Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

[Merckx index]

So, the group that needs the vaccine the most is now a major safety concern. This is the group that has the highest risk of dying from Covid, where there was so much outcry & anger that this group must be saved. But now there's little public outcry about the safety issues of the vaccines. It wasn't okay that the elderly were dying from Covid but it's okay that they can die from the vaccines. Go figure. Lol.

How many older people have died from C19? Last time I heard, it was a bit more than 29.

By the way, according to the SS actuarial tables, an 80 year old has a probability of 0.0582 of dying within one year. It would presumably be higher for someone that age in a nursing home. If 42,000 people were vaccinated, we would expect about 2450 of them to die within a year unrelated to vaccination. Or almost 100 within two weeks.

In fact, Hank Aaron died less than three weeks after getting the vaccine, and his death was ruled completely natural.

 

[djpbaltimore]

It sounds like this is the basis for the reported low efficacy of the AZ vaccine in the elderly. The take home message is that any number that they are reporting is practically meaningless. The error range with so few events is enormous. That is the danger when you start to dip into subgroups for analysis. It also shows that older people in Europe were much less likely to be infected, probably due to following the quarantine guidelines the best for obvious reasons.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1354781400071860230

View: https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/status/1354781400071860230

Regarding the common flu, I've just read that there isn't a single person hospilized with the flu in the whole of Europe. In an average year, c. 70,000 people die of it in Europe... A side-effect: it'll be difficult to decide what the flu vaccine for 2022 should look like as there is hardly any circulation, and so it's not clear which variants are most prevalent. Other possible side-effect: less resistance in the population. I'm wondering though how fast the flu can 'recover'.

I think 1 is more concerning than 2. Flu will roar back once people revert back to past routines. That is practically unavoidable. If the vaccine is mismatched, especially for the A strains, it will be a rough winter. All eyes will be on NZ and Australia in a few months to see how this starts to play out.

On average, the R for flu is about 1.4. That is plenty to recover within a single flu season from the minimal level it is at now IMO.

 

[Nomad]

People who don't want the vaccine don't have to get it. That is the choice, no matter what incentives are in place.

That's absolutely correct; it's called informed consent. And especially since the government has given the manufacturers "immunity" from liability, these vaccines should never be forced on anyone:

"American's Can't Sue Pfizer, Moderna In Case of Covid-19 Vaccine Side Effects, Here's Why."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/in.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/americans-cant-sue-pfizer-moderna-101900890.html

As you have stated before, you don't want mandates or penalties to encourage vaccination. And now you don't want incentives to encourage vaccination. You can put out a lot of verbiage, but its seems like you just don't want people to be vaccinated. There is a term for that.

Well...if the vaccines were guaranteed safe & effective (as the manufacturer's marketing slogan is repeated ad nuseam), there wouldn't be a need for financial incentives to encourage vaccination with people who are apprehensive, right?

Furthermore, I could care less if people want the vaccines. It's their choice and I respect that. I sincerely hope they get the desired effect free of any side-effects or serious adverse events. The problem is many of the "pro-vaccine" people don't respect my choice to decline. I'm a stauch advocate of informed consent for any pharmaceutical or medical procedure. But many people these days don't understand the medical definition of informed consent and have no idea of the historical background of the term (you'd be surprised at how many college students have no understanding of the meaning. Lol).

Secondly, I definitely don't want mandates or penalties to encourage vaccination, but that seems to be the direction the nation is heading based on what the autocrat Fauci is publicly stating:

"Fauci say's he's "sure" coronavirus vaccines will be mandatory in institutions like hospitals and schools"

Weiterleitungshinweis

"Fauci says mandatory Covid-19 vaccines possible for travel, school."

Fauci says mandatory COVID-19 vaccines possible for travel, school

Dr. Anthony Fauci said it’s possible that COVID-19 vaccines will become mandatory in order to travel to other countries or attend school. “Everything will be on the table for discussion…

www.google.com

"Dr. Fauci on Mandatory COVID Vaccines: "Everything Will Be on the Table."

Weiterleitungshinweis

So, you, yourself may support choice and informed consent but the guy with all the power isn't going that direction - and that is the greatest concern moving forward for us pro-choice advocates.

 

[search]

Furthermore, I could care less if people want the vaccines. It's their choice and I respect that. I sincerely hope they get the desired effect free of any side-effects or serious adverse events. The problem is many of the "pro-vaccine" people don't respect my choice to decline.

well, I don't know what reasons you have been faced with, but the difference is, that the others' decision to get vaccinated can only be beneficial for you (as potentially leading to lifted restricions), while yours may potentially cause the opposite.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Well...if the vaccines were guaranteed safe & effective (as the manufacturer's marketing slogan is repeated ad nuseam), there wouldn't be a need for financial incentives to encourage vaccination with people who are apprehensive, right?

Furthermore, I could care less if people want the vaccines. It's their choice and I respect that. I sincerely hope they get the desired effect free of any side-effects or serious adverse events. The problem is many of the "pro-vaccine" people don't respect my choice to decline. I'm a stauch advocate of informed consent for any pharmaceutical or medical procedure. But many people these days don't understand the medical definition of informed consent and have no idea of the historical background of the term (you'd be surprised at how many college students have no understanding of the meaning. Lol).

Secondly, I definitely don't want mandates or penalties to encourage vaccination, but that seems to be the direction the nation is heading based on what the autocrat Fauci is publicly stating:

So, you, yourself may support choice and informed consent but the guy with all the power isn't going that direction - and that is the greatest concern moving forward for us pro-choice advocates.

Safe and effective are subjective constructs. For example, people in my neighborhood wanted to remove the light rail station because they did not feel safe with it there. How do you debate with people that have that mindset? That is what I alluded to with the perpetual goalpost shifting by anti-vaxxers. First, the mercury was what made vaccines unsafe. Then it was the thimerosal. Then it was just the total numbers of vaccines given to a person that was unsafe. If you are determined not to feel safe, there is little data that will be convincing.

The problem with your assertion is that people generally know that other people getting vaccines can help protect you indirectly. So, a hesitant person can benefit from the actions of others without any action on their part. This is the whole niche of the MMR-autism folks. Their children do not get vaccinated and face very little risk of Measles because enough others do get the shot. The hesitant benefit almost as much as the vaccinated. By late April, the infection numbers are going to look a lot better and this is also when the vaccine supply is going to arrive in large quantities. Without a perceived threat, a lot of people are going to avoid the needle, leaving themselves exposed later in the year when COVID could make a resurgence for people without immunity. But if you are offering something of value, people are more likely going to get the needle. Hypothetically, that may be the difference between 60% and 80%, which makes a big difference in population immunity.

I think Fauci is right that some organizations are going to ultimately require vaccinations. I disagree that he has the power to enforce mandates. But, I also doubt that mandates will occur widely before the vaccines get full approval and that will only happen with robust safety and efficacy data. So, that brings me back to my original point. When do you feel safe?

 

[Koronin]

Safe and effective are subjective constructs. For example, people in my neighborhood wanted to remove the light rail station because they did not feel safe with it there. How do you debate with people that have that mindset? That is what I alluded to with the perpetual goalpost shifting by anti-vaxxers. First, the mercury was what made vaccines unsafe. Then it was the thimerosal. Then it was just the total numbers of vaccines given to a person that was unsafe. If you are determined not to feel safe, there is little data that will be convincing.

The problem with your assertion is that people generally know that other people getting vaccines can help protect you indirectly. So, a hesitant person can benefit from the actions of others without any action on their part. This is the whole niche of the MMR-autism folks. Their children do not get vaccinated and face very little risk of Measles because enough others do get the shot. The hesitant benefit almost as much as the vaccinated. By late April, the infection numbers are going to look a lot better and this is also when the vaccine supply is going to arrive in large quantities. Without a perceived threat, a lot of people are going to avoid the needle, leaving themselves exposed later in the year when COVID could make a resurgence for people without immunity. But if you are offering something of value, people are more likely going to get the needle. Hypothetically, that may be the difference between 60% and 80%, which makes a big difference in population immunity.

I think Fauci is right that some organizations are going to ultimately require vaccinations. I disagree that he has the power to enforce mandates. But, I also doubt that mandates will occur widely before the vaccines get full approval and that will only happen with robust safety and efficacy data. So, that brings me back to my original point. When do you feel safe?

I also highly doubt any company would mandate being vaccinated until there is plenty of vaccine out there.

 

[Koronin]

Here's some information on another vaccine from a French company:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/valneva-vaccine-compares-other-covid-105407015.html

 

[Oldermanish]

I also highly doubt any company would mandate being vaccinated until there is plenty of vaccine out there.

That and to the point made by several; the government purchased/distributed vaccines carry a non-liability shield. Unless the employer is willing to protect the worker in the event of side affects I'm not sure they wouldn't be open to serious class-action exposure for any dismissed or furloughed employees. Institutions that have health qualifications as a requisite for employment could fare better.
Ultimately if Nomad and anyone else is skeptical about taking a vaccine they should be able to avoid it. If they also think that includes taking zero precautions to protect fellow workers that is morally an issue at least.

 

[Jagartrott]

From The Guardian:

Novavax Inc said its coronavirus vaccine was 89.3% effective in preventing Covid-19 in a trial conducted in the UK, and was nearly as effective in protecting against the more highly contagious variant first discovered in the UK, according to a preliminary analysis.

Novavax said the findings from the trial, which enrolled 15,000 people aged 18 to 84, are expected to be used to apply for regulatory review in Britain, the European Union and other countries. Some 27% of people in the trial were over 65, Reuters reports.

The study took place as the more easily transmissible UK variant was circulating, and the preliminary analysis suggests the vaccine was 85.6% effective against this particular mutation, the US company announced in a news release. It did not provide the study data.


But lower efficacy for the South African strain:

Novavax’s Vaccine Works Well — Except on Variant First Found in South Africa (Published 2021)

An early analysis in Britain found that the vaccine had an efficacy rate of nearly 90 percent. But in a small South Africa trial, the efficacy rate dropped to just under 50 percent.

www.nytimes.com

 

[djpbaltimore]

Not just a US company, but a company based in Maryland. The vaccine was quite a bit less effective against the S. Africa variant. Depending on how you spin it, the vaccine was 100% effective against severe disease. Sadly there was only 1 case in the placebo arm, so fairly meaningless statistically. I have no idea whether the FDA will act on this data, or wait until the US phase III is completed.

Re-infection of previously infected people with the SAF strain is probably the big worry from this data. From the vaccine POV, keep jabbing....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1354900812649082883

View: https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1354900812649082883

 

[Koronin]

Just saw a report in the Washington Post saying similar. This is good news that this appears to be in the same area as Pfizer and Moderna. Also due to be a bit later we're getting information about the new strains as well. I suspect what this one is showing should be similar differences to what Pfizer and Moderna should have to the new strains as well.

 

[Koronin]

Apparently there are reports that Germany is like to give approval to AstraZeneca but only for use in people under 65 due to lack of data on those 65 and over.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-restrict-oxford-vaccine-under-144921735.html

 

[movingtarget]

EU could block millions of Covid vaccine doses from entering UK

European commission says new mechanism will give national regulators power to refuse exports

www.theguardian.com

 

[movingtarget]

Scientists liken long Covid symptoms to those of Ebola survivors

Experts also studying similarities with lasting effects of Chikungunya virus in hope of finding new treatments

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jagartrott]

Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is 66% effective in global trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, company says

Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 single-shot vaccine was shown to be 66% effective in preventing moderate and severe disease in a global Phase 3 trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, the company announced Friday.

edition.cnn.com

 

[jmdirt]

Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is 66% effective in global trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, company says

Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 single-shot vaccine was shown to be 66% effective in preventing moderate and severe disease in a global Phase 3 trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, the company announced Friday.

edition.cnn.com

Those numbers are going to be low for most people who see the other vaccines in the 90s.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Leading up to this release, there had been a lot of speculation as to why J&J was holding back their efficacy data so long. The obvious answer was that it was not going to be as good as the mRNA platform. That booster really improves not only the quantity of antibody, but also the quality of the antibody being produced. As a one shot vaccine with less cold chain requirements, it really has value in countries without great vaccine compliance or infrastructure and a population with the majority of people in lower risk demographics.

When it rolls out in the US/EU, I think people should take it with the expectation that it will the first dose in a 2-dose regimen. Since it will be a couple months until their production can ramp up, there should be news on how that trial is faring by the time anybody would need a second shot on schedule.

One aspect these trials don't really get at is durability of protection since they are reading out so quick. Live vaccines like J&J may be better at generating protective T cells, which may make it more durable (assuming that a new escape variant doesn't arise).

 

[roundabout]

Seems a bit odd that EMA approved the AZ vaccine for everyone over 18 in the EU given the trial data, but maybe there was something else to it.

 

[Koronin]

With what we're seeing the 66% actually makes some sense for a 1 dose vaccine. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that their 2 dose trial (2 doses 2 months apart) will show a higher efficacy once they get the data from that. The problem there is we may be 3 months from getting that data. My bigger concern with a 66% efficacy is that it would be well below 50% for the South African variant. That would be based on the numbers Novavax was showing between the UK and SA trials.
On the other hand this will help with getting a vaccine of any kind into rural areas that there just isn't the ability to get the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine to.

I expect this one will also require a second dose at some point.

edit:
Watching CNBC and they said this does include data in South Africa. That their data includes keeping people out of the hospital and from dying in SA as well as against the other strains.
The break down for efficacy for the J&J trials is: 72% in the US, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa. (Graph on CNBC). The 85% against severe disease includes their South Africa trial.

 

[Keram]

I saw some article in Slovakia we want use AZ vaccine under 55. I dont know if it will be true and how they now change strategy next months. They import 210k doses and they should 485k in february. It frustrate me as hell Also my 85 year old grandma was vaccinated wednesday. No side effects.

 

[Koronin]

I saw some article in Slovakia we want use AZ vaccine under 55. I dont know if it will be true and how they now change strategy next months. They import 210k doses and they should 485k in february. It frustrate me as hell Also my 85 year old grandma was vaccinated wednesday. No side effects.

Glad to hear your grandma was able to get the (first shot) of the vaccine.

It appears we have a vaccine shortage currently, but with J&J likely to get approval in the US within the next few weeks and Novavax likely to get approval in another month or two in at least the UK (likely longer in other places needing to wait for the larger US trial) it appears there are more vaccines that will be coming on line in the next two to four months.

 

[postmanhat]

There isn't a big anti-vaccine cohort in The UK, and the uptake has been very good. But concerns about possible side-effects during pregnancy have unfortunately meant that a disproportionate amount of female care staff have refused it.

Consequently some companies in the care sector are already instigating a 'no jab, no job' policy for new recruits

 

[Koronin]

There isn't a big anti-vaccine cohort in The UK, and the uptake has been very good. But concerns about possible side-effects during pregnancy have unfortunately meant that a disproportionate amount of female care staff have refused it.

Consequently some companies in the care sector are already instigating a 'no jab, no job' policy for new recruits

I can understand pregnant women currently refuse it. It doesn't mean they won't take it once they have the baby.

I'm not surprised about companies starting to require vaccine to get the job through. I suspect when we see more vaccine availability we'll see more and more companies requiring proof of vaccination for employment.

 

[Koronin]

Well this is interesting:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/covid-may-damage-male-fertility-164553409.html

 

[movingtarget]

‘Immunological unicorn’: the Australian lab growing coronavirus – and its startling discovery

Researchers walk through three negative-pressure chambers before entering the submarine-like structure

www.theguardian.com