The booster-industrial complex
Late last month, researchers in Israel released some alarming new Covid-19 data. The data showed that many Israelis who had been among the first to receive the vaccine were nonetheless catching the Covid virus. Israelis who had been vaccinated later were not getting infected as often.
The study led to headlines around the world about waning immunity — the idea that vaccines lose their effectiveness over time. In the U.S., the Israeli study accelerated a debate about vaccine booster shots and played a role in the Biden administration’s recent recommendation that all Americans receive a booster shot eight months after their second dose.
But the real story about waning immunity is more complex than the initial headlines suggested. Some scientists believe that the Israeli data was misleading and that U.S. policy on booster shots has gotten ahead of the facts. The evidence for waning immunity is murky, these scientists say, and booster shots may not have a big effect.
After returning from an August break last week, I have spent time reaching out to scientists to ask for their help in understanding the current, confusing stage of the pandemic. How worried should vaccinated people be about the Delta variant? How much risk do children face? Which parts of the Covid story are being overhyped, and which deserve more attention?
I will be trying to answer these questions in the coming weeks. (I’d also like to know what questions you want answered; submit them here.)
One of the main messages I’m hearing from the experts is that conventional wisdom about waning immunity is problematic. Yes, the immunity from the Covid vaccines will wane at some point. But it may not yet have waned in a meaningful way.
“There’s a big difference between needing another shot every six months versus every five years,” Dr. David Dowdy, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, told me. “So far, looking at the data we have, I’m not seeing much evidence that we’ve reached that point yet.”
Simpson strikes again
At first glance, the Israeli data seems straightforward: People who had been vaccinated in the winter were more likely to contract the virus this summer than people who had been vaccinated in the spring.
Yet it would truly be proof of waning immunity only if the two groups — the winter and spring vaccine recipients — were otherwise similar to each other. If not, the other differences between them might be the real reason for the gap in the Covid rates.
As it turns out, the two groups were different. The first Israelis to have received the vaccine tended to be more affluent and educated. By coincidence, these same groups later were among the first exposed to the Delta variant, perhaps because they were more likely to travel. Their higher infection rate may have stemmed from the new risks they were taking, not any change in their vaccine protection.
Statisticians have a name for this possibility — when topline statistics point to a false conclusion that disappears when you examine subgroups. It’s called Simpson’s Paradox.
This paradox may also explain some of the U.S. data that the C.D.C. has cited to justify booster shots. Many Americans began to resume more indoor activities this spring. That more were getting Covid may reflect their newfound Covid exposure (as well as the arrival of Delta), rather than any waning of immunity over time.
‘Where is it?’
Sure enough, other data supports the notion that vaccine immunity is not waning much.
The ratio of positive Covid tests among older adults and children, for example, does not seem to be changing, Dowdy notes. If waning immunity were a major problem, we should expect to see a faster rise in Covid cases among older people (who were among the first to receive shots). And even the Israeli analysis showed that the vaccines continued to prevent serious Covid illness at essentially the same rate as before.
“If there’s data proving the need for boosters, where is it?” Zeynep Tufekci, the sociologist and Times columnist, has written.
Part of the problem is that the waning-immunity story line is irresistible to many people. The vaccine makers — Pfizer, Moderna and others — have an incentive to promote it, because booster shots will bring them big profits. The C.D.C. and F.D.A., for their part, have a history of extreme caution, even when it harms public health. We in the media tend to suffer from bad-news bias. And many Americans are so understandably frightened by Covid that they pay more attention to alarming signs than reassuring ones.
The bottom line
Here’s my best attempt to give you an objective summary of the evidence, free from alarmism — and acknowledging uncertainty:
Immunity does probably wane modestly within the first year of receiving a shot. For this reason, booster shots make sense for vulnerable people, many experts believe. As Dr. Céline Gounder of Bellevue Hospital Center told my colleague Apoorva Mandavilli, the C.D.C.’s data “support giving additional doses of vaccine to highly immunocompromised persons and nursing home residents, not to the general public.”
The current booster shots may do little good for most people. The vaccines continue to provide excellent protection against illness (as opposed to merely a positive Covid test). People will eventually need boosters, but it may make more sense to wait for one specifically designed to combat a variant. “We don’t know whether a non-Delta booster would improve protection against Delta,” Dr. Aaron Richterman of the University of Pennsylvania told me.
A national policy of frequent booster shots has significant costs, financially and otherwise. Among other things, the exaggerated discussion of waning immunity contributes to vaccine skepticism.
While Americans are focusing on booster shots, other policies may do much more to beat back Covid, including more vaccine mandates in the U.S.; a more rapid push to vaccinate the world (and prevent other variants from taking root); and an accelerated F.D.A. study of vaccines for children.
As always, we should be open to changing our minds as we get new evidence. As Richterman puts it, “We have time to gather the appropriate evidence before rushing into boosters.”
@Rob1110, a vaccine and an infectious disease as a political topic is a direct result of the lack of leadership and the resulting lack of faith from and in our elected officials specifically and government at large.
If you were to tell America 25 years ago that there was a vaccine to a virus that had killed millions of people in the last year, and the CDC recommended that you take the vaccine, the FDA approved the vaccine, the government provided the vaccine at zero cost to every citizen, and that every former living president has both encouraged citizens to get it and have been vaccinated themselves, vaccination rates would have been in the high 90% range.
Heightened access to information in the digital age is one thing, but there are 150 million people in this country who suspect that they know more about infectious diseases and vaccines than the CDC and the FDA or don't trust the CDC and the FDA. That's the real problem.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
One other problem with the vax roll-out was the limited availability. It was a nightmare getting a shot for us, took nearly a month of trying and then only when a customer of ours who was in charge of the appointment list at the hospital took pity on us. In other words, the infrastructure wasn't up to the challenge of servicing hundreds of millions of eager citizens.
Yeah it's true @silvermouse. I think that everyone knew it was gonna be a shitshow to start with, but six months in we have so many on hand without willing arms to put them in that we are donating hundreds of millions of shots to 2nd and 3rd world countries before they go bad.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
No vaccine here. I am currently getting over covid. Had pretty mild symptoms. Ironically my Dr prescribed me ivermectin. Now I suppose my doctor doesn't know nearly as much as this Rob guy knows so I'm so glad he is here providing us his wisdom.
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form." -- Winston Churchill "LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
@Usaf06 said:
No vaccine here. I am currently getting over covid. Had pretty mild symptoms. Ironically my Dr prescribed me ivermectin. Now I suppose my doctor doesn't know nearly as much as this Rob guy knows so I'm so glad he is here providing us his wisdom.
lol, but remember that half the doctors graduated in the bottom half of the class, I have known a few of them.
Likewise, I'm sure a family practice doctor doesn't know as much as the infectious disease scientists and drug experts at the CDC and FDA, both of which approve and encourage people to get vaccinated. We could do this forever.
Speedy recovery, St. Nick!
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@Usaf06 said:
No vaccine here. I am currently getting over covid. Had pretty mild symptoms. Ironically my Dr prescribed me ivermectin. Now I suppose my doctor doesn't know nearly as much as this Rob guy knows so I'm so glad he is here providing us his wisdom.
So how is your vet doing these days, Nick? 😆
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@VegasFrank said:
Likewise, I'm sure a family practice doctor doesn't know as much as the infectious disease scientists and drug experts at the CDC and FDA, both of which approve and encourage people to get vaccinated. We could do this forever.
Speedy recovery, St. Nick!
Likewise, there are many doctors outside the US who have been treating their patients since the beginning with ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine, scads of patients, and state that none of them died and almost none of them required hospitalization. We will do this forever.
@VegasFrank said:
Likewise, I'm sure a family practice doctor doesn't know as much as the infectious disease scientists and drug experts at the CDC and FDA, both of which approve and encourage people to get vaccinated. We could do this forever.
Speedy recovery, St. Nick!
Likewise, there are many doctors outside the US who have been treating their patients since the beginning with ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine, scads of patients, and state that none of them died and almost none of them required hospitalization. We will do this forever.
Well, not dying is good. I guess. Everyone needs standards.
Of course, when I'm looking for a doctor, I definitely want one who won't kill me. Or give me dog medicine.
Maybe that's why I'm rubbing my a-hole on the carpet at night....
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
You guys do realize ivermectin is a drug for human consumption right. It has animal uses also but at much higher doses. If you go to an animal feed store to buy ivermectin then good luck to you. If you are prescribed it as a drug by a doctor then that might be something different
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form." -- Winston Churchill "LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form." -- Winston Churchill "LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
@Usaf06 - as I stated earlier, give me evidence, not emotion. Getting all emotional and telling me your doctor prescribed you a de-wormer/anti-parasitic for a virus when there is only anecdotal evidence to suggest any sort of benefit is the opposite of evidence over emotion.
@silvermouse has provided us with a link to a scientific write-up from a trusted source, citing clinical data to support the theory that Ivermectin is not a viable treatment for SARS-CoV2 infection. There's a lot more to understand than "a few doctors said they gave it to people and nobody died." That's not evidence. That's hearsay.
If you want to get nerdy, let's break down some important points in the article that @silvermouse has provided.
Mechanism of Action (this drug/compound/substance causes that effect on a cellular or molecular level):
"Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9"
OK, sounds promising. Ivermectin has shown some promise in interfering with SARS-CoV2 interaction/entry into human cell membranes. That's good! And they even provide references to published studies. Now, let's read on:
"Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12"
OK, so we lost some momentum. In vitro (performed in cells in petri-dishes or outside of a living organism), Ivermectin showed some promise but not in clinical studies. WHY?
That leads to the next point: PK/PD Studies / Toxicity assays / In vivo studies (in organism)
There is a range for all compounds (drugs, even food) where they may have no effect, some effect or a toxic effect. Pharmacokinetic (PK), Pharmacodynamic (PD), DMPK (Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetic) and Toxicity assays (experiments) study this. This is REALLY important and addresses your point: " If you go to an animal feed store to buy ivermectin then good luck to you."
"Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.14,15"
That second sentence. That's the one. Again, references provided to studies. Not just some random Family Medicine Practitioner's anecdotal "evidence." Sounds like it's time to hit the animal feed store for some more concentrated stuff. I recommend the apple flavored paste for horses. They seem to really enjoy it.
Where would we be during this pandemic with out you sir! Your a god send
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form." -- Winston Churchill "LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
Why is it that all we see is: may, possibly, could, perhaps, it’s possible, it’s likely, in everything written about this stuff. “If, if’s and but’s were candies and nuts, then every day would be Christmas.” Even the “experts” seem to speculate a lot. I have no side of this fence I’m just pointing out facts.
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give". Winston Churchill. MOW badge received.
@Patrickbrick - The scientific community is constantly learning when it comes to SARS-CoV2 and as new possibilities for treatment or prevention arise, it's up to the scientific community to test and retest them, find out if and how they work or don't work. Humans have been at least vaguely aware of cancer for thousands of years (early descriptions appear in Ancient Egypt and again in ancient Greece), yet look at where we are. We're constantly discovering, refining and trying to make sense of how to treat cancer. Thousands of years of study and we still don't have a cure (I'm happy to discuss why, if you have questions or theories).
Science isn't perfect. It's the constant quest for knowledge and truth. Scientists can theorize and show supporting evidence but one, seemingly miniscule thing may change and throw that theory out the window. It sucks but that's science.
I get that. Good luck getting 350 million people to roll up their sleeve for, this will probably be better for you than not getting it. This will likely keep you from dying. You can still get sick, but the probably of you getting really sick is possibly lower. Not to mention the FDA **** up with aduhelm. You can probably, perhaps see why some are apprehensive. Again I have no side, these are factual reasons why some don’t want it or trust.
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give". Winston Churchill. MOW badge received.
Patrick makes a good point. Our government, as well as most others, perhaps all others, have told so many lies so many times that people are reluctant to believe anything they say, at all.
Someone told me this morning that they'd read that 42,000 people died after receiving the vaccine. My response: "Of what?". Did they die from old age? Diabetes complications? Automobile accidents? What?
What I'm reasonably sure of is that they didn't die from the vaccine. Why? Look at the J&J vaccine. 10 or 12 people got blood clots after the vaccine, it was immediately removed from use. Until, that is, someone did the real math and showed that the number of people developing the blood clots after the vaccine was LESS than the number of people who developed blood clots prior to the vaccine.
Japan just pulled 2.5 million doses, put them on hold, because 2 people died after receiving their vaccine. Why? No one knows yet, but there's an abundance of caution with any new treatment. Millions and millions and millions of people are vaccinated with no adverse effects whatsoever, and demonstrated numbers show the vaccine to be highly effective. Perfect? No. What's perfect? Anyone know? Are all Fords perfect? Are all skyscrapers perfect?
So, question your government? Oh yes, absolutely. Question the science?? Certainly, but do your due diligence, follow up. 96% effective? I'll take it over 0% every time. What if my chance of winning the lotto was 96%? Would I place a bet? I think so. What if my chance of winning was 1: 456,000,000? Would I place a bet? No, but millions of people do.
People are crazy.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@Rob1110 said: @Usaf06 - as I stated earlier, give me evidence, not emotion. Getting all emotional and telling me your doctor prescribed you a de-wormer/anti-parasitic for a virus when there is only anecdotal evidence to suggest any sort of benefit is the opposite of evidence over emotion.
............
Sorry brother, I have to take you to task here a bit. If you read "getting all emotional" in this:
@Usaf06 said:
No vaccine here. I am currently getting over covid. Had pretty mild symptoms. Ironically my Dr prescribed me ivermectin. Now I suppose my doctor doesn't know nearly as much as this Rob guy knows so I'm so glad he is here providing us his wisdom.
>
All I see is Nick factually stating how his doctor decided to treat him for Covid. The emotions are actually in your post, add in a sprinkle of character assassination, and calling out Nicks Doctor for prescribing "a de-wormer".
I don't always agree with Nick either, but this post of yours smells a bit like intellectual elitism.
I have no horse in this race, but from how it looks here, you are quite certain that you know more than a medical professional, by doing some internet research. You could post a picture of your medical degree here and I will of course retract this. But until then, people are best suited to listen to their doctor over your internet research, if that is ok with you.
In my opinion, you should retract that post to Nick. Or at least apologize, for getting "All Emotional", as that is exactly what you did.
How do you like my profile pic Taborski? @matkn293
@Vision said: @Rob1110
I honestly thank you for at the very least giving us facts to consider. It’s enjoyable to read something written with a level head.
Not directed at you, @Vision... when we read 'facts' that we agree with, we find it enjoyable and level-headed... and when we disagree with the 'facts' we don't. It's human nature. If you/we suspect there are holes in some of the research, the funding, the billions of profits, then we decided we need new experts and listen to those we agree with.
@Amos_Umwhat said:
So, question your government? Oh yes, absolutely. Question the science?? Certainly, but do your due diligence, follow up. 96% effective? I'll take it over 0% every time. What if my chance of winning the lotto was 96%? Would I place a bet? I think so. What if my chance of winning was 1: 456,000,000? Would I place a bet? No, but millions of people do.
Sounds like you're saying if you get COVID you have 0% of surviving?
Science isn't perfect. It's the constant quest for knowledge and truth. Scientists can theorize and show supporting evidence but one, seemingly miniscule thing may change and throw that theory out the window. It sucks but that's science.
But then the media and government agencies, as well as you by the sound of it, want to call all those who don't agree with their findings and policies are labeled 'science deniers'. Science can and does change in its understanding, but those who disagree with the understanding de jour get tossed out the window.
@Patrickbrick - I completely understand hesitancy in trusting government and even healthy skepticism in trusting all health care professionals or scientists. Not everybody wants to be a "guinea pig" or "lab rat" for scientific testing but luckily there are enough people that trust science enough to do so. It's absolutely a valid argument.
@Amos_Umwhat makes some good points. People take chances all the time. People put things in their bodies that they're completely unaware of the ingredients and potential side-effects all the time. Millions of people play the lottery, knowing their chances of winning are against them. No system is perfect but a working system with a high degree of efficacy is better than no system at all.
@skydiverD - "Now I suppose my doctor doesn't know nearly as much as this Rob guy knows so I'm so glad he is here providing us his wisdom." and later: "Where would we be during this pandemic with out you sir! Your a god send"
That's sarcasm. Just in case you didn't notice. Just the same as my sarcasm in sending a heart to his second masterful argument. No apology here, bud. I have no qualms calling out a doctor that practices against science. If your mechanic tells you a leprechaun has been making adjustments to your transmission and you need a particle accelerator to fix it, you might want to look for a new mechanic. If your doctor prescribes you de-wormer/anti-parasitic drugs for a viral infection (when the evidence is stacked against that particular treatment), it might be time to seek out a new doctor. I don't know either of them, so I really don't care either way. I'm simply putting forth the data. I haven't seen any data from the other side. Call it what you will.
Also, I claimed early on that I am NOT the expert but I do know a some experts (PhD level scientists) in the field and I know how to read the data. I am trained in Biology and have a degree (Bachelor's) and I have worked in the industry throughout my entire professional career. I'm not giving anyone any medical advice. I'm simply putting forth the data for people to make their own assessments of it.
Again, I don't know you, Nick or his doctor, so I really don't care much either way. Take all the ivermectin you want. Throw some hydroxychloroquine in there for good measure.
@vision - Thanks, bud. Glad some folks on here appreciate scientifically supported data.
@peter4jc - I'm not trying to present anything as fact, so much as evidence-backed. Something with substance and data to supplement one side of the argument. If someone has some clinical data (or any relevant scientific data) to support the other side, I'm absolutely interested. I'm always questioning things but data supports an argument much more than belief or hearsay.
If you were truly always questioning things, it wouldn't be up to others to find and retrieve the opposing clinical data. So either your mind is made up w/o looking at it, or there actually is none. I suggest there are plenty of brilliant scientists whose findings and data are opposing what you've read or heard from your PhD's but they've been conveniently swept under the carpet, similar to the ones who dispute the common climate change narrative, because their views don't fit the agenda... but they're out there if you want to find them.
Again, I follow science. I've come across articles supporting the other side but most display shoddy science at best or have already been retracted. My stance is: I've presented data that supports my side of the argument. If you have data supporting some opposing theory, it's on you to present it.
This gets into "prove a negative" arguments. "Covid vaccines are safe until they're not." I could say "I have 1 million dollars." You can't prove I don't. It's up to you to prove it. No matter where you look, I can still come back with "well, you just haven't found it yet."
In 1864 Ignaz Semmelweiz became discredited by the entire medical community for suggesting they need to disinfect their hands before surgeries to prevent the spread of disease.
In the 1930's doctors would recommend patients smoke cigarettes to ease sore throats, and for a time it was recommended explicitly to pregnant women to help keep them calm.
In the 40's doctor's everywhere promoted "icepick lobotomies" as a practical way to treat hysteria, even to the point of having drive through clinics.
in the 50's and 60's thalidomine was prescrimed to pregnant women everywhere to prevent morning sickness. In the 60's it was revealed that the company that made it, and many of the prescribing doctors were aware that it caused serious birth defects, and the use of it alone caused an estimated 80,000 still-births. They continued to prescribe it because it made them money.
in 1999 the FDA approved Vioxx as a painkiller. The use of it caused 60,000 deaths. It was continually used until 2004, and there is evidence that the FDA was aware of fatal side effects, but suppressed it for the sake of sales. Estimated revenue was 2.4 billion.
Look at the opium crisis, caused by over prescription of painkillers. Look at all the times the FDA updated the food pyramid to match whichever industry was paying the most.
There is overwhelming evidence throughout the years the government and medical communities do not always have our best interests at heart. Follow the money. The same people who insist that this vaccine is the only way to stay alive are the people who funded gain-of-function research on corona virus' in Wuhan. I'm not saying this virus escaped from a lab, but I do believe it's very likely. If the scientific community where to come forward and say "We f*cked up, here is the steps that need to be taken to fix it" I think a lot more people would be willing to go along with it. As is, we all know that the people in charge are corrupt liars who will do anything for a buck. I think a lot of your "anti-vaxxers" are really just people who are tired of being lied to and feeling manipulated.
"Cooking isn't about struggling; It's about pleasure. It's like sǝx, with a wider variety of sauces."
At any given time the urge to sing "In The Jungle" is just a whim away... A whim away... A whim away...
@Wylaff - agree, 100%. History isn't always pretty and we have to learn from it. I completely understand why people have concerns and don't always trust government or even science. To make matters worse, science has become highly politicized and there is definitely corruption. That, compounded with the fact that scientific papers aren't always widely available and the data isn't always easily digestible by the masses.
Comments
interesting article from the NYT newsletter, fwiw...
(also, this oral live-virus vaccine has caused a few cases of polio in some African countries: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/polio-vaccination-causes-more-infections-than-wild-virus-66778 )
The booster-industrial complex
Late last month, researchers in Israel released some alarming new Covid-19 data. The data showed that many Israelis who had been among the first to receive the vaccine were nonetheless catching the Covid virus. Israelis who had been vaccinated later were not getting infected as often.
The study led to headlines around the world about waning immunity — the idea that vaccines lose their effectiveness over time. In the U.S., the Israeli study accelerated a debate about vaccine booster shots and played a role in the Biden administration’s recent recommendation that all Americans receive a booster shot eight months after their second dose.
But the real story about waning immunity is more complex than the initial headlines suggested. Some scientists believe that the Israeli data was misleading and that U.S. policy on booster shots has gotten ahead of the facts. The evidence for waning immunity is murky, these scientists say, and booster shots may not have a big effect.
After returning from an August break last week, I have spent time reaching out to scientists to ask for their help in understanding the current, confusing stage of the pandemic. How worried should vaccinated people be about the Delta variant? How much risk do children face? Which parts of the Covid story are being overhyped, and which deserve more attention?
I will be trying to answer these questions in the coming weeks. (I’d also like to know what questions you want answered; submit them here.)
One of the main messages I’m hearing from the experts is that conventional wisdom about waning immunity is problematic. Yes, the immunity from the Covid vaccines will wane at some point. But it may not yet have waned in a meaningful way.
“There’s a big difference between needing another shot every six months versus every five years,” Dr. David Dowdy, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, told me. “So far, looking at the data we have, I’m not seeing much evidence that we’ve reached that point yet.”
Simpson strikes again
At first glance, the Israeli data seems straightforward: People who had been vaccinated in the winter were more likely to contract the virus this summer than people who had been vaccinated in the spring.
Yet it would truly be proof of waning immunity only if the two groups — the winter and spring vaccine recipients — were otherwise similar to each other. If not, the other differences between them might be the real reason for the gap in the Covid rates.
As it turns out, the two groups were different. The first Israelis to have received the vaccine tended to be more affluent and educated. By coincidence, these same groups later were among the first exposed to the Delta variant, perhaps because they were more likely to travel. Their higher infection rate may have stemmed from the new risks they were taking, not any change in their vaccine protection.
Statisticians have a name for this possibility — when topline statistics point to a false conclusion that disappears when you examine subgroups. It’s called Simpson’s Paradox.
This paradox may also explain some of the U.S. data that the C.D.C. has cited to justify booster shots. Many Americans began to resume more indoor activities this spring. That more were getting Covid may reflect their newfound Covid exposure (as well as the arrival of Delta), rather than any waning of immunity over time.
‘Where is it?’
Sure enough, other data supports the notion that vaccine immunity is not waning much.
The ratio of positive Covid tests among older adults and children, for example, does not seem to be changing, Dowdy notes. If waning immunity were a major problem, we should expect to see a faster rise in Covid cases among older people (who were among the first to receive shots). And even the Israeli analysis showed that the vaccines continued to prevent serious Covid illness at essentially the same rate as before.
“If there’s data proving the need for boosters, where is it?” Zeynep Tufekci, the sociologist and Times columnist, has written.
Part of the problem is that the waning-immunity story line is irresistible to many people. The vaccine makers — Pfizer, Moderna and others — have an incentive to promote it, because booster shots will bring them big profits. The C.D.C. and F.D.A., for their part, have a history of extreme caution, even when it harms public health. We in the media tend to suffer from bad-news bias. And many Americans are so understandably frightened by Covid that they pay more attention to alarming signs than reassuring ones.
The bottom line
Here’s my best attempt to give you an objective summary of the evidence, free from alarmism — and acknowledging uncertainty:
Immunity does probably wane modestly within the first year of receiving a shot. For this reason, booster shots make sense for vulnerable people, many experts believe. As Dr. Céline Gounder of Bellevue Hospital Center told my colleague Apoorva Mandavilli, the C.D.C.’s data “support giving additional doses of vaccine to highly immunocompromised persons and nursing home residents, not to the general public.”
The current booster shots may do little good for most people. The vaccines continue to provide excellent protection against illness (as opposed to merely a positive Covid test). People will eventually need boosters, but it may make more sense to wait for one specifically designed to combat a variant. “We don’t know whether a non-Delta booster would improve protection against Delta,” Dr. Aaron Richterman of the University of Pennsylvania told me.
A national policy of frequent booster shots has significant costs, financially and otherwise. Among other things, the exaggerated discussion of waning immunity contributes to vaccine skepticism.
While Americans are focusing on booster shots, other policies may do much more to beat back Covid, including more vaccine mandates in the U.S.; a more rapid push to vaccinate the world (and prevent other variants from taking root); and an accelerated F.D.A. study of vaccines for children.
As always, we should be open to changing our minds as we get new evidence. As Richterman puts it, “We have time to gather the appropriate evidence before rushing into boosters.”
@Rob1110, a vaccine and an infectious disease as a political topic is a direct result of the lack of leadership and the resulting lack of faith from and in our elected officials specifically and government at large.
If you were to tell America 25 years ago that there was a vaccine to a virus that had killed millions of people in the last year, and the CDC recommended that you take the vaccine, the FDA approved the vaccine, the government provided the vaccine at zero cost to every citizen, and that every former living president has both encouraged citizens to get it and have been vaccinated themselves, vaccination rates would have been in the high 90% range.
Heightened access to information in the digital age is one thing, but there are 150 million people in this country who suspect that they know more about infectious diseases and vaccines than the CDC and the FDA or don't trust the CDC and the FDA. That's the real problem.
One other problem with the vax roll-out was the limited availability. It was a nightmare getting a shot for us, took nearly a month of trying and then only when a customer of ours who was in charge of the appointment list at the hospital took pity on us. In other words, the infrastructure wasn't up to the challenge of servicing hundreds of millions of eager citizens.
Yeah it's true @silvermouse. I think that everyone knew it was gonna be a shitshow to start with, but six months in we have so many on hand without willing arms to put them in that we are donating hundreds of millions of shots to 2nd and 3rd world countries before they go bad.
No vaccine here. I am currently getting over covid. Had pretty mild symptoms. Ironically my Dr prescribed me ivermectin. Now I suppose my doctor doesn't know nearly as much as this Rob guy knows so I'm so glad he is here providing us his wisdom.
-- Winston Churchill
"LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
Swift recovery, Nick.
lol, but remember that half the doctors graduated in the bottom half of the class, I have known a few of them.
Likewise, I'm sure a family practice doctor doesn't know as much as the infectious disease scientists and drug experts at the CDC and FDA, both of which approve and encourage people to get vaccinated. We could do this forever.
Speedy recovery, St. Nick!
So how is your vet doing these days, Nick? 😆
Likewise, there are many doctors outside the US who have been treating their patients since the beginning with ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine, scads of patients, and state that none of them died and almost none of them required hospitalization. We will do this forever.
Well, not dying is good. I guess. Everyone needs standards.
Of course, when I'm looking for a doctor, I definitely want one who won't kill me. Or give me dog medicine.
Maybe that's why I'm rubbing my a-hole on the carpet at night....
You guys do realize ivermectin is a drug for human consumption right. It has animal uses also but at much higher doses. If you go to an animal feed store to buy ivermectin then good luck to you. If you are prescribed it as a drug by a doctor then that might be something different
-- Winston Churchill
"LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
This vaccine is a way, its not the only way.
-- Winston Churchill
"LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
@Usaf06 - as I stated earlier, give me evidence, not emotion. Getting all emotional and telling me your doctor prescribed you a de-wormer/anti-parasitic for a virus when there is only anecdotal evidence to suggest any sort of benefit is the opposite of evidence over emotion.
@silvermouse has provided us with a link to a scientific write-up from a trusted source, citing clinical data to support the theory that Ivermectin is not a viable treatment for SARS-CoV2 infection. There's a lot more to understand than "a few doctors said they gave it to people and nobody died." That's not evidence. That's hearsay.
If you want to get nerdy, let's break down some important points in the article that @silvermouse has provided.
Mechanism of Action (this drug/compound/substance causes that effect on a cellular or molecular level):
"Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9"
OK, sounds promising. Ivermectin has shown some promise in interfering with SARS-CoV2 interaction/entry into human cell membranes. That's good! And they even provide references to published studies. Now, let's read on:
"Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12"
OK, so we lost some momentum. In vitro (performed in cells in petri-dishes or outside of a living organism), Ivermectin showed some promise but not in clinical studies. WHY?
That leads to the next point: PK/PD Studies / Toxicity assays / In vivo studies (in organism)
There is a range for all compounds (drugs, even food) where they may have no effect, some effect or a toxic effect. Pharmacokinetic (PK), Pharmacodynamic (PD), DMPK (Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetic) and Toxicity assays (experiments) study this. This is REALLY important and addresses your point: " If you go to an animal feed store to buy ivermectin then good luck to you."
"Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.14,15"
That second sentence. That's the one. Again, references provided to studies. Not just some random Family Medicine Practitioner's anecdotal "evidence." Sounds like it's time to hit the animal feed store for some more concentrated stuff. I recommend the apple flavored paste for horses. They seem to really enjoy it.
Where would we be during this pandemic with out you sir! Your a god send
-- Winston Churchill
"LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
Why is it that all we see is: may, possibly, could, perhaps, it’s possible, it’s likely, in everything written about this stuff. “If, if’s and but’s were candies and nuts, then every day would be Christmas.” Even the “experts” seem to speculate a lot. I have no side of this fence I’m just pointing out facts.
MOW badge received.
@Patrickbrick - The scientific community is constantly learning when it comes to SARS-CoV2 and as new possibilities for treatment or prevention arise, it's up to the scientific community to test and retest them, find out if and how they work or don't work. Humans have been at least vaguely aware of cancer for thousands of years (early descriptions appear in Ancient Egypt and again in ancient Greece), yet look at where we are. We're constantly discovering, refining and trying to make sense of how to treat cancer. Thousands of years of study and we still don't have a cure (I'm happy to discuss why, if you have questions or theories).
Science isn't perfect. It's the constant quest for knowledge and truth. Scientists can theorize and show supporting evidence but one, seemingly miniscule thing may change and throw that theory out the window. It sucks but that's science.
I get that. Good luck getting 350 million people to roll up their sleeve for, this will probably be better for you than not getting it. This will likely keep you from dying. You can still get sick, but the probably of you getting really sick is possibly lower. Not to mention the FDA **** up with aduhelm. You can probably, perhaps see why some are apprehensive. Again I have no side, these are factual reasons why some don’t want it or trust.
MOW badge received.
Patrick makes a good point. Our government, as well as most others, perhaps all others, have told so many lies so many times that people are reluctant to believe anything they say, at all.
Someone told me this morning that they'd read that 42,000 people died after receiving the vaccine. My response: "Of what?". Did they die from old age? Diabetes complications? Automobile accidents? What?
What I'm reasonably sure of is that they didn't die from the vaccine. Why? Look at the J&J vaccine. 10 or 12 people got blood clots after the vaccine, it was immediately removed from use. Until, that is, someone did the real math and showed that the number of people developing the blood clots after the vaccine was LESS than the number of people who developed blood clots prior to the vaccine.
Japan just pulled 2.5 million doses, put them on hold, because 2 people died after receiving their vaccine. Why? No one knows yet, but there's an abundance of caution with any new treatment. Millions and millions and millions of people are vaccinated with no adverse effects whatsoever, and demonstrated numbers show the vaccine to be highly effective. Perfect? No. What's perfect? Anyone know? Are all Fords perfect? Are all skyscrapers perfect?
So, question your government? Oh yes, absolutely. Question the science?? Certainly, but do your due diligence, follow up. 96% effective? I'll take it over 0% every time. What if my chance of winning the lotto was 96%? Would I place a bet? I think so. What if my chance of winning was 1: 456,000,000? Would I place a bet? No, but millions of people do.
People are crazy.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
............
Sorry brother, I have to take you to task here a bit. If you read "getting all emotional" in this:
>
All I see is Nick factually stating how his doctor decided to treat him for Covid. The emotions are actually in your post, add in a sprinkle of character assassination, and calling out Nicks Doctor for prescribing "a de-wormer".
I don't always agree with Nick either, but this post of yours smells a bit like intellectual elitism.
I have no horse in this race, but from how it looks here, you are quite certain that you know more than a medical professional, by doing some internet research. You could post a picture of your medical degree here and I will of course retract this. But until then, people are best suited to listen to their doctor over your internet research, if that is ok with you.
In my opinion, you should retract that post to Nick. Or at least apologize, for getting "All Emotional", as that is exactly what you did.
@Rob1110
I honestly thank you for at the very least giving us facts to consider. It’s enjoyable to read something written with a level head.
Treat this forum as entertainment, do not rely on it for medical advice.
Not directed at you, @Vision... when we read 'facts' that we agree with, we find it enjoyable and level-headed... and when we disagree with the 'facts' we don't. It's human nature. If you/we suspect there are holes in some of the research, the funding, the billions of profits, then we decided we need new experts and listen to those we agree with.
Sounds like you're saying if you get COVID you have 0% of surviving?
But then the media and government agencies, as well as you by the sound of it, want to call all those who don't agree with their findings and policies are labeled 'science deniers'. Science can and does change in its understanding, but those who disagree with the understanding de jour get tossed out the window.
@Patrickbrick - I completely understand hesitancy in trusting government and even healthy skepticism in trusting all health care professionals or scientists. Not everybody wants to be a "guinea pig" or "lab rat" for scientific testing but luckily there are enough people that trust science enough to do so. It's absolutely a valid argument.
@Amos_Umwhat makes some good points. People take chances all the time. People put things in their bodies that they're completely unaware of the ingredients and potential side-effects all the time. Millions of people play the lottery, knowing their chances of winning are against them. No system is perfect but a working system with a high degree of efficacy is better than no system at all.
@skydiverD - "Now I suppose my doctor doesn't know nearly as much as this Rob guy knows so I'm so glad he is here providing us his wisdom." and later: "Where would we be during this pandemic with out you sir! Your a god send"
That's sarcasm. Just in case you didn't notice. Just the same as my sarcasm in sending a heart to his second masterful argument. No apology here, bud. I have no qualms calling out a doctor that practices against science. If your mechanic tells you a leprechaun has been making adjustments to your transmission and you need a particle accelerator to fix it, you might want to look for a new mechanic. If your doctor prescribes you de-wormer/anti-parasitic drugs for a viral infection (when the evidence is stacked against that particular treatment), it might be time to seek out a new doctor. I don't know either of them, so I really don't care either way. I'm simply putting forth the data. I haven't seen any data from the other side. Call it what you will.
Also, I claimed early on that I am NOT the expert but I do know a some experts (PhD level scientists) in the field and I know how to read the data. I am trained in Biology and have a degree (Bachelor's) and I have worked in the industry throughout my entire professional career. I'm not giving anyone any medical advice. I'm simply putting forth the data for people to make their own assessments of it.
Again, I don't know you, Nick or his doctor, so I really don't care much either way. Take all the ivermectin you want. Throw some hydroxychloroquine in there for good measure.
@vision - Thanks, bud. Glad some folks on here appreciate scientifically supported data.
@peter4jc - I'm not trying to present anything as fact, so much as evidence-backed. Something with substance and data to supplement one side of the argument. If someone has some clinical data (or any relevant scientific data) to support the other side, I'm absolutely interested. I'm always questioning things but data supports an argument much more than belief or hearsay.
If you were truly always questioning things, it wouldn't be up to others to find and retrieve the opposing clinical data. So either your mind is made up w/o looking at it, or there actually is none. I suggest there are plenty of brilliant scientists whose findings and data are opposing what you've read or heard from your PhD's but they've been conveniently swept under the carpet, similar to the ones who dispute the common climate change narrative, because their views don't fit the agenda... but they're out there if you want to find them.
Again, I follow science. I've come across articles supporting the other side but most display shoddy science at best or have already been retracted. My stance is: I've presented data that supports my side of the argument. If you have data supporting some opposing theory, it's on you to present it.
This gets into "prove a negative" arguments. "Covid vaccines are safe until they're not." I could say "I have 1 million dollars." You can't prove I don't. It's up to you to prove it. No matter where you look, I can still come back with "well, you just haven't found it yet."
In 1864 Ignaz Semmelweiz became discredited by the entire medical community for suggesting they need to disinfect their hands before surgeries to prevent the spread of disease.
In the 1930's doctors would recommend patients smoke cigarettes to ease sore throats, and for a time it was recommended explicitly to pregnant women to help keep them calm.
In the 40's doctor's everywhere promoted "icepick lobotomies" as a practical way to treat hysteria, even to the point of having drive through clinics.
in the 50's and 60's thalidomine was prescrimed to pregnant women everywhere to prevent morning sickness. In the 60's it was revealed that the company that made it, and many of the prescribing doctors were aware that it caused serious birth defects, and the use of it alone caused an estimated 80,000 still-births. They continued to prescribe it because it made them money.
in 1999 the FDA approved Vioxx as a painkiller. The use of it caused 60,000 deaths. It was continually used until 2004, and there is evidence that the FDA was aware of fatal side effects, but suppressed it for the sake of sales. Estimated revenue was 2.4 billion.
Look at the opium crisis, caused by over prescription of painkillers. Look at all the times the FDA updated the food pyramid to match whichever industry was paying the most.
There is overwhelming evidence throughout the years the government and medical communities do not always have our best interests at heart. Follow the money. The same people who insist that this vaccine is the only way to stay alive are the people who funded gain-of-function research on corona virus' in Wuhan. I'm not saying this virus escaped from a lab, but I do believe it's very likely. If the scientific community where to come forward and say "We f*cked up, here is the steps that need to be taken to fix it" I think a lot more people would be willing to go along with it. As is, we all know that the people in charge are corrupt liars who will do anything for a buck. I think a lot of your "anti-vaxxers" are really just people who are tired of being lied to and feeling manipulated.
At any given time the urge to sing "In The Jungle" is just a whim away... A whim away... A whim away...
@Wylaff - agree, 100%. History isn't always pretty and we have to learn from it. I completely understand why people have concerns and don't always trust government or even science. To make matters worse, science has become highly politicized and there is definitely corruption. That, compounded with the fact that scientific papers aren't always widely available and the data isn't always easily digestible by the masses.