Is the Waning of Covid Vaccines over Time a Big Issue?

  • Thread starter bhobba
  • Start date
  • #1
9,987
3,092
This started from the following post:

I know a doctor who was vaccinated early on as part of the move to protect front line health professionals, but the efficacy only lasted a few months and, having taken it early, has now caught it and suffered some serious complications.

I have had a first shot now and due another ... but ...

To have to keep boosting a vaccination every few months, for everyone on the planet, does not strike me as the hallmarks of a stunning success.

We have no idea if we will need to keep boosting every few months. The latest information I am aware of is the following:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/04/pfi...tion-tumbles-to-47percent-study-confirms.html

That merely says efficacy in the sense of getting Covid wanes. Effectiveness in preventing hospitalisation and death is still high. Using data from Israel, efficacy with the third dose after five months is 95% in getting Covid and even better in preventing hospitalisations and death. With 90%, we are on the verge of herd immunity - at 95%, we have herd immunity. We do not know if we will need boosters even after that, but it will not be a problem once it is under control. The flu each year has an R of 1.3 to 1.6. This is worse than the flu, but it is easy to control once you get close or have heard immunity. You may have to get another booster again in 6 months, then perhaps yearly. Big deal.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Laroxe, russ_watters, OCR and 1 other person

Answers and Replies

  • #2
cmb
1,120
122
Experts don’t know yet how long COVID-19 vaccines will be effective. Studies of two of the most prominent COVID-19 vaccines suggest they remain effective for at least six months. The CEO of one vaccine maker said immunity may start to fade within a year.
 
  • #3
atyy
Science Advisor
14,698
3,179
Experts don’t know yet how long COVID-19 vaccines will be effective. Studies of two of the most prominent COVID-19 vaccines suggest they remain effective for at least six months. The CEO of one vaccine maker said immunity may start to fade within a year.
Protection against infection has waned from about 90% to 40%, while for healthy people there is almost no waning of protection from severe disease. However, for clinically vulnerable people, protection against severe disease has waned.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...OVID-19_vaccines_against_clinical_disease.pdf
DURATION OF PROTECTION OF COVID-19 VACCINES AGAINST CLINICAL DISEASE
Public Health England
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4
9,987
3,092
Experts don’t know yet how long COVID-19 vaccines will be effective. Studies of two of the most prominent COVID-19 vaccines suggest they remain effective for at least six months. The CEO of one vaccine maker said immunity may start to fade within a year.

Yes. That's the point. We do not know yet. No use worrying about what may or may not occur if the worst-case scenario is not that demanding. Isreal data suggests we all will need a third booster after six months. How long before you need another is unknown, but the worst-case looks like another six months. Even if we need jabs every six months, is that such a bad outcome? My best guess is after that; you will need yearly boosters. Several companies like Novavax are working on a combined Flu-Covid vaccine. But that is just a guess. At the moment, we do not know. Only time will tell.

As Atty emphasises, that is just symptomatic infection - hospitalisation and death protection remains high. The third dose reduces R in the community, making it more manageable. The vast majority of those that end up in the hospital or sadly die are unvaccinated. That said, Isreal found that third doses increased protection against hospitalisation and death even below the low level of two doses.

I have posted it before, but Peter Doherty explains very well why even if you do not get severely ill, you do not want Covid :



It gets into your blood, and you want it out of there at all costs.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and russ_watters
  • #5
cmb
1,120
122
Even if we need jabs every six months, is that such a bad outcome?
It would be the most insane outcome in the history of both modern and ancient medicine.

Making the whole planetary population dependent on a 6 monthly repeating medication for one single disease!?

What happens when the next two or three likewise diseases appear?

Are you asking what is wrong with a cocktail of medications every couple of months, mandated by law that every healthy person on the planet must take? That doesn't warrant any sensible or scientific response, it is firmly rooted in dystopian ideology.

At a philosophical level, it is arguing that life itself is an illness and a problematic medical condition that requires interventional treatment.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Sad
  • Like
Likes sentimentaltrooper, xAxis, hutchphd and 3 others
  • #6
9,987
3,092
It would be the most insane outcome in the history of both modern and ancient medicine.

That is a value judgement. We all get or should get a flu jab each year. Getting one every six months instead does not sound a much greater imposition to me. But each to their own. Value judgements are a personal thing not amenable to scientific analysis. That said, I doubt it will come to that - yearly doses seem more likely - but one never knows.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes SolarisOne and russ_watters
  • #7
9,987
3,092
Are you asking what is wrong with a cocktail of medications every couple of months, mandated by law that every healthy person on the planet must take? That doesn't warrant any sensible or scientific response, it is firmly rooted in dystopian ideology.

Who said anything about a mandate? And 'cocktail' of medicines? As explained by Peter Doherty, the vaccines are less such a 'cocktail' than medicines you are probably taking now. The ACT here in Aus showed people will do it voluntarily when rolled out well and appropriately explained. They reached 99% vaccinated with no mandates. They stopped counting at that level because the non-permanent population, such as students living there to go to university, makes it unreliable at such a high level.

At least here in Aus, the worry about vaccine hesitancy would seem to not be as big an issue as first thought. It may be just an Aus thing, but it is worth looking into why. That said, there are pockets with high hesitancy such as our indigenous community, but overall it is less than expected.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes SolarisOne, sentimentaltrooper, Astronuc and 1 other person
  • #8
russ_watters
Mentor
21,095
7,855
It would be the most insane outcome in the history of both modern and ancient medicine.
That's the most hyperbolic thing anyone has ever said in the history of the universe.
/s

The flu vaccine is already recommended annually and required to be reformulated each time. Having a recommended 6 month booster for COVID would not be substantially different/unusual.

6 months is far below my imposition threshold for "no thanks, I'd rather get COVID." Monthly? I'm still in. Weekly? If they create self-checkout/vaxin kiosks at the grocery store I think I'd still be up for it. And I'd certainly be careful how I talk about it lest I accidentally whine about it to a diabetic.
Are you asking what is wrong with a cocktail of medications every couple of months, mandated by law that every healthy person on the planet must take?
No, that's fantasy/hyperbole you've generated, not something anyone has proposed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes pinball1970, SolarisOne, bhobba and 2 others
  • #9
cmb
1,120
122
Who said anything about a mandate?
That'll be pretty much every Government on the planet (that has brought in legal mandates that require certain people to have the vaccination).

Do you actually want examples? Details are easily found by internet searches.

And 'cocktail' of medicines?
As I already explained, that would automatically follow if a '6 monthly' became 'expected' by law for this, because if that is the protocol for such diseases then likewise diseases in the future would have to be treated the same way (or makes a nonsense of doing this in the first place).

It is simply a matter of considering the 'unintended consequences' of this approach.
 
  • #10
cmb
1,120
122
That's the most hyperbolic thing anyone has ever said in the history of the universe.
/s
That's funny of course, but even religious texts for thousands of years have said it's the sick that need treatment, not the healthy.

That we have become a planetary society that seems willing to accept as plausible the proposal of 6 month treatments for healthy people for the rest of humanity's history is bizarre.

Seasonal flu jabs are quite different, they are targeted at new variants and for the vulnerable. The same treatment is NOT given every year, it is tailored for the conditions, and also tailored (variations of the vaccination) according to the condition and risk profile (specifically whether they are killed or live vaccines, and by administration means; IV/IM/NAS).

(UK flu protection is usually live/NAS, but for example my son's condition means he has to have killed/IM)
 
  • Skeptical
Likes bhobba and atyy
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
21,095
7,855
That'll be pretty much every Government on the planet (that has brought in legal mandates that require certain people to have the vaccination). [emphasis added]
Your prior post said everyone. You have to stop these intentionally misleading hyperbolic arguments. Hyperbole is not an allowable smokescreen for misinformation.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes SolarisOne, bhobba and Tom.G
  • #12
russ_watters
Mentor
21,095
7,855
...even religious texts for thousands of years have said it's the sick that need treatment, not the healthy.

That we have become a planetary society that seems willing to accept as plausible the proposal of 6 month treatments for healthy people for the rest of humanity's history is bizarre.
You're saying you oppose all vaccines? Because of a strict interpretation of words written before vaccines were invented? I find that bizarre.
Seasonal flu jabs are quite different, they are targeted at new variants and for the vulnerable. The same treatment is NOT given every year...
And that isn't worse? Or are you saying since it's a different disease every year it doesn't count? That seems like a strange hairsplit to me.
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G
  • #13
cmb
1,120
122
Your prior post said everyone. You have to stop these intentionally misleading hyperbolic arguments. Hyperbole is not an allowable smokescreen for misinformation.
You are making me out to being argumentative, which is not being nice about it. You have linked two different responses there as if they referred to the same matter.

I initially responded to the proposition implying that it was OK for everyone to get a vaccination every 6 months, which I think is not at all a scientific principle of any merit;-
"Even if we need jabs every six months, is that such a bad outcome?"
me; "Making the whole planetary population dependent on a 6 monthly repeating medication for one single disease!?"

and then I was challenged (which was a new and separate challenge from the previous response);
"Who said anything about a mandate? "

which I answered with an example. I did not propose it (currently) applies to everyone, that was not the implication of the proposition I was responding to, that proposition requiring only one specific example.
 
Last edited:
  • Skeptical
Likes bhobba, Tom.G and atyy
  • #14
cmb
1,120
122
Look, I understand that you are collectively disagreeing with me, but that doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong. The idea of treating healthy people indefinitely for the same endemic disease is a value proposition and not one that strikes me of scientific merit.

If there is any scientific case for that proposition, or even a prior example against which long term results might be assessed (and as I mentioned, flu vaccinations are not the same), then please let us have that scientific discussion rather than a group critique of my discomfort on other people putting forward their value judgements here. Even if you all agree on the same value judgements you're making, doesn't make it right that your opinions should over-rule the science here.

The scientific question is; what is the scientific basis for a benefit arising from an unending 'treatment' of healthy people for the same endemic pathogen?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes bhobba and atyy
  • #15
hutchphd
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,786
2,949
Are you asking what is wrong with a cocktail of medications every couple of months, mandated by law that every healthy person on the planet must take? That doesn't warrant any sensible or scientific response, it is firmly rooted in dystopian ideology.

The scientific question is; what is the scientific basis for a benefit arising from an unending 'treatment' of healthy people for the same endemic disease?
The scientific basis (for your overblown hyperbolic hypothetical) is to keep millions of people from dying. Oh and it would be good to not provide billions of bodies for the virus to mutate at a prodigious rate. And the nature of the treatment requires it be given to the healthy.

Look, I understand that you are collectively disagreeing with me, but that doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong.
This is true. You are wrong on the merits.

'
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes bhobba and russ_watters
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
21,095
7,855
You are making me out to being argumentative, which is not being nice about it.
You are not entitled to be treated with kid gloves. You have been here too long to not understand your responsibilities here.
...
You omitted the offending quote in this explanation.
Look, I understand that you are collectively disagreeing with me, but that doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong.
Everyone is entitled to make their own value judgements. If you want to say "I don't believe in vaccines because I couldn't find reference to them in the bible", you are entitled to that belief (though it is not appropriate for debate on PF). You are not entitled to make up your own facts and/or purposely imply counterfactual things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bhobba and hutchphd
  • #17
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
1,898
5,225
The idea of treating healthy people indefinitely for the same endemic disease is a value proposition and not one that strikes me of scientific merit.

OK, what about vitamins and other nutritional dietary supplements, which can ne used to make up for dietary shortages.

For example:
  • Iodine to prevent problems associated with a bodily iodine shortage (which can be geographically distributed).
  • or vitamin C where there is not enough sunlight.
  • There are probably lots of these kinds of things (calling @jim mcnamara).
In general, your arguments seem driven by the desire to show a particular highly valued idea is always right (or wrong), in all cases.
Not a good bet in the complex world of biology.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and hutchphd
  • #18
jim mcnamara
Mentor
4,481
3,257
@cmb - most of your viewpoints lack scientific merit. Period. There is no scientific debate, just claims with no scientific backing. Please stop... Period.

What @BillTre is talking about: prophylaxis or another name is prevention of disease and death. This is what public health is all about. And because public health is now a political football we all lose when people make uninformed decisions based on values rather than evidence based decisions.

This is all very, very old news. 'Rats Lice, and History' by Hans Zinsser was written almost 100 years ago. He showed problems back during various plague times, like the plague of Justinian -- 471 CE, Black Death in 1347-1356 CE.

Surprise!

They had the the same problems then that we have now. A big one is people are vectors in the chain of disease transmission.

To be fair: Bubonic plague was/is far easier to diagnose and therefore quarantine back then. Because infected people had bubos. Now disgnosis is a positive PCR screen.

The social plague's impact changed society back in medieval Europe, and we have seen social impacts today, as well.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes russ_watters, bhobba, atyy and 2 others
  • #19
Tom.G
Science Advisor
4,119
2,816
The idea of treating healthy people indefinitely for the same endemic disease is a value proposition and not one that strikes me of scientific merit.
Do you have an alternative? If so, please state it... along wiith any probable results, 'good' or 'bad.'
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #20
9,987
3,092
After mentor discussion, I believe the issues surrounding the waning of the vaccine has been mined enough so the thread will be closed.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G, jim mcnamara and russ_watters

Related Threads on Is the Waning of Covid Vaccines over Time a Big Issue?

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
471
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
789
Replies
100
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
789
Replies
1
Views
510
Replies
7
Views
634
Replies
3
Views
373
Replies
2
Views
188
Top