fightoffyour Posted May 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2021 9 minutes ago, blandy said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-57134652 So one person who had been fully vaccinated, and no information about how long after receiving their. second dose they were hospitalised. Another article also says there’s increasing confident the vaccine is effective against the Indian strain. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57134181 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted May 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2021 Just now, fightoffyour said: So one person who had been fully vaccinated, and no information about how long after receiving their. second dose they were hospitalised. Another article also says there’s increasing confident the vaccine is effective against the Indian strain. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57134181 Increasing confidence, yes, but really only for those who have received two jabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 On the whole sounds promising with all the usual caveats... Quote The Pfizer vaccine was found to be 88% effective at stopping symptomatic disease from the Indian variant two weeks after the second dose, compared with 93% effectiveness against the Kent variant. The AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective against the Indian variant, compared with 66% against the Kent variant. Public Health England (PHE) said the difference in effectiveness between the vaccines after two doses might be explained by the fact that rollout of second doses of AstraZeneca was later than for the Pfizer vaccine, which was approved first. Other data shows it takes longer to reach maximum effectiveness with the AstraZeneca vaccine, PHE said. Some 12,675 genome-sequenced cases were included in the study, which took place between 5 April and 16 May. Only 1,054 of those cases were of the Indian variant, known as B.1.617.2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2021 18 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: So one person who had been fully vaccinated, and no information about how long after receiving their. second dose they were hospitalised. Another article also says there’s increasing confident the vaccine is effective against the Indian strain. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57134181 Fairly sure I got a news alert from somewhere last night that said Pfizer was 88% effective against Indian variant after two doses but AZ was only 60%. No idea where it was though as I was about to go to bed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2021 The belief with the AZ vaccine is that it takes longer to build immunity than the Pfizer vaccine so they expect in time that it's effectiveness against the Indian variant will increase. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted May 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2021 33 minutes ago, trekka said: Increasing confidence, yes, but really only for those who have received two jabs. Isn’t that the case with all strains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 Also, that BBC article doesn't say anything close to 'really only for those who have received two jabs'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted May 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2021 32 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: Isn’t that the case with all strains? Yes it is but it is worth noting that on the first dose, the vaccines are effective for the Kent variant at ~50% (after 3 weeks), whereas with the indian variant they are only effective at ~33%. BBC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted May 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2021 Two doses of Covid vaccine crucial - JCVI member A new study on the Indian variant shows how important it is to get two doses of a jab, a member of the committee that advises the government on vaccination has said. Professor Anthony Harnden says it is "great news" that a Public Health England study found the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines to be "highly effective" against the Indians variant after two doses. But the study also found both vaccines were only 33% effective three weeks after the first dose - making the second dose crucial. Prof Harnden, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), told the BBC: "These vaccines are highly effective, we know that, against not only the 'Kent variant' but this new strain that's originated from India and will be protective against future variants, of that I'm sure. "I do want to emphasise then the real importance the study's showing of receiving two doses of either vaccine. "Our strategy really to try and get those vulnerable groups that haven't received any doses of vaccine yet is the correct one - as well as accelerating that second dose, given that this particular variant is highly transmissible." BBC 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2021 34 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Also, that BBC article doesn't say anything close to 'really only for those who have received two jabs'. My perception is, as we were discussing yesterday, that it is probable that because it takes time to build up immunity, vaccination surges are not the ideal tool for an outbreak, because to an extent it’s already too late (though better late than never). It’s quite possible these jabbed people in hospital hadn’t built up decent immunity in time. But the maths also tells us that if you have a vaccine that gives 88% efficacy, that still leaves 12% vulnerable to hospitalisation or worse. If the outbreak widens because of greater transmission rates, that’s still potentially a lot of very sick people - enough to cause major problems for the hospitals and this is what leads to the potential for new lockdown type measures and the need to communicate from the government. The last point I guess is around sample size. These local outbreaks are a relatively small sample of people with no jab, a single jab of whichever vaccine type, or a double jab and so any conclusions will be a bit TBC at this stage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted May 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2021 23 minutes ago, blandy said: My perception is, as we were discussing yesterday, that it is probable that because it takes time to build up immunity, vaccination surges are not the ideal tool for an outbreak, because to an extent it’s already too late (though better late than never). It’s quite possible these jabbed people in hospital hadn’t built up decent immunity in time. But the maths also tells us that if you have a vaccine that gives 88% efficacy, that still leaves 12% vulnerable to hospitalisation or worse. If the outbreak widens because of greater transmission rates, that’s still potentially a lot of very sick people - enough to cause major problems for the hospitals and this is what leads to the potential for new lockdown type measures and the need to communicate from the government. The last point I guess is around sample size. These local outbreaks are a relatively small sample of people with no jab, a single jab of whichever vaccine type, or a double jab and so any conclusions will be a bit TBC at this stage. The 88% efficacy is the rate at preventing mild to moderate symptoms is it not? Even J&J with an efficacy of 66% was 100% effective at preventing hospitalisation and death in the trial. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/03/420071/how-effective-johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-heres-what-you-should-know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2021 1 hour ago, fightoffyour said: The 88% efficacy is the rate at preventing mild to moderate symptoms is it not? Even J&J with an efficacy of 66% was 100% effective at preventing hospitalisation and death in the trial. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/03/420071/how-effective-johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-heres-what-you-should-know People are in hospital with the Indian variant, having had a jab. Like I said earlier, the sample size is probably too small to be certain, and we also don't know when the people affected were jabbed, but it's not 100 effective at preventing hospitalisation based on the data available, therefore it needs to be closely monitored and the spread prevented. edit: link Quote Less convincingly, the AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective, compared with 66% against the Kent variant over the same period. But PHE said the difference in effectiveness between the two jabs could be down to the AstraZeneca vaccine taking longer to reach maximum effectiveness. It was also found that both vaccines were 33% effective against symptomatic disease caused by the India variant, three weeks after the first dose. This compared with about 50% effectiveness against the Kent variant That, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted May 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2021 39 minutes ago, blandy said: People are in hospital with the Indian variant, having had a jab. Like I said earlier, the sample size is probably too small to be certain, and we also don't know when the people affected were jabbed, but it's not 100 effective at preventing hospitalisation based on the data available, therefore it needs to be closely monitored and the spread prevented. edit: link That, basically. Those quotes appear in a BBC article titled The Pfizer and AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccines are highly effective against the variant identified in India after two doses, a study has found. Quote he Pfizer vaccine was found to be 88% effective at stopping symptomatic disease from the Indian variant two weeks after the second dose, compared with 93% effectiveness against the Kent variant. The AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective against the Indian variant, compared with 66% against the Kent variant. That’s the effectiveness against any symptoms at all. There’s no reason to believe that the effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation isn’t very close to 100% still, apart from one anecdotal report of a frail person having had their second jab (which may have been the same morning for all we know). Yes some of the new strains are mor transmissible, but their effect on vaccinated people is really being overplayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2021 13 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: but their effect on vaccinated people is really being overplayed. I don't think it is. All that's being done is some presentation of a limited data set, which as you say suggests the variant is more transmissible, that the vaccines, to a differing level are decent at preventing hospitalisations and increase in efficacy over time. And that until we have more information we can't be complacent about further relaxation of various measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 7 hours ago, fightoffyour said: So one person who had been fully vaccinated, and no information about how long after receiving their. second dose they were hospitalised. Another article also says there’s increasing confident the vaccine is effective against the Indian strain. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57134181 A "frail person'. Someone frail could be hospitalised with normal flu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 I was getting a drink from Morrisons cafe this morning (fear not coffee gestapo, it was a hot chocolate). The 3 older couples in front of me who were eating in, were asked to 'check in' on their phone for track and trace purposes. All of them just looked blankly at the staff and didn't do it. I doubt they have smartphones. I think it just demonstrates how much of a pointless exercise it is. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Xela said: I was getting a drink from Morrisons cafe this morning (fear not coffee gestapo, it was a hot chocolate). The 3 older couples in front of me who were eating in, were asked to 'check in' on their phone for track and trace purposes. All of them just looked blankly at the staff and didn't do it. I doubt they have smartphones. I think it just demonstrates how much of a pointless exercise it is. Yep, I was in Worcester yesterday and was asked to ‘check in’, didn’t have a phone on me, so they found an old receipt and asked me to write my name and phone number of the back of it. Looked a fool proof system to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 The in-laws came round for a take away tonight for father in law’s birthday, it was going so well until the subject of vaccination came up. The younger sister (32) is full on “I’m not having it, it’s been rushed, you don’t know what’s in it, it’s my body and I can do what I like”. It was a bit like a red rag to a bull (my wife, don’t tell her I called her a bull). They left very shortly after. The wife is fuming. I’m hiding downstairs finishing the bloody lovely Purity Villa Pale Ale. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 Feel incredibly dirty agreeing with JHB. However... What the ****? I thought this was just to be used to track vaccine status?? That's what I was told on here? 'How is this a violation of privacy?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Feel incredibly dirty agreeing with JHB. However... What the ****? I thought this was just to be used to track vaccine status?? That's what I was told on here? 'How is this a violation of privacy?' Has it? Not in mine. Well it didn’t. Need a look around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts