Positive between vaccine shots

3,140 Views | 48 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Old Buffalo
cjsag94
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:56a, 8/31/21
AG
I came here seeking information regarding 2 specific questions about my situation. I recognize this is a message board and people can say what they want. A few people answered my question, but most posts were simply questioning my choices.

I did link 1 cdc page when someone asked where I had seen some data.. But all of my other "opining" was me stating that I made a choice that I was comfortable with.

I come to this page periodically to get information that seems front line. I've noticed there are a few people on pretty much every topic that opine against the vaccine or the CDC or whatever else. I just don't understand why the need to turn everything in to a debate. This board is a useful resource, just wish you didn't have to scroll through all the opining on every topic.
Reply Quote
9
cjsag94
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to waitwhat? • 11:00a, 8/31/21
AG
waitwhat? said:
cjsag94 said:
FriscoKid said:
cjsag94 said:
Apparently because I've chosen to follow the advice of those who say it is a good idea.

She is sick right now and building antibodies to fight off the virus. What do you think the vaccine does exactly?


I'm not anything remotely resembling a scientist, so I don't "think" anything. I wouldn't know what to"think" if I read every study and medical journal. I simply choose to believe the sources that suggest there is added benefit to taking the vaccine even if you've already had covid.

Maybe I'll grow that extra limb some day and live to regret it.
Is it you getting the shot or your wife? You've gone back and forth in your OP and replies. Or is nobody getting it and you're just stirring the pot?


Not sure where I went back and forth, but to clarify, I have been fully vaccinated since April and my wife is between her first and second shot.

One of my questions was in regards to the hospitalization rate of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. I assume that data assumes you are either fully vaccinated, or not vaccinated. So I assume my wife would be considered unvaccinated if she became critical.

I was trying to get a feel for any peace of mind I could take in her having 1 but not both shots, with respect to the gravest of outcomes.
Reply Quote
1
Oogway
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:07a, 8/31/21
I don't know if this will help your wife with her decision making, but IIRC in the fine print for the vaccine I received (Moderna)==there was a window between 28-42 days after the first shot, so she could wait until she's feeling better and it would likely be fine. That was from the CDC--they preferred the early date, but mentioned the latter as well.
Reply Quote
1
FriscoKid
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cjsag94 • 11:13a, 8/31/21
AG
cjsag94 said:
I came here seeking information regarding 2 specific questions about my situation. I recognize this is a message board and people can say what they want. A few people answered my question, but most posts were simply questioning my choices.

I did link 1 cdc page when someone asked where I had seen some data.. But all of my other "opining" was me stating that I made a choice that I was comfortable with.

I come to this page periodically to get information that seems front line. I've noticed there are a few people on pretty much every topic that opine against the vaccine or the CDC or whatever else. I just don't understand why the need to turn everything in to a debate. This board is a useful resource, just wish you didn't have to scroll through all the opining on every topic.
A doc should tell you that it's a bad idea to cause your wife's immune system to fight the vaccine while that same immune system is fighting the actual virus. NO she shouldn't get the vaccine while she is sick with the virus. What's the point? What are you trying to accomplish? The vaccine isn't tamiful. It's not going to fight the active virus that is attacking her body.

But, you are asking the body to produce antibodies as a result of the vaccine. Her body it doing that right now as it is fighting off the actual virus. I don't see any logical point in thinking this would be a good idea.

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
BCG Disciple
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:15a, 8/31/21
AG
Zobel said:
There are some problems with the studies coming out of Israel. I mean, let me rephrase that - all studies have weaknesses, and so we should be aware of those weakness and limitations. Those limitations are against generalization of the findings. That being said, I think it is clear that people who have recovered from covid are protected from reinfection, and that this protection works on multiple variants.

Here are some of the weaknesses of the way the studies in Israel are being done - particularly the big one that made a splash the other day.

- It has survivorship bias. The two "sides" are unbalanced with respect to comorbidities. You can't get covid twice if you die from it the first time.
- So because of that, an important group of people aren't able to be included in the very thing you're studying
- Testing was done on a voluntary basis, so there's some potential for bias due to people presenting for healthcare
- The previously infected group's incidence per 100k changes in the study, which means the group isn't the same in each analysis

If you want to kinda geek out, this paper talks about some of the challenges with these large observational studies
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19478-2

Another data point, which has a much more rigorous design, gives a very different picture. However, it does not match people for timing of infection and vaccination, so that's a significant limitation, too.
https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/covid-19/covid-19-infection-survey/results/new-studies

I think the question about them is mostly one of an academic nature, with no real practical application. And to some extent I think the debate is actually a societal risk, because people hearing that recovery produces stronger immunity may wind up with the mistaken notion that it is preferable to get the disease rather than be vaccinated.

I understand the shortcomings. I'm not sure that they are statistically significant, but I agree that they are shortcomings that would best be resolved by looking at more reliable datasets than the observation voluntary data.

That UK data is also interesting. Especially the time lapse where AZ begins performing at least equal to Pfizer. There is a lot to observe with time, and I'm glad other countries are doing a more reliable job of collecting data points to observe.

Your comments on societal risk are somewhat concerning. As far as I'm concerned, our health officials wishes to manage this risk component has blown up in their face and created a lot of distrust, whether or not that distrust is valid. Ultimately I just want the data and reasonable interpretations (or criticisms) of the dataI do not want the most conservative answer possible for the sake of my well being. The second we confuse the truth with this we have a much larger societal problem.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BCG Disciple • 11:24a, 8/31/21
AG
Yet we have people on this forum saying things like "natural immunity is more protective and lasts longer than the vaccine". Both of these are debatable - the first part may actually be false, the second part is unknown. It's almost certainly oversimplified, by not considering that infection may give more local protection in respiratory system, but vaccination may give better systemic protection (anitbody and cellular immunity).

And elsewhere, people concluding that because natural immunity is better (inferred from incomplete data) and vaccination may not be as effective as once thought (also inferred from incomplete data) that there's no point in getting vaccinated. Or that you're better off taking an unproven prophylactic than being vaccinated.

It's wonderful and amazing that so many journals and institutions have opened their publications and data during this. It's also great to have rapid access to preprints. But these things aren't without their downsides.
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FriscoKid • 11:25a, 8/31/21
AG
Easy there. The guy just came to ask specific questions and receive specific answers. He's not interested in answers he wasn't asking for.
Reply Quote
2
FriscoKid
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GAC06 • 11:32a, 8/31/21
AG
GAC06 said:
Easy there. The guy just came to ask specific questions and receive specific answers. He's not interested in answers he wasn't asking for.
No, don't get the vaccine while you are sick.

Reply Quote
2 edits
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:36a, 8/31/21
Zobel said:
There are some problems with the studies coming out of Israel. I mean, let me rephrase that - all studies have weaknesses, and so we should be aware of those weakness and limitations. Those limitations are against generalization of the findings. That being said, I think it is clear that people who have recovered from covid are protected from reinfection, and that this protection works on multiple variants.

Here are some of the weaknesses of the way the studies in Israel are being done - particularly the big one that made a splash the other day.

- It has survivorship bias. The two "sides" are unbalanced with respect to comorbidities. You can't get covid twice if you die from it the first time.
- So because of that, an important group of people aren't able to be included in the very thing you're studying
- Testing was done on a voluntary basis, so there's some potential for bias due to people presenting for healthcare
- The previously infected group's incidence per 100k changes in the study, which means the group isn't the same in each analysis

If you want to kinda geek out, this paper talks about some of the challenges with these large observational studies
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19478-2

Another data point, which has a much more rigorous design, gives a very different picture. However, it does not match people for timing of infection and vaccination, so that's a significant limitation, too.
https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/covid-19/covid-19-infection-survey/results/new-studies

I think the question about them is mostly one of an academic nature, with no real practical application. And to some extent I think the debate is actually a societal risk, because people hearing that recovery produces stronger immunity may wind up with the mistaken notion that it is preferable to get the disease rather than be vaccinated.

It's not "survivorship bias" to only study those who survived and their lasting immunity. By definition you cannot study somebody for reinfection if they die the first time they have it. They're not relevant to the actual hypothesis of whether or not recovery from prior infection confers long-term immunity/protection from reinfection.

It would be more relevant if you broke it down among people who are healthy (healthy BMI, good BP, not diabetic, active, etc) vs. those who aren't really healthy but recovered.

I don't know about actual studies but anecdotally doctors have discussed how those who are unvaccinated but previously infected and recovering who get covid a second time are overwhelmingly people who were already in poor health or immunosuppressed somehow.
Reply Quote
2
ttha_aggie_09
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:37a, 8/31/21
AG
Quote:
It has survivorship bias. The two "sides" are unbalanced with respect to comorbidities. You can't get covid twice if you die from it the first time.
Well, there is no point in debating on getting the vaccine after initial infection if you're dead...

A lot of struggles moving forward on confirming the lasting effects of previous infection. Particularly the fact that the sample size in the US will continue to shrink as vaccine mandates force people into vaccination despite prior infection. The actual data on how long lasting immunity is afforded is going to be harder to come by.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 11:41a, 8/31/21
AG
Of course it is survivorship bias. If a portion of people have a much higher risk of both death and reinfection, and this is not controlled in your sample, you'll skew the generalized risk of reinfection negatively. This happens with the immunocompromised and other comorbidities, but it also happens almost certainly with age. So older people may be more at risk for reinfection, but this could be masked by the risk of death.

And the question you raise of comorbidity is what is not well controlled in that study - the two sides aren't balanced with respect to comorbidities (aka people who are healthy and not).

Quote:
those who are unvaccinated but previously infected and recovering who get covid a second time are overwhelmingly people who were already in poor health or immunosuppressed somehow.
Right. And those are the same people who overwhelmingly are at risk from death in the first place. So we've got a source of confounding bias when you take those people out of the prior infection sample.
Reply Quote
1
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:58a, 8/31/21
Zobel said:
Of course it is survivorship bias. If a portion of people have a much higher risk of both death and reinfection, and this is not controlled in your sample, you'll skew the generalized risk of reinfection negatively. This happens with the immunocompromised and other comorbidities, but it also happens almost certainly with age. So older people may be more at risk for reinfection, but this could be masked by the risk of death.

And the question you raise of comorbidity is what is not well controlled in that study - the two sides aren't balanced with respect to comorbidities (aka people who are healthy and not).

Quote:
those who are unvaccinated but previously infected and recovering who get covid a second time are overwhelmingly people who were already in poor health or immunosuppressed somehow.
Right. And those are the same people who overwhelmingly are at risk from death in the first place. So we've got a source of confounding bias when you take those people out of the prior infection sample.

But that's not the hypothesis. The dead don't figure into it.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 12:09p, 8/31/21
AG
There's some confusion here, I'm not sure where. The study is observational, it's not a test. You're not taking recovered and vaccinated people and challenging them with the virus in a controlled way. So you have to do a lot of work to make sure the way you're measuring isn't confounding your conclusions.

Let's say hypothetically there are two kinds of people in equal proportion, people with 1% chance of death and people with 50% chance of death. Let's say the people with 1% chance of death also have a 1% chance of reinfection, and the people with 50% chance of death have 10% chance of reinfection. If you sample randomly recovered people, you'll observe a 3% chance of reinfection in the whole population because the high risk side is underrepresented in the post-infection sample (half of them died). The actual number, controlled for survivorship bias, is 5.5%.

You may say, well the actual number is 3% because the dead people have actually been removed, and we're observing the population as it is. In this case, that's is roughly correct because the numbers are so large. But when we're talking about small percentages for fatalities, reinfections, and sampling these numbers may significantly skew the final result. We don't know how much, because they weren't controlled in the analysis. Add in similar efficacy skew for the vaccine, plus other sampling bias (wealth, occupation, attack rate, symptom severity) and the picture gets very unclear.

In the randomized test, when they controlled for more of these things and did surveillance at random, the numbers get much closer and actually favor the vaccines slightly.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
BCG Disciple
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 12:29p, 8/31/21
AG
Zobel said:
Yet we have people on this forum saying things like "natural immunity is more protective and lasts longer than the vaccine". Both of these are debatable - the first part may actually be false, the second part is unknown. It's almost certainly oversimplified, by not considering that infection may give more local protection in respiratory system, but vaccination may give better systemic protection (anitbody and cellular immunity).

And elsewhere, people concluding that because natural immunity is better (inferred from incomplete data) and vaccination may not be as effective as once thought (also inferred from incomplete data) that there's no point in getting vaccinated. Or that you're better off taking an unproven prophylactic than being vaccinated.

It's wonderful and amazing that so many journals and institutions have opened their publications and data during this. It's also great to have rapid access to preprints. But these things aren't without their downsides.

Fair point. In most observable data I have seen natural immunity plus vaccine seems to provide the most durable protection. Natural immunity is 2nd, and vaccines third. I admit it is too early for this to be factual and/or conclusive.

I would not argue that there is no point in getting the vaccine. Maybe for the under 30 crowd it is pointless. And for under 18 I would not get it. Especially when you see other countries going to one shot for under 18 because it's effective and there is a much lower risk of myocarditis, but we insist on our one size fits all approach. The vaccine resistance is mostly political, based in distrust and outright refusal of medical professionals to admit truths.
Reply Quote
1
Old Buffalo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BCG Disciple • 1:20p, 8/31/21
AG
BCG Disciple said:

The vaccine resistance is mostly political, based in distrust and outright refusal of medical professionals to admit truths.
I think is true, but places the blame on those with distrust rather than the medical (AND POLITICAL) persons who sowed the distrust.

The vaccine turned into a way to get freedoms back instead of as a solution to the problem. Now a constant push for vaccine mandates or passports without regard for prior infection status are not bound in science. The fact that COVID-19 has killed 385 children while 53,677 children died of other causes (which is 2x flu, 0.5x pneumonia sole cause) but the latest craze is how we are risking our children's safety without masks or vaccines is terrible. 56% of all Covid deaths are over the age of 75, so we can venture to guess 45%(?) are deaths above the average life span of an American.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Reply Quote
2
Refresh
Page 2 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.