Best Posts in Thread: Latest on Booster Shots

That cannot be correct as we have not yet met "every virus [that] ever will be".

And if the "tools" are insufficient to stop the host dying then they are definitely NOT "the required tools". The set of tools required by an immune system are to prevent infection of the host or to keep it at a low enough level to prevent the death of the host - this is what the host requires (also the virus).

The passive immunity we possess is simply not enough when we meet new pathogens and many of these new ones have crossed species and so are unknown to our immune systems. Also, any new pathogen will subvert the body's first lines of defence as a result of natural selection (those which can get into the cell will be the fittest and those which cannot will not be replicated). So the next battle between the host and pathogen is one of bringing in second lines of defence when the first have failed (if they succeed then there is no reproduction of the pathogen and no need for response from the second line of defence - such as natural antibody production). Again, survival of the fittest means that those pathogens knocked out by naturally produced antibodies will not go on to infect others and those which evade the antibodies will be the ones to pass to other hosts (meaning the next hosts have a harder task of dealing with them).

Also, there is an obvious connection between success in any battle of being forewarned and so forearmed - if the body had already met something akin to the pathogen then perhaps it can be ready to knock it out before is subverts the immune system in place. The best way to achieve this is to give the host a harmless equivalent of the pathogen - either by making it weak (attenuated), killing it (but retaining those features which elicit an immune response) or using parts of the pathogen (parts of the coat or cell wall, e.g. spike proteins; parts of the nucleic acid, e.g. mRNA). These will teach the host how to make the antibodies in a much faster way than relying solely on the body's own natural system.

How long this acquired immunity lasts depends on how strong it was in the first place and whether or not the pathogen mutates regularly - influenza virus has antigenic drift and so the outer coat changes, the body's immune system fails to recognise it sufficiently and so it causes an infection which can harm or destroy the host. Covid is acting in a similar way - mutating so that the body is less able to tackle the new variants.

I wrote the above from my own knowledge but will quote the following as it gives some figures (from https://www.livescience.com/why-lifelong-immunity.html)

"A 2007 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that it would take more than 200 years for even half of your antibodies to disappear after a measles or a mumps infection. The same study found similar results for Epstein-Barr virus, which causes mono [mononucleosis]. Still, antibody responses don't always last a lifetime. That same study found that it takes around 50 years to lose half of our chickenpox antibodies, and 11 years to lose half of our tetanus antibodies. That means that without a booster shot, you could theoretically become infected with one of these diseases as an adult. "

The evidence to date is overwhelming that Covid (a new virus without the history of mumps or measles to quote) is not sustaining a strong artificial immune response (some vaccinated individuals lose that immunity after just 3 months) and this is probably a mixture of a weak initial immunity and the tendency of Covid to mutate. In the same way that if a child or dog fails to understand an important instruction we know it is necessary to repeat it to reinforce it - the body seems to need to have the 'message' (the ability to produce effective antibodies against Covid) reinforced, but this will vary with individuals.

The evidence exists worldwide that two doses of vaccine (one dose for certain vaccines) are not sustaining a sufficient antibody level for long enough and so either we allow the virus to continue circulating the human population (evolving more dangerous variants) or we vaccinate as often as required. As I wrote recently, the existing (natural) immunity of the body is very clearly not sufficient - or else we would not have had vast increases in Covid infections pre-vaccines.

On this point, it is known that vaccination is reducing serious illness and death - that can be due only to the production of antibodies as the vaccines don't introduce antiviral chemicals or other antiviral products. The article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8319587 states "In SARS-CoV-2 the initial rapid waning of antibodies is thought to be due to the loss of short-lived plasma cells, while the plateau in antibody levels occurs due to establishment of long-lived plasma cells. The underlying causes of waning were investigated in a recent paper by Kaneko et al., which found the absence of germinal centres in the thoracic lymph nodes of deceased SARS-CoV-2 patients. They proposed this lack of germinal centres was due to defective Bcl6+ follicular T-cells, which are unable to activate memory B-cells (MBCs). In turn this would impair the production of long-lasting and high-affinity antibodies, which could explain the rapid waning of antibodies in SARS-CoV-2. A similar mechanism for rapid waning of antibodies was proposed in SARS-CoV, where it was found that the virus depleted key lymphocytes involved in immune signalling and affected germinal centre responses. However, since both studies were done on deceased patients, these mechanisms only explain waning in the most severe cases."

Therefore, if we allow antibody levels to wane then we are back to February 2020 (or near) and all the procedures having been introduced since then will have been wasted as the body count climbs again. This may be seen by some as a serious illness mostly of the elderly and ill but there is no reason why the virus cannot eventually evolve to be a serious threat to the young - even those who regard the elderly and the ill as dispensable will probably accept that economies will crumble if we start to lose the young, the fit, the workers. That is why this virus has to be defeated (defeat being that it may remain circulating but at a low level) and all the vaccines necessary to maintain a sufficient level of antibody have to be given - even it is every 6 months. Antiviral drugs and monoclonal antibodies may be a great help in the future to supress this virus but currently vaccination is the only means on a large scale - with the alternative of going out very rarely and then wearing a face mask (for the benefit of self and others) and a faceshield for the additional benefit of the self. This is fine if you are a person who has no major economic role but if people want to be out and about - and working - then what is the alternative to retaining some level of immunity through vaccination?

 

For me, trying to survive to reach the “long term” is my personal concern. Taking my chances on vaccine boosters for the rest of my life is fine with me,

 

Well, some studies have shown natural immunity is longer lasting, so after you get your full vaccination, get pumped up by your booster, and then get sick anyway, you'll finally have what you need to combat the virus right before it mutates again. So, you've got that going for you, if nothing else.

 

The waning of the immune systems response is real world waning. Increasing numbers of fully vaxxed folk being hospitalized and ending up in the ICU, indicating effectiveness of the response is lowered, especially in old folks. It seems to correlate with lower antibodies in old folks, etc. So lower antibodies seems to be a practical indication that can be done locally. Th nice thing about this study is this:
"More participants from the BioNTech group reported discomfort and swelling at the injection site as well as fatigue and muscle pain than those who received Sinovac as the third dose. But the researchers said the adverse reactions were only mild and short-lived."
So no significant adverse events. People are waiting on data to authorize mRNA booster shots, and it's finally coming out. Good news for those who got Sinovac.

 

An article on mixing JJ/Pfizer/Moderna as a booster shot.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...-booster-shot-should-i-get-heres-how-to-chose

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday cleared booster shots of Moderna’s and Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccines, giving people the freedom to mix and match any of the three vaccines approved for use in the U.S., the agency said in a statement.

Those of us who got Sinovac should have the opportunity to get a more effective booster shot from another vaccine maker.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/cdc...booster-shots-for-same-groups-as-pfizers.html

 

Israeli Booster Study -

RESULTS Confirmed infection rates were ≈10-fold lower in the booster versus nonbooster group (ranging 8.8-17.6 across five age groups) and 4.8-11.2 fold lower in the secondary analysis. Severe illness rates in the primary and secondary analysis were 18.7-fold (95% CI, 15.7-22.4) and 6.5-fold (95% CI, 5.1-8.3) lower for ages 60+, and 22.0-fold (95% CI, 10.3-47.0) and 3.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-9.6) lower for ages 40-60. For ages 60+, COVID-19 associated death rates were 14.7-fold (95% CI, 9.4-23.1) lower in the primary analysis and 4.8-fold (95% CI, 2.8-8.2) lower in the secondary analysis.

CONCLUSIONS Across all age groups, rates of confirmed infection and severe illness were substantially lower among those who received a booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine.



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.07.21264626v1