FileNotFound wrote: » My uneducated guess - its running low on people who are out and about to infect.
FileNotFound wrote: » The world's largest ever clinical trial. Proof is in the UK. Never mind the pudding. What I actually want is them to look at the UK, use it as an example. Set a % vaccination based on the UK Real world experience and give us a goal.
Micky 32 wrote: » UK’s R number apparently falling:https://www.google.ie/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/r-number-in-england-falls-slightly-to-1-1-to-1-3-despite-rise-in-case-numbers-12347078
JMNolan wrote: » We're only lucky if we take advantage of that knowledge.
amandstu wrote: » Think you are right.Ireland seems to be lucky that England's (mis)fortune is on this occasion Ireland's opportunity. I am sure Nephet is following developments there now on an hourly basis
FileNotFound wrote: » The world's largest ever clinical trial. Proof is in th UK. Never mind the pudding.
landofthetree wrote: »
FishOnABike wrote: » How much more do you think we can expedite vaccinations. We're averaging 50,000 per day, vaccinating people as quickly as the supply line allows.
stephenjmcd wrote: » I'm not disagreeing on the single impact, it's the full vaccination impact, it's an unknown, we agree of course they should reduce transmission, to what extent is the question. The initial post wasn't clear on this, it simply suggested that the impact on transmission was completely lost from Delta, that was what others were questioning & it's what I said we don't have full information on yet particularly from full vaccination
Turtwig wrote: » We're not in agreement. Why would we expect transmission to not be impacted when everything else regarding the vaccines was? The vaccines should reduce transmission by delta. That part I think we agree. Do you not agree that compared to the original and alpha this reduction in transmission should be weaker. The effect after a single should be weaker again. Our plans have been altered. Though that has multiple factors.
FileNotFound wrote: » Has the UK seen a marked increase in mortality or strain on the NHS since delta landed and became dominant? I was not aware this had happened. If we have an aim for X% fully vaccinated the Gov should just announce it so we have a target - then put 100 million into expediting vaccines (be cheaper than the PUP bill)
stephenjmcd wrote: » That's my whole point and that was what others were asking in response to the initial comment. The initial post was, " As you all keep pointing out the point of the vaccines was to offer protection. But they did significantly reduce transmission, and we based a lot of our plans around that fact. That advantage has been lost to delta" So we're all in agreement that the above statement can't be confirmed either way either, it's an unknown at this stage but we can assume full vaccination still provides an impact on transmission.
Turtwig wrote: » Tony is correct. Back in January 4 weeks after your first dose of Pfizer or AZ the vaccines reduced your risk of infection by 90%. Transmission was reduced by about 50%. With Delta four weeks after your first dose the risk of infection is reduced by less than 50%. Why are people retconning this? The vaccines still prevent severe disease. That doesn't mean we haven't lost significant ground - we have. The vaccines prevented infection against the original wildtype and alpha. This is no longer the case with Delta, at least in the same timeframe. Suggesting we haven't lost ground is bizarre.
Turtwig wrote: » If you had a vaccine that prevents infection . Then it's much harder for the virus to transmit onwards. The virus is unlikely to replicate within the vaccinated individual for long. The covid vaccines provided this protection against the wildtype and alpha after one dose. Now, after both one and two doses the vaccines have lost ground in preventing symptomatic infection from delta. The virus can replicate within someone for much longer. That impacts transmissibility. The vaccines, especially two doses, should still reduce transmissibility. Just not as effectively as before. In particular one dose that was really effective against onwards transmission should now be considerably weaker. Two doses, less so.Given delta is still "new" to the UK it'll be a few weeks before transmissibility reduction by vaccines can be quantified.
stephenjmcd wrote: » "But they did significantly reduce transmission, and we based a lot of our plans around that fact. That advantage has been lost to delta"
TefalBrain wrote: » Little or no increase in UK hospitalizations since this variant started.https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190335/covid-19-daily-hospitalizations-in-the-uk/ Delta is a wet fart
AdamD wrote: » These figures aren't correct though?
robinph wrote: » So 96% and 92% effective against the Delta variant isn't good enough for you?
B.A._Baracus wrote: » Only my opinion, for what it's worth (which is nothing ) But I see another lockdown over the horizon. Probably September.
Turtwig wrote: » I showed how the vaccines response is different after one dose. Tony is getting ridiculed for his claim is that there's ground lost. We can no longer get the exceptional results we were getting after one dose and two doses. Back in January a single dosing strategy was 90% effective after four weeksTwo weeks after two doses of AZ is about 60% effective at preventing infection. (Down from 70%+) Two weeks after two doses of PB is about 80% effective at preventing infection. (Down from 90%+) Ground has been lost.
jakiah wrote: » Wait, what? NPHET are predicting 2000 deaths in three months as their worst case, how would we not need restrictions then? Or does that mean the 'worst case' wont happen? Why publish it then?
Turtwig wrote: » What has this to do with the fact that the vaccines are less effective at preventing delta infection compared the original virus and alpha? I fully acknowledge they're still effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. I've even made posts telling people who were annoyed they got AZ before anyone else was vaccinated that they still got excellent vaccine that prevented severe illness from delta after the first dose All of this does not change the fact that the vaccines are now less effective at preventing infections. We have lost ground and that makes things harder than they would otherwise have been. The ridicule Tony got was disproportionate and unwarranted.
Micky 32 wrote: » Something to remind ourselves of before clicking on clickbait articles from rags or if you’re thinking of hiding under the bed: “There has been no recommendation from NPHET to roll back on any of the Covid-19 restrictions which have been eased so far, Dr Holohan said. He said the recommendation to limit indoor dining to those who are vaccinated when they reopen allows for the "further opening of society, albeit focused on people who are vaccinated". Dr Holohan said it was "probably not" likely that new restrictions would be introduced later in the year to combat the Delta variant of Covid-19, but didn't rule it out.“”
Turtwig wrote: » I showed how the vaccines response is different after one dose. Tony is getting ridiculed for his claim is that there's ground lost. We can no longer get the exceptional results we were getting after one dose and two doses. Back in January a single dosing strategy was 90% effective after four weeks Two weeks after two doses of AZ is about 60% effective at preventing infection. (Down from 70%+) Two weeks after two doses of PB is about 80% effective at preventing infection. (Down from 90%+) Ground has been lost.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
