Coronavirus discussion thread
136 watchers
Jan 2021
2:20pm, 21 Jan 2021
4,506 posts
|
ThorntonRunner
I think it's a calculated risk, driven by the need to try to get the infection rate down and protect as many people as possible. The Israeli paper is I think a little misleading - 33% effectiveness is basically during the three week period after the vaccine has been given. It doesn't tell us what the effectiveness is of one dose after three weeks, as in Israel everyone then gets their second dose. It's always been stated that effectiveness builds up over time after the vaccination, so until there is hard data to the contrary, I'm reasonably happy with the suggestion that 50% effectiveness is likely - that seems to be consistent with the Israeli figure given that many of +ve cases after one dose in Israel will have been before immunity had built up |
Jan 2021
2:23pm, 21 Jan 2021
4,197 posts
|
Little Miss Happy
I don't think it was necessarily a rush to be first LL more a case of giving the maximum number of people some protection in the shortest time. Of course it does also mean that they can tell the public that the end is in sight though I note that most people don't seem to have noticed that even on the proposed new schedule everyone will only have been offered their first jab by the end of the year so second jab and maximum immunity for the later groups won't be until the beginning of next year.
|
Jan 2021
2:25pm, 21 Jan 2021
7,452 posts
|
sallykate
Have to say that I agree that the schedule as presented for approval by the regulatory bodies should be the one that's followed.
|
Jan 2021
2:34pm, 21 Jan 2021
13,302 posts
|
larkim
33% effectiveness is still an awful lot better than zero effectiveness! I think the experts are divided on the one shot vs two shot approach. I've not listened to all of this, but it was discussed on "how to vaccinate the world" bbc.co.uk |
Jan 2021
2:36pm, 21 Jan 2021
7,454 posts
|
sallykate
Have just picked up on the "useful links" feature - I'll try to keep on top of posting useful links shared here in the sidebar (maybe just the ten most recent to avoid building a huge sidebar).
|
Jan 2021
2:52pm, 21 Jan 2021
13,303 posts
|
larkim
In that episode I've linked to, Dr David Speigelhalter (generally a "sound" mind) reported that the Pfizer jab had reported efficacy after 15-21 days with a single shot of 89% from the trials, though the data wasn't entirely robust. He also said that the AZ shot had I think 73% efficacy after a single shot after 22-29 days. There was also comment that *in general* vaccines work well with decent periods of time in between shots, and 12 weeks shouldn't be a concern. So I suppose if it's the choice of 2.5m people vaccinated to 95% efficacy (double shot) or 5m people at 89% (single shot) it looks credible to get more people at least part protected. Even if efficacy was only just over 50% at first, and there's no harm in the delay, then single shot looks a decent tactic. |
Jan 2021
3:01pm, 21 Jan 2021
407 posts
|
Shades
The subject of the 33% efficacy after first jab was mentioned on Politics Live programme today. There was a health reporter who stated that the 33% was after 14 days when the body's immune system starts to show a reaction. As the days go on that efficacy increases with time. She mentioned a graph but the graph which I didn't see or it wasn't shown.
|
Jan 2021
3:01pm, 21 Jan 2021
29,857 posts
|
Ocelot Spleens
50% is very good for a new vaccine for a new virus. A bit of fag packet arithmetic. 3.5 million over 80...80% of deaths in over 80s..so you reduce current levels by 50%..you would still get what 1000 to 1300 deaths a day! Hospitalsations may well be better. Current restrictions must stay, social distancing must stay, right around until the infection rate is really low....the rate of infection is even now still the problem. If you ask me this method is all about pressure on the NHS, rather than the absolute best use of the vaccine. They're firefighting, but as I said it is pretty much a toss up which way you go. It also wouldn't surprise me if they change tack but they would need too soon. |
Jan 2021
3:02pm, 21 Jan 2021
29,858 posts
|
Ocelot Spleens
Larks..Ta...that looks a good listen.
|
Jan 2021
3:04pm, 21 Jan 2021
29,859 posts
|
Ocelot Spleens
yes...so again...you come out of your home...get your jab...go right back in and stay there at least for 3 weeks....I.wish that message was rammed home more...I have nagged by dad every day about that...Nothing changes yet.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.- BBC Radio 4 series "How to vaccinate the world", by Tim Harford
- BMJ (British Medical Journal) coronavirus hub: research and clinical guidance
- The Lancet's COVID-19 resource centre
- Covid-19 vaccine FAQ from the New England Journal of Medicine
- FAQs from the Royal Statistical Society - context around all the data on Covid-19
- UK vaccine tracker: up to date visualisations on the progress of the UK programme. Data from PHE.
- Daily summary from the UK Government
- Vaccine Knowledge Project - Covid-19 vaccines
- ONS data on Covid-19 with age and geographic breakdowns
- A guide to Covid-19 tests from the Royal College of Pathologists
- Vaccinaid: a chance to help Unicef vaccinate other nations
- Long Covid treatments: why the world is still waiting (Aug 2022)
Related Threads
- Any economists out there - question Oct 2022
- To wear or not to wear a mask? Jul 2022
- The New Normal - What do you see that is becoming the New Normal? Jan 2021
- Heathen unbelievers - BBQ here May 2023
- Potential Adverse Cardiovascular Effects From Excessive Endurance Exercise Jun 2012
- Politics Nov 2024
- The Environment Thread :-) Nov 2024
- God Botherers - 'Fess Up! Nov 2024
- What or who do you hate but everybody else seems to love?? Nov 2024
- Who or what, despite widespread incomprehension and incredulous despair, remains inexplicably popular? Jul 2024