Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Around the Campfire: 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 182  
Prev  |  Next
way2roll

Wilmington NC

Senior Member

Joined: 10/05/2018

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 09/22/21 10:56am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

dturm wrote:

Previous NIH from Dr. Collins wrote:

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What’s more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

It’s not entirely clear why these differences in vaccine- and infection-elicited antibody responses exist. In both cases, RBD-directed antibodies are acquired from the immune system’s recognition and response to viral spike proteins. The Seattle team suggests these differences may arise because the vaccine presents the viral protein in slightly different conformations.


Actually, I don't agree that previous PCR positive test should be a valid opt out of vaccination or equivalent to vaccination. My understanding is that there is a tremendous variability in antibody level production in people who are infected with COVID, often dependent on severity of their disease. Those who believe that previous infection always protects from re-infection are probably taking unnecessary risks.

Also, evaluating immune competence in fighting a disease is more complex that measuring an antibody level. That's the easiest test we have right now, but evidence now is that vaccination after having COVID is appropriate.


* This post was edited 09/22/21 12:12pm by way2roll *


2020 F350 STX 6.7L Turbo Diesel
2020 FR Cedar Creek Silverback 29rw

way2roll

Wilmington NC

Senior Member

Joined: 10/05/2018

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 09/22/21 10:58am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Moderator wrote:

way2roll wrote:

So back to my point, with natural antibodies equivalent to the protection of a vaccination, shouldn't the mandate be - Vaccination OR a recent antibody test?


Simple answer is NO! And the current data bears that out. Getting vaccinated is the best route, period.

Let's move on folks. Thanks.


BCSnob wrote:

This recent preprint indirectly addressed your question.

Equivalency of Protection from Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
MedRxiv preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461

Quote:

CONCLUSIONS: While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naive populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 09/22/21 11:19am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

The study upon which the director at the nih based his opinion comes from testing serum from 14 Moderna vaccinated patients and 17 previously infected patients. I worry that these samples may not be representative of an entire population of immune responses to vaccination and infection.

Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccina........ than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection

This study likely suggests why moderna has a higher vaccine effectiveness against delta than Pfizer; binding to a wide range of RBD single point mutations.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 09/22/21 11:27am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

"Previous infection plus vaccination provided better protection against the delta variant than just vaccination" (BCsnob)

This is the premise for me liking the Primer + Booster protocol format. The same holds true for Johnson and Johnson's yesterday's revelation that an increased time interval between 1st and 2nd dosing significantly improved the efficacy of the series.

My question:

Has anyone investigated reversing the sequence?

First dosing with mRNA vaccine to establish an adequate level of immunity

Then boosting with

An Adeno based booster after a minimum of 60 days?

I realize a hetero based killed virus vaccine in not in the US vaccine formulary.

Something amplifying the spectrum width of antibodies seems to be becoming more and more critical as time passes. The days of zoonotic danger are upon us.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 09/22/21 12:04pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Here is a literature review article on this subject from June 2021

To mix or not to mix? A rapid systematic........ologous prime–boost covid-19 vaccination

Quote:

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, Research Square, and SSRN were searched to investigate the immunogenicity and reactogenicity associated with heterologous vaccination

As of 30 June 2021, four trials including 1,862 participants were identified. Heterologous administration of BNT162b2 (BNT) in ChAdOx1 (ChAd)-primed participants (ChAd/BNT) showed noninferior immunogenicity to homologous BNT administration (both prime and booster were BNT vaccines, BNT/BNT) with tolerable reactogenicity and higher T cell responses. Compared with homologous ChAdOX1 vaccination (ChAd/ChAd), heterologous ChAd/BNT was found to elicit higher immunogenicity (ChAd/BNT vs. ChAd/ChAd, antibody titer ratio: 9.2).


MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 09/22/21 01:17pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

THANK YOU SIR. Someone needs to prod the industry to further investigate bi immunization efficacy with double blind trials which I feel is the only valid answer of superior protection against variants. Being a (retired) theoretician I am doubtful of information devoid of hard numbers. Even though my discipline is electromagnetics my 2 years of virology left me a deep respect for the complexity of human immune systems.

I have prior experience reading your suggested article. The enhanced T cell count by itself should have encouraged a robust interest in bi inoculation protocol investigation. Human trials using a multi faceted approach.

pianotuna

Regina, SK, Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 12/18/2004

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 09/22/21 01:37pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BCSnob wrote:



Quote:

Of 2,625 participants who experienced at least one COVID-19 infection during the 10-month study period, 156 (5.94%) experienced reinfection and 540 (20.57%) experienced recurrence after prior infection.


I'm not sure I understand the difference between reinfection and recurrence.

Does recurrence mean a "flare up" after one has recovered?


Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, 556 amp-hours of Telcom jars, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 09/22/21 02:05pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

The problem with reinfection is how does one identify a true reinfection.

This is a quote from the intro of the linked study.
Quote:

Based on the current available data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently defined 90 days as the cut-off for retesting after a COVID-19 positive PCR test, given assumptions that primary infection can still result in a positive test for up to 90 days and that people with COVID-19 are protected from true reinfection for at least 90 days (Interim Guidance CDC).20 Additionally, one recent article proposed three detailed definitions of COVID-19 reinfection, specifically confirmed reinfection (characteristic clinical symptoms, positive PCR test result, positive viral culture if performed, >90 days from original infection, and viral RNA sequencing from both infections documenting unique strains); clinical reinfection (characteristic clinical symptoms, positive PCR test result, positive viral culture if performed, and epidemiological risk factor like known exposure with no other cause); and epidemiological reinfection (symptomatic or asymptomatic, positive PCR test result, positive viral culture if performed, and epidemiological risk factor like known exposure).4 Use of these definitions in research would promote more clarity and unity in results reporting.


The linked study chose to use two terms for those with positive PCR tests after they had a prior positive PCR test. These two definitions allowed them to capture all positive PCR tests (after a prior infection) and objectively identify those highly likely to have a reinfection based upon the information in the first quote.

Quote:

The primary outcome, incidence of COVID-19 reinfection, represents the second documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR result for COVID-19 infection 90 or more days after a prior documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR result.

The secondary outcome, incidence of COVID-19 recurrence, represents the second documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR result after the initial documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR result, irrespective of time between positive results.


* This post was edited 09/22/21 02:16pm by BCSnob *

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 09/22/21 03:02pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Here’s a little USA history on vaccine passports and mandates from Time

Quote:

The year was 1885. U.S. border officials in the late 19th century did not expect travelers to carry the identification documents that international transit requires today—but they did often require passengers to provide evidence that they had been vaccinated from smallpox. Whether at ports of entry including New York’s Ellis Island and San Francisco’s Angel Island, or along the U.S. border with Canada or Mexico, officials expected border-crossers to prove their immunity. As an El Paso newspaper put it in 1910, travelers needed to show one of three things: “A vaccination certificate, a properly scarred arm, or a pitted face” indicating that they had survived smallpox.


Quote:

By the late 19th century, American public health professionals pushed for an even more aggressive approach to vaccination. During another smallpox outbreak in Tennessee, in 1882 to 1883, for example, a Memphis newspaper reported, “At Chattanooga, when a doctor and a policeman enter a house together the folks inside know that they have to show a scar, be vaccinated, or answer to the law. There is no nonsense in that way of stamping out disease and saving life.”


Smallpox is ~10x more fatal than COVID-19

* This post was edited 09/22/21 03:15pm by BCSnob *

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 09/22/21 05:50pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Please, all claims of COVID lethality should be integrated with an age group. Thank you.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 182  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2022 CWI, Inc. © 2022 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.