Are you going to take the COVID vaccine?

[WebSlave]

Interesting....

240 Israelis found with COVID after vaccination, underscoring need for vigilance

Pfizer's shot only begins having an effect 8-10 days after first injection, and only reaches full potential after the second dose

By TOI staff 1 January 2021, 4:20 am

Among the nearly one million Israelis vaccinated against coronavirus so far, some 240 Israelis have been diagnosed with the virus days after getting the shot, Channel 13 News reported Thursday.

The figure underscores the need for individuals to continue to protect themselves for weeks after being inoculated, as the body takes time to develop effective antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19.

The Pfizer vaccine is not made with the coronavirus itself, meaning that there is no chance anyone could catch it from the shots. Instead, the vaccine contains a piece of genetic code that trains the immune system to recognize the spiked protein on the surface of the virus and create antibodies to attack if it encounters the real thing.

But this process takes time, and studies of the vaccine so far have shown immunity to the virus rises only some 8-10 days after the first injection — and then only to around 50 percent effectiveness.

This is why the second dose of the vaccine, given 21 days after the first, is critical: It strengthens the immune system’s response to the virus, bringing it to 95% effectiveness and ensuring that immunity lasts. This level of immunity is only reached about a week after the second dose — or 28 days after the first.

Anyone who is infected a few days before getting the vaccine’s first dose or in the weeks before full effectiveness is reached is still in danger of developing symptoms. (Even when the vaccine reaches its top potential, there remains a 5% chance of this.)

Another matter to note is that studies have not yet determined whether the vaccine allows a person to carry the disease and spread it, without getting sick: It is possible that while one’s body would be largely protected from the virus after vaccination, mucous layers in the nasal passages, beyond the reach of antibodies, could still harbor multiplying virus particles.

While these would not harm the carrier — as any virus that enters deeper into the body would swiftly be destroyed by the trained immune system — they could still be expelled through the nose and mouth and infect others.

The vast majority of Israelis who have received the vaccine have reported no issues since getting the shot. Around one in a thousand people have reported suffering mild side effects, with only a few dozen seeking medical attention following the shot, figures published Wednesday showed.

The most common side effects reported were weakness, dizziness and fever, with 319 combined cases, the ministry said. Five also reported suffering diarrhea. Another 293 people reported localized symptoms where the injection was administered such as pain, restriction of movement, swelling and redness.

Fourteen people said they had allergic reactions such as itching and swelling of the tongue and throat.

Additionally, 26 people suffered what the ministry described as “neurological symptoms,” with 19 complaining of a tingly sensation in their arm.

The ministry noted that only 51 people (0.008%) of those who reported suffering any side effects said they sought medical attention for their symptoms.

According to the Kan public broadcaster, there have been four cases where people in Israel have died shortly after receiving the vaccination, but three of the four were deemed by the Health Ministry, as well as by both family members and doctors, to have been unrelated to the shots. The fourth case, an 88-year-old man who had serious preexisting health problems, is currently being investigated.

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/240-i...qZSYFg5EkNrVnU0sRVn-leESnzK35LB-r9eFAdahAVfHE

 

[WebSlave]

Oh yeah, a thought just crossed my mind. If you play the stock market, buy stock in the companies that manufacture syringes.

 

[WebSlave]

Well worth watching. Addresses concerns with delaying the second dose of the vaccine as well as the considered plan of partial doses instead of full doses to get more mileage out of the available stocks of vaccine.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7xsOsrDmPQ

 

[sschind]

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/240-i...qZSYFg5EkNrVnU0sRVn-leESnzK35LB-r9eFAdahAVfHE

This doesn't really surprise me. After all, if 1 dose was effective why would you need a second dose. I'd be interested to see how many, if any, of these infected could trace where they were infected. I'm guessing if they were diagnosed within days, which to me means less than a week, they either already had the virus when they got the vaccination or completely disregarded all preventative measures once they got it.

 

[WebSlave]

This doesn't really surprise me. After all, if 1 dose was effective why would you need a second dose. I'd be interested to see how many, if any, of these infected could trace where they were infected. I'm guessing if they were diagnosed within days, which to me means less than a week, they either already had the virus when they got the vaccination or completely disregarded all preventative measures once they got it.

I think that it is really more airborne than people are letting on, and that is how people have been caught unaware by becoming infected. How long will the virus remain suspended in the air, and how far can it travel before becoming inert? When they say that the new British and the South African mutations are dramatically more infections than previous strains, I am taking that to mean that it is that much more likely that low exposures will cause more rapid and more extensive symptomatic infections. The more virus you have that can quickly attach to receptors in cells, the more likely it is that your immune system will get caught with it's pants down before it can start mounting a defense. And I am taking that to mean that there will be less asymptomatic infections and more serious consequences to all infected. This may be what happened with the 1918 pandemic when the second wave struck. IMHO, any way. I'm not a doctor nor researcher in such things, and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in a very long time. But I am usually pretty good at putting two and two together most times.

But yeah, in my mind this vaccination stuff could actually make people who were vaccinated more dangerous to the unvaccinated because the vaccinated might become rather cavalier about continuing to use the previous methods of avoiding infection prior to getting the vaccine. They could be thinking they are now immune, so damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! So they might have contracted the virus and unknowingly be infectious to others. Just not showing symptoms because the vaccine is helping to prevent the symptoms from developing, but NOT them being an infectious carrier of the virus.

Not to sound anti-social or anything, but personally I think I would try hard to avoid contact with people vaccinated as best I could. But honestly, that wouldn't be any more or less than Connie and I are already doing. I'm beginning to get comfortable with my "hermit in the woods" semi-isolation, I guess. Sure wish we could go to a gunshow and spend that $1200 government "COVID relief" check we just got.

BTW, in one of the sources I have been reading, someone with what appears to have some real in-depth knowledge about this stuff commented that his fear was that quite a few unqualified people might be utilized to administer the vaccine shots, simply because of the numbers being so great that qualified people would be extremely overwhelmed trying to keep up with the workload. OK, so you have 100,000,000 doses to be administered, and the clock is ticking. Who all is going to do the needle jabbing? Good 'ole Billy Bob at the Oil Changes, Cell Phone Repairs, & Vaccine Shots while you wait?

Anyway, he said that administering the vaccine into a vein instead of muscle tissue could be quite dangerous. Anyone have any ideas on why that might be? Hmm, yeah, I guess I could ask him about that next time I log onto that particular site....

 

[sschind]

Maybe they should give out little "I've just been vaccinated" stickers like the "I voted" stickers so we could identify them

Its too bad we can't self administer the vaccines. That way they could send it out with our relief checks.

Speaking of which, Connie doesn't mind you spending her $600.00 at a gun show?

I'm pretty sure I'm far down on the vaccination list, even though I was an essential employee at a lottery ticket dispensery, so by the time it comes to my turn there should be at least some real world data and personal accounts. Not that any of it will be accurate or relevant but at least some feedback.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

The likelihood of putting it in a vein is low based on intramuscular site choices. Only certain people who are trained (and licensed) to give injections would be providing the administration. Unlicensed administration is not legal. The bigger administration concern to me would be people failing to penetrate the muscle. Many members of the population are...fluffy. Then there are some older folks who are skin-on-skeleton thin from sarcopenia. It will depend on the needle length selected, the person receiving the dose, and the technique of the person administering the dose. I have performed a lot of injections. It is not that (or even remotely) difficult, but some people will administer better than others and some recipients will have better tissue quality and composition at sites than others. It is simply so, so it is not a variable I can use for any predictive purpose. An IM shot is ideal, but a poorly delivered shot might not be completely useless. It will depend somewhat on metabolic activity of the cells, and the types of cells, which are receiving the mRNA. IM (intramuscular) administration is the goal, still.

Besides training the immune system and improving its library, which I am a fan of in general, the point is to shift probabilities in our favor (which it does). It is not a guarantee just as no other medication comes with a guarantee. A guarantee would require magic and it would appear our species is lacking in talent for magic (or at least I am).

 

[WebSlave]

Speaking of which, Connie doesn't mind you spending her $600.00 at a gun show?

You obviously don't know Connie.

She likes guns too. She will actually mark pages in the NRA magazines we get to note guns that caught her eye. And I can't count the number of times we were at a gun show and I was trying to decide between two guns and Connie would just say "Buy both of them! What's the problem with that?"

Actually we don't have a "his" and "hers" money arrangement. It's "our" money. And neither one of us will deny the other something they want.

Truth be known, I almost have to wrestle Connie to the floor to get her to take money to buy something. She is a one in a million (maybe even totally unique), no doubt.

 

[sschind]

You obviously don't know Connie.

She likes guns too. She will actually mark pages in the NRA magazines we get to note guns that caught her eye. And I can't count the number of times we were at a gun show and I was trying to decide between two guns and Connie would just say "Buy both of them! What's the problem with that?"

Actually we don't have a "his" and "hers" money arrangement. It's "our" money. And neither one of us will deny the other something they want.

Truth be known, I almost have to wrestle Connie to the floor to get her to take money to buy something. She is a one in a million (maybe even totally unique), no doubt.

Sounds like you got a great one. I kinda figured that but I wanted to throw it in anyway

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

I received the first dose of the Moderna version. It was uneventful. Looking forward to getting the second dose administered later this month.

I received the second dose on Wednesday. Tenderness at the site developed over ~6-8 hours and had vanished before 24 hours. At around 24 hours, I developed a temperature of 101.8F along with the slightest hint of aching muscles. I let that be for around 6 hours. Since I had to work that night, I took one 500mg tablet of acetaminophen that quickly brought my temperature to 98.8F and I have stayed around that since. Reactions will vary, but that was mine. All in all, no big deal relative to the benefit obtained.

 

[WebSlave]

I received the second dose on Wednesday. Tenderness at the site developed over ~6-8 hours and had vanished before 24 hours. At around 24 hours, I developed a temperature of 101.8F along with the slightest hint of aching muscles. I let that be for around 6 hours. Since I had to work that night, I took one 500mg tablet of acetaminophen that quickly brought my temperature to 98.8F and I have stayed around that since. Reactions will vary, but that was mine. All in all, no big deal relative to the benefit obtained.

You are probably following this much more closely than I am, but has there been any proven benefits of the vaccine yet? I know what they SAY it wil do, but I guess it's pretty hard to prove a negative. Since there are so many asymptomatic infections of COVID, how has the vaccine been "proven" to be effective?

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

You are probably following this much more closely than I am, but has there been any proven benefits of the vaccine yet? I know what they SAY it wil do, but I guess it's pretty hard to prove a negative. Since there are so many asymptomatic infections of COVID, how has the vaccine been "proven" to be effective?

Yes. You can measure specific antibody avidity, which is how we tracked things when I worked in vaccine development. That, possibly used in combination with a volume quantification from serum samples, serves as a method for showing a competent immune response to a vaccine candidate. Further, one can, with enough sample size, compare the infection rate over a study's course of those enrolled who received a single dose to those who received two doses versus those who received placebo. Benefit is seen more directly in the rise of observable immunocompetence as well as somewhat indirectly via the reduction of detriment compared to those who did not receive the candidate. Some other companies have cancelled development of their vaccine candidates not because they did not work at all, but because they were not nearly as efficiacious as existing vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer. If the latter did not exist for comparison, and comparison is easy if the data are of quality and quantity, then cancelled candidates would have been progressed to the point of seeking approval (and probably receiving it) since expectations for vaccine efficacy have been traditionally far more conservative compared to the demonstrated results achieved via the big ones utilizing the current technology. It looks like we are doing a better job than we ever have before in several cases, but some betters are even better than other betters.

 

[Helenthereef]

Thanks for such a comprehensive answer

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

My pleasure.

 

[WebSlave]

Yes. You can measure specific antibody avidity, which is how we tracked things when I worked in vaccine development. That, possibly used in combination with a volume quantification from serum samples, serves as a method for showing a competent immune response to a vaccine candidate. Further, one can, with enough sample size, compare the infection rate over a study's course of those enrolled who received a single dose to those who received two doses versus those who received placebo. Benefit is seen more directly in the rise of observable immunocompetence as well as somewhat indirectly via the reduction of detriment compared to those who did not receive the candidate. Some other companies have cancelled development of their vaccine candidates not because they did not work at all, but because they were not nearly as efficiacious as existing vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer. If the latter did not exist for comparison, and comparison is easy if the data are of quality and quantity, then cancelled candidates would have been progressed to the point of seeking approval (and probably receiving it) since expectations for vaccine efficacy have been traditionally far more conservative compared to the demonstrated results achieved via the big ones utilizing the current technology. It looks like we are doing a better job than we ever have before in several cases, but some betters are even better than other betters.

So Nick, what is your take on the possibility or probability of potential long term detrimental effects from a vaccine of this type? Is Moderna using the same methodology as Pfizer? I thought I read somewhere that Moderna was developed in China, but not sure of the source of that information.

Yeah, I know you have had your shots, and I am presuming that you wouldn't have done that without feeling pretty good that you weren't dooming yourself to become a zombie in later years. But any reservations at all when you were waiting for the needle jabs?

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

So Nick, what is your take on the possibility or probability of potential long term detrimental effects from a vaccine of this type? Is Moderna using the same methodology as Pfizer? I thought I read somewhere that Moderna was developed in China, but not sure of the source of that information.

Yeah, I know you have had your shots, and I am presuming that you wouldn't have done that without feeling pretty good that you weren't dooming yourself to become a zombie in later years. But any reservations at all when you were waiting for the needle jabs?

I am not concerned with that (long-term safety) being something of high probability or incidence. What lasts in the body is not the product, as the product is degraded very rapidly (mere hours; much faster than traditional vaccine components), but the immune memory (cellular) and the circulating antibodies. I think the only long-term question I have is the duration of protective benefit since we could not possibly have that data in hand yet. Will we need annual boosters? Every five years? I am curious about that part.

Similar mRNA technology for the two, although I think that they have somewhat differing drug product stability profiles for now (this is not relevant to safety, but can matter in terms of efficacy because the handling must be conducted within a storage and handling specification range in order to ensure that excessive degradation of the mRNA is not occurring prior to administration).

I have no worry about that, but for others due to specific data gaps. Young children. Pregnant women. I suspect that it will be expanded for children in time without it being a big deal, but we do not have data for it yet. I would not be comfortable giving this to pregnant women unless the risks of not getting it were somehow greater since I am deeply uncomfortable with things that put the unborn at risk. Some immunocompromised individuals plainly lack the machinery to do more than synthesize the protein that the mRNA codes for, so there would not be a direct benefit to them getting it if they cannot mount an immune response beyond the antigen/immunogen protein synthesis part of the process. There are probably some immunocompromised people who can gain partial benefit, but where that begins and ends will depend on various factors. Me not being as capable of getting infected now means my body is not likely to contribute to someone else becoming infected. That could be one of the people who cannot fight it off. Expand this to enough individuals and needless deaths start being prevented. Disease is indifferent, so whether it is a person I care about or someone I do not know, that I am doing something to reduce the risks to others in the process of protecting myself is a good thing. My vaccination improves the chances for my family and for strangers. In the sense of a butterfly effect, somebody somewhere that you do not know gets vaccinated who might have otherwise infected you or Connie and that can be the break in the chain that saves you or her. Likewise, if you feel up to it at some point, you can unknowingly break a chain for somebody you do not know. A pregnant lady. Someone frail. A kid. A regular and otherwise healthy adult that has crappy luck. Some other Rich's Connie. Some other Connie's Rich. There are good reasons to do it. Good enough reasons for me to choose to do it. I have taken care of quite a few Covid-19-positive patients, too, so my exposure risk is higher no matter what the PPE situation is (realistically speaking).

 

[WebSlave]

Variants Spreading in US Fan the Need to 'Crush' COVID-19 Quickly

Monday, 01 February 2021 12:44 PM

A COVID-19 mutation that likely confers partial resistance to the antibodies produced by vaccines is now in the U.S., spurring scientists to probe new ways to battle a disease that’s constantly changing and could remain active for years.

The South African variant has already spread quickly across the African continent and has been seen in at least 24 countries outside of Africa. It was reported in South Carolina on Jan. 28 and in Maryland two days later. If that looks like just a beachhead, note that a U.K. mutation first seen in Colorado on Dec. 29 has been detected in 29 U.S. states in less than a month. Both variants are considered more contagious than the original strain.

Late-stage trials released last week on vaccines developed by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax Inc. showed their shots to be generally potent against early forms of COVID-19. But results from studies done in South Africa told a less impressive tale. The J&J shot was found to be 72% effective in the U.S., but that fell to 57% in South Africa. Novavax’s shot, 89% effective in the U.K., was only 49% effective in South Africa.

The results are “sobering,” said Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We see an unequivocal drop-off in efficacy.”

That means that vaccine makers must now divert attention to work on either booster shots or a new, adjusted vaccine that can work better against the South African mutation, known scientifically as B.1.351, even as the world is ramping up injections of the first shots put into use, he said.

“We are having enough of a struggle getting the first round of vaccines in,” Topol said.

Lab Tests

Before the J&J and Novavax results were made public, lab tests looking at the number of antibodies induced by vaccines from Pfizer Inc. and Moderna Inc. already in use suggest that while they may be less potent against the South African variant, they still had enough punch to hold it off.

But what that meant in terms of illness in the real world was unclear. The latest outcomes offer a more precise indication, said Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. infectious disease expert, on a conference call on Friday.

“It’s really a wake up call for us to be nimble, and to be able to adjust as this virus will continue for certain to evolve and to mutate,” he said. “Now we have the real-world clinical consequences, and we can see that we are going to be challenged.”

In statements at the New York Press Club on Friday, Fauci said it was “concerning that you need to stay ahead of these mutants, and essentially crush this outbreak so there’s no more replication. And when there’s no more replication, you’re not going to have any mutations.”

In laboratory results reported before the new Novavax and J&J trial data was in, scientists from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University found that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were 6.5 to 8.6-fold less potent against the South African mutation.

100 Million Chances

“Looking at our results you cannot say this would doom the vaccine. That would be wrong,” said David Ho, who leads the lab. “But I think it is equally wrong to say everything is rosy.”

The world has “allowed the virus to infect 100 million people already,” he said. “So that is 100 million chances for mutation.”

The late-stage trials reported last week by J&J and Novavax could potentially pave the way for them to be authorized for use. J&J’s vaccine offers users a single shot regimen, as opposed to the two-dose versions authorized for Pfizer and Moderna. The drug giant plans to file this week with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for an emergency-use authorization, company officials said. J&J’s top scientist said this month he expects clearance in March.

The Novavax shot, meanwhile, is likely to get its first approval in the U.K., and the company is discussing with U.S. regulators whether trial data from other countries could be part of the shot’s review, Chief Executive Officer Stan Erck said. Novavax is still recruiting patients for a trial in the U.S. and Mexico, Erck said in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

Still, Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J have all said they’re starting work on developing booster shots or other approaches to buttress their vaccines. It remains unclear how long the shots will immunize people against COVID-19, and new mutations may require changes in their makeup.

First Step

For the U.S., the first important step is to know when mutations are around. In another Friday briefing, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky said the U.S. has now asked each state to send at least 750 samples a week to be sequenced to determine what variants may be here and how widely they may be spreading.

She warned that the existing U.S. system to detect different mutations is too slow for public health interventions to contain them.

“By the time someone has symptoms, gets a test, has a positive result, and we get the sequence, our opportunity for doing real case control and contact tracing is largely gone,” Walensky said. “We should be treating every case as if it’s a variant during this pandemic right now.”

While nations worldwide, including the U.S., are seeking to contain the spread of the variants with travel restrictions, history suggests that’s a near impossibility.

Industry Playbook

Meanwhile, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the agency is seeking to finalize a playbook with the industry to address mutations.

If the agency feels the virus has drifted enough to require a different sequence, it will require small trials to make sure the vaccines produce an immune response, he said. The first few studies may have to go through an advisory committee, according to Marks, but the agency is looking to streamline the process as much as possible and may require less data over time.

“We would intend to be pretty nimble with this,” Marks said on an American Medical Association webinar, “so we get these variants covered as quickly as possible because it is clear they can spread pretty quickly.”

Long Fight

The bottom line from scientists: This is a fight that could go for a long time.

Vaccines that work well now may fade in the future unless strong booster shots are devised. And it could be that COVID-19 morphs into something akin to influenza, requiring periodic booster shots over the years to keep it at bay.

“The implications are really worrisome,” said Peter Hotez, the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, in an interview Thursday after the Novavax results were announced. “All the vaccine makers now have to make decisions” on how to proceed.

In the meantime, it’s now a race to vaccinate the U.S. and Europe before the South Africa variant becomes more common or, worse yet, new mutations develop that make the virus more resistant.

In his New York Press Club comments, Fauci was asked what keeps him up at night. His answer: “A mutant, where it really escapes everything.”

SOURCE: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/coronavirus-variants-spread-us/2021/02/01/id/1008112/?oRef=vuukle