REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
I really want that nasal vaccine!
Yes. That would be nothing to sneeze at!
I really want that nasal vaccine!
I really want that nasal vaccine!
The UK (or maybe just England) put off the 2nd shot for their AtraZeneca vaccine for up to 12 weeks. I wonder if they have some useful data on the differences in protection for those who waited different lengths of time?
A good friend of mine called me last night to tell me about how worried his is that he can't get a COVID booster shot. He's 63 and in pretty good health, although he does take meds for high blood pressure and is borderline diabetic. His dilemma is that he has to fly to Tennessee in early October (job requirement that he can't get out of, apparently) and will be there for 10 days. He's worried that he's flying right into the heart of the Delta surge there and will be very susceptible to a breakthrough infection. He's fully vax'd with Pfizer but has read all the studies showing a reduction in efficacy after six months, etc. He told me that he's so worried about this Tennessee trip that he's considering just getting the booster shot anyway by stating (falsely) that's he immunocompromised. But he's also worried about the repercussions of getting medical treatment for which he's not technically eligible. He even asked me "Is that illegal? Could I be arrested if certain people found out about it?"
I didn't know what to tell him, honestly. I feel badly for him, considering he's so close to the age threshold for which the FDA just approved boosters. And having to spend extended time in Tennessee right now seems like asking for trouble, to say the least. Only about 44% of adults are fully vaccinated there and their daily case rate is north of 100 (per 100K), compared to about 12 where he lives (San Jose, CA).
His question got me thinking, though, about the repercussions of lying to get the booster. I suspect the worst that would happen is his insurance would refuse to cover it, so he'd be out $100 or so in that case. I don't think that misrepresenting your health status in order to get a vaccine is a criminal act, but I honestly don't know. I was tempted to tell him that he should go ahead, simply for peace of mind and to be sure he has the best possible "vaccine armor" when he goes into dangerous, low-vax, high-infection-rate territory. But all I could offer was "Gee, that's a tough call. Not sure what I'd do in your shoes."
What would you do if you were in my friend's shoes?
.... He even asked me "Is that illegal? Could I be arrested if certain people found out about it?" <snip>
His question got me thinking, though, about the repercussions of lying to get the booster. I suspect the worst that would happen is his insurance would refuse to cover it, so he'd be out $100 or so in that case. I don't think that misrepresenting your health status in order to get a vaccine is a criminal act, but I honestly don't know. What would you do if you were in my friend's shoes?
Those that claim this is all settled science are deluding themselves.
What would you do if you were in my friend's shoes?
....
What would you do if you were in my friend's shoes?
I don't know about AZ, but as for Pfizer in the UK, they were reporting more than double the antibody response with 12 weeks compared to the three-week interval.
This article says 3.5x antibody response...
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/l...r-vaccination-interval-antibody-response.aspx
The analyses suggest that it is the dosing interval and not the dosing level which has the greatest impact on the efficacy of the vaccine. This is in line with previous research supporting greater efficacy with longer intervals with other vaccines such as influenza and Ebola.
The study found vaccine efficacy reached 82.4% after a second dose in those with a dosing interval of 12 weeks or more (95% confidence interval 62.7% to 91.7%). If the two doses were given less than six weeks apart the efficacy was only 54.9% (CI 32.7% to 69.7%).
In his shoes, I'd go get it and bring my card to get the 3rd one written on it.
He will be at work, and can't avoid people.
Since Covid is spreading so much there, whatever is making it spread, will expose him more to the chance.
I'm retired, I can pick when/where I go so I can limit my exposure and just mask up at those times. So I can wait for a while.
It's not a crime, and maybe would cost $50 if insurance didn't pay, but I bet they would pay, as a booster means the person won't be in hospital getting treatment which is 1000s times more expensive to the insurance company.
Similar to how my insurance company tells me to get the flu shot, and they pay for it. They probably wish all the customers got the flu shot, so less would end up in hospital sick.
So I believe I found the article regarding antibodies that has been mentioned:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2783797
Here's my understanding of the article, FWIW.
They measured antibodies 6-10 weeks after the second vaccine dose.
They found antibody titers were higher for those vaccinated with Moderna vs Pfizer.
The mean titer was 3836 u/ml for Moderna, vs 1444 U/ml for Pfizer.
The study did include those who had already had COVID prior to vaccination. Their titers were higher than those who didn't previously have COVID.
For those previously uninfected, the mean titer was 2881 u/ml for Moderna, vs 1108 u/ml for Pfizer.
For those previously infected, the mean titer was 10,708 u/ml for Moderna, vs 8174 u/ml for Pfizer.
So, we know that Moderna creates more antibodies. What we don't know is how does a certain antibody level correlate with risk for infection...apparently you can't assume a low antibody number means you are at high risk, because other parts of the immune system (T-cells) play a role in fighting off infection.
See this article: https://www.npr.org/sections/health...as-a-reliable-indicator-of-vaccine-protection
In fact, it's pretty clear that antibodies alone don't explain why some people are protected, and other parts of the immune system also play important roles in fighting off the coronavirus, including T-cells.
"Two percent of the individuals who were vaccinated had very, very low levels. Levels of antibodies that were below that lower limit of detection," says Christopher Houchens, a biomedical researcher at the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, another author of the study. "However, about 50% of those individuals in that 2% of the population were still protected and did not come down with symptomatic COVID-19 disease."
So, if you get yourself tested for antibodies, and they are low, you might actually still be protected by your vaccine, apparently because your T-cells may be very active against the virus still. I think I'm correct in understanding this, but not 100% sure...so someone I'm sure will chime in if I've misunderstood this.
A good friend of mine called me last night to tell me about how worried his is that he can't get a COVID booster shot. He's 63 and in pretty good health, although he does take meds for high blood pressure and is borderline diabetic. His dilemma is that he has to fly to Tennessee in early October (job requirement that he can't get out of, apparently) and will be there for 10 days. He's worried that he's flying right into the heart of the Delta surge there and will be very susceptible to a breakthrough infection. He's fully vax'd with Pfizer but has read all the studies showing a reduction in efficacy after six months, etc. He told me that he's so worried about this Tennessee trip that he's considering just getting the booster shot anyway by stating (falsely) that's he immunocompromised. But he's also worried about the repercussions of getting medical treatment for which he's not technically eligible. He even asked me "Is that illegal? Could I be arrested if certain people found out about it?"
I didn't know what to tell him, honestly. I feel badly for him, considering he's so close to the age threshold for which the FDA just approved boosters. And having to spend extended time in Tennessee right now seems like asking for trouble, to say the least. Only about 44% of adults are fully vaccinated there and their daily case rate is north of 100 (per 100K), compared to about 12 where he lives (San Jose, CA).
His question got me thinking, though, about the repercussions of lying to get the booster. I suspect the worst that would happen is his insurance would refuse to cover it, so he'd be out $100 or so in that case. I don't think that misrepresenting your health status in order to get a vaccine is a criminal act, but I honestly don't know. I was tempted to tell him that he should go ahead, simply for peace of mind and to be sure he has the best possible "vaccine armor" when he goes into dangerous, low-vax, high-infection-rate territory. But all I could offer was "Gee, that's a tough call. Not sure what I'd do in your shoes."
What would you do if you were in my friend's shoes?
Yes, there are quite a few studies out there. The antibodies in someone who had COVID is highly variable probably depending on the exposure dose as well as the individual immune system.Thanks for this information. Is there any data on antibodies measured for those who previously had COVID and are not vaccinated? It would be interesting to see how that compares with antibodies for people who’ve never had COVID but are vaccinated.
Yes, there are quite a few studies out there. The antibodies in someone who had COVID is highly variable probably depending on the exposure dose as well as the individual immune system.
A third option is telling his employer he is not comfortable going. I would be surprised if his employer tried to force him.
In his shoes I might go get one. No, there's no criminal penalty. In the month of August the CDC already estimated about a million people snuck a booster. At most his insurance might blink, but i doubt it. And then still mask and keep a distance, booster or not.
And I'm less worried about these generalizations on location. It's not about the where, but the who. I can live here in all-time-high florida and feel quite safe. I don't spend any time up close and personal with strangers, nor indoors without a mask. So general geography, IMO, is far less of a risk factor than actual personal behavior.
But I'd also hope your friend is going up the chain of command. Forced travel for someone over 63 in this climate sounds insane to me.
That's what I was thinking, too, so I asked him if he's really sure he can't get out of it. He said nope, no way. The project requires his particular expertise, apparently.
I thought the info Allan provided about "timing" of boosters was interesting. It related to a question I asked some time ago. I have come to learn that there does seem to be at least a range of 2nd shot or booster timing which provides the best overall immunity - I'm sure that varies on an individual basis.
BUT if one is facing a significant potential for exposure, would NOT a booster - whether perfectly timed or "too early" provide MORE immunity than no booster (until after the exposure?) YMMV
Yes, that is certainly my understanding, provided the booster happens at least 10 days (preferably 14 or more) before the anticipated exposure. So my friend needs to get his booster ASAP—today if possible—to be "extra" protected by early October.
DH and I have both have had chances to get ours early. You would have to lie to the pharmacist; they directly ask if you are immunocompromised. So I'm sure it is not illegal, but we did not do it.