As always, Julia, you hit the nail on the head. I am 70+, but it gives me no pleasure or safety to know that most of the population will not be getting their boosters or masking or doing anything to mitigate the danger. Sadly, it will take almost everyone getting dangerously sick or dying before the population demands better. My greatest fear is that I will be attacked in public for masking, which is why I always take my cane with me, so they can easily see that I am elderly, balance-challenged and with bad knees, and thus "vulnerable" and "high-risk". But that won't stop the MAGAts from attacking me anyway in their insatiable need to scapegoat. And, if masks are banned or criminalized, then I will never leave my home and live on deliveries. A pathetic way to end my life in this anti-science Dark Ages dystopia courtesy of the greedy billionaire class and their moronic, incompetent puppets. Anyway, many thanks again for your insightful essays, and best of health to you and us all.
They did the same thing in the UK, and made the booster available to a really narrow range of people. If you don't fit the criteria and you want a booster it's £98 - or $133. Remember, we don't have health insurance to cover that, as we have the NHS. Weirdly, I'm entitled to a free flu booster because I live with someone who's immunosuppressed, but I'm not entitled to a COVID booster for the same reason. Even getting a Long COVID diagnosis didn't put me in the 'eligible' group - so I stick to masking where I can, using a portable HEPA purifier, and avoiding people as much as possible, unless I want to pay £98 for something that's only really effective for about three months.
"It should be noted COVID vaccines provide very limited protection against infection. A Journal of Infection study looking at the VE of the Comirnaty [Pfizer] XBB.1.5 vaccine found that it reduced risk of infection by 70.63% at 14 days after vaccination, but “VE declined rapidly and by approximately weeks 9–12 post vaccination, the VE point estimates were close to zero with considerable uncertainty in the estimates from day 60 onwards"."
And yes, I know it's best to be specific with data. That's why I read articles like this. Professor Pagel at UCL has also shared data that the vaccine is most effective for 3-4 months and then wanes, although it continues to provide some protection for 12 months. I'm still very pro-vaccine, but I'm just irritated by having to pay a lot for something because eligibility was narrowed for no apparent reason.
By comparison, if you're not eligible for a free flu jab, it only costs £12, and many employers will actually reimburse you for them. But not the COVID jab.
I agree with you. Here in the US at my healthcare institution, we have huge signs to get the flu shot but not ones for the COVID shot. Front desk workers are wearing pins that say "get the flu shot", but none are wearing "get the COVID booster" buttons. We're more worried about a 100 year+ old pandemic versus the one that is killing tens of thousands per year with a cumulative total of 1.1 million here. It's perverse.
This is obviously wrong, but for me personally I'm relying on the fact that eligibility is determined by self attestation. I'll say what I need to say to get it. I did it before with the second booster.
Also needing emphasis - the new FDA COVID vax guidance
(1) Presents commercial problems to manufacturers who have a constrained market and must do unnecessary and expensive additional studies
(2) Does not consider need for vax boosters for healthy children and adults who are healthcare workers or have intimate exposure to high risk and frail people.
(3) Overlooks experience with hep A and HPV vaccines which were initially restricted to targeted populations leading to inadequate uptake and effectiveness.
The vaccine barely reduces LC risk. And they’re not taking LC seriously and trying to help us. So I say bring it on - we need more to join our ranks for them to pay attention.
Do you have any data on COVID boosters and reduction of long COVID risk? Also, wishing long COVID on people so that people take the suffering of current long COVID sufferers more seriously is sick and twisted. Would you also wish more people for HIV/AIDS during the height of the epidemic in the 80s? This is not to even mention there's no evidence more people getting long COVID would lead to others, including those in power, to take it seriously.
I understand there's data in the article. I was asking them to cite what specific evidence they are using for the claim "the vaccine barely reduces LC risk".
The only way in which the vaccine prevents long covid is to prevent infection, which we know is not very well. If you get covid, you risk long COVID. Period. Having the vaccine won’t make a difference, since we know even mild infection can result in Long Covid. As for the rest, you have no idea what I’ve been through, and I’ll leave it at that.
There are multiple reasons COVID vaccination decreases risk of long COVID, "There are several reasons to explain why vaccines may prevent Long COVID, says Dr. Al-Aly. First, vaccines reduce the risk of severe acute infections, which are linked to a greater risk of Long COVID. Vaccines also help the body’s immune system to eliminate the virus more quickly, reducing the likelihood that lingering viral particles are left behind. Viral persistence is one of researchers’ multiple hypotheses for the drivers of Long COVID. “That really means that maintaining vaccination uptake is likely to be an important driver to keep the lid on Long COVID,” Dr. Al-Aly says. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccines-reduce-long-covid-risk-new-study-shows
You're spreading misinformation by saying the vaccine won't make a difference. It does. It reduces the risk. Reducing the risk isn't as good as elimination of risk, but this is the best we have right now. Also, I'm sorry for what you've been through. Nonetheless, wishing your pain on others isn't the answer. It's destructive, harmful and wrong. It also won't work. Even people with long COVID continue to be anti vaxxers, anti mask and anti funding for long COVID treatments.
These are all hypotheses, some proven wrong, eg mild infection lowers your risk… tell that to the people joining our Long Covid support groups every week from a mild infection.
Personal anecdotes aren't science. Emotional appeals aren't science. What I posted is science. Posting science (which you have no substantive scientific response to) isn't moral shaming. Bye.
You would rather spread anti vaxx misinformation, refuse to engage with the science, instead make straw mans, emotional appeals, gish gallop, wild claims without evidence and continue to wish others get long COVID. There's no point continuing to engage. I wish you the best.
What does it mean that the science isn't capturing the full truth? I never claimed we have a full understanding of everything to do with long COVID. That's a straw man argument. The article shows there are multiple ways the vaccine helps prevent long COVID. You claimed the only way was to prevent infection. This was wrong. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you made an emotional appeal and gish galloped to other points.
The science you claim to be concrete is definitively not. It’s as simple as that. You say I’m citing “anecdotes” but the sheer volume of people still getting LC, joining our support groups, is undeniable. They’re vaccinated and boosted and still getting it. The odds are very low that the vaccine will protect you from LC. Your science is born from systemic denialism and will be proved wrong. Time will prove this to be true.
As always, Julia, you hit the nail on the head. I am 70+, but it gives me no pleasure or safety to know that most of the population will not be getting their boosters or masking or doing anything to mitigate the danger. Sadly, it will take almost everyone getting dangerously sick or dying before the population demands better. My greatest fear is that I will be attacked in public for masking, which is why I always take my cane with me, so they can easily see that I am elderly, balance-challenged and with bad knees, and thus "vulnerable" and "high-risk". But that won't stop the MAGAts from attacking me anyway in their insatiable need to scapegoat. And, if masks are banned or criminalized, then I will never leave my home and live on deliveries. A pathetic way to end my life in this anti-science Dark Ages dystopia courtesy of the greedy billionaire class and their moronic, incompetent puppets. Anyway, many thanks again for your insightful essays, and best of health to you and us all.
As usual, this is comprehensive, right-on, and highly important! I only wish I had hope that it will be widely read.
They did the same thing in the UK, and made the booster available to a really narrow range of people. If you don't fit the criteria and you want a booster it's £98 - or $133. Remember, we don't have health insurance to cover that, as we have the NHS. Weirdly, I'm entitled to a free flu booster because I live with someone who's immunosuppressed, but I'm not entitled to a COVID booster for the same reason. Even getting a Long COVID diagnosis didn't put me in the 'eligible' group - so I stick to masking where I can, using a portable HEPA purifier, and avoiding people as much as possible, unless I want to pay £98 for something that's only really effective for about three months.
What data on booster effectiveness are you looking at? Protection continues after 3 months. It's best to be specific with data in these matters.
It literally says so in the article.
"It should be noted COVID vaccines provide very limited protection against infection. A Journal of Infection study looking at the VE of the Comirnaty [Pfizer] XBB.1.5 vaccine found that it reduced risk of infection by 70.63% at 14 days after vaccination, but “VE declined rapidly and by approximately weeks 9–12 post vaccination, the VE point estimates were close to zero with considerable uncertainty in the estimates from day 60 onwards"."
And yes, I know it's best to be specific with data. That's why I read articles like this. Professor Pagel at UCL has also shared data that the vaccine is most effective for 3-4 months and then wanes, although it continues to provide some protection for 12 months. I'm still very pro-vaccine, but I'm just irritated by having to pay a lot for something because eligibility was narrowed for no apparent reason.
By comparison, if you're not eligible for a free flu jab, it only costs £12, and many employers will actually reimburse you for them. But not the COVID jab.
I agree with you. Here in the US at my healthcare institution, we have huge signs to get the flu shot but not ones for the COVID shot. Front desk workers are wearing pins that say "get the flu shot", but none are wearing "get the COVID booster" buttons. We're more worried about a 100 year+ old pandemic versus the one that is killing tens of thousands per year with a cumulative total of 1.1 million here. It's perverse.
This is obviously wrong, but for me personally I'm relying on the fact that eligibility is determined by self attestation. I'll say what I need to say to get it. I did it before with the second booster.
Also needing emphasis - the new FDA COVID vax guidance
(1) Presents commercial problems to manufacturers who have a constrained market and must do unnecessary and expensive additional studies
(2) Does not consider need for vax boosters for healthy children and adults who are healthcare workers or have intimate exposure to high risk and frail people.
(3) Overlooks experience with hep A and HPV vaccines which were initially restricted to targeted populations leading to inadequate uptake and effectiveness.
The vaccine barely reduces LC risk. And they’re not taking LC seriously and trying to help us. So I say bring it on - we need more to join our ranks for them to pay attention.
Do you have any data on COVID boosters and reduction of long COVID risk? Also, wishing long COVID on people so that people take the suffering of current long COVID sufferers more seriously is sick and twisted. Would you also wish more people for HIV/AIDS during the height of the epidemic in the 80s? This is not to even mention there's no evidence more people getting long COVID would lead to others, including those in power, to take it seriously.
The data is discussed in the article
I understand there's data in the article. I was asking them to cite what specific evidence they are using for the claim "the vaccine barely reduces LC risk".
The only way in which the vaccine prevents long covid is to prevent infection, which we know is not very well. If you get covid, you risk long COVID. Period. Having the vaccine won’t make a difference, since we know even mild infection can result in Long Covid. As for the rest, you have no idea what I’ve been through, and I’ll leave it at that.
There are multiple reasons COVID vaccination decreases risk of long COVID, "There are several reasons to explain why vaccines may prevent Long COVID, says Dr. Al-Aly. First, vaccines reduce the risk of severe acute infections, which are linked to a greater risk of Long COVID. Vaccines also help the body’s immune system to eliminate the virus more quickly, reducing the likelihood that lingering viral particles are left behind. Viral persistence is one of researchers’ multiple hypotheses for the drivers of Long COVID. “That really means that maintaining vaccination uptake is likely to be an important driver to keep the lid on Long COVID,” Dr. Al-Aly says. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccines-reduce-long-covid-risk-new-study-shows
You're spreading misinformation by saying the vaccine won't make a difference. It does. It reduces the risk. Reducing the risk isn't as good as elimination of risk, but this is the best we have right now. Also, I'm sorry for what you've been through. Nonetheless, wishing your pain on others isn't the answer. It's destructive, harmful and wrong. It also won't work. Even people with long COVID continue to be anti vaxxers, anti mask and anti funding for long COVID treatments.
These are all hypotheses, some proven wrong, eg mild infection lowers your risk… tell that to the people joining our Long Covid support groups every week from a mild infection.
Also your moral shaming won’t work on me. Bye.
Personal anecdotes aren't science. Emotional appeals aren't science. What I posted is science. Posting science (which you have no substantive scientific response to) isn't moral shaming. Bye.
The science isn’t capturing the full truth. And the science doesn’t know everything yet. Not even a scratch on the surface. You are wrong.
You would rather spread anti vaxx misinformation, refuse to engage with the science, instead make straw mans, emotional appeals, gish gallop, wild claims without evidence and continue to wish others get long COVID. There's no point continuing to engage. I wish you the best.
What does it mean that the science isn't capturing the full truth? I never claimed we have a full understanding of everything to do with long COVID. That's a straw man argument. The article shows there are multiple ways the vaccine helps prevent long COVID. You claimed the only way was to prevent infection. This was wrong. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you made an emotional appeal and gish galloped to other points.
The science you claim to be concrete is definitively not. It’s as simple as that. You say I’m citing “anecdotes” but the sheer volume of people still getting LC, joining our support groups, is undeniable. They’re vaccinated and boosted and still getting it. The odds are very low that the vaccine will protect you from LC. Your science is born from systemic denialism and will be proved wrong. Time will prove this to be true.