One-*** efficacy questions

[Jonm]

I have been looking at the recent reports of vaccines reducing the transmission of coronavirus. No distinction is made between types of vaccine. Here are some links

Covid: One dose of vaccine halves transmission - study

One dose of COVID-19 vaccine can cut household transmission by up to half

expert reaction to preprint looking at COVID-19 vaccination and household transmission | Science Media Centre

Public Health England have investigated the effect of the vaccine on
transmission of coronavirus within households

• They have looked at 24000 cases of vaccinated people with laboratory confirmed symptoms of coronavirus, and how it spread to their household members who had not been vaccinated.
• They then compared this with unvaccinated people with laboratory confirmed symptoms of coronavirus, and how it spread to their household members who had not been vaccinated

They found that the vaccine reduced onward transmission by between 38% and 49%.

This protection is on top of the reduced risk of a vaccinated person developing symptomatic infection in the first place, which is around 60 to 65% – 4 weeks after one dose of either vaccine.

So putting that together, one dose of the vaccine reduces catching Covid and showing symptoms, by 62% and reduces passing it on to an unvaccinated household member by a further 43%. So the vaccine reduces onward transmission to an unvaccinated household member by nearly 80% overall (that is my conclusion).

It is good news that the vaccine actually reduces onward transmission in the home setting and hopefully It will do even better after two doses and possibly even better again in the non home setting. It seems to be a thorough unbiased analysis.

I am not sure where it leaves us with asymptomatic disease and I have some concerns about it possibly being elderly vaccinated people with younger unvaccinated people, not being as physically close as say an unvaccinated couple.

Perhaps I am being too critical or cautious but this disease has wrong footed us a number of times.

 

[TRITON]

Well I'm thinking we are on the right track, but still we have the problem of the public rushing out and gathering in groups, which thus far precedes a rise in infections and hospital admissions. I'm waiting and watching to see what happens that way over the coming weeks.
Yup, nice to get out and about and nicer to gather with friends, but if thats just going to cause more infections then I'd rather stay home,stay safe and not put myself, family or anyone else at risk.

It should be noted that the Scientists* are still warning we should be cautious.
.
*This is a term the tabloids use to justify anythign they have to say in order to elicit their clickbait articles. They bandy the term/word about to justify mistrust in the vaccine, the lockdown or anything else,

 

[sometimewoodworker]

I am not sure where it leaves us with asymptomatic disease and I have some concerns about it possibly being elderly vaccinated people with younger unvaccinated people, not being as physically close as say an unvaccinated couple.

That paragraph end is a bit confused. However vaccinated individuals of any age 4 weeks after the second dose have an extremely low chance first of getting an infection and second an even smaller chance of getting COVID-19 that is severe enough to require hospitalisation. So yes they can possibly catch Covid but it’s unlikely to, even if noticed, do much to them.

with unvaccinated individuals the dangers are there. They must not change their safe practices around anyone. They can catch it from anyone.

 

[Rorschach]

Remember, asymptomatic transmission is still highly theoretical and has not actually been proven to exist with Covid.

 

[Robbo60]

Do we actually know how many people died because of Covid, rather than with Covid?
"Anyone dying within 28 days of a positive test".
I get really fed up with the "wise after the event" brigade.
How many people reading this have ever had to make decisions on the scale that Govts around the World have had to this past year?

 

[Ozi]

Be interesting to see how recent news affects take up among the young.

Both my boys (in their 20s) are keen to get the *** and it sounds like their friends feel the same

 

[Keith Cocker]

Bradford ... !

Dubai!! Never again!!

 

[Ozi]

Your friend is pretty small minded if that’s his summary. India is an amazing country which makes what is happening at the moment all the more sad.

Some years ago I told an Indian friend who's a doctor that I was thinking of going to India, hoping for some local knowledge and advice on places to visit. I got much the same reaction as D_W from his friend best summed up as why the hell would you do that! Went to New Zealand instead never regretted it.

 

[Rorschach]

Both my boys (in their 20s) are keen to get the *** and it sounds like their friends feel the same

Any insight as to why they want it?

 

[Jonm]

That paragraph end is a bit confused. However vaccinated individuals of any age 4 weeks after the second dose have an extremely low chance first of getting an infection and second an even smaller chance of getting COVID-19 that is severe enough to require hospitalisation. So yes they can possibly catch Covid but it’s unlikely to, even if noticed, do much to them.

with unvaccinated individuals the dangers are there. They must not change their safe practices around anyone. They can catch it from anyone.

I shall try to explain my last but one paragraph. My comment is specifically about this research which is the onward transmission of Covid by people living in the same household , showing symptoms of Covid and the effect of the vaccination on transmission. It is not about the vaccines in general and reducing hospitalisation.

I am talking about the type of households being compared. A household with a vaccinated person living with unvaccinated people is likely to be an elderly person (vaccinated and showing signs of Covid) living with younger unvaccinated people. This is different to the households without a vaccinated person where the unvaccinated person is more likely to be part of a couple who sleep in the same room together. The social distancing is very different in the two above cases and could account for some of the difference in transmission.

The reports I have seen do not explain how the households were selected, other than to say “There were 552,984 residential households of two to 10 people where there was at least one case.” After excluding households that didn’t meet the (very appropriate) study criteria there were 365,447 households, 1,018,842, and 102,662 secondary cases in the study. These are substantial numbers, so the conclusions are robust”

I hope that explains the point I am trying to make.

 

[Selwyn]

Untrue.

The vulnerable have been shielding for most of the pandemic period, so the data is not based on a random sample of people.

That's the problem with those advocating herd immunity....they base their arguments on Covid death rates which occurred despite extensive NPIs.


If you want to try the "Covid isn't that dangerous" let's see the data based on allowing Covid to rip through the community without any interventions.

The data is pretty solid now. Covid is not at all likely to increase "exponentially". There is evidence all over the world to show this now. It will ebb and flow.

We are still pretending that every covid death in the UK would mean someone would have survived if not for covid. It is absolutely insane. We have never ever recorded deaths like this in the UK. See Dr John Lee, Pathologist.

 

[Selwyn]

Surely the sobering thing about the Indian situation should be that it is an illustration of what happens when your health system has no more capacity. For most people the virus appears to be survivable IF you have access to medical facilities. We never experienced that in the UK.

Lets see how it plays out in 2-3 weeks time. They are currently having a viral spike although there is a lot of selective media around it, peoples behaiviour will change and the likelihood is it will peter out downwards again.

 

[Selwyn]

we are so entangled with our so called rights



Why?

Yes we all have certain rights but we have to accept there is a limit, they are not endless and at times they may need to be curbed for the greater good. But in times of crisis we just have to accept that these rights may have to be compromised along with our freedom.

Personally I cannot see anything wrong with all humans being chipped, it would save the country billions of pounds, reduce fraud, allow a fairer political system and drastically reduce crime. The only people who would object are those who are corrupt or criminal, imagine the unsolved murders we currently have, if people were chipped then you would know everyone in the vicinity and those close enough to have commited the murder, could be the start of a crime free country and with the saved cash used to offset poverty and address so many other social issues.

This is all very well if you trust the government.

 

[Ozi]

Any insight as to why they want it?

The same reason that I was vaccinated, they don't want to catch it and don't want to spread it. The chances of someone their age being seriously ill are very low but not as low as the chances of serious vaccine side effects, particularly now that the blood clotting issue is better understood and treatment nolonger makes things worse. Also they understand the possibilities of mutation and that if a nastier variant does turn up the more people in our population with some immunity the better we will cope. Take a look at the age profile of people dying in Brazil if you don't think this is relevant to younger people.

 

[Ozi]

This is all very well if you trust the government.

There has to be a balance between individual rights and the rights of society, certain infectious diseases will get you locked up for the general good. Most people accept this as necessary Typhoid Marry didn't.

I am disinclined to trust governments but also disinclined to trust a significant part of our population, take the man pictured on the front page of the London Metro last week who thought his right to protest against restrictions to his freedom entitled him to punch a police woman in the head. In any functional society rights have to be balanced by responsibilities, fail to live up to responsibilities and loose rights. We just need to make sure that those in charge do not loose sight of the fact that this applies to them as much as us, and that when they do there are consequences. This is why it matters if BJ did misappropriate funds to decorate that flat even if the money involved is negligible compared to party funding.

Anybody else concerned that the allowable annual budget for that flat to be decorated was £30K and that all occupants from which ever party have spent pretty much that amount, shows how far removed they are from ordinary people.

 

[Rorschach]

The same reason that I was vaccinated, they don't want to catch it and don't want to spread it. The chances of someone their age being seriously ill are very low but not as low as the chances of serious vaccine side effects, particularly now that the blood clotting issue is better understood and treatment nolonger makes things worse. Also they understand the possibilities of mutation and that if a nastier variant does turn up the more people in our population with some immunity the better we will cope. Take a look at the age profile of people dying in Brazil if you don't think this is relevant to younger people.

Fair enough, they are entitled to their opinion on it.

 

[Ozi]

Fair enough, they are entitled to their opinion on it.

I'm interested in why you disagree, whats the down side?

 

[Rorschach]

I'm interested in why you disagree, whats the down side?

I probably won't be allowed to share it here. I am totally in favour of them having the choice by the way, would never tell someone to have or not have it if they want it. I was just curious as to their motivation.

 

[Jonm]

I get really fed up with the "wise after the event" brigade.
How many people reading this have ever had to make decisions on the scale that Govts around the World have had to this past year?

You make a valid point and it is a case of looking at what has happened here and around the world when we get to a better situation regarding Covid. The government will talk about vaccine rollout and try to make us forget what happened before.

Personally I want to know what “Exercise Cygnus, a 2016 exercise to test the UK’s preparedness for a flu pandemic“ told the government and what action they took. This report has been suppressed but it may now be published.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3953
It seems that countries who have dealt with mers and SARS did better than us so what lessons did we learn from them at the start of the pandemic.

Yes it is easy to be wise after the event but the government has vast resources and advice to call upon. It is a case of whether they took the threat seriously, looked at what other countries were doing, obtained and listened to the available advice and made informed decisions. Or did follow their instincts until they were forced to change by the number of deaths and serious Illness.

In the end it is what people believe at the next election, whether it is relevant then and what the alternatives are.

 

[Selwyn]

There has to be a balance between individual rights and the rights of society, certain infectious diseases will get you locked up for the general good. Most people accept this as necessary Typhoid Marry didn't.

I am disinclined to trust governments but also disinclined to trust a significant part of our population, take the man pictured on the front page of the London Metro last week who thought his right to protest against restrictions to his freedom entitled him to punch a police woman in the head. In any functional society rights have to be balanced by responsibilities, fail to live up to responsibilities and loose rights. We just need to make sure that those in charge do not loose sight of the fact that this applies to them as much as us, and that when they do there are consequences. This is why it matters if BJ did misappropriate funds to decorate that flat even if the money involved is negligible compared to party funding.

Anybody else concerned that the allowable annual budget for that flat to be decorated was £30K and that all occupants from which ever party have spent pretty much that amount, shows how far removed they are from ordinary people.

That man didn't have a right to punch a policewoman in the head. He will be punished accordingly. But you can't lock a man up in case he "might" punch a policewoman in the head. Unless you are North Korea.

I would expect the Prime Minister to be somewhat removed from ordinary people by the very nature of the job. I'm not a bit concerned about £58k redecoration. The investigations into it all will cost more all footed by the taxpayer.