The Lemon Fool

As the Pfizer vaccine is supposed to be 95% effective, how do I know if I am actually protected or unluckily one of the 5% not protected? If I have no reaction after having the jab, does that mean something or nothing? I hope to actually leave my house once vaccinated and maybe see someone for the first time since March, but I worry that I may be in the same situation as I am in now and may catch the virus as I will think I am protected when I am not. Then all my caution would have been for nothing.

Any advice or help would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

I think you have no way of knowing. But your chances are 20 times what they were before.

As time goes on, more and more of the people you meet will have been vaccinated and therefore you are less likely to catch it from them. (Unless those vaccinated still get asymptomatic diseases).

The biggest risk factor is of course age, risk doubling with every 8-10 years. So be more worried if you see older. Blood group A increases your risk a little; group O decreases it a little.

One other point which I saw mentioned with regard to the Oxford vaccine, but may apply to others is that whilst some subjects who were given the vaccine contracted Covid, they suffered far milder symptoms than the subjects who caught it but received the placebo.

If you want some kind of guarantee you won't find it I'm afraid. The closest you will get is complete isolation at home forever, although you might "die of boredom".

Unfortunately life is full of risks, and the best you can do is mitigate against them. I am sure that was well understood a year ago, and every time anyone crossed a road, drove a car, went to the doctors surgery and sat in a waiting room, etc. there were (extremely small) risks of bad outcomes. But we embraced life accepting those small probabilities.

With the impractical alternative of spending the rest of our lives alone and wrapped in cotton wool, life will have to return to how it was, and acts of mitigation will be all that we can do to ensure these extra small risks are as small as they can practically be to provide additional protection.

Arizona11 wrote:As the Pfizer vaccine is supposed to be 95% effective, how do I know if I am actually protected or unluckily one of the 5% not protected? If I have no reaction after having the jab, does that mean something or nothing? I hope to actually leave my house once vaccinated and maybe see someone for the first time since March, but I worry that I may be in the same situation as I am in now and may catch the virus as I will think I am protected when I am not. Then all my caution would have been for nothing.

Any advice or help would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Wait in until most everyone has been vaccinated then the virus will die out in the wild or be so rare as to be negligible risk. Isn't the vaccine is as much about restricting the virus until it is no lingers in the wild rather than personal protection. Though I too read that that the vaccine did lead to less severe reactions even if less than perfect immunity for some individuals.

dealtn wrote:If you want some kind of guarantee you won't find it I'm afraid. The closest you will get is complete isolation at home forever, although you might "die of boredom".

Unfortunately life is full of risks, and the best you can do is mitigate against them.

The thing about the vaccine (any vaccine) is that the govt sees it as a public health measure (e.g. 70% of the population get protection, which perhaps equals community immunity) while each individual person tends to see it only as personal protection. Each person need persuading to take it and a vaccine offering a high probability of personal immunity is the most likely to gain a high degree of acceptance in a population (as most individuals don't care a jot about everyone else).

Even a vaccine with a low percentage effectiveness is worth taking if enough people take it, as the herd immunity thing might yet be reached which therefore still brings them protection but via a different route. Trouble is, few people seem able to understand/willing to consider this, the bigger picture.

dealtn wrote:life will have to return to how it was,

I rather hope it won't entirely do that.

As I wrote back in March (with reference to the commonality with colds and flu):

Coronavirus could leave a really good legacy if knowingly spreading germs could become as socially unacceptable as smoking.

kempiejon wrote:Wait in until most everyone has been vaccinated then the virus will die out in the wild or be so rare as to be negligible risk.

Ah, yes. Just like colds and flu - which have been with us plenty long enough to reach a steady state.

Mike4 wrote:

dealtn wrote:If you want some kind of guarantee you won't find it I'm afraid. The closest you will get is complete isolation at home forever, although you might "die of boredom".

Unfortunately life is full of risks, and the best you can do is mitigate against them.

The thing about the vaccine (any vaccine) is that the govt sees it as a public health measure (e.g. 70% of the population get protection, which perhaps equals community immunity) while each individual person tends to see it only as personal protection. Each person need persuading to take it and a vaccine offering a high probability of personal immunity is the most likely to gain a high degree of acceptance in a population (as most individuals don't care a jot about everyone else).

Even a vaccine with a low percentage effectiveness is worth taking if enough people take it, as the herd immunity thing might yet be reached which therefore still brings them protection but via a different route. Trouble is, few people seem able to understand/willing to consider this, the bigger picture.

Spot on. You are protected by the fact that other people have been vaccinated, more than that you have. Much the same as with masks, which you wear to protect others, not yourself.

It's worth pointing out that the standards of the results are very different and this has been under-reported.

The mRNA vaccines were described as 95% effective. However only people with COVID symptoms AND a positive test result were included in the 5%. The Oxford vaccine research tested everyone, irrespective of whether you had symptoms or not. So their 70% effectiveness needs to be adjusted upwards (reflecting asymptomatic cases) to be comparable.

Spet0789 wrote:
It's worth pointing out that the standards of the results are very different and this has been under-reported.

The mRNA vaccines were described as 95% effective. However only people with COVID symptoms AND a positive test result were included in the 5%. The Oxford vaccine research tested everyone, irrespective of whether you had symptoms or not. So their 70% effectiveness needs to be adjusted upwards (reflecting asymptomatic cases) to be comparable.

Yes I read this too when the results were first published. It is a really important point that seems to have slid completely under the radar of the meeja.

This means the Oxford vaccine protects recipients from getting infected, while the other two are only demonstrated to protect people from developing symptoms. A whole higher level of effectiveness.

This means people acquiring protection against infection from the Oxford vaccine are not spreading it about, unlike those taking the other two, who may or may not turn out to be asymptomatically infected and therefore just as infectious much as ever, but no-one knows.

Mike4 wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:
It's worth pointing out that the standards of the results are very different and this has been under-reported.

The mRNA vaccines were described as 95% effective. However only people with COVID symptoms AND a positive test result were included in the 5%. The Oxford vaccine research tested everyone, irrespective of whether you had symptoms or not. So their 70% effectiveness needs to be adjusted upwards (reflecting asymptomatic cases) to be comparable.

Yes I read this too when the results were first published. It is a really important point that seems to have slid completely under the radar of the meeja.

Very interesting if from a properly reputable source. Do you have one you'd care to share?

The old lady they had on t'wireless this morning as "the first to get the vaccine outside of trials" sounded very well on it.

kempiejon wrote:....then the virus will die out in the wild or be so rare as to be negligible risk.

Weeks ago I heard some authoritative geezer comment that it will never die out.
It's here now, like flu.

Question with the vaccines is whether any of them will give lasting protection, or whether we'll need an annual jab, as for flu.
That would be quite an undertaking, given that relatively few people take the flu jab, and everyone would need an annual CV19 jab to prevent it powering up again.
Hopefully not. The reason flu is annual, is that the virus ever changes; so far CV19 has not. Other than the mink. Mink is off the menu.

But even if the virus remains stable, we don't know how long immunity persists amongst the vaccinated, and won't know for many months.

I wonder if one can take two different vaccines?

V8

btw, did you know the flu jab is only 50-60% effective? Can't say I did. Can't say I'd even thought about it.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Mike4 wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:It's worth pointing out that the standards of the results are very different and this has been under-reported.

The mRNA vaccines were described as 95% effective. However only people with COVID symptoms AND a positive test result were included in the 5%. The Oxford vaccine research tested everyone, irrespective of whether you had symptoms or not. So their 70% effectiveness needs to be adjusted upwards (reflecting asymptomatic cases) to be comparable.

Yes I read this too when the results were first published. It is a really important point that seems to have slid completely under the radar of the meeja.

Very interesting if from a properly reputable source. Do you have one you'd care to share?

The old lady they had on t'wireless this morning as "the first to get the vaccine outside of trials" sounded very well on it.

There are definitely two schools of thought on the Astra vaccine. The Americans in particular are not impressed with it and there is some talk that the US FDA may not approve it:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astraze ... -to-snuff/

At this point personally I'd prefer the Pfizer or Moderna alternatives.

88V8 wrote:I wonder if one can take two different vaccines?

I heard there are now plans to carry out trials to test the effectiveness of this.

88V8 wrote:
btw, did you know the flu jab is only 50-60% effective? Can't say I did. Can't say I'd even thought about it.

Those values are in a good year when the vaccine closely matches the flu strains in circulation. I think in season 2018/2019 the match was poor, and the effectiveness was about half of the values you quote. However whatever the number is, we get a flu jab ( we are in our mid-seventies) every year and I can't remember when we last had flu. Maybe we have had it - but it was mild enough to be put down to being a simple cold. And I believe that is one of the advantages of the vaccine - you may still get flu, but its likely to be much milder than if you had not been vaccinated. I confess that I have been pleasantly surprised at the reported effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines - and hopefully we will be vaccinated before Easter, and we can go off on holiday with children and grandchildren.

Oxford Covid vaccine 'safe and effective' study shows

BBC News

The Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is safe and effective, giving good protection, researchers have confirmed in The Lancet journal.

"Most in the study were younger than 55, but the results so far indicate it does work well in older people too.

The data also suggest it can reduce spread of Covid, as well protect against illness and death."

Lootman wrote:The old lady they had on t'wireless this morning as "the first to get the vaccine outside of trials" sounded very well on it.
There are definitely two schools of thought on the Astra vaccine. The Americans in particular are not impressed with it and there is some talk that the US FDA may not approve it:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astraze ... -to-snuff/

At this point personally I'd prefer the Pfizer or Moderna alternatives.

I'd like to read your link but it insists I accept ALL of their stinking, privacy-invading cookies which only a fule would agree to. Any chance of a précis?

I too would reject the AZ vaccine given their confused press release, were I the regulator.

There are however, stats that show the 50% dose then 100% dose combo matches the other two in effectiveness PLUS you are assured not to have been infected at all, unlike the other two. So that for me, give it the edge. Never mind it is cheaper etc.

All academic at the moment though, as the Pfizer is the only one available to the proles.

Mike4 wrote:

Lootman wrote:There are definitely two schools of thought on the Astra vaccine. The Americans in particular are not impressed with it and there is some talk that the US FDA may not approve it:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astraze ... -to-snuff/

At this point personally I'd prefer the Pfizer or Moderna alternatives.

I'd like to read your link but it insists I accept ALL of their stinking, privacy-invading cookies which only a fule would agree to. Any chance of a précis?

I don't think I could do it justice but, regarding cookies, if I am concerned then I do this:

1) Delete all history including cookies.
2) Read article, agreeing to cookies, with nothing else open.
3) Delete all history including cookies.

If cookies do not endure then they can do no harm.

Mike4 wrote:I'd like to read your link but it insists I accept ALL of their stinking, privacy-invading cookies which only a fule would agree to. Any chance of a précis?

or even easier...

Fire up a private/incognito browsing window.
Drag link into it.
Read webpage
Close private browsing window.

All trace on your PC gone.

Gryff

gryffron wrote:

Mike4 wrote:I'd like to read your link but it insists I accept ALL of their stinking, privacy-invading cookies which only a fule would agree to. Any chance of a précis?

or even easier...

Fire up a private/incognito browsing window.
Drag link into it.
Read webpage
Close private browsing window.

All trace on your PC gone.

Gryff

or right-click - "open in new incognito window" - keeps the guitar gear shopping out of the history

anyways

Moderna vaccine looking like the early front runner here.

There's nothing about the Pfizer would cause you to choose it over that (other than having it to hand) and you can probably expect them to find more reasons to wind down production (be interesting to see the terms of their pre-order payments - money was being thrown about without requirements) while hoping that approvals or results get revised in their favour

Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives simply as they cannot compete on price (which is the prime motivator in the lucrative US market)
- the picture of relative efficacy (and importantly pandemic modification vs disease modification) will be clearer by the end of Q1 2021 (those receiving the Pfizer today will be "protected" mid to late January)

-sd