# are all the current covid vaccines the same?



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

are they all basically the same concoction ( in layman's' terms!), or what?
can anyone direct me to some easily-understood information on this?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

short answer: no
short question: define "all" ... like all for canadians or all over the world?


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

At the present rate this will be an issue for me to worry about in say September 2021 or so.

So I will let the rest of the world sort the issue out before it might become a salient issue to me in the future.

Less tongue in cheek, it is very early days in terms of vaccine roll out in a more traditional sense. The wife of a friend was a brilliant medical mathematical statistician, now tragically passed. She made these sort of new therapy roll outs her bread and butter. 

She would direct teams that would work the numbers for 5-8 years on different clinical trials, and those were for the fast tracked promising developing therapies.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

No idea whatsoever. I doubt very much that is as easily understood by the average person given that the virus strains are continually mutating. I certainly do not. mention Our collective knowledge of the virus is expanding as each day passes. Then there is the disinformation and the poor/incomplete reporting that seems to have taken over the media these days. Plus the self serving anti vaxer claims.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> short answer: no
> short question: define "all" ... like all for canadians or all over the world?


 I guess by "all" I mean the major ones we see in the news all the time- Moderna, Pfizer, J&J...& a couple others


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

jargey3000 said:


> I guess by "all" I mean the major ones we see in the news all the time- Moderna, Pfizer, J&J...& a couple others


Pfizer and Moderna rely on the “new” mNRa technology. I think some of the others ([email protected], Astra?) rely on traditional tech that inject some of the virus in you. The older tech versions tend not to have the same refrigeration requirement.....although Pfizer is now saying that theirs doesn’t require such extreme colds as previously thought.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

jargey3000 said:


> I guess by "all" I mean the major ones we see in the news all the time- Moderna, Pfizer, J&J...& a couple others


There are four types of COVID-19 vaccines: here’s how they work


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Jargey, if you want a lot of technical info that I doubt you will understand, nor do I, you could simply google it.

The simple answer is that the 4 main vaccines are different, in either significant technical differences or at least in some small differences in manufacturing. That said, they are all the same in one repect: * They generate an immune response that tends offer lasting memory to the corona virus for at least 6 months, that we know about, and I would suspect that could almost be increased to a little less then a year by now. * The most important feature, that all the vaccines seem to have in spades. *They are safe*. Sure more time is useful but from what we know, they will not hurt you.

Other then that they all come with different efficacies, but so far, I have tended to see the differences to be mainly the result of the number of doses, but some research from Israel is starting to indicate that they might be caused by the technical differences.

I suppose if I was offered a choice of any vaccines, I would probably go, Pfizer, Moderna, JNJ, Astrazeneca, in that order. That is mainly because if your next vehicle was going to be paid for by the government and they offered a choice of either a Mercedes Benz or a Ford Fiesta, I suspect the Mercedes would be in high demand, when either car is a pretty good deal to receive for free for anyone.

As for efficacy. *If I was 65 or older I would try to wait until some Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was available.* The increased efficacy is really only useful to someone who is currently vulnerable. The rest of our population will get more protection then they need from any of the vaccines. *So I would take the first one offered to me *(I am 56)*.*


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> *So I would take the first one offered to me *


 I'm about same age, and I'd too (except Chinese one)... as I prefer traditional technology (not a new mNRa technology), I'd prefer to get JNJ or Sputnik .
My mom is 75 and she has same opinion as me


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I am not sure I understand enough to talk about this aspect, but I will be curious to see if one of these vaccines responds better to the new variants then the other. Not because of an attempt to find the vaccine that deals with the variants we are concerned with better, but as a test to see how a vaccine developed for one variant deals with the other.

I wonder if creating a vaccine that is based more on the spike proteins, as opposed to the whole virus itself, might work better when confronting that particular virus mutation, but worse when confronting new virus mutations that are said to have spikes that are so different they make it more infectious. It would seem to me a vaccine based on more parts of the virus (whole virus) would perhaps offer better protection against all mutations but maybe with the cost of a little less protection against the original virus mutation.

It is too early to tell and I can imagine that if there was any logic in what I just said above, the people developing these technologies, right from the start (long before covid) would have been looking at that very issue. Mutating viruses is nothing new. So I am assuming for now, there will be little discernable difference, as more info comes out, but it doesn't hurt to keep my eyes open for it anyway.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> are they all basically the same concoction ( in layman's' terms!), or what?
> can anyone direct me to some easily-understood information on this?


No.
There are some that use a similar technological approach. but they're not the same.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Can you take them all..........just to be on the safe side ?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Why would you want to take them "all"? Did you take 2 shots (=2 types) of the annual flu last year?

Not to be sarcastic here, I would be happy to get the first dose when it becomes available ... right now, we (general population in Canada) just have wait patiently. No choice.

Just for fyi ... if you're interested to hear, relatives of mine (senior & non-seniors) in the USA got their first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. With first dose, no complications other than a sore arm for both groups. ... wait ... until the 11th day ... the younger group experienced major headaches ... the older group developed a rash at the injection site. Different experiences, same type of vaccine as all live in the same city/state. They're now waiting (not quite looking forward) to their second dose.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

jargey3000 said:


> I guess by "all" I mean the major ones we see in the news all the time- Moderna, Pfizer, J&J...& a couple others


Differences are:
1) storage temperature - from -70C to -20C
2) Efficacy - from 75% to 95%
3) Doses - two for most. One vaccine requires only one dose.

And don't be surprised if you may be required to get regular annual shots just like you should for the flu.

So just like the car, they are NOT all the same.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Can you take them all..........just to be on the safe side ?


No, that could be dangerous. Each vaccine has its own potential risks and side effects and if you take them all, you're adding to your risks of serious side effects.

Pfizer and Moderna (company ticker symbol MRNA) are both MRNA vaccines. This MRNA is the newest technology and in some people, might show some serious allergic reactions.

J&J uses a previously used, better established (likely safer) technology called a modified Adenovirus. It may be less effective, but still give significant enough protection to prevent serious covid illness.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> Just for fyi ... if you're interested to hear, relatives of mine (senior & non-seniors) in the USA got their first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. With first dose, no complications other than a sore arm for both groups. ... wait ... until the 11th day ... the younger group experienced major headaches ... the older group developed a rash at the injection site. Different experiences, same type of vaccine as all live in the same city/state. They're now waiting (not quite looking forward) to their second dose


There are reports that the second dose can be tougher on the body. People have to be careful and really take it easy (cancel all plans) when it comes time for the second dose.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Well, I'll be hearing about the 2nd dose's effects ... hopefully none.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

james4beach said:


> There are reports that the second dose can be tougher on the body. People have to be careful and really take it easy (cancel all plans) when it comes time for the second dose.


I thought it was the opposite. I‘ve read about the proposed mass vaccination locations. Canada’s Wonderland in Ontario being one. They’re planning for a large part of the parking lot just to be used as a post -injection waiting site. Sit in your car for 15 mins after your shot to see if you react badly. It’s just one more factor in the logistical challenge.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Money172375 said:


> I thought it was the opposite. I‘ve read about the proposed mass vaccination locations. Canada’s Wonderland in Ontario being one. They’re planning for a large part of the parking lot just to be used as a post -injection waiting site. Sit in your car for 15 mins after your shot to see if you react badly. It’s just one more factor in the logistical challenge.


For the immediate allergic reaction risk, there's no difference. Whether it's a first or second dose, what those injection sites are watching for are the immediate (life threatening) allergic reaction. Personally I would linger around medical facilities for 30 to 60 minutes, and that's what I will be suggesting to my parents.

The larger reaction on the second dose is something that develops over a day or two. These are the cold/flu like symptoms as the immune system responds. I don't think it has anything to do with the X minutes of waiting post injection, but what happens to you the next few days:









Second COVID Shot Packs the Big Punch


First dose also worse for those with previous COVID, but 'small price to pay' for protection




www.medpagetoday.com


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_Pfizer and Moderna (company ticker symbol MRNA) are both MRNA vaccines. This MRNA is the newest technology and in some people, might show some serious allergic reactions. - _this is why I'd prefer traditional vaccine like Sputnik with 92% protection or JNJ's one with 72% ... I know you guys have *prejudice against* Russia, but all of us got dozens of Russian vaccines and we are still alive


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

gibor365 said:


> _Pfizer and Moderna (company ticker symbol MRNA) are both MRNA vaccines. This MRNA is the newest technology and in some people, might show some serious allergic reactions. - _this is why I'd prefer traditional vaccine like Sputnik with 92% protection or JNJ's one with 72% ... I know you guys have *prejudice against* Russia, but all of us got dozens of Russian vaccines and we are still alive


I have no problem with the Russian vaccine. I think the Chinese Sinovac sounds pretty good too.

Sinovac is a very traditional vaccine made with dead or inactive virus.

What I'm hearing from medical friends though (including a few doctors who've gotten the shot) is that they think the Pfizer vaccine is best. The cold storage requirement has been relaxed as well, so the Pfizer shots are becoming more feasible. Canada is going to get massive shipments of them soon.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

They already got 400K this week .... but I'm conservative , so i'd prefer traditional Russian or JNJ vaccine


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> _Pfizer and Moderna (company ticker symbol MRNA) are both MRNA vaccines. This MRNA is the newest technology and in some people, might show some serious allergic reactions. - _this is why I'd prefer traditional vaccine like Sputnik with 92% protection or JNJ's one with 72% ... I know you guys have *prejudice against* Russia, but all of us got dozens of Russian vaccines and we are still alive


 ... and Russians are not? 

A top Russian diplomat was caught secretly getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, shunning his country's prized Sputnik V

Do we need to say more? Duh.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Money172375 said:


> I thought it was the opposite. I‘ve read about the proposed mass vaccination locations. Canada’s Wonderland in Ontario being one. They’re planning for a large part of the parking lot just to be used as a post -injection waiting site. Sit in your car for 15 mins after your shot to see if you react badly. It’s just one more factor in the logistical challenge.


I don't know what the actual results have been, with respect to side effects from 1st shot versus 2nd shot, but I do know the theory. *The theory is that the 2nd shot should result in more side effects.* The theory goes that the more severe effects, fever, headaches, fatigue are a result of your own immune system responding to what it sees as a viral invader. Since your body's immune systems has already been tuned up well from the 1st shot it is theorized that your immune response from the 2nd shot should be more severe. More intense.

In any case, J4B is correct. You want to avoid a big schedule of things to do on the days you get the shot. Many, and some might say, most people don't experience much with respect to the vaccine shots. Not sure why that is. I would feel a little better if my temperature increased a couple degrees, because I would know that my immune system is working properly. The others, that don't get side effects, might be working properly as well, but how do they know?

Anyway, I would not schedule a big day for other activities, on the day of your shots and be careful about assuming your 2nd shot will go the same way as your 1st.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... and Russians are not?
> 
> A top Russian diplomat was caught secretly getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, shunning his country's prized Sputnik V
> 
> Do we need to say more? Duh.


"A top Russian diplomat" ?! Really?! It was Yuri Gribkov, who is Russia's consul general to Estonia... Possibly for him it was easier to get Pfizer as he lives in Estonia.

On the other hand, The really top Canadian politician Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams choses US for Heath Care








Top Canadian Politician Chooses U.S. Health Care


A top Canadian politician attracted national attention when he decided to abandon his country’s health care system, which has been suggested as a model for reforms in the United States, to cross the border in seeking treatment for a heart




www.heartland.org




Do we need to say more? Duh.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> "A top Russian diplomat" ?! Really?! It was Yuri Gribkov, who is Russia's consul general to Estonia... *Possibly for him it was easier to get Pfizer as he lives in Estonia*.


 ... that is what you're assuming. He can easily return to Moscow to get the Sputnik or have the Sputnik delivered to him ...



> On the other hand, The really top Canadian politician Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams choses US for Heath Care
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... big difference between choosing a vaccine and a healthcare systems. 

Besides, this comparison is irrevelant to your claim that CMFrs are prejudiced against Russia which is a a BIG FALSE claim or LIE (giving you the benefit of the doubt.)


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I do not know if we will have a choice. I suspect that we will get whatever they are administering at that particular time.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

ian said:


> I do not know if we will have a choice. I suspect that we will get whatever they are administering at that particular time.


and even if they have quite a few types of vaccine available, I imagine someone else other then the person receiving the shot, will make that most important decision.

We are wayyyyy too biased and selfish to make the correct one. It is best that it is made by others looking at the larger picture.


----------



## cheech10 (Dec 31, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> They already got 400K this week .... but I'm conservative , so i'd prefer traditional Russian or JNJ vaccine


Both of those are viral vector vaccines (AstraZeneca as well), not traditional inactivated virus vaccines. If I had a choice, I'd go for mRNA vaccines over any of the viral vectors.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Well, I'll be hearing about the 2nd dose's effects ... hopefully none.


 ... an update to my post ... no side-effects on the 2nd dose of Pfizer's vaccine in both groups, though getting it took alot longer due to a delay caused by the freakish snow-storm, blackouts, etc. ... yep over there in Texas, the [email protected]' state.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... an update to my post ... no side-effects on the 2nd dose of Pfizer's vaccine in both groups, though getting it took alot longer due to a delay caused by the freakish snow-storm, blackouts, etc. ... yep over there in Texas, the [email protected]' state.


Please source your claim of "no side effects".
Quite simply, I've never heard of any medical intervention without a risk of side effects


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ If you read my post sloowwllyyy, it is an "update" to the "2nd" dose of the Pfizer vaccine that my relatives got more than a week ago (of which I didn't hear about until yesterday via a phone-call). And the feedback was "all is okay this time as no rash (for the senior folks in their 70s), no headache(for the younger folks in their 30s) unlike the very 1st dose they got about a month ago where those were the side-effects which strangely didn't come about until the 11th day after injection.

So I'm not exactly sure what "source" you need me to provide on "my claim of no-side effects (*on this 2nd shot)"* short of divulging their personal details here. I heard it first hand so it's up to you to believe it or not.

Please Note: I'm *not making a broad statement or a disclaimer here of "no side-effects" on (any) vaccines. *Everyone will respond differently.

And the state of Texas remains as the Lone Star state, filled with [email protected], including some of my relatives.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ If you read my post sloowwllyyy, it is an "update" to the "2nd" dose of the Pfizer vaccine that my relatives got more than a week ago (of which I didn't hear about until yesterday via a phone-call). And the feedback was "all is okay this time as no rash (for the senior folks in their 70s), no headache(for the younger folks in their 30s) unlike the very 1st dose they got about a month ago where those were the side-effects which strangely didn't come about until the 11th day after injection.
> 
> So I'm not exactly sure what "source" you need me to provide on "my claim of no-side effects (*on this 2nd shot)"* short of divulging their personal details here. I heard it first hand so it's up to you to believe it or not.
> 
> ...


I didn't realize that you were commenting on a specific personal/small group of no side effect.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I attended a vaccine info session with my work (they are linked in with Provincial health) so we had one of the medical professional join us ( the person we work with in developing COVID health measures and recommendations).

In my province, they are allowing people 50-64 with no health concerns to allow earlier vaccination with the AstraZeneca. The reasoning is that though safe, the vaccine was tested for under 65. Though it has a lower effectiveness for transmission, (~65%), the effectiveness for reducing severe outcomes and death was similar to the other vaccines. 

It was asked if people get AstraZeneca now, and then a different 'booster' later. The answer was not at this time, they are going to focus on getting everyone their first shot, then their second before they even consider another round for a different vaccine. They said there was lots of other considerations they have look into such as supply, logistics, and safety. So it wasn't a no, but it was just a maybe.

In terms of spreading out the vaccines to longer than the initial recommendations, was it was okay, in fact it could be better. The timing of the second shot is based on the drug companies, and is a MINIMUM time to wait. For vaccines that require multiple shots, doing it too early will reduce the effectiveness, however doing it later can increase the effectiveness. They tried to explain it in simple terms. Essentially, when you get your first shot, your body starts to build an immunity to it. The next shot is the earliest it will have built immunity. So if you get the next shot too early, your body hasn't had the chance maximize its immunity, so then second shot you are start at a lower immunity level. If you wait, your body will be at the best immunity level at the beginning of the second dose. There is a sweet spot that you don't want to be too long, but it has to be a really long time. So essentially the Feds would have to really screw up for the second dose not to be effective. I found this part most interesting. Sorry, if don't have the medical information or any links. 

They are expecting to give all adults who want it by June for this first dose. They are still waiting for vaccines for kids, but it is on the horizon, just not time frame.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I think the booster later is really a matter of "we will watch how things go and decide then". Almost all of the observations, they should get, will be a small percentage of the people getting a little sicker then they would prefer to see, but most importantly, they should not be dying...which in those same cases observed, may very well have been the case.

Sounds fine to me. Where do I sign up.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Myself, I would take any of the vaccines approved in Canada. I'm not at all concerned about JNJ and AZ being inadequate.

I even heard an interview with a board member of Pfizer saying that the JNJ vaccine looked amazing and tremendously effective. That's a competitor saying that!

I'm only concerned about ending up in hospital or dying (my 35 year old family member ended up in hospital for example). If I still get the sniffles or have a bad week, whatever, just not a big deal. All of the vaccines used in Canada are highly effective at reducing hospitalization and death.

I'm also completely on board with first shots ASAP, and delaying second shot, strategy. Here's the argument from a BC infectious disease expert that I posted earlier.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I have been looking a little closer at these vaccines and their trial data. We might recall that the *AZ vaccine has a efficacy of 62.1*%. You might also recall that they had an interesting observation for a group of participants where they accidently gave them a 1/2 dose for their first dose and then gave them a full dose for their 2nd. * That AZ group had an efficacy of 90%*. They figured it all out by June and the 62.1% were the new people who got the proper doses. The only reason they know about the 90% group was they kept an eye on them.

I also took a look at a chart that Dr. Bonnie Henry of BC listed to show the *efficacy of a single dose of Pfizer vaccine.* Originally Pfizer said that their vaccine only had a* 52% efficacy with a single dose*, but *Dr. Henry's team noticed* that Pfizer looked at their results after 7 days of the 1st dose. If you looked at the results after *14 days of the 1st dose, you obtained a 92.6% efficacy. * That is why they determined they could put out the 2nd dose by 4 months because they felt these people were well protected. A bit of a leap there but I won't drone on about that at this time.

Here is my point. Both Dr. Henry's study of an entire 1 week (day 14 to day 21) where they obtained a 92.6% efficacy and Astra Zeneca's miracle numbers where they obtained a 90% efficacy (on the wrong dosing group) were ALL *conducted before June 2020*.

If you look at Pfizer's study below and just focus on the Placebo group, you will see that in their entire study that encompassed around 29 weeks, they had 172 infections in the placebo group. In just the 3 weeks between the 1st dose and the 2nd dose they saw 82 infections in that same placebo group. So in 3 / 29 =* 10.3% of the time*, they observed 82 / 172 = *47.7% of ALL observed infections* in the placebo group. Does that seem weird to anyone? These 47.7% infections in 3 weeks were in and around April 2020, if I recall the timeline.

What I think is happening is those 3 weeks is that we were *NOT really using full precautions* worldwide, nearly as much as we are today. Covid had more of a free reign. It is about the only explanation as to why so many infections happened so quickly. What it also means then, is that when we drop our precautions, the vaccines that were measured after June (Astra Zeneca for example) may very well have efficacies GREATER then what they measured during a study that cannot help but be affected by our intervening precautions. Probably the reason AZ got the 90% efficacy, was not because of the screwed up low 1st dose, during the trial that began in April and was noticed by June, but because there were more dangerous infections (larger initial dose of infections) going around making it easier for the vaccines to show how effective they really are.

It is very likely that when we drop our precautions we will find that the 90% efficacy is the more accurate number that relates to the AstraZeneca Vaccine. Since JNJ got a late start as well their vaccine trial would have been affected in the same way. Anyway, I thought it was interesting enough to post. It certainly does not prove anything specific but is interesting all the same.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I'm only concerned about ending up in hospital or dying (my 35 year old family member ended up in hospital for example). If I still get the sniffles or have a bad week, whatever, just not a big deal. All of the vaccines used in Canada are highly effective at reducing hospitalization and death.


Even some people who had mild illness (i.e. didn't go to hospital) are dealing with long-term issues. We really don't know/understand much about long-haulers, but for me, I'm concerned about getting COVID at all. I realize that govt/public health has a goal to reduce hospitalizations and death, but that's not my personal goal.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Retired Peasant said:


> Even some people who had mild illness (i.e. didn't go to hospital) are dealing with long-term issues. We really don't know/understand much about long-haulers, but for me, I'm concerned about getting COVID at all. I realize that govt/public health has a goal to reduce hospitalizations and death, but that's not my personal goal.


OK that is a good point


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Retired Peasant said:


> Even some people who had mild illness (i.e. didn't go to hospital) are dealing with long-term issues. We really don't know/understand much about long-haulers, but for me, I'm concerned about getting COVID at all. I realize that govt/public health has a goal to reduce hospitalizations and death, but that's not my personal goal.


None of the vaccines can keep you from getting Covid-19. All they do is help you quickly neutralize it quicker then you could without it.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Myself, I would take any of the vaccines approved in Canada


 Myself , I would take any vaccine approved by FDA , EU or UK, except Chinese ones. Also, I'd take Sputnik V


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Give me which ever you want. We’ll know which One is best and how to dose it in 6 months. Then we can all go and get the preferred version. I’d guess we’re getting boosters next year, especially if more dangerous variants keep occurring.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Money172375 said:


> Give me which ever you want. We’ll know which One is best and how to dose it in 6 months. Then we can all go and get the preferred version. I’d guess we’re getting boosters next year, especially if more dangerous variants keep occurring.


Based on current data Moderna is number 1 and no one is lining up for JNJ or Astrazenca. The data shows that the Moderna protection lasts longer then Pfizer. I suspect they have a larger sized dose.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

zinfit said:


> Based on current data Moderna is number 1 and no one is lining up for JNJ or Astrazenca. The data shows that the Moderna protection lasts longer then Pfizer. I suspect they have a larger sized dose.


Agreed. Kind of highlights the only real problem with natural infection. Although it has a tremendous number of advantages over vaccination, the one drawback is a person's inability to control, or even know, what dose of infection they are getting.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> Agreed. Kind of highlights the only real problem with natural infection. Although it has a tremendous number of advantages over vaccination, the one drawback is a person's inability to control, or even know, what dose of infection they are getting.


OptsyEagle, I do like your idea (I think it was yours) that low level exposure to covid-19 in the wild can be healthy for priming our immune systems. I completely agree in theory. However I still worry about controlling that dosage of the virus you get.

It seems very hard to calibrate that. However based on your idea, I have made one change. I used to wear KN95 masks quite a bit in crowded stores, but have switched to the lesser surgical masks. These still have good coverage but are not respirators like KN95, so I'm probably still inhaling some particles.

But I think when "calibrating" this, it's prudent to still be on the cautious side. I would never go and deliberately try to get exposed to COVID. The potential harm is just too great... so when living my routine daily life, I'm still wearing the surgical mask and being cautious. I think it's safe to assume I'm getting some droplets day to day.

In my apartment building, many people coming in & out don't wear masks (even though they are supposed to) and I just assume I am inhaling particles, every day.

However in really high risk settings like airports, airplanes, or a crowded office, I will be wearing a KN95/CAN95 respirator.

I think the other part of "calibrating" low dose exposure is that, if you ever actually feel run down or slightly sick, then step up to maximum protection. On days I am feeling a bit weak, or perhaps insufficient sleep, I put my guard up to max and don't take any chances around people.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Agreed. Kind of highlights the only real problem with natural infection. Although it has a tremendous number of advantages over vaccination, the one drawback is a person's inability to control, or even know, what dose of infection they are getting.


A while back a study was started were they were going to determine the minimal effective dose by infecting people with different levels of the actual covid virus ... never heard about the results.

In the real world people have very little control over the actual dose(s) they will receive. To make matters worse, the amount of time before the body will attack it is a variable, in other words, even thought two people received a "minimal dose" person A maybe fight it off quickly while person B gets heavily infected before their body mounts a real attack.

As a side note, possibly an attenuated live virus covid vaccine would work much better than what we currently have.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

The idea that some exposure to the virus boosting our immune systems significantly has been studied and confirmed in many different ways. Effectively, before vaccine and even after the invention of vaccine, that is how pandemics stopped. It is how herd immunity comes about for most airborne viruses.

I have mentioned that the ability to control the dose of infection is near impossible, and there is no evidence during the covid crisis of what outcomes come from various levels of infection.

That said,* since the vast majority of people survive covid-19 infection, and that was before we started vaccinating people, we must understand then that most interactions lead to a safer infection. * Since we know the dose of infection will be a combination of two things:

*1) Concentration of the infecting source
2) Time exposed to that source*

If you simply reduce either one or preferably both of those two things, the odds of you ending up with a safe exposure is quite high...but will never be guaranteed.

So for the 1st one, I think outdoors pretty much solves that. Almost any outdoor exposure will be survivable, especially if you are vaccinated. Adjusting ones mask type for indoors, or removing it some circumstances, is also a good attempt to vary the concentration received to provide safer exposure. The other great method to reduce concentration is to introduce room ventilation. Either open a window, start a fan or run your furnace blower (can be done without cooling or heating on most furnaces).

For the 2nd one, just attempt to reduce the times you are indoors with others to shorter intervals. *Since dying from covid is less common the people that did it must have had a rare high amount of time with the infecting source.* So assuming the average social gathering lasts 1 hour (that amount cannot possibly be the most time), just embrace any indoor opportunity that will see you indoors with someone for less then 1 hour. The shorter the better. You probably don't need a lot of Delta for a boost. Now always keep in mind, #1 while doing this. Are you going indoors with someone when they have been in there themselves breathing for the entire day or their teenage kid was in there playing video games for 5 hrs. Are their 10 kids in the man cave of this house you just walked into (never assume only one is infected). How big is this room? Is there any ventilation happening in this room. If so, a longer stay is probably pretty safe for a fully vaccinated healthy person.

Anyway, I agree, teaching people to do this, will be near impossible but I am not finding it too overwhelming by any means. I would imagine many others could understand it as well.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

As I said teaching people the above will be near impossible so we need to deal with our biggest pandemic problem first. *We need to get the people age 50 or older who have not received a vaccination shot to vaccinate*. If we can persuade the vast majority of these people to vaccinate, we can safely start exposing ourselves to this virus and finally end this pandemic once and for all.

Technically Alberta and Saskatchewan attempted my safe virus exposure experiment, although without actually calling it that, or teaching anyone how to do it safely or even that they were doing it at all, but lets face it, their experiment failed miserably. That is because they had too many people age 50 or older unvaccinated. If they, and us, deal with that problem, safe exposure will have significantly less fall out, then if this vulnerable group stay unvaccinated.

Sure some younger unvaccinated people in their 30s and 40s will still get very, very sick and have an absolutely horrible and scary experience with their infection, but for the most part they will get to experience that horror in their homes. Of course there will also be exceptions and breakthrough infections that send some people to the hospital but if we get the older adults vaccinated, I think the numbers here will be reduced down to a bad flu epidemic. Our hospitals deal with those every year.

Anyway, that is where I am leaning on this now. In Ontario we currently have 501,000 adults age 50 or older unvaccinated. That is pretty good considering we had over 700,000 a month ago. Vaccine passports have done the work here, I would think. We won't get them all to come forward, but I think when the Delta variant shows what it will do to them when they go indoors with others this fall, more will come forward. Their friends and family will start exerting real pressure because they will see that it is this very small group of people who are holding the entire country, and that group, back from living their lives. I am sorry, but they have to vaccinate.


----------

