Was just reading on CNN about the study in Israel about Pfizer dropping to 20% (or less) effectiveness in a matter of months (while still being 90% against serious illness or death). At this point I'm about to just give up on this ever being over or improving beyond where it is right now.
D&D and the rising pandemic
47% after 6 months vs. infection in the first study that popped up for me. I do wonder in some of these studies how they control for the vaccinated probably being more likely to distance and mask in many places.
Would almost be surprised at this point if we don't start getting annual boosters for COVID mixed in with the annual flu shots.
If the infection rate is cut in half and the serious illness rate is cut to a tenth, does that push it into just another thing like the flu?
Here's the article link:
Studies confirm waning immunity from Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine | CNN
Two real-world studies published Wednesday confirm that the immune protection offered by two doses of Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine drops off after two months or so, although protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death remains strong.
www.cnn.com
They mentioned that it's possible that vaccinated folks were possibly less likely to mask and social distance because of the protection the vaccine offered. But really, who knows without a long-term study of the behaviors of the individuals?
I think that at this point, "annual" boosters isn't going to cut it - not for Pfizer anyway, because it wanes too quickly. Also, it's not sustainable to give out seasonable boosters just to keep the protection above 50%, especially when some developing nations don't have wide access to any vaccines, and considering the cost of producing and administering the vaccines.
And remember, if this follows last year's pattern, summer is supposed to be the low infection period, with a big ramp up in fall and winter. So it's probably going to be getting much, much worse - especially now that our vaccine effectiveness is dwindling to a statistical improbability.
The article I read on this today noted that the observed lack of effectiveness may be due to the vaccinated RELAXING caution, and going to places where they'd get greater exposure as a result.
If we cut the death rate by a factor of 10, then it comes in at the upper end of how many the flu kill each year. So, a naive estimate would suggest that might be okay.
However, that leaves out the issue of "long covid", which is suffered by nearly a third of those who get it. That would make covid rather more costly than the flu - people down for months instead of a week or so.
Also, you know how one of the prime symptoms of covid is loss of sense of smell? That's troubling. Current studies suggest that while the virus itself doesn't infect the brain, the widespread inflammatory processes it kicks off in the body do also take place in the brain - which seems to lead to long-term or permanent chemical and physical impacts on the brain, and possible loss of function - loss of memory, depression, fatigue, and the like.
So, the level that we find 'acceptable" may be lower than that of the flu.
I haven't seen it official, but since the two-shot protocol was same-same, I'd expect the booster to be the same. If nothing else because each vendor tests it that way for sure.
So Moderna+Moderna, then a Moderna booster.
While it could be different than that, this seems the simplest.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Today's thought:
People who are just asking questions, just don't want answers.
People who are just asking questions, just don't want answers.
niklinna
satisfied?
Mm, I should have given the question more thought. A booster would by definition be of the same vaccine. I'm wondering about what happens if you just get a different vaccine. I haven't heard of any studies about that, but I have heard about the different qualities of the different vaccines. So, I can imagine that getting two different vaccines (not at the same time!) might be a good thing. Or, even with a time gap, it could cause problems!
I don't believe there's been any solid testing on the efficacy of cross-brand boosters at this point. That doesn't mean it won't work, but there's no study behind it yet.
that's part of why I assumed they'd stick to same.
Though one could argue, if one brand faded off sooner than others, and the patient waited "longer", they might just reset the clock and use a different brand to start over.
But that's just me speculating.
