Booster thread part 2 Attack of the Omicron

[JMCx4]

The good news is that there's no evidence of long-term side effects. ...

From the Omicron variant, that was identified less than a month ago (late November 2021)?

 

[HabsAddict]

The good news is that there's no evidence of long-term side effects.

The bad news is that anti-vaxers will continue to ignore science and peddle hysteria and meaningless soundbites.

GO TEAM PFIZER GO!

 

[Lshap]

GO TEAM PFIZER GO!

Here's the difference: nobody is 'Team Pfizer' because nobody is emotionally attached to vaccines... except anti-vaxers. Anti vaxers are the only ones who feel the need to fanboy their club. They can't change their minds, they can't learn new information, they can never admit their position was wrong - that would betray their identity. Anti vaxers are stuck in their narrow world of intellectual laziness as science leaves them further and further behind.

The rest of us don't give a shit about vaccines either way. Take it, don't take it - I've done both. Thankfully most people have taken the rational approach. We just follow the information and respond to the latest data.

And the data says there are no long term side effects

From the Omicron variant, that was identified less than a month ago (late November 2021)?

There may be long term effects of Omicron. We don't know yet.

Fortunately, we do know there are no long term effects of this vaccine.

 

[Bocephus86]

I most certainly didn’t know the vaccine was only
Good for 10 weeks. That’s very insufficient imo. You don’t need to apologize either

Vaccines. Prevent. Hospitalizations. And. Death.

 

[Troy McClure]

BTW...here is a good write up on the history of mRNA vaccines.

They are in development for a long time. There is also no mass use pre-covid to develop history. Nor could i find any serious and large studies on potential long term side effects of mRNA.

The tangled history of mRNA vaccines

And nowhere in that history is there anything about side effects from these vaccines.

 

[HabsAddict]

The rest of us don't give a shit about vaccines either way. Take it, don't take it - I've done both. Thankfully most people have taken the rational approach. We just follow the information and respond to the latest data.

And the data says there are no long term side effects

You have NO long term data on mRNA so stop the bullshit. All we have is one years use...AND boosters are months old.

If your mind can't get around that there should be concern and we should be aware of the potentially which should be studied, then that is your problem. You are actually turning into the opposite end of anti-vaxxers where the mention of concern has you on attack mode.

And of course, you can stop the "anti-vaxxer" bs too because this is not that either. I've been pro-vax, but not a blind fan boy where anyone mentioning concerns is twinkle toad into "look mommy, anti-vaxxer".

And nowhere in that history is there anything about side effects from these vaccines.

What mRNA history? All of one year?

Go ahead and point out the mass use of it for the last decade....

BTW...to anti-vaxxers. Concern about repeated boosters, need of them in younger people and long term studies is NOT the same as not taking it at all. The metrics for not getting vaxxed and exposing oneself to serious illness and death for younger people is a srrious concern and for older, it's certainty.

VAST body bag difference between the two.

 

[Jacob]

Specifically regarding the Moderna vaccine’s myocarditis risk vs. COVID infection the vaccine appears to significantly higher (both still extremely low) in young males in the UK.

Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex

Obviously not the only risk to consider for a COVID infection but on the other hand the vaccine doesn’t preclude you from getting COVID so it’s not an either/or thing either.

 

[HabsAddict]

Specifically regarding the Moderna vaccine’s myocarditis risk vs. COVID infection the vaccine appears to significantly higher (both still extremely low) in young males in the UK.

Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex

Obviously not the only risk to consider for a COVID infection but on the other hand the vaccine doesn’t preclude you from getting COVID so it’s not an either/or thing either.

Moderna is suppose to be the "same" as Pfizer, yet its now is the recommended booster for under 30. OBVIOUSLY not the same. We've also seen AstraZenika dropped. Never mind several foreign invented vaccines that have nowhere near the scrutiny of Pfizer//Moderna.

With Omicron and it's ability to bypass double doses and boosters, the booster question in younger people becomes valid and interesting. The 3 month period even more so. If we start looking at one in million or multi million odds of death for full dosed under 30, is it worth it? Worse, is it worth delaying boosters in older people who face extremely higher risks?

Further, if the metrics for boosters for young people are in the one in million (s), then that may, repeat MAY also be the risk of still to be known long term side effects.

That a conversation to be had, but unfortunately it's turning into polarized vax vs anti-vax.

 

[Fatass]

Moderna is suppose to be the "same" as Pfizer, yet its now is the recommended booster for under 30. OBVIOUSLY not the same. We've also seen AstraZenika dropped. Never mind several foreign invented vaccines that have nowhere near the scrutiny of Pfizer//Moderna.

With Omicron and it's ability to bypass double doses and boosters, the booster question in younger people becomes valid and interesting. The 3 month period even more so. If we start looking at one in million or multi million odds of death for full dosed under 30, is it worth it? Worse, is it worth delaying boosters in older people who face extremely higher risks?

Further, if the metrics for boosters for young people are in the one in million (s), then that may, repeat MAY also be the risk of still to be known long term side effects.

That a conversation to be had, but unfortunately it's turning into polarized vax vs anti-vax.

Why is the Moderna boost 30 (whatever units) and the Pfizer booster is 50 (whatever)?

 

[HabsAddict]

Why is the Moderna boost 30 (whatever units) and the Pfizer booster is 50 (whatever)?

It's the other way around.

Further, from the pharmacist and doctor conversation, the intent is to re-trigger anti-body production. Which of course wanes within a few months.

The pharmacist was also puzzled by the big difference in the initial doses of Moderna and Pfizer. 30 mcg for Pfizer vs 100 mcg for Moderna. He can think of none other then....$$$$.

 

[Jacob]

Originally Moderna doses were 100. Since theirs showed higher rates side effects than Pfizer’s 30 they decided to cut it in half.

 

[HabsAddict]

Originally Moderna doses were 100. Since theirs showed higher rates side effects than Pfizer’s 30 they decided to cut it in half.

Is that cut back on Moderna on 1st and 2nd doses? I didn't ask him.

BTW...this conversation on dosing was last Friday.

EDIT...I wonder, if the only intent is to re-trigger anti-bodies then why not even smaller doses like 10 mcg? Does it matter that we create 10 times as many anti-bodies versus 20 times or 30 times? From my understanding its "first line" response before the body starts to produce huge anti-body response to fight of the infection.

 

[NyQuil]

I’m sure they are doing long term studies on the current vaccines.

The problem being that we need long term before deriving results.

In virtually every other vaccine situation I’m familiar with, the side effects manifest either immediately or within weeks. So there’s reason to be optimistic.

I suspect that there will be a booster designed and aimed at omicron specifically but I’m hopeful that only the vulnerable will need it.

 

[abbbaron]

Go to the provincial covid site and read it. Over 18 and 3 months....get boosted. Black and white.

What evidence is there that there are no long term side effects of mRNA? So should we not make that a priority before we start on a merry go round of boosting? Or is asking/demanding that there should be is some kind of heresy?

Any good reason why you didn't bother providing a link to that "recommendation"? Because I'm having trouble finding any such recommendation (much less one that is intended to extend indefinitely, as you have asserted); I only seem to find permissions/extensions of eligibility.

You didn't address my 2nd question ("what evidence of severe adverse effects of boosters (mRNA or otherwise) have public health experts been ignoring?") which was directly prompted by one of your earlier assertions, but instead you seemingly want to change the burden of proof such that mRNA vaccines now apparently need to have no long term side effects in order to be worth the risk-reward of preventing a covid infection??...right.
There could be long term effects from these vaccines that are unknown to the medical community now, but look at where we are: following multiple clinical trials, there have been almost 1/2 billion vaccine doses administered in the U.S. alone, and the only possible side effects documented thus far largely mirror some of the effects resulting from a covid infection-- but at a fraction of the incidence relative to that of infection! Millions have died resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infections; where are they hiding the millions of bodies who fell victim to the vaccines?

Have you actually read that article in Nature about the history of mRNA technology which you yourself posted? If so, would you like to tell everyone where in that history "safety concerns" was the holdup?

 

[HabsAddict]

I’m sure they are doing long term studies on the current vaccines.

The problem being that we need long term before deriving results.

In virtually every other vaccine situation I’m familiar with, the side effects manifest either immediately or within weeks. So there’s reason to be optimistic.

I suspect that there will be a booster designed and aimed at omicron specifically but I’m hopeful that only the vulnerable will need it.

Agree to a degree.

Agree that we need time to know side effects. Which in current panic mode, we don't have.

Disagree because mRNA is not like every other vaccine. It "should" manifest issues within a month. But again, it's new and then the issue of repeated boosting over very short periods.

Moderation and more balanced policy should be the norm, not panic.

And of course, lock up all the anti-vaxxers (I'm kidding....maybe)

Any good reason why you didn't bother providing a link to that "recommendation"? Because I'm having trouble finding any such recommendation (much less one that is intended to extend indefinitely, as you have asserted); I only seem to find permissions/extensions of eligibility.

You didn't address my 2nd question ("what evidence of severe adverse effects of boosters (mRNA or otherwise) have public health experts been ignoring?") which was directly prompted by one of your earlier assertions, but instead you seemingly want to change the burden of proof such that mRNA vaccines now apparently need to have no long term side effects in order to be worth the risk-reward of preventing a covid infection??...right.
There could be long term effects from these vaccines that are unknown to the medical community now, but look at where we are: following multiple clinical trials, there have been almost 1/2 billion vaccine doses administered in the U.S. alone, and the only possible side effects documented thus far largely mirror some of the effects resulting from a covid infection-- but at a fraction of the incidence relative to that of infection! Millions have died resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infections; where are they hiding the millions of bodies who fell victim to the vaccines?

Have you actually read that article in Nature about the history of mRNA technology which you yourself posted? If so, would you like to tell everyone where in that history "safety concerns" was the holdup?

What are you talking about?

Ontario government is rapidly accelerating its booster dose rollout by expanding eligibility to all individuals aged 18 and over, as well as shortening the interval to three months following an individual’s second dose.

As for adverse effects, we know the short term ones, we do NOT know the long term ones by the very definition of the term. The mRNA has only been in mass use for a year AND boosters for months.

And what the hell are you talking about "hiding million bodies"? That's a worthless fear mongering straw argument to a discussion of the value of boosters in younger people and potential long term side effects particularly to repeated boosters.

Try a more subtle and less histrionic rebuttal.

 

[abbbaron]

What are you talking about?

Ontario government is rapidly accelerating its booster dose rollout by expanding eligibility to all individuals aged 18 and over, as well as shortening the interval to three months following an individual’s second dose.

As for adverse effects, we know the short term ones, we do NOT know the long term ones by the very definition of the term. The mRNA has only been in mass use for a year AND boosters for months.

And what the hell are you talking about "hiding million bodies"? That's a worthless fear mongering straw argument to a discussion of the value of boosters in younger people and potential long term side effects particularly to repeated boosters.

That's called an expansion of eligibility. That is not the blanket recommendation that you try to make it out to be with your talk of "booster merry-go-round". Hello there Mr. Strawman.

I've already made clear in my earlier posts that the risk-reward profile continues to favor immunization through vaccination/boosting over infection. You're trying to fashion it as if that's somehow a close call because we don't know the long term effects of mRNA vaccines...I'm sorry, but any suggestion even adjacent to that is just f***ing stupid.

 

[HabsAddict]

That's called an expansion of eligibility. That is not the blanket recommendation that you try to make it out to be with your talk of "booster merry-go-round". Hello there Mr. Strawman.

I've already made clear in my earlier posts that the risk-reward profile continues to favor immunization through vaccination/boosting over infection. You're trying to fashion it as if that's somehow a close call because we don't know the long term effects of mRNA vaccines...I'm sorry, but any suggestion even adjacent to that is just f***ing stupid.

Talking about stupid...it's to bring stupid hystrionics and ignorance into a debate.

Have you read the Israeli booster studies? Perhaps you should before declaring your ignorance.

As for expanding eligibility, it does not make an argument if that eligibility is need for the expanded group including time frame OR the side effect of pushing those who actually need more into a longer time frame.

Make better arguments or don't waste my time.

 

[Troy McClure]

You have NO long term data on mRNA so stop the bullshit. All we have is one years use...AND boosters are months old.

If your mind can't get around that there should be concern and we should be aware of the potentially which should be studied, then that is your problem. You are actually turning into the opposite end of anti-vaxxers where the mention of concern has you on attack mode.

And of course, you can stop the "anti-vaxxer" bs too because this is not that either. I've been pro-vax, but not a blind fan boy where anyone mentioning concerns is twinkle toad into "look mommy, anti-vaxxer".



What mRNA history? All of one year?

Go ahead and point out the mass use of it for the last decade....

BTW...to anti-vaxxers. Concern about repeated boosters, need of them in younger people and long term studies is NOT the same as not taking it at all. The metrics for not getting vaxxed and exposing oneself to serious illness and death for younger people is a srrious concern and for older, it's certainty.

VAST body bag difference between the two.

Maybe go read the link you posted. mRNA vaccines have been getting injected into people before covid. There have been trials involving rabies and a few different cancers. There have been no meaningful number of bad side effects from those trials just like there have not been any from the covid vaccines. Your vaccine skepticism is based entirely on wishful thinking.

 

[guinness]

Vaccines. Prevent. Hospitalizations. And. Death.

You're typing into the void. I'd toss masks in there as well. Otherwise, it's circular 'arguments', reduced to leveling and whataboutism.

While I'm awaiting the official mailed letter, my local DHHS called me on 12/24 and said that I could go back to normal, midnight on 12/25, about ~3 days after screening positive, as I'm largely symptom-free now. And even when I was symptomatic, it was just head congestion. No cough, fever. Got my booster last month.

And when I was symptomatic with my head cold, I was largely still at work...because hard working (stupid) 'murican. However, luckily myself and direct coworkers all wear masks, and none of them tested positive on Tuesday/Wednesday this week.

Have people actually had a bad upper respiratory infection? It freaking sucks. I can't imagine how bad it would be to potentially wind up in the ICU over one.

I'm fine with boosters, as long as they keep me out of the hospital. Honestly, such a weird hill people keep dying on - no, I'm "healthy", I'm young, I'll pay for quack treatments, or some holistic nonsense, but getting a dose of something that millions of other people have taken around the world is too much.

Sure, no free lunch, can be complications/side effects, and some people cannot be vaccinated, but the reason the virus gets mutating, hanging around, is because some others are loud and selfish. If it's the hill people want to die on, have them sign waivers and not tie up hospitals.

And even in this goofball country, all my doses and tests were free.

 

[I am toxic]

Is that cut back on Moderna on 1st and 2nd doses? I didn't ask him.

BTW...this conversation on dosing was last Friday.

EDIT...I wonder, if the only intent is to re-trigger anti-bodies then why not even smaller doses like 10 mcg? Does it matter that we create 10 times as many anti-bodies versus 20 times or 30 times? From my understanding its "first line" response before the body starts to produce huge anti-body response to fight of the infection.

The primary (2 dose) series of Moderna is still 100 ug doses (200 ug total) while the Moderna booster shot is a 50 ug dose.

So far, my wife who is 2/3 my size has 200 ug from Moderna, while I have 60 ug from Pfizer.

This is sufficient to protect us both to a great extent. It is deeply, deeply stupid and wrong.

But clearly light years better than no vaccine at all.

 

[42]

You have NO long term data on mRNA so stop the bullshit. All we have is one years use...AND boosters are months old.

That is a long time when it comes to vaccines. There is no viable theory that would indicate we can expect adverse effects years later. In all likelihood we have seen all the adverse side effects by now. We also have multiple years of evidence from other vaccines, which are not entirely irrelevant despite mRNA being used in large scale in humans for the first time for SARS-CoV-2.

mRNA vaccines provide the genetic code of the pathogen’s relevant antigen, which is then translated by the host to form the relevant protein from the pathogen being studied. The cells then destroy the injected mRNA, following the development of the protein . The half-life of the mRNA is short and remains in human tissues for just a few days.

At this time there is absolutely no reason to think there will be adverse side effects that we have not seen yet.

 

[Lshap]

You have NO long term data on mRNA so stop the bullshit. All we have is one years use...AND boosters are months old.

If your mind can't get around that there should be concern and we should be aware of the potentially which should be studied, then that is your problem. You are actually turning into the opposite end of anti-vaxxers where the mention of concern has you on attack mode.

And of course, you can stop the "anti-vaxxer" bs too because this is not that either. I've been pro-vax, but not a blind fan boy where anyone mentioning concerns is twinkle toad into "look mommy, anti-vaxxer".

Please stop with the make-believe stories. Name one vaccine that's exhibited long-term effects after a year. The technology behind mRNA vaccines is even LESS likely to generate side effects than traditional vaccines – the mRNA in the vaccine disappears from the body in about two weeks. It doesn't enter the nucleus, it's injected in the muscle, not the bloodstream. So no, there is no legitimate concern of long term effects. It's nothing but a poorly-reasoned argument by desperate anti-vaxers.

And I know you're not necessarily anti-vax. However in this case you're repeating one of their cliches. "We need to see more data" is pure bullshit, because we all know they're not interested in 'more data'; they're just fishing for any scraps of data that agree with them. Frankly, I've had it with their fanboy nonsense.

 

[42]

The primary (2 dose) series of Moderna is still 100 ug doses (200 ug total) while the Moderna booster shot is a 50 ug dose.

So far, my wife who is 2/3 my size has 200 ug from Moderna, while I have 60 ug from Pfizer.

This is sufficient to protect us both to a great extent. It is deeply, deeply stupid and wrong.

But clearly light years better than no vaccine at all.

I've seen studies that show Moderna fairs better than Pfizer in both reduction of infection risk and reduction of severe illness risk, although the studies are quick to point out that there are other differences between the vaccines besides the dosage: Pfizer was approved earlier and thus has been given to an older population, on average (I think the studies were done prior to it being approved for the <18 age group) and Pfizer has a 3-week period between doses while Moderna has 4 (but this wasn't followed strictly in countries like Canada or the UK).

Also, I read a study that showed a Moderna booster generates notably higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than a Pfizer booster.

But in the end, both are excellent and I don't think I'd care which one I took. I ended up with 2 Pfizers and a Moderna booster but that was because of availability and not my selection.

 

[ohuhu7]

Vaccines. Prevent. Hospitalizations. And. Death.

The healthy working age population is not at risk of hospitalization and death.

 

[HabsAddict]

Please stop with the make-believe stories. Name one vaccine that's exhibited long-term effects after a year. The technology behind mRNA vaccines is even LESS likely to generate side effects than traditional vaccines – the mRNA in the vaccine disappears from the body in about two weeks. It doesn't enter the nucleus, it's injected in the muscle, not the bloodstream. So no, there is no legitimate concern of long term effects. It's nothing but a poorly-reasoned argument by desperate anti-vaxers.

And I know you're not necessarily anti-vax. However in this case you're repeating one of their cliches. "We need to see more data" is pure bullshit, because we all know they're not interested in 'more data'; they're just fishing for any scraps of data that agree with them. Frankly, I've had it with their fanboy nonsense.

Maybe go read the link you posted. mRNA vaccines have been getting injected into people before covid. There have been trials involving rabies and a few different cancers. There have been no meaningful number of bad side effects from those trials just like there have not been any from the covid vaccines. Your vaccine skepticism is based entirely on wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking what? That it should have side effects? Are you serious?

Make believe?

I'm going to get on the desktop to find that Israeli study of them seeing a potential connected rare blood disease side effect which prompted my concern.

(I routinely clear history so something I read 15 hours ago in a linked article becomes a bit of a hunt.)