One-*** efficacy questions
- Thread starter Chris152
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Israel, not WA. I should've mentioned that - i'm comparing data from two different places. The panic article from israel where they use the pfizer vaccine. In israel they mentioned 8 break through cases vs. an expected 1. If that's even true - let's say for argument's sake that it's accurate despite the tiny sample size - the effectiveness of the vaccine would still be over 80. If the SA variant just completely evaded the vaccine, there would be a lot more than 8 as one gathering of vaccinated people could easily turn up that number of cases (one funeral here in September last year resulted in 25 cases and 6 hospitalizations, and people only let their guard down for the wake afterward. They all got covid within a day of each other which was also interesting to see - how identical the incubation was)
efficacy in israel, reported as different numbers in different sources, but let's go with the WSJ figure - 97% (no clue if that's infections or hospitalizations, etc).
So that would bring my number set down to 75% effective (or quartering the SA cases vs. nothing). I suspect that's not right, though, that the pfizer vaccine will prove to be more effective than that and the 8 instead of expected 1 is just variation.
It could also go the other way, that's the nature of the beast, but we would be hearing more about it quickly if that were true.
So that would bring my number set down to 75% effective (or quartering the SA cases vs. nothing). I suspect that's not right, though, that the pfizer vaccine will prove to be more effective than that and the 8 instead of expected 1 is just variation.
It could also go the other way, that's the nature of the beast, but we would be hearing more about it quickly if that were true.
For that matter, WA data cannot show anything about AZ vaccine efficacy as the FDA has not authorised use of AZ.
no, suggesting that the data is relatively similar and the notion that we are all in imminent danger of variants is unhelpful if people are on the fence about vaccines. of course, WA state is different, and israel is different to WA state.
But what comes up is that the hospitalized portion of the vaccinated cohort in every single case is tiny. I pose this thought:
* there's no good data that kids are passing much covid to each other, especially at younger ages
* the data from the western vaccines tends to be unbelievably positive across the board, but if one data set is to be doubted, there are several others right behind it saying the same thing
If an enormous percentage of the non small child population is vaccinated, then covid may not spread effectively even if it's introduced from elsewhere.
The poverty stricken areas are either going to get true herd immunity (I hope not) or be vaccinated. There's no great indication that the virus mutates fast enough for anyone to have the variant panic that seems to be popular now, and the panic itself ignore the reality that a booster would knock it out.
We couldn't have dreamed of experience this good 10 months ago, and instead of the narratives of what-if's being posed (which just feeds into the nature of people to want to see something negative, because being positive is a burden for many), the entirety of the public message should be about the efficacy of the vaccine and the return to normalcy that it brings.
But what comes up is that the hospitalized portion of the vaccinated cohort in every single case is tiny. I pose this thought:
* there's no good data that kids are passing much covid to each other, especially at younger ages
* the data from the western vaccines tends to be unbelievably positive across the board, but if one data set is to be doubted, there are several others right behind it saying the same thing
If an enormous percentage of the non small child population is vaccinated, then covid may not spread effectively even if it's introduced from elsewhere.
The poverty stricken areas are either going to get true herd immunity (I hope not) or be vaccinated. There's no great indication that the virus mutates fast enough for anyone to have the variant panic that seems to be popular now, and the panic itself ignore the reality that a booster would knock it out.
We couldn't have dreamed of experience this good 10 months ago, and instead of the narratives of what-if's being posed (which just feeds into the nature of people to want to see something negative, because being positive is a burden for many), the entirety of the public message should be about the efficacy of the vaccine and the return to normalcy that it brings.
That's complacent in my view. We need to assist the less developed world, and we need to be cautious about prevalence.
The evidence suggests that secondary school kids spread as effectively as adults (which is why there is a buzz about vaccine efficacy in that cohort).
Not to lessen the amazingness of the vaccines that are available, but it's not over yet.
There is a clear reason for concern re the SA variant and the AZ vaccine (of which I have had first dose, like the majority of UK hemi-vaccinated people). No reason not to take it, but a reason not to think it is the be all and end all of the pandemic.
The evidence suggests that secondary school kids spread as effectively as adults (which is why there is a buzz about vaccine efficacy in that cohort).
Not to lessen the amazingness of the vaccines that are available, but it's not over yet.
There is a clear reason for concern re the SA variant and the AZ vaccine (of which I have had first dose, like the majority of UK hemi-vaccinated people). No reason not to take it, but a reason not to think it is the be all and end all of the pandemic.
Last edited:
I think maybe your concern about narrative is more infected with vaccine reluctance due to US attitudes, here there is very little. And transparency is the key, not obfuscation.
It's not certain but perfectly reasonable to suppose that we (AZ people at least) may need a booster against the SA variant. Fortunately we are at an extraordinary place compared to history where that might be deliverable by autumn.
We need to do what we can to make sure we do not waste the amazing vaccine technology by allowing prevalence to drive immune escape.
It's not certain but perfectly reasonable to suppose that we (AZ people at least) may need a booster against the SA variant. Fortunately we are at an extraordinary place compared to history where that might be deliverable by autumn.
We need to do what we can to make sure we do not waste the amazing vaccine technology by allowing prevalence to drive immune escape.
I didn't know that - do you have a link to a report? I read about the small trial that showed really low effectiveness (12%?) of AZ at stopping mild to moderate illness from that variant.
If it is so ineffective, reporting here is odd - in the last couple of weeks, BBC's health/ science correspondent described the AZ vaccine effectiveness as 'slightly reduced' in relation to the SA variant. That is, if I remember right - they sometimes seem to slip around between Pfizer and AZ like there was no real difference. 'The vaccine'.
Seems to me it's of great importance to be clear on this - the SA variant is now becoming big in France, we have several hundred known cases, Kent variant is being suppressed really well, making way for other variants that can still spread. We're being warned of a likely third wave, possibly late summer. We may have boosters by autumn.
I'm going to mea culpa here, because I cannot find what I thought I read (having spent a good couple hours looking). The root was was that same study, showing around 10-12% efficacy in stopping mild to moderate disease among a relatively young cohort of around 2000 (median age 30, so a trial skewed away from from more than moderate illness by design). What I recall (or perhaps now more accurately thought I recalled) reading referred to it being halted at that stage because it was seen as unethical to expand it to other cohorts, but I cannot find that or anything (including the trial protocols) which suggests that was the case. Either my mind mangled together the trial results with the halt on the SA AZ roll-out, or the thing I read may have done, but as I can't find it I can't say, but it looks like I did overstate that.
When the SA trial results were announced, the Oxford group's press releases stated that work was already well underway on boosters against VOCs including SA, so it is being taken seriously by them. And so yes, boosters on the way possibly by autumn as I said.
On those figures that would be around 1.4 hectares PP what proportion of this figure have you deducted for desert. when you take into account that desert land covers 1/3 of the planets surface, then your garden has just got a whole lot smaller. In 2011 50% of habitable land was used solely for agriculture. We also need to take into account that forestry takes up another 37% of the earths habitable land. so how big is your garden now. I think your taking up more than your share of land already mate. population is expected to be 10 billion by 2050I take it you're not thinking of yourself as one of these 2 or 3 billion
Is it ?.
Some cities are densely packed, but much of the planet is uninhabited. in fact great swathes of land have nobody living there.
Here is a link to the Wikipedia page for the Earth. Earth - Wikipedia
According to this source, land occupies just over 29% of the Earth’s surface, or 148,940,000 square kilometres. There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometre, so there are 148,940,000,000,000 square meters of land on the surface of the Earth. That’s approximately 150,000 billion square meters of land.
According to this source, World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017)
there are approximately 7.5 billion people currently living on earth.
If you divide 150,000 billion square meters by 7.5 billion people, you get about 20,000 square meters per person. You can think of that as a square about 140 meters on a side. That’s enough for a very nice house and a big garden.
You'll also get these figures from wiki as I did
Well, that's maybe good news, Jake!
It's clear why there's a lack of clarity on vaccine effectiveness against variants, but it seems more could be done to clarify the stats we do know - Blair was on R4 earlier this week asking for stats, esp those relating to AZ, to be made more readily available in order to increase confidence/ push back against negative media coverage.
Jonm
Established Member
Chile has a high vaccine rate but has experienced a resurgence in cases and hospitalisations after easing restrictions. obviously it is a cautionary tale but there are significant differences between us and them.I attach a link to a BMJ article and here are some quotes from it.
Presumably, the quoted effectiveness is against catching the disease rather than preventing hospitalisation.
If this research is correct then clearly opening up after one dose with only 3% effectiveness will result in a resurgence of Covid, more so because people will believe they are protected. Given the reported high effectiveness of Phizer/AZ against hospitalisation then I cannot see that any significant comparisons can be made between our situation and Chile.
- Some 96% of the intensive care beds in the country are occupied as hospitals come under growing strain from the most severe coronavirus outbreak yet
- Infections in Chile are also likely being driven by the more transmissible P.1 variant first identified in Brazil
- 40% of Chileans having received at least one vaccine dose—the third highest rate in the world after the UK and Israel.
- Some 93% of the doses administered were the CoronaVac vaccine, manufactured by Chinese state run pharmaceutical Sinovac, and 7% the more effective Pfizer BioNTech vaccine
- Most vaccinated Chileans have only had a single dose,
- A study published by researchers at the University of Chile on 6 April, in which Cortés was not involved, found that the CoronaVac vaccine was 56.5% effective in preventing infections two weeks after a second dose but only 3% effective after a single dose.
Presumably, the quoted effectiveness is against catching the disease rather than preventing hospitalisation.
If this research is correct then clearly opening up after one dose with only 3% effectiveness will result in a resurgence of Covid, more so because people will believe they are protected. Given the reported high effectiveness of Phizer/AZ against hospitalisation then I cannot see that any significant comparisons can be made between our situation and Chile.
Last edited:
The problem with what you have said there is that it doesn't fit with the narrative being pushed by those in charge, therefore you must be wrong.
Jonm
Established Member
I like things to be based on the facts and common sense. I am not sure about the governments cautious approach, though some say it is rash.
I think the 17 May date when pubs, restaurants, cinemas and theatres open will be critical. I expect infections amongst the young will go up dramatically amongst the older population it will probably find many of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Let us hope it does not find those who cannot be vaccinated.
As do I, but the problem is everyone's idea of common sense is different.
Those who cannot be vaccinated will have to make a choice about how they go about things. I would suspect they are people who are immunocompromised anyway and would have been at risk of infections long before covid reared it's head. They have to decide do they shield or do they take the risk just as they did before.
That's daft, and not how science works.
Sinovac is known not to be as effective, and P1 is thought problematic. Here's the latest UK study, amazing results.
COVID-19 vaccine coverage in health-care workers in England and effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against infection (SIREN): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study - The Lancet
You totally missed the point I was making.
- Status
