Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Was trying and failing to find the previous post of this - was it you? if so thanks, I found it very useful. (And so did my sister who had been stressing about not getting second dose.)

Umlaut please hänselnblatt.

And for the Astra Zeneca vaccinees lets hope it is envy.

No probs. Not sure it was me tbh.

we don't know if the vaccine stops transmission yet?

Supposing it doesn’t stop transmission, only prevents people from getting ill, would that mean that people who chose to forgo a vaccine will end up at high risk of contracting covid once everyone else is socialising and mixing again?

Clear thinking scientific comment imo on the exit strategy:

https://www.ft.com/content/17c44c96-39f2-4ada-badd-d65815b0a521

If the vaccine makes your immune response recognise and attack it then I'd be surprised if it doesn't bring transmission down, maybe there's a period where it replicates and is transmissible before your immune response kicks in fully and you can spread it a bit but less virus replicating in your body would likely mean less getting passed on. Obviously, immune or not, you'd still remain a vector for spreading other people's shed virus, like touching a few things in a supermarket and spreading it around and passing it on or similar.

Tut mir leid.

"NEW: The German Health Ministry has DENIED the Handelsblatt report claiming the AstraZeneca vaccine had only 8% efficacy for over-65s

They say there has been confusion and 8% actually refers to the number of people in the study between 56 and 69 years old"

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1353999453028577280

I know almost nothing about vaccines, but I find the idea that your body can be really good at fighting the disease after vaccination, but that this still leads to you being infectious quite confusing.

Can anyone explain how you could both be able to not get seriously infected, yet still able to effectively spread it? What existing vaccines/diseases behave in this way, and how? (not a direct question - just if anyone can chip in)

It also seems surprising that it is taking so long to establish this, given the trials were some time ago and now real world data that must be coming in.

The tin foil hat side of me might suggest it is convenient to leave this question hanging, as it makes it easier to insist on maintaining social distancing - which will still be important in a partially vaccinated community. There is also limited benefit in the vaccine companies releasing this data, as it's not like they need to drum up demand...

Can anyone explain how you could both be able to not get seriously infected, yet still able to effectively spread it?

Being vaccinated is like installing a sprinkler system. The fire still burns (virus replicates) for a bit before the sprinklers kick in.

There is also limited benefit in the vaccine companies releasing this data

They don't have that data. They're only studying trial participants (people that had the vaccine). They're not studying its effect on everyone else in the world.

They don't have that data. They're only studying trial participants (people that had the vaccine). They're not studying its effect on everyone else in the world.

They don't need to study everyone in the world. The way the vaccine trials work is they jab a bunch of people and then see if they develop symptoms followed by a positive PCR test and compare with a placebo group. You could run the trial and give participants regular PCR tests, regardless of any symptoms, but that isn't what the trials have done so far.

Data from israel seems to suggest between 33-60% less cases in vaccinated people. If you cant catch it you cant spread it.

To your point, I think the general assumption is that you will likely have a stronger and more immediate response and therefore not be asymptomatic for as long. Logically this makes sense to me, my sister had a fever for one night, 12hrs after receiving the second jab.

If you have had the jab and you are say 50% less likely to catch covid - when you do you catch it can still be contagious. When you have a cold you are contagious until symptoms are gone. The question is how much 'viral load' you're shedding, scientists assume it will be lower if vaccinated - but thats what theyre trying to find out. I don't know why its taking time to get the data but guess it is virtually impossible to say wether you caught covid from a vaccinated person or not.

Not an expert just my understanding from what I've read, happy to be corrected.

Yes, the main thing is to stop thinking of vaccination as a binary thing. Especially those people who had Covid in the last year and don't think they need a vaccination now.

Your body's immune system may have been able to deal with the mild dose of a milder strain you got earlier in the year but that's no guarantee that it would be able to deal with a bigger dose of a more virulent and more dangerous strain.

The vaccine is designed to provoke a significant immune response and prepare you as much as possible. Good luck to anyone who chooses not to take that.

Obviously the cat doesn't live forever

Challenge accepted

Here is one of the things I have mentioned a few times, how was the dose spacing decided? Was it the rush to get it out or was this based on something?

This is new tech, yet one minute it is DNA altering and the next comparing to previous vaccines. Both the two comments are based on the same facts aren't they?

There seem to be no definitive answer to how long resistance to Covid 19 exists after having covid 19. So we are in a whole new exciting time.

The number of shots the gov bought was not enough. No way round it, more showboating by the UK GOV, up there with sticking the union flag on the russian/oxford developed old style vaccine. We were told we are leading the way by buying x number of vaccines with no timescale nor how the vaccine would get round border controls, especially as the vaccine needs to be kept in quite strict transport environment. Your comment of we bought enough makes no sense, without all the facts that go with it. This is the continuation of loved one will die mentality. Am amazed the NHS was allowed to give the vacine and not hived off to a tory company. Actually is that because if anything goes wrong the NHS will be blamed....

Your short changed comment also grates, why shouldn't we all have the same chance? Puts a true value judgement on life. Once again that fuck disgusting tory 'loved ones will die' mantra.

Not even going there on the final comment, having seen people that are healthier, younger and stronger than us die. Maybe the comment is being taken wrongly and not the way you intended it.

.

Was actually thinking about that. Does it mean that once the vaccine is up to full strength that Covid will be dealt with by the immune system before it can get to the reproduction phase. Also excretion of antibodies, but that takes a while for Herd immunity and Ibelieve that is what antivaxing parents kids don't all get struck down with mumps or polio.

read this - it's useful - https://twitter.com/DoctorChrisVT/status­/1346104040804016130

In what way?

EDIT: What does it mean when a medicine/vaccine is used outside of the approval. Have no idea, just wondering.

They can only approve it for the way it's been trialed and tested, and they've trialed and tested this vaccine in a way that gets it to the public as quickly as possible whilst being safe, to do that they've not studied how effective it is to wait longer between doses because then they'd have to wait longer between doses to test it and it won't be given to people whilst that's happening. They can only approve what they have tested, using it differently may not be worse, may be better, but isn't trialed and tested so is outside of approval. Some people who are good at these things seem to think that based on previous experience using it in such a way may not be worse than the time restrained testing for each individual and may be better for everyone and therefore each individual, if longer gaps are used and more people get first doses sooner.

Very very simply if you've got three people and 2 doses of vaccine for now, then all three are better protected if 2 of them get a dose but wait longer for a second than 1 getting both doses quickly, even the 1 missing out on the second dose because they're less likely to get Covid from the person with the other first dose and the no dose person gets protection too. The person who missed out on their early second dose may be better or worse off personally as far as protection goes, but that's not been tested because if it was then there would be no doses yet for anyone.

Thanks. Now to look up logistic regression was it?

I feel I’m in the little bit of knowledge is dangerous category on the stats front, I have a reporting related job but I’m not a statistician. I do find it interesting though.

I'm just wondering, but has one of your relatives been given one dose of a vaccine? I'm in the same boat.

It would probably be worth reflecting on the fact that there are over 7 billion people on earth and as of yesterday, 68 million vaccine doses had been administered worldwide. That means anyone who has had a vaccine dose is in first 1% of the global population to do so. Pretty cool to be so lucky.

Edit - reflecting on my comment, you can also argue they pretty unlucky to be Governed by this bunch of morons, but it's not looking that much rosier elsewhere in Europe. I would quite like to be a Kiwi though.

I think most of your comments were answered in the articles and comments above?

The number of shots the government has bought is not enough?
Its been reported that they have ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford Vaccine and 40 million of the pfizer vaccine. Enough to cover 2 doses for the whole population.

Fact is, there is not currently 160 million vials of vaccine waiting on a shelf somewhere waiting to be purchased.

How quickly it can be manufactured and distributed is a different problem, made more difficult because every country wants it.

Example: 15 billion doses needed for 2 doses for the whole world.
Biggest vaccine producer (Serum Institute) makes 1.5 billion vaccines in a year. (of all types)
Has agreements to produce vaccines for 92 countries. As they are based in India, there will be priority demand for home country use.

Even if they tried to double the manufacture, they still need other elements of the supply chain, basics such as hundreds of millions of glass vials, to accelerate the distribution.
Many things could get in the way to slow distribution, such as the Belgian viral vectors factory being blamed for lower slow down in manufacture for Astra Zeneca.
Also Pfizer has hit manufacturing delays, which is pretty unsurprising, given that this is the biggest order of any vaccine in history...