One-jab efficacy questions

[Selwyn]

Childish strawman and ad hominem awfully tedious

You can't debate honestly because you are debating from a position that is wrong.

You are welcome to continue believing your own hogwash, but I do wish you would stop subjecting us to it.

What is childish about it?

Do you finally accept that the risk for under 25's is minute and incrementally it the risk is higher as you age. The risk of dying for a 80 year old is many times higher than an under 50. And even if you are 80 the risk is way less than 1 in 100. Statistics and data counts!

 

[TominDales]

Finally, if we accept that variants will arrive on our shores irrespective of how robustly border controls are applied, why control the borders anyway. If the variant is materially resistant to the vaccine we have a problem anyway. If the vaccine is effective - why worry.

Like alway running into the cinema shouting "fire" - eventually no-one will take a blind bit of notice having heard the cry so many times before!

The argument in favour of controlling the border is to slow the spread of a new variant. If a variant is resistant to the vaccine, we will need to supress that new variant to slow transmission down until we can get a booster vaccine launched. This might sound a bit fanciful, but a booster right now could be rolled out in under six months and I suspect we could get one out in 3 months if the variant was that deadly. The vaccine would be tweaked to modify the protein but essentially every other ingredient would remain the same. So it would be a question of slowing the spread of the new variant until then. The longer it can be held at bay at the border more we can hold off more drastic isolation measures at home.
I've not done analysis, but presume lockdown is massively more damaging than restricting international travel. At the moment its all a bit hypothetical as the vaccines are coping with the variants, and the virus seems to mutate quite slowly.

 

[Selwyn]

That is perfectly true, but its a risky strategy as those whose immune system does not respond to covid are at risk of getting a nasty disease. The older and the more vulnerable would be far safer getting a vaccine. For children ie below age 11 the data seems to suggest they are fine without the vaccine, very few get complications. For teenage the data is a mixed. I know of older teenagers who have been seriously ill.

There is a risk that those who were asymptomatic or mildly ill with covid first time round, may not be immune to the Indian and other new variants, some of which are implicated with higher mortality and serious illiness in the young. Data on this is only just emerging in India so we really dont know, but its something to watch as that would change the risk profile.

Which of the variants thus far have behaved particularly different from the initial covid? None. Every few days we see the nervousness ramp up only to peter out again about a certain "variant". Not every country is talking about the "indian" variant. India doesn't even recognise this "variant". I doubt this variant is significantly different at all, like the others.

I totally agree the old and vulnerable would be best having a vaccine. How many teenagers do you know directly have been seriously ill? Remember schools have been open again for 2 months now.

 

[Selwyn]

I know one person who possibly died with covid in Feb 2020, they were in their mid 90's and riddled with dementia, their death was a blessing really. Otherwise no one I know, or anyone I know knows has died.

I suppose we could all pretend they should still be alive and thriving?

 

[Rorschach]

I suppose we could all pretend they should still be alive and thriving?

Well if you listen to some they would tell you that having reached the ripe old age of 94 they statistically had another 10 years to live in their demented misery and their death was a tragedy.

 

[Selwyn]

Whataboutery.

The NHS are opening loads of long Covid clinics.

Why are you avoiding commenting on that?

To be honest I think long covid is a thing. Like all post viral syndromes its a thing. But the reality is most people don't get long covid, those who do have symptoms that last for a month, some get a little longer and a smaller amount are badly affected (and probably have other health issues as well). I'm sorry for them but this is the way it goes. Maybe they didn't wear their masks? That saves them apparently...

I think opening long covid clinics is a bit of a publicity stunt, a bit like the nightingales. A bit like the Indian variant etc.

 

[D_W]

There is a risk that those who were asymptomatic or mildly ill with covid first time round, may not be immune to the Indian and other new variants, some of which are implicated with higher mortality and serious illiness in the young.

I've got a problem with this statement as we've been hearing it all along, but there's no data to support it. "we may get covid over and over", "we may not have immunity to ___ new variant"

This has been going on for a year now without any evidence of significant cohorts getting seriously ill twice (except in the case of seriously compromised individuals).

 

[Selwyn]

How long are the Covid fanatics planning on wearing their masks for?

Indefinitely?

 

[Jonm]

Not every country is talking about the "indian" variant. India doesn't even recognise this "variant".

The Indian government objects to the B.1.617 strain being called the “Indian Variant”. They recognise the variant but call it B.1.617.

It is similar to us referring to the UK variant as the “Kent” variant. Don’t know what they call it in Kent.

 

[RobinBHM]

But the reality is most people don't get long covid

The evidence proves that is not true.

"674,000 people saying it was affecting their day to day lives"

"Almost 200,000 people have said their ability to carry out normal activities has been severely limited by the condition"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/long-covid-clinic-england-simon-stevens-b1831234.html

I think opening long covid clinics is a bit of a publicity stunt

you really are crazy.

Maybe they didn't wear their masks? That saves them apparently

The evidence proves masks are beneficial
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Are you not embarrassed by constantly posting stuff that's demonstrably untrue?

It isn't doing a lot for your credibility.

 

[RobinBHM]

How long are the Covid fanatics planning on wearing their masks for?

Indefinitely?

It will be a considerably shorter time than it will take you to begin absorbing facts.

 

[RobinBHM]

I've got a problem with this statement as we've been hearing it all along, but there's no data to support it. "we may get covid over and over", "we may not have immunity to ___ new variant"

This has been going on for a year now without any evidence of significant cohorts getting seriously ill twice (except in the case of seriously compromised individuals).

I understand your point, but in a pandemic with a novel virus, you can't make assumptions and the scientists are learning as fast as the data is available.

We don't know yet how long natural or vaccine acquired immunity lasts, so we don't know if it's possible to catch it again.


I really hope the vaccine roll out will continue and we are able to vaccinate all adults as soon as possible so we can prevent the inevitable next wave needing lockdowns.

USA is doing pretty well on vaccination rates as far as I know, I hope the sceptics can be persuaded to be jabbed.

 

[Jonm]

I've got a problem with this statement as we've been hearing it all along, but there's no data to support it. "we may get covid over and over", "we may not have immunity to ___ new variant"

This has been going on for a year now without any evidence of significant cohorts getting seriously ill twice (except in the case of seriously compromised individuals).

But tomindales then goes on to say “Data on this is only just emerging in India so we really dont know, but its something to watch as that would change the risk profile”. He is not scaremongering, just advocating being vigilant, this disease has wrong footed us a number of times, like the Kent variant destroying our tiered system and putting us in lockdown in January.

 

[D_W]

None of these things has involved a variant breaking through prior infection and making people have more than a mild second case (unless there's a complication involved).

That becomes the expectation *unless* data emerges, not "oh, we have to wait and see". If there is second symptomatic infection, we will know very quickly.

 

[TominDales]

I've got a problem with this statement as we've been hearing it all along, but there's no data to support it. "we may get covid over and over", "we may not have immunity to ___ new variant"

This has been going on for a year now without any evidence of significant cohorts getting seriously ill twice (except in the case of seriously compromised individuals).

Hi DW, I'm not saying there is an evidence for this. Your are right.
My comment was very specific in relation to natural immunity verses taking or not taking a vaccine and the risks involved, it was made in the context of my response to the post 970 - ''Actually natural infection is more effective than vaccination for immunity''.
This was a commonly held belief with early vaccines as they were only partially effective, not unlike flue which is only 60% effective, however more recent vaccine approaches build very targeted and highly concentrated vaccines, - mRNA and viral vector are highly effective and safe. The data for Covid is incredibly good. Which is the point I made in post 1059
Its in this context that I replied to Selwyn's question regarding people who have asymptomatic or mild covid. He asks a good question, if you didn't get ill why take the vaccine, I think that question deserves a considered response. Its down to personal risk analysis, there are some obvious risks, if someone was symptomless, they may not know if you have had covid and wont know if they are vulnerable to it. Then there is the theoretical risk that natural immunity to covid may not impart immunity to variants (as with other coronaviruses).
However I must stress I am not advocating that there is evidence that people get seriously ill twice, I agree with you that there is very little data on this point and certainly no evidence that points to it. However it is a risk factor when considering vaccinating people who may have had covid. This concern stems from observatoins of other coronaviruses, so may not be relevant to Covid.
There are a number of common coronaviruses, in most cases they give people the common cold, but occasionally we have a winter of chest infectoins and pneumonia side effects. It happened in the winter of 2019/20!, before covid struck there was a nasty strain of OC43 circulating in the UK, my wife and loads of people at work got a nasty chest infection. The point is these coronaviruses re-infect people, they mutate and come round again. It for this reason that the medical/phama profession are nervous about covid. We could get a variant that re-infects those who have had mild Covid. There is no evidence for this, but it is a risk factor and in my view a reason to take the covid vaccine. The vaccine is more effective than natural immunity, it targets the spike protein which seems to be a common link to covid illness and lasting immunity, whereas we don't really know what proteins cause the immune response in those who get mild covid.

Sorry for such a complicated answer, this was part of a linked set of comments and raising some quite important questions regarding the risks people need to consider when contemplating taking the vaccine - especially the young who are much less effected by covid.

 

[D_W]

I don't think you had ill intent - I think it's been the narrative all along where we say "let's follow the data" until we decide we don't want to follow the data, but we want to go to supposition instead. Especially if supposition is negative, because that's popular and will get views.

It's so prevalent (and anti-data) that it's become a semi-consensus or a stylish thing for people to say even if those people tend to try to make accurate statements only.

It's happened just about every time a variant pops up (UK, S.A., Brazil, now India), or when there's some tiny data point ("S.A. Variant 8 times more likely to break through pfizer vaccine!!" ....that story was based on a whopping 8 total cases vs. an expected 1).

I'm just not a fan of it.

 

[sometimewoodworker]

I cited the source, it's here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596If you see confusion (I don't, you seem to want to take issue with the method described, but that's not confusion) maybe BBC or PHE have made an error.

I’m now not surprised at the confusion in your original post.

The study concluded

After 2 doses of either vaccine there were only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness with the B.1.617.2 variant. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked with dose 1. This would support maximising vaccine uptake with 2 doses among vulnerable groups.

The BBC article did contain this information, though not as clearly as PHE your summary of a summary did not.

The intent of the study was finding out at what point in the vaccination regimen the vaccines were most effective and if there were significant differences between them.

The study has almost certainly caused a shorter interval in second doses of vaccine in some areas in the U.K. where the India variant is most prevalent.

your post took random points out of a BBC summary of a PHE preprint paper and drew comparisons. That is bad science and poor reporting.

 

[D_W]

I understand your point, but in a pandemic with a novel virus, you can't make assumptions and the scientists are learning as fast as the data is available.

We don't know yet how long natural or vaccine acquired immunity lasts, so we don't know if it's possible to catch it again.


I really hope the vaccine roll out will continue and we are able to vaccinate all adults as soon as possible so we can prevent the inevitable next wave needing lockdowns.

USA is doing pretty well on vaccination rates as far as I know, I hope the sceptics can be persuaded to be jabbed.

The US is generally vaccinated, Skeptics will take their lumps if they're older, but the adult population is well vaccinated at this point, especially in more populated areas. (specific numbers for my state are slightly over 50% with both shots and another 20% above that for at least one shot. I think we are generally expecting an 80% take rate for adults, and probably a quarter or more of the remaining cohort are people who had covid.

All of the people I know who have had covid have gotten at least one vaccine shot at this point, too, which seems to me to be a little odd without data proving that it's necessary (why? imagine you train your immune system to stop something and then you blast it with something it would have blocked. One of my relatives who had covid and then got their first vaccine shot got very ill from the shot. Not for too long, but unexpectedly harsh reaction......the rest just had mild symptoms from the vaccine, and they also had mild cases of covid).

 

[Chris152]

your post took random points out of a BBC summary

No it didn't. I quoted a couple of what I considered to be key points made in the report. Random points would have looked very different. Any extracts are necessarily removed from broader context - that's part of the definition of 'extract'. As for the conclusion that you say I overlooked, the difference between effectiveness of first and second doses is very clear in the passages I quoted - 33% becomes 60/ 88%.

 

[Selwyn]

It will be a considerably shorter time than it will take you to begin absorbing facts.

No need for ad hominem attacks.
It will sink in eventually that you have been totally played by all this. Lockdown hasn't proved a saving of a single life, but we do know what harm it has done.

Anyway how many people do you know who have died of Covid?