Vermont Skier Visits Down Significantly Due to COVID-19

[flakeydog]

You're correct, he's wrong. Natural infection produces a powerful response a la the vaccine, and probably a bit better given vaccine reactions were worse in the natural COVID19 cohort than the shot cohort.

Antibody responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 - PubMed

In a cohort of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccine recipients (n = 1,090), we observed that spike-specific IgG antibody levels and ACE2 antibody binding inhibition responses elicited by a single vaccine dose in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 35) were similar to those seen...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Interesting article though the link does not actually point to the full article and relating data set, just the abstract. Essentially it says--> [prior infection]+[1 shot of 2 shot vaccine]=[same protection as a fully vaccinated subject without prior infection]. It would indicate that 1 shot of the vaccine is still better than none in individuals with prior infection. What it does not address is the longevity of protection that natural immunity affords nor does it indicate the spectrum of severity of disease in those infected.



My initial point before was not that natural immunity is not effective, it is. In fact, according to the article, it is almost as effective as one shot of the vaccine. The potential issue is its that it may not be consistent. Not everyone infected has the same level of exposure to the virus or severity of disease, both are factors that may have an effect on protection from natural immunity. This may explain the wide range of data points for prior infection individuals as baseline and why we see that group tighten up dramatically after the first shot and even more so after the second.

I may not be an epidemiologist but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express..... wait, scratch that. I haven't stayed in any hotels for over a year. I should go back to selling pillows.

 

[drjeff]

The reality is right now about the longevity of antibodies, be they obtained via infection and recovery or immunization, is that for those who initially got COVID and recovered near the onset of the pandemic, most appear to be showing antibodies still at 12 months.

For those who were part of the initial vaccine trials, they appear to be showing antibodies still at 6-7 months.

Both of those are good signs. Both of those are time frames that will likely continue to increase as the time from the start of COVID and the start of vaccinations, increase.

The fact that public health officials aren't putting that caveat about how the current (perceived short by the public based on the reporting) duration of antibodies is 100% based on the still relatively short time this virus and its vaccines have been around, is frankly just another blunder in the messaging about this virus that does more harm than good about confidence that the public needs to have as we continue to live with this virus and its effects on society as a whole (and not just the actual physical effects that one can have if they get COVID)

 

[Tonyr]

The reality is right now about the longevity of antibodies, be they obtained via infection and recovery or immunization, is that for those who initially got COVID and recovered near the onset of the pandemic, most appear to be showing antibodies still at 12 months.

For those who were part of the initial vaccine trials, they appear to be showing antibodies still at 6-7 months.

Both of those are good signs. Both of those are time frames that will likely continue to increase as the time from the start of COVID and the start of vaccinations, increase.

The fact that public health officials aren't putting that caveat about how the current (perceived short by the public based on the reporting) duration of antibodies is 100% based on the still relatively short time this virus and its vaccines have been around, is frankly just another blunder in the messaging about this virus that does more harm than good about confidence that the public needs to have as we continue to live with this virus and its effects on society as a whole (and not just the actual physical effects that one can have if they get COVID)

Thanks for that info, very helpful.

 

[BenedictGomez]

My initial point before was not that natural immunity is not effective, it is. In fact, according to the article, it is almost as effective as one shot of the vaccine. The potential issue is its that it may not be consistent. Not everyone infected has the same level of exposure to the virus or severity of disease, both are factors that may have an effect on protection from natural immunity. This may explain the wide range of data points for prior infection individuals as baseline and why we see that group tighten up dramatically after the first shot and even more so after the second.

I may not be an epidemiologist but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express..... wait, scratch that. I haven't stayed in any hotels for over a year. I should go back to selling pillows.

It sure seemed to me like your comments were downplaying the natural protection from COVID19. The reality is COVID19 infection + one shot is virtually perfectly the same as no COVID19 + two shots, and this is a good thing.

Also, I know this is ski forum, but scatterplot shotgun raw data (what you posted) isnt the best thing to look at (though it's cool) when you're trying to compare results from different patient cohorts, you need to timestamp correlate it, which the authors did in Table 1 (below), and you can see there's very little difference in receptor site inhibition between people who have COVID19 + 1 shot vaccine, and the people who never got COVID19 but got two shots. It's just 1% better result in the folks who caught COVID19 & got 1 shot. Again, this similarity is a good thing. It also means there's really no point in Harvey getting a 2nd shot, LOL

 

[BenedictGomez]

The fact that public health officials aren't putting that caveat about how the current (perceived short by the public based on the reporting) duration of antibodies is 100% based on the still relatively short time this virus and its vaccines have been around, is frankly just another blunder in the messaging about this virus that does more harm than good about confidence that the public needs to have as we continue to live with this virus and its effects on society as a whole (and not just the actual physical effects that one can have if they get COVID)

Your bug is my feature.

Now, if you want to talk about a real BLUNDER, the complete CYA political decision to "dog-and-pony-show remove" the JNJ vaccine from the market for just a few days, will result in some literal deaths. That was shameful.

 

[drjeff]

Your bug is my feature.

Now, if you want to talk about a real BLUNDER, the complete CYA political decision to "dog-and-pony-show remove" the JNJ vaccine from the market for just a few days, will result in some literal deaths. That was shameful.

Especially if one looks at the data about similar blood clot events and low platelet counts, in the similar age demographic (pre menopausal women) taking oral contraceptives.....

 

[Harvey]

It also means there's really no point in Harvey getting a 2nd shot, LOL

It gets me in to VT and potentially other places.

 

[BenedictGomez]

It gets me in to VT and potentially other places.

Are there places that are actually checking? I don't think I've heard of any here in NJ.

Either way, it's distressing to me that the science is completely irrelevant.

 

[JimG.]

Are there places that are actually checking? I don't think I've heard of any here in NJ.

Either way, it's distressing to me that the science is completely irrelevant.

I think Harvey is like me in this regard.

People have been saying all season that nobody is checking. That was totally irrelevant to me. I'm not going to sneak around or potentially have to lie to go skiing.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I think Harvey is like me in this regard.

People have been saying all season that nobody is checking. That was totally irrelevant to me. I'm not going to sneak around or potentially have to lie to go skiing.

Even when you're 100% vaccinated against COVID19?!

Because that's what we're now currently talking about if you're following the conversation.

 

[JimG.]

Even when you're 100% vaccinated against COVID19?!?!?!?!

Because that's what we're now currently talking about if you're following the conversation.

He's going to wait until after he gets his second shot. That's what I read into his reply anyway.

It is odd to me that doing the right thing surprises and annoys so many people.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I TOO have been following the rules & not "sneaking around".

I didn't go to Vermont so much as even ONCE to ski this entire year (usually would have been roughly 20 days or so) & we haven't seen family in 9 months, including recent babies.

But come tomorrow, I will officially have an estimated 90% efficacy against COVID19 given my vaccination date, and State of Vermont can now officially kiss my ass.

Science > Uneducated Obedience to authority

 

[BenedictGomez]

He's going to wait until after he gets his second shot. That's what I read into his reply anyway.

It is odd to me that doing the right thing surprises and annoys so many people.

Well I was commenting on your response to that, not his as your post was about you. Secondly he doesnt even need a second shot given he had COVID19, but it's 100% not his fault for not knowing that & I wouldnt expect him or anyone else to know that, but it is the fault of our government who's been ******* this up royally.

Frankly, several months back when CDC learned how robust & durable the protective response to the first shot (CDC data below) is they should have changed the entire national dosing regimen to let ANYONE who wants to get the shot get it, and delayed the 2nd shot to something like 10 or 12 weeks after the first dose rather than 3 weeks to stretch our supply as far as possible rather than have many millions of people like me wait several extra months unprotected while wanting to be vaccinated. People no doubt died because of this. I give it 3 to 6 months before people figure this out and it's on 60 Minutes or something.

 

[JimG.]

And I sometimes wonder why I spend a lot less time here. It's like the TV torture scene from "A Clockwork Orange".
Thanks for reminding me.

 

[kingslug]

 

[Harvey]

I'm not exactly sure what I think. I'm not really a blind rule follower, I drive over the speed limit, j walk, etc. Basically make some of my own decisions based on what I think is common sense.

Part of me feels like if VT doesn't want me there I won't go. I wouldn't go to someone's house if they told me not to come.

For me, I feel like there is nothing more important than beating the pandemic. (It is really causing issues for my 14yo. She feels isolated and sad.) Do I need to wear a mask? I'm not totally sure, but it's such a minor thing. And the other (non-vaxed, non-covid recovered) guy has no idea about my history. I wear a mask in the store because I want others to do it.

Who knows what is right. One thing I do blame the govt for, the guidance has been inconsistent. It's no wonder everyone is confused.

 

[Smellytele]

I'm not exactly sure what I think. I'm not really a blind rule follower, I drive over the speed limit, j walk, etc. Basically make some of my own decisions based on what I think is common sense.

Part of me feels like if VT doesn't want me there I won't go. I wouldn't go to someone's house if they told me not to come.

For me, I feel like there is nothing more important than beating the pandemic. (It is really causing issues for my 14yo. She feels isolated and sad.) Do I need to wear a mask? I'm not totally sure, but it's such a minor thing. And the other (non-vaxed, non-covid recovered) guy has no idea about my history. I wear a mask in the store because I want others to do it.

Who knows what is right. One thing I do blame the govt for, the guidance has been inconsistent. It's no wonder everyone is confused.

It’s not that they don’t want you, the landlord (state) just wants you to take off your shoes (quarantine) before you enter the house. But then the tenant ( business owners) just lets you in anyway with your shoes on and tells you just to wipe your feet(wear a mask)

 

[Harvey]

Just not practical to quarantine, maybe not possible with a kid in school. Had a great season in NY.

 

[BenedictGomez]

It’s not that they don’t want you, the landlord (state) just wants you to take off your shoes (quarantine) before you enter the house. But then the tenant ( business owners) just lets you in anyway with your shoes on and tells you just to wipe your feet(wear a mask)

Once you can 100% verify there's no mud on your feet, the landlord should shut up about your shoes.

 

[cdskier]

Just not practical to quarantine, maybe not possible with a kid in school. Had a great season in NY.

Well now quarantine isn't even an option to visit VT if you're unvaccinated. Somehow it was good enough for months and months, but now ONLY a negative test within 3 days prior to going to VT is good enough. So you can have a negative test on a Wednesday, go to a party on Thursday, go to VT on Friday and somehow you're considered "safer" than someone who has stayed in their own house and goes directly to VT after quarantining but simply didn't waste time/money on a test.