Cobalt wrote:
Yes, but AZ trials which measured pcr positivity reported, if I remember correctly, prevention of a detectable infection in 60 percent-ish of all cases. Of course that does not mean that the 30-40 percent PCR positive cases will be able to infect others, but some may.
Yeah, the problem is indeed that PCR positivity does not mean infectiousness. We have this problem a lot in my hospital, where immune people (usually past infection but also vaccinated patients) have a positive PCR. The solution was that the lab gives the “number of cycles (ct)” to positivity now, with everything > 30 ct regarded as irrelevant now (no extra hygiene necessary).
We see a LOT of patients with PCR positive but ct > 30. We call this Covidnarben (Covid scars).
This is amazing:
Justine participated in some Vit D study (by some univ) in Jan 2021 and just heard her blood test was CV19 antibody positive!
Their notification was a bizzare “look once only and then it disappears” thing, apparently to prevent people using this as an antibody certificate, but she didn’t know this at the time and didn’t get a screenshot.
I had an antibody test July 2020 and was negative.
So working on the assumption (not reliable) that if one of us got it, we would have both got it, it would have been between July 2020 and Jan 2021. And both asymptomatic. We have been really careful the whole time so it can’t take more than just walking past somebody… Maybe a low dose can do this.
She had a funny illness late Dec 2019/early Jan 2020 after a ski trip to Italy. But I didn’t catch that off her, symptomatically, whatever it was. OTOH we were doing the usual “catch everything going” stuff back then i.e. gym, exercise classes, etc. In Italy, self catering and avoiding crowded places, but not possible to avoid exposure in ski lifts (which is why I didn’t try going this winter, and eventually it became just too much of a hassle with the quarantine). But as I say my July 2020 ab test was negative, and I was the only one of us two in ski lifts.
We have both got vacced Feb 2021 so presumably no ab test will have any meaning now. OTOH some claim to distinguish e.g. here where it says
“Better2Know provides the most up-to-date antibody test which can not only detect antibodies produced by the vaccine but will also tell you the strength of your antibody response.
This test will determine whether your antibodies are naturally occurring (your body has produced antibodies in response to a past infection) or whether they have developed due to the vaccine. "
I might give it a try, because people who got real antibodies and got vacced are supposed to be super-immune 
OTOH we both got the same and noticeable reaction to the vaccine.
Opinions?
On the topic of clots, this is interesting:
The connection between adenovirus vectors being injected intravenously and clots plus low platelets has been known for a while. The vaccine is supposed to be intramuscular but if one in tens of thousands jabs it in a blood vessel then that might account for the rare side effects.
Worrying news from Brazil where the thing is attacking much younger people in big numbers.
MedEwok wrote:
We see a LOT of patients with PCR positive but ct > 30. We call this Covidnarben (Covid scars).
So… what to do if you have to travel on certain date with negative PCR test and you count on it (no symptoms, vaccinated) and then it turns out to be positive?
Peter wrote:
So working on the assumption (not reliable) that if one of us got it, we would have both got it,
my anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not absolute – we had 2 coworkers where a child got covid, but nobody else in both families..
Emir wrote:
So… what to do if you have to travel on certain date with negative PCR test and you count on it (no symptoms, vaccinated) and then it turns out to be positive?
There is no easy answer. Personally I would try to get around the test by showing that I’m fully vaccinated since February, but that obviously doesn’t work for everyone and the receiving country might insist on the test regardless…
Graham wrote:
The clots are not ‘deadly side effects’, they are a particular, very unfortunate, reaction by an incredibly small number of individuals
It doesn’t matter what you call it. A dead person is a dead person. Collateral damage if you want.
Graham wrote:
The vaccines aren’t approved for use in 15 year olds.
And neither should it be. It’s plain wrong that young people should pay with their lives to “protect” older people.
Graham wrote:
There isn’t a risk-free alternative. Those who have received Pfizer have had clots, as well as other possibly-related reactions that are not seen with AZ.
It’s not pure black and snowy white situation. When you have a range of products with different shades of white (where more white is better, killing less people), only a fool would chose the grayest, and only a greater fool would go on and defend that choice – when that choice involves other than himself personally.
Graham wrote:
What concerns me most about your approach to this is that is seems based on being very sure of everything and sure of what should be done. That’s usually a warning sign.
That is some nice rhetoric I must say. What I’m questioning is the logic in what is going on, mainly on this board to be precise. AZ and J&J IS put on hold, and it’s not by me if you wondered The logic in that is straight forward. The questioning and conspiracy theories around that straight forward logic is the only warning sign here if you ask me.
LeSving wrote:
And neither should it be. It’s plain wrong that young people should pay with their lives to “protect” older people.
But they don’t. Young people might not die as often from Covid as older people – but they suffer from Covid as well. In addition there are cases of “long Covid” also in juvenile patients and – due to the nature of being juvenile – if this will turn out as chronic condition, they will suffer the most from it.
I’d regard a “young do not need to be vaccinated because they do not die so often from Covid anyways” mindset a very dangerous one.
And that’s only the “fact” since of the things. Just talk to 15-20 year olds (I do every day): They desperately want to get vaccinated as they want their lives to become normal again. Vaccination – and a fast one – is a critical component of mental health!
Angela Merkel and vice-chancellor Olaf Scholz have both been vaccinated with AstraZeneca today (Der Spiegel)
Both did not want to skip the line, but are now eligible as over 60 year olds in critical positions for the state. AZ is only recommended for over 60s in Germany.
MedEwok wrote:
There is no easy answer. Personally I would try to get around the test by showing that I’m fully vaccinated since February, but that obviously doesn’t work for everyone and the receiving country might insist on the test regardless…
Unfortunately this doesn’t work against NOTAM which is very clear on aceptable tests.
Any scenario where you need a test in the destination country before flying back home is very dodgy… it will totally stop any sensible person travelling. With GA travel you may be able to wangle it (if you can enter the airport bypassing the police, which is possible at some, or file for another airport in same country and then divert) but with airline travel you can’t.
I am not sure anybody spotted the bit in my last post above… the (extremely rare) blood clot risk might be due to different injection methods in different countries. Some vaccines don’t like being injected into blood vessels, but all of them (CV19 ones) need to go into muscle.
Angela Merkel and vice-chancellor Olaf Scholz have both been vaccinated with AstraZeneca today
Presumably that means that Pfizer is not able to deliver the required volume, so they need AZ after all.
