Virus: 40, Vaccine: buggerall

[UncleEbenezer]

Huge spike of covid in rural East Devon turns out to be a big outbreak in a care home, where inmates and staff had all had their first jab some time ago and were due their second jab about now. Devon Live reports[1] 33 cases, but since then it seems[2] to have risen to nearly all the care home's reported 42 residents. One has died, we don't know if others may follow.

That first jab two to three months ago evidently didn't protect them. Perhaps they needed that second jab at the prescribed three weeks!

[1] https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-ne ... ed-5091601
[2] That's inferred from uk gov statistics for the area, which reported 32 cases (+30 over the week) a couple of days ago, and now reports 41 (+39). The 33 in the report falls somewhere between those.

[88V8]

Hmmm
Did they admit a visitor or agency worker or whomever who hadn't been vaccinated sufficiently long ago?
Or at all? What proof are they demanding?
And are they sure all their staff have been vaccinated?
Even though the vaccine prevent severe illness, it doesn't need a severe illness to kill someone who is frail.

Worrying though.
I hope it doesn't get much traction on social media otherwise it could be negative in persuading the reluctant to be vaccinated.

V8

[richfool]

It would also be interesting to know if they all had the same vaccine, and which one it was, as well as exactly when they had their jabs.

[GrahamPlatt]

The vaccine is not 100% effective... OK, a lot have been infected, but (sadly) the proof of efficacy will be known when we learn what the eventual case fatality rate is.

[UncleEbenezer]

The vaccine is not 100% effective... OK, a lot have been infected, but (sadly) the proof of efficacy will be known when we learn what the eventual case fatality rate is.

The evidence of this particular story would suggest that whatever vaccine they had was approximately 0% effective. I don't know what vaccine it was, but it seems extremely likely that they failed to follow instructions to administer a second jab three weeks after the first.

[Nimrod103]

It would also be interesting to know if they all had the same vaccine, and which one it was, as well as exactly when they had their jabs.

According to the article, not everyone was vaccinated:
"Nearly all our residents and the team have received their first dose of the vaccine and were about to have their second dose, and we hope this may have helped prevent an even worse situation.

[jfgw]

The vaccine is not 100% effective... OK, a lot have been infected, but (sadly) the proof of efficacy will be known when we learn what the eventual case fatality rate is.

The evidence of this particular story would suggest that whatever vaccine they had was approximately 0% effective. I don't know what vaccine it was, but it seems extremely likely that they failed to follow instructions to administer a second jab three weeks after the first.

The point being made is that, while the vaccine may have been approximately 0% effective at preventing infection, it may have been significantly more effective at reducing deaths. It would be interesting to know the eventual CFR and compare this with pre-vaccine care home CFRs where outbreaks have occurred.

It should also be considered that two jabs three weeks apart may not have prevented the outbreak.


Julian F. G. W.

[AleisterCrowley]

There's some evidence (not conclusive) that the Pfizer vaccine efficacy fades' more than the AZN one after peaking, although protection is still fairly high
It could be that this was a defective batch though, or (more likely?) it was transported and stored incorrectly

https://www.gponline.com/know-effective ... le/1708986

[servodude]

it was transported and stored incorrectly

must confess this was my first thought when I read this story

- sd

[Lootman]

it was transported and stored incorrectly

must confess this was my first thought when I read this story

Or given the wrong dosage:

https://www.ktvu.com/news/thousands-at- ... -staff-say

[Mike4]

The vaccine is not 100% effective... OK, a lot have been infected, but (sadly) the proof of efficacy will be known when we learn what the eventual case fatality rate is.

The evidence of this particular story would suggest that whatever vaccine they had was approximately 0% effective. I don't know what vaccine it was, but it seems extremely likely that they failed to follow instructions to administer a second jab three weeks after the first.

This seems consistent with something the ICU doctor customer of mine told me in his long, long chat with me after I fixed his boiler back in January. As I reported on here at the time, he said he was seeing large numbers of vaccinations being done using ineffective (in his opinion) batches of Pfizer vaccine. Batches made ineffective by the handling instructions being breached, but the vaccine being administered regardless.

His view was that the Pfizer vaccine is so unstable and it's handling so critical that it will eventually cease to be used. Batches in his hospital are getting regularly and inadvertently spoiled by minor breaches of the handling instructions which unskilled staff think inconsequential, and he thinks this will become clearer as the stats on each type of vaccine accumulate.

I hope he is wrong but your case might be the first straw in the wind suggesting he is perhaps right.

[NeilW]

That first jab two to three months ago evidently didn't protect them.

It's not designed to stop people getting infected. It's designed to reduce the impact of the symptoms to that of a bad cold.

If people are elderly they may die anyway - as they would with a bad cold.

[Mike4]

That first jab two to three months ago evidently didn't protect them.

It's not designed to stop people getting infected. It's designed to reduce the impact of the symptoms to that of a bad cold.

I think it is more complicted than that. There are three separate measures of effectiveness in the trials AIUI.

1) Hospitalisation and death
2) Symptomatic disease
3) Asymptomatic infection

The AZ trials measured all three AIUI, but the Pf trial design decided to leave out 3), for reasons we can only guess at.

[NeilW]

The AZ trials measured all three AIUI, but the Pf trial design decided to leave out 3), for reasons we can only guess at.

Because there is little or no evidence for asymptomatic transmission and hasn't been throughout this debacle. But it is a very convenient scare story.

The existence of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic individuals has become an accepted truth but the evidence for this phenomenon being anything other than mistaken interpretation of false positive test results is weak. Examination of the underlying data from the most frequently-cited such meta-analyses reveals that the conclusions are based on a surprisingly small number of cases (six in total globally) and, moreover, the possibility that they are all coincidental contacts with false positive results cannot be ruled out. Transmission which is pre-symptomatic is rare and represents a negligible risk to the population. It is questionable therefore whether any of the extensive testing, tracing, isolation and lockdown policies have delivered any worthwhile benefit over and above strategies which seek to advise symptomatic individuals to self-isolate.

It's a classic case of outdate science momentum. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/th ... f-outdated

[servodude]

The AZ trials measured all three AIUI, but the Pf trial design decided to leave out 3), for reasons we can only guess at.

Because there is little or no evidence for asymptomatic transmission and hasn't been throughout this debacle. But it is a very convenient scare story.

Illiterate or a pink marshmallow?
I really can't tell

[88V8]

I used to be involved in the shipping of PCR reagents using dry ice. Maintaining the necessary cold chain was a nightmare, and led to a number of (expensive) shipments being lost.
Anything that had to go through Customs was a particular worry.

Glad I had the Oxford as my first jab.

V8

[Mike4]

The AZ trials measured all three AIUI, but the Pf trial design decided to leave out 3), for reasons we can only guess at.

Because there is little or no evidence for asymptomatic transmission and hasn't been throughout this debacle. But it is a very convenient scare story.

The existence of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic individuals has become an accepted truth but the evidence for this phenomenon being anything other than mistaken interpretation of false positive test results is weak. Examination of the underlying data from the most frequently-cited such meta-analyses reveals that the conclusions are based on a surprisingly small number of cases (six in total globally) and, moreover, the possibility that they are all coincidental contacts with false positive results cannot be ruled out. Transmission which is pre-symptomatic is rare and represents a negligible risk to the population. It is questionable therefore whether any of the extensive testing, tracing, isolation and lockdown policies have delivered any worthwhile benefit over and above strategies which seek to advise symptomatic individuals to self-isolate.

It's a classic case of outdate science momentum. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/th ... f-outdated

The ONS coronavirus infection survey seems to think asymptomatic infection is real:

"How the data in this bulletin can be used
The data can be used for:

estimating the number of current positive cases in the community, including cases where people do not report having any symptoms"

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... lot/latest

And Dr Campbell's video on the subject suggests your assertion there is no evidence is plain wrong. Dr Campbell presents loads of evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmFm2N_ ... hnCampbell

[Julian]

I used to be involved in the shipping of PCR reagents using dry ice. Maintaining the necessary cold chain was a nightmare, and led to a number of (expensive) shipments being lost.
Anything that had to go through Customs was a particular worry.

Glad I had the Oxford as my first jab.

V8

In the early days of the rollout I saw a TV report from a centre deploying the Pfizer vaccine. From that report it wasn't just the cold temperature, what comes in those pizza boxes has to be diluted(*) and once the dilutant is added the vial has to then be very carefully "agitated" (if that's the right word) - definitely not shaken but rather carefully held between thumb and forefinger and gently turned end-on-end I think 10 times. So that's yet another way a whole group of vaccine shots of vaccine shots could be rendered less effective or maybe totally ineffective. Just last week I heard a vaccine expert calling out not just the storage temperature but also the absence of the dilution step as advantages of vaccines such as the Oxford/AZ one and a few others now.

Here is a link to Pfizer procedures (I was right, it is inverted 10 times) - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/i ... ummary.pdf

- Julian

(*) In fact at least one person early in the UK rollout got an approx 6x overdose of the Pfizer vaccine because the person doing the prep missed that stage and injected an entire undiluted vial! The recipient was OK apparently but not a good mistake to be making!

[NeilW]

And Dr Campbell's video on the subject suggests your assertion there is no evidence is plain wrong. Dr Campbell presents loads of evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmFm2N_ ... hnCampbell

'Dr' Campbell taught nurses. I have a friend who is a doctor who teaches mathematics. Not really a good appeal to authority on You Tube.

He has not published any meta studies, nor critically questioned where they have come from.

It's not a matter of weighing the studies to see how many of them there are. It's a matter of critically assessing it for voracity. When you do that, there are significant holes in the argument.

[Bouleversee]

There's some evidence (not conclusive) that the Pfizer vaccine efficacy fades' more than the AZN one after peaking, although protection is still fairly high
It could be that this was a defective batch though, or (more likely?) it was transported and stored incorrectly

https://www.gponline.com/know-effective ... le/1708986

Pfizer have recently indicated that they now think the transportation and storage measures need not be so stringent as at first laid down. However, that still leaves room for the other errors mentioned on here.

Having read your linked article, I fail to understand how Arne Akbar came to the conclusion he did about the safety of the 12 weeks gap (penultimate para.).

I think the inmates and team in the Cornish care home must have had the Pfizer jab as the 12 weeks were up and I don't think the Oxford jab was being used that long ago. I am not at all surprised that we are starting to get cases and even a death amongst the old and frail after such a long interval. The manufacturers and the European body mentioned in that article have made it clear that 6 weeks is the absolute max. for the interval and more than one study has shown that what little efficacy there is in some cases starts to fade after the 3 weeks. It hasn't hit my Times yet, but this morning's BBC news contained reference to a study which showed that there is little antibody response to a first dose (none at all in the case of The Times Chief Reporter who had blood cancer I mentioned last week ) in cancer patients whose immune systems have been damaged but a significant response after a 2nd dose which suggested that should be administered after 3 weeks in the case of Pfizer. Can anyone turn up the actual study report so we can get all the facts?

The govt. chose to ignore the Cambridge study I have mentioned previously and it will be interesting to see whether they change their tune after this report. It will also be interesting to see whether they look into whether the same applies to other people whose immune systems have been affected by conditions other than cancer. By strange coincidence, I have just this minute received a phone call from my GP surgery offering me an appointment for my 2nd Pfizer jab next Tuesday. I had the first on Dec. 31. I wonder whether I will have any side effects this time. None at all after the first.