Lol, stupid Americans.
CDC is Americans?
If you followed the thread, other countries were described by some posters as being irresponsible for not following the directions on the packet, despite running initial trials varying the gap between doses and basing the gap between doses off those trials. Posters accused other, better informed administrations of using a longer gap because they must be low on vaccine supplies.
Pretending like the cdc wasnât aware of that possibility yet made the tactical decision to continue with the rct data that also increased immunity as quickly as possible is, well, expected honestly
1 Like
Oops, I thought the CDC was an American agency. My bad! I thought I was agreeing with you, lol.
That 2-week learn-to-post-better camp must be paying off for me. Lol.
TacticsâŚor strategery?
Iâm sure the CDC will be altering itâs booster strategy accordingly, in ~12 months time
CDC clearly made a mistake with its easy mask advice.
But acting like the dose interval was a mistake is disingenuous.
*advice followed the rct
*shorter interval gets people high level of protection the fastest
These were both discussed itt. Endlessly. Iâm not sure what the dunking is all about, but yâall be you high fiving each other.
5 Likes
Tested positive for Omicron.
Had the british variant in feb 2021.
Vaccinated twice between August / September.
Omicron was super mild.
Day 1 had a minor sore throat.
Day 2 had minor sore throat, cough, lower back ache, fatigue. Slept in afternoon. By end of day 2 I was feeling 99% with all symptoms gone.
Day 3 Felt 100%
Tested positive today after finally being able to get my hands on a test.
My GF tested positive too and had half the symptoms I had over similar time span.
19 Likes
Why are they changing their advice now then, âafter studying the Canada dataâ?
Thereâs only a small proportion of the population who needed the high level of protection fast, as they admit to in the article.
To remind you, it was discussed extensively at the time, as the UK always did the longer gap, after their rctâs showed the longer gap gave better lasting immunity. Canada and many other countries followed suit. Most of the experts in the thread thought this was wrong (ânot following the instructions on the packetâ), when in fact it would appear it was correct, as the CDC now recognise by doing the late, about turn, albeit at a time when Omicron will be buzzing round, when arguably folks need the immunity quicker.
Hence the âdunkingâ. Canât be right to do the shorter gap then and longer gap now, eh?
As stated earlier, the faster immunity argument you put forth flies in the face of still making USAâers wait 5+ months for a booster after 2nd dose when the boosters are available elsewhere 3 months after second dose
What has changed though? I donât think thereâs been a new RCT comparing dosing intervals. The concern about immediate protection vs longer lasting protection remains. Actually itâs more serious now that vaccines are widely available. The original case for first doses first envisioned all available doses going into arms immediately, just distributing them differently. Now the question really does involve leaving doses on the shelf for a while to get long term benefits.
But (and I may be mistaken about this), isnât this actually the process where CDC is weighing the costs and benefits of dosing intervals? They havenât decided to go to 8 weeks, theyâre just considering it. In other words, right now is when theyâre going through the decision making process that youâre attributing to them. Policy so far hasnât been a mistake or wise, itâs just been inertia. 3/4 weeks is what the manufacturers tested, so 3/4 weeks it has been.
One time I was playing poker with this guy named David, who wouldnât shut up about whatever poker book he was reading. Then he went all-in preflop with like 100bb with 72o, and got called by AA.
This other guy Joe called him a dumbass and said he clearly didnât follow the instructions in the book. The flop came 772, David doubled up, and he started talking a lot of shit. âWho didnât read the book now???â he said. Joe kept arguing with him, saying it didnât matter, it was still wrong to go all-in with 72. It was a big gamble, and David got lucky.
A couple hours later, there were a few limps and Joe checked his big blind. The flop came down 772, and he doubled through one of the limpers with 72o. Joe dragged his pot, and David started âdunkingâ on him.
âCanât be right this time and wrong that time, eh?â David said.
Joe rolled his eyes and said, âIf you canât understand the difference between the two, I canât help you.â
1 Like
I have a feeling David might be loser in the long run - a little like the American public with the CDCâs earlier decisions. Great analogy though, thx.
1 Like
There have been enough trials showing improved durability of protection to make it reasonable to conclude thereâs a high likelihood that gap between shots is better.
The difference is originally we knew the efficacy was like 95% on the 3-4 week gap, we knew it lasted a while, and we had no other proven data. We did not know if/when that protection would wane.
So to gamble on a longer gap was to gamble that you could either improve efficacy from 95% which was already amazingly high, or improve durability of protection which may or may not have waned significantly, we didnât know yet. There was meanwhile a risk of more infection/spread between shots (basically a given), or the second shot somehow becoming less efficacious (very unlikely but so was improving that 95% number).
This at a time when cases were quite high, if I recall correctly, which also influenced the calculus. What both countries should have probably done is follow the results of the RCTs while conducting their own additional RCTs to test other gaps. In an ideal world, different countries would try different gaps in their additionak RCTs and share the burden. So maybe the UK gets 1,000 people to do a 3-month gap, Germany gets a thousand on a 2-month gap, the US gets a thousand on a 6-week gap, and if any come back better than the standard gaps, you can switch to that and maybe run a few more trials to attenuate.
3 Likes
Boosters have only been in play for ~6 months, I think itâs still too early overall for anyone to know the actual best possible timeline to administer second and beyond doses and it seems like the intervals give roughly the same amount of protection so figuring out perfect intervals isnât a top priority at the moment. Who knows, maybe the absolute best protection is a monthly booster but thatâs probably never going to be the recommendation for everyone on Earth.
1 Like
We did, because we studied it. We also knew that you werenât more likely to die or get covid if you had the second dose 5+ weeks later than first.
We know, in times of Omicron, that it is better to boosted than not boosted so why wait 2or 3 months longer than you need to, assuming you have ample supply.
I have posted studies ITT that show Moderna has c. 15% efficacy (from memory) against catching Omicron 25 weeks after 2nd dose. I doubt the efficacy of the 2 shots was that much better at week 20.
Wonder what other countries are as dumb as the US so we can windmill jam on them, looks fun. Look out Armenia, youâre next.