Coronavirus

[heero_yuy]

Nobody is stopping the terminally paranoid from staying in the cupboard under the stairs for the rest of their lives. The rest of us will be glad to get back to some form of normality and get rid of those horrible masks.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by pip08456

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...v-2-virus.html

”effective against” and “provides protection” are sort of weasel words.

Is that protection from infection? I don’t think so.
Protection from transmission? The big question.
Protection from serious illness? Yes as the stats show.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

”effective against” and “provides protection” are sort of weasel words.

Is that protection from infection? I don’t think so.
Protection from transmission? The big question.
Protection from serious illness? Yes as the stats show.

Precisely.

This isn’t what Pierre is portraying with his unsubstantiated 90% efficacy claim - even AstraZeneca’s own papers to the FDA put the efficacy against infection figure lower based on the original variants. More infections = more hospitalisations = more deaths even if efficacy against those is higher. You are still dealing with a proportion of a much larger number on the latter two as a result of the first. Less than before but there’s enough in there for a bad winter ahead if we arbitrarily abandon all mitigations.


---------- Post added at 10:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Pathetic! I’m not debating this with you anymore. You are completely paranoid. 19 July looms. Bolt your doors immediately!

In fairness OB you’ve not been debating since the start. You’ve only been clutching at straws.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Nobody is stopping the terminally paranoid from staying in the cupboard under the stairs for the rest of their lives. The rest of us will be glad to get back to some form of normality and get rid of those horrible masks.

Unfortunately masks is the easy one. Costs nothing.

Distancing does reduce capacity at venues having an economic impact. Masks don’t. What the Government does have is this carefully crafted “legal requirements” which allows them to keep masks in guidance but not regulations.

If people don’t want these things to creep back in later they need to continue with them for now. If we are asking people to exercise “good judgement” then my point above about the numbers of infections is key. Good judgement when there’s a few hundred cases a day and you’re extremely unlikely to encounter anyone with the virus is different from where statistically the chances of encountering someone are much higher. A commuter train is now statistically likely to have a number of active cases on it on average. In an air conditioned tin can. A rational commuter wouldn’t commute given the choice.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by jfman

You know the vaccines aren’t 90% effective at preventing infection and transmission, and this increases the risk of further mutation. If it was true (90%) we wouldn’t be seeing the figures we are seeing now.

The majority of those testing positive appears to be age groups that haven't had even one vaccination yet.

Hence the open-doors walk-in centres that have been opened.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Precisely.

This isn’t what Pierre is portraying with his unsubstantiated 90% efficacy claim - even AstraZeneca’s own papers to the FDA put the efficacy against infection figure lower based on the original variants. More infections = more hospitalisations = more deaths even if efficacy against those is higher. You are still dealing with a proportion of a much larger number on the latter two as a result of the first. Less than before but there’s enough in there for a bad winter ahead if we arbitrarily abandon all mitigations.
.

Efficacy against infection is an irrelevance, efficacy against serious illness, hospitalisation and death is what matters and the vaccines are 90+% effective against that metric.

Also not “unsubstantiated” you have a short memory

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=5957

Rejoice.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Efficacy against infection is an irrelevance, efficacy against serious illness, hospitalisation and death is what matters and the vaccines are 90+% effective against that metric.

Also not “unsubstantiated” you have a short memory

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=5957

Rejoice.

Your decision to describe it as an irrelevance does not make it so. Indeed, you have thought much is irrelevant since the start so forgive me if I doubt your scientific or intellectual vigor in relation to this subject.

My memory is not short - you are simply misrepresenting facts to suit your own agenda. Anyone can freely read the source you have linked to. You have quoted efficacy against hospitalisations, not infections. If more people get infected, more people will get hospitalised by comparison to a highly effective vaccine that prevents both.

I personally wouldn’t be rejoicing if I were you, as you’ve been disappointed before.

Seph’s question on transmission is also pertinent to how and when we get out of the pandemic.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Your decision to describe it as an irrelevance does not make it so. Indeed, you have thought much is irrelevant since the start so forgive me if I doubt your scientific or intellectual vigor in relation to this subject.

My memory is not short - you are simply misrepresenting facts to suit your own agenda. Anyone can freely read the source you have linked to. You have quoted efficacy against hospitalisations, not infections. If more people get infected, more people will get hospitalised by comparison to a highly effective vaccine that prevents both.

I personally wouldn’t be rejoicing if I were you, as you’ve been disappointed before.

Seph’s question on transmission is also pertinent to how and when we get out of the pandemic.

We wouldn't be having this toing/froing if the efficacy claims were fully stated as to applicability. Of course jfman, OB and Pierre would find something else to argue about, perhaps with a bit of Hugh thrown in to provide the sarcasm.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

We wouldn't be having this toing/froing if the efficacy claims were fully stated as to applicability. Of course jfman, OB and Pierre would find something else to argue about, perhaps with a bit of Hugh thrown in to provide the sarcasm.

Well yes, Seph, however for them it’s been ideological from the start against state intervention. Regardless of the question the answer has always been no restrictions then a flimsy evidence gather to justify it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

My memory is not short - you are simply misrepresenting facts to suit your own agenda. Anyone can freely read the source you have linked to. You have quoted efficacy against hospitalisations, not infections. If more people get infected, more people will get hospitalised by comparison to a highly effective vaccine that prevents both.

Like these ones?

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n888

Vaccination with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine reduces infections by 90%,

Rejoice.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Like these ones?

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n888

Rejoice.

You know that doesn’t compare against the delta variant. And doesn’t count the AstraZeneca vaccine.

It’s somewhat ironic I accuse you of misrepresenting facts then you misrepresent facts in a clear and obvious manner. So I do thank you for providing context in that regard. It saves me making the effort.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s somewhat ironic I accuse you of misrepresenting facts then you misrepresent facts in a clear and obvious manner. So I do thank you for providing context in that regard. It saves me making the effort.

Facts are facts, by the very definition of that I cannot mis-represent them. They are what they are, objective irrefutable facts.

You, however, can mis-interpret them. That’s subjective. Which you do, pretty much all the time.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Facts are facts, by the very definition of that I cannot mis-represent them. They are what they are, objective irrefutable facts.

You, however, can mis-interpret them. That’s subjective. Which you do, pretty much all the time.

Anyone can see that those figures do not present efficacy against infection, which as you say is an objective fact.

You almost acknowledged the difference above.

Efficacy against infection is an irrelevance,

So to that end realise that efficacy against infection is not 90%+, but you don’t think it matters anyway.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Anyone can see that those figures do not present efficacy against infection, which as you say is an objective fact.

You almost acknowledged the difference above.



So to that end realise that efficacy against infection is not 90%+, but you don’t think it matters anyway.

For everyone's benefit, and to enable judgements to be made, here is an extract from the BMJ article:

Of 172 infections detected, 161 occurred in the unvaccinated arm of the trial, which saw a rate of 1.38 infections per 1000 person days. Among participants who had received only one shot at least 14 days previously, the rate was 0.19 infections per 1000 person days. Among those who had received a second shot at least 14 days previously, it was 0.04 per 1000 person days.

This translated to an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 90% with full immunisation (95% confidence interval 68% to 97%) and of 80% with partial immunisation (59% to 90%). Adjustment for age, sex, race, or study location barely changed these results.

It is the confidence interval that makes the 90% non-solid.

[jfman]

Well, that and it being a study in the United States (so not against Delta) and without the AstraZeneca vaccine involved at all.

PHE figures are 88% for Pfizer and 60% AstraZeneca (2 doses) against the delta variant. Which is the real world situation on the ground in the UK. This drop is what’s pushed the UK further from the herd immunity threshold than it expected to be. The choice is between making the effort to plug the gap or not bother at all. Now we know some would have chosen option 2 regardless.

[Sephiroth]

Taking stock of the big picture:

1/
It seems to me that CV behaves like flu but is more infectious than most flu strains.

2/
It seems to me that flu is under control because of vaccines, for which new strains can be quickly countered.

3/
It seems to me that CV is coming under control because of vaccines, for which new strains can (apparently) be quickly countered.

4/
Ergo, it seems to me that we can resume BAU, perhaps except for ...

5/
The virulence of CV-19 and thus of a new strain that beats the current vaccines requires vigilance and perhaps pre-emptive measures that, no doubt, the Guvmin will declare.