完全外行,Google到nature 在九月初的一篇文章,提到了儿童的innate immunity的优势。但是我猜测这些分析是不是基于delta之前的数据。 Kids and COVID: why young immune systems are still on top https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8 [ 链接:www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8 ]
完全外行,Google到nature 在九月初的一篇文章,提到了儿童的innate immunity的优势。但是我猜测这些分析是不是基于delta之前的数据。 Kids and COVID: why young immune systems are still on top https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8 [ 链接:www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8 ] Xiaohetao 发表于 2021-11-06 12:10
之前的变种都不太能感染到小孩。现在delta可能病毒量太高,小孩也能被感染了 但是小孩innate immunity 还是有很大优势的,免疫方式也不太一样 (也是外行,说错勿怪) Specifically, kids had lower levels of ‘neutralizing’ antibodies that block SARS-CoV-2 from infecting cells; antibodies that label infected cells to be gobbled up and destroyed by other cells; and white blood cells known as regulatory and helper T cells. By contrast, the children in the study had higher levels of the signalling proteins interferon-γ and interleukin-17, which alert the immune system to the arrival of a pathogen. These were probably produced by cells that line the airways, and are involved in mediating innate immunity. Herold suspected that the children mounted a less robust adaptive immune response because their innate response was more efficient at eliminating the threat. An overactive adaptive response in adults, she says, could be causing some of the complications in COVID-19.
之前的变种都不太能感染到小孩。现在delta可能病毒量太高,小孩也能被感染了 但是小孩innate immunity 还是有很大优势的,免疫方式也不太一样 (也是外行,说错勿怪) Specifically, kids had lower levels of ‘neutralizing’ antibodies that block SARS-CoV-2 from infecting cells; antibodies that label infected cells to be gobbled up and destroyed by other cells; and white blood cells known as regulatory and helper T cells. By contrast, the children in the study had higher levels of the signalling proteins interferon-γ and interleukin-17, which alert the immune system to the arrival of a pathogen. These were probably produced by cells that line the airways, and are involved in mediating innate immunity. Herold suspected that the children mounted a less robust adaptive immune response because their innate response was more efficient at eliminating the threat. An overactive adaptive response in adults, she says, could be causing some of the complications in COVID-19. vitd120 发表于 2021-11-06 12:45
现在疫苗黑都这么努力 benefit: More than 8,300 [ 链接:www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-COVID-Jefferson-508.pdf ] kids aged 5 to 11 have been hospitalized with COVID-19 because of serious illness. According to a CDC analysis, the number of children and adolescents admitted to the hospital increased nearly fivefold [ 链接:www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm ] over the summer months amid the delta surge. In addition, more than 5,200 children and teens have developed MIS-C [ 链接:covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#mis-national-surveillance ], or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a condition linked to COVID-19 that often leads to ICU admission. The median age of kids getting MIS-C is 9 years old. risk: Myocarditis after vaccination is "very, very rare," explains Kimberlin. And it's usually short-lived. In most instances, adolescents who've developed myocarditis have improved quickly. "The management of it usually is taking some ibuprofen — some Advil," Kimberlin says. Rates of post-vaccination myocarditis are expected to be lower in young kids than those observed in teens. Myocarditis, which can also occur after bacterial and viral infections, including COVID-19, is generally significantly less common among younger children. That's partly because the condition is linked with puberty hormones, explains pediatrician Nicole Baldwin [ 链接:drnicolebaldwin.com/ ], who practices in Cincinnati. And the smaller dose size for younger kids may also reduce the risk, Kalu adds. "The physiology behind why they saw some of the post-vaccine myocarditis seems to be related to how the immune system is reacting to the vaccine. It's mounting a protective level of antibody, but maybe a little overzealous in those efforts," she says. Of 877 reports of vaccine-related myocarditis in people under 30, no deaths have been confirmed, according to data presented at the CDC's advisory meeting Tuesday. 青椒86 发表于 2021-11-05 21:06
现在疫苗黑都这么努力 benefit: More than 8,300 [ 链接:www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-COVID-Jefferson-508.pdf ] kids aged 5 to 11 have been hospitalized with COVID-19 because of serious illness. According to a CDC analysis, the number of children and adolescents admitted to the hospital increased nearly fivefold [ 链接:www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm ] over the summer months amid the delta surge. In addition, more than 5,200 children and teens have developed MIS-C [ 链接:covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#mis-national-surveillance ], or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a condition linked to COVID-19 that often leads to ICU admission. The median age of kids getting MIS-C is 9 years old. risk: Myocarditis after vaccination is "very, very rare," explains Kimberlin. And it's usually short-lived. In most instances, adolescents who've developed myocarditis have improved quickly. "The management of it usually is taking some ibuprofen — some Advil," Kimberlin says. Rates of post-vaccination myocarditis are expected to be lower in young kids than those observed in teens. Myocarditis, which can also occur after bacterial and viral infections, including COVID-19, is generally significantly less common among younger children. That's partly because the condition is linked with puberty hormones, explains pediatrician Nicole Baldwin [ 链接:drnicolebaldwin.com/ ], who practices in Cincinnati. And the smaller dose size for younger kids may also reduce the risk, Kalu adds. "The physiology behind why they saw some of the post-vaccine myocarditis seems to be related to how the immune system is reacting to the vaccine. It's mounting a protective level of antibody, but maybe a little overzealous in those efforts," she says. Of 877 reports of vaccine-related myocarditis in people under 30, no deaths have been confirmed, according to data presented at the CDC's advisory meeting Tuesday. 青椒86 发表于 2021-11-05 21:06
🔥 In a newly-released powerpoint used by the FDA to approve Covid injections for kids 5-11, the agency explicitly estimates that under “Scenario One,” jabbing kids will prevent 67 ICU visits for Covid but will CAUSE 57 ICU visits for myocarditis per million kids vaccinated. So in other words, we’re doing all this to save 10 ICU visits per million kids. And harming almost as many kids as we’re helping. Do the kids expected to be harmed get anything to say about it? I guess not. Stupid question. But wait, it gets better. Under “Scenario 3” (low Covid transmission rates), it’s upside down. In kids 5-11, the FDA estimated preventing only seven (7) ICUs while still CAUSING 57 ICUs in the children for every million injected. What can you even say about the minds who’ve concluded this is a good idea? This is what out-of-control utilitarianism looks like. Link: https://www.fda.gov/media/153507/download (see pages 8 and 14).
医生和护士受了这么多年的医学教育,是最相信科学的一群人,他们主张evidence based practice,就是科学数据来指导临床。这没有错,前提是科研都是有良心,尽量公平公正真实且反复验证过的,这样的拿来指导临床才有意义,他们以往见到的也是这样的。现在不一样,数据都太新了,我自己是做科研的,太明白这里面的不可信性了,科研中结论被以后的试验推翻的不要太多。在收益不大,但危险未知的情况下,还是要谨慎。
回复 245楼你我对面不相识的帖子 看了一下,这个report的心肌炎数据input是 12-17组。 减dose后低龄组应该没那么高。 “Rate of hospitalization and ICU stay due to vaccine related myocarditis for ages 12-17 years: from Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)3” “Conclusions • For Scenarios 1 (Base), 2 (Recent COVID-19 Peak Incidence), 4 (Higher Vaccine Efficacy), 5 (Higher COVID-19 Death Rate), and 6 (Lower Excess Myocarditis Rate) the model predicts that benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine 2-dose primary series clearly outweigh the risks for ages 5-11 years. • For Scenario 3 (The Lowest COVID-19 Incidence), the model predicts more excess hospitalizations and ICU stays due to vaccine-related myocarditis/pericarditis compared to prevented hospitalizations and ICU stays due to COVID-19 in males and in both sexes combined. • Considering the different implications and length of stay for COVID-19 hospitalization versus hospitalization for vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis, and benefits related to prevention of cases of COVID-19 with significant morbidity, the overall benefits of the vaccine may still outweigh the risks under this lowest incidence scenario. • If the myocarditis/pericarditis risk in this age group is lower than the conservative assumption used in the model, the benefit-risk balance would be even more favorable. “
抗体还是产生的比需要的多的,尤其是疫苗引起的免疫反应,抗原是定量的,不是能不停指数复制的活病原体。剩下的抗体随着时间的推移,会逐渐被代谢掉。但免疫系统有记忆,memory B cells下次再遇到相同的抗原,能短期大量产生抗体。当然有足够抗体等在那里最好,可能连症状都没有就把病原体消灭掉了。如果没有足够的抗体就得等B细胞被激活产生抗体,会晚一点,可能会有较轻微的短期症状,但还是比没有记忆的初次感染要快的多了。所以小浣熊建议高危人群打booster,普通健康人群即使抗体滴度低,也没必要打。免疫没什么resources浪费之说,免疫系统是越用越强的,所以才要小朋友不要太干净。
我在疫苗标兵区的parent group上 药厂员工巨多的地区 前几天天天有人发帖说开心呀 小娃可以打针了 今天有个少数派的发言是这样的 And it doesn't matter if everyone in xxx wants this mandate. This wasn't a referendum. And that's not the point of this petition. It's asking for the SC to revisit the policy of a mandate, especially now as it is being extended to 5-11s. I signed it because I think that parents should have a choice about this and the FDA agrees that it shouldn't be mandated for that age group.
非常走心的总结。我记得thinking fast and slow书里提到人面对问题下意识倾向于简洁快速的思考,而不愿意深度思考。CDC也好,媒体也好,宣传的言论直接易懂,具有确定性,很容易被大众所接受。而科研文章也好,分子生物学phd的帖子也好,透着不确定性和深层次的思考。从事科研的人比较容易接受这种不确定性,因为长期的科研就是这么一个不断打破已有认知,获得新的认知的过程,不轻易下结论是常态。但是对大众来说,这是不容易接受的,对这种不确定性本能的反抗,人们需要的是确切的结论,有人能够准确告诉他们该做什么。 明白了这一点,看各种舆论就比较明确,有谁在利用大众这种需要确切答案的心理。说错了无怪哈,我只是有感而发。
life…
有的人自己需要高度自由 对别人就不说了 这类人tend to支持疫苗强制
我看你总结了疫苗和感染的短期影响,疫苗长远的影响,但并没有怎么提及病毒长期的影响。确实疫苗短期并没有显著成效,长期可能有concern,那能否多讲一下病毒长期影响的考虑呢?我们并不担心病毒短期造成重症/死亡,但是确实担心病毒对孩子的长远影响,你说了神经心脏细胞损伤很难再生修复,这个从长远来看,疫苗和病毒是不是都有这样的concern?
什么叫造谣?主流媒体没告诉你的事情就是造谣?那这样你就生活在主流给你打造的世界里好了。 你不问问为什么猪媒要压制理性探讨的不同声音。为什么我们看到的很多东西你没看到? 这个医生自打一开始就把自己的身份专业背景说的清清楚楚。在他和网上某个不知底细的网友时间谁更有credential,自己判断。 放一个他访谈的一个链接。真相要自己去找。 https://t.me/PeterMcCullough/46 [ 链接:t.me/PeterMcCullough/46 ]
疫苗黑子难道没有听说过CDC的COVID vaccine reporting system吗。你们组织都攻击过好多次了https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/reporting-systems.html
太好笑了,“真相要自己去找”。你们随便找个什么人造个谣,辟谣的要跑断腿。全国的医疗机构你们都不相信,去相信一个跟你们一样观点的个体,这种找认同真是绝了
嗯 我记得alpha和beta都是有方法可以躲过adaptive immunity 主要靠innate immunity抵挡
我记得好像是先天免疫反应快,如果先天免疫够强,基本都杀死了,就不太用得着adaptive immunity
楼主,想请教你提到的长期未知风险, 1) impurities: 2) gentoxity:3)lipid nanoparticle 的代谢,疫苗是一个少次少量注射的物质,和长期服用的药物不同。这个风险是material的吗? 还有像小浣熊美眉提到的,全球10亿人已经打了,以色列几百万人已经打了快一年了。有观察到什么异常吗?还有,如果有异常,能观察到时间是多久,1-3年还是更久。感觉这是个中长期的未知,不是人在眼下能够掌控的。除非选择一直不打这个疫苗。我觉得随着时间的推移和美国抗疫的整体倾向,学校会在下个学期不在强制口罩。那等待这个冬天是有意义的吗?尤其冬天传染几率比较高。
4)胚胎着床失败率.问个外行问题,这个实验观察的结果会不会和小鼠的生育周期短有关,比如疫苗在体内的代谢未尽。这个在人身上不一样。而且现在儿童用量是很低的。这个risk也是material的吗?
That’s true too
完全外行,Google到nature 在九月初的一篇文章,提到了儿童的innate immunity的优势。但是我猜测这些分析是不是基于delta之前的数据。
Kids and COVID: why young immune systems are still on top https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8 [ 链接:www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8 ]
之前的变种都不太能感染到小孩。现在delta可能病毒量太高,小孩也能被感染了
但是小孩innate immunity 还是有很大优势的,免疫方式也不太一样 (也是外行,说错勿怪)
Specifically, kids had lower levels of ‘neutralizing’ antibodies that block SARS-CoV-2 from infecting cells; antibodies that label infected cells to be gobbled up and destroyed by other cells; and white blood cells known as regulatory and helper T cells.
By contrast, the children in the study had higher levels of the signalling proteins interferon-γ and interleukin-17, which alert the immune system to the arrival of a pathogen. These were probably produced by cells that line the airways, and are involved in mediating innate immunity. Herold suspected that the children mounted a less robust adaptive immune response because their innate response was more efficient at eliminating the threat. An overactive adaptive response in adults, she says, could be causing some of the complications in COVID-19.
可是delta的breakthrough cases也很多 疫苗能加多少保护?
短时间内,是能保护感染的。但是过几个月就wane了,还想保护感染的话需要继续打. 这个我觉得不太划算
保护重症呢,没基础病的小孩重症率很低
谢谢
这个Peter Mccullough从疫情最开始就拼命推HCQ,然后是吹IVM,然后是反疫苗,你可以想象这位是个什么credit。我们local微信群里面也有这样的川粉,天天说的是和这个ID一模一样的车轱辘话,什么疫苗会钻进心肌导致心肌发炎坏死,什么著名心脏专家Peter Mccullough发现疫苗引起的心肌炎肌钙蛋白比普通心肌炎高100倍,所以我说他不是带任务的鬼才信。
看我给的报告的第18页,vaccine-related myocarditis的肌钙蛋白(Troponin)的水平是低于classical myocarditis的。他Peter Mccullough要是有相反的数据可以拿出来嘛,用不着等到peer review,放在medrxiv上让我们看看就可以,天天在社交媒体上散布这种misinformation算什么事??
https://www.fda.gov/media/153514/download
如果我没记错,自然免疫的效果要比打疫苗的效果好很多。如果能二次感染,说明打疫苗也没用。而且疫苗如果只有6个月有效,那比较风险也应该比较最近6个月得新冠的概率,而不是一辈子得新冠的概率。看看这两年身边的例子,绝对是没得新冠的人比得新冠的人多得多。认为孩子肯定会得的,那是应该去打个疫苗。
现在新冠已经是5到11岁儿童死亡的第六位了,如果这个还不够让人担心,我不知道是不是要爬到第一位才够担心
最近的研究是自然感染的reinfection 概率比疫苗breakthrough 高很多
这个我不相信。
楼主给出数据了,病毒比疫苗的心肌炎概率高很多。
LZ可以给详细讲一下关于疫苗纯度的结论,临床试验疫苗的纯度和大规模生产疫苗的纯度不同的根据在哪里?我把参考文献9里关于生产质量的那一个章节读了个遍,没有找到支持LZ这个论据的部分。
作为分析化学工作者,我知道FDA和欧洲的类似监管部门都对产品的纯度和impurity有很严格的要求,小试,中试和规模生产的产品纯度和impurity都有严格的测试要求。如果这个方面有不同,这些测试完全可以查得出来。
很多人靠反疫苗发大财了。不管什么背景,还是看内容吧。毕竟推广疫苗无法做网红赚大钱。
有论据说论据,别扣帽子
可是也有疫苗逃逸的新毒株出现啊!
所有有S蛋白的疫苗都会有副作用,所以灭活疫苗也有。 但是灭活一不用人体细胞生成S蛋白,二浓度小很多,所以副作用也会小很多
自然感染vs疫苗两方面的数据现在都有,我觉得这和自然感染发生的时间、感染的变种还有感染的程度都有关系,所以数据比较混乱。比如我们现在知道有的变种之间的交叉中和很差,比如gamma和delta之间;有的比如alpha变种对delta的交叉中和能力就很好。
自然感染在健康上面的代价当然更大,这个不用说。要说”优势“的话,一是感染的毒株肯定比较新,做疫苗用的武汉毒株都灭绝一年多了,二是粘膜里面的IgA更高,疫苗在IgA这方面是个大短板。以前wild type潜伏期长,靠免疫记忆有的时候是来得及的,现在delta出来以后要防止出现有症状感染,基本上只能靠粘膜里已经存在的抗体。
细胞免疫方面理论上讲自然感染对T细胞的刺激肯定更深,而且T细胞的识别位点是不限于spike protein的。但是还是那句话,要看感染的程度,症状很轻的话不见得对T细胞就有多么强的刺激;重症的话搞出细胞因子风暴来整个免疫系统都乱套了,幸存下来之后抵抗力变得更差也说不定。。。
其实照我说如果一定要选择”自然免疫“的话还不如两针疫苗以后被breakthrough一次。breakthrough infection之后的免疫反应已经有文章了,抗体水平和T细胞反应都很好,对各个变种的中和能力都很强,和自然感染后再打疫苗类似,IgA也是一下就上去了,然后危险还小得多。
免疫原罪了解一下
实际上逃逸特别厉害的几个毒株现在都被delta给灭绝了,比如beta, 还有前一段发现的一个免疫逃逸特别厉害的毒株叫A.30。mu变种逃逸也很厉害,现在在delta的进攻下也是奄奄一息。新冠病毒界目前的大魔王还是delta,以后称霸的肯定也是delta的子孙辈
对嘛,就是自然感染从免疫上来说更robust
现在知道先自然感染再疫苗,变成了一种superhuman immunity
疫苗以后再感染,顺序改变了,不知道是什么个情况,不一定等同啊
你是说,打两针疫苗以后感染一次,比打booster要强?嗯嗯,这也是可遇不可求滴,还得看个人身体素质,年纪大的,有基础病的,还是别冒这个险了。
你读一下这篇文章吧
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.18.21265113v1.full.pdf
他们没有测其他beta冠状病毒家族的病毒,不知道是不是真正的superhuman immunity,但是对各个变种的中和水平确实都非常高
我的意思是如果一定要选择自然免疫的话。。。
如果一定要选择自然免疫,还不如选轮盘赌呢
专家!这篇文章其实就是疫苗黑,貌似专业,每个论点里都是槽点。 纯度等release spec都是在临床期间确定的,后期商业生产,技术转移等各步骤坚决不允许出现新的impurity或者超过spec,不符合肯定不会放行。
bear week产生了不少数据啊
这些是当下的反应。一年以后怎么样,感觉还得继续跟踪一下
这和我说的有什么关系?
你放在benefits下的只提到住院人数,benefit在哪里?
So in other words, we’re doing all this to save 10 ICU visits per million kids. And harming almost as many kids as we’re helping. Do the kids expected to be harmed get anything to say about it? I guess not. Stupid question.
But wait, it gets better. Under “Scenario 3” (low Covid transmission rates), it’s upside down. In kids 5-11, the FDA estimated preventing only seven (7) ICUs while still CAUSING 57 ICUs in the children for every million injected.
What can you even say about the minds who’ve concluded this is a good idea? This is what out-of-control utilitarianism looks like.
Link: https://www.fda.gov/media/153507/download (see pages 8 and 14).
对 求原层主的链接
嗯 这个分析靠谱
是啊 硬要说的话 真的莫名被强制打针碰巧打出了超级免疫
前提是疫苗可以降低long covid的几率或严重程度,有这方面的数据么?
你们所有的结论都基于数据准确的前提下 可是你知不知道 很多因为疫苗导致的心肌炎根本不被承认 garbage in garbage out,什么时候能客观公正统计数据了 再来比较结果吧 否则都是瞎扯淡浪费时间 根本没有可比性
抓住专家问一句:mRNA对年轻人造成心肌炎/心包炎的问题机理还没搞清楚,5-12岁儿童临床数据也有限,现在大面积推广是不是有些冒进呢?
很多得了也不说的 我有好几个同事得了都没和老板说的
楼主自己打没打,能透露一下吗? 各个年龄段都有类似的risk benefi可以分析
就是所有人都打了,也无法有效防止扩散,疫苗已经证明并不能阻断传播,打过疫苗的或已经得过的还会再次感染,已经不可能形成群体免疫了,怎么还会有这种想法?
我觉得booster这种短时间强刺激/干扰免疫系统本身就是有未知风险存在的,网上看到的new cases/deaths数据都没有年龄细分,基础病细分,这个造成了很大的noise影响大家的判断。
还是认同小浣熊,身体健康的人booster不用打;年纪大的,有基础病的,对自身免疫力没信心的,酌情去打。所以,booster对特殊人群这种通过形式还是可以接受的,本来以为5-11儿童也应该是针对特殊儿童的,那就make sense很多,可惜不是。
错 并不是不打疫苗的有多高大上 自愿做对照组 而是告诉你一个事实,就是没打的可以做为对照组。你别管人家是为了啥不打 结果就是有这么一批人的存在 客观上起到了对照组的作用。 没打的可没摁着人的头逼着人去当小白鼠 最好大家都别去当小白鼠 现在说的是 已经当了小白鼠的 聪明点应该站出来阻止要大家都当小白鼠的强制令 这样客观上以后还可能帮到已经当了小白鼠的讨回点公道。
我们身边就已经有很多人得过了,都是两针mRNA打完后,fully vaccinated 后染上的。相对而言,华人更注重物理防护,因此感染率要低很多。
我也困惑这一点,疫苗引起心肌炎和covid引起心肌炎的机制是否相同?如果相同的话,他这个说法是可能的。
我也觉得这波疫情相当诡异,各种测不准,更不要说各种迷一样的操作
所以年轻人不要打booster 哪怕会有break through的可能
医生和护士受了这么多年的医学教育,是最相信科学的一群人,他们主张evidence based practice,就是科学数据来指导临床。这没有错,前提是科研都是有良心,尽量公平公正真实且反复验证过的,这样的拿来指导临床才有意义,他们以往见到的也是这样的。现在不一样,数据都太新了,我自己是做科研的,太明白这里面的不可信性了,科研中结论被以后的试验推翻的不要太多。在收益不大,但危险未知的情况下,还是要谨慎。
对啊,要是我已经有免疫了,也不会稀罕再被打成superhuman. 够用不就行了,反正也得带口罩的
数据不clean,数据不透明,造成了很多数据误导;
对免疫系统和mRNA疫苗的一知半解,造成了知识误导;
还有对"疫苗"这个词的偷换概念,造成概念误导。在一段有效期后,不防传染,不防传播,只是减少症状,降低重症,这个东西最多叫个"pre-treatment"吧😂,如果是这样,那还谈什么群体免疫!
对药厂,政府,FDA,CDC的信任,导致了信任误导。
这个疫苗也不是一点儿用处没有,至少在6个月内应该还算有效,但和一开始的宣传严重不符。
没有干这行的解答一下吗?不要告诉我猜测合理,那才笑话大了 如果是这样,那就是说疫苗追求抗体量根本不靠谱,疫苗主要就起了T和B免疫记忆的作用,自然感染也可以,那什么维持抗体浓度的booster也没什么意义了
看了一下,这个report的心肌炎数据input是 12-17组。 减dose后低龄组应该没那么高。
“Rate of hospitalization and ICU stay due to vaccine related myocarditis for ages 12-17 years: from Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)3”
“Conclusions • For Scenarios 1 (Base), 2 (Recent COVID-19 Peak Incidence), 4 (Higher Vaccine Efficacy), 5 (Higher COVID-19 Death Rate), and 6 (Lower Excess Myocarditis Rate) the model predicts that benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine 2-dose primary series clearly outweigh the risks for ages 5-11 years. • For Scenario 3 (The Lowest COVID-19 Incidence), the model predicts more excess hospitalizations and ICU stays due to vaccine-related myocarditis/pericarditis compared to prevented hospitalizations and ICU stays due to COVID-19 in males and in both sexes combined. • Considering the different implications and length of stay for COVID-19 hospitalization versus hospitalization for vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis, and benefits related to prevention of cases of COVID-19 with significant morbidity, the overall benefits of the vaccine may still outweigh the risks under this lowest incidence scenario. • If the myocarditis/pericarditis risk in this age group is lower than the conservative assumption used in the model, the benefit-risk balance would be even more favorable. “
科盲
网红在吃人血馒头。
但是自然感染产生的immune response 不consistent, 你没办预计到底能产生多高的抗体浓度,很多轻症和无症状就基本没抗体。所以最近那个study 说不如疫苗来的免疫反应更consistent 更可靠。即使打了两针后再breakthrough 也未必一定能产生很高的抗体,完全看感染的情况
抗体还是产生的比需要的多的,尤其是疫苗引起的免疫反应,抗原是定量的,不是能不停指数复制的活病原体。剩下的抗体随着时间的推移,会逐渐被代谢掉。但免疫系统有记忆,memory B cells下次再遇到相同的抗原,能短期大量产生抗体。当然有足够抗体等在那里最好,可能连症状都没有就把病原体消灭掉了。如果没有足够的抗体就得等B细胞被激活产生抗体,会晚一点,可能会有较轻微的短期症状,但还是比没有记忆的初次感染要快的多了。所以小浣熊建议高危人群打booster,普通健康人群即使抗体滴度低,也没必要打。免疫没什么resources浪费之说,免疫系统是越用越强的,所以才要小朋友不要太干净。
你如果真把所谓的“阴谋论”好好看看 就发现 “阴谋论”到现实也就六个月时间。另外知道“阴谋论”这个词怎么来的吗? CIA 知更鸟计划了解一下 - 专门用来摸黑质疑方的 很多人一听阴谋论马上就不去仔细看了 生怕被扣上阴谋论 反智的帽子 还有一种策略是有意放匪夷所思的假消息 来混淆视听,把质疑的和那些匪夷所思的假消息混为一谈,让更多人不再去相信- 其实 我觉得真的应该自己去看看各种不同意见 自己学会辨别 然后开发讨论 才会离真相更近
mRNA的CMC大家都搞清楚了? 不能拿小分子或者mAb的CMC经验往上套。毕竟这是第一个mRNA的产品,很多东西从FDA到industy都在learning中。。。
“数据都太新了,我自己是做科研的,太明白这里面的不可信性了,科研中结论被以后的试验推翻的不要太多”
exactly。我也是一样的感受和reasoning。新冠还是太新了,数据不够,有些时候看到的只是眼前的。如果把考察的时间线略拉长,可能结论会很不同。
对儿童而言,新冠疫苗收益并不大,但风险又未知。再就是,在衡量benefit VS risk的时候还要考虑到,打疫苗是主动的,感染新冠是被动的,感染本身就不常发生。我娃甚至都in person上学快一年半了,成为过密接全班被隔离过,都没有发现班内传播。
我自己严重疫苗副作用。看心脏科专家,看妇科专家。我相信统计报导疫苗副作用里面肯定没有我的case。而且很多人有副作用,也不会去上报。mRNA疫苗这次紧急上马,走的程序都不一样。科研文章很多也是有严重偏差。所以只能自己凭自己感觉。我不会让孩子18岁之前打疫苗。
同意!现代人所提倡的科学精神和批判性思考,说了半天大部分人并没有身体力行。
你说的这些我都明白,但还是没回答我的问题 1)抗体产生以后,和s蛋白结合了,然后是不是就消耗不能用了(猜应该是的,bind了以后不会unbind吧)? 2)免疫会多产生多少抗体,灭了s蛋白后还处于游离状态?只有这部分会对将来的入侵病毒有用。这个比例是多少?很难想象疫苗技术这么多年,没有人做过这方面定量研究? 3)疫苗后测抗体,测量出的是所有用了和没用的抗体总数,还是只有游离的有用抗体?
https://youtu.be/16dNvRN9CWI [ 链接:youtu.be/16dNvRN9CWI ]
我看楼里大部分人是认为即使没有硬强制,也会有软强制,比如,peer presure,有些课外班不让不打疫苗的进。
我在疫苗标兵区的parent group上 药厂员工巨多的地区
前几天天天有人发帖说开心呀 小娃可以打针了
今天有个少数派的发言是这样的
And it doesn't matter if everyone in xxx wants this mandate. This wasn't a referendum. And that's not the point of this petition. It's asking for the SC to revisit the policy of a mandate, especially now as it is being extended to 5-11s. I signed it because I think that parents should have a choice about this and the FDA agrees that it shouldn't be mandated for that age group.
相信阴谋论的只相信Peter McCullough和支持他的,凡是不支持Peter McCullough的结果一律ignore
故意用似是而非的东西来混淆视听,阴谋论的常用手法
早就应该强制执行了,难怪拜登被称为瞌睡虫。
可以理解,不过这帮人造成医疗挤兑的时候,还是整个社会承担后果
不觉得小孩会强制。真正需要强制的大人还强制不下来呢。
谢谢楼主和几位层主的科普。我读完的感觉还是疫苗足够安全。然而小孩风险实在太小了。我们这确实是有不少死亡小孩病例,看起来还是高危的情况(肥胖,哮喘,过敏,自闭。。等等)。大家还是根据自家情况认真考虑吧。
明白了这一点,看各种舆论就比较明确,有谁在利用大众这种需要确切答案的心理。说错了无怪哈,我只是有感而发。
过敏也算基础病吗?我以为过敏娃对疫苗产生不良反应的几率会更大? 小娃里面食物过敏比成年人多很多,上次读的一篇奶制品过敏小娃2-3% VS 成年人0.5% 那这些娃算基础病covid高危人群呢,还是疫苗不良反应高危?
好像暂时大人公司里的强制也会停一会儿,不知道什么情况
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/06/1053234688/appeals-court-temporarily-halts-biden-vaccine-mandate-for-larger-businesses
希望小孩也不会强制吧