O/T:- Vaccines: Pro/Anti & Conspiracy Theories [Originally Covid Pass and Meadow Ln.]

[upthemaggies]

Ok so the graph is theirs (Daily Sceptic's). That's why I couldn't find it on the government report.

The data the Daily Sceptic have plotted are on the government report, along with a large and frankly unmissable caveat, which reads:

1 Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to 14 in this report.

The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are unadjusted crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data and there are likely to be systematic differences between these 2 population groups. For example:

• people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace)

• many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues

• people who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19

• people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks

2 Case rates are calculated using NIMS - a database of named individuals from which the numerator and the denominator come from the same source and there is a record of each individuals vaccination status. Further information on the use of NIMS as the source of denominator data is presented on page 33 of this report and in the further resources below.

Unadjusted case rates among persons vaccinated have been formatted in grey to further emphasise the caution to be employed when interpreting these data.

So my first instinct is to think that to write an article based on those data, but where the whole premise goes completely against the statistical guidance provided alongside the data, making no reference to those caveats, is that it is an article I don't really want to trust.

I would also say that in light of those caveats, and without further supporting data, I personally don't think your claim stands up.

So double jabbed are fine, won't get ill, won't spread it and no need to get a booster then?

If you still think it's the unvaxxed that need protection, why disincentives them from getting the jab by promising to go up to 3 jabs for passes in the near future when unjabbed would take many many months to catch up, by which time it will likely be 4 or 5 jabs needed for a pass?

The stats can be helpful but we have to look at what's actually happening. They are now desperate to get the 3rd jab into arms. If the 2-vax is as good as you seem to think it is. what's the point?

[applepie2]

So double jabbed are fine, won't get ill, won't spread it and no need to get a booster then?

If you still think it's the unvaxxed that need protection, why disincentives them from getting the jab by promising to go up to 3 jabs for passes in the near future when unjabbed would take many many months to catch up, by which time it will likely be 4 or 5 jabs needed for a pass?

The stats can be helpful but we have to look at what's actually happening. They are now desperate to get the 3rd jab into arms. If the 2-vax is as good as you seem to think it is. what's the point?

There is a new variant, omicron, which transmits very easily. We are still waiting for enough data on severe illness and death rates to allow an assessment of how serious it is. In the meantime, delta is still causing significant hospitalisation and death. The health service is struggling. Is it not better to be cautious than to blithely assume that everything will be fine?

If omicron does turn out to be “no worse than a bad cold” that will be great news, though still far too early to state that the pandemic is no longer a problem, as further mutations are inevitable.

[upthemaggies]

I'm just trying to get my head around this

The Sceptic article is nonsense, but not nonsense when it talks positively about the boosters. I'm starting to get it now that you can only be balanced and credible if you're 100% pro vax.

Omicron isn't spreading among the 2 jabbed, only the unvaxxed, but to be cautious we have to focus resources on the 2 jabbed rather than to the people are who are actually spreading it and falling ill.

Booster isn't designed for Omicron but will and does work until it doesn't, when - going by what BioNTech have said on camera - you will then need a 4th-6th jab that more effectively targets Omicron.

[drillerpie]

So double jabbed are fine, won't get ill, won't spread it and no need to get a booster then?

I think you're misrepresenting my point of view. That's not what I said or what the UKHSA report you cited said. The figures they provide show the positive impact of the vaccine, but also that the immunity provided by the vaccine wanes (as was predicted at the start of the pandemic) - hence the boosters.

If you still think it's the unvaxxed that need protection, why disincentives them from getting the jab by promising to go up to 3 jabs for passes in the near future when unjabbed would take many many months to catch up, by which time it will likely be 4 or 5 jabs needed for a pass?

I genuinely don't know whole promises you are referring to here, but in any case I don't think anyone getting a first and second dose around this time would need (or indeed be able to have) a booster for some months - basically like everyone else but with a later start.

The stats can be helpful but we have to look at what's actually happening. They are now desperate to get the 3rd jab into arms. If the 2-vax is as good as you seem to think it is. what's the point?

Because it becomes less effective after several months.

[drillerpie]

[QUOTE=upthemaggies;39931493]I'm just trying to get my head around this

The Sceptic article is nonsense, but not nonsense when it talks positively about the boosters. I'm starting to get it now that you can only be balanced and credible if you're 100% pro vax.

I said I personally don't trust it when they use data which was issued with a huge caveat, without passing on the caveat to its readers so they can make an informed decision. If whatever they said about boosters was also taken from information issued alongside a huge caveat, then the same would apply there.

Omicron isn't spreading among the 2 jabbed, only the unvaxxed, but to be cautious we have to focus resources on the 2 jabbed rather than to the people are who are actually spreading it and falling ill.

Again, this is a misrepresentation. According to the UKHSA report you cited, Covid CAN be caught and transmitted by the double vaccinated, however they are overall less likely to transmit it, suffer symptoms from it, be hospitalised by it, and die from it. However as discussed previously this immunity wants after some months.

I don't know what you mean by concentrating resources on others - if people don't want the vaccine, they don't want it. People who have had two vaccines are presumably mostly open to having a booster, hence the government feel it makes sense to concentrate resources there, which after all at 70% of the population is a lot of people.

Booster isn't designed for Omicron but will and does work until it doesn't, when - going by what BioNTech have said on camera - you will then need a 4th-6th jab that more effectively targets Omicron.

Not sure what your point is here but if you have a link to this conversation I'll be happy to give you my thoughts on it.

[drillerpie]

Apologies for the random words in past two posts. I'm writing quickly on my phone and the autocorrect changes them.

[upthemaggies]

Apologies for the random words in past two posts. I'm writing quickly on my phone and the autocorrect changes them.

OK, so would it be fair to say then - as you see it - the Sceptic article would become more and more accurate with each passing day without the booster intervention? In other words, they're correct what they're saying in principle but you don't believe it's quite that bad yet?

Covid pass will go from requiring 2 to 3 jabs once everybody has had the chance to get the booster - is the UK plan. That might include everybody who is currently not vaccinated but intending to be, but I very much doubt it, in which case they'd have to have a 3 jab rule for the most compliant and a 1 jab rule for those who have been less so, which I can't imagine will go down well however sound the science might be. Then things could really become complicated if you introduce variant specific vax. Why would 1 jab against Delta and the original strain be enough for some but not others. Weren't the first two jabs different strengths? Adults needed two but now it's one for Delta, yet Omicron will need three?

Curious to know if you're happy to go on being jabbed indefinitely regardless of frequency and would you getting Covid make any difference? Would you expect the boosters window of effectiveness to remain consistent or decrease?

[upthemaggies]

This was back on 2 December 2021

Government agrees new deals to future proof vaccine rollout in light of new variant
Government signs contracts to buy a total of 114 million additional Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna doses for 2022 and 2023

"These future supply deals include access to modified vaccines if they are needed to combat Omicron and future Variants of Concern, to prepare for all eventualities."
"This is in addition to the 35 million additional doses of Pfizer/BioNTech ordered in August for delivery in the second half of next year, and the 60 million Novavax and 7.5 million GSK/Sanofi doses expected in 2022."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g...of-new-variant

[magpie_mania]

OK, so would it be fair to say then - as you see it - the Sceptic article would become more and more accurate with each passing day without the booster intervention? In other words, they're correct what they're saying in principle but you don't believe it's quite that bad yet?

Covid pass will go from requiring 2 to 3 jabs once everybody has had the chance to get the booster - is the UK plan. That might include everybody who is currently not vaccinated but intending to be, but I very much doubt it, in which case they'd have to have a 3 jab rule for the most compliant and a 1 jab rule for those who have been less so, which I can't imagine will go down well however sound the science might be. Then things could really become complicated if you introduce variant specific vax. Why would 1 jab against Delta and the original strain be enough for some but not others. Weren't the first two jabs different strengths? Adults needed two but now it's one for Delta, yet Omicron will need three?

Curious to know if you're happy to go on being jabbed indefinitely regardless of frequency and would you getting Covid make any difference? Would you expect the boosters window of effectiveness to remain consistent or decrease?

Can't really understand what the problem with Covid passes is while a negative LFT is acceptable (which means little really as you don't even need to use it to show a negative result!).

[upthemaggies]

Can't really understand what the problem with Covid passes is while a negative LFT is acceptable (which means little really as you don't even need to use it to show a negative result!).

"while" being the key word here. It's a tug of war on the Overton window - with one eye on where other countries are heading. If we had a cast iron guarantee that LFT will always be accepted then you'd have less resistance, but the government have now gone back on their word so many times that nobody trusts them.