Vaccination efficacy - ask a stupid question...

[bradw4]

In fact that is the ONLY way to get the data you want.I f we mix the vaccinated and unvaccinated, the data would never arise. Hence another reason to have
vaccination certificates. Ha Ha Ha! Boom! Boom!

When the vaccination rollout ends (until updated versions are released), there will be millions of adults and children left unvaccinated. Not all of them will be refuseniks. Good luck trying to separate them the vaccinated population.

This is where programmer logic collides with the brick wall of reality. Passports will be bureaucratic, intrusive, inconvenient. Oh, and will also result in millions of people effectively being unpersoned by the state.

Does that sound like a proportionate response to a virus with a 99% survival rate? To a programmer, probably yes.

You are as free to obtain a certificate of vaccination from your GP as you are to exhibit your God complex on this forum.

It's warms the cockles of my heart to see total capitulation. I enjoyed discussing it with you, although you rather lost your dignity by turning snippy.

Total capitulation?

This whole thread has been a dialectical process to find the justifications for introducing domestic vaccination passports.

Your submission is that passports are warranted because they may create safer environments because the vaccines may reduce transmission.

The interim research suggests that transmission may be reduced (I've never resisted that idea), but it is not certain.

It is quite possible that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are equally likely to carry and transmit the disease (although the former would be less likely to become seriously ill).

So distinguishing between the two groups would not obviously create a safer environment. Vaccinated or not, we are all potential vectors in that scenario.

Until compelling evidence emerges to the contrary, your endorsement of vaccination passports is based on a speculation. Or, as you would put it, a logical proposition.

This entire lockdown has been based on a logical proposition - cut interactions, cut transmission - and look at the destruction it has wrought. Look at how ineffective it has been.

I don't know about you, but I've had enough of government prescriptions lacking in proven efficacy.

[thinksaboutit]

We have no Moderna and limited Pfizer.

We have 8 million doses of Moderna coming in 8 weeks along with tens of millions more Pfizer.

Better than vaccinating the majority of the country with a sugar tablet that wont address the problem long term then having to vaccinate them all again with one that works.

The data is clear enough now to show the AZ vaccine isnt that useful at all on a timeframe of more than a few months.

We might be ahead on vaccinated people but now dropping behind on *usefully* vaccinated people.

There you go again with the "sugar tablet" line.
Try to be accurate, especially since you enjoy pouncing on everything other people say.

[thinksaboutit]

Sturgeon?
This is a woman that won't even take a shit without first checking if she can make a political statement from it first.

No academic body at all has said that yet. The data doesnt exist.

The Oxford jab has about 59.5% efficacy (EMA, MHRA, P3 data) so yes it'll have an "effect" as far as that goes.

But it'll be a limited effect with a far less effective outcome than the other vaccines which appear to be almost sterilising in nature.

And thats before E484K becomes more widespread due to selection pressure which'll push that 59.5% down to roughly 0.

Are you by any chance cherry picking the lower 95% CI efficacy figure after 1 dose for the Oxford vaccine?

This is the only way I see 59% referenced.

Perhaps you may wish to be more complete.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-ox ... h-interval#


First indication of reduction in disease transmission of up to 67%

The primary analysis of the Phase III clinical trials from the UK, Brazil and South Africa, published as a preprint in The Lancet confirmed COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19, with no severe cases and no hospitalisations, more than 22 days after the first dose.

Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%).

The analysis also showed the potential for the vaccine to reduce asymptomatic transmission of the virus, based on weekly swabs obtained from volunteers in the UK trial. The data showed that PCR positive readings were reduced by 67% (CI: 49%, 78%) after a single dose, and 50% (CI: 38% to 59%) after the two dose regimen, supporting a substantial impact on transmission of the virus.

[fon]

And thats before E484K becomes more widespread due to selection pressure which'll push that 59.5% down to roughly 0.

Well I'm looking forward to seeing you vent your fury if that ever happens.

[MikeAustin]

Sturgeon?
This is a woman that won't even take a shit without first checking if she can make a political statement from it first.

Thanks. I have oft wondered whence her speeches came.

[fon]

Ha Ha Ha! Boom! Boom!

Good luck trying to separate them the vaccinated population.

Thanks! Few developments are universally beneficial. Welcome to the real world.

Passports will be bureaucratic, intrusive, inconvenient. Oh, and will also result in millions of people effectively being unpersoned by the state.

They have my heartfelt sympathy. I wished documentation was not desirable or necessary. But people will have documentation if they want or need it. Only time will tell.

Does that sound like a proportionate response to a virus with a 99% survival rate?

The sound of it is immaterial to me. Look, you abandoned your logic argument when you found it was illogical. Andnow your morality argument is irrelevant, since people will have documentation if they want it. If they don't they won't it , problem solved.

This whole thread has been a dialectical process to find the justifications for introducing domestic vaccination passports.

People will have documentation if they find it is necessary, if it is not necessary they won't need it and won't want it, necessity is the mother of invention, always has been. It warms the cockles of my heart to see you struggling like this, but you keep coming back with nothing. So here's the bottom line: vaccines are real and people will find uses for them which demand documentation. It's how it is.

[Splatt]

Well I'm looking forward to seeing you vent your fury if that ever happens.

6 variants containing it now in the UK and counting.

Not that it matters anymore, Boris "roadmap" has completely ignored vaccination anyway.
Its lockdown until at least July.

[bradw4]

It warms the cockles of my heart to see you struggling like this, but you keep coming back with nothing. So here's the bottom line: vaccines are real and people will find uses for them which demand documentation. It's how it is.

This whole thread was intended to serve as an exploratory discussion of the justification for vaccination passports. As a jumping-off point, I asked whether a vaccinated environment would be safer than an unvaccinated environment.

If vaccines successfully curb transmission, the case for passports is made according to the criteria laid out in the thought experiment.

And there is emerging research suggesting that the vaccines do indeed inhibit transmission. I hope further research confirms that finding. (You seem to be labouring under the illusion that I want the vaccines to fail in that respect; something I've never implicitly or explicitly said. I've had the vaccination, so why would I will it to fail?)

Unfortunately, emerging data does not amount to an established scientific consensus - but hopefully that will soon arrive.

For the time being, the government cannot claim definitely that the vaccines reduce transmission. If Boris or SAGE possessed evidence to that effect, the media would be screaming it in our faces. But that isn't happening, is it? It's the dog that didn't bark.

Until such evidence arises (again, I hope it does), nobody (not even you) can claim categorically that the vaccines stop the spread.

Without that proof, it cannot be said that a vaccinated environment would be safer than an unvaccinated environment.

Consequently, as things stand, the case for passports is not made according to the criteria laid out in the thought experiment.

This has been an interesting discussion, conducted mostly in good spirits. Bizarrely, you're the only participant to have engaged in it as though it's been a gladiatorial duel. It's a discussion, fon. Not a p*ss*ng contest.

Whatever you're 'winnng' at, it isn't life.

But I will be gracious and allow you to have the final word. I know it will mean the world to you.

[fon]

In their roadmap, the government has included a section on COVID status certification (below)

On one level I'm, glad that vaccines appear to work, on another level it's concerning to think how COVID status certification could lead to a stratification of society.

COVID status certification involves using testing or vaccination data to confirm in
different settings that people have a lower risk of transmitting COVID-19 to others.
131. The Government will review whether COVID-status certification could play a role in
reopening our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety.
This will include assessing to what extent certification would be effective in reducing
risk, and the potential uses to enable access to settings or a relaxation of COVIDSecure mitigations. The Government will also consider the ethical, equalities, privacy,
legal and operational aspects of this approach and what limits, if any, should be
placed on organisations using certification. It will draw on external advice to develop
recommendations that take into account any social and economic impacts, and
implications for disproportionately impacted groups and individuals’ privacy and
security. The Government will set out its conclusions in advance of Step 4 in order to
inform the safe reopening of society and the economy.

[Splatt]

Are you by any chance cherry picking the lower 95% CI efficacy figure after 1 dose for the Oxford vaccine?

I quoted the exact paragraph from the EMA authorisation. And said it was from the EMA.
I assume you didnt bother looking.

Unless you think the EMA are cherry picking their data? And the FDA? And the Swiss regulators?

Remember even the Phase 3 trial results show a 60-64% efficacy at preventing symptomatic covid.
And that's Oxford's own figures.

There were 131 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in LD/SD or SD/SD recipients who were eligible for inclusion in the primary efficacy analysis more than 14 days after the second dose of vaccine (table 2). There were 30 (0·5%) cases among 5807 participants in the vaccine arm and 101 (1·7%) cases among 5829 participants in the control group, resulting in vaccine efficacy of .......
In participants who received two standard-dose vaccines, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7),

This is the data sent to the regulators. MHRA think its just about OK for emergency authorisation, EMA agrees but working on the raw data found 59.5% efficacy.
FDA and Swiss said its not robust enough at all for some demographics to authorise without more data.


You're not comparing like for like here.

If i was quoting lower 95% CIs from Oxford trial data i'd be quoting NEGATIVE percentages of 40% or so. Which shows just how utterly atrocious the trial was in terms of producing robust, accurate data. (Which is why approval was a NO from the FDA and Swiss until its fixed).