which vaccine?
I heard that was to give others a chance while you had antibodies, as things opened up, I guess they didn’t think about it
not sure, I have spoken to them yet. my wife didn’t ask
The questions when you sign up just ask if you’ve had covid in the past two weeks. I think waiting longer than two weeks is just to let others with no immunity go first, since pretty much no one has been reinfected in less than 3 months.
2 Likes
Oh, I thought it was a safety thing — that makes sense then.
BUT, I would not be surprised that it contributed to them being so sick
probably. i’d likely wait if i had covid recently. not worth being sick yet again when you’re not at risk for a while.
Helped one of my HS friends get a J&J vaccination in my hometown.
It was a bit disturbing how many appointments were available in the West Sound.
IFYP.
We obviously read different medical journals.
Or you simply have different definitions of “pretty much no one”.
I thought the number of infections after 3 months was non-zero but extremely low. Suggesting that very few people are vulnerable to reinfection after 3 months but a few are.
This. 
The studies I’ve seen put the “efficacy” of previous infection preventing reinfection at about the same level (~95%) as the best vaccines at preventing infection.
2 Likes
The most recent study I’ve found (using the extensively-tested Danish population) found
Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4–84·5). The alternative cohort analysis gave similar estimates (adjusted RR 0·212 [0·179–0·251], estimated protection 78·8% [74·9–82·1]). In the alternative cohort analysis, among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection was 47·1% (95% CI 24·7–62·8).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00575-4/fulltext
That’s not as good as the vaccines. I mean, it’s a lot better than nothing.
I also found a study that said 4.5% of infections in some large group were second infections, but that was a large group of the currently infected, it wasn’t looking at the rate of reinfection among those who were previously infected.
So that’s better than Johnson & Johnson.
It’s not as good as Pfizer & Moderna’s published numbers, but given that those two weren’t tested with the new variants who knows if those are accurate.
For younger people, yeah. The vaccines show decent efficacy in the elderly, though. And the Danish study found less than 50% protection among those over 65.
I wonder how long immunity will last. My BIL keeps asking me that, and i keep pointing out that we can’t know for sure until time passes.
Also, the data in that study was all collected in 2020, prior to many variants making it to Denmark.
By the way, it’s unusual for a vaccine to provide better protection than natural infection, but that’s what the data shows with these (at least, i saw some of the data for Moderna.) That’s probably because traditionally, vaccines have been made by growing the actual virus and either killing it or weakening it, and then “infecting” people with the damaged natural virus.
In this case, scientists genetically sequenced the part of the virus that it uses to enter cells (the spike protein) and then modified it slightly, so the business end stays “open” and isn’t hidden by other parts of the protein. Then they programmed either messenger RNA (Pfizer & moderna) or DNA (j&j) to instruct some of your muscle cells to make that slightly modified protein in a way that stimulates an immune response.
It’s a brand new technique, and no one knew if it would work at all. There had never been an RNA vaccine prior to covid, not even an animal vaccine. And I think the Ebola vaccine is the only previous one using the DNA-inserted-into-harmless-virus technique that J&J, AstraZeneca, and Sputnik use.
The actual data in that study showed out of 11,068 people who tested positive the first time and met the eligibility requirements to be in the study only 72 or 0.65% actually tested positive a second time.
I would classify < 1% being reinfected as “non zero, but extremely low”.
The 80% number was calculated on the same basis that they calculate vaccine efficacy. That would make it more effective than J&J, which is 67% under this measure, and not that far behind Moderna/Pfizer which are showing about 90% in the real world at preventing positive test results.
1 Like
Well, most people don’t even get exposed. So it’s right to measure it the same way as vaccine efficacy is measured.
And even J&J reports better than 60% efficacy for those over 65, which is significantly better than the Danish results
https://www.fda.gov/media/146304/download
Of the 21,895 individuals
who received a single-dose of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine in COV3001, 19.5% (n=4,259)
were 65 years of age and older and 3.7% (n=809) were 75 years of age and older. No overall
differences in safety or efficacy were observed between individuals 65 years of age and older and
younger individuals.
But yes, perhaps those of you under 50 who who have recovered from covid should hold off getting vaccinated until there’s more data, and in the meantime, leave vaccine for those of us who are at higher risk.
Still seems like some effort to get appointments near me. Closest one is 44 miles away.
Also should note that the Danish study is based purely off of PCR tests. If you look at the larger Qatar study, which had similar rates of PCR positivity, they found only 41% of those PCR positive tests for reinfection actually had epidemiological evidence for an actual infection. So these reinfection numbers are overestimated. Using this info Qatar actually estimates the protection rate against actual infection to be 95%. This study is more in line with the other large studies on reinfection rates done. The Danish study is the outlier on the low end.
1 Like