@Joe S that sounds spot on. (No pun intended...)
I am subject to several of those factors and it makes perfect sense to me...hence my hesitance to put Moderna in the crosshairs.
Great post.
@Joe S that sounds spot on. (No pun intended...)
I am subject to several of those factors and it makes perfect sense to me...hence my hesitance to put Moderna in the crosshairs.
Great post.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Oddly enough...I'm hardly aware of it at all today. Best it's been in I don't know how long.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Don't jinx yourself there!Originally Posted by blues
I know if I said something like that I'd have the worst case of it in 20 years in a matter of minutes.
I'm getting a little payback for my hubris...but pretty minuscule at the moment.
There's nothing civil about this war.
It would also be helpful to know when they got the vax, did they receive a second dose, which vax, etc. First time vax numbers are up here, but some will get Covid before they get the second dose.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
I’ve got a question for our med folks from a friend who is recovering from covid who asked me about the vaccination.
I know the cdc says 10 days after you’re symptom free and you’re ok to get it. I was wondering if it might make sense to wait a little longer since the body should have some natural immunity?
@pangloss
im strong, i can run faster than train
I'd probably wait at least 30 days and likely 40. For vaccines, you're never supposed to shorten the interval between immunizations, but it usually is okay to lengthen the interval. Based on that, I'd absolutely not get the vaccine sooner than three weeks after symptoms resolved. My sister was infected a couple of days after her first shot. I think I told her to wait 30 or 60 days. I can't remember which.
Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk
This study was referenced in a WSJ article, which stated that the study indicated that Moderna generated twice the antibody count as Pfizer.
But, still preliminary, and I'm not an expert, and I can barely read the study, with its big words and math and such.
Higher antibody titers were observed in participants vaccinated with 2 doses of mRNA-1273 compared with those vaccinated with BNT162b2 (geometric mean titer [GMT], 3836 U/mL [95% CI, 3586-4104] vs 1444 U/mL [95% CI, 1350-1544]; P < .001) (Figure, A).
Study:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...tm_term=083021
Article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-wei...d=hp_lead_pos5
Interestingly, we so far have no postmarket data to suggest that Moderna shots lead to better clinical outcomes.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
I just took a quick look at the JAMA article. A key point is the scale of the assay and the distribution of the response in each group. A two fold difference on a six log scale is really not a big deal. The variability of the response within each group is huge. There's a difference in statistical significant and biological significance. At this point, we don't have the data to determine if a statistically significant 2x difference is biologically significant. My guess is that we'll see breakthrough infections in the Pfizer group about 3 weeks sooner than the Moderna group because the half life of IgG in blood is ~22 days. I had a discussion about this topic at work yesterday, and a colleague used fire as an analogy: if you have a fire that requires one gallon of water to extinguish, are you better served having ten gallons of water or five gallons of water?
Reply With Quote