Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
This post is deleted!
-
@no-quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@no-quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@no-quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I'm fine with people vaccinating their kids, but given how mild Covid is among that age group I don't see a strong driver to do so.
Virus distribution would be the main one wouldn't it?
Is there any solid data that says being vaccinated greatly reduces transmission? I've seen studies that show it is pretty negligible overall.
Trials showed about 90% reduction in catching it at all. Studies depend on whether they are looking at household contacts or other - it's less effective in a household setting, but otherwise seems pretty good at preventing transmission in casual settings.
Ahh OK, that makes sense. The study I saw was comparing people that had the virus, and whether they were less likely to transmit it if vaccinated, which didn't show much difference.
A 90% reduction sounds like a high number given the outbreaks highly vaccinated countries?
I think there are a few things that compound it - effectiveness against catching it at all wanes over time (hence boosters) is a big one, 90% is not 100% and 10% of highly vaccinated is still a lot, and even highly vaccinated populations normally have large ineligible populations for it to circulate through (children if nobody else). Also, it is less effective in households because you are in close quarters and can't minimise opportunities for transmission easily, and in winter, that's a lot worse than summer (that's the main reason cold and flu are much more prevalent in winter than summer).
On the other side of the ledger, another point in favour of reducing transmission which I didn't mention before is that people are infectious for a week instead of two weeks if vaccinated, hence the reduction in MIQ to 7 days in NZ for vaccinated travellers. For someone who is pretty sick, that probably won't matter as they probably aren't going out much anyway, but that's useful for reducing asymptomatic transmission.
-
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I picked this post because it was representative of a few posts here rather than just to target it particularly.
Noted, but:
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
For 1 - we can never know what medium term side effects of new vaccines are, not only for the obvious reason that they are new, but also because trials normally have bigger spaces between them because of funding and delays caused by slow bureaucracy, not because that would be best practice if there was infinite money. It's also something that generally has never been part of the trials or approvals process.
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale. I trust it enough to put in my body, and have done so. But I have residual queries about putting it intro my kid. The reasons for slow rollout may be red tape, but that still allows more time for observations.
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
For 2 - public health and epidemiology can strongly suggest vaccination even when the individual risks from a disease are low.
For example, Rubella has serious complications (encephalitis) in 1/6000 (0.017%) cases of the general population, but has serious negative impacts on pregnant women and their babies at a much higher rate. There's not really any health reason to vaccinate boys against Rubella, but we do anyway because elimination by herd immunity is seen as a worthwhile goal.
Well, yep, that's what they do alright. Drug companies do the same. Colour me sceptical if I don't believe they always see the bigger picture and other points of view.
I'm also not convinced that herd immunity is a real goal now without us producing natural antibodies. But who knows!
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
For 3 - maybe, although so far Pfizer has been pretty effective against hospitalisation and deaths even with the mutations to date.
Per my comment in the other thread, the Pfizer CEO reckons 50% effective against Omicron - that's not too flash, and you'd assume the trend only goes one way...
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock? -
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Per my comment in the other thread, the Pfizer CEO reckons 50% effective against Omicron
most stuff you read says its too early to tell, the data set would be so small still, surely?
They dont even know if it is more transmissable yet (although the fact it has poked its head up in front of Delta suggests it is) but the more important point, is how ill it makes people, if only mild like a cold or flu, then the vaccine almost becomes redundant (I have had the flu jab only once in my life, been >20 since I have been ill with it, but I guess I could have had it and passed it on without knowing?)
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?This point 100%. Just like in wartime, where we witnessed massive advances in all sorts of technologies as countries spared no expense or resources, so it is with covid19. Unprecedented demand, money and resources to get this thing done. Not to mention information sharing on a mammoth scale. But it still had to pass the FDA among others, who aren't about to wave something through without stringent testing
-
@no-quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@no-quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I'm fine with people vaccinating their kids, but given how mild Covid is among that age group I don't see a strong driver to do so.
Virus distribution would be the main one wouldn't it?
Is there any solid data that says being vaccinated greatly reduces transmission? I've seen studies that show it is pretty negligible overall.
Some studies show it reduces transmissibility by ~60%. It was the reason given for giving jabs to children in the UK, though that was about 6-7 months ago so new variants may have changed that.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?I don't think that's completely right. Totally agree re amount of resources thrown, but time is something you can't always solve for with money.
But the bigger point, is that with anything new there is always an element of risk. The longer you observe something, the more data you collect and the better informed you become.
And I have zero inclination to take any chances with my kids when they're just not at risk
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Per my comment in the other thread, the Pfizer CEO reckons 50% effective against Omicron
most stuff you read says its too early to tell, the data set would be so small still, surely?
They dont even know if it is more transmissable yet (although the fact it has poked its head up in front of Delta suggests it is) but the more important point, is how ill it makes people, if only mild like a cold or flu, then the vaccine almost becomes redundant (I have had the flu jab only once in my life, been >20 since I have been ill with it, but I guess I could have had it and passed it on without knowing?)
shit who knows man. As I cynically noted, he's pretty well motivated to ensure that they're producing new and improved vaccines to deal with this for years to come...
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
The longer you observe something, the more data you collect and the better informed you become.
Or the more you use something the bigger your sample pool?
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
More than 8bn doses administered worldwide. Sounds like a lot doesn't it?
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
The longer you observe something, the more data you collect and the better informed you become.
Or the more you use something the bigger your sample pool?
Um, yeah sure, in theory. But to take it to the absurd to make the point, vaccinating 1bn people then observing them for 2.3 seconds afterwards wouldn't tell you much - just as vaccinating 1 person and observing them for 10yrs also wouldn't
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo so you are saying they could be good for 80% v Moronic, but is fishing for more funding to make it better by saying 50%...
🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?I don't think that's completely right. Totally agree re amount of resources thrown, but time is something you can't always solve for with money.
But the bigger point, is that with anything new there is always an element of risk. The longer you observe something, the more data you collect and the better informed you become.
And I have zero inclination to take any chances with my kids when they're just not at risk
We've never waited for medium or long term data for vaccines for serious diseases, it's never happened in the medical history of vaccination. That standard is an impossible standard that no other vaccine has ever been made to meet. It has also not backfired in the past 100 years.
The Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine (and the AstraZeneca and others) went through all the normal clinical trials in full, they were just run concurrently rather than consecutively. It also went through all normal regulatory approvals but they were prioritised at all stages and the regulators were reviewing data in real time (more or less) rather than waiting for an application and reports months after the final trial.
Yes it's a miracle, but the miracle is that the world put aside their differences for 5 minutes and pooled resources and collaboration to tackle the most dangerous pandemic since 1918, not the development of one of the more effective vaccines going for anything we vaccinate against.
Normally we complain about how slow and "methodical" government processes are - we should celebrate this effort.
-
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?I don't think that's completely right. Totally agree re amount of resources thrown, but time is something you can't always solve for with money.
But the bigger point, is that with anything new there is always an element of risk. The longer you observe something, the more data you collect and the better informed you become.
And I have zero inclination to take any chances with my kids when they're just not at risk
We've never waited for medium or long term data for vaccines for serious diseases, it's never happened in the medical history of vaccination. That standard is an impossible standard that no other vaccine has ever been made to meet. It has also not backfired in the past 100 years.
The Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine (and the AstraZeneca and others) went through all the normal clinical trials in full, they were just run concurrently rather than consecutively. It also went through all normal regulatory approvals but they were prioritised at all stages and the regulators were reviewing data in real time (more or less) rather than waiting for an application and reports months after the final trial.
Yes it's a miracle, but the miracle is that the world put aside their differences for 5 minutes and pooled resources and collaboration to tackle the most dangerous pandemic since 1918, not the development of one of the more effective vaccines going for anything we vaccinate against.
Normally we complain about how slow and "methodical" government processes are - we should celebrate this effort.
I really don't understand why you're continuing to push this. You're now making out like I'm not appreciative of the incredible effort that researchers, manufacturers, and regulators put in over the last 24 months. It was truly amazing, we can all acknowledge that, surely.
As for this being the most dangerous pandemic since 1918, well, not for my (luckily healthy) 8yr old it isn't. So the miracle speed of development doesn't mean I should feel obligated to give it to him or any of my kids. It doesn't mean that because I have the luxury of time with them, that I shouldn't be allowed to use that time to just wait and see. Why would I choose anything different?
And to be quite honest, my own reasons for taking the vax myself were 50% doing my bit for society, 49% wanting to be allowed to travel again, and 1% for protecting myself.
Maybe that's me being naive?
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I really don't understand why you're continuing to push this. You're now making out like I'm not appreciative of the incredible effort that researchers, manufacturers, and regulators put in over the last 24 months. It was truly amazing, we can all acknowledge that, surely.
@Godder has been very reasonable and patient in his personal efforts to explain some aspects of the government's vaccination plan, and to respond to some of the queries in this thread. I don't think he's unreasonably pushing anything.
-
@tim said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I really don't understand why you're continuing to push this. You're now making out like I'm not appreciative of the incredible effort that researchers, manufacturers, and regulators put in over the last 24 months. It was truly amazing, we can all acknowledge that, surely.
@Godder has been very reasonable and patient in his personal efforts to explain some aspects of the government's vaccination plan, and to respond to some of the queries in this thread. I don't think he's unreasonably pushing anything.
Pretty sure I nominated the man for reasonableness or some other Fernie! Though the argument got twisted here to imply I don't appreciate or understand what has been achieved on the vaccine front, which isn't accurate.
But the "push" I referred to is the continued argument against what I feel is a pretty sensible position to take - my kids aren't very vulnerable, and anyone who is vulnerable has had the chance to get vaxxed. So why would I rush to vax my kids? 🤷♂️
I hold nothing against those who do vax their kids. Their choice!