**Please read before commenting.** Keep in mind this is a *science* sub. Cite your sources appropriately (No news sources, no Twitter, no Youtube). No politics/economics/low effort comments (jokes, ELI5, etc.)/anecdotal discussion (personal stories/info). Please read our [full ruleset](https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/about/rules/) carefully before commenting/posting. **If you talk about you, your mom, your friends, etc. experience with COVID/COVID symptoms or vaccine experiences, or** ***any*** **info that pertains to you or their situation, you will be banned.** These discussions are better suited for the Daily Discussion on /r/Coronavirus. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COVID19) if you have any questions or concerns.*


To me it seems that 2 dose vaccines remained significantly more effective than it was made out that they were before boosters were rolled out. Kind of surprising.


but presumably the booster is now justified as a response to omicron despite its differences?


Yeah I’m not saying it’s not a good idea or justified, especially now, just I’m surprised by how effective the two dose remained against delta in retrospect. It seemed to be waning a lot faster than that.


I’ve been skeptical about the added ROI of boosters in the younger healthy population. There is some data showing pfizer is only back to 45% effective at preventing infection at 10 weeks but from what I can tell the hospitalization and death protection even from the 2 shots is still pretty damn good. Just seemed like they jumped the gun and went around recommending them on a hunch


Two fda senior vaccine safety advisors stepped down because of the pressure from the White House to approve the boosters before the science had been done.


I think they bypassed a special convention of the FDA before recommending them as well


In the UK there is an argument to be made that the booster shot rollout for all adults was a political effort to divert attention away from the scandals enveloping Boris Johnson after the news that the government had repeatedly broken the lockdown restrictions to have parties became public.


Is it? If you look at it as a new vaccine given to twice-vaccinated people, does it fulfill the WHO lower threshold of providing at least 50% protection against severe disease (compared to staying with 2 doses)? Data indicates it doesn't do that, at least not for non-risk groups.


Is the 50% protection requirement applied to all vaccine boosters? That seems a little bit surprising to me, I would have expected boosters to be considered as an element of the same vaccination.


I mean that was just their original recommendation IIRC, it isn't binding, so it's up to you how you want to interpret it IMO. But to me, it's a new medical procedure which deviates from the originally planned and evaluated schema, which has had new evaluations for safety, efficacy and dosage, which requires separate tracking and studying of side effects, requires separate organizational effort and documentation, etc etc etc. I don't see why we should apply a different criterion to whether we want to take on all this effort and risk than for the original thing. And yes, I personally would also apply the 50% threshold to the second dose. I don't think it's worth giving a second dose if protection only increases by <50%. But it seems to be the other way around, dose 1 does very little, and dose 2 does a lot. So the threshold is always met for each dose after the 1st, which can be excluded with the argument that it's a required preparation without which you won't get *anything* -- so you cannot choose to omit it. But each dose after the one giving the big boost in protection (apparently dose 2 for most vaccines) has to be evaluated separately, because there would be the option to just omit it instead.


> Estimates of vaccine effectiveness in reducing the current risk of death due to Covid-19 are shown in Figure 1C and Table 2. For the BNT162b2 two-dose regimen, vaccine effectiveness reached 98.0% (95% CI, 95.5 to 99.1) at 2 months and remained at 90.5% (95% CI, 87.0 to 93.1) at 7 months. For the mRNA-1273 two-dose regimen, vaccine effectiveness reached 98.6% (95% CI, 97.3 to 99.3) at 2 months and remained at 95.5% (95% CI, 93.4 to 96.9) at 7 months. For the Ad26.COV2.S one-dose regimen, vaccine effectiveness reached 85.9% (95% CI, 49.3 to 96.1) at 3 months and was mostly higher than 70% through 6 months, with wide confidence intervals. For all three vaccines, effectiveness tended to be lower among adults 65 years of age or older than among adults 18 to 64 years of age (Fig. S14 and Table S3).


Does anyone know what the increase in effectiveness for Pfizer in month 8 is caused by?


I am a little confused. Is this result of Vaccine efficiency for the mRNA vaccines in line with other studies? From what I can remember, the waning effect was more along the lines of 50% VE after 4-5 months. Not 80% plus. I might be mistaking something though. Would be happy if someone could clear this up.


It's a pretty big outlier, like much of the other work coming from US CDC affiliated researchers. That doesn't exactly clear things up, but take from it what you will.


Why margin is so big for Adenovirus vaccine on death graph?


Very little data. This vaccine is the J&J vaccine which was rolled out quite a bit later than the mRNA vaccines. By the time it became available, many people in the group of the most vulnerable had already been vaccinated.


I'm not seeing any consideration for prior infection influences. Is this captured in the model's transmission rate? If so, I don't see the input for it. It's a mistake to assume that unvaccinated and vaccinated populations will have the same infection rate, I think, even just by observing typical demographics. Doing so is simplifying the analysis to the point of invalidity.


Reinfection was not part of the surveillance case definition during this period. The change to that was adopted in October.


This is similar to the unvaccinated isn't it? The only numbers that would prove vaccine effectiveness is within the age groups 50 and above. 16k /20k hospitalizations are in this group as well as 6,992 / 7461 deaths are in the 50 and above group. Now we have to compare this to unvaccinated hospitalizations and deaths in this age group and location to get a better comparison.


How can it be similar to the unvaccinated? An effectiveness of 90,5% means an improvement compared to the unvaccinated of ten times. 0% VE would mean similar to the unvaccinated.


One must compare by age. Ages from 5-30 are going to have marginally insignificant hospitalizations regardless of vaccine status. Why lump that age demographic with the 50+? You can do that with the unvaccinated and get similar results. It should be comparing at risk groups. vaccinated vs unvaccinated, grouping them by their comorbidities. Concluding vaccine effectiveness by including people not likely to be hospitalized regardless of vaccine status is faulty.


Right, and ages 5-30 who are vaccinated will still have EVEN lower hospitalisation rates than the same age group unvaccinated. That is what the VE is.


It’s compared to the unvaccinated… like 90% better in the vaccinated than unvaccinated group when you have a VE of 90%




Low-effort content that adds nothing to scientific discussion will be removed [Rule 10]