One dose of either vaccine is 33% effective against symptomatic disease from Delta. 50% Alpha.

2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine are 60% effective against symptomatic disease from the Delta variant compared to 66% effectiveness against the Alpha variant

Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 88% effective against symptomatic disease from the Delta variant 2 weeks after the second dose, compared to 93% effectiveness against the Alpha variant.

According to this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/v...-after-2-doses

Its no worse than you claiming 40-59 is fully vaccinated and that the second dose is:

The second dose is massively relevant at increasing protection for symptomatic disease.

Astra 33% to 60%
Pfizer 33% to 88%

Anyone who had even a cursory glance at the data would know how ridiculous it is claiming that second jab is irrelevant.

You are locked into dying on that hill for moment though.

The tedium is real.

That explains it then. The UK vaccination is just really poor quality again variants. Full vaccination with the UK strain will still have an R0 >2 with the Indian variant.

US should be fine since vaccines don't suck in USA#1 which is what matters for the stock market.

Latest data is ~90% protection against death.

Better than a kick in the balls.

What I actually said:
lol @ you.

I don't believe it is. This is going to be just like the Pfizer situation where the moron scientists said you need your second jab because their (too early) estimates had the first jab at ~60% vs 93% second (real value 88% vs 93%), but they hadn't given the first enough to time to work, and the protection from the first jab was almost the same as the second jab once the immune system had more time to work. 5 weeks from first jab = almost the same protection as second jab.

In the limited Indian strain data analysis so far, second jab people have simply had a longer time to build full antibodies than first jab people, so the conclusions are screwed up again, especially since the young Indians (who are spreading it) are late-loaded on vaccines in the data. Just like the Pfizer situation the scientists are morons who don't correct for this.

I think it's high probability that the 84% of the 35-49 year olds who were vaccinated a month ago have close to the final vaccine level of protection against delta, even more so when you add in the fact that prior infection + first vaccine beats second vaccine naive. This data-bias mistake on first vs second vaccine has happened across 2 vaccines now on two continents.

ToothSayer doing math:



Nice try. Now go away and redo your calculations based on the WHOLE POPULATION, not just adult population.

Do you guys not see a pattern here?

If someone's solution is 2 shots at every turn maybe don't trust their data. Maybe you need 2 shots against delta, but they said that about the original virus and it turned out to be total bullshit.

We need a lot more information before the numbers in that study are proven out.

Here's the first link I've found but i've never seen anyhting very different
So possibly a bit better than I said as it's 60% effective for AZ but 80% for Pfizer. Not sure of the proportiosn although I think it's been mostly AZ

Fully protected is ~2 weeks after 2nd dose. I'm not quite there yet and I'm 55. Under 55s came after me as 55 was a breakpoint.

Under 40s for example were only invited for their first jab from the 13 May. Yes the takeup has been phenomenal but these people are far from the full protection.

The confusion may be you thinking the 1st does is fully protective but it still takes a few weeks and then it's still not full protection

El Razor,
Oh this is going to be embarrassing for you. I bolded and underlined the key bits which you missed because you're an idiot:
So embarrassing for you. This data is from April 11th, over 2.3 months ago, which I noted in the post. I bolded the key lines, moron. The extrapolation to now/whole population is so obvious I didn't even need to say (except for the stupid). Population level is way higher now; 20% more of the population has been vaccinated (double vaccinated 35% more); the March/April infected now have added new immunity on top. So yes, >70% of the population and likely over 80% now have antibodies, clown, based on the 70% of the adult population on April 11th. My post was completely accurate.

Are you going to post something that isn't a total fail and leaves you with egg on your face? lol @ you. What is that, 5 in row of you self owning? Amazing. Thanks for the laugh. And please choose a profession other than science or whatever it is you do; your demonstrated incompetence in basic data analysis and logic makes you -EV for the human race at any kind of job that needs analysis, sir. We had covid become a pandemic and kill millions and cost $10 trillion dollars instead of containing it easily because of idiots like you.

Kind of, which is what I've been saying. But only when it comes to infections. Proection against hospitilisation appears to be very strong.

The evidence for this seems solid because there's lots of infections without the otherwise expected rise in hospitalisations among the elderly - precisely the group who are fully protected.

Right, but 84% of 35-49 years old were at least vaccinated once as of a month ago; 32% were vaccinated twice. So your statement is simply wrong and I think the confusion is yours (on several levels):
This is just really wrong. >40% of under 35-55 year olds are "fully protected" as of today and >90% are mostly protected.

Fully protected is a weird term, just completely wrong as a description of two vaccines, and also binary, which is encouraging binary thinking from you which arises from anxiety. Here's the real breakdown:

>50% of 35-55 year olds are 60% protected from two vaccines + time for antibodies or prior exposure to the virus (+ vaccine)
>90% of 35-55 year olds are >40% (likely >50%) protected from prior exposure to the virus or a single vaccine or single vaccine + prior exposure (which is stronger than 2 vaccines + naive).

So I don't think the data makes the case you're claiming that the variant is spreading rapidly in these groups because of lack of vaccines, and "full protection" will stop it. The correct statement is:

The variant is spreading rapidly in these groups despite the group being very close to the maximum theoretical protection of whole-group double vaccine shots.

This was my intuitive point to begin with, and I consider it proven after examining the UK data.

As you note though, deaths are going to be way down.

The biggest thing that matters for is what this means for the mutation situation. Since R>1 even in the most favorable groups (low natural R, "fully protected"), the virus is going through the vaccinated population with seemingly nothing to stop it. Even the age group below, now full double vaccinated, have an R>1 in summer and with a low natural R anyway due to low socializing:



The virus is now being actively preferentially selected in the UK for being vaccination evading since the vaccine clearly can't stop it spreading even "fully protected", only slow it down.

No fully protected is quite clear. it means achieveing the full protection which iin this case of AZ is claimed to be ~60% from getting infected.

That leaves a huge pool who are less than 50% protected (and many not proetcted at all) and they're the same group who are being exposed most.

So yes of course the variant is spreadingly rapidly in this group. How could it be otherwise?

Yes except it's clearly some way off the maximum theoretical protection. unlike with the elderly - which is the point. Getting closer fast but still some way off.

Yes it is expected given the vaccination rates and the claimed protection. Proof is for the silly people but it definitely seems consistant with the data.

Now perhaps you could turn to expected death rates and hospitisations. Is that consistent with the vaccine being ineffective? I put it in bold because it's quite important.

This is just anxiety driven irrationality on your part, chez. Got to let go of that anxiety-driven binary thinking on "fully protected". The data is quite clear that 35-55 years are already close to the maximum protection possible from the vaccines, and it's spreading handily in that group anyway in spite of all that protection and restrictions still in place (it's not normal life yet).

It's clear that the UK vaccinations are not going to stop the Indian strain, merely reduce its impact. Perhaps increasing summer will help more, but the "full protection" UK vaccine isn't enough. What happens when autumn comes? Summer last year almost killed off Covid Classic in Europe, now the Indian strain is surviving and growing despite summer + 70% immunity.

I'd agree with your comments if we were talking about Pfizer.

There's no anxiety - where did that come from? And I'm not remotely expecting to stop the indian strain so I dont know what than bit refers to.

Semantics and wierd stuff aside we seem to agree that the infection data is consistant with what we would expect given the claimed effectiveness of the vaccine and the vaccination rates. Is that not correct?

I'm reasonably hopeful that's the claimed effectivness is also true for the hospitilistions and deaths. I'm inviting you to do your analysis on that and hopefully you will confirm my hopes even while we will no doubt enjoy some disagreements about words and things.

I'm also expecting booster shots along with tweaks to the vaccines to be both necessary and part of normal life.

No lol @ you:

Does not matter if no one takes them.

"No one" = >80% of the population? What?

No.

He will slowly incorporate your points in to his future statements now you have schooled him on the proper data. He will just try to pretend he did not backpedal, caveat as he does.

There's no claim there that 40-59 are fully vaccinated. You realize the "1.4 rate (actual) most have been jabbed (actual)" and "1.3 (theoretical) fully vaccinated (theoretical)" are different, right? They're different for a reason. As of a month ago, 91% of 40-59 had been vaccinated at least once, and about 40% had been vaccinated twice. That translates to a current R of 1.4 and about 1.3 "fully vaccinated" once you do the math on single vs double vaccination including existing immunity. 60% of that group has yet to go from ~40% when including existing immunity to 60% protection (i.e. 60% gain 20% reduction). The numbers are likely even closer because of the twice-demonstrated bias in one vacc vs 2 vacc time lag measurements.

R (June measured) = 1.4, protection level = 60% x 0.4 + 40% * 0.6 = at 48% protection
R (theoretical full vaccs) = 1.3 at protection level = 60% * 1.0 = 60% protection.

You lose 1/8 of potential passed-on infections from going to full protection. So if 100 people currently pass it on to 145 others at current vacc rates, 100 people at full vacc will pass it on to 127 others. 1.4 current => 1.3 fully vacced (you won't get 100% having both vaccs).

Incidentally, that is the point: we're very close to full final vacc protection rates right now and the second vacc is hopeful nonsense; it won't change a lot as you can clearly see by the calculation above.

I expect it very likely (>70%) to be very protective on deaths (5x lower death or so per infection), such that I don't even think it's worth looking into.

OAFK11's numbers were a little worrying though. Not enough data to say for sure at this point how this will play out other than the Indian variant is going to thrive in the non-USA#1 vacc countries come autumn if it has the same weather properties of other covids.

The only schooling here has been of UK people who apparently don't even know their own country's data or how to analyze it.

No we know our own data. But we also know the recently one jabbed vaccinated have relatively low protection which compounded with those in that age group still unvaccinated is significantly less protection than with older people who are overwhelmingly double jabbed.

You can describe that as 'near full protection' if you like.

Sounds very reasonable.

Just to be clear, one shot of Pfizer after a few weeks is very similar protection (just slightly less) to “fully vaccinated” after 2 shots, right?

I’m 4 days away from due date for 2nd shot and I’m having a hard time deciding to get it or not. I was on fence for first already (I’m 36 and healthy) and now knowing 2nd shot doesn’t add much extra protection/I’ll likely be sick and out of commission for a day or so/there’s some tail risks to potential over dosing of this vaccine in general/we found out the spike protein with this particular vaccine does (always? Sometimes? IDK) make its way to rest of body and not just stay in area of injection like they (FDA) had hoped, makes me really lean towards not getting it.

Seems to me if this wasn’t a rushed pandemic situation, the vaccine (at least Pfizer and moderna) would have been one shot like usual vaccines and that this is very likely being over dosed to the population (especially non-old folk).

Also, isn’t one shot of Pfizer more protection than Johnson and Johnson? If so, why the f*** am I not considered fully vaccinated and they are?

Really appreciate any responses. This has been on my mind a ton past couple weeks. My wife ended up cracking a few days ago and got 2nd due mostly to family/societal pressures.