And we need to remain vigilant and prepared for the next time and for ongoing outbreaks. An effective response involves cooperation and concern for the common good. I believe we are capable of better outcomes than we delivered last time.
You mean like the BA2 sub variant currently circulating that behaves about like every other coronavirus (mild symptoms, highly transmissible) that you have been exposed to prior to COVID? Or are you talking about the next virus some vaccine manufacturer decides to leak from one of their labs?
An analysis by NPR shows that since the vaccine rollout, counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump have had more than twice the COVID mortality rates of those that voted for Joe Biden.
is this another study that looks at mortality rates AFTER COVID had already made it’s way through the big cities where all the Democrats acquired natural immunity. That’s the funny thing about antibodies that the CDC spent a lot of time and energy trying to suppress. You want to know why they had to reverse positions and stop recommending boosters for people under 50? It’s because unnecessary vaccination too close together actually neutralizes your acquired antibodies. That’s why Walensky, et al got sick again post omicron when most of the rest of us did not.
I work at a college in the Greater NYC area. These were mostly working professionals. At least one student died, as well.
And most of the deaths were very early in the epidemic--NYC was hit hard before the rest of the country--with people being infected before we knew much about the disease and well before any vaccines were available.
So, out of 20,000 students and 1,500 faculty (primarily unvaccinated at the time of exposure based upon when COVID ran its way through the subways of New York that the Democratic government encouraged its people to ride) approximately 6 deaths counted as COVID. Likely most were either obese or had pre-existing cardiac issues. Sound about right?
About half that many students and faculty, actually.
Funny, I was trying to pay attention then but don't recall the de Blasio government making a special effort to have us ride the subways. (I did ride the subway, until my school shut down. Just lucky I didn't get infected then, I guess.)
As far as I know and remember (it was three years ago!), none of them were obese and all of them were active, which is my best proxy for "cardiac issues." But if they were obese and/or had heart problems--a grouping that comprises a significant proportion of all Americans--would that somehow make their untimely deaths not as bad? Because, you know, fat people and people with bad hearts kind of deserve to die before their time?
You want to know why they had to reverse positions and stop recommending boosters for people under 50? It’s because unnecessary vaccination too close together actually neutralizes your acquired antibodies
can you explain the mechanism that causes said antibody neutralization and cite a lit source demonstrating it?
You want to know why they had to reverse positions and stop recommending boosters for people under 50? It’s because unnecessary vaccination too close together actually neutralizes your acquired antibodies
can you explain the mechanism that causes said antibody neutralization and cite a lit source demonstrating it?
Simple. Right after an infection, your antibody levels are high. If a virus or vaccine is introduced, existing antibodies will neutralize the virus without stimulating your body to produce more (which actually decreases your immunity). It’s why vaccines have minimum spacing recommendations. What the CDC decided to do late in the pandemic (with pretty much no scientific basis) was throw those out the window and recommend additional boosters to everyone. It was only after the scientific community spoke out that they had to disclose the fact that they had no data to support the recommendation.
And I think this is very plausible. After all, what could be more targeted against a particular virus than the immunity developed from a previous bout (with the same strain) of the virus?
Of course, the sucky part is that that initial bout with the virus has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, left others with permanent disability (a lung transplant or amputation is pretty permanent), is much more dangerous than any of the vaccines, and may provide less protection against a future strain than a vaccine that is specifically targeted against that future strain.
Nevertheless, it's no surprise that "past Covid infection [is] as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death." I'd say that's almost a "duh."
can you explain the mechanism that causes said antibody neutralization and cite a lit source demonstrating it?
Simple. Right after an infection, your antibody levels are high. If a virus or vaccine is introduced, existing antibodies will neutralize the virus without stimulating your body to produce more (which actually decreases your immunity). It’s why vaccines have minimum spacing recommendations. What the CDC decided to do late in the pandemic (with pretty much no scientific basis) was throw those out the window and recommend additional boosters to everyone. It was only after the scientific community spoke out that they had to disclose the fact that they had no data to support the recommendation.
Vaccines have spacing recommendations because effector B cells only live for a short amount of time (usually a few mo). A small number of B cells differentiate into memory B cells, which have a much longer lifespan. They hang around in case the antigen ever shows up again. The recommended vaccine intervals are spaced so that the effector B cells specific to that antigen can die off, clearing the way for a new immune response that will produce another wave of memory B cells. After a few rounds of restimulation, the patient will have enough memory B cells to provide permanent (well, semi-permanent. Like >10y) protection against the antigen. Note that there other factors at play - e.g. the type of vaccine given, what types of cells it stimulates, whether or not it contains adjuvant, etc - but I'm too lazy to get into those specifics right now
The mechanism you propose isn't physically impossible, but I don't know of any cases where the affinity between an antibody and an antigen is so strong that it masks the presence of the antigen to B cells. The B cell receptor is, after all, just a membrane-bound antibody. It competes with IgGs for antigen binding, so it's unlikely that all of the antigens present would get masked by IgGs before a B cell picked one up and began activating. Plus, when an antibody binds to an antigen, the antibody-antigen complex then binds to various cell types via the antibody's Fc region and activates them to do various things - e.g. recruitment of macrophages. Those macrophages then digest the antigen and present it to other cells via the MHC, so even if the antibodies did totally mask the antigen, your adaptive immune system would still end up being activated. If you have a specific literature example of the mechanism you discuss, I would legitimately love to read it
As far as the CDC's recommendations go - I totally agree that they bungled it by flipflopping
