In the small village on Cape Cod where I am, we are seeing mild or asymptomatic breakthrough infections in fully immunized healthy young adults. Virtually everyone in town is immunized, but there are a lot of tourists who come through here to catch the ferry to a nearby island, and it’s likely that a higher percentage of them are vaccine-refusers. Plus there are of course the kids under 12. One person I know of just tested positive only 4 weeks after they’d completed a 2-dose vaccine series!
Clearly, the vaccines are not preventing infection, although these recently immunized healthy young adults are having only mild, or asymptomatic infections. But they can spread it to others, and to the older folks who finished their vaccinations as long as six months ago, and who are likely to have low titers at this point.
I’m glad that boosters have been approved for those who are immunosuppressed, although if they still are on certain medications that interfere with immune response, the booster may not raise a titer, for the same reason that their original shots didn’t raise a titer. But the recommendation for a booster 8 months after having completed prior immunization is patently random! They’re just pulling a number out of a hat, to dovetail with the fact that the earliest recipients (who just happen to be the most powerful people in the country, our legislators) are right at about 8 months post-immunization. What little evidence we do have indicates that titers are falling by about 5 months post-immunization. The data coming out of Israel indicates that their booster dose campaign is significantly reducing symptomatic infection and hospitalization rates for the elderly. Now they have extended the booster recommendation to everyone over 40, and the week after, probably to the entire country. We can expect to see the result of this in Israel in about one month.
We need to make booster doses available now, to everyone who is 5 months out from completion of the initial vaccination series, in order to slow this current wave of Covid. As for those who haven’t yet received a dose, we should go ahead and pay them to get it. Amazing how a hundred dollars seems to sway so many fence-sitters. That, together with mandating immunization for work or school attendance, should bring us up to close to 90% immunized. WIthout the kids under 12 being immunized, we cannot stop transmission. Where are the results of the studies being done on the 6-12 yr olds? They began doing these over 8 moths ago, which admittedly is not very long, but in Covid-times, it’s an eternity.
If the 72% of the population in San Francisco is providing 20% of the COVID-19 hospitalized patients in UCSF, then that would suggest that vaccination is about 90% effective against needing hospitalization, or that vaccinated people are about 10 times less likely to need hospitalization.
@ucbalumnus Not sure what you are saying. 20% is of the hospitalized patients. It is much higher than I have read like 99% hospitalized are unvaccinated. It also confirms what my D and her friends are seeing. They see plenty of vaccinated acquaintances getting sick. You wouldn’t see that if 99% is the case. This thing about trusting science. Of course but we don’t have solid scientific data yet, not on everything. Science will get it all right in the end but they would need time to study and verify and reverify. The situation is evolving much faster and we may have to learn to live with uncertainly for a while.
Re v-safe, there is a real disconnect between the expectations of what it will provide and the reality. I listened to part of the ACIP hearing last week about 3rd doses for the immunosuppressed/immunocompromised. One of the doctors mentioned v-safe as a way to track reactions. Well, maybe the immunosuppressed/immunocompromised are better at using v-safe, but for everyone else usage has been very low. I’m sure people will post how they used it, how their community’s vax sites stressed it, etc. But on a national level, no. I used it (but only after my 2nd dose). And most people I know locally did not. No information was given out at the vaccination sites.
Now regarding state immunization registries – my state has been putting out in the media that they have one. I checked my covid vax records, and they are correct. But many people I know have incorrect records. People may have a 3rd dose listed (when they never got one), someone I know has a dose listed for a date and place that they never went to (although they did have an appt. on that date and place which was later cancelled). These examples (and similar other ones) make me think the state vaccine registry is close to useless.
I read a story in the media where our state vaccination coordinator said they would be dusting off vaccination plans. So that means they will be again using plans that didn’t work well the first time? Did they learn anything from the first go-round? Somehow I think not!
I live in CT @CTTC . Between my husband and me, we went to four vaccination sites run by four different agencies. We were given a VSafe info sheet at each one that had the directions on how to sign on. But it was totally voluntary.
If our state has anything on the state level, I haven’t heard bout that…but I’m all ears!
We were never told a thing about VSafe at the CVS where we got ours (H and I, + kids’ second shot) or the one where my kids got their first shot (90 minutes away).
We also didn’t use it. I only heard about it on here - nowhere else.
Not trying to be mean, but if you’re going to post outlier numbers like that I’d really like to see them with links to reputable sources. So much is made up that people can read in various places (like FB) that I’d rather not see it on here. What people read they tend to believe, and people making up info other’s spread is a big part of the problem.
I can believe you read it. I have a tough time believing it’s true.
We know there are breakthrough cases post vaccination, but nowhere have I seen that high of a post vax hospitalization figure. I’d love to look at the data if it’s true. My guess is it’s like Tidelands where there are a few in the hospital, but hardly any - very low odds, but some - with severe cases in the hospital.
That is patently false, unless I’m misunderstanding your statement. The vaccinated are far less likely to have a severe or deadly breakthrough case then the unvaccinated.
These kinds of comments absolutely need citations.
I too am so disappointed in the supposed booster plan-as you note, there is nothing magical about 8 months, and most countries are offering a booster at 6 months. We do not need some useless bureaucratic roll-out of a plan-the vials are already in place at retailers. Tell everyone 6 months out to get another shot, reserve some for the LTCF, and continue the current public health sites in place which are providing shots currently. Seriously, this is just not that hard, and waiting another month just ensures more people get sick.
I agree especially in the area like TX, FL and the south where the virus is running rampant and more vaccinated people are coming down sick. If pharmacies aren’t overwhelmed and slots are available, they should absolutely open them up.
I was happy to wait until end of October but I’m getting antsier by the day. Before our vacation last month we had 7 cases/day per 100K. We are now at 45. And the grapevine says my dept’s main building has a lot of cases. How many? Who knows. Nobody will tell us there’s even one case anywhere. And not a mask to be seen
Thinking about this more as I puttered around this morning, it makes sense that a higher percentage of vaccinated would be hospitalized in areas where more people are vaxed. If a figurative area had 100% vaccinated, then even 1 person getting hospitalized would mean 100% post vax hospitalizations.
What we need are more numbers to put anything into context if the 20% were correct.
To put it more clearly to those reading, using your %vaccinated and a made up total of 10,000 people, 7200 of them are vaccinated and 2800 aren’t. Those are the “test” and “control” pools.
If 100 people are hospitalized with 20% coming from the vaccinated, that’s 20/7800 or 1/390 chance for any one person given equal odds.
Then 80/2800 are from the unvaccinated giving that pool a 1/35 chance.
Seems pretty clear to me which pool I’d want to be in. The 20% in this case with so many vaccinated isn’t all that high.
I got my booster Tuesday. Stem Cell transplant 6 years ago, but still on immune suppressant. Emailed my oncologist over the weekend and he said if I could access one that I should get it. Went to CVS website Monday and it had a choice for a booster, so I set it up. The pharmacist was terrible - said he doesn’t wear masks because he doesn’t like them (!). Then he wasn’t telling anyone to wait 15 minutes to check for side effects so I reported him in my surveys.
I got the shot and while I had no side effects with the first 2, this one gave me aches and a low fever for 2 days. Ibuprofen helped and I was able to get some things done, but I reacted stronger to the 3rd. All 3 were Pfizer. I’m feeling better this morning. So 2 days feeling bad in exchange for keeping myself from getting a complicated case or dead. I’ll take it.
I couldn’t find the article about UCSF but here’s a similar study from Britain.
24% got two shots. Take what you will. Just putting it out here nothing is solid at the moment. We don’t need to be paralyzed but also probably should not be complacent fully trusting 2 shots. I am not. I have begun to take precautions accordingly.
Depends on what “far less” looks like. It is less, maybe much less, but not as less as I was led to believe, as in 99%. To me, 99% is 100%. I wouldn’t worry about anything higher than 90-95%. But at 80%, I will have to rethink.
I may have found what I was reading yesterday. Per NYT, 20% of new infections are with fully vaccinated in six of seven states that report the data. Read on.
My biggest issue with getting shot number 3 is the lack of research about this. No trials to determine the effect of a third shot, no research to determine the optimun spacing for the thrid shot, and no testing of what a third shot should contain (desginated booster vs. same as first two). We are supposed to be following science, but no science has been done on this yet (none that I have seen anywhere).
At the moment follow the science is just as political as it is scientific IMO. We don’t have solid ground for anything yet. Science need more time and data to be scientific.
