Vaccination question not asked by the MSM

[Shermann]

Why does the MSM always ask the same questions again and again and miss some obvious ones?

QUESTION

It takes the first vaccine shot 2-3 weeks to provide 80% protection against infection. Are you more vulnerable to infection during this time?

It seems plausible that the body's immune response to the vaccine could weaken its ability to respond to an actual infection at the same time, increasing the chances of it being overwhelmed.

If true, it would be prudent to maximize your social distancing efforts during these few vulnerable weeks. Isn't this an important question?

[uponit7771]

1. Delete

Last edited Tue Mar 30, 2021, 11:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Delete

[Mariana]

22. The post you linked to says the exact opposite.

[Michigan Health & Hospital Association] officials say they’ve heard no reports of hospitalizations among people who are fully or partially vaccinated.

[LisaL]

27. Exactly.

Even within first two weeks after vaccination, there is some protective effect on infection. Not the other way around.

[uponit7771]

35. Thx, fixing post

[womanofthehills]

56. Here is a report of hospitalization of a fully vaccinated person - i think it's a good question

17 Brenham nursing home residents contract COVID-19 after getting shots

BRENHAM, Texas – Seventeen residents of a Brenham nursing home contracted coronavirus after being either partially or fully vaccinated against the virus with an inoculation created to prevent people from developing a severe illness.

Officials at Focused Care at Brenham said Tuesday that nine of the 17 residents who have tested positive for COVID-19 were fully vaccinated, while the remaining eight had received only the first of the two doses.

Nanette Riedell-Mendez said her 95-year-old mother, Francine Riedell, received her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine Jan. 28. She said she got a call March 1 from the nursing home telling her that her mother had tested positive. She said her mother collapsed Sunday and had to be hospitalized.

“She seems to be doing well,” Riedell-Mendez said. “Recuperating and she’s not intubated. She’s not on oxygen, from what I understand.”
In addition to the residents, six staff members have also tested positive. Two of the six had received one dose, while a third had received both doses. The remaining three had not been vaccinated.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/03/10/17-brenham-nursing-home-residents-contract-covid-19-after-getting-shots/

[Sgent]

59. That sounds almost

like the shots delivered to the nursing home weren't properly cooled and thus ineffective.

[Mariana]

68. That's what I think.

That is just so unusual. I hope an investigation is being done. It might have just been an error somewhere along the line in the handling, but sabotage is a possibility as well.

[Mariana]

67. The poster I responded to did not ask a question.

The poster made an incorrect statement, and then apparently realized the error and deleted the post.

This cluster in Texas is so unusual I have to suspect that the vaccine administered to them was faulty, perhaps from careless handling or maybe even from sabotage. There has been at least one case of someone who intentionally left some doses of vaccine out to thaw, knowing they would be rendered ineffective. He intended to let people be injected with the vaccine he destroyed.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/pharmacist-pleads-guilty-federal-charges-intentionally-sabotaging-covid/story?id=75501623

[LisaL]

28. As already has been pointed out to you, you are completely mischaracterizing

the actual evidence.

[uponit7771]

37. Thx, post fixed

[Eugene]

2. A DU thread about Michigan's latest surge touches on this.

Michigan: 53% surge in hospitalizations BUT none who were fully / partially vaccinated.

The numbers suggest that the 1st dose offers at least some protection. One of the big benefits of a vaccination is to keep people who do get infected out of the hospital.

[Shermann]

3. I'm aware of the Michigan article

That deals with "fully or partially vaccinated" people.

I'm interested in the first week or so when you recently had the shot but haven't reached "partial vaccination" status.

It's potentially a very different situation.

[Ms. Toad]

40. Partially vaccinated INCLUDES the period you are concerned about.

There were NO hospitalizations or deaths in people in the 1st week following the first vaccination.

[Shermann]

41. Insufficient data, see post #5 nt

[Ms. Toad]

42. Then I'll just fall back on the reason that the question isn't being asked

is because there is no science-based theory on which it makes sense.

In response to similar anti-vaccine concerns:

Some parents worry about overloading a child's immune system. But parents don't need to be concerned about this. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that babies' immune systems can handle the number of recommended vaccines (aap.org) according to the vaccination schedule because they are exposed to multiple germs on a daily basis. A healthy baby's immune system can accommodate multiple vaccinations. In fact, babies' immune systems can respond to approximately 100,000 organisms at once. The antigens in vaccines use only a small fraction of a baby's immune system response. Childhood immunizations are recommended to children at a susceptible young age after immunity from their mother wears off. Again, there is more harm in not vaccinating your baby. See:The Harm of Delaying or Skipping.

The only thing different with COVID 19 is that other vaccines inject dead or live attenuated virtses. The mRNA vaccines fool your body into making cells that mimic SARS COV-2 by manufacturing protein spikes that attach to cells in your body. Your body then reacts to those cells as if they were SARS COV-2.

Just as with infants, your body uses only a small fraction of your immune system response, and does not impair its ability to respond to infections in the immediate aftermath of the first vaccine.

[Shermann]

44. That's helpful, thanks

It sounds like this really is not a concern. So the mRNA vaccine puts a stress on your immune system, but it is a relatively small stress.

I guess the MSM can go back to focusing on what Ted Cruz is up to.

[womanofthehills]

57. Some scientists have said that because the spike protein is so specific it dominates your natural

immunity at this time. Its a time when you should be very careful. The spike is a copy of a small part of the virus, not the total virus so it's extreme specificity can be a problem with the new variants. So many scientists out there with so many different opinions - who really knows? I would just mask up and stay home for a few weeks.

[Shermann]

69. Always a good idea to STFH if you can

That said, at this point I believe the concern that I brought up in this post is low risk and not worth focusing on.

My criticism of the MSM stands, however.

[DenaliDemocrat]

4. No, the data does not suggest this

If you look at the Pfizer and Moderna Phase III results, you will see the control and post vaccinated groups track perfectly until around Day 7, when the control diverges and on a steeper slope.

[Shermann]

5. It doesn't, nor does it rule it out in a statistically significant way

There were fewer than 200 CV-19 cases to analyze out of 40000 participants or so over a couple of months. So only a couple dozen infections may have occurred during that first week, which isn't a very large data set.

[LisaL]

9. Those infections were not increased in vaccine group compared to placebo group.

NT

[DenaliDemocrat]

49. Which completely nullified your argument

If you ascertain that the vaccine decreases your immunity because of a taxed immune system, then there would have been MORE early infections in the vaccine group as compared to the control.

That didn’t happen. 40,000 is a large N. N=15 is sufficient power for a lot of things.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. Generally True

A long standing joke about statisticians is that they count "1....28, 29, 30, Infinity."
For loads of things related, but independent, sample sets of 30 are often highly significant.
In reviewing quality data, 15 gives accurate view of forming trends, but with an inflated sigma. By 30 separate events, the sigma won't change much even with a thousand samples. Reliability of conclusions rises dramatically.
Given the uncontrolled variables involved in healthcare stats, 30 isn't close to enough. One needs many, many more to hope to smooth out the subsets of health conditions, age of immune system, body chemistry, comorbidities, etc.
So, for these situations, 15 or 30 isn't enough. But, 40,000 sure is!

[Shermann]

64. The 40,000 number is misleading

That was a net to catch actual cases, of which there were < 200. Only that case number is used to determine efficacy, and the data for the other 39800 participants is thrown out.

So you could do a challenge trial with 500 or so participants and get a similarly accurate efficacy number. Right or wrong, we didn't go that route.

[ProfessorGAC]

70. Agreed!

200 seems a large enough sample to get statistical significance.
I'd probably go higher to get that intrinsic variable smoothing, but not by thousands.
My point was more that for this type of data, 15 or 30 isn't enough. Though that's a good sample set in many situations, it's not for this case.

[FBaggins]

6. You not understanding how something works...

...Does not make a theory “plausible”.

Many billions of doses of other vaccines have been in use for decades. The effect you fear is only “plausible” if such an impact has been previously observed in vaccines that lack a live virus

[Shermann]

10. My statement was "seems plausible"

Also this was essentially a question and not an assertion or theory. I freely admit to not not fully understanding it. The only assertion I made is that the MSM hasn't addressed this.

So when you feel run down following a vaccine shot, this is your immune system responding to the vaccine in an identical fashion as it would respond to an actual infection. So if your immune system is responding to the vaccine in your blood, is it not less able to respond at that moment to a massive exposure of actual virus in your lungs? Even if only slightly?

It's not that often that we have large scale vaccinations in the midst of a pandemic, so I reject the evidence that this hasn't been previously observed as inconclusive. There also isn't any long-term data on MRNA vaccines.

[LisaL]

11. What seems plausible to you doesn't actually make it plausible.

Again, there is nothing to suggest infection rates increase during first several weeks after first dose.

[FBaggins]

33. And my response was that it does not, in fact, seem plausible

So when you feel run down following a vaccine shot, this is your immune system responding to the vaccine in an identical fashion as it would respond to an actual infection. So if your immune system is responding to the vaccine in your blood, is it not less able to respond at that moment to a massive exposure of actual virus in your lungs? Even if only slightly?

Just the opposite is at least as likely. Scientists have noticed that people rarely get a cold and the flu at the same time. This might be because both viruses are competing for the same territory, but it could also be because the immune response to the first virus makes it harder for the second one to take hold.

But the point is that if there were a general principle that your body is more susceptible to a given virus while the immune system is responding to a vaccine targeting that virus... we would expect to have seen such an issue over the many billions of vaccinations in the last several decades. Your "not during a pandemic" response is inadequate. Flu vaccines are given while the flu is circulating. That's hundreds of millions of chances for this imagined effect to show up - and most primary vaccines were initially developed while those illnesses were running rampant.

[DenaliDemocrat]

50. To expand upon this....

All of the vaccines key upon the spike protein which gains entry into the cell via the angiotensin receptors. They essentially produce the protein either by introduction via mRNA or a plasmid vector (adeno virus) encapsulation DNA.

Assuming you were exposed after vaccinated, you would expect less viral load because the real virus spike protein is now competing for those angiotensin receptors with the vaccine induced spike protein.

[Shermann]

52. So in the short term the vaccine can suppress the mechanism of the virus in a different way?

This is really the first I've heard of this, is there a link?

[DenaliDemocrat]

60. Here

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7

[Shermann]

63. The paper covers infections occurring 12-37 days after the first dose

There's no mention of 1-11 days, nor are "angiotensin receptors" mentioned. Perhaps this is the wrong paper?

[DenaliDemocrat]

65. The paper clearly shows a reduction of viral load

When infected after vaccination which is measurable around day 11. The mode of action is not investigated. Regardless, this is direct opposition to your premise that inoculation would cause more or a more severe infection and instead demonstrated the opposite, a reduction in viral load post vaccination

[Shermann]

66. Direct opposition? Not really, there is a huge 11 day hole in this rebuttal of yours

I have a science background and do read papers and am not easily bamboozled.

It's really a non-issue at this point, I've accepted some of the other explanations.

[womanofthehills]

61. Your immune system, esp. soreness of your arm, is also responding to the adjuvants in the vaccine

Some are having an allergic reaction to PEG (polyethylene glycol) - the lipid that encases the mRNA in Pfizer and Moderna. Your immune system can't be responding in an identical way as an actual infection with Covid. In an actual infection without the vaccine, your body would be responding to the entire virus and with the vaccine, your body is responding to only a small part of the virus - a lab copy of the spike protein. Some scientists have reported that the vaccine antibodies will then dominate your natural antibodies.

[Hortensis]

45. Your initial premise that media didn't "ask the question" was wrong

and thus cast aspersion where it didn't belong. This issue has been discussed every day, in every possible way, and in hundreds of interviews with disease professionals.

[Shermann]

55. I see

So you know all about this second method to suppress the mechanism of the virus in post 50 then? This competition between the real virus spike protein and the vaccine for angiotensin receptors? That's apparently all common knowledge that I somehow missed, leading to my asking of questions which are both nonsensical AND redundant (however that is possible).

[womanofthehills]

58. Never before have we been vaccinating so many people during a pandemic

Past vaccines have been mostly preventative - not given at a time when a virus was rampant.

[FBaggins]

62. That isn't really true... but also isn't relevant

Whether it's billions of samples or merely hundreds of millions... There have been more than enough cases out there to identify whether your likelihood of catching a virus actually goes up for a short time after vaccination.

But it isn't really true. Most vaccines with global application were developed and distributed while the illness they targeted was active in the population.

[secondwind]

7. From everything I've seen, read and heard...

you are to continue wearing a mask and observe social distancing in public even after vaccination, but it’s safe for you to mingle with family, if all have been vaccinated.

[LisaL]

8. Why would anyone ask this question?

There is no evidence to suggest infections surge after first vaccination. Clinical trials have been completed. Nothing to suggest that people are particularly vulnerable during first two weeks after vaccination.

[Shermann]

12. I rejected the soundness of that assertion in post 5 nt

[LisaL]

26. Because you are refusing to accept what is already available evidence.

NT

[Hugin]

13. Anecdotal at best, but, I was looking at the curves...

posted for the antibody levels measured for the various vaccines. In particular the J&J vaccine, when they were talking about looking at testing a longer period after the shot to find the peak immunity level achieved. Since that shot is different from the other two.

It looked as if there was a lag of maybe 24 - 48 hours after the first shot was administered when there was a slight dip in immunity. (ALWAYS BETTER THAN NOTHING, THOUGH) It was all up after that point.

So, no sweat, if you are conscientiously practicing the established protocols.

[Shermann]

14. Interesting, thanks

I wouldn't expect this to be a high risk issue, in any event. Just another small thing to know about to maximize your chances of a good outcome.

[Hugin]

43. What I'm finding interesting are the reports the vaccinations may help...

the so-called long haulers.

Never before seen, but, we're learning things every day.

[LisaL]

15. There are no antibodies to covid in those who haven't been exposed to it.

So how can there be a dip in something that doesn't exist? You start with nothing and slowly build up for the next 2-3 weeks.

[Hugin]

17. Did you miss where I said, "ALWAYS BETTER THAN NOTHING"?

I was pretty clear on that.

[LisaL]

18. I don't know what curves you looked at.

So I am not clear as to what you are saying. What is better than nothing? Antibody level?
Yea, it would be kind of hard to get negative antibody level, considering you don't have antibodies if you haven't been exposed.

[hamsterjill]

16. This is a good question.

Why HASN’T this, along with many others, been asked? I admit to wondering about that myself.

I’ve also found that if one poses a question on DU as to the vaccine, that there is immediate defense of the vaccine. There is no need for any defense.

No one is questioning the vaccine. But asking questions about it should be encouraged; not discouraged.

I personally want more information about how long it protects. I don’t think they have that data yet, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to ask. It’s a legitimate concern.

There are reports of some having reactions to the shot. I have questions about that. Saying that only involves “a small number” gives me NO comfort. What if someone is the unlucky one to be in that “small number”.

No, I don’t want to get COVID and NO I don’t want to die on a ventilator. I don’t want to contribute to making anyone else sick, and in podunk Texas, I’m on a waiting list to get vaccinated.

But good grief - let the questions be asked so answers can be known.

[Shermann]

19. I guess I should state I'm not an anti-vaxxer?

I had shot #1 yesterday and am deliberating working from home for 2-3 days. A lot of small risk mitigation measures can add up.

I support the vaccine manufacturers and respect the clinical data, but it does have its limits dealing with outliers and there isn't years worth of data to analyze.

I also think this is a more interesting question than whether some Republican should be wearing a mask or not. Snap out of it MSM.

[DenaliDemocrat]

51. It's not an interesting question

It’s nonsensical. As noted above, viral load would be decreased as real virus particles compete with vaccine induced spike proteins for the same receptors.

Your body is NOT run down. Quite the opposite. Your body is in full defense mode, which is why you feel like hell.

[Shermann]

54. Here's an actual reader question posted on CNN:

Q: What should I do if I’m wearing a mask but have to sneeze?
A: If there are tissues nearby, you can take your mask off and sneeze into the tissue before putting your mask back on, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta said.

Thanks CNN. I have to say that's way more interesting than my question...

[LisaL]

20. Because there is no need to ask something that makes no sense.

In clinical trials, during the first two weeks, there was no increase in infection, and in fact the opposite was true. There was some protection even during the first two weeks after the first shot.
The rates of adverse reactions are also known for the most part, although as millions of people get vaccinated, some new adverse reactions come up.
What if someone is unlucky one to be in a small number-then you are shit out of luck. Nobody is going to tell you how your specific immune system is going to react.
Nobody is going to be able to guarantee you won't win the lottery jackpot if you play-however small your chances are.

[Shermann]

21. So your assertion is that the protection goes straight up immediately following the first shot?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm skeptical that the clinical data supports that at this point.

At the end of the day, it doesn't need to. The protection will go up in two weeks or so, and that is the important thing. I've not lost focus of that. But lingering questions always remain on a complex subject like this, I'm sorry you can't make sense of them.

[hamsterjill]

24. Your question makes sense to me.

Also, as you hit upon up thread, the data is as good as we have considering the time frame. But each day gives more data and we should always be questioning it.

The shot is the best we have right now. But every day as more information is known, we need to have that information available.

[LisaL]

29. The question has already been answered during clinical trials.

If you refuse to accept the answer, so be it.

[lagomorph777]

32. What? There's not a trace of a hint of that in LisaL's post.

Why are you putting up a straw man?

[hamsterjill]

23. If there's a question, let it be asked.

Are you a medical expert? I’m asking because I’d like to have confidence in your answers.

[LisaL]

30. If I told you that I am an expert, you'd really have no way to verify it, would you?

NT

[Shermann]

36. So your assertion stands because if you supported it, the support couldn't be verified?

Wow, that's a next-level circular argument right there.

[LisaL]

38. No, my assertion is that you are wrong based on available evidence.

There is no increase in infection risk after the first dose. Yet you insist on trying to claim otherwise.

[hamsterjill]

47. No, but I think you've answered my question.

n/t

[hamsterjill]

25. And I don't want to be "shit out of luck".

Therefore....I ask questions.

[lagomorph777]

31. It's like you're trying to find any little wedge,

no matter how improbable.

I've never heard of any vaccine causing a temporary drop in immunity. It takes time for your body to respond and therefore there's a waiting period before you can count on immunity (and that period begins after your 2nd dose, for Pfizer or J&J).

Certainly while waiting, take all the normal precautions; in fact, I'll continue to take precautions for quite a while after I finally get my vaccine(s). That's not because there's any reason to think I'll be more vulnerable; it's just normal caution.

[Shermann]

34. Improbable Little Wedges

I like that, can I use that?

At one point the beneficiality of wearing masks was deemed improbable. I'm glad we quickly moved to a better scientific position, largely from the leverage of those improbable little wedges.

[lagomorph777]

39. Mask wearing was never an improbable wedge, except to Trumpers.

It's been used at least since the plagues of the Middle Ages, and more recently in the 1918 flu pandemic, and SARS-COV-1 (COVID-19 is SAR-COV-2).

We have always known that masks work.

[andym]

46. Actually, your question is not asked because vaccines actually stimulate immunity generally

Last edited Tue Mar 30, 2021, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

before reaching full efficacy.
They do not weaken the immune system, but actually activate it, putting it on alert. The idea is that vaccines activate the immune system and the immune systemthen can more easily attack even other infections from that point onwards. How does it work? The immune system increases the number of B and T lymphocytes available to fight infections in general, as well as launching a specific response against the vaccinated antigen. That's why getting even unrelated vaccines may be helpful in a limited way to ward off infections with other agents.

In the case of the Covid vaccine, even though significant adaptive immunity is not achieved until about 3 weeks, in the meantime the immune system is on heightened alert and the available antibodies though low in titer can only be helpful.

[Shermann]

48. Good enough, thanks! nt

[FakeNoose]

71. Here's an anecdotal example

My 16-year-old nephew was able to get vaccinated almost 2 weeks ago, owing to his job as a part-time waiter in a classy upscale restaurant.

While building up immunities during the vax recovery period this boy and his dad (my brother-in-law) started feeling weird symptoms such as headache, slight temperature and loss of taste and smell. So they decided to get tested for Covid a couple days ago. Both tests came back positive, however my 14-year-old niece who was also tested, came back negative.


The already vaccinated nephew does have Covid, unless this is somehow a false positive. My BIL had not been vaccinated yet but he may have been exposed to the virus by my nephew. If not from the boy, then he has no idea how he was exposed.