I’m glad I’m stateside rite now fully vaccinated (Moderna)waiting on approval for the booster that beeing said I agree with chomper get what you can ,mask up follow safe protocols all in all it seems that the Moderna is proving the most effective hopefully soon it will be safe to travel 

11 hours ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

again yet another prestigious study combines death and hospital risks, using the lowest common 90% denominator. WHY ? Different Events / Vax / Risk. Politics veneered on Science …again..

and groups all three vax as if equally effective. WHY ? Above the Common 90% They Are Not. 

For Example, AZ 100% effective against Covid Death ( FDA Phase III Trials), 90% for Hospital (same).

Pfixer 96% for Death ( same).

Well done, you’ve spotted the headline in an English language newspaper doesn’t reflect the nuances within the French language report it is referring too,

 

https://www.epi-phare.fr/rapports-detudes-et-publications/impact-vaccination-covid-octobre-2021/

 

Let’s now see if you can answer your question ‘WHY?’ and if having figured it out it’s worth the rest of us bothering with your explanation.

One possible consideration is the wait time between doses. AZ is almost 3 months. Much longer than the others. 

Think the title "three major vaccines is misleading".  The Chinese and Indian vaccines dwarf all others as for as vaccinations.  The Chinese and Indians seem to be dealing with the virus better than the "West".   I know - hard to compare countries with so many variables!

 

The data is far from sound and constantly evolving in regards to the vaccines.  The Chinese have produced nearly half the vaccine dosages in the world and now with India ramping up its production, the two countries will probably produce 70%+ of all vaccinations the next 3 months IMO.  Quote form BBC article ( https://www.bbc.com/news/58808889 ).

 

"Research by Airfinity forecasts that by December, a total of 12.2 billion doses will have been produced around the world - 5.7 billion of these Chinese vaccines and the rest non-Chinese".

 

My jabs were Sinopharm and the limited data looks promising.  In reality, I did not care in the least and just wanted a jab to protect myself from restrictions I fear that will be placed on the unvaccinated.  I fail to realize the fear that many have about deciding on which vaccine to get.  Not saying others that are fearful and stressed are wrong - just saying how I feel.

 

 

fair enough Chomper,

got caught again by poor journalism repeating same over- generalized headline.

i dont need to read these reports. they all have the same major findings content it seems.

have enough covid data personally from past FDA Summaries, etc.

beat the rush have all 3
you know its gunna happen

On 10/11/2021 at 1:30 PM, placeholder said:

But according to a huge study  done  in the UK that is admittedly not yet peer reviewed,, AZ was less effective at stopping transmission than the Pfizer Biontech vaccine.

  

Vaccines cut Covid transmission risk but only 90-day protection against Delta: Oxford study

Study, yet to be peer-reviewed, says vaccinated individuals infected with Delta have lower odds of spreading virus if they got Pfizer shot than if they received AstraZeneca-Oxford.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02261-8

Any study that is not yet peer reviewed, is not worth the virtual paper it was written on.

 

Quotes from the original article below

Vaccination reduces the risk of dying or being hospitalised with Covid-19 by 90%, a French study of 22.6 million people over the age of 50 has found.

 

They found “a reduction in the risk of hospitalisation superior to 90%” from the 14th day after the second dose and a similar reduction in the number of deaths from Covid-19.

 

The vaccines’ effectiveness in combatting the most serious symptoms of Covid did not diminish during the five-month period of the study, they said.

End Quotes.

 

The 90% is hospitalized and deaths, not infection rates. "most media mostly focus on infection rates", however "hospitalized and deaths" is where the real focus should be now that vaccines are available.
The comment regarding "effectiveness" is of note, as each vaccine is different in effectiveness. i.e. not plain vanilla 90% i.e. Some like Sinovac has a much less effectiveness than the big 3, where Phiser and Moderna are above 95%.

This article, however "unless I missed it" did not state all of the vaccines tested.

 

Article would be a whole lot better if they gave a bit more of the details.

 

4 hours ago, Trvlr55 said:

Any study that is not yet peer reviewed, is not worth the virtual paper it was written on.

 

Quotes from the original article below

Vaccination reduces the risk of dying or being hospitalised with Covid-19 by 90%, a French study of 22.6 million people over the age of 50 has found.

 

They found “a reduction in the risk of hospitalisation superior to 90%” from the 14th day after the second dose and a similar reduction in the number of deaths from Covid-19.

 

The vaccines’ effectiveness in combatting the most serious symptoms of Covid did not diminish during the five-month period of the study, they said.

End Quotes.

 

The 90% is hospitalized and deaths, not infection rates. "most media mostly focus on infection rates", however "hospitalized and deaths" is where the real focus should be now that vaccines are available.
The comment regarding "effectiveness" is of note, as each vaccine is different in effectiveness. i.e. not plain vanilla 90% i.e. Some like Sinovac has a much less effectiveness than the big 3, where Phiser and Moderna are above 95%.

This article, however "unless I missed it" did not state all of the vaccines tested.

 

Article would be a whole lot better if they gave a bit more of the details.

 

When a preprint draws attention via an article from Nature, planet Earth's preeminent scientific journal, it's a pretty safe bet that the study is worth more then the pixels it's printed with.

 

The article specifically states that the study is about infection, not hospitalizations or death. Transmission is not a negligible issue.

 

And the very first footnote provides a link to the study in question.

55 minutes ago, placeholder said:

When a preprint draws attention via an article from Nature, planet Earth's preeminent scientific journal, it's a pretty safe bet that the study is worth more then the pixels it's printed with.

 

The article specifically states that the study is about infection, not hospitalizations or death. Transmission is not a negligible issue.

 

And the very first footnote provides a link to the study in question.

not peer reviewed studies have no basis in fact, until they have been peer reviewed. there are countless dis-proved studies in science. once fully vaccinated transmission is rather negligible. It's mostly reduced to a cold, or flu symptoms. There is and never will be a 100 percent cure, it's world wide and is just part of the planet now... it's not going anywhere.

Just now, Trvlr55 said:

not peer reviewed studies have no basis in fact, until they have been peer reviewed. there are countless dis-proved studies in science. once fully vaccinated transmission is rather negligible. It's mostly reduced to a cold, or flu symptoms. There is and never will be a 100 percent cure, it's world wide and is just part of the planet now... it's not going anywhere.

Very few preprints get the attention of Nature. There's a reason for that. If an expert on the subject thought it worth  their time to compose an article, I'll go with their idea of its worth.

As for your claim that transmission  via the fully vaccinated  is "rather negligible" is nonsense. No major reputable source claims that in the wake of the Delta variant transmission via the fully vaccinated is "rather negligible".

Depends on how the RRR and ARR? Have a read, and decide for yourself.

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33652582

On 10/12/2021 at 7:12 PM, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

again yet another prestigious study combines death and hospital risks, using the lowest common 90% denominator. WHY ? Different Events / Vax / Risk. Politics veneered on Science …again..

and groups all three vax as if equally effective. WHY ? Above the Common 90% They Are Not. 

For Example, AZ 100% effective against Covid Death ( FDA Phase III Trials), 90% for Hospital (same).

Pfixer 96% for Death ( same).

Were those trials done before or after the advent of the Delta variant?

before Delta but AZ trialled by FDA or AZ at 88% Delta death protection for one jab so must surely be near or at 100% for fully vaxxed. unlike Sinovac which has proved surprisingly ineffective against Delta, down around 15% death protection maybe.. but dont quote me !