FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Out of Sight...Out of Mind...Waning Vaccine Efficacy
Out of Sight...Out of Mind...Waning Vaccine Efficacy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I've read an official article about vaccine efficacy over a period of time. (Official source here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf) By my estimations, I was at 45% efficacy by 24th Jan from the waning efficacy of the 3rd jab previously. I have no idea what it is now. I do realise that it's not designed to stop me catching the virus, it's designed to reduce the seriousness of an infection. However, assuming it's still only 45% (which it won't be, it will have waned), a 55% chance of having a serious outcome if infected is not filling me with much confidence to venture out again. That's like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets loaded in a 6 chamber spinny thing. Probably more likely to be 4 bullets now. All the effort getting most of the population vacce'd, but now it seems we've been left to flounder with waning protection. I know folks who have not left their houses since March 2020, because they or their families are critically vulnerable. These are people who would have died if they had caught it back in Mar 2020. Their odds are now as good as 50/50. I think you can understand that they are not feeling or getting the support they need and have been forgotten and left to languish. Why is the media not talking about them anymore ? It almost feels that after all the virtue-signalling from some sectors and the media to protect the most vulnerable, it's now proving to be much harder to maintain that level of care or interest, so fuck 'em. That is how a lot of my disabled friends are feeling now and I cannot blame them." I think you need to read that report again. It states effectiveness against showing symptomatic disease and is basically talking about mild cases. The final paragraphs talk about there not being enough data to determine effectiveness against hospitalisation and deaths but that the percentages will be very much higher, | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"That's not how the stats work though. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the vaccine is 50% effective at preventing serious disease from COVID in your demographic group. That does NOT mean you have a 50/50 chance of serious illness if you get COVID. The first question is "what would my risk of serious illness from COVID be if I was not vaccinated [for my demographic group]?" Next question: "what does a reduction of 50% of that risk equate to?" And that's your answer. Let's use me as an example (white female, 36yrs old, a bit overweight but no other significant health problems that impact COVID). You can use the QRisk tool to calculate your own absolute and relative risks (Google it). The absolute risk of serious illness (defined as needing hospital treatment) from COVID for me if I was unvaccinated is, according to QRisk, about 0.0897% or 1 in 1,115. The absolute risk to me becoming seriously ill is already pretty damn low. If I now reduce the risk above by 50% (assuming that's what my vaccine has given me, for the sake of this illustration), we get the following: 50% of 0.0897 is 0.04485 I subtract that 50% value from the original risk to give me 0.04485%, which is my new absolute risk. That equates to a vanishingly small absolute risk indeed. In reality, if I selected "yes" in the QRisk tool to the question "have you had a COVID vaccine", the calculator re-estimates my absolute risk of hospitalisation due to COVID as being 0.0082% or 1 in 12,195. Much more than a 50% absolute risk reduction because the data being published in the media is averaged out across all age, socioeconomic and health statuses etc. In reality, in people who are not elderly and/or who do not have immunosuppression, the vaccines are far more effective than 50% at reducing the risk of severe infection. Any vaccine is far less efficacious in elderly or immunosuppressed people - this is why the annual flu vaccine given to the over 65s is a different formulation to that given to younger people and why we recommend additional vaccines for people who do not have a spleen or who have cancer treatment, for example. The vaccines on the market are very effective at preventing serious illness from COVID. They're far more effective than the majority of the seasonal flu vaccines, for example, some of which have struggled to get into the 30-40% risk reduction area (depending year and strains circulating). However, pretty much no-one has questioned this data and have gone back (if eligible) for their next year's flu vaccine. " What a fantastic and informative post 
Wish there was more if this around here!
Can I just add that there is in fact a step(s) before your first step...
Actually catching Covid!
There has to be a % likelihood of catching Covid based on socio-economic conditions and behaviour.
For example, if you work from home and live alone you are at less risk than if you WFH but have kids in school. If you commute for work the risk increases. If your job is customer facing with high footfall and dwell time, your risk increases. If you are regularly going to the pub each evening, your risk increases etc.
However, there risk mitigations you can take such as masks indoors, walk to work (if you can), sit outside in pub beer garden etc etc
So the calculation actually has an earlier step to get an accurate risk profile percentage. | |||
| |||
"That's not how the stats work though. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the vaccine is 50% effective at preventing serious disease from COVID in your demographic group. That does NOT mean you have a 50/50 chance of serious illness if you get COVID. The first question is "what would my risk of serious illness from COVID be if I was not vaccinated [for my demographic group]?" Next question: "what does a reduction of 50% of that risk equate to?" And that's your answer. Let's use me as an example (white female, 36yrs old, a bit overweight but no other significant health problems that impact COVID). You can use the QRisk tool to calculate your own absolute and relative risks (Google it). The absolute risk of serious illness (defined as needing hospital treatment) from COVID for me if I was unvaccinated is, according to QRisk, about 0.0897% or 1 in 1,115. The absolute risk to me becoming seriously ill is already pretty damn low. If I now reduce the risk above by 50% (assuming that's what my vaccine has given me, for the sake of this illustration), we get the following: 50% of 0.0897 is 0.04485 I subtract that 50% value from the original risk to give me 0.04485%, which is my new absolute risk. That equates to a vanishingly small absolute risk indeed. In reality, if I selected "yes" in the QRisk tool to the question "have you had a COVID vaccine", the calculator re-estimates my absolute risk of hospitalisation due to COVID as being 0.0082% or 1 in 12,195. Much more than a 50% absolute risk reduction because the data being published in the media is averaged out across all age, socioeconomic and health statuses etc. In reality, in people who are not elderly and/or who do not have immunosuppression, the vaccines are far more effective than 50% at reducing the risk of severe infection. Any vaccine is far less efficacious in elderly or immunosuppressed people - this is why the annual flu vaccine given to the over 65s is a different formulation to that given to younger people and why we recommend additional vaccines for people who do not have a spleen or who have cancer treatment, for example. The vaccines on the market are very effective at preventing serious illness from COVID. They're far more effective than the majority of the seasonal flu vaccines, for example, some of which have struggled to get into the 30-40% risk reduction area (depending year and strains circulating). However, pretty much no-one has questioned this data and have gone back (if eligible) for their next year's flu vaccine. " Thanks KC.. For those who wish the virus forum scrapped in some bizarre censorship, informative and helpful information such as this would be a casualty of such.. | |||
"That's not how the stats work though. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the vaccine is 50% effective at preventing serious disease from COVID in your demographic group. That does NOT mean you have a 50/50 chance of serious illness if you get COVID. The first question is "what would my risk of serious illness from COVID be if I was not vaccinated [for my demographic group]?" Next question: "what does a reduction of 50% of that risk equate to?" And that's your answer. Let's use me as an example (white female, 36yrs old, a bit overweight but no other significant health problems that impact COVID). You can use the QRisk tool to calculate your own absolute and relative risks (Google it). The absolute risk of serious illness (defined as needing hospital treatment) from COVID for me if I was unvaccinated is, according to QRisk, about 0.0897% or 1 in 1,115. The absolute risk to me becoming seriously ill is already pretty damn low. If I now reduce the risk above by 50% (assuming that's what my vaccine has given me, for the sake of this illustration), we get the following: 50% of 0.0897 is 0.04485 I subtract that 50% value from the original risk to give me 0.04485%, which is my new absolute risk. That equates to a vanishingly small absolute risk indeed. In reality, if I selected "yes" in the QRisk tool to the question "have you had a COVID vaccine", the calculator re-estimates my absolute risk of hospitalisation due to COVID as being 0.0082% or 1 in 12,195. Much more than a 50% absolute risk reduction because the data being published in the media is averaged out across all age, socioeconomic and health statuses etc. In reality, in people who are not elderly and/or who do not have immunosuppression, the vaccines are far more effective than 50% at reducing the risk of severe infection. Any vaccine is far less efficacious in elderly or immunosuppressed people - this is why the annual flu vaccine given to the over 65s is a different formulation to that given to younger people and why we recommend additional vaccines for people who do not have a spleen or who have cancer treatment, for example. The vaccines on the market are very effective at preventing serious illness from COVID. They're far more effective than the majority of the seasonal flu vaccines, for example, some of which have struggled to get into the 30-40% risk reduction area (depending year and strains circulating). However, pretty much no-one has questioned this data and have gone back (if eligible) for their next year's flu vaccine. Thanks KC.. For those who wish the virus forum scrapped in some bizarre censorship, informative and helpful information such as this would be a casualty of such.." I hope I read this right, but there is an online tool for accessing risk of catching covid, calculation of vaccine effectiveness and how long the vaccine will work? | |||
| |||
"*grrr typos and missing words (bloody small iphone keyboard) In simple terms: 1. Risk of exposure and catching 2. Demographic and personal health related risk profile 3. Effectiveness of vaccine" 
My comments purely looked at the risk of hospitalisation if you catch COVID because the question was about vaccine efficacy and the vaccine has no impact on whether you are exposed to COVID in the first place (if that makes sense?) | |||
"No, there is an online tool called QRisk that calculates your risk of hospitalisation and death from COVID, based on your demographics. It does not calculate risk of catching it. It takes into account vaccine status when giving an output but does not state anything about how long vaccine derived immunity lasts. Why not have a look at it for yourself, instead of making assumptions? It's called QRisk. " Can you please stop making assumption, why is it so hard on here my god, everything is your this and your that. can you explain if you wish what this symbol means ??? thanks. and you really do not have to answer I not making an assumption or anything. how rude. do you know me? | |||
| |||
"*grrr typos and missing words (bloody small iphone keyboard) In simple terms: 1. Risk of exposure and catching 2. Demographic and personal health related risk profile 3. Effectiveness of vaccine
My comments purely looked at the risk of hospitalisation if you catch COVID because the question was about vaccine efficacy and the vaccine has no impact on whether you are exposed to COVID in the first place (if that makes sense?)"Of course totally makes sense. I wanted to add that as the OP was generally concerned and it seemed right to point out the first stage in the risk analysis. | |||
| |||
"Your metaphor is flawed OP, it's nothing like Russian Roulette, with multiple bullets, unless you were to be immuno-compromised and very likely to be fatally ill, from the Omicrom variant. You read the summary, I assume, which does not seem to indicate potential excessive fatalities after a booster dose. " Thank you, thats very helpful as have most folks been on this forum thread. I feel a lot more happier understanding and appreciating my own results using the tool (and understanding my own erroneous logic too.) As someone mentioned earlier above, threads like this are why it's a good idea to keep sub-forums like this around.  | |||
"I think they thought that the vac would stop infection and transmission, hence the pressure and constant media onslaught against those that chose not to accept it (likely due to fear not anti vaccine reasons) to bully them into accepting (particularly young people that would 99% likely not get anything worse than a cold) and it’s done neither of these thing, with new variants hence the massive numbers in every country 3 jabs in. They have to abandon it because people won’t accept that they have to take an injection every year to participate in society and I don’t blame them. The boosters will be there for those that need them most that’s what matters. "
It's only by reserving vaccines for those who need them most here, that we have half a chance of getting vaccines to those who need them most in low and middle income countries. We've had a year of trying to be insular and only think about our own country. Perhaps now it's finally time for a concerted global effort to focus on the most vulnerable. | |||
"I think they thought that the vac would stop infection and transmission, hence the pressure and constant media onslaught against those that chose not to accept it (likely due to fear not anti vaccine reasons) to bully them into accepting (particularly young people that would 99% likely not get anything worse than a cold) and it’s done neither of these thing, with new variants hence the massive numbers in every country 3 jabs in. They have to abandon it because people won’t accept that they have to take an injection every year to participate in society and I don’t blame them. The boosters will be there for those that need them most that’s what matters.
It's only by reserving vaccines for those who need them most here, that we have half a chance of getting vaccines to those who need them most in low and middle income countries. We've had a year of trying to be insular and only think about our own country. Perhaps now it's finally time for a concerted global effort to focus on the most vulnerable. "global effort wont happen watched a programe about az the other night every developed country are hoarding jabs for there own people and as for covax so far astra zeneca have handed over just over 100 million doses phizer have handed about 10 million over and j&j and moderna have handed over zero,oh and 10 individuals involved with these companys have become billionaires | |||
"Your metaphor is flawed OP, it's nothing like Russian Roulette, with multiple bullets, unless you were to be immuno-compromised and very likely to be fatally ill, from the Omicrom variant. You read the summary, I assume, which does not seem to indicate potential excessive fatalities after a booster dose. Thank you, thats very helpful as have most folks been on this forum thread. I feel a lot more happier understanding and appreciating my own results using the tool (and understanding my own erroneous logic too.) As someone mentioned earlier above, threads like this are why it's a good idea to keep sub-forums like this around. "I'm really glad you have been educated by KC (who we are lucky to have on the forum) to the facts, how the maths works and the correct tools that can be used to calculate risk. Hopefully now as your better informed with hindsight you can see how your original post was actually quite dangerous, it was highly emotive, totally inaccurate and those types of posts / messages spread fear, panic etc to other less informed people. I'm glad you are now able to work with the facts relative to youdself OP. KJ | |||
" I'm really glad you have been educated by KC (who we are lucky to have on the forum) to the facts, how the maths works and the correct tools that can be used to calculate risk. Hopefully now as your better informed with hindsight you can see how your original post was actually quite dangerous, it was highly emotive, totally inaccurate and those types of posts / messages spread fear, panic etc to other less informed people. I'm glad you are now able to work with the facts relative to youdself OP. KJ" Thank you KJ. It was never intended as such but you are right, on follow up reading it's neither helpful or informative, not accurate. And that's what I need now, accuracy. 2 things I would dearly love to know. 1. My level of antibodies against covid 2. The current efficacy of the vaccination in my system. Then I can make better judgements on going out or not !
| |||
| |||
" I'm really glad you have been educated by KC (who we are lucky to have on the forum) to the facts, how the maths works and the correct tools that can be used to calculate risk. Hopefully now as your better informed with hindsight you can see how your original post was actually quite dangerous, it was highly emotive, totally inaccurate and those types of posts / messages spread fear, panic etc to other less informed people. I'm glad you are now able to work with the facts relative to youdself OP. KJ Thank you KJ. It was never intended as such but you are right, on follow up reading it's neither helpful or informative, not accurate. And that's what I need now, accuracy. 2 things I would dearly love to know. 1. My level of antibodies against covid 2. The current efficacy of the vaccination in my system. Then I can make better judgements on going out or not !
"Antibodies aren't the only indicator of immunity and levels of circulating antibodies is always going to fall if you are not exposed to the antigen (thing that stimulates antibodies). Your immune system makes memory cells (B memory and T memory) that sit in your lymphatic tissue. If you encounter the antigen again in future, the B memory cells can differentiate into plasma cells (which make antibodies) and T memory cells can differentiate into cytotoxic T cells (ones that can kill infected cells). It's almost impossible to measure levels of memory cell in the body. They sit in lymphatic tissue, such as the thymus and spleen and cannot easily be measured by blood tests etc. Unless you are over 60/65 and/or known to be immunosuppressed, if you had two or three vaccine doses, you will have a decent level of immunity to COVID. You will know if you are immunosuppressed because you will be getting ill with any and every pathogen going or will know you are on certain medication e.g. chemotherapy, biologic drugs for autoimmunity etc. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The relaxation of the rules will allow omicon to spread to boost protection. " Which will only encourage more opportunities for new mutants to emerge. Mutants may be no more harmful than present or could be wildly more pathogenic or transmissible. It's completely random. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The relaxation of the rules will allow omicon to spread to boost protection. " Protection after infection is pretty short though in the region of 2 to 3 months. | |||
"The relaxation of the rules will allow omicon to spread to boost protection. Protection after infection is pretty short though in the region of 2 to 3 months." Wrong! It might diminish but it is not ineffective | |||
| |||
"The relaxation of the rules will allow omicon to spread to boost protection. Which will only encourage more opportunities for new mutants to emerge. Mutants may be no more harmful than present or could be wildly more pathogenic or transmissible. It's completely random. " Hold on a mo! this is making sense could we see the a reboot of the teenage mutants ninja turtles! Sorry I couldn't resist  | |||
"Yay,lets hide away forever just incase it mutates!!!" No, let's help with vaccinating more than just our own citizens to minimise the opportunity for mass infection (on a global scale) and maintain sensible, low cost/difficulty measures, such as using masks, paying proper sick pay so ill people don't spread it around, not encouraging unnecessary piling of people into trains, buses and offices when they can (if they wish) work at home and other similar measures. | |||
| |||
| |||
"While coronavirus shots still provided protection during the omicron wave, the shield of coverage they offered was weaker than during other surges, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The change resulted in much higher rates of infection, hospitalization and death for fully vaccinated adults and even for people who had received boosters." Because they were the older demographic and so are closer to the end of life than the majority of vaccinated people. Nothing to see here | |||
| |||
"All viruses tend to becoming more infectious and less deadly. " This is incorrect. Mutations are random and are conserved if there is a niche for that mutation to occupy. Mutations of SARS-CoV-2 in future could just as easily cause more severe symptoms or a different array of symptoms. We'll only find out by letting it continue to infect millions of people, who can all act as experimental incubators of the virus  | |||
 | |||
| |||
"You understand the principle of natural selection. That which proliferates, dominates; that which leads to this is selected. Well for a virus consider the pool of mutants. Which is going to proliferate more: more or less infectiousness? That part is clear. Okay, now what about how virulent it is. If it’s virulent you’re going to be spending less time interacting with people and it’ll spread and so proliferate less. This is a basic fact and why the dominant strains have become more infectious whilst less deadly Don’t chat poo x" Fact check https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-011488089270 CLAIM: No virus has ever mutated to become more lethal. As viruses mutate, they become less lethal. AP ASSESSMENT: False. There are documented cases of viruses becoming more deadly. THE FACTS: As the spread of coronavirus variants raise new public health questions, social media users are sharing misinformation about how viruses mutate. A post on Facebook reads, “In the history of virology, there has never, EVER, been a viral mutation that resulted in a virus that was MORE lethal. As viruses mutate, they become more contagious/transmissible and LESS lethal.” But in fact, there have been cases of viruses that mutated to become more deadly. “That claim as a whole is just nonsense,” said Troy Day, a professor of mathematics and biology at Queen’s University in Canada, who has studied the ways infectious diseases, including coronavirus, can evolve. Some examples of viruses that became more deadly over time include those that developed drug resistant variants, and animal viruses such as bird flu, which were harmless to humans initially but then mutated to become capable of killing people, according to Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security. “Flu viruses have developed resistance to certain antivirals that make them more difficult to treat, and therefore make them more deadly,” Adalja said, also noting the same has happened with HIV and certain Hepatitis C strains. Viruses constantly mutate as they copy themselves. Some mutations may not make meaningful changes, while others can give the virus new characteristics. While early scientific theories suggested that as viruses evolved, they would become more contagious and less lethal to keep spreading, over time the scientific community has acknowledged that’s not always the case. “Becoming more transmissible and less lethal are absolutely what’s best for the pathogen,” said Day. “But the problem is that it’s not always possible, and in many instances is never possible, to be more transmissible and also less lethal.” Day said there are documented cases of animal viruses that evolved over time to become more lethal, including myxoma virus in rabbits and Marek’s disease in chicken. Some viruses provoke severe symptoms in their hosts that make it easier to transmit the virus to others. But those same symptoms can wind up killing the hosts. Adalja said one example is Ebola, a deadly virus that spreads through the blood and body fluids of infected people. Another example is norovirus, which causes diarrhea and vomiting, and leads to hundreds of deaths each year in the U.S. “The virus, speaking anthropomorphically, just wants to spread and have its genes replicated,” said Adalja. “If the best way for it is to spread by causing severe symptoms it will continue to do that.” ___ This is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform. | |||
| |||
| |||
"*tend* They tend to. Big power law applies here. Did I say it’s never happened? Look up what the big power law is. Also I’m not anti-vax here or otherwise. You just don’t know what you’re talking about." My degree is in microbiology and I teach biology to foundation degree students. I know what I'm talking about regarding how mutations occur and why they might persist. But thank you anyway. | |||
| |||
| |||
"(Oh but the AP doesn’t know then?) No, they don’t claim differently RE tending towards more infectious less deadly" You did not say it has never happened. But at the same time, the claim you made and which is widely circulated shows certainty. And it is the certainty of this statement that AP fact checks by giving a number of examples. Then I guess we both agree with AP fact check, that what you claimed is not a certainty. | |||
"You’re not a very knowledgeable teacher then. And yeah the faulty copies are recessive alleles. " Some real Dunning-Kruger effect going on here. Always enjoyable. | |||
"You’re not a very knowledgeable teacher then. And yeah the faulty copies are recessive alleles. Some real Dunning-Kruger effect going on here. Always enjoyable. " I know what D-K effect is *doh* so *duerghhhh* that means you actually think you’re smarter than you are | |||
| |||
| |||
"You’re not a very knowledgeable teacher then. And yeah the faulty copies are recessive alleles. " Not all faulty genes are recessive alleles. Huntington's is an autosomal dominant condition. Sickle cell anaemia is an example where co-dominance generates a third phenotype in the heterozygous individuals. | |||
"You’re not a very knowledgeable teacher then. And yeah the faulty copies are recessive alleles. Not all faulty genes are recessive alleles. Huntington's is an autosomal dominant condition. Sickle cell anaemia is an example where co-dominance generates a third phenotype in the heterozygous individuals." Sickle I knew. Huntington that’s interesting. I wonder why it persists. Must be some advantage earlier in life. | |||
"You’re not a very knowledgeable teacher then. And yeah the faulty copies are recessive alleles. Not all faulty genes are recessive alleles. Huntington's is an autosomal dominant condition. Sickle cell anaemia is an example where co-dominance generates a third phenotype in the heterozygous individuals. Sickle I knew. Huntington that’s interesting. I wonder why it persists. Must be some advantage earlier in life. " The fact the symptoms generally only present themselves in adulthood, after people have reproduced. Also there's some evidence that people who have the HD allele are more fertile but it's hard to separate this out from cultural reasons why people may have more children. HD is not the only example of a dominant mutation. Other examples include types of dwarfism, Marfan syndrome, familial hypercholesterolemia and a bunch of other things. | |||
| |||
"The fertile bit makes sense. " It's not entirely proven. The pockets of the world with very high rates of HD are also traditional communities who might have more children for cultural reasons. Plenty of research papers are available online about it. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Huntington also has a sporadic aspect too, doesn't it? Penetrance also affected by number of CAG repeats, if I remember correctly. " The age of onset and rapidity of advancement of symptoms is linked to how many extra CAG repeats are present in the mutated allele, yes. Juvenile onset HD is caused by a large repeating CAG sequence but is very rare. | |||
| |||
"What seems to have been missed is that though your antibodies are waning you still have memory B cells and memory T cells which react to an infection and take on (destroy) the virus " That also counts for natural immunity through past infection, no? | |||
| |||
"What seems to have been missed is that though your antibodies are waning you still have memory B cells and memory T cells which react to an infection and take on (destroy) the virus That also counts for natural immunity through past infection, no? " Theoretically, yes. But we don't know how long memory cells against this particular virus will last and it's impossible to measure them. Some diseases require only one exposure for lifelong immunity. Others require either frequent re-exposure naturally or repeated vaccination throughout life to maintain immunity. A good article can be found at the following reference: Pollard, A.J., Bijker, E.M. A guide to vaccinology: from basic principles to new developments. Nat Rev Immunol 21, 83–100 (2021). | |||
"What seems to have been missed is that though your antibodies are waning you still have memory B cells and memory T cells which react to an infection and take on (destroy) the virus That also counts for natural immunity through past infection, no? Theoretically, yes. But we don't know how long memory cells against this particular virus will last and it's impossible to measure them. Some diseases require only one exposure for lifelong immunity. Others require either frequent re-exposure naturally or repeated vaccination throughout life to maintain immunity. A good article can be found at the following reference: Pollard, A.J., Bijker, E.M. A guide to vaccinology: from basic principles to new developments. Nat Rev Immunol 21, 83–100 (2021)." 100%, but knowing that variants become weaker and weaker would reinfection with weaker variants not be less and less harmful every time? I quote my last chat with my oncologist on the day of my first chemo: O: "We're putting you on most aggressive chemo treatment due to your age" Me: "okay, what should I look out for?" O: "live your life as normal as you can. It'll make you feel bad for a few days after, but any other time you'll be okay" Me: "what about getting flu or covid?" O: "if you have high temp, just ring this number and we'll fast forward you through a&e if anything goes wrong. Did you have covid?" Me: "yes, I did, end of august" O: "you might get it again, but you'll be grand" Me: "I have had a bit of high temp last two days" O: "what was it?" Me: "37.3" O: "when was your last period?" Me: "3ish weeks ago" O: "you're probably ovulating. Come back to me when you have real temperature". Obviously the conversion was a lot broader and longer, covering all bases, but so far I've seen 7 different consultants, 2 surgeons and dozens of nurses. Only one person asked me if I'm vaccinated. It was a nurse, who was filling a pre op questionnaire. Are all these nhs staff, who are high up, who are dealing with cancer patients on a daily basis inadequate? Or do they see through the real efficiency of this vaccine? P.S. My stepmom, who is now legally disabled after her second jab now is extremely poorly with covid. | |||
". Are all these nhs staff, who are high up, who are dealing with cancer patients on a daily basis inadequate? Or do they see through the real efficiency of this vaccine? " No they just treat your most immediate needs | |||
". Are all these nhs staff, who are high up, who are dealing with cancer patients on a daily basis inadequate? Or do they see through the real efficiency of this vaccine? No they just treat your most immediate needs" So you're saying strangers on fab are more concerned with my vaccination status than consultants and surgeons? | |||
". Are all these nhs staff, who are high up, who are dealing with cancer patients on a daily basis inadequate? Or do they see through the real efficiency of this vaccine? No they just treat your most immediate needs So you're saying strangers on fab are more concerned with my vaccination status than consultants and surgeons? " What makes you think anyone actually cares about your vaccination status ? | |||
"What seems to have been missed is that though your antibodies are waning you still have memory B cells and memory T cells which react to an infection and take on (destroy) the virus That also counts for natural immunity through past infection, no? " It may do, though the immunity gained from Covid infections isn't as reliable as gained via vaccination. Some infections may result in inadequate or almost non-existent immunity. The vaccines have demonstrable levels of immunity, as the supporting research evidence showed. | |||
"What seems to have been missed is that though your antibodies are waning you still have memory B cells and memory T cells which react to an infection and take on (destroy) the virus That also counts for natural immunity through past infection, no? It may do, though the immunity gained from Covid infections isn't as reliable as gained via vaccination. Some infections may result in inadequate or almost non-existent immunity. The vaccines have demonstrable levels of immunity, as the supporting research evidence showed. " They also have a demonstrable level of waning immunity within weeks of getting it. | |||
". Are all these nhs staff, who are high up, who are dealing with cancer patients on a daily basis inadequate? Or do they see through the real efficiency of this vaccine? No they just treat your most immediate needs So you're saying strangers on fab are more concerned with my vaccination status than consultants and surgeons? What makes you think anyone actually cares about your vaccination status ?" Fools who think I'm some kind of conspiracy theory anti vaxer. Obviously. | |||
"What seems to have been missed is that though your antibodies are waning you still have memory B cells and memory T cells which react to an infection and take on (destroy) the virus That also counts for natural immunity through past infection, no? It may do, though the immunity gained from Covid infections isn't as reliable as gained via vaccination. Some infections may result in inadequate or almost non-existent immunity. The vaccines have demonstrable levels of immunity, as the supporting research evidence showed. They also have a demonstrable level of waning immunity within weeks of getting it. " Really ? Where is it demonstrable ? It's a multi vaccine like Hepb where several doses are required for full immunity. | |||
