Maps, science, data & statistics tracking of COVID-19

[Space Lynx]

Generally speaking, our DNA doesn't want to be changed. It does get changed over time (see cancer), but the entire design of DNA is to make it difficult to change. And even then, our immune system is constantly checking on our own cells (and killing cells that have too much DNA damage). This part of our immune system is called "natural killer cells", and they also roam around looking for cells taken over by a virus.

The things that do manage to change our DNA are called carcinogens. There's plenty of them: Smoking, various drugs, Asbestos, UV rays from the sun (UV-A, UV-B), etc. etc. The environment we live in has a large number of carcinogens, but our body still fights off cancer in most cases. (I'm not saying you should start making you next house out of Asbestos or anything, but yeah, our bodies do have some natural defenses against cancer)

DNA doesn't sit in one central place. Every cell in our body has its own copy of DNA relevant for the work it does. To really damage the body, you need to create a cancer, a large enough change to DNA to so many cells such that those cells consume resources and multiply exponentially. If you do "simple everyday DNA damage", our immune system will selectively kill those damaged cells before they take over our body.

The difference with that and end-stage cancer cells is that end-stage cancer cells have reproduced so much that our body's immune system has no hope of killing off the cancer cells anymore. When cancer gets to this point, we hope that we can just go in with a scalpel (or radiation) and have the doctor kill off the cancer through brute force, but that only works if the cancer remains isolated in one spot. If the cancer cells / DNA damage overtakes the body, then there's not much we can do at that point.

I appreciate that post, but again it has nothing to do with new mRNA tech question I asked specifically about. xkm is more the expert in this field, so I am waiting for his response.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I appreciate that post, but again it has nothing to do with new mRNA tech question I asked specifically about. xkm is more the expert in this field, so I am waiting for his response.

My overall point is that on an absolute scale, a lot of things (ex: bananas) could cause "DNA damage" (radiation coming off of the potassium). Its just that our bodies can fight off these low-levels of radiation without issue.

So the real question should be: does XYZ cause enough damage such that it overwhelms our body ? (aka: causes an appreciable and measurable increase in risk)

---------

In any case, the mRNA itself probably can't change DNA. I'd be more worried about like, every other ingredient and the rest of the supply chain (there's a lot of things that go into the vaccine), but that's why we have tests, regulations, and tightly controlled supply chains.

 

[Space Lynx]

My overall point is that on an absolute scale, a lot of things (ex: bananas) could cause "DNA damage" (radiation coming off of the potassium). Its just that our bodies can fight off these low-levels of radiation without issue.

So the real question should be: does XYZ cause enough damage such that it overwhelms our body ? (aka: causes an appreciable and measurable increase in risk)

---------

In any case, the mRNA itself probably can't change DNA. I'd be more worried about like, every other ingredient and the rest of the supply chain (there's a lot of things that go into the vaccine), but that's why we have tests, regulations, and tightly controlled supply chains.

My ancestors have been eating bananas for 5 million years. Everything is fine. You have been injecting mRNA into people for ten years, small handful of studies over that ten years, until now large scale rollout). You can't compare apples to oranges, I get your point, but I disagree with it.

"probably can't change DNA" you went from mRNA can't change DNA, to probably... that's what the CDC does when it adds warning labels for myocardia 6 months after release, while simultaneously saying the previous 6 months "no vaccine in history shows symptoms after its first few months, that's how we know it's safe"

Look, I got my first shot of Pfizer, I plan to get my second shot. Just saying... be careful with your logic and wording sometimes.

 

[dragontamer5788]

"probably can't change DNA" you went from mRNA can't change DNA, to probably...

mRNA is the literal "instruction set", the "assembly code" so to speak of our cells. It is used to create the specific proteins and structures in our body.

"Can mRNA in general, change DNA?" Well, probably it can. But "can the mRNA COVID19 vaccines, change DNA ??" Well, no, the mRNA formulations and protein structures they make are NOT going to change your DNA.

Given what we know about the "code" that Pfizer / Moderna made for its vaccines, we know that they're not designed to change the DNA of your body. If that's your specific question. A future mRNA technology might try to do that (I don't know why they'd try, but in the abstract, mRNA technology seems to be able to cause our cells to do all sorts of crazy things that we want). You're asking very different questions this time than the last time.

---------

The two mRNA vaccine (from Pfizer and Moderna) are just the starting point. They're talking about all sorts of weird applications of this technology: such as building nanomachines and other microstructures. I can't assure you the safety of all the future applications of mRNA. There will probably be a crazy scientist who will do something stupid and dangerous. But given what I know about the mRNA vaccines made last year for COVID19: they're conservative and relatively simple designs.

The "design" of the mRNA vaccines (both for Pfizer and Moderna's formulas) is to enter our body, create fake COVID19 spike proteins, and then disappear. A very simple "code" or "instructions" for our body to follow. Because the vaccine disappears within just a few days after each injection, it seems very unlikely that it'd be able to cause any long-term effects beyond 6-months.

 

[Space Lynx]

mRNA is the literal "instruction set", the "assembly code" so to speak of our cells. It is used to create the specific proteins and structures in our body.

"Can mRNA in general, change DNA?" Well, probably it can. But "can the mRNA COVID19 vaccines, change DNA ??" Well, no, the mRNA formulations and protein structures they make are NOT going to change your DNA.

Given what we know about the "code" that Pfizer / Moderna made for its vaccines, we know that they're not designed to change the DNA of your body. If that's your specific question. A future mRNA technology might try to do that (I don't know why they'd try, but in the abstract, mRNA technology seems to be able to cause our cells to do all sorts of crazy things that we want). You're asking very different questions this time than the last time.

---------

The two mRNA vaccine (from Pfizer and Moderna) are just the starting point. They're talking about all sorts of weird applications of this technology: such as building nanomachines and other microstructures. I can't assure you the safety of all the future applications of mRNA. There will probably be a crazy scientist who will do something stupid and dangerous. But given what I know about the mRNA vaccines made last year for COVID19: they're conservative and relatively simple designs.

The "design" of the mRNA vaccines (both for Pfizer and Moderna's formulas) is to enter our body, create fake COVID19 spike proteins, and then disappear. A very simple "code" or "instructions" for our body to follow.

I'm not asking a different question at all. My question to xkm is still the same. Can other variables from medicines to food, taken at the same time of the current mRNA vaccines, penetrate human DNA in unexpected ways.

You are the one taking my questions out of context.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I'm not asking a different question at all. My question to xkm is still the same. Can other variables from medicines to food, taken at the same time of the current mRNA vaccines, penetrate human DNA in unexpected ways.

You are the one taking my questions out of context.

My answer to that remains the same.

The mRNA wouldn't be doing the DNA damage, if that's your concern. But there's plenty of other stuff in that vaccine aside from mRNA, and from what I know about weird medical shit is that crazy things combine in weird ways... and carcinogens are super common.

I very well could imagine some knock on effects having the same amount of "DNA-damage" as your typical banana. That's why I'm talking about bananas earlier. Hell, the burned part from your summer barbeque is probably doing "DNA-damage" in the abstract. The 2nd hand smoke from your friend's cigar is absolutely causing "DNA-damage". So you're going to have to be more specific about what "level" of DNA damage is concerning to you.

---------

In any case, its a Russet's Teapot scenario. No such damage has been measured yet, and given how the mRNA vaccines operate, it seems highly unlikely that it can effect us over the long term. We have an absence of evidence, and that's probably the best we're going to get on this discussion.

 

[HTC]

I ran the calculations in the other thread. Given the efficacy of the vaccines and the transmission rate of Delta, we need 104% of the population (or more) vaccinated for herd immunity to kick in vs Delta. So herd immunity isn't really possible anymore.

Nonetheless, Delta will spread faster in unvaccinated regions and risk overwhelming hospitals. The job now is to vaccinate to reduce the hospitalizations / deaths (90% reduction in hospitalization, 98% reduction in deaths in the vaccinated pool of people)... and probably wait for the booster shots that could bring us back towards herd immunity.

I saw your other post about this and something doesn't seem right: measles R number is much higher than even Delta COVID but it's vaccine works wonderfully, so how did you arrive @ that 104% population number?

 

[dragontamer5788]

I saw your other post about this and something doesn't seem right: measles R number is much higher than even Delta COVID but it's vaccine works wonderfully, so how did you arrive @ that 104% population number?

I assumed that the vaccine is only 80% effective at preventing transmission. I pulled that number out of my ass by the way, but in the absence of better data, pulling numbers out of my ass is better than nothing. If anyone has a better estimate for how many transmissions the vaccines prevent, I'm all ears.

Assuming 80% transmission efficacy and an R0 of 6, we end up with 104% needing to be vaccinated. (Aka: 104% * .8 == 83% protection. 1/(1-83%) == 6.).

If the vaccine is worse than 80% effective (and I believe it is, unfortunately), that only pushes the number beyond 104% and even higher. Further proving my point that herd immunity is likely not available with today's vaccines with today's variant (Delta). I recall seeing numbers in the 60%-range from some studies. Delta definitely reduced the efficacy of vaccines.

Note: R0 of 6 is on the low end of Delta's estimated R0. It could be anywhere from 6 to 10 based off of current estimates. So herd immunity is well into the realm of impossible. Redoing the numbers with R0 of 10 and 60% efficacy means we need to vaccinate 150% of the population. But that doesn't change much does it? 150% and 104% are both impossible numbers to hit.

-----------

There's 3 measurements of vaccine efficacy:

* Transmission efficacy -- Prevention of the virus from propagating across the public

* Hospitalization efficacy -- Prevention of hospitalizations

* Death efficacy -- Prevention of death

For COVID19 and Alpha, all 3 of these were good numbers. But for Delta, transmission efficacy was hampered severely (but hospitalization efficacy / death efficacy are still very good). This means that, under our current set of tools, Delta-variant will spread throughout the whole population, even the vaccinated portions of our population. The mission has therefore changed, we're aiming at stopping hospitalizations and deaths now.

EDIT: Measles's vaccine is much more effective than COVID19's vaccine in regards to transmission... because the Delta variant has changed the efficacy numbers.

 

[Xzibit]

I assumed that the vaccine is only 80% effective at preventing transmission. I pulled that number out of my ass by the way, but in the absence of better data, pulling numbers out of my ass is better than nothing. If anyone has a better estimate for how many transmissions the vaccines prevent, I'm all ears.

Thats the part i'm laughing at.
-
Vaccine efficacy in the trial was on cases split.
-
Just to add its difficult also due to there being almost no information on their behavior outside of getting periodic checks. Did they go about their usual business or did they isolate. The exposure potential would be a significant thing.

The drop offs that are being measure now would never have been observed in the phase 3 trial time period of 2months after the 2nd dose end point.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Thats the part i'm laughing at.

I realize I was editing my post up there a lot, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt there.

I initially wanted to keep it short though, but I guess talking through my entire thought process is a bit better for discussion.

 

[LFaWolf]

"Can mRNA in general, change DNA?" Well, probably it can. But "can the mRNA COVID19 vaccines, change DNA ??" Well, no, the mRNA formulations and protein structures they make are NOT going to change your DNA.

https://www.chop.edu/centers-progra...r/video/can-mrna-vaccines-alter-a-persons-dna
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/will-mrna-vaccine-alter-my-dna
https://theconversation.com/can-the-pfizer-or-moderna-mrna-vaccines-affect-my-genetic-code-162590

 

[Space Lynx]

7 Vaccinated Florida Patients Die of COVID

"We explain when I give the vaccine, 'Look, this is not 100 percent, but in life, you have to give yourself the best possible odds," Patricia Seemann said.

www.newsweek.com

7 more died this week fully vaccinated, and that 36 yr old flight attendant from vegas died last week, fully vaccinated.

probably a lot not being reported too. one thing I noticed is that no one is sayin what vaccine these fully vaccinated people got. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of them were johnson and johnson single shot, which has proven to pretty much be a flop compared to mRNA.

I read about a guy two weeks ago, had 0 antibodies for covid even though he got the jnj shot just two months before the antibody test. lol sad.

I find it suspicious these new articles are not saying which vaccine these people dying got. gee whiz golly folks, who to trust these days!

 

[dragontamer5788]

Alabama has ‘negative’ ICU beds available

“We’ve never been here before. We are in truly now in uncharted territory in terms of our ICU bed capacity,” said Alabama Hospital Association President Dr. Don Williamson.

www.wsfa.com

“There were 1,568 patients today who need ICU beds, and there are only 1,557 designated ICU beds in the state today,” Williamson said. “In the Montgomery area, we have eight more patients who are getting ICU care than we have designated ICU beds here.”

Out of beds in Alabama.

I find it suspicious these new articles are not saying which vaccine these people dying got. gee whiz golly folks, who to trust these days!

If they don't have that information, why would they report on it? Sometimes, people just don't have information to report, so its left out.

Mayo Clinic: COVID Breakthrough Risk May Be Much Lower With Moderna Than Pfizer

The pre-print study suggested the Pfizer vaccine was 34 points less effective in preventing infection last month, at least in one state, NBC New York reports.

www.cnbc.com

Huh. Maybe that 100 ug x2 dose (Moderna) was in fact a big advantage over the 30ug x2 dose (Pfizer). I was lamenting a months ago about how Moderna is injecting so much vaccine, possibly unnecessarily (literally 3x more vaccine than Pfizer)... but maybe there's a benefit to it after all.

Initially, it didn't seem like Moderna had any advantages over Pfizer. But now that Delta has changed everything, all sorts of questions are being brought up about vaccines again.

EDIT: Its a preprint study, non-reviewed. Etc. etc. Not even "scientific evidence" yet, the medical community should review it through the publication process to determine if the study was done correctly. Still, if the study turns out to have been done correctly with valid results (and IIRC, Mayo Clinic has pretty good reputation on these issues), then that's a pretty interesting factoid IMO.

J'attends et attends et attends jusqu'à maintenant.
rien n'est en cours

 

[Tatty_Two]

I can only reiterate, despite what is or is not showing in the USA is that an efficacy rating against Delta in the UK remains pretty strong in real world terms of hospitalisations and fatalities, with similar levels of infection to what we have now back on the 29th January there were around 36k people hospitalised, today there are 6.3k, back then the daily average fatality rate was 1,006, today is 93, let's not forget that in January Delta hardly existed in the UK, it now accounts for 99.3% of all infections, in addition to that we were 3 weeks into a lockdown back at the end of January, we pretty much have no restrictions or mandates at all now.

To mitigate the above, I do appreciate that on the 29th January we were a couple of weeks past the peak of the wave so statistically there is likely to be continuing fallout from the peak that has skewed the figures some. @lynx29 unless the vaccine has 100% efficacy against Delta of course there will be vaccinated fatalities, so equally as newsworthy might be how many unvaccinated died from Delta?

 

[dragontamer5788]

Looks like I was overly optimistic about Florida. Last week, Florida had a -4% or so change week-over-week, but today that week-over-week average is +23%. That being said: we're seeing a decline in Louisiana / Arkansas now, but... given how short lived Florida's "decline" was, I'm going to wait another week or two before declaring a peak again.

The overall US average has declined from the low 20%s to the upper teens. So the surge continues across the board, but I still believe we're in an "inflected down" environment, and that the peak is near.

-----

Remember that case# lead hospitalizations and deaths. This means that without a doubt, hospitalizations will continue to increase over the next 2 or 3 weeks (even if all of these growths drop down to 0% tomorrow and stay there). I expect that many of these states will have full hospitals as schools reopen in September.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Deaths are clearly up in the worst states (Louisiana, Mississippi). But by the time we get to #10 or so (Oklahoma / Wyoming), deaths aren't really climbing too much yet (hard to see any big change in the graph). Overall however, deaths are +31% across the country from last week.

Vaccination rates are all above 30% across the country (even in the most ass-backwards states), but at the county level it could be lower than 30% vaccinated in some areas. Though that number seems low, I'm hopeful that the "most in need of vaccination" (aka: the oldest and/or obese / diabetic / otherwise sick) got the vaccine to protect themselves. We all know its the younger crowd that is largely refusing the free vaccinations.

Still though: the death rate in places like Louisiana are already worse than they've ever been before, and the case# continue to go up. This July / August surge is going to be the worst-ever part of the pandemic thus far for a fair number of states.

 

[Space Lynx]

View attachment 213154

Deaths are clearly up in the worst states (Louisiana, Mississippi). But by the time we get to #10 or so (Oklahoma / Wyoming), deaths aren't really climbing too much yet (hard to see any big change in the graph). Overall however, deaths are +31% across the country from last week.

Vaccination rates are all above 30% across the country (even in the most ass-backwards states), but at the county level it could be lower than 30% vaccinated in some areas. Though that number seems low, I'm hopeful that the "most in need of vaccination" (aka: the oldest and/or obese / diabetic / otherwise sick) got the vaccine to protect themselves. We all know its the younger crowd that is largely refusing the free vaccinations.

Still though: the death rate in places like Louisiana are already worse than they've ever been before, and the case# continue to go up. This July / August surge is going to be the worst-ever part of the pandemic thus far for a fair number of states.

I understand percentages are important, but the actual number of deaths should also be reported in charts like these, for perspective.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I understand percentages are important, but the actual number of deaths should also be reported in charts like these, for perspective.

Ask and you shall receive. You just need to click a few buttons on the WashPo website.

Honestly... I'm more interested in the %change of deaths, since that is kind of forward looking. When death counts are changing, that's the news event. More deaths than last week vs less deaths than last week is what I'm mostly looking at.

California / Texas / Florida have the most citizens. So its inevitable for them to be on the top-end of the chart. Dividing by the population to get a rate seems more accurate to me instinctively. But I can see why some would want to see the raw death count without population being factored in.

I also live in a relatively low population state. So my state's numbers will never really show up on the chart. I feel like adjusting for population is one way of making the comparisons more apples-to-apples between states.

 

[Space Lynx]

Ask and you shall receive. You just need to click a few buttons on the WashPo website.

View attachment 213160

Honestly... I'm more interested in the %change of deaths, since that is kind of forward looking. When death counts are changing, that's the news event. More deaths than last week vs less deaths than last week is what I'm mostly looking at.

I find percentages to be a little misleading honestly. I mean 19 dead in South Carolina for example, probably +/- 3 for error, is not really that many deaths. 99% of people still getting Covid are getting the sniffles at best. I still recommend the vaccine for everyone, and am glad I got my jab, but I do think the media plays heavily with these percentages, without explaining to you 350 million people live here. Even adding all the states together, it's really not that much, and these are in heavily unvaccinated areas, I would have expected actual deaths to be higher, number wise.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I find percentages to be a little misleading honestly. I mean 19 dead in South Carolina for example, probably +/- 3 for error, is not really that many deaths. 99% of people still getting Covid are getting the sniffles at best. I still recommend the vaccine for everyone, and am glad I got my jab, but I do think the media plays heavily with these percentages, without explaining to you 350 million people live here. Even adding all the states together, it's really not that much, and these are in heavily unvaccinated areas, I would have expected actual deaths to be higher, number wise.

Deaths are always the last thing to react to the situation. First come cases, then come hospitalizations (the stage we're at right now). Then come deaths.

Also that's deaths-per-day. So 19 dead today, 19 dead tomorrow, and etc. etc. (as the numbers are going to go up. COVID19 cases gone up in the past month, and hospitalizations have gone up in the past few weeks... so deaths are likely to continue to climb well into September).

Also: the rates that WashPo discusses are averaged across a week to reduce the amount of noise and help us spot the trends. Its "cleaned up data" so to speak. The raw data is from Johns Hopkins if you wanna look at that. WashPo just makes graphs + gives a basic average across the data to smooth it out a bit.

 

[the54thvoid]

US Covid deaths, as recorded only account for 0.18% of the total population. However, the gross figure of 624k and rising is hardly insignificant.

As for percentages versus absolute numbers, % figs can be applied generally for weight. The implication of a few deaths being low does not apply when a population is lower. A twin of 1000 with 10 deaths is the same % as 1000 deaths in a city of one million. Each has its own weight of grief and consequence.

I also, again, would like to state, the vaccines were produced to reduce death and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that. It's getting tedious hearing about vaccinated deaths for a vaccine that was never 100% effective. Even before Delta, it was 90% ish. That's still one in ten vaccinated people contracting Covid. And again, for the cheap seats, on a huge numbers game, some of those will die. But prior to the vaccines, the death rate was far higher, and that was before Delta.

To compare vaccine effect, look at the situation last year, versus now. The stats in high vaccination areas are quite clear.

 

[Space Lynx]

I also, again, would like to state, the vaccines were produced to reduce death and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that. It's getting tedious hearing about vaccinated deaths for a vaccine that was never 100% effective.

I think you misread someone, I said a few posts above I 100% support the vaccine and have the vaccine myself. I'm simply stating the media, like my Dad watching the news tonight, they only speak in percentages without the context of actual numbers, and I find that in particular to be misleading. The 624k deaths is indeed alarming, but you are also counting the 600k deaths before there was a vaccine readily available, or monoclonal antibodies readily available (which is probably why the death rate in Florida is not so bad, because mass shipments of monoclonal antibodies have gone there). I'm simply stating the death rates are actually much lower, due to vaccine and monoclonal antibodies, but the media hops on the TV and says 85% increase in deaths since last week! Everyone run!!! lol, it's a joke, cause in reality it was only 5 more deaths (for an example of how percentages can be misleading)

Then of course you have the elite, like the Governor of Texas, who is showing no symptoms, and is also receiving monoclonal antibodies as of two days ago, but if I show symptoms, they still won't give me monoclonal antibodies until the symptoms become severe... ah... we are all created equal, that what's they told me in history class... huhuhuhu What a joke.

 

[Xzibit]

I also, again, would like to state, the vaccines were produced to reduce death and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that. It's getting tedious hearing about vaccinated deaths for a vaccine that was never 100% effective. Even before Delta, it was 90% ish. That's still one in ten vaccinated people contracting Covid. And again, for the cheap seats, on a huge numbers game, some of those will die. But prior to the vaccines, the death rate was far higher, and that was before Delta.

Mostly everyone reverts back to cite Clinical Trial numbers when talking about vaccine efficacy.

In fact, all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S., including those from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, offered 100% protection against hospitalization and death in clinical trials, but not against infection.

Data is ever changing of course. You personally might be aware of it but even our highest officials aren't relaying a clear message.

 

[the54thvoid]

UK research continues - vaccine still effective against Delta.

Covid vaccines still effective against Delta variant

But the jabs were more effective against the Alpha variant, the largest study of its kind suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

They analysed two and a half million tests results from 743,526 participants in the UK's Covid-19 household-infection survey - led by Oxford University and the Office for National Statistics.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had 93% effectiveness against symptomatic infection two weeks after the second dose, compared with Oxford-AstraZeneca's 71%.
Over time, however, the Pfizer-BioNTech's effectiveness dropped while the Oxford-AstraZeneca's remained largely the same.
But there was no cause for alarm, Prof Sarah Walker, at the University of Oxford, said because "when you start very very high, you've got a long way to go".

Edit:

More recent info on the benefit of vaccination against Delta.

Here's How Well COVID-19 Vaccines Work Against the Delta Variant

In the fight against the Delta variant, here's how the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines measure up when it comes to protection. A new study found the Moderna vaccine was 76% effective against the Delta variant, while the Pfizer vaccine was only 42% effective...

www.healthline.com

Low vaccine uptake driving up infections​

“The unvaccinated population is at high risk for infection. If this variant continues to move quickly, especially in areas of low vaccination rates, the U.S. could see a surge in SARS-CoV-2 infection,” said Dr. Miriam Smith, chief of infectious disease at Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Teaching Hospital in Queens, New York City.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle WalenskyTrusted Source issued a warning on this potential surge earlier this month.

In a press briefing, she said preliminary data suggested that 99.5 percent of the people who died from COVID-19 since January were unvaccinated.

“We know that the Delta variant… is currently surging in pockets of the country with low vaccination rates,” she said.

 

[Space Lynx]

UK research continues - vaccine still effective against Delta.

Covid vaccines still effective against Delta variant

But the jabs were more effective against the Alpha variant, the largest study of its kind suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

If you ever come across any new data that says those who got pfizer can get a moderna shot for their third or second shot, let me know. I'm leaning towards getting a Moderna shot for my "second shot" but is effectively my third booster based on the science... since i previously had covid and first shot acted as my second shot.