My guess is early trial data over-estimated effectiveness (at least for prevent of transmission) and there actually hasn't been much change, nor for natural infection. It doesn't add up that SARS-CoV2 would behave so differently from SARS-CoV1 and we know resistance for the latter persists for a decade or more.

I don't believe boosters will be needed, but fully believe we'll be told they are in perpetuity.

Expand full comment

One word: Sweden.

Expand full comment

I think I'm restating points made elsewhere here, but:

One item that I have not really seen, indeed it's been hard to find except for initial trials in late 2020, is the durability of antibody response. As it is, many of these studies have been paywalled or outright disappeared, and if anyone is doing post-marketing surveillance they're keeping real quiet. I would think if antibodies were durable past 6 months, not only would they know for sure now, they'd be leading the news with it.

Even initial studies showed an age-dependent response where the older you were, the less likely you were to seroconvert. IIRC over 50 was near 100% and tailed off to ~80-90% at age 70 which was thought to be good enough; but, if the response is not durable then this starts the most vulnerable population at a statistical disadvantage.

When I was raising antibodies in mice and rabbits, we treated them with the antigen and an adjuvant to boost response. I'm not sure any adjuvant works with any vector-based treatment since there's a lag between injection and expression of antigen. Also, the antibody you got was usually quite specific to the antigen or fragment you used. I recall early on they didn't test for spike antibody, they tested for NC (nucleocapsid), since that was more conserved across coronavirus. Dr. Drew has also been talking about the spectrum of antibody response and broader tests for response which was probably a factor that got him banned from social media.

I've seen small data sets suggesting the live vectors - AZ or J&J - might work better in terms of conversion and durability (we will see how Engalnd fares this fall and winter!). This seems reasonable given that the adenovirus vector would trigger non-specific pathways like interferon and TLR that would attack all parts of the virus. It's curious there isn't more widespread testing using an interferon response test like Quantiferon to see how T cells react in uninfected, real virus infected, and mRNA/adenovirus treated cohorts.

(ok, that's enough for now, preaching to the choir, I know!)

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, it looks like "boosters forever" is the desired outcome that fits into the business model like a glove. Now, the question is whether each dose contributes to the erosion of natural immunity in the biological sense of it. And if so.... well.... I would say it's rather evil.


Expand full comment


2. How about for metrics besides positive PCR? Like I know a positive PCR is what gets held over all our heads, but if there's still efficacy against severe disease and death then at least we can worry less about this than the casemongers.

Expand full comment

Excellent point. I would just modify your last statement to "before we start mandating vaxes"

Expand full comment

If only we had some mechanism to study the long term effects and side effects of a new vaccine that had never before been put in wide spread use. If it were me, I’d call that mechanism a randomized controlled clinical trial and would carry it out over multiple years, especially for a mutating seasonal respiratory virus. Maybe someday, we’ll invent one of those.

Also, if you need to give, on an ongoing basis, multiple follow up shots, then doesn’t this cease to become a vaccination and is now just a drug or drug/vaccine hybrid. Wonder what other drugs they will want to add to the new medical passport system?

Expand full comment

The trials were poor to start with, forcing results with generally younger healthy people studies over a shortened time period. And even still, the trials tout relative risk reductions with generally small numbers. Placebo was over 99% effective in the Pfizer phase 3 trial that won them the EUA for instance. It’s unsurprising to see this turn of events, but what’s more worrisome is what the true safety profile of the jab over time is for such a short protection timeline.

Expand full comment

Look no further than Tal Zaks (you know the former top dog at Moderna whom sold off 1 million dollars worth of Moderna stock, weekly until he was over 50mil) so Tal Zaks had primed investors with great news of the need for boosters and Multivalent vaccines, even before their mRNA "Covid 19" baby was released to the masses. The sky is the limit, so to speak in the coddled minds of the Big Pharma investors. The plan surely is to get EUA for Covalent and Quadrivalent mRNA vaccines to market ASAP. The pharma Gods through tech interviews, gave hints early on about concerns re; "mutations & variants" and had investors salivating at the real possibility of marrying the seasonal FLU and some other fun viruses with Covid into "all in one" seasonal jab. So, I am thinking, why would Moderna or any other company even want a jab that was a "one and done deal".... always look towards the dollar signs when trying to understand the "science" behind ANYTHING involving vaccines for viruses. Honestly, there can be no rational discussion when the profits drive the "science". https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-reports-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2020-financial

Expand full comment

The probable reason why it wanes quickly is that it does not mimic natural infection. A natural infection creates a level of mucosal immunity in the upper respiratory tract. The vaccine does not do this, it creates antibodies targetting a spike protein that are in the wrong place to prevent an infection.

Expand full comment

The biggest concern right now?

New coronavirus variants could be named after star constellations once letters of the Greek alphabet are exhausted, a senior World Health Organization official has suggested.

In an interview with the Telegraph Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical chief for Covid-19, said the UN health agency was already looking at new names for mutations amid fears there will be more concerning variants than the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet.


Expand full comment

I have a random question but something I saw on Twitter causes me to ask someone much smarter than I am. Can a PCR test distinguish between any of the four coronaviruses that cause 20% of colds every year (and have since the dawn of humanity) and COVID in particular?

Expand full comment

I believe the risk of repeated exposure to booster vaccines isn't just side effects, it's the risk that the virus will mutate in response to each booster round, and change into a more dangerous organism.

Expand full comment

The problem with this study is natural immunity. They measure the first group in Jan/Feb the latter in Mar/Apr. While they threw out positive cases anyone infected and not tested was in the Mar/Apr sample. And LOTS of people were infected between Jan and Mar. That gained immunity biases the outcome to some degree thats hard to estimate.

Also, its difficult to design and distribute a booster if Delta (not decay) is the cause. VOCs come and go within 6 months.

I also note that in Canada, where 1st and 2nd shots are <60days old, infection levels are rising rapidly. That points more toward Delta not decay

Regardless Israel has been 3rd shot boosting like crazy for three weeks. We should see some infection protect in the data soon (nothing yet). It will answer the question

Expand full comment

no booster!!

long term effects too dangerous

I accept the hypothesis: vac not answer

Jump on prophylaxis and ttherapies

man injection now approved as well as iv soon merck anti viral pill

Expand full comment