Doug and Hypervaxed, totally get it that antigen production, which protects against infection ,is just one aspect of protection, fades in a few months, meanwhile B&T cells remember the virus and you have continuing protection against severe illness, which is the really important thing. If the 4 graphs just showed protection against infec…
Doug and Hypervaxed, totally get it that antigen production, which protects against infection ,is just one aspect of protection, fades in a few months, meanwhile B&T cells remember the virus and you have continuing protection against severe illness, which is the really important thing. If the 4 graphs just showed protection against infection going down to zero in a few months, then that's just what I would have expected. But all 4 graphs, each for a different group, dip down below zero around month 7 and with every month from then on they drop further below zero. Not just a little below zero, but as low as 40-50%. My understanding is that when protection reaches zero, it's as though you had not had a booster (when it comes to getting infected -- in other ways you're still benefitting). But when your protection drops way below zero, that would seem to mean that people are MORE likely to become infected than if they had not had a booster. That does not make sense to me. Does it to you? And Hypervaxed, you and I actually discussed this graph in the comments on the post containing the graph, both of us vexed and puzzled. Why are you now sounding like it's a bit inappropriate to ask this ("if your aim is to make decisions for your circumstances . . ."). No, my circumstances are not unusual and anyhow the 4 graphs pretty much cover all circumstances -- more vulnerable, less vulnerable, etc. I would certainly not be asking Dr J for advice here about my particular circumstance. I am asking about these results because they do not make sense to me and they are relevant to my circumstances and to those of anyone else who got the booster.
Doug and Hypervaxed, totally get it that antigen production, which protects against infection ,is just one aspect of protection, fades in a few months, meanwhile B&T cells remember the virus and you have continuing protection against severe illness, which is the really important thing. If the 4 graphs just showed protection against infection going down to zero in a few months, then that's just what I would have expected. But all 4 graphs, each for a different group, dip down below zero around month 7 and with every month from then on they drop further below zero. Not just a little below zero, but as low as 40-50%. My understanding is that when protection reaches zero, it's as though you had not had a booster (when it comes to getting infected -- in other ways you're still benefitting). But when your protection drops way below zero, that would seem to mean that people are MORE likely to become infected than if they had not had a booster. That does not make sense to me. Does it to you? And Hypervaxed, you and I actually discussed this graph in the comments on the post containing the graph, both of us vexed and puzzled. Why are you now sounding like it's a bit inappropriate to ask this ("if your aim is to make decisions for your circumstances . . ."). No, my circumstances are not unusual and anyhow the 4 graphs pretty much cover all circumstances -- more vulnerable, less vulnerable, etc. I would certainly not be asking Dr J for advice here about my particular circumstance. I am asking about these results because they do not make sense to me and they are relevant to my circumstances and to those of anyone else who got the booster.