Risky business?

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

Looks like experts in USA may take the British approach

what it says in your link is that it is being considered, however:
"Moncef Slaoui, chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, said he does not support a policy with no evidence behind it.

What could possibly go wrong when you throw away the manufacturer's instruction manual?

Pfizer says:
But the announcement on Wednesday (about changing to 1 dose) prompted Pfizer to issue a warning over what it called "alternative dosing".
A spokesperson said: "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.

[embee]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

.... There were thirty nine cases of Covid within the subject group (some 21,700 people) with only one of these being classified as serious. In the similar sized placebo group there were 82 cases of Covid (hence the 52% efficacy figure) but of these nine were classified as serious. In essence this is saying that after a single dose you are half as likely to catch Covid but nine times less likely to develop serious symptoms.

......

Unfortunately it's when numbers get this low in data that the question of statistical significance becomes particularly relevant. Even with a test base of 40k people, when you get down to 1 or 2 or 3 cases, the effect of just another 1 or 2 is potentially doubling the rate, so levels of confidence become important. That's why in the Pfizer data a nominal efficacy of 52% gets a 95% credible interval of 29.5% to 68.4%, which is a pretty wide range in anyone's book. I doubt many politicians understand statistics to any detailed level.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by embee

Unfortunately it's when numbers get this low in data that the question of statistical significance becomes particularly relevant. Even with a test base of 40k people, when you get down to 1 or 2 or 3 cases, the effect of just another 1 or 2 is potentially doubling the rate, so levels of confidence become important. That's why in the Pfizer data a nominal efficacy of 52% gets a 95% credible interval of 29.5% to 68.4%, which is a pretty wide range in anyone's book. I doubt many politicians understand statistics to any detailed level.

Indeed, like I said any statistics around medicine are pretty dodgy......

I don't know if you've read the last BMJ? Interesting comments in there from some doctors involved in briefing the media on medical matters.........

[21QUEST]

A happy new year to everyone.

I applaud those prepared to have 'faith'. I'm certainly not prepared to offer myself up so I'd not be having the vaccine.

Hopefully, there'd be enough people with 'faith' to reach the percentage required for herd immunity.

Listening to the radio and hearing about mixing and matching of vaccines from different manufacturers was the last straw for me.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sk...warns-12177320

[Seeker]

I think my problem here is that I'm not a risk taker and yet I ride a motorcycle - go figure

If a toaster manufacturer says don't immerse the toaster in water to clean it I won't, although immersing it would clean it so much easier and if the power was on the elements would soon shake off their residue.

When this government says jump off the cliff, we promise it won't hurt, it's only a drop of a few feet and there's a net to catch you, but the safety net manufacturer says we haven't tested it from that height - I wouldn't jump. Especially when the people advising me built a "world beating" test and trace system which never worked properly, they also built emergency hospitals which we cannot staff and we have a new policy U-turn every 2-3 weeks on average.
The governments track record on delivering the goods is abysmal, their ability to follow their own script also needs help.

If Pfizer and AZ stood up and said "we haven't tested this scenario but we have 90% confidence that it will work" then I might be swayed, but that's not what they're saying. Caution because of liability issues or lack of scientific evidence? Either way, I'm not running to jump off the cliff because Hancock says: "you'll be fine".

[Red Herring]

Interesting that those who say they wouldn't take a relatively untested vaccine on the basis that they are not risk takers are however quite prepared to risk catching Covid despite the fact that it has killed thousands of people and there is a very real possibility the state will not be able to provide them with the care they are expecting should they be unfortunate enough to catch it.

I do understand governments don't exactly inspire confidence, personally if an MP told me it was dark outside at 1am I'd still look out the window to check, but surely they have some confidence in their own ability to research the facts? Do we really live in such a shallow world that people believe what they see on social media to the extent that they make life changing decisions based on it?

One of the saddest things as far as I am concerned about this whole pandemic is how it has generated so much conflict within our society. Instead of uniting against it our leaders, and subsequently our population, have all been following the path that suits their personal agenda and the resulting chaos and confusion has done nobody any favours. If ever there was a catalyst for civil unrest this is it. You have to wonder just how long those that take this virus seriously and are prepared to do something about it will tolerate those that live in denial and frustrate all attempts to eradicate it.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Interesting that those who say they wouldn't take a relatively untested vaccine on the basis that they are not risk takers are however quite prepared to risk catching Covid despite the fact that it has killed thousands of people and there is a very real possibility the state will not be able to provide them with the care they are expecting should they be unfortunate enough to catch it.

I think there's a difference between taking a vaccine that, if guidelines are followed is effective, compared to ignoring the guidelines in the assumption it may be better despite the warnings from the makers. I was keen to get the vaccine until the bungling started.

My situation is maybe a little different, I live alone and my family and friends are in the US which means that I can limit my exposure to the virus. I also live in an area where, after a brief rise in cases, the virus infection rate is low again.

This government continues to inspire little confidence. Currently, we have teachers pleading not to re-open schools and another U turn regarding London schools. If it were shown that by restricting the doses reduced the cost and benefited a Conservative party donor I would not be surprised. Their handling of this epidemic has been chaotic, corrupt and catastrophic (imho).

[Red Herring]

My situation is not unlike yours Seeker, I live in the countryside with one elderly neighbour, I'm retired so have no need to leave the property and my only real exposure to Covid is presented by my wife who as a GP does runs a risk every time she conducts a surgery......

I do however see the bigger picture. If, for example, half the population follow your view and elect not to receive the vaccine where does that leave the country? Do we continue with Lockdown in order to protect you, or allow life to resume and expose you to infection and the NHS to having to deal with the consequence?


If, like me, you have so little confidence in the government why are you even listening to what they are saying? Go out and do your own research and make your own decision based on that. The information is out there, the article in the BMJ linked to this thread is just one example but read it properly, not just the headlines, and draw logical conclusions from the facts presented.

[Biker Biggles]

My position is still that the vaccine(s) are the best and only way to stop the virus and as such we should all take it as soon as offered. Im much less concerned about the risks from the vaccine than I am about our government's propensity to **** it up and leave a good job half done. They do have form for this. Thus I try to absorb advice from relevant academics rather than politicians. My understanding so far, probably out of date, is that there is no significant evidence that the Pfizer vaccine should be second dosed at anything other than the 21 days specified because they never tested for this. The AZ jab has a very small sample of evidence suggesting a 12 week delay works well. There is no evidence yet showing the second dose to be not required nor that mixing the two types is useful. There is clearly a short term gain to be had by delaying the second dose because more people will get some cover but we have no idea if that cover wears off and how soon. My view is that politicians should STFU and stop pontificating about it until the experts have been able to research the options better, that in conjunction with a speedy roll out. Several scientists I have heard advocate a roll out with various times for the second dose involving the whole population to rapidly get data around efficacy which seems acceptable to me in the circumstances.

I dont expect to get a jab any time soon but if offered I would take it today so being suspicious/anti government does not make me anti vax. Quite the opposite

[SV650rules]

For people below 40 with no underlying conditions the risk is miniscule, even for older people without underlying conditions the risk is pretty low. Age is important, but it is the underlying chronic health conditions ( co-morbidities ) that really tilt the risk. The figures are that the average age of a covid fatality is 82 ( about the same as average lifespan in UK ) with 2 or more underlying conditions ( like heart disease, diabetes OBESITY ). The WHO did warn that UK would suffer more than average deaths from virus because the NHS was good a keeping people with multiple chronic conditions alive. Men are almost twice as likely as women to succumb to covid. The testing and rollout of these vaccines has been compressed, how much has been left out we can only guess, but obviously no long term testing of any after affects the newer mRNA vaccines, which have been around for about 30 years and never licenced for use on humans, which somewhat dents you confidence whether the licencing now was a medical decision - or more likely a political one..

There is conjecture as to whether some patient will show up for the second dose anyway if they have bad effects from the first jab, as it seems the reaction to second jab can be worse than the to the first.

https://bgr.com/2020/08/27/coronavir...mune-response/

https://towardsdatascience.com/covid...m-7d185bd6cfe2