Now, yesterday we basically looked at the thinking from scientists in the uk who believe that now this virus is going to be endemic, at least for a period of time for several seasons and that everyones going to be exposed to it sooner or later. So the question in my mind now personally, just thinking about this entirely personally is, would i want given that im going to be exposed to the virus? Would i like to have a third dose of vaccine before i get exposed to the virus, or do i want to go for sort of the natural immune boost that being exposed to the virus? Would give me? Because we know that, if im exposed to the natural immune boost that the natural infection will give me ill produce a wider range of antibodies and a wider range of memory b and t cells, this so called polyclonal response. As my immune system responds to different parts of the virus, as well as just the the spike protein that the vaccines are currently reacting to now, as always weve been looking to israel for this, because they were ahead in their vaccination program. So here we have a report um. This is the data weve got to go on at the moment, its not a lot to be quite honest, but this is basically an israeli government report um, but i have read it uh. It read reads like a scientific paper. Its written by all the all the sort of main brains in the field – and it just reads like a scientific paper – it hasnt been externally peer reviewed, but i think we can assume that its been well reviewed within the israeli authorities so far so thats the data Weve got and to give you the bottom line on this video um.
I think the answer is yes, i probably would prefer a booster dose before i get naturally infected. Even although my protection against hospitalization and severe diseases are ready high by virtue of the two doses ive already had, but lets look at the um, the science behind this, so um thats the paper there boost the dose of fisa vaccine. Basically, now, interestingly, this is the same original fisa vaccine. So this is a bit disappointing. To be quite honest, the pharmaceutical people had promised us months ago that it would be a simple matter to tweak the vaccine to make a specific vaccine against alpha variant or one thats, more specific, against delta variant. That has not happened so far. Now why theyve gone quiet on that? I dont really know because we were sure this would be a relatively straightforward job to do, but it doesnt seem to have happened and the vaccines that were being using as the as this potential booster dose at the same original vaccines. That weve had all the way through so um, not as specific as you might like, but the datas interesting so background to this is the 30th of july and of course, its only had its only the first of september now, the 30th of july 2021, third brewster Dough started to be given of the fisa vaccine to uh people in israel over the age of 60 years of old, who 60 years of age, who had already been fully vaccinated at least five months previously, and some people have been vaccinated quite a lot longer than That before because of this concept of the the waning immunity, so the israeli government decided to go for the boosted dose option um but thats good, because it means we can benefit from the data they collect uh.
We estimate the reduction in relative risk for confirmed infection of severe cover of risk for confirmed infection, so the checking does a third dose reduce confirmed infection, and does it reduce severity of covid19 is what this study is about and its what you call a person day At risk study so um well see what that means. Thatll become obvious what that means, as we as we go through this its not its not too complicated. Thankfully so, fairly short uh study really a fairly short presentation to explain this. Now they had what they called dynamic cohorts, so obviously in research. Ideally, what you want always is to compare one group of people who had a treatment with another group of people who didnt have a treatment, an experimental group and a control group. So we can make comparisons between the two, but what they were doing here is that people were not booster dosed people didnt have a third dose and then, as they went through the study, they did have a booster dose and then, after 12 days after the booster Dose they were considered to be booster dosed. So what you really have here is its kind of a bit like a test. Retest situation, you youre testing people before theyve been booster dosed and seeing what their incidence of infection, severe disease and hospitalization is and then youre taking those same people after theyve had the booster dose waiting 12 days for the booster to kick in and then analyzing.
Those same people again in terms of days life lived in a risky environment which of course, were all in a risky environment, so they had that they were comparing one cohort against another cohort, but there were the same people in both cohorts, so its called dynamic cohorts As person, people move from the unvaccinated or the unboosted cohort into the boosted cohort, so quite quite clever, really quite quite a neat experimental technique. So dynamic cohorts move from none booster to join the booster cohort 12 days after they were vaccinated, and they did have pretty good reasons for going with the 12 days. That did seem to make quite a bit of sense really, so the no booster cohort ended up with 4 million person days so um, given that its a relatively short period of time uh its only what the 30th of so 20 20 23 days, isnt it. The 30th of july to the 22nd of august, so the accumulated so obviously over a million people in the study that they accumulated or a million people eligible. They recruited recorded 4 million person days before the booster, and in that 40 million person days, 3 3473 confirmed infections, 330 cases of severe covered 19., but then 12 days after the second dose 12 days after the third dose. Sorry, 12 days after the boosted dose lets get it right 12 days after the third booster dosed dose, they joined the booster or the boosted cohort and they recorded 3.
4 million person days in that. So not a lot of difference. Um – and there was 313 confirmed infections in that down from the 3473 and 32 cases of severe covered 19. and, of course, in the statistics, they accounted for the difference between the 4 million and the uh, the three million. So what that means is we have a cohort that was none boosted. We have a cohort that was boosted and the statisticians were able to do high quality comparative analysis between those two groups. Now they did account for in before they did the results they accounted for. The fact that some people have been boosted a longer time ago, they accounted for the fact that people at increased age were at greater risk. They accounted for people with comorbidities being at greater risk, so they did factor in a lot of extra things into their calculations. That clever statisticians do and the rest of us at least me dont, fully understand. I can make sense of the results when i read them, but i dont always understand the full statistical process, but these people that they they are well checked. The status. The statistical techniques are well attested. I i the most of the statistics. Ive done. Actually it was on you. Can you can do a lot of statistics just on an ordinary spreadsheet on excel or something then theres lots of other packages i used um when i was doing research, i did my spss statistical package for the social sciences and i wasnt doing particularly social sciences, but You can do any statistical analysis on it.
Itll do every statistical analysis, youve ever heard of and a hundred that ive never heard of so or 100 that mo, unless only people like specialized statisticians have heard of so um. The statistics arent really a weak point that theyre well attested to so the results 12 days or more after the booster dose we found. This is what they found now: 9.6 to 13.4 fold decrease in the relative risk of confirmed infection. So these patients were at least 10 times less likely, basically to get infected. Now why such a wide range well 9.6, was the protective folder 9.6 fold decreased protection against infection with one statistical method 11.4 with another and 13.4 with another? Now this is not to question the statistical methods, its just that you can interrogate this data in different ways, so basically were saying that these people were about 10 times or more less likely to be infected, which is great um now in terms of severe disease again, Depending on the statistical tests and models used, there was a 9.5 fold decrease in the relative risk of severe infection to a 15.5 fold. So one statistical method set at 9.5 fold protection basically again 10 times less likely to get severe disease severe illness up to 15.5 times less likely. Now reading this paper, i thought that given theres been you see, we know that people are if theyre going to get sick, theres, often a delay its at least a week, or sometimes two weeks or even longer after the initial infection.
So i think the data here on protection against infection is probably accurate, um. In fact, it is accurate. The data against severe disease. We probably need another week or two to find out if people develop more severe disease. So, given that this is in a relatively small time frame because remember this was only from um 30th of july to the 22nd of august, you know: were people getting ill towards the end of august, all indeed we will people get ill um now into september, so Um pretty confident for the accuracy of that that i would say confident, but not as highly confident of the accuracy of this. Compared to this. We need a bit more time, but we can only say what the research has found so far, and this is what its found so far. We can only go with the data we have so a few points from here. If, if as if, if as we looked at yesterday um, and it appears to be the case from what the experts in the uk are saying, that the protection against infection can wane by 50 percent after six, seven eight months lets assume that is true. Protection against hospitalization remains higher, as weve looked at in in several studies, of course, but if waning immunity to delta is 50 protection against infection that say six months after vaccination, so instead of someone being 85 as they were initially um, that is now down to 50 Protection against infection, not severe illness against infection, but greater than six months uh, then a booster vaccine, a boost of vaccinated, individual susceptible susceptibility to infection would decrease to five percent relative to the unvaccinated because that is decreased by say ten fold.
So that would mean that someone whos had a booster dose uh five percent, the five percent relative to the unvaccinated individual compared to the unvaccinated, because of course, these original figures were comparing doubly vaccinated with tripoli vaccinated with booster vaccinated people. Therefore, vaccine efficacy for boost a vaccinated individual 95, pretty good, similar to what it used to be in the good old days before the delta variant and the original variant and the alpha variant 95 protection against infection. How that reduces viral load? How that reduces uh? The probability that theyll go and infect other people, we dont know that datas not there, yet we simply dont know yet. This is what we do know now. Conclusion from these authors. Our findings, clearly i find, is give clear indications of the effectiveness of a booster dose. Even against the current dominant delta variant, so looking promising direct quote from these authors now, the moment um pfizer have clearly advocated for a booster dose well to tell you the truth: thats not too surprising. They will sell an awful lot more vaccines, um. So fair enough! Theyre entitled to that opinion, um thats, fine, um politicians on both sides of the pond seem to be in favor. President biden seems to be in favor sajid javid we looked at yesterday certainly seems to be in favor and the preparations are being made. But again, if we go back to the actual data, cdc and um committee on vaccination and immunity in the uk check out the references for yourself only advising a booster dose at the moment in the u.
s and the uk for moderate to severely immuno compromised people. So this is not policy yet in the um uk or the u.s, so that is the data from the that is the statement. Thats thats the last statement official statement from the cdc there came on the 20th of august and thats the link for the jvci. Now this is interesting because we notice that the membership – one of the leaders of this group is professor andrew pollard university of oxford uh, sir professor andrew pollard, very renowned scientist um, whom were grateful to for developing the vaccines, of course um or the oxford vaccine, who, In which he led the research team, but he was no. I dont i dont want to put words in the professors mouth, but i got the impression that he wasnt that keen. When we looked yesterday at the uh, the booster dosing program – maybe maybe hes thinking about people getting more natural boost, boosts from vaccines, dont want to put words in his mouth, but that was the impression i got yesterday. So will the jvci be recommending a booster dose? Well, maybe not, but of course lots of other colleagues there to talk to about it and theyll come to a collective decision from the joint committee on vaccination and immunization, so uh there. We are thats that at the moment, so the idea is at the moment. The belief in the uk seems strongly to be that everyones going to get this infection um if people that are not vaccinated.
Now i have some friends in high risk categories or not friends, but people. I know in high risk categories and um who are not yet vaccinated. Now they will be exposed to the virus. Ive told them this and the older ones ive, given them a rough uh, especially the older ones, ive, given up a proportion of their probability of dying, so basically thats thats. All i can do um many people in the states are not vaccinated. If the united states follows the same trajectory as the uk, then i think that everyone in the united states is going to be exposed to this virus and if theyre in a risk group and theyre not vaccinated their risk of severe illness and death, is going to Be significant and given the vaccine hesitancy in the states im afraid that makes me pessimistic about ongoing hospitalizations and deaths in the states less so in the uk, because the vaccine uptake is higher. Now, personally, as i started this, if im going to be re, if im going to be exposed to this virus – and i am um – would i prefer to have a booster dose before im exposed the answer yeah, i i would i would personally, i would prefer to Have boosted it before i was exposed. Having said that, im not particularly worried about being exposed, because ive had two doses of vaccine already now the israeli data that in the in the paper they intimated that the safety data is favorable.
But this research project said nothing about uh safety data. It just uh it kind of put that on to the responsibility of the israeli department of health, who of course, are monitoring that very carefully. So that was not commented on, so we can only say what this research says and, of course, the world health organization and other people have said we shouldnt be giving boosted doses until everyone in the world had at least one dose but im afraid thats, probably not Going to work, if people werent given booster doses in in richer western countries, its not as if wed all of a sudden start exporting billions of vaccines, as indeed we should – and i hope we do to poor parts of the world. But thats not going to be a an automatic uh sort of follow on from that so thats. Where were at with booster doses personally through pure personal greed, i i would.