Natural immunity and no vaccine shot

[TheOldBear]

15 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

As having had COVID and now a Long Covid "victim", there is no guarantee of how long the "natural immunity" will last.  Mine was gone inside of 3 months.  In my support group, Survivor Corps, we talk about this all the time and have found there is no for sure timetable.  A demonstrable number of the group has had COVID a second time and it was not pleasant.   Not one of our medical advisors or PCPs have advised to not get the vaccine.  

 

Just get the da*n vaccine.  

See my post #20 on this thread

 

Antibodies are the 'short term' component of immune response - perhaps lasting 90 - 120 days after an infection.

The long term 'T' and 'memory B' cells are more durable [years] - but their reactivity is not measured when checking for antibodies.

[Toofarfromthesea]

16 hours ago, Hlitner said:

You will not get an argument from me :).   My personal position is that one should get vaccinated or be prepared to comply with lots of travel-related restrictions.  We just returned (last week) from 8 days in an All Inclusive resort (Mexico) where nobody bothered to wear a mask.  It was truly liberating and felt normal.   It was satisfying to find an alternate universe of folks determined to live a relatively normal life without somebody dictating rules.  Everyone we met claimed to be fully vaccinated.  If they were not (nobody was asking for proof) then it was their problem if they got sick.    That works fine on land but if we get liars and cheaters (using fake vaccination documents) on a cruise perhaps they should be "keel hauled" and left for the sharks.  Hospitals are full of antivaxers, most of who realize (too late) that a vaccine was the better choice.

 

Hank

And you know what the hospitals are NOT filled with?  Vaccinated people who were infected by un-vaccinated people.  

[slidergirl]

2 hours ago, TheOldBear said:

See my post #20 on this thread

 

Antibodies are the 'short term' component of immune response - perhaps lasting 90 - 120 days after an infection.

The long term 'T' and 'memory B' cells are more durable [years] - but their reactivity is not measured when checking for antibodies.

I know, I know.  And I did reply.   My antibodies didn't last very long at all.   And, it's not an easy thing to get a T/B cell test.  My PCP said it's not worth it, just get the vaccine.  

[Hlitner]

32 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Due respect but this is absurd.  How in the world does one (or a dozen, or twenty) vax-lying person(s) cause a ship full of vaccinated pax to turn into an outbreak requiring diversion or early termination of a cruise?

The only way that could happen is if the vaccine is absolute garbage and didn't protect all of the vaccinated people on the ship.  Surely you aren't arguing that.

Who said one case could case a ship full of cases?.  The issue would be the ONE!  In some cases that would likely be enough terminate a cruise or, at the very least, prevent the ship from making any port.  This has actually happened on a European cruise (perhaps more then one) when a ship (cruising in Italy) terminated their cruise because of a single suspected case of COVID.    We can all hope that the cruise lines are able to work out protocols with the various ports to avoid these issues because of a single (or even a few) cases of COVID.   But at this point that is wishful thinking.

 

Hank

[LHT28]

I found this interesting

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/05/13/covid-19-outbreak-among-8-fully-vaccinated-members-of-ny-yankee-organization-implications-for-cdc-guidance-on-masking/?sh=280cb8903412

 

Yes I know they had the J & J vaccine  which was considered  less effective  than Pfizer or Moderna

but worrying  just the same

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

And you know what the hospitals are NOT filled with?  Vaccinated people who were infected by un-vaccinated people.  

But the hospitals still have to occupy spaces which might be needed by vaccinated (read: INTELLIGENT AND RESPONSIBLE) people   —- whose taxes are being spent to cure the irresponsible.

[Hlitner]

2 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

I found this interesting

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/05/13/covid-19-outbreak-among-8-fully-vaccinated-members-of-ny-yankee-organization-implications-for-cdc-guidance-on-masking/?sh=280cb8903412

 

Yes I know they had the J & J vaccine  which was considered  less effective  than Pfizer or Moderna

but worrying  just the same

I will get flamed for this, but IMHO the J&J vaccine should not have received its Emergency Approval and I think that the arguments favoring that vaccine are absurd.  Why?  Even the FDA admits that the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) have an efficacy of better then 95%.  I have heard some scientist/physicians (not associated with the FDA) say that the real effectiveness of these vaccines (in normal use) is likely in the 99% effectiveness range.  Bottom line is that anyone fully vaccianted with either of mRNA is very unlikely to get or spread COVID.   As to the J&J, its efficacy has been said to be in the 60-70% range and it has been rumored (I cannot confirm this) that many of the "breakthroughs" have been folks who had the J&J vaccine.  My issue is that when you have competing vaccines and 2 of the 3 are much more effective why even push that third (J&J).   Probably the most compelling argument in favor of the J&J is that you only need one shot, but what has been left unsaid is that folks who get only a single shot of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines also have some protection (probably in the same range as the J&J),  

 

So perhaps some of other posters who like to look at the real statistics would like to poke some holes in my post.  Keep in mind I am not saying that the J&J is a bad product but simply that the other two approved vaccines are far superior.

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

1 minute ago, Hlitner said:

I will get flamed for this, but IMHO the J&J vaccine should not have received its Emergency Approval and I think that the arguments favoring that vaccine are absurd.  Why?  Even the FDA admits that the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) have an efficacy of better then 95%.  I have heard some scientist/physicians (not associated with the FDA) say that the real effectiveness of these vaccines (in normal use) is likely in the 99% effectiveness range.  Bottom line is that anyone fully vaccianted with either of mRNA is very unlikely to get or spread COVID.   As to the J&J, its efficacy has been said to be in the 60-70% range and it has been rumored (I cannot confirm this) that many of the "breakthroughs" have been folks who had the J&J vaccine.  My issue is that when you have competing vaccines and 2 of the 3 are much more effective why even push that third (J&J).   Probably the most compelling argument in favor of the J&J is that you only need one shot, but what has been left unsaid is that folks who get only a single shot of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines also have some protection (probably in the same range as the J&J),  

 

So perhaps some of other posters who like to look at the real statistics would like to poke some holes in my post.  Keep in mind I am not saying that the J&J is a bad product but simply that the other two approved vaccines are far superior.

 

Hank

Agreed - but there remains the fact that not needing to have super-refrigeration as well as second shots does give J&J some value in immunizing (admittedly not as well) some people who might not otherwise get immunized at all.

[Hlitner]

3 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Agreed - but there remains the fact that not needing to have super-refrigeration as well as second shots does give J&J some value in immunizing (admittedly not as well) some people who might not otherwise get immunized at all.

Funny but we were just talking about that (here at home).  It makes a good argument for the J&J being distributed to parts of the world that do not have the infrastructure to support the deep freezing required by the mRNA vaccines.  But in countries that can handle the refrigeration issue it seems to make a lot more sense to focus on Moderna and Pfizer.  

 

During my retirement luncheon one of my friends told me he had gone out of his way to get the J&J because it did not want the hassle of two shots.  He is a smart guy with a public health background and I took him to task.  He reminded me about the early J&J factors in that is was tested in South Africa and was somewhat effective against one of the nasty variants.  But we both agreed that those early statements trying to promote J&J never talked about the efficacy of the two mRNA vaccines against that same variant.  As time has gone on it does seem that all 3 vaccines are pretty effective against all the common variants although there is some reason to expect that future booster shots will be slightly altered to better handle variants.  As I said in the earlier post, it is not that there is anything wrong with the J&J, but its just that the other two vaccines seem to be much more effective at the complete prevention of COVID.

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

There are varying degrees of density:   ranging from the lazy who prefer one shot over two even at the cost of decreased efficacy,  all the way to those who rationalize not getting a shot because if everyone else does, they won’t need to.

[wowzz]

6 hours ago, Hangman115 said:

That is how they now have natual immunity. 

Which will last a few months. They still need to get vaccinated.  If they get CV19 again, they may not be around much longer!

[Hlitner]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

There are varying degrees of density:   ranging from the lazy who prefer one shot over two even at the cost of decreased efficacy,  all the way to those who rationalize not getting a shot because if everyone else does, they won’t need to.

I love your use of the word "density."

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

43 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I love your use of the word "density."

 

Hank

My superior for many years was an Irishman who suggested a sort of kinship with me because of ancient geographic connection.  In pointing out the underlying difference based upon his pure Celtic lineage and my Anglo-Norman  roots, I mentioned two appropriate collective terms.  You know, like a "pride of lions" or a "gaggle of geese" -- anyway, my terms:  a "glory of Normans" and a "density of Celts" helped him to understand.  We remained good friends, agreeing to disagree -- but swapping many

micro-ethnic slurs.

[happy cruzer]

Yep, the JnJ vaccine is one of the reasons that requiring all passengers to be vaccinated may not be enough for some travel.  Combination with testing like done before there were any vaccines could be the solution.  And a plan for the cases that still happen in spite of all precautions.

[ontheweb]

15 hours ago, LHT28 said:

I found this interesting

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/05/13/covid-19-outbreak-among-8-fully-vaccinated-members-of-ny-yankee-organization-implications-for-cdc-guidance-on-masking/?sh=280cb8903412

 

Yes I know they had the J & J vaccine  which was considered  less effective  than Pfizer or Moderna

but worrying  just the same

The Yankees’ covid-19 outbreak shows vaccines work, health experts say (msn.com)

 

This article maintains that this outbreak shows the vaccines work because all but one of the 8 were asymptomatic and also without the vaccines the number being infected would have probably been much higher.

 

But, I agree that even a minor outbreak on a ship could have disastrous consequences.

[evandbob]

In addition to the NYYs, Bill Maher is another example of a person who's been fully vaccinated, tested positive for COVID later on, but is asymptomatic so far.

 

In a tiny % of vaxxed peeps this can happen, but better not to have issues from testing positive.  Hopefully, nothing long range either.

 

It could have been much, much worse, if any of these guys were unvaxxed to start.

[Hlitner]

It does seem to be nearly impossible to get many folks to move away from agenda driven beliefs into the world of facts.  But for the sake of Toofarfromthesea I would just emphasize that many of we frequent cruisers (and some who cruise much less frequently) have a fear of being stuck on a floating quarantine vessel or having a cruise sudden end, miss ports, etc. because one of more folks becomes sick with COVID.   My only reason for wanting to be on a ship that has 100% vaccination policy (with no exceptions) is because they reduces the odds of having a COVID related issue.   While somebody who has natural immunity should also be OK, the problem is how do you know somebody has natural immunity.  Most of my friends who think they had COVID were not even tested for COVID (for much of pandemic getting tested was a real pain in our neck of the woods).  And although there are some antibody tests (these are blood tests that must be analyzed in a professional lab) these tests leave a lot to be desired (which is why even the CDC has not encouraged folks to get antibody tests).  

 

So while I will admit that a 100% vaccination policy is certainly a flawed policy, at the moment it is the best option we have for reducing COVID risk.  As to those with natural immunity, the current CDC recommendation is that even those folks will benefit from being vaccinated.

 

Hank

[Pudgesmom]

On 5/14/2021 at 3:36 PM, Hlitner said:

I will get flamed for this, but IMHO the J&J vaccine should not have received its Emergency Approval and I think that the arguments favoring that vaccine are absurd.  Why?  Even the FDA admits that the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) have an efficacy of better then 95%.  I have heard some scientist/physicians (not associated with the FDA) say that the real effectiveness of these vaccines (in normal use) is likely in the 99% effectiveness range.  Bottom line is that anyone fully vaccianted with either of mRNA is very unlikely to get or spread COVID.   As to the J&J, its efficacy has been said to be in the 60-70% range and it has been rumored (I cannot confirm this) that many of the "breakthroughs" have been folks who had the J&J vaccine.  My issue is that when you have competing vaccines and 2 of the 3 are much more effective why even push that third (J&J).   Probably the most compelling argument in favor of the J&J is that you only need one shot, but what has been left unsaid is that folks who get only a single shot of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines also have some protection (probably in the same range as the J&J),  

 

So perhaps some of other posters who like to look at the real statistics would like to poke some holes in my post.  Keep in mind I am not saying that the J&J is a bad product but simply that the other two approved vaccines are far superior.

 

Hank

Here are two articles explaining some details about the differences between the vaccines. You can scroll to the pertinent information, or read all of it and see if you have a different conclusion. 

 

The J & J vaccine has proved to be 100% effective against hospitalization and death. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-johnson-johnson-vaccine
  

Also, the vaccine was tested in a different way than the other two US - available vaccines. Comparing efficacy of them is like comparing apples and oranges. https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/02/comparing-the-covid-19-vaccines-developed-by-pfizer-moderna-and-johnson-johnson/

[Hlitner]

19 minutes ago, Pudgesmom said:

Here are two articles explaining some details about the differences between the vaccines. You can scroll to the pertinent information, or read all of it and see if you have a different conclusion. 

 

The J & J vaccine has proved to be 100% effective against hospitalization and death. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-johnson-johnson-vaccine
  

Also, the vaccine was tested in a different way than the other two US - available vaccines. Comparing efficacy of them is like comparing apples and oranges. https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/02/comparing-the-covid-19-vaccines-developed-by-pfizer-moderna-and-johnson-johnson/

I did say as much but the reality regarding the J&J is that its efficacy is far lower then the other two.  Put in lay terms, if one is vaccinated with the J&J they are much more likely to later contract COVID but it would likely be a mild case or asymptomatic.   But that also means they are much more likely to then spread COVID to the unvaccinated!  In an ideal world everyone would be vaccinated and that would remove the issue of how to deal with the unvaccinated.  But the reality is that somewhere between 20-30 % of our population will remain unvaccinated.   While many of us might adopt an attitude of "screw the unvaccinated, it is their own fault and problem" our public health officials do not have the luxury of assuming that kind of attitude.  They work at protecting both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  The J&J is not a good thing for the unvaccinated.  And by the way, even a mild case of COVID can put somebody in bed for a few days and result in some of the many morbidities that have often resulted from COVID.  

 

Hank

 

[Hangman115]

I read comments saying the antibodies do not last forever.  I have seen news on many naional news stations that Pfiser has been sating their vaccine does not last forever. They say with their shot. They recommended a booster shot in about 6 months. They also suggested the need for annual shots. Sorta like the annual flu shot. Soo even Pfiser has publicly come out and admitted, their 2 shot covid vaccine shot may only last a few months

[navybankerteacher]

1 minute ago, Hangman115 said:

I read comments saying the antibodies do not last forever.  I have seen news on many naional news stations that Pfiser has been sating their vaccine does not last forever. They say with their shot. They recommended a booster shot in about 6 months. They also suggested the need for annual shots. Sorta like the annual flu shot. Soo even Pfiser has publicly come out and admitted, their 2 shot covid vaccine shot may only last a few months

So what?   It saves lives and reduces hospitalizations while it does last.

 

Commenting on its lack of permanent efficacy is about as sensible as saying that eating food is not permanent because you will need another meal in a few hours.

 

People will come up with all sorts of rationalizations against immunization.

[capriccio]

6 minutes ago, Hangman115 said:

I read comments saying the antibodies do not last forever.  I have seen news on many naional news stations that Pfiser has been sating their vaccine does not last forever. They say with their shot. They recommended a booster shot in about 6 months. They also suggested the need for annual shots. Sorta like the annual flu shot. Soo even Pfiser has publicly come out and admitted, their 2 shot covid vaccine shot may only last a few months

All vaccine producers are following - including antibody testing -  their trial volunteers for a few years.  Have you read or heard of any of them saying that the volunteers inoculated last August through October have lost their immunity?   I am sure we will hear when that starts to happen because they can't keep it a secret (it needs to be reported as part of the trial plus volunteers will talk I'm sure).

Edited May 16, 2021 by capriccio

[slidergirl]

3 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I did say as much but the reality regarding the J&J is that its efficacy is far lower then the other two.  Put in lay terms, if one is vaccinated with the J&J they are much more likely to later contract COVID but it would likely be a mild case or asymptomatic.   But that also means they are much more likely to then spread COVID to the unvaccinated!  In an ideal world everyone would be vaccinated and that would remove the issue of how to deal with the unvaccinated.  But the reality is that somewhere between 20-30 % of our population will remain unvaccinated.   While many of us might adopt an attitude of "screw the unvaccinated, it is their own fault and problem" our public health officials do not have the luxury of assuming that kind of attitude.  They work at protecting both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  The J&J is not a good thing for the unvaccinated.  And by the way, even a mild case of COVID can put somebody in bed for a few days and result in some of the many morbidities that have often resulted from COVID.  

 

Hank

 

Hank - part of the problem is that the delivery systems for the mRNA vaccines are just not feasible for a large part of the world.  The refrigeration, the amount of time the vaccine is viable, distance from health facilities for that second dose, etc.  A single-dose vaccine that only needs normal refrigeration is extremely helpful.  A health group can take a batch of doses out to a tribal village in a 3rd world country and vaccinate.  

The last I heard from CDC et al was that the chance of a vaccinated person spreading COVID was relatively low; that was part of the reason for recommending vaccinated folks could unmask. 

[Hlitner]

13 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

Hank - part of the problem is that the delivery systems for the mRNA vaccines are just not feasible for a large part of the world.  The refrigeration, the amount of time the vaccine is viable, distance from health facilities for that second dose, etc.  A single-dose vaccine that only needs normal refrigeration is extremely helpful.  A health group can take a batch of doses out to a tribal village in a 3rd world country and vaccinate.  

The last I heard from CDC et al was that the chance of a vaccinated person spreading COVID was relatively low; that was part of the reason for recommending vaccinated folks could unmask. 

Agree and we mentioned this in another post where I suggested that we might have been better off not to give an EUA to the J&J vaccine and only use Moderna and Pfizer in the USA.  This would free up more of the J&J doses for distribution to other countries where they cannot reasonably deal with the freezing issues related to Moderna and Pfizer.

 

The issue of unmasking makes me a bit angry at the CDC.  They were well aware, several months ago, that there was no scientific basis for vaccinated folks to mask or even social distance.  At one hearing in April, the CDC Director actually admitted that vaccinated folks do not get COVID and do not spread COVID...but then walked that back over the following few days.   It was only when they got "called out" and questioned in this week's Senate Hearing that they quickly changed the policy (within a day) while denying the change had anything to do with the public hearings.  As many have pointed out, they were unable to cite any new scientific studies that came to light in the last few days....which lent support to those of us who have argued that the evidence has been out there for some time (at least a month and in many cases many months).

 

I recently heard an interesting discussion between some knowledgeable folks that some of the professionals within the CDC are very risk adverse and essentially want "zero risk" and opposed to accepting "reasonable or acceptable" risk.  It is only in the past few days that the CDC is finally moving away from zero risk and catching up to the growing public opinion that we need to find a proper balance.

 

Hank

[slidergirl]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

Agree and we mentioned this in another post where I suggested that we might have been better off not to give an EUA to the J&J vaccine and only use Moderna and Pfizer in the USA.  This would free up more of the J&J doses for distribution to other countries where they cannot reasonably deal with the freezing issues related to Moderna and Pfizer.

 

The issue of unmasking makes me a bit angry at the CDC.  They were well aware, several months ago, that there was no scientific basis for vaccinated folks to mask or even social distance.  At one hearing in April, the CDC Director actually admitted that vaccinated folks do not get COVID and do not spread COVID...but then walked that back over the following few days.   It was only when they got "called out" and questioned in this week's Senate Hearing that they quickly changed the policy (within a day) while denying the change had anything to do with the public hearings.  As many have pointed out, they were unable to cite any new scientific studies that came to light in the last few days....which lent support to those of us who have argued that the evidence has been out there for some time (at least a month and in many cases many months).

 

I recently heard an interesting discussion between some knowledgeable folks that some of the professionals within the CDC are very risk adverse and essentially want "zero risk" and opposed to accepting "reasonable or acceptable" risk.  It is only in the past few days that the CDC is finally moving away from zero risk and catching up to the growing public opinion that we need to find a proper balance.

 

Hank

It's not just other countries that could use the J&J.  There are rural areas here where folks just don't have an easy accessible place.  Native Americans on tribal lands have issues with access also.  Alaska where there are places accessible only by float plane...  All could benefit from the one-dose J&J.  

 

We have a restaurant here in Salt Lake City that has decided to require proof of vaccination before entering the place.  At least the governor here hasn't signed an EO (yet) prohibiting this, unlike the Gov. in Florida.