I'm beginning to think the CDC may very well lose the lawsuit that Florida initiated

[Keksie]

1 hour ago, evandbob said:

It's also important to know that the state of Florida is plateauing at 38% fully vaccinated.  Cruise passengers using Florida ports may have a greater chance of catching COVID in Florida than on a 95% passenger vaxxed sailing.

51.47% of the population of Florida have had at least one shot.  Since the 12+ age group has just recently been approved for the Pfizer vaccine it will take time before they can be fully vaccinated so your 38% will change as the younger population gets beyond their second shots.  If you are vaccinated your chances of catching covid anywhere are very small.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Keksie

[evandbob]

So half of Floridians have at least some protection, and today's data show's 39% have both shots. That places Florida  into the bottom half of all 50 States vax rate and the FL rate has plateaued with most of the initial demand for shots met.  Resistance to COVID mitigation efforts in Florida seems higher than resistance to the virus, go figure.

 

And the Points Guy says this if Florida wins its suit against the CDC: 

 

 https://thepointsguy.com/news/florida-cruise-lawsuit-alaska-impact/

[SuiteTraveler]

11 hours ago, evandbob said:

So half of Floridians have at least some protection, and today's data show's 39% have both shots. That places Florida  into the bottom half of all 50 States vax rate and the FL rate has plateaued with most of the initial demand for shots met.  Resistance to COVID mitigation efforts in Florida seems higher than resistance to the virus, go figure.

 

And the Points Guy says this if Florida wins its suit against the CDC: 

 

 https://thepointsguy.com/news/florida-cruise-lawsuit-alaska-impact/

You also need to add the 27% of Floridians who have had Covid to the 39% fully vaccinated and 51% either fully or partially vaccinated to really know how many have immunity at this time.   So Florida is actually above herd immunity either way (65%).   

[CruiserBruce]

18 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

You also need to add the 27% of Floridians who have had Covid to the 39% fully vaccinated and 51% either fully or partially vaccinated to really know how many have immunity at this time.   So Florida is actually above herd immunity either way (65%).   

Who says herd immunity is 65%. Never heard a number that low.

[SuiteTraveler]

11 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Who says herd immunity is 65%. Never heard a number that low.

Herd immunity occurs between 50% and 85%.  That's the generally agreed upon definition in the medical community and always has been based on all other communicable illnesses.  Observing my own city, herd immunity started here at 65%.  That is when we hit our last inflection point before the numbers of newly infected started going down week after week until this past week where we have had 0 new infections for 7 days so far.  Immunity has to be counted as the % vaccinated + % who have had Covid-19 and have natural immunity.  65% was definitely the magic number here.  My city is now around 83%. The vaccines work, for certain.  https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html

[CruiserBruce]

Hmmm.... @SuiteTraveler, the very article you shared says, and I quote, "Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 50% to 90% of a population needs immunity before infection rates start to decline. (My bolding). So infections start to fall, not herd immunity. The same article goes on to say "we would need at least 70% of the population to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (“achieve herd immunity”)". 

 

In general terms in looking at 5 or 6 other articles (Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, etc) I never found a herd immunity definition under 70%, and several, highly contagious diseases over 90% for herd immunity.

 

Yes...your case count is descending...it is in much of the US (although, Alabama, I think was, is looking at a surge...and has one of the lowest vaccine rates. Surprised?) So declining case counts are an indicator of approaching herd immunity, but not the final achievement, until case counts get very low, or stop. Plus, one city is a very small sample...our country is far to mobile to use just one location.

 

Your city is 83% fully vaccinated? That is great, and noteworthy.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, SuiteTraveler said:

Herd immunity occurs between 50% and 85%.  That's the generally agreed upon definition in the medical community and always has been based on all other communicable illnesses.  Observing my own city, herd immunity started here at 65%.  …

WRONG! The article you cited indicated that herd immunity can occur when 50% to 90% of population are immunized “depending upon how contagious” the disease is.  COVID is highly contagious, so 80% needs to be viewed as absolute minimum.

[SuiteTraveler]

4 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Hmmm.... @SuiteTraveler, the very article you shared says, and I quote, "Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 50% to 90% of a population needs immunity before infection rates start to decline. (My bolding). So infections start to fall, not herd immunity. The same article goes on to say "we would need at least 70% of the population to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (“achieve herd immunity”)". 

 

In general terms in looking at 5 or 6 other articles (Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, etc) I never found a herd immunity definition under 70%, and several, highly contagious diseases over 90% for herd immunity.

 

Yes...your case count is descending...it is in much of the US (although, Alabama, I think was, is looking at a surge...and has one of the lowest vaccine rates. Surprised?) So declining case counts are an indicator of approaching herd immunity, but not the final achievement, until case counts get very low, or stop. Plus, one city is a very small sample...our country is far to mobile to use just one location.

 

Your city is 83% fully vaccinated? That is great, and noteworthy.

Our county has well over 1 million people.  Our city is 83% immune due to the number of people who survived Covid-19 and have immunity (27%) + those who were vaccinated so far (56%).  I live in a city  full of people with science degrees, so we all got out and got our vaccines as soon as we possibly could.  We vaccinated elderly first which made a massive difference, then all medical personnel and first responders, followed by anyone over 65, then over 50. Within two weeks after the 50's plus were called, we were vaccinating everyone over 18. We had a vaccination hub that could vaccinate 400 people an hour by appointment.  It was able to close mid-April since vaccinations were then available to everyone at pretty much any pharmacy or grocery store in town with no wait.  What appears to be the final inflection point appeared at 65% in early May when the number of new infections per day hit the 100 mark and began to descend precipitously each week.  The number of newly infected decreased quickly and steadily from that point and has not gone up since then. Our city is now at 83% immune. Keep in mind, 10% + - of the population are children under 12 who are not approved to be vaccinated yet.  Now we are 8 days and counting with 0 new infections.  We'll see how this goes but all the stats look great!   If you were here, you almost wouldn't know there had been a pandemic.  Most stores no longer require masks for vaccinated patrons, restaurants only require masks for unvaccinated workers and are operating at 100% capacity.  Masks are no longer required in schools. I hope that everywhere else in the world has this same experience.

Edited June 8, 2021 by SuiteTraveler

[SuiteTraveler]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

WRONG! The article you cited indicated that herd immunity can occur when 50% to 90% of population are immunized “depending upon how contagious” the disease is.  COVID is highly contagious, so 80% needs to be viewed as absolute minimum.

WRONG!  My city's final inflection point definitely occurred at 65% immunity and unless something extreme happens since we have been at 0 new infections for 8 days now, 65% will remain the inflection point.

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

 

 

Your city is 83% fully vaccinated? That is great, and noteworthy.

The poster did not say that. That figure was reached by adding the percent vaccinated to those who either have had Covid. The figure given for vaccinated was 56%, and I'm not sure if it was said that meant fully vaccinated.

[evandbob]

There is a duplication of cases in the addition cited by Suite Traveler: "

 

You also need to add the 27% of Floridians who have had Covid to the 39% fully vaccinated and 51% either fully or partially vaccinated to really know how many have immunity at this time."  

 

Most of the 27% who have had COVID also received the vax, so those groups overlap.  In fact, anyone I know who has had COVID in Florida was encouraged to get vaxxed anyway.  Combining those two groups might yield 32%, maybe 30%, and they are counted in the now 39% of Floridians who are fully vaxxed.

 

I've often read that 70% is the minimum threshhold for herd immunity.  Let's keep those shots coming!

[CruiserBruce]

4 hours ago, ontheweb said:

The poster did not say that. That figure was reached by adding the percent vaccinated to those who either have had Covid. The figure given for vaccinated was 56%, and I'm not sure if it was said that meant fully vaccinated.

Good point, you are right.

 

Given that you can get Covid again if you had it once, and you are still at risk for at least some of the other variants, that explains why most scientists are NOT counting people who had Covid AND people who are vaccinated as a combined total number who are immune, towards herd immunity, at least for Covid. And are recommending those who have had Covid to still get vaccinated. Although it would definitely seem there is some combined efficacy, given the rate case counts have been falling.

[SuiteTraveler]

2 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Good point, you are right.

 

Given that you can get Covid again if you had it once, and you are still at risk for at least some of the other variants, that explains why most scientists are NOT counting people who had Covid AND people who are vaccinated as a combined total number who are immune, towards herd immunity, at least for Covid. And are recommending those who have had Covid to still get vaccinated. Although it would definitely seem there is some combined efficacy, given the rate case counts have been falling.

I was running the numbers both ways to determine the cause of the inflection point - 1.  with people who are 100% vaccinated and 2. with people who are partially vaccinated. The final inflection point came in early May after my county had been getting vaccinated since mid-December with people in their 40's and 50's partially vaccinated.  By mid March, nearly all the elderly ages 70 and older and infirm who could be vaccinated had been vaccinated and they began a process of age down vaccination - everyone 65 and older, everyone 50 and older, then everyone 40 and older and then everyone over 18, now everyone over 12. I knew we were headed towards herd immunity when the case numbers here dropped from 782 the second week in March to 382 the third week in March and continued going down most weeks sticking in the low 100's through April. These were the weeks when people over 50 and then over 40 were getting their first jabs. So it seems those first shots for people in their 40's and 50's were having a powerful effect on the rate of Covid.   The final inflection point was arrived at May 7 with 65% of the population with some immunity from infection from having had Covid-19 or at least a first vaccination. That was the last day we had over 100 new infections and the infections declined quickly after that and reached 0 by May 30.   By the end of May, most people over 40 who wanted to be vaccinated at least had one jab if not two. Some younger people had begun to be vaccinated as well.  The vast majority in the US who got Covid and died or were seriously ill were over the age of 45 and our county was no exception.   

 

People who have had Covid-19 should get vaccinated at least 90 days after they got well due to the treatments they may have been given while they had Covid-19.  But they are still immune for those 90 days up to 2+ years after having Covid-19 and therefore should be counted as immune. Reinfection cases are extremely rare - there are only about two dozen such cases documented world wide and in some cases were due to an error in testing or a new variant.  People in the US who have had Covid-19 appear to be immune to all common variants in the US right now. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem to be holding their own against new variants so far for the vaccinated.  

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52446965 

https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/07/covid-19-reinfections-still-seem-rare/

 

Keep in mind, Covid-19 is not an equal opportunity infection.  It specifically goes after those with weak immune systems and those over 45.  Therefore it is possible to reach herd immunity without having everyone under 45 vaccinated or immune as they are drastically less likely to get Covid.  

 

I would hope these numbers inspire other areas of the country to get out and get vaccinated so they can get back to normal as quickly as possible.  

Edited June 8, 2021 by SuiteTraveler

[CruiserBruce]

@SuiteTraveler, one of your articles is from January, and the amount of doubt in your second is not supportive. There are several statements about "we just don't know"...

 

Not sure how you can say you can be immune for "2+ years" after having Covid, when Covid wasn't identified 2 years ago.

 

Your intention is good news, and you have a lot. But concluding when exactly herd immunity started, or if it exists, is a hindsight calculation, based on a number of issues. We have had case drops a couple of times, followed by surges. Yes, it certainly appears the case drops currently are related to vaccination and "natural" immunity. An d I support getting as many people getting vaccinated as possible.

[SuiteTraveler]

4 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

@SuiteTraveler, one of your articles is from January, and the amount of doubt in your second is not supportive. There are several statements about "we just don't know"...

 

Not sure how you can say you can be immune for "2+ years" after having Covid, when Covid wasn't identified 2 years ago.

 

Your intention is good news, and you have a lot. But concluding when exactly herd immunity started, or if it exists, is a hindsight calculation, based on a number of issues. We have had case drops a couple of times, followed by surges. Yes, it certainly appears the case drops currently are related to vaccination and "natural" immunity. An d I support getting as many people getting vaccinated as possible.

There are studies that indicate natural immunity may be long lasting, as long as 8+ years and possibly longer if Covid-19 turns out to be like SARS.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.html

 

[CruiserBruce]

1 minute ago, SuiteTraveler said:

There are studies that indicate natural immunity may be long lasting, as long as 8+ years and possibly longer if Covid-19 turns out to be like SARS.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.html

 

The article is behind a paywall. There are lots of studies out there...but how many are peer reviewed and validated?

[SuiteTraveler]

17 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

The article is behind a paywall. There are lots of studies out there...but how many are peer reviewed and validated?

This article is about the largest study of immune response in people who had Covid-19 so far.  They looked at 4 components and found although the antibodies may decrease and level off, the B cells will make more as needed and that the two types of T cells that fight Covid-19 infection decline at an incredibly slow rate - so slow it will be over many years.  This study has not been peer reviewed and validated yet because it just ended in March, but I'm sure that will happen.  Here is another study that found the same thing: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210524110135.htm

Here is yet another study, this time peer reviewed from January that found the same thing:

https://www.biospace.com/article/new-study-shows-covid-19-immunity-can-last-at-least-eight-months-after-infection/

 

IMO, all these studies by different researchers, not just here in the US but overseas as well, which keep finding the same thing over and over are some pretty good evidence of a real long lasting immune response in people who have had Covid-19.  

[frantic36]

44 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

The article is behind a paywall. There are lots of studies out there...but how many are peer reviewed and validated?

 

 

"The research, published online, has not been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. But it is the most comprehensive and long-ranging study of immune memory to the coronavirus to date."

 

The study was of 185 people of whom most provided only one blood sample though 38 provided multiple. In combination with some other small studies it does show some positivity though I would be cautious at this point to extrapolate to much certainty. We need more research basically.

 

 

I thought this was interesting...

"A small number of infected people in the new study did not have long-lasting immunity after recovery, perhaps because of differences in the amounts of coronavirus they were exposed to. But vaccines can overcome that individual variability, said Jennifer Gommerman, an immunologist at the University of Toronto."

 

So to be completely confident I would still think getting a vaccination to ensure immunity would be a wise precaution.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, frantic36 said:

 

 

"The research, published online, has not been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. But it is the most comprehensive and long-ranging study of immune memory to the coronavirus to date."

 

The study was of 185 people of whom most provided only one blood sample though 38 provided multiple. In combination with some other small studies it does show some positivity though I would be cautious at this point to extrapolate to much certainty. We need more research basically.

 

 

I thought this was interesting...

"A small number of infected people in the new study did not have long-lasting immunity after recovery, perhaps because of differences in the amounts of coronavirus they were exposed to. But vaccines can overcome that individual variability, said Jennifer Gommerman, an immunologist at the University of Toronto."

 

So to be completely confident I would still think getting a vaccination to ensure immunity would be a wise precaution.

 

Thank you. I often feel like one of the few cautioning over and over again that one really needs to understand how these studies are designed, how many people were involved, and what can REALLY be extrapolated from the results.

 

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Thank you. I often feel like one of the few cautioning over and over again that one really needs to understand how these studies are designed, how many people were involved, and what can REALLY be extrapolated from the results.

 

And in addition when extrapolating data from other SARS infections, one has to remember Covid is unique. Much of what we now know is not true such as Covid being spread by surface contact was thought to be true based on the knowledge about other SARS and corona virus infections.

[Joebucks]

An article that came out last night from scientists at the Cleveland Clinic. Virtually zero benefit of vaccination for those previously infected with COVID

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210608/No-point-vaccinating-those-whoe28099ve-had-COVID-19-Findings-of-Cleveland-Clinic-study.aspx?fbclid=IwAR2nBBXUz-0cZA9pVr177gspyt7Sv7FRbVtoSj9fkNEAH6wkoUjPL6X_aBw

[cruisemom42]

14 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

An article that came out last night from scientists at the Cleveland Clinic. Virtually zero benefit of vaccination for those previously infected with COVID

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210608/No-point-vaccinating-those-whoe28099ve-had-COVID-19-Findings-of-Cleveland-Clinic-study.aspx?fbclid=IwAR2nBBXUz-0cZA9pVr177gspyt7Sv7FRbVtoSj9fkNEAH6wkoUjPL6X_aBw

 

The information has not yet been peer-reviewed (or presumably published in an actual medical journal).

 

Also, the study is retrospective (e.g., a "look back" study) which means it can tell us something about what we have been doing (e.g., is it an effective strategy or not) but doesn't really address significant future questions such as:

1. What about long-term immunity?  Will vaccine-derived or natural immunity prove to be more durable over the long-term?
2. What about variants?  At the time the study was done (presumably), there were fewer variants in circulation to be concerned about. 

What I would take away from this is that if vaccine is in short supply, those who have not had COVID should be prioritized over those who have had it. Useful info for countries still struggling with vaccine shortages. Not sure I would, as of yet, make any long-term assumptions.

 

[navybankerteacher]

12 hours ago, SuiteTraveler said:

There are studies that indicate natural immunity may be long lasting, as long as 8+ years and possibly longer if Covid-19 turns out to be like SARS.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.html

 

It is beneath absurd to rely on studies of a quite different virus to make such 8+ year assumptions about a wide-spread and rapidly evolving virus which has only been looked at for less than 18 months.

 

I understand your desperate need to believe that you live in some magically safe place—- but you are trying too hard.

[Joebucks]

3 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

The information has not yet been peer-reviewed (or presumably published in an actual medical journal).

 

Also, the study is retrospective (e.g., a "look back" study) which means it can tell us something about what we have been doing (e.g., is it an effective strategy or not) but doesn't really address significant future questions such as:

1. What about long-term immunity?  Will vaccine-derived or natural immunity prove to be more durable over the long-term?
2. What about variants?  At the time the study was done (presumably), there were fewer variants in circulation to be concerned about. 

What I would take away from this is that if vaccine is in short supply, those who have not had COVID should be prioritized over those who have had it. Useful info for countries still struggling with vaccine shortages. Not sure I would, as of yet, make any long-term assumptions.

 

 

While fair questions to ask, we still have nearly all of the same questions about the vaccine on top of the super taboo question of long-term effects. The argument started with science. Now it's led into we must give the vaccine the benefit of the doubt and ensure compliance.

[frantic36]

40 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

What I would take away from this is that if vaccine is in short supply, those who have not had COVID should be prioritized over those who have had it. Useful info for countries still struggling with vaccine shortages. Not sure I would, as of yet, make any long-term assumptions.

 

This is exactly what I glean from this article. Its premise is on how best to prioritise vaccine distribution when vaccines are in short supply. Therefore don't use it on those who have already recently had Covid but use it to protect those  who have no known immunity. I find it equally frustrating and amusing how people misuse these articles to push their anti-vaccination stance.