Corona-Triggers in MD Employment Contracts

[deleted875186]

And finally, there have been many attempts to make coronavirus vaccines since 2000. All ended in failure b/c the animals in the trials became very sick and many died. This is easily searchable on pubmed.

There is a phenomenon known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) that occurred in many of the previous coronavirus vaccine trials which could explain the current severe "breakthrough infections". This is a very real and concerning phenomenon and to my knowledge there is no evidence they figured out how to circumvent this problem with the current and available vaccines under the EUA.

Kam et al., 2007
Yip et al., 2014
Jaume et al., 2011
Wang et al., 2014
Yang et al., 2004
Huang et al., 2006
Taylor et al., 2015
de Wit et al., 2016
Tseng et al. 2012
Yasuri et al., 2008

The mere fact that millions of people have gotten the covid19 vaccine, several different manufactures, and there are no reports of this phenomenon, and well documented effect if drastic decrease in COVID-19 infections, severe disease, and death, seem to defy your entire ridiculous argument.

perhaps we should let the folks making the vaccine worry about this and just listen to the numerous public health officials and immunology experts that recommend the vaccine.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted284725]

And finally, there have been many attempts to make coronavirus vaccines since 2000. All ended in failure b/c the animals in the trials became very sick and many died. This is easily searchable on pubmed.

There is a phenomenon known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) that occurred in many of the previous coronavirus vaccine trials which could explain the current severe "breakthrough infections". This is a very real and concerning phenomenon and to my knowledge there is no evidence they figured out how to circumvent this problem with the current and available vaccines under the EUA.

Kam et al., 2007
Yip et al., 2014
Jaume et al., 2011
Wang et al., 2014
Yang et al., 2004
Huang et al., 2006
Taylor et al., 2015
de Wit et al., 2016
Tseng et al. 2012
Yasuri et al., 2008

“I’m not anti-vax…”. Proceeds to be extremely anti-vax using a combo of tangential information, false equivalency, and hand-picked data while ignoring anything not supporting the preconceived conclusion. I didn’t realize Tucker Carlson was on SDN.

 

[Nodolor]

"The concern is Long Covid.....kids who end up looking like fibromyalgia patients" \

You do realize everyone on the opposite side of this argument are saying the exact same thing about the vaccine. Other side of the same coin

They also think this......

Alarming number of Americans think vaccines contain microchips to control people

“The reality is that misinformation is still spreading like wildfire in our country aided and abetted by technology platforms,” the surgeon general said Sunday.

thehill.com

 

[wendalltwolf]

ya might have been higher percentage after this was on Facebook

"Among the arguments put forth against seatbelts was that they could cause internal injuries; that they prevented easy escapes from cars submerged in water; and that devices frequently failed."

Hopefully they don’t find anything about Chance fractures

 

[Nodolor]

Hopefully they don’t find anything about Chance fractures

View attachment 341466

So if impactful enough to cause a Chance Fracture, without a belt probably death.

So a rare event from a preventive measure which can help avoid a much more serious injury/illness....

 

[clubdeac]

It’s odd and unfortunate

The mere fact that millions of people have gotten the covid19 vaccine, several different manufactures, and there are no reports of this phenomenon, and well documented effect if drastic decrease in COVID-19 infections, severe disease, and death, seem to defy your entire ridiculous argument.

perhaps we should let the folks making the vaccine worry about this and just listen to the numerous public health officials and immunology experts that recommend the vaccine.

you do realize 7 months of use in humans is nothing in comparison to the numerous years of safety data we have for almost all other vaccines. Proven safety for mRNA vaccines has yet to be determined my friend. You’re naivety is quite impressive and speaks volumes. I think we’re done here

 

[Tboned]

So you think millions of data points out >6 months doesn’t demonstrate safety? I bet your brain explodes every time you think about the evidence base supporting all the interventional pain procedures you do. You’re scurred and anti-vax

 

[callmeanesthesia]

It’s odd and unfortunate

you do realize 7 months of use in humans is nothing in comparison to the numerous years of safety data we have for almost all other vaccines. Proven safety for mRNA vaccines has yet to be determined my friend. You’re naivety is quite impressive and speaks volumes. I think we’re done here

Your motivated reasoning continues. Or can you share outcomes data showing the long term safety of contracting COVID-19? Looking at the available data, the vaccine is safer than COVID. By a wide margin.

 

[SSdoc33]

this conversation is embarrassing

 

[Nodolor]

...and scary....tells me this is going to be around well into 2022

 

[deleted875186]

Your motivated reasoning continues. Or can you share outcomes data showing the long term safety of contracting COVID-19? Looking at the available data, the vaccine is safer than COVID. By a wide margin.

This x 100

the “I need more safety data” goes both ways. You can’t deny that we don’t know the long term effects of Covid. We also don’t know how long natural immunity after Covid lasts. A logical person would weight the risks of infection versus the know side effects of the vaccine and decide to get vaccinated.

 

[clubdeac]

Your motivated reasoning continues. Or can you share outcomes data showing the long term safety of contracting COVID-19? Looking at the available data, the vaccine is safer than COVID. By a wide margin.

Bw you and dripdrip I’m talking to a brick wall. Yeah the vaccine is safer than getting covid. That’s not my argument. The question is is it safer than covid in someone who has already had covid and has natural immunity? No one knows. You, dripdrip and T boner can sit here, demean and belittle all day but the truth is no one knows the long term ramification of this virus or the vaccine. At least I’ve presented data showing that vaccination may be unnecessary in those with natural immunity.

 

[Ferrismonk]

Bw you and dripdrip I’m talking to a brick wall. Yeah the vaccine is safer than getting covid. That’s not my argument. The question is is it safer than covid in someone who has already had covid and has natural immunity? No one knows. You, dripdrip and T boner can sit here, demean and belittle all day but the truth is no one knows the long term ramification of this virus or the vaccine. At least I’ve presented data showing that vaccination may be unnecessary in those with natural immunity.

Hey man, I agree with a lot of what you say, but no need to call names.

 

[deleted875186]

Study Suggests Lasting Immunity After COVID-19, With a Big Boost From Vaccination

This Medical News article discusses the duration of immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

jamanetwork.com

If I had Covid back in the summer, I would be getting at least one vaccine shot.

 

[Agast]

Study Suggests Lasting Immunity After COVID-19, With a Big Boost From Vaccination

This Medical News article discusses the duration of immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

jamanetwork.com

If I had Covid back in the summer, I would be getting at least one vaccine shot.

My patient had COVID and was hospitalized for a few weeks, they instructed her to get vaccinated 3 months later. Had a minor MI from it so I really don’t want to see what happens if she gets it again.

Of course during our telemed visit months ago she was regretful and wanting the vaccine, but now it’s 3 months later and she’s back to being scared of the vaccine…

 

[Nodolor]

Bw you and dripdrip I’m talking to a brick wall. Yeah the vaccine is safer than getting covid. That’s not my argument. The question is is it safer than covid in someone who has already had covid and has natural immunity? No one knows. You, dripdrip and T boner can sit here, demean and belittle all day but the truth is no one knows the long term ramification of this virus or the vaccine. At least I’ve presented data showing that vaccination may be unnecessary in those with natural immunity.

🤮

 

[Ducttape]

Bw you and dripdrip I’m talking to a brick wall. Yeah the vaccine is safer than getting covid. That’s not my argument. The question is is it safer than covid in someone who has already had covid and has natural immunity? No one knows. You, dripdrip and T boner can sit here, demean and belittle all day but the truth is no one knows the long term ramification of this virus or the vaccine. At least I’ve presented data showing that vaccination may be unnecessary in those with natural immunity.

im not so sure you are presenting data that shows that vaccinating previously infected people is unnecessary. you are presenting data that the suspected risk of reinfection - not with the delta variant, the current highly infectious one - is low.

you are assuming that prior immunity to the other variants make you resistant to delta. there is no evidence for that. if one looks at the common flu, something that COVID was frequently erroneously compared to, we have to get yearly flu shots that are based on the suspected subtypes.


it does appear that reinfection rate of COVID is low, but clearly it is not zero. and from anecdotal accounts, it appears that previous infection does not lead to asymptomatic reinfections - people get sick.


risk of vaccine - especially if you only need a single shot - is very low.

currently, almost all people hospitalized are unvaccinated.it would seem a logical guess that a portion of those hospitalized were previously infected, given the vast number of current cases.

we know that vaccines significantly reduce risk of hospitalizations and death. you are assuming previous infection reduces hospitalization rate.

I would recommend the vaccine to those previously infected because it of that uncertainty.

 

[Nodolor]

paging Dr. Mercola...

 

[clubdeac]

im not so sure you are presenting data that shows that vaccinating previously infected people is unnecessary. you are presenting data that the suspected risk of reinfection - not with the delta variant, the current highly infectious one - is low.

you are assuming that prior immunity to the other variants make you resistant to delta. there is no evidence for that. if one looks at the common flu, something that COVID was frequently erroneously compared to, we have to get yearly flu shots that are based on the suspected subtypes.


it does appear that reinfection rate of COVID is low, but clearly it is not zero. and from anecdotal accounts, it appears that previous infection does not lead to asymptomatic reinfections - people get sick.


risk of vaccine - especially if you only need a single shot - is very low.

currently, almost all people hospitalized are unvaccinated.it would seem a logical guess that a portion of those hospitalized were previously infected, given the vast number of current cases.

we know that vaccines significantly reduce risk of hospitalizations and death. you are assuming previous infection reduces hospitalization rate.

I would recommend the vaccine to those previously infected because it of that uncertainty.

this post is just chock full of assumptions. Did you read the studies? The Israeli study specifically shows that severe illness and hospitalization were lower in the previously infected pts compared to vaccinated. Cleveland clinic study is similar. The five of you on the other side of this argument are basing your arguments on anecdotes, presuppositions and assumptions.

 

[clubdeac]

@Nodolor I wish the vaccine was the answer. Here is yet another article showing natural immunity is superior in protecting against the variants. I suspect lambda will be coming through our open southern border very soon. Buckle up, vaccinated


“Among fully vaccinated people who never had COVID-19, getting a third dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer (PFE.N)/BioNTech or Moderna (MRNA.O) would likely increase levels of antibodies, but not antibodies that are better able to neutralize new virus variants, Rockefeller University researchers reported on Thursday on bioRxiv ahead of peer review. They note that in COVID-19 survivors, the immune system's antibodies evolve during the first year, becoming more potent and better able to resist new variants. In 32 volunteers who never had COVID-19, they found that antibodies induced by mRNA vaccines did evolve between the first and second shots.

But five months later, vaccine-induced antibodies were "equivalent" to those seen after the second dose, with "little measurable improvement" in the antibodies' ability to neutralize a broad variety of new variants, said coauthor Michel Nussenzweig.”

Delta infections among vaccinated likely contagious; Lambda variant shows vaccine resistance in lab

The following is a roundup of some of the latest scientific studies on the novel coronavirus and efforts to find treatments and vaccines for COVID-19.

www.reuters.com

 

[Ducttape]

this post is just chock full of assumptions. Did you read the studies? The Israeli study specifically shows that severe illness and hospitalization were lower in the previously infected pts compared to vaccinated. Cleveland clinic study is similar. The five of you on the other side of this argument are basing your arguments on anecdotes, presuppositions and assumptions.

that last statement is incorrect.

you are basing erroneous arguments on information that was biased and was was prior to delta variant.


your study does not show that natural immunity is better. it makes the supposition that there is better evolution with natural immunity. there was no direct comparison.

the problem with this study is the potential for misinterpretation that natural immunity is better. no where in that study is there mention that the degree of prior infection correlates with the degree of antibody response. Mild response - mild antibody response. so someone has a mild infection will not mount or be able to mount the same immune response. with vaccination - everyone is given the same large dose to generate a significant immune response.

we do not know how long natural immunity lasts. there is some evidence for 6 months. there is evidence that vaccines last at least 6 months.

Antibody Responses in COVID-19: A Review

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread worldwide as a severe pandemic. Although its seroprevalence is highly variable among territories, it has been reported at around 10%, but higher in health workers. Evidence ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

not completely pertinent, but...



face it... every single knowledgeable public health physician all agree that patients who have had COVID should strongly consider getting vaccination. there is so little potential risk and huge upside with getting vaccinated.

 

[Ducttape]

Just out:

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Vaccines are twice as effective as prior infection.

The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection.

Additionally, a second publication from MMWR shows vaccines prevented COVID-19 related hospitalizations among the highest risk age groups. As cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rise, the data in today’s MMWR reinforce that COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to prevent COVID-19.

 

[callmeanesthesia]

Just out:

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Vaccines are twice as effective as prior infection.

Twice as effective with prior infection (vs natural immunity alone)

Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19...

This report describes COVID-19 reinfection among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons in Kentucky.

www.cdc.gov

 

[clubdeac]

that last statement is incorrect.

you are basing erroneous arguments on information that was biased and was was prior to delta variant.


your study does not show that natural immunity is better. it makes the supposition that there is better evolution with natural immunity. there was no direct comparison.

the problem with this study is the potential for misinterpretation that natural immunity is better. no where in that study is there mention that the degree of prior infection correlates with the degree of antibody response. Mild response - mild antibody response. so someone has a mild infection will not mount or be able to mount the same immune response. with vaccination - everyone is given the same large dose to generate a significant immune response.

we do not know how long natural immunity lasts. there is some evidence for 6 months. there is evidence that vaccines last at least 6 months.

Antibody Responses in COVID-19: A Review

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread worldwide as a severe pandemic. Although its seroprevalence is highly variable among territories, it has been reported at around 10%, but higher in health workers. Evidence ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

not completely pertinent, but...



face it... every single knowledgeable public health physician all agree that patients who have had COVID should strongly consider getting vaccination. there is so little potential risk and huge upside with getting vaccinated.

Looks like we now have data showing that natural immunity lasts at least 250 days. Information is evolving every day duct

Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells

Cohen et al. evaluate immune responses longitudinally in 254 COVID-19 patients over 8 months. SARS-CoV-2-specific binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibit biphasic decay, suggesting long-lived plasma cell generation. Memory B cells remain stable; CD4 and CD8 memory T cells are polyfunctional...

www.cell.com

 

[clubdeac]

Just out:

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Vaccines are twice as effective as prior infection.

Duct did you do the work of actually reading the study?? Your own interpretation was even wrong which was corrected above by callmean. Had you read the study you would know it was poorly designed with no way of discerning any meaningful conclusion

Why arbitrarily use 492 control subjects? They define a control patient as “A KY resident previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 who was not reinfected through June 30, 2021.”

For their control, they would need to use the total number of KY residents previously infected with covid who were not reinfected through June 2021 to draw any meaningful conclusions or determine an accurate odds ratios. The number 492 makes no sense. It would also be helpful to know the severity of reinfection and subsequent hospitalization. If all reinfections present as just the sniffles who cares

 

[callmeanesthesia]

Duct did you do the work of actually reading the study?? Your own interpretation was even wrong which was corrected above by callmean. Had you read the study you would know it was poorly designed with no way of discerning any meaningful conclusion

Why arbitrarily use 492 control subjects? They define a control patient as “A KY resident previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 who was not reinfected through June 30, 2021.”

For their control, they would need to use the total number of KY residents previously infected with covid who were not reinfected through June 2021 to draw any meaningful conclusions or determine an accurate odds ratios. The number 492 makes no sense. It would also be helpful to know the severity of reinfection and subsequent hospitalization. If all reinfections present as just the sniffles who cares

Fixating on the number of subjects is an odd complaint. Most studies don’t have round numbers due to recruitment and follow up.
Case control studies are not strong and I agree severity would be good to know, but even if they only had the sniffles, they could spread it to others and kill the vulnerable. So we do care about any reduction in cases. Here we have, though, the exact evidence you had previously said we didn’t - that vaccination provided benefit among those who have already had COVID - and you are arguing it’s not valid because the number of controls wasn’t a nice round number?

 

[clubdeac]

Call, you're missing the point entirely. I could care less if it's a "round number". I assume you've taken a statistics course? We need to know the true number of previously infected KY residents in 2020 who were not then reinfected to have a real control and determine a correct odds ratio. You're telling me only 492 KY residents were infected in 2020 who were not then reinfected? The odds ratio changes based on this number so it's vitally important where this came from and if it is accurate which I assume it is not. Hundreds of thousands of KY residents were infected in 2020 who were not then reinfected. Why only choose 492 as your "control"? Why not 271,836 which is approximately how many cases occurred in KY in 2020.

Also even if the conclusion is correct that the risk of reinfection is twice as great without the additional vaccine, what does that mean? Did the risk of reinfection go up from 0.001 to 0.002% or from 10 to 20%? That's a huge difference when determining risk/benefit in a previously infected person. And finally what kind of power does a study with 246 cases have? Again you have to understand statistics. I think I'll go with the previous studies I've posted above which had 50,000 and 300,000 subjects.

Fixating on the number of subjects is an odd complaint. Most studies don’t have round numbers due to recruitment and follow up.
Case control studies are not strong and I agree severity would be good to know, but even if they only had the sniffles, they could spread it to others and kill the vulnerable. So we do care about any reduction in cases. Here we have, though, the exact evidence you had previously said we didn’t - that vaccination provided benefit among those who have already had COVID - and you are arguing it’s not valid because the number of controls wasn’t a nice round number

 

[Ducttape]

Duct did you do the work of actually reading the study?? Your own interpretation was even wrong which was corrected above by callmean. Had you read the study you would know it was poorly designed with no way of discerning any meaningful conclusion

Why arbitrarily use 492 control subjects? They define a control patient as “A KY resident previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 who was not reinfected through June 30, 2021.”

For their control, they would need to use the total number of KY residents previously infected with covid who were not reinfected through June 2021 to draw any meaningful conclusions or determine an accurate odds ratios. The number 492 makes no sense. It would also be helpful to know the severity of reinfection and subsequent hospitalization. If all reinfections present as just the sniffles who cares

no, the number used was either a number arbitrarily determined based on available data, or more likely it was one predetermined by the number needed to power the study.


you are grasping at straws that are not supporting your weight.

in fact, your study only had 254 patients. does that invalidate your study?

no.

your study only showed 5% got severe disease. does that invalidate your study?

no.

this study is nice, but the question is whether there is real world application. does having an antibody titer mean one will not come down with symptoms requiring hospitalization or death?

they only studied mild to moderate cases. asymptomatic patients wee not studied, and you cant make conclusions on antibody titer based on tis study.

also, and i could be wrong about this point, bt it appears 8% did not mount an IGg antibody response that was apparently detectable?

The magnitude of serum IgG antibodies binding to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein increased in 92% of COVID-19 convalescent participants (n = 222) relative to pre-pandemic controls (Figure 1A).

finally, yes, a typo. i usually dont post on the weekend. with should have been included.

 

[clubdeac]

no, the number used was either a number arbitrarily determined based on available data, or more likely it was one predetermined by the number needed to power the study.


you are grasping at straws that are not supporting your weight.

in fact, your study only had 254 patients. does that invalidate your study?

no.

your study only showed 5% got severe disease. does that invalidate your study?

no.

this study is nice, but the question is whether there is real world application. does having an antibody titer mean one will not come down with symptoms requiring hospitalization or death?

they only studied mild to moderate cases. asymptomatic patients wee not studied, and you cant make conclusions on antibody titer based on tis study.

also, and i could be wrong about this point, bt it appears 8% did not mount an IGg antibody response that was apparently detectable?




finally, yes, a typo. i usually dont post on the weekend. with should have been included.

It was fun to watch that Kentucky study get completely eviscerated on doximity. Nearly every physician agreed with how pathetic it was

 

[deleted875186]

Call, you're missing the point entirely. I could care less if it's a "round number". I assume you've taken a statistics course? We need to know the true number of previously infected KY residents in 2020 who were not then reinfected to have a real control and determine a correct odds ratio. You're telling me only 492 KY residents were infected in 2020 who were not then reinfected? The odds ratio changes based on this number so it's vitally important where this came from and if it is accurate which I assume it is not. Hundreds of thousands of KY residents were infected in 2020 who were not then reinfected. Why only choose 492 as your "control"? Why not 271,836 which is approximately how many cases occurred in KY in 2020.

Also even if the conclusion is correct that the risk of reinfection is twice as great without the additional vaccine, what does that mean? Did the risk of reinfection go up from 0.001 to 0.002% or from 10 to 20%? That's a huge difference when determining risk/benefit in a previously infected person. And finally what kind of power does a study with 246 cases have? Again you have to understand statistics. I think I'll go with the previous studies I've posted above which had 50,000 and 300,000 subjects.

The study very clearly describes how they selected patients from a database, they selected people that had reinfectiom in May and June of 2021, they were the “case patients” and were then compared to a randomly selected “control patient” from the Kentucky database. They didn’t look at “all infections in 2020”, that was just the database they used. Your description above suggests you did not understand exactly how they did the study. If this is your main criticism than yojr argument is ridiculous.

also, your post suggests you don’t really understand biostats. The absolute risk of infection depends on the prevalence in the community, and a boatload of other factors. An odds ratio of 2.3 tells us exactly what the study was designed to show, whether natural immunity patients were more likely than vaccinated patients to get reinfection of Covid.

 

[Gauss]

FFS... WHY did I open this thread??? reminder: FSMB | FSMB: Spreading COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation May Put Medical License at Risk

 

[clubdeac]

@dipriMAN @Ducttape @SSdoc33 @callmeanesthesia

Here are 5 more studies. I think I've posted 10 thus far. You can't really argue against the robust and durable protection of natural immunity. I'm afraid no amount of facts or data will sway you guys away from your narrative.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy

Reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.

www.thelancet.com

Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees

Introduction The protective effect of previous infection versus vaccination is poorly studied. Among a clinical laboratory that has been conducting routine workforce screening since the beginning of the pandemic, we aimed to assess the relative risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome...

www.medrxiv.org

SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN)

A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous...

www.thelancet.com

SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria - PubMed

We observed a relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies. Further well-designed research on this issue is urgently needed for improving evidence-based...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Assessment of the Risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Reinfection in an Intense Reexposure Setting - PubMed

SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.

 

[clubdeac]

The study very clearly describes how they selected patients from a database, they selected people that had reinfectiom in May and June of 2021, they were the “case patients” and were then compared to a randomly selected “control patient” from the Kentucky database. They didn’t look at “all infections in 2020”, that was just the database they used. Your description above suggests you did not understand exactly how they did the study. If this is your main criticism than yojr argument is ridiculous.

also, your post suggests you don’t really understand biostats. The absolute risk of infection depends on the prevalence in the community, and a boatload of other factors. An odds ratio of 2.3 tells us exactly what the study was designed to show, whether natural immunity patients were more likely than vaccinated patients to get reinfection of Covid.

drip.... you're way off the mark again. There are so many things wrong with this study that it's almost hilarious that you're defending it. You my friend are the one lacking to understand biostats. First off, this study does not show "whether natural immunity patients were more likely than vaccinated patients to get reinfected" as you state. That wasn't even the point of the study.

 

[deleted875186]

@dipriMAN @Ducttape @SSdoc33 @callmeanesthesia

I think I've posted 10 studies thus far and there's still more! You can't really argue against the robust and durable protection of natural immunity. Unfortunately no amount of facts or data will sway you guys away from your narrative. I just wish it wasn't so political....sigh

SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy

Reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.

www.thelancet.com

Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees

Introduction The protective effect of previous infection versus vaccination is poorly studied. Among a clinical laboratory that has been conducting routine workforce screening since the beginning of the pandemic, we aimed to assess the relative risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome...

www.medrxiv.org

SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN)

A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous...

www.thelancet.com

SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria - PubMed

We observed a relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies. Further well-designed research on this issue is urgently needed for improving evidence-based...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Assessment of the Risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Reinfection in an Intense Reexposure Setting - PubMed

SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.

I don’t doubt innate immunity after infection, but you haven’t shown evidence that immunity protects more than vaccination. You also haven’t shown anything suggesting vaccinating previously infected people is harmful.

You then criticized the Kentucky study because you didn’t clearly read the methods section.

posting a large number of studies that show reinfection after Covid infection is rare, stuff about antibody titer of unclear significance, etc, does not prove yojr point.

 

[deleted875186]

drip.... you're way off the mark again. There are so many things wrong with this study that it's almost hilarious that you're defending it. You my friend are the one lacking to understand biostats. First off, this study does not show "whether natural immunity patients were more likely than vaccinated patients to get reinfected" as you state. That wasn't even the point of the study.

Here’s the paragraph from the merhods…

Kentucky residents aged ≥18 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or antigen test results† reported in Kentucky’s National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS) during March–December 2020 were eligible for inclusion. NEDSS data for all Kentucky COVID-19 cases were imported into a REDCap database that contains laboratory test results and case investigation data, including dates of death for deceased patients reported to public health authorities (3). The REDCap database was queried to identify previously infected persons, excluding COVID-19 cases resulting in death before May 1, 2021. A case-patient was defined as a Kentucky resident with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and a subsequent positive NAAT or antigen test result during May 1–June 30, 2021. May and June were selected because of vaccine supply and eligibility requirement considerations; this period was more likely to reflect resident choice to bevaccinated, rather than eligibility to receive vaccine.§ Control participants were Kentucky residents with laboratory- confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 who were not reinfected through June 30, 2021. Case-patients and controls were matched on a 1:2 ratio based on sex, age (within 3 years), and date of initial positive SARS-CoV-2 test (within 1 week). Date of initial positive test result refers to the specimen collec- tion date, if available. The report date in NEDSS was used if specimen collection date was missing. Random matching was performed to select controls when multiple possible controls were available to match per case (4).

What is added by this report?
Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.

 

[Ducttape]

more data:

study suggesting that natural immunity may not be as effective against variants as mRNA vaccine:

Science | AAAS

stm.sciencemag.org

-------
comment by a Dr. Wherry regarding lower rate of protection from infection vs. vaccine.

What immunity did having COVID-19 give me? Do I still need a vaccine?

Is the immune response robust enough that those who’ve had COVID can avoid getting vaccinated? Many people asked WHYY’s Health Desk Help Desk.

whyy.org

A prior infection offers protection in the range of 80%, compared to about 95% for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, said Dr. John Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

digging deeper, i think that is taken partly from this article:

Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study

Our findings could inform decisions on which groups should be vaccinated and advocate for vaccination of previously infected individuals because natural protection, especially among older people, cannot be relied on.

www.thelancet.com

----
problem with much of earlier data posted by club is that the data does not include any effects from delta variant. only 1 study extends to July 1 2021, and that is when delta was just starting to rev up.

---
essentially every single public health authority that i have come across, from multiple venues - including federal gov, CDC, NIH, major universities such as Penn State, Yale, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Michigan - all recommend previously infected patients get the vaccination.

 

[clubdeac]

more data:

study suggesting that natural immunity may not be as effective against variants as mRNA vaccine:

Science | AAAS

stm.sciencemag.org

-------
comment by a Dr. Wherry regarding lower rate of protection from infection vs. vaccine.

What immunity did having COVID-19 give me? Do I still need a vaccine?

Is the immune response robust enough that those who’ve had COVID can avoid getting vaccinated? Many people asked WHYY’s Health Desk Help Desk.

whyy.org

digging deeper, i think that is taken partly from this article:

Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study

Our findings could inform decisions on which groups should be vaccinated and advocate for vaccination of previously infected individuals because natural protection, especially among older people, cannot be relied on.

www.thelancet.com

----
problem with much of earlier data posted by club is that the data does not include any effects from delta variant. only 1 study extends to July 1 2021, and that is when delta was just starting to rev up.

In regard to variants, a study in pre-print found that antibodies of CoV2 survivors evolved during the first year following infection making them better able than vaccines to protect against new variants. "We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination." Data from the previously mentioned longitudinal study out of Emory suggests this as well. "Our findings show that most COVID-19 patients induce a wide-ranging immune defense against SARS-CoV-2 infection, encompassing antibodies and memory B cells recognizing both the RBD and other regions of the spike, broadly-specific and polyfunctional CD4+ T cells, and polyfunctional CD8+ T cells. The immune response to natural infection is likely to provide some degree of protective immunity even against SARS-CoV-2 variants because the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell epitopes will likely be conserved."

Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination

DEFINE_ME

 

[clubdeac]

essentially every single public health authority that i have come across, from multiple venues - including federal gov, CDC, NIH, major universities such as Penn State, Yale, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Michigan - all recommend previously infected patients get the vaccination.

Unfortunately these venues appear to be more interested in politics than science. I did a deep dive in the literature for my own knowledge and briefly summarize it below. What is in quotes below are direct quotes from the authors.

"Scientists from the Cleveland Clinic, USA, have recently evaluated the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination among individuals with or without a history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The study findings reveal that individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection do not get additional benefits from vaccination, indicating that COVID-19 vaccines should be prioritized to individuals without prior infection."

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

In a population-based observational Israeli study (6,351,903 entries) natural immunity was in fact more protective than vaccination. "Vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI:[94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI:[91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI:[92·5, 98·3]). Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals."

medRxiv.org - the preprint server for Health Sciencescontent/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1?fbclid=IwAR0w8MOeRMivI9bjLJtcF3zCfjtlziyzmcHiCMrdvMIX1LSUuL0e11Smuqk

A large multicenter prospective study from the UK, The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study, (SIREN), published in the Lancet followed 25,661 participants between June and December 2020. 7.6 reinfections occurred per 100,000 person days in the cohort of previously infected patients compared to 57.3 primary infections per 100,000 person days in the covid naive cohort. They conclude, "Using a COVID-19 symptomatic case definition aligned with positive PCR results, previous infection reduced the incidence of infection by at least 90%. Our findings of a 93% lower risk of COVID-19 symptomatic infection, after a longer period of follow-up, show equal or higher protection from natural infection, both for symptomatic and asymptomatic infection."

DEFINE_ME

The observational study of a routinely screened workforce in California sought to determine the incidence of reinfection in those previously infected with CoV2 versus those who had received the vaccine. The previously infected, unvaccinated group had an incidence of 0 per 100 person-years. The vaccinated group had an incidence of 1.6 per 100 person-years. They conclude, "Either prior infection or vaccination was associated with a dramatic decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2. There was no difference in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or re-infection between individuals who were vaccinated and individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively."

Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees

Further epidemiological data from Qatar and Austria estimate the efficacy of natural infection against reinfection at 95.2% with reinfections being less severe than primary infection. In fact most reinfections were diagnosed incidentally through random or routine testing or contract tracing. Per the Austria study, "We observed a relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies."

DEFINE_ME

SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria - PubMed

 

[RoloTomassi]

What's everyone's thoughts on boosters for healthcare workers? Y'all getting one?

 

[callmeanesthesia]

What's everyone's thoughts on boosters for healthcare workers? Y'all getting one?

As soon as possible - I got Moderna in the clinical trial, so my second dose was over a year ago now. No big deal, already have to get a flu shot every year. I have plenty of elderly and immunocompromised patients to protect, along with my kids who are under 12. If anyone knows how to legally get my hands on a vial to administer off label, let me know. The dosing is easy enough.

 

[hyperalgesia]

What's everyone's thoughts on boosters for healthcare workers? Y'all getting one?

The booster was granted EUA. I think I'll wait a bit... My area is looking ok and I'm at low risk.

 

[anonperson]

What's everyone's thoughts on boosters for healthcare workers? Y'all getting one?

Scheduled to get my booster on 9/27 at the hospital I have privileges at.

I have seen enough of the Delta variant that zi know I want to avoid getting it.

I'll see how I feel after the injection.

 

[willabeast]

benefits > risks for me, i do most things based on logic so answer is yes for me on booster. but i am against mandating almost anything including injections.

 

[Ducttape]

i got Moderna, so not approved... yet.

then again, Moderna has been shown to have increased effectiveness over Pfizer.

i will get it when it gets approved.

 

[SSdoc33]

i got Moderna, so not approved... yet.

then again, Moderna has been shown to have increased effectiveness over Pfizer.

i will get it when it gets approved.

fauci says moderna data should be in within a couple weeks. when moderna vaccine becomes available, ill get it ASAP

 

[RoloTomassi]

As soon as possible - I got Moderna in the clinical trial, so my second dose was over a year ago now. No big deal, already have to get a flu shot every year. I have plenty of elderly and immunocompromised patients to protect, along with my kids who are under 12. If anyone knows how to legally get my hands on a vial to administer off label, let me know. The dosing is easy enough.

If you really want a Moderna booster, you could go into a vaccination place and just say it's your first. It's not like they verify whether you've had one before or what kind. Dishonest, but if you feel like it's what's best for you and your patients. Not like there's a shortage.

 

[macman]

i got my third moderna 2 weeks ago; with my fourth I get a free set of mugs they said

 

[SSdoc33]

i got my third moderna 2 weeks ago; with my fourth I get a free set of mugs they said

how did you get the third? did you just show up at a site and ask for moderna? im not passing judgement -- i might do the same myself.

 

[anonperson]

Got the booster.

Sore arm for 48 hours.
Had some mild headaches and overall feeling not great for about 24 hours.
Took tylenol a couple of times.

I feel back to normal today. About 48 hours after the booster.

 

[swamprat]

I have not gotten booster. I had COVID19 in June 2020 and fully vaccinated Moderna.

My wife had her vaccines and pretty sure it caused a bad ulcerative colitis flare.

My scuba instructor had vaccine and after that felt "fatigued and just not right" - sure enough his cancer came back and he died last week.

I do think there is **** we will see in the future we do not know about now with the vaccine. With that being said I'm not too keen on getting a "booster' as I suspect it is not necessary for non-immunocompromised individuals at this point in time at least.