Not sure why you’re dodging the question. Although, that’s pretty much what you’ve done throughout this thread. That, name-call and insult.
I’ll rephrase. According to the article the OP posted, a vaccine advisory group for the WHO said at this point it does not recommend additional, let alone annual, Covid-19 booster shots for people at low to medium risk of severe disease.
This advice contrasts with plans by the FDA, which suggested treating Covid-19 boosters like annual flu shots for the forseeable future. FDA officials have floated the idea of offering updated formulations each fall, possibly to everyone, including the young and healthy.
I understand that this does not impact you since you appear to be at the higher spectrum of Covid risk. However, do you agree with the WHO or FDA on continuing boosters for all groups at this time?
You are just proving to be boneheaded. The data show currently healthy people don't need more boosters to have excellent protection against severe disease and death.
That could change in 1,2,5,10 years with strain evolution.
Meh, there's no way you actually believe Fauci was handing out 5 year R01s in 2018 to people he thought would publish 'correctly' in 2023 on a disease that didn't exist yet. (If Fauci even had that singular power at the NIH).
It's a convenient way to dismiss research that doesn't reinforce your priors, but you're clearly smart enough to know that line of thinking is totally unsubstantiated.
Again, research not answering your specific follow-on questions is not reason to reject the conclusions. It's very easy to propose $500k research projects from your desk chair.
You know that cell paper you just posted on T cell response is only looking at peripheral blood, right? It acknowledges it as a severe limitation, which it is, because many of these CD8 and CD4 cells migrate to where they are most needed.
The point it makes about natural infection showing the opposite among prison inmates is a valid one and almost refutes what they published, because what other group lives together in such close proximity for such extended periods of time?
Yeah that paper all but says vaccination after natural infection isn’t so great.
Anyway, back to my day job. Covid is over. Meh.
They tried to compare the same conditions 1) vaccination then boost or 2) infection then boost.
It's hard to study lymphatic residing cells in living humans. The point was to look at T cell response to vaccination/boost, and also to try and predict how T cells would respond to infection as well - since you need a lot of expanded systemically distributed T Cells to fight a virus.
Back to the topic of the thread since this is just a digression tactic. “That's entirely the point and what I think "In Control" is ultimately trying to say. This group of young people that has minimal risk from Covid 19, 20, 22, 23 looks different if we are separating out data on the obese w pre-metabolic syndrome, the severely asthmatic, the immunocompromised, and other anomalous conditions. They are at much higher risk from the virus than the vaccine, or, at least the risk is equivalent, but that's not true for the "general" population of kids. So, where is that data? I don't believe the CDC or any health organization has produced it as parsed out like that. Why not? How can you produce granular data when it doesn't exist?
Monkeys Skyping, what is your response? You want specific data. Shouldn’t the CDC and NIH be segregating these demographics by risk? How can we parse what they won’t publish? A severely asthmatic, obese kid is a much different category of risk than my healthy daughters, both of who are unvaccinated and did just fine clearing the virus.
You are just proving to be boneheaded. The data show currently healthy people don't need more boosters to have excellent protection against severe disease and death.
That could change in 1,2,5,10 years with strain evolution.
Not sure why you’re dodging the question. Although, that’s pretty much what you’ve done throughout this thread. That, name-call and insult.
I’ll rephrase. According to the article the OP posted, a vaccine advisory group for the WHO said at this point it does not recommend additional, let alone annual, Covid-19 booster shots for people at low to medium risk of severe disease.
This advice contrasts with plans by the FDA, which suggested treating Covid-19 boosters like annual flu shots for the forseeable future. FDA officials have floated the idea of offering updated formulations each fall, possibly to everyone, including the young and healthy.
I understand that this does not impact you since you appear to be at the higher spectrum of Covid risk. However, do you agree with the WHO or FDA on continuing boosters for all groups at this time?
You are just proving to be boneheaded. The data show currently healthy people don't need more boosters to have excellent protection against severe disease and death.
That could change in 1,2,5,10 years with strain evolution.
There is no one-size-fits-all assertion.
Oh, no. Are you one of those “It’s just like the flu, bro” guys.👎
You are just proving to be boneheaded. The data show currently healthy people don't need more boosters to have excellent protection against severe disease and death.
That could change in 1,2,5,10 years with strain evolution.
There is no one-size-fits-all assertion.
So, you’re in disagreement with the FDA.
Care to comment on your mangling of my risk analysis in the face of "zero cost" vaccination.
You are just proving to be boneheaded. The data show currently healthy people don't need more boosters to have excellent protection against severe disease and death.
That could change in 1,2,5,10 years with strain evolution.
There is no one-size-fits-all assertion.
Oh, no. Are you one of those “It’s just like the flu, bro” guys.👎
It actually mutates slower than the flu (no proofreading polymerase) - so we likely shouldnt need constant boosting to maintain good response in healthy people!
However the outcomes are worse than the flu so we should err on the side of more frequent vaccination for at-risk people.
You know that cell paper you just posted on T cell response is only looking at peripheral blood, right? It acknowledges it as a severe limitation, which it is, because many of these CD8 and CD4 cells migrate to where they are most needed.
The point it makes about natural infection showing the opposite among prison inmates is a valid one and almost refutes what they published, because what other group lives together in such close proximity for such extended periods of time?
Yeah that paper all but says vaccination after natural infection isn’t so great.
Anyway, back to my day job. Covid is over. Meh.
Simply regurgitating the stated limitations from a paper does not refute the conclusions. Peripheral T-cell assays are standard for humans and the results are generally representative of immune state.
Could they authors be fooled here? Yes, there is always a risk that a study is wrong because of an uncontrolled variable.
You'd need to apply this critical standard to all research you read, though, which basically calls the entire scientific corpus into doubt because all studies do not answer every question and have limitations.
The paper specifically looks at T-cell responses and finds that infection does not seem to drive strong responses compared to vaccination (and that infection can limit the strength of a subsequent vaccination response).
The paper doesn't look at actual protection from infection or severe disease, but I find it noteworthy because one of the big talking points of natural immunity zealots was 'broad T-cell immunity!!' Now we know that they were completely incorrect.
It goes to show that intuition about the immune system is often wrong and claims about 'natural immunity' that rely on biological just-so stories should be discarded.
A severely asthmatic, obese kid is a much different category of risk than my healthy daughters, both of who are unvaccinated and did just fine clearing the virus.
Always love when a parent puts their kid in harms way because politics. Shameful.
If you're going to say these decisions were based on 'data' then you should have refused most childhood vaccines for them as well under similar logic.
So, Monkeys Skyping, how can we evaluate data that hasn’t been produced? Should be there for the entire world to see, granularized, no?
There are published studies of risk ratio estimates for various comorbidities, so I'm not clear what you think is missing or suppressed.
An issue with "fine graining" data in the presence of confounding factors is that as the categories become finer grained the sample cohort is necessarily smaller and uncertainty bounds increase. This is particularly a problem looking at cohorts with very low probability of observing whatever the sample metric might be.
That's why I was poking at the precise bounds for "In Control's" alleged analysis and why his being coy about virtually any details puts his credibility in the basement in my humble but passably analytically competent opinion.
I already posted the data on my specific demographic earlier in this thread from regional level data we had access to. I do have a friend that is currently working with the Covid vaccination data for the same state/region. I could have him pull the data for the same demographic if anyone would like for comparison.
You posted a number representing the unspecified criteria of "adverse outcome" for an unspecified demographic in an unspecified region of an unspecified state which is covered in no less than two unspecified papers with an anonymous poster listed as co-author.
A reasonable person can't discount the thought that it is a large but non-specific load of crap.
Why won't the CDC publish adverse event rates for 14 year old boys with 20-23 BMI and mild-or-less asthma??
Maybe the would, if you'd promise not to over-interpret something with a confidence interval wider than Texas.
The reason the CDC won’t publish that level of data is because they don’t have that level of data. We never pushed that detail to them since it was not in their requests. However, it is available at our state and regional level (not publicly) since that info was gathered starting in I believe Oct20. It IS publicly available in a published paper that I know of. 😀
And in terms of confidence level - 95%. That’s why it’s regional data and not our state data.
You posted a number representing the unspecified criteria of "adverse outcome" for an unspecified demographic in an unspecified region of an unspecified state which is covered in no less than two unspecified papers with an anonymous poster listed as co-author.
A reasonable person can't discount the thought that it is a large but non-specific load of crap.
This mostly sums up the interns current situation
What? No reference to “marketing”? You’re slacking in your insults. Do better. 😂
Oh, no. Are you one of those “It’s just like the flu, bro” guys.👎
It actually mutates slower than the flu (no proofreading polymerase) - so we likely shouldnt need constant boosting to maintain good response in healthy people!
However the outcomes are worse than the flu so we should err on the side of more frequent vaccination for at-risk people.
Make sense :) ?
Given that your statement is true, in your opinion, why do you think the FDA apparently is going to push additional boosters for all people - including the young and healthy?
A severely asthmatic, obese kid is a much different category of risk than my healthy daughters, both of who are unvaccinated and did just fine clearing the virus.
Always love when a parent puts their kid in harms way because politics. Shameful.
If you're going to say these decisions were based on 'data' then you should have refused most childhood vaccines for them as well under similar logic.
It’s not politics. Why does it all and everywhere have to be politics? It’s common sense. I’m saying these decisions were based on common sense. If I had a kid who had a very risky comorbidity, then, of course I’m getting them the vaccine. My kids have most but not all of their vaccines. Some are necessary, some are not, and that should be at the discretion of the parent.
The shame is in pushing a fourth, bivalent vaccine boost on a group of low risk, young kids without robust data because that’s exactly what the CDC was doing.
It actually mutates slower than the flu (no proofreading polymerase) - so we likely shouldnt need constant boosting to maintain good response in healthy people!
However the outcomes are worse than the flu so we should err on the side of more frequent vaccination for at-risk people.
Make sense :) ?
Given that your statement is true, in your opinion, why do you think the FDA apparently is going to push additional boosters for all people - including the young and healthy?
Because they still confer a benefit the people that get them? Lower risk of infection/severe disease. It would be malpractice to not recommend it. I just don't think young healthy people will need a yearly booster to maintain good vaccination efficacy against bad outcomes. That doesn't mean there still isn't a benefit to getting boosted!