covid booster?

My friend got a booster last week and doesn't fall into any of those groups. He does have a heart condition though. I thought it was the same groups that got free flu jabs.

I had a Covid booster jab, four days ago. The skin around the injection site (7 by 5 cm) is a bit pink and it aches a little, but mostly only when pressed. No other noticeable adverse effects. It is only slightly more achy than the 'flu jab I had a few weeks ago.

My yesterday's COVID and flu jabs went ok.

The difference from previous jabs is that I was free to go home immediately and no information about the type of vaccine was given.

Back in the early days of COVID, after I had a jab I was asked to sit in a socially distanced waiting room for at least 15 minutes and I was given written information about the jab manufacturer and batch number.

This morning, exactly 24 hours later, my GP practice sent me a short online questionnaire asking for my rating about yesterday's appointment.  In the section on how they could improve my experience, I suggested they provide free sweets and biscuits.

"Plus you may have caught strains of attenuated morbidity through being passed on by a series of vaccinated hosts"

Possibly. The virus will experience selection pressure in any host with prior immunity. There were a fair number of people who had caught the virus by the time the vaccines were in general deployment (under 40s) in, what, April 2021?

"In this you will have been aided by all the people who had the vaccines". Potentially.

I'm surprised at all the discussion about the vaccines.  

I had both my jabs, Flu and Covid, this morning.  Both my arms are still sore.

Thank you. I'll digest this over the next few evenings.

I'm aware of this trial.

This is where they calculated a 94% efficacy from the split of infected with any symptom (to what severity?) between 196 people out of 29200 people who had either placebo or injection.

The 94% (relative risk reduction, not "efficacy") comes from dividing 185 (infected placebo group) by the 196 (total "infected").

It was an absurdity at the time. It's even more absurd now.

Yes.

Snowman said:

It's being post-rationalised, in my case, by the fact that I have contracted sars-cov-2 twice in my unvaccinated state. Having accessed the situation with my peers and partner, all of whom had accepted at least the first two injections, I remain unconvinced I am at any more risk remaining unvaccinated. I continue to keep my eye on other discoveries such as the IgG4 thing etc as it still interests me to see how this is going to pan out over the long term.

Well, I guess you are not over 65 years of age and have no other risk factors predisposing to serious symptoms. Plus you may have caught strains of attenuated morbidity through being passed on by a series of vaccinated hosts.

In the long term Covid will become less dangerous, but more transmissible, like most viruses that jump host species. In this you will have been aided by all the people who had the vaccines, whose collective immune responses will have speeded up this selective pressure, Well done!

Snowman said:

"If they had not, we would have all have been in a very sorry state"

In your opinion. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest the efficacy of these treatments.

There you go, mucho reports on the efficacy of various Covid vaccines/boosters: www.gov.uk/.../monitoring-reports-of-the-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccination

Snowman said:

I have yet to see any evidence to suggest the efficacy of these treatments.

You will have if you read, 'The Long History of mRNA Vaccines' by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, or just the following conclusions from the NEJM Group of the Massachusetts Medical Society paper on 'the Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-Cov-2 Vaccine' that states:

Background

Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19.

Methods

This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Results

The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups.

Conclusions

The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

No.

"If they had not, we would have all have been in a very sorry state"

In your opinion. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest the efficacy of these treatments.

"The basis of the psychology of rejection of vaccines is emphatically not a judicious weighing up of the relative risks".

I'm talking about this specific vaccine. The psychology of rejecting it, in my case was a judicious weighing up of relative risks vs. the completely unknown risks posed by the technology itself. I'm glad to see it's proven to been relatively low risk.

"an active decision to do something that has even a miniscule risk"

The risks from this novel technology was not known at the time and the studies supporting it were not long enough in duration to prove otherwise.

"This decision, or lack of decision, is only post-rationalised by people becoming fixated on the details of the tiny risk that exists. Obviously an element of paranoia can also be involved."

It's being post-rationalised, in my case, by the fact that I have contracted sars-cov-2 twice in my unvaccinated state. Having accessed the situation with my peers and partner, all of whom had accepted at least the first two injections, I remain unconvinced I am at any more risk remaining unvaccinated. I continue to keep my eye on other discoveries such as the IgG4 thing etc as it still interests me to see how this is going to pan out over the long term.

Snowman said:

"So you relied on all the people around you taking a, miniscule, risk so that you could be protected while not taking the risk."

No.

Yes.

This is a democratic country where the use of coercion in public health matters, where it affects the freedom of choice of the individual to accept medical treatment or prophylaxis, is generally frowned upon. Therefore, the choice is up to you to have a vaccine or not. Luckily, the vast majority of the population chose more wisely. If they had not, we would have all have been in a very sorry state (up shite creek without a paddle). 

The basis of the psychology of rejection of vaccines is emphatically not a judicious weighing up of the relative risks, otherwise everyone would have chosen to be vaccinated, it is that making an active decision to do something that has even a miniscule risk seems more difficult than doing nothing. Risk-averse people have greater levels of inertia. Doing nothing, therefore, seems preferable. This decision, or lack of decision, is only post-rationalised by people becoming fixated on the details of the tiny risk that exists. Obviously an element of paranoia can also be involved.

"To Snowman and I Sperg. Please would you stop with any goading, inflammatory and insulting language on this thread."

Such as where?

To Snowman and I Sperg. Please would you stop with any goading, inflammatory and insulting language on this thread.

I personally lost three relatives to the pandemic in 2021 and a fourth to cancer due to the disruption to health services. This is a sensitive topic for me. Everyone well understands that loved-ones had to die alone in hospital and be buried with hardly any attendants. I find your comments and aggressive tone to be totally inappropriate given what a lot of people endured.

I started this thread merely to establish what was happening with the booster, hopefully share information, in the hopes that we can all keep ourselves well and get this booster if we need it - for whatever reason. 

Please will you be kind and respectful now. To both of you - take care.

I completely agree, I find it all very confusing! 

They really should flesh this out with their criteria for clinically vulnerable. If people have been classed as vulnerable before and are being refused now that's very much mixed messaging.

Hi, reading this thread I think some ICBs and GP surgeries are putting some patients who are Autistic in with the group ‘learning disability’ if they feel you’re vulnerable. I do have other mental health conditions too, so that may be why I’ve been offered a COVID booster jab next week.

I have to say the advice online is really confusing as it says ‘clinically vulnerable’ which is different to last time, so I was expecting that I wouldn’t be applicable for the booster. 

Hugs, I’m sorry it’s so hard to understand.