Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting to note...

There have been 126 more deaths this October than last October.

That's clearly a very nominal ammount.

However, it is a rise of nearly 2000 on October 2018.

Given there is purportedly evidence of COVID been present in Europe as early as September 2019, could this potentially be another indication that this was indeed the case - especially as the 'flu season' last year was reportedly one of the worst?
Not sure you can compare any other years deaths to this one.
The majority of vulnerable and elderly have ( and still are ) shielding from this virus and that would surely go hand in hand with them avoiding other killers like flu ,of the same groups of people.

Ive not seen any evidence of Covid circulating Europe in September last year , only theories it was in December.

1st confirmed in Uk 29th Jan - 2 Chinese ladies in a hotel.
1st Briton to catch it was 28th Feb.
 
Not sure you can compare any other years deaths to this one.
The majority of vulnerable and elderly have ( and still are ) shielding from this virus and that would surely go hand in hand with them avoiding other killers like flu ,of the same groups of people.

Ive not seen any evidence of Covid circulating Europe in September last year , only theories it was in December.

1st confirmed in Uk 29th Jan - 2 Chinese ladies in a hotel.
1st Briton to catch it was 28th Feb.

That's basically what has happened. When you dive into the figures you'll see causes of death from things like road collisions or whatever be well down too.

I personally think COVID was here in late November/early December.
 

Why Covid-19 vaccines offer cause for hope and concern​

Many are optimistic after news of two vaccines claiming 90 per cent efficacy. But the global search for the most potent immunisation continues – and the road ahead is unclear.


Is it game over for coronavirus? Judging by headlines in the first week of November, it seemed the end of the pandemic had been spied over the horizon.

The first whiff of excitement came courtesy of Pfizer/BioNTech, one of the leading teams in the race for a Covid-19 vaccine. An early readout of an advanced clinical trial suggested its vaccine was 90 per cent effective. That result smashes the 50 per cent minimum threshold set by American regulators and lies well beyond the expectations and hopes of most observers, prompting jubilation all round. “Today is a great day for science and humanity,” gushed Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO.

The news came with a thrilling back- story about the modest married couple, Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci, behind German start-up BioNTech. The pair, each the child of Turkish immigrants and already rich from the sale of their first company, are now billionaires. The prospect of an end to the crisis also sent a surge through the markets: cinema chains and airlines got a much-needed fillip in their share prices, while companies that have benefited from lockdown such as Zoom, whose value surpassed $100bn earlier this year, tumbled.

The small print, though, gave pause for thought: the results were revealed in a Pfizer press release, not a published scientific paper; it is unknown how long immunity lasts or whether the symptoms of those who did contract Covid-19 were mild or severe; it has not been revealed how well the vaccine, called BNT162b2, worked in older age groups – the key targets of any nationwide vaccination strategy. Neither do we know whether the vaccine curbs transmission as well as easing disease symptoms.

There were also logistical issues. The formulation needs ultra-cold temperatures to stay stable and is packaged as if James Bond might courier it back to London for M16: special suitcases, lined with dry ice and GPS trackers, are each capable of storing 5,000 doses at -70˚C for ten days, as long as they are not opened more than four times. Even Professor Sahin admitted the logistical challenges meant it would be summer 2021 before the pandemic started to recede.

That first dose of good news was followed by a booster from Moderna, which claimed its vaccine was nearly 95 per cent effective. The US company’s data showed it appeared to work in older people and to stop severe disease. The Moderna vaccine, called mRNA-1273, has the edge on Pfizer in terms of practicality: it can be stored for six months at -20˚C and, once thawed, for a month in a fridge.

These encouraging results, while preliminary, justify restrained optimism. The gamble by many vaccine teams, including Pfizer and Moderna, to build their vaccines by copying the spike protein – the portion of Covid-19 that most readily presents itself to the immune system – is apparently paying off (the Russian Sputnik-V vaccine is also claimed to be more than 90 per cent effective, but details are scant).

“It’s fantastic news because we now know that spike protein vaccines probably work against coronavirus,” says Saul Faust, professor of paediatric immunology and infectious diseases at Southampton University. Professor Faust directs Southampton’s National Institute of Health Research Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, one of the centres that recently started testing a Covid-19 vaccine from Novovax, a small US company, and has just begun a trial of the Janssen Covid-19 vaccine (also known as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine).

The Oxford/AstraZeneca scientists are also widely tipped to report results in the next few weeks. The race for a vaccine is proceeding so rapidly and smoothly that health centres around the UK have been asked to start preparing to administer it, by extending opening hours and running seven days a week.

[see also: Why the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine is crucial for the UK]

Moderna is now expected to apply in the US for “emergency use authorisation” so its vaccine can be rolled out to high-risk groups. But the arrival of the first official vaccine may bring new headaches. Other clinical trials, which could yield excellent second, third, fourth and even fifth Covid vaccines, will not have finished.

That could throw the ongoing trials into ethical doubt. As the BMJ’s Journal of Medical Ethics puts it: “There are compelling reasons why it would be unethical to trial a novel vaccine when an effective product already exists.” Volunteers on other clinical trials would be entitled to pull out to receive a licensed vaccine. The possibility of other vaccine trials collapsing would be a grave setback, according to Kate Bingham, head of the UK government’s vaccine task force: “If we don’t continue all the trials, we won’t know if we have better vaccines coming behind the front-runners.” Bingham adds that nobody has seen the fine detail on the Pfizer/BioNTech results yet.

Some of the immunity snapshots revealed in the preliminary data were taken just weeks after trial volunteers received boosters. Professor Robin Shattock, who is leading a Covid vaccine project at Imperial College London, warned in a tweet that the observed immunity might not endure: “Very concerned over the potential use of percentage efficacy results to champion one vaccine over another – no idea what the efficacy will be at 6-12 months. Could be considerably lower. The danger is that the public will be using this percentage to ask for what they think is best.”

There are also practical imperatives for keeping the vaccine race alive despite Pfizer and Moderna’s early dominance: the bid to defeat Covid-19 is not a national effort but a global one demanding billions of doses – beyond the scope of any one manufacturer. The world needs not only Vaccine One, but also Two, Three and Four – as many as science can throw out.

****

Advanced clinical trials for potential Covid vaccines all run along the same lines. First, tens of thousands of people are divided into two groups: a test group and a control group. The test group receives the experimental coronavirus vaccine; the control group is injected with a placebo or dummy formulation that offers no protection against Covid-19 (the Oxford trials use a meningitis vaccine as the control; some use saline solution).

The recipient does not know whether she has received the coronavirus vaccine or the control one – and neither does the person who administered it. This “blinding” is important: a person who knows they might be protected might behave more recklessly.

Then the scientists sit back and wait for participants to get Covid-19 in the real world. In the Pfizer/BioNTech study, 94 people out of more than 43,000 participants developed symptomatic infections. At that point, the study was “unblinded” to find out how the infections were spread across the two groups. The majority of infections happened in the control group that received the dummy, suggesting the coronavirus vaccine was indeed protecting the test group.

Trials vary in how quickly they reach the numbers that allow these statistically meaningful early readouts, depending in part on how much virus is circulating. It can take weeks, sometimes months, to accumulate the necessary numbers. The wait can be longer if the dosing regime requires a booster. The two doses of the Pfizer vaccine are 21 days apart; the Janssen vaccine requires a gap of 57 days between injections. The Moderna doses are a month apart.

The prospect of volunteers dropping out of ongoing trials if they are summoned in spring or early summer to be given an approved vaccine is, according to Professor Faust, “a really important question. Will it affect the trials? We hope not but of course it could. Participants in the Novovax trial have already started asking us about this when they come for their appointments.”

He is heartened that they haven’t cancelled, instead quizzing researchers about the Pfizer news. When people hear why it’s important to science for vaccine trials to continue regardless of developments elsewhere, he says, they have been persuaded to continue.

Mark Honigsbaum is a volunteer who might well face this dilemma next year. The City University journalism lecturer and writer has joined the Novovax vaccine trial, receiving recently his first dose at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.

Honigsbaum, author of The Pandemic Century, signed up after being emailed by his GP practice: “I immediately wanted to do it, mostly out of curiosity, if I’m honest, and because it might be useful when I write about it. I think people like me, who promote vaccines as safe and important medical interventions, should be prepared to be guinea pigs for the sake of the wider community. I also have an 88-year-old mother who I see regularly, with social distancing, and it would make it easier if I knew I couldn’t transmit the virus to her.”

Having just turned 60, Honigsbaum might end up being called for a licensed vaccine before the Novovax trial is finished. What will he do? “That’s a difficult one,” he admits. “I think I’d probably continue with Novovax because it’s my civic duty.” He is also keen to see the trial through to the end “because I like the feeling of participating in a scientific adventure”.

[See also: Phil Whitaker on how GPs are preparing for a Covid vaccine – and the hurdles they face]

Professor Faust says that vaccine manufacturers, scientists (including those at Oxford University and Imperial College, home to the UK’s two major vaccine projects) and regulators are working on what to do if participants drop out. “What happens if you’re in a certain age group and you’re called for the vaccine? It’s extremely complicated because people would need to step off the study to take the vaccine, and that’s completely within their rights. That work is now being done in great detail… and we will have a plan by the time those decisions have to be made.”

One question, for example, is whether companies will “unblind” a participant’s status – in other words, tell them whether they’ve received the experimental vaccine or a dummy. That might influence their decision. Will a dropout also agree to come back for check-ups? Follow-up checks are used to gather long-term safety data, which regulators will want to see.

There is an additional safety issue: if a person has received one or two experimental shots, what will be the effect of adding a second vaccine, even if it has been approved? It is unlikely to be a worry, Professor Faust explains, but it will be important to monitor those who end up having multiple different vaccines. One option being discussed is a national study that collects blood samples from this mix-and-match cohort of patients.

****

If the Pfizer vaccine is the first to be licensed, the UK is well-placed to benefit: it has signed a deal for 40 million doses. It has ordered five million Moderna doses as well. Altogether, the task force has ordered 355 million doses of six different vaccines for UK citizens, giving it one of the most extensively stocked – and broadest – vaccine portfolios in the world. The UK has additionally paid into Covax, the collective purchase scheme coordinated by the World Health Organisation that provides countries access to vaccines outside national portfolios and secures doses for low- and middle-income countries.

The UK also has a provisional national vaccination strategy, devised by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which is focused on cutting death and disease and minimising disruption to the NHS. Care home residents and staff, plus healthcare and front-line workers, will be jabbed first (most formulations require injection, though some nasal formulations are being tested).

Provided the vaccine reduces disease in older people, who are most at risk of death and disease, the general population will then be vaccinated by age from the oldest first and down to those aged 50 and over. Younger age groups will be included depending on supply. Children, who seem virtually immune to coronavirus, may be considered for immunisation depending on their contribution to transmission, and the vaccines’ safety profiles.

The fact that Covid-19 vaccines will find their way into such a wide range of people – young and old, sick and healthy – means that the promising news from Pfizer and Moderna is the beginning, not the end, of the story. Researchers are still urging people to sign up for trials; more than 300,000 in the UK have obliged. They are especially keen to recruit from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, who are underrepresented in clinical testing but are up to twice as likely to become infected with coronavirus.

“It’s enormously important that we have a range of vaccines, not just for the volume of doses, but so we have vaccines that work in different ways,” says Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at Bristol University, who has also begun testing the Janssen vaccine. “There will of course be an ethical imperative to allow people to receive a vaccine when that age group or risk group is being offered it routinely, but we don’t have a licensed vaccine yet. It would be entirely premature to take our foot off the gas at this point.”
 

GPs are excitedly preparing for a Covid-19 vaccine – but will everyone take it?​

The UK is set to obtain sufficient quantities to begin immunising the 20 million most vulnerable people before the end of the year, but there are logistical problems ahead.




I hadn’t expected any Covid-19 vaccine to come on stream before the spring of 2021. Then, without warning, on 3 November UK general practice was told to begin immediate preparations to deliver a coronavirus immunisation campaign from early December. Something seismic must have been happening behind the scenes. Quite how seismic was revealed six days later, with the announcement from the US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer that its partnership with the innovative German company BioNTech had produced a vaccine with a stunning 90 per cent efficacy at protecting against Covid-19.

I have been critical of many aspects of the UK government’s response to the pandemic, but its decision to hedge its bets with six different promising vaccines has proven wise. One of those six was the Pfizer/ BioNTech product. As a result, we are set to obtain sufficient quantities to begin immunising the 20 million most vulnerable people before the end of the year, subject to regulatory approval.

When, in June, the UK’s Recovery trial proved that the cheap steroid dexamethasone reduced deaths from severe Covid-19 by up to a third, it was the first good news we had received since the start of the pandemic. But the prospect of an effective vaccine has provoked an entirely different level of optimism within the health service. It feels like an incredible tonic as we advance deeper into what is anticipated to be the most challenging winter many of us will ever have faced professionally.

The UK government appears to have learned lessons from the dismal performance of the privately run “NHS” Track and Trace, and is looking to existing public services to deliver the Covid vaccination campaign. There is talk of a parallel new national service run, one anticipates, by yet another exorbitantly expensive yet ineffectual outsourcing company. But at least our network of established general practices is to be in the vanguard. Even as I write, there are thousands of GPs and practice managers across the country – all highly experienced and effective at organising immunisation programmes – working on the logistics.

The vaccine’s reported storage requirements and short shelf-life mean that most individual surgeries will be too small to churn through the number of jabs that will need to be administered each day. Unlike any other immunisation campaign we run, then, the Covid service will have to be offered from designated practices on behalf of all neighbouring surgeries. Over the past few years, general practice has been reorganised into primary care networks – groups of surgeries serving 30,000-50,000 patients – meaning, thankfully, we already have the framework for this novel approach.

[See also: Anjana Ahuja on why new Covid vaccines offer cause for hope and concern]

The government will have to get the details right, though. This will be a huge additional workload, so we need the suspension of all non-essential activities and bureaucracy. And determined as most GPs are to step up at this time of crisis, the economics have got to make sense. The currently proposed funding – based on the costs of seasonal flu vaccination, which is substantially less time-consuming to administer and monitor than the Pfizer product will be – looks inadequate.

There are other caveats to temper any euphoric sense that the end to the pandemic might be in sight. First, Pfizer’s claim of 90 per cent effectiveness is based on tiny numbers – 94 Covid cases in a study population of 44,000 – and, crucially, it refers purely to the vaccine’s ability to prevent individuals from developing any level of symptomatic coronavirus infection – the vast majority of which is trivial.

What we actually need from a jab are two very different things. One is the prevention of severe Covid-19, the extreme form of the disease that sends up to 4 per cent of patients into hospital and kills a substantial proportion of them. The other is the prevention of virus transmission between individuals.

It may seem intuitive that a vaccine which prevents symptomatic infection will achieve both of these things, but it is absolutely not a given, and the Pfizer data is too small to tell us anything in this regard. It is entirely possible that we could roll out a mass immunisation programme at high speed, only for it to make little or no difference to the two aspects of the pandemic that matter.

To try to prove effectiveness in these “hard” outcomes would require studies a whole order of magnitude bigger or longer. Neither Pfizer nor any other vaccine manufacturer is attempting such a feat. The time involved in obtaining this kind of definitive proof strikes many as unconscionable – not just because of the lives that are being destroyed and lost as the pandemic burns on, but also because of the need to restore the economy. The political judgement is that the potential prize suggested by the preliminary results is eminently worth the gamble.

We have been seeing an unusually high uptake of the flu jab in our practice, suggesting that the pandemic has sharpened patients’ desire for protection. This should translate into enthusiasm for Covid immunisation. However, attitudes to vaccination have still not recovered from the shock wave set off in 1998 by the disgraced former physician Andrew Wakefield, who published claims – latterly discredited – of a link between the MMR jab and autism. My understanding is that the Pfizer jab causes a febrile reaction in around 20 per cent of patients. And there will be rare, serious adverse events that the trials have been too small and time-limited to have detected.

People’s perception of risk is heightened by unfamiliarity. The fact that this is a vaccination against a novel pathogen, developed at astounding speed and in great haste, may yet render it vulnerable to “bad news” stories that tip public attitudes in unpredictable ways. Some colleagues are voicing disquiet at being expected to recommend an immunisation under such conditions. But it is like every other medical intervention: a balance of benefits versus risks. Individual patients, properly informed, will be capable of making up their own minds.
 
Not sure you can compare any other years deaths to this one.
The majority of vulnerable and elderly have ( and still are ) shielding from this virus and that would surely go hand in hand with them avoiding other killers like flu ,of the same groups of people.

Ive not seen any evidence of Covid circulating Europe in September last year , only theories it was in December.

1st confirmed in Uk 29th Jan - 2 Chinese ladies in a hotel.
1st Briton to catch it was 28th Feb.
 
That's basically what has happened. When you dive into the figures you'll see causes of death from things like road collisions or whatever be well down too.

I personally think COVID was here in late November/early December.

and @blulouie

Yep, I get that, and agree that other causes of death will be down.

However, I don't think we can't compare just because the deaths don't show a massive rise to last year - let's face it, the government and a lot of media outlets have used the comparison. There just always has to be perspective and analysis where possible. Factoring in different possible reasons.

My initial point though was really that could the possible presence of COVID (at that stage unknown to be so) last year explain the increase in deaths? I'm not saying it definitely would, it's just a quesiton. I'm sure someone smarter than me on this will be able to see if the Flu deaths in late 2019/early 2020 were up on the year before?

There has been a 126 rise on deaths from one year ago, yet 2000 from 2018. So that means there was a circa 1870 rise from October 2018 to October 2019. That's a huge figure!

I don't buy COVID not being here before the new year. China confirmed the first case in December, but that's just the first confirmed case. Keep in mind that that's highly unlikely to actually have been 'patient zero' - because of how many people have this and are asymptomatic.

Then you have to just factor in the fact that so many people had a really bad hit of similar symptoms around this time last year - my mate was ill for a week or so with exact COVID symptoms around December time.

There's obviously no degree of certainty that it was COVID, but I think when you factor in how many people reported to have had the same symptoms (and at that time just put it down to a random bad winter bug, like you would), and then studies such as the one I quoted suggesting new evidence, then I think it paints a pretty clear picture.

Now I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything. It's just that they didn't catch this thing when it started. There's no chance. Not with how it spreads.
 
https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/23/fit-...after-testing-positive-for-covid-19-13638828/

This story is on quite a few places , including the birmingham paper. All seem to have the same story so the link above doesn't have too much importance. However this is the story in many different places right now

Professional wrestler Cameron Wellington, 19, from Walsall in the West Mislands, was diagnosed with Covid-19 on November 10. His mum Jane rushed him to Walsall Manor Hospital after his breathing rapidly declined on November 18. She dropped the teenager, known as Cam to his family and friends, at the doors to A&E and promised to pick him up after he was assessed. But a short while later the mum-of-six received a call from doctors saying her son’s oxygen levels had plummeted and he ‘wasn’t expected to last an hour’.

It just goes to show how dangerous the media really are over these past 8 months running stories such as this and just saying covid as the reason for it.

What that story actually is , which is very misleading going by the news sites running it. It is a very tragic story on how a young man died after contracting a blood clot on his lung and heart and declining rapidly to the point of the story becoming a story. Nothing to do with covid at all and none of the stories mention that either.

Such a sad story being weaponised by the media. I've donated to it because I can't imagine what the family are going through
 
https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/23/fit-...after-testing-positive-for-covid-19-13638828/

This story is on quite a few places , including the birmingham paper. All seem to have the same story so the link above doesn't have too much importance. However this is the story in many different places right now



It just goes to show how dangerous the media really are over these past 8 months running stories such as this and just saying covid as the reason for it.

What that story actually is , which is very misleading going by the news sites running it. It is a very tragic story on how a young man died after contracting a blood clot on his lung and heart and declining rapidly to the point of the story becoming a story. Nothing to do with covid at all and none of the stories mention that either.

Such a sad story being weaponised by the media. I've donated to it because I can't imagine what the family are going through

Straight away i noticed this comment

His parents said he had a ‘cracking career’ ahead of him – and have now urged everyone to ‘take the virus seriously’.
 
Looking at letting up to 4000 fans into sporting events depending on what tier the stadium is in.

The stadiums are big enough for this to be done but I think it will be unfair if a team in highest tier has no fans for a home game and then plays away where the other team might be in the lowest tier.

Also, not sure how these can be tighter restrictions than before.
 
https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/23/fit-...after-testing-positive-for-covid-19-13638828/

This story is on quite a few places , including the birmingham paper. All seem to have the same story so the link above doesn't have too much importance. However this is the story in many different places right now



It just goes to show how dangerous the media really are over these past 8 months running stories such as this and just saying covid as the reason for it.

What that story actually is , which is very misleading going by the news sites running it. It is a very tragic story on how a young man died after contracting a blood clot on his lung and heart and declining rapidly to the point of the story becoming a story. Nothing to do with covid at all and none of the stories mention that either.

Such a sad story being weaponised by the media. I've donated to it because I can't imagine what the family are going through

Right, I can't tell whether COVID caused the blood clots?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top