Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
amanuensis
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:32 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by amanuensis »

Fingal wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:22 am
Splatt wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:16 pm
amanuensis wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am One reason to be cautious regarding universal vaccination is that it produces a homogeneous immunity profile. This might increase risks for the vulnerable groups.
That's the issue nobody seems to be bothered about.
You could just as easily argue the opposite. The more infections you have, the more chance you have for new mutations. So there's a case for reducing overall infections to the lowest level possible, whether or not those people are in high risk groups.

The most worrying news variants (South African, Brazilian, Kent) are emerging in locations with existing very high infection rates. Obviously it's way too soon to draw a conclusion from that but you have to accept it as a significant possibility.
Sort-of. But it is complicated.

The chance of any mutation will be the same per viral particle per time in any body, so I would accept that the vaccinated individual will have a lower chance of any particular mutation compared with an unvaccinated person, because they'll have a lower viral load.

Now, the evolutionary pressure will be for the virus to become easier to catch, easier to reproduce or easier to get out of the body.

Sure, an unvaccinated person might generate mutations that meet the above criteria, but there's absolutely no (selection) pressure to produce an escape mutation -- if it did achieve vaccine escape it would only be a fluke.

However, the evolutionary pressure for a virus in an vaccinated person is massively to create an escape mutation, even if that escape mutation is less virulent in the unvaccinated population. This is more likely to occur than a mutation that is both more virulent in the unvaccinated population and achieves vaccine escape.

For eg, consider a mutation that is 0.5 times as virulent in the unvaccinated population, but that is 2x more virulent in vaccinated bodies (than the original variant). The mutation might well be more likely to occur in the unvaccinated (because they've got more viral particles to mutate), but it isn't going to out-compete the original infection and will mostly 'die out' before leaving the body. However, that same mutation in a vaccinated person is going to out-compete the original virus, take over the infection and then try to spread itself to a new host.

This wouldn't be a problem if we vaccinated as few people as possible -- in this case there'd be lower chance of the mutation coming along (purely because of the number vaccinated being lower) and it would likely be rare in the unvaccinated majority (because it is less 'efficient' in that sub-population). Thus we would get an 'anti-herd-immunity' effect, where the unvaccinated would snuff out the escape mutations. By going for mass vaccinations we not only increase the numbers in which an escape mutation might occur, but also decrease the ability of the unvaccinated-herd to control the (less infectious in them) mutation.

All that said, what we have here is a complex situation where some decent modelling (along with existing data on the virus) could help identify the interplay between vaccine 'efficiency' (impact on viral load and transmission), mutation speed and proportion of the population vaccinated. This could then identify whether we should be vaccinating everyone or just the vulnerable. Unfortunately we don't seem to have had this done. Even worse, the populist message (coming from government scientists) appears to be based on an assumption that the vaccine is sterilising -- ie, vaccinate everyone as quickly as possible. My worry is that this lack of proper analysis is going to make things far worse.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by thinksaboutit »

amanuensis wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:51 pm
Thus we would get an 'anti-herd-immunity' effect, where the unvaccinated would snuff out the escape mutations.
What's the basis for this assertion?
Can you support with evidence, respectable scientific papers?

burke19
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:32 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by burke19 »

Fingal wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:22 am
Splatt wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:16 pm
amanuensis wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am One reason to be cautious regarding universal vaccination is that it produces a homogeneous immunity profile. This might increase risks for the vulnerable groups.
That's the issue nobody seems to be bothered about.
You could just as easily argue the opposite. The more infections you have, the more chance you have for new mutations. So there's a case for reducing overall infections to the lowest level possible, whether or not those people are in high risk groups.

The most worrying news variants (South African, Brazilian, Kent) are emerging in locations with existing very high infection rates. Obviously it's way too soon to draw a conclusion from that but you have to accept it as a significant possibility.
Having read the excellent post from amanuensis I thought I'd take the opportunity to correct the not quite so excellent fake news regarding Brazilian and South African infection rates contained in one quote therein. The diagrams shows Brazil (blue), Germany (green) and South Africa (red). The second diagram shows the same two countries with the UK (in green). So the (reported) infection rates in both South Africa and Brazil have been relatively close to those of low infection rate countries (such as Germany) and are quite a bit below those of the UK.
Attachments
Infection rate comparison Brazil and South Africa with Germany
Infection rate comparison Brazil and South Africa with Germany
Germany.png (177.54 KiB) Viewed 319 times
Infection rate comparison Brazil and South Africa with UK
Infection rate comparison Brazil and South Africa with UK
UK.png (145.45 KiB) Viewed 319 times

Teamsaint
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:01 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Teamsaint »

This guardian article takes a sensible approach to risk, you might think. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver ... the-az-jab

But of course this thinking applies to only certain kinds of risk, the ones they want you to take, not the ones they don’t approve of, such as the population learning how to live with certain level of covid risk.

Splatt
Posts: 1499
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Splatt »

Its still not an overall great assessment there.

Firstly the risk is higher taking AZ than getting covid for the under 30s. Thats a given.

So under those 2 choices, the obvious thing is not to do it - why expose yourself to ANY increased risk?

However, we have 2 other vaccines that are far far far less risky that are also far more effective against COVID.
The calculation changes then - it may well be worth having it.

But this entire "let people decide their own exposure to risk" is ridiculous - that's what people have wanted throughout this but been denied by the government with forced lockdowns, closures and absolute brutal restrictions. They removed ALL personal responsibility.

imp66
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:24 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by imp66 »

"We don't have a time machine" , to quote Professor Chris Smith, he of numerous Q & A sessions on BBC Breakfast. Nor a crystal ball. So until these novo vaccines have passed 'normal' testing procedures, I for one won't touch them with a barge pole. Relative risk is minuscule in the under 50s. The majority of the elderly and at risk have accepted the inoculations, so why on Earth should others take an untested, experimental concoction with no long nor mid-term data available yet? The powers that be can cajole/ intimidate/ "persuade" me as much as they like: I'm not taking the knee to their bully-boy tactics. I can sacrifice holidays abroad . I can sacrifice visits to the pub ( although the way we're headed I'll possibly be under virtual house arrest by the Autumn!) I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror, and not see a spineless, brainwashed slave looking back.





According to NHS publications valid to 4 February
19% (6) of 0-19 yo deaths were without pre-existing conditions
14% (68) of 20-39 yo deaths were without pre-existing conditions
10% (497) of 40-60 yo deaths were without pre-existing conditions
[/quote]

Those are high proportions of small numbers, so let's get some perspective.

nhs-deaths.jpg

For under 60s, the fatality rate is 1/10 (0.013%/0.13%) of the average and for under 40s it is 1/71 (0.0018%/0.13%). If we wanted an under 50s figure, we could provisionally take a geometric mean of 1/27. And this assumes similar exposure, even though the older people will mix less.

So we have the chances of dying of covid, from these figures (a pseudo IFR), for under 50s of 0.13%/27 = 0.0049%. Splatt is vindicated!
[/quote]

TheHandbag
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:43 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by TheHandbag »

Doesn’t that graph just show the effect of seasonality on respiratory viruses?

thinksaboutit
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by thinksaboutit »

Spycatcher wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:56 am
thinksaboutit wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:47 pm There are some who say I'm not at risk, so why vaccinate people like me.

To me, the reason is:

1. To get the population to high levels of immunity quicker than would happen through natural infection/recovery.

2. To reduce the risk of a new peak and restrictions next winter.

3. Infect and kill less people in the meantime.

What is wrong with this reasoning?
No, no and no.

This is completely the wrong approach.

Our immune system is more than capable of dealing with this without experimental interventions like vaccination with an untried and untested "vaccine".
Except for those that die!

Around 10% increase in deaths in UK in 2020.

If you don't believe me look at this....

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/excess-mo ... s-in-2020/

miahoneybee
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by miahoneybee »

Well said imp66..
:D

Splatt
Posts: 1499
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Splatt »

thinksaboutit wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:00 pm 1. To get the population to high levels of immunity quicker than would happen through natural infection/recovery.
How on earth do you expect that to work with the main vaccine at 65% or so reduction in infection?

Its pretty much perfect to encourage escape mutants though.
2. To reduce the risk of a new peak and restrictions next winter.
Why would you expect that?
3. Infect and kill less people in the meantime.
The people likely to die are protected. Anyone else infected has about as much chance of getting seriously sick as they do being killed by cows.
What is wrong with this reasoning?
Because you see quite happy to allow others to increase the risk to their health and life to achieve these goals.
How is it morally or ethically justifiable to ask someone to place any extra risk on their health or life along with the discomfort of a vaccine and the very common side effects wiping them out for days?
"Sorry, you're just one of the hive. Do this and if it all goes wrong, tough. its for the good of the hive".

Its going to be a pretty hard sell to someone at no risk of a disease to get vaccinated (so injection, twice) likely suffer side effects making themselves sick and miss work for 1-5 days each time and increase their overall risk of health complications just to "protect" a group of people who, by being vaccinated, are already protected.

For this reason the Flu vaccine isn't mandatory (nor in fact rolled out to every single person as a matter of policy). It also goes against all basic tenets of public health policy going back a century.

Post Reply