MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile

Offline
|
Friends vaccinated unfortunately with Sinopharm/Sinovac or AztraZeneca are contracting Delta and Ómicron sickness as determined by Sector Salud. I am trying to persuade them to seek out Moderna or Pfizer mRNA for their booster jabs. Two individuals did that this morning. Thank you.
|
BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile

|
From what I’ve been reading, each exposure (infection or vaccination) broadens the antibody and memory cell coverage against all the variants (thus far) of the virus and increases the antibody titers.
|
PDQXYZ

NY

New Member

Joined: 01/18/2022

View Profile

|
I try to keep an open mind and read all sides of a question. I think this is a fantastic teaching moment. I would love to have some of the experts on this thread discuss all the things that are factually wrong with the article linked above, or even just twisted to support an argument. It would be a valuable service to all of the readers of this thread.
|
BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile

|
No thanks, I’ll spend my time reading peer reviewed research articles instead of opinion websites. At least with research articles the authors provide the raw data, they tell you how they collected and how they analyzed it that way everyone can review and assess their conclusions. The authors also tell you the limitations of their study.
* This post was
edited 02/08/22 06:12pm by BCSnob *
|
MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile

Offline
|
Having doubts as a researcher should I save my eyesight for professionally corroborated, traceable and repeatable analysis via peer review.
|
|
MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile

Offline
|
The content that was here was not relating a scientific study etc. but a personal experience and needed to be posted in the other forum. Thanks.
* This post was
edited 02/09/22 05:41am by an administrator/moderator *
|
PDQXYZ

NY

New Member

Joined: 01/18/2022

View Profile

|
BCSnob wrote: No thanks, I’ll spend my time reading peer reviewed research articles instead of opinion websites. At least with research articles the authors provide the raw data, they tell you how they collected and how they analyzed it that way everyone can review and assess their conclusions. The authors also tell you the limitations of their study.
I still feel it would be very educational for those of us who are non-scientists. Not sure what you do for a living, but left with the impression you work in the medical/biological/scientific industry. In fact you have been the major contributor to this thread, a true service to the readers.
I took a little time to look back a bit on this thread. Randomly selected page 80 through 108, date range 12-2-20 to 2-24-21. You linked 11 preprints that have not been peer reviewed, 6 more preprints that were subsequently published, 7 journal articles (presumably peer reviewed), a couple of press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, and a handful of media articles. Whew! It's a lot of work to sort through all that stuff and no doubt you must have read dozens more you didn't link. You have undoubtedly spent a considerable amount of time doing it and I commend you for the time spent for the readers benefit.
I only ask for a few minutes more of your time which I feel would be time better spent than you realize. We have heard so much discussion about "misinformation" lately. (Joe Rogan anyone?) Not much discussion of what exactly that misinformation is, just that it is misinformation and must be silenced. Take a crack at telling us the factual errors pretty please???
|
BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile

|
PDQXYZ wrote: Take a crack at telling us the factual errors pretty please??? ![smile [emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif)
The time requirement to do this will depend upon how many factual errors and the time needed to search for the studies that refute those statements.
Lets take for example ivermectin. There have been 100s of studies published on its use. Some of those studies have been small (a few patients), most have not been "double blinded", some have had serious flaws in methodology and then retracted (one or two of which are often held up as or referenced by other articles as proof of ivermectin's efficacy), some have additional confounding variables, etc; on the whole there has been little to no evidence of efficacy for the treatment or prevention of Covid-19 with ivermectin. If ivermectin was a viable treatment, most studies would show efficacy. All of those studies would require review, discussion of limitations, and linking in order to cover the inevitable "but what about ____" statements that would arise.
This would be a significantly longer effort than simply sharing information I find during my daily reading (I don't read novels, short stories, magazines, etc; my reading is of scientific studies).
Between my work, commuting, and sheep chores (our ewes are lambing) I won't have the time I expect will be necessary to devote to this task.
* This post was
last
edited 02/09/22 10:08am by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile

|
Mex,
This preprint may be of particular interest to you. I have not fully reviewed it yet.
Antibody and memory B-cell immunity in a heterogeneously SARS-CoV-2 infected and vaccinated population.
MedRxiv Preprint 8Feb2022
Quote: Abstract.
Global population immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is accumulating through heterogenous combinations of infection and vaccination. Vaccine distribution in low- and middle-income countries has been variable and reliant on diverse vaccine platforms. We studied B-cell immunity in Mexico, a middle-income country where five different vaccines have been deployed to populations with high SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Levels of antibodies that bound a stabilized prefusion spike trimer, neutralizing antibody titers and memory B-cell expansion correlated with each other across vaccine platforms. Nevertheless, the vaccines elicited variable levels of B-cell immunity, and the majority of recipients had undetectable neutralizing activity against the recently emergent omicron variant. SARS-CoV-2 infection, experienced prior to or after vaccination potentiated B-cell immune responses and enabled the generation of neutralizing activity against omicron and SARS-CoV for all vaccines in nearly all individuals. These findings suggest that broad population immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will eventually be achieved, but by heterogenous paths
|
BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile

|
This retrospective study from the USA (multiple western states) found the reinfection rate (0.9%) was larger than the breakthrough infection rate (0.4%) which is opposite to what was reported from a study in Israel.
Time to reinfection and vaccine breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections: a retrospective cohort study
MedRxiv Preprint 8Feb2022
Quote: In this study, we examined the acquired immunity through three vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, JNJ-78436735) that have been administered in the United States by characterizing breakthrough cases in a large, vaccinated population across California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Montana. We also conducted pairwise-comparison of the acquired immunity of the vaccines, matching individual vaccine cohorts based on sex, ethnicity, age, and timing of the completion of the recommended initial dose(s). As of November 5th, 2021, 2,627,914 patients (mRNA-1273: 1,087,796; BNT162b2: 1,350,422; JNJ-78436735: 189,696) were fully vaccinated and 0.36% (N=9,321) tested positive after vaccination. All three vaccines showed a high probability of survival against breakthrough cases (mRNA-1273: 0.997, BNT162b2: 0.997, JNJ-78436735: 0.992 in 180 days). In terms of individual performance, two doses of mRNA-1273 was the most effective and a single dose of JNJ-78436735 was least effective among the three administered immunizations (168, 155, and 130 median days to breakthrough, P<0.05). These results remained robust in propensity score analyses. The present results support evidence of previous studies (9–11).
Quote: Additionally, we examined the acquired immunity through prior COVID-19 infection (64,424 patients) for preventing reinfection. We found a median survival time of 162 days and a mean of 191 days, with an asymptotic probability for avoiding reinfection of 0.995 at 180 days, which is comparable to vaccine-induced immunity breakthrough. We must be careful in comparing these numbers since we have a larger threshold between reinfected cases and breakthroughs. There is also a substantially greater risk of mortality subsequent to SARS-CoV-2 infection than there is to vaccination. We adjust for this by multiplying the resulting survival probability for reinfection by the probability of surviving after 90 days. This gives an adjusted survival of reinfection probability of 0.945 at 180 days.
Immunity from full vaccination or previous infection against breakthrough/reinfection (up through the delta wave) was high with protection by vaccination slightly higher and much safer to acquire than previous infection.
|
|
|