Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

We are missing the second half of the sentence.

Paired with what?

50% vaccinated in a city where 15% are known to have had the virus is quite a different animal to 50% in a city where no one has had the virus.

This is the bind Australia (1%) and New Zealand (0.5%) now find themselves in.

Australia so far has only vaccinated 3 million of a population of 25 million.
https://www.health.gov.au/sites/defa...e-doses_13.pdf

Yes, that's true, and a very good point.

Denmark and Sweden will have quite a bit of natural immunity in the population to add to the effect of vaccination.

The desirability of natural immunity in the population is one reasons cited by Nordic health authorities for not clamping down too tight. This is obviously a different approach from Australia.

Finland and Norway have little immunity in the population, despite no lockdowns. This makes people nervous here. But confidence slowly increased as vaccination proceeds, now at a pretty good pace, and the dreaded wave of infection never appeared.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Pretty bold conclusion, although at this point it is unsupported by data. Of the 20% fully vaccinated who are hospitalized in the Seychelles how many had Sinopharm vs Covishield(AstraZenica)? You don't know, so how do you state it is an issue with the Chinese Sinopharm?

I didn't state that the outbreak in the Seychelles "is an issue with Sinopharm". You didn't parse the sentence correctly. I said: "The only lesson I see so far from the Seychelles is that 60% of people fully vaccinated is not enough to stop community spread, at least if you're using the less effective Chinese vaccines." The phrase "at least" is significant here -- it means that 60% vaccination rate does not appear to stop community spread (in a population with no natural immunity -- thanks Ping) in a population mostly vaccinated with Sinopharm, which may or may not be the same in a population vaccinated with more effective vaccines (we don't know). Certainly it's not a good sign, but it might not be applicable to us.


I wasn't claiming anything THEN about the effectiveness of vaccines used, except that it COULD be a factor. However, I think I will say something now. The Seychellians were vaccinated 57% with Sinopharm, and 43% with Astra Zeneca. See: https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...st-2021-05-11/. Sinopharm is 79% effective against symptomatic infection and AZ is 76% effective, compared to about 95% for Pfizer, Moderna, and Sputnik V. That means 4x and nearly 5x the rate of "break-through" infections compared to other vaccines. So that would certainly and obviously affect the dynamic of the pandemic in a highly vaccinated population.

Originally Posted by Paul L

. . . There is also not current public data for how many of the 80% hospitalized and labeled unvaccinated have had one dose.

This increase is not just a Seychelles anomaly. The increase in other countries in Asia is pretty clear.

As El P noted, the UK is now responding.

The UK is concerned about the still more contagious Indian mutation changing the dynamic of the pandemic so that it might resurge despite the high level of immunity in the population now (a lot of vaccination plus a lot of natural immunity). We shall see. We are all speculating.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I didn't state that the outbreak in the Seychelles "is an issue with Sinopharm". You didn't parse the sentence correctly. I said: "The only lesson I see so far from the Seychelles is that 60% of people fully vaccinated is not enough to stop community spread, at least if you're using the less effective Chinese vaccines." The phrase "at least" is significant here -- it means that 60% vaccination rate does not appear to stop community spread (in a population with no natural immunity -- thanks Ping) in a population mostly vaccinated with Sinopharm, which may or may not be the same in a population vaccinated with more effective vaccines (we don't know). Certainly it's not a good sign, but it might not be applicable to us.


....

You called out the Chinese vaccine with no justification. You could have called out the UK vaccine, but choose not you.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Paul L

The Seychelles Ministry of Health has stated that 80% of the hospitalized did not have two doses of vaccine and 20% did. Not my conclusion, it's their statement.

Good grief, they didn't say anything how many doses just NOT vaccinated which means not even the first one.. And that's pretty much how it works if 60% of population is vaccinated at least ones and the vaccine effiency agains getting severely sick is in this case 84% which is about in line with the promised 76 to 79% vaccine effiency.. Nobody ever said the vaccine is 100% protection..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul L

You called out the Chinese vaccine with no justification. You could have called out the UK vaccine, but choose not you.

That was before I found the source stating that the other vaccine used was AZ. I've got nothing against Chinese vaccines.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That was before I found the source stating that the other vaccine used was AZ. I've got nothing against Chinese vaccines.

We just don’t know much about vaccines using chemically inactivated virus eg the Chinese Sinopharm and Sinovac. Apart from China, where I think (maybe wrongly) that available data is unreliable, we have little information on which to base opinions either way.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

We just don’t know much about vaccines using chemically inactivated virus eg the Chinese Sinopharm and Sinovac. Apart from China, where I think (maybe wrongly) that available data is unreliable, we have little information on which to base opinions either way.

That's the problem with west. We, the health officials that is, didn't believe what Chinese told about Covid last year January and February and all that has proven to be about right considering the lack of testing in the beginning of the pandemic. Instead westerners were evacuated from Wuhan without consideration of quarantine whatsoever.. A tad arrogant I'd say..

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

That's the problem with west. We, the health officials that is, didn't believe what Chinese told about Covid last year January and February and all that has proven to be about right considering the lack of testing in the beginning of the pandemic. Instead westerners were evacuated from Wuhan without consideration of quarantine whatsoever.. A tad arrogant I'd say..

Yes, I do agree that we initially ignored all the warning signs. The setting up of huge makeshift hospitals should have sent more alarm bells ringing.

Regarding confidence in data though, I have seen no peer reviewed papers on the efficacy of the Chinese vaccines that use inactivated virus. In my view, we can draw no conclusions at all yet. Reserving judgement is not arrogance.

[Seaworthy Lass]

It is too early to put a huge emphasis on the situation in the Seychelles. The only conclusion that can be made so far is that the vaccines that have been used are giving good protection from severe disease and death.

This article gives a good summary of the situation:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/seyc...as-surged.html

WHO’s Director of Immunization has clearly stated that this was a “more complicated situation than the top-line messages.”

Also:

“As was noted, the vaccines are highly efficacious against severe cases and deaths. Most of the cases which have occurred are mild cases. However, what is also important is that a substantial fraction, over 80% of the population, has been vaccinated. But as we know ... some of the cases that are being reported are occurring either soon after a single dose, or soon after a second dose, or between the first and second doses.”
She said in this specific situation, a very detailed assessment was required “of what the situation is, first of all what the strains are that are circulating in the country, secondly when the cases occur relative to when somebody received doses, third what the severity of the cases is.”
“Only by doing that kind of evaluation can we make an assessment of whether or not these are vaccine failures or whether it is more about the kinds of cases that are occurring, the milder end of cases and then the timing of the cases relative to when individuals received doses. That evaluation is ongoing and we’re supporting and engaging with the country to understand the situation.”

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

We just don’t know much about vaccines using chemically inactivated virus eg the Chinese Sinopharm and Sinovac. Apart from China, where I think (maybe wrongly) that available data is unreliable, we have little information on which to base opinions either way.

Inactivated-virus vaccines have generally proven less effective than others in use. However, they still exceed the WHO’s 50% efficacy threshold for emergency-use approval.
China’s vaccines have had to be trialled elsewhere, because the country didn’t have enough transmission itself to conduct them.
Five vaccines have been approved for use in China. Unlike RNA vaccines being rolled out elsewhere, all can be stored in a fridge at 2–8 °C. Although full efficacy results have not been published, interim data come from clinical trials, in more than a dozen nations.

China’s COVID vaccines are going global — but questions remain ~ "Nature", May 12, 2021*
The WHO has approved one of China’s COVID-19 vaccines for use worldwide and another is under review. But published trial data remain scarce.
Much more ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01146-0

* This story [from May 4] was updated to include the news that on 7 May, the World Health Organization listed Sinopharm’s Beijing vaccine and reported an efficacy of 79%.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Good grief, they didn't say anything how many doses just NOT vaccinated which means not even the first one.. And that's pretty much how it works if 60% of population is vaccinated at least ones and the vaccine effiency agains getting severely sick is in this case 84% which is about in line with the promised 76 to 79% vaccine effiency.. Nobody ever said the vaccine is 100% protection..

Your statement is incorrect. The 20% had two doses, the 80% had one or none. Its just the data that the MOH gave at their news conference.

[Copacabana]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Yes, I do agree that we initially ignored all the warning signs. The setting up of huge makeshift hospitals should have sent more alarm bells ringing.

Regarding confidence in data though, I have seen no peer reviewed papers on the efficacy of the Chinese vaccines that use inactivated virus. In my view, we can draw no conclusions at all yet. Reserving judgement is not arrogance.

The Sinovac vaccine has been tested in a number of countries and there is pretty good data at this point. In Brazil, almost 20 million people have been given the 2 doses of the Sinovac vaccine. Back in January, the Butantan Institute stated it was 50.4% effective overall, but concluded:

"the vaccine is 78% effective in preventing mild cases that needed treatment and 100% effective in staving off moderate to serious cases."

While it is not as effective as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, it seems to work fairly well. At least in Brazil, we are not hearing of many cases of severe illness from breakthrough infections.

I believe you can also find data on Sinovac trials in Turkey and Indonesia.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

. . . Regarding confidence in data though, I have seen no peer reviewed papers on the efficacy of the Chinese vaccines that use inactivated virus. In my view, we can draw no conclusions at all yet. Reserving judgement is not arrogance.

According to WHO, "a large, multi-country Phase III trial" of the Sinopharm vaccine showed 79% efficacy against symptomatic infection. https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...%20was%2079%25.

That's bloody good. I don't believe mankind has ever made a flu vaccine with such efficacy.

But 4x higher rate of breakthrough infection compared to Pfizer, Moderna, and Sputnik.

HOWEVER, it is important to note that these different trials may not be strictly comparable to one another because of different mixes of different mutants. So, grain of salt.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Copacabana

The Sinovac vaccine has been tested in a number of countries and there is pretty good data at this point. In Brazil, almost 20 million people have been given the 2 doses of the Sinovac vaccine. Back in January, the Butantan Institute stated it was 50.4% effective overall, but concluded:

"the vaccine is 78% effective in preventing mild cases that needed treatment and 100% effective in staving off moderate to serious cases."

While it is not as effective as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, it seems to work fairly well. At least in Brazil, we are not hearing of many cases of severe illness from breakthrough infections.

I believe you can also find data on Sinovac trials in Turkey and Indonesia.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

According to WHO, "a large, multi-country Phase III trial" of the Sinopharm vaccine showed 79% efficacy against symptomatic infection. https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...%20was%2079%25.

That's bloody good. I don't believe mankind has ever made a flu vaccine with such efficacy.

But 4x higher rate of breakthrough infection compared to Pfizer, Moderna, and Sputnik.

HOWEVER, it is important to note that these different trials may not be strictly comparable to one another because of different mixes of different mutants. So, grain of salt.

My error. I have not been reading sufficiently lately to find this information. I guess I am getting a little saturated, and with Scotland now easing restrictions there is lots to keep me otherwise occupied. Sorry if I have mislead anyone.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Your statement is incorrect. The 20% had two doses, the 80% had one or none. Its just the data that the MOH gave at their news conference.

You can still do the math based whatever figure you feel most accurate, just not jump on conclusions without assessing the numbers right. The vaccines have been about as good as promised..