COVID booster shot extends protection for just a few weeks, study shows

Wow, I wonder why taking a a flu shot from 3 years ago isn't working? Oh, I mean covid shot.

So, you hype up and over stimulate your immune system with antibodies for a whole 4-6 weeks of diminishing returns protection?

Funny how we don't have any updated vaccines or allowed to use the multiple other vaccines on the market.


news.yahoo.com...

A fourth shot of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine increased protection against viral infection for only four to seven weeks, according to a massive study published Tuesday.

The study included 1.25 million people age 60 and over in Israel who received their fourth dose between January and March. Israel uses only the Pfizer vaccine.

a reply to: infolurker

Gee, I wonder where TeamPFIZER® is on this one?

I'm disappointed.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: infolurker

Gee, I wonder where TeamPFIZER® is on this one?

I'm disappointed.

Probably, everyone's trying to find the study, LOL. Their sources, the research team or groups involved, or any verifiable details were absent from the article. Really poor journalism.



I finally found it: Protection by a Fourth Dose of BNT162b2 against Omicron in Israel - NEJM

... and guess what the study actually says in its "Conclusions":

"Rates of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe Covid-19 were lower after a fourth dose of BNT162b2 vaccine than after only three doses. Protection against confirmed infection appeared short-lived, whereas protection against severe illness did not wane during the study period.

We all know that the vaccines cannot protect someone against exposure to the virus, or to its initial infection, before immune response kicks in. So it wasn't unexpected that double boosted people could still catch COVID-19.

But the fact is that the thing the vaccines do protect from (i.e: against severe illness from the disease), did not wane during the period of the study.

This means that the article/s (because there are sure to be numerous re-postings of the content of the article, but with slight wording changes so no-one can cry "plagiarism"), are misrepresenting what the paper presented.

This is why one should be skeptical about what the MSM portrays. They are seeking sensational headlines to sell advertising and frequently exaggerate, or 'spin' details to do achieve that. All easily resolved by doing a bit of fact checking, which, apparently, none of you did.

a reply to: chr0naut

Big difference between "exposure" and "confirmed infection". It's funny how the old definition of vaccine used to protect you from the latter.

Not so much anymore - but I guess you're ok with that.

Not me.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: chr0naut

Big difference between "exposure" and "confirmed infection". It's funny how the old definition of vaccine used to protect you from the latter.

Not so much anymore - but I guess you're ok with that.

Not me.

It is not possible for a vaccine to prevent the infection stages before any immune response starts - irrespective of a word definition in a dictionary, which has nothing to do with the functional medical sequence involved.

Also, definitions of technical terms are constantly being reviewed, in line with new emergent science and technologies. That's just how it is. To expect that things won't change is Luddite.

a reply to: chr0naut

Also, definitions of technical terms are constantly being reviewed, in line with new ̶e̶m̶e̶r̶g̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶e̶c̶h̶n̶o̶l̶o̶g̶i̶e̶s̶ corporate policies and sales targets.

Fixed it for you.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: chr0naut

Big difference between "exposure" and "confirmed infection". It's funny how the old definition of vaccine used to protect you from the latter.

Not so much anymore - but I guess you're ok with that.

Not me.

What do you want to do about it, Speak To The Manager of the Immune System? It's biology, not a conspiracy. "Definition of a vaccine" is some linguistic human issue adopted by non-professionals and doesn't have any bearing on the physical reality.

The reality is that respiratory viruses are distinctly harder to vaccinate against than blood borne viruses (harder to get the immune system into the membranes where the infection takes place), as people tend to get re-infected with respiratory viruses whereas other viral infections give lifetime immunity. It's a property of the biology of the disease and humans, not any evil conspiracy.

The difference in protection vs infection vs serious disease may also reflect the different immune system components (this is a hypothesis not yet with experimental data), namely the antibodies from B-cells (which have to match antigens very specifically but will attack initial infections quickly) vs the T-cells which will hunt and kill already infected cells. The protection against severe disease may mean that the T-cells are continuing to work even though the antibodies are less well targeted against the new virus.

Sometime soon there should be a new vaccine which is better targeted to circulating strains of covid, and that will provide stronger efficacy against symptomatic infection and serious disease. As is expected.

Covid and related coronaviruses seem to mutate slower than influenza and HIV (not vaccinatable at all yet), but faster than most others which are so stable the vaccine doesn't need to be updated.