So how protected are you after one dose of AZ/Pfizer?

[unmumsymummy21]

I've read lots of info on this which contradicts itself...

As usual with anything covid there are a million and one opinions on this.

Can anyone brighter than me enlighten me ?

Protection at 3 weeks after the first dose?

Thank you !

@CuriousaboutSamphire , I don't think @roses2 can have c&p'd it - surely The Telegraph knows how to spell Israeli?

I have to work now, so it will be interesting to see what people think. I'll come back later.

[quote Footle]**@CuriousaboutSamphire* , I don't think @roses2* can have c&p'd it - surely The Telegraph knows how to spell Israeli? [/quote]
@Footle, I should have said "Quoted" it. It is the post she quoted and commented on.

And yes, the typo is a direct c+p from the Telegraph article. They apparently cannot spell Israeli!

Remember divide by 3 is only relevant for the vaccinated population.

@Loopy22 were mistakes made with PPE? (I think all front line staff should have fit tested masks at all times)
Or patient positive when thought to be negative?

The Telegraph did actually spell Israeli incorrectly!

Sky news are also reporting the same study

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-pfizer-vaccine-is-up-to-85-effective-after-first-dose-new-israeli-study-finds-12222164

Oh I see what you are saying, in those who are vaccinated at present, their r number won't be the same as the overall populations r number. So at the moment it can't be extrapolated.

DP has just tested positive a month after 1st dose of Pfizer. Very symptomatic, can only presume he would be worse had he not had the vaccine.

@OhYouBadBadKitten I've also been wondering about whether this reduction in transmission is enough to control the pandemic without social distancing measures. I believe Covid's natural R is around 4 without any mitigations so while a 67% reduction in transmission is good news it doesn't sound like it will be enough to enable us to drop all SD . Not everyone will take the vaccine either. Hopefully I am wrong and it will make a huge difference!

@vaxmeup this may be super simplistic and I don't really know enough about it to comment.. maybe someone can help. But measles has an R of 18 or something ridiculous - as in, 1 person can give it to up to 18 people. We have very low measles rates now, through vaccinations etc. What's the difference ? Surely we should be able to control covid too. My post is super simplistic, I'm likely very wrong. But it crossed my mind when reading your post.

www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html

This gives a little history of measles and how they managed to keep it down in the US. It took around 4 years or so do get 80 percent of cases down.

In response to your qu, one thing that is different about measles is that while it is highly infectious during the pre-symptomatic phase, I don't believe that someone can 'have measles' totally asymptomatically - ie a case of measles is where there is symptoms/a lot simpler to clinically diagnose. The presymptomatic stage in measles is v dangerous (hence the need vaccinations), however one would only catch it from someone who is presymptomatic or eventually develops symptoms - ie a breakout of measles is easier to track because there are no totally asymptomatic measles cases (that I''m aware of).

Evidence is generally weak on how transmissible asymptomatic covid cases are. That said, I don't know how transmissible other viruses are via people who don't 'catch' the virus eg I never caught chicken pox despite close friends and offspring catching it and while I would assume I didn't pass it on it would be difficult to prove. Mind you if family members have an illness, people are generally quite cautious about mixing so further research regarding being an asymptomatic 'vector' is needed.

Don't forget that for some vaccinated people, they will have already had Covid in the past, experts now say that if you have had it already and then get one dose of a vaccine, it acts like a booster shot and gives more immunity than someone who has never had it, so that might skew the transmission figures somewhat.

Oh I see what you are saying, in those who are vaccinated at present, their r number won't be the same as the overall populations r number. So at the moment it can't be extrapolated

No, I'm saying that R isn't a single factor - it's made up of two characteristists of the virus a) when and how long it is infectious, presymtomatic and asymptomatic transmission being important to this -(for example it's one reason Ebola R is low - it's only transmissible whilst symptomatic) and b) the secondary attack rate.

Then the third factor is how many (susceptible ) people an infected person meets. (I put brackets round 'susceptible' because you can look at R either in terms of what the disease would do in an unexposed population - the situation we were in a year ago, or the effective rate depending on what proportion of the population is believed to be immune.

It's really not a case of taking best recent evidence of effectiveness of vaccine and doing arithmetic on headline R, when it applies only to one variable within it - the number of susceptible people one infected person meets, a variable which is also affected by social distancing (indeed is the whole reason we have SD)

@Athinginitself

DP has just tested positive a month after 1st dose of Pfizer. Very symptomatic, can only presume he would be worse had he not had the vaccine.

That must be disappointing for him but as you say, presume symptoms would be much worse without the vaccine

I had the Jab at the being of January, it was past the three week time period. Was carefully outside work.. Online shopping etc

Careful

@babyyodaxmas

Best guess is from Tim Spector/ Zoe App. Pfzeir - about 70% at 3 weeks. Az- haven't a clue their trial data is quite frankly a mess and not enough people are 3 weeks post vaccine to know. I would suggest 40-50%

Not sure anyone should 'suggest' if they don't know.

why not ? No one knows....I am allowed an informed opinion.

[quote Crumpetycrump]76% after 22 days (100% against severe disease):
www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html[/quote]
Wow that's really good.

It's a shame when people make up numbers elsewhere and say that there aren't enough people post 3 weeks to know! What tosh. There are millions of people that have had the AZ vaccine now.

I hope you are feeling better @Loopy22. Have you had your 2nd vaccine yet?

@babyyodaxmas

why not ? No one knows....I am allowed an informed opinion.

Except you are missing some data and adding a number plucked from the ether..

There are enough threads full of disinformation, worried posters, angry posters and many, like myself and babyyodaxmas are pissed off at the casual way such misinfotmation is being thrown out there, as if it means something!

At best it's thoughtless. At worst it starts threads like "I have been given a vaccine date and am worried" and posts "Fucked if I'm having the AZ vaccine, it's cheap and nasty" - all of which refer to uninformed opinions in other threads!

Your not going to die from it. That's as good as your likely to get. You can still be ill, still pass it on but you won't die and are likely to just get flu/mild symptoms.

This is why people are being asked to stick to the lockdown. People are still dying of this.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Like all vaccines it is mainly against severe symptoms.

And, as usual, all current data, still incomplete, suggest that all currently available vaccines are similar in efficacy. All the pfaffing about AZ being lesser than, badly made/designed/researched is simply distracting from the basic facts, it is a well known vaccine base and it works well. Like all the others!

We keep being told different things because no journalist likes to miss a bit of doom and gloom. Usually we wouldn't ever see any of the interim data, or be expected to work our way through all the varying opinions based on raw data, interim studoes and incomplete data sets.

Remember, all we are hearing now is about efficacy over and above "enough to save your life" The stuff that usually gets done over a decade or so of ongoing research! Again, the money being thrown at this is allowing the data to be crunched far more quickly than usual, so we see all the data as it is collated, in quick successsion. And again, journalists and SM commentators make much of any apparent contradictions. Some of them even know what they are doing when they spread disinformation based on this data, others, like most of the readers, don't understand enough to know what they are looking at.

The exciting bit is the new form of vaccine. When all of this is done and usted there is some amazng new medical research to be done on that!

I concur. It has as you describe.

It IS...