Look at that first graph. What possible mechanism could lead to the *primary series* (you know the one from early 2021) suddenly gaining 3x more efficiency versus unvaccinated people, from one month to the next in summer 2022? We are supposed the believe the original vaccine series had long since worn off, requiring 2+ boosters to stay "up to date", but yet those first two shots just magically just keep achieving something like 5x protection against one outcome (death) but no other outcomes all those months later?
I know your overall point is that CDC is (wildly) *choosing to* highlight the weaknesses of the vaccines to make their more immediate case about the necessity of a bivalent booster. And I agree this calls into the question their honesty and judgement during earlier phases. But even now I still don't think they are being quite honest enough. That first chart serves to maintain the very last piece of narrative they will never let go of, that the insane pressure and firings and vac-passes and norm-breaking of the original campaign was justified because it "saved lives." And perhaps it did, some, for a while, but not like that wholly implausible chart.
Question for you - what happened to the J&J vaccine? It seems like it's never discussed in any of these follow-up conversations. When we discuss initial course, it's only the two-shot regimen of Moderna / Pfizer. At the very least, it would seem to be an important comparison point (along with "unvaccinated") in the first graph above.
I got that version of the vaccine when required by my employer because it seemed the most "traditional" of the options available. Not to get too conspiratorial, but it sort of seems that we're broadly pretending like that third option doesn't in favor of the two, more novel mRNA options, which I can't help but feel a little unsettled by.
This seems too pessimistic. Take a look at page 11 of the UK’s latest vaccine surveillance report (week 40). For the over 65 cohort, they show a waned booster dose (40+ weeks out) with 60-75% VE vs. omicron hospitalization. And of course that’s a booster that wasn’t updated to target omicron.
I believe the flu studies show more waning (and lower maximum VE) vs. flu hospitalization (not just infection).
The UK publishes much more fine-grained data on these issues then we’re able to get from CDC and seems to be a much more reliable source.
Thank you so much for covering this.
Look at that first graph. What possible mechanism could lead to the *primary series* (you know the one from early 2021) suddenly gaining 3x more efficiency versus unvaccinated people, from one month to the next in summer 2022? We are supposed the believe the original vaccine series had long since worn off, requiring 2+ boosters to stay "up to date", but yet those first two shots just magically just keep achieving something like 5x protection against one outcome (death) but no other outcomes all those months later?
I know your overall point is that CDC is (wildly) *choosing to* highlight the weaknesses of the vaccines to make their more immediate case about the necessity of a bivalent booster. And I agree this calls into the question their honesty and judgement during earlier phases. But even now I still don't think they are being quite honest enough. That first chart serves to maintain the very last piece of narrative they will never let go of, that the insane pressure and firings and vac-passes and norm-breaking of the original campaign was justified because it "saved lives." And perhaps it did, some, for a while, but not like that wholly implausible chart.
Question for you - what happened to the J&J vaccine? It seems like it's never discussed in any of these follow-up conversations. When we discuss initial course, it's only the two-shot regimen of Moderna / Pfizer. At the very least, it would seem to be an important comparison point (along with "unvaccinated") in the first graph above.
I got that version of the vaccine when required by my employer because it seemed the most "traditional" of the options available. Not to get too conspiratorial, but it sort of seems that we're broadly pretending like that third option doesn't in favor of the two, more novel mRNA options, which I can't help but feel a little unsettled by.
Do you know how long it takes the flu shot efficacy to go to zero in a year where they guess right?
From what I've read, flu vaccine protection lasts about 6 months and it has a typical efficacy of about 40-60%.
It sounds like the Covid vaccine will end up in about that same range both for efficacy and the duration of protection
This seems too pessimistic. Take a look at page 11 of the UK’s latest vaccine surveillance report (week 40). For the over 65 cohort, they show a waned booster dose (40+ weeks out) with 60-75% VE vs. omicron hospitalization. And of course that’s a booster that wasn’t updated to target omicron.
I believe the flu studies show more waning (and lower maximum VE) vs. flu hospitalization (not just infection).
The UK publishes much more fine-grained data on these issues then we’re able to get from CDC and seems to be a much more reliable source.