They are saying your immunity could last 10+ years.
For some, I'm sure, maybe even 1-2 sigma. But median looks like 2 years, projecting loss of T-cells and antibodies. It's all subject to change.
They've based the estimated length of mRNA effective coverage on that median, and halved it to reflect an estimated 3 sigma of people. Hence 1 year between boosters. But, again, it's all subject to change.
And we don't know what Adenovirus types, like J&J Ad26, advisements are. Even though Pharma is banned from advertising against each other, there are a lot of people pushing mRNA as a booster for the J&J. Dr. Fauci weighed on that recently and told people who received the J&J Ad26 type to
'hold off.' Frankly, I wouldn't want to mix, because the Ad types are also producing the same spike proteins.
Given my very, very intense immune responses over weeks 3-5, I feel confident about how well the Ad26 viral vector worked to
'program' me to build spike proteins and anti-bodies, as well as the fact that the Ad types seem to be excellent at T-cell creation.
I.e., Ad types look like they fight all variants well thanks to T-cell production, around 60%. Whether that's better or worse than mRNA against specific variants, is yet to be seen.
Case-in-point ...
The global tally of confirmed cases of COVID-19 climbed above 184 million on Tuesday, as the highly transmissible delta variant continued to race across the...
www.marketwatch.com
Turns out the Pfizer vaccine isn't quite as effective as they hoped.
Well, Wuhan-1 was clinically shown, when pure, to be 98-99% serious disease, and 95-96% any disease, with the two (2) mRNA, Pfizer and Moderna.
But dropping to 64% sounds like it's more about the T-cell production, much like the Ad type vaccines in AstraZeneca and J&J that are estimated to be 60%+ against variants. I like the J&J because it's a single shot, and I responded very well to the Ad26 vector. The AZ was a double-shot.
At least the Delta (B.1.617.2) isn't killing nearly as much as even the early Alpha (B.1.1.7) That's the Gamma (P.1), of which both mRNA and Ad types are far more effective against, although not as good as the original Wuhan-1.
Not even sure what that means. You're "potentially" taking a risk of a new technology vaccine advertised as 95% effective that now is 65% effective or less.
And people understand the 98-99%, 95-96% and 45-82% numbers for serious disease, any Wuhan-1 disease, and any variant disease has nothing to do with eliminating the spread/transmission.
The latest studies are showcasing how there is no reduction beyond like being asymptomatic with mRNA, which is only a 66% reduction. In fact, it's only been shown to be 40-50% reduction, but that was with only 7% being 21 days past the 2nd jab with mRNA.
Hopefully by 2023 we'll have the Live Attenuated Virus vaccine option with far better results and longer-term efficacy.
www.npr.org
nypost.com
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
