Restricting travel due to a particular vaccine or a vaccine manufacturing location needs to be taken up by our government, with others, at the highest level. The current recognition of vaccines needs to change, otherwise the world will become two classes…first class citizens (those with recognised vaccinations which most likely will be developed nations) and second class citizens (developing countries which may not use or afford ‘recognised’ vaccines). The WHO has raised discrimination in relation to vaccine availability, not resolving vaccinations for travel will cause secondary discrimination for freedom of travel and may be used as a (political) basis to prevent travel between countries.
3 Likes
It also has only a 3 week gap to the second dose and full efficacy 1-2weeks following vs 12 weeks recommended for AZ.
Both are very effective after the second dose + 2 weeks for AZ.
My logic for who should get which suggests those at greatest risk should all have been prioritised on the Pfizer list regardless of age, to minimise the added 2 month delay to delivering maximum full protection. That’s to reduce individual risk and also achieve the target of protecting the sector of the community most at risk sooner. The same logic could apply to our health care, aged care and essential support workers.
It’s not how it has evolved!
5 Likes
Agreed. I didnt want it so I could travel, but so I would be less likely to catch the disease in the first place. I’ve had a 6 week stint of Bronchopneumonia which was resistant to antibiotics, it took 3 tries before the right one was found, and in the meantime I was struggling to breathe. I refused hospital, because I had nobody who could look after the cats (i’ve subsequently found a vet which does boarding) and so I was pretty much alone for that whole time… I never want to go through that again, much less something worse.
I’ve had both my AZ jabs, and next week will be at maximum, but I will still not go without my mask, and other precautions… it would be crazy to believe I am now “protected”. I’m not.
4 Likes
None of the vaccinations (AZ, Pfizer, Moderna etc) give 100% protection against catching Covid. For those who don’t receive immunity from a AZ or mRNA vaccination (about 10% from current information), an additional benefit to these individuals is the vaccination still reduces severe symptoms when one is exposed and infected with the virus. After vaccination and in some cases, one may be asymptomatic when infected such as the recent example of the age care nurse which was fully vaccinated with Pfizer but tested positive to Covid.
There is also reports that vaccinated individuals which get Covid have a significantly lower risk of transmitting the disease to others.
Irrespective of the vaccination (AZ, Pfizer, Moderna etc), once vaccinated individuals are better protected against severe complications from the disease and as evidenced other countries, the likelihood of requiring hospitalizldation becomes very low.. In the UK, there are reports that none of the recent admissions have had AZ or mRNA vaccinations when fully vaccinated…which demonstrates the success of these vaccinations.
1 Like
I know what they are saying. I am saying that I don’t feel protected. So I will still behave as if I have not been immunised. I only have to catch a cold for my lungs to get compromised… it takes about 48 hours from first sniffle to nebuliser. Nope, not feeling protected at all… and yes, I would feel the same though a bit better if I had had Pfizer. And even better still if I could have had Moderna.
Currently looking for new masks because after a year of this I have realised that the blueys do not seal properly, nor do most of those I have bought. I have two out of several, that even come close.
3 Likes
I now understand. It is unfortunate that there is a lot of misinformation circulating about vaccines which creates confusion, anxiety and distrust.
One also can’t compare a cold to covid. They are two different diseases and there isn’t currently a vaccination for the common cold.
All I can suggest is if anyone is concerned about some of the information circulating around the internet, friends or family about the vaccines, it is suggested they discuss their concerns when they next visit their GP. GPs will have reliable information on the vaccines which they can provide to their patients.
1 Like
I’m hardly doing that. What I am saying is that IF a common cold can bring me down like that, what will covid do. Two guesses and no prizes. I’m just keeping fingers crossed and will continue mask wearing etc.
2 Likes
The trap with the internet is how to decide what/who to trust.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is one reliable source with a very broad perspective.
The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention - USA (CDC) provides assessments most relevant to the vaccines approved for use in the USA.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
For relevant content on the effectiveness and effect of the Covid vaccines in use in Australia, and our specific national risk profile, ATAGI offers the following advice.
ATAGI points out there is a difference in efficacy of the two current options. Both are supposedly less effective against the current Delta variant.
The full details around the advice and any qualifications are included with the 25 page linked ATAGI guide.
As @phb has suggested, the best way to get the right advice is to discuss this with a GP. We found the medical staff at the GP run vaccination centre we attended thorough and informative.
Hopefully for others the pharmacy delivery option is as thorough in the pre-assessment and information provided prior to agreeing to be vaccinated.
4 Likes
The figures are those from the clinical trials and not that which has been found from real world use of the vaccinations. The ATAGI website states:
COVID-19 vaccinations are incredibly effective, more than we could have initially imagined, at providing direct protection, making sure an individual that is vaccinated has protection against getting sick from COVID, hospitalised or die. That is what we are banking on. It also appears and there is evidence on this, the vaccines have an impact on reducing symptomatic infection and any form of symptomatic infection increases the risk of transmission. An increase in symptomatic infection will have an impact on transition but in impact on severe disease is what we want to be because it will prevent people getting very sick and dying. It seems one single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine only provides parcel protection against symptomatic disease, 30% against symptomatic disease but we have good evidence that a full course provides protection around 70% against symptomatic disease against the delta variant. The most important messages to doses of either vaccine, AstraZeneca Pfizer, provide more than 90% protection against severe disease, hospitalisation, and death against the delta variant.
The real world data reported by ATAGI on their website is consistent with information from reliable international health agency sources.
ATAGI has stated that…
The aim of the COVID-19 vaccination program in Australia is to reduce COVID-19 related harm by preventing serious illness and death, and, as much as possible, disease transmission.
1 Like
A better Australian vaccination ad. Ok, it’s Victorian and “better” is a pretty low bar, but …
3 Likes
As I posted before they are almost equally effective against severe complications, death and hospitalisaton. Pfizer has around 90 to 95% effectiveness against symptomatic infection (and thus a likely lesser transmission rate if you do get infected) whereas AZ is only about 70% effective against symptomatic infections so between 25 and 30% less effective than Pfizer in reducing symptomatic disease and also less effective in stopping re-transmission. So my preference is avoiding infection if at all possible and Pfizer while not 100% effective is in this regard more effective than AZ.
Thus the importance of the statement “any form of symptomatic infection increases the risk of transmission”. Pfizer is in the range of “Efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 is about 95% after two doses” and AZ is in the range of “Efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 ranges from about 62% to 73%,with the higher efficacy seen after a longer interval (12 weeks) between doses”.
2 Likes
These are clinical trial (published phase 3 trial data) results which are different to real world results. These clinical results are only valid for the approval processes associated with the vaccinations and in the early stages of a vaccination program. We have passed the early stages and there is mounting real world evidence (actual real world population data) of the efficacy of vaccinations.
This real world data will continue to be updated (as outlined in the NSW government website below) as more of the world’s population is vaccinated and further research/surveys are undertaken (including potentially specifically Australian real world data). I believe that they are unlikely to change significantly as a enormous number of the world’s population (link to world tally is provided in a separate post) has now been vaccinated. A new virus variant may however change future results if the existing vaccinations prove to be less effective.
I have just found a NSW government website which presents both clinical and real world data for the vaccinations used/to be used in Australia. It also contains some vaccinations used in other countries including our neighbours (such as the Chinese Sinovac and Sinopharm BIBP)…
https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/critical-intelligence-unit/covid-19-vaccines
This is one website which has reliable, accurate and current information worth visiting regularly to see if there are any changes.
Real world data shows that for effectiveness against symptomatic infection is the equal for both AZ and Pfizer, if two doses at the recommended interval is given. In other parameters taking the values on face value, they are again similar (whether there is a statistical difference is not known, but it may be unlikely since the percentages are very close or ranges or values overlay).
The clinical data reported is only relevant to the approval process of the vaccinations (a bit like using glasshouse trial or laboratory data for a new cropping variety when there is real world farming data available for the same crop - the real world data is more relevant to real world conditions as glasshouse trial data has limited application in the real world) . This clinical data has been reported far and wide on an ongoing basis (some for political reasons) which is potentially misleading. Post approval and when there is a significant enough population sample, the real world data become relevant…and what Australian’s who have the various vaccinations will experience/ This is what should be reported and what is relevant and will most likely be used by the government and medical profession when communicating with potential vaccination recipients.
Members of the community (like the media, politicians etc) should also be reporting real world data and not clinical data. Reporting of clinical data used in the approval process is “out-of date” and potentially misleading.
Something which is also interesting is, the NSW government website also shows that despite the claims that Australian’s have been short changed in relation to the selection of vaccinations available in Australia and their efficacy…the information on the NSW government website is enlightening and shows that this is not the case. It also appears that the government may have ‘bulleyed’ the best vaccinations available. The challenge is delivery and ongoing supply for the population.
Edit: Another emerging issue with Pfizer (and potentially mRNA) is drop in efficacy over time. Recent reports from Israel experiences with Pfizer is efficacy drops from around 90% to 60% after 6 months. The same drop hasn’t appeared with Astrazeneca. This known decrease also reported in the NSW government website. It is possible that those receiving Pfizer may need a booster at regular intervals, if a booster is shown to increase efficacy/promote immune response. Whether a Pfizer booster works requires further research and testing.
1 Like
Great stuff.
As I have had both my AZ shots, I will hopefully live to confirm the article.
1 Like
Having had my first shot of AZ and after reading everything here, I’m convinced I should get Pfizer as the 2nd jab after 12 weeks.
I wouldn’t rely on the information in this thread. There is opinion of non-health professionals and posting of information which may not be current or best available.
It is recommended you to talk to your GP or vaccination health professional in relation to your vaccinations and what is most appropriate based on best available information available and your own circumstances.
2 Likes
The posts have referenced credible data. One view is that the trends seem to be consistent and could be questioned but should not be summarily disparaged.
is the best advice possible.
3 Likes
The best advice.
However at this point in time few Australians have any ability to choose which vaccine type. Only the ability to put off until one is given the option. Which leaves the community worse off and those who do at risk.
It doesn’t change that each vaccine type performs differently. Nor should such information be with-held from discussion.
1 Like
While information may be interesting, it has the potential to create confusion, anxiety, concern etc as it may be different to that being communicated/provided by Australian health professionals and experts.
When it becomes selective or not representative, it may be potential disinformation. I suggest one looks at the NSW government website in a previous post. Rather than picking a one source information source to suit a particular line of argument, the NSW website reviews and presents information from a range of different sources. It provides a summary to give current and best available information. The summary is consensus from NSW government experts rather than a media organisation, a single article/paper/source or an opinion website.
As indicated above, reliance on clinical trial data (or single sources of data) should be avoided as it can be misleading to what is happening in real world conditions.
Each vaccine works differently to trigger a immune response (as there are a number of different vaccine types), but there is no evidence of the claimed differences in maximum efficacy between those currently used in Australia from overseas real world data.
There is emerging evidence that long term efficacy of some vaccinations (nRMA like Pfiser) diminishes over time which is presented on the NSW government website and emerging from Israeli real world data (Israel has reported drop in infection and symptomatic disease from around 93% to 64% in 6 months, with prevention of serious disease and hospitalisation remaining high). The current data is pre-peer reviewed which means one can’t hang a hat on it yet. I suspect more information on whether there is a temporal decrease in efficacy will come to light in coming weeks and whether ongoing boosters work and are required. Change in long term efficacy and requirement for regular booster shots with some vaccinations, if the emerging data proves correct, may impact on future vaccination rollout. Potentially yet another change to Australia’s program.
The WHO has also raised concerns of boosters and its potential effect on vaccine availability, especially to developing nations, and this is covered above.
Yah, that was spoken of in the news tonight. They were saying Pfizer would need a booster at around 6/12. Nothing from Astrazeneca though.
Have a look at the NSW government website in a previous post. Current information and past evidence of the vaccine type indicates Astrazeneca doesn’t/unlikely to suffer the same decline. This doesn’t mean in the future different information may emerge specific to Astrazeneca. Very much watch this space for any Covid vaccine.
1 Like
