Please don't let it be true that one dose of Pfizer jab is only 33% effectuve

[Calmandmeasured1]

www.thesun.co.uk/news/13795481/one-dose-vaccine-only-33-effective-israeli-experts-claim/

I am choosing to ignore the whole thing. I dont want to know. I can do nothing about it. What will be will be. However, I know for certain that if we go back to square one with this, back to a race against a virus, back to the 'control' rubbish, I will not be restricting my life anymore, and I am currently going above and beyond the restrictions to minimise transmission. But, I cant do it forever.

We always knew two doses were needed anyway?

Mmm. A link from The Sun.

I can't think this can be true. NHS frontline staff (proper frontline staff treating hundreds of Covid patients every shift) were given Pfizer. They PPE is crap in relation to the massive viral loads on general Covid wards (not ICU) - paper masks, plastic pinny.
They are walking around in clouds of virus everyday. I think we'd know if 70% of them developed Covid after the first dose. Some of them did certainly, but not 70%.

And what is the benefit of vaccinating some people twice and most people not at all. There is only a finite resource of vaccine at the moment. The main benefit of the vaccine in our very imperfect world at the moment is to stop people getting seriously ill from Covid-19 rather than to stop them getting any symptoms at all. One dose seems quite adequate at stopping people getting seriously ill.

@supercatpowers

I can't think this can be true. NHS frontline staff (proper frontline staff treating hundreds of Covid patients every shift) were given Pfizer. They PPE is crap in relation to the massive viral loads on general Covid wards (not ICU) - paper masks, plastic pinny. They are walking around in clouds of virus everyday. I think we'd know if 70% of them developed Covid after the first dose. Some of them did certainly, but not 70%.

That's a ridiculous statement. 33% efficacy doesn't mean that 70% of nurses will immediately catch covid . So far we've had no vaccine, 0% efficacy, by your logic that would mean 100% of nurses would have covid over a 4 week period

@supercatpowers

I can't think this can be true. NHS frontline staff (proper frontline staff treating hundreds of Covid patients every shift) were given Pfizer. They PPE is crap in relation to the massive viral loads on general Covid wards (not ICU) - paper masks, plastic pinny. They are walking around in clouds of virus everyday. I think we'd know if 70% of them developed Covid after the first dose. Some of them did certainly, but not 70%.

That assumes 100% of healthcare workers would have caught it without the vaccine. Which obviously isn't the case, otherwise we would have literally no doctors or nurses in the hospitals...

I am really confused can anyone explain? I thought we knew you could likely still catch it but hopefully in a milder form?

This latest report about 33% efficacy comes from initial findings in Israel, where a high percentage of the population have had the first vaccine.

It's hard to compare this with the initial trial though, as the Israel findings don't come from a controlled trial. See here for expert comment.

The inital peer-reviewd published paer associated with the Pfizer trials found a 52% efficacy rate 12 days after the first vaccine does (rising to 95% after the second).
www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

"Sir Patrick, the Government's chief scientific adviser, said experts would need to "keep measuring the numbers" but added that better immunity would build over time.

Speaking to Sky News, he said: "We need to look at this very carefully. What we know from clinical studies… is that if you take everything from day zero to day 28, then the overall figure is something like 50 per cent protection.

"But of course you don't expect any protection in the first days because your immune system hasn't had a chance to build up and some people may have been infected before they had the vaccine. If you take it from day 10 up to day 21 and beyond, it looks much more like the 89 per cent figure the JCVI gave."

I wouldn’t worry too much about this particular result as it is probably too soon to show anything meaningful.

It’s also as far as I can tell only looking at positive cases and doesn’t make any particular distinction in terms of symptoms. It mentions in the article that efficacy is lower because this survey is testing all participants for covid, even asymptomatic participants. I believe the original survey just included people that had had a test - most of whom probably had a reason to do so I.e. symptoms. If they had tested all participants it is likely they would have found more asymptomatic positive cases in the group that received the vaccine.

This is more useful to read regarding concerns about the effectiveness. news.sky.com/story/covid-19-sir-patrick-vallance-answers-your-questions-on-lockdowns-vaccines-and-returning-to-normal-12193323

2 months ago we would have settled for 33% efficiency.

It isn't true. If you look at the numbers, lots of people in Israel caught covid on days 1-14 after the vaccine, at a point it would not be expected to be effective. Take those people out of the numbers and the efficacy grows massively.

Please can we be clear on the difference between "efficacy" (performance under trial conditions) and "efficiency" (performance in the real world)?
Efficiency is usually lower than efficacy.

I've had the first dose and in my head am working under the assumption it provides zero protection until I've had the second.

That's not what this report says:

www.timesofisrael.com/top-official-israel-in-final-stages-of-covid-showing-world-an-exit-strategy

Top official: Israel in ‘final stages’ of COVID, showing world an exit strategy
Ex-virus czar says with a quarter of population having received 1st shot, country seeing clear evidence vaccine is working; number of seriously ill over 60 drops sharply

Excerpt

“We got used to seeing that 2.5% of the seriously ill were over sixty, that has suddenly dropped,” Gamzu said.

At least 75% of the population over 60 has received at least one shot already, indicating that the vaccine was already having an effect, even though its impact was only expected to come after the second dose.

“This 1.5% is unprecedented, I have not seen this throughout the whole period. The vaccine has a clear effect,” he said. “This shows the beginning of the end.”

@unmarkedbythat

I've had the first dose and in my head am working under the assumption it provides zero protection until I've had the second.

I have had covid but it hasn't changed anything for me because there is a lockdown. Nothing changes if you have immunity or not untilockdown lifts.

Sorry to point that out, not trying to be a arsehole but that's reality unfortunately

Isn't this why people will be having 2? Is it really new news? People have been told over and over that having the vaccine doesn't mean you can resume 'normal' life.

some people seem to confuse the jab with some magic potion

Isn't the honest answer that nobody really knows?

The dots are being joined up as we go along with this - it's a new vaccine, and the data being gathered is live.

Does it really matter, if it's thought that the second dose brings the level up to what was expected? Even after one dose, people should be practicing safer measures anyway, and acting like they haven't had any vaccine?

Where's the OP gone?

@Iknowwhatudidlastsummer

some people seem to confuse the jab with some magic potion

I think the worry might be that the vaccine needs to get to 60-80% as that's hard immunity levels. Below that your still going to see it do its thing.

There is more than one vaccine and you would hope that it's being followed and studied by proper researcher.

Hard - * herd