There are different types of immunosuppression. The immune system is complex, with many different pathways and activities. An immunosuppressive drug may decrease one system, but not change others.
For example, infliximab (often used for autoimmune disorders) interrupts the cytokine system, but might not change the creation of antibodies in response to an antigen. However, something like azathioprine (used for organ transplants, MS, and more) is a more general immune suppressant, which may decrease the production of antibodies. (I’m not an immunologist, so apologies if I have the details wrong.)
So, it is extremely important that anybody with a suppressed immune system talk to their doctor, and follow recommendations regarding vaccines. As far as I know, the recommendation right now is to vaccinate early and often. A suppressed immune system might greatly benefit from the head start in fighting a pathogen gained by a vaccine.
Well, yes and no. For someone who genuinely has no immune system at all, no, vaccinating them won’t help. But that’s not usually what “immunocompromised” means: Usually, it means that the person has an immune system, but that it’s weaker than that of a normal person. For such a person, a vaccine can still help.
But yeah, the best protection for such people is the actions of others.
Yeah, you do need to take more care in some circumstances. A close friend of mine is HIV+. With modern medicine, his life is almost like it would be without the virus, but I still call him up and let him know if I have a “minor cold”, when we’re planning on getting together, and sometimes that does mean rescheduling a visit. Because what’s a “minor cold” for me might be much worse for him.
The economist did a follow-up of which vaccines saved the most lives. AstraZeneca and Pfizer were a statistical dead heat, and a distant third and fourth were Sinovac and Moderna.
IMO the Economist piece was a mostly legit exercise in applied statistics, but as journalism it ended up answering questions nobody was asking in a way that all but invites gross misinterpretation. And I’m generally a fan of the Economist.
The Economist is not infallible. The statistics approach is reasonable. Given incentives many countries have to misrepresent numbers and tests it is hard to see many meaningful alternatives.
However, people who have no desire or ability to properly interpret the science may misinterpret it. I am shocked! Shocked to find out gambling is going on in this fine establishment! Shocked that people with no interest at all in the data would nevertheless use it to bolster an incorrect or indefensible viewpoint.
It is reasonable to estimate the efficacy of vaccines including by lives saved if one accepts the large uncertainty in this. Questions no one is asking? Then how to prepare for the next one? Somebody needs to ask these questions.
Ultimately they took the expected efficacy of each one, multiplied by the number of doses at various points in the pandemic vs the ill count at that time, and came up with lives saved. A logical enough procedure.
If the message of the article is “The data shows that mass vaccination with effective vaccines early saves more lives than waiting, or using less effective vaccines, or vaccinating fewer people, or worse yet screwing up all 3”, then the message would have been clear, unequivocal, difficult to misinterpret, and ultimately helpful.
But the headline that “Pfizer saved 3x what Moderna did” when dose for dose the results are all but indistinguishable is unhelpful. Not because it is/was false as such interpreted narrowly, but because it’s irrelevant. Irrelevant to each of us as individuals deciding which vaccine booster to get next week, and irrelevant to public health agencies deciding what to do about whatever’s next after Omicron BA.5.
If indeed Pfizer now has 10x (or 2x) the manufacturing capability, whether from bigger factories or from an easier or more advanced factory process, now THAT would certainly be decision making info for public health folks. And for the public at large. But how well they ramped up in early 2021 says nothing about that.
A more detailed breakdown of their statistical process would have included some other tables that deliver these more useful messages. But by sticking with a single infographic, they dropped the opportunity to say something important to an audience that probably has more decision makers in it per capita than many others.
IMO a missed opportunity. Quite uncharacteristic of them.
The article I posted originally does not mention any companies at all. It just talks about vaccines in general terms. However, there is a separate article that breaks down lives saved by company, and a graphic is shown for this separate article which is in a list following the original article.
I agree this second graphic and article is fairly unhelpful. After all, it was not known which research would prove effective and so the Economist advised governments to hedge their bets and support many efforts on the understanding not all bets would pay off. So I agree with your point, but it was not made in the original article. It was made, however, to little public benefit.
Well played.