Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 46

By October 28, 2021October 30th, 2021Commentary

A large study from Sweden followed persons for up to 9 months post-vax.  Hundreds of thousands of matched pairs of fully-vaxed and unvaxed persons were created.  After 211 days, no difference in likelihood of infection was detected between the two groups for the Pfizer vaccine.  Moderna fared better, with terminal effectiveness seeming to occur at around 60%.  The AstraZeneca vaccine seemed to perform worst of all.   Effectiveness against severe disease held up better, at a combined 42% from 6 months on.  Effectiveness declined fastest among men, and the elderly, especially frail elderly.  (SSRN Study)

Another study showing the recommendations of “experts” in regard to mitigation can be so wrong.  This time it is about air purifiers, and again, the research indicates their use may actually make transmission more likely.  (Purifier Article)

Another analysis of the first round of vaccinations in Israel confirms that as time increased from date of vaccination, effectiveness against infection lessened, across all age groups.  (NEJM Article)

And this is a relatively intensive study from the UK on over 10,000 breakthru infections matched to unvaccinated controls who also became infected.  In general, there was less severe disease among those who were vaccinated and less risk of death, but this effect was really only seen in those under age 60.  (Medrxiv Paper)  So once again we see that the vaccines provide the greatest benefit in those who are in the least need.

This research from Puerto Rico found that after infection, people had a strong response against further infection, including by Delta.  When these persons are vaccinated, the level of neutralizing antibodies increases further.  By contrast, vaccinated persons who had not previously been infected had a weaker response.  The study was small, but suggests that Delta does not escape neutralization by antibodies from prior infection or vax.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This paper by contrast found that while Pfizer effectiveness against infection waned, it did not disappear, and also that a third dose boosted effectiveness back to near prior levels.  (Medrxiv Paper)

The use of a third dose, however, suggests that the original dose timing recommendations were in error.  The rushed clinical trials may not have allowed adequate time to explore variations in scheduling the second dose.  This study from Canada explored use of different vaccines and dosing schedules.  Also notable here is no finding that vaccines were any less effective against Delta.  But most importantly, it appears that delaying the second dose until seven or eight weeks after the first dose improved the durability of effectiveness.  And effectiveness against hospitalization remained higher for a longer period of time in all schedules than did effectiveness against infection. (Medrxiv Study)

This study from North Carolina looked at effectiveness over a 9 month period.  The peak of effectiveness for Pfizer was 95% against infection at two months and dropped to 70% at seven months, for hospitalization peak effectiveness was 96% and it dropped to 88% after seven months, for death the comparable figures were 96% and 88%.  Moderna had similar figures, although generally lesser drops in effectiveness.  The impact was similar across all age and other demographic groups.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This study from Wisconsin compared neutralizing antibody levels in health care workers who had been infected and not vaccinated, infected and vaccinated, and not infected and vaccinated.  Supposedly the levels were higher in those who were vaccinated but not previously infected than those previously infected but not vaxed, but the highest levels by far was in those both infected and vaxed, and those levels were achieved with one dose and did not rise further with a second dose.  The reason I remain dubious about the superiority of vax over natural infection is that looking only at the level and not the breadth is not an adequate measure of the overall effectiveness of an adaptive immune response.  (Medrxiv Paper)

I think I have only said this a thousand times:  vaccines don’t work as well in the frail elderly.  This study from a nursing home outbreak in Italy finds a significant decline in antibodies over time among the vaxed residents was associated with a greater risk of subsequent infection and serious illness.  (Medrxiv Paper)

 

Join the discussion 14 Comments

  • Bill in Seminole says:

    Does the above research say to us that persons under 65 with 2 doses administered should get a third dose before winter sets in, particularly in the northern states? I await the CDC coming forward with a warning to get a third dose this winter when northerners are all bundled up indoors, but too late to get a boost in immunity (I’m in Florida BTW).

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    Here’s an alternative look at that Swedish study.

    https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-study-shows-covid-vaccines

    It may interest you all to know, to assess the pro-vaccine slant and sanity levels in the research community, that the study authors, in the face of absolutely abysmal vaccine performance data, recommend… Wait for it…. Boosters for everyone!

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I really don’t think you should be accusing anyone of having a slant until you come to grips with your own

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I don’t think we know at this point whether boosters will have real world effectiveness that lasts. I do think that some places, and Florida is likely one, now have enough people who are either vaccinated and/or infected that another significant wave is unlikely

  • Jeff Steiner says:

    I’m confused by these two statements in paragraph 5:

    “When these persons are vaccinated, the level of neutralizing antibodies increases further. By contrast, vaccinated persons who had previously been infected had a weaker response.”

    I presume the second statement is referring to UN-vaccinated persons.

    No need to post or reply to my comment. Thanks for all your work, always appreciate your insights!

  • Peggy A Lewis says:

    “In general, there was less severe disease among those who were vaccinated and less risk of death, but this effect was really only seen in those under age 60”

    But how would you assume that even in the face of data when we know the testing protocol is skewed?

    https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1453813458089254922

  • Kevin Roche says:

    thank you, will fix it

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    I have a massive slant, and I admit it.

    I am definitely slanted away from people who have no interest in investigating simple, cheap, safe, existing therapies that might prevent or cure a disease, and absolutely insist that the only way forward is to use a “fascinating” new experimental technology with no known safety data. I have a problem when people apply a double standard of extreme investigation to those simple, cheap, safe, existing therapies while saying that the way to test the safety of their “fascinating” new experimental technology is to just try it on children and see what happens.

    And I am definitely slanted away from people whose studies show by data that their “fascinating” new experimental technology doesn’t work very well and that somehow brings them to the conclusion that the solution is MOAR OF THE “FASCINATING” NEW EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGY.

    Anyway I’m glad to see the admission that “I don’t think we know at this point whether boosters will have real world effectiveness that lasts” but that does rather support my contention that the conclusion of the Sweden study is bordering on insanity.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I don’t agree with your conclusions, but do agree that at this point we simply don’t know if boosters will last longer than the original doses

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    So is the Swedish study correct that boosting everyone is the answer to the fact the vaccines are failing?

  • Bryon says:

    From the North Carolina study regarding vaccine effectiveness: “The impact was similar across all age and other demographic groups.”

    So many other study’s are showing much less effectiveness in the elderly, including ones you cite in this post.

    This makes me cast doubt on the entire study, unless I am misreading what is meant by the quoted sentence.

  • Ann in L.A. says:

    We’ve seen studies that include infected-then-vaccinated groups, but has anyone looked at the flip of that? Vaccinated-then-infected? Do those people get the broader benefits of infection, while being protected against severe disease by the vaccine? Since so many may eventually fall into that category, it would be nice to know.

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    Ann, this is a really good question: “We’ve seen studies that include infected-then-vaccinated groups, but has anyone looked at the flip of that? Vaccinated-then-infected?”

    I’d love to know the answer too 🙂

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I mentioned in a reply to the commentor that there are a couple of studies that looked at this category and the response is similar to the reverse, and it looks like in both cases, vax and infection causes the most potent immune response

Leave a comment