Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston, Cambridge: insurance, moving, manufacturing)

[redplum33]

Also from the study in Sweden:


"Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose."

[redplum33]

To be clear, the Sweden study shows that Pfizer has no effectiveness after 7 months.

Moderna apparently is still 59% effective at 6 months and onwards (unclear how long).


"The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards."


mRNA-1273 = Moderna

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by redplum33

To be clear, the Sweden study shows that Pfizer has no effectiveness after 7 months.

Moderna apparently is still 59% effective at 6 months and onwards (unclear how long).


"The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards."


mRNA-1273 = Moderna

No one is disputing that vaccine effectiveness wanes over time. We knew this from the outset, and in fact the initial 90+% reported effectiveness was a pleasant surprise. It does *not* follow that there is zero protection left. Because no one knows what the minimum level of antibodies required to fight off illness is. I think you admitted that also in an earlier post.

I have not seen the latest data on this, but not long ago, MA was reporting that the average age of the fully vaccinated deaths was >80. So it's not surprising, that it's the same demographic within which it's toughest to build those antibodies.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

It does *not* follow that there is zero protection left.

Yeah it does. No protection after 211 days (7 months). Pfizer.

As I said to you about a half dozen or so pages back, it's essentially the equivalent of being unvaccinated. And so many people are living like it's 2019 because they think they're "fully vaccinated".

[redplum33]

And keep in mind, for the vast majority of adults, we're just hitting the 7 month point now. Right in time for Thanksgiving...

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by redplum33

Yeah it does. No protection after 211 days (7 months). Pfizer.

As I said to you about a half dozen or so pages back, it's essentially the equivalent of being unvaccinated. And so many people are living like it's 2019 because they think they're "fully vaccinated".

This is not true, even according to the study you cited. Effectiveness against “symptomatic” COVID is vastly different from efficacy against COVID requiring hospitalization or increased risk of death. From your source:

“ The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months.”

Most studies seem to indicate the same. Overall efficacy does decrease over time. Drastically in some instances (particularly older individuals with comorbidities). This is why boosters are essential, particularly for people over age 65 (and MA has administered about 900k of these). But it’s not accurate at all to say that people who received the second dose of Pfizer 6 months ago are the “equivalent of being unvaccinated.” Most are still protected against severe cases. And this doesn’t even account for the fact that millions have the Moderna which is still nearly 60% effective against symptomatic COVID, and/or those who have previously been infected.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by redplum33

Yeah it does. No protection after 211 days (7 months). Pfizer.

As I said to you about a half dozen or so pages back, it's essentially the equivalent of being unvaccinated. And so many people are living like it's 2019 because they think they're "fully vaccinated".

Not only does that ignore the Moderna folks (like myself) who received a whopping dose relative to Pfizer, I think our numbers would be a lot worse if the Pfizer recipients were truly equivalent to unvaccinated right now. In any case, boosting which is now widely available to 18+ should take care of the problem. Again, just can't buy that the "sky is falling" relative to a year ago when things looked super bleak.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by lrfox

This is not true, even according to the study you cited. Effectiveness against “symptomatic” COVID is vastly different from efficacy against COVID requiring hospitalization or increased risk of death. From your source:

“ The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months.”

Most studies seem to indicate the same. Overall efficacy does decrease over time. Drastically in some instances (particularly older individuals with comorbidities). This is why boosters are essential, particularly for people over age 65 (and MA has administered about 900k of these). But it’s not accurate at all to say that people who received the second dose of Pfizer 6 months ago are the “equivalent of being unvaccinated.” Most are still protected against severe cases. And this doesn’t even account for the fact that millions have the Moderna which is still nearly 60% effective against symptomatic COVID, and/or those who have previously been infected.

The Sweden study made it crystal clear that there's no protection with Pfizer after 7 months.

The 9 month comment in the "interpretation" takes all of the vaccines from the study into account - including Moderna.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by redplum33

The Sweden study made it crystal clear that there's no protection with Pfizer after 7 months.

The 9 month comment in the "interpretation" takes all of the vaccines from the study into account - including Moderna.

The study measured protection against:

1. symptomatic infection
2. severe Covid-19 (hospitalization or 30-day mortality after confirmed infection)

When the abstract refers to "infection," it's means "symptomatic infection." Severe Covid-19 (as defined above) is referred to as such. That's why the Interpretation states: The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. If the results indicated that Pfizer offered no protection against severe illness, the interpretation would clarify that.

Again, this is in line with other studies such as this one and this one that indicate that even Pfizer provides protection against severe illness even as effectiveness against infection wanes. Boosters are essential going forward, but even folks who have received their 2nd dose of Pfizer are largely protected against severe instances of COVID.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by lrfox

But it’s not accurate at all to say that people who received the second dose of Pfizer 6 months ago are the “equivalent of being unvaccinated.” Most are still protected against severe cases.

It's 7 months, not 6. And, no, "most" are not still protected against severe cases.

"The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities."

"not for men" wipes out 50%.

"older frail individuals" wipes out more. I won't guess a percentage.

"individuals with comorbidities" wipes out a lot more. Let's remember that this includes obesity and high blood pressure...and that's a lot of people.

Basically, we're pretty much only talking about healthy younger women.

Or, depending how it's interpreted, we may only be talking about healthy younger women who got Moderna.