FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > transmission and the vaccine
transmission and the vaccine
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
COVID-19: Oxford vaccine may reduce transmission by 67%
so the research is coming in and as they were saying from the start they knew it will protect transmission in some way small or big its 67% ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"one
https://news.sky.com/story/oxford-vaccine-may-have-67-effect-on-transmission-and-protection-remains-for-three-month-jab-interval-12206734
"
67% is better than nowt.
Problem is the government letting shit loads of people into the country and fucking up the vaccination efforts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Hopefully two jabs will suppress transmission more and/or the other vaccines will suppress transmission just as much. This is how we get our lives back - but that doesn't mean we can let our guard down any time soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *JCouple
over a year ago
Teesside |
"Hopefully two jabs will suppress transmission more and/or the other vaccines will suppress transmission just as much. This is how we get our lives back - but that doesn't mean we can let our guard down any time soon."
Exactly!
Hopefully this will now convince some of the posters who weren't getting the vaccine as there was no evidence of it reducing transmission.
Previously it was the vaccine only protects the person been vaccinated so on that basis some people decided not to get it.
Now there's good evidence getting the vaccine not only protects you it also protects others  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So reduces the transmission rate by about 2/3rds.
Not bad given how viral it is.
I wonder if it also reduces the viral loads transmitted, making onward infection less impactful.
"
That's something I've spent many hrs searching for but nothing has turned up even in the obvious corners. FIO might be the place to go but don't expect any information for many many months. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So reduces the transmission rate by about 2/3rds.
Not bad given how viral it is.
I wonder if it also reduces the viral loads transmitted, making onward infection less impactful.
That's something I've spent many hrs searching for but nothing has turned up even in the obvious corners. FIO might be the place to go but don't expect any information for many many months."
The research is pretty new, it'll come out in due course |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
For all the vaccine nerds out there, this is the link to the Lancet pre-print referenced by the media:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This presumably means the R rate will drop significantly?
That's my assumption"
Yep, if the virus transmits less, that reduction should translate into a drop in the R number. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just read it. It's also interesting to see they say the evidence endorses the 12 week gap between prime and booster taken by the UK. Just as well given it doesn't look like changing. "
I’m hoping some informal conversations were had with Oxford before the government took its decision to go “off book” and increase the interval. I suspect someone somewhere had some data to suggest it wasn’t a complete shot in the dark. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's great news and what will really help the country to break more free from the hold it's had on us. As will other countries too. I don't think this is peer-reviewed yet, so we need to be cautious until that's completed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just read it. It's also interesting to see they say the evidence endorses the 12 week gap between prime and booster taken by the UK. Just as well given it doesn't look like changing.
I’m hoping some informal conversations were had with Oxford before the government took its decision to go “off book” and increase the interval. I suspect someone somewhere had some data to suggest it wasn’t a complete shot in the dark. "
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case with Pfizer  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just read it. It's also interesting to see they say the evidence endorses the 12 week gap between prime and booster taken by the UK. Just as well given it doesn't look like changing.
I’m hoping some informal conversations were had with Oxford before the government took its decision to go “off book” and increase the interval. I suspect someone somewhere had some data to suggest it wasn’t a complete shot in the dark. "
You'd hope so wouldn't you! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just read it. It's also interesting to see they say the evidence endorses the 12 week gap between prime and booster taken by the UK. Just as well given it doesn't look like changing.
I’m hoping some informal conversations were had with Oxford before the government took its decision to go “off book” and increase the interval. I suspect someone somewhere had some data to suggest it wasn’t a complete shot in the dark.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case with Pfizer "
Yep. Pfizer is early 50s when it comes to percentage efficacy after the first jab, I think. Can’t remember where I read it. Might have been the New England Medical Journal. The vaccine technology is completely different so not surprising. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just read it. It's also interesting to see they say the evidence endorses the 12 week gap between prime and booster taken by the UK. Just as well given it doesn't look like changing.
I’m hoping some informal conversations were had with Oxford before the government took its decision to go “off book” and increase the interval. I suspect someone somewhere had some data to suggest it wasn’t a complete shot in the dark.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case with Pfizer
Yep. Pfizer is early 50s when it comes to percentage efficacy after the first jab, I think. Can’t remember where I read it. Might have been the New England Medical Journal. The vaccine technology is completely different so not surprising. "
That's good. (I meant with the spacing. My interpretation of what happened was that the UK government decided to space it at 12 weeks and Pfizer said "wtf why are you doing this?") |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"one
https://news.sky.com/story/oxford-vaccine-may-have-67-effect-on-transmission-and-protection-remains-for-three-month-jab-interval-12206734
67% is better than nowt.
Problem is the government letting shit loads of people into the country and fucking up the vaccination efforts "
You are telling a 100% lie your discusting to lie like like this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just read it. It's also interesting to see they say the evidence endorses the 12 week gap between prime and booster taken by the UK. Just as well given it doesn't look like changing.
I’m hoping some informal conversations were had with Oxford before the government took its decision to go “off book” and increase the interval. I suspect someone somewhere had some data to suggest it wasn’t a complete shot in the dark.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case with Pfizer
Yep. Pfizer is early 50s when it comes to percentage efficacy after the first jab, I think. Can’t remember where I read it. Might have been the New England Medical Journal. The vaccine technology is completely different so not surprising.
That's good. (I meant with the spacing. My interpretation of what happened was that the UK government decided to space it at 12 weeks and Pfizer said "wtf why are you doing this?")"
Haha. Yes. I suspect they had some “intelligence” for the OAZ one, but not the Pfizer one. As a company, Pfizer have to go with the regimen they designed for the clinical trial (based on their mRNA tech), otherwise there’s huge product liability issues if it goes tits up. In my book, they’re right to say not to come running to them if the vaccine is less effective. Let’s face it, the spat between the European Commission and OAZ is a good example of how those cuddly politicians can suddenly turn nasty when their backs are up against the walls, but don’t get me started on that ...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just read it. It's also interesting to see they say the evidence endorses the 12 week gap between prime and booster taken by the UK. Just as well given it doesn't look like changing.
I’m hoping some informal conversations were had with Oxford before the government took its decision to go “off book” and increase the interval. I suspect someone somewhere had some data to suggest it wasn’t a complete shot in the dark.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case with Pfizer
Yep. Pfizer is early 50s when it comes to percentage efficacy after the first jab, I think. Can’t remember where I read it. Might have been the New England Medical Journal. The vaccine technology is completely different so not surprising. "
53% 14 days after the first vaccine, from the NEJM, I seem to recall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"eh?? doesn't make sense
Vaccine helps to fight the disease, only social distancing stops transmission"
Look at distancing as a “mechanical way” of reducing transmission. There’s other stuff at a biological level that can stop the vaccine spreading from person to person (potentially) once they’re vaccinated. There’s no definitive answer yet and the science is still a work in progress, because the data is still rolling in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hopefully two jabs will suppress transmission more and/or the other vaccines will suppress transmission just as much. This is how we get our lives back - but that doesn't mean we can let our guard down any time soon.
Exactly!
Hopefully this will now convince some of the posters who weren't getting the vaccine as there was no evidence of it reducing transmission.
Previously it was the vaccine only protects the person been vaccinated so on that basis some people decided not to get it.
Now there's good evidence getting the vaccine not only protects you it also protects others "
It will certainly make me rethink not getting it. My turn would still be a long time away though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"eh?? doesn't make sense
Vaccine helps to fight the disease, only social distancing stops transmission
Look at distancing as a “mechanical way” of reducing transmission. There’s other stuff at a biological level that can stop the vaccine spreading from person to person (potentially) once they’re vaccinated. There’s no definitive answer yet and the science is still a work in progress, because the data is still rolling in. "
I think (not a scientist) we were saying "doesn't prevent transmission" because we didn't know yet, and we didn't want jabbed people thinking they were safe, having orgies (or whatever) and killing people.
They're doing the studies, now it's showing it does reduce transmission. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"eh?? doesn't make sense
Vaccine helps to fight the disease, only social distancing stops transmission
Look at distancing as a “mechanical way” of reducing transmission. There’s other stuff at a biological level that can stop the vaccine spreading from person to person (potentially) once they’re vaccinated. There’s no definitive answer yet and the science is still a work in progress, because the data is still rolling in.
I think (not a scientist) we were saying "doesn't prevent transmission" because we didn't know yet, and we didn't want jabbed people thinking they were safe, having orgies (or whatever) and killing people.
They're doing the studies, now it's showing it does reduce transmission."
This    |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"eh?? doesn't make sense
Vaccine helps to fight the disease, only social distancing stops transmission
Look at distancing as a “mechanical way” of reducing transmission. There’s other stuff at a biological level that can stop the vaccine spreading from person to person (potentially) once they’re vaccinated. There’s no definitive answer yet and the science is still a work in progress, because the data is still rolling in.
I think (not a scientist) we were saying "doesn't prevent transmission" because we didn't know yet, and we didn't want jabbed people thinking they were safe, having orgies (or whatever) and killing people.
They're doing the studies, now it's showing it does reduce transmission."
Yes, that’s exactly it. Science will not say anything can be done if there’s no evidence to support it. Immunity following catching the virus is another good example. The basic answer is they don’t know yet and antibodies are not the be-all-and-end-all on the subject. It’s more complex than that and there are b-cells and t-cells and what not. Studies are ongoing. Because they can’t say with any certainty yet, they stick to what they know, which let’s face it is what science should do. Making shit up is the job of the politicians!!
I have a diverse exposure to technology because of my job, but I’m no molecular virologist. I’ve been very fortunate to have been involved with the machine that that performs PCR for testing, so I have an appreciation for this stuff, but I’m far far from being an expert. It’s pretty cool stuff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Slightly off topic, but a really cool possibly game-changing treatment is interferon-beta that’s at Phase 3 testing. A British company in Southampton developed the drug previously to treat MS, but has shown very promising results when treating the symptoms of hospitalised Covid patients.
Have folks in here heard about it? If the advance publicity is anything to go by, it should cut time in hospital significantly and vastly improve outcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"eh?? doesn't make sense
Vaccine helps to fight the disease, only social distancing stops transmission
Look at distancing as a “mechanical way” of reducing transmission. There’s other stuff at a biological level that can stop the vaccine spreading from person to person (potentially) once they’re vaccinated. There’s no definitive answer yet and the science is still a work in progress, because the data is still rolling in.
I think (not a scientist) we were saying "doesn't prevent transmission" because we didn't know yet, and we didn't want jabbed people thinking they were safe, having orgies (or whatever) and killing people.
They're doing the studies, now it's showing it does reduce transmission.
Yes, that’s exactly it. Science will not say anything can be done if there’s no evidence to support it. Immunity following catching the virus is another good example. The basic answer is they don’t know yet and antibodies are not the be-all-and-end-all on the subject. It’s more complex than that and there are b-cells and t-cells and what not. Studies are ongoing. Because they can’t say with any certainty yet, they stick to what they know, which let’s face it is what science should do. Making shit up is the job of the politicians!!
I have a diverse exposure to technology because of my job, but I’m no molecular virologist. I’ve been very fortunate to have been involved with the machine that that performs PCR for testing, so I have an appreciation for this stuff, but I’m far far from being an expert. It’s pretty cool stuff. "
I found virologists to listen to when this kicked off. I learn when I'm scared.
I picked up a little bit  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"eh?? doesn't make sense
Vaccine helps to fight the disease, only social distancing stops transmission
Look at distancing as a “mechanical way” of reducing transmission. There’s other stuff at a biological level that can stop the vaccine spreading from person to person (potentially) once they’re vaccinated. There’s no definitive answer yet and the science is still a work in progress, because the data is still rolling in.
I think (not a scientist) we were saying "doesn't prevent transmission" because we didn't know yet, and we didn't want jabbed people thinking they were safe, having orgies (or whatever) and killing people.
They're doing the studies, now it's showing it does reduce transmission.
Yes, that’s exactly it. Science will not say anything can be done if there’s no evidence to support it. Immunity following catching the virus is another good example. The basic answer is they don’t know yet and antibodies are not the be-all-and-end-all on the subject. It’s more complex than that and there are b-cells and t-cells and what not. Studies are ongoing. Because they can’t say with any certainty yet, they stick to what they know, which let’s face it is what science should do. Making shit up is the job of the politicians!!
I have a diverse exposure to technology because of my job, but I’m no molecular virologist. I’ve been very fortunate to have been involved with the machine that that performs PCR for testing, so I have an appreciation for this stuff, but I’m far far from being an expert. It’s pretty cool stuff. "
I'm missing teaching things like PCR and genetic fingerprinting with my students this year  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"eh?? doesn't make sense
Vaccine helps to fight the disease, only social distancing stops transmission
Look at distancing as a “mechanical way” of reducing transmission. There’s other stuff at a biological level that can stop the vaccine spreading from person to person (potentially) once they’re vaccinated. There’s no definitive answer yet and the science is still a work in progress, because the data is still rolling in.
I think (not a scientist) we were saying "doesn't prevent transmission" because we didn't know yet, and we didn't want jabbed people thinking they were safe, having orgies (or whatever) and killing people.
They're doing the studies, now it's showing it does reduce transmission.
Yes, that’s exactly it. Science will not say anything can be done if there’s no evidence to support it. Immunity following catching the virus is another good example. The basic answer is they don’t know yet and antibodies are not the be-all-and-end-all on the subject. It’s more complex than that and there are b-cells and t-cells and what not. Studies are ongoing. Because they can’t say with any certainty yet, they stick to what they know, which let’s face it is what science should do. Making shit up is the job of the politicians!!
I have a diverse exposure to technology because of my job, but I’m no molecular virologist. I’ve been very fortunate to have been involved with the machine that that performs PCR for testing, so I have an appreciation for this stuff, but I’m far far from being an expert. It’s pretty cool stuff.
I found virologists to listen to when this kicked off. I learn when I'm scared.
I picked up a little bit "
It’s good to take an interest. At least you can make an informed decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now all we need is the stupid people to have the vaccination, so don't hold your breath on that one "
Several people have said they'll reconsider if the vaccine reduces or prevents transmission. Let's be optimistic  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's great news and what will really help the country to break more free from the hold it's had on us. As will other countries too. I don't think this is peer-reviewed yet, so we need to be cautious until that's completed. "
It's on fab forum, what more reviews are necessary? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's great news and what will really help the country to break more free from the hold it's had on us. As will other countries too. I don't think this is peer-reviewed yet, so we need to be cautious until that's completed.
It's on fab forum, what more reviews are necessary? "
Lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *reyyaMan
over a year ago
North Yorkshire |
"Hopefully two jabs will suppress transmission more and/or the other vaccines will suppress transmission just as much. This is how we get our lives back - but that doesn't mean we can let our guard down any time soon.
Exactly!
Hopefully this will now convince some of the posters who weren't getting the vaccine as there was no evidence of it reducing transmission.
Previously it was the vaccine only protects the person been vaccinated so on that basis some people decided not to get it.
Now there's good evidence getting the vaccine not only protects you it also protects others It will certainly make me rethink not getting it. My turn would still be a long time away though."
So, what you are saying is if one does not get vaccinated one is protected by the ones who have been vaccinated. And you have evidence for this fact. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is this after one dose or two ?
Protection of around 76% was found between 22 days and 3 months after first jab. Pretty good news. "
presumably though the studies started on the test cases before approval ... those folk got 2 jabs within a week ... so at 22 days they had already had 2 jabs
i doubt they have much data yet on people only getting one jab since that decision was only made in january ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Now all we need is the stupid people to have the vaccination, so don't hold your breath on that one
Several people have said they'll reconsider if the vaccine reduces or prevents transmission. Let's be optimistic "
or they will be happy to let others get the jab and piggyback on the protection they receive  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
