Coronavirus | Page 549 | Vital Football

Coronavirus

If I've understood Israel's initial numbers, it means the Pfizer vacc is between 60/70% on the one vaccine then as opposed to the 89% (I'd not heard that number myself) somebody predicted doing it this way.

Not a great drop when you consider the success of annual flu vacs and cumulatively that cover would rise with greater herd immunity - so given what Whitty said, fully admitting there was some risk, I think this is still educated risk acceptable .

It more goes tits up though if Covid isn't massively squashed here and we don't know how effective the delayed second dose is, that could still get people up to 90% ish if we are lucky.

The one bit I still can't get my head around is, I can see the sense of doing it this way with Pfizer.... but given we are more reliant on the Astrazenica one, for the space of saving a fortnight, was it worth any risk at all?
 
Wasn't it 92% with both jabs in that time period though....if somebody at the Gov genuinely said 89% with only one jab (and a delayed second jab as a top up later) that's a massive over estimation from the boffins.

Albeit, if one jab is 60ish% or more and a delayed second jab would go to 89%, maybe that's what they meant - difficult guessing here as I haven't seen the 89% claim as above. As you say, if that second assumption is right, a drop of 3ish% owing to the 12 week delay, that's pocket change on risk really when you consider the greater numbers hitting 60% safety more quickly.
 
mike_field said:
If I've understood Israel's initial numbers, it means the Pfizer vacc is between 60/70% on the one vaccine then as opposed to the 89% (I'd not heard that number myself) somebody predicted doing it this way.

Not a great drop when you consider the success of annual flu vacs and cumulatively that cover would rise with greater herd immunity - so given what Whitty said, fully admitting there was some risk, I think this is still educated risk acceptable .

It more goes tits up though if Covid isn't massively squashed here and we don't know how effective the delayed second dose is, that could still get people up to 90% ish if we are lucky.

The one bit I still can't get my head around is, I can see the sense of doing it this way with Pfizer.... but given we are more reliant on the Astrazenica one, for the space of saving a fortnight, was it worth any risk at all?
Click to expand...

The problem for me is that you have 4 in every 10 of a certain age walking around thinking they are covered, and they aren’t. So even in high transmission waves, that’s still 4-500 deaths a day, worst case.

I just don’t understand why any corners have been cut for the most vulnerable, makes absolutely no sense. I would understand for under 50’s, but anyone high risk in terms of age or condition should be following the guidance.

I personally think statistically speaking, it is a huge drop.
 
The Pfizer one was not really feasible and under "normal" conditions would not have got the nod as it's so difficult to keep. These times are desperate so it's got the nod despite everything but I doubt it will be anywhere near used are much as the Oxford vaccine which is easy to transport and administer.
The normal flu vaccine is something like 40% effective, so 70 80 90% is brilliant.

My way of looking at it is if I catch it now, I will be very ill and might die if I catch it after the vaccine I might be ill but I won't die.
That's how I read it, I don't think any vaccine stops you getting anything it just helps you fight it off. I may be totally wrong
 
Wednesday 20 Jan:


1611160408806.png

First dose: 4,609,740
Second dose (fully vaccinated): 460,625

Slowed down, needs to be upped.

39 068 in hospital, 3947 on ventilators.

Rate of infection is dropping from the peak though, thank goodness.
 
Does seem like we are slowly going back in the right direction and we should've now had the blitz from the Xmas easing, so it should improve further now.

Good to see the second doses rising though now as it should quell that worry.
 
Thursday 21st Jan

1611251613047.png

Rates of infection going down, but not nearly fast enough

38 676 in hospital and 3953 on ventilators
 
BodyButter said:
Being able to say that 4m people are vaccinated is misleading but politically convenient. It sounds twice as good as only 2m vaccinated.
Click to expand...

It is exactly that, a number fudge play. I’m trying to remember what they did back in the spring when they counted one individual as two in their counts - someone will have to remind me what that was.
 
danvilla2 said:
It is exactly that, a number fudge play. I’m trying to remember what they did back in the spring when they counted one individual as two in their counts - someone will have to remind me what that was.
Click to expand...
Well, I recall them spouting lies about the amount of PPE they had provided - counting one glove as a single item i.e. a pair of gloves was two items of PPE, which vastly inflated the numbers to make them look good :lol:
 
JuanPabloAngel said:
Well, I recall them spouting lies about the amount of PPE they had provided - counting one glove as a single item i.e. a pair of gloves was two items of PPE, which vastly inflated the numbers to make them look good :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, that was it. I had something to do with hands in my head, and that was it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.