The continuation of Eve's embedded report

Re: A few observations from embedded reporter

Hi Andy.. this paper of significant importance has lingered in review for almost 2 months. Either spike it with a clear flaw, or 'follow the science' as they say.) In the mean time, can you point me to the research you found that shows vaccinated people are better protected from a first infection than Covid survivors are from a reinfection? I looked and couldn't find any.

The Pfizer mRNA vaccine affording greater protection than natural immunity was among the many findings in a large UK study, that had a primary goal of assessing Delta’s impact on vaccine effectiveness. The Oxford/AstraZeneca adenovirus vector vaccine, which has been less effective than the mRNA vaccines, provided similar protection to natural immunity.

This UK study has some advantages over the preprint study from Israel that you are referencing but still has limitations that are noted in the article.

The study from Israel is being viewed as far from definitive. The main limitations that the peer reviewers have likely asked the authors to more fully address relate to properties of “test-seeking” behavior, the number of outcomes (infections, hospitalization, etc.) and the large odd ratios on which the conclusions are based. How long it takes the authors to reply to reviewers’ questions and concerns is often a rate-limiting step in article publication. The UK paper was, btw, posted as preprint in late August and published in mid-October.

“Real world” observational studies of natural immunity such as these present many more challenges and provide conclusions with lower confidence than Phase 3 vaccine efficacy studies, which can not address natural immunity. One looks for a preponderance of evidence and the strengths and weaknesses of each study.

Laboratory studies looking at infection vs. vaccine neutralizing antibody response (multiple have favored vaccines) are much more scientifically robust but only assess a limited part of the immune response and do not necessarily translate into clinical results.

The issue of vaccine vs. natural immunity does not have a clear scientific consensus. There are some expectations that the CDC will have more information and more to say in the next month. The topic of hybrid immunity may start filling more of those 24/7 slots that Eve mentioned.

In the meantime, perhaps it is best to leave debate and opinion about this topic to other forums.

BTW, nice "spike" (protein) pun, intentional or otherwise!
 
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter

Our ERocker Morgane is prepping your home away from home with the warmest of smiles...
248412483_3278373525746776_4193121874709744044_n.jpg
Morgane is welcome to prep my ER suite without a mask anytime she wants. YMMV
 
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter

Interesting bit of info from CNN — lPuerto Rico has become the most vaccinated place in America, with about 73% of its 3.3 million residents fully vaccinated against Covid-19.”

Our local news comes out of Savannah, just a half hour from us here in our part of SC. The reader on the ABC affiliate last nite was ecstatic as she said that GA has hit the 50 % vaccinated level, a long time coming over there, while our state has hit 54%. Neither governor has helped attain the current levels. Good for Puerto Rico !
 
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter

Thank you Izzy for the pointer to the excellent paper. Good reading for a rainy afternoon.

I agree that the words in the report, "The effectiveness of two [vaccine] doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection" agrees with yours and Andy's claim, but the papers actual reported data shows that the Pfizer vaccines starts off only slightly more effective (~85%) than natural immunity (~80%), and then tapers off such that within a month or two after vaccination is it less effective than natural immunity. The Astra Zenaca vaccine starts off worse (70%) than natural immunity and drops from there. Particularly noteworthy is that their data on my age group (35-64) show a less than 50% vaccine effectiveness for Astra Zenaca 3 months after vaccination. It seems the authors get away with their written claim of vaccines being "at least as great as" natural immunity only by averaging the two vaccines and squinting.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7/tables/2 (the right hand 3 columns with the 2nd and 3rd rows being the infections of interest.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7/figures/2 (the graph of vaccine effectiveness decaying over time.)


This mismatch of words and data seems not unusual for scientific research papers. They sometimes have to contort their written results into acceptable language to get published, but they quietly let you see the underlying data, in case you want to know what they really found. I bumped into this the hard way last spring by giving feedback on a paper of the form "hey you missed calling out this interesting and surprising result in your data!" The net result was that their paper then became unpublishable because no one wanted to print the findings that they actually had. I hadn't realized that the data they found was kind of a third rail for the grey-beards in their space and so they had been quietly hoping to sneak it in for others to uncover after publication, but once I flagged it, no one could un-see it. Oops.


Anyway, in the words of the cable show MythBusters, I would say that the claim that one should not let your room be cleaned by a naturally inoculated maid is 'busted.'


I am still a big fan of the vaccines and am glad I've gotten mine. The report make the case that the strongest preventative for catching covid is to have previously gotten it and then also have the vaccination, so congratulations to them. 90% effective and long lasting.


As a side note, I will try to avoid the habit we seem to have on this forum of calling for a end of discussion right after we ourselves have made all of our points. (Izzy, that's you I'm teasing...)
 
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter

... agrees with yours and Andy's claim... As a side note, I will try to avoid the habit we seem to have on this forum of calling for a end of discussion right after we ourselves have made all of our points. (Izzy, that's you I'm teasing...)

I do not believe that I have made any personal claims or offered my opinion regarding the effectiveness of vaccination vs. natural immunity. The strongest statement that I believe I have made is that there is no clear scientific consensus on this issue. I have no "points" that I wish to make regarding the topic on this forum. I have provided references that draw opposing conclusions.

For the references that I have provided in response to questions from Dennis and you, I have tried to be faithful to the authors statements and have stayed away from reanalyzing limited data, which can lead to faulty as well as valid conclusions. Straying into areas of opinion and debate is what I suggested woukd best be reserved for other nontravel forums.
 
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter

This whole thing should be in a « non-travel forum »
Mods disagree.
 
Top