Daily review 10/11/2021

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 19 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

19 comments on “Daily review 10/11/2021”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  1. 1

    Can someone help me with the medical maths here? If a vaccine has a 1 in 500,000 serious side effect rate (this is hypothetical example), and the vaccine is needed every 6 months, how does this affect the side effect rate. Does it mean that the 1 in 500,000 is for every six months, so 2 in 500,000 per year?

    2. 1.2

      I don't think that would be the understanding. The side effects are linked to the person getting the vaccine so if you weed out the ones with serious side effects and treat them differently then it becomes 1 in 500,000 who have not been vaccinated before. The nurse in Ch can probably expect similar if she is re-vaccinated in 6 months unfortunately. But it only works in the obvious way if you don't adapt for the side effects you can anticipate.

      1. 1.2.1

        so if you weed out the ones with serious side effects and treat them differently then it becomes 1 in 500,000 who have not been vaccinated before

        why?

        1. 1.2.1.1

          The reactions are not independent events of each other. React to the first then very likely react to the second (as the Ch retired nurse experienced), but also don't react to the first then also won't react to the second. Its different from a 2 in 500000 scratch card which would work as described. If you know who the 2 are (and using this knowledge give them an alternative vaccine they are not allergic to, hopefully) that leaves the other 499998 who don't have a severe reaction. These are the same for the third and so on.

          The sample you don't know about are the ones for who it is a novel treatment so its more like 2 in 500,000 of them with appropriate vaccine policy.

          Now its a bit more compicated as some people develop reactions (esp anaphylaxis) with a reaction occuring to the second exposure. Also another physiological effect could trigger a reaction in some cases. But thats extending the question beyond what was asked.

          (Sorry changed the odds in my earlier answer)

          1. 1.2.1.1.1

            ah ok, I think the first two sentences answered it, thanks. Lost me a bit after that.

            I don't know what the case is re a Chch nurse.

    3. 1.3

      Bear in mind that….

      Some side effects are more common after the second dose. From the horses mouth.

      And then there's the third dose, about which there is scant data…https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/28/side-effect-rates-from-a-third-covid-19-vaccine-dose-similar-to-those-after-second-shot-early-data-indicate/

      And then there's what is actually going on in the real world demonstrated by those who have the first injection, but not the second.

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300445035/covid19-how-90000-overdue-for-their-second-vaccine-dose-could-delay-reaching-90-per-cent-target

      But don't panic….

      https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-we-shouldnt-panic-about-the-millions-who-missed-their-second-vaccine-dose-yet

      1. 1.3.1

        I"m really not going to read articles in lieu of explanations.

        My question is straightforward and hypothetical and doesn't need complicating.

        Still holding out that someone can actually answer it.

    4. 1.4

      If the two events were actually random and independent of each other (which as others point out, they are almost certainly not), the cumulative probability would be about 1.999998 in 500,000, so very close to the 2 in 500,000 you assume.

      1. 1.4.1

        The better approach would be to actually look at real data collected from double- and triple- vaccinated people, of course!

      2. 1.4.2

        If you count the severe reactions its exactly 2 in 500,000 right? Your odds describe the chance of two different people having a reaction across the two inoculations.

        1. 1.4.2.1

          Mine is the probability of either jab, out of two, giving a reaction. Being independent, doesn't matter if same person or not. The number is slightly different to 2 because it is a sampling with replacement scenario (in effect you have a tiny chance of selecting the same "no reaction" lotto ball twice).

      1. 1.5.1

        Thats unclear, the last UK vaccine monitor report did have a footnote that mentioned there was a measurable difference in the type and quantities of antibodies generated between a vaccinated and unvaccinated person that catches covid.

        What that means long term isnt known.

Comments are closed.