Polaris OBark

I got a second booster of Moderna a few hours ago.

I came across a report about mixing the two versions of the mRNA vaccine. Apparently Moderna gives a better IgA (mucosal) response, and Pfizer gives a better IgM response. This was a bit of a surprise to me, because I thought they were essentially the same. So my hope is that I get the best of both worlds.

N2deep

Who cares? Everyone I know is over the propaganda ..

downtube42

I'm looking at timing on the 2nd booster. I'm traveling to the UK in August for a ride, and I want to ensure my protection is high. No rush; I might wait a bit.

Chuck M 

I had plans to get my booster in late December but didn't make time for it because I had to fill in at my wife's clinic answering the phone because the front desk person was filling in for the office manager who was out with her husband that eventually died from the virus. My doctor said he didn't believe I needed it but I was going to get it anyway since Omicron was on the rise. Now I don't know that I will get the booster. I'm no expert, but it seems the Omicron variant was not as deadly even though it appeared to be more easily transmitted. It makes me wonder if natural spreading from less sever variants would go further toward herd immunity than vaccines. Nevertheless I feel that people with underlying health issues should get vaccinated. I just wish the whole thing hadn't been so politicized so that we could better trust reports and data.

Polaris OBark

Yeah, I would wait until about 2 or 3 weeks before travel (unless things get bad here). Also, an omicron-specific version should be coming out in a couple of months. I was holding out for that, but decided to go for it because I am suddenly immersed in large groups of people.

Polaris OBark

It killed more people than Delta, mainly because it infected more people.

Polaris OBark

Yeah, I know what you mean:

Ivermectin worthless against COVID in largest clinical trial to date

zandoval 

When it comes to Covid its a simple fact that the young, strong, and healthy certainly have less to worry about. If nothing else they can rely on the Heard aspect of it all. My only problem is that the Heard does not have within it the old, injured, and weak. I need every edge I can get. So bring it on...

4th shot... Sure... the first three gave me no problems at all.

Do I wear a mask in crowded places? Sure... I can't afford Covid, it's variants, or the flu, or any other infection respiratory or other wise. And really I don't treasure smelling your nasty posterior or mine anyway.

Am I going to follow Dr Zalenco's treatment for Covid/Omecron treatment? Sure... Plus antibodies, and Ill burn a Candle and do a Por-Me-Culpa dance if I can.

I may be a geezer but I still got stuff to do... Thank You Jesus!!!

Also note that as a health care provider I find The New England Journal of Medicine not much better than Wikapedia if better at all. After all, they just publish studies, they do not do studies and historically claim little responsibility for thier influence when wrong.

Trakhak

I spent 20 years working as a copyeditor and production editor for a long-established nonprofit science publisher of journals comparable to the NEJM. As with the NEJM, each submitted article was assigned for vetting to a senior science editor whose field of expertise was appropriate for the subject matter. I'll spare you the details of the evaluation process, but it was extremely rigorous (e.g., software-based detection of after-the-fact manipulation of electron micrographs, performed to make the claims of the article seem more plausible).

Over 85% of submissions to our journals were ultimately rejected. Just looked up the rejection rate for the NEJM: it's 95%. Impressive.

Claiming reponsibility when wrong: the NEJM, like the journals I worked on, does not rerun the reported studies, obviously. Thus, once the evaluation process is complete and the submitted article has been accepted for publication, assigned to another (or the same) science editor for the publication process, copyedited, and returned to the authors for proofreading, the responsibility for accuracy lies with those authors. Occasionally, errors will come to light, and those are published as Errata or Authors' Corrections. More rarely, entire articles are withdrawn.

Science journals are crucially dependent on their reputation, which is, of course, based on the quality of the articles that they publish. The NEJM is about as reliable as it gets in that world. What you and I should be worrying about is the recent explosion of prepublication posting of unedited articles on journal websites. "Impact factor" is the statistic that science journals live and die by, and publishers that speedily post unvetted articles with a "Hey! You're reading this at your own risk!" disclaimer get to enjoy a bump in impact factor while avoiding the expenditures of time and money required of the older, more established journals. If you're looking for scams in the world of science publishing, look no further.

GhostRider62

My wife and I both got sick after the first booster. No thanks, I'm done with it all.

N2deep

Intersting that other countries that used Ivermectin experienced a lower mortality rate, Africa for example and many third world countries. . The purpose of the Medical Journal is not to provide absolute proof but to distribute studies or positions for the treatment of diseases.

downtube42

It is well known that mortality rate comparisons, country to country and even between U.S. states, are problematic. Differences in the how numerator - COVID deaths - is measured, and how the denominator - COVID cases - is measured, make reported mortality rates unreliable for comparison purposes.
That's not too say there isn't something up in African countries. Medical experts agree the impact of COVID in African countries is unexpected. Even accounting for limited testing, it seems the number of cases and deaths across Africa are far less than much of the world. Over time, out of scientific studies rather than political debate, we will come to know the answer. The political game will have moved on to the next hot topic by then, and most Americans won't give a crap.

Bald Paul

Or dead.

RH Clark

Anyone considering a booster should absolutely look at the number of adverse events, which is not at all insignificant, and weigh that risk against the risk of infection. You won't learn a single thing about adverse reactions from the MSM.

Polaris OBark

Thankfully we now have a large, well-controlled double-blind set of clinical trials to go by, rather than Fakebook anecdotes.

GhostRider62

Craziest damn thing. She got Moderna and I got Pfizer. After her 2nd shot, she felt lousy for 3-4 days. Neither bothered me. After the booster, she was sick for a long time and I was sick for maybe 3 days. Wife said she cannot remember me ever being sick in 30+ years. Very odd. Purely anecdotal.

Polaris OBark

Yeah, I weighed the minute risk against the very real risk of developing severe COVID or developing long-haul COVID.

rumrunn6

thought I would do that too, but just booked my 4th Moderna for next week. oh well

zandoval 

WOW!!! That is impressive. A real copyeditor, most likely old school!

Most people don't know what a real copyeditor is. To put it plainly a real copyeditor is the Actuary of the publishing world. As far as the NEJM, it's just another journal. It has been around a long time but personally lately it's hard to believe anything published and I am sure as a copyeditor you see this too. Unfortunately my stack of unread medical journals is deep. That is truly my fault...

tyrion

Are you able to get a combined, 2 component shot, or are you going to get 2 separate shots?

Polaris OBark

I don't think they will ever combine shots from two competing companies. I got Pfizer originally, and then boosted with Moderna both times. My wife got boosted with Pfizer, and the same pharmacist wouldn't let her have Moderna for the second boost. (She played by the rules and I kind of gamed the system.)

Honestly, I don't think it matters that much. It is a bit of a surprise that Moderna elicits an IgA response. Whether that actually translates into anything useful is an entirely different (and unanswered) question. I am a bit frustrated that the turn-around for an Omicron-specific booster has been so slow. In principle, one of the major advantages of the mRNA vaccine is you can change the coding sequence very rapidly. What is clear is that this virus is going to continue to mutate and evolve to evade our immune response, so we have to be able to respond more rapidly.

I'm also not at all convinced that another booster really is necessary for most people. Most of Africa is still largely unvaccinated, and that is really short-sighted public health policy (and may be responsible for the emergence of Omicron. Similarly with India and Delta.)

skidder

I'll be getting the 4th shot/second booster in the next two weeks; why not? From what I know those who are still being hospitalized in ICUs are the ones who haven't had the shots, and those who did have the shots who got a 'breakthrough' infection only had mild symptoms requiring rest at home/quarantining and maybe an over-the counter pain medication (asprin, tylenol, etc).

I did have very mild reactions to the original two-dose COVID treatment, then nothing with the first booster. I recently had the first dose of the shingles vaccine and that really affected me, far worse than the COVID shots! Down for two days, then two more just taking it easy. But considering what my brother went through when he came down with shingles (itchiness, shooting pain), and some of shingles long-tern effects, the reaction to the shot is worth it. Second shingles shot booked for early-June.

downtube42

Shingles is a *****, and I had a mild case. Vaccines are now done and done.

unterhausen

Okay, the end, I'm closing it.