I'm going with advice from the scientists - pros like Whitty and Van Tam who know what they're talking about.
Got the invite for booster; booked immediately; 7.15pm this coming Sunday.
I suspect those numbers from the Beeb/Zoe could do with a bit of context.
The heightened risk of blood clots was associated with the az jab but was not significantly higher than for any other jab and less than the already small risk of getting a clot from taking the pill.
Sorry to hear about the leg. I hope it mends well. I'd suggest speaking to your doctor about your particular circumstances.
Are people’s works’ Christmas parties getting booked in? I was expecting low signup but we have several buses’ (not that buses will be involved) worth of people signed up – over three quarters as a proportion I reckon.
Yep, we are having lowish numbers to make it covid safe but it was first come first served all spots booked in like half hour. To be honest I can't stand the work xmas party they are always pretty bad and people get far too drunk. Happy to just be having a dinner / drinks with my team.
thanks Del - i certainly will do.
can someone point me at info that backs up "there’s a much lower chance that you’ll become infected in the first place"
as that to me would make a difference.
similarly, "...clear the infection more quickly".
As I said, I have seen/heard that peak viral load is similar between vaccinated/unvaccinated, but if the timeframe for being contagious is significantly shorter, then again, that would make a difference
just to be clear, when i say "can you point me to info...", what im NOT saying is "i dont believe you prove it", im just well aware that setting off down a random internet rabbit hole isnt likely to help as im pretty sure i can find """evidence""" to support both sides. Im trying to get my head round which bits are assumptions
OK, here you go:
Significant (>90%) decrease in symptomatic infection in the boosted (compared with unvaccinated):
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boosters-give-over-90-protection-against-symptomatic-covid-19-in-adults-over-50
Peak load and kinetics of viral load:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59077036
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
That first link is for symptomatic infection. But what about all infections? I think that is the point here, as soobalias is trying to rationalise the case for vaccination in terms of protecting others.
Paul0 - that is my main concern, that the vaccine essentially just stops me even knowing that i caught it
however this, from the BBC article implies a slightly reduced incidence of infection for the vaccinated...
"the chance of them transmitting the virus to other unvaccinated housemates is about two in five, or 38%.
This drops to one in four, or 25%, if housemates are also fully vaccinated."
This looks like it is supported by the interpretation of the summary of the lancet article - apols, but my brain will explode if i try to read the full piece!
EDIT - but cheers for digging those out for me Gray, i appreciate it.
Asymptomatic infections are 1/3 of infections, not as bad as originally feared. Generally speaking viral load is lower in asymptomatic cases too, as increased viral load worsens disease.
That first link is for symptomatic infection. But what about all infections? I think that is the point here, as soobalias is trying to rationalise the case for vaccination in terms of protecting others.
As I mentioned yesterday, I don't know the reduction in chances of asymptomatic infection. I have not searched terribly hard - my strong suspicion is that those stats aren't out there simply because it's a lot harder to detect asymptomatic infection (got to get a load of people to test themselves often whether or not they have any symptoms) than symptomatic. And to answer the specific question here (which is 'how much benefit is there to the booster') than you need a load of fairly comparable boosted and unboosted people all being tested a lot, in order to catch enough asymptomatic infections in both groups in order to draw robust conclusions. I don't believe for a second that 'science' has that information but is hiding it from the public, it's just that it's not available (yet).
Do bear in mind that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we all do have to take decisions based on combinations of available hard data with best guesses made by experts. That's true whenever you go to the GP - they can't tell you for certain whether the treatment that they're suggesting will work or make things worse, they are just placing their bets based on what evidence is available plus their understanding of mechanisms. So here, whilst I understand people wanting 'proof' and seeing an apparent contradiction between the scientists saying "we should follow the data" versus saying "OK for this we don't have data, so just follow our opinion, but not those other guys", we do have to be smart about it, otherwise we risk e.g. ignoring the guy on a ship saying "we're about to hit that iceberg, we really" until there's absolute proof "we've hit it, now we're sinking". So here that means assessing the evidence (from hard data and understanding of mechanisms) and weighing that against the risks (fairly well understood now at a population level, but for an individual nobody can say with 100% certainty that you won't get negative side effects).
So in terms of the mechanisms and the stats... well, if we take that >90% protection against symptomatic infection by having three doses (compared with none), we can reasonably conclude that since we have seen waning of effect from two doses, which is thought to be about 50% after 6 months against delta, then the booster is clearly having a big effect on protection compared with pre-booster. That would be hard to deny. So, booster really helps protect against symptomatic infection. (That in itself is a big win for you and for the country as a whole, but OK, you want more.) The absolute worst case scenario would be that every single person who would have had a symptomatic infection if unvaccinated, actually had an asymptomatic infection instead, and also that an asymptomatic infection is just as likely to lead to onwards transmission as a symptomatic infection. In that scenario, the booster would not reduce the chances of you passing it on to other people (and might actually increase it since if you're symptomatic then you're more likely to be avoiding other people). I agree that hard data on those aspects would help, and maybe they're out there. Mechanistically though - the vaccine helps your body to fight off the infection, that what it does, and how it does it is well understood. Experts who understand this (better than I) will tell you that they have very high confidence that the fact that it so dramatically reduces symptomatic infections does logically suggest that it also significantly reduces the 'infected-no-symptoms-and-passed-it-on' likelihood. Indeed that Lancet study that I linked (which did follow up contacts regardless of symptoms) showed that even in households (where contact is close), unvaccinated contacts were more likely to be infected than vaccinated contacts.
Hope that helps, got a meeting now so must stop waffling.
1,000 deaths last week. I guess that's still considered 'acceptable losses' when considering the enormous step of telling people to wear a bit of cloth over their faces in public places.
**considering im self injecting daily with something to prevent blood clots, from which im at risk due to breaking my leg last week (Tibia Plateau Fracture)
Do you smoke?
But, critically, there’s a much lower chance that you’ll become infected in the first place!
This keeps getting touted as fact but there are many differing opinions on the chances of catching and spreading this virus if you are fully vaccinated. The following quote is from TiRed on page 839 of this thread and I know people here rightly view him as the authority on Covid on this forum.
The vaccine is doing relatively little for transmission. I noted this when delta first emerged in Israel. It spread at the same rate in a vaccinated population as alpha did in an unvaccinated.
So, as you can see it is not as clear cut as you are stating. This is what is leading to some peoples confusion about the "protecting others" statements. When experts cannot agree then there will be differing views and putting down those who don't agree or have genuine (founded or otherwise) concerns is not a workable way forward
(just to note, I am vaccinated and not an antivaxer!)
TL:DR (channelling TiRed there!) - I agree that it's not completely straightforward to cut through the noise and make sense of varying views, and that putting down people who don't hold the same views is not very helpful.
With the greatest of respect for TiRed, I don't think that statement was terribly clear - there's some ambiguity there and I'm not going to claim to be sure of what he meant precisely or to tell you how to interpret it.
However... in Israel, delta appeared on the scene in a highly vaccinated population. What we know is that the population at that time was not very well protected against delta. The current thinking seems to be that (a) delta is much more transmissible than previous variants, and (b) the protection level that they had at that time was not high enough to prevent a wave. Note that the two doses had given Israel nice low rates for a good while up to that point. So, the most likely explanation is that the new, more transmissible delta variant, combined with waning levels of protection meant that rates rose quite dramatically. Their booster program seems to have been successful in arresting that wave. So, my interpretation is that "The vaccine did relatively little for transmission in Israel" does not imply that "boosters do very little for overall levels of virus in circulation". And my conclusion is "please give me a booster every few months" rather than "I don't want boosters, they don't work".
Stepping outside the individual for a second, if you believe that a highly vaccinated population (with boosters where necessary to maintain levels of immunity) leads to lower levels of the virus in circulation (and for me it would be struggle to not believe that), then surely you must conclude that overall, the more vaccinated people there are, the lower the risk to the vulnerable in society.
Without the vaccine deployment transmission would be even higher. And boosters are needed to prevent it becoming higher again. It is not that the vaccines "do nothing" as regards transmission, it is that transmission with current variants with vaccine mitigation could perhaps be said to be pretty similar to transmission with the early variants without vaccine mitigation.
TL:DR - new variants mean that we need vaccines plus other control measures to control the epidemic at this stage. If we choose not to control it, we'll create other variants...
1,000 deaths last week. I guess that’s still considered ‘acceptable losses’ when considering the enormous step of telling people to wear a bit of cloth over their faces in public places.
If that measure was a magic bullet then the Scottish case/death rates would be a lot better than the English.
To be clear, it's not that I'm against mask-wearing, it's just that I think it's pretty futile given the lack of any other control measures.
RobHilton - no - was explained to me as linked to being immobile for the coming six weeks, zero weight through leg.
In your quote “transmission of Delta in vaccinated, the same as Alpha in unvaccinated.”
Delta is much more transmissable & vaccines weren’t quite as good against it. You are comparing apples & oranges.
I watched Johnathon Van Tam yesterday in the press conference state how much boosters reduced transmission. It was a lot.
Google Israel’s case rates to see how much they have dropped since they started boosters a few months back.
to me, the graphs of infections show pretty clearly that the only thing that impacts infection rate is lockdown.
the vaccinations have clearly impacted hospital rates and death rates
im double vaccinated and think that masks offer very little, but still wear one when asked (work, supermarket, etc) I am not calling for further lockdowns or SD measures
With the greatest of respect for TiRed, I don’t think that statement was terribly clear – there’s some ambiguity there and I’m not going to claim to be sure of what he meant precisely or to tell you how to interpret it.
Thought I was reasonably clear. Consider the vaccine as a means of prevention of sequalea when you get infected. And also a surrogate for past infections, because multiple lifetime infections for coronaviruses is the norm. It may do a little for transmission, but it has not been convincing data.
Looking across Europe, there is a large increase in cases and this is into a highly vaccinated population. I don't believe that this is just waning immunity. I think that other Delta variants may be at play and AY.4.2 is a candidate in the UK, but not Austria - there is looks like AY.4.3. Or something else.
All that said, having had the infection, and been double vaccinated, I'm booked for a booster because I'd like as high an antibody titer as possible. This will mitigate any symptoms, and may (only may) clear the infection with lower viral load for others to catch. Assuming I have removed my mask, which I wear in closed areas.
One is wondering when Merck's molnupiravir rolls out, and Pfizer to follow.
and may (only may) clear the infection with lower viral load for others to catch.
Has anyone actually looked at the effects of double vax on viral load delivered or looked at illness severity among close contacts?
I always saw this as one of the possible benefits of vaccination in terms of transmission - you may still pass it on, but at a much lower dose and perhaps make your loved ones illnesses more trivial.
Same with masks. Even if they are not preventing transmission entirely (which no-one ever claimed), perhaps they have an effect on the viral load you are sending out in buses/trains and shops, and the next person in the chain will have a sniffle rather than a nastier bout. And that may mean fewer problems for the next person in their household or workplace chain.
Hard to prove, of course, but even the suspicion that this is possible should make us favour masks in public enclosed spaces.
Consider the vaccine as a means of prevention of sequalea when you get infected. And also a surrogate for past infections, because multiple lifetime infections for coronaviruses is the norm. It may do a little for transmission, but it has not been convincing data.
OK, but I think there is a lot of confusion about what that means for this scenario. When you say 'It may do a little for transmission'... by 'transmission' here, do you mean:
(a) ONCE you've got an (asymptomatic, symptomatic, either?) infection, how readily you pass it on, or
(b) Prior to having any known infection, the chances of catching-it-and-passing-it-on?
(or something else?)
Because that's the crux of the question. My limited reading suggests that an infected person has pretty much the same chance of passing it on whether they are vaccinated or not, but that since they are less likely to catch it in the first place then the OVERALL risk that I present is lower. Is that wrong? Is it really plausible that being highly vaccinated (or having recent infection) JUST has a net zero effect on your chances of becoming infected and passing it on? (Genuine question, my preconception is that that seems very unlikely, but happy to educated.) Note that this would imply that vaccines have no effect on the cases curves. Hard to be sure that that's implausible in the context of all of the other changes that happen in populations, but I struggle to think that it's very likely.
PHE study shows an effect within a household of reduced transmission for vaccinated but subsequently infected individuals passing on infection
published here https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2107717
So yes an effect. Note it cannot be attributed to absolute viral load or shorter serial interval, because this was not measured (it's a retrospective electronic records study). But good information, nevertheless.
The assumption must be that you are less infectious if you have been vaccinated but still catch SASR-CoV2. One can assume that this would be true for outside the household too. However, that two-fold reduction may be mitigated by a strain twice as infective as Wild Type (i.e., Delta variant). Also bear in mind the age of the vaccinated in that study (Jan-Feb 2021) compared to the all-age rollout now.
So, for absolute clarity: for someone who has had two doses of a vaccine and is now eligible for a booster. Would having the booster reduce the overall chances of them catching-it-and-passing-it-on?
We don't have big up-to-date studies that specifically answer that, but people are interpreting 'The vaccine is doing relatively little for transmission.' as meaning that if you are currently deciding whether or not to get a vaccine/booster, then the only benefit of going for it is that you personally might be less likely to get serious illness, because the vaccine/booster will do nothing for the overall chance that you will end up being a transmitter to other people. I don't think that's right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
PS - sorry if it seems like I'm badgering the witness, I just sympathise with the confused and want to know if I'm getting the wrong end of sticks.
Would having the booster reduce the overall chances of them catching-it-and-passing-it-on?
Yes.
What we gain from boosters could be undone by new variants though. Let's hope not. No, let's do better than hope... let's act to stop it happening.
Yes
Forgive me for this kelvin, as I can't recall how "expert" your knowledge is on the subject, but TiRed is specifically not saying "Yes", let alone putting it in bold.
I absolutely feel everyone, subject to personal medical issues like soobalias, should take every jab and booster they are offered, but the specific question originally asked for his/her particular situation doesn't seem to me clear cut.
My father-in-law has just added to the northern Ireland statistics, admitted to hospital with a UTI, caught covid on the ward and died this afternoon. He had 2 vaccines and was due booster shortly.
I'm little bit broken right now, minding our toddler in England while wife over there. I join her tomorrow 😢
RobHilton – no – was explained to me as linked to being immobile for the coming six weeks, zero weight through leg.
Ta. Was just interested - I broke my ankle earlier this year and, being a lightish smoker had to jab myself daily. It wasn't great doing it, but it wasn't enough to make me quit.
Niall - Im so sorry for that. I hope the family hold up as best as they can in the circumstances. Its a sobering reminder that these statistics are all real people.
Niall - I'm so sorry to hear that. Vent on here if you need to.
Thanks both, feel better just now - restorative toddler wrangling has helped. Family OK, for now. Think going be tough on wife as is an itu doc and been working through the pandemic dealing with others, very different when your own.
sorry to hear this niall.
RobHilton - belly fat with track marks doesnt make me feel "beach ready"
So my missus tested positive on the LFT and I was negative. We both got PCR's the next day and her positive was confirmed and I was negative. Since then she has had typical cold like symptoms, I have been doing lft's every day and testing negative so far - day 5 after her infection. We are both double jabbed.
What is going on here? We live in a tiny flat and it seems unlikely I wouldn't get it but so far not. Am i being protected by my double jabs or am I just 'lucky'? I am confident I wasn't asymptomatic and infected her as we have been testing regularly
It's possible, my daughters shared a room (and then car) with their cousin on holiday. Cousin had COVID, one daughter caught it, the other didn't. All under 18, not vaccinated at the time as U18 weren't being offered vaccination at the time.
What is going on here? We live in a tiny flat and it seems unlikely I wouldn’t get it but so far not. Am i being protected by my double jabs or am I just ‘lucky’? I am confident I wasn’t asymptomatic and infected her as we have been testing regularly
a) It's not guaranteed that you'll catch it, even off a close contact.
b) Both your jabs and hers may also offer some protection against picking it up or delivering a big 'dose' of the virus if you are infected. It's possible you've also had a natural covid infection that you didn't register at the time, which would offer additional protection against either contracting it, or shedding enough virus in the right places to test positive from a swab.
c) You may not test positive until several days after exposure, so keep testing.
Four of us shared a hotel room for 4 days from the point eldest probably caught it, sat opposite each other on a train for four hours for the journey back, normal household interactions for 3 days before he tested positive and frankly didn't take many actions to avoid him for the 10 day isolation period.
None of us caught it.
He was single jabbed when he caught it, wife and I double jabbed, youngest unjabbed at that time. Can't believe we didn't get it from him.
From my understanding, you will CATCH it, but your body fights it of before it gets hold, and the viral load stays below a level where it properly get into you, or you are contagious to others. An expert may correct me if that's wrong?
That's my understanding too. In that proximity and for that duration it's pretty inconceivable that you won't inhale or ingest virus particles. But the body has defence mechanisms even before it gets into cells to reproduce (like mucus, etc.) and then defence mechanisms to fight off infections, so I guess it all comes down to what you consider 'infected' to mean. I reckon pretty well everyone is being / has been infected at this level by now, and continues to be, it's whether you are susceptible to the virus then taking hold sufficiently to have an effect.
What stops that - vaccines, prior exposure, etc., I find fascinating (but it's mainly conjecture). What is it about 'some people' that means even before vaccinations and so on, they didn't get infected? Do these repeated very low level infections prime the system in these people sufficiently that they have natural immunity?
Yeah thanks all, this sort of reflects what I have been thinking. We even shared a tootbrush a couple of times just before she tested positive so it seem inconceivable I haven't been in contact with the virus. At the moment I am basically isolating/quarantining as well to be on the safe side
Thats sensible IMHO. The rules are such a mess, you need to apply your own dose of caution and common sense on top.
Ive been reading snippets suggesting that the latest variant of Delta, AY.4.2 might lead to more asymptomatic cases. That seems to be a good thing to me?
Household attack rate is something like 25% for vaccinated and Delta, it’s not 100% so not a given that everyone cohabiting will catch it.
Germany seems to be suffering. 65+k new cases today.
How are we not worse right now? More vaced people?
How are we not worse right now? More vaced people?
Higher rates previously, so fewer uninfected folk for the virus to attack.
We've all had it this year already due to lack of restrictions!!
How are we not worse right now? More vaced people?
I think we have higher vaccination rates, but the most likely theory is that we opened up earlier so had our exit wave earlier. There was always a trade off between benefits of seasonality vs fewer vaccinated to any earlier opening up.
