OT: Matt Jones with Covid

FWIW, this kind of anecdotal approach is dangerous at best, and grossly misleading at worst.

I know a guy who dropped dead jogging. Does that mean jogging is unhealthy? Well it sure was for him. We all know of athletes who drop dead while playing sports, often finding an underlying condition they didn't know existed, like an enlarged heart.

It's a given that some will have bad reactions to any vaccine, and that has been going on since the first vaccines. The statistical truth is that it's such a small number of people compared to the benefit that it's still a good decision.

People die while in surgery a lot too. Does that mean you don't go get a needed surgery and hope that the clot doesn't move or that the condition just improves? No, you weigh the risks of the procedure against the risk of doing nothing.

Do that in this case and it's pretty clear what people need to do. A very small risk of adverse reactions from the vaccine compared to a much greater chance of long term damage or death from Covid. Mathematically this is a no-brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

What is the infusion?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

It’s the antibodies infusion. They harvested antibodies from people that have had the virus and give them to someone recently infected. It’s having great success.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPScott

I generally have tried to avoid these discussions but have to ask, isn’t the point of vaccines to give the body an opportunity to prepare for a future attack by getting your immune system primed to create your own antibodies when needed?

If someone refuses on principle from taking a Covid vaccine designed to allow them to create their own antibodies because it’s somehow considered unnatural etc., it seems contradictory and illogical for that person to later accept a cocktail of someone else’s antibodies. Maybe the simple fact that THEY get sick changes their feelings on the matter?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

My coworker has been vaccinate, and should have been protected by her antibodies from the vaccine. My bigger question is why are the donated antibodies more effective than the vaccine?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

They aren't. One is for prevention and the other for treatment. Completely different. Not only that, they are different types of antibodies which Pedro can probably explain much better than I can.

Final thing I will say, is yes, those infusions have worked for some to feel better. But they do not work for many many people. That is why we are losing 2,000-3,000 people a day to Covid right now.
There is some kind of weird obsession that has happened in some circles with Covid treatments vs Covid preventative measures (masks and vaccines). These are not competitive. Both were created by Science. Both work in totally different ways.

But, 99% of the people dying (and this has been true for months) are unvaccinated (including many that were treated with infusions and many other measures to save them).

Vaccines absolutely, without a doubt work and this is not even debatable statistically speaking.

---

OK, there is a lot to unpack here and discuss (some of it technical) but I will do my best. Antibodies are actually my exact field, just on the diagnostics side of things rather than therapeutic. Because of this, apologies if I get to deep.

First off, most of the infusions that people are talking about are not convalescent plasma, they are monoclonal antibody infusions produced by a few different companies (Regeneron, Eli Lilly, etc.). When administered early on, these infusions can reduce the risk of hospitalization by up to 70% (which is incredible). The key point is if administered early on; if not, they rapidly become less and less effective.

Getting into the technical details:
Monoclonal means the antibodies are a single type (clone) which is specific for a single binding site (called an epitope) on the target substance (called an antigen). Our body seldom produces monoclonal antibodies, rather producing multiple clones (called a polyclonal) against the antigen all targeting different epitopes. The reason for this is two fold 1)pathogens can evolve the epitope to evade a single clone and 2)it would leave us with zero immune benefit against related pathogens. As for why companies produce monoclonals, the benefits are both efficacy and manufacturing related: you can isolate the cells that produce the antibody clones, screen these cells for the ones producing the MOST effective and easy to manufacture clone, grow them in tissue culture, and purify out the monoclonal antibodies. The downside is that the more specific (read effective) the antibody is the more likely it is that the virus can evolve to evade it (which is what is meant when they say some variants have shown sides of evading monoclonal antibodies).

My attempt at an analogy:
A vaccine teaches the general guard(your immune system) on how to spot/prevent the infection from occurring in the first place. While they still uses bullets (antibodies) as their main defense, for the reasons mentioned above, they use a bunch of different types of bullets (polyclonal antibodies) against the antigen (the spike protein). Furthermore, the vaccine teaches the guard how to utilize other lines of defense (cellular-based defenses), to counter the invading viruses. This diverse defense response ensures that in all but the most extreme circumstances, it will successfully block the invasive virus (and its relatives) from being able to establish an active infection.

Monoclonals are used when a virus overwhelms the general guard. Think of them link hyper-specific sniper bullets targeting a precise part of a specific virus to prevent it form binding to our cells. If given early on in an infection, you can flood the body with these sniper bullets, binding almost all of the free floating virus particles. This allows the general guard to come in and do what it does best and mop up the rest. The issues are: 1) if the infection has gone on too long, the virus becomes so well-spread throughout the body that you just can't flood the body with enough bullets to fight off the infection and 2) over time, the virus can evolve so that the bullets against that target no longer work.

So in the end, the vaccine and antibody infusion, while both involving antibodies perform two related but distinctly different functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Blue

Wish we had an accurate figure of complications from taking the shot. A friends daughter got a mini stroke after first shot, neurologist told her caused by shot. Some of his grandson's friends got "palsy" after taking. My gut tells me these cases are rare but probably happen more often than we think. Why we shouldn't force people to take

---

We have extremely detailed data from MILLIONS of doses thanks to the VSafe system and various healthcare systems around the world (far better data than any previous vaccine/medicine and we have it in almost real-time). This data DOES NOT support your conclusion in any way.

With respect to Bell's Palsy, for every 100,000 vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, we would expect 2 additional cases of Bell's Palsy compared to the general population. In the general population, the rate of Bell's Palsy is around 15-35 per 100,000 per year. Bell's Palsy typically self resolves within a few months without treatment.

With respect to clots/strokes/etc. the risk of suffering from these after contracting COVID (which the Delta variant has made a question of when rather than if) is far higher than the risk post-vaccination:

• Clotting issues occur at rate around NINE TIMES higher rate after contracting the virus than post-vaccination
• Strokes occur at almost an ELEVEN TIMES higher rate after contracting the virus than post-vaccination
• Heart issues like myocarditis occur at an almost SIX TIMES higher rate for young males after contracting the virus than post-vaccination. This focus on young males is because they are the MOST likely to encounter myocarditis post-vaccination. For other populations, the difference is even larger.

This ignores EVERYTHING else that contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus can damage (taste/smell, nerve issues, etc.). So far, we have extremely detailed analysis on pretty much every single adverse reaction possible. The vaccine is by far the safer choice in pretty much every scenario.

Very informative Pedro, thanks. And I loved the analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blueboss

My daughter tested positive Sunday. Her husband is deployed in Bahrain, so she’s home with their kids 1 yo, 10 yo, and a 13 yo. She and the 13 yo are the only two vaccinated in the household.

Tough taking care of the baby and a 10 yo having covid. While her symptoms are very mild her biggest concern is the two children not vaccinated especially the 1 yo.

The 13 yo is a huge help, plus their Navy family. It never ceases to amaze me how close the Navy family is and how far they go to help each other whether spouses are deployed or not. There is a steady stream of people in and out of her house 24/7 taking care of anything that needs to done.

While I’m 10 hours away, I’m at complete ease knowing her and her family are being cared for.

---

Update:

Daughter feels a lot better, but baby woke up with a fever and tested positive this morning. 10 year old still in good shape, but was supposed to start school today, now he has to wait 10 days. 13 yo is vaccinated and was allowed to start school today as scheduled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Pedro. Great information. Sorry to hear about your family blueboss (especially the youngsters).

Pedro, are you seeing data that indicates which of the three vaccines is the best option?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Pedro, are you seeing data that indicates which of the three vaccines is the best option?

---

Under 60, all three are very good; the differences are negligible.

Over 60 (or immunocompromised), Pfizer and Moderna are better than J&J with Moderna showing higher antibody titers over time.

Thanks Pedro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8

Under 60, all three are very good; the differences are negligible.

Over 60 (or immunocompromised), Pfizer and Moderna are better than J&J with Moderna showing higher antibody titers over time.

---

I had 2 shots of Pfizer back in February. If boosters are approved and available, should I pick Pfizer over Moderna or does it not matter.

Same here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

I had 2 shots of Pfizer back in February. If boosters are approved and available, should I pick Pfizer over Moderna or does it not matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8

Under 60, all three are very good; the differences are negligible.

Over 60 (or immunocompromised), Pfizer and Moderna are better than J&J with Moderna showing higher antibody titers over time.

---

Thanks, Pedro. That’s good info to know.

I certainly defer to Pedro on this, but I have read where one should continue with the vaccine they have already taken.

I couldnt make an antibody if I got a shot every day. Infusions are of interest, therefore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

I certainly defer to Pedro on this, but I have read where one should continue with the vaccine they have already taken.

---

That certainly would be important info to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

I couldnt make an antibody if I got a shot every day. Infusions are of interest, therefore.

---

I wonder if an infusion could be given as a prophylactic?

Going to ask that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

I certainly defer to Pedro on this, but I have read where one should continue with the vaccine they have already taken.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

That certainly would be important info to know.

---

My response was based upon the data we have, rather than what the FDA/CDC may approve/allow. Most likely, the boosters (if they are given at all to <60) will be of the same type as you had before. The one exception MIGHT be J&J where they may allow individuals to get an mRNA vaccine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

I wonder if an infusion could be given as a prophylactic?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Going to ask that.

---

Unfortunately, these do not make a good prophylactics other than in cases of known exposure. The half-lives of the monoclonals are pretty short (somewhere between five days and three weeks) meaning the body will rapidly clear them before they can be effective. You would need to be dosed once every week or two to ensure that you have sufficient anti-COVID IgG available to prevent infection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8

Unfortunately, these do not make a good prophylactics other than in cases of known exposure. The half-lives of the monoclonals are pretty short (somewhere between five days and three weeks) meaning the body will rapidly clear them before they can be effective. You would need to be dosed once every week or two to ensure that you have sufficient anti-COVID IgG available to prevent infection.

---

You just know there are some reclusive billionaires and dictators doing this as we speak... I had a vision of "Being There" for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

You just know there are some reclusive billionaires and dictators doing this as we speak... I had a vision of "Being There" for some reason.

---

Ahem, White House, cough cough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Ahem, White House, cough cough.

---

You're thinking of the end of the film where the power brokers run Chauncey Gardner for President. I'm thinking of the ill billionaire and his health care. ;)

I think part of the issue with the perception of the vaccine is that they really do not prevent you from becoming infected. I know that is the aim, but is is not true. If it was, we would not have so many breakthrough cases and most of sports would not be having athletes in covid protocols. So the argument on prevention is past and cannot stand up with current vaccines.

What they are now saying is that they believe they reduce the symptoms. Hard to prove a negative but I think last data showed much less hospitalizations of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated. not sure on deaths but it would stand to reason that would be true too.

As a fomer Breakthrough person (J&J taken on August 9, 2021, 1st symptoms on We. October 6. I never had chest congestion, maybe a little heaviness after other symptoms (and still some today). Mine was slight fever, body aches (bad) and headache (continued for over a month). I was pretty much useless for about 7 days. Tired for 2 weeks afterwards.

I have hopes for the monoclonal and the pill from Pfizer. The Vaccines will never be universally accepted.

I don’t mind arguing with KY fans. I don’t mind arguing with dukies. But reading a cynical dukie bash and mock KY fans on whom he makes his living, well, that is not in my dna. I do not wish him ill, but I have no desire to contribute to the legend in his mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

I don’t mind arguing with KY fans. I don’t mind arguing with dukies. But reading a cynical dukie bash and mock KY fans on whom he makes his living, well, that is not in my dna. I do not wish him ill, but I have no desire to contribute to the legend in his mind.

---

Ouch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

I don’t mind arguing with KY fans. I don’t mind arguing with dukies. But reading a cynical dukie bash and mock KY fans on whom he makes his living, well, that is not in my dna. I do not wish him ill, but I have no desire to contribute to the legend in his mind.

---

As usual bigsky, you have the situation analyzed, and a plan of action put in place to satisfy your personal needs and contribute to the public good.

He's nothing if not a legend in his own mind. Boy does that nail it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSRBEvans

The Villages, baby! Golf Cart Heaven! :D It's really beautiful and so much to do--very nice folks, too. Mrs. BEvans retired last year and is down there starting to live her best life--I'll be flying back & forth.

---

You should fit right in as with the flying back and fourth you can vote in 2 states and if you play your cards right you may be ale to vote multiple times in each state. You will also have a Florida neighbor that can give you some tips.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fourth-fl...of-voter-fraud

^Yep, in spite of the eastern Kentucky admonition to "vote early and vote often," I'll stick with one vote at a time.

Quote:

---

I'll stick with one vote at a time.

---

That is a wise choice, but if you ever change your mind give Charlie a call.