Coronavirus

[nomadking]

Just because somebody has been vaccinated doesn't mean they can't carry the virus and test positive for it. It's question of whether they get to the stage of being able to transmit it to others.
How else could the immune system be expected to deal with a reinfection, if the virus wasn't in the blood stream? Immunity doesn't produce an invisible force field which the virus cannot penetrate.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Just because somebody has been vaccinated doesn't mean they can't carry the virus and test positive for it. It's question of whether they get to the stage of being able to transmit it to others.
How else could the immune system be expected to deal with a reinfection, if the virus wasn't in the blood stream? Immunity doesn't produce an invisible force field which the virus cannot penetrate.

So what you're saying is we should all still be sensible/careful.
Makes sense to me, problem is there a large amount of f*wits about. A lot of them jetted off abroad, headed to the boozer as soon as they could. We'll never be fully of rid of this as we're too stupid, and the Govt too weak.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by pip08456

There is this rather than the normal doom & gloom.

Been quoting an egg head for weeks now but can't remember his name, in a nutshell if the vaccines become largely ineffective it'll be because its evolved into something that isn't covid 19 anymore

---------- Post added at 02:35 ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

So what you're saying is we should all still be sensible/careful.
Makes sense to me, problem is there a large amount of f*wits about. A lot of them jetted off abroad, headed to the boozer as soon as they could. We'll never be fully of rid of this as we're too stupid, and the Govt too weak.

Been saying the same myself since the first week of the first lockdown

[1andrew1]

Two vaccine doses needed for strong protection against variant found in India, data show

UK government figures suggest single shot less effective against fast-spreading Covid-19 strain

New UK government research suggests two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine are needed to provide strong protection against symptomatic infection from the coronavirus variant first identified in India, according to two people briefed on the preliminary data.

Two vaccine doses provided 81 per cent protection against the B.1.617.2 variant found in India, and 87 per cent against the B.1.1.7 strain first identified in Kent in south-east England, according to the Public Health England data that was presented to a meeting of the government’s New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag).

Two people who attended the Nervtag meeting on Friday said the data showed that one dose offered 33 per cent protection against symptomatic infection from B.1.617.2, and 51 per cent against B.1.1.7.

https://www.ft.com/content/a70d423a-...8-0a485d7c3a8e

[Carth]

Hasn't two jabs always been shown to provide better protection than one?

Yet another non story involving data, statistics and experts

Originally Posted by Carth

Hasn't two jabs always been shown to provide better protection than one?

Yet another non story involving data, statistics and experts

It wasn’t known if it was the same with variants - good science means you check and confirm when something changes, for consistency of results.

In this case, it showed that while the vaccine is still effective against the new variant, it’s not as effective.

Two vaccine doses provided 81 per cent protection against the B.1.617.2 variant found in India, and 87 per cent against the B.1.1.7 strain first identified in Kent in south-east England

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It wasn’t known if it was the same with variants - good science means you check and confirm when something changes, for consistency of results.

In this case, it showed that while the vaccine is still effective against the new variant, it’s not as effective.

OK I'll play your game . .

Let's turn it on it's head and ask "how many people - experts or not - would have thought A SINGLE DOSE would have been protection enough?"

Two jabs has always been the 'minimum' required for protection (say the experts) . . . and now they're saying the 'new' variants also need 2 jabs . . oh wowser, who'd a thunk it

[nomadking]

The Johnson & Johnson one is a single dose vaccine.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The Johnson & Johnson one is a single dose vaccine.

Do you have any data on it's efficiency against the 'new super virulent' (ha) strains?

Or are you just being an Andrew?

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Carth

Hasn't two jabs always been shown to provide better protection than one?

Yes, but in this case the protection from one dose is a lot lower than that from two, which wasn't the case in the original trials. It would explain the sudden rush to give second doses to the over-50s.

"This suggests a single shot offers 35 per cent less protection against B.1.617.2 compared with B.1.1.7, according to Financial Times analysis"

Originally Posted by nomadking

The Johnson & Johnson one is a single dose vaccine.

Though not as effective as the leading two-dose vaccines. J&J are now running a two-dose trial:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...acker.html#jnj

[Mr K]

We've got a triple variant in God's Own County. It's way better than anyone elses obviously

[Carth]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Yes, but in this case the protection from one dose is a lot lower than that from two, which wasn't the case in the original trials. It would explain the sudden rush to give second doses to the over-50s.

"This suggests a single shot offers 35 per cent less protection against B.1.617.2 compared with B.1.1.7, according to Financial Times analysis"



Though not as effective as the leading two-dose vaccines. J&J are now running a two-dose trial:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...acker.html#jnj

Again, point missed. From Andrews post:-

New UK government research suggests two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine are needed to provide strong protection against symptomatic infection from the coronavirus variant first identified in India, according to two people briefed on the preliminary data.

. . which has always been the case (apart from J&J)

[Taf]

Covid vaccination certificates hit by security glitch

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57208607

Originally Posted by Carth

Again, point missed. From Andrews post:-

New UK government research suggests two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine are needed to provide strong protection against symptomatic infection from the coronavirus variant first identified in India, according to two people briefed on the preliminary data.

. . which has always been the case (apart from J&J)

But initially, they thought the first jab gave sufficient protection until the second jab 12 weeks later. If you remember, the initial time between jabs was going to be three weeks (as this was what had been clinically tested), but the risk analysis was taken to extend this to twelve weeks to ensure more people got the first jab.

One jab gave reasonable protection against earlier variants, until you got the second jab - it doesn’t against the latest variant (hence the modifier of "strong" protection).

They’re now saying "get the second jab quicker to provide more protection sooner against the Indian Variant" - again, good science - re-evaluate and modify guidance when new information becomes available.

The protection afforded by a single dose of either Pfizer or Astra is sufficiently low, in the case of the Indian variant, that the calculus has changed. It is no longer advantageous to get as many people as possible single-dosed - it’s important to get the second dose into people quickly. Some emerging data here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596