https://mobile.twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1489675533461831681
Good news is boosters holding up well Vs diseases. Bad news is Omicron booster may not do any better.
This is terrible and shocking news. Iām wondering if they will do a trial with two boosters for Omicron, almost as if itās a complete reset because itās so different. I wonder if those antibody levels are similar to one shot vs OG covid.
Like a booster stimulates a big immune response because the immune system recognizes it from previous shots. Maybe the Omicron shot is not recognizable enough, so itās like a new shot.
I suppose thereās also a chance that fewer, more accurately matched antibodies work better than more mismatched ones.
Yeah that was a thought some doctors had in response too, maybe need two shots like we needed two for OG.
Also just possible just harder to generate durable immunity vs Omicron, would foot with some of the reports of reinfection inside 30 days.
It would be pretty odd if the antibodies for Omicron somehow wanted faster, but maybe itās just that it requires such a high level that you canāt sustain that level for long.
My hypothesis is that thereās enough of omicron thatās recognizable to the existing immune repertoire that your cells just use that rather than generating novel antibodies. The corollary to this is that if you immunized naive macaques with 2x omicron-specific vaccine, youād have a much more robust immune response against omicron in them but not the ones with prior exposure or vaccination to earlier strains. The caveat is that this is in monkeys, and while a lot of the time, things can work similarly between people and monkeys, thereās always room for this one time being an exception.
3 Likes
Was just about to say this. The previous vaccines actually work quite well on omicron.
Yes if the body handles the new strain pretty well (even though in our view people test positive and get the milder end of the symptoms range), then the process for generating specific antibodies is it as upregulated as if it was a whole exposure.
The reinfection thing does have me puzzled. Again the question is illness vs transmission. The #1 vax goal is reduce illness. Reducing spread is a harder nut to crack and maybe only marginally realistic in the long run, considering ever evolving new variants.
Iād love to see morbidity in virgin immjne systems vs prior infection vs prior vaccination.
It seems like most of the people with medical and science backgrounds here arenāt concerned at all about Long COVID anymore. Is that an accurate assessment of your positions?
Iām still extremely concerned about the cognitive impact, as well as future heart/lung issues.
I am concerned about long Covid in terms of its primary impact on the lungs and also some concern about secondary impacts on other organs. But I think any of the nebulous stuff are either as CN says or mainly effects of the lung damage and lower oxygen transfer in the long term.
I do think there will be lots of folks diagnosed/self diagnosed with long Covid. Many of those will be similar to CFS. But given that people had a real serious infection, more will have a specific biological underpinning.
Thatās a good point about oxygen transfer. Those early days studies showing IQ dropoffs worry me a ton, along with reports of mental fog. Also neurological damage even if itās ājustā smell or taste proves there is stuff going on in the brain, which is too close for comfort.
I mean my ability to earn is directly linked to my intelligence and cognitive function, and 1-3% of my IQ points could be a much bigger percentage of my edge at the table. Iāve experienced some mental fog from anxiety and I canāt play poker when thatās going on.
That should make becoming a financial advisor an attractive option. There have been a few studies into long covid eg
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/224853/over-million-adults-england-have-long/
Not clear what effect vaccines have on this - hopefully a large one.
I havenāt seen much about long covid in the vaccinated, so I am not sure how much of it is a thing for us. It is a real thing for the unvaccinated, so itās a good reason to keep being cautious for my girls.
UK gov site
In a sample of UK adults aged 18 to 69 years, receiving two doses of a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine at least two weeks before a first test-confirmed COVID-19 infection was associated with a 41.1% decrease in the odds of self-reported long COVID at least 12 weeks later, relative to socio-demographically similar study participants who were not vaccinated when infected
man the uk really loves shitty self-reported survey studies
I worry about specific damage to specific organs, especially as someone who has never been the same after a case of viral myocarditis.
man and you love commenting negatively about all of them.
3 Likes
damn straight, bullshit is bullshit.
1 Like
Do you disagree that just asking people over the phone āWould you describe yourself as having ālong COVIDā, that is, you are still experiencing symptoms more than 4 weeks after you first had COVID-19, that are not explained by something else?ā and having the only follow up be whether their symptoms limited their ability to undertake daily activities is a measurement strategy prone to false positives?
1 Like
yeah itās so weird how the people with science training and work tend to fall on the other side of churchill.
But it may be a thing. And as always, it depends on what youāre defining it as. Early long covid work didnāt even have confirmed covid ffs.
Most importantly for us, it sure seems like the people who are vaccinated are very unlikely to develop ānebulousā long covid.
And a list of 29 (!) symptoms. 6% is also pretty much as low as it goes in surveys. FFS just awful fucking work. Would expect better from an intern pitching a QA project.