Covid-19 News

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm not saying, in principle, that vaccination will always be perfect. The way I look at it:

• In principle the wrong vaccination can program immune system in a way that increases risk for some other viruses.

Or just some other mutation of the same virus. Yes, we're finally getting somewhere. This risk indeed exists and it even has its name: Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) of vaccines. Its point is, coronavirus utilizes cytokine storm for entering the organism, because it's derived from HIV virus, which is immune cell killer, not victim. And vaccine makes cytokine storm worse. Nothing very new in the matter of vaccines, SARS vaccines in particular. Every experienced epidemiologist knows, it's dangerous to start with vaccination program in the middle of pandemics: now only it escalates risk for ADE, but it also enhances probability of mutation of new resistant strains, as it just did happen in India with delta variant of coronavirus.

Recovered COVID patients will require vaccine dose to receive Green Pass

New Health Ministry rules starting October 3 will impact 1.2 million Israelis diagnosed with the virus since start of the pandemic; driving tests to also be…

www.timesofisrael.com

Israel paper says CoV-19 recovered are 27 x better protected from CoV-19 Delta than vaccinated..

Ministry = local mafia godfather says: You need a vaccination ( to lower ) your your protection for a green pass.

So Jews do not follow the science as everybody else does too. They do as they always did and the others too. Follow the money! 1.3 mio jabs = 70 mio$ plus the same for doctors + unknown sum for treating vaccine damaged people....

Quote from Fm1

It’s understandable that vaccines have taken center stage. Vaccination against diseases such as smallpox, polio, and other pandemic-level viruses throughout history has reduced or eliminated their devastating consequences and helped the world recover from their impacts. While COVID-19 vaccinations are helping to reduce hospital cases, they may not be lowering transmission rates—as seen in Israel and the USA but not widely reported in the American media.

The data on protection from infection is strong (e.g. from UK) when you carefully compare vaccinated and unvaccinated infection rates. Anyone who argues otherwise is ignoring a lot of high quality data, and most likely making one of the classic mistakes (base rate, vulnerable-are vaccinated, etc).

But in any case for protection from transmission, with delta where transmission happens so quickly before symptoms, you would need whole-country prophyylatics. Dosing everyone, for long periods, with any drug is not a great idea.

Using a prophylatic for known contacts is all well, if you have one which is effective, but will not deal with the larger number of unknown contacts.

So developing prophylactics seems to me less important than developing treatments, and we have in vaccines something that serves the same function as prophylatics only better. I'd rather put effort into developing a better vaccine (known possible and fast) rather than a prophylatic (no known solution yet). Prophylactics have a tough time because for whole population continuous dosing they much be very very safe. Unlike vaccines they put drugs into the human body over long periods.

Of course TSN and others are really arguing to use ivermectin - which would be great except there is no good evidence it works either as prophylactic or treatment.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Israel paper says CoV-19 recovered are 27 x better protected from CoV-19 Delta than vaccinated..

Ministry = local mafia godfather says: You need a vaccination ( to lower ) your your protection for a green pass.

So Jews do not follow the science as everybody else does too.

Ignoring the anti-semitism here:

In what world is protection defined only as protection from infection rather than protection from serious disease and death?

Catching COVID provides zero protection against COVID serious disease and death - because you risk it anyway if you catch COVID. Vaccination provides large protection.

it is rather like suggesting that we all cut off our legs because then we will be protected from breaking our legs. True, but silly.

wonder if you end up in the hospital if they just jab you regardless

Quote from Seatrout

wonder if you end up in the hospital if they just jab you regardless

Maybe you are from Russia?

US & UK have the handicap of politically and institutionally strong doctors who in spite of a grotesquely mercenary (in the US) hospital system still mostly try to do what is good for their patients, and are strong on things like patient consent.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Or just some other mutation of the same virus. Yes, we're finally getting somewhere. This risk indeed exists and it even has its name: Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) of vaccines. Its point is, coronavirus utilizes cytokine storm for entering the organism, because it's derived from HIV virus, which is immune cell killer, not victim. And vaccine makes cytokine storm worse. Nothing very new in the matter of vaccines, SARS vaccines in particular. Every experienced epidemiologist knows, it's dangerous to start with vaccination program in the middle of pandemics: now only it escalates risk for ADE, but it also enhances probability of mutation of new resistant strains, as it just did happen in India with delta variant of coronavirus.

Zephir,

How do you account for vaccinated people having 5X less serious disease or death than unvaccinated?

I mean, such effects are possible, and doctors have been on the lookout forthem with COVID, but if they were dominant vaccination would harm mortality, not dramatically improve it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Maybe you are from Russia?

US & UK have the handicap of politically and institutionally strong doctors who in spite of a grotesquely mercenary (in the US) hospital system still mostly try to do what is good for their patients, and are strong on things like patient consent.

east usa. -for the good for their patients with what they are told.

Quote

How do you account for vaccinated people having 5X less serious disease or death than unvaccinated?

Where and when did you get this number? I guess, it did apply at the beginning of pandemics: once delta variant emerged, we can merely read evasions like the How can efficacy vs. severe disease be strong when 60% of hospitalized are vaccinated? Which is also the point, in which whole the COVID vaccination controversy started. Maybe you confused it with this report:

The death rate among vaccinated in England was over five times greater than that for the unvaccinated There is point, that vaccines are least efficient just for elderly people, who also have highest COVID mortality. Even vaccine producers admit it on the base of their Phase II trials.

Quote from Seatrout

with what they are told.

God save us from people who follow what they are told. Still, given the choice, were I unable to think for myself, go with CDC and WHO rather than ConspiracyTheoryR'Us.

But then i have the advantage of never looking at social media. It makes me anti-social, and immune from the latest conspiracy theory.

Quote from Alan Smith

This is social media.

Not very!

Large UK-based Community Survey Study Indicates COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Wanes with Delta Variant

Large UK-based Community Survey Study Indicates COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Wanes with Delta Variant

Research led by the UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as well as preeminent British academic research centers evaluated the effectiveness

trialsitenews.com

Research led by the UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as well as preeminent British academic research centers evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines including Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2/Comirnaty); AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Moderna (mRNA-1273) against new SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Delta variant. In what the research investigators define as a large community-based survey, the researchers randomized households across the UK for section. Not surprisingly the researchers found that the effectiveness of the vaccine wane with the Delta variant. The investigators compared Pfizer and AstraZeneca’s vaccine and found that BNT162b2 demonstrates greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positives but accelerated declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection. The researchers could not find a link between vaccine effectiveness and dosage interval. Interestingly the study found the highest protection associated with those people that were vaccinated following a prior infection as well as with younger adults. They also discovered that Delta infections occurring after two doses had similar peak viral burden as those in unvaccinated persons. Consequently, the investigational team concluded while the COVID-19 vaccines afford protection against SARS-CoV-2, this effectiveness and the mitigation of peak viral burden are reduced with Delta. This means that overall effectiveness wane in line with multiple other study findings.

Who are the researchers?

Known as the COVID-19 Infection Survey Team, a group of established researchers hailed from NIHR, University of Oxford, Public Health England, University of Manchester and the UK Office for National Statistics.

The results of this study titled “Impact of Delta on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK” were uploaded to the preprint server medxRiv.

What is their focus?

The British authors first introduced the growing body of research indicating that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wane over time when confronted with more potent SARS-CoV-2 variants such as Delta.

For example, in vitro studies already suggest the vaccines demonstrate a reduction in neutralization activity of vaccine-elicited antibodies against emerging variants. Raising a heightened concern, Delta triggered spikes in infections around the world including the UK. The strain originally from India became rapidly dominant in England by April 2021. By June the variant of concern represented 99% of all cases.

Is there currently substantial real-world data on vaccine performance against Delta?

No. The authors share that there are limited real-world studies investigating vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant. There are a handful of studies. For example the authors educate the reader concerning a test-negative case-control study leveraging data from May 16, 2021 from a initiative known as the English symptomatic testing program.

What does the English symptomatic test program study suggest?

That after one dose of either BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) effectiveness against symptomatic infection with Delta wanes more than with Alpha. They authors note that in this study that the reduction in effectiveness against infection with Delta versus Alpha were less prominent after two doses are administered. The authors note that various bias can associate with case-control studies.

The authors cite a study in Scotland as well indicating a reduction in vaccine effectiveness against infection with Delta versus Alpha post the second jab. However again bias may impact the study. For example in this Scotland-based study the researchers couldn’t find evidence associating effectiveness on hospital admission among those first testing positive differed from Delta to Alpha. However they authors point out they can’t be certain as to whether the infection is attributable to bias associated with “test-seeking behavior being influenced by vaccination status.”

Two additional studies cited by the present authors point to waning immunity.

How was this current study designed?

The UK-based investigators utilized the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey, a large community-based survey of people living in randomly selected private households across the UK. This population received RT-PCR tests in association with a pre-determined schedule regardless of symptoms reported, vaccination or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In this study comparing and contrasting the three vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca) the researchers utilized measures associated with overall RT-PCR positivity, based on self-reporting of symptoms to include cycle threshold (Ct) value (<30 versus ≥30) as a surrogate for viral load. The team used the duration of December 1, 2020 (start of mass vaccination roll out) to May 16, 2021—a time Alpha dominated—to the period of May 17, 2021 to August 1, 2021 when Delta replaced Alpha.

During the Delta-dominating period the investigators compared and contrasted vaccine effectiveness by long-term health conditions, age, interval between first and second vaccination and prior infection. The team also investigated viral burden in new PCR-positives occurring ≥14 days after the second vaccination using Ct values.

The investigators would obtain nose and throat cultures from participants in 221,909 households representing 2,580,021 visits

What were the results?

As written up in the preprint server a during the Alpha-dominant period the study team obtained nose and throat cultures from 384,543 individuals aged 18 and up (221,909 households) at 2.5 million visits (median [IQR] 7 [6-8), of which 16,538 (0.6%) were the first PCR-positive in a new infection episode.

Conversely, during the Delta-dominant period the team secured results from 358,983 participants (213,825 households) at 811,624 visits (median [IQR] 2 [2-3]), 3,123 (0.4%) being the first PCR-positive report the authors.

They found that that a majority of post-vaccination visits in the first term (Alpha dominant) were from participants that received BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 however during the second term of the study (Delta dominant) they report individuals that received mRNA-1273 as well. The median (IQR) time since first vaccination for visits ≥21 days after the first vaccination but before the second was 47 (34-61), 43 (31-58), and 41 (31-52) for ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; and from second vaccination for visits ≥14 days after the second vaccination 41 (27-57) and 59 (35-86), respectively (insufficient data for mRNA-1273). The median (IQR) dosing interval between first and second vaccination was 76 (68-78) days for ChAdOx1 and 74 (62-77) for BNT162b2.

When the researchers adjusted for multiple potential confounders, in the Alpha-dominant period the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against new PCR-positives was similar amongst those ≥18 years to that previously reported to 8 May 2021 amongst those ≥16 years.

Delta-dominant period, amongst those ≥18 years there was evidence of reduced effectiveness ≥21 days after the first ChAdOx1 vaccination (VE 46% (95% CI 35-55%), heterogeneity p=0.004), but not ≥14 days after the second (67%, 62-71% vs 79%, 56-90% in the Alpha-dominant period, heterogeneity p=0.23). There was no evidence of reduced effectiveness in the Delta-dominant period for BNT162b2 against all new PCR-positives, with VE 57% (50-63%) post first dose and 80% (77-83%) post second dose (heterogeneity p=0.60, p=0.23, respectively.

What are the key results?

The authors write in this yet to be reviewed study that vaccination with two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca do reduce the risk of new PCR-positive COVID-19 infections. But they authors note that while both vaccines offered benefits when Alpha was the primary variant of concern as the Delta variant emerged the effectiveness of two ChAdOx1 doses are lowered with Delta more than two BNT16b2 doses although the authors share “two ChAdOx2 doses still provide similar protection tot hat from previous natural infection.”

Furthermore the benefits from both the Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2) and AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) are quantitatively more against PCR-positives versus without self-reported symptoms and high versus low viral burden PCR-positives, however the effectiveness gap closed with Delta for both vaccines.

Study Limitations

The authors report numerous limitations to this study. TrialSite notes first that the study is not peer reviewed and hence can’t be cited as evidence. Limitations to this study are included in the link to the study source in the preprint server.

Study Results Summary

While both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines remain protective against any new PCR-positive and infections with greater viral burden or symptoms, overall vaccine effectiveness is reduced. The authors point to evidence of significantly varying dynamics of immunity targeting infections with Ct <30 or symptoms ensuring after the second doses of the two vaccines.

Of note, Delta infections associated with similar peak viral burden regardless of vaccinated or unvaccinated. They posit that the study results indicates the argument for vaccinating as many of the population as possible.

What are some fundamental underlying challenges headed to herd immunity?

A worldwide elusive target of universal vaccination presupposes a real world scenario where viral effectiveness assures minimal adversity associated with virus transmission. But this universal vaccination (already probably impossible to achieve in the short run) associates with other prerequisites including A) uniform protection induced by vaccines including in older people B) optimization of vaccine strategies to induce higher levels of mucosal and systemic immunity and C) an absence of novel variants which could compromise vaccine effectiveness against severe infection.

Who funded the study?

UK Department of Health and Social Care

Welsh Government (in-kind support)

Northern Ireland Department of Health Research Health Protection Research Unit

Scotland Department of Health Research Health Protection Research Unit

University of Oxford

Public Health England

Individual grants to investigators

Lead Research/Investigator

Koen B. Pouwels https://www.ndph.ox.ac.uk/team/koen-pouwels

Emma Pritchard https://www.expmedndm.ox.ac.uk/team/emma-pritchard

Sarah A. Walker https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/team/ann-sarah-walker

For other authors follow the link to the preprint server.

Call to Action: This study could not determine the impact on infectivity to others (viral spread) hence the need for “urgent investigation.”

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Where and when did you get this number? I guess, it did apply at the beginning of pandemics: once delta variant emerged, we can merely read evasions

I worked out myself the difference in Uk IFR pre and post vaccination (now, with delta). It was 5X. In the UK we have accurate random sample infection tracking for the ONS infection survey. (coincidentally - at the moment - I am one of their random samples). So we have clear daily data on infection rates, and COVID deaths (the two do not align exactly, and deaths have a chronological random distribution from infections, so it is easier to get accurate figures when infections stay roughly constant, is is true now). That 5X is an underestimate since the pre figure was mostly alpha, which is less severe by a factor of 2. For that I can find you the research papers if you like?

No media hype, just me looking at the raw data and working it out.

I'd take data over evasions or dark conspiracy theory suspicions any day.

PS - at the start of the pandemic there were no vaccines, but we know the efficacy of them on original and alpha from the case studies. The sample size of those was not enough to get an accurate read on mortality except it was much lower than unvaccinated. It was much better than on delta, obviously.

Quote from Fm1

The authors write in this yet to be reviewed study that vaccination with two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca do reduce the risk of new PCR-positive COVID-19 infections. But they authors note that while both vaccines offered benefits when Alpha was the primary variant of concern as the Delta variant emerged the effectiveness of two ChAdOx1 doses are lowered with Delta more than two BNT16b2 doses although the authors share “two ChAdOx2 doses still provide similar protection tot hat from previous natural infection.”

I guess I should look at the data on this and the actual study. I do not trust TSN - it is agenda-driven news not science and has people providing summaries who make bad misjudgements.

If they are right here it means that study showed Pfizer vaccine more effective than previous natural infection. I have not seen much data comparing natural infection with vaccination so this is worth looking at.

Here is the preprint (I really hate it when people commenting on a preprint do not link to it or give a proper reference).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.18.21262237v1.full.pdf

We found that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAd0x1 against any infections (new PCR positives) and infections with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the Delta variant. A single dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had similar or greater effectiveness compared to a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection. The dynamics of immunity following second doses differed significantly between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, with greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positives but faster declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection with BNT162b2. There was no evidence that effectiveness varied by dosing interval, but protection was higher among those vaccinated following a prior infection and younger adults. With Delta, infections occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination still reduces new infections, but effectiveness and attenuation of peak viral burden are reduced with Delta.

That is from the abstract. let us look at what the sentence underlined means.

These graphs contain a lot of useful info. After 3 months BNT162b effectiveness without prior infection is about 75% relative to unvaccinated (e.g. 1/4 the number of infections). From the slope of the graph you can reckon that this will continue waning but you would expect it to be still 60% ( 2.5X less infections) after 6 months.

Note that this study is able to deal with W's assertion that the efficacy is inflated by natural infection confering resistance - people are tracked over a 4 month period. These good figures - better than my lower estimates, are real.

Notice also that the existence of long-term health conditions alters things but not too dramatically.

Note this is infection protection - not death protection.

Note we do not, in these graphs, have a comparison between unvaccinated with prior infcetion and vaccinated without prior infection.

Note that prior infection confers extra protection in addition to vaccination by about a factor of 2.

Here is another great table, which does show the comparison between prior infection no vaccine, and vaccine no prior infection.

• As you would expect, both prior infection and vaccination offer less protection against delta than against alpha (it is not possible to distinguish here between delta and alpha or original prior infection but I'm guessing quite a bit of alpha).
• In both cases Pfizer wins over infection. However infection wins over ChAdOx1, especially against delta.
• Vaccine effectiveness against test positivity and self-reported symptoms seems about the same

Although the Uk had a different dose interval from other countries the evidence here is that this does not much alter things.

I am surprised by this: pleasantly surprised (personally) since I have been vaccinated and never had COVID. It looks as though the protection from the vaccine is comparable to prior infection - better than this in these averages but obviously it does down slowly (see graph) over time. possibly prior delta infection will give better infection protection against delta than vaccination, anyway the two are roughly comparable.

I can see now that booster doses for a lot of the population might have a significant - but still not very large - effect on R.

These figures are the real deal, from high quality data, and far, far away from W's and Zephir's pessimism over the vaccines - they are a bit better than even I was expecting. The comparison with natural infection here is also valuable and will no doubt be interesting to those who have been previously infected and maybe think they will not get vaccinated.

Zephir - perhaps you'd like to comment on the hard data in this UK study which uses ONS survey data - maybe the best database for this type of study in the world since it is large, has continued through the pandemic, and tracks random sampled households over a 4 month period asking a lot of detailed questions and testing multiple times.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Here is the preprint (I really hate it when people commenting on a preprint do not link to it or give a proper reference).

With Delta, infections occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals

Which means what? Anyway, the time plays against existing vaccine generation: it must be replaced with new one in similar way, like vaccines against flu, which get renewed each year. There is no reason for to believe otherwise.

Quote from THHuxleynew

But in any case for protection from transmission, with delta where transmission happens so quickly before symptoms, you would need whole-country prophyylatics.

Look at the poor country of Uttar Pradesh. Since 3 months CoV-19 free.

My be you have to switch reality from Buddy fried to real word...

Quote from THHuxleynew

In what world is protection defined only as protection from infection rather than protection from serious disease and death?

So far nobody with a prior infection died form getting CoV-19 again. But double vaxx UK boys age 80+ today die more or less at the same rate as unvaccinated...

Quote from THHuxleynew

In both cases Pfizer wins over infection. However infection wins over ChAdOx1, especially against delta.

Such nonsense you get when you include all data in one big pot. What is true 3 months after vaccination is no longer true 6 months later!!

See also::

In those 18 to 64 years, VE of BNT162b2 against new PCR-positives reduced by 22% (95% CI 6% to 41%) for every 30 days from second vaccination (p=0.007; Figure 2).

This is the only true conclusion. Exponential decay of protection

We have to teach these students that you cannot use linear (over a long period) statistics if you have an exponential decaying variable. You can only make statistics for e.g. a short period of 4 weeks where one can eliminate the exponential effect.

So everything we see in the vaccination report 37,38 is totally hidden and politicians using this crap conclusions will make wrong decisions!

Fact is from actual UK data as of today:: Vaccinated get 3x more COV-19 than unvaccinated in age group 40..80. Age 80+ with no prior infection - has no more protection from vaccines.

This study can only be used as a data pool. Most conclusions are wrong. You cannot mix data over a long period and completely cheat away the gamma virus. Further where is the high risk group age >75 ??? Just mixed into age >64 in Fig.2.

Quote from THHuxleynew

God save us from people who follow what they are told. Still, given the choice, were I unable to think for myself, go with CDC and WHO rather than ConspiracyTheoryR'Us.

But then i have the advantage of never looking at social media. It makes me anti-social, and immune from the latest conspiracy theory.

it makes you immune from common sense. you always quote from the rainbow paid for by-