Italy Reserves Moderna & Pfizer for Elderly... Astra-Zeneca For The Rest

[Luc 4,776]

Happy they're doing this in my country as well (NL) because my father is 64.

[Rj Barker 3,331]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

So the longer interval actually works better? And that higher rate is still worse

It does in the astrazeneca at least, the others weren't tested but they see no reason as to why it wouldn't. And I know its lower but its still certainly good enough.

[Rj Barker 3,331]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Correct me if im wrong but i thought the efficacity rate refered to supression of symptoms and ppl who remained asymptomatic not the spread rate

Correct but it can correlate with the spread rate, they seem to think the vaccines also drastically reduces the rate at which the virus sheds which means people are less infectious. Thus inturn reducing the spread rate.

[Economy 52,842]

1 minute ago, Rj Barker said:

It does in the astrazeneca at least, the others weren't tested but they see no reason as to why it wouldn't. And I know its lower but its still certainly good enough.

No i know its still good. Id still take it if thats all they had available for low risk ppl like me

 

Im just saying if supply was no longer tight and we had an option id rather go for the ones with higher efficacy

 

Given im a healthy (relatively speaking) 27 year old male im gonna be among the very last offered one (excluding those that just choose not to take it) so by the time my turn is up there may not be many left to vaccinate so who knows maybe we will be offered a choice

 

And since my brother is considered high risk (more than my older parents even) id want the best available to reduce chances of spreading it to him too

[Economy 52,842]

3 minutes ago, Rj Barker said:

Correct but it can correlate with the spread rate, they seem to think the vaccines also drastically reduces the rate at which the virus sheds which means people are less infectious. Thus inturn reducing the spread rate.

Yes it does. Cuz ur viral load would be lower and ur also not gonna be coughing etc

 

But what i mean is its not necessairily gonna be the same number or perfectly proportional... so im saying if ur going off the 81% as good enougb for herd immunity, im saying thats not the percentage of spread rate thats for symptom reduction. 

 

If it reduces virus enough to lower symptoms 81% but for example that only resulted in a 50% reduction in spread rate then thats still not herd immunity

 

Thats why i asked u that when u said 81%

 

 

[Rj Barker 3,331]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

Yes it does. Cuz ur viral load would be lower and ur also not gonna be coughing etc

 

But what i mean is its not necessairily gonna be the same number or perfectly proportional... so im saying if ur going off the 81% as good enougb for herd immunity, im saying thats not the percentage of spread rate thats for symptom reduction. 

 

If it reduces virus enough to lower symptoms 81% but for example that only resulted in a 50% reduction in spread rate then thats still not herd immunity

 

Thats why i asked u that when u said 81%

 

 

Oh I get you now haha, yes I see what you mean. Sorry got totally muddled up there. You're right. I still think we'll be fine regardless. Has your vaccination program sped up anymore yet?

[Gaby15 14,528]

Most European countries have decided, based on the original experimental results, to give AstraZeneca only to those under 60 years of age.

However, it is likely that there was an error in the evaluation of the experiments, as actual vaccination data in UK show much better efficiency in the elderly as well. (AstraZeneca had some problems performing and evaluating the experiment as they mixed things up.)

A bigger problem that affects all EU member states is that AstraZeneca is constantly postponing the delivery time of contracted quantities to the EU. In addition, a problem in some EU countries is that the vaccination schedule has not been changed, and as those under the age of 60 are not yet on the line, some AstraZeneca vaccines have not yet been used.

[Economy 52,842]

1 minute ago, Rj Barker said:

Oh I get you now haha, yes I see what you mean. Sorry got totally muddled up there. You're right. I still think we'll be fine regardless. Has your vaccination program sped up anymore yet?

It seems like its getting there. Were suppostu have a lot more doses coming in march and end of february it also started picking up already

 

Canada got off to a slow start cuz we got screwed over by delays from plant upgrades and stuff a lot more than most nations. Some Nations got mad about 20% reductions but our deliveries were affected over 50% and some weeks we got almost none at all we were promised so were all the way down to like 20 something on rankings for percentage of population vaccinated. Not terrible globally speaking but kinda slow compared to many other developed nations

 

The reason some are so mad is that we spent so much on an insane amount of contracts (400 milliom doses for a population of 38 million which is the highest ratio in the entire world) and that didnt end up helping us early on cuz the ones that were available simply didnt come as promised while others of course arent approved yet

 

But yeah in March we should be getting as much as December, January and February combined so its finally ramping up

 

But since we wont have manufacturing rights till at least next year were at the mercy of imports of other nations so regardless of how many contracts we have, theres little we can do about delays so timelines at any time can be shifted

 

I think the reason our supply got cut off more that other nations when delays happened is because companies didnt wanna cut as much from their own Nations and risk their countries and governments wrath so they cut more from us in delays. In aspects like this its easier for our contracts to not get honoured on time tbh

[MelbHawker 6,583]

18 hours ago, Economy said:

There isnt enough pfizer or moderna vaccines right now for everyone... excluding less effective ones from being administrated just means more ppl get no shot at all

 

Given these shots may need to be given annually since protection may not last forever (and virus mutates and vaccines need updates) it makes no sense to forgo shots that can be given now even if they arent the "best" available.

 

If we were in a situation of surplus vaccines we might as well only use the best ones but right now thats not the case so we better use everything available

 

In the future as production capacity rises some who might have to get a less effective vaccine now may get a better one next year if it becomes available. We may be able to be more picky about which shots to give but for the moment where there isnt enough for everyone what ur suggesting just mean less shots

I understand your points, but I’m of the belief that they could be manufacturing more of the Pfizer vaccines than they are at the moment in various different parts of the world to fight this pandemic. Mass vaccinating half of the population with a vaccine that’s 30% less effective than its ‘competitors’ in the hope that in the near future there’ll be enough of the most effective one to re-vaccinate those people is so problematic for a multiple reasons including side effects, lacking of data for this type of scenario etc. 

[MelbHawker 6,583]

17 hours ago, Rj Barker said:

All of the vaccines reduce transmission aswell as risk of death. None of them eliminate it.  And astrazeneca is better than what the op suggests. If given correctly with a 12 week interval the efficacy is 81.3%

Heed immunity will still be met.

I hope you are correct. I’ve only ever read credible sites report the AZ vaccine as 62% effective. 

[Rio 5,088]

41 minutes ago, MelbHawker said:

I hope you are correct. I’ve only ever read credible sites report the AZ vaccine as 62% effective. 

That's old data now. Actual vaccination data is coming out all the time and it showing up as higher