MRNA booster better for those with two AstraZeneca jabs

[jetboi]

 

16 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

One example below... There also have been other studies done showing that the AZ vaccine's protective effects tend to decline more rapidly post injection than those of the mRNA shots...

 

 

https://www.healthdata.org/covid/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-summary

 

 

16 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The first chart is based on "estimates" not any actual studies reporting actual results and being "efficacy" values have no relation to VE (vaccine effectiveness).

The second chart (no corroborating reference) does not specify what covid variant, sub-variant, etc the VE are referring to. Do you have a source for this chart or the data presented in it?

Clinical studies conducted in the UK, Denmark and other locations show real world VE for ChAdOx1-S & mRNA in conjunction with  BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster and the values differ from the charts showing estimates you provided.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, jetboi said:

The second chart (no corroborating reference) does not specify what covid variant, sub-variant, etc the VE are referring to. Do you have a source for this chart or the data presented in it?

Clinical studies conducted in the UK, Denmark and other locations show real world VE for ChAdOx1-S & mRNA in conjunction with  BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster and the values differ from the charts showing estimates you provided.

 

I didn't say the data I posted above was based on booster shot results. Actually, I believe both are based on fully vaccinated two-shot results.

 

[jetboi]

12 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I didn't say the data I posted above was based on booster shot results. Actually, I believe both are based on fully vaccinated two-shot results.

 

Yes, what is data source for the second chart you posted and what covid variant is referenced therein?

[jetboi]

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I didn't say the data I posted above was based on booster shot results. Actually, I believe both are based on fully vaccinated two-shot results.

 

Have a look here, the methodology and computations used to derive estimated efficacy values are detailed.

https://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/omicron-and-waning-immunity

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, jetboi said:

Yes, what is data source for the second chart you posted and what covid variant is referenced therein?

 

I added the reference to my post above:

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410

 

It's a study from last year, so presumably it's mostly pertaining to Delta.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, jetboi said:

Have a look here, the methodology and computations used to derive estimated efficacy values are detailed.

https://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/omicron-and-waning-immunity

 

The chart there on that page is an EARLIER (Dec 2021) version than the current (Jan. 2022) one I posted above.

 

But even the version on the page you linked to notes:

 

"We updated estimates of vaccine efficacy against infection and severe disease from the Delta variant using 10 studies covering six countries. The resulting pooled effect size is shown in Table 1."

 

As I said above, they're combining actual study data results... Not just sticking their fingers in the wind.

 

Their Jan 2022 version that I posted above is here:

 

https://www.healthdata.org/covid/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-summary

 

Quote

Publication date: 

January 10, 2022

To project future COVID-19 trends, IHME centralizes and updates all available data on vaccine efficacy. We will update this page as more data becomes available

 

 

[jetboi]

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I added the reference to my post above:

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410

 

It's a study from last year, so presumably it's mostly pertaining to Delta.

 

Yes, looks like delta variant.

"Finally, a timely
component of the study is that the results apply primarily to the Delta variant of the virus,
according to sequencing analyses presented by the Public Health Agency of Sweden."

[jetboi]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Not just sticking their fingers in the wind.

Lol, I think many are sticking their fingers in the wind with all things covid.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, jetboi said:

Yes, looks like delta variant.

"Finally, a timely
component of the study is that the results apply primarily to the Delta variant of the virus,
according to sequencing analyses presented by the Public Health Agency of Sweden."

That's why I included the IHME VE data that specifically looks in a separate category at VE against Omicron, which is still emerging because of the recency of that variant.

 

Regardless of whether it's the Delta or Omicron variant, the AZ vaccine is coming out behind Moderna and Pfizer in various measurements in terms of vaccine effectiveness, as pretty much consistently shown in various studies.

 

[Jimjim1]

11 hours ago, Airalee said:

Why Pfizer and not Moderna?  I don’t know and neither does she.

It was reported several weeks ago in medical journals that two O A Z jabs give 65% protection but when topped off with the PHIZER as a booster it gives 95% protection and for a longer period.

From what I can ascertain this is not the case with Moderna

[sandyf]

On 2/10/2022 at 4:36 PM, arithai12 said:

Jump as much as you like, but mRNA is not a new technology. It has been used for vaccines (obviously other than Covid-19) for a long time.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

 

 

THERE’S A BIG GAP BETWEEN WHEN THE FIRST MRNA FLU VACCINE WAS TESTED IN MICE IN THE 1990S AND WHEN THE FIRST MRNA VACCINES FOR RABIES WERE TESTED IN HUMANS IN 2013. WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE INTERIM?

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines#:~:text=Messenger RNA%2C or mRNA%2C was,to be brought to market%3F

[sandyf]

On 2/10/2022 at 5:33 PM, mrfill said:

The 'new technology' is hardly new, having been around over 30 years.

Sorry, I didn't realise that when it was first used on humans in 2013 that was over 30 years ago.