Looks like the “new” part of the Mosaic-8 vaccine candidate is that each protein subunit contains 8 different spike RBDs from varying coronaviruses (only one of which is a SARS-CoV-2 variant) in order to induce antibody response against the parts of the spike RBD that is conserved (i.e. the same and unlikely to be mutated) across the varying coronaviruses, so that such antibodies can neutralize a larger number of different coronaviruses, including those that are not among the 8 whose spike RBDs are in the vaccine candidate.
Otherwise, it seems conceptually similar to some other older vaccines (like Shingrix) in being a protein subunit, as opposed to something new like a different viral vector (like J&J) or mRNA (like Pfizer or Moderna).
I am in a vaccine booster research study that attached a T cell epitope to a lower dose of an mRNA. It’s supposed to rapidly produce self amplifying antibodies, although I may be wording that incorrectly, in the face of any Covid variant. I got the vaccine back in April. I sure hope it works
Let us know! I am in a study for semi-quantitative antibodies. Second booster caused antibodies to skyrocket at the two week mark. Waiting on the one month results. But more interested in your study @jym626.
The common wisdom seems to be that a prior Omicron infection doesn’t protect at all against BA.5. But doesn’t this study seem to show the opposite? Maybe someone here can help me understand. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.11.22277448v1
There’s a difference between protection and immunity. Prior infection, especially a more recent infection with the earlier Omicron variants, will provide some protection, better protection than that offered by infection due to even earlier variants of the virus, but the degree of that protection is relatively low against BA.5 because of its ability (which is not total) to evade any protection that currently exists.
Regarding antigen tests they really don’t work early. Every single of my friends/family that had covid the last 2 moths showed negative tests the first few days of symptoms. Then they tested positive but that was a few days later. Interesting they tested positive for 10-15 days afterwards, having a faint line for a long time. That goes against the idea that viral load is the highest before symptoms. I read a few explanations but nothing very conclusive. Anyway, the tests are good if you are sick and want to know if is it covid or not, but not good for early detection. At least in my experience.
I think it depends. Back in the spring, my friends who were testing positive were not showing up positive until day 4-5 after symptom onset.
I know a lot of people who have had Covid in the past month. With few exceptions, all have tested positive with a day or two of symptom onset and of those with a known exposure, most were showing symptoms within a day or two of a known exposure and tested positive right away.
But then I know several family members (people who have yet to have Covid) who have been in close contact with a symptomatic person and never tested positive or had symptoms. Close meaning, spouses sleeping in same bed, family members riding in closed cars, eating together, etc.
This is a matter of immunized vs not. The way I understand it, a small amount of virus, too little to trigger a positive test, triggers the immune response and starts symptoms in people with previous exposure. If the body has never “seen” the virus, it takes a while for that cascade to develop. There’s no immediate response because it’s novel to the body. As such, I think that testing takes on a different purpose, confirmation as opposed to precaution.
I tested positive yesterday (fully vaxed/boosted: PPPM). Dodged it when H had it a month ago, but we were in the car Sunday with a friend who said, “I have a sore throat and a bit of a cough, but tested negative this morning.” H & I gave each other the side-eye, because we know it takes a few days to show up positive. Got the email on Tuesday that he was testing positive.
Oh well, was bound to happen eventually. I actually feel fine so far, mild cold symptoms. I got sore throat Tuesday night, tested Wednesday (negative) but just felt off yesterday (positive).
H is doing fine, so hopefully he’s under the protection of his vax/boosters (same as me) and previous infection. He’s always been the concern because of other health issues. We’ve again split up the house, and mask around each other to be safe.
Have there been any recent (Omicron time frame) studies on whether antigen testing still matches up well to contagiousness (as opposed to infection, which may exist in pre-contagious and post-contagious stages)?
If antigen testing is no longer a good indicator of contagiousness or not, then there is no good highly accessible means of precautionary testing, since PCR or NAAT testing is either too slow to return results or is expensive if you want rapid results for testing just before an event.
Not that I’ve seen. I’ve just heard/read the conjecture that I parroted above as to why (I think I heard it on TWIV). I haven’t been keeping up though on much COVID related since Omicron. It seems though that people are catching it from pre-symptomatic individuals. My folks got it from a baby with no symptoms.
There’s a fair amount of evidences that Omicron multiplies faster in the throat than in the nose, so an infected person may already be contagious and/or developed symptoms in the throat before there’s sufficient amount of the virus to be detectable by an antigen test, which is designed and optimized to be used with a nasal swap.
So I just read an article about a study that if you had a previous omicron infection you are about 75% protected against BA.5. Yet all over the place I keep reading about how BA.5 is so different, so it doesnt matter if you had BA.1 or not
So confused now, but antedontially knock on wood, I have not caught BA.5 yet and I have been in very crowded places lately. I had the original Omicron in Jan. In a few days or so I should know if I got it from theevent for work that I attended in NYC with 10K people
That’s the study I posted up thread! I too am confused by all the folks saying that BA.1 and 2 don’t provide any protection from BA.5 given this study showed significant protection! I mean 75% is a lot better than 0!