Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

I have anecdotally heard, that for some reason, in certain places, the HSE are double booking people for booster appointments and not cancelling the second when informed to do so by the attendees.

Thus, the already boostered folk are considered no shows, because they didn't show up for a scheduled appointment they tried to cancel.

We know it reduces the chance of you catching it and reduces the chance of you spreading it. Can't spread what you didn't catch.

Also the active ingredient is 1/3rd the regular dose, so you would only get 2 boosters from a vial.

Best I can see it will help lower the spread in kids (0-12 make up 25% of daily cases and that % is growing week on week)

Many high profile studies have been posted in this thread and you've read/replied to these posts.

Looking at some of the data from the 5-11 trials, it seems like a different dose may be more appropriate for adolescents, might be something worth looking at, but they may not now.

In short, the adult dose is 30ug. The first stage of the 5-11 trials included the use of 30ug dose, a 20ug dose and a 10ug dose. They found an increased incidence of reported fever in the 30ug group than the other two.

They also found that the 10ug dose generated a sufficiently strong response in phase 1 trials, that they were happy to go ahead with that one for the second phase.

Overall the amount of adverse events was very small, and none of the serious. About a third of kids had a bit of tiredness or a headache. The most serious outcome was a single incident of a fever of 40c lasting less than a day.

Since there's a relationship between fever/immune response and pericarditis, it seems possible that a smaller dose (20ug?) for adolescents (12-16), or maybe some bodyweight calculation, would be beneficial in reducing the incidence of these events.

Report here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116298

Aside, one bit I found amusing, and if there was ever a question about how thorough these studies are, this surely dispels it:

😂

So have we gone from being terrified of Omicron for it now to be somewhat of a good thing with it being suggested that it is likely less severe than Delta but more transmissible.??

That's what we would have wanted right a less severe variant that's more transmissible so that it becomes the dominant strain?

That's the phase 1 part of the trial, which is just the initial phase to establish the appropriate parameters for the next one. It's a sanity check to ensure that they don't inject a couple of thousand people with something that's dangerous. Instead you inject 48 of them and if anyone experiences anything serious, you stop and go back to the drawing board.

The second phase had 2,300 participants, which is slightly above average size for a typical clinical trial.

Maybe if The Labour Party actually had some policies other than gender neutral toilets the Tories could be removed from power.

There's a reason for this, if you look at their discussion on sample size

About 90% of the people in Ireland will tell it’s science, not logic.

I disagreed with the conclusions because the authors failed to reach statistical significance with any tests they performed. This isn't cherry picking; it is common for intros and conclusions to not highlight such failures, in order to get increase the chances of being published. It is common too for peer reviewers and laypeople to be fooled by narrative intros and conclusions (very common in this thread). But nevertheless, these papers failed to show any effectiveness with regard to transmission or infection. That doesn't mean they aren't effective, but if large studies can't reach significance then it's quite strong evidence that they aren't.

You wouldn't do this. You'd instead fail to show that they do reduce the spread, and this is what they found.