The 33% figure that the Guardian reported is from an early Israeli study >
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
To me in London this isn't a success, it's disgrace, considering that the total of jabs given has long passed when all the over 60s nationally should have had their jab:
I haven't read the full details in both publications. But reporting is reporting. Honest reporting can result in one finding a figure of 33% and the other finding 89% and each being reported.
It is not wrong to report a lower percentage being spouted by someone in Israel. If that is what the person actually spouted. And a higher percentage by someone else.
And even with a lower than expected antibody level, and continuing susceptibility to the disease, if it reduces the severity by a decent margin, it is still a positive.
However, if you are infirm enough to be in the top tiers, maybe even a reduced severity would not be enough to keep you alive.
Maybe not quite as it appears - or is she rolling out excuses instead of vaccinations?
Asked why Scotland’s vaccine rollout was initially slower than elsewhere in the UK, Nicola Sturgeon said that the Scottish government had taken a deliberate decision, in line with JCVI advice, to focus initially on care home residents. She pointed out that Matt Hancock told Marr that three-quarters of those in England had been vaccinated – in Scotland that figure is now 95%.
“It takes longer, it’s more resource intensive to do care homes, but it’s the right decision,” she said. She added that 40% of over 80s in Scotland had now been vaccinated and that the Scottish government was “well on track to complete all over 80s by the beginning of February.” She said that over 70s will start getting their appointments from tomorrow.
She said that 400,000 doses had now been administered in Scotland, while the remaining doses in Scotland’s 700,000 allocation were being distributed to health boards and GPs.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/jan/24/coronavirus-live-news-us-nears-25m-cases-as-three-infections-linked-to-australian-open-confirmed-as-uk-strain
You have a point flecc. But to be honest I, d rather me wait and daughter get hers. Many in all age groups have to carry on putting themselves at risk. I don't. So I can wait.
I, d rather see health, emergency services etc etc vaccinated first.
Whichever way you review it our 7% of population vaccinated is better than the 1.8 in France.
Pfizer before the politicians got involved said that their testing indicated 52% following the first jab until the second jab.
52% in practical use is very much closer to 37 than 89, so I'm inclined to believe the Israeli / Guardian figures as more believable.
.
Last edited:
I don't agree. Guardian reported and highlighted the 33% for a reason. Their report instigated a lot of worry about the vaccine and was a planned route to undermine the vaccine strategy. Guardian is a disgrace.
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication
www.ft.com
Again rather different to Guardian. (89% after 14 days rising to 91 after 21)
(Headline is.. Israel finds single jab gives high resistance)
Last edited:
Probably a lot of grumpy uncooperative 80 Yr olds in London.?
To be fair it's not fair. You, d guess with folk being geographically closer job would be easier.
All 3 70 plus Yr olds in my family have had jab or having it today...!!!
The delay was supposed to be the second dose for others at risk.
To put the most endangered people at risk by delaying their first jab while giving appointments en masse to the less endangered in lower age groups for their first and even second jabs is a disgrace.
The total of jabs administered has now overrun the entire most endangered group by over half a million now, entirely due to lousy administration giving them to younger age groups.
We've made as big a mess of the vaccine administration as we've made of everything else in dealing with Covid.
.
Hardly likely to be true when Pfizer found 52%, nothing remotely like that for the first jab in a two jab strategy.Subscribe to read | Financial Times
News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication
Again rather different to Guardian. (89% after 14 days rising to 91 after 21)
(Headline is.. Israel finds single jab gives high resistance)
Those are clearly the figures for a single whole dose, just as Pfizer reported.
.
I know. But the more obvious issues based on the figures were, in my eyes, Scotland and Wales.
I don't think FT would change figures and they claim they are the ones reported to them from Israel. (actual figures for doctors and nurses vaccinated)
Are are you saying Times lie now. Might as well close the lot if Times are lying.
Criteria for success in real world (not trials) are important. Perhaps its 91% don't have serious symptoms. They have said all along vaccine won't prevent infection so the trials efficy figures are redundant. (trial simply differentiated between infected and not infected)
All depends on what your success criteria is.
Said it before but nobody tells us that.
Could be 91% didn't die.??? Which would be rather bad.. ie) 9% did.?
Last edited:
I'd already posted about how eager the oldies here are to have their jab. I haven't found one who expressed anything else. One who got his jab on Sunday had found the tram route was shut down for maintenance when on his way to the health centre so at 87 years old had walked the mile uphill. He said later he hadn't realised how tough that walk was.
.
Agreed, but to be fair the logistics of getting jabs to all of them are much more difficult.
London's huddled masses should be easy to reach.
.
Last edited:
Somebody is lying or has made a reporting mistake, Pfizer certainly wouldn't have reported 52% if 89 to 91% was achievable for the first dose. They want to sell the vaccine, not put people off it.
That FT figure is clearly wrong, no matter who said it. No way would a half dose give 91% protection when all the trials indicated little more than half that.
I repeat, that was a full single dose figure as found in the drug trials.
.
That's my point tho flecc, we do not know the criteria for success.
A) Were 91% not infected. (impossible)
B) Were 91% not hospitalised?
C) Were 91% not seriously ill?
D) Were 91% asymptomatic?
I suspect C, but since nobody says the figures are almost useless and real world figures can not be compared with trial figures as you have. Trials only look at not infected... So its likely real world figures will be higher but depends on criteria.
Let's face it examing whole population without a vaccine would give 80% not seriously ill, so a figure of 91% is not as good as it sounds.
80% of population already don't get seriously ill.
That’s my understanding of what has been said from day 1. That is 90+% don’t get seriously ill after the first vaccination. That figure has been picked up, taken to mean 90+% protection, and run with.
It’s not 90% protection, it never was 90%, it’s always been 40 - 50 % protection after the first dose. It is however 90+% don’t get seriously ill, which is completely different to protection.
My friend has just contacted me to say his son has tested positive for Coronavirus for a second time. He had it in October, now he’s got it again. The lad is in his mid 20s and wasn’t too bad first time around. He’s doing ok this time, so far.
That’s two people I know personally who have had Coronavirus twice. The other was a lady in her early fifties, a super fit iron man triathlete. She first had it in April and still can’t walk far before she’s knackered and has some heart damage as a result (Long Covid). She caught it for a second time during October, but it was quite mild that time.
That’s two people I know personally who have had Coronavirus twice. The other was a lady in her early fifties, a super fit iron man triathlete. She first had it in April and still can’t walk far before she’s knackered and has some heart damage as a result (Long Covid). She caught it for a second time during October, but it was quite mild that time.