I doubt people are going to respond that didn't receive it, after being publicly attacked and shamed for 2 years. Now everyone wants to just act like that mass psychosis never happened.
I've been vaxxed and boosted but have accepted that we won't really know the true efficacy of any of the stuff that went on during the pandemic for decades. Any dissent from the official line was treated as heresy. Can't do any real science in that kind of environment.
I got one shot, the J&J. Didn't want it, but was being threatened with termination at work. Have not had any boosters, and work has since dropped all their vaccine requirements.
Nothing is free. Some things are just paid for in other ways like taxes, debt, and inflation.
Also, I know zero people personally who've been seeiously affected by COVID. However,I personally know one pro vaccine person who was hospitalized by a heart attack immediately after his third shot.
The study estimates that risk of myocarditis is much, much higher than previously reported. We simply don't have the data because reporting has not been stringent and no one is doing the appropriate research: https://youtu.be/2mWZY6vmdBM
I've just been lazy to get the 4th, but I don't have any reason not to. I also haven't had covid yet (that I know of), so whatever I've been doing these last few years seems to have been working (primarily, I just wear a mask in enclosed public spaces).
I've noticed that there is a lot of anti-vax stuff surfacing on Twitter recently though (thanks Elon!), so maybe that is where the OP's comment is coming from. For example:
"extremely low risk" could still be of marginal benefit depending on how high your risk is for severe outcomes from COVID. It could be quite low if you are reasonably young, in good health, and have already recovered from an infection.
I know a couple that just got the bivalent boosters. Their teenage son got the first two shots, and subsequently developed a face tick/twitch. But their doctor told them it was nothing to worry about, just dry eye. These are people that I had spoken to in the past about the pointlessness of these vaccines in kids...but, oh well. I hope their son doesn't have any long term issues.
An anecdote is not data. I know about twenty couples (half are relatives, the rest friends and coworkers) who have gotten bivalent boosters, whose children have gotten 3-4 shots, and none of them have had any issues.
FWIW I am planning to go to an homeless centre and lie that I haven't had my 2rd booster (which I had in september). I took the opportunity to get the 2nd booster early in september because our gov. told us it was important and there was some stock that would have gone bad so people could volunteer (and they were announcing a spike infection). But it was a bivalent wuhan/delta, not the wuhan/omicron that was made available 2 weeks after I had the shot (we were told those wouldn't be available until this year.. damn lies).
There are no campaign for a 3rd booster in my country, and it doesn't look like they are planning to so far (which is an entirely different story).
I have to read a bit more to evaluate if it's safe or not before I act on my plan.
To be clear, I had: first dose: 2 MRNA shots, then a first booster then a second booster. Planning to get a 3rd.
"The spike protein in this vaccine is produced in insect cells; the Matrix M-adjuvant contains saponin extracts from the bark of the Soapbark tree that is native to Chile."
Definitely: they’re safe and effective against severe cases even if the current variants mean we don’t have a chance at a sterilizing vaccine for a while.
The majority of people now being hospitalized and dying of Covid are vaccinated.[1]
How is that safe and effective? You want to argue you're better off being vaccinated vs unvaccinated, you make that argument. Nobody gets to call it safe and effective anymore, the data says it's not true.
I got a fourth round, bivalent pfizer/BioNTech flavor, a couple weeks before I went to a conference in Boston. Didn’t get Covid there (a bunch of people I was with did), but there’s no way to know how much that was just luck.
I had a minimal reaction compared to the moderna ones I had for the first three moderna doses I had, I think because of the lower dose.
I got 4th right before an intl trip and wanted to take advantage of the initial high protection from infection. I have yet to get the virus to my knowledge so I'll probably keep boosting.
I find it hard to believe that anyone hasn’t had it due to how viruses work. Vaccines inherently require infection to work. If the virus never enters your respiratory system then the shot has no opportunity to work. Instead vaccines prevent symptoms by reducing the viral load. However, like HIV, herpes, chicken pox, etc. people who have been infected generally carry the virus for life and can continue to spread it for life depend on their current viral load. Odds are that you have caught a couple strains of post-2018 COVID, even if you’ve never been sick.
I went to 4, still haven't had covid, same for my wife and FiL.
Both my young kids had 2 shots and both got covid. Next flu season i intend to get my 5th.
tangent: I've been saying for some time: "What about a live vaccine?" Meaning an killed-virus version of COVID-19, not an adenovirus with additions. A killed vaccine would present all the proteins and give much better immunity.
But now the answer occurs to me: that's what Omicron and Krakus are doing, too. By now we've all been infected and reinfected, giving us all the value a killed-virus vaccine would have.
You get the RNA vaccine, then mild Omicron that doesn't kill, then mild Krakus that doesn't kill; and then you're as well protected as by getting the killed-virus vaccine, which just takes too long to create.
So maybe the real question posed by this study is, does a subsequent infection by Omicron reverse the toleration induced over time by the RNA?
Inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (that is, vaccines using virus copies that have been killed - live vaccines would be ones where the virus has been weakened) have been a thing for some time. IIRC China used a lot of them.
My understanding is that they're not quite as good as mRNA in terms of efficacy (though I haven't looked this up in some time.)
IgG4 is the class of immunoglobulin responsible for shifting immune response upon encountering some antigen from attack to tolerance, which is good for false positive pathogens like flower pollen that cause seasonal allergies. But that's of course not the type of response one would want from their immune system when encountering SARS-COV-2, since if the viral particles are being tolerated as opposed to being cleared by one's immune system, it leaves the viruses uninhibited to multiply and continuously damage your body.
IgG4 response is how your body would typically treat things like allergens that are basically harmless and don't need a full immune response. Covid needs a full immune response, and an IgG4 response suppresses that. You don't want your body to treat a virus the same way it treats pollen.
The others did a good job of the technical details. The higher level implication is that taking too many of the shots will appear to make you feel better in the short term but create long term internal damage, as the immune system won't fight the virus as effectively/at all and instead will let it get on with replicating.
So it seems the shots convert short term but temporary unpleasantness into long term serious problems - at which point, of course, they will be classed as not vaccine related because they didn't happen immediately.
As such the social implications of this discovery are more of the same. The population will continue to be split into camps that think all vaccines are perfect and reject any link with bad outcomes as not proven, denied by public health so it must be false. Public health bodies will continue refusing to break down incidence data by vaccine status, or will do so in fudged ways by redefining what "vaccinated" means. Other people will observe long term disparate outcomes between people who had lots of shots and others who had none, but if they try to speak about what they see they'll be shut down, told it's just anecdotes and not data and maybe fired. Polarization will continue to spiral.
Overall: this finding is bad, and the long term implications are bad.
Full title: "mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce comparably low long-term IgG Fc galactosylation and sialylation levels but increasing long-term IgG4 responses compared to an adenovirus-based vaccine"
This part means that natural immunity outperforms vaccine immunity in protecting against reinfection and spread of COVID-19 over time.
"
Discussion
Our study shows that the mRNA-containing LNP vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 induce high anti-S1 IgG and IgA levels in the blood as well as in the saliva, but these Ig levels steadily decrease over time and approach levels that are comparable to the long-term levels induced by two immunizations with the adenovirus-based vaccine AZD1222. In the long run, such pronounced anti-S1 IgG and (s)IgA reductions in the saliva likely reflect the declining protection against infection and from spreading in the respiratory tract of naïve individuals (16, 17). On the other hand, the observed stronger anti-S1 (s)IgA response in the saliva of previously infected vaccinees – likely generated by re-activation of infection-induced local (s)IgA+ memory B cells – might explain their recently described higher protection from infection and spreading
"
These sections indicate that natural immunity is more effective at preventing infection and spread of COVID-19 than vaccines.
"In summary, the data indicate that the high initial mRNA vaccine-induced anti-S1 IgG(1) and IgA responses decrease over time and approach levels induced with the adenovirus-based vaccine up to day 270. Higher and more stable anti-S1 (s)IgA levels in the saliva of pre-infected vaccinees might explain their higher protection from infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Intriguingly, the mRNA vaccines, and in particular the mRNA-1273 vaccine, induced increasing long-term anti-S1 serum IgG4 levels in naïve individuals with hitherto unclear influences on the fight against the pathogen. Naïve individuals vaccinated with the adenovirus-based vaccine did not show such long-term anti-S1 IgG4 response at least after two vaccinations until day 270.
"
Readit News
Also, I know zero people personally who've been seeiously affected by COVID. However,I personally know one pro vaccine person who was hospitalized by a heart attack immediately after his third shot.
To date there has only been a single prospective study on post vaccination myocarditis: https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196
The study estimates that risk of myocarditis is much, much higher than previously reported. We simply don't have the data because reporting has not been stringent and no one is doing the appropriate research: https://youtu.be/2mWZY6vmdBM
I've noticed that there is a lot of anti-vax stuff surfacing on Twitter recently though (thanks Elon!), so maybe that is where the OP's comment is coming from. For example:
https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/1614876088081211392
and the correct response (from Aug 2021):
https://twitter.com/BadVaccineTakes/status/14258035022746296...
Dead Comment
There are no campaign for a 3rd booster in my country, and it doesn't look like they are planning to so far (which is an entirely different story).
I have to read a bit more to evaluate if it's safe or not before I act on my plan.
To be clear, I had: first dose: 2 MRNA shots, then a first booster then a second booster. Planning to get a 3rd.
Is this you? <https://i.redd.it/08qwj2r4kyw61.jpg>
"The spike protein in this vaccine is produced in insect cells; the Matrix M-adjuvant contains saponin extracts from the bark of the Soapbark tree that is native to Chile."
How is that safe and effective? You want to argue you're better off being vaccinated vs unvaccinated, you make that argument. Nobody gets to call it safe and effective anymore, the data says it's not true.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinate...
As always, 4chan is one step ahead <https://i.redd.it/08qwj2r4kyw61.jpg>
Deleted Comment
But now the answer occurs to me: that's what Omicron and Krakus are doing, too. By now we've all been infected and reinfected, giving us all the value a killed-virus vaccine would have.
You get the RNA vaccine, then mild Omicron that doesn't kill, then mild Krakus that doesn't kill; and then you're as well protected as by getting the killed-virus vaccine, which just takes too long to create.
So maybe the real question posed by this study is, does a subsequent infection by Omicron reverse the toleration induced over time by the RNA?
My understanding is that they're not quite as good as mRNA in terms of efficacy (though I haven't looked this up in some time.)
So it seems the shots convert short term but temporary unpleasantness into long term serious problems - at which point, of course, they will be classed as not vaccine related because they didn't happen immediately.
As such the social implications of this discovery are more of the same. The population will continue to be split into camps that think all vaccines are perfect and reject any link with bad outcomes as not proven, denied by public health so it must be false. Public health bodies will continue refusing to break down incidence data by vaccine status, or will do so in fudged ways by redefining what "vaccinated" means. Other people will observe long term disparate outcomes between people who had lots of shots and others who had none, but if they try to speak about what they see they'll be shut down, told it's just anecdotes and not data and maybe fired. Polarization will continue to spiral.
Overall: this finding is bad, and the long term implications are bad.
" Discussion
Our study shows that the mRNA-containing LNP vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 induce high anti-S1 IgG and IgA levels in the blood as well as in the saliva, but these Ig levels steadily decrease over time and approach levels that are comparable to the long-term levels induced by two immunizations with the adenovirus-based vaccine AZD1222. In the long run, such pronounced anti-S1 IgG and (s)IgA reductions in the saliva likely reflect the declining protection against infection and from spreading in the respiratory tract of naïve individuals (16, 17). On the other hand, the observed stronger anti-S1 (s)IgA response in the saliva of previously infected vaccinees – likely generated by re-activation of infection-induced local (s)IgA+ memory B cells – might explain their recently described higher protection from infection and spreading "
These sections indicate that natural immunity is more effective at preventing infection and spread of COVID-19 than vaccines.
"In summary, the data indicate that the high initial mRNA vaccine-induced anti-S1 IgG(1) and IgA responses decrease over time and approach levels induced with the adenovirus-based vaccine up to day 270. Higher and more stable anti-S1 (s)IgA levels in the saliva of pre-infected vaccinees might explain their higher protection from infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Intriguingly, the mRNA vaccines, and in particular the mRNA-1273 vaccine, induced increasing long-term anti-S1 serum IgG4 levels in naïve individuals with hitherto unclear influences on the fight against the pathogen. Naïve individuals vaccinated with the adenovirus-based vaccine did not show such long-term anti-S1 IgG4 response at least after two vaccinations until day 270. "
Dead Comment
Dead Comment