Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs effective against Indian variant - study

[JanuaryJonez]

I was really buoyed up when I saw this headline, but then read that two doses gives just 60% protection against the Indian variant, as opposed to Pfizer's which gives 88%. Disappointed

Covid: Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs effective against Indian variant - study [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596]]

* [Title edited by MNHQ]*

The rest of the article attempts to explain that though - that it takes longer to get a full response from AZ, and the types of people which had both vaccines - Pfizer going to younger healthcare workers initially who had their initial doses closer together; etc.

I don’t think the “final” stats will be that far apart, and it doesn’t seem that the scientists do either. But I’d take 66% over nothing! And I had AZ.

Also, that’s against symptomatic disease.

It’s likely to be higher against severe disease/death but they don’t have stats for that yet.

I’ve had both AZ jabs, am still not going anywhere I don’t need to.

Isn't that against symptomatic disease though?

Not good news.
But worse is only 33% after 1 jab!

Imo anyone who had az needs to be offered the pfizer boosters in sept.
Otherwise i think there will be even more issues with testing compliance. As mainly AZ people will be off work isolating or kids off.

Perspective!

Couldn’t give less of a shiny shit and I’ve had 2 doses of it. Still better than many other vaccines.

I suspect I’ll be Pfizered in autumn though

Yes read the context for God's sake

More here:

www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-b-1-617-2-variant-after-2-doses

You need to read the whole article .

"But this does not necessarily mean we will see a surge in cases and, crucially, hospital admissions - the protection vaccines give us against serious illness will be much much higher than their ability to block mild infections."
Helps if you actually read it.

Jesus - how MANY times do people need to be told this - the two hardest things for a vaccine to prevent are symptoms developing and contagiousness. Serious illness/death by comparison is FAR easier because it takes much longer for these to occur, so your immune system has longer to react.

AZ isn't great at stopping symptomatic infection with many of the variants, but you're STILL highly protected against serious illness.

The worry about it all is the fall in contagiousness protection which tends to mirror the protection against symptoms quite well - it means it's more likely people will pass on the virus to the minority for whom vaccines don't work very well.

Have a look at this explanation:

twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1396409964239917056?s=19

I've also read it gives 85%, 90% and 95%!

[quote MaxNormal]Have a look at this explanation:

twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1396409964239917056?s=19[/quote]
That’s a great explanation @MaxNormal....thanks

Sigh.....

It’s hardly a surprise is it? In gold standard clinical trials it’s efficacy varied between 60 and 74% against the original wild type virus.

I don’t buy the excuses about needing more time. It might go up a bit, but not to Pfizer level.

Quite hard to look at the narrative progressing and not conclude the efficacy was always around 60% (as evidenced in Brazil and S Africa) and variants are being used to justify having discounted early indications.

Not good given ONS estimate a background antibody level approaching 50% in the unvaccinated and the emerging data on side effects. Benefit of vaccinating lower risk groups with AZ in hopes of protecting higher risk groups looks marginal at best.

This is no different to the AZ protection against Kent strain though. It was 66% for that, now 60%. And likely to be higher due to the advantage the dose gap gives.

People need to get perspective on this, flu jabs are a similar effectiveness, this is normal for a jab. It works very well and we are lucky to have it.

@TheQueef

Perspective!

You won’t get much of that here.

[quote MaxNormal]Have a look at this explanation:

twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1396409964239917056?s=19[/quote]
Her Twitter should be mandatory viewing after every vaccine related headline honestly. Sorts out all the doom mongering very quickly.

I'd also suggest when it comes to general Covid news watching Dr John Campbell on YouTube.. whilst he's a retired nurse and tutor, not a medical doctor, he's still a much better journalist than any in the actual profession right now. Effectively sits you down and talks you through the data, informs you about which papers being bandied about for scare headlines by mass media or antivax Facebook lunatics are credible and which are random pre-print nonsense likely to be discredited by peers, and just generally goes through the facts with you good or bad. Then gives all the links in the description and encourages you to verify them for yourself.

People need to get perspective on this, flu jabs are a similar effectiveness, this is normal for a jab. It works very well and we are lucky to have it.

Don't disagree. But a flu jab to reduce personal risk is very different to a population virus suppression strategy backed by vaccine certification.

I was reading a lot of this on Twitter last night and someone had commented what it could mean for the clinically extremely vulnerable, specifically those with suppressed immune systems who weren’t expected to have a full immunological response to the vaccine (in the same way as non CEV would have a more full response) and that as the majority of Clinically Vulnerable were given AZ, did this mean we still have to shield or that CEV were still in an extremely Precarious position with regards to relying on vaccinations to protect them.

It’s fine for perfectly healthy people to celebrate even 60% protection (similar to the Flu jab iirc) but yet again nobody is talking about what this means for those with lowered immune systems such as the elderly and the unwell.

It’ll be fine. It just needs a bit more time because of the slower rollout.