One-*** efficacy questions

[Jonm]

STOP IT, Just STOP IT.
I've been trying to avoid looking at threads such as these It's 8:34 now and I've an appointment today at 9:40 to get the vaccine.

Let us know how it goes, mine was totally painless injection and just a slightly sore arm. Hope yours is the same.

 

[Jonm]

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

Are you referring to the blood clot issue?

 

[Chris152]

Ok, I think I'm clear on Q.1; how about the second - does the one cancel the other? (I agree, Robin - not sure about the maths!)

2. If we're 60% protected against contracting the virus [after one ***], but the virus is now 50-70% more contagious than this time last year, aren't we back where we were last April in terms of likely spread? R seems to have risen to around 1 in England at the top end of the estimate, now.

eta - I should have written 'aren't we back where we were last April in terms of the likelihood of catching it'.

 

[Ozi]

Ok, I think I'm clear on Q.1; how about the second - does the one cancel the other? (I agree, Robin - not sure about the maths!)

eta - I should have written 'aren't we back where we were last April in terms of the likelihood of catching it'.

Fortunately the incidence in our population is much lower and as vaccination spreads we are getting some background immunity, take a look at whats happening in Brazil

 

[Chris152]

Fortunately the incidence in our population is much lower and as vaccination spreads we are getting some background immunity, take a look at whats happening in Brazil

Yes, I meant if we strip away the broader context - so in the same narrow scenario (say, sitting across the table from a contagious person) are my chances of contracting the disease now (4 weeks after first dose sat opposite a Kent variant carrier) about the same as they were a year ago with the old variant and no ***?

 

[Ozi]

Yes, I meant if we strip away the broader context - so in the same narrow scenario (say, sitting across the table from a contagious person) are my chances of contracting the disease now (4 weeks after first dose sat opposite a Kent variant carrier) about the same as they were a year ago with the old variant and no ***?

I see what you mean, sorry was a bit slow on the uptake. I may be wrong but I think the answer is probably yes but that the consequences are much less likely to be serious. I'm looking forward to my second *** in June, feeling quite dopey after the first one but at least that means I'm getting an immune responce

 

[Chris152]

My fault - I realised the original second question was too vague and tried to narrow it a bit but should have rewritten it completely.
Ok, this is the nub of the matter:

I may be wrong but I think the answer is probably yes but that the consequences are much less likely to be serious.

If I've lost the 60% protection against catching the virus (by catching it!), aren't I now only 20% protected against hospitalisation and 25% protected against the worst scenario? (I'm ignoring developments in treatments since then, too, which also make a difference.)
I was dopey a day or two after mine - tho in lock down it's hard to tell the difference.
In case anyone's wondering, I'm not trying to talk down the vaccine (the opposite, looking forward to my second dose), just trying to be clear about what our situation is after one dose.

 

[Garno]

Yes good luck Triton.

Today's figures are pretty positive on Official UK Coronavirus Dashboard

it's a good site if you want local information just put your post code in. We have no new deaths in Rugby for over two weeks now

View attachment 107387

Thank you for posting that link.
We have had 3 positive in the 7 day period and have 44.5 per 100k which is below average.

Gary

 

[NormanB]

On 18th March, Johnson said that 'a single dose of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine provides a 60 percent prevention from Covid-19 [he didn't specify which variant, not sure if that makes a difference] and that it reduces hospitalisation by 80 percent, as well as death by 85 percent'.
What did the PM say in his speech tonight, Thursday, March 18?
Two questions:
1. Does that mean if you've had the *** but still contract the disease, you're only 20% less likely to end up in hospital / 25% less likely to die than if you'd not had the vaccine?
2. If we're 60% protected against contracting the virus, but the virus is now 50-70% more contagious than this time last year, aren't we back where we were last April in terms of likely spread? R seems to have risen to around 1 in England at the top end of the estimate, now.
Thanks if you can clarify any of this. Oh, and I don't want to know it's unimportant etc, just clarification on the stats.
Confused of Cardiff.

The fundamental problem with the answer you are seeking is that efficacy figures are actually based on population level statistics they do not read across to individuals at all. They may give an ‘indication of expectation’, however the reality of that being fulfilled depends entirely on that individuals physiology and specifically, their immune system response. The only pre disease test that can indicate protection in the vaccinated individual is a blood test that specifically looks for antibodies and these are not done on request, but are done for those engaged in clinical trials. In Sum, when you see an efficacy of 90% for the vaccine, you do not know if you will or are in the protected population or the unlucky 10% unresponsive and unprotected population.

 

[Chris152]

The fundamental problem with the answer you are seeking is that efficacy figures are actually based on population level statistics they do not read across to individuals at all. They may give an ‘indication of expectation’, however the reality of that being fulfilled depends entirely on that individuals physiology and specifically, their immune system response. The only pre disease test that can indicate protection in the vaccinated individual is a blood test that specifically looks for antibodies and these are not done on request, but are done for those engaged in clinical trials. In Sum, when you see an efficacy of 90% for the vaccine, you do not know if you will or are in the protected population or the unlucky 10% unresponsive and unprotected population.

Yes, I was assuming an average person.

 

[Rorschach]

Are you referring to the blood clot issue?

Blood clot issue is just one of many, others include coercion, threats, ungratefulness and pointlessness since we are scheduled to be full open before most young will even get their first ***.

Personally I will not be having it. My partner was considering it but certainly will not take the AZ if she does have it.

 

[Spectric]

Be careful when looking at statistics, they can be manipulated or read to support a case either way. Only trust data provided by instruments capable of accurate and repeatable measurement that cannot introduce prejudice or ulterior motive.

 

[Jacob]

As I understand it (or not as the case may be!) a single shot to a larger number of people is better than a double shot for a smaller number - not for the individual but for the disease spread in the population as a whole.

 

[Rorschach]

As I understand it (or not as the case may be!) a single shot to a larger number of people is better than a double shot for a smaller number - not for the individual but for the disease spread in the population as a whole.

Correct. All we really needed to do was lower deaths and lower pressure on the hospitals. We don't need to stop the spread because it's not a dangerous disease for 99%+ of the population. This is why we don't need lockdown anymore and haven't done for weeks.

 

[Lefley]

STOP IT, Just STOP IT.
I've been trying to avoid looking at threads such as these It's 8:34 now and I've an appointment today at 9:40 to get the vaccine.

You have a 20% chance of catching covid from the jabber! Just saying.

 

[Jacob]

Correct. All we really needed to do was lower deaths and lower pressure on the hospitals. We don't need to stop the spread because it's not a dangerous disease for 99%+ of the population. This is why we don't need lockdown anymore and haven't done for weeks.

Too soon to say. Another wave is on the cards following the current easings. We are still above October rates of new infections but the vaccine will be having an effect.

 

[Rorschach]

Too soon to say. Another wave is on the cards following the current easings. We are still above October rates of new infections but the vaccine will be having an effect.

Of course there will be another wave, we will have at least one wave every year for eternity, just like we do with flu.

 

[Ozi]

Blood clot issue is just one of many, others include coercion, threats, ungratefulness and pointlessness since we are scheduled to be full open before most young will even get their first ***.

Personally I will not be having it. My partner was considering it but certainly will not take the AZ if she does have it.

As far as blood clots go 7 out of 31,000,000 as opposed to 126,000 out of 65,000,000 also a number of people suffer blood clots vaccinated or not. On those odds I decided to take my chance. Coercion, threats, ungratefulness we are supposed to be a free society and although I think you are making the wrong decision you have access to the same data that I do and nobody has the right to make your decisions for you. As far as pointless goes if I was in the middle of an air raid and someone offered me a tin hat I'd take it, I wouldn't say no as I didn't have it at the start, also we chose how much we individually come out of lock down, once fully vaccinated I will still be keeping contact to a minimum until others get their chance at a ***.

Hope it goes well for you which ever path you take

 

[Ozi]

Of course there will be another wave, we will have at least one wave every year for eternity, just like we do with flu.

Very true

 

[Jacob]

Of course there will be another wave, we will have at least one wave every year for eternity, just like we do with flu.

But Covid is 10 times as lethal, and it's not all over yet