On this episode, a discussion of why modifying the dose schedule of the mRNA vaccines in the US is not a good idea, evidence that lower Ct values on hospital admission is associated with higher mortality, and dose-dependent response to SARS-CoV-2 infection of ferrets.
Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Rich Condit, Kathy Spindler, and Brianne Barker
Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 703 (75 MB .mp3, 125 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email
Become a patron of TWiV!
Links for this episode
- BSL-3 Assistant Manager position 1:49
- Follow authorized vaccine dosing schedule (FDA) 12:28
- Mina suggests one vaccine dose (NY Times) 13:57
- UK decision document on vaccine dose (pdf) 19:30
- Ct linked to COVID-19 mortality (Open Forum Inf Dis) 43:51
- Dose-dependent infection of ferrets (Nat Comm) 58:50
- Letters read on TWiV 703 1:19:08
- Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks!
Weekly Picks 1:54:00
Brianne – Linsey Marr on masks
Kathy – Striped Martian Sand Dunes and
Rich – How Microwaving Grapes Makes Plasma
Vincent – Musings of an anonymous, pissed off virologist
Listener Pick
Laura – Auld Lang Syne follow-up
Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees
Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv
shi zhengli’s boss says SARSCoV2 is an american creation…. (!)
One of your letter-writers here (TWIV#703) asked if there was any evidence that a good night’s sleep promotes a good vaccination, and the answer seems to be ‘yes’. A study published last year showed that the 2 nights before you get your vaccine would be the most important. If you can have a nice long duration sleep on those 2 nights, you will have a good antibody response. But if you only have short duration sleep on those 2 nights, it could affect your antibody levels for up to 4 months or more. The authors refer to a few other studies similar similar correlations between sleep and immune responses.
Of course you can criticize this paper, and of course, it is just one measure, that it might be different with a different vaccine and so on, but there is a strong suggestion here of a natural correlation that makes sense in a fundamental way.
Anyway, this would make a great Public Health Announcement (are there such things anymore?): Get a good night’s sleep! Get two !
See: Prather etal (2020) International Journal of Behavioral Medicine “Temporal Links Between Self-Reported Sleep and Antibody Responses to the Influenza Vaccine” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32236831/
Thanks for all your hard work putting these podcasts together.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-uk-chief-medical-officers-on-the-prioritisation-of-first-doses-of-covid-19-vaccines
I believe you erred in saying that authorities recommended only one vaccine dose to allow wider distribution. You argued against a proposal that did not exist. Above is a link that states the official British recommendation. They in fact recommend 2 doses but spread to 12 weeks consistent with data they examined. This allows wider distribution of the first dose which they say offers significant protection from the data they examined.
2nd You focus on protection from infection. In discussions I have heard they found from their data that there were NO serious infections requiring hospitalization acter the first dose in the 12 week interval. I believe this is a far better measure than some mild infections.
Sorry, I understand so little of what is discussed, but… I think there is an error in the short description of this TWIV episode that says “evidence that higher Ct values on hospital admission is associated with higher mortality”, when the transcript description and my little understanding of listening to TWIV for 6 months is the opposite. The transcript description and the linked study says “lower CT values” (not higher) are associated with mortality.
Since I found this episode while searching Google for understanding CT values and it appears on page 1 of google, I thought you might want to fix the description of the episode so as not to confuse… despite having the right information in the transcript notes and the linked study.
Love the podcast and have learned so much! (Hopefully I’m wrong with the above, but I don’t see how.) Sorry in advance if I’m mistaken. I admit to not having any science background.
In the brief description of Episode 703 on your Youtube channel it says that HIGH CT values = higher mortality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV8QZ0IiLhs
In the longer description when you select transcripts it says LOWER CT values = higher mortality. I believe the correct description to be LOWER not HIGHER CT values = higher mortality.
Since I found this episode while searching Google for understanding CT values and it appears on page 1 of Google, I thought you might want to fix the description of the episode on Youtube so as not to confuse… the correct information is in the transcript notes and the linked study.
Love the podcast and have learned so much! (Hopefully I’m wrong with the above, but I don’t see how.) Sorry in advance if I’m mistaken. I admit to not having any science background.
I appreciate that you used risks as an argument, but “there’s a risk” is no useful statement – there’s a risk for almost everything in almost any behavior.
You need to evaluate the amount of risk to compare it to risks from other actions.
E.g. I could explain my daughter: I’m sorry that you lost all your jobs and can’t finish your degree, face an increased risk of Grand Mals and suffer from chronic allergies due to measures, which are supposed to decrease my personal risk of dieing this year by maybe 1 percent of it’s base value.
But your risk for poverty is probably less than 10% and it would only cost you about 5 years of life expectancy. and we can’t but any numbers on the other factors.
And it doesn’t matter that I also skip on oncological prophlaxis which might increase my yearly risk of dying be up to 50% in the coming years..
Riskmanagement ist always about mitigating and trading risks.; outright avoidance of a risk is seldom possible.
I’m impressed by Brianne Barker’s trust in the system and processes, but seriously, when billions in profit are on the line, I trust no company and no politican further than I can throw them – and in the case of the companies I’m thinking of their HQ building.
On a related note: our minister of health (an accountant by training and pharma lobbyist by passion) got himself and his partner a small castle during the pandemic; so my lack of trust may be a bit influenced by this scandal.