vaccines v herd immunity

[La_Tigre]

52 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

Younger people aren’t vaccinated yet? 🤷‍♂️

Speculating

Absolutely. But that should not affect relative disease severity. Unless hospitals are admitting more unnecessarily. 🤔

Point is we do not know.

When we aren’t covering 80 hours a week busting ass at the hospital.....We are vaxxed and masked so we may get out in the world and visit other vaxxed and masked. It’s good to see people again with a clear(er) conscience.

[BrightonCorgi]

11 hours ago, Glass Half Full said:

Yes, but the vaccines allow us to enjoy life again.  ...I don't understand the folks who say we should open everything and not wear masks -- and yet are anti-vaccine?  How does that make sense?  Millions upon millions of people have taken Pfizer and Moderna and have had absolutely no long-term consequences.  What's the downside?  ...And how is it worth it compared to the lives lost?  (I'm stopping now as it's become such a silly issue in the U.S.) 

How can you determine whether they have any long term effects when no one has had the vaccine for more than 6 months in them. 

I'd like to wait until they are FDA approved, but may be forced to get a vaccine if it prevents me from carrying on in my normal life.

How does someone not vaccinated impede or limit the lives of those who are vaccinated? 

[GolfT3]

There are many who have preexisting conditions that make it impossible for them to be vaccinated (cancer patients, organ transplant patients, autoimmune disorders etc.). When people who are able to get a vaccine choose not to, they risk spreading the virus to people who need the vaccine but can’t get it. This is why schools have required vaccinations for a generation.  As others have said ad nausea, if someone doesn’t want the vaccine that is their choice. But they don’t have a right to endanger the health of others who have no choice.

30 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

How can you determine whether they have any long term effects when no one has had the vaccine for more than 6 months in them. 

I'd like to wait until they are FDA approved, but may be forced to get a vaccine if it prevents me from carrying on in my normal life.

How does someone not vaccinated impede or limit the lives of those who are vaccinated? 

 

[BrightonCorgi]

18 minutes ago, GolfT3 said:

There are many who have preexisting conditions that make it impossible for them to be vaccinated (cancer patients, organ transplant patients, autoimmune disorders etc.). When people who are able to get a vaccine choose not to, they risk spreading the virus to people who need the vaccine but can’t get it. This is why schools have required vaccinations for a generation.  As others have said ad nausea, if someone doesn’t want the vaccine that is their choice. But they don’t have a right to endanger the health of others who have no choice.

 

If you are vaccinated, you are able to spread the virus.  The vaccine limits the effects of having Covid; not prevention from transmitting it.

Schools do not mandate all vaccines like flu shots.  We do have a right to endanger the health of other who have no choice to a degree. 

 

 

[GolfT3]

Without getting too deep into specific studies, we know definitively that the vaccines cut dramatically the viral load of those who are vaccinated and that the size of viral load is correlated directly to the relative ease of COVID transmission.

So, it’s possible to transmit COVID if you have been vaccinated in the same sense that zero probabilities are a mathematical impossibility. Doesn’t make it likely, probable, or comparable to being un-vaccinated. A flu shot is apples and oranges to this vaccine. Different type of vaccine, much lower efficacy, targeted at a less fatal and generally less contagious group of viruses.

18 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

If you are vaccinated, you are able to spread the virus.  The vaccine limits the effects of having Covid; not prevention from transmitting it.

Schools do not mandate all vaccines like flu shots.  We do have a right to endanger the health of other who have no choice to a degree. 

 

 

 

[GolfT3]

^Edited for zero:non-zero, I need another cup of coffee!

[leebert]

Interesting. Given the title of Ken's post (vaccines vs. herd immunity), I haven't seen anyone discus herd immunity. It's something everyone says, but when I double click on it, I rarely see people actually quantify it. Strange, because it's arguably the most important parameter of the global COVID challenge.

The first sentence in the article states, "By last October, about three out of every four residents of Manaus, Brazil already had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 [1]"

The question: is that herd immunity?

Easy to check.

Herd immunity is ~ 1 - 1/R0, where R0 is basic reproduction number of a particular contagion, or, as the US CDC states: "R₀ is an estimate of the average transmissibility in a completely naïve population."

So, R0 is a pretty important thing to know if you're close to, or at herd immunity. So far, there have been data based estimates of R0 that range between 2 and 4. IF R0 is 2, then 1-1/2 = .5, or 50% of population needs to be immune to achieve herd immunity. IF R0 is 4, then 75%. Note article Ken linked to said "about three out of every four residents...," so this "about" qualifier is doing a lot of work in the sentence, prior to discussing viral mutations (an important topic, where each mutation has it's own R0).

Based upon the spread in those areas mentioned in the article, it's hard to believe the "3 out of 4" comment is credible - that's threshold for the upper end (R0 = 4), but the virus is far from contained. That implies a few things:

1. The region never saw that level of infection and/or
2. Infection does not prevent reinfection
3. To achieve herd immunity, >50-75% of a population needs to immune
4. Getting jabbed is the best way we know to increase immunity

God bless those places that aren't experiencing an outbreak (go AUZ!). God bless your individual liberty, and your decision to get jabbed or not. But neither changes the reality that herd immunity is a huge societal lift, and the objective requires a super-majority of a population immune (some combination of individual genetics and getting vaxed) to be free of this thing.

Lee

PS: data/facts on how US is framing the challenge: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

 

[Ken Gargett]

from cosmos, a science journal. this is not posted for or against the AZ vaccine. just for interest.

AstraZeneca and blood clots: by the numbers

 

Statistically, how likely are you to get blood clots from AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine?

• Share
• Tweet

Credit: Shutterstock

Reports that the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine causes blood clots has been dominating the news.

In mid-March, several European countries paused the distribution of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine following reports of blood clotting disorders in people who had received the jab.

The Australian government has now mirrored this restriction, with ATAGI recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Astrazeneca vaccine in adults under 50 years of age.

We first reported the issue before the EU declared that blood clots were recognised as a rare side effect of the AstraZeneca Vaccine.

In the UK, young people are now being offered an alternative COVID-19 vaccine as a result of 168 people suffering a blood clot shortly following administration of the AstraZeneca jab.

This sounds like a scary number, but what does in mean in context?

Of 21.2 million doses of AstraZeneca given in the UK by April 14th 2021, there were 168 cases of blood clots, and 32 deaths resulting. That’s approximately 8 cases per million, or 0.0008%. Most of the cases were of clots in the brain.

Compared to the number of cerebral (brain) venous sinus thrombosis (clots) normally expected in a general population – five cases per million – the vaccine-related clots are very similar to what is expected. 

Deep vein thromboses in general, which commonly occur in the leg and can travel to the lung, are more likely to affect adults (500 cases per million in adults annually).

These stats are not indicative of every country.

For example, by April 9th, Germany had a higher ratio of clots to dosage: there, 31 people developed blood clots out of 2.7 million doses (11 per million).

Update – As of the 21st April, Australia had recorded 6 cases of blood clots following administration of 1.1 million doses.

The causal links between AstraZeneca and the blood clotting side effects are still under investigation, and there currently aren’t hard stats about which demographics are most likely to be affected. 

Anecdotally, women under the age of 60 appeared to make up the largest portion of cases, because 29 of the 31 cases from Germany were women in the early days. However, this doesn’t reflect an average population, because the first people to receive first-stage vaccinations were healthcare workers, most of whom are women. 

“If you look at who was being vaccinated in the European Union with the AstraZeneca vaccine back in January, February and early March, there is about a 2-to-1 ratio of women to men,” says Peter Arlett, the European Medical Association’s head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology.

This is a good lead in the investigations as to whether there is a causal link between AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots, but it doesn’t portray a true at-risk group.

A helpful example might be the link between sunburn and ice cream. Sunburn may appear to occur after people eat ice cream. Eating ice cream doesn’t cause the sunburn; rather, ice cream is eaten more frequently by people out in the sun. So ice-cream eaters aren’t necessarily a genetically or physiologically ‘at risk’ group when it comes to sunburn, even if they get sunburn more frequently.

It’s always wise to weigh up the risk of taking any medication, including vaccinations during a pandemic, but the numbers require context to understand. 

The risk of contracting COVID-19 is significantly lower in Australia (1729 cases per million) or Vietnam (27/million) than the UK (64,075/million) or Germany (34,856/million). These numbers are further influenced by the state/town/region one lives in, because coronavirus cases are not uniformly spread over a country. 

Disregarding the global deathrate of COVID-19 (30,000 per million cases), a study published in JAMA in February showed that the long-term effects of the virus were prevalent even among people who were considered to be fit and healthy. 

“The effects of COVID-19 can linger far beyond acute infection, even in individuals who experienced mild illness,” said author Denise McCulloch of University of Washington.

“To our knowledge, this study presents the longest follow-up symptom assessment post-illness, with individuals surveyed out to 9 months after their COVID diagnosis,” she told MedPage Today.

“Our study is unique in characterising a group consisting of mostly outpatients: 90% of our cohort experienced only a mild COVID-19 illness, yet one-third continue to have lingering effects.

“Many of these individuals are young and have no pre-existing medical conditions, indicating that even relatively healthy individuals may face long-term impacts from their illness.”

Ultimately, such findings have led to the European Medical Agency recommending that the risk of COVID-19 is greater than the risk of AstraZeneca vaccine side-effects.

What do the numbers look like?

Note: The numbers in this article were updated on April 22 2021.

Numbers can feel very big if they’re compared to numbers we’re familiar with. For the following examples, assume that the UK stats are broadly reflective of vaccine-related blood clots.

With an average eight blood-clot cases per million in the UK, the risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is much lower than the risks of blood clot from an oral contraceptive pill (400 per million in Australia), pregnancy (2000 per million) or severe COVID-19 itself (about 31% of people admitted to the ICU, or 310,000 per million ).

So, compared to the AstraZeneca vaccine, the chance of blood clots is about 50 times greater for the pill, 2500 times greater for pregnancy, and 38,750 times greater from COVID-19 infection.

Let’s look at that in a different way by equating these stats to distance instead of volume.

If we say that that one blood clot is equivalent to 1 metre, then the length of AstraZeneca blood-clot cases per 1,000 km would be the equivalent of 8 metres (about two Volkswagen Beetles, or as tall as one and a half giraffes).

For progestin birth-control pills, that would be 400m (a little under four soccer pitches, or the length of a full-lap Olympic sprint, or eight laps of an Olympic swimming pool), and 2km for pregnancy (the north-south length of Adelaide’s CBD).

For COVID-19 related blood clots, it would be 310km – a little more than the road distance from Sydney to Canberra.

Looking at it in yet another way, let’s compare it to the current stats about COVID-19 cases in Australia.

Based on the UK percentages, if all Australians contracted COVID-19, 7.7 million of them would get COVID-related blood clots, and 750,000 would likely die from the disease (based on global averages). On the other hand, if every Australian got the vaccine, 200 would develop blood clots – less than the number of people who’ve already died in Australia from COVID-19 (909 people from 29,000 cases).

---

Risk of event happening (per million)

Blood clots from AstraZeneca vaccine (UK stats)	7.9
Anaphylaxis from a vaccine (US stats)	4.7
Struck by lightning this year (US)	2
Winning an Olympic gold medal	1.5
People over 110 in Australia (2012)	5
Fatal animal related farm injury each year (US)	68
Twin birth (ABS, Australia)	15,200
Triplet birth (ABS)	235

---

This is ultimately why national health authorities continue to say that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks.

[inter4alia]

As some people see it, the science or news or both love to point to the incredibly small percentage chance of adverse reaction to the vaccines but conveniently refrain from listing the similarly small percentage chance that many segments of the population will suffer serious reactions from actually contracting the virus. I guess that is often the game played when it comes to presenting statistics. Do or don't, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other what people do, but consistency and honesty in presenting the data on both sides of the discussion would be nice.

[Bijan]

2 hours ago, inter4alia said:

As some people see it, the science or news or both love to point to the incredibly small percentage chance of adverse reaction to the vaccines but conveniently refrain from listing the similarly small percentage chance that many segments of the population will suffer serious reactions from actually contracting the virus.

This depends on how one views the cost/benefit. If all you care about is if you personally live or die these two are equal and comparable. If you care about how the disease spreads and affects others who are at greater risk then the risks of the vaccine are the main consideration.

[BigGuns]

There are many good points being made in this thread. I think the primary consideration should be what is best for YOU and the environment you are in?  If the spread in your neck of the woods is contained well, and the likelihood of getting COVID is slim, sure, pass on the jab. I live in Los Angeles. I contracted COVID in December. While it was a mild case (relatively speaking), I am still experiencing the effects of having it. Stamina, fatigue, lung capacity are all affected.
 

I was a relatively in shape 42yo before getting hit. The numbers in LA were staggering for a while. I chose to get the vaccine. Pfizer. Numbers in LA are better now than in most of the country. MY situation, locale, etc. made it an easy decision for me. I’d like to think my decision contributes to the greater good out here. Also, my nice stamped card gets me a bit more freedom. The fact that such a significant percentage of the population out here has been vaccinated makes me believe it’s the right thing to do. It has helped LA. 

Give it thought, make your decision, respect other’s decisions, and light up a PSD4. Done

/buzzed stream of consciousness 

 

[Meklown]

6 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

from cosmos, a science journal. this is not posted for or against the AZ vaccine. just for interest.

I feel comparative data like this makes for good context.

6 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

This is ultimately why national health authorities continue to say that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks.

They keep saying it but they really need a better propaganda marketing department - same for the situation in HK. They keep losing out to sensationalist headlines "XXX PEOPLE DIED YESTERDAY BECAUSE OF VACCINES", while if they are trying to encourage vaccines, they need to put the deaths/side effects into context, sell the idea that the economy and borders can reopen etc, etc. 

[CaptainQuintero]

6 hours ago, BigGuns said:

There are many good points being made in this thread. I think the primary consideration should be what is best for YOU and the environment you are in?  If the spread in your neck of the woods is contained well, and the likelihood of getting COVID is slim, sure, pass on the jab. I live in Los Angeles. I contracted COVID in December. While it was a mild case (relatively speaking), I am still experiencing the effects of having it. Stamina, fatigue, lung capacity are all affected.
 

I was a relatively in shape 42yo before getting hit. The numbers in LA were staggering for a while. I chose to get the vaccine. Pfizer. Numbers in LA are better now than in most of the country. MY situation, locale, etc. made it an easy decision for me. I’d like to think my decision contributes to the greater good out here. Also, my nice stamped card gets me a bit more freedom. The fact that such a significant percentage of the population out here has been vaccinated makes me believe it’s the right thing to do. It has helped LA. 

Give it thought, make your decision, respect other’s decisions, and light up a PSD4. Done

/buzzed stream of consciousness 

 

 Did the jab eases of your symptoms? Seems it helps some if there's no organ damage etc from the virus

  Same boat here, caught it in March last year and after a rough few weeks and pneumonia after, the fatigue stamina, palpitations etc all set in. Wasn't hospitalised.

  13 months in now and wrecked with this fatigue, still unable to work but tests all clear. Peaks and troughs week to week, just bizzare. Same situation as you but a bit younger. Physically fit and no underlying health problems at all  

[griller]

1 hour ago, CaptainQuintero said:

 Did the jab eases of your symptoms? Seems it helps some if there's no organ damage etc from the virus

  Same boat here, caught it in March last year and after a rough few weeks and pneumonia after, the fatigue stamina, palpitations etc all set in. Wasn't hospitalised.

  13 months in now and wrecked with this fatigue, still unable to work but tests all clear. Peaks and troughs week to week, just bizzare. Same situation as you but a bit younger. Physically fit and no underlying health problems at all  

CaptainQuintero, you just described the exact scenario my wife is living today. She caught it around the 20th of March 2021 and can't seem to get back to 100% either. Scary as Hell to read you've been dealing with this for over a year. There is SO much about this bug we just don't know, and the media and health authorities are making a mess with reports/advice that is more sensationalized than factual.

Hang in there & hope you beat this bug soon.

[CaptainQuintero]

10 minutes ago, griller said:

CaptainQuintero, you just described the exact scenario my wife is living today. She caught it around the 20th of March 2021 and can't seem to get back to 100% either. Scary as Hell to read you've been dealing with this for over a year. There is SO much about this bug we just don't know, and the media and health authorities are making a mess with reports/advice that is more sensationalized than factual.

Hang in there & hope you beat this bug soon.

 Just a dice roll it seems, sorry to hear she's struggling. Positive news is unless you suffered organ damage from the virus it just seems to be a post viral syndrome so will subside. Even then I've seen people who ended up with heart damage from the virus get the all clear from their cardiologist after 5/6 months rest and care etc.

  I was nearly back to normal a few times then crashed back after doing too much. I think staring to turn the corner this last few weeks hopefully for the last time! I'd say just keep resting and eating well etc, it can't hurt to keep in touch with your doc for regular bloods to make sure everything is fine. When she feels brighter and doing more, only do half of what she thinks she can do, it seems pushing too much sets you back.

PMs are always open too 

  

[joeypots]

Does it strike anyone besides me as ironic that here on a message board for cigar smokers there is a debate about the safety of the covid vaccines? By all accounts there are minuscule numbers of negative health consequences to the vaccines. Even with the assertion that we do not know what the long term effect of the vaccine is, cigar smokers are touting safety concerns  in an effort to justify their opposition. I suspect there is much more evidence to support  the conclusion that cigar smoking is dangerous than there is for the conclusion that any vaccine ever was anywhere near as dangerous. I'm simply noticing how we, including me,  choose positions and battles with little regard to facts. 

[gcman68]

https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/italian-man-violated-lockdown-rules-to-meet-call-girls-blames-vax/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app
 

Another possible side effect!

[Bijan]

2 hours ago, joeypots said:

Does it strike anyone besides me as ironic that here on a message board for cigar smokers there is a debate about the safety of the covid vaccines?

Yes and no. Most people don't smoke to prolong their lives, and most people don't get poked with needles for fun. So it's pretty apples to oranges.

With cigars the question is, is the fun/enjoyment worth the risk? With vaccines the question is either: a) is the chance of a bad outcome from the disease greater than the chance of a bad outcome from the vaccine or b) is the chance of a bad outcome from the vaccine low enough that I'll get it for the societal benefit regardless of whether it benefits me.

Anyways I'm pro vaccine, but I don't see the two as directly related.

[BigGuns]

6 hours ago, CaptainQuintero said:

 Did the jab eases of your symptoms? Seems it helps some if there's no organ damage etc from the virus

Not that I've noticed, but then, I'm not certain that is how the vaccine works.  It introduces the COVID RNA so your body can be better equipped to attack it should you be exposed to it.  It is not a remedy.

I am just making a conscious effort to maintain a healthy diet and consistent workout routine hoping that I'm able to get back to where I was. 

I hope you and @griller's wife get back to normal swiftly, as well

[BEVOSREVENGE]

On 4/28/2021 at 10:27 AM, FrancisK7 said:

Even if you are vaccinated you can still be a carrier and thus a vector of infection for others.

The vaccine protects against bad prognostics if you do catch it. 

Social distancing measures and masks are still required until we've reached herd immunity.

1. I don’t believe your first point is correct.

2. I believe point 2 is correct, including death.

3. Face masks don’t do squat.  Texas and Florida say hi.

I am fully vaccinated and on a packed plane from Texas to Colorado at present.

[inter4alia]

1 hour ago, FrancisK7 said:

Belief doesn't really matter, it's a fact that vaccinated people can still catch and spread the virus

Exactly 

[Fuzz]

On 5/1/2021 at 1:51 AM, Bijan said:

 most people don't get poked with needles for fun.

 

[PigFish]

What happened to individual responsibility and individualism? It went out the door with freedom when 'justice' got attached to every Marxist thinktank task list issue!

I cannot say I wanted to get vaxed. I cannot say that I wanted to get the 'flu.' Measured my life, my odds and my goals. As usual, I don't give a rat-fxxx what my neighbor does. I did what I think was right for me and the people I care for.

End of topic!

If you do the same, what will happen will happen. Life is an at-risk endeavor. Always has been, always will. No amount of social engineering is gonna fix that.

-Piggy

[rcarlson]

On 4/30/2021 at 5:01 PM, FrancisK7 said:

Belief doesn't really matter, it's a fact that vaccinated people can still catch and spread the virus

Hadn't seen where that's been deemed a fact.  Source?  

[Philc2001]

It's intriguing how this topic has become such a politically divisive issue. I wonder if that sort of resistance existed in the 1300s when the Black Death was wiping out 1/3 of the human species (estimated 75 million to 200 million people died). If it were not for technological advancements, COVID and many other plagues throughout history would have decimated the world population by now. 

I got vaccinated against COVID not just because I fear for my own life or the long-term health impact of being infected, but because I care about mankind's survivability, and in my view we are in a war for our survival. To a virus we are the food supply, the hosts, with few if any natural defenses to keep them from killing us. A virus is not particularly selective, it infects as many hosts as it can until it exhausts the supply. It even mutates to adapt and improve its chances of survivability and propagate more efficiently. The longer we let the virus live and mutate, the greater the risk of it evolving into a more efficient killer. So in the war between humans and viruses, I neither wish to be a victim nor a vessel to help the virus survive and propagate. 

If you are alive today, there is a 95% chance you've been vaccinated against polio, tetanus, hepatitis, measles, chickenpox, diphtheria, etc. The odds are even greater if you were born or educated in the US since those vaccinations are mandatory. We don't spend much time researching their usefulness now, because the untold millions who died before vaccines proved that we are vulnerable to them, and the risk to our survivability is greater without them. It's the same with COVID, millions have already died, why take the risk? Why increase the odds the virus will use your body to feed upon and propagate? 

 

On 4/29/2021 at 10:15 PM, BrightonCorgi said:

How does someone not vaccinated impede or limit the lives of those who are vaccinated? 

The vaccines have been proven to significantly reduce the risk of infection, though not entirely eliminate it. The longer it takes to reach global immunity the greater the risk the virus will mutate and propagate. But perhaps more importantly, the longer the virus continues to kill people, the longer restrictions and shutdowns will be justifiable, so it prolongs the journey back to normalcy for everyone