Wizards Board COVID-19 Thread

[Dat2U]

When I was young I was taught money was the root of all evil. As I got older I learned fear was. That's the key the media, politicians and 'fly by night' internet disease experts continue to play in.

So ones' vax status has become the latest reason/excuse to name call, wish death upon each other, play on the fears everyone, from all sides of the political spectrum!

I just want pull a little CCJ and say I love you all. I love you if you've taken the shot. I love you if you haven't. I love you if you're Republican or Democrat. I love you if your black, white, Hispanic, Asian, straight, gay, Trans. I love you if your a Wizards, Raptor or Bulls fan.

But I cannot love you if your Lakers & Celtics fan. Sorry, that's where I draw the line.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Watch on YouTube

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

It actually could be a 90 day wait for Brad - depending on the treatments he received. https://www.abc10.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/vaccine-question-how-long-to-wait/103-b22ae306-8acd-4201-8258-695760277473

[tontoz]

I read a story recently about an employer that was allowing recovered covid patients to avoid their vaccine mandate. They just had to show an antibody test and recovered from covid within a few months.

[nate33]

I read a story recently about an employer that was allowing recovered covid patients to avoid their vaccine mandate. They just had to show an antibody test and recovered from covid within a few months.

Germany recognizes previous infection as being equivalent to vaccination when it comes to who is permitted to travel to Germany:
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-07-29/germany-to-require-proof-of-covid-immunity-or-negative-test-on-arrival-sources

[Kanyewest]

17 percent of unvaccinated make up 60 percent of deaths this week https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/covid-in-israel-the-17-unvaccinated-make-up-60-of-deaths-this-week-1.10245471

[doclinkin]

He has already had Covid. He is better protected and less of a threat to others than all the vaccinated people who haven't had Covid.

Not necessarily true, according to the latest data. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

If you've had COVID-19 before, does your natural immunity work better than a vaccine?

The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination

That link is complete ****. They pointed to a single study made back in 2020 with a mere 156 people. The studied only measured antibody levels in the blood, which barely even helps stop the spread. What matters are the IgA antibodies in the mucous membranes. We have data from Israel showing natural immunity is between 13 and 27 times better than vaccination. We also have the Cleveland clinic study showing thousands of workers with virtually none getting reinfected. Those are real world studies.

I don't have time to go into detail right now because I'm at work, but I will refute all this stuff tonight.

NIH study:

Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection

The mRNA vaccines seem to provide better broad spectrum protection against new COVID variants than immunity from a prior infection of a particular strain.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/

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

Yale university study found that while B-cell antibodies do provide improved long term protection still, vaccination tends to be even better:

“While T cells play a role during acute infections, our antibodies are crucial for long-term protection against re-infection,” said Benjamin Goldman-Israelow, a postdoctoral researcher in Iwasaki’s lab and lead author of the study.

The paper was published Sept. 2 in the journal Science Immunology.

Goldman-Israelow stressed that previous research has shown that people who received mRNA-based vaccines produce more antibodies than those who were naturally infected. And naturally infected people who then received a vaccination produced even more antibodies, perhaps providing greater protection against re-infection.

On the study in Israel that showed better natural immunity among the infected vs the vaccinated:

Thålin [stresses that] infection among unvaccinated people puts them at significant risk of severe disease and death, or the lingering, significant symptoms of what has been dubbed Long Covid. The study shows the benefits of natural immunity, but “doesn’t take into account what this virus does to the body to get to that point”

and

Thålin cautions that the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group.

Then:

In another analysis, the researchers compared more than 14,000 people who had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were still unvaccinated with an equivalent number of previously infected people who received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The team found that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to be reinfected as the singly vaccinated.

“We continue to underestimate the importance of natural infection immunity … especially when [infection] is recent,” says Eric Topol, a physician-scientist at Scripps Research. “And when you bolster that with one dose of vaccine, you take it to levels you can’t possibly match with any vaccine in the world right now.”

One thought is that the antibodies produced by infection prove effective because the virus lingers in the body longer and gives the B-cells more time to work on them. So you may be more immune but the infection has had more time to cause damage along the way. Whereas the mRNA vaccines are expunged from the body within days.

There is also a potential flaw in the methodology that provided the results because:

“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 ... 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.

Still the human body is fascinating in its ability to battle infections. And develop long term shield against attacks. So too is the collective human mind's ability to puzzle these problems out and come up with solutions to help the body. I think we would be smart to work with both, as best we can.

[dckingsfan]

When I was young I was taught money was the root of all evil. As I got older I learned fear was. That's the key the media, politicians and 'fly by night' internet disease experts continue to play in.

So ones' vax status has become the latest reason/excuse to name call, wish death upon each other, play on the fears everyone, from all sides of the political spectrum!

I just want pull a little CCJ and say I love you all. I love you if you've taken the shot. I love you if you haven't. I love you if you're Republican or Democrat. I love you if your black, white, Hispanic, Asian, straight, gay, Trans. I love you if your a Wizards, Raptor or Bulls fan.

But I cannot love you if your Lakers & Celtics fan. Sorry, that's where I draw the line.

But riddle me this... why should the un-vaccinate be feared. The question is your answer...

[nate33]

NIH study:

Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection

The mRNA vaccines seem to provide better broad spectrum protection against new COVID variants than immunity from a prior infection of a particular strain.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/

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

Yale university study found that while B-cell antibodies do provide improved long term protection still, vaccination tends to be even better:

“While T cells play a role during acute infections, our antibodies are crucial for long-term protection against re-infection,” said Benjamin Goldman-Israelow, a postdoctoral researcher in Iwasaki’s lab and lead author of the study.

The paper was published Sept. 2 in the journal Science Immunology.

Goldman-Israelow stressed that previous research has shown that people who received mRNA-based vaccines produce more antibodies than those who were naturally infected. And naturally infected people who then received a vaccination produced even more antibodies, perhaps providing greater protection against re-infection.

On the study in Israel that showed better natural immunity among the infected vs the vaccinated:

Thålin [stresses that] infection among unvaccinated people puts them at significant risk of severe disease and death, or the lingering, significant symptoms of what has been dubbed Long Covid. The study shows the benefits of natural immunity, but “doesn’t take into account what this virus does to the body to get to that point”

and

Thålin cautions that the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group.

These are what I like to call "petri-dish studies". They are looking a the cellular level, trying to assess which type of immunity (vaccination versus natural) produces more specific antibody responses under a microscope. The problem is that the studies assume we fully understand every aspect of the immune system. It rests on the belief that more of "Type X" antibody titer is better than less of "Type X" antibody titer without factoring the full range of immuno-response - CD4 and CD8 B-cells, white blood cells, etc. These studies are useful in that they are a starting point, but they don't grasp the whole picture.

The bottom line is that we have actual, real world studies, not petri-dish studies, that show that natural immunity is more effective and more durable than vaccination immunity. We may not know exactly why, but we do know that it's true. Furthermore, natural immunity also prevents the spread because it attacks the incoming virus at the point of entry: the mucous tissues in the sinuses and lungs, rather than waiting for the virus to get to the blood stream.

The real world Israel study with a massive sample size says natural immunity is between 13 times and 27 times better than vaccination

The real world Qatar study shows that natural immunity prevents reinfection with 95% efficiency relative to Covid-naive individuals. Out of 43,000 previously infected, only 129 got reinfected, only 3 suffered moderate symptoms, 1 suffered severe, and 0 were critical or fatal. The control group had an infection rate 21 times higher. 95% protection beats the vaccines, which generally look to be about 90% protective.

The real world Cleveland Clinic Study which followed 1359 previously-infected employees and found 0 reinfections over the next 5 months

Real world study in India tracking 1081 previously infected. In 9 months, only 13 were re-infected and all were mild.

Here is a study of studies, showing that natural immunity is robust and long lasting

Even the WHO is ceding that natural immunity is comparable to vaccination:

To conclude, available tests and current knowledge do not tell us about the duration of immunity and protection against reinfection, but recent evidence suggests that natural infection may provide similar protection against symptomatic disease as vaccination, at least for the available follow up period. The emergence of variants of concern poses challenges and their potential to evade immunity elicited by either natural infection or by vaccination, needs to be closely monitored.

And this was back in May, before the Israel study came out.

Then:

In another analysis, the researchers compared more than 14,000 people who had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were still unvaccinated with an equivalent number of previously infected people who received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The team found that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to be reinfected as the singly vaccinated.

This argument is constantly brought up by you, dckingsfan, and the media as if it's meaningful. So what if natural immunity + vaccination is better than natural immunity alone. The point still stands that natural immunity alone is better than vaccination immunity alone. With natural immunity, your chances of dying from Covid get cut by about 20-50X. So Bradley Beal, who had roughly a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying of Covid the first time, now has a 1 in 2-5 million chance of dying from a re-infection. With odds that low, there isn't much benefit in going to get vaccinated to improve his odds to 1 in 10 million. Either way, we are talking lightning strike type of odds.

Furthermore, by what authority does the government have to force the natural immune to go get vaccinated when they are already significantly less harmful to others than vaccinated people lacking natural immunity? That's like demanding that a jogger wear a helmet because we know helmets protect cyclists from dying. Well, sure, a helmet might be of marginal benefit to a jogger, but a jogger without a helmet is still much safer than a cyclist with one, so we don't bother insisting that joggers wear helmets too.

[nate33]

And here is an article describing mucosal IgA antibodies and how they stop the virus at the point of attack in the mucous membranes. Natural immunity confers mucosal IgA antibodies, vaccination does not.

A systemic vaccine against a mucosal pathogen may reduce disease severity, but may not impact the infectivity and spreading of the pathogen. The systemic Covid-19 vaccines available or undergoing evaluation will be able to induce IgG antibodies and other protective immune cells in the blood, but are unlikely to induce mucosal IgA antibody production, as demonstrated in the monkey immunisations.

This is because the nature of antibodies generated in these two compartments — in case of natural infection or by a vaccine — is different. A systemic vaccine injected into the muscles induces the production of IgG antibodies, not IgA antibodies that can block a respiratory virus from attaching to a host cell there. Only a mucosal vaccine can stimulate the production of IgA antibodies.

The IgG antibodies present in the blood can reach the mucosal layers, but this process is inefficient. So even if a high concentration of IgG antibodies is present in the blood after a successful systemic vaccination, sufficient quantities of these antibodies may not reach the upper respiratory tract to prevent viral infection or stop the spread of the viruses to other subjects. For nearly all mucosal infections, the real sign of protection is the presence of elevated IgA levels in the respiratory compartment.

[dckingsfan]

And here is an article describing mucosal IgA antibodies and how they stop the virus at the point of attack in the mucous membranes. Natural immunity confers mucosal IgA antibodies, vaccination does not.

A systemic vaccine against a mucosal pathogen may reduce disease severity, but may not impact the infectivity and spreading of the pathogen. The systemic Covid-19 vaccines available or undergoing evaluation will be able to induce IgG antibodies and other protective immune cells in the blood, but are unlikely to induce mucosal IgA antibody production, as demonstrated in the monkey immunisations.

This is because the nature of antibodies generated in these two compartments — in case of natural infection or by a vaccine — is different. A systemic vaccine injected into the muscles induces the production of IgG antibodies, not IgA antibodies that can block a respiratory virus from attaching to a host cell there. Only a mucosal vaccine can stimulate the production of IgA antibodies.

The IgG antibodies present in the blood can reach the mucosal layers, but this process is inefficient. So even if a high concentration of IgG antibodies is present in the blood after a successful systemic vaccination, sufficient quantities of these antibodies may not reach the upper respiratory tract to prevent viral infection or stop the spread of the viruses to other subjects. For nearly all mucosal infections, the real sign of protection is the presence of elevated IgA levels in the respiratory compartment.

With respect, this is an opinion piece. So before a pre-released study, a preprint or a peer-reviewed study.

Basically, they are saying this where we should take our scientific research (they are researchers and that is where they would like their funding). They aren't citing any research. Nor are the citing the waning immunity from natural infection in the nasal passages (which seems to be fairly fast - but still provide long-term antibodies).

Please note: if we go this way we may need both a nasal vaccination (probably still MNRA) and an injection. Just wonder how that will be received.

Also, this is probably something to read as well (with respect to the efficacy of how a nasal vaccine might be deployed):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/

[tontoz]

We've all heard about the Delta variant being more contagious than the original Alpha. Dr Fauci explains why in the vid below:

45 second mark to 1:20

Watch on YouTube

[nate33]

With respect, this is an opinion piece. So before a pre-released study, a preprint or a peer-reviewed study.

Basically, they are saying this where we should take our scientific research (they are researchers and that is where they would like their funding). They aren't citing any research. Nor are the citing the waning immunity from natural infection in the nasal passages (which seems to be fairly fast - but still provide long-term antibodies).

Please note: if we go this way we may need both a nasal vaccination (probably still MNRA) and an injection. Just wonder how that will be received.

Also, this is probably something to read as well (with respect to the efficacy of how a nasal vaccine might be deployed):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/

There are about 10 hyperlinks to scientific studies in that article. I picked the opinion piece because it described the concept of mucosal IgA antibodies in layman's terms.

There's also the real world example of the polio vaccines. We had an oral vaccine which induced mucosal resistance and used that during the actual polio outbreak, even though it had a significantly higher risk profile for side effects. We did so because it conferred sterilizing immunity. Later on, when the polio pandemic had receded, we switched to polio vaccine injections, which had a lower side effect risk profile. At that point, we no longer had to worry so much about stimulating mucosal IgA antibodies to sterilize the virus at the point of attack since there was no significant risk of community spread. It was sufficient to stimulate IgG antibodies in the blood, which was good enough to massively boost the chances of survival.

If you want more sources try these:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00472-2/fulltext

All SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently approved for use worldwide are injected intramuscularly. Although these vaccines are expected to induce neutralising antibodies in circulation, neutralising antibody generation local to mucosal surfaces lining the epithelia of the respiratory tract or transcytosis of circulating neutralising antibodies to mucosal surfaces might be limited

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-scientists-are-working-intranasal-vaccines-combat-covid-19-180977478/

History offers a precedent to a second wave of vaccines adding a layer of protection for public health. The initial Salk polio vaccine, for instance, was first introduced as a shot. Though it was effective at preventing illness, the shot didn’t stop infection. The poliovirus mostly affects the intestines, which are lined with mucus. So, scientists, including Albert Sabin, developed an oral vaccine that, when swallowed, came in direct contact with the gut mucosa to boost the mucosal immunity and stop infection and transmission. A Covid-19 intranasal vaccine would directly affect the mucosa in the same way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8358136/

While currently licensed intramuscular SARS-CoV-2 vaccines provide highly effective protection again both asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19, whether the induction of mucosal immunity by systemic immunization is phantom or reality remains debated [11]. According to a classic dogma, parenterally administered vaccines against mucosal pathogens induce primarily serum antibodies, but are poorly capable of generating protective mucosal immunity, at the pathogen entry site [2]. This dogma should be nuanced. Mucosal surfaces such as the lower airways are permeable to transudation of serum IgG antibodies, and intramuscular COVID-19 vaccination of breastfeeding women induces robust secretion of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk [12].

Those nuances notwithstanding, systemic vaccination alone does not induce the whole variety of compartmentalized local immune responses observed after mucosal vaccination with the same antigen. As a respiratory virus, SARS-CoV-2 may require higher levels of mucosal immunity to truly slow or block transmission [2]. Indeed, the most direct pathway to sterilizing and population immunity may be especially boosted through mucosal vaccine delivery to promote anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-IgA and TRM cells at the nasopharyngeal site of virus entry and replication.

And

Natural SARS-CoV-2 infection does induce mucosal (e.g., in saliva, nasal swab/wash or BAL fluid) S-IgA as well as systemic IgG antibody responses [2]. Mucosal IgA dominates, together with systemic IgA and a peripheral expansion of IgA plasmablasts with mucosal homing potential, the early neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 [3]. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity of IgA polymers, the primary antibody form (dimers and tetramers) in the nasopharynx, proved on average 15-fold and approximately sevenfold more potent than that of IgA monomers and plasma IgG, respectively [4]. Finally, mucosal (salivary) antibody response was suggested to serve as a surrogate measure of systemic immunity to SARS-CoV-2

[dckingsfan]

With respect, this is an opinion piece. So before a pre-released study, a preprint or a peer-reviewed study.

Basically, they are saying this where we should take our scientific research (they are researchers and that is where they would like their funding). They aren't citing any research. Nor are the citing the waning immunity from natural infection in the nasal passages (which seems to be fairly fast - but still provide long-term antibodies).

Please note: if we go this way we may need both a nasal vaccination (probably still MNRA) and an injection. Just wonder how that will be received.

Also, this is probably something to read as well (with respect to the efficacy of how a nasal vaccine might be deployed):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/

There are about 10 hyperlinks to scientific studies in that article. I picked the opinion piece because it described the concept of mucosal IgA antibodies in layman's terms.

There's also the real world example of the polio vaccines. We had an oral vaccine which induced mucosal resistance and used that during the actual polio outbreak, even though it had a significantly higher risk profile for side effects. We did so because it conferred sterilizing immunity. Later on, when the polio pandemic had receded, we switched to polio vaccine injections, which had a lower side effect risk profile. At that point, we no longer had to worry so much about stimulating mucosal IgA antibodies to sterilize the virus at the point of attack since there was no significant risk of community spread. It was sufficient to stimulate IgG antibodies in the blood, which was good enough to massively boost the chances of survival.

If you want more sources try these:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00472-2/fulltext

All SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently approved for use worldwide are injected intramuscularly. Although these vaccines are expected to induce neutralising antibodies in circulation, neutralising antibody generation local to mucosal surfaces lining the epithelia of the respiratory tract or transcytosis of circulating neutralising antibodies to mucosal surfaces might be limited

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-scientists-are-working-intranasal-vaccines-combat-covid-19-180977478/

History offers a precedent to a second wave of vaccines adding a layer of protection for public health. The initial Salk polio vaccine, for instance, was first introduced as a shot. Though it was effective at preventing illness, the shot didn’t stop infection. The poliovirus mostly affects the intestines, which are lined with mucus. So, scientists, including Albert Sabin, developed an oral vaccine that, when swallowed, came in direct contact with the gut mucosa to boost the mucosal immunity and stop infection and transmission. A Covid-19 intranasal vaccine would directly affect the mucosa in the same way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8358136/

While currently licensed intramuscular SARS-CoV-2 vaccines provide highly effective protection again both asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19, whether the induction of mucosal immunity by systemic immunization is phantom or reality remains debated [11]. According to a classic dogma, parenterally administered vaccines against mucosal pathogens induce primarily serum antibodies, but are poorly capable of generating protective mucosal immunity, at the pathogen entry site [2]. This dogma should be nuanced. Mucosal surfaces such as the lower airways are permeable to transudation of serum IgG antibodies, and intramuscular COVID-19 vaccination of breastfeeding women induces robust secretion of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk [12].

Those nuances notwithstanding, systemic vaccination alone does not induce the whole variety of compartmentalized local immune responses observed after mucosal vaccination with the same antigen. As a respiratory virus, SARS-CoV-2 may require higher levels of mucosal immunity to truly slow or block transmission [2]. Indeed, the most direct pathway to sterilizing and population immunity may be especially boosted through mucosal vaccine delivery to promote anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-IgA and TRM cells at the nasopharyngeal site of virus entry and replication.

And

Natural SARS-CoV-2 infection does induce mucosal (e.g., in saliva, nasal swab/wash or BAL fluid) S-IgA as well as systemic IgG antibody responses [2]. Mucosal IgA dominates, together with systemic IgA and a peripheral expansion of IgA plasmablasts with mucosal homing potential, the early neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 [3]. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity of IgA polymers, the primary antibody form (dimers and tetramers) in the nasopharynx, proved on average 15-fold and approximately sevenfold more potent than that of IgA monomers and plasma IgG, respectively [4]. Finally, mucosal (salivary) antibody response was suggested to serve as a surrogate measure of systemic immunity to SARS-CoV-2

The point of my response was:
1) researchers are advocating research in this area because they think it is the right way to go AND they want to get funded
2) we don't know how fast natural immunity wanes in the nasal cavity, we think quite fast
3) we "may" need to do both a nasal vaccine and a intermuscular vaccine
4) we don't know how often a nasal vaccine would need to be applied (how does this work in a worldwide scenario)

The third point is the one I am interested in... will the anti-vaxxers be good with ANY vaccine.

[Dat2U]

Novavax. Someone tell me why that is not approved yet?

[doclinkin]

studies

Yes it is a significantly positive thing if we are developing long term resistance to a brand new virus this quickly. If the science bears out that natural immunity is as strong or better long term than vaccination, that gives us hope that the destructive surge of death will be an acute incident meliorated by vaccines but not necessarily requiring yearly boosters etc. I would be curious to know if breakthrough infections of vaccinated people provide even greater resistance to future infection. Though the numbers are small enough right now and the interval of time too short that there would be too much noise in the data.

If so though, if the vaccines largely prevent hospitalization and death even with breakthrough infections, it might make more sense not to worry too much about follow-up boosters and decaying efficacy rates of vaccinations vs variants, since a bout of COVID while protected via vaccine would likely give you enhanced long term resistance to re-infection, while blunting the more dangerous effects of catching it unshielded by vaxx.

One dubious benefit of the pandemic: I am learning a great deal more about how our biology works. Nature is fascinating. Even the deadly aspects. Pretty cool the balance and counterbalance of competing algorithms of life in all its abundance. If there was a jersey or hat for Team Human Immune System I'd buy that. Go people! Go science!

[Kanyewest]

Novavax. Someone tell me why that is not approved yet?

But the challenges facing Novavax do not stem from how well the vaccine appears to work. Rather, Novavax has struggled to find a way to produce its shots. (Novavax did not respond to Fortune's request to comment.)

Novavax says it is currently producing COVID-19 vaccines at 20 plants globally and will have the capacity to make 2 billion vaccines in 2022, but none of the firm's vaccines are currently being used beyond clinical trials.

In the U.S., Novavax has yet to apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use authorization and says it may not apply for approval until the fourth quarter of this year after months of delays.

U.S. regulators told the New York Times in August that the hold-up stemmed from poor quality control at Novavax's manufacturing facilities. Novavax later said a contract it signed with the U.S. government has constrained its ability to produce doses. Since July 2020, Novavax has received $1.75 billion from former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed to develop and manufacture its vaccines. As part of the deal, Novavax says that it was directed to work with manufacturers including the Japanese-owned and U.S.-headquartered pharmaceutical manufacturer Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies, which has slowed production.

https://fortune.com/2021/09/24/novavax-who-approval-covid-vaccine-mrna-covax/

[nate33]

The point of my response was:
1) researchers are advocating research in this area because they think it is the right way to go AND they want to get funded
2) we don't know how fast natural immunity wanes in the nasal cavity, we think quite fast
3) we "may" need to do both a nasal vaccine and a intermuscular vaccine
4) we don't know how often a nasal vaccine would need to be applied (how does this work in a worldwide scenario)

The third point is the one I am interested in... will the anti-vaxxers be good with ANY vaccine.

I'm only bringing it up because of Bradley Beal.

My point is that Beal, with natural immunity (developed just 2 months ago) is almost certainly as safe, if not safer than his vaccinated teammates. And furthermore, the best research we have suggests that he is even less likely to be an asymptomatic spreader of Covid thanks to his mucosal antibodies.

There is absolutely no scientific rationale to treat Beal differently than his vaccinated teammates. If anything, he is even less of a danger to himself and others than at least 90% of the people on the planet. If anyone can safety go maskless, it's Beal.

Now, perhaps that all changes in 10 months. Maybe natural immunity does wane. But recent natural immunity is as strong as anything else out there, and studies are also showing that it doesn't fade as quickly as vaccination. (FWIW, SARS-COV-1 natural immunity has lasted 15 years.)

[Kanyewest]

Read on Twitter