3xh wrote: » Yep, thanks for that. But whilst it backs up the other report seen here today about immunity from naturally acquired Covid, I’m trying to find out what were the reports about earlier in the year where the authors of those reports suggested any immunity from Covid was only weeks long, at best. That contracting Covid gave the person no real benefit. What has changed that authors of other commissioned reports can now say they’re seeing longer immunity from Covid persons. It seems a complete about turn and it can’t be based on not enough original data points in the earlier studies.
Thierry12 wrote: » Why would you need sterilising immunity? If the worst your gonna get is a bad cold won't that be enough?
Gael23 wrote: » Will it be enough for NPHET though?
Thierry12 wrote: » People that got Covid already wont need vaccine immediately Immunity is long lasting, 1-2 years minimum, not 6 months scaremongering stuff.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » NPHET have referred to the hospitalisation rate in previous recommendations. If a vaccine reduces the hospitalisation rate we can sustain a higher level of cases without restrictions. If a vaccine halves the hospitalisation rate NPHET might suggest we can push on at 1.5k cases a day without further restrictions. If a vaccine quarters the hospitalisation rate we might be able to look at a level around 3k cases a day before we need to look at restrictions. They will make massive differences. Once a "bad" vaccine comes we may be able to do very low level restrictions until herd immunity or a better vaccine.
Irish Stones wrote: » When I said the same things a few days ago I was badly attacked over here. Why should this be a good news now?
is_that_so wrote: » I admire your optimism about NPHET. They'll always look to reduce cases and err on the side of higher restrictions.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Well they have to justify their decision. When they wrote to the government recommending level 5 they were clear on The current rate of growth in cases was x By Y date the number of cases would be z if this continued unabated The hospitalisation rate was a The average hospital stay was b By Y date if the cases continued to rise unabated the amounts hospitalised would be c and c was too much. You can argue that their modeling was weak because it didn't take into account any changed under level 3 but there wasn't time for that to take effect. If you decrease the hospitalisation it changes the formula. They will error on higher restrictions but they need to justify it. If the hospitalisation rate is low they can't.
DUBAI: UAE Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum received the trial coronavirus vaccine on Tuesday. The vice president of the United Arab Emirates posted an image on twitter with a caption saying “while receiving the COVID-19 vaccine today. We wish everyone safety and great health, and we are proud of our teams who have worked relentlessly to make the vaccine available in the UAE. The future will always be better in the UAE.”
Gael23 wrote: » This is my concern. A vaccine won’t reduce the R0 number which they are so fixated on
ACitizenErased wrote: » ???????
Thierry12 wrote: » Its still not clear if the vaccines will stop you being contagious They dont give sterilising immunity so you still get infected, in theory you can be contagious. Can a vaccinated person pass on that infection to a non vaccinated person and will they get the disease? They think its very unlikely but who knows They'll probably ask vaccinated people to isolate for a few days imo
Thierry12 wrote: » They dont give sterilising immunity so you still get infected, in theory you can be contagious.
smurfjed wrote: » He obviously has faith in the Sinopac vaccine, will now be interesting to watch if the UAE numbers start to reduce.
Gael23 wrote: » A vaccine won’t stop you getting the virus, you just won’t get seriously sick
Micky 32 wrote: » Have i missed something? Was there data released to confirm this? I’d appreciate the links from the pharma companies that are claiming this, thanks.
holdyerhorses wrote: » You don't need links to data, or to a pharma company's press release. This is bordering on facile. .
Micky 32 wrote: » More rubbish from the ‘experts’ on here. Unless you have actual data regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines against this novel virus you’re talking through your hoop. I’m quite confident from my own interest and research you’re going to be quite disappointed in the months ahead.
Irish Stones wrote: » A genuine question. The past pandemics, those happened in the last 100 years, have left the virus circulating, haven't they? I mean the 1918 Pandemic, the 1957 Pandemic, and other more localized epidemics, have left their viruses among us. We're not vaccinated against them (at least, I'm not), so how comes that we're not getting one of those virus again? Why don't those pandemics spread again? Have we developed and immunity through our ancestors? Or else? Thanks.
Irish Stones wrote: » A genuine question. The past pandemics, those happened in the last 100 years, have left the virus circulating, haven't they? I mean the 1918 Pandemic, the 1957 Pandemic, the 1969 Pandemic, and other more localized epidemics, have left their viruses among us. We're not vaccinated against them (at least, I'm not), so how comes that we're not getting one of those virus again? Why don't those pandemics spread again? Have we developed and immunity through our ancestors? Or else? Thanks.
Hmmzis wrote: » We've just gotten used to them and are referring to them as seasonal colds and flus.
Micky 32 wrote: » Viruses that normally cause pandemics usually weaken over time but i’m sure the experts on here will tell you Covid 19 will never weaken. The virus that caused the 1918 pandemic is still around but you’ll only get a sniffle or a bit of a flu.
holdyerhorses wrote: » Haha. I am assuming you're missing they irony in yer post.
Irish Stones wrote: » And why should SARS-CoV-2 never weaken?
