I was expressing a mixture of facts and speculation nothing I said was about what people should do, so why do you ask and the answer is no.Simon
Would you take your loved ones to those areas to get infected and get herd immunity?
I was expressing a mixture of facts and speculation nothing I said was about what people should do, so why do you ask and the answer is no.Simon
Would you take your loved ones to those areas to get infected and get herd immunity?
... I don't think you're reading those numbers correctly ... you need to think about how the trial will have been structured, it's probably the case that near the start they didn't know whether you would need one, two or however many doses of the vaccine ... that 4,543 number are those who only ever got one dose (whether of the vaccine or placebo) who have now given the trial the information as to how effective/ineffective only one dose is ... of the other 38,995 some of those may well have been given three or more doses, which will have helped work out that the efficacy of two doses at 90%+, 7 days after the second dose, is either "good enough" or not improved significantly/sufficiently by 3rd and subsequent doses ... to think that the scientists knew exactly what dosage/doses would be needed from the start and that all 43,538 participants would be treated similarly other than some being given real vaccine and some placebo, is a little naive really, when you think it through a bit more, isn't it ... just the sort of assumption you might make in the middle of the night, I suppose"The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date, 38,955 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate" I made the assumption possibly wrongly that the 43,538 participants - the 38,995 who have had the second dose = 4,543 is the placebo group.
... I think as Northern Brewer points out, the trial isn't finished yet, and we have to remember that the likelihood of contracting this disease (whether you've had the vaccine or not) is dependant on behaviour ... not ALL of those participating in the trial will have been deliberately exposed to the virus, and the chances of some of them catching it will depend on how willing they are to go about their lives and how likely they are to interact with infected others whilst doing that, also ... so, the people running the trial will have had to make decisions based on how much information about the findings of this trial to release, to "encourage" behaviours that might assist in the trial and to "discourage" behaviours that would limit the effectiveness of the trial ... the releasing of this information, at this stage, wasn't ALL about Pfizer's share-price and the US election, like the conspiracy theorists will tell you ... telling the world that the vaccine is 90%+ effective 7 days after the second dose will also have changed the outlooks of those 38,995 participants ... some of them will be optimists who will go about acting like a Republican Senator at a garden party, and the scientists running the trial will be able to observe whether their "immunity" continues to be effective through such changes in behaviour ... maybe if it was known (rather than assumed/guessed) that (say) half of them had actually been given placebos, such that they might consider themselves more like 45% likely immune, rather than 90% likely, then that might drive different behaviour and therefore might not give as useful information, from the trialBut if I have assumed wrongly it only emphasises my point of why have they not given these numbers to show how they justify the 90%+ claim.
So, another round of roulette as people won't know which vaccine resulted in a higher death rate if it wasn't effective,
So, another round of roulette as people won't know which vaccine resulted in a higher death rate if it wasn't effective, and you could end up with serious side effects from one and not another type.
Just adds to the mystery of who to blame if something goes wrong.
She said absolutley no chance, you could get long term kidney failure for all we know just yet.
Moreover, warns Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, the first vaccines might stop vaccinated people getting sick, but not prevent them catching and transmitting the virus. “In that case we’ll still require masks and social distancing, until better vaccines come along,” he says.
Bte does it even seem lockdown to you? I was dropping my boys off in school in rugby where they live and roads were as bust as I have ever seen since prior to lockdown 1.
Bte does it even seem lockdown to you? I was dropping my boys off in school in rugby where they live and roads were as bust as I have ever seen since prior to lockdown 1.
Chippy - I suspect the Lakes are a lot less attractive in the peeing rain, they can get a "swamp" at home!
Of course the school run will look roughly as busy as "normal", as schools are open, whereas they weren't in April. But if you look at eg footfall data in shops & hospitality, the provinces are down ~80% compared to February versus ~50% in the summer, London's been hit a bit less. You can see the difference between England and Scotland, so it's pretty clearly a lockdown effect.
FWIW, I'm happy to take the vaccine as and when it's my turn. Partly because I'm not a vaccine freeloader, trying to minimise any possible risk to myself whilst happy to enjoy the benefits of a society that enjoys the benefits of lots of immune people. Which includes the economic benefits - something that people in safe government jobs may not weigh highly. Their assement might be different if the risk/benefit included for those not taking the jab, a throw of the dice (I know, die) which gave a 1 in 6 chance of them losing their job...
Chippy - I suspect the Lakes are a lot less attractive in the peeing rain, they can get a "swamp" at home!
Enter your email address to join: