 2 shot mRNA vaccination of the previously infected ENHANCES that long term immunity.
The NIH Director’s editorial citing the Seattle study suggests that 2 shot mRNA vaccination of the previously infected WILL indeed be of value - in that it will result in greater protection from current AND future variants.

And here is yet another very recent/germane (albeit small/preliminary) publication (from Israel) suggesting that a single mRNA vaccination in the previously infected is advantageous - as is apparently occurring in your Quebec. :D (My eldest daughter & I spent a week in MONTREAL a few years ago. She hit up every single freaking clothes store in just about every hood & then she selected one of the best restaurants in the city for me to subsidize every evening.)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2104036

“This study showed that, in our small cohort, one vaccine dose substantially increased neutralizing activity against all variants tested, with similar titers detected across patients for each variant.

This highlights the importance of (a single mRNA) vaccination even in previously infected patients, given the added benefit of an increased antibody response to the variants tested.


Limitations of the study include the small cohort of only women and the lack of evaluation of T-cell response. However, we think the fact that all six patients responded similarly to vaccination supports our conclusions.

Further studies could investigate the effects of a SECOND vaccine dose on neutralizing activity against variants of concern in persons who have and persons who have not been previously infected
.”
SamIam 2010: Truth's ability to play so incredibly efficiently is so UNDERAPPRECIATED. Bballcool 2012: Amazing how great Pierce has been for so long. Continues to defy age! KG 2013: P is original Celtic. Wherever he goes, we go. This is The Truth's house.
User avatar
SuperDeluxe
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,692
And1: 14,643
Joined: Feb 23, 2003
Location: Celtic Nation
   

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1816 » by SuperDeluxe » Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:48 am

FFP3 masks, which I assume are only available to hospitals and cost a pretty penny, have reduced the risk of contagion in UK hospitals to almost zero. Corollary: the better your mask, the higher your protection.

Read on Twitter


And yet grocery stores, at least here in Canada, are selling those cheap, good-for-nothing masks that offer a false sense of protection and nothing else.
Kids Are Alright
Veteran
Posts: 2,814
And1: 126
Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Location: Maine

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1817 » by Kids Are Alright » Thu Jul 1, 2021 10:00 am

SD denigrates the cheap good for nothing masks and yet in my high school of 500 kids, that kind of masking resulted in zero in school cases of transmission last year. There was spacing but I teach science and that spacing was always pretty poor in labs.
My theory, the coarse droplets with heavy viral load are likely needed to cause infection.
A great senior female athlete is a long CoVid (6 months) with chest pains upon exertion.
Tanking :nonono: Live for the day 8-)
User avatar
SuperDeluxe
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,692
And1: 14,643
Joined: Feb 23, 2003
Location: Celtic Nation
   

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1818 » by SuperDeluxe » Fri Jul 2, 2021 10:25 pm

cloverleaf
General Manager
Posts: 8,391
And1: 5,513
Joined: Feb 10, 2007

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1819 » by cloverleaf » Sat Jul 3, 2021 12:00 am

zoyathedestroya wrote:Probably just a coincidence. :P
Read on Twitter


Most likely has to do with only the unvaccinated still routinely getting the bogus PCR tests...
exculpatory
RealGM
Posts: 11,501
And1: 7,527
Joined: Nov 10, 2008

Re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2 

Post#1820 » by exculpatory » Sat Jul 3, 2021 3:32 am

cloverleaf wrote:
zoyathedestroya wrote:Probably just a coincidence. :P
Read on Twitter


Most likely has to do with only the unvaccinated still routinely getting the bogus PCR tests...


Stop spouting utter nonsense.

You clearly lack any medical insight.

The morons who remain unvaccinated are the ones contracting most cases of SYMPTOMATIC Covid (more & more due to the hugely transmissible Delta variant) - at which time they are tested with the gold standard PCR test (not ideal but pretty good). They are also too **** stupid to be tested ‘routinely’ - for example, if they are asymptomatic but have been exposed to someone who is Covid +.
SamIam 2010: Truth's ability to play so incredibly efficiently is so UNDERAPPRECIATED. Bballcool 2012: Amazing how great Pierce has been for so long. Continues to defy age! KG 2013: P is original Celtic. Wherever he goes, we go. This is The Truth's house.

Return to Boston Celtics