General COVID-19 Vaccine Discussion

drron

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
28,260
Solutions
1
Points
4,040
You are very good at tracking down articles @RAM but not nearly as good at understanding the context of those articles.The CDC article was based on the delta outbreak in Provincetown,Mass.I have posted that elsehere an account of that outbreak.here though is an article on that outbreak and the CDC report.

If you read that article it has this graph.
1627976569899.png .
Note that there are 127 vaccinated patients and 84 either unvaccinated or vaccination status unknown.now if you think a study of just over 200 people is the complete truth you are sadly quite wrong.As well the study is measuring Cycle Thresholds rather than absolute viral numbers.It depends where in the cycle the test is done.early or late testing will mean a higher Ct score which should mean less viral load and less infectious.Note the vaccinated show a trend to higher Ct scores.A higher number in the study might well mean that trend was significant

Here is another slighty less sensational report on the Provincetown outbreak and the CDC report.

Note this statement from the CDC in that report.
"High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus," Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC's director, said in a statement Friday.

My bolding.Not would but suggest

Now here is another report from the CDC and delta.From this article you can download the CDC report.

When you download the CDC report there is this statement,again my bolding.
Early evidence in health care providers that vaccination may
reduce transmission and attenuate illness (HEROES/RECOVER)
▪ Period: December 14, 2020 – April 10, 2021
▪ VE against infection was 91% (CI 76-97) among fully vaccinated; 81% (CI 64-
90) for partially vaccinated
▪ Compared to unvaccinated cases, vaccinated cases (full or partial) had:
– 40% lower mean RNA viral load (2.3 v. 3.8 copies/mL)
– shorter mean duration of detectable viral RNA (2.7 v. 8.9 days)
– lower risk of febrile symptoms (25.0% v. 63.1%)
– shorter mean duration of symptoms (10.3 v. 16.7 days)
 

TonyHancock

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
5,704
Points
855
I have been completely out of the loop on Australia of late and was last "home" in January 2020. I made the conscious decision to stay in the UK when all hell broke loose in March 2020. (Aged parent in the UK etc.)

I don't work in retail, hospitality or travel, so my view was, and remains, that if a business is agile COVID-19 presents opportunity. I had other chances to return in 2020 but the prospect of being stranded in an Australia with a zero Covid policy (it is like a zero risk safety strategy it just doesn't work) would never work for me. The US presents the biggest opportunity for my business so being stuck in Australia was never going to help me from a time zone perspective.

I am in the US now, double vaccinated with AstraZeneca, and because it is not recognised I am half way to a double Moderna vaccination. I can't see anyway out of this mess without vaccination. So I am gung ho about vaccination maybe.

If Australia wants to open up to the world and avoid constant lockdowns it has to be through vaccination. I cannot believe the Federal and State Governments could not see this and jump on vaccines much earlier. None of the governments globally come out of this particularly well.
 

tgh

Established Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
3,299
Points
845
I cannot believe the Federal and State Governments could not see this and jump on vaccines much earlier.

To be fair (and apolitical) .. I think the Feds called it as best they could ; backing AZ turned from triumph to disaster based on some fairly flimsy, hand wringing "risk averse" evidence , promulgated by folks with questionable judgment like the Qld CMO.
A very fast on it's feet bug has made most of the worlds pollies and intelligentsia all look a bit thick..
 

burmans

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
7,620
Solutions
1
Points
1,010
I cannot believe the Federal and State Governments could not see this and jump on vaccines much earlier.

To be fair (and apolitical) .. I think the Feds called it as best they could ; backing AZ turned from triumph to disaster based on some fairly flimsy, hand wringing "risk averse" evidence , promulgated by folks with questionable judgment like the Qld CMO.
A very fast on it's feet bug has made most of the worlds pollies and intelligentsia all look a bit thick..
To be fair though it’s made some look a lot thicker than others.
 

drron

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
28,260
Solutions
1
Points
4,040
Though there have been some pollies and bureaucrats that unlike the QLD CHO have by example tried to give a boost to AZ.
The NSW CHO and her partner have both had AZ.
The new Tassie Health Minister the day after getting the job had the AZ vaccine despite being 51 and the advice was under 60s Pfizer was preferred.The head of the Tassie public service the same day also had the AZ vaccine.
But in the press there was little coverage of these but a torrent of criticism of AZ.
 

bcworld

Established Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,304
Solutions
1
Points
710
The NSW CHO and her partner have both had AZ.
Just playing devil's advocate, but this wasn't because they wanted to go out and publicly demonstrate that this vaccine was safe.

They simply went out and got the vaccine that was recommended for their age group as it was at the time. (My assumption that Dr Chant is aged between 50 - 59).
 
Get paid up to 25% in real cash from your everyday purchases from leading companies such as Virgin Australia, Booking.com, Coles, Apple, Microsoft and much more. Free to join and no catches!

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

lovetravellingoz

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
12,328
Solutions
1
Points
905
Cairns case was fully Pfizer'ed in March.

Well hopefully that will make him less likely to transmit then.

Though in Israel it does seem that questions (early days yet as may be particular cohorts) are now arising about how well Pfizer works in the longterm as hospitalisations of the fully Pfizered is evidently on the rise. Booster now being more strongly considered.
 
Last edited:

33kft

Established Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
1,242
Solutions
1
Points
575
Though in Israel it does seem that questions (early days yet as may be particular cohorts) are now arising about how well Pfizer works in the longterm as hospitalisations of the fully Pfizered is evidently on the rise. Booster now being more strongly considered.
Couple of good videos on this by Dr John Campbell who is a great resource for COVID information:


 

serfty

Veteran Member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
43,937
Solutions
14
Points
3,300
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Platinum
Couple of good videos on this by Dr John Campbell who is a great resource for COVID information:
So, the implication is that having 8 to 12 weeks between Pfizer doses provides for better (88%) longer term symptomatic protection than having just 3 to 4 weeks between doses (41%).

There is not so much disparity with the implication that in the longer term for Hospitalisation being 91% for 3 to 4 weeks against 96% for 8 to 12 weeks.

Based on those implications, 2½ to 3 months between Pfizer doses seem to be the go.
 
Last edited:

TheRealTMA

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
6,712
Solutions
1
Points
1,325
Qantas
Platinum
Interesting debate here. Don't think I agree with the sentiment.

Should kids be vaccinated? The red-hot debate heats up​

"Children should never be vaccinated simply to protect adults, one of the nation’s top infectious disease paediatricians warns.
As more Queensland children are caught in the grip of the insidious, game changing Delta virus, calls are mounting to include schoolkids in the vaccine rollout but Prof Robert Booy, a member of the national Immunisation Coalition, said children have less serious cases of COVID-19 and it is ethically wrong to vaccinate children to protect the adults around them, unless it is proven that the child also received a direct benefit from the vaccine.

Professor Robert Booy, leading Australian infectious disease physicians. Supplied
“The primary reasons for vaccinating a child is always for the benefit of the child,” Prof Booy said.

The expert insists that the complex decision to vaccinate children is one that must be carefully investigated.

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) has announced that it is reviewing emerging overseas information on safety and effectiveness in all 12 to 15 year olds.

ATAGI advised this week that in this age group, kids with underlying medical conditions should be prioritised for the jab, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and those who live in remote communities."

 

HappyFlyerFamily

Established Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
4,231
Solutions
1
Points
690
Interesting debate here. Don't think I agree with the sentiment.

Should kids be vaccinated? The red-hot debate heats up​

"Children should never be vaccinated simply to protect adults, one of the nation’s top infectious disease paediatricians warns.
As more Queensland children are caught in the grip of the insidious, game changing Delta virus, calls are mounting to include schoolkids in the vaccine rollout but Prof Robert Booy, a member of the national Immunisation Coalition, said children have less serious cases of COVID-19 and it is ethically wrong to vaccinate children to protect the adults around them, unless it is proven that the child also received a direct benefit from the vaccine.

Professor Robert Booy, leading Australian infectious disease physicians. Supplied
“The primary reasons for vaccinating a child is always for the benefit of the child,” Prof Booy said.

The expert insists that the complex decision to vaccinate children is one that must be carefully investigated.

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) has announced that it is reviewing emerging overseas information on safety and effectiveness in all 12 to 15 year olds.

ATAGI advised this week that in this age group, kids with underlying medical conditions should be prioritised for the jab, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and those who live in remote communities."

So the thinking of the 'expert' is we need kids to go to hospital or ICU or die of covid, before we give them the vaccine to protect themselves, not reducing spread to other kids or adults......o_O
 

Princess Fiona

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
10,954
Solutions
1
Points
1,535
Qantas
Platinum 1
Interesting debate here. Don't think I agree with the sentiment.

Should kids be vaccinated? The red-hot debate heats up​

"Children should never be vaccinated simply to protect adults, one of the nation’s top infectious disease paediatricians warns.
As more Queensland children are caught in the grip of the insidious, game changing Delta virus, calls are mounting to include schoolkids in the vaccine rollout but Prof Robert Booy, a member of the national Immunisation Coalition, said children have less serious cases of COVID-19 and it is ethically wrong to vaccinate children to protect the adults around them, unless it is proven that the child also received a direct benefit from the vaccine.

Professor Robert Booy, leading Australian infectious disease physicians. Supplied
“The primary reasons for vaccinating a child is always for the benefit of the child,” Prof Booy said.

The expert insists that the complex decision to vaccinate children is one that must be carefully investigated.

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) has announced that it is reviewing emerging overseas information on safety and effectiveness in all 12 to 15 year olds.

ATAGI advised this week that in this age group, kids with underlying medical conditions should be prioritised for the jab, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and those who live in remote communities."

Just read an article published today in AusDoc (kind of our trade paper). They asked 5 experts this question, 4 of the 5 said yes we should be vaccinating 12 and up and the 5th said “not yet”.
 

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
4,312
Points
815
So, the implication is that having 8 to 12 weeks between Pfizer doses provides for better (88%) longer term symptomatic protection than having just 3 to 4 weeks between doses (41%).

There is not so much disparity with the implication that in the longer term for Hospitalisation being 91% for 3 to 4 weeks against 96% for 8 to 12 weeks.

Based on those implications, 2½ to 3 months between Pfizer doses seem to be the go.
The reduced longer term effectiveness from 3 to 4 week or even 6 week gap between doses may be solved by booster shots next year. In the short term getting people vaccinated is important. You’re still better off being exposed to the virus having had two doses rather than just having had one.
 

jakeseven7

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
7,825
Solutions
2
Points
1,145
Just read an article published today in AusDoc (kind of our trade paper). They asked 5 experts this question, 4 of the 5 said yes we should be vaccinating 12 and up and the 5th said “not yet”.

Yes so ATAGI will recommend it from 2033 then 🤪
 

drron

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
28,260
Solutions
1
Points
4,040
The reduced longer term effectiveness from 3 to 4 week or even 6 week gap between doses may be solved by booster shots next year. In the short term getting people vaccinated is important. You’re still better off being exposed to the virus having had two doses rather than just having had one.
But both Canada and the UK used the longer gaps to get at least partial effectiveness quickly because there were problems with supply but because the interval was more effective they are in a better place now.Perhaps we should have done the same.
 

jakeseven7

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
7,825
Solutions
2
Points
1,145
But both Canada and the UK used the longer gaps to get at least partial effectiveness quickly because there were problems with supply but because the interval was more effective they are in a better place now.Perhaps we should have done the same.

Potentially…. Pfizer sure throwing some curve balls with how to best utilise, interval and boost.
 

jjonnboy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
532
Points
370
Qantas
Gold
Virgin
Platinum
To be honest I try not to engage with him anymore, but that one made me see as red as his highlighting.
I am not confrontational by nature, but critical and analytical thinking precludes me from avoiding comment on the more egregious misrepresentations.
 

RAM

Established Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,082
Points
700
I will strictly deal with the issues raised and not make any thinly veiled attacks.

Note this statement from the CDC in that report.
"High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus," Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC's director, said in a statement Friday.

My bolding.Not would but suggest
Yes, on that basis (suggest) the US CDC changed its advice and has been on a public information campaign since.

In my post, which has caused so much disquiet & attacks, I quoted an excerpt from The Age article. What The Age reported is/was 'new'.

Previously the worldwide understanding was that any CV vaccine saw significant lowering, across the board, of the viral load carried by infected fully vaccinated. Something you draw attention to in your post, ie; the history prior to the Delta variant.

Now, that the US (nothing to do with Australia) Centre for Disease Control feels there is sufficent evidence to warrant a change in approach for fully vaccinated people. Partly this may be due to their May 17th recommendation that fully vaccinated people in the US should no longer get tested for Covid. That has been reversed.

Covid-19: C.D.C. Reverses Testing Advice for Fully ...

https://www.nytimes.com › covid-delta-variant-vaccine

7 days ago — The C.D.C. now says fully vaccinated people should get tested ... If the results come back negative, they can stop wearing masks indoors.

Equally the CDC stopped recording breakthrough infections that did not require hospitalisation or resulted in death from April 30th, just when Delta was starting to appear. Bloomberg did a quick analysis, and remember this is after the CDC recommended fully vaccinated people not get tested for Covid anymore. What they found, from people who did not follow the official Govt advice, and went & got tested anyway:

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-30/cdc-scaled-back-hunt-for-breakthrough-cases-just-as-the-delta-variant-grew

Bloomberg gathered data from 35 states and identified 111,748 vaccine breakthrough cases through the end of July, more than 10 times the CDC’s end-of-April tally.

The figures being quoted for US breakthrough infections have been substantially understated since April.

These cases, not counted, are exactly the cases that present the highest risk as many will be asymptomatic due to the vaccine doing most of its job and preventing the fully vaccinated person from developing symptoms, let alone serious illness.

That does not prevent them from potentially being a superspreader, as explained by the CDC director on over 38 media appearances since.

When you download the CDC report there is this statement,again my bolding.
Early evidence in health care providers that vaccination may
reduce transmission and attenuate illness (HEROES/RECOVER)
Period: December 14, 2020 – April 10, 2021 << RAM's bolding Period prior to the Delta Variant >>
▪ Compared to unvaccinated cases, vaccinated cases (full or partial) had:
– 40% lower mean RNA viral load (2.3 v. 3.8 copies/mL)
– shorter mean duration of detectable viral RNA (2.7 v. 8.9 days)
– lower risk of febrile symptoms (25.0% v. 63.1%)
– shorter mean duration of symptoms (10.3 v. 16.7 days)
So Apples with Oranges.
  • The time period covered is before the Delta variant took over.
  • This study reflects the old understanding of CV variants.
In early April, Delta represented just 0.1 percent of cases in the United States, according to the C.D.C. By early May, the variant accounted for 1.3 percent of cases, and by early June, that figure had jumped to 9.5 percent. The C.D.C. now estimates that the number has hit 82.2 percent.

In the time period of the study you reference the Delta variant made up less than 0.04% of cases over the period.

It is not relevant to Delta, and is no longer relevant if the CDC's understanding based on observations since are confirmed. That's history.

There is a big difference between mean, median & max. The graphs also show the range of outcomes for each - some unvaccinated infected carried a massively lower viral load than fully vaccinated & vice-versa.

What I originally stated, may have been better if I added the word 'could'. The question remains how do you know if a fully vaccinated person is actually infected with Delta, asymptomatic and carries a massive viral load of the Delta strain?

In NSW's case that is now through mandatory 3 day surveillance testing for 8 LGAs 'essential workers', & regular testing in other roles (HQ etc).

I do not think you dispute that there is a growing body of evidence that the viral load carried by a fully vaccinated person infected with Delta can be (not always) just as high as the viral load carried by a Delta infected unvaccinated person with a high viral load.

Throughout this pandemic there have been case after case of 'shooting the messenger' (it seems in China both literally & figuratively).

It took over a year (IIRC) for the Australian Federal Govt/Health to acknowledge/accept on any of its web pages that CV can be spread through the air by small aerosol particles in addition to those generated by a cough or a sneeze. At one testing site in Sydney this week their procedures manual (stapled pages) still does not reference aerosol transmission just the risk from droplets generated by a cough +/or sneeze - I asked the question & as they had no queue they went & got it for me, but held it so I could read it though
.

There's no 'weird agenda' as some have conjectured - but personally I would like to be told (if I had not come across this change in understanding) that even when fully vaccinated I can still pose a risk to any immuno-compromised, or elderly or anyone by being infected with the Delta variant, asymptomatic yet carrying a viral load hundreds of times greater than that generated by the original Wuhan virus.

I think about the twin removalists who were asymptomatic and perhaps infected their mother. I would not want to be in that situation.

Forewarned is forearmed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Currently Active Users

Top