-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Covid-19 vaccines and vaccinations
- Thread starter hinterland
- Start date
I think South Africa had very low vaccination rates so yes unvaccinated.
However, South Africa has very high natural infection rates ---- so it's a very high R rate in an preciously exposed (to natural infection) population.
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
We don't know.
What I think you are asking is whether our existing vaccines (or prior infection) do lower the risk of severe outcomes - the answer is yes, because most T-cell epitopes are preserved, but the risk is not lowered as much as it is against Delta. People with the typical risk factors are still at significant risk. To put it another way, 20-25% of the death rate of Alpha is still a large number if 10%+ of the population are infected per year.
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Latest UK Omicron data. Note the very wide confidence intervals, the fact that protection is at it's peak ~2 weeks after a booster and possible biases between those people exposed to Omicron versus those not exposed.
https://khub.net/documents/13593956...cern.pdf/f423c9f4-91cb-0274-c8c5-70e8fad50074
Protection against symptomatic infection by Omicron could still be as low as 50% straight after a booster, given the confidence intervals.
The below zero efficacy for some of the age groups for AZ/AZ show the problem with the small sample sizes so far.
https://khub.net/documents/13593956...cern.pdf/f423c9f4-91cb-0274-c8c5-70e8fad50074
Protection against symptomatic infection by Omicron could still be as low as 50% straight after a booster, given the confidence intervals.
The below zero efficacy for some of the age groups for AZ/AZ show the problem with the small sample sizes so far.
Last edited:
Samuel
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
> Individuals and their healthcare providers should work together to make these decisions
what if you do not have any healthcare providers who understand your diseases and cannot get them?
where is the study? what kind of reactinos are we talking about for 19%? what severity of reactions?
what if you do not have any healthcare providers who understand your diseases and cannot get them?
where is the study? what kind of reactinos are we talking about for 19%? what severity of reactions?
Last edited:
Sadly the UK will probably have better data soon so the confidence levels will be much tighter.
EDIT - 4 weeks?
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Ouch, I just saw the UK news - 633 cases in one day which is more than the total of Omicron cases in the UK study I linked to.
Wonko
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I must admit to being more than a little puzzled in light of recent papers as to how come in the UK 2 shots and a booster can possibly have 75% efficacy against omicron.
Especially given they have basically said that without the booster they offer virtually no protection against omicron.
In my limited understanding something doesn't add up.
Especially given they have basically said that without the booster they offer virtually no protection against omicron.
In my limited understanding something doesn't add up.
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The same study calculated *minus* 13% efficacy for two doses of AZ for the 20-24 year old group. (meaning vaccinated people more likely to get the virus which makes no sense). Whatever the result, that study clearly lacks sufficient data.
Wonko
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I can easily imagine how being 20-24 and vaccinated could lead to an increase in catching covid
A significant number of people in that age group think they are invulnerable. Reinforced by being fully vaccinated this could easily lead to behaviour that increases exposure.
Given the wide range of efficacy I have seen for AZ, if they assumed that they couldn't catch it........the cumulative effect could add up to such an increased risk that could make the efficacy effectively negative, compared with an unvaccinated hermit anyway.
A significant number of people in that age group think they are invulnerable. Reinforced by being fully vaccinated this could easily lead to behaviour that increases exposure.
Given the wide range of efficacy I have seen for AZ, if they assumed that they couldn't catch it........the cumulative effect could add up to such an increased risk that could make the efficacy effectively negative, compared with an unvaccinated hermit anyway.
the vaccinated are lying (*1)
if they are sick (covid self-test) they dont tell. they go to work.
they dont have any much symptoms and even when, they keep mum.
if they report their positive covid-test, they
- have to go into self-isolation
- will need another vaccine to get their "vaccinated" status back
so much about the "pandemie of the unvaccinated", which - in contrary - need an official covid test before each working day.
*1 sure yeah of course... not all.. not 100%, but...
if they are sick (covid self-test) they dont tell. they go to work.
they dont have any much symptoms and even when, they keep mum.
if they report their positive covid-test, they
- have to go into self-isolation
- will need another vaccine to get their "vaccinated" status back
so much about the "pandemie of the unvaccinated", which - in contrary - need an official covid test before each working day.
*1 sure yeah of course... not all.. not 100%, but...
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Controlling for exposure rates is the *basis* of a test-negative case control study. If exposure rates are not controlled, the study is not valid.
Leila
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Why would anyone need to get vaccinated again to "get their vaccine status" back after reporting a positive test?
Depending on location you're fully vaccinated after one jab (J&J), two jabs (AZ, Moderna, Pfizer) or three jabs (if boosters are mandatory).
Having said that I do agree being vaccinated can make people less prone to get tested if symptomatic and less cautious.
I guess the goal now though is to prevent serious illness, not so much transmissions anymore.
Edit for clarification
There is a huge discrepancy between Scotland and England in lab testing for Omicron. You might find better confidence intervals with Scottish data.
English labs do not have enough capability to pick up s type gene drop out - a kind of first pass marker for Omricon. Figures have been bandied about that it may be as little as 30% lab capacity for this .
Scotland is c 95%
So assuming it's doubling every 3 days (might be less) then that's roughly 5 times between now and Christmas (X32) i.e. 20K cases a day (663 X 32) and it will exceed delta (50K/day) before the new year?
That might explain the headlines like this one "Scotland facing 'tsunami' of Omicron cases"; i.e. the scots have better data.
I wonder if the figure Snow Leopard quotes corrects for the fact that a lot of cases will go undetected in England i.e. since they won't be picked up on the test (doesn't identify S gene drop out)?
Independent Sage on YouTube is worth watching.
I'm in Northern Ireland and a neighbour, who is a Doctor, has been complaining about the unvaccinated going out and getting covid and then blocking up the hospitals (unvaccinated more likely to get serious illness/need hospitalisation). Our hospitals seem to be on the brink of collapse. Noticed an elderly guy lying at the side of the road, being helped by others. I asked if anyone had called an ambulance - "yes it will be 35 minutes". I passed by later (maybe 30 minutes - no ambulance) - I wouldn't reckon it was 35 minutes --- lot more.
ukxmrv
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
My guess is that they reported it that way because of the old 'dog bites man' but 'man bites dog' being newsworthy. Even that doesn't feel right in the modern age of less dog bites around me at least.
When I went for my jab there were no hints from ME doctors or the charities that I could be heading into a disaster.
Even the Health Rising reports from Dr Klimas and others were suggesting a small term effect that could be mitigated by using common supplements with steroids for the intractable cases.
From memory there was one Dr who thought the new RNA viruses might cause more damage.
We didn't know back then that a % of us could be damaged months past our vaccine. I expected to have a mild reaction and treat it as Dr Klimas suggested if needed
It would have been helpful to headline the good reactions some people have had but from what I can see from the Facebook group for people with ME having the vaccine these are transitory and not always repeated as they have booster shots.
The report may have been trying to get over what we didn't expect and we were not warned about not back then but can now.
The reaction you had was the expected (albeit wonderful) one so not really newsworthy to them maybe?
Last edited: