vaccine immunity lasts 90 days?

[Earlgrey666]

I'm wondering if someone knowledgeable can help. I was so excited about the vaccine and thought it was the light at the end of the tunnel and gave me hope that a normal life might be likely at some point in the next few months/year.

However the news over the weekend said that although currently unknown the estimated immunity after having the vaccine lasts around 90 days. Have I got this right? If so, how is this going to help us to get back to normality?

I was probably expecting an annual vaccination as we do for flu for example but 90 days isn't long at all.

You want things to turn out badly just so you can be right. Nice.

Of course I don't. What a ridiculous thing to say. This has been the worst year of my life and my fear is that we are raising people's hopes only to dash them again.

However people reading articles, not understanding them properly and then regurgitating the incorrect version as fact is part of the problem

I think you're right with this.

And applaud the patience with which some posters continue to point out how utterly erroneous are so many statements (and assumptions behind questions)

@carlaCox

You want things to turn out badly just so you can be right. Nice.

Of course I don't. What a ridiculous thing to say. This has been the worst year of my life and my fear is that we are raising people's hopes only to dash them again.

Then why are you looking forward to saying ‘I told you so’ as opposed to hoping you won’t be able to?

@SexTrainGlue and @Ethelfleda

Perhaps people who have a brain are not satisfied with the half-baked answers you have on offer?

Which answers, on this thread, do you consider 'half baked'?

@stovetopespresso

bo under 50s to be vaccinated *@teta* I thought they were going to do everyone... eventually?

How do you imagine they will ever have the resources to vaccinate everyone? At best, it'll have to be administered annually, like the flu jab. At worst, twice or more a year. It's already got to be two doses.

You will never vaccinate an entire population before the immunity of the first group runs out again.

It was never going to happen.

@SexTrainGlue

Which answers, on this thread, do you consider half baked

I am grateful to those who are taking the time to answer questions in detail

However, some of the answers on this and other threads are half-baked, I’m afraid.

How long does immunity last? It’s not known
Is there a risk of delayed onset side effects? It’s not known
Does it prevent transmission? It’s not known
Is it suitable for people with autoimmunity? It’s not known

You get the idea

If you were to go and buy a house and someone went:

Have you checked for damp? Not yet
Is it structurally sound? We don’t know yet
Have you checked for asbestos? Not yet

Hold on, why are you asking so many questions? Just shut up, accept our answers and buy the house

In this scenario you would run for the hills. As a customer (because that’s what we are at the end of the day for these companies) you would go look for a better product, wouldn’t you?

And the belittling of those who dare to express some critical thinking instead of blindly accepting answers in a cult-like fashion does not help either.

Sorry if I’m bursting some people’s mighty bubbles here.

*If you were to go and buy a house and someone went:

Have you checked for damp? Not yet
Is it structurally sound? We don’t know yet
Have you checked for asbestos? Not yet

Hold on, why are you asking so many questions? Just shut up, accept our answers and buy the house

In this scenario you would run for the hills. As a customer (because that’s what we are at the end of the day for these companies) you would go look for a better product, wouldn’t you?*

But if you desperately needed shelter there and then, and there was a very good chance that "a better product" would become available some time in the near future, you'd happily take it for the time being, wouldn't you? I know I would.

That analogy is bonkers. If you’re buying a house you can easily check for those things. If the vendor won’t let you it is reasonable to assume they have something to hide but luckily there are many other houses out there so of course you would walk away.
Pfizer and AstraZeneca haven’t failed to find those things out because they can’t be bothered, ffs. And it’s not like there is an alternative covid vaccine you can have where all the information is easily available.

@IcedPurple

I see what you're saying and I'm not judging those who decide to take the vaccine.

But in the case of vaccines it's 100 times worse as you could potentially be putting your health at risk with a half-baked solution.

My point is really about posters who go ballistic and are demeaning to those who dare say their answers are not enough and they need further information before accepting a product.

But in the case of vaccines it's 100 times worse as you could potentially be putting your health at risk with a half-baked solution.

You could potentially be putting your health - and that of others - at risk if you catch Covid too. And it's not a 'half-baked solution'. FFS.

@GabsAlot

its not been researched properly who do you think reseacrhed it bob from b and q?

@TransplantedScouser

It’s not disdain

However people reading articles, not understanding them properly and then regurgitating the incorrect version as fact is part of the problem

This.

In this scenario you would run for the hills

Run for the hills and freeze to death maybe due to lack of shelter, because you wanted to wait for the perfect abode.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel

Then why are you looking forward to saying ‘I told you so’ as opposed to hoping you won’t be able to?

Looking at the poster's other posts, some of them feature fears of a looming authoritarian state that border on conspiracy theories. So I am not sure how objective their views on the vaccines are.

@BlueBlancmange

In this scenario you would run for the hills

Run for the hills and freeze to death maybe due to lack of shelter, because you wanted to wait for the perfect abode.

In this scenario the elderly people first in line for the vaccine are the people who’ve just been kicked out of their rental flat and know that there’s a snowstorm coming. The risks of not going for it definitely outweigh the uncertainties of going for it.

The young healthy people who’ll be in line several million shots later are analogous to the people who are currently perfectly comfortable in their existing house but quite fancy somewhere a bit bigger and nearer the tube. They can afford to wait for more data, which is lucky, because that’s what’s going to happen.

@CrunchyCarrot

I really think that memory T cell immunity will kick in, long after antibodies have vanished. That's pretty normal. Then your T cells will remember how to make antibodies if ever needed.

T cells don't make antibodies.

I think you're thinking of memory B cells.

“However, some of the answers on this and other threads are half-baked, I’m afraid.”

I’ll expand some of the baking for you

How long does immunity last? It’s not known but two major studies will be reporting imminently, and of course it is only 1 year since the first recognised case, and neither do we know what type and duration of immunity arises from the wild infection. There is no evidence the vaccine-induced immunity will be lower than from the wild disease. The NERVTAG paper lays all this out in greater detail and with links to evidence

Is there a risk of delayed onset side effects? It’s not known but as no other vaccine has had delayed onset effects (unlike wild viruses which do) there is no reason to suspect it here, especially as no-one has cogently produced a mechanism by which they could arise

Does it prevent transmission? It’s not known but all signs do far indicate it will. But even if it did not, the benefit it confers on the individual is significant

Is it suitable for people with autoimmunity? It’s not known Depends which conditions you are talking about. It had been explicitly endorsed as safe for some. Which conditions still require further study - and are those populations made up of people who can safely receive some but not all vaccines, or is this more those who currently can receive none?

For the record, I have no issue with people having questions and wanting them answered before getting vaccinated. But that is NOT the same as people who spout their bullshit, parroted opinion as fact who are spreading misinformation

“It was rushed!!”
“They didn’t research it properly”
“It’s a live vaccine so I’m going to avoid people who have received it”

I mean... it’s painful. It really is.

@Ethelfleda

For the record, I have no issue with people having questions and wanting them answered before getting vaccinated. But that is NOT the same as people who spout their bullshit, parroted opinion as fact who are spreading misinformation

“It was rushed!!”
“They didn’t research it properly”
“It’s a live vaccine so I’m going to avoid people who have received it”

I mean... it’s painful. It really is.

But it had to be rushed. How could it not be given they've only had a limited time to work on it and it's an emergency.

I've not had time to read all the comments but I don't understand why anyone is getting so arsey with those who are sceptical about the vaccine. I don't think any of the sceptics are trying to dictate to anyone else or control others' choices.

As far as I am aware we get to choose whether to get vaccinated or not. If you want the vaccine, get it (when it becomes available to you). If you don't want it, don't get it.

The comments of some random stranger on Mumsnet are not going to be the deciding factor on whether we choose to get vaccinated or not, surely!
Is all the upset because some can't handle people having markedly different viewpoints?

[quote trulydelicious]@IcedPurple

I see what you're saying and I'm not judging those who decide to take the vaccine.

But in the case of vaccines it's 100 times worse as you could potentially be putting your health at risk with a half-baked solution.

My point is really about posters who go ballistic and are demeaning to those who dare say their answers are not enough and they need further information before accepting a product.[/quote]
I agree with this.
Free country and all.....

‘But it had to be rushed. How could it not be given they've only had a limited time to work on it and it's an emergency.’

Because the bits they were faster than normal on weren’t the actual science and testing bits, they were the pointless delays that normally take a long time.
For instance - submitting your plan to an ethics panel who normally meet a few times a year to decide on a big pile of proposals. Normally you might have to wait for months for them to meet then another few weeks for them to send out the decision. But for covid they will have met specially as soon as your proposal is ready and got back to you that day.
Recruiting volunteers- normally might take 6 months, for covid they will have started recruiting immediately and got enough people within a few weeks.
And they have been able to run phases concurrently.
The actual length of time for which they wait to see results from the jab won’t have been shortened, they won’t have done the testing any less thoroughly, that’s not where they saved time.

Someone on another thread suggested the analogy of wanting someone to drive somewhere very fast. So you find your most experienced driver, get them your best vehicle and make sure it is in tiptop condition, clear away the traffic from the road. Compare that with a normal driver in their usual car trying to get somewhere fast in normal traffic conditions just by driving as fast as they can. You can see how that might not be safe. The second is rushing, the first is more like what they have done with the covid jabs.

Ultimately the scientists involved, and the regulators who are looking very closely at what they have done, are in this to save lives. If they skip vital safety checks it could mean far more people dying than would have died from covid. They know this, and that’s why they are not going to be skimping on the parts that matter.

@Trying2Heal

I've not had time to read all the comments but I don't understand why anyone is getting so arsey with those who are sceptical about the vaccine. I don't think any of the sceptics are trying to dictate to anyone else or control others' choices. As far as I am aware we get to choose whether to get vaccinated or not. If you want the vaccine, get it (when it becomes available to you). If you don't want it, don't get it. The comments of some random stranger on Mumsnet are not going to be the deciding factor on whether we choose to get vaccinated or not, surely! Is all the upset because some can't handle people having markedly different viewpoints?

I’ve stated before I’ve no issue with skepticism. It’s the representation of opinion as fact that I have an issue with. The comments of randoms on the internet absolutely DO have a bearing on how some people make their choices. The spread of misinformation will absolutely have a detrimental impact on vaccine uptake.

Is all the upset because some can't handle people having markedly different viewpoints?

Not really. It's just what happens when there are repeated posts containing the same inaccuracies. No amount of 'different viewpoint' is justification for actual error or serious misrepresentation, and there has been considerable patience in dealing with the same errors over and over again