Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[The Ham]

As per Public Health England estimates.

Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

Information from UK Parliament on written questions & answers, written statements and daily reports.

questions-statements.parliament.uk

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.

Thank you, although my comments were following on from the past saying:

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

As such that evidence highlights why we should bother.

 

[DustyBin]

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

From here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037340/Greenbook-chapter-14a-30Nov21.pdf

Likewise from here:

Report 34 - COVID-19 Infection Fatality Ratio Estimates from Seroprevalence

Report 34 - COVID-19 Infection Fatality Ratio: Estimates from Seroprevalence

www.imperial.ac.uk

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.

Taken from here:

Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament​

Information from UK Parliament on written questions & answers, written statements and daily reports.

questions-statements.parliament.uk

As of 15 July, Public Health England’s modelling group, with the MRC Biostats Unit, estimated that overall infection mortality rate is approximately 0.096%.

Edit: @initiation has already quoted the source.

 

[Bantamzen]

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

From here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037340/Greenbook-chapter-14a-30Nov21.pdf

Likewise from here:

Report 34 - COVID-19 Infection Fatality Ratio Estimates from Seroprevalence

Report 34 - COVID-19 Infection Fatality Ratio: Estimates from Seroprevalence

www.imperial.ac.uk

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.

Don't forget that treatment of covid has got considerably better, most people have been vaccinated and covid mortality figures are described as "with a positive covid test within 28 days", so it is possible than a percentage of those sadly passed actually of something else but happened to have covid up to 28 days earlier.

 

[jfollows]

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.

The Guardian today reporting (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...id-boosters-to-under-40s-against-nhs-guidance) that some GPs have offered booster vaccinations to people under 40, and that some of the recipients have secured appointments within 36 hours of their receipt. The national old banger can't be used currently for people under 40, so is this GPs knowing that they have more than enough supply for those over 40? The same article also reports "some" people over 40 unable to book a booster vaccination because it's not 6 months since their second dose, which is something that should now be allowed following another change in the rules, perhaps the NHS booking system just can't keep up with all the changes?

It seems to me that there's currently a huge conflict in the current system between two groups

1. A group who don't want to allow anyone under a certain age or less than a certain time to have access to the booking system, to prevent them from obtaining a booster vaccination, to prevent "confusion" or just because the NHS is riddled with processes which stop people from doing things and people who seem to like saying "no"
2. A group who want to see as many people as possible obtain a booster vaccination and who see the rules-based roll-out as an inhibitor to this

 

[Dent]

The Guardian today reporting (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...id-boosters-to-under-40s-against-nhs-guidance) that some GPs have offered booster vaccinations to people under 40, and that some of the recipients have secured appointments within 36 hours of their receipt

Hasn't the guidance changed to anyone over 18 after three months?

 

[jfollows]

Hasn't the guidance changed to anyone over 18 after three months?

It's changing too rapidly for me to keep up, but it seems to be yesterday that anyone over 40 could book the booster appointment after two months for an appointment after 3 months. Maybe it's changed again?

BBC seems to reflect this: (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55045639)

In England, if you're 40 or over, or in a high-risk group, you can now book to have your booster jab 12 weeks after your second vaccine dose (or third, if you have a weakened immune system and had to have an extra primary dose).
You can arrange your booking a month in advance - in other words, from two months (61 days) after your second jab.
Younger adults will be invited to make an appointment shortly.

 

[yorksrob]

The Guardian today reporting (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...id-boosters-to-under-40s-against-nhs-guidance) that some GPs have offered booster vaccinations to people under 40, and that some of the recipients have secured appointments within 36 hours of their receipt. The national old banger can't be used currently for people under 40, so is this GPs knowing that they have more than enough supply for those over 40? The same article also reports "some" people over 40 unable to book a booster vaccination because it's not 6 months since their second dose, which is something that should now be allowed following another change in the rules, perhaps the NHS booking system just can't keep up with all the changes?

It seems to me that there's currently a huge conflict in the current system between two groups

1. A group who don't want to allow anyone under a certain age or less than a certain time to have access to the booking system, to prevent them from obtaining a booster vaccination, to prevent "confusion" or just because the NHS is riddled with processes which stop people from doing things and people who seem to like saying "no"
2. A group who want to see as many people as possible obtain a booster vaccination and who see the rules-based roll-out as an inhibitor to this

If it doesn't change on Monday, the MP will be receiving an email.

 

[danm14]

Hasn't the guidance changed to anyone over 18 after three months?

Yes - but in the same way that everyone over 18 was eligible for a vaccine last January - i.e. to be rolled out in order of clinical priority

 

[yorksrob]

My town has now aquired a vaccination centre, so it seems the booster roll out is picking up.

 

[adc82140]

I'm struggling to see why all these studies that say "this is what will happen without boosters" are actually being published. 40% of the over 12s have now had a booster, and I'd say another 10% are less than a month since they had their second jab. So any projections of doomsday are rather academic now.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm struggling to see why all these studies that say "this is what will happen without boosters" are actually being published. 40% of the over 12s have now had a booster, and I'd say another 10% are less than a month since they had their second jab. So any projections of doomsday are rather academic now.

In not sure I agree with those numbers. Up until last week, people were supposed to wait did months between second shot and booster, and since I (forty plus) would have only been due at the end of this month, I imagine the majority of under forties wouldn't have had it yet.

That said, I'm sure the initial two shots are still protecting them from severe illness.

 

[adc82140]

In not sure I agree with those numbers. Up until last week, people were supposed to wait did months between second shot and booster, and since I (forty plus) would have only been due at the end of this month, I imagine the majority of under forties wouldn't have had it yet.

That said, I'm sure the initial two shots are still protecting them from severe illness.

The numbers are from the Covid dashboard. We really are at about 40% of adults boosted. 400,000 or so a day are being done. Because of the timings, pretty much all of those will be from groups 1-9 (the over 50s, vulnerable and healthcare workers) but they will also be the most vulnerable. A good chunk of those will also be from the AZ vaccine cohort, which unboosted does less well than those who had two initial Pfizer or Moderna doses.

 

[yorksrob]

The numbers are from the Covid dashboard. We really are at about 40% of adults boosted. 400,000 or so a day are being done. Because of the timings, pretty much all of those will be from groups 1-9 (the over 50s, vulnerable and healthcare workers) but they will also be the most vulnerable. A good chunk of those will also be from the AZ vaccine cohort, which unboosted does less well than those who had two initial Pfizer or Moderna doses.

Yes. I was looking at the latest doom Laden modelling on the BBC and the best case scenario had around 155 deaths a day. Not good but any means, but what we've been living with this year, and a small proportion of overall mortality.

The assumptions behind this scenario were good booster take up, and good vaccine effect on stopping serious illness. On the second point, I've very little doubt, and on the first point, we're blessed in this country with a cohort of seniors who seem sensibly keen to take up vaccines when required. For those reasons I'm inclined to think that the coming "wave" will be manageable without lockdowns.

Apologies, am away from my laptop so can't post the link.

 

[adc82140]

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of obsessive dashboard-watching, but I can't help but notice that the Scottish infection figures are down a fifth today, and the overall percentage positivity (across the UK as well) has remained stable for quite a while.

A lot more testing has been going on. "Search and ye will find".

 

[Yew]

Yes. I was looking at the latest doom Laden modelling on the BBC and the best case scenario had around 155 deaths a day. Not good but any means, but what we've been living with this year, and a small proportion of overall mortality.

The assumptions behind this scenario were good booster take up, and good vaccine effect on stopping serious illness. On the second point, I've very little doubt, and on the first point, we're blessed in this country with a cohort of seniors who seem sensibly keen to take up vaccines when required. For those reasons I'm inclined to think that the coming "wave" will be manageable without lockdowns.

Apologies, am away from my laptop so can't post the link.

155 a day is about 10% more than 99/00, if those numbers are kept up for the whole year.

 

[BackOnTheTrain]

Anyone 30-39 will probably find they can book a booster now, if they’re two months or more after their second jab. Seeing reports on Mumsnet and Facebook that multiple people have been able to book. The text on the booking site hasn’t been updated yet, but that always seems to get updated last.

 

[Lampshade]

Booked my booster earlier (I’m 32).

 

[ainsworth74]

So, in terms of Omicron, does it seem at the moment that double vaxed individuals probably have limited protection against symptomatic/mild illness however they do retain very good protection against serious illness/hospitalisation and excellent protection against death? Boosted individuals regain very good/excellent protection against all of the above.

I've noticed a fair few screeching headlines of how "many vaccinated Brits have NO PROTECTION!!!!1!!1!" but if you dive in it sounds like what isn't well protected against is a mild illness whilst serious/death is still well protected against?

 

[Richard Scott]

So, in terms of Omicron, does it seem at the moment that double vaxed individuals probably have limited protection against symptomatic/mild illness however they do retain very good protection against serious illness/hospitalisation and excellent protection against death? Boosted individuals regain very good/excellent protection against all of the above.

I've noticed a fair few screeching headlines of how "many vaccinated Brits have NO PROTECTION!!!!1!!1!" but if you dive in it sounds like what isn't well protected against is a mild illness whilst serious/death is still well protected against?

That seems to sum it up but no way media want the truth getting in the way of good story.

 

[brad465]

So, in terms of Omicron, does it seem at the moment that double vaxed individuals probably have limited protection against symptomatic/mild illness however they do retain very good protection against serious illness/hospitalisation and excellent protection against death? Boosted individuals regain very good/excellent protection against all of the above.

I've noticed a fair few screeching headlines of how "many vaccinated Brits have NO PROTECTION!!!!1!!1!" but if you dive in it sounds like what isn't well protected against is a mild illness whilst serious/death is still well protected against?

Around 22.5 million people now have received 3 shots, which is nearly 40% of those over 12, and these will include almost all the most vulnerable to covid. Really we should be in about as good a position as we can possibly get this winter.

 

[DustyBin]

What we mustn’t lose sight of is the fact that there are no recorded deaths from omicron, anywhere at this point. The doctor that Sky News interviewed in Gauteng the other day said that there are a lot of hospital admissions but that most of them are admitted for other reasons and happen to test positive on arrival. The locals meanwhile thought is was a mild cold or flu. So whilst we need to keep an eye on the situation we mustn’t allow ourselves to be tied in knots by the hysterical media and doom mongering experts. Panicking over not having optimum protection against a cold like illness is irrational in my opinion; we’ve lived with similar illnesses for centuries and nobody batted an eyelid.

 

[The Ham]

What we mustn’t lose sight of is the fact that there are no recorded deaths from omicron, anywhere at this point. The doctor that Sky News interviewed in Gauteng the other day said that there are a lot of hospital admissions but that most of them are admitted for other reasons and happen to test positive on arrival. The locals meanwhile thought is was a mild cold or flu. So whilst we need to keep an eye on the situation we mustn’t allow ourselves to be tied in knots by the hysterical media and doom mongering experts. Panicking over not having optimum protection against a cold like illness is irrational in my opinion; we’ve lived with similar illnesses for centuries and nobody batted an eyelid.

Indeed, it does appear that the latest evidence from South Africa is that it's nothing of great concern:

South African doctors see signs omicron is milder than delta

Health experts still don't know if the omicron variant is causing milder COVID-19, but more indicators are emerging from South Africa

www.independent.co.uk

South African doctors see signs omicron is milder than delta​

Health experts still don't know if the omicron variant is causing milder COVID-19, but more indicators are emerging from South Africa​

Data from within the report:

According to South Africa’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases:

— Only about 30% of those hospitalized with COVID-19 in recent weeks have been seriously ill, less than half the rate as during the first weeks of previous pandemic waves.

— Average hospital stays for COVID-19 have been shorter this time - about 2.8 days compared to eight days.

— Just 3% of patients hospitalized recently with COVID-19 have died, versus about 20% in the country's earlier outbreaks.

Although it should also be noted (and to bring this more on topic to the thread title) there's been a lot of those going into hospital who are unvaccinated:

Of the patients hospitalized in the current wave, 86% weren't vaccinated against the coronavirus, Jassat said. The COVID-patients in South Africa's hospitals now also are younger than at other periods of the pandemic: about two-thirds are under 40.

 

[bramling]

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 “with Covid versus of Covid” is something where we need to see more analysis done. However it is quite plausible many could be in hospital for something else, and have caught Covid whilst in there.

So, in terms of Omicron, does it seem at the moment that double vaxed individuals probably have limited protection against symptomatic/mild illness however they do retain very good protection against serious illness/hospitalisation and excellent protection against death? Boosted individuals regain very good/excellent protection against all of the above.

I've noticed a fair few screeching headlines of how "many vaccinated Brits have NO PROTECTION!!!!1!!1!" but if you dive in it sounds like what isn't well protected against is a mild illness whilst serious/death is still well protected against?

This is how I have interpreted things. However one of the Sky press preview people last night (who is neurotic at the best of times) was essentially saying that’s she’s terrified as she’s had two AZ vaccines, the implication being that she’s now unprotected (though they were careful to avoid stating that explicitly).

I’m not sure where along the line we’ve gone from striving to avoid hospitalisations and deaths, to now seemingly striving to avoid any symptoms from this at all.

Am I missing something?!

 

[yorkie]

So, in terms of Omicron, does it seem at the moment that double vaxed individuals probably have limited protection against symptomatic/mild illness however they do retain very good protection against serious illness/hospitalisation and excellent protection against death? Boosted individuals regain very good/excellent protection against all of the above.

Yep; in other words the vaccines continue to offer good protection, as measured against what they were actually designed for.

I've noticed a fair few screeching headlines of how "many vaccinated Brits have NO PROTECTION!!!!1!!1!" but if you dive in it sounds like what isn't well protected against is a mild illness whilst serious/death is still well protected against?

Indeed. Such language is what many of us call vaccine efficacy denial; it tends to be done by people who call for restrictions/mandates.

There is some more information coming out of South Africa which sounds positive; see:

Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

More news coming out of South Africa which is promising https://twitter.com/pieterstreicher/status/1469743320092102659 Gauteng, South Africa has peaked with case levels similar to Delta, but with deaths expected to be 25 times lower. Mild, milder, extremely mild. As disease severity...

www.railforums.co.uk

... the AZ vaccine cohort, which unboosted does less well than those who had two initial Pfizer or Moderna doses.

I'm not so sure about that; it seems that the mRNA vaccines act quicker, so any comparisons which start looking at cases soon after infections will show a disparity that may be short lived.

Furthermore, there is some evidence the AZ vaccine might be longer lasting than the mRNA vaccines, but it's too early to be sure.

However those with 2x AZ vaccines - especially if given a good lengh apart - do stand to benefit a lot from the booster, given there is evidence that heterogeneous vaccination provides a broader more robust immune response than vaccination with just an mRNA or viral vector vaccine.

 

[The Ham]

The “with Covid versus of Covid” is something where we need to see more analysis done. However it is quite plausible many could be in hospital for something else, and have caught Covid whilst in there

Indeed, however I suspect the numbers aren't as large some would like (of course they are likely to be larger than others would want too).

This is how I have interpreted things. However one of the Sky press preview people last night (who is neurotic at the best of times) was essentially saying that’s she’s terrified as she’s had two AZ vaccines, the implication being that she’s now unprotected (though they were careful to avoid stating that explicitly).

I’m not sure where along the line we’ve gone from striving to avoid hospitalisations and deaths, to now seemingly striving to avoid any symptoms from this at all.

Am I missing something?!

I suspect that you've hit the nail on the head.

Even with the "low" level of protection of 40% (double AZ with first dose from about 12 months ago) you'd still be 40/60 split as to if you are not ill/have some illness.

Assuming that you get ill (compared to this time last year) you are 6 times less likely to end up in hospital and 15 times less likely to die.

Therefore if your risk of contracting it when you'd been a close contact had been 100 in every 300 it would now be 60 in every 300.

If 12 had gone on to need to go to hospital that would now be 2.

 

[Jonny]

What we mustn’t lose sight of is the fact that there are no recorded deaths from omicron, anywhere at this point. The doctor that Sky News interviewed in Gauteng the other day said that there are a lot of hospital admissions but that most of them are admitted for other reasons and happen to test positive on arrival. The locals meanwhile thought is was a mild cold or flu. So whilst we need to keep an eye on the situation we mustn’t allow ourselves to be tied in knots by the hysterical media and doom mongering experts. Panicking over not having optimum protection against a cold like illness is irrational in my opinion; we’ve lived with similar illnesses for centuries and nobody batted an eyelid.

Indeed, it is said that it is no more deadly than Alec Baldwin (predicated on the dubious assumption that Alec Baldwin is not responsible for anyone's death). Anyway, it makes for a good joke - like the farce that this whole situation is beginning to look like.

 

[DelayRepay]

I wonder how much notice the NHS was given of last night's announcement.

As a 42 year old, I made my booster booking last week and was offered dates just before Christmas. Having read about side effects and not wanting to be ill at Christmas, I changed it to the first week of January. No earlier appointments were offered.

Now the website is broken, presumably due to demand.

The NHS has given 46.7m second doses and 23.1m boosters. Assuming everyone who's had a second dose wants a booster, that means delivering another 23m boosters before the new year. There are 19 days to achieve this - but that includes today, Christmas day, two Bank Holidays and New Years' Eve. Even with the best will in the world, with GPs abandoning almost all other work, the military helping and extended hours and extra centres, I don't see how this is remotely possible.

 

[Snow1964]

I wonder how much notice the NHS was given of last night's announcement.

As a 42 year old, I made my booster booking last week and was offered dates just before Christmas. Having read about side effects and not wanting to be ill at Christmas, I changed it to the first week of January. No earlier appointments were offered.

Now the website is broken, presumably due to demand.

The NHS has given 46.7m second doses and 23.1m boosters. Assuming everyone who's had a second dose wants a booster, that means delivering another 23m boosters before the new year. There are 19 days to achieve this - but that includes today, Christmas day, two Bank Holidays and New Years' Eve. Even with the best will in the world, with GPs abandoning almost all other work, the military helping and extended hours and extra centres, I don't see how this is remotely possible.

Everyone I know has not had any side effects from booster
I didn’t, just a slightly sore area on my arm until following day.

Not sure what these side effects are that you have read about, that would make you ill at Christmas, more likely to feel rough from too much rich food or alcohol.

 

[DelayRepay]

Not sure what these side effects are that you have read about, that would make you ill at Christmas, more likely to feel rough from too much rich food or alcohol.

After my first jab (AZ), I felt awful for 48 hours and then felt tired for the next few days.

I have heard of several people who, having had a Pfizer booster, have had similar symptoms as well as headaches. I am not particularly bothered about being unwell normally, but my jab is booked for 23 December and on Christmas Eve I have to do a two hour drive. So a risk I would prefer not to take, really.

 

[DustyBin]

I wonder how much notice the NHS was given of last night's announcement.

As a 42 year old, I made my booster booking last week and was offered dates just before Christmas. Having read about side effects and not wanting to be ill at Christmas, I changed it to the first week of January. No earlier appointments were offered.

Now the website is broken, presumably due to demand.

The NHS has given 46.7m second doses and 23.1m boosters. Assuming everyone who's had a second dose wants a booster, that means delivering another 23m boosters before the new year. There are 19 days to achieve this - but that includes today, Christmas day, two Bank Holidays and New Years' Eve. Even with the best will in the world, with GPs abandoning almost all other work, the military helping and extended hours and extra centres, I don't see how this is remotely possible.

I don’t see how it can be done, even if everybody was clamouring to “get boosted” which I suspect they’re not. Come January I expect the idiot will make an announcement regarding further restrictions, with insufficient booster take up being blamed. I hope I’m wrong.