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.
On a second reading it seems even more unhinged. A useful reminder after the recent GWB discussions that the current set of of pricks being really ghastly is not a case for a retrospective pardon for their predecessors.
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.
And of course for those of us in Wales, when we hear Starmer he is speaking to England and he does not relate to the Labour government here in Wales
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.
Have a look at this image and look up at day 4 and see its results. Day 4 is within this chart and what was tested for - what were the results at day 4? Is day 4 the same or different to results day 10-21?
Day 22 onwards there's no data for. There is data for day 4.
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.
Because this government can multi-task - it can get several things wrong at the same time. I am not a Starmerite by the way. SKS has sacked MPs for going into the same lobby as the Lib Dems.
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
Except, that in many countries people are restricted how often they can go out and even if they aren't, most people are trying to limit their trips to supermarket and other food shops. Fresh fish isn't something that keeps for weeks, so demand will be up for items with long shelf lives e.g. we all saw the panic biying of dried pasta
Secondly there are food stuff thats people don't cook as much at home, preferring to eat them in restaurants, especially ones that require quite a lot of prep, fish being a good example e.g. not many people would ever attempt to cook a fresh lobster at home.
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.
The data lost is going to result in potentially people going free for crimes they have committed.
Were it not for the pandemic and Brexit it would be a very big story so I can understand why SKS focussed on it.
It is going to be restored according to Boris
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.
I agree with you. You press a button to delete something it isn’t instantly delete is it? I thought of it as a non story the moment it appeared in the media.
Meanwhile sky viewers asked Patrick Vallance the questions today sks should have asked at PMQs. COVID as boris explained is the only game in town.
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?
Off topic
You spend all day on here making foolish partisan comments. You and your echo chamber are devaluing this great site.
Time to take a break I think. I look forward to the raft of off topics.
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
And the two largest markets, France & Spain, have cultures that actually buy and cook fish and seafood at home.
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.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
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.
No I wasn’t. You can’t catch COVID from vaccine you silly anabob.
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.
Have a look at this image and look up at day 4 and see its results. Day 4 is within this chart and what was tested for - what were the results at day 4? Is day 4 the same or different to results day 10-21?
Day 22 onwards there's no data for. There is data for day 4.
Thanks I still don't think the trial was designed to test efficacy after a single dose although as you say it was certainly observed. The press release doesn't mention anything other than divergence after Day 12.
But frankly I can't even remember why it matters here so I will accept that you are all wrong and I, as ever, am right.
I know my own food choices have become much more limited. I am not ordering stuff that needs eating within a few days, where as normally i would pop into the shops to get things say for a fresh salad on the day I am going to eat it. Have freezer full of frozen fruits and veg, where as normally i might have a bag or two. Same with meat, its all frozen.
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.
No I wasn’t. You can’t catch COVID from vaccine you silly anabob.
gealbhan wrote: You mean Are there any stats for how many deaths are caused by the programme? Could the government fairly sit on those numbers with argument not to give anti vaxers ammo?
Overall it must save lives and the NHS but Does roll out of flu vaccines cause much illness and death each year that’s attributed to having had the jab?
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
Except, that in many countries people are restricted how often they can go out and even if they aren't, most people are trying to limit their trips to supermarket and other food shops. Fresh fish isn't something that keeps for weeks, so demand will be up for items with long shelf lives e.g. we all saw the panic biying of dried pasta
Secondly there are food stuff thats people don't cook as much at home, preferring to eat them in restaurants, especially ones that require quite a lot of prep, fish being a good example e.g. not many people would ever attempt to cook a fresh lobster at home.
Yes, I could readily believe that salmon sales are up while cod/haddock sales are down, and shellfish down more. Much like commercial butchers say beef mince and chicken breast sales are up but prime steak sales are much worse.
Which means you can get some cracking deals at one near me. 1lb t-bone steaks for £7.50 each, vac packed and great quality.
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.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
Yes saw that thanks. As I said (why am I writing this?) that was observed but the trial was not designed to determine it. Was 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 people are still eating so the fact that restaurants and pubs are closed should have no impact on demand
Except, that in many countries people are restricted how often they can go out and even if they aren't, most people are trying to limit their trips to supermarket and other food shops. Fresh fish isn't something that keeps for weeks, so demand will be up for items with long shelf lives e.g. we all saw the panic biying of dried pasta
Secondly there are food stuff thats people don't cook as much at home, preferring to eat them in restaurants, especially ones that require quite a lot of prep, fish being a good example e.g. not many people would ever attempt to cook a fresh lobster at home.
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.
I would actually say 2 - is unknown as of yet.
I more have it as "unproven" - because it was not a formal part of the trials and we are too early into the rollout to draw firm conclusions. However the theoretical science says it is highly probable it will reduce spread to an extent. So I'm happy to go with a tentative yes as the answer. Also, a point on the trials. It is not reasonable to say everything not covered there is "unknown" as if we are in the dark. For example, there is nothing in the trials - or in rollout to date - to prove the vaccine is safe in the long term. Nevertheless, if asked the question, "Will many people develop serious heart problems in 5 years as a result of taking this vaccine?", the answer is hopefully more reassuring than, "We don't know."
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.
Would you like to go on record as saying COVID vaccinations will return us to normal, or near normal? 🙂
What you call hysteria and anti science is me reading the science as saying it’s not. We will still be in a tricky place with this. I only wish you were right and I were wrong actually
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
Except, that in many countries people are restricted how often they can go out and even if they aren't, most people are trying to limit their trips to supermarket and other food shops. Fresh fish isn't something that keeps for weeks, so demand will be up for items with long shelf lives e.g. we all saw the panic biying of dried pasta
Secondly there are food stuff thats people don't cook as much at home, preferring to eat them in restaurants, especially ones that require quite a lot of prep, fish being a good example e.g. not many people would ever attempt to cook a fresh lobster at home.
Yes, I could readily believe that salmon sales are up while cod/haddock sales are down, and shellfish down more. Much like commercial butchers say beef mince and chicken breast sales are up but prime steak sales are much worse.
Which means you can get some cracking deals at one near me. 1lb t-bone steaks for £7.50 each, vac packed and great quality.
Oh i haven't had a good steak in 10 months now....sad......
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.
The data lost is going to result in potentially people going free for crimes they have committed.
Were it not for the pandemic and Brexit it would be a very big story so I can understand why SKS focussed on it.
It is going to be restored according to Boris
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.
I agree with you. You press a button to delete something it isn’t instantly delete is it? I thought of it as a non story the moment it appeared in the media.
Meanwhile sky viewers asked Patrick Vallance the questions today sks should have asked at PMQs. COVID as boris explained is the only game in town.
Not quite.
This is something that should have been planned for months ago and tested - it wasn't
The system is a combination of a lot of completely different systems all joined together which means that the records aren't deleted immediately instead a flag would be set and the records then separated and deleted as part (probably) of a batch process
Also there should be backups of the data and it's clear that they don't actually exist in usable formats (again this should not be occurring).
So various checks and balances should have been in place and weren't
Equally is Boris fully qualified to answer the questions Patrick Vallance is currently answering - I suspect Boris really isn't
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
And the two largest markets, France & Spain, have cultures that actually buy and cook fish and seafood at home.
Is this home cooking of fresh (which seems to be the issue) or frozen fish?
You can't keep fresh very long and shopping daily doesn't seem like a good idea. Although we've got a big local fish market I can't see it being particularly popular at the moment.
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
Except, that in many countries people are restricted how often they can go out and even if they aren't, most people are trying to limit their trips to supermarket and other food shops. Fresh fish isn't something that keeps for weeks, so demand will be up for items with long shelf lives e.g. we all saw the panic biying of dried pasta
Secondly there are food stuff thats people don't cook as much at home, preferring to eat them in restaurants, especially ones that require quite a lot of prep, fish being a good example e.g. not many people would ever attempt to cook a fresh lobster at home.
Yes, I could readily believe that salmon sales are up while cod/haddock sales are down, and shellfish down more. Much like commercial butchers say beef mince and chicken breast sales are up but prime steak sales are much worse.
Which means you can get some cracking deals at one near me. 1lb t-bone steaks for £7.50 each, vac packed and great quality.
Oh i haven't had a good steak in 10 months now....sad......
Plenty of online services will send you some. Either as is or as part of a package.
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.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
Yes saw that thanks. As I said (why am I writing this?) that was observed but the trial was not designed to determine it. Was it?
Yes it was, which is why it was part of their reporting. Did you think they included it as it was an interesting aside?
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
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.
No I wasn’t. You can’t catch COVID from vaccine you silly anabob.
I would be more worried that I might catch it from the person vaccinating me...
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 think their concern was to avoid any suggestion of legal liability.
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
More tests = more volunteers required => longer time before results are available and vaccinations can begin
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.
No I wasn’t. You can’t catch COVID from vaccine you silly anabob.
gealbhan wrote: You mean Are there any stats for how many deaths are caused by the programme? Could the government fairly sit on those numbers with argument not to give anti vaxers ammo?
Overall it must save lives and the NHS but Does roll out of flu vaccines cause much illness and death each year that’s attributed to having had the jab?
Hmm.
Vaccination is dangerous in some instances But you can’t catch COVID from vaccine. And I never specifically said that. As you just proved. Thanks.
Thinking as a government we would like vaccination programmes, agree? But there would be a negative column from the vaccinations we wouldn’t really like out there, because it would aid people opposed to our vaccination programme. But we would have to publish it somewhere though wouldn’t we? Ethically and democratically speaking?
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.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
Yes saw that thanks. As I said (why am I writing this?) that was observed but the trial was not designed to determine it. Was it?
The trial observed it through it's nature.
You don't put throw away lines that you don't mean in peer-reviewed publications. Especially not, when it touches on the main point of the paper - vaccine efficacy.
The scientists in question wrote that statement because they believed that they had proved it true. And they staked their reputations on it.
The last time a third party candidate was elected was 1860.
The last time one even came second was 1912.
It ain’t gonna happen. The only thing it would do is split the Republican vote and let the Democrats win their greatest landslide since 1936.
Trump may be quite happy with that outcome.
Trump would be very happy with that outcome. As 2028 would then be a choice for the Republicans of Trump Jr as Republican candidate or the Democrats winning again.
Yes it was, which is why it was part of their reporting. Did you think they included it as it was an interesting aside?
Was it this trial?
The study will evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of 2 different SARS CoV 2 RNA vaccine candidates against COVID 19 and the efficacy of 1 candidate:
1) As a 2-dose (separated by 21 days) schedule; 2) At various different dose levels in Phase 1; 3) In 3 age groups (Phase 1: 18 to 55 years of age, 65 to 85 years of age; Phase 2/3: ≥12 years of age [stratified as 12-15, 16-55 or >55 years of age]).
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
And the two largest markets, France & Spain, have cultures that actually buy and cook fish and seafood at home.
Is this home cooking of fresh (which seems to be the issue) or frozen fish?
You can't keep fresh very long and shopping daily doesn't seem like a good idea at the moment. Although we've got a big local fish market I can't see it being particularly popular at the moment.
Can’t speak for France but in Spain it’s fresh, their food markets are fantastic with lots of fish outlets. Saw some massive, ie as big as lobsters, Scottish langoustines in Alicante’s Mercado Central last time I was there.
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
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.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
Yes saw that thanks. As I said (why am I writing this?) that was observed but the trial was not designed to determine it. Was it?
The trial observed it through it's nature.
You don't put throw away lines that you don't mean in peer-reviewed publications. Especially not, when it touches on the main point of the paper - vaccine efficacy.
The scientists in question wrote that statement because they believed that they had proved it true. And they staked their reputations on it.
Absolutely. But it was not in the effing trial design.
I have no idea why it matters but it wasn't - if the trial I referenced above is the one - and if so, I win PB today.
"Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people."
No. No. No.
Do it properly. If everyone stays in lockdown and wears masks they won't catch the virus. Meantime we roll this out according to clinical trial testing.
There's an added danger, say some expert immunologists, of the UK creating with its delayed 2nd jab just the perfect spawning ground for vaccine resistant covid mutations.
Which would be the second time Tony Blair has unleashed mass death on the world.
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.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
Yes saw that thanks. As I said (why am I writing this?) that was observed but the trial was not designed to determine it. Was it?
Yes it was, which is why it was part of their reporting. Did you think they included it as it was an interesting aside?
Shit, you don't know what a primary endpoint is, do you? And you think there is some rule against reporting on secondary outcomes? Sarcastic and flat-on-your-arse wrong is a really, really bad look.
Why do you think the trials's conclusions are (in total) "CONCLUSIONS A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines."?
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.
No I wasn’t. You can’t catch COVID from vaccine you silly anabob.
I would be more worried that I might catch it from the person vaccinating me...
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
I know my own food choices have become much more limited. I am not ordering stuff that needs eating within a few days, where as normally i would pop into the shops to get things say for a fresh salad on the day I am going to eat it. Have freezer full of frozen fruits and veg, where as normally i might have a bag or two. Same with meat, its all frozen.
I buy my meat at the butchers (open as normal) and my fish by home delivery (delivered fresh). If anything, my recipes are getting more sophisticated. Knocked up fresh scallops with pea puree the other night - effing delicious!
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
And the two largest markets, France & Spain, have cultures that actually buy and cook fish and seafood at home.
Is this home cooking of fresh (which seems to be the issue) or frozen fish?
You can't keep fresh very long and shopping daily doesn't seem like a good idea. Although we've got a big local fish market I can't see it being particularly popular at the moment.
Waitrose sell fish from the wet fish counter with a couple of days use by date, I think modern supply chains get it to the shop quicker. I simply plan my menu to have fresh fish on the day I shop or at least within 48 hours.
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.
The data lost is going to result in potentially people going free for crimes they have committed.
Were it not for the pandemic and Brexit it would be a very big story so I can understand why SKS focussed on it.
It is going to be restored according to Boris
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.
I agree with you. You press a button to delete something it isn’t instantly delete is it? I thought of it as a non story the moment it appeared in the media.
Meanwhile sky viewers asked Patrick Vallance the questions today sks should have asked at PMQs. COVID as boris explained is the only game in town.
Not quite.
This is something that should have been planned for months ago and tested - it wasn't
The system is a combination of a lot of completely different systems all joined together which means that the records aren't deleted immediately instead a flag would be set and the records then separated and deleted as part (probably) of a batch process
Also there should be backups of the data and it's clear that they don't actually exist in usable formats (again this should not be occurring).
So various checks and balances should have been in place and weren't
Equally is Boris fully qualified to answer the questions Patrick Vallance is currently answering - I suspect Boris really isn't
“ is Boris fully qualified to answer the questions Patrick Vallance is currently answering - I suspect Boris really isn't “
Ultimately he is making big decisions though needs some sort of handle on the COVID brief?
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
More tests = more volunteers required => longer time before results are available and vaccinations can begin
Doesn't require anything more than picking a random number of those being vaccinated to get the double dose on the normal schedule - and compare results with the delayed booster cohort.
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.
No I wasn’t. You can’t catch COVID from vaccine you silly anabob.
gealbhan wrote: You mean Are there any stats for how many deaths are caused by the programme? Could the government fairly sit on those numbers with argument not to give anti vaxers ammo?
Overall it must save lives and the NHS but Does roll out of flu vaccines cause much illness and death each year that’s attributed to having had the jab?
Hmm.
Vaccination is dangerous in some instances But you can’t catch COVID from vaccine. And I never specifically said that. As you just proved. Thanks.
Thinking as a government we would like vaccination programmes, agree? But there would be a negative column from the vaccinations we wouldn’t really like out there, because it would aid people opposed to our vaccination programme. But we would have to publish it somewhere though wouldn’t we? Ethically and democratically speaking?
No, I said you were insinuating it. Which you were. Hysterical nonsense.
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.
Would you like to go on record as saying COVID vaccinations will return us to normal, or near normal? 🙂
I am Sean.
This country will have all-but-eradicated the virus by this autumn. Our vaccination rollout is astounding.
Golly, just heard Biden’s speech from last night mentioning Ireland/Dublin. Regardless of the actualite of his Irish roots, the strength of his feeling is 100% authentic.
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
Except, that in many countries people are restricted how often they can go out and even if they aren't, most people are trying to limit their trips to supermarket and other food shops. Fresh fish isn't something that keeps for weeks, so demand will be up for items with long shelf lives e.g. we all saw the panic biying of dried pasta
Secondly there are food stuff thats people don't cook as much at home, preferring to eat them in restaurants, especially ones that require quite a lot of prep, fish being a good example e.g. not many people would ever attempt to cook a fresh lobster at home.
First catch your lobster?
Apparently they gather near sewage outlets.
Ever since a lobster fisherman told me that, I've slightly gone off them.
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
Except, that in many countries people are restricted how often they can go out and even if they aren't, most people are trying to limit their trips to supermarket and other food shops. Fresh fish isn't something that keeps for weeks, so demand will be up for items with long shelf lives e.g. we all saw the panic biying of dried pasta
Secondly there are food stuff thats people don't cook as much at home, preferring to eat them in restaurants, especially ones that require quite a lot of prep, fish being a good example e.g. not many people would ever attempt to cook a fresh lobster at home.
Yes, I could readily believe that salmon sales are up while cod/haddock sales are down, and shellfish down more. Much like commercial butchers say beef mince and chicken breast sales are up but prime steak sales are much worse.
Which means you can get some cracking deals at one near me. 1lb t-bone steaks for £7.50 each, vac packed and great quality.
Oh i haven't had a good steak in 10 months now....sad......
Plenty of online services will send you some. Either as is or as part of a package.
During the first lockdown, a local pub which sources much of its ingredients from the local farms offered not only delivered meals but you could also order raw ingredients that they get from their suppliers. As well as decent meat, got to sample some nice cheeses i wouldn't have otherwise tried.
Unfortunately although they are still doing meals, there wasn't enough take up in the raw supplies so they ceased doing it.
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
March would have been too late. February half term was when most of the seeds were sown.
"Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people."
No. No. No.
Do it properly. If everyone stays in lockdown and wears masks they won't catch the virus. Meantime we roll this out according to clinical trial testing.
There's an added danger, say some expert immunologists, of the UK creating with its delayed 2nd jab just the perfect spawning ground for vaccine resistant covid mutations.
Which would be the second time Tony Blair has unleashed mass death on the world.
I agree. It is Tony Blair’s fault if this is a botched roll 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.
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
More tests = more volunteers required => longer time before results are available and vaccinations can begin
Doesn't require anything more than picking a random number of those being vaccinated to get the double dose on the normal schedule - and compare results with the delayed booster cohort.
How do you do that with the same number of volunteers and the same statistical confidences?
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
Perhaps Priti will reveal a blog from March saying she was demanding that the borders be closed? Check for virtual Tippex if so.
Golly, just heard Biden’s speech from last night mentioning Ireland/Dublin. Regardless of the actualite of his Irish roots, the strength of his feeling is 100% authentic.
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
March would have been too late. February half term was when most of the seeds were sown.
No, if we had shut the doors in March we would almost certainly not have had a second wave, certainly not one of such virulence and lethality. Who knows, we might not even have got this current oh so infectious variant. Idiots going skiing in February, especially to Italy, caused many of the first problems but I think that with the doors shut and lockdown vigorously applied we could have got on top of that, indeed even with new infections arriving at random from abroad we pretty much did.
Just watched the latest launch of the Falcon 9 with its Starlink payload. Still very impressive despite a picture break-up just as it re-landed on the drone ship. Parts of the UK will soon get its internet connection via Starlink.
I know my own food choices have become much more limited. I am not ordering stuff that needs eating within a few days, where as normally i would pop into the shops to get things say for a fresh salad on the day I am going to eat it. Have freezer full of frozen fruits and veg, where as normally i might have a bag or two. Same with meat, its all frozen.
I buy my meat at the butchers (open as normal) and my fish by home delivery (delivered fresh). If anything, my recipes are getting more sophisticated. Knocked up fresh scallops with pea puree the other night - effing delicious!
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
I would suggest that sending people untested from hospital back to care homes is a reason for a lot of the actual deaths - possibly in the 10s of thousands of them.
There are an awful lot of care homes were 1 person arrived back from hospital and within 2-3 weeks 20%+ of the patients had died from Covid.
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.
Would you like to go on record as saying COVID vaccinations will return us to normal, or near normal? 🙂
I am Sean.
This country will have all-but-eradicated the virus by this autumn. Our vaccination rollout is astounding.
Is this one of those logic puzzles, where you add that "all Seans are liars".
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
There is the ZOE data. They already have 100,000 people who have had at least one jab. At the moment they are talking about side effects (mainly sore arms and headaches) in due course they will tell us if anyone has caught symptomatic COVID after being jabbed
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.
Would you like to go on record as saying COVID vaccinations will return us to normal, or near normal? 🙂
I am Sean.
This country will have all-but-eradicated the virus by this autumn. Our vaccination rollout is astounding.
What does mystic rose think? I’m taking some flack on here last 24 hours for suggesting
1). The science isn’t promising we will be back to normal or near normal 2). Why can’t we use word protection instead of immunity ie you are are 83.4% protected. Herd protection.
I think they want me banned for this message. Anabob said this is hyperbole and everything I post is negative. Eek said I am absolutely dangerous. 🙁
Just watched the latest launch of the Falcon 9 with its Starlink payload. Still very impressive despite a picture break-up just as it re-landed on the drone ship. Parts of the UK will soon get its internet connection via Starlink.
It is a testiment to what an incredible job SpaceX do that these launches and relanding occur on a regular basis now and get virtually no coverage as it is seen as unremarkable.
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
And the two largest markets, France & Spain, have cultures that actually buy and cook fish and seafood at home.
The UK doesn't though, which is surely a big problem for anyone landing their catch here.
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
Perhaps Priti will reveal a blog from March saying she was demanding that the borders be closed? Check for virtual Tippex if so.
In fairness I don't think she is claiming that although who knows what was said in committee. Grant Shapps, on the other hand, must be really busy. Clearly responsible for the deaths of more Brits than any Minister since WW2. Blair, he may have killed more overall but not Brits.
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
More tests = more volunteers required => longer time before results are available and vaccinations can begin
Doesn't require anything more than picking a random number of those being vaccinated to get the double dose on the normal schedule - and compare results with the delayed booster cohort.
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
There is the ZOE data. They already have 100,000 people who have had at least one jab. At the moment they are talking about side effects (mainly sore arms and headaches) in due course they will tell us if anyone has caught symptomatic COVID after being jabbed
And we have 450K people who had both shots to compare those on 1 shot with.
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.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
They also stated: "The study was not designed to assess the efficacy of a single-dose regimen. Nevertheless, in the interval between the first and second doses, the observed vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 52%..."
Can you tell me the confidence interval for the '52% effectiveness' ? Or, rather more importantly, what the observed effectiveness was in those aged over 70 ?
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.
Would you like to go on record as saying COVID vaccinations will return us to normal, or near normal? 🙂
I am Sean.
This country will have all-but-eradicated the virus by this autumn. Our vaccination rollout is astounding.
What does mystic rose think? I’m taking some flack on here last 24 hours for suggesting
1). The science isn’t promising we will be back to normal or near normal 2). Why can’t we use word protection instead of immunity ie you are are 83.4% protected. Herd protection.
I think they want me banned for this message. Anabob said this is hyperbole and everything I post is negative. Eek said I am absolutely dangerous. 🙁
Without the hyperbole I believe their argument is that you are making a combined error of cherry picking data, misunderstanding data and drawing conclusions from the data that cannot be supported.
Just watched the latest launch of the Falcon 9 with its Starlink payload. Still very impressive despite a picture break-up just as it re-landed on the drone ship. Parts of the UK will soon get its internet connection via Starlink.
It is a testiment to what an incredible job SpaceX do that these launches and relanding occur on a regular basis now and get virtually no coverage as it is seen as unremarkable.
The same happened with the shuttle. It was only the Challenger disaster that resumed public (or rather media) interest.
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
March would have been too late. February half term was when most of the seeds were sown.
No, if we had shut the doors in March we would almost certainly not have had a second wave, certainly not one of such virulence and lethality. Who knows, we might not even have got this current oh so infectious variant. Idiots going skiing in February, especially to Italy, caused many of the first problems but I think that with the doors shut and lockdown vigorously applied we could have got on top of that, indeed even with new infections arriving at random from abroad we pretty much did.
I suspect we'd still have managed to relight the embers by ourselves in the summer, as we didn't sustain the lockdown long enough to properly suppress the virus, but yep, the summer holidays certainly played a big role.
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
I would suggest that sending people untested from hospital back to care homes is a reason for a lot of the actual deaths - possibly in the 10s of thousands of them.
There are an awful lot of care homes were 1 person arrived back from hospital and within 2-3 weeks 20%+ of the patients had died from Covid.
Thousands but not tens of thousands. I have been involved in closing down care homes where the death rate reached 50%+ but the death toll there is still only a relatively small percentage of our 80k dead.
Just watched the latest launch of the Falcon 9 with its Starlink payload. Still very impressive despite a picture break-up just as it re-landed on the drone ship. Parts of the UK will soon get its internet connection via Starlink.
It is a testiment to what an incredible job SpaceX do that these launches and relanding occur on a regular basis now and get virtually no coverage as it is seen as unremarkable.
I saw they have just bought two semi-sub rigs from Valaris for conversion to spaceports for launches and landings offshore.
Just watched the latest launch of the Falcon 9 with its Starlink payload. Still very impressive despite a picture break-up just as it re-landed on the drone ship. Parts of the UK will soon get its internet connection via Starlink.
It is a testiment to what an incredible job SpaceX do that these launches and relanding occur on a regular basis now and get virtually no coverage as it is seen as unremarkable.
The picture loss on landing is because of the extremely severe acoustic environment, being under a running rocket engine. This means the antenna on the barge starts vibrating. A lot.
A Starlink connection might or might not be better.
On a second reading it seems even more unhinged. A useful reminder after the recent GWB discussions that the current set of of pricks being really ghastly is not a case for a retrospective pardon for their predecessors.
I think it is being mis-read.
What he is trying to say is that, no disrespect to Wales, but E&W isn’t going to cut it on the world stage.
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.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
There is the ZOE data. They already have 100,000 people who have had at least one jab. At the moment they are talking about side effects (mainly sore arms and headaches) in due course they will tell us if anyone has caught symptomatic COVID after being jabbed
That doesn't give you the same quality of data is a blinded trial though, because people might /will behave differently if they know they had the vaccine.
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
And the two largest markets, France & Spain, have cultures that actually buy and cook fish and seafood at home.
Is this home cooking of fresh (which seems to be the issue) or frozen fish?
You can't keep fresh very long and shopping daily doesn't seem like a good idea. Although we've got a big local fish market I can't see it being particularly popular at the moment.
Waitrose sell fish from the wet fish counter with a couple of days use by date, I think modern supply chains get it to the shop quicker. I simply plan my menu to have fresh fish on the day I shop or at least within 48 hours.
All supermarkets do that but people will be spacing out their shop visits more, surely? We've not bought any fresh fish for home supermarket delivery - frozen makes more sense.
I don't know whether markets are all open as normal in Spain? They have quite a severe lockdown with curfews et al.
It may be convenient for the government to blame everything on Covid but it can't be having zero effect.
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.
Would you like to go on record as saying COVID vaccinations will return us to normal, or near normal? 🙂
I am Sean.
This country will have all-but-eradicated the virus by this autumn. Our vaccination rollout is astounding.
What does mystic rose think? I’m taking some flack on here last 24 hours for suggesting
1). The science isn’t promising we will be back to normal or near normal 2). Why can’t we use word protection instead of immunity ie you are are 83.4% protected. Herd protection.
I think they want me banned for this message. Anabob said this is hyperbole and everything I post is negative. Eek said I am absolutely dangerous. 🙁
I think we will be back to near normal late summer and certainly into the autumn.
This is on the basis of latest UK policy and our vaccination rollout. It's also conditional on there not being vaccine resistant mutations.
The UK Government have played an absolute blinder on vaccines. The decision to bulk order in advance from multiple developers is probably the greatest decision ever taken in the history of the United Kingdom. Is that hyperbole? I don't think so.
Just watched the latest launch of the Falcon 9 with its Starlink payload. Still very impressive despite a picture break-up just as it re-landed on the drone ship. Parts of the UK will soon get its internet connection via Starlink.
It is a testiment to what an incredible job SpaceX do that these launches and relanding occur on a regular basis now and get virtually no coverage as it is seen as unremarkable.
I saw they have just bought two semi-sub rigs from Valaris for conversion to spaceports for launches and landings offshore.
It will be interesting to see what style of conversion they do vs the Sea Launch rebuild of their platform. The cost of which helped to sink SeaLaunch.
Knowing SpaceX it will be a lot cheaper.
Then again, they are planning on launching the highest liftoff thrust rocket in history from them.
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.
No I wasn’t. You can’t catch COVID from vaccine you silly anabob.
gealbhan wrote: You mean Are there any stats for how many deaths are caused by the programme? Could the government fairly sit on those numbers with argument not to give anti vaxers ammo?
Overall it must save lives and the NHS but Does roll out of flu vaccines cause much illness and death each year that’s attributed to having had the jab?
Hmm.
Vaccination is dangerous in some instances But you can’t catch COVID from vaccine. And I never specifically said that. As you just proved. Thanks.
Thinking as a government we would like vaccination programmes, agree? But there would be a negative column from the vaccinations we wouldn’t really like out there, because it would aid people opposed to our vaccination programme. But we would have to publish it somewhere though wouldn’t we? Ethically and democratically speaking?
No, I said you were insinuating it. Which you were. Hysterical nonsense.
Well by all means carry on calling me out if I come out with hysterical nonsense because I don’t want to be posting any of that. I suppose to some extent you would be subjective in not actually liking what I am saying?
Do you think saying
1). The science isn’t promising we will be back to normal or near normal 2). Why can’t we use word protection instead of immunity ie you are are 83.4% protected. Herd protection.
Is this hysterical nonsense or is actually trying to help?
Comments
https://twitter.com/huwbbc/status/1351862222197313536?s=21
On a second reading it seems even more unhinged. A useful reminder after the recent GWB discussions that the current set of of pricks being really ghastly is not a case for a retrospective pardon for their predecessors.
It is as if they are two different parties
Have a look at this image and look up at day 4 and see its results. Day 4 is within this chart and what was tested for - what were the results at day 4? Is day 4 the same or different to results day 10-21?
Day 22 onwards there's no data for. There is data for day 4.
I am not a Starmerite by the way. SKS has sacked MPs for going into the same lobby as the Lib Dems.
The last time one even came second was 1912.
It ain’t gonna happen. The only thing it would do is split the Republican vote and let the Democrats win their greatest landslide since 1936.
Maybe hes too busy rallying round the Pritster again.
Secondly there are food stuff thats people don't cook as much at home, preferring to eat them in restaurants, especially ones that require quite a lot of prep, fish being a good example e.g. not many people would ever attempt to cook a fresh lobster at home.
Meanwhile sky viewers asked Patrick Vallance the questions today sks should have asked at PMQs. COVID as boris explained is the only game in town.
You spend all day on here making foolish partisan comments. You and your echo chamber are devaluing this great site.
Time to take a break I think. I look forward to the raft of off topics.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
But frankly I can't even remember why it matters here so I will accept that you are all wrong and I, as ever, am right.
Overall it must save lives and the NHS but Does roll out of flu vaccines cause much illness and death each year that’s attributed to having had the jab?
Hmm.
Which means you can get some cracking deals at one near me. 1lb t-bone steaks for £7.50 each, vac packed and great quality.
Also, a point on the trials. It is not reasonable to say everything not covered there is "unknown" as if we are in the dark. For example, there is nothing in the trials - or in rollout to date - to prove the vaccine is safe in the long term. Nevertheless, if asked the question, "Will many people develop serious heart problems in 5 years as a result of taking this vaccine?", the answer is hopefully more reassuring than, "We don't know."
What you call hysteria and anti science is me reading the science as saying it’s not. We will still be in a tricky place with this. I only wish you were right and I were wrong actually
This is something that should have been planned for months ago and tested - it wasn't
The system is a combination of a lot of completely different systems all joined together which means that the records aren't deleted immediately instead a flag would be set and the records then separated and deleted as part (probably) of a batch process
Also there should be backups of the data and it's clear that they don't actually exist in usable formats (again this should not be occurring).
So various checks and balances should have been in place and weren't
Equally is Boris fully qualified to answer the questions Patrick Vallance is currently answering - I suspect Boris really isn't
You can't keep fresh very long and shopping daily doesn't seem like a good idea. Although we've got a big local fish market I can't see it being particularly popular at the moment.
One of many
https://www.fieldandflower.co.uk/
Thinking as a government we would like vaccination programmes, agree? But there would be a negative column from the vaccinations we wouldn’t really like out there, because it would aid people opposed to our vaccination programme. But we would have to publish it somewhere though wouldn’t we? Ethically and democratically speaking?
You don't put throw away lines that you don't mean in peer-reviewed publications. Especially not, when it touches on the main point of the paper - vaccine efficacy.
The scientists in question wrote that statement because they believed that they had proved it true. And they staked their reputations on it.
Too much to hope that God deluges the base in snow to prevent him using AirForce One?
The study will evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of 2 different SARS CoV 2 RNA vaccine candidates against COVID 19 and the efficacy of 1 candidate:
1) As a 2-dose (separated by 21 days) schedule;
2) At various different dose levels in Phase 1;
3) In 3 age groups (Phase 1: 18 to 55 years of age, 65 to 85 years of age; Phase 2/3: ≥12 years of age [stratified as 12-15, 16-55 or >55 years of age]).
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728
I have no idea why it matters but it wasn't - if the trial I referenced above is the one - and if so, I win PB today.
No. No. No.
Do it properly. If everyone stays in lockdown and wears masks they won't catch the virus. Meantime we roll this out according to clinical trial testing.
There's an added danger, say some expert immunologists, of the UK creating with its delayed 2nd jab just the perfect spawning ground for vaccine resistant covid mutations.
Which would be the second time Tony Blair has unleashed mass death on the world.
Why do you think the trials's conclusions are (in total) "CONCLUSIONS
A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines."?
Finally a cabinet minister who gets it. Probably our biggest single mistake with a casualty list running to tens of thousands. Tragic but totally and utterly foreseeable and indeed foreseen on this site by many contributors.
Ultimately he is making big decisions though needs some sort of handle on the COVID brief?
This country will have all-but-eradicated the virus by this autumn. Our vaccination rollout is astounding.
Ever since a lobster fisherman told me that, I've slightly gone off them.
Unfortunately although they are still doing meals, there wasn't enough take up in the raw supplies so they ceased doing it.
The world would be a better place if he just went away permanently
God is great!
There are an awful lot of care homes were 1 person arrived back from hospital and within 2-3 weeks 20%+ of the patients had died from Covid.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-media-reports-of-study-results-from-israel-and-comments-made-by-prof-nachman-ash-israels-coronavirus-tsar-about-the-efficacy-of-a-single-dose-of-the-pfizer-vaccine/
Better that he is torn down, piece by piece.
1). The science isn’t promising we will be back to normal or near normal
2). Why can’t we use word protection instead of immunity ie you are are 83.4% protected. Herd protection.
I think they want me banned for this message. Anabob said this is hyperbole and everything I post is negative. Eek said I am absolutely dangerous. 🙁
"The study was not designed to assess the efficacy of a single-dose regimen. Nevertheless, in the interval between the first and second doses, the observed vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 52%..."
Can you tell me the confidence interval for the '52% effectiveness' ?
Or, rather more importantly, what the observed effectiveness was in those aged over 70 ?
A Starlink connection might or might not be better.
What he is trying to say is that, no disrespect to Wales, but E&W isn’t going to cut it on the world stage.
I don't know whether markets are all open as normal in Spain? They have quite a severe lockdown with curfews et al.
It may be convenient for the government to blame everything on Covid but it can't be having zero effect.
This is on the basis of latest UK policy and our vaccination rollout. It's also conditional on there not being vaccine resistant mutations.
The UK Government have played an absolute blinder on vaccines. The decision to bulk order in advance from multiple developers is probably the greatest decision ever taken in the history of the United Kingdom. Is that hyperbole? I don't think so.
Knowing SpaceX it will be a lot cheaper.
Then again, they are planning on launching the highest liftoff thrust rocket in history from them.
Do you think saying
1). The science isn’t promising we will be back to normal or near normal
2). Why can’t we use word protection instead of immunity ie you are are 83.4% protected. Herd protection.
Is this hysterical nonsense or is actually trying to help?