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]*

@Bluethrough there's having a difference of opinion which is fine, and posting utter rubbish which isn't. I'm not saying this OP is doing the latter BTW but plenty are on here are.

However, OP mentions 'some waffle' presumably meaning the part of the article explaining that it takes longer for AZ to reach full effectiveness and the second dose of AZ was rolled out later than Pfizer? Pretty important really.

Can't believe people behave like this over bloody v accines, take it or leave it, I'm taking it, don't care what one i have!!!

I was the same @Katya213. I've had my first dose of AZ and would have taken whatever was offered! There's no point in being unprotected while you wait for a so called superior vaccine.

My disappointment was that the headline implied that both vaccines were good against the Indian variant, then further reading showed that the AZ gave 60% and Pfizer 88%, with some waffle after that about reasons for this discrepancy

The ‘waffle’ is the important part OP

I don't think there even is a superior one, it's people that have now made it a class system, it's mind boggling.

[quote CharlotteRose90]@OliveTree75 nope definitely not a covid ward thank god. The nurses talk about the patients and said none of them had had the vaccine. You get asked if you have had it when you get a bed on the ward.[/quote]
How unfortunate that 3 people on the gastro ward all tested positive, all were unvaccinated and all went on ventilators.

This is the 'waffle' in the BBC article I mentioned:

"Public Health England (PHE) said the difference in effectiveness between the vaccines after two doses might be explained by the fact that rollout of second doses of AstraZeneca was later than for the Pfizer vaccine, which was approved first.

Other data shows it takes longer to reach maximum effectiveness with the AstraZeneca vaccine, PHE said."

It sounds more speculative than conclusive to me.

@RedcurrantPuff

They deny it but there really are people who don’t want this to end. What I can’t fathom is why? We are so much further forward than we were last year and people still find things to moan about even when we have effective vaccines. Variants and long Covid are a dream to these people

Ds had covid last year, and had long covid symptoms for just over a year. He spent much of a year in pain, so no, long covid isn’t a “dream” to some people, it’s a particularly shitty reality that some people, like you, still seem embarrassingly unaware of. Yes, it probably hasn’t happened to anyone you know, lucky you. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or people raising the issue need to be mocked. That’s a particularly shit attitude.

@SomeKindOfFloppyWeirdo I don’t think you’ve got quite what I was getting at. I hope your son gets better soon

Thanks Redcurrant I’m sure you can understand why it’s an emotive issue for some people. The problem is, as soon as someone brings up long covid, someone pops up to call them doom mongers, scaremongers, accused of making excuses for people to be lockdown forever and other such nonsense. Or finding “something to moan about.”

I do know the type you mean, and I’m hopefully not one of those, but it’s near impossible to talk about long covid and especially long covid in kids without being labelled a doom monger. I don’t think conflating the two (people who love the doom + people who talk about long covid) is at all helpful. Just my perspective, your mileage may vary, etc.

@JanuaryJonez

This is the 'waffle' in the BBC article I mentioned:

"Public Health England (PHE) said the difference in effectiveness between the vaccines after two doses might be explained by the fact that rollout of second doses of AstraZeneca was later than for the Pfizer vaccine, which was approved first.

Other data shows it takes longer to reach maximum effectiveness with the AstraZeneca vaccine, PHE said."

It sounds more speculative than conclusive to me.

I think it's waffley because it's a journalist quickly interpreting the academic paper. Here's what it says in the paper (link in BBC article) "These findings suggest a modest reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Nevertheless, a clear effect of both vaccines was noted with high levels of effectiveness after two doses. Vaccine effects after two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine were smaller than for BNT162b2 against either variant. This is consistent with reported clinical trial findings. However, rollout of second doses of ChAdOx1 was later than BNT162b2 and the difference may be explained by the limited follow-up after two doses of ChAdOx1 if it takes more than two weeks to reach maximum effectiveness with this vaccine. Consistent with this, 74% of those who had received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 had done so between 2 and 4 weeks prior to symptom onset compared to 46% with BNT162b2 (supplementary figure 1)"

33% chance of me contracting the virus if I come into contact with someone who has the virus In among many others who have also been vaccinated,

Or 33% chance of dying once I contract the virus?

@ivykaty44 I think it's some kind of comparison of the chance of having symptoms and then positive PCR test for B1.617.2 following 2 doses of AZ vaccination, compared with same if non-vaccinated. It may not translate exactly into the chance of getting it. Definitely not chance of getting hospitalised or dying from it.

Sorry 33% relates to one dose, not two!

@ivykaty44 - catching it. And if you actually read the paper, AZ is lower as it takes longer to build a full response.

Protection against hospitalisation & death is likely to be far higher. No data yet.

NotBot I only saw bbc link and not a paper with the study results

Here we go, updated info from PHE on efficacy of vaccines (AZ and Pfizer) which appear to now be more comparable a few weeks on. Even if we use the upper and lower margins there is not much % difference in it.

Dose 1 - 50% protection against alpha variant, 33% delta

Dose 2 - 88% alpha, 81% delta

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-delta-variant-60-more-transmissible-than-alpha-and-more-resistant-to-vaccines-phe-reports-12330068

After two doses:

Pfizer 96%
AZ 92%

www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant

Amazing hews

Or even news...