To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

[Ted Striker]

Was that a new personal best from Aever? It hasn't even snowed yet.

[ill-advised strategy]

MTU: 41% of your total posts on tgr are just you battling the same shit over and over in this one thread.

Take a lap, man.

[Mofro261]

to understand correctly, personally, the 1/3 negative to 1/10 is why the prior covid +1 vax give ample protection?

Yes, many people who get exposed to the virus can have very mild disease that will clear from activation of the innate immune system without actually generating much adaptive immunity.

What I've been trying to get across, even before these vaccines rolled out, is that getting immunity from Natural Infection has a much larger distribution in the response within a population (not an individual) than the immunity from a defined dose with a known quantity, with mild/asymptomatic infection that is retained in the nasal passages much less likely to induce a protective response vs. moderate and severe disease, with that nasty little side effect that 1.5-2% of the infected just might die.

The whole reason the 2 dose vaccines are better than a single dose, is a larger % of the people didn't make enough of an immune response after a single exposure and need a second exposure to enhance that immunity. It's why we suggest getting a vaccine after infection anyway, to augment/increase the level of protection as based on some measurable metrics.

I like the thought of some of our assays being used, but it's hard not to see that splitting off a tier to require Antibody testing as a prerequisite to getting a vaccine sets up 2 mandates vs the one. At a cost to the indivual.

[Skidog]

Yes, many people who get exposed to the virus can have very mild disease that will clear from activation of the innate immune system without actually generating much adaptive immunity.

What I've been trying to get across, even before these vaccines rolled out, is that getting immunity from Natural Infection has a much larger distribution in the response within a population (not an individual) than the immunity from a defined dose with a known quantity, with mild/asymptomatic infection that is retained in the nasal passages much less likely to induce a protective response vs. moderate and severe disease, with that nasty little side effecte that 1.5-2% of the infected just might die.

The whole reason the 2 dose vaccines are better than a single dose, is a larger % of the people didn't make enough of an immune response after a single exposure and need a second exposure to enhance that immunity. It's why we suggest getting a vaccine after infection anyway, to augment/increase the level of protection as based on some measurable metrics.

I like the thought of some of our assays being used, but it's hard not to see that splitting off a tier to require Antibody testing as a prerequisite to getting a vaccine sets up 2 mandates vs the one. At a cost to the indivual.

so does that lend itself to more severe infections that survived (sans long term covid) would have a better response, than mild to asymptomatic (probably answered my own quesiton), and the fact that we shit the bed on tracing kinda effs us on good data?

[Adolf Allerbush]

holy fuck imagine being this obtuse to think that the survival rate of Covid for a person my age is necessary to get a vaccine when the risk of dying from Covid is less than .004%. ( and that’s for EVERYONE under 40)

im not anti-vax. I have all my other vaccines other than this new lifesaving flu booster shot. Because that’s all that this vaccine is going to be in 2-3 years. Like I said at the beginning, I’ll take my chances with Covid like I do every year with the flu but not taking a flu vaccine.

You're not anti-COVID-19 vaccination, you just won't get vaccinated to protect those around you. In other words, you're selfish.

[TBS]

Narcissistic Douchebag is a better description I think

[paulster2626]

holy fuck imagine being this obtuse to think that the survival rate of Covid for a person my age is necessary to get a vaccine when the risk of dying from Covid is less than .004%. ( and that’s for EVERYONE under 40)

im not anti-vax. I have all my other vaccines other than this new lifesaving flu booster shot. Because that’s all that this vaccine is going to be in 2-3 years. Like I said at the beginning, I’ll take my chances with Covid like I do every year with the flu but not taking a flu vaccine.

See? You're acting like a selfish cunt. That's why people don't want to put up with your shit.


Is the flu vaccine free in the USA?

[The AD]

to understand correctly, personally, the 1/3 negative to 1/10 is why the prior covid +1 vax give ample protection?

It probably depends on your definition of "ample protection." As you can see by those bell curves it's pure statistics. More people (though not all) will be protected by getting the vaccine(s)--and especially the mRNA vaccines--than those who got COVID. Plenty of people use that parenthetical bit to argue the vaccines "don't work," but nothing could be further from the truth.

[also should say this is just my interpretation. I'd definitely defer to the experts on this]

[Benny Profane]

See? You're acting like a selfish cunt. That's why people don't want to put up with your shit.


Is the flu vaccine free in the USA?

Pretty much.

[mcski]

Yes, many people who get exposed to the virus can have very mild disease that will clear from activation of the innate immune system without actually generating much adaptive immunity.

What I've been trying to get across, even before these vaccines rolled out, is that getting immunity from Natural Infection has a much larger distribution in the response within a population (not an individual) than the immunity from a defined dose with a known quantity, with mild/asymptomatic infection that is retained in the nasal passages much less likely to induce a protective response vs. moderate and severe disease, with that nasty little side effect that 1.5-2% of the infected just might die.

The whole reason the 2 dose vaccines are better than a single dose, is a larger % of the people didn't make enough of an immune response after a single exposure and need a second exposure to enhance that immunity. It's why we suggest getting a vaccine after infection anyway, to augment/increase the level of protection as based on some measurable metrics.

I like the thought of some of our assays being used, but it's hard not to see that splitting off a tier to require Antibody testing as a prerequisite to getting a vaccine sets up 2 mandates vs the one. At a cost to the indivual.

Thanks mofro. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to convey to some antivax acquaintances that had the covid sniffles

What is your field of work? Your posts have kept me sane in the constant onslaught of idiotic deniers and recaltrants

[Adolf Allerbush]

so does that lend itself to more severe infections that survived (sans long term covid) would have a better response, than mild to asymptomatic (probably answered my own quesiton), and the fact that we shit the bed on tracing kinda effs us on good data?

I gotta give you some props, this discussion with Mofro is leading to some good information, albeit some of it repeated, but still good. Kudos to you both.

[Skidog]

It probably depends on your definition of "ample protection." As you can see by those bell curves it's pure statistics. More people (though not all) will be protected by getting the vaccine(s)--and especially the mRNA vaccines--than those who got COVID. Plenty of people use that parenthetical bit to argue the vaccines "don't work," but nothing could be further from the truth.

[also should say this is just my interpretation. I'd definitely defer to the experts on this]

I fully believe vaccines work...never once argued that, just stating this clearly.

I'd like to see more studies around the prior infection stuff talked about more...if the data is not there I get it.

[Skidog]

I gotta give you some props, this discussion with Mofro is leading to some good information, albeit some of it repeated, but still good. Kudos to you both.

Thank you too...I can be level headed but can go "off" on occasion. Apologies to all.

And thank you Mofro for the info...im happy to see you and your company are working on new solutions.

[Mofro261]

What is your field of work? Your posts have kept me sane in the constant onslaught of idiotic deniers and recaltrants

I've been phd scientist in the Infectious Disease field working on both vaccines and diagnostics, since 2003.

[jono]

Maybe they are pysops shills for the Diagnostic Industry? If so, Kudos!

I helped develop several of these assays, but the demand for Antibody tests that show whether you were previously infected has been very low compared to the active detection assays (rtPCR, Antigen tests) that we also produce, we now have 5 EUA approved assays. Unfortunately the upstream science has been far ahead of the test development given we are a small company that hasn't been particularly nimble with the roll outs.

We do have assays that measure the level of neutralizing antibodies that are still waiting for EUA, including a rapid format the Gov't ask us to work on. Now we certainly might have some sample bias, but close to 1/3 convalescent Covid-19 samples are negative for these antibodies, while in the vaxxed samples it's less than 1/10.

One could also use the Adaptive assay to look at their T cell signatures of infection, but without a correlation with protection as yet I'm going to guess there hasn't been much call for that assay either.


"COVID-19 correlates of protection" or "surrogate markers of protection" are the terms you want to google.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8

Awesome, thanks! That 1/10 that were negative in the vaccinated samples, can you share how that breaks out by vaccine (or just a proportion of each in your samples)? It sure looks like J&J needs some help there--would be curious to know if that gets any better with time, too (ETA just noticed they'd used trials data, so...hopefully better with time?)

[Buster Highmen]

Thank you too...I can be level headed but can go "off" on occasion. Apologies to all.

And thank you Mofro for the info...im happy to see you and your company are working on new solutions.

The guy absolutely rips on skis as well.

[SumJongGuy]

TL/DR this shitshow every post every day.. Probably already discussed but.. If a person gets fired for refusing to provide proof of vaccination after a three month notice of the requirement do they get to collect unemployment? How different is this than failing a drug test after a three month notice that the job will require drug testing?

[Skidog]

The guy absolutely rips on skis as well.

ive never personally met a mag that didn't so....id imagine thats a solid statement and has been echoed so...

[Skidog]

TL/DR this shitshow every post every day.. Probably already discussed but.. If a person gets fired for refusing to provide proof of vaccination after a three month notice of the requirement do they get to collect unemployment? How different is this than failing a drug test after a three month notice that the job will require drug testing?

I know in NY they will be denied unemployment for failing to meet a job requirement, or something along those lines. I think it varies state to state, and then appeals.

I don't think its a good idea, but rules are rules and you can indeed go find another job if you dont like it...debates will happen though I am sure...lawsuits...the whole deal...

For sure a hot button issue.

[subtle plague]

Love, love, love.

Or has mofro administered the LS9000?

Last I heard he was working on a 6 HP Diesel Version.

[seano732]

I've been phd scientist in the Infectious Disease field working on both vaccines and diagnostics, since 2003.

Well yeah, but how much YouTube research do you even do?????

[TBS]

TL/DR this shitshow every post every day.. Probably already discussed but.. If a person gets fired for refusing to provide proof of vaccination after a three month notice of the requirement do they get to collect unemployment? How different is this than failing a drug test after a three month notice that the job will require drug testing?

In Oregon the answer is NO you are not eligible for unemployment because, constructively, you quit your job rather than adhere to ER’s workplace rules

[adrenalated]

Last I heard he was working on a 6 HP Diesel Version.

With a manual transmission, I hope

[Mofro261]

Awesome, thanks! That 1/10 that were negative in the vaccinated samples, can you share how that breaks out by vaccine (or just a proportion of each in your samples)? It sure looks like J&J needs some help there--would be curious to know if that gets any better with time, too (ETA just noticed they'd used trials data, so...hopefully better with time?)

More likely within the JJ for sure. Ancedotally more likelihood with being female vs male, but that could also be sample bias.

Yeah that article first showed up in preprint last March, published in May and it would be great to see an updated analysis. It should be noted those data are plotted for "prevention of symptoms". What they don't tell is that even with sub-optimal levels of antibody that allows an infection to occur, there is still T cell and b cell activation from a memory response that occurs to massively ramp up antibody levels within 3-5 days after an exposure and help limit disease progression.

It's why many of those in science are questioning how important a booster shot will really be other than to help that small 5-10% of vaccinees with a suboptimal responses after 2 doses , outside of increasing the odds of not getting infected at all upon an exposure from (Delta) 2/3 to ~7/8-9/10.

[Skidog]

More likely within the JJ for sure. Ancedotally more likelihood with being female vs male, but that could also be sample bias.

Yeah that article first showed up in preprint last March, published in May and it would be great to see an updated analysis. It should be noted those data are plotted for "prevention of symptoms". What they don't tell is that even with sub-optimal levels of antibody that allows an infection to occur, there is still T cell and b cell activation from a memory response that occurs to massively ramp up antibody levels within 3-5 days after an exposure and help limit disease progression.

It's why many of those in science are questioning how important a booster shot will really be other than to help that small 5-10% of vaccinees with a suboptimal responses after 2 doses , outside of increasing the odds of not getting infected at all upon an exposure from (Delta) 2/3 to ~7/8-9/10.

This is quality right here...thank you for giving an good explanation on booster "hesitancy" in the scientific community.