PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   All borders to reopen. (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/632861-all-borders-reopen.html)

blubak 24th Jul 2021 22:53


Originally Posted by dr dre (Post 11084140)
Another day, another bunch of lies to debunk spread by the anti-vaxxers that have infected this site.



Rubbish and rubbish



Nonsense and bulldust



Not unusual



Try again



Already done

Love your answers.
At 1 of the pressers the other day an answer was given to a journalist & it was along the lines of-
If you have any concerns or questions,talk to your gp,ignore the different day different conspiracy theory been given by the talkback radio segments & the front page headlines of the newspaper trying to increase sales.


Lead Balloon 24th Jul 2021 22:54

I dips me lid, Mick. You are a master of the language.

No, they likely did not [take cost of the vaccines into account]. When the Australian government placed its order for AstraZeneca nobody knew what the delivered cost of any of the vaccines was going to be.
Oh yes they likely did, because the TGA takes cost effectiveness into account and there's a difference between 'delivered cost' and the 'costs of delivery'. The logistical challenges - and the corresponding disparity in costs - between getting Pfizer into arms compared with getting AZ into arms was known, even if a dose cost the same ex-factory.

Wrong measure of efficacy!
Say what? I just quoted from the UNSW School of Population Health:

Clinical trials for both vaccines have shown they’re broadly safe.

In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID.

The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year.
That article went on to note the logistical disadvantages of Pfizer v AZ and said:

[P]eople don’t generally judge whether they’ll receive a vaccine based on its effectiveness alone. We know from talking to the community that many factors influence motivation, especially perceived risk and severity of infection, and confidence in the safety of the vaccine.
And therein lies the rub. The magic words "perceived" and "safety" (coincidentally, the way aviation is regulated in Australia).

Since that article was written, there have been the deaths through blood clotting after AZ jabs and the changing 'goal posts' around age groups. (Who knew that viruses discriminate on the basis of neat 10 year age groups?)

But let's assume the UNSW School of Population Health used "the wrong measure of efficacy" and we can produce solid gold, unassailable data now, to show that the risks mitigated by getting, and the rewards of everyone getting, an AZ jab far outweigh the consequences of not. The problem is that the perception of many in the population is that Pfizer is better and safer than AZ. And, as Scotty from Marketing knows better than just about everyone else on the planet, in politics (as with aviation safety), perception is reality.

Best to get sh*t tonnes of Pfizer inbound, ASAP.

PoppaJo 24th Jul 2021 22:59


Originally Posted by blubak (Post 11084481)
Bet you can find photos of these idiots protesting against whatever they can find to protest against.
Who cares if they dont get vaccinated,they have a choice & so do the many business owners who will soon be deciding who is & who isnt welcome to enter their premises.
Maybe the brain will engage when 1 of them or 1 of their family is on a ventilator.

Exactly. It’s not about the subject, it’s all about increasing the amount of followers. Attention seekers. They just seek to create divide in society, regardless of what the topic is.

Just like that vegan activist who has been causing trouble at KFCs across the country. Makes all the socials, news sites, 6pm news. Turns out she is a Instagram model with a few hundred thousand followers. Her following has soared since she started her public protests.

KRviator 24th Jul 2021 23:11


Originally Posted by MickG0105 (Post 11084183)
Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccine had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real.

On the contrary, I don't think it's been lost on as many as you think. As you've said, this pandemic is the proof-of-concept for this style of vaccine delivery. Despite a quarter of a century of trying, they couldn't do it, then suddenly in response to Covid, they can. Granted, that's what happens when you throw almost unlimited funds at a problem and provide indemnities to those developing & delivering these vaccines, but history is littered with "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." type of events.

Insofar as the AZ vaccine, AIUI, blood clots were never considered to be a problem in the trials, until they were found during the rollout of the Scandinavian vaccination program. And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in. It could almost be the plot for a sequel of I am Legend... should things go pear-shaped in later years...

For the actual clotting syndrome, TTS, 've had a - fairly brief - look at the TGA and other websites and cannot seem to find if this is a one-off issue, or TTS can cause ongoing complications that will require something like ongoing anticoagulant treatments following the diagnosis. Anyone shed any light on long-term treatment for TTS should you develop it?

neville_nobody 24th Jul 2021 23:13


Originally Posted by dr dre View Post
Another day, another bunch of lies to debunk spread by the anti-vaxxers that have infected this site.
Those websites you listed don't really debunk anything. Other than animal trials they actually do more to confirm the all anti vaxxers worries. The dispatch website is full of "This claim is true however......"

It also confirms that the drug manufacturers can't be sued for side effects.

Chronic Snoozer 24th Jul 2021 23:47


Originally Posted by KRviator (Post 11084497)
Insofar as the AZ vaccine, AIUI, blood clots were never considered to be a problem in the trials, until they were found during the rollout of the Scandinavian vaccination program. And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in. It could almost be the plot for a sequel of I am Legend... should things go pear-shaped in later years...

Quoting the plot of a film and 'intelligent people' in the same argument seems to be somewhat contradictory. What is 'intelligent'?

dr dre 25th Jul 2021 00:08


Originally Posted by KRviator (Post 11084497)
On the contrary, I don't think it's been lost on as many as you think. As you've said, this pandemic is the proof-of-concept for this style of vaccine delivery. Despite a quarter of a century of trying, they couldn't do it, then suddenly in response to Covid, they can.

Mass amounts of funding, a pandemic getting a lot of people infected so the ability to test vaccine effectiveness is rapid, large number of trial volunteers, previous work on SARS and MERS vaccines which are genetically similar, the genome of this virus was sequenced very early on, and a lot of manufacturing was pre done so doses ready to go once the vaccine was checked as safe. In addition to the rapid and exciting developments in science that have allowed safe vaccines to be created quicker in recent years.


And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in.
Phase 3 trials are more about the efficacy of the vaccine and finding extremely rare side effects that aren’t picked up on phase 1 or 2 trials. Contrary to the idea that all you anti-vaxxers (yes I’ll use that term) have, the “long term trials” as you call them are more about finding issues that occur shortly after the vaccine is administered in a wide population, not issues that occur years down the track. This is the standard for all vaccines, a lot of which were “rushed” as you put it to market after a relatively short development, but you never seemed to have a problem with it then.


For the actual clotting syndrome, TTS, 've had a - fairly brief - look at the TGA and other websites and cannot seem to find if this is a one-off issue, or TTS can cause ongoing complications that will require something like ongoing anticoagulant treatments following the diagnosis. Anyone shed any light on long-term treatment for TTS should you develop it?
I think the problem is you’re coming to a pilot’s message board to ask for info and spread misinformation rather than consult a medical professional.

MickG0105 25th Jul 2021 00:34


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11084486)
But let's assume the UNSW School of Population Health used "the wrong measure of efficacy" ...

Why assume? just read pretty much any paper dealing with vaccine efficacy. Try this one - What defines an efficacious COVID-19 vaccine? A review of the challenges assessing the clinical efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2


A candidate vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 might act against infection, disease, or transmission, and a vaccine capable of reducing any of these elements could contribute to disease control. However, the most important efficacy endpoint, protection against severe disease and death, is difficult to assess in phase 3 clinical trials.
​​​​​​... the most important efficacy endpoint, protection against severe disease and death, ...

From a public health perspective hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths are what you want a vaccine to prevent or minimise because those are the factors that burden the health system. That is why those efficacy measures are far more important and why simply focussing on efficacy with regards to symptomatic transmission (which is subject to variation depending on when and where the Stage III trial was conducted) is the wrong measure.

43Inches 25th Jul 2021 00:51

If you want details on each Vax go to the WHO website, or better still ask your GP. Don't folly around with local studies and in process research. Reading incomplete and study in progress data leads you to information that could be tainted by financial or ideological bias, and without a full medical background you will most likely misconstrue the information and come to some weird conclusions that were never the intent, hence half the comments on this page.

Fact is no medicine is completely safe, Astro Zeneca has a morbidity rate of about 1 in 250,000 vs the 2 in 100 rate of death for the virus it protects against. MMR vaccine given to children has a seizure rate of 1 in 3000 under 7 years old and is still advised to be administered at 12-15 months. In medical terms doctors the death rate has to be below 1 in 10,000 for it to be a worry, and of course much less than the condition it protects against.


In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID.

The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year.
To clarify, both vaccines do not prevent you from getting Covid, however the efficacy is the rate at which it prevents the virus from becoming serious and life threatening.

AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating, which IMO is too low, however this will still protect you from the most serious effects of the virus should you get it. So like the WHO advise, take whatever approved vaccine is available as this could save your life/health in the short term. You can always back up and take the next version later to boost your immunity. If you are worried about the side effects of AZ, isolate and stay out of the community until you can get the Pf and talk to your GP. My GP is relatively young and has taken AZ, his only worry is the efficacy holding up over time.

Lead Balloon 25th Jul 2021 00:57

I'm always chuffed when you duck the substance of my posts, Mick.

So, the UNSW School of Population Health is definitely incompetent. How does that change the validity of my conclusion about the "perception" of "safety" of the Pfizer v AZ?

SOPS 25th Jul 2021 01:15

I must not understand this Sydney lockdown properly. There is now a positive case that flew on a flight from Sydney to Ballina. ( amongst an ever increasing number of exposure sights).

Can someone explain to me, if you are in lockdown, why are you on a flight to Ballina?!

MickG0105 25th Jul 2021 01:15


Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11084526)
AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating ...

What is your source for that please?

As this diagram illustrates there are multiple points at which efficacy can be measured; some are more important than others.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e26957d54b.jpg
Source: What defines an efficacious COVID-19 vaccine? A review of the challenges assessing the clinical efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Hodgson et al



43Inches 25th Jul 2021 01:22


AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating ...

What is your source for that please?
https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...u-need-to-know

That's the WHO rundown on it, under how effective it towards the bottom;


The AZD1222 vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
It does say longer dose intervals increase that but does not specify by how much.

MickG0105 25th Jul 2021 01:37


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11084527)
I'm always chuffed when you duck the substance of my posts, Mick.

I could probably say the same. For the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt, what was the substance of your post? I thought that it was, at least in part, trying to demonstrate that my contention regarding efficacy end points was wrong. I addressed that quite specifically.


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11084527)
So, the UNSW School of Population is definitely incompetent.

Seriously? You're going to run that nonsense line? That credits neither of us.


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11084527)
How does that change the validity of my conclusion about the "perception" of "safety" of the Pfizer v AZ?

So, was that the substance of your post? That's a long way from arguing that we bought into AstraZeneca based on costs or that in January we knew that Pfizer was 'the better vaccine'.

You'll get no arguments from me that thanks to a variety of factors, not the least of whom being the future Governor of Queensland, AstraZeneca has been pretty well trashed in the court of public opinion.

Lead Balloon 25th Jul 2021 01:53

The substance of my post is that one of the primary causes of 'vaccine hesitancy' in Australia is that Pfizer is perceived to be better [has better efficacy] and safer [not as high a risk of bad side-effects] compared with AZ, and no amount of numbers you cite will change that, even if the numbers are correct.

And I don't see the point of your assertion that I used a 'nonsense line'. If, as you say, the UNSW School of Population Health has used the wrong measure of efficacy in numbers that it has published, it follows that the UNSW School of Population Health is incompetent (and contributing to misconceptions).

Oh...

And better get sh*t tonnes of Pfizer, ASAP.

MickG0105 25th Jul 2021 01:59


Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11084533)
https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...u-need-to-know

That's the WHO rundown on it, under how effective it towards the bottom;



It does say longer dose intervals increase that but does not specify by how much.

Okey doke, thank you. That hasn't been updated since mid-April.

There have been subsequent studies posted, such as this one out of the UK, showing Pfizer and AstraZeneca as providing similar levels of protection against both symptomatic infection (not a critical measure) and hospitalisation. That UK study is instructive in that it shows Pfizer and AstraZeneca side-by-side in a high risk population (age 70 and over) during a period of medium-high exposure risk (December 2020 - January 2021).

But, at the end of the day, you do you.

43Inches 25th Jul 2021 02:01


The substance of my post is that one of the primary causes of 'vaccine hesitancy' in Australia is that Pfizer is perceived to be better [has better efficacy] and safer [not as high a risk of bad side-effects] compared with AZ, and no amount of numbers you cite will change that, even if the numbers are correct.
This is sadly true and the horse has bolted, at least the government recognises that finally and has ordered large amounts of Pfizer to cover us for the next few years. Doesn't stop us from pushing the truth though, the AZ could, and has already saved many older people from the virus. From a personal POV I know of two groups within my family, one side vaccinated with AZ that are moving freely in the community without much care for their health, lockdowns aside and another few who are avoiding the vaccine and hiding away. What you choose to do is up to you.


That hasn't been updated since mid-April.
It's only updated on firm evidence, not from preliminary studies, as it says at the bottom regarding transmission.

Lead Balloon 25th Jul 2021 02:02

Aged 70 and over...

MickG0105 25th Jul 2021 02:06


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11084543)
Aged 70 and over...


Participants 156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System.
Yes, that's what the study looked at.

MickG0105 25th Jul 2021 02:15


Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11084542)
It's only updated on firm evidence, not from preliminary studies,

That BMJ Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines ... paper is not a 'preliminary study'. It's an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors peer reviewed case-control study.

But, you do you.


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:19.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.