IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Coronavirus , vaccine , vaccines

Reply
Old 16th December 2020, 10:25 PM   #161
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,819
Two more people reacted to the vaccine, this time in AK and it sounds like it was more anaphylaxis than not. Symptoms were SOB and what was described as red rash. That suggests to me generalized erythema of some kind. One got epi and a night in the ICU.

The Latest: Alaska reports 2nd adverse reaction to vaccine
Quote:
Bartlett Regional Hospital in Juneau says the two workers showed adverse reactions about 10 minutes after receiving the vaccine and were treated. One received the vaccine Tuesday and will remain in the hospital another night under observation while the other, vaccinated Wednesday, has fully recovered.

U.S. health authorities warned doctors to be on the lookout for rare allergic reactions when they rolled out the first vaccine, made by Pfizer and Germany’s BioNTech. Britain had reported a few similar allergic reactions a week earlier
I don't know, this sounds like more than a rare reaction. Going by my experience giving vaccinations by the thousands going back 30 years and never once seeing anaphylaxis from a vaccine, there are more than "rare" reactions going on here.

Not saying they should stop the vaccinations. But that one dry run looking at having people get vaccinated in their cars then parking for 15 minutes sounds like an impractical way to manage a vaccine program.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 16th December 2020 at 10:28 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2020, 12:10 AM   #162
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,875
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Are you sure about that?
Your input must be way out.

Every year 51% of Americans have a 'flu jab in a short time frame with no problems, and it's going to be rolled out in stages, so I don't see much of an issue.
I guess you're right. The bottleneck here will probably be how fast can they produce it.

It's hard to find answers as to exactly how many people have received the first shot already, but there is this:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/ne...us/3879655001/

Quote:
More than 2.9 million doses are being shipped this week to hundreds of sites around the United States, the result of breakneck drug development and a colossal logistics effort involving the military, several government agencies, academic and private partners, 64 individual jurisdictions and thousands of vaccination sites.
Hopefully in the coming weeks, a lot more doses than that will be shipped per week. Because if it's not more than 7 million/week, then it still averages out to 1 million per day.

Hopefully they can increase that to around 20 million doses per week or more. Plus other countries will need it too.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 02:24 PM   #163
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,701
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Two more people reacted to the vaccine, this time in AK and it sounds like it was more anaphylaxis than not. Symptoms were SOB and what was described as red rash. That suggests to me generalized erythema of some kind. One got epi and a night in the ICU.

The Latest: Alaska reports 2nd adverse reaction to vaccine

I don't know, this sounds like more than a rare reaction. Going by my experience giving vaccinations by the thousands going back 30 years and never once seeing anaphylaxis from a vaccine, there are more than "rare" reactions going on here.

Not saying they should stop the vaccinations. But that one dry run looking at having people get vaccinated in their cars then parking for 15 minutes sounds like an impractical way to manage a vaccine program.
So entirely anecdotally a colleague came out in a rash the night after getting the Pfizer vaccine but was OK the next day. It seems much more immunogenic than most vaccines. FWIW I ran away back to work after being vaccinated and didn't have a reaction other than a sore arm and a slightly flu like reaction (fever) that night. Given a choice I would have hung on for the AZ/ Oxford vaccine but I had to be seen to be vaccinated, so now I just have to wait 21 days for booster.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 02:37 PM   #164
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
So entirely anecdotally a colleague came out in a rash the night after getting the Pfizer vaccine but was OK the next day. It seems much more immunogenic than most vaccines. FWIW I ran away back to work after being vaccinated and didn't have a reaction other than a sore arm and a slightly flu like reaction (fever) that night. Given a choice I would have hung on for the AZ/ Oxford vaccine but I had to be seen to be vaccinated, so now I just have to wait 21 days for booster.
That rather depends on how long the regulator is going to take to approve it. If the regulator wants the full results from the US trials as well as the UK, SA and Brazil trials it could be months yet.
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2020, 10:27 AM   #165
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,922
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I haven't done that for a long time, like never in the last 30 years. I do make people sit down for the shot and make sure they aren't light headed getting up.

The allergy clinic does when they are doing allergy desensitization. I don't know if they do it for vaccinations.

It seems to be a general rule in Denmark, recommended by the Danish Public Health Agency. There was a dilemma this year when the flu shots were administered because it obviously isn't a good idea to have people crowding waiting rooms and infecting each other with coronavirus. The solution they came up with was that people shouldn't stay at the place where they get the shot but near it.
Influenzavaccination 2020 Ė kan beredskabet i forhold til anafylaksi tilpasses epidemien?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2020, 11:37 AM   #166
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,833
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
So entirely anecdotally a colleague came out in a rash the night after getting the Pfizer vaccine but was OK the next day. It seems much more immunogenic than most vaccines. FWIW I ran away back to work after being vaccinated and didn't have a reaction other than a sore arm and a slightly flu like reaction (fever) that night. Given a choice I would have hung on for the AZ/ Oxford vaccine but I had to be seen to be vaccinated, so now I just have to wait 21 days for booster.
I just spoke to my mum, who had the vaccine on Thursday. She said it was a scratch rather than a jab; the site was slightly swollen and sore yesterday, but pretty much back to normal today. She didn't mention any other symptoms.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 02:08 AM   #167
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,875
I just read an article that made me want to revisit this question:
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
What is the effectiveness of a single dose?
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
...let's look at the science.

52% v 95% looks like a no-brainer to me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/h...ne-pfizer.html
Why Use Two Doses of COVID-19 Vaccines When One Works Almost as Well?

Quote:
We could double the number of Americans vaccinated against COVID-19.
Quote:
Preliminary data from the Pfizer/BioNTech trial suggested that the vaccine efficacy for the prevention of COVID-19 was 82 percent after the first dose. Efficacy against severe COVID-19 occurring after the first dose was 88.9 percent. In comparison, the two-dose regimen is 95 percent effective against infection.

The Moderna vaccine, according to preliminary clinical trial data, provides substantial protection after the first dose as well. Tufekci and Mina note, "Moderna reported the initial dose to be 92.1 percent efficacious in preventing Covid-19 starting two weeks after the initial shot, when the immune system effects from the vaccine kick in, before the second injection on the 28th day." The Moderna vaccine is 94.5 percent effective after the second dose.
Initially, when I heard that the first dose was only 52% effective, I thought that settled it, but now I'm reading that the Pfizer vaccine might be 82% effective with a single dose and the Moderna version 92% (the second dose only adding 2 to 3% to that).

I don't really know how well established this is, but if true, it would change the calculation considerably. The CEO of Pfizer understandably is concerned with maximizing the company's profit, and so would want to downplay just how effective that first dose is. (Because he wants to make sure that everyone who gets the first dose gets the second one too.)
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 07:33 AM   #168
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,749
No mention of doing serology tests to see whether that patient even needs the vaccine. Seems like a potential waste of a dose. Or 50 million doses.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 07:44 AM   #169
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
No mention of doing serology tests to see whether that patient even needs the vaccine. Seems like a potential waste of a dose. Or 50 million doses.
Depends on the time and cost of doing the tests and reporting back and so on. May be just quicker and cheaper to jab everyone twice.
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 11:07 AM   #170
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,819
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I just read an article that made me want to revisit this question:

Why Use Two Doses of COVID-19 Vaccines When One Works Almost as Well?

Initially, when I heard that the first dose was only 52% effective, I thought that settled it, but now I'm reading that the Pfizer vaccine might be 82% effective with a single dose and the Moderna version 92% (the second dose only adding 2 to 3% to that).

I don't really know how well established this is, but if true, it would change the calculation considerably. The CEO of Pfizer understandably is concerned with maximizing the company's profit, and so would want to downplay just how effective that first dose is. (Because he wants to make sure that everyone who gets the first dose gets the second one too.)
The problems here are that we don't know how long protection lasts with 1 dose vs 2 doses. These vaccines haven't been available for long term outcome followup. Until they are, giving more people one dose might be a bad idea.

And more vaccinated people might remain susceptible and therefore continue the spread of the disease.

You need to weigh more vaccine recipients vaccinated with more spread from those vaccinated vs fewer people vaccinated with less spread from those recipients.

You need to consider with one dose, (whether 50 or 80%), how many recipients became mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic but were still capable of spreading the infection.

There is so much it would be nice to know to make these decisions, but we simply cannot collect the data fast enough. And without the data, it's simply not safe to go vaccinating people off label. IOW we as prescribers need to follow the manufacturer's recommendations until more data is collected even if it means fewer people can get the vaccine initially.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 20th December 2020 at 11:08 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 11:30 AM   #171
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,588
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Initially, when I heard that the first dose was only 52% effective, I thought that settled it, but now I'm reading that the Pfizer vaccine might be 82% effective with a single dose and the Moderna version 92% (the second dose only adding 2 to 3% to that).
I'm pretty sure the 52% was for the Oxford/Astra-Zeneca vaccine.

On the numbers you're quoting, I agree it seems logical to just go with one dose.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 01:56 PM   #172
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 16,999
Has anyone brought up whether or not it is safe or effective to get more than one vaccine?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 02:26 PM   #173
RolandRat
Muse
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 999
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Where is/are the antivaxxer thread(s).

"Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro has again lashed out at coronavirus vaccines, saying that Pfizerís shot could turn people into crocodiles, among other bizarre claims.

During the outlandish rant on Thursday, Mr Bolsonaro suggested that the vaccine could also lead to women growing facial hair and men speaking with effeminate voices.

"Some people say Iím giving a bad example. But to the imbeciles, to the idiots that say this, I tell them I've already caught the virus, I have the antibodies, so why get vaccinated?Ē he said on Thursday."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bolosonaro...161207091.html
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 02:29 PM   #174
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 16,999
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Where is/are the antivaxxer thread(s).
Do we have a lot ( any ) antivaxxers who post here regularly?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 02:29 PM   #175
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,833
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Has anyone brought up whether or not it is safe or effective to get more than one vaccine?
What I've heard (from science podcasts) is that having two different vaccines is probably more effective than having two of the same.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 08:00 AM   #176
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,875
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
What I've heard (from science podcasts) is that having two different vaccines is probably more effective than having two of the same.
But of course, it hasn't actually been studied. Manufacturers have little incentive to do a study that might lead to less demand for their own vaccine, including a single dose study, which if successful might cut their sales in half.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 08:14 AM   #177
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,812
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
But of course, it hasn't actually been studied. Manufacturers have little incentive to do a study that might lead to less demand for their own vaccine, including a single dose study, which if successful might cut their sales in half.
To be fair they wouldn't have been able to do such complex trials without adding a lot of time into the approval processes.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 01:48 PM   #178
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,629
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
To be fair they wouldn't have been able to do such complex trials without adding a lot of time into the approval processes.
That is trouble with such things. People are not looking for the BEST solution. They are looking for a solution that works.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 01:47 AM   #179
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
That is trouble with such things. People are not looking for the BEST solution. They are looking for a solution that works.
In an emergency situation the solution that works quickly is the best solution.
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 04:33 AM   #180
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,701
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
In an emergency situation the solution that works quickly is the best solution.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the adequate. We need vaccines that are good enough, not wait to find out which is best. And lots of them.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 06:00 AM   #181
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the adequate. We need vaccines that are good enough, not wait to find out which is best. And lots of them.
And as soon as possible, not when the regulator has crossed all the t s and dotted all the i s.
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 06:10 AM   #182
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,833
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the adequate. We need vaccines that are good enough, not wait to find out which is best. And lots of them.
Indeed. In some ways, quoted efficacies in the 90% region make the Oxford vaccine's 70% look bad (though it has huge cost and logistical benefits), when before the results started, a value of 60% would have been regarded as more than adequate.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 04:20 PM   #183
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,989
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Indeed. In some ways, quoted efficacies in the 90% region make the Oxford vaccine's 70% look bad (though it has huge cost and logistical benefits), when before the results started, a value of 60% would have been regarded as more than adequate.
I dunno. If you could vaccinate the entire population of a region with a vaccine that is 70% effective, wouldn't that eliminate transmission? A one-dose vaccine that could be stored and transported in standard refrigerators and ice chests might actually be as desirable, maybe more so, than a 95% effective vaccine that is hard to make, store and transport, and requires two shots?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 08:01 PM   #184
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I dunno. If you could vaccinate the entire population of a region with a vaccine that is 70% effective, wouldn't that eliminate transmission? A one-dose vaccine that could be stored and transported in standard refrigerators and ice chests might actually be as desirable, maybe more so, than a 95% effective vaccine that is hard to make, store and transport, and requires two shots?
As you can imagine, it is not as straightforward as that. A third variabel needs to be taken into considerations - duration of immunity.

The Lancet has a fairly straightforward description of the issue.

In short (my bolding), these are the numbers for vaccines that give life-long protection, and assuming an R0 value before lockdowns of between 2∑5 to 3∑5.
For a vaccine with 100% efficacy we estimate the herd immunity required is about 60–72%.
If we assume (80%) efficacy, then the herd immunity required becomes 75–90%.
For lower efficacies, the entire population would have to be immunised.

These overall estimates ignore heterogeneities that can make these figures lower or higher in specific locations.
These calculations become more complicated if we assume immunity is short lived.
The article is probably worth reading to get the full idea being presented rather than my very very brief summary of the key points.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Last edited by EHocking; 23rd December 2020 at 08:07 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 09:27 PM   #185
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,160
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I dunno. If you could vaccinate the entire population of a region with a vaccine that is 70% effective, wouldn't that eliminate transmission? A one-dose vaccine that could be stored and transported in standard refrigerators and ice chests might actually be as desirable, maybe more so, than a 95% effective vaccine that is hard to make, store and transport, and requires two shots?
The Pfizer vaccine is 91% effective after one dose, 95% after two. It's been suggested (by Tony Blair) that a single dose be given whilst supplies are low.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 11:09 PM   #186
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The Pfizer vaccine is 91% effective after one dose, 95% after two. It's been suggested (by Tony Blair) that a single dose be given whilst supplies are low.
Isnt it only touted as 52% effective after one jab and only 95% effective after the second jab?
That article seems to support that, as does a Dec 11 article in the BMJ.

Blair is wrong (as well as being a war criminal).
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Last edited by EHocking; 23rd December 2020 at 11:14 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 11:10 PM   #187
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,629
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I dunno. If you could vaccinate the entire population of a region with a vaccine that is 70% effective, wouldn't that eliminate transmission? A one-dose vaccine that could be stored and transported in standard refrigerators and ice chests might actually be as desirable, maybe more so, than a 95% effective vaccine that is hard to make, store and transport, and requires two shots?
Two issues with this
1. You will never vaccinate the entire population. There are some people who will refuse to be vaccinated and others cannot be vaccinated for legitimate reasons. If only 80% were vaccinated that means 0.8 X 0.7 = 56% effective.
2. You could still import cases and it could spread for sometime before dying out. This would be true if one patent spread it to many people.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 11:47 PM   #188
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,160
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Isnt it only touted as 52% effective after one jab and only 95% effective after the second jab?
That article seems to support that, as does a Dec 11 article in the BMJ.

Blair is wrong (as well as being a war criminal).
The figures given in the article are from a quote by a former NHS head of immunisation, not Blair, so I assumed they were correct. Maybe I should not have.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 12:14 AM   #189
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,160
Ah, here's the guy's reasoning:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-covid-adviser

Quote:
Salisbury told the Guardian: “In the circumstances we currently face, I think the best use of the vaccine stocks is to give the first dose to as many high-risk people as possible. And after that, you then give second doses.”

He said the New England Journal of Medicine study had reported the first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to have 91% efficacy, compared with 95% for two doses. That level of protection, he said, was justification for administering only one dose to a larger group at first, followed by the second when possible.

While the study showed 52% efficacy in the period between the first and second doses, Salisbury explained that each dose only begins to take effect after several days. Therefore, he interpreted data from the period immediately after the second dose as indicative of the possible efficacy of the first.
Hmm. Does sound a bit dodgy, though I'm no expert.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 01:38 AM   #190
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,310
Here in Texas many providers are getting say 500 doses and vaccinating 250 people now, holding the rest of the doses and then vaccinating again in 2-4 weeks (depending on which they got). But the State has said: do not do that; vaccinate as many as possible.

At our office, holding doses was the plan but I talked them out of it. We need to get as many as possible vaccinated and more doses are coming.

From my own experience, which is obviously limited, I think a lot of doctors signed up to be vaccinators with the wrong idea. Sign up started way before approval, before priority groups were established and before it was 100% clear exactly what was going to happen. From my conversations with other office managers and doctors, they thought they were signing up to be able to purchase the vaccines and that they would have some say in who they give the vaccine to. But thatís not how it is at all.

At my clinic, thereís a lot of regret about getting involved in this at all. Itís a lot of work for basically nothing in return. Sure, we can bill insurance for administration, but the fees paid are not really enough to cover the extra labor. Your average clinic is not set up to be a mass vaccination site on this scale. We get 500 doses next week and we are expected to administer those -only to healthcare workers, with all the work that entails, and be ready for the next shipment in a week. While running normal clinic. During a pandemic where we are supposed to keep people distanced.

But the wife of one of the owners (who is a PA and thinks she runs the place) was insistent that we get it. Why? She wanted to make sure she had it so her family would be amongst the first to get it. Seriously. Now that she knows that isnít going to happen, she has abandoned any responsibility for it at all, which basically leaves the logistics of this nightmare in my lap. Iím not happy and I told the doctors that today. I never thought we should do this ... not that I donít want to be a part of the solution but because we arenít setup for it. Honestly, this initial wave should have been in the hands of county health authorities and big facilities like hospitals. Clinics like us shouldnít have gotten it until the supply is large enough that we can start giving it to our patients.

Sorry for the long post, but I thought Iíd give you some insight from ground level.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 02:00 AM   #191
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,588
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Clinics like us shouldnít have gotten it until the supply is large enough that we can start giving it to our patients.

Sorry for the long post, but I thought Iíd give you some insight from ground level.
And excellent insight, too.

You've neatly highlighted one of the problems with the decentralised healthcare system in USA. Other countries don't appear to be having those kind of problems.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 05:39 AM   #192
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Ah, here's the guy's reasoning:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-covid-adviser



Hmm. Does sound a bit dodgy, though I'm no expert.
I personally can’t find any articles on the New England Journal of Medicine site that that claim 91% efficacy after only the first jab. All seem to indicate 50+% then 95%+ after the second.

I literally don’t know where they are getting there numbers - but frankly I wouldn’t trust Blair if he told me snow was cold, so perhaps my assessment may be a little blinkered.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Last edited by EHocking; 24th December 2020 at 05:40 AM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 10:07 AM   #193
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,989
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
But the wife of one of the owners (who is a PA and thinks she runs the place) was insistent that we get it. Why? She wanted to make sure she had it so her family would be amongst the first to get it. Seriously. Now that she knows that isn’t going to happen, she has abandoned any responsibility for it at all, which basically leaves the logistics of this nightmare in my lap. I’m not happy and I told the doctors that today. I never thought we should do this ... not that I don’t want to be a part of the solution but because we aren’t setup for it. Honestly, this initial wave should have been in the hands of county health authorities and big facilities like hospitals. Clinics like us shouldn’t have gotten it until the supply is large enough that we can start giving it to our patients.
....
Exactly. It's hard to believe that clinic managers in the UK, Germany, Japan or anywhere else could game their health care systems to benefit their families. Even if your doses actually go to the people who are supposed to get them. they are coming out of a limited supply chain and being taken from facilities that are better equipped to deal with them.

Maybe you could anonymously drop a dime on this owner's wife? There must be some regulatory authority you could complain to.

Last edited by Bob001; 24th December 2020 at 10:16 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 11:09 AM   #194
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,310
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Exactly. It's hard to believe that clinic managers in the UK, Germany, Japan or anywhere else could game their health care systems to benefit their families. Even if your doses actually go to the people who are supposed to get them. they are coming out of a limited supply chain and being taken from facilities that are better equipped to deal with them.

Maybe you could anonymously drop a dime on this owner's wife? There must be some regulatory authority you could complain to.

Iím going to take the approach that, since Iím the vaccine coordinator of record I am coordinating how we do this. If I find out sheís sneaking people in to jump the line and the docs donít back me up when I put a stop to it, I will resign and report.

Now, the State has made clear that if we have doses left over and have made every attempt vaccinated all available priority group members, they want us to pivot and start vaccinating anyone. Theyíd rather doses not go to waste. But I donít anticipate we will have left over after reaching out to all the clinics, home health, hospice, skilled nursing, etc. We have a large network of healthcare entities and not enough doses as is.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 11:11 AM   #195
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,310
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
And excellent insight, too.

You've neatly highlighted one of the problems with the decentralised healthcare system in USA. Other countries don't appear to be having those kind of problems.

This pandemic has almost completely changed my views on healthcare in this country.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 01:37 PM   #196
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
The rate the vaccine is being rolled out in Scotland, it will take just short of 4 years to do everyone.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 04:26 PM   #197
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,819
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Here in Texas many providers are getting say 500 doses and vaccinating 250 people now, holding the rest of the doses and then vaccinating again in 2-4 weeks (depending on which they got). But the State has said: do not do that; vaccinate as many as possible.

At our office, holding doses was the plan but I talked them out of it. We need to get as many as possible vaccinated and more doses are coming.

From my own experience, which is obviously limited, I think a lot of doctors signed up to be vaccinators with the wrong idea. Sign up started way before approval, before priority groups were established and before it was 100% clear exactly what was going to happen. From my conversations with other office managers and doctors, they thought they were signing up to be able to purchase the vaccines and that they would have some say in who they give the vaccine to. But thatís not how it is at all.

At my clinic, thereís a lot of regret about getting involved in this at all. Itís a lot of work for basically nothing in return. Sure, we can bill insurance for administration, but the fees paid are not really enough to cover the extra labor. Your average clinic is not set up to be a mass vaccination site on this scale. We get 500 doses next week and we are expected to administer those -only to healthcare workers, with all the work that entails, and be ready for the next shipment in a week. While running normal clinic. During a pandemic where we are supposed to keep people distanced.

But the wife of one of the owners (who is a PA and thinks she runs the place) was insistent that we get it. Why? She wanted to make sure she had it so her family would be amongst the first to get it. Seriously. Now that she knows that isnít going to happen, she has abandoned any responsibility for it at all, which basically leaves the logistics of this nightmare in my lap. Iím not happy and I told the doctors that today. I never thought we should do this ... not that I donít want to be a part of the solution but because we arenít setup for it. Honestly, this initial wave should have been in the hands of county health authorities and big facilities like hospitals. Clinics like us shouldnít have gotten it until the supply is large enough that we can start giving it to our patients.

Sorry for the long post, but I thought Iíd give you some insight from ground level.
Didn't you say your daughter got the vaccine?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 04:31 PM   #198
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,819
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
And excellent insight, too.

You've neatly highlighted one of the problems with the decentralised healthcare system in USA. Other countries don't appear to be having those kind of problems.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. And there are plenty of countries having plenty of distribution problems.

The US sent doses to state departments of health. If a clinic in TX got doses before people in higher tiers got them, that would be the TX department of health making those decisions.

In this state (WA) distribution is being well managed so far. And providers have to account for every dose reporting back the the DoH.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 24th December 2020 at 04:36 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 04:33 PM   #199
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,819
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
I personally canít find any articles on the New England Journal of Medicine site that that claim 91% efficacy after only the first jab. All seem to indicate 50+% then 95%+ after the second.

I literally donít know where they are getting there numbers - but frankly I wouldnít trust Blair if he told me snow was cold, so perhaps my assessment may be a little blinkered.
I'm guessing the data is from manufacturing research, not published data.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 06:41 PM   #200
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I'm guessing the data is from manufacturing research, not published data.
It was Prof David Salisbury, a former director of immunisation at the Department of Health who made the 91% after the first jab claim - this was his own interpretation of the published research.

The authors disagree with his interpretation.
[Salisbury] New England Journal of Medicine study had reported the first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to have 91% efficacy, compared with 95% for two doses. That level of protection, he [Salisbury] said, was justification for administering only one dose to a larger group at first, followed by the second when possible.

While the study showed 52% efficacy in the period between the first and second doses, Salisbury explained that each dose only begins to take effect after several days. Therefore, he interpreted data from the period immediately after the second dose as indicative of the possible efficacy of the first.
...
The study’s authors noted, however, that it was not “designed to assess the efficacy of a single-dose regimen”. Prof Stephen Evans, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said a briefing document produced by the US Food and Drug Administration was a “more reliable source”.
He said: “What is clear is that there is evidence of efficacy in the short term and it seems likely that the efficacy will not decline notably. This efficacy is clearly nearer 80% than 90% and could be quite a bit lower, but is still good.”
Tony Blair at made his argument based on the known efficacy and is merely promoting the idea of getting more people vaccinated with an initial jab, given the number of vaccines available.
“Does the first dose give you substantial immunity – and by that I mean over 50% effectiveness? If it does, there is a very strong case for not, as it were, holding back doses of the vaccine,” Blair said.
I will grudgingly admit that Blair may well have a valid argument given the circumstances in the UK.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Last edited by EHocking; 24th December 2020 at 06:44 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.