SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the We're-all-gonna-die,-eventually,-but-let's-not-speed-things-up! dept.
[Ed note: This story combines reports from two separate articles. In the first report are results comparing the likelihood of being infected (and surviving) after having one of the three vaccines that are commonly available in the US. The second report compares the risk of death that results from being infected subsequent to being vaccinated (from the same set of three commonly-available vaccines). No vaccine is perfect; get your booster when it is available; wear a mask in public indoor spaces; and get tested regularly. The life you save may be that of a family member, loved-one, or co-worker! Emphasis retained from originals.--martyb]
Study in Science of more than 780,000 Veterans is the first to compare waning protection rates across all three vaccine types available to most Americans and to directly report death rates after breakthrough infection.
A new study in the leading journal Science reviewed COVID-19 breakthrough infections among 780,225 Veterans, finding that vaccine protection declined from 87.9% to 48.1% during the 2021 Delta surge in the U.S. The researchers from PHI, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the University of Texas Health Science Center found a dramatic decline in effectiveness for the Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) vaccine, from 86.4% in March to 13%.1 in September. They also found that vaccination of any type was protective against death among infected individuals.
As COVID-19 breakthrough infections continue to emerge in some vaccine recipients and health authorities are developing policies around booster vaccinations, national data on COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections is inadequate but urgently needed. Now a study from the Public Health Institute, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the University of Texas Health Science Center published today in the journal Science analyzed COVID infection by vaccination status among 780,225 Veterans.
Researchers found that protection against any COVID-19 infection declined for all vaccine types, with overall vaccine protection declining from 87.9% in February to 48.1% by October 2021.
- The decline was greatest for the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine, with protection against infection declining from 86.4% in March to 13%.1 in September
- Declines for PfizerBioNTech were from 86.9% to 43.3%
- Declines for Moderna were 89.2% to 58%.
While most previous studies have focused on the PfizerBioNTech or Moderna vaccines, the Science study is the first to compare protection declines across the three main vaccine types, and the first to show the comparably dramatic decline in effectiveness for the Janssen vaccine. Declines were assessed over the period February 1, 2021 to October 1, 2021, reflecting the emergence and dominance of the Delta variant in the U.S. Patterns of breakthrough infection over time were consistent by age, despite rolling vaccine eligibility, implicating the Delta variant as the primary determinant of infection.
Importantly, vaccination of any type was protective against death among individuals who did become infected. The relative benefit of vaccination for protection against death was greater for persons under 65 but was also very strong for persons over 65.
For those under 65 years old, vaccines overall were 81.7% effective against death.
- Protection against death was greatest for the Pfizer vaccine, at 84.3%.
- Moderna was the next most effective, at 81.5%.
- Janssen was 73% effective.
For those 65 and over, overall vaccine effectiveness against death was 71.6%.
- Moderna was 75.5% effective.
- Pfizer was 70.1% effective.
- Janssen was 52.2% effective.
"Our study gives researchers, policy makers and others a strong basis for comparing the long-term effectiveness of COVID vaccines, and a lens for making informed decisions around primary vaccination, booster shots, and other multiple layers of protection, including masking mandates, social distancing, testing and other public health interventions to reduce chance of spread," said Dr. Barbara Cohn of PHI, the lead author of the study. "For example, the CDC recommendation for boosters for all Janssen recipients over 18 is supported by our results. And, given the declines in vaccine protection and the dominance of the more infective Delta variant, we urge swift action to promote primary vaccination, boosters and to also encourage masking, social distancing and other layers of protection against infection. This is supported by our finding that breakthrough infections are not benign, but also by the strong evidence that vaccination still protects against death even for persons with breakthrough infections, compared to persons who become infected and are not vaccinated."
The FDA authorized Pfizer boosters for some groups in September and Moderna and Janssen boosters in October, and the CDC has made similar recommendations, including supporting a "mix and match" approach that allows people to choose any of the three vaccine boosters regardless of which they were given initially.
Journal Reference:
Barbara A. Cohn, Piera M. Cirillo, Caitlin C. Murphy, et al.
SARS-CoV-2 vaccine protection and deaths among US veterans during 2021, Science [open] (DOI: 10.1126/science.abm0620)
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday December 01 2021, @03:29PM (20 children)
The risk of death among unvaccinated in all age groups is higher *regardless of whether they actually had covid*. This effect appears to be more pronounced than the vaccine one itself. You are free to make your own conclusions, but I see it as risk takers are more likely to die, period. This bias overwhelms any usefulness of vaccination efficiency studies - pretty much all of them because nobody has done double blind since the early stages of vaccine development.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday December 01 2021, @04:50PM (5 children)
So, what is the risk the "risk taker" is taking? Not getting vaccinated? Getting vaccinated? Not getting their booster every 6 months? Only getting a booster every 12 months? Skipping breakfast this morning? Having a yummy lemon poppy seed muffin every morning and working for a company that does regular drug screening?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by number11 on Wednesday December 01 2021, @09:32PM
I think that's "risk taker" in general.
Crossing street without looking.
Eating from that bulged can.
Texting while driving.
Believing Fox "News".
Riding ATV without helmet.
Y'know, freedom lovers.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 02 2021, @07:14AM (3 children)
Look, I took vaccine while it was still barely available. I actually drove for 4 hours through a snowstorm to get it. Meantime I don't go to the office and spend my free time hiking woods and skiing. When go skiing I don't socialize but go directly to lifts. I do a few similar things but all of them a similarly antisocial.
If I hopefully don't get covid, do you credit it to the vaccine?
This whole thing is very similar to AIDS where one's life style was the biggest risk factor. BTW, they could not get an effective vaccine for it either.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 02 2021, @02:46PM (2 children)
AIDS isn't a particularly good comparison, because of the mode of transmission. AIDS is pretty much, blood transmission. So, don't do the whole blood brother, hand cutting thing and you're fine.
The anti-social behavior certainly helps you not get random x sickness, which includes COVID-19. Considering COVID-19 is turning out to be a lot more like the flu, in terms of time to get your next booster (every 6 or 12 months). "Anti-Social" behavior may be your best defense against any future strain of COVID-19. The term "anti-social" has strong negative connotations. Maybe soon, they'll just call it pro-active isolation or something?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 02 2021, @06:54PM (1 child)
Well, AIDS forced me to use condoms, which ruined my sex life; all in the name of sexual minority I don't care about. However, it taught me an important skill to be happy with myself, which I successfully use to fight covid.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 02 2021, @07:25PM
Having sex with one partner, that you know isn't getting any on the side, fixes that. Unless you already have AIDS.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01 2021, @04:53PM (1 child)
This isn't Reddit. Cite your sources or GTFO.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 02 2021, @06:58AM
Just read the paper in question.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 01 2021, @06:04PM (11 children)
A double-blind vaccine study would be one where the person administering the shot doesn't know whether it's the placebo or the vaccine. Pretty sure they're all doing that even though COVID-positive is a pretty damn objective measurement and doesn't even need it.
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Wednesday December 01 2021, @06:23PM (9 children)
COVID-positive is definetely NOT an objective measurement. The 35-40 cycles being used in PCR tests could manifest a microscopic molehill into a Martian mountain. That's why the CDC scaled back the number of cycles after Biden took office to give the appearance of fewer cases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01 2021, @11:08PM (8 children)
Pics or it didn't happen. Preferably from the CDC, since you claim they said that it should be just as easy to find.
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Thursday December 02 2021, @02:16PM (7 children)
Here is a writeup on it with archive links to things that have been memoryholed:
https://kevinbae.com/2021/cdc-ratchets-down-pcr-cycle-threshold-to-make-vaccines-look-effective/ [kevinbae.com]
https://web.archive.org/web/20201102003647/https://kevinbae.com/2020/dr-fauci-and-the-new-york-times-confirmed-the-pcr-tests-are-too-sensitive-to-be-considered-worth-anything/ [archive.org]
https://web.archive.org/web/20210420110252/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf [archive.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03 2021, @08:50AM (6 children)
Where did that say they lowered the threshold?
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Friday December 03 2021, @02:13PM (5 children)
CDC spokeswoman Jade Fulce said in a statement that, when it comes to determining which positive samples are assessed for presence of a variant strain, any Ct value higher than 28 is pretty much moot since it indicates the viral load is too small.
https://medicine.yale.edu/labmed/sections/virology/COVID-19%20Ct%20values_YNHH%20Aug.%202020%20_395430_36854_v1.pdf [yale.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03 2021, @09:48PM (4 children)
OK. Now you are giving a statement by someone else at the CDC and citing a powerpoint that doesn't mention it or say that such thresholds aren't true positive cases. In fact, the conclusion of that presentation disagrees with your statement on threshold sensitivity of >28 being a bad thing. So, still no luck showing that the CDC lowered the Ct threshold for positive cases or that the higher Ct values are not true cases.
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Saturday December 04 2021, @10:29PM (3 children)
That was in the first source provided. Have a nice day. Go away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 05 2021, @01:52AM (2 children)
Except it wasn't. Anyone who could read the archived CDC document itself could see that.
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Sunday December 05 2021, @02:52PM (1 child)
Except it was. Anyone who could read the archived CDC document itself could see that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 05 2021, @09:35PM
Then quote it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01 2021, @06:26PM
The person injecting it can tell because the consistency is different then saline. Then the person getting it can tell because it has characteristic side effects. Then the person deciding to test them can tell because they'll be told about what side effects they had.
This is why you normally do an exit survey asking everyone involved which group they suspect.