Lions Tour

Blut2 wrote: »

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-sees-drop-pfizer-vaccine-protection-against-infections-still-strong-2021-07-05/

This is the confirmed real world data for Pfizer, hot off the presses this week in Israel.

Theres every chance the Boks who tested positive had already been vaccinated. Its nowhere near a bullet proof guarantee to not get covid - it just reduces your chance of infection by about 2/3rds, it seems.

If 1 in 3 fully vaxxed will get infected on exposure, and the recent Australian cases show that seconds of close contact are enough, you can see why delta could spread so quickly, especially if there's an assumption by people who are vaccinated that they aren't going to be infected/transmitting the virus, and relax their behaviours as a result.

sydthebeat

Former Former Former wrote: »

Just on this, I don't think they are.

Here's Rassie on 28 May, talking very much in the future tense...

https://supersport.com/general/chat/news/210528_Boks_to_be_fully_vaccinated_for_Lions_series

Most likely explanation is that some of them have had one dose, some have had two, some have had none so there's a mix of immunity statuses.

https://www.news24.com/amp/sport/rugby/britishandirishlions2021/rassie-erasmus-on-covid-19-vaccinations-for-lions-series-well-try-to-vaccinate-everyone-20210528

28 may

With Erasmus saying that the tourists are already vaccinated, he said the bulk of SA's player and management unit has taken the jab.

"The Springbok squad, management, and the wider group have either been vaccinated or are in the process of doing so," Erasmus said.

fitz wrote: »

If 1 in 3 fully vaxxed will get infected on exposure,.

Where did this figure come from?

Former Former Former wrote: »

Where did this figure come from?

From the Reuters article above:

"Vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease fell to 64% since June 6, the Health Ministry said. At the same time the vaccine was 93% effective in preventing hospitalizations and serious illness from the coronavirus."

Depending on how you read that, it could actually be worse...with asymptomatic infections not being caught and factored in to that 64% figure.

Leroy42

Former Former Former wrote: »

Like most posts that begin with "Wrong.", it's actually you who's wrong.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w

Messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The key word is symptomatic.

People can still get it, and spread it. But like children it does little damage.

So the boks could all be vaccined, but still return a positive test.

swiwi_

Suppose we’ll just have to leave vaccine expert talk to the doctors…

fitz wrote: »

From the Reuters article above:

"Vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease fell to 64% since June 6, the Health Ministry said. At the same time the vaccine was 93% effective in preventing hospitalizations and serious illness from the coronavirus."

Depending on how you read that, it could actually be worse...with asymptomatic infections not being caught and factored in to that 64% figure.

You have completely and utterly misunderstood those figures. Like, I'm sorry to be so blunt but you are spreading disinformation, even if with good intentions. 64% efficacy does not mean 36% will catch it.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The key word is symptomatic.

People can still get it, and spread it. But like children it does little damage.

So the boks could all be vaccined, but still return a positive test.

Ah. You're a person who only reads the first three lines and stops. I see.

If you'd only made it to the second paragraph...

Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.

Two paragraphs. It's not much.

swiwi_ wrote: »

Suppose we’ll just have to leave vaccine expert talk to the doctors…

Bloody politicians are doing a god-awful job of explaining the science, and are more concerned with looking good in most cases...everything being bleeding edge doesn't help, but I wish we were being better informed about this stuff by actual experts. This thread is a good example of how varied public understanding and assumptions are...

Former Former Former wrote: »

You have completely and utterly misunderstood those figures. Like, I'm sorry to be so blunt but you are spreading disinformation, even if with good intentions. 64% efficacy does not mean 36% will catch it.

What does it mean for the 36% then? If it's only effective against infection for 64%, then it was ineffective for 36%. There's no other way to read that data.

Podge_irl

fitz wrote: »

What does it mean for the 36% then? If it's only effective against infection for 64%, then it was ineffective for 36%. There's no other way to read that data.

64% of people who would have gotten it will not get it. However nowhere near 100% of contacts will get it even if unvaccinated. So you could be going from eg 50% of people down to 17% of people.

Also if a few seconds of contact was enough to catch it the whole world would have it by now.

Anyway the Lions had to give it a shot for numerous reasons. Still time to isolate everyone and just play the tests.

awec

Rugby forum lads. Not epidemiology forum. Or vaccine forum.

Podge_irl wrote: »

64% of people who would have gotten it will not get it. However nowhere near 100% of contacts will get it even if unvaccinated. So you could be going from eg 50% of people down to 17% of people.

Also if a few seconds of contact was enough to catch it the whole world would have it by now.

Anyway the Lions had to give it a shot for numerous reasons. Still time to isolate everyone and just play the tests.

That's why I said "on exposure" above... I'm not saying that this figure indicates 36% of vaccinated people will get it, I'm saying it suggests 36% of vaccinated people exposed to someone infectious will get it. And yeah, of course a few seconds may not be enough in all cases, but making light of what we're hearing about delta seems like head in the sand stuff to me.

But back to the tour...I agree, I get why they had to try to make the tour work, but it sounds like the bubbles were not sufficient, and I really can't see how the tour can continue based on those latest squad case numbers...

fitz wrote: »

What does it mean for the 36% then? If it's only effective against infection for 64%, then it was ineffective for 36%. There's no other way to read that data.

I'll reply in the Off Topic thread if you're interested.

Squidgy Black

Hopefully the game this weekend against the Sharks goes ahead, just for the likes of Tom Curry so that they'd at least have a chance to be a part of a match day 23 on the tour. Can't imagine how gutting it'd be to be called up and not get to pull on the jersey at all.

Cookiemunster

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Hopefully the game this weekend against the Sharks goes ahead, just for the likes of Tom Curry so that they'd at least have a chance to be a part of a match day 23 on the tour. Can't imagine how gutting it'd be to be called up and not get to pull on the jersey at all.

That games tomorrow evening at 6.

Larbre34

Podge_irl wrote: »

None of the Sanzaar unions would agree to that.

I don't think they have a huge amount of say, no? I mean, they can accept tours in 29 and 33, or not. Its more of a money spinner for them than it is for the B&I unions in any case. And I'm quite sure the Clubs in Ireland and Britain would much rather not see their top players going on super-tours once every cycle at all.

Besides, isn't Sanzaar very shortly to become NZAAR for all practical purposes?

Squidgy Black

Cookiemunster wrote: »

That games tomorrow evening at 6.

Even better so!

tgdaly

Bit of a disaster last night

salmocab

Lions tour might have been organised by whoever organised boards upgrade.

Akrasia

Only heard it on the radio. Sounded like Peypar was blowing them off the park ( or were they really just that bad at the end)

Good game last night against probably 10 Saffer starters... I think I've given up on this Lions tour now tbh... it's as well organised as the boards migration...and yes, I was watching on Saffer TV and even they admitted there were quite a few hometown decisions

Lsdrugbyfan

Mad that Sexton isnt there given the options at 10..

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117611770#Comment_117611770

Didn't think it had a whole lot to do with the ref, the Lions were really poor. Played some absolutely brainless rugby. Just stuff like playing 15 v 13 with a succession of 5m penalties and nobody seemed to think to take a scrum. Thought the halfbacks were very poor, just wanted to slow the game down at every opportunity. Overall fairly worrying.

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117611941#Comment_117611941

I've just seen that the Saffers 7's squad leaving for the Olympics has had to go directly into quarantine as a passenger on-board their plane has tested positive for covid.

Neil3030

(So help me god I'm going to try and quote another post, so apologies if this blinds everyone...)

Very much this for me. Lions put up a decent showing in the pack, but really struggled to show much invention elsewhere. Halfbacks and midfield fairly anonymous. Only scored their try when it was 15 v 13.

You have to imagine SA will only get fitter and more cohesive going forward too.