What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

odyssey06

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

The vaccine was only ever going to bring down hospitalisations and deaths and those numbers remain low in the U.K. , it doesn’t stop anyone catching or spreading the virus.

Yes it does.

Those given a first dose of either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines - and who became infected three weeks later - were between 38% and 49% less likely to pass the virus on than unvaccinated people, PHE found.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56904993

I amnt sure what your definition of catching the virus is but it also reduces positive covid tests by 67 percent.

HalfAndHalf

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes it does.

Those given a first dose of either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines - and who became infected three weeks later - were between 38% and 49% less likely to pass the virus on than unvaccinated people, PHE found.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56904993

I amnt sure what your definition of catching the virus is but it also reduces positive covid tests by 67 percent.

So by your own admission, it doesn’t STOP people catching or passing on the virus!

Not sure what point you’re making?

odyssey06

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

So by your own admission, it doesn’t STOP people catching or passing on the virus!
Not sure what point you’re making?

If it doesnt stop people from catching or spreading it how are household transmissions and positive tests in people reduced?

It stops majority of people from catching it and half of the spread. Which contradicts your main point re effect on cases.

Regardless of the semantic meaning we assign to the word stop (v reduce or cut)

Roger_007

Roger_007 wrote: »

There is something about the situation in the UK which is not making much sense to me. They have almost 60% of the adult population double jabbed, yet their case rates and hospitalisation rates are rising quickly.
Is it the case that the AZ vaccine which has been used extensively is proving not as effective against the Delta variant as is the Pfizer vaccine. If this is the case, would they even admit it, given the amount of political gloating they have done about the OXFORD AZ vaccine.

Your funny :pac::pac::pac::pac:

60% double jabbed is not true and this wave started a month ago with even less double jabbed.

The graphs for cases for over 60's is rock solid throughout this wave, but 20 somethings unvaccinated after increased incidence by about 20 -30 times.

Partially vaccinated age groups incidence is well down too.

Same thing is happening here to a degree incidence is concentrated in the younger totally unvaccinated groups.

Until we vaccinate all cohorts we are vulnerable to significant outbreaks.

We need supply simple as, as do the UK.

Israel were vaccinating teenagers in March.

Meanwhile in Ireland 20 year olds get vaccinated in September.

We have to try and keep Delta out.

We are vulnerable for the next few months in the same way UK was in April/May of this year.

HalfAndHalf

odyssey06 wrote: »

If it doesnt stop people from catching or spreading it how are household transmissions and positive tests in people reduced?

It stops majority of people from catching it and half of the spread. Which contradicts your main point re effect on cases.

Regardless of the semantic meaning we assign to the word stop (v reduce or cut)

There’s no semantics, it doesn’t stop people catching the virus.

If it did then Covid would be gone as soon as we are all vaccinated.

You’re the one pulling small percentages out.

My point was, if people fly around thinking they’re grand after being vaccinated then we’ll all be getting lockdowns into next year!

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Israel were vaccinating teenagers in March.

For January - March it made sense to focus vaccines totally on the at risk groups. With hindsight it would have been useful to have been vaccinating randomly across ages groups since April when the cases of Alpha were already dropping as Delta would then have a harder time to make its way freely through any particular age group. Might have had a bit less take up with that strategy overall though as I think part of what has kept each new age group turning up in high numbers is partly the coverage of each group before them getting jabbed and them all then worried about when their turn is and them missing out.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

For January - March it made sense to focus vaccines totally on the at risk groups. With hindsight it would have been useful to have been vaccinating randomly across ages groups since April when the cases of Alpha were already dropping as Delta would then have a harder time to make its way freely through any particular age group. Might have had a bit less take up with that strategy overall though as I think part of what has kept each new age group turning up in high numbers is partly the coverage of each group before them getting jabbed and them all then worried about when their turn is and them missing out.

We just need supply.

AZ and J&J gone have meant this is slower process unfortunately.

HalfAndHalf

odyssey06 wrote: »

If it doesnt stop people from catching or spreading it how are household transmissions and positive tests in people reduced?

It stops majority of people from catching it and half of the spread. Which contradicts your main point re effect on cases.

Regardless of the semantic meaning we assign to the word stop (v reduce or cut)

Can only assume your lack of response means you get it now. Good schtuff!

odyssey06

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Can only assume your lack of response means you get it now. Good schtuff!

No, that's not how internet forums work unless you are playing by 10 year olds in the school yard rules!

You claimed 67% was a small percentage and didn't even attempt to engage with the studies showing how vaccinations reduce cases and onward transmission. You said "it doesn’t stop anyone catching or spreading the virus." This is factually incorrect as evidenced by the studies I quoted which you have not challenged in any respect.

If you are saying that vaccines won't fully stop \ eliminate the virus based on the cases and hospitalisations that escape the virus, well that's a different argument which is not what I challenged. However, on that point they can get the R number well below 1 we could still bring the virus under control even without 100% effective vaccines.

HalfAndHalf

odyssey06 wrote: »

No, that's not how internet forums work unless you are playing by 10 year olds in the school yard rules!

You claimed 67% was a small percentage and didn't even attempt to engage with the studies showing how vaccinations reduce cases and onward transmission. You said "it doesn’t stop anyone catching or spreading the virus." This is factually incorrect as evidenced by the studies I quoted which you have not challenged in any respect.

If you are saying that vaccines won't fully stop \ eliminate the virus based on the cases and hospitalisations that escape the virus, well that's a different argument which is not what I challenged. However, on that point they can get the R number well below 1 we could still bring the virus under control even without 100% effective vaccines.

Wow so now I’m a 10 year old! Your posting leaves a lot to be desired!! Is that how Internet forums work is it? Insult people till they can’t be bothered replying to you then you take it as a win!

Absolutely no medical evidence has come out and said that being vaccinated means you CANNOT catch Covid and CANNOT pass it on!

Your argument that between 39% and 49% are LESS LIKELY to pass on the virus as your argument that the vaccine means you can’t catch or pass on the virus is weak at best. That just proves my point again that between 51% and 61% CAN pass it on. So the majority will pass it on!!!

And as for ‘studies’ you posted one link to a BBC news article, hardly the medical journal is it!!

You’re just wrong and insulting me doesn’t make you right!

If being vaccinated meant you can’t catch or pass on the virus then why do people have to isolate and have PCR test when they arrive in Ireland?

But do you know what, you run around thinking you’re right.

Changing the narrative of what I said to try and make yourself look right is just embarrassing for you! My post is there and unedited, so no amount of trying to twist my words are going to change the fact you just said I’m wrong and provided facts that only served to prove my point.

Ten of Swords

Odyssey and HalfandHalf, drop this argument and move on please

HalfAndHalf

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Odyssey and HalfandHalf, drop this argument and move on please

Nothing left to say, the facts provided prove my point.

Ten of Swords

OK HalfandHalf have it your way. Perhaps unsurprisingly, you're now threadbanned

brendanwalsh

Looks like varadker wants to give AZ now to people in their 20s cause they are gonna have so much left over.

Firstly , must be a lot of people refusing their second jab to have this excess supply.

Secondly, he has some cheek after he and most of the rest of the cabinet got mRNA vaccine.

brendanwalsh

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Looks like varadker wants to give AZ now to people in their 20s cause they are gonna have so much left over.

Firstly , must be a lot of people refusing their second jab to have this excess supply.

Secondly, he has some cheek after he and most of the rest of the cabinet got mRNA vaccine.

The cabinet got what everyone else got appropriate to their age as per NIAC advice
The Taoiseach got AstraZeneca

Based on the latest Data,people are wronging themselves if not taking a 2nd Az dose
Its their hardship if they end up in hospital
100% their doing

astrofool

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Looks like varadker wants to give AZ now to people in their 20s cause they are gonna have so much left over.

Firstly , must be a lot of people refusing their second jab to have this excess supply.

Secondly, he has some cheek after he and most of the rest of the cabinet got mRNA vaccine.

That's not the case, the excess is because we ordered way more than we can use and all the over 50's and second dose AZ will be done by mid July, after that we'll need to decide if we keep more supplies coming or allow it to be donated to covax.

afatbollix

Really good article about the Oxford vaccine here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/26/the-oxford-vaccine-the-trials-and-tribulations-of-a-world-saving-jab

But they just didn't have the experience of real-world "selling" vaccines to the world. Which meant they did the trials a bit arseways, That gave holes in the data which countries went a bit over the top on shouting about.

Then you had the EU v UK which also caused problems, They never came out fighting like Pfizer when agencies put out wrong information.

Then you had the Russians & Chinese creating skepticism to get countries to buy their own vaccines.

I really do feel for them, Part of it is caused by the UK gov making sure they were first in the queue but this was the vaccine that was build to be kept in a fridge for 30 days from the start so that when developing countries got them they didn't need very fancy freezers. Now those countries have been hit by the troll armies and they wont even take them now.

The only main winner here is the shareholders of Pfizer. Unlike Aztrazenica who said they won't make a profit until the pandemic is over.

Call me Al

I've zero pity for them.
Their slipshod behaviour and standards, and an apparent expectation that the rest of the world would be so grateful or the vaccine they'd just accept those behaviours and standards and vaccinate their populations, is what left them where they found themselves.
Couple that with the politicisation that went on and that they didn't appear to have an issue with at the start and it became a perfect storm.

afatbollix

Life should be worth more than saying you slept with the Brits you deserve it.


This vaccine saves lives yet you're still making it political.

Call me Al

afatbollix wrote: »

Life should be worth more than saying you slept with the Brits you deserve it.


This vaccine saves lives yet you're still making it political.

A bit of cop-on on their part might have prevented the whole PR disaster they ended up with.
Politicians went out if their way to make things political. The company signed up to a 1st preference UK deal, and weren't transparent about this. In light of this I think the ordinary person looking on from the street can hardly be criticised if they see this as political.

Furze99

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Looks like varadker wants to give AZ now to people in their 20s cause they are gonna have so much left over.

Firstly , must be a lot of people refusing their second jab to have this excess supply.

Secondly, he has some cheek after he and most of the rest of the cabinet got mRNA vaccine.

It'll be worth watching if this comes to pass. We'll then see how many younger citizens will be queuing up to get an AZ vaccine when they have a choice. Will younger posters here demanding vaccines put their money where their mouth is? Somehow I think not and these excess AZ vaccines are heading for a philanthropic gift to other states around the world.

There's going to be some sh*t storm in years to come if it turns out that citizens in the their 60s who were railroaded into taking this vaccine have negatively different outcomes to the rest of the population. The likes of the cervical scheme and mica schemes will pale into comparison. Fact is that the government have a played a dangerous game in singling out one specific cohort for general application of this AZ vaccine. One suspects they'd now like to spread it around a bit so as to avoid this blatantly obvious distinction. Hopefully this won't come to pass, but they may yet reap what they've stupidly sowed.

astrofool

Furze99 wrote: »

It'll be worth watching if this comes to pass. We'll then see how many younger citizens will be queuing up to get an AZ vaccine when they have a choice. Will younger posters here demanding vaccines put their money where their mouth is? Somehow I think not and these excess AZ vaccines are heading for a philanthropic gift to other states around the world.

There's going to be some sh*t storm in years to come if it turns out that citizens in the their 60s who were railroaded into taking this vaccine have negatively different outcomes to the rest of the population. The likes of the cervical scheme and mica schemes will pale into comparison. Fact is that the government have a played a dangerous game in singling out one specific cohort for general application of this AZ vaccine. One suspects they'd now like to spread it around a bit so as to avoid this blatantly obvious distinction. Hopefully this won't come to pass, but they may yet reap what they've stupidly sowed.

It's much more likely that the groups that got AZ will have significantly better long term immune response and get more benefit from a booster using a different technology to everyone else (and the fact that this is the grouping more likely to need a booster bodes well), or at least, this is what the data is beginning to show.

There has never been an issue with the effectiveness of the vaccine, there was an issue with a single rare side effect (CVST) and politics being brought into it that killed it as a worldwide vaccine.

tromtipp

Be nice if they gave the AZ to the over 60s who got their first doses 8+ weeks ago.

McGiver

astrofool wrote: »

There has never been an issue with the effectiveness of the vaccine, there was an issue with a single rare side effect (CVST) and politics being brought into it that killed it as a worldwide vaccine.

What a revisionism here, congrats.

AZ were unable to meet contractual obligation and no way they could supply the global demand. End of story. They never were a contender for "worldwide vaccine", at least not in the way I understand it i.e. supply vaccines to a large % of worldwide population.

The "politics" as you called it, was only a result of AZ's failure to meet its contractual obligations. Further, a rare side effect with a prevalence of even say 1 in 100000 is VERY valid, if you are thinking about using 1-2 billion doses (the EU situation), and the alternative vaccine does not have any such rare side effect at all.

astrofool

tromtipp wrote: »

Be nice if they gave the AZ to the over 60s who got their first doses 8+ weeks ago.

We'll be done with second AZ doses by mid July, so that's in progress.

McGiver wrote: »

What a revisionism here, congrats.

AZ were unable to meet contractual obligation and no way they could supply the global demand. End of story. They never were a contender for "worldwide vaccine", at least not in the way I understand it i.e. supply vaccines to a large % of worldwide population.

The "politics" as you called it, was only a result of AZ's failure to meet its contractual obligations. Further, a rare side effect with a prevalence of even say 1 in 100000 is VERY valid, if you are thinking about using 1-2 billion doses (the EU situation), and the alternative vaccine does not have any such rare side effect at all.

Supply was also a huge problem but does seem to have been more localised to Europe and the UK (Serum Institute of India has been producing very large amounts and crazily supplementing the UK supply), in addition, the continuing lying from AZ about what would be supplied and even submission for approval and getting factories approved were all delay tactics that cost lives elsewhere (or could have allowed ramp up of alternate vaccines).

By politics, I mean the union jack on the bottle, the "British" vaccine and conversely the misinformation campaign from Russia about western vaccines. The rest of the world has started actively rejecting the vaccines due to the scaremongering despite high death rates from COVID.

The very rare side effect is rarer than clots due to the pill which is taken daily by many women, it is vanishingly rare and can now be diagnosed and treated further reducing the risk.

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Seems to be the exact opposite https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9733211/Pfizer-Moderna-COVID-19-vaccines-provide-protection-against-virus-years-study-finds.html

That's great news (wary of the daily mail as a source), but if that's true for mRNA it's also likely true for AZ which gives a great T-Cell response (that builds slowly over time).

brendanwalsh

astrofool wrote: »

The very rare side effect is rarer than clots due to the pill which is taken daily by many women, it is vanishingly rare and can now be diagnosed and treated further reducing the risk).

The DVT from OCP is very different from the brain clot CSVT from AZ vaccine.

Tell the families of the young people who died from CSVT that it’s nothing to be concerned about.

Fact is AZ is a third tier vaccine.
Nobody wants it in the developed world.
FDA won’t ever approve it because of the shadiness with their data.

Why bully and force this vaccine on age 60 to 69 when there is better vaccines available befuddles me, but nothing with this government makes sense. The most vulnerable people have been shortchanged

brickster69

Looks like boosters wont be needed straight away according to Oxford University on sky news just now.

https://twitter.com/DrLahariya/status/1409523902192099328

astrofool

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Fact is AZ is a third tier vaccine.

This is very far from a fact and shouldn't be opined as such, any vaccine offering 92% effectiveness against a strain that didn't exist when it was developed isn't anything other than excellent.

brickster69

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Fact is AZ is a third tier vaccine.
Nobody wants it in the developed world.

The tens of thousands of people who have been saved will disagree with you.

Here is a clip for you to stew on

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1409504082210037767

brendanwalsh

brickster69 wrote: »

The tens of thousands of people who have been saved will disagree with you.

Here is a clip for you to stew on

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1409504082210037767

She willingly accepted that applause.
I hope she also willingly offered her condolences and apologies to the the families of the women who died from CSVT