Breakthrough club

[flyingaway]

The original 95% was against illness, not against any infection at all. That's how most vaccines work, though most are not scrutinized by the population like this one.

If 100% of the world was vaccinated, of course Covid would still be a thing, but it would be a mild cold-like infection for far FAR more folks than it is currently. A non-hospitalized event. Severe outcomes are dramatically reduced, as are deaths.

That doesn't spell failure to me at all. It spells pretty damn good, and far more than any of us were expecting last summer.

So if the vaccines are 95% effective against illness, what is the percentage of non-vaccinated people against illness? We must look at the IMPROVMMENT that the vaccines have brought against the illness. For that point, I am disappointed about their effectiveness, although I agree that they are useful and I am for the vaccines. However, I thought the pandemic would have been over now with the vaccines. Remember the Spanish flu had three waves, we are now talking about the fourth waves this time.

For full disclosure, I got my 3rd shot three weeks ago.

 

[anethum]

Still, what we have IS better than nothing, though natural heard immunity my be "better" but cost more lives in the short run. Such things are difficult to know or especially prove.

Not as difficult to know or prove as you think. As I posted in another thread, Oklahoma publishes great data about Covid infections and vaccinations in that state. Look at page 10 in the following document from last month:

https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok...y-epi-report/2021.10.13 Weekly Epi Report.pdf

There have been substantially more Covid reinfections than breakthrough cases each month. I expect that as time goes on and more people get boosters and more time passes since an infection, the difference will increase. So "natural herd immunity" does not seems better than vaccination in terms of additional infections.

 

[Gumby]

So if the vaccines are 95% effective against illness, what is the percentage of non-vaccinated people against illness? We must look at the IMPROVMMENT that the vaccines have brought against the illness. For that point, I am disappointed about their effectiveness, although I agree that they are useful and I am for the vaccines. However, I thought the pandemic would have been over now with the vaccines. Remember the Spanish flu had three waves, we are now talking about the fourth waves this time.

For full disclosure, I got my 3rd shot three weeks ago.

Vaccine efficacy is a relative measure, not an absolute measure. That is, it doesn't tell you your risk of catching COVID.
Rather, it tells you how much better you would fare if were vaccinated than if you were unvaccinated. So, if a vaccine is described as 95% effective, it usually means that it the efficacy study they had, say, 1000 vaccinated people and 1000 unvaccinated people. During the study period, 1 vaccinated person caught COVID and 19 unvaccinated people caught COVID. Your absolute risk of catching COVID during the study period was 1/1000 if you were vaccinated and 19/1000 if you were unvaccinated. So you were 95% better off having the vaccine. (19/20).

The State of Connecticut publishes data every Thursday that attempts to measure relative risk (and hence vaccine efficacy) "in the field" by tracking the rates of infection, hospitalization and death of unvaccinated people compared to vaccinated. Our Governor Lamont gave further update yesterday evening. His data showed that if you are unvaccinated you have a 5 x probability of catching COVID than if you are fully vaccinated (implies an efficacy of 83.3% = 5/6); a 10 x probability of being hospitalized (implied efficacy 10/11 = 90.9 %) and 15 x probability of death (15/16 = 93.8 % efficacy).

Here is the link to last week's report. (see pp. 7-9) https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/CTDPHCOVID19summary11182021.pdf

Here's the link to the Governor's 11/22 update. Go to about 4:19 https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the...overnor-Lamont-Coronavirus-Update-November-22

 

[Gearhead Jim]

I just briefly checked a few ZIPs I'm familiar with. Honolulu was listed as "high risk." AFAIK Hawaii State is lowest risk in the country right now. SO, I don't know how the site works, but it doesn't seem to offer much relative info on the virus. YMMV

The "risk level" simply looks at the metrics and assigns a risk value to them. It seems to be an absolute value rather than relative. So Hawaii is lower risk than other states but still, in absolute terms, risky. Personally, I think their risk levels are somewhat overstated.

I use the site to make comparisons between places. If I'm thinking of a vacation in a place with new cases per population that are three times what we have here, with high transmission rates and high positivity rates, then I look elsewhere. It is an imperfect tool, but better than using just the incomplete and biased (both ways) stories we see in the media.

 

[sengsational]

Not as difficult to know or prove as you think. As I posted in another thread, Oklahoma publishes great data about Covid infections and vaccinations in that state. Look at page 10 in the following document from last month:

https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok...y-epi-report/2021.10.13 Weekly Epi Report.pdf

There have been substantially more Covid reinfections than breakthrough cases each month. I expect that as time goes on and more people get boosters and more time passes since an infection, the difference will increase. So "natural herd immunity" does not seems better than vaccination in terms of additional infections.

I'm no Covid stats scholar, but the little research I have explored made it very easy to see how vaccinated populations fared over non-vaccinated, but less easy to tell the difference between vaccine induced immunity and disease induced immunity. Upon hearing that, the narrative is to launch into the idea that somehow by exploring how much protection is offered from recovery from the disease, that means vaccination is not still the best option for most people. Of course it is. With breakthrough cases, more of the population will have disease induced immunity, and that's part of the dynamics of the situation. Vaccine induced and disease induced are different, but it's something I don't think gets as much focus as it deserves. Population studies seemed to indicate being exposed to the whole virus was more protective than just being exposed to the few shapes of the engineered vaccines, which makes sense to me, but most stats I've seen don't cover that.

 

[athena53]

The powers that be seem obsessed exclusively on getting everyone the vaccine. Is it time to rethink, and invest in other strategies? Other vaccines? Other therapeutics? Other I don’t know what?

According to a couple of pretty credible sources on another board I'm on (a Ph.D. virologist and a pulmonologist), COVID tests will be positive even if you were exposed, your body fought it off and you're shedding only dead viruses. Apparently the technology required to distinguish between live and dead viruses is very involved. This makes it VERY scary for those of us who take a test in order to travel. I took one 4 days before my Alaskan cruise, as required, and a positive result would have meant the loss of the cost of the cruise. (Yes, I WAS negative.)

One huge improvement would be a test that lets people shedding only dead viruses go about their business without the worry of infecting others.

 

[USGrant1962]

According to a couple of pretty credible sources on another board I'm on (a Ph.D. virologist and a pulmonologist), COVID tests will be positive even if you were exposed, your body fought it off and you're shedding only dead viruses. Apparently the technology required to distinguish between live and dead viruses is very involved. This makes it VERY scary for those of us who take a test in order to travel. I took one 4 days before my Alaskan cruise, as required, and a positive result would have meant the loss of the cost of the cruise. (Yes, I WAS negative.)

One huge improvement would be a test that lets people shedding only dead viruses go about their business without the worry of infecting others.

The NYT has a story today that mentions that:

The Covid tests that you take in a doctor’s office or testing center are usually PCR tests, which are designed to identify whether you have any amount of the Covid virus. They can sometimes come back positive even if you had the virus weeks earlier and have not been infectious for a long time.

The rapid tests — also known as antigen tests — are designed to tell whether you are infectious. That’s why they are such a powerful public-health tool. They can prevent somebody with the virus from spreading it to others.

And remember that first cruise ship where they were measuring dead virus for weeks leading to all the useless doorknob and grocery washing.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

If anything it encouraged the mainstream development of mRNA vaccines. That is a good thing ..... right?

 

[sengsational]

And remember that first cruise ship where they were measuring dead virus for weeks leading to all the useless doorknob and grocery washing.

I recall calling BS on that at the time, knowing that one may amplify non-viable virus particles. That didn't stop me from being cautious with fresh snot on my groceries But experience has shown the virus isn't robust outside of a host, thankfully.

 

[tmm99]

According to a couple of pretty credible sources on another board I'm on (a Ph.D. virologist and a pulmonologist), COVID tests will be positive even if you were exposed, your body fought it off and you're shedding only dead viruses. Apparently the technology required to distinguish between live and dead viruses is very involved. This makes it VERY scary for those of us who take a test in order to travel. I took one 4 days before my Alaskan cruise, as required, and a positive result would have meant the loss of the cost of the cruise. (Yes, I WAS negative.)

One huge improvement would be a test that lets people shedding only dead viruses go about their business without the worry of infecting others.

Wow, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info. That could surely complicate things for some people in certain situations.

 

[tmm99]

They definitely know a whole lot more now than before. It was like trying to find a lost key in the darkroom before. They hit a lot of obstacles and got snagged in different directions, but overall, I think we came out OK.

If the virus didn't mutate from Alpha into Delta, we would be in much better shape today as the vaccine works so much better against Alpha. We would have also achieved herd immunity with fewer vaxxed folks with Alpha as Alpha is much less contagious than Delta. The emergence of Delta was not fully anticipated or forecasted, although the emergence of something similar was certainly speculated and feared to some extent. The saving grace is that the virus hasn't mutated into something much more deadly.

 

[Chuckanut]

If the virus didn't mutate from Alpha into Delta, we would be in much better shape today as the vaccine works so much better against Alpha. We would have also achieved herd immunity with fewer vaxxed folks with Alpha as Alpha is much less contagious than Delta. The emergence of Delta was not fully anticipated or forecasted, although the emergence of something similar was certainly speculated and feared to some extent. The saving grace is that the virus hasn't mutated into something much more deadly.

+1 on the mutation from Aspha to Delta. Delta raised the stakes big time.

As far as another mutation, the virus has to be careful. If it becomes too harmful, humans will take far more precautions and reduce its opportunity to spread. For example, imagine if most people become very ill withing a few days of being exposed to the virus - high fever, vomiting, very sore joints and muscles, etc. Would they be wandering around infecting others? I doubt it. Would they be bragging about how they got Covid and it's no big deal. I doubt it. My guess is one look at this person would drive most of her friends and relatives to the nearest vaccination site.

Delta seems to have hit a sweet spot. It's very good at infecting people, but it doesn't scare us enough to bring out our most cautious behaviors. Sneaky devil!

 

[JoeWras]

+1 on the mutation from Aspha to Delta. Delta raised the stakes big time.

As far as another mutation, the virus has to be careful. If it become to harmful, humans will take far more precautions and reduce its opportunity to spread. For example, imagine if most people become very ill withing a few days of being exposed to the virus - high fever, vomiting, very sore joints and muscles, etc. Would they be wandering around infecting others. I doubt it. Would they be bragging about how they got Covid and it's no big deal. I doubt it. My guess is one look at this person would drive most of her friends and relatives to the nearest vaccination site.

Delta seems to have hit a sweet spot. It's very good at infecting people, but it doesn't scare us enough to bring out our most cautious behaviors. Sneaky devil!

Now that we've lived through a pandemic, I'm watching pandemic related films in a different light. Turns out many of the "wipe out 99.99999% in a month" films are really unrealistic.

 

[tmm99]

Delta seems to have hit a sweet spot. It's very good at infecting people, but it doesn't scare us enough to bring out our most cautious behaviors. Sneaky devil!

Your logic sounds spot on. If the virus was too deadly too fast to the host, it would have no chance of spreading it to more people. The Delta is highly contagious with a prolonged incubation period but it doesn't kill you (at least not right away) so it has a good chance of spreading it to many more people. Sneaky devil indeed.

 

[Aerides]

Now that we've lived through a pandemic, I'm watching pandemic related films in a different light. Turns out many of the "wipe out 99.99999% in a month" films are really unrealistic.

Contagion, however, gets it really right, with some eerie similarities to today. Granted, it's still a far quicker and more deadly virus (20%, deaths in 1-2 days from exposure), but still.

 

[Gumby]

...If the virus was too deadly too fast to the host, it would have no chance of spreading it to more people. ...

That has been the saving grace in Ebola virus outbreaks - too deadly too fast. Because it is incredibly contagious.

 

[audreyh1]

It’s just evolution though. The virus is not being careful nor plotting any type of strategy.

 

[tmm99]

It’s just evolution though. The virus is not being careful nor plotting any type of strategy.

No, I think they actually do have evil intentions!

 

[audreyh1]

Well it’s a parasite and requires a host to replicate. All parasites seem evil if they damage a host.

 

[Dtail]

Contagion, however, gets it really right, with some eerie similarities to today. Granted, it's still a far quicker and more deadly virus (20%, deaths in 1-2 days from exposure), but still.

Yup, when I rewatched Contagion, it gave me goosebumps with some of the concepts.

 

[JoeWras]

Contagion, however, gets it really right, with some eerie similarities to today. Granted, it's still a far quicker and more deadly virus (20%, deaths in 1-2 days from exposure), but still.

I agree. I didn't give the details, I hoped someone would follow up. Contagion did well. The virus was more aggressive, but there were many survivors and once the population knew what was up, they were "adjusting," albeit in a haphazard way.

What Contagion got wrong was that the CDC would be hero geniuses from day 1. Nope.

---

I was thinking more of Andromeda Strain, I Am Legend, Omega Man, etc. Although I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Andromeda Strain. That movie literally was an influence in my career in technology.

 

[audreyh1]

Did Contagion anticipate how many people would decide they didn’t need a vaccine? I suppose that if a contagious disease is more overtly deadly, more people would seek protection.

 

[JoeWras]

Did Contagion anticipate how many people would decide they didn’t need a vaccine? I suppose that if a contagious disease is more overtly deadly, more people would seek protection.

I think you are going in the right direction. Let's just say in the movie, even though there are haunting echoes to COVID (bats flying around), they never said: "Most people have mild symptoms." People are dropping dead left and right at 30% rate. 30%. That will wake you up. So despite potential resistance, most would want the vaccine with the Contagion virus.

There are some depictions of pushback, however. Slightly different than what we saw, but echoes of our situation. One guy is trying to convince the world of a 'natural' solution. So, yeah, some of the movie will give you chills, and not in a good way.

 

[tmm99]

Yep, I rewatched Contagion at the beginning of the pandemic and Jude Law's role gave me the chills.

 

[tmm99]

Here is a news article that has the link to the report that Public Health Ontario (Canada) has published.

TORONTO -- There have been more than 17,000 so-called breakthrough cases of COVID-19 involving fully vaccinated Ontarians over the last year but the number of those people under 60 who eventually ended up in an intensive care unit is only nine.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/only-nin...ith-a-breakthrough-case-of-covid-19-1.5681069

I haven't read the full report, but that's astonishingly good IMHO. The numbers do increase with older age groups
60-69 25 (1.2%)
70-79 25 (2.2%)
but still, these numbers are so much better than I thought.