For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 118
#1819700
I agree with that, Jim, but, and speaking just a layman, is it better to continue with a vaccine if, as claimed, it offers insufficient protection to achieve herd immunity when others which offer more are available? I appreciate that supply and costs are issues, but would anyone who had the choice accept 62% protection against this virus when others are getting 95%,?

As a matter of interest, does the Moderna vaccine carry the same onerous storage demands as the Pfizer one? If so I can see that there is a place for the Oxford AZ one in places which can't easily (or at all) comply with them.

Just interested with no particular point to make about the different choices.

PW
#1819706
Propwash wrote:As a matter of interest, does the Moderna vaccine carry the same onerous storage demands as the Pfizer one?


No -- needs a freezer, but not the super-cold temperatures the Pfizer one requires, and stays viable in a fridge for 30 days.
#1819707
@Propwash Surely it's not that an individual gets 62% protection, it's 62% of the population that gets protection and 38% don't?

Mathematically, it must be better to have 62% of 90% of the population covered this year instead of 95% of 20%. Made up numbers, but expanding on Jim's point about actually getting hold of the stuff in the first place.

There are various stories emerging that the EU vaccine scheme is a basketcase. They don't have any date for approving the OxAZ drug, they won't have enough supplies for a couple of years, Germany has been doing their own thing all along, France has scraped together 50k doses for this week, Poland is feeling betrayed by the whole scheme, Hungary is talking to Russia and Cyprus is asking Israel if they can buy vaccine from them.

The UK seems to be doing very well on the vaccination front which is just as well since it's the only exit strategy on offer while governments continue with ineffective and probably counter-productive lockdowns.
#1819710
eltonioni wrote:@Propwash Surely it's not that an individual gets 62% protection, it's 62% of the population that gets protection and 38% don't?

.

No idea. I was quoting the SMH which was quoting the OZ & NZ Society for Immunology, which I presume, has people in it who know what they are talking about. I thought the point about the vaccination programme was to produce herd immunity, but what do I know? :lol:

I am here on this thread seeking enlightenment. :wink:

PW
eltonioni liked this
#1819751
Before they knew vaccines would work, they reckoned anything over 50% would be a game changer? Plus in trials nobody having had the vaccine has been hospitalised ... So surely still worthwhile.
That said, they have controlled the disease very well so maybe don't need it as desperately at this point? Let's hope that rather than bin it, they offer it to poorer nations that will appreciate it.

SS
#1819768
eltonioni wrote:France has scraped together 50k doses for this week,


The last news report I saw here, you need to take a zero off of that. And additionally, only around half the population will agree to be vaccinated. I know people over 70 in my aeroclub who say they want to " wait and see if there are any problems" before agreeing to be vaccinated. :|
#1819777
@johnm

The flu vaccine is not used to try to get herd immunity.

You cannot calculate the effect on the R by just dividing the number by the effectivity of a vaccine.
johnm, MikeB liked this
#1819816
That's an interesting point @Flyin'Dutch' AIUI the first job of the vaccine programme is to try and keep folk out of hospital the second part is the hope of global herd immunity at some point........
  • 1
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 118