If a vaccine is developed and it is as similarly effectiv as the flu jab..

[Marcellemouse]

Will you be happy to get on with your lives like pre CV? Just read that the flu jab is only 40% effective. What are the chances of the CV jab being better? Would you be happy to carry on as before if the effectiveness was similar?

Yes. We won’t all be eligible to get the vaccine anyway in the first year or so, so those able to get it should be reassured that they have a greatly reduced chance of catching it.

What about those who won't be eligible? Will you feel happy to get back to normal once a vaccine is out there?

The flu jab is only so (relatively) ineffective because there's numerous strains of flu. You can get the flu jab but then catch a different strain.

The CV jab will be targeted and so more effective.

@DivGirl thank you that is good to know.

I think there will come a point, probably not just a partially effective vaccine but requiring decent testing and some treatments too (interferon looks promising) where we will accept we have done what we can, we can’t keep kicking the can down the road and we will accept a certain number of covid deaths, in the way we accept deaths from flu, chicken pox, car accidents etc. I think we are still months away from that point.

The only thing stopping me personally going back to normal is government restrictions and there not being a normal to return to. Once those are lifted, yes, I’m comfortable with the (low to me) risk of catching the virus.

A 40% effective vaccine would make it much harder for the virus to spread

The only thing stopping me personally going back to normal is government restrictions and there not being a normal to return to. Once those are lifted, yes, I’m comfortable with the (low to me) risk of catching the virus.

Me too. I am over 50, so slightly higher risk, but really not particularly worried for myself and can't wait to start getting back to normal.

All the vaccine protocols published by the pharmaceutical companies so far require a minimum efficacy of 50%. In the US, the FDA requires a minimum efficacy of 50% for approval of any Covid-19 vaccine.

Covid isn't flu.

The efficacy of the flu jab changes year on year. It covers different strains of flu and is essentially a best guess (educated guess) of the most prevalent flu viruses that year. Sometimes they predict well, other times not less so, the COVID 19 vaccine is being designed to target that specific illness so the efficacy is likely to be considerably higher.

I'd prefer to wait a couple of years and see if there are long-term adverse effects from the vaccine
but then I enjoy a solitary lifestyle and I think that from now on I will focus on avoiding respiratory infections in any case

I would yes, because 40% immune from vaccine + those who already have antibodies would get us near to herd immunity. Every little helps and if that is the case then everyone who is eligible should have it for the common good.

Its not a matter of personal immunity for me, I'm well aware that the risks of the virus are vanishingly low for anyone healthy under 50. Anyone who refuses based on efficacy while being happy to spread it to other vulnerable people unprotected is making a faulty decision in my view.

I would want some kind of test to tell me if I was resistant or immune before I got the vaccine

The flu jab is 'only 40%' effective, because it is based on a prediction of which strains of flu will be the dominant ones each season. When the figure is low, it is not because the jab isn't working well, it's because there is high circulation of a strain not included. Each component (there are typically 3 or 4 in each shot) is very effective.

So if we got one of similar effectiveness, we would be sitting pretty, because we are only tackling one strain and it is slow to mutate.

It's not really a good comparison because the whole underpinning scenario is so different.

Just read that the flu jab is only 40% effective.

Where is that from, please? I ask because I saw an article the other day which quoted the uptake figures for eligible groups, and then said there was an “effective coverage rate” of around 48%.... the impression I got was that they were multiplying the take up rate by the effectiveness of the vaccine to produce an estimate of the proportion of the eligible groups who were protected by the vaccine.

Obviously a 100% effective vaccine is preferable to a 50% effective vaccine, but you also increase the proportion of immune people in the population by giving it to more people.

Vaccinating 80% of the population with a vaccine which is 80% effective gives the same protection at a population level as vaccinating 64% of the population with a 100% effective vaccine.

I would be more than happy to get on with my life without a Covid vaccination.

I want my life back, and I want my job back.

I'd be more than happy to go back to normal, vaccine or no vaccine. I comply with the rules but as soon as they're lifted I'll return to normal.

I would likely be eligible for it as I get the free flu jab (probably in the third group to get it), my DH won't be. We will both be happy with getting back to normal with or without the vaccine.