Coronavirus

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Boy oh boy, you guys are being really naive if you don’t think these companies see this vaccine as a cash cow.

They’d have people taking as many doses as possible if it was viable.

I would venture a guess that this is a one time vaccine and won’t be a cash cow like insulin,for example, is. But yeah any company that has a vaccine available in 2021 is going to be able to sell it.

[cardinalkarp]

Boy oh boy, you guys are being really naive if you don’t think these companies see this vaccine as a cash cow.

They’d have people taking as many doses as possible if it was viable.

I would venture a guess that this is a one time vaccine and won’t be a cash cow like insulin,for example, is. But yeah any company that has a vaccine available in 2021 is going to be able to sell it.

With no evidence that COVID is going away, on top of the fact this vaccine isn’t actually preventing the contraction of COVID and only mitigates the symptoms, I’m thinking they are looking at this as a yearly vaccine similar to a flu shot.

[cardsfantx]

Boy oh boy, you guys are being really naive if you don’t think these companies see this vaccine as a cash cow.

They’d have people taking as many doses as possible if it was viable.

I would venture a guess that this is a one time vaccine and won’t be a cash cow like insulin,for example, is. But yeah any company that has a vaccine available in 2021 is going to be able to sell it.

With no evidence that COVID is going away, on top of the fact this vaccine isn’t actually preventing the contraction of COVID and only mitigates the symptoms, I’m thinking they are looking at this as a yearly vaccine similar to a flu shot.

Yes it’s been reported a bunch. You’ll have to get this annually just like the flu vaccine (and that was reported before these variants)

[heyzeus]

Really good news, Pfizer vax is 89% effective at preventing infections according to an Israeli study.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tudy-shows

[Jocephus]

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Sweet.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Boy oh boy, you guys are being really naive if you don’t think these companies see this vaccine as a cash cow.

They’d have people taking as many doses as possible if it was viable.

I would venture a guess that this is a one time vaccine and won’t be a cash cow like insulin,for example, is. But yeah any company that has a vaccine available in 2021 is going to be able to sell it.

With no evidence that COVID is going away, on top of the fact this vaccine isn’t actually preventing the contraction of COVID and only mitigates the symptoms, I’m thinking they are looking at this as a yearly vaccine similar to a flu shot.

Yes it’s been reported a bunch. You’ll have to get this annually just like the flu vaccine (and that was reported before these variants)

I haven't been paying attention, is there a source for this? Not disagreeing, just claiming ignorance in advance.

I'm still hopeful, perhaps naively so, there will be long lasting effective protection from both the vaccine and natural infection.

Kind of to recap my understanding that I've posted a [expletive] load of over the past year, infections and vaccines both cause similar response from the immune response, namely the creation of antibodies that target the spike protein of Sars-Cov-2. In the process, memory cells in the immune system are also informed and learn how to attack the virus instantly instead of the week or two week process a naïve immune system takes....which in turn causes a lot of problems.

Here's a link to a study out of England in December dealing only with natural infections and the protection.

tl;dr: Study of 21,000 healthcare workers. Beginning of the study, 6,XXX people had antibodies indicating previous infection. The rest didn't. Among those with antibodies, there were 44 reinfections. Compared to those without antibodies, there was 83% reduction in infection. 0.66% of those with antibodies were reinfected. Those reinfected were mostly asymptomatic, those that weren't had only mild symptoms.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21249642v1

ABSTRACT
Background There is an urgent need to better understand whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods A large multi-centre prospective cohort was recruited from publicly funded hospital staff in the UK. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2-4 weeks) and completed fortnightly questionnaires on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive or prior PCR/antibody test positive) or negative cohort (antibody negative, not previously known to be PCR/antibody positive). Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, possible (subdivided by symptom-status)) depending on hierarchy of evidence. Individuals in the primary infection were excluded from this analysis if infection was confirmed by antibody only. Reinfection rates in the positive cohort were compared against new PCR positives in the negative cohort using a mixed effective multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Findings Between 18 June and 09 November 2020, 44 reinfections (2 probable, 42 possible) were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 6,614 participants, collectively contributing 1,339,078 days of follow-up. This compares with 318 new PCR positive infections and 94 antibody seroconversions in the negative cohort of 14,173 participants, contributing 1,868,646 days of follow-up. The incidence density per 100,000 person days between June and November 2020 was 3.3 reinfections in the positive cohort, compared with 22.4 new PCR confirmed infections in the negative cohort. The adjusted odds ratio was 0.17 for all reinfections (95% CI 0.13-0.24) compared to PCR confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was over 160 days.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

All that really shows, I guess, is there is an immediate protection.

The consensus I've seen is that protection comes from antibodies.

The question that still is yet to be answered is will the memory cells provide the same protection when the antibodies fade. A question that we probably don't have enough data to answer at this point. Though, again, I've stopped paying much attention. But, early thoughts based on the long term protection provided by the Sars-1 virus, where memory cells still provide protection to this day, there likely will be long term protection.

Still too early to know though, last I heard.

Regarding mutations, variants, strains, etc. My understanding was it would take a decent sized change, likely one to the spike protein as that's what the body is geared up to attack, for the immune system to be 'fooled'.

Of course, if the spike protein is changed, can it still infect cells? One of the best known things about sars-2 is how it gets into the cells (spike protein slides into the ace2 receptor like a penis into the vagina) as it's the same from sars-1 which was studied extensively with spike proteins that are nearly identical in both. If the spike protein changes such that it's unrecognizable by the immune system, it would still have to be recognized by the ace2 receptor to be dangerous. Which is a pretty big if.

All that to say, the virus does seem like it'll be around for a long ass while given that there is no sterilizing immunity, even with antibodies. And, the prevalence of it is...undeniable. But, that doesn't necessarily mean being vaccinated annually will do anything other than regenerate antibodies.

And, if this was an attempt to create a need for an annual vaccine, why would pharmacy companies specifically activate memory cells geared towards the single point of failure in the spike protein, when they could simply write code to produce the antibodies instead of writing code to create that single point of failure?

[mikechamp]

Boy oh boy, you guys are being really naive if you don’t think these companies see this vaccine as a cash cow.

They’d have people taking as many doses as possible if it was viable.

I would venture a guess that this is a one time vaccine and won’t be a cash cow like insulin,for example, is. But yeah any company that has a vaccine available in 2021 is going to be able to sell it.

With no evidence that COVID is going away, on top of the fact this vaccine isn’t actually preventing the contraction of COVID and only mitigates the symptoms, I’m thinking they are looking at this as a yearly vaccine similar to a flu shot.

Yes it’s been reported a bunch. You’ll have to get this annually just like the flu vaccine (and that was reported before these variants)

I haven't been paying attention, is there a source for this? Not disagreeing, just claiming ignorance in advance.

This came out this morning:

Pfizer Is Testing 2 Ways to Fight COVID Variants

"While we have not seen any evidence that the circulating variants result in a loss of protection provided by our vaccine, we are taking multiple steps to act decisively and be ready in case a strain becomes resistant to the protection afforded by the vaccine," Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a press release. He tells NBC that the company's goal is to be able to produce a modified vaccine within 100 days of a new coronavirus variant emerging. "Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine," Bourla says. "It's going to be the same with COVID. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for COVID to be protected."

https://www.newser.com/story/303016/pfi ... -dose.html

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Boy oh boy, you guys are being really naive if you don’t think these companies see this vaccine as a cash cow.

They’d have people taking as many doses as possible if it was viable.

I would venture a guess that this is a one time vaccine and won’t be a cash cow like insulin,for example, is. But yeah any company that has a vaccine available in 2021 is going to be able to sell it.

With no evidence that COVID is going away, on top of the fact this vaccine isn’t actually preventing the contraction of COVID and only mitigates the symptoms, I’m thinking they are looking at this as a yearly vaccine similar to a flu shot.

Yes it’s been reported a bunch. You’ll have to get this annually just like the flu vaccine (and that was reported before these variants)

I haven't been paying attention, is there a source for this? Not disagreeing, just claiming ignorance in advance.

This came out this morning:

Pfizer Is Testing 2 Ways to Fight COVID Variants

"While we have not seen any evidence that the circulating variants result in a loss of protection provided by our vaccine, we are taking multiple steps to act decisively and be ready in case a strain becomes resistant to the protection afforded by the vaccine," Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a press release. He tells NBC that the company's goal is to be able to produce a modified vaccine within 100 days of a new coronavirus variant emerging. "Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine," Bourla says. "It's going to be the same with COVID. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for COVID to be protected."

https://www.newser.com/story/303016/pfi ... -dose.html

Thanks. But, surely we're not taking his word for it, right? Where's the science other than 'it's like the flu' which has been debunked I thought.

[GeddyWrox]

I got my first jab of the pfizer vax last night. Woot! Overnight I felt as you do when you're first feeling signs of a flu bug coming on. But this morning I don't feel too bad. Mild headache and my shoulder hurts, but it's not unbearable at all.