14 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

The vaccines ARE NOT to prevent you getting Covid, simply to minimise the effects of the virus. I had three Pfizers but still got it, but not so bad. So now my natural resistance should be higher.

Dont remember saying they were there to prevent Covid? Just saying I had 2 vaccines and wont be having anymore as I had covid already.

too much BAD publicly from media . had 2 vax NO MORE .that's it  

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

As your response to my citation of the AP article shows, it seems you won't read any media with information that might puncture your bubble.

You posted a Reuters article. Below is Pfizer board memberJim Smith's biography, who also happens to be the Chairman of Thomson Reuters foundation:

https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith

 

Again, the issue is conflict of interest and absence of bias.

A couple of things about this OP reported study.

 

1. Antibody levels are not entirely synonymous with protection from either infection or developing serious illness death. The body's immune response to viral infections is more complicated and involved, as some posts above have alluded to. So you can't really rely on antibody level readings alone to determine a vaccine's effectiveness.

 

That's why the experts actually do studies that track and compare the percentages of people who get infected and develop illness post vaccination,  and compare those rates with infection and illness among the unvaccinated. (The vaccinated do much better than the unvaccinated in all regards).

 

Most of those kinds of studies I've seen show that the mRNA vaccines provide significant, though gradually declining, benefits out to about four months post vaccination. And that's why the current recommendations for booster shots target them four to five months after second shots.

 

2. As far as I saw in the Forbes writeup, there was no mention whatsoever about the issue of protection against "any" COVID infection vs. protection against serious illness and death from COVID -- again, because the study was only looking at antibody levels.

 

The good studies that actually track such things in the real world have shown that the current mRNA vaccines are quite effective months post vaccination at preventing serious illness and death from the Omicron variant especially with a third shot booster dose. They are, however, less effective since the advent of Omicron at preventing infections in general, compared to how they did with prior variants.

 

That's the reason many health authorities continue to recommend that people wear face masks and follow social distancing protocols in confined indoor spaces.... Because while the current mRNA vaccines especially with a third shot booster dose do a pretty good job at preventing you from getting sick or dying from COVID, they do a less good job at preventing you from becoming infected and potentially spreading the virus to others.

 

The Forbes article, BTW, finally alludes to the limitations of only looking at antibody levels toward the very end...

 

"Neutralizing antibodies have been the primary focus of studies evaluating vaccines—they are much easier to study—but they are not the only part of the immune system protecting humans against disease. Other parts of the immune system, such as T cells, might be less effective at preventing infection but they are more durable than antibodies and can reduce the chance of serious illness if infected."

 

And contrary to what the above quote claims, there have been plenty of credible, peer reviewed scientific studies evaluating the performance of COVID vaccines based on real world performance, and not merely on measuring antibody levels. 

 

The U.S. CDC and the UK Health Services agencies, among others, regularly track and publicly report on the mRNA vaccines' real-world performance.

 

This will horrify some people, but I have received 7 Covid vaccinations, 4 in the USA, and 3 in Thailand.

 

If I get Covid, I will let you know.

On 5/19/2022 at 8:24 AM, TorquayFan said:

Re this : "I guess some would argue that T-cell immunity is more important than having antibody protection, but that’s a question for scientists." With respect I think the power and duration of killer T-cells is widely acknowledged by Scientists already and crucial to some new cancer treatments for example.

Killer T cells are certainly important in killing off infected cells (and cancer cells)  but if you're talking about long-lasting immunity we shouldn't overlook the role of memory T cells and B cells that are also crucial to long-lasting immunity.

 

Not just antibodies: B cells and T cells mediate immunity to COVID-19

 

As this article states:

 

Quote

Recent reports that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are not maintained in the serum following recovery from the virus have caused alarm. However, the absence of specific antibodies in the serum does not necessarily mean an absence of immune memory. Here, we discuss our current understanding of the relative contribution of B cells and T cells to immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and the implications for the development of effective treatments and vaccines for COVID-19.

 

Thanks GHW. I'm no expert but I do understand it's not just the level of antibodies that matters and also that there are different types of T-cells.

 

Generally, it's early days for an authoritative take on the duration of immunity after boosters from the different vaccines but I read what there is.

 

LOL - disappointed myself that after a Moderna booster 3 months ago, (reported to increase antibody levels by 37 times), I got a second Covid infection last week, which was mild.

 

ATB

A misinformation post has been removed, along with a post quoting a non-credible "questionable source" website.