Sorry to hear, I wish both of you a speedy recovery.
Girlfriends mum has taken a test today if she’s negative we are considering sending him there. Would be worried though that we are just giving it to her as he must have it.
Yeah, you are probably right with your guess.
The Delta variant is a nasty one. Only the second jab offers good protection.
All of this was true 2 weeks ago. So none of this is unfortunately the correct answer.
Don't know how it was done in the UK, but the contracts supplying the additional Moderna vaccinces were confirmed end of last week/over the weekend.
Thanks for trying to help, but none of this has anything to do with my question
Sorry my mistake, misunderstood the question/topic.Thanks for trying to help, but none of this has anything to do with my question
Pfizer is not a little more effective than that, it’s substantially so. AZ is more than a little more effective than that, and you have no evidence on the comparative safety statistics, yet you’re recommending people avoid that and take Sinovac. That’s the propaganda, not because source A or B said so, but because the evidence demonstrates it.SINOVAC IS GOOD VACCINE!
My country is one of the most advanced in terms of population vaccinated with both doses (mainly Sinovac and Pfizer), and the study of effectiveness finally came back. Although the Pfizer is a little bit more effective, SINOVAC is plenty good.
Results after 2 weeks of the second shot:
63.6% effective against symptoms.
87.3% effective against hospitalisation
90.0% effective against ICU admittance.
86.4% effective against death.
Don't buy the propaganda against the Chinese vaccines, they are good stuff.
Just take any vaccine available, unless you are young man, in which case try to avoid the Astra Zeneca.
No vaccine is 100% effective, that's why social distancing and personal hygeine should be maintained even after vaccination. Nonetheless, a vaccine with 50.66% efficacy (95% CI 35.75%-62.11%) means there are potentially 45 more being infected among 100 recipients compared to a vaccine with 95.0% efficacy (95% CI 90.3%-97.6%). Imagine these 45 people, who thought they were protected and lowered their vigilence, are actually infective and continue to spread the virus. And this is before we escalate the scale to thousands, or some of these people work in healthcare who closely contact immunocompromised patients on a daily basis. I started to worry about this long time ago, and now it seems to be happening right now.
Hopefully they'll get a second, more effective vaccine soon then.
That's the tricky point about Sinovac and Sinopharm, especially the former. They never conduct a proper clinical trial, never formally publish data in a peer-reviewed journal. They just stick to the cliche that they have performed phase 3 trial which shows their vaccines are effective and safe. All the so-called evidence is gathered by pieces or rumors from the press or the Internet.
There is a data problem with results coming from ones of the big labs in Scotland - probably some undercount days, followed by an overcount and those haven't been assigned across the dates correctly yet. The bigger issue though it that the delta variant hit the north-west first and all the debate was about why was Bolton etc different. The simple answer was that it wasn't, it was just first - the delta variant is now running wider, but unfortunately just as fast.
I think you're mischaracterizing things a bit. The phase 3 trial results from Brazil were published in Lancet. Other results have come from the Chilean government, including the ones quoted above (which should have indicated source better).
I'm not talking about effectiveness. It's about the blood clots. In my country, for all those under 40 years old who got the first AZ shot, their second shot is going to be the Pfizer one instead, because the AZ put some young males in the hospital with blood clots. (And it's not only in my country, many European countries took measures as well).
Well, she's bonkers.
Yes. Reinfection generally less severe. Like everything in medicine though. There’s no absolutes. There are anecdotal reports of more severe symptoms the second time round. The other big trend is that the more severe the first infection the better the protection you have afterwards.
In the Sydney outbreak we had a Delta super spreader event. Of 31 people at a party 24 have tested positive and 7 negative (not just asymptomatic or not getting severe covid). The 24 hadn't been vaccinated and the 7 had, with most only having their first shot. Just one event but hopefully it suggests the benefit of even a single AZ shot is higher than the lowest figure reported which I think is 33%.
Sinovac lacks credibility because they fail to conduct a proper phase 3 trial, and they will never get an approval from the US FDA in this way. Brazil is (part of) their phase 3 trial but the results are shocking, and I still don't see the data on Lancet. The numbers from the Chile government can be served as a reference, but again it's not a proper study and it's just another broken piece on the Internet.
You cannot say for sure that Sinovac is safer than AZ though, because again there is no study to support its safety. It's also worth to note that most of Sinovac vaccines are used in less developed countries, where adverse events may not be systematically reported and investigated.
Not in Chile. The vaccine is safe.
I understand the symbolic meaning of the picture: our new master or ruler is the Covid.
Unless you find her stupidity controversial. Likening an actual slave in chains and iron mask with people following health advice to help mitigate a pandemic is next level moronic.
That is why, this picture is interesting because there are several forms of slavery:
Lots of pub/restaurant owners would prefer that to not allowing anyone in at all. It’s worked in other countries so why not here? I’ve never understood the pushback on “vaccine passports”. It seems absolutely nuts to prefer nobody spending money where it’s desperately needed unless everybody can.
But why are we not allowing everyone in? You said yourself the delay would be to get over 60's vaccinated so if they are then what exactly is the problem? Indoor dining doesn't appear to be a problem in almost every other European country with vaccination rates similar to ours.
Uk is ahead of us in vaccine roll-out and going through exponential growth, with hospital admissions now starting to follow the increase in cases. They could be in deep shit over the next month or two. With much more back and forth travel between the two countries than the Uk and any other EU country you can see what the concern is.
The delta variant is already in most European countries though isn't it?
I don’t know what the solution is either. I think NPHET are erring on the side of caution and I don’t think they’ll get their way. There’s going to be some sort of compromise. What’s going on right now is a media campaign to manage expectations. I hope hindsight eventually proves NPHET were being far too cautious. That wasn’t the case with the reopening at the end of last year but could be the case this time round.
Well, no shit, that's my entire point. Their models are mental:
And yet (repost)
The weird thing is that as we know the delta variant is more resistant to vaccines then it's the most vulnerable that are yet again most at risk yet they are the ones we are going to let dine indoors in this scenario, huh?
Not sure if you meant to link a different article but there’s nothing wrong with what he said there. As per the bit of my post you didn’t respond to, we completely lost the run of ourselves in December. An increase in cases that was much worse than any other European country. And we both know we’re a nation of piss-heads. So it’s not a massive fecking leap to wonder if these two things might have been related.
Someone who is vaccinated (of any age) is a hell of a lot less likely to catch and spread the virus then someone who is not vaccinated. That’s the logic here. Obvious and simple.
A few beers and a shower of rain is all it takes to make that completely unworkable. Just as well we’re not big drinkers and have a dry climate…
What is there to respond to? Yes, we completely lost the run of ourselves. We went from being fully locked down to having everything open within the space of something like 2 or 3 weeks, it was always going to be a disaster. Also, we didn't have vaccines, we do now! It's a far cry from our current situation which is having a lot of society back open with the lowest ICU numbers and hospitalisations in a very long time, and, also, all the vulnerable people vaccinated. This isn't going from full restrictions to "EVERYONE DO WHAT THEY WANT", it's a phased reopening, the next step of which is to allow indoor dining! Surely you yourself can see the difference.
The shit show in December was part of a phased reopening too. Look it, I’m being devil’s (i.e. NPHET) advocate here. My personal preference is to push out indoor dining by a couple of weeks (a month, at most) then see how things go from there. Looks like we might be lowering the age for people getting AZ/J&J which will help. I do think we’ll have a rough couple of months after we allow people back into pubs. Just like we’re seeing in the UK. But the numbers in the press this morning are the absolute worst case scenarios. The same NPHET model also has best case scenarios which look absolutely fine. What’s going to happen will be somewhere between those two extremes.
