Covid 19 - Updates from your zones

[JoB]

"Finally"?

They can't possibly have data from before the vaccine trials expanded to enough people to produce it; and data produced once the vaccines became available to more than just the people in the trials is going to be better than the data from the limited number in the trials. And that was only a few months ago -- so, at most, they know whether the vaccine's good for that long. (Which it seems to be.) When it's been a year, then they'll know whether it's good for a year (variants aside.) And so on. But they can't possibly know whether it's good for a year, or longer, until it's been out for a year, or longer.

That would be the case if immunity were just a binary variable; wait 'til it flips from "yes" to "no", then you know how long it takes until the flip. But actually, when you want to positively know whether someone has "immunity", vaccine induced or not, you take a blood sample, determine the amount of counteragents against CoViD contained therein, and compare it to the level deemed "sufficient" for effective immunity. That blood titer is slowly decreasing over time, and apparently in predictive enough a manner that estimates of how long - as in, a range - immunity may last post infection were available pretty much the moment news broke about repeat infections being a thing at all.

Long term side effects of the vaccines (or the infection itself) are an area where you'd be justified to say "we'll know (only) when we see them", because we don't know what biochemical mechanisms to look at to see early signs of those.

That's on a par with the legislation proposed in Indiana in 1897 that declared the value of pi to be 3.2! (That's how it's portrayed, the truth is more subtle and weird, see link.)

Not quite, in all probability, it was an intentional omission due to the lack of a good estimate when the legalese was phrased. (While better estimates for π were available since ancient Greece; it's also called "Archimedes' constant" for a reason.) After all, an act saying that "proof of vaccination [as of whatever date] can be substituted for a negative test [not older than ...]" can simply be superseded by a newer version, and in Germany, legalese invalidating constitutional rights is required to have an explicit limited (to a couple weeks) lifetime in the first place.

[thorny]

That would be the case if immunity were just a binary variable; wait 'til it flips from "yes" to "no", then you know how long it takes until the flip. But actually, when you want to positively know whether someone has "immunity", vaccine induced or not, you take a blood sample, determine the amount of counteragents against CoViD contained therein, and compare it to the level deemed "sufficient" for effective immunity. That blood titer is slowly decreasing over time, and apparently in predictive enough a manner that estimates of how long - as in, a range - immunity may last post infection were available pretty much the moment news broke about repeat infections being a thing at all.

Thanks. Interesting info.

But how sure can they be about that predictive manner? Could immunity drop off at a given rate for a while, but then much faster or slower later on?

-- for an example from another field entirely, not because I think it's directly relevant which it isn't, but just to give an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about: in some species, seed viability drops off only slowly for a while, and then much faster -- germination may be great in year one, very good in year two, only moderately worse in year three -- but the seed's effectively dead in year four, when just extrapolating from the speed of earlier dropoff would lead you to expect that maybe half or more of it would sprout.

[Vulpes]

Could immunity drop off at a given rate for a while, but then much faster or slower later on?

-- for an example from another field entirely, not because I think it's directly relevant which it isn't, but just to give an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about: in some species, seed viability drops off only slowly for a while, and then much faster -- germination may be great in year one, very good in year two, only moderately worse in year three -- but the seed's effectively dead in year four, when just extrapolating from the speed of earlier dropoff would lead you to expect that maybe half or more of it would sprout.

Nice analogy, it may well work similarly with immunity. Also, I'm not sure that they really know how much a particular antibody titre adds up to effective protection, and whether a particular level prevents disease, prevents serious disease, lowers transmission... although admittedly I've been having trouble keeping up with it all. It's an incredibly fast-moving area of research, which doubtless frustrates politcians who really want certainty.

[JoB]

But how sure can they be about that predictive manner? Could immunity drop off at a given rate for a while, but then much faster or slower later on?

I guess that that's where it comes really handy that the development at the failing end of the scale has already been observed, in those people whose lesser(!), actual-infection-induced titres eventually failed to prevent a second infection.

Also, I'm not sure that they really know how much a particular antibody titre adds up to effective protection, and whether a particular level prevents disease, prevents serious disease, lowers transmission... although admittedly I've been having trouble keeping up with it all.

The existing vaccines never fully prevented infection, period. They're said to, in practice, prevent 90+% of ensuing disease, and a solid 100% of grave cases. "In practice" being the keyword here, because whether you get infected or not is not only a function of how high the level of antibodies in your blood is, but also of how high a load of viruses you were exposed to. Which is why, in terms of trying to stop the pandemic, a vaccine could be "good enough" even if it were not to prevent the disease in the vaccinated at all and "only" lowered the amount of new viruses the person exhales so as to infect the next guy.

It's an incredibly fast-moving area of research, which doubtless frustrates politcians who really want certainty.

They say that the one talent that a manager needs is the ability to make reasonably good decisions in spite of uncertainty, so I don't know whether politicians really want certainty for themselves here ...

Speaking of ongoing research, apparently some of the pharma companies are busy trying to come up with a flu+CoViD combo vaccine, rumour being that it promises to be more effective than vaccinating against those separately. If CoViD vaccination would really happen to turn out to need yearly booster shots, same as flu vaccination, we'd stand a chance that in the long run, We The Humans will deal with CoViD in essentially the same way as we did with the flu before - vaccination drives every year, always seeing a certain number of cases and deaths happening nonetheless, but.

[thorny]

I guess that that's where it comes really handy that the development at the failing end of the scale has already been observed, in those people whose lesser(!), actual-infection-induced titres eventually failed to prevent a second infection.

Which, again, is information we at this point have for only a limited length of time; though admittedly a somewhat longer time than we have for the results of vaccination.

And I thought vaccination was supposed to provide better immunity than infection; so, if it's different in that way, do we know that it's the same in this way?

[JoB]

Which, again, is information we at this point have for only a limited length of time

Yes, but it's about the stretch of time (where the titres fall below the "working" levels) that vaccine-induced immunity, in most cases, still has to get to, thus improving the forecast.

And I thought vaccination was supposed to provide better immunity than infection; so, if it's different in that way, do we know that it's the same in this way?

Not sure I read that line correctly ... yes, vaccine-induced immunity is reportedly better in several aspects than one acquired through actual infection¹. How "good" the immunity is (and how long it'll probably last) is effectively measured in the form of the titre levels². Also, by that time, the actual vaccines - or, in the case of infection-acquired immunity, virtually all free-ranging viruses - have vanished from the body, so in any case, it's our same ol' immune system that's producing the antibodies, and slowly lowering the production rate over time. I suppose one can theorize that some heretofore unknown mechanism might cause that "unlearning" process to suddenly differ between post-vaxx and post-haxx cases, but it doesn't seem very likely to me ...

¹ And I'm not even talking about vaccination skipping the whole "being ill for days, weeks, months, or worse" or "risk of developing 'Long CoViD'" aspects here.
² That's still simplified, of course. The various vaccines each train one of a handful different parts of the entire immune system, which is one reason that experts think that combos of the vaccines available now might actually work even better than the current "pick one and stick to it", while an actual infection triggers all applicable ones, of course. At a price.

[JoB]

From the pile of information one might rather not want to have (yet) ...

Spoiler: no pustulent pustules but still ... • show

The pandemic and the limited availability of breathing apparatuses have apparently breathed new life (pun intended) into the research whether humans, like certain animal species, may be able to absorb oxygen rectally.

[Vulpes]

From the pile of information one might rather not want to have (yet) ...

Spoiler: no pustulent pustules but still ... • show

The pandemic and the limited availability of breathing apparatuses have apparently breathed new life (pun intended) into the research whether humans, like certain animal species, may be able to absorb oxygen rectally.

The title and summary are stellar examples of needlessly obscure technicalese, but the graphical abstract is hilarious!

[JoB]

The title and summary are stellar examples of needlessly obscure technicalese

Gotta admit that I probably wouldn't have noticed it, either, if not for the (German) layman's version in the quality press ...

[catbirds]

From the pile of information one might rather not want to have (yet) ...

Spoiler: no pustulent pustules but still ... • show

The pandemic and the limited availability of breathing apparatuses have apparently breathed new life (pun intended) into the research whether humans, like certain animal species, may be able to absorb oxygen rectally.

Neat article! I think? I'm pleased to find out that they're using oxygen-rich liquid for research, not gas.

I want to ask if it's possible to breathe exclusively using this method, but that veers off the topic of COVID-19

[Vulpes]

Neat article! I think? I'm pleased to find out that they're using oxygen-rich liquid for research, not gas.

I want to ask if it's possible to breathe exclusively using this method, but that veers off the topic of COVID-19

You wouldn't wish to breathe this way regularly, would you? 

Back to the topic at hand - Newfoundland & Labrador at the moment has 83 active cases, and one area is under tighter restrictions to prevent community spread from a small cluster of cases. Most cases are related to travel, or close contacts of existing cases. Not quite half of people who are eligible have had at least one dose of vaccine. I feel fortunate to be in a place with so little of the disease, but I know that could change any time, and because it's not (currently) urgent, the pace of vaccinations has been slow, so if there is a wave of infection, there's nowhere near enough people even half-vaccinated to slow its spread. I hope people continue to follow the rules, and vaccinations pick up, because I would really, really like to not worry all summer. And then in September we're supposed to be back on campus teaching face-to-face... it'll be nice, but stressful!

[JoB]

I want to ask if it's possible to breathe exclusively using this method, but that veers off the topic of COVID-19

How so? I agree that methods that require a circuit of perfluorocarbon are unlikely to be more mass-deployable than conventional O2 supply, breathing apparatuses, or even direct oxygenization of the blood (ECMO), and thus will not prove the end of the pandemic, but.

The article insists on calling the artificially induced problem state "(an experimental model of) respiratory failure", but offhand, I don't see any details on method or quantification of this "failure" ...

[Yastreb]

Victoria has re-imposed restrictions from 1800 tonight after a fresh cluster developed. There will be compulsory masking in public areas such as supermarkets; for a while now, that applied only to public transport, and it wasn't being enforced much if at all (from what I could see). Home visits are now limited to five people a day, and public gatherings to thirty.

[Róisín]

Keep safe, Yastreb! I worry about you and yours.

On a happier note, Rhí and I went to visit Star in hospital today, he was glad to see us and has so far had no problems from his first vaccine shot. At least if he is one of the unlucky folk who develop clots he will be in a hospital when it happens. He is still waiting on the verdict of the wound care specialist as to when/if they let him out of hospital. He asked how you were doing, having heard of the outbreak in your area. Look after yourself!

[Yastreb]

Thanx, Róisín! And thanx to Star also.

I'll be getting my AstraZenica shot on Sunday most likely. Report to follow.