This question goes out those who took the 2 jabs? Will you you take it to get back to normality? Or are you sick of the government moving the goalposts constantly?
The double blind part just means neither the subjects nor the people doing the vaccinations knew which was the real deal or not, so that wouldn't have an effect on the numbers in that sense
I quibble a bit with "just". It's critical to understanding why clinical trial outcomes may not be matched in the real world.
The randomised bit means that the participants are randomly distributed across vaxxed/unvaxxed cohorts, which ought to ensure no exposure bias from things like age (if you put all the old people in one group you would expect their exposure to be lower due to risk aversion). I guess smaller trials use matching to ensure fair distribution of certain attributes.
The double blind bit is also critical to exposure because people who know they have received a vaccine would be expected to be less risk-averse
The reality of vaccinations as I see it is that regardless of who said what, they have rightly allowed us to feel safer, and that promotes unsafe behaviour due to risk compensation. This is why the unvaxxed have some justification in blaming the vaxxed for putting them at risk.
Yeah, but the thing that gets said often (not by you, but by some very cock-sure individuals on this forum) is that NOBODY EVER said the injections would stop you getting covid or passing it on. Which is a demonstrably false, gaslight-y statement.
But it's a double-blind randomised trial, so why would you expect the exposure to be significantly different?
The double blind part just means neither the subjects nor the people doing the vaccinations knew which was the real deal or not, so that wouldn't have an effect on the numbers in that sense. The vaccines certainly showed a positive response and one which has been borne out in real world terms as far as deaths among the vulnerable groups go(who would show the biggest effect), but in that study in particular the numbers themselves were tiny and we have no breakdown of positives versus negatives to show exposure. Given over 30% of positives are asymptomatic without vaccines it's a knotty enough problem. It's another reason why I waited a few months before getting vaccinated(and I'd already had covid so had much more breathing room to do so. If I'd been 65 or over I'd have jumped at them) until the harder stats were in and the percipitous drop in elderly people ending up in hospital showed those real world numbers.
Yeah, that was unfortunate (was it Micheál Martin and Luke O'Neill?). But for me it the jabbering from politicians and commentators makes no difference to the underlying truths which I seek to inform my behaviour and decisions.
I got a booster because I wanted maximum protection, not because Micheál Martin told me to.
I'm no statistician, but I suspect the wide confidence intervals are purely a consequence of small numbers of symptomatic cases.
The real (and unavoidable) limitation of the trials was the short duration before approval was applied for, but it's a pandemic so understandable that the vaccines were approved as soon as they were shown to be safe and effective in the short term.
Relatedly I've been thinking about starting a thread on "things I believed which proved to be false" but I'm not sure it would go well. :-)
Oh sure, what I mean is - and I have to restate this for the hard of reading out there(not you) the vaccines worked and are extremely protective against serious illness - the numbers in that particular study mean pretty much feck all if we don't know the exposure status of the participants. IE the placebo group could simply have not had the same levels of exposure to the virus as the vaccinated group. They seem to acknowledge that wriggle room in their quite wide percentages in real world efficacy: This means that, in this study, the vaccine was 90.7% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 (although the true rate could be between 67.7% and 98.3%).
Sorry, I wasn't clear. 'Twas a late night lol.
There are plenty of examples of "official" types saying, very clearly, that injected people WILL NOT get the virus and WILL NOT pass it on.
But they do prevent spread (or did prior to Omicron). How else would a virus with an R0 of 5-8 result in a flat reproduction rate in a largely open society with low levels of prior infection?
Perhaps not in Ireland, but there certainly are plenty of examples of "official" types saying that the injections prevent the spread of Covid. Which, given the global nature of info, would have an impact on the perceptions of Irish people. There's no reason for people here to think the mRNA injections would behave differently in Irish people than, say, American people.
Sure, I'm really just addressing that regular discussion point which comes up concerning whether "we were told" originally that vaccines prevented infection, symptomatic infection or severe disease, and the original approval seemed like a sensible place to look.
I think there has been criticism on here before about the lack of random PCR testing in the clinical trials, but for good or bad, they were focused on symptomatic infection, which seems OK to me.
From what I recall the conversation shifted from symptomatic infection to serious disease once Delta came out, because the efficacy against symptomatic infection dropped, although bearing in mind how people actually behave outside a double-blind clinical trial ("I'm vaccinated, so I'm safe" has been a common sentiment) I think the vaccines were holding up well in suppressing infection before Omicron came along.
The link to the study doesn't give timeframes from what I can see? This also appears to be an early enough study. The vaccines all showed a strong efficacy against serious illness and death and were/are livesavers. Zero doubts there.
They do go on to say they don't know how long protection lasts. It seems as far as symptomatic infection goes it lasts a few months going by the booster programmes rolled out, even before omicron came along. Immune memory protection seems to last much longer(save for the old and immunosuppressed) so that's a major positive.
As for transmissibility: The impact of vaccination with Comirnaty on the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the community is not yet known. It is not yet known how much vaccinated people may still be able to carry and spread the virus.
What's also notable is how few of the unvaccinated in that trial came down with symptomatic covid 19. They give no indication about postive/negative status which doesn't help.
I didn't calculate them myself, I took them from a post I happened to have open when I saw your post earlier. I can't remember whether it was a forum or a social media site or what now. Sorry!
I'm sure you'll make whatever decision you think is best, anyway. Good luck with it. All the chances of negatives whatever the decision are very very small, at least.
Tested positive via an antigen test on 28 December and I've only been able to secure a PCP test for 4 January. Will I still be positive?
The specific claims made in the EMA conditional marketing authorisation were about reduction of "symptomatic cases".
A very large clinical trial showed that Comirnaty, given as a two-dose regimen, was effective at preventing COVID-19 in people from 12 years of age.
...
Efficacy in people aged 16 and above was calculated in over 36,000 participants (including people over 75 years of age) who had no sign of previous infection. The study showed a 95% reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in the people who received the vaccine (8 cases out of 18,198 got COVID-19 symptoms) compared with people who received a dummy injection (162 cases out of 18,325 got COVID-19 symptoms). This means that the vaccine demonstrated a 95% efficacy in the trial.
The trial in people aged 16 years and older also showed around 95% efficacy in the participants at risk of severe COVID-19, including those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, high blood pressure or obesity.
I read that as one measure of efficacy (reduction in symptomatic cases) in both all trial participants and the at-risk subgroup.
Note that COVID-19 is the disease (hence the "D") not the viral infection, so they are excluding asymptomatic cases.
Actually that has been the claim, or close to it. Until omicron hit. Get vaccinated and massively lower your risk of serious illness and death(which was vanishingly low in the under 40's anyway and pretty much nonexistent for the under 20's), substantially lower your risk of infection and transmitting it to others. The vaccines worked like a bloody charm on the serious illness/death front and made a fantastic and welcome difference there, especially to the most at risk groups, but were not nearly so good on breakthrough infections and transmissibility and the latter falls off rapidly after a few months even if omicron had never showed up.
I am holding out to see if I can get a non mRNA Vax as my booster...seems to be better protection with the mix of Vax types...
But I'm only 4 months out from my 2nd jab so will be waiting at least 6 months
Ooof, I would really question people who would thank this post. There'll definitely be a Herman Cain Award or two for some posters on this thread unfortunately.
How in God’s name are people still so clueless about the vaccine after all this time, and everything that has been written and said about it. It really would make you question the intelligence and ability to assimilate simple information of some people.
The vaccine improves the immune response against the virus which lessens the affect/symptoms meaning that you are less likely to become seriously ill. No one has ever claimed it gave immunity from infection.
If it doesn’t offer significant immunity from infection then it offers little value for low risk groups. I would prefer to have Covid over a booster from now on.
Thanks, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for.
Have you calculated those risk multipliers yourself? I can't see them in the text.
Unfortunately
although we were able to include 2,136,189 children aged 13 to 17 years old in this analysis, the number of myocarditis events was too small (n=43 in all periods and n=15 in the 1-28 days post vaccination) in this population and precluded an evaluate of risk
I saw a preprint out of the UK that was published on Christmas day which suggested that the estimated risk multiplier for 1st/2nd/3rd doses in men under 40 was:
Pfizer: 1.7/3.4/7.6
Moderna: 2.3/16.5
AZ: 1.3/2.6
After a positive covid test: 2.0
So it seems in every case the risk of myocarditis is higher from dose 2 of a vaccine onward than from covid infection, but Moderna is by far the highest risk.
I don't think they have data yet for Pfizer/Pfizer/Moderna.
He should get Pfizer. Spikevax/Moderna is only being used to boost over 30s for precisely that elevated risk in younger males.
My 16 y/o son has been offered a booster, vaxxed at end of Sept.
Does anyone know which vaccine is being given to males of this age?
Everything I've read suggests that carditis risk is age related and greater with Moderna than Pfizer, and greater on the second dose than first. He had no obvious issues from either dose of Pfizer.
With Omicron being so prevalent (most of his friends have it) it seems likely his body is going to have to deal with it soon anyway, but I'm unclear about whether booster+Omi is "better" than just double vax+Omi.
I suppose there are two aspects: reaction to vaccine and virus, and protection against possible future variants which are nastier.
I'm not seeing much in the way of published credible advice around this, any pointers?
Doing nothing isn't an option as I see it, as inaction carries consequences too.
Did you think vaccines gave immunity from infection, and more importantly, that omicrone will be the last variant?
Considering all my pals who have in the last week tested positive have had booster, I can't see how it provides extra protection from catching and spreading the thing.
Will hold out until my hand is forced on getting the booster.
Seems boosters are just pissing in the wind against Omicron. A better booster will come along and I'm not taking them on a continuous basis.
Yeah I had aches and pains, was sweating and freezing at the same time and a headache from Moderna.
3 of us from work got the 2nd Moderna the same day and we all were the same after so I think the side effects from Moderna are a bit more severe than Pfizer.
Opposite two Pfizer and the Moderna booster. Felt grand after the Pfizer but the Moderna has left me bit with cold like symptoms and slight fever.
Sure whats the big deal anyway even if the GPs are making a profit on giving out the jab.
I'm registered with two GPs in my town and the way they set up vaccinations should allow them to make a profit.
Online booking system (which of course has a cost) which limits need for calls to administration staff.
Vaccines were administered by a nurse and they hired on two students to direct patients and to input/take details.
Observation was in the waiting room.
GP input was non existent in my 3 visits.
€35 per jab, and over a 100 per day.
That was the only way to make a profit, clogging up busy doctors isn't going to work
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d78fd5f5292e11c2974bcd779ad2a2f0.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/713409f13dde445ace50a13a61a2d5fd.svg)
