Posted on 06/16/2021 5:08:54 PM PDT by lightman
June 16 (UPI) -- A single dose of one of the two-shot COVID-19 vaccines prevented an estimated 95% of new infections among healthcare workers two weeks after receiving the jab, a study published Wednesday by JAMA Network Open found.
The first dose of the Moderna vaccine was 78% effective at preventing new cases just one week after clinical staff were inoculated, the data showed.
Still, 39, or just over 1%, of the nearly 3,400 health workers who received the vaccine later became infected with the virus, said researchers, from the VA Boston Healthcare System.
These "breakthrough" infections occurred at least 14 days after they had received their first dose, and 27 of them developed symptoms of the disease. RELATED Study: COVID-19 vaccine booster dose safe, needed for transplant patients
"[Even] at the height of Boston's winter surge, ... rapid first-dose vaccination of healthcare workers ... helped sustain healthcare delivery," study co-author Dr. Michael E. Charness told UPI in an email.
However, "full vaccination is still recommended for sustained immunity and protection against emerging variants," said Charness, chief of staff at the VA Boston Healthcare System.
Both two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, offer more than 90% protection against serious illness from the virus, research found. RELATED Expert: COVID-19 vaccines safe for kids, may allow return to 'normal life'
They work by using modified genetic material from the coronavirus to stimulate the production of antibodies, or cells that fight off infections, by the immune system, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This essentially primes the immune system to respond when or if a vaccinated person is exposed to the virus, the agency says.
Although studies have found that one dose of either of the two-shot vaccines offers at least some protection against the virus, they are most effective among those who are considered "fully vaccinated," defined as two weeks after receipt of the second shot. RELATED CDC: 2-dose vaccines reduce COVID-19 infection risk by 91%, limit virus spread
For this study, Charness and his colleagues assessed the effectiveness of one dose of the Moderna vaccine in more than 4,000 healthcare workers at the VA Boston Healthcare System during the winter spike of COVID-19 cases in the Boston area.
Just under 3,400, or about 84%, of the staff had received one dose of the vaccine by the end of the 42-day study period on Feb. 1, the researchers said.
Among the included healthcare workers, 107 new COVID-19 cases were reported during the study period, the data showed.
Of these, 39 were in those who had received their first dose and 68 occurred in those who had not received a shot, according to the researchers.
"Vaccine effectiveness may vary depending on the age, exposure and health risks of a population and transmissibility of variants," Charness said.
"Our work was done at the time the [original Wuhan variant was dominant, [and] efficacy might be different with the currently prevalent variants," such as the B.1.1.7 or Delta strains, he said.
The average lay person understands that if you visit Guinea you'll need the Ebola vaccine along with other shots. They understand why they don't need an Ebola shot otherwise. They can evaluate their own risks of getting and spreading COVID. They need more information, not less. I want to give them all the information. You want to withhold information like vaccine efficacy.
The German meat plant showed examples of that. Essentially everyone close to the index case superspreader got COVID. Most people were and are not good at spreading. There's no way to know who is and who isn't.
I want informed consent of the recipient. That is not being done and you know it. The experimental modalities are being pushed on TV and Radio plus being coerced and/or bribed without the patient knowing the ramifications.
I know of at least 4 acquaintances who stated they signed no consent forms and were not counseled prior to injection. That is not good. They were just shuttled through a vax site like cattle
Well, what we do know is that it’s primarily institutional. The elderly, and especially those in nursing homes, and their care givers, as well as hospitals are the main areas that needed a vax developed.
For most of the rest of the healthy population, the concern realistically isn’t more than we should have over an especially strong flu season.
In other words, a drastic exaggeration and fear mongering. The world destroyed their economic system and really -that wasn’t necessary. In fact the lockdowns, by design were bound to fail.
If you are going to have a quarantine, it can’t be half-baked. Stay home, but it’s ok to go to Walmart - just don’t go to church. That ain’t the way it works.
A true quarantine means no one in or out. The approach that the Front Line Doctors and others took, to treat their patients and reduce hospitalizations turned out to be not only the best ethical choice, but also the most effective way to “flatten the curve”. JMHO. YMMV.
Nobody is counseled. When you sign up you acknowledge reading the fine print (which nobody reads). Then when you get the shot they take your name and other details and hand you a piece of paper with some fluffy info and the VAERS website and hotline. They watch you for 15 minutes (1/2 hour if you have allergies). That's it, nobody says anything. Not sure why you expect anything else.
That's true. But one country that didn't lock down, Sweden. had the same drop in their economy 2nd quarter last year as we did (8% absolute, 32% annualized). Their mortality outcome was just as bad as ours. Sweden did worse in every economic and health measurement than Denmark, Finland, and Norway. In fact 10 times worse than Norway in per capita mortality and economic contraction, Simply put, the people were scared and stayed home and caught it anway.
Yes, you put your finger on it: fear mongering. But lockdowns, while part of the fear mongering elsewhere, were not the deciding factor anywhere. Nor were border controls (see Easten Europe that got pummeled anyway six months later), or universal tracking (anti-privacy). In fact, nothing worked. You simply have to take your medicine: 0.2% of your entire population dies or you get a lot of people vaccinated or a combination.
People might be tempted to point to Taiwan or Vietnam, with almost complete surveillance and tracking in homogenous obedient cultures. But their time is coming too, just more slowly.
But their time is coming too, just more slowly.
***************************************************************************************
This is a nutshell was the point I was trying to make. Lockdowns inherently get to the same place, and just extend the pain.
And I always thought that some people would choose to self-isolate, so some industries were bound to suffer(no need for government edict).
And I am totally against the Government arbitrarily deciding what is an “essential” business. To the business owner and his employees all businesses are essential. And to the customer, it’s his risk to take.
Nuff said.
And one more point, while it’s easy to point to statistics and say it wouldn’t make a difference, I doubt that any small business owner whose business wasn’t considered essential would agree-it certainly would have given them a fighting chance, if they weren’t totally shut down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.