Vaccine vs Covid itself

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
Splatt
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

Again utter rubbish.

Using the Pfizer data (because its in an easier form) you're looking at a "serious adverse reaction" roughly 1 in 100,000 for all demographics.

Looking at qCovid there are many permutations where the risk of severe covid are lower than 1 in 100,000.

Its quite simple from that to show that for some demographics, you're at risk from a vaccine than covid.
A minority for sure but it exists.
Especially when you add on the fact theres no guarantee the vaccine will be effective.
And if you need boosters that risk is repeated multiple times.

Herd immunity forget it via vaccination. Simply won't happen. Its actually impossible to achieve with B.1.1.7 and the AZ vaccine in the ratio we're using it due to its lack of efficacy.
If we were 100% Pfizer there'd be a chance but we're not. We're majority AZ where even if every single person eligible takes it, we're still short of the HIT.
And thats with B.1.1.7. Given nature is going to ensure P1 and others spread and AZ is 100% useless at preventing infection there its a lost cause.

Its only going to happen with natural infection.
All ages, where clinical trials have shown benefits and safety.
Again that isn't completely true. ALL vaccines have risks and these are no different. A small percentage of people will develop adverse reactions. Of those, some will be left with permanent damage and some will die.
So the directly result of vaccinating some does expose them to a risk.
That's why basic public health policy has always been to not treat or vaccinate people that don't need it. Its balancing risk.

Protecting someone from something they aren't at risk from whilst in the process increasing their risk of being seriously sick from something else is unethical and insane.

With people in their 20s we're already in "more likely to be killed by cows" territory. There is no sense at all forcing them to have a vaccine which (i) they dont need and (ii) even if it works, they're likely to be sick for a few days with side effects.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by thinksaboutit »

Splatt wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:18 pm Again utter rubbish.

Using the Pfizer data (because its in an easier form) you're looking at a "serious adverse reaction" roughly 1 in 100,000 for all demographics.

Looking at qCovid there are many permutations where the risk of severe covid are lower than 1 in 100,000.

Its quite simple from that to show that for some demographics, you're at risk from a vaccine than covid.
A minority for sure but it exists.
You say this, but using qCovid on a 20 yo male, or female of normal weight and good health. I come up with chance of covid hospitalisation much higher than 1 in 100,000. That also assumes the least vulnerable ethnic group. Also that is for a 90 day period risk, so multiply by the number of pandemic waves people will be subjected to.

As far as I can see all adult cases have a much higher risk with the disease than the vaccine.

You state over and over again the line should be drawn at 50.

So please identify the examples that justify your assertion.

guy153
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:29 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by guy153 »

fon wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:51 pm
guy153 wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:35 pm
fon wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:47 pm
It would be much cheaper and quicker to just squirt cold virus in our faces, instead of giving us jabs.
Well you could do that... except these "common cold" coronaviruses can have an 8% CFR in a care home. So you'd end up killing rather a lot of people to save them from Covid.
Yes, but they'd get a cold anyway most years, so spray them with a mild cold virus in, for example, August. If they survive, they're fixed up, if not, well that's too bad, isn't it?
One could find, through trial and error , the best time. On a slightly less whimsical theme, could a less intense cold bug be created to provides sufficient immunity to, say covid19? One could unleash said bug amongst the elderly in high summer to create an automatic vaccination programme.
This is a really interesting question. You'd think when a new virus like SARS2 appeared there might be a possibility of quickly hacking it in a lab to make a version that was much less virulent but more transmissible, and letting it rip. It would "vaccinate" everyone against the nastier version.

Some problems are that we don't really know how to do this with any confidence (although could make some educated guesses) and the new strain might recombine with the wild one to make something that was the worst of both worlds. But perhaps there will come a time in the future when there is less uncertainty about these things.

The research to work out how to do this would require making lots of chimeric viruses in a BSL4 lab somewhere... There might be some risks associated with that.

guy153
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:29 pm

Re: more proof that the 'Oxford vaccine is safe and effective,

Post by guy153 »

fon wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:53 pm As of there were not sufficient proof that the 'Oxford vaccine is safe and effective,here's news of another trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462

79% effective at stopping Covid symptoms
100% effective in preventing serious illness

More than 32,000 volunteers took part, mostly in America, but also in Chile and Peru. The vaccine was 79% effective at stopping symptomatic Covid disease and 100% effective at preventing people from falling seriously ill. And there were no safety issues regarding blood clots. A fifth of the volunteers in this trial were over 65 and the vaccine given as two doses, four weeks apart provided as much protection to them as to younger age groups.
This trial is rather interesting. First it tells us the wonderful and remarkable news that the blood clot risk is not 10x higher than it is. Second it reports an efficacy above the upper 95CI of the original trial. There is a <5% prior probability of this having happened.

Then we come across this:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-re ... ca-vaccine

"may have included outdated information". My guess is a couple of extra people in the vaccine arm got Covid towards the end of the trial (or maybe 1 or 2 with severe disease) bringing the results back to a more disappointing figure. I'm speculating here, I think we will see. But they're probably just chasing daft headline efficacy figures for PR reasons.

I still think it's a good vaccine but anyone considering it should balance the risks. qCovid is a pretty good tool for estimating the Covid risk. Risk of CVST less well known but somewhere around 1 in million. Possibly more frequent with the AZ vax but it has been seen with the Pfizer vaccine too and I've heard reports about Sinovac too.

Splatt
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

Pfizer in the UK had roughly the same as AZ on the last MHRA declaration.

However, if its affecting the younger groups more (as per Germany and Norway) its possible we just haven't seen it yet due to our vaccination profile.
The younger people we're vaccinating are typically health workers so done in in a hospital or mass centre which generally uses Pfizer. ( https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03 ... s-covid-19 )
But vaccine safety officials say they did not take the decision lightly, and that symptoms seen in at least 13 patients, all between ages 20 and 50 and previously healthy, in at least five countries are more frequent than would be expected by chance. The patients, at least seven of whom have died, suffer from widespread blood clots, low platelet counts, and internal bleeding—not typical strokes or blood clots.
.
.
.
In Europe, a 49-year-old intensive care nurse in Austria was one of the first cases. She died last week from what officials called “clotting disorders” that culminated in internal bleeding. (A colleague at the same hospital who received the vaccine developed lung embolisms, but was expected to recover.) A similar constellation of symptoms has been identified in four patients in Norway, two of whom have died, Madsen says.

German officials said Monday they had received seven reports of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), three of them fatal, in patients who had recently been vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

This is the issue insisting on vaccinating young, healthy people against a disease they're vanishing unlikely to suffer seriously from in the first place. It simply doesn't make sense from a risk point of view. Those "rare" effects in certain demographics that you wouldn't see in Phase 3 smaller trials become real.

Safety aside the AZ trials have been a complete mess from day 1 no matter how much the media are trying to play it down.

It was overly complex, produced odd group results, had to rely far too much on averages.

They weren't exactly open when they use a claimed efficacy of an average between normal dose and a small demographic of accidental half dosages in the main PC.

Many of the groups had almost too few people to produce worthwhile data in several demographics.

The EMA approved it with a prefix of although it'll probably work in elderly there weren't enough in the trials to actually produce useful data.
The somewhat biased media slammed countries that wouldn't authorise it on that reason but it was a perfectly legitimate statement and the decision by countries to not authorise it for that age group was perfectly justifiable until more data appeared.

From the initial mess of trials the US FDA and SwissMedic refused to approve it at all ( https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/data-on-as ... l/46458408 ) for any age group until more data became available.

To satisfy the US requirements a new Phase 3 was run, published with much fanfare then today NIAID release that press release which pretty much for the first time ever comes as close to accuse a company of providing deliberately misleading and cherry picked data you'll ever see.
I would guess they have solid proof of this as its a huge step to come out in public with language so severe.

Of course, the media ran with the headline from yesterday - nobody seems to be mentioning todays news the data might in fact be rubbish.

The vaccine may well be safe for most people (but not all) and may well work (although we know for sure less effective than Pfizer and Moderna against infection and transmission) BUT the trials were a mess to the extent its very hard to tell how effective it actually is.
I would guess in normal times there's no way it would have got emergency approval due to the mess of data.

guy153
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:29 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by guy153 »

Yes all very good points.

It is completely wrong to vaccinate children for C19 to "protect the population" or whatever other nonsense they'll call it.

Children are at a higher risk from the vaccine than the virus so you are effectively sacrificing some kids to save old people.

This is not something I would recommend under any circumstances. But there is another problem. Children are too young to be expected to make decisions like that. Even Jesus waited until he was about 30 before giving his life that others might be saved (and he probably didn't have much choice anyway).

Parents don't have the right to make that choice for them either. This should be academic because no parent who had been properly informed would. Yet we read about Pfizer (or was it Moderna) going ahead with trials in children.

Yes it won't be very many dead kids but that doesn't make it OK.

Splatt
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

Moral/Ethical issues along with potential precedent setting are far more long term dangerous than a vaccination.

Its a very very slippery slope once you start down that route.

"Do no harm" appears to have been dispensed with completely as a philosophy with covid and vaccination against covid.

fon
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by fon »

guy153 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:47 am
fon wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:51 pm
guy153 wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:35 pm The research to work out how to do this would require making lots of chimeric viruses in a BSL4 lab somewhere... There might be some risks associated with that.
Or we could do it like out mothers did, if a kid down the road got mumps, you's have to go and play with him, whoever he was, until you got it too, and that was how ir was done.

JohnK
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by JohnK »

guy153 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:47 am
fon wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:51 pm
guy153 wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:35 pm

Well you could do that... except these "common cold" coronaviruses can have an 8% CFR in a care home. So you'd end up killing rather a lot of people to save them from Covid.
Yes, but they'd get a cold anyway most years, so spray them with a mild cold virus in, for example, August. If they survive, they're fixed up, if not, well that's too bad, isn't it?
One could find, through trial and error , the best time. On a slightly less whimsical theme, could a less intense cold bug be created to provides sufficient immunity to, say covid19? One could unleash said bug amongst the elderly in high summer to create an automatic vaccination programme.
This is a really interesting question. You'd think when a new virus like SARS2 appeared there might be a possibility of quickly hacking it in a lab to make a version that was much less virulent but more transmissible, and letting it rip. It would "vaccinate" everyone against the nastier version.

Some problems are that we don't really know how to do this with any confidence (although could make some educated guesses) and the new strain might recombine with the wild one to make something that was the worst of both worlds. But perhaps there will come a time in the future when there is less uncertainty about these things.

The research to work out how to do this would require making lots of chimeric viruses in a BSL4 lab somewhere... There might be some risks associated with that.
And a cynic might say that it could be a dodgy investment for certain companies, compared with what they are dishing out.

Fingal
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:11 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Fingal »

guy153 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:36 am
In the UK we've had 101 deaths of those under 44 without pre-existing conditions and 542 under 60.
Were the (alleged) vaccine deaths in people with pre-existing conditions too?

In which case, you should correct your figure to zero, because these people have no statistical significance in your view.

Post Reply