People snorted with derision on here when I suggested a summer opening for pubs yesterday.
Reading the news today. summer is looking a bit optimistic.
Bookmarked.
Well you said Easter, April 02, so lets bookmark that one too.
I reckon I will still be nearer the bull.
Go ahead and bookmark it. Some/most pubs open by Easter I reckon.
What does 'some/most' mean and what does 'open' mean? And where?
Well open means, erm, open.
Contrarian's OP yesterday said 21 June before any open.
I'm saying April 2.
Open as in
1) selling beer for takeaway 2) COVID protected beer garden stuff 3) fully open, with the band playing etc
Dominos being played in 3, but otherwise agree.
For most of England (given tiered stuff and devolution)
Less than scenario 1 - 12/1 Scenario 1 - 3/1 Closer to Scenario 2 than 1 or 3 - 1/2 Scenario 3 - 8/1
Think I'd swap your first and last, TBH. I don't think that, as far as this part of England is concerned there's much chance of being able to walk down to the local and sit and chat before midsummer. (June 24th)
Although, again TBH I'm as interested in being able to walk down to the local cricket club's ground and sit outside with a beer.
Remember how quickly things changed March to June last time. With the vaccine roll out and good weather scenario 3 is still possible for Easter; perhaps no band but closer to 3 than 2 with groups of six from any household eating and drinking indoors again.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Yes, until day 21 it was explicitly designed to understand that.
What do you think the data from before day 21 is for?
I wouldn't say it was explicitly designed to look at single dose efficacy, because it wasn't. Even if they did collect that data.
The numbers in the trial are relatively small, and the numbers of elderly considerably smaller. And the period we're really interested in is after 21 days...
Yes, I agree with this. There's no doubt that our policy is a big gamble, but when you consider the alternative it's one worth taking. This could Dave tens of thousands of lives and bring us out of this most severe level of lockdown by the middle of March. We know how the road not taken goes as well, the method we've chosen will almost certainly be better than that.
The other point to bear in mind is that we've seen no useful analysis yet (that i've seen, anyway) of the single dose effectiveness in preventing serious illness in elderly populations. That is probably every bit as important as effectiveness in preventing infection at all.
It doesn't matter where it comes from. What matters is what the voting public now thinks. It is not in the gift of a government to make a promise over the heads of future voters.
It can - as it did in 2019 - say to potential voters "we will not have a vote on this matter again during the term of the next Government." And it was given an 80 seat majority, across the whole of the UK. A UK the Scots chose to remain a part of in 2014.
So why should a tiny subset of those UK voters - those who voted SNP - have the right to override the recently-expressed wishes of the rest?
As in Catalonia/Ukraine/ex-Yugoslavia, there is a problem with self-determination that if a majority in one area feel distinctively different and want their own country, while nearly everyone else in their current country dislikes the idea, what should be done? Fortunately we aren't in a country where nationalist feelings on both sides lead to actual wars, but simply saying "Suck it up, losers" isn't a viable long-term policy either. I hate nationalism and think the SNP, Plaid, English nationalists. etc. are all varying degrees of bonkers (and I'd have been fine with Britain being part of a European state), but in the end if there's a settled majority in an area that want to be separate, I think that has to be respected, in the same way as the Brexit vote needs to be respected.
If your argument is that the majority has to be "settled", then clearly just one referendum to secede won't meet that criteria, if it follows on from one only a few years earlier that rejected secession.
The other problem is that you have to be sure that the terms on which they want to secede are shared. At the moment, for example, Scottish secession is being sold on the premise that Scotland would be debt free with the remainder of the UK left to service the entire UK national debt as now. That is clearly not going to be the cases. The starting point for allocating shares of debt should be the Barnett Formula, consistent with the long established basis for allocating shares of public spending.
That's not the case.The Treasury has already stated (in 2013 IIRC) it will carry on fronting the entire UK national debt in the case of Scottish independence. Insofar as we know current SNP planning - and assuming it is the same as in 2014 - it's to take on a share of the debt through some appropriate instrument. Nobody seriously doubts that. But abandoning it is a well known precedent in earlier independence actions where the independence was contested/refused. So it's entirely in the interest of rUK to cooperate.
You have effectively confirmed my point. Your case is basically that you can make a take it or leave it offer to the UK government about the share of UK debt that Scotland is prepared to contribute to, while retaining the ability to pay nothing and just walk away if that no doubt paltry offer is not accepted.
That is frankly a pipe dream. My point is that the UK government can quite rightly argue that a referendum to secede should not be held unless the terms of secession are very clear, which effectively means reaching a prior agreement sufficiently clear to put such pipe dreams to bed.
Patel on manoeuvres. Nothing much Boris can do about it.
I think she is his biggest near term threat.
If Patel is Johnson's biggest near term threat then the Tory selectorate are as sane as Trump
Not betting at the moment, but I note that Nadhim Zahawi is available at 100-1 for next Tory leader. Trading bet?
Hmm. Nadhim Zahawi at 100/1 as a trading bet? It looks like a bet on whether Zahawi's so far good vaccination war is rewarded with a Cabinet post rather than promotion to a (junior) Minister of State role. That might bring him in to, say, 33/1. It is not that tempting given the uncertain time scale.
I certainly don't see him winning the Con Leadership. Not this time round :-) .
Of course. It was coming from the Scottish Government and pertained to Scotland and has often been different from rUK. People needed to know where it was coming from. And it's within the devolved areas. What do they expect??
Either pushing branding is ok or it isn't. I suspect there are many outraged at UK branding not outraged by Scots branding, and vice versa, however.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Pfizer specifically did not publish a separate analysis of the single dose data.
It doesn't matter where it comes from. What matters is what the voting public now thinks. It is not in the gift of a government to make a promise over the heads of future voters.
It can - as it did in 2019 - say to potential voters "we will not have a vote on this matter again during the term of the next Government." And it was given an 80 seat majority, across the whole of the UK. A UK the Scots chose to remain a part of in 2014.
So why should a tiny subset of those UK voters - those who voted SNP - have the right to override the recently-expressed wishes of the rest?
As in Catalonia/Ukraine/ex-Yugoslavia, there is a problem with self-determination that if a majority in one area feel distinctively different and want their own country, while nearly everyone else in their current country dislikes the idea, what should be done? Fortunately we aren't in a country where nationalist feelings on both sides lead to actual wars, but simply saying "Suck it up, losers" isn't a viable long-term policy either. I hate nationalism and think the SNP, Plaid, English nationalists. etc. are all varying degrees of bonkers (and I'd have been fine with Britain being part of a European state), but in the end if there's a settled majority in an area that want to be separate, I think that has to be respected, in the same way as the Brexit vote needs to be respected.
If your argument is that the majority has to be "settled", then clearly just one referendum to secede won't meet that criteria, if it follows on from one only a few years earlier that rejected secession.
The other problem is that you have to be sure that the terms on which they want to secede are shared. At the moment, for example, Scottish secession is being sold on the premise that Scotland would be debt free with the remainder of the UK left to service the entire UK national debt as now. That is clearly not going to be the cases. The starting point for allocating shares of debt should be the Barnett Formula, consistent with the long established basis for allocating shares of public spending.
That's not the case.The Treasury has already stated (in 2013 IIRC) it will carry on fronting the entire UK national debt in the case of Scottish independence. Insofar as we know current SNP planning - and assuming it is the same as in 2014 - it's to take on a share of the debt through some appropriate instrument. Nobody seriously doubts that. But abandoning it is a well known precedent in earlier independence actions where the independence was contested/refused. So it's entirely in the interest of rUK to cooperate.
You have effectively confirmed my point. Your case is basically that you can make a take it or leave it offer to the UK government about the share of UK debt that Scotland is prepared to contribute to, while retaining the ability to pay nothing and just walk away if that no doubt paltry offer is not accepted.
That is frankly a pipe dream. My point is that the UK government can quite rightly argue that a referendum to secede should not be held unless the terms of secession are very clear, which effectively means reaching a prior agreement sufficiently clear to put such pipe dreams to bed.
The proposed share has always been pro rata for population. Is there any other logical one?
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Pfizer specifically did not publish a separate analysis of the single dose data.
But Pfizer didn’t argue it had to be 2 jabs for high protection though?
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
But there are charts that show efficacy and those charts (for at least the first 21 days and given the time required for a vaccine to work the next 5 days to day 26/28 days) relate to the first injection only.
Your entire argument relates to day 21/28 onwards after vaccination when we were talking about people catching Covid on Day -3 through to 0.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
Yes. But what am I saying that needs that data? I think we're at cross purposes.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
You seem to have read a lot into a statement that it doesn't seem to say.
What we do know is that in the first days after the first jab you probably have very little protection, so someone getting sick from covid a few days after vaccination is certainly bad luck, but doesn't tell us anything at all. But quite reasonable, I think, to worry that it might be reported as if it does.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
Yes. But what am I saying that needs that data? I think we're at cross purposes.
I presume the discussion of the 33% number that is bandied around in Israeli media.
When talking of political effects, it worth noting that the Israeli government is trying to deal with a massive surge in cases. "Look - squirrel" will be useful to them.
I find Starmer's questioning on this poor and he is not listening to Boris's answers
He's under pressure Mr G.
Look at that recent Wales poll. Awful.
Labour often seem to have bad polls in Wales and rebound quite a bit at election time. But they did lose a bunch last time, so it must be a concern for them.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
But who is promising herd immunity though? Nobody. Therefore why are you and others talking about it?
Is the problem the word immunity? “You now have 80% immunity” actually means you are not immune, but have some protection?
Maybe protection should be used instead of immunity?
And then to support topping, what is the % of immunity/protection when trials said high from two jabs, was it just assumption it would be high from 1?
I find Starmer's questioning on this poor and he is not listening to Boris's answers
He's under pressure Mr G.
Look at that recent Wales poll. Awful.
Labour often seem to have bad polls in Wales and rebound quite a bit at election time. But they did lose a bunch last time, so it must be a concern for them.
They are justified in being concerned, Drakeford has been a disaster for Wales and Labour
No because your Corbyn love in ended with such disgrace , worst GE since 1935 and SKS was voted in by Labour membership by a huge margin. You say the same thing ever week .
He was correct to go on the home office and the latest Prit patel comments. The loss of data could cause future murders and rapes not to be solved. Can not get more serious than that what ever your prejudices say.
Boris quite rightly says we are in the middle of a global pandemic why has he asked 3 questions about a computer glitch.
Presumably Starmerites on here can supply an answer.
We all know Tories are hopeless are handling pandemics. Now we see that IT illiteracy comes straight from the top too.
Yes, why isn't Patel backing up the database manually every night herself...she should know better. Hell, if she had written this entire HO IT software then it should have been better...
The WH24 market is up on Betfair. I'm hoping to lay some early mug money from punters who think Donald Trump will be in the mix for the GOP nomination.
I see BF has polished up its rules this time!
"This market will be settled once both the projected winner is announced by the Associated Press and the losing candidate concedes. If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress."
Three way election next time Democrats v Republican vs Patriots - the Dem/Rep concedes but the Patriot in 3rd place does not. AP to get bought out by Fox News between the election and the EC vote flipping their call.
TBF, you would probably think that even if Johnson was so bad his cabinet actually lynched him in full view of the cameras, a la Julius Caesar.
I thought bigjohnowls was a labour supporter?
Mind you PMQs is a complete waste of time - mere point scoring without purpose.
No he's not, he's a Corbynista.
Fair play to him for not blindly following the party leader, whoever's it is and whatever they do though.
Corbyn still is the party leader and now the Prime Minister, the vote was rigged, if we only count valid votes not those of traitors and Blairites Labour won a landslide.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
But who is promising herd immunity though? Nobody. Therefore why are you and others talking about it?
Is the problem the word immunity? “You now have 80% immunity” actually means you are not immune, but have some protection?
Maybe protection should be used instead of immunity?
And then to support topping, what is the % of immunity/protection when trials said high from two jabs, was it just assumption it would be high from 1?
If the preliminary data on infectiousness after vaccination is validated - then, we can achieve herd immunity by vaccinating enough people.
If vaccination means we are infectious, but don't suffer severe consequences (very unlikely, but possible) - then it will massively reduce the severity of the epidemic, once the bulk of the population are vaccinated. Probably to the point where restrictions could be lifted.
The efficacy of a single jab is derived from the trial data. The divergence from the placebo is clear and striking from around 12 days.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Pfizer specifically did not publish a separate analysis of the single dose data.
But Pfizer didn’t argue it had to be 2 jabs for high protection though?
Their precise quote was: “there is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”
IOW, they want to leave any responsibility for the decision to the governments involved. Which is fair enough, as they never conducted single dose trials.
Boris quite rightly says we are in the middle of a global pandemic why has he asked 3 questions about a computer glitch.
Presumably Starmerites on here can supply an answer.
We all know Tories are hopeless are handling pandemics. Now we see that IT illiteracy comes straight from the top too.
Yes, why isn't Patel backing up the database manually every night herself...she should know better. Hell, if she had written this entire HO IT software then it should have been better...
No reason for the Tory leadership not to be able to answer simple questions about this.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
But there are charts that show efficacy and those charts (for at least the first 21 days and given the time required for a vaccine to work the next 5 days to day 26/28 days) relate to the first injection only.
Your entire argument relates to day 21/28 onwards after vaccination when we were talking about people catching Covid on Day -3 through to 0.
It really didn't help at all
Not at all. As I said, this relates to the situation of having had Covid pre-first jab.
We have plenty of data about first dose efficacy. But that was picked up "along the way". There was no trial specifically designed to understand this.
Does it matter? Who knows. Probably not. The premise of vaccinating more people rather than spend vaccine on the already vaccinated is very sound and understandable. Especially with more transmissable variants.
These guys don't know. And they aren't sniping from the sidelines, they are central to the effort.
Further, David Spiegelhalter thinks there should be an embedded randomised control trial to determine the difference between three weeks and 12 weeks. There is currently none planned (as of 10 days ago).
They also talk about viral escape, for which @FrancisUrquhart should probably tune out.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Pfizer specifically did not publish a separate analysis of the single dose data.
But Pfizer didn’t argue it had to be 2 jabs for high protection though?
Their precise quote was: “there is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”
Precisely - their concern is that, after 21 days, the first dose might wear off.
I find Starmer's questioning on this poor and he is not listening to Boris's answers
He's under pressure Mr G.
Look at that recent Wales poll. Awful.
Starmer isn't going to solve any issues Labour has in Wales - thats the fault of the Welsh leadership.
Maybe but it affects him too. If he lost even five MPs in Wales due to boundaries and falling popularity, that's five he has to find in England just to stand still.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
You seem to have read a lot into a statement that it doesn't seem to say.
What we do know is that in the first days after the first jab you probably have very little protection, so someone getting sick from covid a few days after vaccination is certainly bad luck, but doesn't tell us anything at all. But quite reasonable, I think, to worry that it might be reported as if it does.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Pfizer specifically did not publish a separate analysis of the single dose data.
But Pfizer didn’t argue it had to be 2 jabs for high protection though?
Their precise quote was: “there is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”
Because as Topping says it wasn't part of the trial criteria - that doesn't mean that protection doesn't continue, just that they don't know.
And it's a great example of us trying to look at the ideal scenario in a time when the ideal scenario just isn't practical.
TBF, you would probably think that even if Johnson was so bad his cabinet actually lynched him in full view of the cameras, a la Julius Caesar.
I thought bigjohnowls was a labour supporter?
Mind you PMQs is a complete waste of time - mere point scoring without purpose.
No he's not, he's a Corbynista.
Fair play to him for not blindly following the party leader, whoever's it is and whatever they do though.
Corbyn still is the party leader and now the Prime Minister, the vote was rigged, if we only count valid votes not those of traitors and Blairites Labour won a landslide.
Otoh, events in America are surely testing to destruction the frequent claim by the winning side that social media campaigns have no effect on voters' behaviour.
Boris quite rightly says we are in the middle of a global pandemic why has he asked 3 questions about a computer glitch.
Presumably Starmerites on here can supply an answer.
We all know Tories are hopeless are handling pandemics. Now we see that IT illiteracy comes straight from the top too.
Yes, why isn't Patel backing up the database manually every night herself...she should know better. Hell, if she had written this entire HO IT software then it should have been better...
No reason for the Tory leadership not to be able to answer simple questions about this.
Dugdale resigned over Crichel Down. Carrington resigned over the Falklands. The former, certainly, and at least to some extent the latter, were not responsible in any personal way. But these events happened on their watches.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
But who is promising herd immunity though? Nobody. Therefore why are you and others talking about it?
Is the problem the word immunity? “You now have 80% immunity” actually means you are not immune, but have some protection?
Maybe protection should be used instead of immunity?
And then to support topping, what is the % of immunity/protection when trials said high from two jabs, was it just assumption it would be high from 1?
If the preliminary data on infectiousness after vaccination is validated - then, we can achieve herd immunity by vaccinating enough people.
If vaccination means we are infectious, but don't suffer severe consequences (very unlikely, but possible) - then it will massively reduce the severity of the epidemic, once the bulk of the population are vaccinated. Probably to the point where restrictions could be lifted.
The efficacy of a single jab is derived from the trial data. The divergence from the placebo is clear and striking from around 12 days.
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
Looks pretty effective even before the second jab. Unless you are arguing semantics, in which case no number of jabs will offer you immunity.
And I thought it had been demonstrated that these vaccines reduced severe cases practically to zero. So I think your statement there about many still dying is wrong.
I find Starmer's questioning on this poor and he is not listening to Boris's answers
He's under pressure Mr G.
Look at that recent Wales poll. Awful.
Starmer isn't going to solve any issues Labour has in Wales - thats the fault of the Welsh leadership.
Maybe but it affects him too. If he lost even five MPs in Wales due to boundaries and falling popularity, that's five he has to find in England just to stand still.
V. hard.
The current figures are Labour, 22, Conservative, 14, PC, 4 (including the one currently suspended).
If my calculations from proposed boundary changes (which are likely to stay) on 2019's voting figures are correct, that would change at the next election to Labour 14, Tory 12, PC 2 with a few too close to call.
So actually, if he only loses five seats in Wales at the next election he's had one hell of a result.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
But who is promising herd immunity though? Nobody. Therefore why are you and others talking about it?
Is the problem the word immunity? “You now have 80% immunity” actually means you are not immune, but have some protection?
Maybe protection should be used instead of immunity?
And then to support topping, what is the % of immunity/protection when trials said high from two jabs, was it just assumption it would be high from 1?
If the preliminary data on infectiousness after vaccination is validated - then, we can achieve herd immunity by vaccinating enough people.
If vaccination means we are infectious, but don't suffer severe consequences (very unlikely, but possible) - then it will massively reduce the severity of the epidemic, once the bulk of the population are vaccinated. Probably to the point where restrictions could be lifted.
The efficacy of a single jab is derived from the trial data. The divergence from the placebo is clear and striking from around 12 days.
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
But the plan is not to stop with one dose, a second will be given when it is possible.
Boris quite rightly says we are in the middle of a global pandemic why has he asked 3 questions about a computer glitch.
Presumably Starmerites on here can supply an answer.
Its interesting that left wing supporters on here like yourself and MexicanPete are in some ways at least, warming to the Johnson regime.
Once the administrative controls that the government have imposed have been let out of the bag then no one is putting them back in and left wing supporters understand that there will be a Labour govt at some point in the future.
Is I think/hope the point you were making in case anyone missed it.
Boris just made an obvious observation that of course fish sales across Europe have been hard hit as restaurants and pubs across Europe are currently closed
I had not thought that one, but it is a fair comment
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
The trial groups are all in contact with the outside (unvaccinated) world. Once everyone is vaccinated, well everyone has protection - and the people they can catch it from have protection so are less likely to transmit to people that themselves have protection. It's the cumulative effect of individual protection that leads to immunity of the population.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
Of course the interesting thing about the Israeli report is that they say with shock that 69 people have caught the virus after the second dose.
I don't think that people have wrapped their head around "90% efficacy" yet.
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
The trial groups are all in contact with the outside (unvaccinated) world. Once everyone is vaccinated, well everyone has protection - and the people they can catch it from have protection so are less likely to transmit to people that themselves have protection. It's the cumulative effect of individual protection that leads to immunity of the population.
One jab creates a level of immunity in that person. It also reduces the transmission of the virus - exactly how much is not scientifically proven yet.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
Of course the interesting thing about the Israeli report is that they say with shock that 69 people have caught the virus after the second dose.
I don't think that people have wrapped their head around "90% efficacy" yet.
It was the same when there were the tweets about a congressperson getting it in the US after being vaccinated. No shit, at least thirty of them will get it after vaccination, hopefully with reduced symptoms.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
Yes. But what am I saying that needs that data? I think we're at cross purposes.
I presume the discussion of the 33% number that is bandied around in Israeli media.
When talking of political effects, it worth noting that the Israeli government is trying to deal with a massive surge in cases. "Look - squirrel" will be useful to them.
I'm not across the detail like you and some others on here but I think I detect what the 2 main areas of concern are. 1. Do we lose some protection if we just have the 1st jab and defer the 2nd? 2. Does the vaccine reduce spread as well as illness? Tentative answers being: 1. Yes, but the macro benefit is expected to be greater. 2. Yes, but we don't know by how much.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
But there are charts that show efficacy and those charts (for at least the first 21 days and given the time required for a vaccine to work the next 5 days to day 26/28 days) relate to the first injection only.
Your entire argument relates to day 21/28 onwards after vaccination when we were talking about people catching Covid on Day -3 through to 0.
It really didn't help at all
To go back to the original Rochdale anecdotal.
We agree as fact, you cannot get COVID from the vaccine? Any mere suggestion otherwise should be frowned upon.
But what happens if you give the vaccine to someone who has recently caught it but not displaying symptoms? Would it be necessary to only give it to people who cleared a test, or is that time wasting and not needed? To what degree could you trust the test result if it was important COVID wasn’t already present?
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
Yes. But what am I saying that needs that data? I think we're at cross purposes.
I presume the discussion of the 33% number that is bandied around in Israeli media.
When talking of political effects, it worth noting that the Israeli government is trying to deal with a massive surge in cases. "Look - squirrel" will be useful to them.
I'm not across the detail like you and some others on here but I think I detect what the 2 main areas of concern are. 1. Do we lose protection if we just have the 1st jab and defer the 2nd? 2. Does the vaccine reduce spread as well as illness? Tentative answers being: 1. Yes, but the macro benefit is expected to be greater. 2. Yes, but we don't know by how much.
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
Looks pretty effective even before the second jab. Unless you are arguing semantics, in which case no number of jabs will offer you immunity.
And I thought it had been demonstrated that these vaccines reduced severe cases practically to zero. So I think your statement there about many still dying is wrong.
This poster isn't worth bothering with, it's just a stream of hysteria and negatives, regardless of the science. He was insinuating that the vaccine could kill you last night. Ignore.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
Of course the interesting thing about the Israeli report is that they say with shock that 69 people have caught the virus after the second dose.
I don't think that people have wrapped their head around "90% efficacy" yet.
It doesn't matter where it comes from. What matters is what the voting public now thinks. It is not in the gift of a government to make a promise over the heads of future voters.
It can - as it did in 2019 - say to potential voters "we will not have a vote on this matter again during the term of the next Government." And it was given an 80 seat majority, across the whole of the UK. A UK the Scots chose to remain a part of in 2014.
So why should a tiny subset of those UK voters - those who voted SNP - have the right to override the recently-expressed wishes of the rest?
It’ll be interesting to see which posters end up on/in* the HYUFD wing over the next few months.
*the Francisco Franco ward of the Scotch Expert care home.
TBF, you would probably think that even if Johnson was so bad his cabinet actually lynched him in full view of the cameras, a la Julius Caesar.
I thought bigjohnowls was a labour supporter?
Mind you PMQs is a complete waste of time - mere point scoring without purpose.
No he's not, he's a Corbynista.
Fair play to him for not blindly following the party leader, whoever's it is and whatever they do though.
Corbyn still is the party leader and now the Prime Minister, the vote was rigged, if we only count valid votes not those of traitors and Blairites Labour won a landslide.
Otoh, events in America are surely testing to destruction the frequent claim by the winning side that social media campaigns have no effect on voters' behaviour.
I've not come across this "frequent claim". On the contrary. I've seen clever use of social media campaigns credited for Obama's win in 2008, Cameron's in 2015 (among others) and also various defeats blamed on poor use (for example, the Tories getting it wrong in 2017 because the world had already moved on from what worked two years earlier).
Boris just made an obvious observation that of course fish sales across Europe have been hard hit as restaurants and pubs across Europe are currently closed
I had not thought that one, but it is a fair comment
But people are still eating so the fact that restaurants and pubs are closed should have no impact on demand
I find Starmer's questioning on this poor and he is not listening to Boris's answers
He's under pressure Mr G.
Look at that recent Wales poll. Awful.
Starmer isn't going to solve any issues Labour has in Wales - thats the fault of the Welsh leadership.
Labour in office - oh nothing to see here, nothing to do with the leader of the Labour Party. 🤣
It's actually the opposite - Labour will cop all the blame but there is very little Starmer can do as it's managed by someone else at branch level.
And even if he sacked the current management of that branch, the new leader would be elected by the local membership and SKS has very little say in who the next leader is.
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
Looks pretty effective even before the second jab. Unless you are arguing semantics, in which case no number of jabs will offer you immunity.
And I thought it had been demonstrated that these vaccines reduced severe cases practically to zero. So I think your statement there about many still dying is wrong.
This poster isn't worth bothering with, it's just a stream of hysteria and negatives, regardless of the science. He was insinuating that the vaccine could kill you last night. Ignore.
The vaccine of course won't kill you. But without clear messaging from the government about risks between vaccines, and about just what XX% efficacy means, there will likely be further deaths not least from partying geriatrics.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
Except your "AFAIA" is wrong.
No trial has been designed to test single dose efficiency on an ongoing basis - but a trial was designed to test single dose efficacy from day 0 to day 21.
This was symptomatic on day 4, symptomatic obviously comes days after infection. That is entirely within the definition of what was tested for and determined. Efficacy was demonstrated between days 10 and 21 (but after 21 is unknown) - but no efficacy for day 4. This is entirely and explicitly within the realms of what was tested for.
Boris just made an obvious observation that of course fish sales across Europe have been hard hit as restaurants and pubs across Europe are currently closed
I had not thought that one, but it is a fair comment
But people are still eating so the fact that restaurants and pubs are closed should have no impact on demand
I can see the logic in that but equally I can see some truth in Boris's comments
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
Except your "AFAIA" is wrong.
No trial has been designed to test single dose efficiency on an ongoing basis - but a trial was designed to test single dose efficacy from day 0 to day 21.
This was symptomatic on day 4, symptomatic obviously comes days after infection. That is entirely within the definition of what was tested for and determined. Efficacy was demonstrated between days 10 and 21 (but after 21 is unknown) - but no efficacy for day 4. This is entirely and explicitly within the realms of what was tested for.
I find Starmer's questioning on this poor and he is not listening to Boris's answers
He's under pressure Mr G.
Look at that recent Wales poll. Awful.
Starmer isn't going to solve any issues Labour has in Wales - thats the fault of the Welsh leadership.
Labour in office - oh nothing to see here, nothing to do with the leader of the Labour Party. 🤣
It's actually the opposite - Labour will cop all the blame but there is very little Starmer can do as it's managed by someone else at branch level.
And even if he sacked the current management of that branch, the new leader would be elected by the local membership and SKS has very little say in who the next leader is.
Still his party and he can still show leadership.
If he can't even get involved with the one "branch" of the country his party is actually running then how on earth is he going to cope if he was ever responsible for the entire country?
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
Except your "AFAIA" is wrong.
No trial has been designed to test single dose efficiency on an ongoing basis - but a trial was designed to test single dose efficacy from day 0 to day 21.
This was symptomatic on day 4, symptomatic obviously comes days after infection. That is entirely within the definition of what was tested for and determined. Efficacy was demonstrated between days 10 and 21 (but after 21 is unknown) - but no efficacy for day 4. This is entirely and explicitly within the realms of what was tested for.
oh thank you.
Could you provide the link pls.
The graph I posted above in this thread is directly from publication of the results of the Pfzier trial.
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
The trial groups are all in contact with the outside (unvaccinated) world. Once everyone is vaccinated, well everyone has protection - and the people they can catch it from have protection so are less likely to transmit to people that themselves have protection. It's the cumulative effect of individual protection that leads to immunity of the population.
Okay. That’s how all vaccines work - There’s no vaccine that gives 100% immunity? But the population overall is in better place, and we call it herd immunity?
Is still think the word immunity is causing an expectation problem. To say to someone you have 80% immunity is saying 80% protection but not immune. Isn’t it?
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Absolutely. Thanks for kicking me about being absolutely dangerous quoting the headline currently leading sky news. Because I agree with you. But how smart you operate on PB isn’t how media in general operate.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
Start with RochdalePioneers original story - "some who has had the vaccine is now ill at home (having caught Covid on the day they were vaccinated or just before)"
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
Of course the interesting thing about the Israeli report is that they say with shock that 69 people have caught the virus after the second dose.
I don't think that people have wrapped their head around "90% efficacy" yet.
It was the same when there were the tweets about a congressperson getting it in the US after being vaccinated. No shit, at least thirty of them will get it after vaccination, hopefully with reduced symptoms.
Boris just made an obvious observation that of course fish sales across Europe have been hard hit as restaurants and pubs across Europe are currently closed
I had not thought that one, but it is a fair comment
But people are still eating so the fact that restaurants and pubs are closed should have no impact on demand
I think with regards shellfish (which is what the Scottish protests were about) a far higher proportion of catch is sold to the restaurant trade compared to other fish, so the point has some validity.
Comments
That is probably every bit as important as effectiveness in preventing infection at all.
That is frankly a pipe dream. My point is that the UK government can quite rightly argue that a referendum to secede should not be held unless the terms of secession are very clear, which effectively means reaching a prior agreement sufficiently clear to put such pipe dreams to bed.
I think he's 53.
Because of the number of people who think the vaccination programme is going to create herd immunity and get things back to normal, I do think the media have got themselves into a difficult spot on messaging, for example.
But “we are ahead of the game”/fools rush in where wise fear to tread - a political decision has been made quickly in some countries 1 Pfizer jab will be okay, but not made in other countries.
Is there anything in this post ‘’positively dangerous’?
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
And then remove the bit in brackets as a lot journalists will to make the story more sensational. Its the editing and ignoring of facts and the introduction of irrelevant issues (such as Topping talking about single jab efficacy) which makes things positively dangerous.
All take what is a very likely to occur grotty story and makes it into something far worse that people may use to justify not getting vaccinated. And we need people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity.
Mind you PMQs is a complete waste of time - mere point scoring without purpose.
Your entire argument relates to day 21/28 onwards after vaccination when we were talking about people catching Covid on Day -3 through to 0.
It really didn't help at all
Look at that recent Wales poll. Awful.
Presumably Starmerites on here can supply an answer.
What we do know is that in the first days after the first jab you probably have very little protection, so someone getting sick from covid a few days after vaccination is certainly bad luck, but doesn't tell us anything at all. But quite reasonable, I think, to worry that it might be reported as if it does.
When talking of political effects, it worth noting that the Israeli government is trying to deal with a massive surge in cases. "Look - squirrel" will be useful to them.
Is the problem the word immunity? “You now have 80% immunity” actually means you are not immune, but have some protection?
Maybe protection should be used instead of immunity?
And then to support topping, what is the % of immunity/protection when trials said high from two jabs, was it just assumption it would be high from 1?
You say the same thing ever week .
He was correct to go on the home office and the latest Prit patel comments.
The loss of data could cause future murders and rapes not to be solved.
Can not get more serious than that what ever your prejudices say.
And Boris is doing fine compared to Drakeford and Labour here in Wales who is worse than hopeless
If vaccination means we are infectious, but don't suffer severe consequences (very unlikely, but possible) - then it will massively reduce the severity of the epidemic, once the bulk of the population are vaccinated. Probably to the point where restrictions could be lifted.
The efficacy of a single jab is derived from the trial data. The divergence from the placebo is clear and striking from around 12 days.
IOW, they want to leave any responsibility for the decision to the governments involved.
Which is fair enough, as they never conducted single dose trials.
Were it not for the pandemic and Brexit it would be a very big story so I can understand why SKS focussed on it.
I want Labour yo win.
I don't think SKS is the man
We have plenty of data about first dose efficacy. But that was picked up "along the way". There was no trial specifically designed to understand this.
Does it matter? Who knows. Probably not. The premise of vaccinating more people rather than spend vaccine on the already vaccinated is very sound and understandable. Especially with more transmissable variants.
These guys don't know. And they aren't sniping from the sidelines, they are central to the effort.
From three mins in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000r605
Further, David Spiegelhalter thinks there should be an embedded randomised control trial to determine the difference between three weeks and 12 weeks. There is currently none planned (as of 10 days ago).
They also talk about viral escape, for which @FrancisUrquhart should probably tune out.
V. hard.
And it's a great example of us trying to look at the ideal scenario in a time when the ideal scenario just isn't practical.
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
And I thought it had been demonstrated that these vaccines reduced severe cases practically to zero. So I think your statement there about many still dying is wrong.
If my calculations from proposed boundary changes (which are likely to stay) on 2019's voting figures are correct, that would change at the next election to Labour 14, Tory 12, PC 2 with a few too close to call.
So actually, if he only loses five seats in Wales at the next election he's had one hell of a result.
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
But the plan is not to stop with one dose, a second will be given when it is possible.
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1351868251316301824?s=20
I do hope Obama congratulated Nick Clegg in 2010.
Is I think/hope the point you were making in case anyone missed it.
I had not thought that one, but it is a fair comment
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/nov/08/boris-johnson-congratulates-biden-and-harris-there-is-more-that-unites-us-than-divides-us-video
It's the cumulative effect of individual protection that leads to immunity of the population.
I don't think that people have wrapped their head around "90% efficacy" yet.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1351863360594317314
1. Do we lose some protection if we just have the 1st jab and defer the 2nd?
2. Does the vaccine reduce spread as well as illness?
Tentative answers being:
1. Yes, but the macro benefit is expected to be greater.
2. Yes, but we don't know by how much.
We agree as fact, you cannot get COVID from the vaccine? Any mere suggestion otherwise should be frowned upon.
But what happens if you give the vaccine to someone who has recently caught it but not displaying symptoms? Would it be necessary to only give it to people who cleared a test, or is that time wasting and not needed?
To what degree could you trust the test result if it was important COVID wasn’t already present?
*the Francisco Franco ward of the Scotch Expert care home.
And even if he sacked the current management of that branch, the new leader would be elected by the local membership and SKS has very little say in who the next leader is.
No trial has been designed to test single dose efficiency on an ongoing basis - but a trial was designed to test single dose efficacy from day 0 to day 21.
This was symptomatic on day 4, symptomatic obviously comes days after infection. That is entirely within the definition of what was tested for and determined. Efficacy was demonstrated between days 10 and 21 (but after 21 is unknown) - but no efficacy for day 4. This is entirely and explicitly within the realms of what was tested for.
Could you provide the link pls.
If he can't even get involved with the one "branch" of the country his party is actually running then how on earth is he going to cope if he was ever responsible for the entire country?
Were it not for the pandemic and Brexit it may have been appropriate to ask but it was answered 3 times
Worst PMQs performance by a LOTO for years.
Is still think the word immunity is causing an expectation problem. To say to someone you have 80% immunity is saying 80% protection but not immune. Isn’t it?