Vaccine Passports

[Orraloon]

4 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

The top two show the comparative transmission risk for Alpha and Delta based on whether the person transmitting is vax'd or not. You can see Pfizer is better than AZ, but both are less effective against Delta. Indeed, after 10 weeks, AZ seems to lose all its effectiveness. 2/

 

Is that not the main reason we're scrambling about for boosters?  

 

Javid at his last briefing had the figure at 5m of people who were unvaccinated who had been previously invited that they were urging to get it done - no idea where he got it from to be honest but possibly that was the number over 18 and didn't include schools.

It's surely a fairly big precedent to set that you need proof of vaccination for a job and that you can lose your employment for choosing against it.

  

 

What a lot of folk often forget is that the main driver behind the vaccines wasn't to reduce transmission. The driver is to reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalisation and death. If they also happen to reduce transmission as well then that is a bonus. 

[Lamia]

11 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

What a lot of folk often forget is that the main driver behind the vaccines wasn't to reduce transmission. The driver is to reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalisation and death. If they also happen to reduce transmission as well then that is a bonus. 

Exactly. 👍I doubt any data on transmission would have any real effect on vaccine take up. At t he start it was made clear that there was very little data on the impact on transmission and many people still believe it has no impact but got the vaccine because they wanted to avoid serious illness.

It is interesting how some people like to re-write history.

[ThistleWhistle]

16 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

What a lot of folk often forget is that the main driver behind the vaccines wasn't to reduce transmission. The driver is to reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalisation and death. If they also happen to reduce transmission as well then that is a bonus. 

I get that but the vaccine was rolled out to protect firstly the old and the infirm as that was who was most at risk.  At the outset there were jokes flying about over whether Bill Gates was going to take over the world with his army of chipped octogenarians or if he was going to wait on the asthmatics coming onboard before plotting world domination. 

From there it was rolled further down the tree until where we are now - one of the original government charts had AZ as breaking even at 30 from memory on a personal risk/reward basis but the message was to take it for the benefit of society.  As a 40 year old who was in hospital once with asthma I didn't take mine through fear of my own safety but because I had grandparents in their late 80's.   

If folk are happy enough getting boosters every 5 months then that'll show in the data but would imagine there'll be some sort of drop off at each stage.  

[phart]

33 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

The top two show the comparative transmission risk for Alpha and Delta based on whether the person transmitting is vax'd or not. You can see Pfizer is better than AZ, but both are less effective against Delta. Indeed, after 10 weeks, AZ seems to lose all its effectiveness. 2/

 

Is that not the main reason we're scrambling about for boosters?  

 

Javid at his last briefing had the figure at 5m of people who were unvaccinated who had been previously invited that they were urging to get it done - no idea where he got it from to be honest but possibly that was the number over 18 and didn't include schools.

It's surely a fairly big precedent to set that you need proof of vaccination for a job and that you can lose your employment for choosing against it.

  

 

"TLDR: This is clear evidence that vaccines reduce transmission"

 

You're less likely to become infected though so the net affect is less transmission. Which is why that is the TLDR from the guy you're quoting.

Although all the vaccines were made on symptomatic infection reduction not neutralising infection.

[aaid]

So after spending the last few weeks focussing on opposition to vaccine passports, the lead story on Reporting Scotland is “do we need to have more restrictions?”

They don’t even try to hide it.

[phart]

5 million is the shortfall number in England for booster shots so might have meant that. Hard to tell.

Could be another figure. Everyone can catch it and transmit it though so total population is relevant(to varying degrees) in a disucssion on transmission. There's that many numbers and populations etc. One of the main issues is no one knows how many people there really is in UK atm. Depending is you use NIMS or another counting method can skew the figures considerably.

The vaccines are hugely effective at what they were designed to do, although there has been waning. Hep B is every 6 months. Flu is every year due to antigenic drift though, in saying that Delta is a drift of a sort.

[ThistleWhistle]

47 minutes ago, phart said:

5 million is the shortfall number in England for booster shots so might have meant that. Hard to tell.

Could be another figure. Everyone can catch it and transmit it though so total population is relevant(to varying degrees) in a disucssion on transmission. There's that many numbers and populations etc. One of the main issues is no one knows how many people there really is in UK atm. Depending is you use NIMS or another counting method can skew the figures considerably.

The vaccines are hugely effective at what they were designed to do, although there has been waning. Hep B is every 6 months. Flu is every year due to antigenic drift though, in saying that Delta is a drift of a sort.

There's no doubt loads of factors at play and in fairness to the government they're a victim of their own success in a way going heavy on AZ during the quieter period then finding out they'll need to ramp up boosters for winter.  It'll be interesting to see who gets invited for the summer booster and if it becomes more like flu targeting specific groups or if it'll continue to be across the board.  

[ThistleWhistle]

1 hour ago, phart said:

"TLDR: This is clear evidence that vaccines reduce transmission"

 

You're less likely to become infected though so the net affect is less transmission. Which is why that is the TLDR from the guy you're quoting.

Although all the vaccines were made on symptomatic infection reduction not neutralising infection.

Playing devil's advocate slightly here - it's reduced but only to the point that the guy is still suggesting boosters in under 50's are likely to be prompted as a consequence in order to protect all ages so would suggest it is more for transmission than the own health of the recipient.    

 

  

[phart]

1 hour ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Playing devil's advocate slightly here - it's reduced but only to the point that the guy is still suggesting boosters in under 50's are likely to be prompted as a consequence in order to protect all ages so would suggest it is more for transmission than the own health of the recipient.    

 

  

we're talking about two things , chance to become infected and chance to trasmit. The vaccines were designed to stop symptomatic infection though a third thing.

Two vaccines are needed for the passport , so irrelevant to the booster, it's like just running down a list of complaints. Almost everyone left will be getting pfizier/moderna as well not AZ so not even a real world scenario at this point regarding transmission.

[thplinth]

Anyone else can't stand this this two faced rat cunt. What a piece of shit this guy is. Sums up the whole situation, a horrible little grifter who has killed millions of people with his utterly debased 'research' and now wants his buddies to force the 'cure' on you'.

.................................

Social media users are calling for the arrest of Dr. Anthony Fauci and his removal as the nation's top infectious disease expert after his agency was found to have used taxpayer funds to finance cruel experiments on dogs.

The hashtag #ArrestFauci was trending on Twitter over the weekend, amplifying the outrage over the experiments, including one which saw beagles trapped in cages so flies could eat them, and another where they were 'debarked' before being pumped with drugs and killed. 

One of the most disturbing incidents funded by Fauci's National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases  involved $375,000 given to a Tunisian research lab.

There, puppies had their heads held in cages, before being left for sand flies to eat them alive for research purposes.

Distressing snaps showed the pups with their heads kept inside the muslin-type cages filled with the hungry insects. 

There are growing calls for the removal of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, over experiments on dogs that are funded by his agency

The White Coat Waste Project claims the NIAID provided a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagle puppies and locked their heads in mesh cages so sand flies could eat the dogs filled with hundreds of infected sand flies

Melissa Tate wrote on Twitter: 'The fact that Fauci is still walking around free and is doing media appearances without a single "journalist" asking him about gain of function and #puppygate, is a true testament to how far gone this country is. God help us #ArrestFauci.'

Another Twitter user wrote: 'This is the same guy promoting the vaccine and forcing it on you, remember that'

Bryan Dean Wright tweeted: 'If you're angry about how Fauci uses puppies, just wait until you hear how he uses COVID vaccines on healthy kids.'

'This man has to go!' tweeted another Twitter user. 'Anyone responsible needs to be held accountable!'

[Morrisandmoo]

18 hours ago, Orraloon said:

That's more like it. Just say it as it is. A bit like Putin at the start of the pandemic. "Four weeks at home or five years in prison - your choice".

But it isn't her who is creating two different classes. It's the people who are choosing not to be vaccinated who are deciding for themselves.

 

I personally don't think people necessarily "choose" to make bad decisions or be stupid or be paranoid or be poor- it's more a function of their collective life experience, opportunity and personal capacity to rationalise what good is for them and society. But the rabbit hole on where free will begins and ends is far too deep to get into here!

Regardless, as I've said, I don't think it's an acceptable position to just say fuck the (mainly) young, poor, black folk not getting vaccinated -> they can choose to just do what we tell them. It's incumbent on the majority to justify excluding minorities as a proportionate measure. The fact the minority can comply is irrelevant - that is almost always the case and would justify almost any measure. 

 

[Morrisandmoo]

18 hours ago, phart said:

Are folk against passports as a concept? Freedom of movement with zero restrictions? What's the rationale behind where one chooses to delineate between what passports are aceeptable and not acceptable.

It's interesting to think about. I liked the Schengen zone type things, but at the same time you can see the rationale for passports. The yellow fever one i used in 2019 is to prevent transmission and it can't even occur human to human, it has to be human>mosquito>human.

The rationale for opposing vaccine passports, for me, is not basrd on principles, but on effectiveness, proportionality and good policy-making. The vaccines can't provide any meaningful benefit to society and the cost is high (financial/opportunity, societal and impact on minorities). Therefore it is dumb. Because it is dumb and we should know better, it is also unethical. 

As an aside - I also would support a move towards freedom of movement with zero restrictions. But that is just because I want to be able to turn up two minutes before gettting on a plane. 

[Morrisandmoo]

16 hours ago, aaid said:

So after spending the last few weeks focussing on opposition to vaccine passports, the lead story on Reporting Scotland is “do we need to have more restrictions?”

They don’t even try to hide it.

We need the right measures. Attending a large indoor event with close human contact (like a gig) where 100% are vaccinated (vaccine passport land) vs 95%-100% vaccinated (non-passpoert land) is much the same level of (high) risk.

Passports can't make a meaningful difference when you already have high vaccination uptake.

[aaid]

42 minutes ago, Morrisandmoo said:

We need the right measures. Attending a large indoor event with close human contact (like a gig) where 100% are vaccinated (vaccine passport land) vs 95%-100% vaccinated (non-passpoert land) is much the same level of (high) risk.

Passports can't make a meaningful difference when you already have high vaccination uptake.

In places like nightclubs and gigs, it's more likely to be younger people who attend where the vaccine uptake isn't so high, so your point doesn't stand up.  

 

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, Morrisandmoo said:

The rationale for opposing vaccine passports, for me, is not basrd on principles, but on effectiveness, proportionality and good policy-making. The vaccines can't provide any meaningful benefit to society and the cost is high (financial/opportunity, societal and impact on minorities). Therefore it is dumb. Because it is dumb and we should know better, it is also unethical. 

As an aside - I also would support a move towards freedom of movement with zero restrictions. But that is just because I want to be able to turn up two minutes before gettting on a plane. 

Whit?????

I find it very hard to believe that is what you really think. 

[ThistleWhistle]

14 hours ago, phart said:

we're talking about two things , chance to become infected and chance to trasmit. The vaccines were designed to stop symptomatic infection though a third thing.

Two vaccines are needed for the passport , so irrelevant to the booster, it's like just running down a list of complaints. Almost everyone left will be getting pfizier/moderna as well not AZ so not even a real world scenario at this point regarding transmission.

I totally get that and it is how those add up to case numbers then how that translates into hospitalisation, ICU and death is essentially what matters.  There’ll be various scenarios planned around where the acceptable lines are and how far/quickly they need to ramp up boosters/ uptakes in youngsters or re-introduce restrictions based on those. 

 

I’m not sure on the ‘real world data’ point as surely it’s real world information like the above they’ve used to decide AZ isn’t suitable for the boosters then from there have modelled what the winter could look like on the alternatives at varying uptake levels – it looks good hopefully from this but lots of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ plus pretty sure where that’s projected to in spring means there’ll be some form of 4^th jab and how winter pans out will probably determine how widespread. 

 

Covid: Are cases about to plummet without Plan B? - BBC News

 

 

In terms of the vaccine passports it’ll depend on how far down the age range the booster goes I’d assume – it would seem pretty pointless having a two dose passport for a 3 dose vaccine though and if they need more 18-30 year olds would seem the obvious strategy they’d deploy again in nudging/coercing them into it again. 

 

For me the efficacy of the vaccine is arguably superseded by the efficacy of the communication because trust in it is essential for folk to keep getting it – they need for me to be clear with folk why AZ is substituted out for boosters as an example rather than skirting around it/ drip feeding.  Doesn’t mean it’s a bad vaccine but admitting it’s short comings in comparison to competition, whilst emphasising what it’s already achieved, from the results of the live experiment we’re conducting wouldn’t be a show of weakness.  Additionally were they pushing so hard in the media for boosters and young folk getting vaccinated only a few days ago because they were genuinely shitting themselves it could get to 100k cases a day or because they were worried folk would get complacent once cases started to drop as the modelling was projecting (particularly with half term down there)? 

 

Leaving a void or being unclear about rationale leaves space which if you don’t fill it someone else will with any old bollocks and that’s the oxygen for Karen’s on Facebook. 

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, Morrisandmoo said:

The rationale for opposing vaccine passports, for me, is not basrd on principles, but on effectiveness, proportionality and good policy-making. The vaccines can't provide any meaningful benefit to society and the cost is high (financial/opportunity, societal and impact on minorities). Therefore it is dumb. Because it is dumb and we should know better, it is also unethical. 

As an aside - I also would support a move towards freedom of movement with zero restrictions. But that is just because I want to be able to turn up two minutes before gettting on a plane. 

 

37 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Whit?????

I find it very hard to believe that is what you really think. 

Ok, I now realise that you meant to say "vaccine passports" don't provide any benefit, which makes more sense. I think they provide a small benefit but agree not a huge benefit. But lots of different measures provide other small benefits. It's when all these small things are combined that it's hoped a bigger benefit emerges. Mony a mickle maks a muckle.

Folk will argue about which measures are best, based on their personal preferences. Passports hardly affect me at all so I have no problem with them. But that's just me personally.

[ThistleWhistle]

18 hours ago, aaid said:

So after spending the last few weeks focussing on opposition to vaccine passports, the lead story on Reporting Scotland is “do we need to have more restrictions?”

They don’t even try to hide it.

Different topic but similar is the uk government adverts on local radio around greener opportunities/ initiatives - the ingenuity of Sheffield creating turbine blades is generating jobs in Glasgow.  Miss what Wales get out of it as still ranting at the radio but NI get greener deliveries.  

[Morrisandmoo]

27 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

 

Ok, I now realise that you meant to say "vaccine passports" don't provide any benefit, which makes more sense. I think they provide a small benefit but agree not a huge benefit. But lots of different measures provide other small benefits. It's when all these small things are combined that it's hoped a bigger benefit emerges. Mony a mickle maks a muckle.

Folk will argue about which measures are best, based on their personal preferences. Passports hardly affect me at all so I have no problem with them. But that's just me personally.

Aye yeah I did - sorry! Everybody should get vaccinated, as often as is necessary, in my opinion. 

I agree just because a benefit is small doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. For me the cost is too high and we'd be better investing that in other opportunities that would deliver better outcomes (I've given example like screening young people for heart problems). But almost any randomly generated idea would be better than vaccine passports. It's a very bad deal in my opinion.

[phart]

40 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

I totally get that and it is how those add up to case numbers then how that translates into hospitalisation, ICU and death is essentially what matters.  There’ll be various scenarios planned around where the acceptable lines are and how far/quickly they need to ramp up boosters/ uptakes in youngsters or re-introduce restrictions based on those. 

 

I’m not sure on the ‘real world data’ point as surely it’s real world information like the above they’ve used to decide AZ isn’t suitable for the boosters then from there have modelled what the winter could look like on the alternatives at varying uptake levels – it looks good hopefully from this but lots of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ plus pretty sure where that’s projected to in spring means there’ll be some form of 4^th jab and how winter pans out will probably determine how widespread. 

 

Covid: Are cases about to plummet without Plan B? - BBC News

 

 

In terms of the vaccine passports it’ll depend on how far down the age range the booster goes I’d assume – it would seem pretty pointless having a two dose passport for a 3 dose vaccine though and if they need more 18-30 year olds would seem the obvious strategy they’d deploy again in nudging/coercing them into it again. 

 

For me the efficacy of the vaccine is arguably superseded by the efficacy of the communication because trust in it is essential for folk to keep getting it – they need for me to be clear with folk why AZ is substituted out for boosters as an example rather than skirting around it/ drip feeding.  Doesn’t mean it’s a bad vaccine but admitting it’s short comings in comparison to competition, whilst emphasising what it’s already achieved, from the results of the live experiment we’re conducting wouldn’t be a show of weakness.  Additionally were they pushing so hard in the media for boosters and young folk getting vaccinated only a few days ago because they were genuinely shitting themselves it could get to 100k cases a day or because they were worried folk would get complacent once cases started to drop as the modelling was projecting (particularly with half term down there)? 

 

Leaving a void or being unclear about rationale leaves space which if you don’t fill it someone else will with any old bollocks and that’s the oxygen for Karen’s on Facebook. 

I was just saying that almost all vaccines going forward "coerced" by the passport won't be AZ so the 10 week waning is a bit apples and oranges, if what's the point of getting it when you shed like the unvaccinated anyway is a reason not to get the vaccine.

Who is "they" if you mean the government I haven't listened to anyone in government about anything to do with the pandemic.

My understanding is a study called cov-boost done by southampton university was financed and the results came in early september and they trialed 7 different vaccines for the booster programme. There was varying degrees of data available for each one and then JCVI picked Pfizier and half dose moderna due to there being more info and the separate studies showing a rather large heterlogous affect when mixing and matching vaccines.

Edited October 26, 2021 by phart

[Morrisandmoo]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

In places like nightclubs and gigs, it's more likely to be younger people who attend where the vaccine uptake isn't so high, so your point doesn't stand up.  

 

It's not just nightclubs it applies to and not just a specific age range. It also includes adult entertainment venues for example, which is attended mostly by dirty old men  And football grounfs and concerts - that are probably quite close to average demographics. 

Also the point you raise reduces the potential benefit of the passport even further. In that it's mostly older people that die from Covid. If they are already vaccinated (which they are) and it's only youngsters left the benefit becomes more indirect and remote. 

I am confident in saying, regardless of the reason, that the benefits will be immeasurably small. 

Do you think the benefits of passports are going to be big? Do you think we'll have significantly better health outcomes than England that will be attributable to passports?

Edited October 26, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[phart]

I don't think passports will be effective. I also don't think they're some great fascist device. Just an ineffectual tool for the job they've been used on.

[Morrisandmoo]

3 minutes ago, phart said:

I don't think passports will be effective. I also don't think they're some great fascist device. Just an ineffectual tool for the job they've been used on.

A much more succinct summary 

[phart]

yougov polled on some NPI's

[phart]

2 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

We need the right measures. Attending a large indoor event with close human contact (like a gig) where 100% are vaccinated (vaccine passport land) vs 95%-100% vaccinated (non-passpoert land) is much the same level of (high) risk.

Passports can't make a meaningful difference when you already have high vaccination uptake.

just as an aside, if we assume 18-40 year olds are going to clubs (and they're Scottish), it's a 70% (roughly) rate for them.