COVID-19: Chapter 9 - OMGicron

[microbet]

@hokie

By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.

So, if this were real, I would get a booster. To hell with Haitians I guess. I guess I could donate a few dollars.

Is it real? (not asking you in particular Hokie)

[anon12304106]

IDK, if you want a wild guess, 20%+ less after 6 months and more for transmissibility, but you are right, theres not perfect data out there by any means.

The spikes in highly vaccinated places all seem to indicate some form of waning is likely and its probably not like 1%.

I think theres also sort of increasing consensus from epidemiologists that this will eventually be a three shot regiment, but not definite and I cant show you firm data to prove it.

[otatop]

Kaiser usually has walk in flu shots, just follow the signs.

[hokie]

@microbet I found where in the thread it was discussed previously, I think. CN links a Tweet here criticizing the numbers and shedding doubt on the absolute differences.

[CaffeineNeeded]

@JohnnyTruant

Only regular testing of mild and asymptomatic people could do that.

This is flat out incorrect. It would be a gold standard, but this is like demanding an RCT for parachutes

[microbet]

Thanks. I did remember that and the doubt that was shed upon it. I probably would have boostered already if it were not for that doubt.

[Churchill]

@microbet

I probably would have boostered already if it were not for that doubt.

Bets his own and family’s well being on a Twiiter post vs a study of 800,000 (US) veterans? Let me introduce you to Churchill’s Tweets?

Micro, get a booster please. Can get same time as the flu jab, like i did 6th Nov

[hokie]

@Churchill

Micro, get a booster please

I think this is something that both CN and Churchill would agree on. If I’m reading this post right, CN did some math upthread and calculated a revised vaccine protection and it still came out lower than immediate protection, so I think all agree protection is waning. My apologies if I’ve misread your post here, CN.

@CaffeineNeeded

At the end of their study, about 55% of the unvaccinated group was positive. That makes at least 65-70% of their sample positive in the unvaccinated side depending on their re-infection rate. That means about 80% of the unvaccinated, not previously infected group got covid. Roughly 65/82 or so, it would vary depending on rate of re-infection, so I’m estimating.

Meanwhile, 18% and 24% positive came back in the Pfizer group. Means that there was around some range of 4.5-2.5 to 1 risk here by my quick estimates, putting efficacy around 70-82%, which is in line with previous work.

[gman42]

@goofyballer

@JohnnyTruant

Y’all may not want to hear it but it didn’t have to be this way and rushing to be done is part of what has fucked us.

I remain puzzled as to who the contingent of people is ITT that apparently thinks the United States re-opened safely or responsibly. I mean I remember a few people who were itching to get back out and saying “fuck it, done with masks, done with COVID” when vaccines first rolled out pre-Delta, and I think they mostly don’t post here anymore. Who is “y’all”?

This is what I always get confused about whenever there’s a giant poo-flinging JT derail on here. He’s seriously within 10% of the precaution level of most of us on this site, but both sides seem to shriek at each other as if it’s a bunch of anti-vaxxers arguing with a guy that’s locked up alone in a bunker with an N95 on.

[Trolly]

I think Micro is factoring in the value of getting the COVID booster vs. taking a dose from someone e in the third world who might be waiting on their first dose. It seems like a complex issue.

[MrWookie]

@JohnnyTruant

Symptom onset happens and continues after the most infectious window, and despite it. This is known,

Yes, it’s known, I know it, and this doesn’t contradict anything I said.

@JohnnyTruant

the reason it was not understood earlier is because the misconception that this was a droplet and fomite driven spread rather than an airborne aerosol spread disease.

No, we would still expect someone to be more contagious pre-symptoms even if it was droplet spread, because most viral respiratory diseases tend to have people producing the most virus prior to symptom onset. Colds and flus sure do.

@JohnnyTruant

If vaccinated people get covid are they more likely to go undetected due to the fact they are less likely to develop serious symptoms, and if so are they still contagious? Yes. And Yes.

“Contagious” is not a binary thing. Vaccinated people are going to be much less contagious because, even if they have peak viral loads that can be as high as the unvaccinated, they are at that level of virus for much less time. By being contagious for less time, they’re much less likely to spread it even if they get infected. Furthermore, not everyone has the same peak viral load. The people who never experience symptoms are much more likely to have lower loads even at their peak.

[suzzer99]

[MrWookie]

@JohnnyTruant

No. This is false. It is something you keep saying and I have refuted with two sources at this point.

No, it’s not. We have had multiple studies now showing a rapidly decreasing viral load in vaccinated individuals that isn’t observed in unvaccinated individuals. Your own YouTube is equating viral load with contagiousness, and doesn’t comment on the differential time courses of viral loads in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals.

@JohnnyTruant

And in the Lancet study which again said peak viral loads were similar, but shorter

Right, this is just what I said. Why did you say that I was saying something false when you’re now literally repeating my claim?

[cassette]

@L.Washington

Saw 95 replies, instantly knew JT was back aaaaaaaaaand SKIPPED directly to the end.

Yes this site definitely needs less posting. Please lead by example.

[microbet]

70-82% for Pfizer and iirc moderna was something like 15pts higher and the conclusion there at that time was that the study may have been a good indication of relative fading between different vaccines.

[microbet]

This. It’s not all benefit without cost.

[spidercrab]

@JohnnyTruant

You are not much less contagious according to this study. You are about 35% less contagious, which would make sense if you knock one to two days off your peak contagious window after you peak.

If the punchline is that an infected vaccinated individual is 35% less contagious than an infected unvaccinated individual, I think it’s reasonable to say that the vaccinated individual is much less contagious. I think 35% is a big drop!

To put it in context, that seems to be substantially better than the benefit of wearing a mask.

[L.Washington]

[WichitaDM]

I’m going to Thailand in 2 weeks for a month. I have to provide proof of vax. Pass a pcr before getting on the plane. Quarantine in an approved hotel until i can pass a pcr on arrival. Have to pass another test to maintain my freedom a week later. Google tells me the vax rates between USA #1 and Thailand are similar. Also Thailand has much stricter Covid rules than the US.

Am i more a danger to them? Them to me? Do i save people here and kill them there through my negligence? It’s all so confusing!

[MrWookie]

@JohnnyTruant

You are about 35% less contagious

In a very particular, worst-case scenario, one where most of the people would have had sustained, indoor, maskless contact with one another. It would be a mistake to assume that vaccinated people are only 35% less infectious when out in public settings.

Look man, your very chart shows people being infections from day -2 to day 10 or so. It’s not just day -2 to 0. Shortening that from day 10 to day 3 is a big win.

Here’s a study that says just this:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058

They find detectable virus in unvaccinated people for an average of 8.9 +/- 10 days, but only for 2.7 +/- 3 days in vaccinated people (including even the partially vaccinated).