Over all first tests performed on days 5-10, boosted HCW were nearly twice as likely to test RAT positive: 53% (75 out of 141) of boosted HCW tested positive.
So, even though the nejm pretty-typeset version was just posted, this is the same trial as already published and which was mined for the data in the FDA's analysis showing the rebound. Supposedly all subjects were unvaccinated: "Key exclusion criteria were previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or hospitalization for Covid-19, anticipated need for hospitalization within 48 hours after randomization, and prior receipt of convalescent Covid-19 plasma or SARS-CoV-2 vaccine."
The assay for seropositivity included IgM as well as N-protein*, so the seropositive were already showing an early-immune response to the infection. This is one of the interesting results I mean to highlight in my follow-up - essentially, early antibody response = fighting the infection just fine, without much need for Paxlovid. However, there's limits to this as "early" might actually mean "later" depending if the seropositive were recruited in the >3 days post-onset set. It's very very difficult to sort out the biases in the trial results without any raw data. Obviously that's the whole point.
*See Supplemental Appendix, p 10 "Two assays were utilized for serology testing. The first assay is designed to detect host immunoglobulins against the viral spike (S) protein. Elecsys® Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 S. It is an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay intended for qualitative and quantitative detection of immunoglobulin (Ig) G, IgA, and IgM antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein receptor binding domain (RBD). [...] The second assay is designed to detect host IgG and IgM against the viral nucleocapsid protein (N).
“Any study that has vaccinated and unvaccinated people in control groups is a great source to fish for vaccine effectiveness information.”
Thus the reason they wanted FORCEVAX mandates to inject EVERYONE to eliminate this control group.
Also please have a look at this recent pre-print.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.01.22269931v1
Over all first tests performed on days 5-10, boosted HCW were nearly twice as likely to test RAT positive: 53% (75 out of 141) of boosted HCW tested positive.
So, even though the nejm pretty-typeset version was just posted, this is the same trial as already published and which was mined for the data in the FDA's analysis showing the rebound. Supposedly all subjects were unvaccinated: "Key exclusion criteria were previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or hospitalization for Covid-19, anticipated need for hospitalization within 48 hours after randomization, and prior receipt of convalescent Covid-19 plasma or SARS-CoV-2 vaccine."
The assay for seropositivity included IgM as well as N-protein*, so the seropositive were already showing an early-immune response to the infection. This is one of the interesting results I mean to highlight in my follow-up - essentially, early antibody response = fighting the infection just fine, without much need for Paxlovid. However, there's limits to this as "early" might actually mean "later" depending if the seropositive were recruited in the >3 days post-onset set. It's very very difficult to sort out the biases in the trial results without any raw data. Obviously that's the whole point.
*See Supplemental Appendix, p 10 "Two assays were utilized for serology testing. The first assay is designed to detect host immunoglobulins against the viral spike (S) protein. Elecsys® Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 S. It is an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay intended for qualitative and quantitative detection of immunoglobulin (Ig) G, IgA, and IgM antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein receptor binding domain (RBD). [...] The second assay is designed to detect host IgG and IgM against the viral nucleocapsid protein (N).
In the graphs you show (from study Appendix page 17) the values you wish you had actually appear under the graph so you do not need to use calipers!