Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
I felt like we already knew that getting a booster was going to help you stay out of the hospital more when compared to just the initial two (maybe just based on trials?)...but there you have it!
 

correcaminos

Well-Known Member
I felt like we already knew that getting a booster was going to help you stay out of the hospital more when compared to just the initial two (maybe just based on trials?)...but there you have it!
Jimmy Fallon Laughing GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

;)
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member

tl;dr - Moderna keeps Delta breakthroughs from hospitalizing you slightly better than Pfizer. WRT deaths - no difference.

It was wise of me to go Pfizer - Pfizer - Moderna!



 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
I felt like we already knew that getting a booster was going to help you stay out of the hospital more when compared to just the initial two (maybe just based on trials?)...but there you have it!
At least, the story adds some percentages to quantify it, for those that need to know the numbers.

Getting boosted was 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations during a period in December and January when Omicron was the dominant variant, according to a CDC study that looked at nearly 88,000 hospitalizations across 10 states.
In comparison, getting two shots was 57% effective when it had been at least six months past the second shot

Getting boosted was 82% effective at preventing visits to emergency rooms and urgent care centers

In comparison, getting two shots was only 38% effective at preventing those visits when it had been at least six months past the second shot.

Looking at data from 25 state and local health departments, the CDC researchers found that among those who were boosted, there were 149 cases per 100,000 people on average each week. For those who had only two doses, it was 255 cases per 100,000 people.

That study of just over 13,000 US Omicron cases found that the odds of developing a symptomatic infection were 66% lower for people who were boosted compared to those who had only received two shots.
The gap between the stats looks like a meaningful difference too, not just a little feel good thought.

There's this number too unfortunately.
Nearly 20% of the US population eligible to be vaccinated -- those age 5 and older -- has not received any dose of Covid-19 vaccine.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
I felt like we already knew that getting a booster was going to help you stay out of the hospital more when compared to just the initial two (maybe just based on trials?)...but there you have it!

I think the most interesting point in the article was the 66% less chance of symptomatic illness. Some people here would have you believe that the vaccines are worthless at preventing infection from Omicron but this study would suggest that there is still decent protection despite the reduced efficacy.
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
I felt like we already knew that getting a booster was going to help you stay out of the hospital more when compared to just the initial two (maybe just based on trials?)...but there you have it!
Well I knew that. And you knew that. And a lot of other posters here knew that. But I do think there are a lot of people dilly dallying around about getting their boosters. My friend who is still very sick with Covid (day 13 now) kept putting it off because it wasn't convenient to feel sick for a bit after. I think every time the data is highlighted, more people will pull the trigger.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
At least, the story adds some percentages to quantify it, for those that need to know the numbers.


The gap between the stats looks like a meaningful difference too, not just a little feel good thought.

There's this number too unfortunately.
One thing not studied as far as I can tell is comparing the same amount of elapsed time from the second dose and booster dose. Basically, is it the third dose that makes the difference or is it being less than a certain amount of time from your most recent dose?

If someone had gotten their second dose on the same day as I got my booster in December, would I have more protection than they do?
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
One thing not studied as far as I can tell is comparing the same amount of elapsed time from the second dose and booster dose. Basically, is it the third dose that makes the difference or is it being less than a certain amount of time from your most recent dose?

If someone had gotten their second dose on the same day as I got my booster in December, would I have more protection than they do?
On the CDC site it clearly states booster 5 months after Pfizer / Moderna series of doses.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
One thing not studied as far as I can tell is comparing the same amount of elapsed time from the second dose and booster dose. Basically, is it the third dose that makes the difference or is it being less than a certain amount of time from your most recent dose?

If someone had gotten their second dose on the same day as I got my booster in December, would I have more protection than they do?
How far past the first people getting boosters are we?

It's not as simple as just someone who started later and is behind vs someone who is ahead. That's much harder to tease out of the data too, as every day creates new buckets and dilutes the sample size. It can probably be done, but it's not surprising it wouldn't be the first reporting.

Didn't that very limited Israel study recently recently posted say that the fourth dose didn't seen to have a difference? Which would suggest it's not just "another dose" that's the difference.

On it's own, that still wouldn't answer if the third dose has diminishing returns. Which would be sad if it does and a fourth dose doesn't matter as there would be no recovery at that point. Maybe a fourth dose needs to be longer after the third then was tried. We don't know yet. Or maybe not.

We started the vaccine roll out based on the short term efficacy data. We didn't wait for a long term result or a determination if there is a longer term more dose vaccine schedule. So far, it looks like it's not 2 doses 4 weeks apart, but really a starter dose and then an additional dose 5-6 months later. Where the starter dose is either 1 or 2 in within 4 weeks.

Give it a decade, we'll probably figure out an optimal dose schedule and timing. Along with how many are ultimately needed. I'm glad we didn't wait for that before starting though. We'll know when we get there. Until then, we only know what we know so far.
 

correcaminos

Well-Known Member
How far past the first people getting boosters are we?

It's not as simple as just someone who started later and is behind vs someone who is ahead. That's much harder to tease out of the data too, as every day creates new buckets and dilutes the sample size. It can probably be done, but it's not surprising it wouldn't be the first reporting.

Didn't that very limited Israel study recently recently posted say that the fourth dose didn't seen to have a difference? Which would suggest it's not just "another dose" that's the difference.

On it's own, that still wouldn't answer if the third dose has diminishing returns. Which would be sad if it does and a fourth dose doesn't matter as there would be no recovery at that point. Maybe a fourth dose needs to be longer after the third then was tried. We don't know yet. Or maybe not.

We started the vaccine roll out based on the short term efficacy data. We didn't wait for a long term result or a determination if there is a longer term more dose vaccine schedule. So far, it looks like it's not 2 doses 4 weeks apart, but really a starter dose and then an additional dose 5-6 months later. Where the starter dose is either 1 or 2 in within 4 weeks.

Give it a decade, we'll probably figure out an optimal dose schedule and timing. Along with how many are ultimately needed. I'm glad we didn't wait for that before starting though. We'll know when we get there. Until then, we only know what we know so far.
Mid-end of July is when trials started for mine. Near then is when immunocompromised were getting. Most of the rest were closer to fall IIRC
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Mid-end of July is when trials started for mine. Near then is when immunocompromised were getting. Most of the rest were closer to fall IIRC
So we're just barely at 6 months after the first people got boosters.

Which means, for the most part the best we're going to be able to report on is how effective the booster is up to 6 months. And, we could also only now start to try an additional boosters at 6 months past first booster. And that then leads to that we need even more time if we want to study an additional booster after a longer time, say one year after the first booster.

The side effect of everyone being just a few months behind the leading edge of long term efficacy and additional dose investigation is that we only know information that's for few months ahead of where we all are.

We'll get there.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Unless you are immunocompromised I have a feeling that's not happening. Studies are showing it not as helpful as you'd think.
It is the the ever changing virus including medical/ science information that may give us further direction regarding 4th and continuing doses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom