You are agreeing with Ben T's objection to dicscussion being stifled, and at the same time stifling the discussion by saying it shouldn't even take place here. Contradictory, much
.. and again, a quick stab at undermining me, because apparently I contradict myself... you can't resist... do you not see that I don't do it with you?
Way back in this thread, you started arguing with something I said about infection, about virions etc etc. I didn't claim you were undermining me, discrediting me. I didn't take it as some sort of personal attack. In fact 'me' didn't come into it. This really is futile, now, and I think this is really about how you perceive interactions with you.
And with that in mind, and with a huge virtual hug from me for you, I'm going to cease responding to you because I sense that it will have an impact that is certainly not intended by me.
Peace out
I said that you were incorrect in your statement, which is different from implying that you are not credible as a person.
Mine was a comment in reply to your comment, yours are comments on me as a person, that's the difference between having a discussion and bullying.
It is very, very important!
For me the issue is misinformation even if accidental might dissuade people from vaccination. AZ are saying from the trials close to 80% efficacy against symptomatic illness and 100% efficacy against serious illness and hospitalisation. However you were saying it would be awesome to get even 90% efficacy against hospitalisation and death (and also quoted figures for after a single dose).
It is not unreasonable to ask where you get this “90% would be awesome” from, if it is a reliable source it would be nice to see a link, if it is from your own expertise some sort of indication of what that expertise is or at least some workings.
To my thinking if there is 80% efficacy against symptomatic illness then 90% against hospitalisation and death seems very low in comparison. This would indicate those unfortunate enough develop symptomatic covid despite being vaccinated would stand 50% chance of hospitalisation or death.
If in the unvaccinated population you develop symptomatic covid there may be say a 10% chance of needing hospitalisation and of those hospitalised a 10% chance of death (giving 1% fatality amongst symptomatic cases).
If those fractions were similar for those in the 20% that the vaccine failed to protect, multiplying, you get 2% chance of hospitalisation and 0.2% of death.
So given an 80% efficacy against developing symptoms that should give a 98% efficacy against hospitalisation and 99.8% against death even the vaccine provided no benefits at all to those that became symptomatic.
For the record, I received my AZ vaccine 12 days ago, so I am certainly not trying to dissuade people from vaccinating. I hope they do, but I am not here campaigning for them to do so either, it's a cycling forum FFS... as a matter of fact, I got my vaccine early probably because someone else didn't take theirs... so there is a silver lining...
Latest data on first dose, as reported above are 3/5 efficacy on reducing infection and 4/5 in reducing hospitalisation (wouldn't want your dog to howl), that's based on first dose only. My understanding is that the second dose marginally improves those figures, but the main objective is to extend the protection (that's what Whitty seems to stress in the press conferences).
We don't have figures including the second dose in the real world yet, only for trials. I seem to recall Astra Zeneca was around 70% effective in reducing infection and over 90% effective in reducing hospitalisations. That is based on around 20,000 volunteers, of which a handful ended up in hospital among the placebo population, so those data on hospitalisations and deaths are inevitably subject to more real world data.
As for transmission, who knows, if you look at Chile you might wonder whether it prevents transmission at all... over here they have come up with a 30% figure (as above, I can't remember if it reduces by 30% or reduces to 30%). It would be simplistic to conclude that if infections are down 60%, then even transmission should be down 60%. You could infect someone at 9 AM and test negative at 5 PM or the other way round, it is entirely possible... if you want to avoid bias, you need to avoid preconceptions.
But most importantly, none of these numbers matter, if the question is "how will Audax change as a result of Covid?"