But with Efficacy % going from 94 to 93% then only a tiny proportion of delta could be registered if they saw a substantial fall in delta efficacy right? I mean if only 20% of research cases were delta and the efficiacy was say 80% on these the remaining 80% of cases should actually have gone up to 97% to constrain the total drop to 93%
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
But with Efficacy % going from 94 to 93% then only a tiny proportion of delta could be registered if they saw a substantial fall in delta efficacy right? I mean if only 20% of research cases were delta and the efficiacy was say 80% on these the remaining 80% of cases should actually have gone up to 97% to constrain the total drop to 93%
Sounds like you'll be grand so.
Second Pfizer jab coming up in a few hours....managed to book this one for the Holte suite at Villa Park so will see if the Grealish banner has been torn down yet.
She’s an awful moaner. Obsessed with long covid and kids. The UK have made a deliberate decision that risks outweigh benefits in kids. The scientific community is split on this. So there’s no right or wrong approach here.
Oh I’d never seen her before. Was just surprised how far behind we are on vaccinating teens. You’d like to think there’d be a big push before September when they’re back at school.
I read the other day that there's a proposal to have vaccination points in schools in Italy, which would make it very easy to get the teenagers vaccinated. 30% of the 12-19 year-olds have already been fully vaccinated.
That's what they're intending to do now. It was announced yesterday that 16 and 17 year-olds are now offered vaccinations and they don't need to get approval from their parents. The advice is for healthy 12 to 15 year-olds to not take the jab though for now until more evidence has been studied.
Bloody hell. I'm no antivaxxer but sometimes there's nothing wrong with a pause for thought. The JCVI aren't engaged in some kind of campaign to reduce vaccine uptake. As usual they're trying to do a risk assessment - in the case of kids the rarity of severe cases of covid vs the possibility that the vaccine might have adverse affects. They're very open about their reasoning:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-19-vaccination-of-young-people-aged-16-to-17
They're doing exactly the job that I want them to do, which is to weigh things up. I really don't get where campaigners like Deepti are coming from. Do they think JCVI are engaged in some kind of covert campaign to give kids long covid and trash the education system.
That said, I hope they do crack on with the 16+ jabs now they're approved. Apparently you still can't book them on the national system and GPs etc haven't received any guidance on the rollout plan (which is rumoured to suggest school based clinics).
Anyone know what the current survival rate is for patients needing a ventilator? My best friends mom was just put on one this morning. She had/has pneumonia, hypertension, diabetes and a heart condition. Early 60's.
It's a weird thing to talk/flex about, surely the focus should be around how many of the vulnerable have been jabbed? That age group and below, whilst responsible for a large amount of transmission, will probably be the least affected when it comes to the severity of the disease, so the logic of other nations chasing vaccine rates in that specific age group over more vulnerable age demographics is baffling to say the least. The JCVI have been quite transparent on why they've held back on approving for those age groups.
She’s just another casualty of social media. Anyone who spends too much time on there is at huge risk of becoming so entrenched in a particular stance that they end up losing any sense of perspective. One of the most depressing things in this pandemic has been watching extremely smart academics fall prey to this phenomenon.
Well, no, it’s not baffling. They see it as a way to keep overall rates low. Which will protect the most vulnerable. There’s a very clear rationale for both approaches.
Sorry, to me it's baffling. In a world of a finite/limited supply of vaccines, and other countries haven't even vaccinated their most vulnerable, vaccinating those younger age groups doesn't make much sense.
Using that same logic you should never have vaccinated 20-30 year olds.
I'll entertain the pedanticism. The risk profile between 20-30 year olds and 17 and under are significantly different, but you know that already.
Well no. That’s not true. There isn’t a binary difference in risk between a 16 and 17 year old. Or a 19 vs 20 year old and so on. There isn’t any consensus on the precise age at which the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. Hence different approaches in different countries.
One thing’s for sure. If wealthier countries really cared about (or could influence) vaccine distribution/uptake in poorer countries they would have deferred vaccinating their own citizens younger than the age of (approximately) 30 and given those vaccines to the much more vulnerable age groups overseas.
Just on what's happening in the different age groups right now.
One thing to note is that test positivity rates in the 10-19 group are running at 30% so there are presumably a lot of cases being missed - probably due to low/different symptoms. Certainly it suggests that those routine LFTs were actually doing something useful during term time.
One thing to note is that test positivity rates in the 10-19 group are running at 30% so there are presumably a lot of cases being missed - probably due to low/different symptoms. Certainly it suggests that those routine LFTs were actually doing something useful during term time.
Sorry to hear that. I doubt if even her own doctors would be willing to give survival rates at this stage. Cases are far too individual for that.
That said, in the UK at least, they won't put you on a ventilator unless they think you can survive and most people going into ICU do survive.
Thanks jojojo. Much appreciated.
Was trying to hold out for the one shot J&J but it's not coming back into Ireland now cause of effectiveness apparently, just got the Pfizer now at a chemist, supposed to be the most efficient one anyway so happy out.
Last edited:
41% mortality in one database.
Source: https://sccmcovid19.org/
Now that doesn't translate into her chances. Everyone is different. I've had all types of people survive and die.
Her prognosis would be quite a bit worse if she ended up needing dialysis for kidney failure.
if you get the first vaccine but not the second (I missed the appointment)
is it safe to just get the first again?
I'm in a weird spot where it's easy to book a first and second jab again, but struggling to get an appointment for the second jab alone
I've tried calling like 5 times they just keep saying they'll get back to me but don't
is it safe to just get the first again?
I'm in a weird spot where it's easy to book a first and second jab again, but struggling to get an appointment for the second jab alone
I've tried calling like 5 times they just keep saying they'll get back to me but don't
It's safe, the doses are the same.
It will probably mess up your medical records though, which will be a big deal if this vaccine passport stuff does get important.
I think you need to try and get it sorted properly.
What's the word on boosters ? I'm nearing the five month mark and am wondering if I should look into one soon, especially with the CEO of Pfizer saying efficacy goes down to 84% at 6 months.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/pfi...ness-drops-to-84percent-after-six-months.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/pfi...ness-drops-to-84percent-after-six-months.html
yeah okay thanks, good advice
I just keep getting passed around by the support team, which is annoying when it takes 40 minutes to get through!
I dont know of any data in favor of boosters.
My personal opinion is as long as vaccine efficacy doesn't come down, I am not sure of the role of boosters. So far vaccines have been great, so I don't see the need for boosters.
There is some data for benefit for immunocompromised and I think 65+, data from Israel IIRC.
Thanks mav
One for the stats visualisations fans. A heat map of hospitalisations by age, showing the massive impact of vaccines in the older age groups, between that hot spot around January and the very different looking profile seen now.
For people who like seeing numbers instead the raw data it's in a .xlsx file published by the PHE
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/
Another interesting file on that page looks at the data for "admitted to hospital because of covid" and "admitted to hospital, who just so happened to have covid" - answer: about 20% of the admissions who test positive for covid aren't being treated primarily for covid. It's worth noting that there's an overlap, with some who wouldn't be in hospital if they didn't also have covid, and that the "with covid" group still need special handling in hospital as they have to be located away from the uninfected.
For people who like seeing numbers instead the raw data it's in a .xlsx file published by the PHE
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/
Another interesting file on that page looks at the data for "admitted to hospital because of covid" and "admitted to hospital, who just so happened to have covid" - answer: about 20% of the admissions who test positive for covid aren't being treated primarily for covid. It's worth noting that there's an overlap, with some who wouldn't be in hospital if they didn't also have covid, and that the "with covid" group still need special handling in hospital as they have to be located away from the uninfected.
Depends on which country you are in. In France it is logged against your SS number and you can tell them day of the trial that it is #2 not #1
One for the stats visualisations fans. A heat map of hospitalisations by age, showing the massive impact of vaccines in the older age groups, between that hot spot around January and the very different looking profile seen now.
For people who like seeing numbers instead the raw data it's in a .xlsx file published by the PHE
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/
Another interesting file on that page looks at the data for "admitted to hospital because of covid" and "admitted to hospital, who just so happened to have covid" - answer: about 20% of the admissions who test positive for covid aren't being treated primarily for covid. It's worth noting that there's an overlap, with some who wouldn't be in hospital if they didn't also have covid, and that the "with covid" group still need special handling in hospital as they have to be located away from the uninfected.
Nice to see a heat map that isn’t showing how bad our wide players are defensively. It’s a bit confusing though. Is there a label missing from the x axis? Presumably it’s time?
About 95% conspiracy theory. FFS.
B
Time - basically you can see the December/January case peak then the (numerically similar) July one. I hadn't noticed the image had lost its labels, somebody revised the colours from this version (that is labelled) to make the details stand out better, but looks like he missed off the labels in the process.
Agreed. Cut off his oxygen.
It’s mad to see the nonsense being posted about vaccines in the football forum when this gets discussed outside the current events echo chamber.
An argument that gets used a lot on there (and I’ve seen on social media elsewhere) is that it isn’t worth getting vaccinated “because we now know that vaccinated people can still transmit the virus”.
This blows my mind for two reasons: a) We always knew vaccinated people could transmit the virus because we always knew vaccines were less than 100% effective and b) Why can’t they understand that even a reduction in the rate of transmission is still beneficial?
It’s weird/fascinating to see legitimately stupid notions taking hold in a diverse range of people. Weird/fascinating/depressing.
An argument that gets used a lot on there (and I’ve seen on social media elsewhere) is that it isn’t worth getting vaccinated “because we now know that vaccinated people can still transmit the virus”.
This blows my mind for two reasons: a) We always knew vaccinated people could transmit the virus because we always knew vaccines were less than 100% effective and b) Why can’t they understand that even a reduction in the rate of transmission is still beneficial?
It’s weird/fascinating to see legitimately stupid notions taking hold in a diverse range of people. Weird/fascinating/depressing.
i find him entertaining, but posted this not for the statement but for the hostility he's getting from his own base about vaccines.
Yeah, this. The same people moaning about these people are those incessantly sharing their words all over social media.
Ah. Ok. Wasn’t having a go at you. More a general moan about Twitter.