Hey Matt, So just a bit of weird data point. I got the J&J got Covid. I've got a lot of people in western in central mass with moderna and pfizer that are getting reinfected, all got our shots in that march-april timeframe. VERY light symptoms, i really didn't need to be out of work but my company has a 10 day policy and so does the state I live in (work out of state). I'm not sure where this all ends but with our vaccine rates in Mass I'm not real sure where this leaves us.
A nit: The chart you show does not show that "the vaccines produce antibodies 2-4 times higher" than previous infection. It shows that the *most effective* vaccines do. There are three other vaccines that are below "convalescent" on the chart.
To another point, if we ignore the error bars, increasing protection from 95% to 97% is actually pretty significant, since it decreases infections by 40%. In fact, as a policy matter, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that third doses for the elderly and other high-risk populations are going to be more useful than second doses for the "young and healthy" demographic.
A confession: I'm too lazy to read the paper and find out what the referenced vaccines are. It's entirely possible (and hopefully likely!) that the most effective vaccines represent the overwhelming majority of deployed doses. In that case, the original assertion would be pretty accurate.
Hey Matt, So just a bit of weird data point. I got the J&J got Covid. I've got a lot of people in western in central mass with moderna and pfizer that are getting reinfected, all got our shots in that march-april timeframe. VERY light symptoms, i really didn't need to be out of work but my company has a 10 day policy and so does the state I live in (work out of state). I'm not sure where this all ends but with our vaccine rates in Mass I'm not real sure where this leaves us.
A nit: The chart you show does not show that "the vaccines produce antibodies 2-4 times higher" than previous infection. It shows that the *most effective* vaccines do. There are three other vaccines that are below "convalescent" on the chart.
To another point, if we ignore the error bars, increasing protection from 95% to 97% is actually pretty significant, since it decreases infections by 40%. In fact, as a policy matter, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that third doses for the elderly and other high-risk populations are going to be more useful than second doses for the "young and healthy" demographic.
A confession: I'm too lazy to read the paper and find out what the referenced vaccines are. It's entirely possible (and hopefully likely!) that the most effective vaccines represent the overwhelming majority of deployed doses. In that case, the original assertion would be pretty accurate.