Great news, I'm happy for everyone this helps! So this doesn't help team-mRNA people who are healthy, not in high risk jobs or living situations, without underlying health conditions? When will we hear about our booster? We know Pfizer protection wanes with time. I know I'm at less risk for hospitalization and death, but I'd also like to avoid getting a breakthrough and feeling like crap and missing work, too! My county is still purple!
Any thoughts for my 31 YO daughter who is 13 weeks pregnant. She got the J&J vaccine originally and she really doesn’t want to get the J&J booster. She is thinking about waiting until there is more data but I am leaning towards recommending the moderna booster rather than wait. She lives in TX and travels some for work so not getting booster concerns me. (her OB says get the J&J booster).
I'd, personally, lean toward the Moderna for a booster. I'm not convinced the bump in thrombosis with thrombocytopenia is significant enough statistically to preclude a repeat J&J, and a J&J boost has been shown to produce long-term immunogenicity, but the level of antibodies (titer) seen with a Moderna boost is greater than for a J&J boost.
In other words, she could go either way. Regardless, I'd recommend she get a booster.
As someone who got the J&J shot as my initial vaccination, I have been poring over information like yours to determine what booster to get. Are you familiar with this study referenced in this Atlantic article?
“ A recent (but not yet peer-reviewed) study of more than half a million U.S. veterans showed that the Johnson & Johnson shot’s protection against infection (whether or not that leads to disease or hospitalization) had plummeted from 88 percent to 3 percent by mid-August, while the other vaccines’ effectiveness had declined much less.”
And if this is true, is it a clear indication that for a lot of people the Moderna booster would be the best bet?
That is the current guideline. That said, an argument can be made that the 3, or 4 week interval for the mRNA vaccines was actually an artifact of the Phase 3 trials, and not well supported. Vaccinologists have, lately, suggested that a 2-, 3-, or even 6-month interval might have worked better to support long-term activation of the humoral immune system.
I’m overweight and work in healthcare so I meet criteria for booster. I had Pfizer. I’m so torn on booster! Do I choose Moderna? Half dose vs full dose? They are both mRNA? I would really love your educated opinion. I realize any booster is a good thing!
Indications are that a boost with the sub-dose Moderna will still enhance your immunity. They ARE both mRNA, and they use similar elements of the various virus (especially spike) protein domains; both use the receptor binding domain (RBD) as a major element of their structures, but there are also subtle differences.
What you don't mention is, have you been infected? Those with prior infection with COVID-19 AND subsequent vaccination have a much higher level of humeral response. You also don't mention your age; immunogenicity (effectiveness) decreases generally with age.
In my mind, there's little doubt you would benefit from a booster. Either will work. You can really take the simple route: Whatever you can get first.
I didn't choose which vaccine I got for the first two shots, I just got the first shots available to me. Is it likely I'll be able to choose which one I get for a booster?
I'm not particularly concerned by the mix'n'match boosters. I believe, from what I've seen, and immunology 101 (or perhaps a later class...) that an mRNA boost of the J&J will be the biggest bang for the buck.
But: Almost everything considered in the meeting, and almost all you wrote looks at the humeral immunity boost. What do we know so far about training and retention of cellular immunity, and when, exactly, did we go from protecting against serious disease and death to preventing the disease, or at least symptoms, completely?
Finally, I suspect (strongly suspect, in fact) the VAERS data for myocarditis are inflated. There was a reported effort on some of the more conservative social media sites to create claims of adverse effects on VAERS, and the reports have been considerably higher than usual with the COVID vaccines. While most cases in this country see elevated troponin levels, virtually all resolve and have normal echocardiograms within 5 days, and are discharged. And, relying on Israeli data (it's good to see them collaborate with us on vaccines, and safety/efficacy questions, regardless) is problematical because they use different criteria and age break-points for their myocarditis diagnosis. If the VAERS data are intentionally skewed, interpretation is much harder. Israeli data is hard to interpret for us because virtually the entire country is, indeed, vaccinated, and almost all with Pfizer. With our triple-play of vaccines, can we afford to make decisions on how they performed? Do we have to fall back on just our Pfizer data? If so, we've not got a chance of getting solid evaluation of the Moderna or J&J vaccines because they were essentially not used. Or did I miss a meeting somewhere in all of this?
Great news, I'm happy for everyone this helps! So this doesn't help team-mRNA people who are healthy, not in high risk jobs or living situations, without underlying health conditions? When will we hear about our booster? We know Pfizer protection wanes with time. I know I'm at less risk for hospitalization and death, but I'd also like to avoid getting a breakthrough and feeling like crap and missing work, too! My county is still purple!
it is definitely coming down the pipeline for everyone. the FDA is already hinting at it this week
Any thoughts for my 31 YO daughter who is 13 weeks pregnant. She got the J&J vaccine originally and she really doesn’t want to get the J&J booster. She is thinking about waiting until there is more data but I am leaning towards recommending the moderna booster rather than wait. She lives in TX and travels some for work so not getting booster concerns me. (her OB says get the J&J booster).
I'd, personally, lean toward the Moderna for a booster. I'm not convinced the bump in thrombosis with thrombocytopenia is significant enough statistically to preclude a repeat J&J, and a J&J boost has been shown to produce long-term immunogenicity, but the level of antibodies (titer) seen with a Moderna boost is greater than for a J&J boost.
In other words, she could go either way. Regardless, I'd recommend she get a booster.
Any word on when/if boosters will be available for 12-17 age group?
coming in a post tomorrow. stay tuned
Hooray! Thank you!
Hi Katelyn - Thank you for all of your hard work!
As someone who got the J&J shot as my initial vaccination, I have been poring over information like yours to determine what booster to get. Are you familiar with this study referenced in this Atlantic article?
“ A recent (but not yet peer-reviewed) study of more than half a million U.S. veterans showed that the Johnson & Johnson shot’s protection against infection (whether or not that leads to disease or hospitalization) had plummeted from 88 percent to 3 percent by mid-August, while the other vaccines’ effectiveness had declined much less.”
And if this is true, is it a clear indication that for a lot of people the Moderna booster would be the best bet?
Thank you in advance for your thoughts!
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/10/pfizer-moderna-dose-which-vaccine-best/620501/
Please confirm my suspicion that one should wait 6 months after getting the third dose of mRNA before getting a booster. :)
That is the current guideline. That said, an argument can be made that the 3, or 4 week interval for the mRNA vaccines was actually an artifact of the Phase 3 trials, and not well supported. Vaccinologists have, lately, suggested that a 2-, 3-, or even 6-month interval might have worked better to support long-term activation of the humoral immune system.
I’m overweight and work in healthcare so I meet criteria for booster. I had Pfizer. I’m so torn on booster! Do I choose Moderna? Half dose vs full dose? They are both mRNA? I would really love your educated opinion. I realize any booster is a good thing!
Indications are that a boost with the sub-dose Moderna will still enhance your immunity. They ARE both mRNA, and they use similar elements of the various virus (especially spike) protein domains; both use the receptor binding domain (RBD) as a major element of their structures, but there are also subtle differences.
What you don't mention is, have you been infected? Those with prior infection with COVID-19 AND subsequent vaccination have a much higher level of humeral response. You also don't mention your age; immunogenicity (effectiveness) decreases generally with age.
In my mind, there's little doubt you would benefit from a booster. Either will work. You can really take the simple route: Whatever you can get first.
I didn't choose which vaccine I got for the first two shots, I just got the first shots available to me. Is it likely I'll be able to choose which one I get for a booster?
Is there any information on increased reactions to bee stings post vaccination?
I'm not particularly concerned by the mix'n'match boosters. I believe, from what I've seen, and immunology 101 (or perhaps a later class...) that an mRNA boost of the J&J will be the biggest bang for the buck.
But: Almost everything considered in the meeting, and almost all you wrote looks at the humeral immunity boost. What do we know so far about training and retention of cellular immunity, and when, exactly, did we go from protecting against serious disease and death to preventing the disease, or at least symptoms, completely?
Finally, I suspect (strongly suspect, in fact) the VAERS data for myocarditis are inflated. There was a reported effort on some of the more conservative social media sites to create claims of adverse effects on VAERS, and the reports have been considerably higher than usual with the COVID vaccines. While most cases in this country see elevated troponin levels, virtually all resolve and have normal echocardiograms within 5 days, and are discharged. And, relying on Israeli data (it's good to see them collaborate with us on vaccines, and safety/efficacy questions, regardless) is problematical because they use different criteria and age break-points for their myocarditis diagnosis. If the VAERS data are intentionally skewed, interpretation is much harder. Israeli data is hard to interpret for us because virtually the entire country is, indeed, vaccinated, and almost all with Pfizer. With our triple-play of vaccines, can we afford to make decisions on how they performed? Do we have to fall back on just our Pfizer data? If so, we've not got a chance of getting solid evaluation of the Moderna or J&J vaccines because they were essentially not used. Or did I miss a meeting somewhere in all of this?