A different COVID-19 vaccine debate: Do we need new ones?

After a booster, protection against symptomatic disease from omicron is about 70%

...and then after 10 weeks it goes down to 45%.

Why are they always hiding that?

Hiding the truth is cheating and even similar to lying.

..and then after 10 weeks it goes down to 45%.

in the worst cases..... Not average.

in the worst cases..... Not average.

No! In almost all cases!

There are hundreds of reports out, which say that, which you can easily find by yourself.

Some even say it goes down to 31%.

There are hundreds of reports out, which say that, which you can easily find by yourself.

Pretty well hidden then huh?

@monty Read this one not newspapers.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/preliminary-data-indicate-covid-19-vaccines-remain-effective-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation

I can understand that you guys are upset and dissapointed, because you were told that the vaccine bring the end of the pandemic.

And now you are getting told that you should take a booster which effectiveness goes down to 45% already after 10 weeks.

I understand that you are dissapointed.

And please, don't expect me to post here countless of links with reports and articles which are saying that.

Go to google and search, 3rd booster after 10 weeks...and haa nemui, all well hidden articles will pop up.

I'm not upset Monty. Had my second shot of Moderna at the end of July. Pretty much the same as you. Had a blood test two weeks ago that showed the efficacy still around 65%. I'm not young, so as far as I'm concerned with a booster around the corner, job done.

Don't know what you've been reading to or listening to Monty but you used to be very level headed about the whole Covid thing - Now you've become mildly hysterical.

*Go to google and search, 3rd booster after 10 weeks...and haa nemui, all well hidden articles will pop up.*

If they were well hidden they wouldn’t.

I can understand that you guys are upset and dissapointed, because you were told that the vaccine bring the end of the pandemic.

Pretty sure most of us here accepted from the start that the vaccines weren’t going to be the end of it. This argument seems to come mostly from (and I’m not saying you are) the anti vaccine crowd. Why are they so disappointed about the vaccines they haven’t taken?

We need to switch to nasal vaccines - it would improve the body's ability to fight the infection at its point of entry and they can be easily self administered.

Don't people see that the countries with the most deaths and injuries are the ones with the higher vaccinations. I believe that the Japanese Gov. know that the vaccines are bad and that is why they are stalling. look at Japan . It is not suffering like other countries. At least here you are free to take your 3rd shot and all the other shots after that for Covid which has never been isolated. I won't be taking any !

The Japanse Govt. are not stalling @vic.M. Your statement will be proved wrong by the end of April when I predict that 70% of those eligible will be triple vaxxed. You clearly missed the statement from Kishida this morning.

I've chosen not to take any covid vaccinations which has resulted in several benefits.

I chose to take the vaccine and am extremely happy with my decision

I have not gotten covid.

neither have I. I do know two people at a particular company who chose not to be vaccinated, the only two at the company, and both were infected with delta last year. One has since been vaccinated… the other… two weeks ago was confirmed with omicron

I have not clogged up the hospital system with a vaccine side effect.

Neither have I or anybody I know that has been vaccinated… so almost everyone.

The vaccines which were allocated to me were redistributed to other more vulnerable people who otherwise didn't have access to them.

They haven’t, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

I've saved the system money and I helped others and I haven't exposed myself to possible side effects.

So, you’re worried about possible vaccine side effects but happy thinking you’ve passed them off to others?

I'm pleased with the decision I made.

You should be ashamed.

@Monty

I can understand that you guys are upset and dissapointed, because you were told that the vaccine bring the end of the pandemic.

I was at first but now I am upset at those that don't take the vaccine.

The immediate solution: Getting today's shots into more arms will “reduce the opportunities for the virus to mutate and spawn new Greek letters that we then have to worry about,” said Jennifer Nuzzo of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

From how I read this according to Jennifer Nuzzo not taking the vaccine is causing mutations.

So does it mean that each time a unvaccinated person gets Covid-19 they are potentially creating a new mutation and prolonging the pandemic?

Why are they always hiding that?

The whole article is talking about it, if you read it you would notice this idea of ”hiding” things is only your personal bias.

I can understand that you guys are upset and dissapointed, because you were told that the vaccine bring the end of the pandemic.

People completely misrepresenting the situation because it does not fit their own beliefs is what is a much more likely reason for disappointment, specially because those people keep making baseless accusations not congruent with reality.

I've chosen not to take any covid vaccinations which has resulted in several benefits.

correction which "you beleve" resulted in benefits, if those can be demonstrated as unrelated (or even false) that still means objectively your decision has been in overall negative for yourself.

Unless you have choosen to remain in isolation your negative effect in the risk of others greatly outweights the minuscule benefit of redistributing between the same population a vaccine that is not in scarcity.

We need to switch to nasal vaccines - it would improve the body's ability to fight the infection at its point of entry and they can be easily self administered.

The problem is that nasal vaccines usually result in decrease efficacy, and are not even able to give equal results than injected vaccines, much less outperform them, a lot of work is still necessary to make nasal vaccines that are at least as effective and safe than the current ones, not only for COVID, there have been tried for other diseases for decades without sufficient success to replace previous vaccines.

So everyone should have a dose of something that ultimately won't work? What?

This means it is still the best available option but even better ones will be necessary for a long term maintenance of the reduction of risk. Think on hemophilia, transfusions will not cure the disease, but if someone is bleeding to death a transfusion (or several) can keep him alive until a more permanent solution can be used.

Don't people see that the countries with the most deaths and injuries are the ones with the higher vaccinations. 

You getting confused between which side is the cause and which is the effect is the problem. No population was fine and without deaths before the vaccines and much worse after them, on the opposite, countries that struggled the most with deaths were the ones that more aggressively pursued vaccination.

So does it mean that each time a unvaccinated person gets Covid-19 they are potentially creating a new mutation and prolonging the pandemic?

To be precise everybody that is infected creates a chance, unvaccinated people simply create much higher chances of it.

Japan is one of the places if not the only place where antivaxers are happy

Top of mind my take is lift all restrictions eventually, make vaccines available continuously.

During epidemics recalculate health insurance premiums to take into account increased/decreased risks, if any, associated with vaccination

In nasal vaccines and mucosal immunity we trust. Shame on the West and Japan for not pushing harder on this (read: literally not doing anything except for rolling out booster after booster). Go India!

In nasal vaccines

Even if available probably won't be taken up much here, not many Japanese used to taking drugs up their noses I think.

Maybe vaped would be better

By the way for an excellent overview of what's happening with nasal vaccines and why they are important, this recent NYT article is good:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/health/covid-vaccine-nasal.html

Because the benefit / risk analysis is different for each person.

This do not allows making up imaginary benefits to pretend your personal situation justifies increasing the risk for others, this applies to actual valid medical exception.

For a young healthy person, the side effect risk outweighs the potential decreased risk of Covid.

This is false according to the scientific evidence and the consensus of the medical community, for young healthy people the infection is still much riskier than the vaccines for orders of magnitude.

Instead of forcing the vaccine upon young people, it should be given to people who may benefit from it.

Nobody is forcing the vaccine on young people, just making people that reject a health intervention that is on their own benefit stop increasing the risk for themselves and others.

Nobody under 60 should be given the vaccine unless everybody on earth over 60 has had a chance to get it.

According to the best available scientific evidence people at increased risk of COVID benefit very importantly from a reduction of the transmission on the general population, since vaccines do reduce transmission vaccinating the general population are an important part of the measures to protect this vulnerable population.

Nobody under 60 should be given the vaccine unless everybody on earth over 60 has had a chance to get it.

Lols.

If supply and jabbing capacity permits everyone should have an equal chance getting it, ideally all together at the same time to minimize impact on the whole population

@the resident

Now you've become mildly hysterical.

Not hysterical, but realistic.

Yes you are right, my 2nd shot was end of July.

My third shot is postponed by my company to End of March, beginning of April.

After a lot of consideration I decided to take it, because of my age. I am also not young anymore.

But I do know, that this booster doesn't protect me from getting sick in a 100% effective way.

And according to many information, it is a fact, that this 3rd booster's effectiveness will go down to 45% or even less after 10 weeks.

Many people are ignoring that, but not me!

And I am sure you are clever enough to also not ignore and understand that.

What I want to point out is, that the booster will not protect you for 70% for the rest of your life!

And when experts, politicians... are saying the booster protects you for 70%, and than finish the statement, this is simply not correct.

The public should be informed, that this booster's effectiveness will go down to 45% after 10 weeks.

But they don't give this information, and you know why?

As more the public knows, that it goes down to 45% after 10 weeks, as more people will refuse to take this booster. Therefore they don't want to give this information to the public so easily.

I will take the booster end of March, but I know and I understand, that already in middle of June, my protection can be around 45% or even less than that.

And I just read a news from Israel this morning, that they currently are in the 4th booster, have a very high vaccination rate, and have the highest serious sick people percentage ever since the beginning of the pandemic.

It makes me wonder, why? Just makes me wonder...because I am person who is always asking "why"?

But even what we can see now in Israel, do not change my decision to take the 3rd booster.

Theresident, I always read your post, and with many of them I agree.

The only thing, which I do not agree, but not only with you, with many others here too, is that people are following and believing blindly what they get told.

Many people never questioned anything, or do some research to confirm what they got told.

That is my opinion the biggest problem.

And when experts, politicians... are saying the booster protects you for 70%, and than finish the statement, this is simply not correct.

Yes it is, because this statement do not come as the only piece of information being released to the public as you like to misrepresent. It has been extensively reported that immunity against the disease drops over time and that for new variants even the highest levels do not reach 100%, so the percentage of maximum protection being offered by the vaccines is not assumed to be a permanent thing by anybody with even a small amount of common sense and that has followed the news even sporadically.

The article clearly talks about the limitations of the current vaccines and boosters, so accusing it of hiding it makes no sense.

Before considering new vaccines, we should have an honest discussion of the effects of the current ones.

At most they offer a few months of reduced symptoms.

They do practically nothing to prevent infection.

-- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

"Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States (Eur J Epidemiol. 2021 Sep 30 : 1–4).

The current vaccines produce almost no IgA antibodies, so indeed the nasal vaccines are promising, and probably mush safer. The current vaccines come with high risks of adverse effects, which they have worked very hard to keep hidden.

The only thing, which I do not agree, but not only with you, with many others here too, is that people are following and believing blindly what they get told.

Many people never questioned anything, or do some research to confirm what they got told.

That is my opinion the biggest problem.

Agree.

Unfortunately antivaxers are totally blind, haven't seen one understand even the most easily understandable things about vaccines that run counter to their beliefs. They will stick to what they are told even to the grave.

Provaxers such as you, on the other hand, continually reassess the value of vaccines because you understand that vaccines have varying effects and effectiveness, which makes them vulnerable to misinformation.

yes it is

No it is not!

It has been extensively reported that immunity against the disease drops over time

The article clearly talks about the limitations of the current vaccines and boosters,

How much does it drop and when?

How big are the limitations?

These are the Key points here!

These are the information that have to be shared with the public.

If it is just 1% or 2% after 1 year, nobody would care.

But about 30% within 10 weeks..., that is an information which should not be hidden .

And in my opinion, it is hidden on purpose!

They always tell us...95% effective or 80% effective....for high percentage amount for good protection, they always tell the percentage to the public.

Because it sounds very nice, 95% protection. Wow! Impressive!

But they never tell us how much the effectiveness drops. And especially when!

And the same here in the article...no single word about the drop to 45% after 10 weeks.

How much does it drop and when?

You yourself have repeatedly written it, there is no point in pretending not to know something that you (and anybody interested) can easily find out.

This means the information is easily available to the public, even if you want to pretend it is something hidden that nobody can ever find. This makes the criticism invalid. Read the article you are commenting on, it does explicitly says what is unknown yet and what is its importance.

At most they offer a few months of reduced symptoms.

They do practically nothing to prevent infection.

The best avaialable science clearly contradicts you, with important reduciton on the risk of not only symptoms, complications, hospitalizations and death, but also of infection and transmission.

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.44.2100977

Just repeating something that has been clearly debunked do not make it less incorrect.

Your source do not prove in any way that vaccines do not reduce transmission, because many different factors are involved in transmission, so pretending one single one is responsible by itself of the degree of transmission is an invalid conclusion, for this you need a study that controls for as much of other variables and looks at the differences on transmission, like the one I used.

The current vaccines produce almost no IgA antibodies, 

Which at this point is irrelevant, the same as in many other vaccine candidates infection by SARS-CoV-2 may not be significantly reduced by this very specific form of adquired immunity, and again the same as with other vaccine candidates it may even produce much less efficient immunity compared with injected vaccines.

How much does it drop and when?

You yourself have repeatedly written it, there is no point in pretending not to know something that you (and anybody interested) can easily find out.

Exactly...down to 45% after 10 weeks.

To be not interested and ignoring is sometimes very close together!

The small difference is, that ignoring things can sometimes come to a worse awakening.

Yes, maybe I will take the new vaccine if it doesn’t stir up any potential discomfort or risks like the major types being offered here. So far, I have had nothing to be upset about in terms of waning efficacy, or potential life and impact because of the vaxx coz I am still COVID vaxx-free.

Monty - Thanks mate, But I'll stuck with my 65% after five and a bit months and get boosted in March, I have no desire to put ANY strain on the health services being over 50, loving a drink and an occasional cigarette - also finding myself unable to abide by early curfews.

I have no desire to put ANY strain on the health services being over 50, loving a drink and an occasional cigarette

Yes I agree, but if you don't mind I will skip the cigarette. Lol

I also decided to take the booster, even with 45% effectiveness, because of my age.

But to be honest to you... if I would be in my 20s or 30s, I am not sure, if I would take the booster.

To be not interested and ignoring is sometimes very close together!

Then what does it mean to pretend not to know something that you have repeatedly said? your whole point was that this was being hidden, even if anybody can easily find out, even by reading only the headline of this article. So if you have to pretend not to know something in order to prove it is difficult to find out that works only as proof that you are not actually interested in criticizing something that is actually happening.

There is one thing much worse that not being interested in something, and that is to be in irrational denial about it and reject being informed about it because you don't want to accept it.

Covid is here to stay get ready for booster shot #'s 2, 3 , 4. It will be the norm!

The will always be new vaccines for new variations. But they should be recommended for vulnerable groups, and not forced on everyone. Just like the flue vaccines have been for a long time.

How did we get to this new paradigm?

virus

The best avaialable science clearly contradicts you, with important reduciton on the risk of not only symptoms, complications, hospitalizations and death, but also of infection and transmission.https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.44.2100977

The "best available science" is not an article from last year about the Delta variant. Did you miss that we now have OMICRON, which is a different ballgame?

Bronco

I've chosen not to take any covid vaccinations which has resulted in several benefits.

I have not gotten covid.

You do know that. Chances are high you got Omicron already and had no symptoms. Like the vast majority of people. The Danish health authorities acknowledge that everyone will get in contact with Omicron, why does Koike still believe she can avoid it?

How did we get to this new paradigm?

What new paradigm? Is your claim that vaccines were never required before?

Strangerland

What new paradigm? Is your claim that vaccines were never required before?

No. Read the the message again.

@Monty.

Hiding the truth is responsible government when politicians do it. It's only lying when we do it.

I think politicians will accept that they have taken Covid as far as they can and will now treat it like flu (which is rather like announcing that bamboo is now a grass). We will get an annual booster alongside our flu jab, and they will make the most of the freebies: a global ID/surveillance system, migrant labourers sent home, no/limited tourists (JP, CN and NZ) and borders easy to close if need be.

The annual fluvid jabs will be nice little earners. No need to stuff Americans full of opioids any more.

Government scientists will agree to that or be replaced. And if you aren't a government scientist, any dissenting views you utter will see you lose your grants, job and social media account. So behave.

The will always be new vaccines for new variations. But they should be recommended for vulnerable groups, and not forced on everyone. Just like the flue vaccines have been for a long time.

Trying to misrepresent COVID as if it was similar to influenza is a well known disinformation strategy, compare the incidence of both diseases and you will understand immediately why trying to say COVID should be treated like influenza makes absolutely no sense. The scientific consensus is that protection of vulnerable groups is not realistically possible without stopping widespread transmission between the general population. This justifies taking measures to prevent people that irrationally reject vaccines from increasing the risk for others.

The "best available science" is not an article from last year about the Delta variant. Did you miss that we now have OMICRON, which is a different ballgame?

If it is not then produce then a controlled comparison on the rates of tranmssion between vaccinated and not vaccinated people. You can't? that is because that is still the best available science. Thinking that something newer should be available do not make it so.