selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
If ever there was a demonstration of the effectiveness of NPIs, it's the almost non-existence of influenza this winter.
One-jab efficacy questions
- Thread starter Chris152
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Jonm
Established Member
Except all those who would have died from flu likely died of Covid instead, we also had a lot more flu vaccination including those who would not normally get vaccinated.
Selwyn
Established Member
Not at all.
I believe the vaccine is effective against covid. I also think its important for the most vulnerable to have a vaccine. I only had one because although I think its wrong I think vaccine regulation is going to come in.
I'm not anti vac but I don't think we need to vaccinate everyone under 40. We know they are scarcely at risk. Over 70's give the most bang for the buck and then we should have opened up and cracked on very fast
Selwyn
Established Member
Did they PCR test everyone for influenza?
You seriously think shutting down some sectors of the economy but keeping supermarkets open has eliminated flu? Its just not realistic
I am not talking about deaths from Flu. I am talking about the number of people who have contracted flu. There were far fewer occurrences of flu because we eliminated the conditions that help it spread. Things like poor hand hygiene, people being in close contact and preventative interventions such as masks have prevented flu from being spread.
That has helped stop the spread of COVID. Why do you think we have isolation wards for infectious diseases ?
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
So, to what do you attribute the virtual non-existent of flu this winter?
They didn't just keep supermarkets open though. They enforced social distancing, hand sanitisation and people wore masks. That is what stopped the spread of flu.
Jonm
Established Member
Selwyn
Established Member
You seem very certain about that. All these masks, social distancing and hand sanitisation didn't stop the spread of covid between sept - march did it? Or is it that we were "doing it properly" for flu but not for covid?
Last edited:
Selwyn
Established Member
I think lack of some large gatherings will have helped. As will people not working in offices all day every day. I've said before I've no real issue with a bit of voluntary "social distancing" ke the swedes and americans have done but shutting down pubs and resturants, peoples shops, schools, colleges etc was just way over the top. As is silly masks because they are not applied in a clinical fashion at all. Its a compliance signal rather than having any affect.
But I think the biggest thing is that covid will have displaced flu as one of the causes of death on a death certificate is because as John Lee explains when you die in old age you die of a multitude of factors and influenza is one of many put on a death certificate as is pneumonia. They won't be pcr tested in the way covid is. Many deaths previously may not even have been influenza - a lot of if it just old age = poor immune systems
sometimewoodworker
Established Member
Do please get your numbers accurate the infections are in the region of 30%+ of population having been infected.
That doesn’t invalidate the numbers of people who have be effected by the virus, though the numbers are probably higher than you list.
John Hopkins University has the UK at 4.46m cases of Coronavirus and we have a population of 68m people.
Of course masks, social distancing and hand sanitisation stopped the spread of COVID otherwise it would have spread exponentially.
If you were having an invasive clinical procedure would you be happy for a load of people who hadn't sanitised their hands and were not wearing masks to crowd around you.
sometimewoodworker
Established Member
And it is well established that the recorded numbers are not remotely accurate and the real are significantly higher than official numbers. There are substantial numbers of people who have had symptomless infection who are not in the record.
The best estimates of unrecorded infections worldwide run from 2 to 3 times to well over 10 times reported figures.
Also asymptomatic infection is one of the sources of long Covid
Wrong.
PHE research on single jab/ infections in relation to the variant found in India just released:
'...both vaccines were only 33% effective against the Indian variant three weeks after the first dose.
This compared with 50% effectiveness against the Kent variant.'
50%? That's not the figure we've been reading til now.
After two jabs, they found:
'The Pfizer vaccine was found to be 88% effective at stopping symptomatic disease from the Indian variant two weeks after the second dose, compared with 93% effectiveness against the Kent variant.
The AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective against the Indian variant, compared with 66% against the Kent variant.'
So Pfizer seem to be doing far better on that.
Hopefully both are successful at stopping severe illness.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596
'...both vaccines were only 33% effective against the Indian variant three weeks after the first dose.
This compared with 50% effectiveness against the Kent variant.'
50%? That's not the figure we've been reading til now.
After two jabs, they found:
'The Pfizer vaccine was found to be 88% effective at stopping symptomatic disease from the Indian variant two weeks after the second dose, compared with 93% effectiveness against the Kent variant.
The AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective against the Indian variant, compared with 66% against the Kent variant.'
So Pfizer seem to be doing far better on that.
Hopefully both are successful at stopping severe illness.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596
Last edited:
sometimewoodworker
Established Member
You are confusing things by quoting some data from 3 weeks after the first vaccination (it is well established that this period and timing don’t provide much protection) with 2 weeks after the second vaccination (a period when protection is still ramping up)
If you want to demonstrate reasonably accurate information the take a period that has a good data point after the second vaccination when the protection is not rapidly increasing this is accepted to be 21 day. Then make a comparison of effectiveness.
AFIK at that point there is little difference in protection against hospitalisation and severe disease between most vaccines.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I'm not sure I'm confusing anything, am I?! That's how the PHE research is presented. As far as I can tell (quick search of the internet), first and second doses take different periods of time to become effective - about 3 weeks for the first dose, 2 weeks for the second? Tho that seems to vary according to the type of vaccine.
- Status
