Easing of Restrictions from 10th May

I am not confusing anything about efficacy or effectiveness.

With respect @Sunny, you are mistaken about the efficacy rate.

Lets take 2 trial examples, each has 200 participants, half of whom are vaccinated.

Example 1
Infected
Infection rate
Unvaccinated
100​
100​
100%
Vaccinated
100​
3​
3%​
Reduction %
97%

Therefore vaccine reduced the infection rate by 97%

The efficacy formula is arrived at by dividing the reduction %, 97% by the unvaccinated rate, 100% = 97%.

So, in this case, the efficacy rate and the vaccine reduction rate are the same because all of the unvaccinated became infected.

Example 2
Infected
Infection rate
Unvaccinated
100​
65​
65%
Vaccinated
100​
3​
3%​
Reduction %
62%

In this case the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 62% but the efficacy rate is higher.

The reduction rate is 62%, but the efficacy rate, (62% divided by 65%) is 95%, because it takes account of the 35 unvaccinated who did not become infected.
 
With respect @Sunny, you are mistaken about the efficacy rate.

Lets take 2 trial examples, each has 200 participants, half of whom are vaccinated.

Example 1
Infected
Infection rate
Unvaccinated
100​
100​
100%
Vaccinated
100​
3​
3%​
Reduction %
97%

Therefore vaccine reduced the infection rate by 97%

The efficacy formula is arrived at by dividing the reduction %, 97% by the unvaccinated rate, 100% = 97%.

So, in this case, the efficacy rate and the vaccine reduction rate are the same because all of the unvaccinated became infected.

Example 2
Infected
Infection rate
Unvaccinated
100​
65​
65%
Vaccinated
100​
3​
3%​
Reduction %
62%

In this case the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 62% but the efficacy rate is higher.

The reduction rate is 62%, but the efficacy rate, (62% divided by 65%) is 95%, because it takes account of the 35 unvaccinated who did not become infected.

Hence why i said All the vaccine efficacy does in trial conditions or vaccine effectiveness in real world conditions does is show the proportionate reduction in the attack rate of the virus between the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group. Or if you prefer it is simply a relative risk ratio. I never said the efficency was just the reduction in absolute numbers

I never said anything about not taking into account people who did not become infected. I stand over my point that people saying 95% efficacy means that 95% of the pople have protection while 5% don't is completely wrong.

What Philip Nolan and others here have said is that because vaccine has an efficant of 95%, 5 people in the vaccinated group in the above survey are at risk of Covid because they have zero protection. He used 5% of 500k people and gave an absolute number of 25,000 people over 70 are at risk of Covid which is completely misleading. Again, going back to your trial of 100 people where the attack rate is 65% in the unvaccinated group, then would expect to 65% of the 5% get Covid. So instead of 5 vaccinated people in your trial expected to get Covid, we could realistically expect approximately 3 people get covid. Considering the attack rate in the real world is a small fraction of the 65% you use, then you can see that we can really only expect a small % of the 25,000 people that Philip Nolan mentioned to actually get infected. But yet, we had the head of modelling make it sound that we are looking at 25000 cases of vaccinated elderly people getting infected. It is completely misleading.
 
I never said anything about not taking into account people who did not become infected. I stand over my point that people saying 95% efficacy means that 95% of the pople have protection while 5% don't is completely wrong.
My understanding is that, on average, the chances of getting infected are reduced by 95%.
That doesn't mean 95% of people have a zero chance of being infected and 5% have a 100% chance of being infected but Nolan's Tweets seems to suggest that.

Basically with an efficacy rate of 95% if you are vaccinated your chance of being infected is reduced 20 fold. That's my understanding of it but I'm open to correction.
Without wanting to go on about it the fact remains that someone over 85 is more than 600 times more likely to die than someone under 30. The vaccine reduced that to 600/20=30. So a fully vaccinated 85 year old is still 30 times more likely to die from Covid if they get it than an unvaccinated 29 year old.
 
My understanding is that, on average, the chances of getting infected are reduced by 95%.
That doesn't mean 95% of people have a zero chance of being infected and 5% have a 100% chance of being infected but Nolan's Tweets seems to suggest that.

Basically with an efficacy rate of 95% if you are vaccinated your chance of being infected is reduced 20 fold. That's my understanding of it but I'm open to correction.
Without wanting to go on about it the fact remains that someone over 85 is more than 600 times more likely to die than someone under 30. The vaccine reduced that to 600/20=30. So a fully vaccinated 85 year old is still 30 times more likely to die from Covid if they get it than an unvaccinated 29 year old.
A vaccinated 85 year old is less likely to pass on the virus than an un-vaccinated 29 year old though.
 
Are they though?
Has there been studies on that?
From CDC May 27th

"A growing body of evidence indicates that fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. Studies are underway to learn more about the benefits of Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus."

Just watching the England update and it was mentioned that the vaccines do reduce transmission but the data isn't complete enough to say anything with certainty.
They also said that there was clear evidence that the link between cases and hospitalizations has been weakened but not enough to prevent an increase in the Delta variant causing more hospitalisation and deaths but nothing on the scale seen at the start of the year.

So, its still positive news but not as positive as we might want
 
From CDC May 27th

"A growing body of evidence indicates that fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. Studies are underway to learn more about the benefits of Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus."

Just watching the England update and it was mentioned that the vaccines do reduce transmission but the data isn't complete enough to say anything with certainty.
They also said that there was clear evidence that the link between cases and hospitalizations has been weakened but not enough to prevent an increase in the Delta variant causing more hospitalisation and deaths but nothing on the scale seen at the start of the year.

So, its still positive news but not as positive as we might want

Lower viral load for one thing:
Yes, but is the lower viral load in vaccinated over 75's lower than the viral load in infected otherwise fit and healthy unvaccinated 20 year olds?
 
Yes, but is the lower viral load in vaccinated over 75's lower than the viral load in infected otherwise fit and healthy unvaccinated 20 year olds?
I haven't heard anything to suggest viral load shed was different in 75 year olds versus 20 year olds.
What appears to be unusual is that it is the same. Older people infected with flu have much less viral shed than younger.
 

This is being reported widely. As we discussed extensively efficacy and its importance in the vaccination program the above isn't a good new story.
That is what the WHO warned us about at the start of the year.
 
That is what the WHO warned us about at the start of the year.
But at the start of the year it wasn't 100% what a new variant might look like. Of course it was inevitable that variants would evolve.

Not one for pessimism but the Lambada variant is now making itself known outside of Peru and while its early days the WHO is again warning that this might be even more potent than everything that has been seen to date.
 
But at the start of the year it wasn't 100% what a new variant might look like. Of course it was inevitable that variants would evolve.

Not one for pessimism but the Lambada variant is now making itself known outside of Peru and while its early days the WHO is again warning that this might be even more potent than everything that has been seen to date.
It was inevitable that they would be more transmissible. The fact that so far they have not been much more deadly is both positive and surprising.
 
It was inevitable that they would be more transmissible. The fact that so far they have not been much more deadly is both positive and surprising.
Don't forget the vaccines while upgradeable might struggle with any new variant for a period of time before new ones are developed.

3rd jab is now a certainty so another year of statistics .........Ahhhhhhhhh
 
According to the man on the Wireless (NewsTalk) hospitalisations as a proportion of infections in the UK are down 13 fold. Why are we so concerned about the Delta Variant in the UK when the people in the UK aren't?
 
Spent day travelling around London..everyone is very compliant in relation to masks on public transport, shops etc. Plenty of people wearing on the streets.. Thing's are fairly quiet in relation to the main tourist attractions.. No queues at London eye, madam toussaint, dungeons, restaurant etc..

English chants started early afternoon.. God help us if they get beat tonight
 
Why are we so concerned about the Delta Variant in the UK when the people in the UK aren't?
They are worried about self isolating which is more likely now that they are more likely to be infected with Delta Covid now that mask wearing is no longer mandatory from 19th July.
 
According to the man on the Wireless (NewsTalk) hospitalisations as a proportion of infections in the UK are down 13 fold. Why are we so concerned about the Delta Variant in the UK when the people in the UK aren't?
Boris and the average joe don't really understand what's happening.

Practically every medical/science professional outside of those appointed by The UK Government is expressing serious concerns that I've seen on SKY, BBC and tonight on C4 news and questioning the decisions.

One yesterday, Prof King a former CMO said the UK risks having a large "virus pool " without hospitalisations but that can become a breeding ground for new variants, and also said that the effects of the original variants on younger people was small and there is no guarantee that's going to remain that way.

Again it's his opinion and he maybe incorrect, but there is concern.

Health care experts have simply said the NHS won't be capable of running normal services, 3 declared Black Alerts today , if hospitalisations increase by a small percentage.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top