Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-31-2021, 04:42 PM   #641
Moderator
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by harllee View Post
Are people with long haul Covid being advised to take the vaccine? Could it help them? I had reoccurring Shingles and after I took the Shingrix vaccine my Shingles completely stopped. Could there be something similar with the Covid vaccine?
If I were a long hauler, I'd try it, for sure. But also, I'd not expect much because I'm not so sure it's a problem of virus present and the body not recognizing it. The purpose of a vaccine is to train your body to recognize the bad guy (or actually the snippet of bad-guy-ness that was genetically programmed into the vaccine), and having the disease means the real and entire bad guy has been "seen" already. So theoretically, if you've had the disease, your body has what they call a polyvalent antibody response, and is trained on more pieces of the bad guy than just the spike protein. But because biology is what it is (messy), and there's essentially no risk to getting a vaccination, retraining your immune system to see the spike selected by the vaccine company can't hurt, and who knows, might "refocus attention" to the problem.
sengsational is offline   Reply
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-31-2021, 05:14 PM   #642
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bmcgonig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
So it doesn't sound like they specifically bar people who've had covid, may still have symptoms, but are not testing positive.


One thing seems to be clear, that immunity from vaccination is stronger than immunity from previous infection. You have higher levels of antibodies and possibly more T and B cells.

But definitely antibodies.

Testing with plasma of recovered patients on new virus strains vs. plasma of vaccinated people showed the latter had more efficacy vs. those new strains, particularly the UK one.

So you do want to get vaccinated, even if you've already been infected.
According to the TWIV guy on the podcast, you should definitely get vaccinated if you've had Covid recently.
bmcgonig is offline   Reply
What does it say? What does it mean?
Old 03-06-2021, 09:46 AM   #643
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 525
What does it say? What does it mean?

I haven't looked at every covid thread so I apologize in advance if this has already been addressed.

Frequently I'm seeing covid vaccine efficacy rates touted in the 90 percentile range. At first blush, percentages like that sound wildly successful. But what does it really mean?

Let's take this study for example:
Peer-Reviewed Report on Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Publishes
Data from Phase 3 Clinical Trial Confirm Vaccine is Effective
December 30, 2020
Source:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-event...cine-publishes

Highlights:
o Moderna's Covid vaccine, specifically messangerRNA-1273
o It was a trail that ran from July 27, 2020 thru November 21, 2020
o 30,420 participants in the trial
o 15,210 participants were injected with messangerRNA-1273
o 15,210 participants were injected with a placebo
o Thru November 25, 2020, 196 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 occurred
o That breaks down into 11 participants who were treated with the mRNA and 185 with placebo
o Moderna claims that the treatment had an 94.1% efficacy

How did they come up with 94.1% ?

Let's do the math:

In The Context Of This Study (ITCOTS), what was a placebo participant's chance of testing symptomatic for COVID-19?
(18515200) or 1.217%

ITCOTS, what was an mRNA participant's chance of testing symptomatic for COVID-19?
(1115200) or .072%

Plug those numbers into the following equation:
1 − ((1115200) (18515200)) results in .9405 Or as they state it 94.1%

As is common in these pharmaceutical trials, 94.1% is expressed as a RELATIVE difference. Stated another way, Moderna mRNA-1273 reduces the RELATIVE risk of symptomatic COVID-19 by 94.1%. Is that a good thing? It would be helpful to compare the RELATIVE difference to the ABSOLUTE difference.

Let's do the math:

1.217% - .072%, or 1.145%, is the ABSOLUTE percentage risk reduction

Stated another way, Moderna mRNA-1273 reduces the ABSOLUTE risk of symptomatic COVID-19 by 1.145%.

Which number is the barn--burner that gets your attention, 94.1% or 1.145% ?

In The Context Of This Study, stated in ABSOLUTE percentages:
o Placebo participant's had a 98.783% chance of not testing symptomatic COVID-19
o mRNA participant's had a 99.928% chance of not testing symptomatic COVID-19

I found this article to be helpful:
Reporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk |
zedd is offline   Reply
Old 03-06-2021, 10:54 AM   #644
Administrator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sheltered in place
Posts: 34,222
I dont understand the math here.

The Moderna number of 94.1% is not the reduction in relative risk. Its vaccine efficacy. Of all the people in the vaccine trial its the % of people infected that were taking the placebo.

The 1.217% simply cannot be the risk of getting infected with covid, as close to 10% of the entire US population has already been infected.
MichaelB is offline   Reply
Old 03-06-2021, 11:00 AM   #645
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
JoeWras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
I don’t understand the math here.

The Moderna number of 94.1% is not the reduction in relative risk. It’s vaccine efficacy. Of all the people in the vaccine trial it’s the % of people infected that were taking the placebo.

The 1.217% simply cannot be the risk of getting infected with covid, as close to 10% of the entire US population has already been infected.
It is in the time period of the study, which is relatively short (basically Aug-Nov), and not during a major peak time like Dec-Jan.

I'm not sure what zedd is trying to accomplish with the post except to say the absolute numbers during a time period don't look impressive. But those numbers add up over a year's long epidemic, so I'm confused by the post too.

If I walk out my door today and do things in the community, my absolute risk is low for that day. Now if I do that every day for 400 or 500 days? Do I need to get into probability theory to explain my risk for that long time period went up?
__________________
Retired Class of 2018


JoeWras is offline   Reply
Old 03-06-2021, 11:07 AM   #646
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 16,374
Aren't all vaccines measured by relative risk, not absolute risk?
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline   Reply
Old 03-06-2021, 11:34 AM   #647
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWras View Post
It is in the time period of the study, which is relatively short (basically Aug-Nov), and not during a major peak time like Dec-Jan.

I'm not sure what zedd is trying to accomplish with the post except to say the absolute numbers during a time period don't look impressive. But those numbers add up over a year's long epidemic, so I'm confused by the post too.

If I walk out my door today and do things in the community, my absolute risk is low for that day. Now if I do that every day for 400 or 500 days? Do I need to get into probability theory to explain my risk for that long time period went up?



Well I know people who have gone out of their way not to mask and to be out and about more then normal during Covid as kind of a so what..they are 65.



So one year later they haven't had Covid..in a way it kinds of makes me mad.


My DH and I basically hermited so we didn't get covid either, but who had the best year..


On any given day when out and about you either contact Covid or you don't.

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it.



I'm not talking about medical people or in office workers here, just about the average joe.
ivinsfan is offline   Reply
Closed Thread

Tags
multiple, shingles, shingrix, vaccine


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Clinical trials? aaronc879 Other topics 26 10-05-2011 06:22 PM
Shingles Vaccine travelover Health and Early Retirement 34 03-30-2008 11:02 PM
Shingles Vaccine mickeyd Other topics 18 01-18-2008 09:38 PM
Concerns about effectiveness of this year's flu vaccine Meadbh Health and Early Retirement 6 10-26-2007 03:15 PM
Required Vaccine sgeeeee Other topics 25 03-22-2007 02:57 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.