COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Roger_007

Water John wrote: »

Oxford/AZ saying their vaccine may stop you transmitting the virus. Hope the fuller data shows this.

Which also means that it may not.

It’s another way of saying they don’t know.

Malcomex

Roger_007 wrote: »

Which also means that it may not.

It’s another way of saying they don’t know for sure

Fyp

Ce he sin

Roger_007 wrote: »

Which also means that it may not.

It’s another way of saying they don’t know.

I'm guessing we know where you stand on the half full/half empty question, don't we?

Water John

Sort of think they wouldn't open their mouth on the issue unless they were, quite hopeful on the data they have seen.

Malcomex

Water John wrote: »

Sort of think they wouldn't open their mouth on the issue unless they were, quite hopeful on the data they have seen.

What do we know so far about transmission after vaccination?

Water John

Malcomex wrote: »

What do we know so far about transmission after vaccination?

Not a lot.

franciscanpunk

Looks like the UK have been shown accurate again thier vaccination decision making in relation to delaying the time between first and second dose of the AZ vaccine.

I know people have said the earlier apprival and strategy were a risk but also nit making decisions as quickly as reasonably possibly is also a risk

adam240610

franciscanpunk wrote: »

Looks like the UK have been shown accurate again thier vaccination decision making in relation to delaying the time between first and second dose of the AZ vaccine.

I know people have said the earlier apprival and strategy were a risk but also nit making decisions as quickly as reasonably possibly is also a risk

I'd rather them evaluate the risks properly than inadvertently give out something that could have bad side effects and that would fuel anti-vax for a generation

lillycakes2

Why cant we get more supplies of the pfizer vaccine which has a higher efficacy rate than the other oxford vaccine. i knoe everyone is saying take what ever vaccine you get and you get no choice anyway but i do not understand why when an excellent vaccine like moderna and pfizer were created- why not just focus on that forumla, It works , its good.
i feel like its lousy on the people who get the oxford one then?
I have got the pfizer one as i am a frontline HCW, but i am concerned for my parents and husband, obv i want them to get the best vaccine.

XsApollo

lillycakes2 wrote: »

Why cant we get more supplies of the pfizer vaccine which has a higher efficacy rate than the other oxford vaccine. i knoe everyone is saying take what ever vaccine you get and you get no choice anyway but i do not understand why when an excellent vaccine like moderna and pfizer were created- why not just focus on that forumla, It works , its good.
i feel like its lousy on the people who get the oxford one then?
I have got the pfizer one as i am a frontline HCW, but i am concerned for my parents and husband, obv i want them to get the best vaccine.

Because they can’t make enough of them to supply everybody at the moment?
Or would you like to wait for another year or 2 while we wait for Pfizer to make enough doses?

Roger_007

Ce he sin wrote: »

I'm guessing we know where you stand on the half full/half empty question, don't we?

In science, when something is unknown, it’s unknown. There is no such thing as ‘ glass half full or empty. When something is not known you just say so. There is no point in saying something could be or might be or may be; that’s meaningless!

braychelsea

Russia saying they can provide 100m vaccines to EU in Q2, would be a good boost to vaccine rollout if the EMA approved it.

Tyrone212

franciscanpunk wrote: »

Looks like the UK have been shown accurate again thier vaccination decision making in relation to delaying the time between first and second dose of the AZ vaccine.

I know people have said the earlier apprival and strategy were a risk but also nit making decisions as quickly as reasonably possibly is also a risk

Well not really. A study today found the over 80s need a second shot to be protected against the south african variant. One shot is not enough, 10 times the antibodies is needed for what one shot produces. Highest death toll is in the over 80s so they need it the most. With the south africa variant becoming ever more prominent there and the new UK mutations copying the south african variant I think its unwise to make that statement.

Tyrone212

braychelsea wrote: »

Russia saying they can provide 100m vaccines to EU in Q2, would be a good boost to vaccine rollout if the EMA approved it.

I hope they do. Much better efficiency than the Oxford one and its stored at fridge temperature as well.

nocoverart

Malcomex wrote: »

That would be Quantum Mechanics but go ahead anyhow

Quantum Mechanics + DMT = we don’t know sh1t!

99nsr125

Irish Stones wrote: »

Other countries don't advise AZ vaccine for over 55's, and had to review their vaccination plans.

Germany reported it was only 6% effective and have advised against

GazzaL

Any sign of vaccination figures being announced daily? Are they too ****ing embarrassed to do it?

CIARAN_BOYLE

99nsr125 wrote: »

Germany reported it was only 6% effective and have advised against

No they didn't.

A German newspaper wrong reported that the efficacy in older people was as low as 8%. This is because they misunderstood an official leaking the fact that Germang was concerned about the confidence level regarding the efficacy in older people as only 8% of the trial group were in the over 55 age group.

Sky King

GazzaL wrote: »

Any sign of vaccination figures being announced daily? Are they too ****ing embarrassed to do it?

Why would they be embarrassed? Sorry to break it to you, but we're one of the best in the EU.

GazzaL

GazzaL wrote: »

Any sign of vaccination figures being announced daily? Are they too ****ing embarrassed to do it?

Do people ever even bother to try and find out incredible easily obtainable facts prior to raising unfounded indignation?

https://covid-19.geohive.ie/

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

GazzaL

Sky King wrote: »

Why would they be embarrassed? Sorry to break it to you, but we're one of the best in the EU.

So let's continue with the daily announcement of meaningless case numbers, pointless negativity, and let's not talk about the vaccine roll out and publish those daily figures at all?

GazzaL

Deleted User wrote: »

Do people ever even bother to try and find out incredible easily obtainable facts prior to raising unfounded indignation?

https://covid-19.geohive.ie/

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

The vaccine numbers on the data hub were last updated about 4 days ago. Pathetic.

CIARAN_BOYLE

GazzaL wrote: »

So let's continue with the daily announcement of meaningless case numbers, pointless negativity, and let's not talk about the vaccine roll out and publish those daily figures at all?

Well they (nphet and government) need to see those figures daily so they make sure to have them. Since they have them they might as well be announced.

They don't need to see daily vaccination totals and even if they do have them I guarantee that once GPs and pharmacies start vaccination that they won't have the figures daily.

I'd rather they spent their time worrying about getting the vaccination going rather than worrying about getting a reporting system for vaccinations going.

CIARAN_BOYLE

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

No they didn't.

A German newspaper wrong reported that the efficacy in older people was as low as 8%. This is because they misunderstood an official leaking the fact that Germang was concerned about the confidence level regarding the efficacy in older people as only 8% of the trial group were in the over 55 age group.

Point of order, they did in fact say that some assessments of the AZ data could draw a conclusion the the effectivity was as low as 6% in the over 65's. This was only because the was so little data, and not because that was the true effective. Now that is also a very narrow assessment of the data. Because the over 65 number was smaller and much later, there were not many infections in the placebo group ether when the study was completed, so conclusions based on that data would have incredibly wide margins of error. They did also however measure antibody response in the over 65's and saw a similar profile to the under 65's, so based on that it would be reasonable to assume good effectiveness. The German reading on the data is over cautious when taken as a whole

Bobeagleburger

Great to see numbers steadily declining and vaccination program ticking along.

GazzaL

GazzaL wrote: »

The vaccine numbers on the data hub were last updated about 4 days ago. Pathetic.

There definitely something pathetic alright. The constant need to express indignation even when it doesn't tally with reality. 200,000 out of 207,000 doses received used. Third highest vaccination rate in the eu, but some are only happy when spouting uninformed sh*te

Happydays2020

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Well they (nphet and government) need to see those figures daily so they make sure to have them. Since they have them they might as well be announced.

They don't need to see daily vaccination totals and even if they do have them I guarantee that once GPs and pharmacies start vaccination that they won't have the figures daily.

I'd rather they spent their time worrying about getting the vaccination going rather than worrying about getting a reporting system for vaccinations going.

They should be doing both. The reporting system at least means there is a system where the data on vaccinations is reported fully and in a timely way. They need to work hand in hand.

Irish Stones

snowcat wrote: »

https://www.timesofisrael.com/we-will-have-to-live-with-covid-19-for-a-long-time-says-israeli-expert/

"medical officials had estimated that around 60-70 percent of the population must become immune — either by recovering from the disease or by getting vaccinated"

Why are they saying this when so many times it's been said that it isn't sure that recovering from the disease gives immunity, and if it does, it's a lessened immunity?

Irish Stones

Irish Stones wrote: »

"medical officials had estimated that around 60-70 percent of the population must become immune — either by recovering from the disease or by getting vaccinated"

Why are they saying this when so many times it's been said that it isn't sure that recovering from the disease gives immunity, and if it does, it's a lessened immunity?

No it hasn't

Irish Stones

Deleted User wrote: »

No it hasn't

I have to kindly disagree.
They are saying that it is likely the vaccines will give us a year long immunity, with a "possible" yearly recall. This should mean that the immunity provided by the vaccines lasts at least 12 months.
And they also kept saying that natural immunity may last up to 6-8 months, depending on the news source.
So, at least, you have to agree that so far they have always said that the natural imminuty is shorter/lesser than the vaccine one.

EDIT: And if it's highly likely that people who recovered from covid already have an own natural immunity, why are these people being vaccinated?