Coronavirus

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

SOURCE:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...tudy-suggests/

A full course of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was just 39% effective at preventing infections and 41% effective at preventing symptomatic infections caused by the Delta Covid-19 variant, according to Israel’s health ministry, down from early estimates of 64% two weeks ago.

The figures, based on data from an unspecified number of people between June 20 and July 17, are significantly lower than previous estimates of the vaccine’s efficacy against other variants, which initial clinical trials found to be 95%.

The Israel findings also conflict with several other studies assessing the vaccine’s performance against the Delta variant, which indicated only slightly diminished degrees of protection against infection and mild illness (between 80% and 90%), including peer reviewed research from Public Health England published Wednesday.

The vaccine still provides very high levels of protection against hospitalization (92%) and severe illness (91%) caused by the Delta variant, the ministry said.

In a statement, Pfizer and BioNTech noted that while real-world data from Israel show vaccine efficacy in preventing infection and symptomatic disease to decline six months post-vaccination, “efficacy in preventing serious illnesses remains high.”

An interesting set of results from Israel. A big potential difference between the patients in the Israeli study and those surveyed by PHE is that in Israel the entire population has been jabbed with Pfizer, but on the recommended 21 day dose interval. In England, generally only vulnerable groups (elderly and others with urgent need) received Pfizer, until under 40s started getting vaccinated within the last couple of months. Additionally, in England the second dose was given on a 12 week interval (those who have had Pfizer more recently have had an 8 week interval).

I’m sure further research will be done to see what role the different demographics and dosage intervals might have played here, however to me this looks like tantalising evidence that the extended interval between doses may lead to a marked imporovement in vaccine performance.

The notion that the majority of the public, supports “masks” in public spaces is a pile of doggies doo doo ��.

Three times in last week been to Tesco’s and there was more people not wearing masks, than there was wearing them.

[tweetiepooh]

Went to Costco Friday (I have executive membership so get in with trade early).


Maybe 70% staff on floor had masks.
During the trade/executive period say 80% customers had masks. When opened to general members this dropped to 60% or less and observed some customers grouping.


In Waitrose most customers had masks (probably over 90%).


I will wear a mask in these situations because I'm asked nicely to and because it's helpful.


At church we have areas for those more nervous and wanting to keep more separate and other areas for those wanting to be more free, meet up, etc. We sing and for those that want to hug that's allowed to. Nice to be together after 16 months but from Friday it's isolation for us as wife is going into have op on Monday and the rules say isolation after Covid test.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

India disproved your theory. The virus mutated into a more contagious variant and people became re-infected.

How did India disprove my ‘theory’? Yes, the more transmissions, the more variants, but my point was that lockdowns only delay transmission.

Lockdowns only work if a solution is available but it takes time to implement (eg vaccine distribution). Australia appears to be in no hurry to vaccinate its population.

Originally Posted by pip08456

And what were the odds on that? Get a life FFS.

You mean the odds on that thing that actually happened?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But you have consistently, and persistently, been against lockdowns in the UK because of this "logic".

But in reality, because we locked down, we delayed the infections enough to get working vaccines, which have avoided/prevented greater numbers of deaths, infections, and hospitalisations in the UK.

Not quite, Hugh. I resisted the first lockdown because at that time, we had no defence against it and there was great pessimism about ever getting a vaccine. The point was made that scientists had been working on this for decades but no effective vaccine had been found. In those circumstances, lockdowns would simply ruin the economy without preventing deaths. Mortality is simply spread over a longer period.

There are some, even today, who think lockdowns will actually get rid of the virus. They don’t.

My position on this changed when, to everyone’s astonishment, the scientists actually came up with a vaccine, and that changed everything. So I went along with the lockdown idea for a while, until the immunisation programme was well under way. However, I was of the strong opinion that all measures needed to be relaxed by 1 April, given that all the vulnerable groups had been vaccinated by then and further restrictions would continue to cripple the economy.

Even now, people are unwilling to cast aside their masks and want nightclubs shut down again despite falling numbers and the school summer holidays getting underway. Some are still arguing for another lockdown and think there will be a winter Covid crisis despite all common sense dictating that the opposite will happen.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Don't, this gives credence to OB's theory that the quantity of people infected would remain the same, only the time period over which they became infected would change. Which, is of course, utter gibberish.

No, it’s not. How do lockdowns do anything but delay infections?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

How did India disprove my ‘theory’? Yes, the more transmissions, the more variants, but my point was that lockdowns only delay transmission.

Lockdowns only work if a solution is available but it takes time to implement (eg vaccine distribution). Australia appears to be in no hurry to vaccinate its population.

Pleased that you agree lockdowns work.

Agree that Australia needs to vaccinate its population.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Pleased that you agree lockdowns work.

Agree that Australia needs to vaccinate its population.

I do not disagree that they delay infections and I never have done. My consistent point throughout has been that they do not prevent them unless you have a plan to implement which takes time to rollout to prevent such infection.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not quite, Hugh. I resisted the first lockdown because at that time, we had no defence against it and there was great pessimism about ever getting a vaccine. The point was made that scientists had been working on this for decades but no effective vaccine had been found. In those circumstances, lockdowns would simply ruin the economy without preventing deaths. Mortality is simply spread over a longer period.

There are some, even today, who think lockdowns will actually get rid of the virus. They don’t.

My position on this changed when, to everyone’s astonishment, the scientists actually came up with a vaccine, and that changed everything. So I went along with the lockdown idea for a while, until the immunisation programme was well under way. However, I was of the strong opinion that all measures needed to be relaxed by 1 April, given that all the vulnerable groups had been vaccinated by then and further restrictions would continue to cripple the economy.

Even now, people are unwilling to cast aside their masks and want nightclubs shut down again despite falling numbers and the school summer holidays getting underway. Some are still arguing for another lockdown and think there will be a winter Covid crisis despite all common sense dictating that the opposite will happen.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------



No, it’s not. How do lockdowns do anything but delay infections?

Because you're changing people's behaviours and how they can interact, person A catches virus but doesn't go to work (ie a restaurant) because it's shut, they therefore don't have a significant chance of passing the virus onto colleagues B,C & D and onto customers E-Z


It's called chains of transmission.

[Sephiroth]

OB is absolutely right in his explanation of the early days.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

OB is absolutely right in his explanation of the early days.

No, he's not, allowing the virus to run riot from day one would have done significantly more damage to the economy than lockdowns ever have. We also would not have a health system anymore.

the belief that the same amount of people would be infected & that we would experience the same levels of hospitalizations & deaths regardless of iwe locked down or not, is at best dumb ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

OB is absolutely right in his explanation of the early days.

No he isn’t. Scientists have not been working on a vaccine for Covid-19 for “decades”. It’s a novel virus first described in 2019. The clue’s in the name. A great many people with relevant expertise stated early on that if a viable candidate could be prepared, changing the usual testing and approval regimes could significantly accelerate its availability. Some of those working on the cutting edge of vaccine design were confident that they could produce candidate vaccines quickly. Oxford university had its candidate ready for human trials on 23 April 2020, having received a complete copy of the virus genome on 11 January. This is because scientists learned how to combat coronaviruses during the earlier SARS and Mers outbreaks.

There was no point, at the outset of the first lockdown, when it was reasonable to assume a decade-long wait for a vaccine, quite regardless of how long any other vaccine in history has taken to design.

If you want to know how the Oxford-AsraZeneca vaccine was made and just how it was able to be formulated so quickly, read here: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

Or here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55041371

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

No, he's not, allowing the virus to run riot from day one would have done significantly more damage to the economy than lockdowns ever have. We also would not have a health system anymore.

the belief that the same amount of people would be infected & that we would experience the same levels of hospitalizations & deaths regardless of iwe locked down or not, is at best dumb ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.

What makes you think we have a good healthcare system now and I should know that this isn’t the case as I work in it?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

What makes you think we have a good healthcare system now and I should know that this isn’t the case as I work in it?

I'm not saying that we don't have significant issues within the NHS Mick, I'm saying without locking down last year (Apr) we would in my opinion have caused the NHS to collapse which subsequently would have lead onto even more cases,hospitalizations & deaths than we've already sustained.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

What makes you think we have a good healthcare system now and I should know that this isn’t the case as I work in it?

Did he say it was good or that we still have one?