How much protection do YOU think the vaccine (AZ) gives you?

[Gerla]

Just that really! And when does it start working?

@DoodleDJ I may be misreading you but the percentages aren't to do with measuring individual immunity levels - it's the percentage of people who develop immunity. So, in the study I linked to above, "one dose of vaccine provided 76% protection overall against symptomatic covid-19 in the first 90 days after vaccination" means that 76% of people were protected against symptomatic covid within that time period. This increased to 82.4% of people with the second dose if it was given after 12 weeks or more, but decreased to 54.9% if it was given within 6 weeks. It doesn't mean that people had 76%/82.4%/54.9% immunity levels themselves.

@littlewhitestar

The answer, on an individual level, is no one can predict that exactly.

Vaccine efficacy is a measure of the difference between the outcomes for the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups in a clinical trial. Vaccine efficiency is the same but using data from the population as a whole once a vaccine is in use.

90% efficacy/efficiency doesn't mean that the severity of disease is reduced by 90% in every individual or that person is 90% "protected", it is referring to the reduction of deaths/hospitalisations in the group of vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated. Like an average IYSWIM?

The response to the vaccine will be different for everyone.

This is very interesting and I would wager is not what Joe Public understands when reading the percentages.

@2bazookas

I'm not a doctor or a scientist so "what I think" about vaccine efficiency is totally irrelevant. Nor am I interested in the witterings of uninformed people.

I accept the published advice of accredited research scientists and doctors. I recognise that as they do more research on more patients, their expert knowledge and advice may change.

But OP wanted 'general perception'.

This is very interesting and I would wager is not what Joe Public understands when reading the percentages.

Nor many journalists. There are lot of incorrect statements in the media.

Here's a good link from the CDC explaining vaccine efficacy/effectiveness and how it is calculated @Whichjab

www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section6.html

@Geamhradh

People are always surprised that the annual flu vaccine falls at somewhere between 40 and 60%.

That's why annual flu deaths remain high. Apart from last year when they stopped releasing fortnightly figures in October. I don't know why.

After both doses, I believe it gives me around 70% immunity. If I do go on to get it, then chances are the severity will be reduced. Of course, if everyone gets vaccinated, then that'll greatly reduce my chance of getting it in the first place.

So there was flu up to October @QuestionEverythingOrBeASheep?

@notrub, thank you, that's interesting!

@ifonly4

After both doses, I believe it gives me around 70% immunity. If I do go on to get it, then chances are the severity will be reduced. Of course, if everyone gets vaccinated, then that'll greatly reduce my chance of getting it in the first place.

@ifonly4 , it doesn’t give you a percentage level of immunity. A certain percentage of people have immunity after one/two doses.

One thing is for sure. It will be more than if you don’t have it.

Well no, not necessarily. A certain percentage will not be immune after vaccination.

What does it matter what "you think" any vaccine or medicine does? The scientific data is what counts.

@bumbleymummy

it doesn’t give you a percentage level of immunity. A certain percentage of people have immunity after one/two doses.

Technically, you're both wrong! But there's some semantics involved here - like what is meant by immunity...

Your response implies a kind of binary situation where 70% immunity means out of 100 people, 70 are completely immune and 30 have no immunity. Maybe this isn't what you meant, but it could be read as such.

In actual fact all 100 may have improved immunity, but in only 70 of those people is that improvement good enough to stop the virus causing symptomatic infection. In the 30 others, you'll get differing, lower levels of benefit that may include "no benefit at all".

So for example (invented figures) if you had two identical groups of 100 people infected by covid.
Unvaccinated group: all end up in hospital
Vaccinated group: 70 may show no symptoms, 15 may show mild symptoms, and only 15 are still hospitalised - even in this last 15, their symptoms may be less than those in the first group.

Of the 70 who show no symptoms - important to note, they're still infected for a period of time and may be able to infect others and/or may test +ve.

@notrub No, I didn’t mean it in a binary sense. I explained it in more detail further up thread in the context of the study I linked to which was about preventing symptomatic infection.

For clarity I’ll edit what I wrote in this post that you’ve quoted:

A certain percentage of people have a level of immunity that is protective against symptomatic infection after one/two doses.

Although,technically, you could take that as a binary situation:
1: protected against symptomatic infection
0: not protected against symptomatic infection

In any case, you’re not a certain percentage protected against symptomatic infection which some people believe to be the case when they read “ % effective”.

I'm another one who doenst understand the thinking behind the question

Individual efficacy will be what it is, why does what anyone thinks matter? It's not going to change anything

I never understand this type of thread, I couldn't care less what random people think about stuff and I find it hard to think why anyone else would, it's a load of useless information.

Are you in Italy or did the vaccine centre run out of info sheets in English?

I reckon it gives little to no protection.

That's why I'm not having it.

I could be wrong - but nothing so far has convinced me.

The results released a couple of weeks back was 81% after 2 doses and Pfizer was 79%. These are real world conditions in the U.K.

Are you in Italy or did the vaccine centre run out of info sheets in English? I'm in Italy. Actually I have found out loads of things on this thread I didn't know. And I love knowing what random people think.

@Dustyboots

I reckon it gives little to no protection.

That's why I'm not having it.

I could be wrong - but nothing so far has convinced me.

This answer proves what a stupid thread this is, there is mountains of worldwide research evidence that provesthe vaccine works but oh no, random person who I'm going to guess has done no trails knows better

Out of interest @Dustyboots why do you think all the world's top medical scientists are lying about the vaccine?

100%

More than I had before having it.

The numbers for the different vaccines have been quoted in the news a zillion times. Why would you need to pay attention to your own 'general perception'? It's a weird question, yes

The only answer needed, surely, is 'enough'

When I had my first one the Dr said I would be around 75% protected after 3 weeks and my second would boost it to 90 -95%...I'll take those odds.

It's a weird question, yes
Why weird? I thought it was about 75% on the first dose until I read the information. Lots of people have different ideas on this thread. Personally I think it's weirder to comment on a thread only to say you don't agree with commenting on the subject of the thread. I mean....why?