health

Long COVID affects more older adults; shots don't prevent it

21 Comments
By LINDSEY TANNER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

There is exactly zero evidence that antibodies against the spike protein from the vacine have negative effects on the immunity. This imaginary phenomenon is not a valid argument.

How can you be so sure. Nobody knows the long-term effects of these vaccines. They simply haven't been in existence long enough.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Even Pfizer's CEO admitted the vaccines have very little effect on infection rate.

Wthiout any data to contradict the findings that prove vaccined do reduce the infection rate this lacks any importance.

But the only paper you continually used to support your opinion was acknowledged by the authors to be biased; the vaccinated were less likely to get tested...

Studies have shown the neutralization part of the antibody activity depends completely on the spike protein,

You continue to focus on neutralizing antibody, as if that was a surrogate for immunity. In reality there are many different kinds of acquired immunity mechanisms that protect people. People can still be well protected even without neutralizing antibodies. There are other viruses that are neutralized by immune responses different from antibodies.

Many experts are pointing out how these vaccines have adverse effects on the cellular response.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Perhaps the jabs are more detrimental?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In a study of veterans, about one-third who had breakthrough infections showed signs of long COVID.

Another limitation of covid vaccines is revealed.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

In a study of veterans, about one-third who had breakthrough infections showed signs of long COVID.

As time goes on, more and more is discovered about vaccines, and Covid.

Whatever is found out in the future it would not change that at this point there is no evidence that the immunity from the vaccines has any negative effect on the health of the people, specially compared with not vaccinating.

You misunderstand the simple concept of the existence of evidence, regardless of whether it is "found out" later has no bearing in whether it exists now.

There also is the possibility that antibodies in infected patients' blood changes the shape of the spike protein so as to make it more likely to bind to cells, and the consequences are not 100% known in this case.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Seems like it's not even the virus that causes it

"One group of people where I think that is particularly the case is people who have developed long Covid-type symptoms after having the Covid vaccine," Dr Deans added.

"While the Covid vaccine has saved lots of lives and at population level has been a good thing, we're now uncovering evidence that some people are developing this same kind of presentation - long Covid - after the vaccine, and it seems that has triggered it."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-61617044

0 ( +6 / -6 )

The true cause of so-called "Long Covid" have yet to be confirmed.

Is it a side effect of the treatment like Remdisivir, a side effect of attempted preventative measures, caused by long-term unhealthy lockdowns?

Nobody knows.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

provide some protection against long COVID but mounting research shows not as much as scientists had first hoped.

That is not a surprise for me.

First hoped...if scientists judged the vaccine on Hope than many more strange things about the vaccine will come up in the near future.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Since unvaccinated people have higher rates of infection

Even Pfizer's CEO admitted the vaccines have very little effect on infection rate.

people are at a higher risk of infection, disease and death without the vaccines

No, the Danish study clearly showed that the vaccines had no effect on overall death, any potential benefit is cancelled by their significant risks.

Today with Omicron, the choice is indeed very clear, for the vast majority of us there is no benefit to getting these risky vaccines.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Another limitation of covid vaccines is revealed.

Since unvaccinated people have higher rates of infection (compared with breakthroughs) this is still a point in favor of the vaccines, people are at a higher risk of infection, disease and death without the vaccines, and even only counting between infected people in both groups vaccinated have up to 50% lower signs and symptoms of long covid compared with unvaccinated people.

So the choice is still clear, vaccines represent less risk even considering long covid.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Omicron is milder, so maybe long covid is also rarer, what nobody can deny is that vaccines protect against both short and long covid, but i dont know about simple infetion without symptoms. Antibodies are antibodies so having lots of them should always be helpful.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You misunderstand the simple concept of the existence of evidence, regardless of whether it is "found out" later has no bearing in whether it exists now.

No misunderstanding, that is exactly the point. That supposed evidence do not exist now, so it will not matter what is found in the future it still means there is zero evidence the immunity from vaccines have a negative effect on overall immunity as claimed.

There also is the possibility that antibodies in infected patients' blood changes the shape of the spike protein so as to make it more likely to bind to cells, and the consequences are not 100% known in this case.

That is called antibody dependent enhancement and it is extremely easy to examine. Both experimentally with cells and animals and epidemiologically in people. No study have found that having antibodies produced by vaccination nor natural infection increase the the binding to cells by any mechanism, much less changing the shape of the spike.

The whole concept of "neutralizing antibodies" means the presence of those antibodies make infection more difficult. If the opposite were true (antibodies making attachment easier) infected and vaccinated people would have worse outcome than naive individuals, as happens with Dengue.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The whole concept of "neutralizing antibodies" means the presence of those antibodies make infection more difficult. If the opposite were true (antibodies making attachment easier) infected and vaccinated people would have worse outcome than naive individuals, as happens with Dengue.

Neutralizing antibodies are those antibodies that can by themselves interfere with infection, in the absence of other immune system components. But non-neutralizing antibodies (those provided by natural infection) still play an important role in providing protection against infection. Also, natural infection results in significant production of IgA antibodies, which are the ones that accumulate at the site on entry and are therefore the most effective at preventing infection. Vaccines produce very little (if any) of these antibodies, they just produce IgG antibodies.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Neutralizing antibodies are those antibodies that can by themselves interfere with infection, in the absence of other immune system components. But non-neutralizing antibodies (those provided by natural infection) still play an important role in providing protection against infection

To be able to say that you need evidence that other antibodies have any role against the infection in COVID, without that evidence your statement is baseless.

Also, natural infection results in significant production of IgA antibodies, which are the ones that accumulate at the site on entry and are therefore the most effective at preventing infection.

This is just another personal belief that is not based on evidence. Nobody has found that for covid igA has any correlation with protection. Judging from the results of vaccines candidates for other infections high levels if IgA can still be less protective than IgG, because of this none of the vaccines developed for topical use in the respiratory airway have been able to surpass the protection offered by injectable vaccines.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Vaccination reduced the chances for any long COVID symptoms by a “modest” 15%,” although it cut the risk in half for lingering respiratory or clotting problems, 

That seems like a huge benefit. The rate of infection is also reduced in vaccinated people, so this means the difference is even greater if you compare the total of people vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Seems like it's not even the virus that causes it

"Thinking" something is very different from even having data to support it, even when everything is possible that does not mean everything is happening. A properly controlled epidemiological study can clearly define if a person can develop the syndrome without the infection and specially if the incidence is comparable. For example in this report a third of the infected people gets it, if the vaccine reduces 15 to 50% the number of cases that is the benefit against which the possible cost has to be compared. If vaccination produces the syndrome in the equivalent to 1% of these people that still would mean a huge amount of protection from it.

First hoped...if scientists judged the vaccine on Hope than many more strange things about the vaccine will come up in the near future.

Not nearly enough to be comparable about the many "strange" and dangerous things that have continously been found about not being vaccinated.

Is it a side effect of the treatment like Remdisivir, a side effect of attempted preventative measures, caused by long-term unhealthy lockdowns?

Baseless speculation without even a sliver of scientific evidence have no merit, they are as likely to be true as saying it depends on the day of the week the first symptom appeared or the zodiac sign of the patient.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

You are confusing the issue at hand. You comment has no validation, and no statistical data too, which is permissible as you are not medical professional.

At this point it has become very clear that when you no longer believe you are correct you make outrageous claims like the WHO being not a scientific authority, and accuse other commenters of things you have no way of knowing (such as if they are or not something), apparently so your comment is deleted and you can leave the article.

There is no need for any of this, the argument holds by itself, if you can't discuss it without making baseless judgments about other people commenting you can just stop without having to taunt the moderation team.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Perhaps the jabs are more detrimental?

Then the results would be the opposite, because vaccinated people should higher in the group that is not looking for medical attention for covid, since the results are the opposite this is not realistically possible.

Omicron is milder, so maybe long covid is also rarer, what nobody can deny is that vaccines protect against both short and long covid, but i dont know about simple infetion without symptoms.

They also do according to scientific reports about it

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

Notice how the authors do not say their conclusions are invalid because of difference of testing could invalidate the results (and they were similar in a previous report of the same group). Vaccination helps reducing transmission and infection.

Antibodies are antibodies so having lots of them should always be helpful.

Not necessarily, antibodies against the spike have already been characterized as a surrogate for protection (higher titers means more protection) but for other kinds of antibodies this is not the case, which means having high titers may not have any importance, or even worse they can mediate problems during infection. At this point there is no proof that other antibodies like against nucleocapsid bring any benefit.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

How can you be so sure. Nobody knows the long-term effects of these vaccines. They simply haven't been in existence long enough.

Whatever is found out in the future it would not change that at this point there is no evidence that the immunity from the vaccines has any negative effect on the health of the people, specially compared with not vaccinating.

If you have any scientific evidence of the contrary you can always bring it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Even Pfizer's CEO admitted the vaccines have very little effect on infection rate.

Wthiout any data to contradict the findings that prove vaccined do reduce the infection rate this lacks any importance.

Very importantly, if a pharmaceutical company CEO says something that is well sustained in evidence (like vaccines being safe or ivermectin being useless against covid) you keep saying this is just lies and part of a conspiracy so the declaration not trusted.

But when a pharmaceutical company CEO says something that clearly contradicts the best available evidence, now suddenly he should be trusted?

It is the evidence that proves things. Not that people say things you want to believe.

No, the Danish study clearly showed that the vaccines had no effect on overall death, any potential benefit is cancelled by their significant risks.

No, that is completely false, the study you keep trying to misrepresent clearly showed vaccines reduces deaths very importantly when they are related to covid, which is exactly the purpose of the vaccines.

Natural infection generates antibodies for both the evolving spike protein and the nucleocapsid portion of the virus, which doesn't change much over time. The presence of nucleocapsid antibodies confers broad based natural immunity for future variants.

This is based on two assumptions that are not proved, one is that antigenic drift can't affect the nucleocapsid protein, which is not true, one thing is that antibodies against the spike are so much better at neutralizing the virus that there is no adaptive pressure against the other structural proteins, another very different is that if they become a target for the immunity they can't be selected in the same way, or even much more easily because the process of infection do not depend as much on them as on the spike.

The second assumption is that antibody activity is equal with neutralizing activity, which is not true either.

Studies have shown the neutralization part of the antibody activity depends completely on the spike protein, which is understandable because the nucleocapsid protein is inside of the virus, so there is no way infectious particles can have it exposed to be recognized by the immunity nor mediate neutralization

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7810037/

Nucleocapsid antibodies are good for diagnostics and to understand better how the disease progressed, but they have not been proved to confer protective immunity.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites