Reply With QuoteI took these figures from a synopsis sourced from authorities and published in the Weekend Australian. The words didn't appear spontaneously in my head.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
that's not how it works, having the dose early will make only a slight difference
I took these figures from a synopsis sourced from authorities and published in the Weekend Australian. The words didn't appear spontaneously in my head.
that sounds interesting, do you have a link to it?
For the record, I am getting my first AZ jab today. My GP is a mad cricket fan and compared it to the MCG, where 100,000 people can go to watch the Boxing Day Test Match. Only 1 of those spectators would get a blood clot based on the numbers, 2 or 3 if you are a smoker.
I got the AZ vaccine. My GP said it is roughly as effective as other vaccines in real world conditions.
Don't get overly hung up on the 'efficacy' rates. These are determined using their controlled test setting (like a test in a lab). And are just an indication of how they will work in a realistic setting.
The real world results are the 'effectiveness' measure. Current data suggests the real world effectiveness of all approved vaccines is pretty much in par. So it doesn't matter if you get Pfizer, AZ or Moderna.
All of our current vaccines are not as effective at stopping Delta infections. However they are still very good at stopping severe disease from all variants of the virus.
So basically - if you are fully vaccinated, you are slightly more likely to get infected with Delta vs other variants. But highly unlikely to develop severe symptoms.
Sorry, I read it in the hard copy Weekend Australian and I've since re-cycled it. It was about percentage efficacy rates based on duration between shots. I was amazed at the big difference in percentage efficacy between having AZ at 11 weeks apart vs 12 weeks apart. So I took the time to convert the figures into a percentage, which was 25% improvement.
In the real world perhaps it isn't as dramatic as that, but I'm human and when I look at 66% vs 88% efficacy (or something like that) I'll go for the latter, seeing I'm already 11 weeks into the wait.
Very glad we are not getting moderna yet given how their stock price has performed last night/today.
Has my first AZ recently, kicked the living shit out of me. Fever, chills, savage headache, muscle aches. If that's the vaccine fuck catching the real deal.
i wasn't able to find anything like what you stated by googling. but i have seen many references to the fact that there is only a slight difference in waiting the extra few weeks with AZ. norman swan got his 2nd jab 9 weeks after the first one.
I found this chart from the Lancet, the British medical journal. That is where the Weekend Australian must have got their information from.
It is that huge difference between 11 weeks and 12 weeks that really blew me away and had me wondering why my medical centre were pressing me to get it at 11 weeks instead of 12. I'm actually wondering now if I wait another month instead of another week whether that line keeps shooting up. Logic tells you it would. The only reason they stop at 12 weeks is because that is all they collected the data for.
Nah that info is based on the original strain. For delta we simply don't know, there's not been enough research done, the strain is still relatively new.
The reason why it makes sense to get your second AZ early is that delta is at risk of running rampant soon.
If you get the second early its efficacy might fade quicker, but that doesn't matter so much if we get boosters next year. The important thing is surviving this year.
I think this may be the one you want, published Feb 2021.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...432-3/fulltext
You'll find this text in the "Discussion"
"In our study, vaccine efficacy after the second dose was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval, reaching 81·3% in those with a dosing interval of 12 weeks or more versus 55·1% in those with an interval of less than 6 weeks."
For the layman, you can always cover the gap of the "don't know yet" with a bit of common sense. The scientific and academic fraternities may not be at liberty to do so, but you are free to make your own judgement using common sense.
If the vaccine can be more effective against the original strain simply by waiting 1 week longer for the second dose, surely the same effect would apply to the Delta strain. At worst it wouldn't be any more effective, but what's the likelihood of that outcome?
If your argument is that the longer you wait the more likely you'll get infected before the second dose, then let common sense fix THAT too. In this 1 week.... That's 7 days in total only... You just bury yourself at home, completely Zero contact with the outside world. You know it's going to go rampant, why go out before the second dose?
have a look how Moderna's stock price has travelled over the last 3.5 months (152% up since 1 May) - I'll be punting on those profits for a couple years when conditions permit!
Common sense arguments are rarely worth sharing though, they're too arguable. "Do you have any evidence for that?" Shrug.
Also there's the context in this thread, that we're arguing about the advice of medical professionals, questioning that advice based on information known to be out of date. Is that sensible?
The sheer exponential momentum of that curve suggests at 14 weeks, maybe 13 weeks, it would hit 100% efficacy. I'd still rather face delta at 100% efficacy, even if its for the former strain, than 81%. This might only be relevant to those, like me, that are already really close to the 12 weeks. I don't live in a hot zone either.
But those only just starting the long AZ wait it is likely better to have the second dose sooner and rely on boosters later as Mr Whippy suggested.
that's good data, thank you
If you take the second dose too early, doesn't that make you less resistant to the virus from the second dose, all the way to the booster shot? You're stuck for a whole year of being more susceptible to the virus, VS being extremely susceptible for 2 months (those only starting with 1st dose recently).
2 months is easy to get by, like I said just lock yourself at home. No way you're gonna do that for 1 year!
With respect, so much unbridled speculation, FUD, disinformation and inappropriate medical advice in this thread.
Look I'm not against having a discussion or expressing an opinion, but giving unqualified medical advice or spreading disinfo crosses a line I feel.
Perhaps it's time for mods to shut this thread down? It's gone well beyond a useful discussion.
By what measure of logic do you decide that you are qualified to decide what "medical advice or spreading disinfo crosses a line"
If you think your statement is accurate then present an alternative view with supporting evidence from verifiable sources.
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|
