The jab ..

[Anonymous]

Numbers are looking great again today.

Just think what they are going to look like when they get the second jab and it kicks in for the over 60's.

Summer 2021 is going to be a good un!

Would be interesting to find out how many were vaccinated, as they all fall in the category where they should have been. If they have, a breakdown into which vaccine they did receive.

Public Health Scotland does a great set of well presented daily stats on all aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic...including vaccination breakdown analysis..I’m sure PH England must have a comparable data presentation..

https://public.tableau.com/profile/phs.covid.19#!/vizhome/COVID-19DailyDashboard_15960160643010/Overview

 

[pvr]

The only thing missing is the breakdown of positive cases into the number of vaccinated people versus non vaccinated (both new cases and deaths). That would provide details about the efficiency of the vaccine.

 

[enuff_zed]

The only thing missing is the breakdown of positive cases into the number of vaccinated people versus non vaccinated (both new cases and deaths). That would provide details about the efficiency of the vaccine.

But don't forget that if you die within 28 days of a positive test it's counted. There is a chance some of those people died after the vaccine but from other causes.
We'll only ever get rough estimates.

 

[pvr]

Fully agree, but you can add another data element that shows the number of days after vaccination, that would provide another statistic. As those that had been vaccinated in say January, "should" not test positive for COVID before dying.

 

[enuff_zed]

Fully agree, but you can add another data element that shows the number of days after vaccination, that would provide another statistic. As those that had been vaccinated in say January, "should" not test positive for COVID before dying.

Indeed, but I doubt they'll do it.
Can you imagine the insurrection at the surgeries if people think they're getting the less effective dose?

 

[Anonymous]

The only thing missing is the breakdown of positive cases into the number of vaccinated people versus non vaccinated (both new cases and deaths). That would provide details about the efficiency of the vaccine.

There is a long and detailed dissertation on this subject here.. https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2021/02/23/covid-19-analysing-first-vaccine-effectiveness-in-the-uk/

Essentially it says that there is a significant effect on COVID related mortality and associated hospitalisation with the first jab rising substantially once the second booster kicks in.

Given that we know that vaccines are less effective in older people the fact that 80+ year olds are getting 55% / 85% effectiveness on 1st / 2nd jab is very encouraging.

Anecdotally in Scotland where there was a (much critiqued) priority on care home residents and then over 80s the death rate for these from COVID has dropped now to almost baseline levels..

Part of the reason why the Scottish Government has been uncharacteristically positive in their revised attitude to the lockdown timetable has been the recent wealth of data showing for the CURRENT variants in circulation the effect of vaccine on lockdown and arguably the greater adherence to the lockdown regulations by the Scottish population.

 

[Deleted member 32480]

The only thing missing is the breakdown of positive cases into the number of vaccinated people versus non vaccinated (both new cases and deaths). That would provide details about the efficiency of the vaccine.

Interesting site.

There is so much data that they have that they won't release which is super annoying.

This is the best bit of data I have seen today- basically shows its over.

99% of the people that could die from Covid have had their 1st jab now- many are on their second.

If the vaccine is anywhere near as efficient as they say it should be then it's game over.

Even the most grumpiest of old men (hi Ronk ) should be happy with this.

I am going to take a wild guess and say that with the battering we have taken last year in terms of spreading the virus around (natural immunity and death of the vulnerable) and now with the added Jabs we are out of the woods now.

 

[Deleted member 32480]

The only thing missing is the breakdown of positive cases into the number of vaccinated people versus non vaccinated (both new cases and deaths). That would provide details about the efficiency of the vaccine.

But don't forget that if you die within 28 days of a positive test it's counted. There is a chance some of those people died after the vaccine but from other causes.
We'll only ever get rough estimates.

It's a hard one to count this.

In a none Covid world I could go round and high five 100,000 over 80's and a certain percentage statistically will have died within 28 days.

This can be applied both to the vaccine and the virus.

(especially in flu season- November to March where statistically a higher number of old folk pass).

 

[Nanu]

it's great news all round but hopefully a new variant won't come along which defies the vaccine. The more people that are vaccinated the less likely the spread so the less likely any variants in this country at least. As for the rest of the world who knows.

 

[Deleted member 32480]

Be interesting to see how the politics play out with the vaccine.

Outside of this group it's common knowledge that it's only a great danger to the over 60's and people with compromised immune systems (the 10 priority groups that have been vaccinated above).

If we had any humanity we would be sending the excess out Europe etc for the old and the at risk before we started sticking it to healthy 20 year olds who are at very little risk.

Doubt it tho.

 

[enuff_zed]

Be interesting to see how the politics play out with the vaccine.

Outside of this group it's common knowledge that it's only a great danger to the over 60's and people with compromised immune systems (the 10 priority groups that have been vaccinated above).

If we had any humanity we would be sending the excess out Europe etc for the old and the at risk before we started sticking it to healthy 20 year olds who are at very little risk.

Doubt it tho.

Whilst I can see the humanitarian logic, I believe the UK is more of the mind-set that the younger age groups, whilst maybe not affected so much, could provide the 'factories' for the virus to mutate in. By stopping it having that opportunity we potentially lower the chances of untreatable versions appearing.
FWIW, I think we should send any excess just about anywhere except Europe after their political shenanigans of the last week or so.
Even their own medical boards could not make them see sense!

 

[Deleted member 32480]

FWIW, I think we should send any excess just about anywhere except Europe after their political shenanigans of the last week or so.
Even their own medical boards could not make them see sense!

I dunno, I believe that we shouldn't let the people suffer due to the stupidity of their Governments.

If you look at it from a humanitarian standpoint (I am going to ignore the fact that you mentioned that the under 60's "maybe not affected so much" and go by the figures) then it makes sense to vaccinate the vulnerable 1st.

if you look at it from a financial standpoint there are circa 50 million under 60's in the UK compared to around 17 million over 60's then you would want to get that big chunk.

Whilst I can see the humanitarian logic, I believe the UK is more of the mind-set that the younger age groups, whilst maybe not affected so much, could provide the 'factories' for the virus to mutate in

Is there any evidence to suggest that the virus will only mutate in unvaccinated people? My understanding is the Jab doesn't stop you from catching it (i think it reduces you passing it on) but really stops hospitalisations and deaths from it? I really would love to see studies with vaccinated people, unvaccinated people who have had the Rona and unvaccinated people who haven't had the Rona.

 

[Flyingfifer]

Whilst I can see the humanitarian logic, I believe the UK is more of the mind-set that the younger age groups, whilst maybe not affected so much, could provide the 'factories' for the virus to mutate in

Is there any evidence to suggest that the virus will only mutate in unvaccinated people? My understanding is the Jab doesn't stop you from catching it (i think it reduces you passing it on) but really stops hospitalisations and deaths from it? I really would love to see studies with vaccinated people, unvaccinated people who have had the Rona and unvaccinated people who haven't had the Rona.

As far as I am aware there is no evidence to suggest that it will not mutate in vaccinated people but would welcome anyone to provide that, as is its an entirely untrue faith based claim.

Having read research that suggested that vaccinated people are more likely to spread the virus (due to higher concentration of the virus in the upper respiratory system) I really don't know what to believe as we have other "experts" that claim it does reduce transmission. :idunno:

As it stands, given the numbers, I really cant see any reason for the lockdown to be lingering any longer than the end of the month, any longer is just drawing it out for no apparent reason.

 

[Ed.Straker]

FWIW, I think we should send any excess just about anywhere except Europe after their political shenanigans of the last week or so.
Even their own medical boards could not make them see sense!

I dunno, I believe that we shouldn't let the people suffer due to the stupidity of their Governments.

If you look at it from a humanitarian standpoint (I am going to ignore the fact that you mentioned that the under 60's "maybe not affected so much" and go by the figures) then it makes sense to vaccinate the vulnerable 1st.

if you look at it from a financial standpoint there are circa 50 million under 60's in the UK compared to around 17 million over 60's then you would want to get that big chunk.

Whilst I can see the humanitarian logic, I believe the UK is more of the mind-set that the younger age groups, whilst maybe not affected so much, could provide the 'factories' for the virus to mutate in

Is there any evidence to suggest that the virus will only mutate in unvaccinated people? My understanding is the Jab doesn't stop you from catching it (i think it reduces you passing it on) but really stops hospitalisations and deaths from it? I really would love to see studies with vaccinated people, unvaccinated people who have had the Rona and unvaccinated people who haven't had the Rona.

A virus is always mutating wherever/whenever it replicates.

Virus mutation is brought on internally by failure to accurately copy its RNA sequence. The reason, in part, DNA exists is because the D "double" introduces a degree of redundancy so that inaccurate replications are substantially reduced.

Virus mutation can also be brought on by external factors, chemicals, ionisng radiation, interaction with complex organic entities etc

Most mutations fail due to the new virus daughter not functioning and/or inability to subsequently replicate.

The ones that can survive may confer little or negative advantages and that line dies out over time.

Its the one that gain an advantage, increased transmissablity / greater creation of viral loads / resistance to drugs / vaccines /other therapies that survive and prosper.

Public health and this virus is all about probablities.

The virus chance of a competetive advantage through chance mutation is primarily statistical probability.

The more virus particles replicating and the more generations of replication the greater the chance of a succesful mutation.

So by reducing the number of people infected, the length of time they are infected for, the degree of infection and their inability to transmit the virus to others all reduce the probability of a successful mutation.

Vaccines impact all 4 of those key variables.

Therefore irrespective of how 'good' in each of those factors its, from a PH view a 'no brainer' to vaccinate everyone in the case of a COVID type virus with its associated lethality and wider impacts on many others and the fact that PH has to mop up the wreckage from this.

 

[exdos]

As far as I am aware there is no evidence to suggest that it will not mutate in vaccinated people but would welcome anyone to provide that, as is its an entirely untrue faith based claim.

Having read research that suggested that vaccinated people are more likely to spread the virus (due to higher concentration of the virus in the upper respiratory system) I really don't know what to believe as we have other "experts" that claim it does reduce transmission. :idunno:

If someone gets immunity to the C-19 virus either, "naturally" after being infected, or, "acquired" by vaccination, when that person with "immunity" to C-19 receives a viral load, sufficient to cause infection in someone without immunity, then the antibodies and T-cells are already present and are instantly able to destroy the viral load, thus preventing the virus particles from replicating within the host. As such, it is difficult to see how the immune person might pass on an increased number of virus units to others when their immune system is able to destroy the virus, or at least prevent its replication, almost immediately.

Most vaccinated persons have the acquired immunity to prevent viral replication within their bodies and therefore become one less potential host for replication and further mutation, making spread of infection more difficult for the virus.

 

[Deleted member 32480]

So

So by reducing the number of people infected, the length of time they are infected for, the degree of infection and their inability to transmit the virus to others all reduce the probability of a successful mutation.

Sound great that. Are you saying that people who have had the jab can't be infected?

Are there any virus that have mutated in the history of man that have become more deadly?

 

[Flyingfifer]

If someone gets immunity to the C-19 virus either, "naturally" after being infected, or, "acquired" by vaccination, when that person with "immunity" to C-19 receives a viral load, sufficient to cause infection in someone without immunity, then the antibodies and T-cells are already present and are instantly able to destroy the viral load, thus preventing the virus particles from replicating within the host. As such, it is difficult to see how the immune person might pass on an increased number of virus units to others when their immune system is able to destroy the virus, or at least prevent its replication, almost immediately.

Most vaccinated persons have the acquired immunity to prevent viral replication within their bodies and therefore become one less potential host for replication and further mutation, making spread of infection more difficult for the virus.

This is another fundamental misunderstanding of the viruses, their different types and the vaccine that is being provided.

This virus and vaccine are similar to the flu and flu vaccine and are NOT similar to something like polio, when we get the flu (or C19) or are vaccinated we develop a period of "immunity" where the immune system has active antibodies and is in effect fighting the virus and beating it, this state is not permeant and once the antibodies fade so does that "immunity" however there are other parts of the immune system that retain a memory of the virus which allows the system to react far faster if and when it is encountered again. But a true immunity (in the sense of you will never be effected by it again) at the moment (as with the flu) cannot and has not been achieved. Personally I would say that its more of a resistance to C19 as the virus can and will still be caught and you will still get ill from it and have symptoms however those should not be as severe as if you didnt have the vaccine.

You may find this useful Clicky

You claim that those that have been vaccinated are "one less potential host for replication and further mutation" what evidence/research/proof are you basing that on?

 

[enuff_zed]

So

So by reducing the number of people infected, the length of time they are infected for, the degree of infection and their inability to transmit the virus to others all reduce the probability of a successful mutation.

Sound great that. Are you saying that people who have had the jab can't be infected?

Are there any virus that have mutated in the history of man that have become more deadly?

I think I'd be pedantic and say you can still be infected, but only for a very short time until your body boots it out.
Technically you'd have to be infected for your body to know it was there.

 

[Flyingfifer]

So by reducing the number of people infected, the length of time they are infected for, the degree of infection and their inability to transmit the virus to others all reduce the probability of a successful mutation.

Vaccines impact all 4 of those key variables.

Therefore irrespective of how 'good' in each of those factors its, from a PH view a 'no brainer' to vaccinate everyone in the case of a COVID type virus with its associated lethality and wider impacts on many others and the fact that PH has to mop up the wreckage from this.

There are studies (that are positively inclined for the vaccine) that have suggested that a higher virus load resides in the upper respiratory system in those that have been vaccinated and as far as I am aware there isnt a single piece of evidence to support your claim that people who have been vaccinated have an "inability to transmit the virus to others" What are you basing that claim on because it appears to be entirely false and fictitious

 

[Ed.Straker]

So by reducing the number of people infected, the length of time they are infected for, the degree of infection and their inability to transmit the virus to others all reduce the probability of a successful mutation.

Vaccines impact all 4 of those key variables.

Therefore irrespective of how 'good' in each of those factors its, from a PH view a 'no brainer' to vaccinate everyone in the case of a COVID type virus with its associated lethality and wider impacts on many others and the fact that PH has to mop up the wreckage from this.

There are studies (that are positively inclined for the vaccine) that have suggested that a higher virus load resides in the upper respiratory system in those that have been vaccinated and as far as I am aware there isnt a single piece of evidence to support your claim that people who have been vaccinated have an "inability to transmit the virus to others" What are you basing that claim on because it appears to be entirely false and fictitious

Well as a recently retired PH professional and currently working with my old employer on next winter's contingency plans I can say that there is almost no evidence that has been peer reviewed to substantiate your views.

https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2021/02/23/covid-19-analysing-first-vaccine-effectiveness-in-the-uk/

so a very conservative article among many showing that all the vaccines deployed so far have a marked impact on virus transmission.

From a PH perspective the data from real world use has eclipsed our expectations and gets better everyday as the timeline from mass vaccination to assessment increases.

If you read what I said

"So by reducing the number of people infected, the length of time they are infected for, the degree of infection and their inability to transmit the virus to others all reduce the probability of a successful mutation.

Vaccines impact all 4 of those key variables."

I described 4 pathways to reduce viral multiplication..I did not say vaccines stop transmission, what I said was that vaccines impact that ability, which they do..by at least 50% according to current research.

Your argument to use an analogy is:

With a 1000 bomber raid, we can only shoot down 50% of them with AA guns...so some will get through so lets not bother...