Causation or correlation? Older folks also get really ill and go to the hospital without taking the vaccine. I’m dubious about reports like this until seeing compelling evidence. Is there a generalized sudden upswing in people hospitalized with similar symptoms that matches the recent availability of the vaccines in those age groups?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
My sister got the J&J vaccine the other day and about 10-12 hours later had whole body hives with low grade fever.
Edit: She never had a reaction to any other vaccine as far as she recalls.
Edit: She never had a reaction to any other vaccine as far as she recalls.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
We've seen about 90 million doses administered in the US in total, with about 30 million people having had 2 doses to day. Elderly have been prioritized.
If this were a major issue, I expect we would have heard about it long before now.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Glad she got vaccinated and hopefully she is better now.
J&J is an adeno-viral vector based vaccine, so completely different design, formulation, and components from the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA-based vaccines.
As an aside, anyone that had a reaction to the Pfizer or Moderna 1st dose and still want to get a 2nd vaccine dose (the booster dose), the CDC is now recommending the J&J vaccine for that booster, because it has a completely different formulation.
CDC Says People With Allergic Reaction To First Shot Can Get J&J For Second - KFF Health News
Patients who exhibited an allergic reaction to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine can get the Johnson & Johnson jab for their second round, a CDC scientist said.
khn.org
Excuse my distant molbio studies. So, speaking of adeno-viral vectors such as with this J&J vaccine, would this mean that someone receiving this vaccine would have their immune system less responsive to the intended effects of other adenovirus-based vaccines and natural diseases?Glad she got vaccinated and hopefully she is better now.
J&J is an adeno-viral vector based vaccine, so completely different design, formulation, and components from the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA-based vaccines.
As an aside, anyone that had a reaction to the Pfizer or Moderna 1st dose and still want to get a 2nd vaccine dose (the booster dose), the CDC is now recommending the J&J vaccine for that booster, because it has a completely different formulation.
CDC Says People With Allergic Reaction To First Shot Can Get J&J For Second - KFF Health News
Patients who exhibited an allergic reaction to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine can get the Johnson & Johnson jab for their second round, a CDC scientist said.
I’m not sure whether it’s been talked about. But, how about the other way? Any opinions to getting a future Pfizer/Moderna booster after getting a J&J the first time?
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
No, it's like an empty bus. There are practically no adenoviral proteins for the immune system to mount an appreciable response to. The bulk of the genome has been removed, in favor of putting in the S-protein code that can express the antigen desired. The viral vector has had so much removed that it cannot replicate, cannot generate antigens outside of the S-protein, and is completely harmless.
I'm of the opinion that any vaccine should be fine for the booster phase, assuming that the S-protein structure is the same as the original vaccine (i.e. same S-protein genetic code, or very similar). You simply want to cause that secondary immune response to the S-protein, and it should not matter if that is through an adenoviral-based vector, or through mRNA shuttling the S-protein code into your cells to produce the protein, or even a traditional "live attenuated" vaccine.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is good news. Excellent neutralization of all variants by Pfizer serum. There are some caveats regarding comparing the neutralization assay results between assays. And, of course, we still need actual clinical results to see how it REALLY does against B.1.351. One of these days something like that must be coming, I would think. They could at least compare performance of two different vaccines in a proper RCT. I assume someone is doing that but maybe not, since we never seem to do trials that make sense!
However, this is still very encouraging: if this actually correlated well with clinical outcomes (not a given), Pfizer would clobber all known variants in most (but of course not all) vaccinated individuals.
I really wish I knew why some assays (I think pseudovirus?) show something like 100-fold reduction in titers (very disturbing!). Oh well. It’s the Wild West out there! So many ways to measure, so many types of test viruses.
Obviously, we must continue to do everything we can to bring down infection levels worldwide, so the virus has fewer moves available to it, to escape immunity. It seems impossible to predict with certainty what will happen, but it appears to me there is some hope. However: There are a lot of reputable scientists out there who believe that SARS2 will become an endemic coronavirus with no unusual impacts, over the next couple years. We’ll see! I still hope we can eliminate it, but that does seem unlikely to be successful. Depends on how effective and long-lasting immunity from vaccination is and various other factors that are impossible to predict. Likely a lot of animal reservoirs now too.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
COVID Symptoms, Symptom Clusters, and Predictors for Becoming a Long-Hauler: Looking for Clarity in the Haze of the Pandemic
Emerging data suggest that the effects of infection with SARS-CoV-2 are far reaching extending beyond those with severe acute disease. Specifically, the presence of persistent symptoms after apparent resolution from COVID-19 have frequently been reported throughout the pandemic by individuals...
www.medrxiv.org
Yikes. Hopefully vaccination helps these people. I wonder about the quality of the selection criteria and whether there is somehow a form of strong selection bias here, in the dataset? The rate of long-term symptoms in people with mild initial symptoms seems very high to me.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Thread on endemicity. What I thought of when I read this is how many children are put on ventilators for COVID-19, and how that compares to standard cold viruses. I imagine it happens in both cases (certainly infants are put on ventilators for C-19, and not sure how common that is for cold viruses, but that's different, because for an endemic virus presumably infants would get immunity passed from their mothers...so that age group should probably be excluded from the comparison). But no idea what the data says.
Anyway, I guess we'll see. Of course, we've never tried to eradicate standard coronaviruses, and maybe it is possible to do that through vaccination (which appears to be much much stronger protection than natural infection). So just because coronaviruses are endemic doesn't mean they have to be. Who knows!
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Big question right now is are we at a local minimum for daily cases? It seems like we could be. I'm happy that it's so far into March and we still haven't seen an uptick. Lots of extra days to get more vaccine in arms.
We'll see. Seems like it will be difficult to exceed about 100k cases in a day again. If we don't see an uptick in the next week, I'd be surprised if we see anything even approaching that 100k number. Probably getting pretty close to 40-45% of the country with some immunity at this point (though I've seen lower estimates). So close to crushing this thing.
We'll see. Seems like it will be difficult to exceed about 100k cases in a day again. If we don't see an uptick in the next week, I'd be surprised if we see anything even approaching that 100k number. Probably getting pretty close to 40-45% of the country with some immunity at this point (though I've seen lower estimates). So close to crushing this thing.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened.
After seeing a risky lab, they wrote a cable warning to Washington. But it was ignored.
www.politico.com
Leaving this here for debate. New to me was apparently China previously said that they didn't believe the virus came from the wet markets.
Not exactly a right-leaning publication, so I was surprised to see this published.
Might explain why China continues to refuse to allow WHO inspectors to do their work to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened.
After seeing a risky lab, they wrote a cable warning to Washington. But it was ignored.
Leaving this here for debate. New to me was apparently China previously said that they didn't believe the virus came from the wet markets.
Not exactly a right-leaning publication, so I was surprised to see this published.
Might explain why China continues to refuse to allow WHO inspectors to do their work to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2
Maybe. We may eventually find out. I suspect, given how relatively poorly adapted to human cells SARS-CoV-2 is (an explanation for the rapid evolution), that it was naturally acquired from a source similar to that of the WIV lab coronaviruses.
But, really hard to say. I'm not convinced that incompetence on the part of the Chinese and local governments is necessarily evidence of a coverup. However, clearly plenty of uncertainty here, and there are many reputable scientists who have not ruled out the lab source hypothesis.
Stuff like this presented in the article without context makes one wonder, though...is it really that hard to include a little context for the critical pieces of information in such an article???:
"first appeared in Wuhan, on the doorstep of the lab that possessed one of the world’s largest collections of bat coronaviruses and that possessed the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, a virus known as RaTG13 that Shi identified in her lab."
They're not that closely related!!!! For the record, from a Twitter thread presented well before any of this political mudslinging contest began:
It's worth a quick read for background. The article does agree with it - it's pretty clear this virus was NOT engineered (the thread provides that background to support the Politico article's statement that "this virus was not engineered"). However, the thread does not rule out the possibility of a virus that evolved "naturally" and rapidly in a lab through GoF experiments, as presented in the article. That is certainly still possible!
But, again, if this was from GoF experiments on rats modified with CRISPR to have human ACE2, I'd expect the resulting virus to be well adapted to human ACE2!!! Which it wasn't, particularly, as evidenced by substantial and helpful mutations in the RBD & elsewhere which have led to much better adaptation to humans. Though of course the scale of the evolution from worldwide infections would probably outdo any lab's ability to pull out useful mutations...so maybe that explains that poor adaptation discrepancy?
But, certainly still possible. Maybe the virus was adapted in a lab to some other species (non-CRISPR edited), and escaped at that point. (The 20-70 years of evolution presumably could be accomplished more rapidly in a lab under the right conditions (without editing, of course, since that pretty clearly did not happen), though I'm not clear on how that would work?)
Last edited:
Clearly there are many interests that don't want those narratives to become mainstream, so there are probably PR machines trying to discredit them. I had previously posted some similar things and somewhat got a tinfoil dunce cap applied in response, so be prepared for some counter arguments.
Among other things, the Chinese government tends to want to cast "reasonable doubt" and point fingers elsewhere "Maybe it came from imported frozen food from Thailand?"
Also, virus research labs around the world, and doctorate researchers in such labs don't want to be shut down out of public fear that a small mistake could have global consequences, so I see them tend to try to shut down such speculative news stories. "If you don't have absolute proof, don't say anything..."
Among other things, the Chinese government tends to want to cast "reasonable doubt" and point fingers elsewhere "Maybe it came from imported frozen food from Thailand?"
Also, virus research labs around the world, and doctorate researchers in such labs don't want to be shut down out of public fear that a small mistake could have global consequences, so I see them tend to try to shut down such speculative news stories. "If you don't have absolute proof, don't say anything..."
Yuri_G
Member
Just saw that The Covid Tracking Project is shutting down.
covidtracking.com
Anyone have a go to site that shows all the covid metrics like they did? Covid Act Now is pretty good, but their data seems to lag a couple days.
Found this one on twitter.
The COVID Tracking Project
The COVID Tracking Project collects and publishes the most complete testing data available for US states and territories.
covidtracking.com
Anyone have a go to site that shows all the covid metrics like they did? Covid Act Now is pretty good, but their data seems to lag a couple days.
Found this one on twitter.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Moderna has started their new trial.
Tests a range of dosages up to 50µg(current amount being used). CORRECTION: 100µg is current amount. Thanks @bkp_duke.
1273.351 - new booster. 1273.211, mix of old and new
Done as booster, a third shot on top of 1273 two-dose regimen:
1) 1273.351 (20µg/50µg)
2) 1273.211
3) 1273
Also they're doing primary vaccination series (two-dose) of:
1) 1273.351
2) 1273.211
Presumably these will be compared against 1273 two-dose, not against a placebo group this time (not ethical to not give vaccine).
Trials are bizarrely small, N of just 20 in each group.
investors.modernatx.com
Tests a range of dosages up to 50µg
1273.351 - new booster. 1273.211, mix of old and new
Done as booster, a third shot on top of 1273 two-dose regimen:
1) 1273.351 (20µg/50µg)
2) 1273.211
3) 1273
Also they're doing primary vaccination series (two-dose) of:
1) 1273.351
2) 1273.211
Presumably these will be compared against 1273 two-dose, not against a placebo group this time (not ethical to not give vaccine).
Trials are bizarrely small, N of just 20 in each group.
Moderna Announces First Participants Dosed in Study Evaluating COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Candidates | Moderna, Inc.
Study to enroll 60 participants previously vaccinated with mRNA-1273 in Phase 2, to evaluate booster vaccine candidates against the B.1.351 variant first identified in South Africa CAMBRIDGE, Mass. --(BUSINESS WIRE)--Mar. 10, 2021-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a biotechnology company pioneering
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Moderna has started their new trial.
Tests a range of dosages up to 50ug (current amount being used).
1273.351 - new booster. 1273.211, mix of old and new
Done as booster, a third shot on top of 1273 two-dose regimen:
1) 1273.351 (20ug/50ug)
2) 1273.211
3) 1273
Also they're doing primary vaccination series (two-dose) of:
1) 1273.351
2) 1273.211
Presumably these will be compared against 1273 two-dose, not against a placebo group this time (not ethical to not give vaccine).
Trials are bizarrely small, N of just 20 in each group.
Moderna Announces First Participants Dosed in Study Evaluating COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Candidates | Moderna, Inc.
Study to enroll 60 participants previously vaccinated with mRNA-1273 in Phase 2, to evaluate booster vaccine candidates against the B.1.351 variant first identified in South Africa CAMBRIDGE, Mass. --(BUSINESS WIRE)--Mar. 10, 2021-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a biotechnology company pioneering
Current Moderna dosing is 100 ug, not 50 ug, dosed 28 days apart.
Section 1. Executive Summary
"The proposed dosing regimen is 2 doses, 100 μg each, administered 1 month apart."
Current Pfizer dosing is 30 ug, not 50 ug, dosed 21 days apart.
Section 2. GENERAL PRODUCT INFORMATION
"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, BNT162b2 (30 µg), is administered intramuscularly
(IM) as a series of two 30 µg doses of the diluted vaccine solution (0.3 mL each) according to
the following schedule: a single dose followed by a second dose 21 days later."
Good news on the booster tests proceeding. These are Phase 1 trials, to assess for specific antibody (neutralizing) against those specific variants. N of 20 is more than sufficient for that kind of dataset.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Got my Vaccine! 
No symptoms so far but I hear the booster is where the immune system sometimes goes a little overboard.
No symptoms so far but I hear the booster is where the immune system sometimes goes a little overboard.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Thanks for the correction. I was misremembering. Was going to look it up but I was pretty convinced in my mind that my recollection of 50µg was correct! Funny since I just had that post on Friday saying 100µg multiple times: Coronavirus
Good news that they are going with lower dosing this time. Double the number of doses!
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Would include this in the above message but no idea how to add quotes into messages that I've already posted anymore...not the same as before. I'm surprised they're just looking at antibody neutralizing responses. I thought clinical results were the golden metric still? I mean, it's probably fine (personally it looks to me like the quality titers correlate pretty well with real-world results), but I'm going to guess that if there is any question about the results, we're going to wish we had a larger N. We're now in a vaccinated situation, and events are even more rare.
But I guess you're saying it is phase 1. I guess it's not clear to me why they don't go straight to phase 3. Is there really that much doubt about antibody responses and safety? They really don't take any chances!
So I guess you're saying we'll get the large N later? Or they'll just skip that step instead? I guess I'm on board with that as well. I guess from the press release it's technically an amendment to a phase 2 trial. So hopefully skip phase 1 and phase 3, then start vaccinating.
Last edited:
Similar threads
