Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > ger.ct > #525990 > unrolled thread

[TH] Booster fuer alle

Back to article view | Back to ger.ct

Contents

  [TH] Booster fuer alle Frank Klingenhoefer <frank.private@t-online.de> - 2021-10-29 10:58 +0000
    Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Stephan Bumberger <bumberger@gmail.com> - 2021-10-29 13:08 +0200
      Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Thomas Einzel <usenet-2021@einzel.de> - 2021-10-29 13:41 +0200
        Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Stephan Bumberger <bumberger@gmail.com> - 2021-10-29 13:48 +0200
          Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Diedrich Ehlerding <diedrich.ehlerding@t-online.de> - 2021-10-29 19:51 +0200
            Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Stephan Bumberger <bumberger@gmail.com> - 2021-10-29 20:17 +0200
              Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Frank Klingenhoefer <frank.private@t-online.de> - 2021-10-29 18:22 +0000
                Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Stephan Bumberger <bumberger@gmail.com> - 2021-10-29 20:35 +0200
                  Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Peter Veith <veith@snafu.de> - 2021-10-29 21:12 +0200
                    Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Ulrich Weise <ulrich.weise@t-online.de> - 2021-10-30 13:56 +0200
                      Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Peter Veith <veith@snafu.de> - 2021-10-30 14:38 +0200
                    Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle "Dr. Joachim Neudert" <neudert@5sl.org> - 2021-10-30 18:21 +0200
              Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Stephan Bumberger <bumberger@gmail.com> - 2021-10-29 21:40 +0200
          Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Carla Schneider <carla_sch@yahoo.com> - 2021-10-30 11:33 +0200
        Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Markus Luft <01-2021@news.marquee-moon.de> - 2021-10-30 18:05 +0000
          Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Lars Gebauer <lgebauer@live.de> - 2021-10-30 20:29 +0200
            Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Dr. Joachim Neudert <neudert@5sl.org> - 2021-10-31 05:53 +0000
              Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Wolfgang Kynast <wky@gmx.de> - 2021-10-31 08:07 +0100
          Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2021-11-10 11:20 +0100
            Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Ebert <mx300@gmx.net> - 2021-11-11 02:38 +0100
              Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2021-11-11 08:23 +0100
                Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.5-11@snafu.de> - 2021-11-11 09:15 +0100
                  Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2021-11-11 12:31 +0100
                    Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Ebert <mx300@gmx.net> - 2021-11-11 18:12 +0100
                      Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2021-11-11 20:51 +0100
    Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Juergen <schreibsklave@web.de> - 2021-10-29 13:19 +0200
      Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Gerdes <martin.gerdes@gmx.de> - 2021-10-29 18:59 +0200
        Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Juergen <schreibsklave@web.de> - 2021-10-29 19:28 +0200
          Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Stephan Bumberger <bumberger@gmail.com> - 2021-10-29 19:34 +0200
            Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Lars Gebauer <lgebauer@live.de> - 2021-10-30 14:18 +0200
    Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Ebert <mx300@gmx.net> - 2021-11-01 02:32 +0100
      Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Martin Ebert <mx300@gmx.net> - 2021-11-05 03:21 +0100
    Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Ruediger Lahl <ruediger.lahl@gmx.de> - 2021-11-11 12:55 +0100
      Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle Ruediger Lahl <ruediger.lahl@gmx.de> - 2021-11-13 00:26 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#527818

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:38:34 +0100, Martin Ebert wrote:
> Am 10.11.21 um 11:20 schrieb Martin Τrautmann:
>
>> Warum hat man z.B. mit einer Impfung eine höhere Wahrscheinlichkeit für
>> einen leichten symptomatischen Verlauf als ohne Impfung?
>> 
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FD0mnE1XEAMxOR4?format=jpg
>
> Ich habe Deine These (bzw. den Fakt) nicht genau verstanden.
> Kannst Du das bitte ausführlicher darstellen?

Die Grafik oben zeigt ein Absinken der "Vaccine effectiveness %
(symptomatic COVID-19 Infection)", das nach 240 Tagen in den negativen
Bereich absinkt	und in der Grafik nach etwa 180 Tagen bei etwa -15 %
endet.

Faktisch bedeutet das nach 270 Tagen ein um 15 % höheres Risiko einer
symptomatischen Corona-Erkankung als geimpfter gegenüber einem
ungeimpften.

Das ist interpretations- und erklärungsbedürftig. 

Die Grafik darunter endet schon bei 250 Tagen, deutet aber einen noch
etwa um 20 % besseren Schutz gegen einen schweren Corona-Verlauf an.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527829

Am 11.11.21 um 08:23 schrieb Martin Τrautmann:

> Faktisch bedeutet das nach 270 Tagen ein um 15 % höheres Risiko einer
> symptomatischen Corona-Erkankung als geimpfter gegenüber einem
> ungeimpften.
> 
> Das ist interpretations- und erklärungsbedürftig.

Ja. Warum also reißt du die Grafik aus ihrem Zusammenhang, wo eine 
solche Erklärung stehen könnte?

Und: "not peer reviewed" hast du gelesen?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527865

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:15:57 +0100, Hergen Lehmann wrote:
> Am 11.11.21 um 08:23 schrieb Martin Τrautmann:
>
>> Faktisch bedeutet das nach 270 Tagen ein um 15 % höheres Risiko einer
>> symptomatischen Corona-Erkankung als geimpfter gegenüber einem
>> ungeimpften.
>> 
>> Das ist interpretations- und erklärungsbedürftig.
>
> Ja. Warum also reißt du die Grafik aus ihrem Zusammenhang, wo eine 
> solche Erklärung stehen könnte?


Weil die Grafik im Anhang steht. Du darfst sie gern in den Zusammenhang
des Textes stellen

> Und: "not peer reviewed" hast du gelesen?

Und? Das reviewed sich nicht von selbst. Also steht auch hier zur
Diskussion, ob das sein kann, sein darf oder falsch ist.

Ich kenne bereits mehrere mehr oder weniger plausible Ansätze - der
simpelste ist "Falsch". Aber den glaube ich nicht.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527921

Am 11.11.21 um 12:31 schrieb Martin Τrautmann:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:15:57 +0100, Hergen Lehmann wrote:

>> Ja. Warum also reißt du die Grafik aus ihrem Zusammenhang, wo eine 
>> solche Erklärung stehen könnte?

> Weil die Grafik im Anhang steht. Du darfst sie gern in den Zusammenhang
> des Textes stellen

Ähmmm. Ich kann gern mal einen russischen Text und eine
Grafik, verbinden mit "schlimm!" einstellen. Und auf
Nachfrage sage ich dann "darfst gern selbst im Text
suchen".

Toll.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527957

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 18:12:39 +0100, Martin Ebert wrote:
> Am 11.11.21 um 12:31 schrieb Martin Τrautmann:
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:15:57 +0100, Hergen Lehmann wrote:
>
>>> Ja. Warum also reißt du die Grafik aus ihrem Zusammenhang, wo eine 
>>> solche Erklärung stehen könnte?
>
>> Weil die Grafik im Anhang steht. Du darfst sie gern in den Zusammenhang
>> des Textes stellen
>
> Ähmmm. Ich kann gern mal einen russischen Text und eine
> Grafik, verbinden mit "schlimm!" einstellen. Und auf
> Nachfrage sage ich dann "darfst gern selbst im Text
> suchen".
>
> Toll.

Die Grafik für sich ist doch eigentlich selbsterklärend.

Aber ich gebe dir gerne den Text dazu:

Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination against risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death up to 9 months: a Swedish total-population cohort study Peter Nordström, MD, PhD, Marcel Ballin, MSc., Anna Nordström, MD, PhD Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Unit of Geriatric Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden (Peter Nordström and Marcel Ballin) Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Section of Sustainable Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden (Marcel Ballin and Anna Nordström) School of Sport Sciences, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway (Anna Nordström) Abstract word count: 299 Main text word count: 3467 Corresponding author: Peter Nordström, Professor Unit of Geriatric Medicine Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation Umeå University 90187 Umeå Sweden Phone: +4670 899 65 99 E-mail: peter.nordstrom@umu.se This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 Abstract Background: Whether vaccine effectiveness against Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) lasts longer than 6 months is unclear. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Swedish nationwide registries. The cohort comprised 842,974 pairs (N=1,684,958), including individuals vaccinated with 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2, and matched unvaccinated individuals. Cases of symptomatic infection and severe Covid-19 (hospitalization or 30-day mortality after confirmed infection) were collected from 12 January to 4 October 2021. Findings: Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121- 180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards. In contrast, effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), whereas effectiveness from heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV- 19 / mRNA was maintained from 121 days and onwards (66%; 95% CI, 41-80). Overall, vaccine effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome severe Covid-19, effectiveness waned from 89% (95% CI, 82-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 42% (95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21) from day 181 and onwards, with sensitivity analyses showing notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose. Research in context Evidence before this study Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines against the risk of infection and severe illness. However, reports on breakthrough infections and waning immunity have raised concerns regarding the duration of vaccine protection, and whether additional doses are warranted. Currently, there is some evidence to suggest waning vaccine effectiveness against infection up to 6 months after vaccination, with protection against severe illness appearing to be better maintained. Yet, the evidence is limited and consistent, in part due to evaluations of vaccines that may have different long- lasting effects, a low proportion of old participants, and varying and relatively short follow-up times. Specifically, whether vaccine effectiveness persist beyond 6 months is unknown. Added value of this study In this study, vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against symptomatic infection waned progressively from 92% during the first month, to 47% by month 4-6 and from 7 months and onwards no effectiveness was detected. Effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, whereas effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower. Overall, effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome of hospitalization or death, effectiveness (any vaccine) waned from 89% during the first month to 42% from month 6 and onwards in the total population. There was notable waning among especially men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. Implications of all the available evidence This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for older frail individuals. The effectiveness against hospitalization or death seems to remain high through 9 months, but not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose. Introduction Initial clinical trials showed a high efficacy of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)1, mRNA- 1273 (Moderna)2, and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines3 4, and observational studies have estimated a high real-world effectiveness5-8. However, reports on breakthrough infections9 and waning immunity10-14 have raised concerns regarding the duration of protection. With respect to severe Covid-19 such as hospitalization or death, follow-ups of clinical trials showed about 84% and 92% efficacy of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 after 4 months15 16, with similar results reported by the CDC, although slightly lower maintained protection of BNT162b217. Also, studies from US and Qatar showed that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 against hospitalization and death persisted through 6 months18 19, whereas preliminary data from UK indicate a slight waning, most notably for older adults and for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 compared to BNT162b220. Altogether, although current evidence suggests that vaccine effectiveness against severe Covid-19 is relatively well maintained, the data are inconsistent. Similarly, also the duration of protection against less severe infection is unclear. After 4-5 months of follow-up, the effectiveness of BNT162b2 has been estimated to above 80%15, 50%19,20, down to about 20%18 in a study from Qatar. For the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 preliminary data from UK suggest about 50% remaining effectiveness after 5 months of follow-up20. The different results in recent studies may relate to several factors, such as the evaluations of vaccines that may have different long-lasting effects16 18-20, a low proportion of old participants18, varying and relatively short follow-up times15 16 21. Collectively, there is insufficient evidence to determine vaccine effectiveness beyond 6 months. In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination, against the risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death through the first 9 months for the total population of Sweden. Methods Study design and cohort This study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (number 495/2021), who waived the requirement of obtaining informed consent given the retrospective study design. The individuals considered for inclusion were all individuals (N=3,640,421) vaccinated with at least one dose of any Covid-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, or mRNA-1273) in Sweden until 26 May 2021, and all individuals with a confirmed infection until 24 May 2021 (N=1,331,989). To these individuals, Statistics Sweden (the national agency for statistics, www.scb.se) randomly sampled one individual from the total population of Sweden, matched on birth year, sex and municipality. These matched individuals had neither been vaccinated nor infected with Covid-19 on the date of first vaccination dose or infection in the vaccinated individual. The total population consisted of 5,833,003 unique individuals that was considered for inclusion in this study. This population was updated with respect to vaccination status and Covid-19 infections until 4 October, 2021 (Figure 1). From this cohort, This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 the main study cohort was formed. Specifically, from the total cohort, each fully vaccinated (2 doses) individual was matched 1:1 to one randomly sampled unvaccinated individual on birth year, and sex, with baseline set to the date of the second dose of vaccine, in both vaccinated and matched unvaccinated individuals. Matched unvaccinated individuals were excluded if they received a first dose of vaccine or died within 14 days of baseline, and a new individual was searched from the remaining total cohort. This procedure was repeated 5 times. The final study cohort comprised 842,974 matched pairs of vaccinated/unvaccinated individuals (N=1,684,958). Data on individuals vaccinated or diagnosed with Covid-19 were collected from the Swedish Vaccination Register and SmiNet register, respectively, both of which are managed by the Public Health Agency of Sweden22 23. All health care providers in Sweden are obliged to report to these registers according to Swedish law, with a 100% coverage of the total population. We also formed a second cohort to be used in a forthcoming sensitivity analysis. This cohort was formed using less strict matching criteria to increase the size of the cohort. In this data set, each vaccinated individual was matched to the rest of the cohort on age only, with an allowance of a 5-year difference in age within each pair. This process was repeated 10 times and one unvaccinated individual could be paired with several vaccinated individuals. This resulted in a cohort of 1,983,315 pairs (N=3,966,630). Exposure, outcome, and baseline date for the analyses In the analyses, the exposure variables were vaccination status (vaccinated with 2 doses/unvaccinated). Vaccination status was defined according to each specific vaccine schedule, as well as a composite variable (any vaccine). There were two outcomes of the study. The first was symptomatic infection until 4 October, 2021 latest. In 94·4% of cases, This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 symptomatic infection was confirmed using polymerase chain reaction and in 4·8% by sequencing, according to the SmiNet registry23. The term “symptomatic” was defined on the basis that in Sweden, health authorities have urged citizens to take a test if they experience any symptoms of Covid-19. The second outcome was a composite endpoint of severe disease until 28 September 2021 latest, defined as inpatient hospitalization with Covid-19 as main diagnosis, or all-cause mortality within 30 days after confirmed infection. Hospitalized cases were collected from the Swedish National Inpatient Register using the International Classification of Disease (ICD, version 10) code U071 and Statistics Sweden provided data on mortality. All outcomes were collected from >14 days after baseline. Covariates From Statistics Sweden, we obtained information on whether individuals were born in Sweden or not, birth year, birth month, and sex for all individuals24. From Statistics Sweden, we also obtained individual-level data on highest education during year 2019. Individual-level data regarding diagnoses, prescription medications, country of birth, and homemaker service were obtained from national registries managed by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (www.socialstyrelsen.se). Homemaker services includes domestic services provided to individuals (primarily older individuals) who live at home but need help with shopping, cleaning, meal preparation, and similar tasks. Local governments are responsible for determining eligibility for these services. From the Swedish National Inpatient Register and National Outpatient Register for specialist care, diagnoses from 1998 and 2001 and later, respectively, were obtained, based on ICD-10 codes. Prescription medications from 2018 and later were obtained from the Prescribed Drug Register using Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical classification system codes. These three registers are complete for all specialist care and medications prescribed in Sweden for the years selected. The diagnoses and medications This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 selected as covariates for this study were based on the results from a previous nationwide study25. See Supplemental Table 1 for definitions. Statistical analysis Time-to-event for the outcomes (symptomatic infection/severe disease) based on vaccination status (vaccinated/unvaccinated) was illustrated using proportional hazards models with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and restricted cubic splines with four knots in default positions. To compare the risk of the outcomes based on the level of exposure (vaccinated/unvaccinated), Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR). To adjust for the matched samples, 95% CIs were estimated using robust standard errors by the VCE procedure and ROBUST option in Stata. To formally test whether the associations were time-dependent, Schoenfeld’s residuals were evaluated using estat phtest command (Stata software). Given that the test indicated that the proportional hazard assumption was violated (χ2 = 3184·25; P<0·001) in the main analyses, the associations were evaluated in time intervals. The first model was adjusted for age and baseline date (date of second dose of vaccine) to adjust for variations in infection pressure during follow-up. The second model included the additional covariates sex, homemaker service (yes/no), education (six categories), whether the individual was born in Sweden or not, and eight diagnoses at baseline (yes/no). The adjusted HR was used to calculate vaccine effectiveness using the following formula: vaccine effectiveness = (1- adjusted HR) x 100%. To investigate whether effectiveness was influenced by the covariates as listed in Table 1, interaction analyses were performed, using product terms created by multiplying the variable coding for vaccination status at baseline (vaccinated/unvaccinated) by each respective covariate, which were added to the fully adjusted Cox model. Given that the interaction terms were highly significant (P<0·001) for age, sex, homemaker service and all diagnoses at baseline except asthma, effectiveness was also estimated for subgroups This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 according to these covariates. Follow-up time in days was counted until date of confirmed outcome (symptomatic infection or severe Covid-19), date of first vaccination after baseline among unvaccinated individuals, death, or end of possible follow-up time (described earlier), whichever occurred first. All analyses were performed in SPSS v27·0 for Mac (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA), and Stata v16·1 for Mac (Statcorp, College Station, Texas, USA). A two-sided P-value <0·05 or HR with 95% CIs not crossing one were considered significant. Role of the funding source The present study was not funded. Results Study cohort Between 28 December 2020 and 4 October 2021, 842,974 individuals were fully vaccinated (2 doses), and were matched 1:1 to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals. Thus, the total study cohort comprised 842,974 pairs (N=1,684,958). The mean date for the second dose of vaccine in the vaccinated group according to each vaccine schedule are shown in Table 1. Outcomes were collected between 12 January to 4 October, 2021. Baseline characteristics for the study cohort are presented in Table 1. Compared to unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals more often had homemaker service, were more often born in Sweden, had more medical diagnoses, and had a higher level of education at baseline (P<0·001 for all, Table 1). Similar differences were evident when comparing different vaccines schedules. Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection During a mean (range) follow-up of 116 (15-280) days, a symptomatic infection was confirmed in a total of 27,918 individuals, of which 6,147 were vaccinated individuals This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 (incidence rate [IR], 4·9/100,000 person-days) and 21,771 were unvaccinated individuals (IR, 31·6/100,000 person-days). As shown in Figure 2 and Table 2, there was a progressive waning in vaccine effectiveness (2 doses of any vaccine) against symptomatic infection over time. Effectiveness peaked at day 15-30 (92%; 95% CI, 91-93, P<0·001) and declined marginally at day 31-60 (89%; 95% CI, 88-89, P<0·001). From thereon, the waning became more pronounced, and from day 211 days onwards, there was no remaining detectable effectiveness (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). Vaccine effectiveness was influenced significantly by type of vaccine, age, sex, home maker service and all diagnoses at baseline (Pinteraction <0·001 for all), but asthma (Pinteraction =0·86). At day 61-120, effectiveness declined to 50% (95% CI, 30-64, P<0·001) among individuals aged >80 years, and to 70% (95% CI, 59-79, P<0·001) among individuals with home maker service (Table 3). With respect to sex, there was no detectable effectiveness in men (17%; 95% CI, -13-40, P=0·23) from day 181 and onwards, whereas it remained in women (34%; 95% CI, 22-45, P<0·001). With respect to vaccine type, there was a waning in effectiveness for all vaccines during follow-up (Table 2). Effectiveness of BNT162b2 waned to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and no effectiveness was detected from day 211 and onwards (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). Waning was slightly slower for mRNA-1273, with a remaining effectiveness of 59% (95% CI, 18-79, P<0·001) after more than 180 days of follow up, and for heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 / mRNA schedules (66%; 95% CI, 41-80, P<0.001 from day 121 and onwards). In contrast, there was no detectable effectiveness for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 from day 121 and onwards (-19%; 95% CI, -97-28, P=0·49). Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and death This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 During a mean follow-up of 113 (15-274) days, there were 277 cases of Covid-19 hospitalization or death among vaccinated individuals (IR, 0·23/100,000 person-days) and 825 cases among unvaccinated individuals (IR, 1·21/100,000 person-days) (Supplemental Figure 1 and Supplemental Table 2). Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) was 89% at day 15- 30 (95% CI, 83-93, P<0·001), which declined to 74% (95% CI, 47-87, P<0·001) by day 121- 180, and from day 181 and onwards, there was no detectable associated effectiveness (42%; 95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21). In a sensitivity analysis, individuals >80 years old were excluded. In the remaining cohort, the effectiveness was 80% (95% CI, 41-93, P=0·003), from day 181 and onwards. If individuals with homemaker service were excluded, the effectiveness was 69% (95% CI, 2-91, P=0·04) from day 181 and onwards. In a sensitivity analysis, using less strict matching criteria, a second matched cohort (N=3,996,630) of more than twice the size of the original cohort was created. Mean age of vaccinated individuals was 5 years higher in this cohort with similar other characteristics as in the main cohort (Supplemental Table 3). In this cohort, the waning effectiveness was confirmed, both with respect to symptomatic infection (Supplemental Table 4) and severe disease (Supplemental Table 5). In addition, it was confirmed that effectiveness declined especially with respect to severe Covid-19 for older, frail individuals, in men and individuals with any comorbidity (Supplemental Table 5). Discussion This study showed a progressive waning in vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid- 19 through 9 months of follow-up. Following the peak during the first month after vaccination, effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 declined to about 30% and 60% respectively, after 6 months. From 7 months and onwards, no effectiveness of BNT162b2 This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 could be detected. The effectiveness waned across all subgroups although it was lower and waned more rapidly among men and older frail individuals, and for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Effectiveness against hospitalization and death was maintained through 9 months, although not in men, older frail individuals, and individuals with any comorbidity. Together, these findings strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a booster dose, where the parts of the population who are at high risk of severe illness and death should be prioritized. A main result from the present study is the waning vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection. We found that following the peak in the first month, the effectiveness after 4 months declined to 47% and 71% for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 respectively. From 7 months and onwards, an effectiveness of BNT162b2 could no longer be detected. These findings for the mRNA vaccines are similar to preliminary observational data from UK and to published observational data from US and Qatar18-20. In contrast, follow-up studies of clinical trials showed 84% efficacy of BNT162b2 after 4 months15, and >90% efficacy of mRNA- 1273 after >4 months16. In the present study, there was no remaining effectiveness for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 after 4 months, which is in contrast to the preliminary findings from UK20. The different estimates in these studies could be influenced by differences related to the populations included, varying follow-up time, the prevalence of risk factors that reduce the immune response to vaccination, the severity and definition of infections included as outcomes, variations in infection pressure during follow-up, and the fact that Delta variant has been more dominating in the real-world observational studies compared to in the clinical trials. This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 Another interesting finding from the present study was that vaccine effectiveness from heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 / mRNA schedules seemed to be better maintained than that from homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. While there is no other long-term follow- up of the effectiveness from heterologous vaccine schedules to support these findings, we recently found that heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 / mRNA schedules was associated with greater effectiveness against symptomatic infection compared with homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 during 2.5 months of follow-up26. In addition, earlier studies support superior vaccine-elicited immunogenicity from heterologous schedules27 28. In the present study, vaccine effectiveness against severe disease was better maintained, as illustrated by the 74% effectiveness against Covid-19 hospitalization or death at 4-6 months after vaccination in the total population. These findings are consistent with the results from the Qatar study showing an 89% effectiveness from 6 months and onwards in a relatively young population18, as well as preliminary data from UK20. Yet, it is of similar importance that our results, which were confirmed through sensitivity analyses, suggested a notable waning vaccine effectiveness against severe disease among older frail individuals and individuals with any comorbidity from 6 months through 9 months after vaccination. Although no previous study has had a follow-up time up as long as 9 months to support these results, these findings extend those from the UK, showing waning effectiveness against hospitalization among older adults in a clinically extremely vulnerable group after 5 months20. A reasonable explanation to waning effectiveness in older adults is that the vaccine induces a lower induction of memory T- and B-cells in older adults, and that production of plasma cells that could produce lower levels of antibody for decades is impaired29. In support, in the present study the overall most important risk factor for lower vaccine effectiveness was higher age, both for symptomatic infection and severe disease. Other risk factors included This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 individuals with homemaker service and underlying common medical conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, as well as male sex, where similar waning effectiveness against severe disease was noted. For example, from 6 months through 9 months after vaccination, the effectiveness against severe disease was a borderline significant 52% in men compared to a robust 73% in women. Although there has been no previous study reporting waning vaccine effectiveness according to sex, these findings are supported by studies showing a lower vaccine-elicited immune response along with a more rapid decline in neutralizing antibody titers in men compared to in women14 30. The results have important clinical implications, as they strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose, and especially to certain high-risk populations. Recent preliminary phase III data from Pfizer-BioNTech show that administration of a third booster dose of BNT162b2 administered a median of 11 months after the second dose, had 95·6% efficacy against symptomatic Covid-19 compared to those who had only received two primary doses, with consistent results irrespective of age, sex, and comorbidities31. In addition, data from an Israeli observational study showed that individuals who received a third dose of BNT162b2 had a reduced rate of infections and hospitalizations compared with individuals given two doses32. Currently, many countries such as UK, US, Canada, Israel, and Sweden are giving recommendations on a third booster dose to select populations at increased risk of severe Covid-19. The results of the present study, including waning effectiveness against symptomatic infection across all subgroups, support the administration of a third dose, although individuals manifesting with suboptimal or waning vaccine-elicited immunogenicity, including men, older frail individuals, and individuals with certain medical conditions, should be prioritized given that they also experience waning vaccine protection against severe Covid-19. This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 Other than the observational design, the present study has some limitations to consider. Although we adjusted our analyses for several potential confounders, the possibility of residual and unmeasured confounding remains. Moreover, although we excluded all individuals with a previous confirmed infection, it is likely that some individuals with a previous asymptomatic infection were still included. If these individuals belonged to the unvaccinated cohort, this could potentially mean that their natural immunity due to a previous infection attenuated the estimated vaccine effectiveness. In addition, the infection pressure during the major part of follow-up was rather low, which could also have attenuated the estimated vaccine effectiveness, as well as influenced the statistical power especially for the outcome of severe Covid-19. Yet, it should be noted that the vaccine effectiveness was time- dependent during follow-up, and the estimates for most of the different time periods was significantly different from each other based on the CIs. This study also has several important strengths. First, all results could be confirmed through sensitivity analyses in a second much larger cohort where less strict matching criteria were used. Second, the study cohort was based on the total population of Sweden, increasing the external validity of the findings. Third, the vaccinated individuals had received different types and combinations of vaccines, allowing us to investigate how this differentially affected the effectiveness and duration of vaccine protection. Fourth, the registries used to obtain data on Covid-19 cases, vaccinations, hospitalizations, and deaths, have a nationwide coverage, with zero loss to follow-up, reducing the risk of misclassification of unvaccinated individuals included in the analyzes. Using these registries, we were also able to obtain covariates which have previously been identified as risk factors for Covid-19 in the Swedish population25. Finally, a timely component of the study is that the results apply primarily to the Delta variant of the virus, according to sequencing analyses presented by the Public Health Agency of Sweden. This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 In summary, the results suggest a significant waning in vaccine protection against symptomatic Covid-19 infection across all subgroups, and a notable waning vaccine protection against severe illness in men, older frail individuals, and individuals with certain medical conditions. These findings may have implications for vaccination strategies and public health by strengthening the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose, where the priority should be certain high-risk populations who are at higher risk of severe consequences of Covid-19 due to weaker and more rapidly waning vaccine-elicited immunogenicity. Contributors Concept and design: PN, MB. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: PN, MB. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: PN. Data availability: All authors- Supervision: PN, AN- Declaration of interests None. Data availability statement The data files used for the present study is publicly unavailable according to regulations under Swedish law. However, all data used for the present study can be applied for from the This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410 National Board of Health and Welfare, Statistics Sweden, and the Public Health Agency of Sweden. References 1. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020;383(27):2603-15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 [published Online First: 2020/12/11] 2. Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2021;384(5):403-16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035389 [published Online First: 2020/12/31] 3. Voysey M, Clemens SAC, Madhi SA, et al. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet 2021;397(10269):99-111. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1 [published Online First: 2020/12/12] 4. Voysey M, Costa Clemens SA, Madhi SA, et al. Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials. Lancet 2021;397(10277):881-91. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00432-3 [published Online First: 2021/02/23] 5. Chemaitelly H, Yassine HM, Benslimane FM, et al. mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants and severe COVID-19 disease in Qatar. Nature Medicine 2021 doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01446-y 6. Lopez Bernal J, Andrews N, Gower C, et al. Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant. N Engl J Med 2021 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 [published Online First: 2021/07/22] 7. Haas EJ, Angulo FJ, McLaughlin JM, et al. Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: an observational study using national surveillance data. The Lancet 2021;397(10287):1819-29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00947-8 8. Chung H, He S, Nasreen S, et al. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 covid-19 vaccines against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe covid-19 outcomes in Ontario, Canada: test negative design study. BMJ 2021;374:n1943. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1943 [published Online First: 2021/08/22] 9. Keehner J, Horton LE, Binkin NJ, et al. Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Highly Vaccinated Health System Workforce. N Engl J Med 2021 doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2112981 [published Online First: 2021/09/02] 10. Shrotri M, Navaratnam AMD, Nguyen V, et al. Spike-antibody waning after second dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Lancet 2021;398(10298):385-87. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(21)01642-1 [published Online First: 2021/07/19] 11. Naaber P, Tserel L, Kangro K, et al. Dynamics of antibody response to BNT162b2 vaccine after six months: a longitudinal prospective study. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100208 This  preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#525992

Am Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:58:50 +0000 schrieb Frank Klingenhoefer
<frank.private@t-online.de> zum Thema "[TH] Booster fuer alle":

>Nach Helloween fällt die Altersgrenze für Booster-Impfungen.
>Zusätzlich wird die Wartezeit nach der zweiten Impfung auf 
>5 Monate verkürzt.

><https://www.tmasgff.de/medienservice/artikel/gesundheitsministerin-werner-booster-impfungen-werden-fuer-alle-ermoeglicht>

Interessant. Bin gespannt, ob Bayern nachzieht.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#526057

Juergen <schreibsklave@web.de> schrieb:

>> Nach Halloween fällt die Altersgrenze für Booster-Impfungen.
>> Zusätzlich wird die Wartezeit nach der zweiten Impfung auf 
>> 5 Monate verkürzt.

>><https://www.tmasgff.de/medienservice/artikel/gesundheitsministerin-werner-booster-impfungen-werden-fuer-alle-ermoeglicht>

> Interessant. Bin gespannt, ob Bayern nachzieht.

Von den Inzidenzen her wäre es nicht verkehrt. Die höchsten Inzidenzen
in Germanistan finden sich aktuell im weiß-blauen Freistaat. 

Aber erstmal feiern sie dort Halloween ("all hallowed eve(n)"). Der
folgende Tag ist dort ja Feiertag.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#526068

Am Fri, 29 Oct 2021 18:59:34 +0200 schrieb Martin Gerdes
<martin.gerdes@gmx.de> zum Thema "Re: [TH] Booster fuer alle":

>Juergen <schreibsklave@web.de> schrieb:
>
>>> Nach Halloween fällt die Altersgrenze für Booster-Impfungen.
>>> Zusätzlich wird die Wartezeit nach der zweiten Impfung auf 
>>> 5 Monate verkürzt.

>>><https://www.tmasgff.de/medienservice/artikel/gesundheitsministerin-werner-booster-impfungen-werden-fuer-alle-ermoeglicht>

>> Interessant. Bin gespannt, ob Bayern nachzieht.

>Von den Inzidenzen her wäre es nicht verkehrt. Die höchsten Inzidenzen
>in Germanistan finden sich aktuell im weiß-blauen Freistaat. 

Ich weiß. Zum Glück eher im Schatten der Alpen.

>Aber erstmal feiern sie dort Halloween ("all hallowed eve(n)"). Der
>folgende Tag ist dort ja Feiertag.

Da hat man Zeit, aufzuräumen und die Schäden provisorisch zu richten.

Aber MP Söder kratz schon mit den Hufen.
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/markus-soeder-wirbt-fuer-altersunabhaengige-corona-drittimpfung

Wer hat's erfunden?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#526070

Am 29.10.2021 um 19:28 schrieb Juergen:

> Aber MP Söder kratz schon mit den Hufen.
> https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/markus-soeder-wirbt-fuer-altersunabhaengige-corona-drittimpfung

Sag ich doch. Impfungen 1 und 2 sind jetzt nur noch die Grundierung, der
1. Anstrich ist dann die dritte Impfung.

-- 
Stephan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#526158

Am 29.10.2021 um 21:28 schrieb Juergen:
> Am Fri, 29 Oct 2021 19:34:13 +0200 schrieb Stephan Bumberger
>> Sag ich doch. Impfungen 1 und 2 sind jetzt nur noch die Grundierung, der
>> 1. Anstrich ist dann die dritte Impfung.
> 
> Ich sehe es mal als Taktik - Irgendwo muss der Impfstoff wohl hin...

Den Blödsinn wieder. Ginge es darum, könnte man das Zeug auch einfach in 
die Gosse kippen und sich so den Aufriß mit der Impferei sparen.

> Derzeit dürfen nicht  alle die das wollen den Booster haben,

In TH schon.

> dafür
> wollen ihn nicht alle die nach den Vorstellungen von Politikern und
> Virulogen kriegen sollen.

Dann wollen sie eben nicht. Und?

Gewöhnt euch endlich mal ab, ständig auf "die (implizit bösen) Anderen" 
zu gucken. Kümmert euch um euren eigenen Scheiß.

-- 
هرگز گربه خود را مجبور به معاشرت با انسان‌ها، سگ‌ها یا سایر گربه‌ها نکنید

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#526376

Am 29.10.21 um 12:58 schrieb Frank Klingenhoefer:
[THL]
> Nach Helloween fällt die Altersgrenze für Booster-Impfungen.
> Zusätzlich wird die Wartezeit nach der zweiten Impfung auf 
> 5 Monate verkürzt.

Man muss kein Orakel sein - das Problem sind Leute, die
die Augen vor der Realität verschließen. Nicht wenige auch
hier, Doktoren nicht ausgenommen.

Die USA und Israel impfen wie die Wilden die 3. Impfung,
wegen dieser Staaten wird man eine Verschwörung wohl aus-
schließen können - die vernichten sich nicht selbst.

Wir hingegen tun so, als ob das (nur) ein Problem der
Ungeimpften sei. Ich sage es ja immer: Die Leute kennen
nur 0 und 1, nur ja und nein. Prozentrechnung, gar Wahr-
scheinlichkeitsrechnung ist nicht deren Ding.

Natürlich spielen auch Geimpfte eine Rolle - man weiß ja
vorher nicht, wen davon es betreffen wird.

Derzeit kaspern wir mit "brauchen wir nicht", "nur ab 70",
"ab 60 theoretisch" rum - gleichzeitig beginnen die
Zahlen durch die Decke zu schließen. Und damit entsteht
auch Druck aus der Bevölkerung: Konstant 2/3 der Bevölkerung
finden die Maßnahmen richtig oder zu schwach. Das sind zudem
die 2/3, die sich vollständig impfen ließen, wir haben nicht
noch irgendwo ganz andere 2/3 versteckt.

Die Vorhersage ist einfach:
Der Druck der Bevölkerung auf die 3. Impfung wird riesig
werden[¹]. Darauf sind wir "perfekt" vorbereitet: Wir haben
die Impfzentren nicht nur geschlossen, wir haben sie abgebaut.

Unterstellen wir einfach mal, dass 80% der Geimpften die
3. Dosis fordern - dann sind wir bei - rechnet selbst. Man
kann auch andersrum rechnen: Faktisch die zahlenmäßig gleichen
Leute wollen in gleichem zeitlichen Abstand (6 Monate) die
dritte Impfung. Jeden Tag, jeden Tag die gleiche Anzahl an
Impflingen wie vor 6 Monaten. Eher noch mehr, da sind ja
noch die, die schön mehr als 6 Monate rum haben.

Ich schließe eine Wette ab: In drei Wochen staunen alle:
Oh, wir würden Impfzentren brauchen, wo bekommen wir die
denn her? Die Politik staunt noch mehr: Wegen der Aufhebung
der pandemischen Lage schüttet der Bund das Füllhorn der
Euro nicht mehr aus.

Nein Joachim. Die Hausärzte sind nicht die Rettung. Das
würden die rein von den Zahlen her nicht schaffen. Und vor
allem kaspern da nicht zu wenige mit "aber ich höre nur auf
diese Einschätzung" oder gar "ich impfe nicht" rum. Da wirst
Du dann staunen: Ich staunte schon vorab.

Da 14 Tage Hochsommer im November nicht zu erwarten sind,
sage ich: Alles so vorhersehbar.

[¹] Es ist das persönliche Erleben. Wenn genügend Leute
jemand kennen, der trotz 2. Impfung erkrankt, dreht sich
das Rad. Es dreht sich aus folgendem Grund: Die Erkrankten
(Vollgeimpften) entwickeln Angst, richtig Angst. Und daran
lassen sie ihr Umfeld auch teilhaben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527049

Ingrid macht tofu:

THL hat nun die Drittimpfung für alle Altersgruppen frei-
gegeben. Das wird aus meiner Sicht nur begrenzt helfen:
Dafür bräuchte es die Hausärzte, die sich aber auf die
Empfehlungen der StiKo zurückziehen ... wenn sie nicht
gleich die Impfung komplett ablehnen.

MV als ehemaliger Musterschüler sieht erschreckt, dass sie
Zahlen haben, die für ihre Verhältnisse dramatisch sind: Der
dortige Gesundheitsminister kündigte an, dass MV die Impf-
zentren wieder hochfahren wird, egal ob der Bund das bezahlt.

Ich deucht, dass sich da noch viel mehr tun wird.


Am 01.11.21 um 02:32 schrieb Martin Ebert:
> Am 29.10.21 um 12:58 schrieb Frank Klingenhoefer:
> [THL]
>> Nach Helloween fällt die Altersgrenze für Booster-Impfungen.
>> Zusätzlich wird die Wartezeit nach der zweiten Impfung auf 
>> 5 Monate verkürzt.
> 
> Man muss kein Orakel sein - das Problem sind Leute, die
> die Augen vor der Realität verschließen. Nicht wenige auch
> hier, Doktoren nicht ausgenommen.
> 
> Die USA und Israel impfen wie die Wilden die 3. Impfung,
> wegen dieser Staaten wird man eine Verschwörung wohl aus-
> schließen können - die vernichten sich nicht selbst.
> 
> Wir hingegen tun so, als ob das (nur) ein Problem der
> Ungeimpften sei. Ich sage es ja immer: Die Leute kennen
> nur 0 und 1, nur ja und nein. Prozentrechnung, gar Wahr-
> scheinlichkeitsrechnung ist nicht deren Ding.
> 
> Natürlich spielen auch Geimpfte eine Rolle - man weiß ja
> vorher nicht, wen davon es betreffen wird.
> 
> Derzeit kaspern wir mit "brauchen wir nicht", "nur ab 70",
> "ab 60 theoretisch" rum - gleichzeitig beginnen die
> Zahlen durch die Decke zu schließen. Und damit entsteht
> auch Druck aus der Bevölkerung: Konstant 2/3 der Bevölkerung
> finden die Maßnahmen richtig oder zu schwach. Das sind zudem
> die 2/3, die sich vollständig impfen ließen, wir haben nicht
> noch irgendwo ganz andere 2/3 versteckt.
> 
> Die Vorhersage ist einfach:
> Der Druck der Bevölkerung auf die 3. Impfung wird riesig
> werden[¹]. Darauf sind wir "perfekt" vorbereitet: Wir haben
> die Impfzentren nicht nur geschlossen, wir haben sie abgebaut.
> 
> Unterstellen wir einfach mal, dass 80% der Geimpften die
> 3. Dosis fordern - dann sind wir bei - rechnet selbst. Man
> kann auch andersrum rechnen: Faktisch die zahlenmäßig gleichen
> Leute wollen in gleichem zeitlichen Abstand (6 Monate) die
> dritte Impfung. Jeden Tag, jeden Tag die gleiche Anzahl an
> Impflingen wie vor 6 Monaten. Eher noch mehr, da sind ja
> noch die, die schön mehr als 6 Monate rum haben.
> 
> Ich schließe eine Wette ab: In drei Wochen staunen alle:
> Oh, wir würden Impfzentren brauchen, wo bekommen wir die
> denn her? Die Politik staunt noch mehr: Wegen der Aufhebung
> der pandemischen Lage schüttet der Bund das Füllhorn der
> Euro nicht mehr aus.
> 
> Nein Joachim. Die Hausärzte sind nicht die Rettung. Das
> würden die rein von den Zahlen her nicht schaffen. Und vor
> allem kaspern da nicht zu wenige mit "aber ich höre nur auf
> diese Einschätzung" oder gar "ich impfe nicht" rum. Da wirst
> Du dann staunen: Ich staunte schon vorab.
> 
> Da 14 Tage Hochsommer im November nicht zu erwarten sind,
> sage ich: Alles so vorhersehbar.
> 
> [¹] Es ist das persönliche Erleben. Wenn genügend Leute
> jemand kennen, der trotz 2. Impfung erkrankt, dreht sich
> das Rad. Es dreht sich aus folgendem Grund: Die Erkrankten
> (Vollgeimpften) entwickeln Angst, richtig Angst. Und daran
> lassen sie ihr Umfeld auch teilhaben.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527871

*Frank Klingenhoefer* schrieb:

> Nach Helloween fällt die Altersgrenze für Booster-Impfungen.
> Zusätzlich wird die Wartezeit nach der zweiten Impfung auf
> 5 Monate verkürzt.
>
> <https://www.tmasgff.de/medienservice/artikel/gesundheitsministerin-werner-booster-impfungen-werden-fuer-alle-ermoeglicht>

Ganz so einfach ist es nun zumindest in NRW nicht geworden. Auch mein
Hausarzt impft nun doch nur strickt nach StiKo-Empfehlung 70+.
Darum habe ich bei https://www.coronaimpfung.nrw/ mal nachgesehen, was
in unserem Impfzentrum so geht. Da gab es aber keine Terminvereinbarung
mehr und auch keinen Hinweis auf willkommene Impflinge, aber eine lange
Liste mit Doktores im Kreis, die impfen.

Die habe ich (fast) alle ins BCC einer Mail gesetzt, mit der Bitte zu
antworten, wenn sie mich impfen wollen.

Nach zwei Stunden hatte ich zwei Zusagen, eine davon gleich mit
Terminzusage am gewünschten Tag.

Ein wenig Eigeninitiative...
-- 
bis denne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#528095

*Ruediger* INGRID *Lahl* schrieb:

> *Frank Klingenhoefer* schrieb:
>> <https://www.tmasgff.de/medienservice/artikel/gesundheitsministerin-werner-booster-impfungen-werden-fuer-alle-ermoeglicht>
>
> Ganz so einfach ist es nun zumindest in NRW nicht geworden. Auch mein
> Hausarzt impft nun doch nur strickt nach StiKo-Empfehlung 70+.
> Darum habe ich bei https://www.coronaimpfung.nrw/ mal nachgesehen, was
> in unserem Impfzentrum so geht. Da gab es aber keine Terminvereinbarung
> mehr und auch keinen Hinweis auf willkommene Impflinge, aber eine lange
> Liste mit Doktores im Kreis, die impfen.
>
> Die habe ich (fast) alle ins BCC einer Mail gesetzt, mit der Bitte zu
> antworten, wenn sie mich impfen wollen.
>
> Nach zwei Stunden hatte ich zwei Zusagen, eine davon gleich mit
> Terminzusage am gewünschten Tag.
>
> Ein wenig Eigeninitiative...

...etwa 30 Praxen habe ich angeschrieben, wovon mir mittlerweile etwa 10
eine dritte Impfung angeboten haben. Gut, ich gehöre bei meinem Alter
noch zu den 'early birds', aber wenn der eigene Hausarzt die Injektion
noch ablehnt, findet sich leicht ein anderer, der es schon macht.

Meine 3. Injektion bekomme ich von einem Urologen. Womit sich zeigt,
dass die Suche bei Fachärzten ohne Stammpublikum lohnender ist, als bei
Hausärzten. So bin ich auch zur 1. und 2. gekommen.

Rued- bei Frauen- und Kinderärzten habe ich nicht nachgefragt- iger
-- 
bis denne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | ger.ct

csiph-web