Sure, protection from infection and hospitalisation appear better in the infected cohort...
BUT, what's sometimes missed is the actual numbers reflecting how we get to these pretty graphs...
193K infections, 309 hospitalised, 7 died
273k vaccinees, 15 hospitalised, 0 died
Other important points:
The vaccinated cohort included either one or two shots...we know from adults that three is best, so efficacy could theoretically be improved.
Vaccinating pre-infected kids improves protection, the authors recommend boosters for both vaxd & infected kids
Yes, protection vs infection wanes relatively quickly, AS IT DOES IN ADULTS, especially vs Omicron. Of course there's work to do on vaccines, esp in terms of improved invariant targets and induction of mucosal immunity (in THAT order!).
BUT, we can't guarantee new vax will work,
so why folks are saying "let's wait until we have this/that version of the SARS-CoV2 vax" is beyond me.
We can already protect vs severe disease and, timed right, boost kids over winter so COVID doesn't coincide with other beasties.
my main concern is that a) kids now will continue to get reinfected, and b) there's now no provision of population immunity going forward in young children OTHER THAN INFECTION!
All when there's a perfectly good vax (usual caveat, no medicine is perfect, individual cases matter).
This, and limiting transmission is why we vax kids vs influenza...
Sadly, another virus with potential for making kids severely unwell for which there's a VERY good vaccine is Varicella Zoster (Chicken pox). The reason this vax isn't used is due to an unproven (AFAIK) idea that
kids getting chicken pox (yes, the whole chicken pox party thing is ACTUALLY VERY STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE) is supposed to "top up" adult immunity to reduce incidence of shingles...adults are expensive, you see...
The entire notion that kids don't get unwell from SARS-CoV2 is a
reflection that we tend to focus upon individual, not population scale risk. This is fine when public health provides a safety net...can't see much evidence of that DURING A PANDEMIC...🙄
If you'd like an excellent breakdown of the numbers @chrischirp
Moreover, it was shown recently by @ONS that, unlike adults, @LongCovidKids is as likely to occur upon reinfection as it is following a first exposure...there's variability, but DEFINITELY a difference compared to adults.
Getting reinfected can also reactivate or worsen #LongCovidKids ...this is a major concern if we continue with five waves per year going forwards...you/your kids may start to recover, then get sent straight back to jail without passing go...😥💔
Perhaps not on many people's radar, but @NICEComms recently recommended that #Remdesivir should be dropped for treating severe acute infection in the community or hospital...
this matters for kids bc e.g. Paxlovid isn't approved and m'abs are almost all out-paced by SARS2 now...
What really riles me is that #JCVI cite poor uptake as a reason for dropping childhood COVID vax...
If you were worried about a new vaccine and stressed from a pandemic, would you embrace something pitched like this?
This whole idea that we can crowbar a pandemic, highly variable virus into a "like flu but not as good" model of targeted vaccination feels naïve, short-sighted, and more to do with maintaining the illusion that the pandemic is over than anything else...
I mean, wouldn't want to distract folks from those oh-so-dangerous dinghies, eh?
This chap called Jenner, he pushed vax over variolation...we ended up eradicating a disease that once killed millions. "Living with something" should not be enduring, esp when it comes to our kids.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, according to certain cardiologists, MPs, disgraced former Pfizer employees and Harvard profs, non practicing pathologists, signers of declarations, presenters on nationalistic news channels, members of groups with monosyllabic acronyms and coloured pebbles, Z list celebs, a
worryingly large cohort in MSM, proponents of "evidence-based" pigeon chess, some in PH focused upon individual rather than population scale risk, and a plethora of anonymous social media accounts, the vast majority of the population is suddenly at risk from all manner of cardio-
vascular, or other terrible ways we might meet our ends, and whoever is left will be unable to have kids, or be put on some kind of trial for supposedly being paid and/or influenced by former software developers or "the WEF", all in a kind of end of WWII reenactment party...
@georged00rs@AnnLHowarth@NICEComms The vaccines were trialled with efficacy end points concerning the prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease and death.
Transmission is a separate issue, there are very few vaccines that provide sterilising immunity, and this is always for invariant viruses...not like SARS2.
@georged00rs@AnnLHowarth@NICEComms However, there was clear efficacy vs transmission during the Wuhan/Alpha stages, which matched the vaccines.
Delta (also beta and gamma before) showed us the first signs of escape from antibodies, but like most biological concepts this is a spectrum.
Omicron and its offspring
@georged00rs@AnnLHowarth@NICEComms now represents a considerable genetic distance from the Wuhan strain. But, protection vs severe disease remains, at least for mRNA vax...less so for killed vax like in China.
Our antibody responses are therefore mismatched, are complicated due to prior infection/vax history, and
This is getting beyond a joke...
JC is now accusing HCW following guidelines by @NICEComms of inflating #COVID deaths via iatrogenic means...yes, killing patients with medicines.
I'm not a clinician, but I do know that e.g. diamorphine and medazolam aren't given lightly.
JC is
also of the opinion that many of those who succumbed would have simply got better if left without intervention...
He goes to the trouble of explaining "evidence based medicine" whilst showing purely associative, speculative and offensive "correlations" between spikes in drug use
and the first two waves...
I wonder, what in the PRE-VACCINE era might have caused a load of palliative drugs to be needed during pandemic waves? Not that JC advocates vax anymore either...🙄
He gets the years wrong, wrongly asserts that COVID pneumonitis/ARDS was treatable with
JC used to be a half-decent Sci Comms outlet, helping folks make sense of the pandemic.
Now, he promulgates blatant anti-mRNA (not a vaccine, apparently 🙄) 💩 with a chap who is an expert in rock pools and paddling (perhaps avoid both on British beaches at present?).
Aside from the massive viewing figures and the number of stumbles as JC looks down at his script, this is one of the worst examples of biological understanding I've ever witnessed.
I won't post the link, but a few examples... 1. Apparently mRNA vax are completely different to
ye olde vaccines from the good old days, which were "ALL dead or attenuated" except for yellow fever where "the antigen is essentially alive"...these "don't use the body's own genetic apparatus to produce them"..."it's a completely different thing with a completely different
Well, bang goes another...but, at least vulnerable people in the US and other countries benefitted from months of protection, approaching normality...the UK was still trying to find its conviction...cilgivimab worked vs BA.5.
The good news is that FDA are demanding stockpiles
are retained to counter further evolution, wise move.
I've obv not seen the data, but I'm assured by a trusted source that current variants really do escape this...other long-lasting m'abs exist tho...just saying!
AZ has another Evusheld like med in the pipeline, and I hope there
are others being developed. Prevention is ALWAYS better than cure. Small molecule drugs require rapid intense therapy to clear virus. You could argue that folks with Evusheld have a similar scenario to most of the population, loads of Abs, never enough n'abs...😔...abs don't
Whether acute or long COVID, good or bad vax responses, "just the flu"...these are only half the story.
The other half is our immune response and other systems, defined by genetics, and variable within populations.
Bell-shaped curve: most avg, some great, some poor...then there
environmental/underlying factors which modulate responses, plus neither immunity nor viruses are static...
Hence, there's a REALLY tough decision to make, where what's best for a population will necessarily mean some of us don't thrive.
Public health is meant to form the safety
net that keeps this number down to a minimum. By it's very nature, whilst striving for greatest overall benefit, it is supposed to account for minorities, mitigate against rare events and provide support for those who suffer disproportionately compared to the main population.