What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

16-04-2021 02:03PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

Has any study been done on efficacy of one dose vs two doses when past 12 weeks infection free? The body might just need time to build up immunity from the one dose than two doses being so much better.

Personally I think two doses will be proven to be overkill when Covid is in low circulation and people with one dose get to a few months before coming in contact with the virus.

It doesn't make sense to me, why would you need 2 doses of the same thing, you don't get infected twice in nature in a short period to get better immunity.

Apparently it tells the immune system to be very careful of this thing and gives a longer term imunity. Per Fauci recently .

greyday · 16-04-2021 02:15PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

Has any study been done on efficacy of one dose vs two doses when past 12 weeks infection free? The body might just need time to build up immunity from the one dose than two doses being so much better.

Personally I think two doses will be proven to be overkill when Covid is in low circulation and people with one dose get to a few months before coming in contact with the virus.

It doesn't make sense to me, why would you need 2 doses of the same thing, you don't get infected twice in nature in a short period to get better immunity.

First jab is to produce response while the second is to increase duration of response.

16-04-2021 02:18PM

greyday wrote: »

First jab is to produce response while the second is to increase duration of response.

How long does it take for first dose to begin protection?

greyday · 16-04-2021 02:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

How long does it take for first dose to begin protection?

It increases with time, after a week you could be 40%, two weeks 60%, some reports say 80% immunity after 3 weeks of Pfizer vaccine, it takes time to produce enough antibodies to be effective.

16-04-2021 02:22PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

Immunity from getting infected or having symptoms? The 2nd dose is an antibody extender then, just extending immunity?

I havent come across a study that shows 2 doses is better than 1 dose long term, as in once someone passes 8 weeks without getting infected.

John Campbell does videos of new studies etc.

Study recently in UK currently:

Unvaccinated 1 in 1100 chance of infected.

First dose 1 in 5500 chance of infected.

Second dose 1 in 15000 chance of infected and if infected symptoms more than likely will be mild.

16-04-2021 02:32PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

Yes but what time frame is being given? Is he giving the 1st dose 12 weeks to work and not including infections before that.

Id say they dont/cant go into that level of detail. Rule of thumb is few weeks to a month before meaningful protection. Plenty of people have got infected in the weeks after vaccination. In the US hundreds of people have died of covid after vaccination. Alot probably due to not being protected enough yet. Yet 6 people dfie of cvst and jandj is stopped. I suppose its more to mantain confidence in vaccines than real risks. More people will end up dieing due to stopping jandj especially if its permanent.

astrofool · 16-04-2021 02:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Id say they dont/cant go into that level of detail. Rule of thumb is few weeks to a month before meaningful protection. Plenty of people have got infected in the weeks after vaccination. In the US hundreds of people have died of covid after vaccination. Alot probably due to not being protected enough yet. Yet 6 people dfie of cvst and jandj is stopped. I suppose its more to mantain confidence in vaccines than real risks. More people will end up dieing due to stopping jandj especially if its permanent.

With Vaccines the idea is to get to herd immunity, not just the most vulnerable, thus you need to have very high confidence among everyone to get to the high % needed for herd immunity, which means doing counter-intuitive things like pausing when a low risk side effect is found even though the risk of the disease can be greater. This response is not for your benefit, it is for the benefit of society at large to reach herd immunity, the fact that you're fine with the risk and everyone else is stupid for not understanding the risk doesn't matter, people will still refuse it and the vaccination program becomes in danger.

16-04-2021 02:45PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

See that's what I would like to see studied, seems to me if you can avoid being infected for a few weeks 1st dose will enough to protect after that, I'd like to see someone check it out. Sinovac seems very slow to build immunity, but it's good once it's given time.

Guess we will know in the next 6-8 weeks from the UK's reopening, loads of people got one dose only there and indoor dining etc is gonna test it

Id say it will go well in UK. Vaccination is keeping r rate permanently under 1. Plus change in seasons. Flu season lasts from november to at most early may. Immunity is building. Covid has nowhere to go. Herd imunity benefits are kicking in there. The disease levels will become less and less. The next test there will be next winter.

16-04-2021 02:50PM

astrofool wrote: »

With Vaccines the idea is to get to herd immunity, not just the most vulnerable, thus you need to have very high confidence among everyone to get to the high % needed for herd immunity, which means doing counter-intuitive things like pausing when a low risk side effect is found even though the risk of the disease can be greater. This response is not for your benefit, it is for the benefit of society at large to reach herd immunity, the fact that you're fine with the risk and everyone else is stupid for not understanding the risk doesn't matter, people will still refuse it and the vaccination program becomes in danger.

I wouldnt call everyone else stupid.

Everyone has different risk tolerances based on their own circumstances.

If i was a woman with blood clotting issues or any of the cvst risk factors i wouldnt be keen to take it.

If you have any cvst risk factors dont take. Also maybe women should not take. I wouldnt be too keen on my wife taking it but would be happy to take. Maybe im biased.

16-04-2021 02:59PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

Yes I believe so too and think we will be the same as them, we are vaccinating nearly 200,000 a week and infections are around 2,000 a week, we are hitting Covid hard.Why do you think winter will be an issue if we will all be vaccinated?

New flu season/variants/waning immunity/vaccine hesitancy in the not at risk teens/20s.

The above are just unknowns. None of them might be an issue or only inconsequential issues. Who knows?

astrofool · 16-04-2021 03:45PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

Do you have an example of that for an endemic disease?

Cause we have Vzv, Malaria vaccines etc and people take them to protect themselves not others and the greater good

Flu, MMR, Polio, the list is endless.

I would suggest asking the full question rather than thinly veiling an anti-vax agenda (and sorry if you didn't mean to come across that way, but anti-vax people post similar sorts of questions hoping to lead it to something else).

astrofool · 16-04-2021 03:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldnt call everyone else stupid.

Everyone has different risk tolerances based on their own circumstances.

If i was a woman with blood clotting issues or any of the cvst risk factors i wouldnt be keen to take it.

If you have any cvst risk factors dont take. Also maybe women should not take. I wouldnt be too keen on my wife taking it but would be happy to take. Maybe im biased.

Good to see some empathy in your thinking

Charles Babbage · 16-04-2021 03:46PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes that's a good point : if we suddenly ended up with a load of vaccines, you could simply bring forward the second AZ dose (but it mightn't come to that).

Unless policies change, who else could they give them to?

astrofool · 16-04-2021 04:38PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

I can see the road this will lead so I won't engage, thanks

Vaccinations for me anyway have been framed as an individual decision for as long as I have lived

Like Woody79 example with cvst risk factors

Colleges and schools do flu vaccine drives every year even though they're not very at risk from the disease (can still get a bad flu, but it won't kill them). Measles is a fairly tame disease in children, but very dangerous to an immunocompromised few, everyone takes the vaccine to protect the most vulnerable.

I think people are downplaying the severity of catching COVID, even young, it can be a helluva lot worse than flu, the vaccines prevent that, just because you're unlikely to die, doesn't mean you can't be hospitalised, or knocked out sick for a few weeks, on top of that, when society opens up and you've refused a vaccine, the virus could be endemic, so your chances of catching it are extremely high (and worse, your immune response for future infections won't be as good as that of a vaccine).

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 04:45PM

astrofool wrote: »

With Vaccines the idea is to get to herd immunity, not just the most vulnerable, thus you need to have very high confidence among everyone to get to the high % needed for herd immunity, which means doing counter-intuitive things like pausing when a low risk side effect is found even though the risk of the disease can be greater.

That is one view but it is not the only view of the purpose of vaccines. The problem with this approach is that it fails to recognise that the virus is comparatively mild in most of the population. Only a relatively small proportion needs to be fully vaccinated for deaths to drop dramatically while the virus continues to circulate and spread immunity among the healthy.

astrofool · 16-04-2021 04:50PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

That is one view but it is not the only view of the purpose of vaccines. The problem with this approach is that it fails to recognise that the virus is comparatively mild in most of the population. Only a relatively small proportion needs to be fully vaccinated for deaths to drop dramatically while the virus continues to circulate and spread immunity among the healthy.

It is the purpose of a lot of vaccines, including the vaccines against COVID-19.

Sam Russell · 16-04-2021 05:43PM

astrofool wrote: »

Colleges and schools do flu vaccine drives every year even though they're not very at risk from the disease (can still get a bad flu, but it won't kill them). Measles is a fairly tame disease in children, but very dangerous to an immunocompromised few, everyone takes the vaccine to protect the most vulnerable.

I think people are downplaying the severity of catching COVID, even young, it can be a helluva lot worse than flu, the vaccines prevent that, just because you're unlikely to die, doesn't mean you can't be hospitalised, or knocked out sick for a few weeks, on top of that, when society opens up and you've refused a vaccine, the virus could be endemic, so your chances of catching it are extremely high (and worse, your immune response for future infections won't be as good as that of a vaccine).

No, Measles can be a deadly disease in a small number of children causing a severe brain disease, encephalitis, and can lead to death. It is long held that vaccination of all children, except for those that there is a contraindication, is vital to protect all children. It is not a trivial childhood infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/symptoms/complications.html

16-04-2021 05:44PM

astrofool wrote: »

It is the purpose of a lot of vaccines, including the vaccines against COVID-19.

Its degrees.

We are trying to tame covid.

In time the hope is to get a vaccine that stops transmission 100 per cent.

At present its stopping people individually from getting sick and dying.

Reduced transmission at end of 2020 for vaccines was only an aspiration or hope.

In turns out they do reduce transmission significantly.

Israel and UK are examples.

UKs lockdown cannot explain deaths at only a few per day now.

They were not good at lockdowns and have not suddenly become good at them just as they have rolled out vaccines to 62% of population.

astrofool · 16-04-2021 05:46PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, Measles can be a deadly disease in a small number of children causing a severe brain disease, encephalitis, and can lead to death. It is long held that vaccination of all children, except for those that there is a contraindication, is vital to protect all children. It is not a trivial childhood infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/symptoms/complications.html

That was exactly my point, for a small number it's deadly, for the majority it isn't, every child gets vaccinated against measles.

Sam Russell · 16-04-2021 05:52PM

astrofool wrote: »

That was exactly my point, for a small number it's deadly, for the majority it isn't, every child gets vaccinated against measles.

But is that not like Covid? It should be clear that certain diseases are deadly for some - there were too many who dismissed Covid as 'just another flu'.

Charles Babbage · 16-04-2021 05:54PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

That is one view but it is not the only view of the purpose of vaccines. The problem with this approach is that it fails to recognise that the virus is comparatively mild in most of the population. Only a relatively small proportion needs to be fully vaccinated for deaths to drop dramatically while the virus continues to circulate and spread immunity among the healthy.

Why spread immunity by getting the disease, which has variable consequences and where the immunity is of variable value, when you can spread immunity by a vaccine with much more predictable consequences?

astrofool · 16-04-2021 05:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In time the hope is to get a vaccine that stops transmission 100 per cent.

Agree, but just on this, there's no such thing as 100% in transmission, you pick it up off a handle and then shake hands with someone, they now have the virus, even if you had a vaccine that kills the virus immediately. What the vaccines do is reduce transmission to such a low level that the virus can't find hosts to multiply in and dies off.

16-04-2021 05:57PM

astrofool wrote: »

That was exactly my point, for a small number it's deadly, for the majority it isn't, every child gets vaccinated against measles.

A small number?

Its infected 10 to 15 per cent of population and has killed circa 5000 of the population. Not to mention the thousands hospitalised and people mamed with long covid.

I think your on the wind up?

Vaccination will hopefully save 10s of thousands of lives through individual protection and herd immunity effects.

We are currently still chasing the virus.

astrofool · 16-04-2021 05:57PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

But is that not like Covid? It should be clear that certain diseases are deadly for some - there were too many who dismissed Covid as 'just another flu'.

It's veering wildly off the AZ topic, but yes, maybe go back and follow the questions and replies (initially I was responding to someone who asked a question typical of an anti-vaxxer).

astrofool · 16-04-2021 06:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A small number?

Its infected 10 to 15 per cent of population and has killed circa 5000 of the population. Not to mention the thousands hospitalised and people mamed with long covid.

I think your on the wind up?

Vaccination will hopefully save 10s of thousands of lives through individual protection and herd immunity effects.

We are currently still chasing the virus.

16-04-2021 06:23PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Why spread immunity by getting the disease, which has variable consequences and where the immunity is of variable value, when you can spread immunity by a vaccine with much more predictable consequences?

Agree id rather gain imunity through vaccination.

Safer for me and my family.

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 06:42PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Why spread immunity by getting the disease, which has variable consequences and where the immunity is of variable value, when you can spread immunity by a vaccine with much more predictable consequences?

There's a balance to be had. Relying purely on natural immunity would be a mistake as it is a serious and sometimes fatal disease for the elderly and vulnerable.

On the other hand relying purely on vaccinations is also a mistake since the process of opening up is unnecessarily dragged out causing damage to the country.

I'm still in favour of offering the vaccine to everyone but I think opening up should occur when we've got the elderly, vulnerable and those in the front line fully vaccinated.

There's two basic goals:

1. Reducing harm from covid-19 (including harm caused by lockdowns).
2. Eradication of the virus.

The problem I think is that people are failing to separate these two goals in their heads and are coming up with jumbled up approaches that fail to address either goal adequately. Each has to be considered separately and the feasibility has to be assessed.

astrofool · 16-04-2021 06:46PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

There's a balance to be had. Relying purely on natural immunity would be a mistake as it is a serious and sometimes fatal disease for the elderly and vulnerable.

On the other hand relying purely on vaccinations is also a mistake since the process of opening up is unnecessarily dragged out causing damage to the country.

Again, not sure how this relates to AstraZeneca, but we've tried to open up a few times already without vaccines and had to close down because case and hospital numbers went up very quickly and overwhelmed the hospitals. With vaccines, if everyone will take them, we should be able to open up and stay open.

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 06:55PM

astrofool wrote: »

Again, not sure how this relates to AstraZeneca, but we've tried to open up a few times already without vaccines and had to close down because case and hospital numbers went up very quickly and overwhelmed the hospitals. With vaccines, if everyone will take them, we should be able to open up and stay open.

Because we had hardly vaccinated anyone during the Christmas period therefore cases led to deaths. Had we vaccinated that portion of the population that are vulnerable then those cases would not have led to the same number of deaths and moreover increased circulation of the virus would have led to greater general immunity in the population meaning that restrictions now would not need to be as severe.

astrofool · 16-04-2021 06:57PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Because we had hardly vaccinated anyone during the Christmas therefore cases led to deaths. Had we vaccinated that portion of the population that are vulnerable then those cases would not have led to the same number of deaths and moreover increased circulation of the virus would have led to greater general immunity in the population meaning that restrictions now would not need to be as severe.

Increased circulation of the virus would have led to multiple more deaths than we had and are still having and again, the "natural" immunity isn't as effective as that of vaccine immunity, so get a vaccine when you can.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments