• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

Status
Not open for further replies.

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,657
I am in no way anti-vax (or I wouldn’t have had the first) but I am growing increasingly alarmed at the denial of and hiding away from the fact there are a not insignificant number of people who have suffered greatly or, tragically, died from these vaccines.

But has there been a vaccine that has been so widely distributed in such a short space of time to so many people, many more than once? And with so much media scrutiny?

I think the actual proportion would be very, very small, especially when compared to other vaccinations (or roughly equal to them). BTW this is just a hunch than on any data I've seen.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,338
But has there been a vaccine that has been so widely distributed in such a short space of time to so many people, many more than once? And with so much media scrutiny?

I think the actual proportion would be very, very small, especially when compared to other vaccinations (or roughly equal to them). BTW this is just a hunch than on any data I've seen.

Indeed, there's about 94.4% of all over 18's have had at least 1 dose. Given that's 42 million people.

Therefore to see deaths from "up to" 1,800 people then that's a maximum rate of 43 per million, which compares to about 9,000 per million for the general rate of death in a year.

Whilst those appear very different, chances are most deaths would mostly be looked at if the death was within (say) 28 days of the vaccine then the per 28 day rate for general deaths would fall to circa 700 per million.

Someone once joked that therefore having the vaccine reduces your overall risk of death.

That's not as clear cut as the numbers show at first glance, as there's still going to be deaths when you've recently had the vaccine which aren't too do with the vaccine.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,298
Location
West Wiltshire
Announced today that over third of over 12s have now had their third (booster) jab.
19,436,885 people which 33.8%

Hospital admissions and death rates continue to fall, but apparently hospitalisations have disproportionally high number of unvaccinated (only 11% are unvaccinated but they are something like 8 times as likely to end up in hospital with covid, sorry there isn’t an official number to quote)
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,338
Announced today that over third of over 12s have now had their third (booster) jab.
19,436,885 people which 33.8%

Hospital admissions and death rates continue to fall, but apparently hospitalisations have disproportionally high number of unvaccinated (only 11% are unvaccinated but they are something like 8 times as likely to end up in hospital with covid, sorry there isn’t an official number to quote)

On those numbers it would appear to be about 50:50 in terms of vaccinated: unvaccinated in hospital.

In that if vaccinated have a risk rate of 100 and the unvaccinated are 8 times higher with a risk rate of 800, then 89% would be 89 cases whilst the 11% would be 88 cases (50.3 : 49.7)

If the ratio is 8.1 or higher (and given that ratios often are reported as whole numbers) then the numbers in hospital would be higher in the unvaccinated (so the doctor may in the report the other day may have been correct about that).
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
But the restrictions need to go urgently. I am sure some hysterical people will be demanding punitive restrictions remain until nearly everyone has been vaccinated but that is totally unrealistic and ignores the bigger picture.
I'm sure that a good number of puritannical types, who are never happier than when they are making up rules to micromanage what everyone does, will be demanding restrictions *after* nearly everyone has been vaccinated and also demanding such restrictions every time winter flu stats get a bit high.

If it saves one life it's worth it.....
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,418
Location
Ely
Hospital admissions and death rates continue to fall, but apparently hospitalisations have disproportionally high number of unvaccinated (only 11% are unvaccinated but they are something like 8 times as likely to end up in hospital with covid, sorry there isn’t an official number to quote)

Actually it appears to be about 4 times as likely, quite uniformly across adult age ranges, according to the PHE surveillance reports

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports

From table 11 of the latest report (week 48), the two columns on the right:

1638563638205.png

Something very much to be kept in mind when considering *your* individual risk as to whether to personally get vaccinated.

But in terms of raw numbers, we can get that from table 9:

1638563762311.png

Ignoring under-18s, as they haven't really been given the opportunity to be 'fully vaccinated with 2 doses', we get over the last 4 weeks a total of 2004 hospitalisations in the unvaccinated. Let's assume 200 of those couldn't be vaccinated, so we have about 1800. Now given the 4:1 reduction in risk, we can knock 20% off that as about that number would have ended up in hospital anyway, vaccinated or not.

We therefore get a final total of about 1440 people unvaccinated by choice and being hospitalised 'unnecessarily' over 4 weeks.

Assuming the mean hospital stay for such a patient is 4 weeks (probably rather too high) and the NHS has around 140,000 hospital beds, that means the 'unvaccinated by choice' are taking up about 1% of total NHS hospital beds. I don't think that should be causing any sort of 'crisis'.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,632
Location
First Class
Actually it appears to be about 4 times as likely, quite uniformly across adult age ranges, according to the PHE surveillance reports

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports

From table 11 of the latest report (week 48), the two columns on the right:

View attachment 106449

Something very much to be kept in mind when considering *your* individual risk as to whether to personally get vaccinated.

But in terms of raw numbers, we can get that from table 9:

View attachment 106450

Ignoring under-18s, as they haven't really been given the opportunity to be 'fully vaccinated with 2 doses', we get over the last 4 weeks a total of 2004 hospitalisations in the unvaccinated. Let's assume 200 of those couldn't be vaccinated, so we have about 1800. Now given the 4:1 reduction in risk, we can knock 20% off that as about that number would have ended up in hospital anyway, vaccinated or not.

We therefore get a final total of about 1440 people unvaccinated by choice and being hospitalised 'unnecessarily' over 4 weeks.

Assuming the mean hospital stay for such a patient is 4 weeks (probably rather too high) and the NHS has around 140,000 hospital beds, that means the 'unvaccinated by choice' are taking up about 1% of total NHS hospital beds. I don't think that should be causing any sort of 'crisis'.

What I’d really like to know, and that you touch on when you mention individual risk, is how many of the unvaccinated admissions have other health conditions?
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,070
Location
Taunton or Kent
The Guardian reported on this earlier this week, but now backed up by the BBC, the story being GPs can defer some other services, including minor surgery and routine health checks for over-75s, until the end of March, in order to be able to issue covid boosters instead:


GPs in England can defer some of the services they provide to patients to allow them to deliver Covid booster jabs instead, NHS chiefs have said.
Practices can postpone minor surgery and routine health checks for over-75s and new patients until 31 March.
It comes after the PM said all adults in England would be offered boosters by the end of January in response to the emergence of the Omicron variant.
A further 75 Omicron cases were confirmed in England on Friday.
The latest cases take the total for England to 104 and for the UK as a whole to 134 - including the first confirmed case in Wales.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's announcement of an expansion of boosters on Tuesday followed a series of recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
As well as recommending that all over-18s in the UK should be offered top-up vaccines, the JCVI said the minimum gap between the second dose and boosters should be cut from six to three months.
In a letter released on Friday, NHS England acknowledged services were already under pressure but said there was a new "national mission" to increase vaccine capacity.
Setting out steps for ramping up the booster roll-out, the letter said the Army and "clinical students" could be called on to help deliver vaccines.
It also said the NHS's booking service for vaccinations in England would be updated "no later" than 13 December to allow all adults to book their top-up jabs and to reflect the change in guidance from the JCVI.
Dr Gary Howsam, vice chair of the Royal College of GPs, said "capacity needs to expand" in order to meet the target of offering all eligible people a booster jab by the end of January.
"These are sensible, temporary measures that will address some of the bureaucratic demands on practices and have minimal impact on the care patients receive in general practice, allowing GPs and our teams to focus their efforts where currently most clinically necessary," Dr Howsam said.
However, Dennis Reed, director of Silver Voices, a campaign group for older people, said NHS England's proposals were a "blatant case of age discrimination" that suggested "once you reach the age of 75 your health is of less importance than the rest of the population".
He said deferring checks for the early warning signs of illnesses such as strokes, cancers and diabetes was "counter-productive" as it would see patients "pushed out of primary care" and being treated in hospitals, which he said would not help with the burden on the NHS.
Dr Farah Jameel, the GP committee chair of the British Medical Association, said the measures would release GPs from "filling out paperwork" and chasing "unnecessary" and often "undeliverable" targets.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We have been struggling with significant prevailing workforce pressures - backlog pressures, winter pressures, pandemic pressures."
Dr Jameel said the measures would allow staff to prioritise the most vulnerable patients and support the "national priority" to vaccinate people as quickly as possible.
She insisted patients who were unwell or had worrying symptoms would continue to receive care from their GPs.
Rachel Power, chief executive of the Patients Association, said pausing some regular GP services risked "building up future ill health" that would have been detected in routine checks and further disrupting the relationship between patients and the NHS.

What I'd like to see is, as has been lacking for everything we've done so far, a cost to benefit analysis for this proposal that highlights how many lives we hope to save through covid boosters vs how many lives could be lost through postponing other checks. In particular over 75s are near life expectancy so postponing health checks for them could be the difference between identifying early signs of cancer, dementia, or another common elderly condition.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,858
Location
Wilmslow
I don't like the "filling out paperwork" comment, which has perhaps been taken out of context but certainly reported. I'm 60 and I've just had an annual health check which I consider to be important, and I don't like the implication that it's "unnecessary paperwork" for sure. And I don't think my opinion will change in 15 years when I'm 75 either.
It's clear that my GP has been under pressure, with what should be an "annual" check running 2 months late now (it should have been at the start of October), but given their efforts in getting the first two rounds of Covid vaccination distributed I don't fault my GP here. But certainly sacrifices are necessarily being made, and it's not totally clear (I agree) whether or not it's justified. To some extent I think the booster campaign was initially shambolic so the GPs are having to step in to catch up and mitigate the mistakes made in delaying booking initially which led to a take-up less than it should have been in the earlier days I believe.
 

Pit_buzzer

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2020
Messages
239
Location
Bentley
Had my covid booster on Thursday, moderna vaccine. No side effects for 12 hours and then it knocked me flat for 20 hours, headaches, muscle pain, sore eyes, runny nose, concentrated pain around the injection point and savere shaking throughout my body, finished off with Terrible sweating. It was horrendous and far worse than anything I experienced when I actually had covid. I might not bother again as covid seems preferable to the vaccine
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,418
Location
Ely
What I’d really like to know, and that you touch on when you mention individual risk, is how many of the unvaccinated admissions have other health conditions?

Well, indeed, and I hadn't accounted for that above,
but as the stat is 'within 28 days of a positive test' then clearly some aren't going to be related to Covid at all.

...so probably rather less than 1% of total beds that could have been avoided with 100% vaccination.

Well worth destroying many of the basic tenets of our society for, clearly.
 

ChrisC

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2018
Messages
1,623
Location
Nottinghamshire
Had my covid booster on Thursday, moderna vaccine. No side effects for 12 hours and then it knocked me flat for 20 hours, headaches, muscle pain, sore eyes, runny nose, concentrated pain around the injection point and savere shaking throughout my body, finished off with Terrible sweating. It was horrendous and far worse than anything I experienced when I actually had covid. I might not bother again as covid seems preferable to the vaccine
I had my covid booster last Sunday. I also had the Moderna vaccine. One week later and no side effects whatsoever. This has been the same when I had my previous two AZ covid jabs and my flu jab in September. The side effects following vaccines are not the same for everyone. Unfortunately some people suffer quite badly whereas others won’t have any noticeable side effects at all.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,956
Had my covid booster on Thursday, moderna vaccine. No side effects for 12 hours and then it knocked me flat for 20 hours, headaches, muscle pain, sore eyes, runny nose, concentrated pain around the injection point and savere shaking throughout my body, finished off with Terrible sweating. It was horrendous and far worse than anything I experienced when I actually had covid. I might not bother again as covid seems preferable to the vaccine
I had a similar experience but will definitely have another if needed as it beats 7 to 10 days of unpleasant Covid symptoms. I have also had Covid but would say that the symptoms of Covid were worse than the vaccine.
I think our reaction to the Moderna booster is not uncommon.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,070
Location
Taunton or Kent
We've now passed 20 million 3rd/booster shots, 35% of all those eligible. If any moves to curtail Christmas are made, I hope there are voices that remind them of this stat, especially as if the current rate continues it will go up to 25 million by Christmas.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,239
I had Moderna booster on Friday following two doses of AZ earlier in the year. Absolutely no side effects at all!
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
We've now passed 20 million 3rd/booster shots, 35% of all those eligible. If any moves to curtail Christmas are made, I hope there are voices that remind them of this stat, especially as if the current rate continues it will go up to 25 million by Christmas.

And if they have anything other than a short timescale baked in, that there is protection so that any continuation doesn't look like comeback against those who decline. The continued use of the current enabling act (Section 45B etc...) would look like sloth; no alternative act was used nor was even the slightest effort made to amend it.
 

Berliner

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2020
Messages
399
Location
Edinburgh
I had Moderna booster on Friday following two doses of AZ earlier in the year. Absolutely no side effects at all!
I had 2 AZ earlier in the year and got my Pfizer booster a few weeks ago. No side effects from any of the vaccines whatsoever. Same as the flu vaccine.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,298
Location
West Wiltshire
I had 2 AZ earlier in the year and got my Pfizer booster a few weeks ago. No side effects from any of the vaccines whatsoever. Same as the flu vaccine.

Very similar to me, had Pfizer booster this week, like the 2 AZ jabs 6 & 9 months ago, no side effects, just slight tender patch on arm for a day. Not even a sore arm from flu jab.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,105
Location
Yorks
I think that whereas the initial vaccine roll out was a Rolls Royce of roll outs, the booster roll out seems to be a bit of a rusty old banger.

It's disappointing that there doesn't seem to be a walk in centre in the whole of Leeds !
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,219
I think that whereas the initial vaccine roll out was a Rolls Royce of roll outs, the booster roll out seems to be a bit of a rusty old banger.

It's disappointing that there doesn't seem to be a walk in centre in the whole of Leeds !
There's no walk in centre in Hull either.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,338
Yet if they did somehow decide to impose restrictions due to low uptake of the booster vaccine it would be all your fault!

In reply a prominent cabinet member was overheard muttering "Of course it's their fault, they didn't vote in large enough numbers for the Tories; we only look after our own."

Whilst another said, "What?! Why would there be a walk in vaccine centre for those in the bottom of my boat? They wouldn't be entitled to a vaccine anyway as they're not supposed to even be in this country, and they certainly don't pay taxes here..... Oh that Hull."
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,105
Location
Yorks
The saga continues. As an over forty, I've continued on my quest to get a booster vaccination prior to visiting vulnerable relatives at xmas.

The not very local vaccination bookings were all in January so no use. So as a forty-something, I traipse to the nearest, not very local walk-in centre and it turns out the that because they were late in allowing me to get my second jab (the booking website was a waste of space, I had to myther them for it) I'm apparently not able to get the thing until the 29th. This is in spite of us continually being told how the rules have been updated and over forty's can now get one.

The whole booster programme is a complete shambles and a fiasco.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
But has there been a vaccine that has been so widely distributed in such a short space of time to so many people, many more than once? And with so much media scrutiny?

I think the actual proportion would be very, very small, especially when compared to other vaccinations (or roughly equal to them). BTW this is just a hunch than on any data I've seen.

The problem is that most vaccines have five or ten year trial periods. This is being given in a short period.

My view of the vaccines are... Rush job, 99.9% survival without, why even bother?
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,632
Location
First Class
The problem is that most vaccines have five or ten year trial periods. This is being given in a short period.

My view of the vaccines are... Rush job, 99.9% survival without, why even bother?

The survivability without vaccination is the key thing for me. I've never felt pressured into getting the flu vaccine for example, yet this is absolutely critical apparently. For most people Covid is a mild respiratory illness at worst. For a readily identifiable group of people there is an increased chance of a serious adverse outcome, however the vaccines offer them a good level of protection. I'm struggling to see how this is any different to flu, apart from the fact that we accept flu, live with it, and the government haven't spent the last two years terrifying large swathes of the population unnecessarily by telling them it's a death sentence.

In regard to the vaccines being rushed, they probably were to an extent. We shouldn't forget the commercial pressures involved; being first to market was always going to be a huge coup, and an enormously profitable one at that. This doesn't mean they're dangerous or ineffective of course, but the way some people are so quick to dismiss the possibility that vaccine manufacturers are in any way profiteering from the situation does amuse me....
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,338
The problem is that most vaccines have five or ten year trial periods. This is being given in a short period.

My view of the vaccines are... Rush job, 99.9% survival without, why even bother?

First off the vaccine as a delivery platform already existed, AZ was being developed to treat virus X, whilst others where being developed to treat cancers.

At 99.9% survival rate there would have only been 66,670 deaths from Covid, whilst there's been over double that with a positive result with Covid it would imply that figure is wide of the mark. Especially given that we're currently still seeing over 50,000 cases a day, which would imply that there's still significant numbers who haven't had it.

Now whilst with Covid isn't of Covid, there'll be a lot who died early on without a test result and it's unlikely that significant numbers happen to die within 28 days of a positive test result (10% is possible, however 50% is very unlikely).

A 0.1% risk of death is 1 in 1,000, the risk of dying on the roads in the next 12 months is 1 in 10,000. Yet much is done to protect people from that with large public safety campaigns.

Even if the risk was 0.3% we'd have reached circa 50 million having had it, or over 5 tubes the number of positive cases recorded.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,632
Location
First Class
First off the vaccine as a delivery platform already existed, AZ was being developed to treat virus X, whilst others where being developed to treat cancers.

At 99.9% survival rate there would have only been 66,670 deaths from Covid, whilst there's been over double that with a positive result with Covid it would imply that figure is wide of the mark. Especially given that we're currently still seeing over 50,000 cases a day, which would imply that there's still significant numbers who haven't had it.

Now whilst with Covid isn't of Covid, there'll be a lot who died early on without a test result and it's unlikely that significant numbers happen to die within 28 days of a positive test result (10% is possible, however 50% is very unlikely).

A 0.1% risk of death is 1 in 1,000, the risk of dying on the roads in the next 12 months is 1 in 10,000. Yet much is done to protect people from that with large public safety campaigns.

Even if the risk was 0.3% we'd have reached circa 50 million having had it, or over 5 tubes the number of positive cases recorded.

The current IFR is estimated to be 0.096% - this figure has obviously reduced over time.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,338
The current IFR is estimated to be 0.096% - this figure has obviously reduced over time.

What's the source for that figure, as it would appear low given the number of deaths with Covid as explained before.

From here:

UK Infection fatality ratio and estimated total numbers of deaths (February to July 2020)
Total 0.9%

Likewise from here:

In contrast, in a typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15% (0.78-1.79 95% prediction interval range).

Whilst both cite data from about a year ago, and whilst it's possible that the rate has fallen, it would be interesting to see the source for a rate 1/10th of those values as that would be quitea significant fall.

It should be noted that at 0.096% there would be in the UK (where there's a population of 67 million) a total of 64,500 deaths assuming everyone had been infected (which clearly isn't the case given that there's still over 50,000 a day testing positive for it). Even with people dying of other things "with" Covid that's quite a long way below the 144,000 current death rate (which probably also doesn't count quite a few who died early on).

If you believe the rate of 0.096% how do you explain that significant difference in recorded deaths?

Now I'm not suggesting that this is the case (in part as it would give a rate of nearly 10% which also isn't right) however there have been people caught out when working out percentage as they get a figure on their calculator saying 0.001 when they divide (say) deaths by population.

Note that isn't 0.001% but rather 0.1%, as to get from deaths divided by population to a percentage you then have to multiply by 100.

As a worked example 100,000/67,220,000 = 0.0014876524

To make that a percentage you then:
0.0014876524 x 100 = 0.14876524%

Therefore even allowing for some non Covid deaths "with Covid", but everyone having had Covid once the rate of death appears to be about 50% higher than 0.096%.

The other thing to watch is that the figures aren't for those (say) under 50 as their rate will be much lower than someone much older.

In the government document linked above; someone aged 44-64 is 0.5%, whilst someone aged 65-74 is 3.1%.

Given that someone in their 60's will be dragging the average up for the others in the 44-64 age band, and those below 44 are at very low risk. It's not unreasonable to work out a figure for (say) under 50's which could be quite a bit lower than the overall average.
 

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
432
What's the source for that figure, as it would appear low given the number of deaths with Covid as explained before.

As per Public Health England estimates.


The reason why it is now so much lower is the vaccines, which are very effective at stopping death. Of course the historic studies, like the one you mentioned would not include this as the rollout had not commenced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top