Response to Anaesthetist Dr Steve James
In today’s Medium article I’ll be discussing talking about made by Steve James a consultant anaesthetist when he came forward in the reply to what Sajid Javid had stated about the NHS Vaccine Mandate. The comments he made was essentially an AVers wet dream and the claims made on Sky News is certainly not backed up by science and Dr James is confused about what vaccines actually do. Without further ado, let’s get into the article.
➡ The Problem with his Claims
I absolutely understand he would not be happy with the mandate going ahead within the NHS, but like many people out there that do not wish to take vaccines, they always focus on the prevention of transmission. Covid-19 vaccines certainly do lower transmission via a lesser viral load of pathogens to infect others [1], thus having a reduced risk of infection to others, if the other host is vaccinated too they will have a dramatically reduced risk of hospitalisation, severe disease and death, for example, a study from the science journal NEJM which involved over 1.16million people from Israel who had the Pfizer vaccine showed the following:
1st dose percentages:
46–60% protection against documented infection
57–66% protection against Symptomatic Illness
74–78% protection against Hospitalisation
62–80% protection against Severe Disease
72–82% protection against Death
(context first percentage is 14–20 days AFTER the first dose, the second percentage is 21–27 days after the first dose)
2nd dose percentages (7 days after the second dose to end of follow up):
92% protection against documented infection
94% protection against Symptomatic Illness
87% protection against Hospitalisation
92% protection against Severe Disease
[2]
This was a quote directly from the study from NEJM — “1.16million people included in this study, which was in a nationwide mass vaccination setting suggests that the BNT162b2 (Pfizer) mRNA vaccine is effective for a wide range of Covid-19–related outcomes, a finding consistent with that of the randomized trial” [3].
If we also look at real-world data from Qatar which involved over 380,000 people, it shows that Pfizer’s vaccine is 100% effective in preventing severe, critical, or fatal disease caused by variant B.1.1.7 (UK) and B.1.351 (SA). 97.4% effective against severe, critical, or fatal disease caused by any SARS-CoV-2. We are also looking at 89.5% effective against infection (B.1.1.7) and 75% effective against infection (B.1.351) [4]
These vaccines also hold up very well against the Omicron variant [5], still too early to tell how the efficacy of the vaccine would be, but judging from the cases vs hospitalisations and death, the vaccines are holding up very well against Omicron.
References: [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7
[2] https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2021/nejm_2021.384.issue-15/nejmoa2101765/20210410/images/img_medium/nejmoa2101765_t2.jpeg
[3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
[4] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2104974
[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1045619/Technical-Briefing-31-Dec-2021-Omicron_severity_update.pdf
➡ 8 weeks claim
When this Dr James suggests that there is no efficacy after 8 weeks against infection and transmission [1], his claim doesn’t hold up scientifically, the claim is not evidence-based whatsoever and the UKHSA update at the time of the interview was posted too soon to observe any drop in efficacy let alone up to 8 weeks.
Going forward the UKHSA publishes regular reports on vaccine efficacy [2].
References: [1] https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-sajid-javid-directly-challenged-on-mandatory-coronavirus-jabs-by-unvaccinated-nhs-doctor-12511224
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-sars-cov-2-variants-technical-briefings
➡ Viral Load
One study from Nature taken from the “Main” section of the study states this — “Moreover, we and others have reported that the vaccine reduces the viral load of BTIs, suggesting that it can also reduce infectiousness” [1].
A pre-print from medRxiv shows real-world evidence data for decreased viral load after inoculation of the Pfizer vaccine. Towards the end of the published study, this is quite a strong quote and supports that vaccination reduces the viral load of a host — “Our findings highlight that vaccination does not only protect the individual who receives it but is likely to reduce viral shedding and therefore transmission in the population.” [2]
Another pre-print has shown that vaccines have a faster clearance of infectious virus in vaccinated individuals and significantly lower infectiousness. [3]
A study done on household transmission in the UK showed that if someone had a vaccine and does get sick, they are about 50% reduced risk to transmit the virus when compared to an unvaccinated individual. [4]
Vaccines, in general, prevent transmission, the Covid-19 related ones really do. Results from Krause et al. showed that vaccines had efficacy in preventing infection of 90% 14 days after the second dose and 80% 14 days after the first dose. [5]
The viral load in vaccinated individuals decreased by 1.6–20 times lower than the viral load present in infected and unvaccinated subjects. [6]
Another study on vaccinated individuals showed that the viral load was 2–4 times lower than in unvaccinated individuals in comparison. [7]
References: [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4
[2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.08.21251329v1.full-text
[3] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.10.22269010v2.full-text
[4] https://khub.net/documents/135939561/390853656/Impact+of+vaccination+on+household+transmission+of+SARS-COV-2+in+England.pdf/35bf4bb1-6ade-d3eb-a39e-9c9b25a8122a?t=1619601878136
[5] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34161052/
[6] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33782619/
[7] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34158664/ or https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01696-3
➡ Conclusion
The unsubstantiated claims made by Dr Steve James held no evidence-based information, the entire argument is based on logical fallacies, all his claims did was to spur on more AV laymen’s to not take the vaccine and go 6 steps backwards. As a consequence of misinformation, we’re already seeing a decrease in Measles vaccinations this year, which is quite alarming. Science debates should be done on critiquing evidence available, not opinion-based discussions that hold no scientific weight.
💥 Thanks for reading, Lawrence. Please consider a small contribution, in the form of a beer as all articles are created in my small amount of spare time: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/LawrenceRob