Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[BlueDraka]

this is true, but we really should be suspicious when we’ve been repeatedly told how these vaccines should be used, and then the government (and Tony Blair, bizarrely) say “yes, but we are going to do this!”

If be suspicious of anything Tony Blair said!!

 

[roydo]

Nuances?

62% immunity v 95% immunity.

Pretty easy to understand.

Not being funny mate, but your scientific background, as far as I know, is limited to writing a book about a football club and teaching politics.

I maybe wrong, and if so, keep posting advice based on your scientific knowledge.

If I am correct, even ballpark correct, then you are a dangerous idiot.

Pretty easy to understand.

 

[davek]

You know already know where this is going :

The rich get the good one.
The poor get the bad one.

Rich/powerful/fortunate to be in the right place v the rest of the vulnerable.

Yes.

And you're naive for not thinking it wont be that way.

 

[davek]

Not being funny mate, but your scientific background, as far as I know, is limited to writing a book about a football club and teaching politics.

I maybe wrong, and if so, keep posting advice based on your scientific knowledge.

If I am correct, even ballpark correct, then you are a dangerous idiot.

Pretty easy to understand.

You cant accept that 62% is much worse than 95%. But you're correcting me?

Think about that when you put someone down.

 

[Tubey]

Not being funny mate, but your scientific background, as far as I know, is limited to writing a book about a football club and teaching politics.

I maybe wrong, and if so, keep posting advice based on your scientific knowledge.

If I am correct, even ballpark correct, then you are a dangerous idiot.

Pretty easy to understand.

But it's not about being a scientist here... it's about looking at available data and interpreting it as a layman, as that is what 99.9% of the public are.

And if the data given is concerning, then that's the actual danger here as transparency is absolutely critical.

I want to jump with joy at a vaccine for £3 a dose being available, but surely you can't hand on heart look at the detail here and not be at least slightly concerned? Compare it to the Pfizer comms and it's night and day.

 

[BlueDraka]

Oxford vaccine deliveries to start 'within days' with 'millions' potentially vaccinated in January

AstraZeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot told BBC Radio 4's Today programme deliveries will be ramped up "very rapidly" in the first and second week of January.

He added: "We will start delivering this week - maybe today or tomorrow we will be shipping our first doses.
"The vaccination will start next week and we will get to one million a week and beyond that very rapidly.

"We can go to two million. In January we will already possibly be vaccinating several million people and by the end of the first quarter we are going to be in the tens of millions already."

 

[BlueDraka]

You cant accept that 62% is much worse than 95%. But you're correcting me?

Think about that when you put someone down.

Can I ask where are you getting 62% from. Has this been confirmed today

 

[roydo]

You cant accept that 62% is much worse than 95%. But you're correcting me?

Think about that when you put someone down.

I am not correcting you.

I am suggesting that you dont have the scientific knowledge to pontificate on a pretty serious issue. You took the flu jab recently iirc. What rate does that have?

What you are saying to people is "dont take the Oxford jab" If just one person follows your "advice" and gets infected as a result, thats on your head.

Like I say. Dangerous idiot.

 

[Deckard2049]

You cant accept that 62% is much worse than 95%. But you're correcting me?

Think about that when you put someone down.

Is 62% better than 0%?

 

[Leylo]

Just a point with first vaccine if you are allergic to anything ie penecillin then you can't have it.on the penecillin bit 10% of people are allergic to it. So with the oxford one these people can have a vaccine as far as i know which is also great news.

 

[Toast]

There are about 500 people in the UK today who would have bitten your arm off for any type of vaccine in the last few weeks.

They will be dead by the end of the day, that’s why.

 

[BlueDraka]

I am not correcting you.

I am suggesting that you dont have the scientific knowledge to pontificate on a pretty serious issue. You took the flu jab recently iirc. What rate does that have?

What you are saying to people is "dont take the Oxford jab" If just one person follows your "advice" and gets infected as a result, thats on your head.

Like I say. Dangerous idiot.

There is a government briefing at 10.30 about the vaccine. Hopefully this will more information

 

[roydo]

But it's not about being a scientist here... it's about looking at available data and interpreting it as a layman, as that is what 99.9% of the public are.

And if the data given is concerning, then that's the actual danger here as transparency is absolutely critical.

I want to jump with joy at a vaccine for £3 a dose being available, but surely you can't hand on heart look at the detail here and not be at least slightly concerned? Compare it to the Pfizer comms and it's night and day.

Thats fine and dandy.

But then to go from that to advising folk not to take one of them is dangerous.

 

[tsubaki]

Agreed that it seems a bit fluffy, but ,why do The Guardian (and others) feel the need to report it though?

It’s not like they provide this critical balance in every topic that they cover, it’s more fuel for the mad anti-vaxxers et al. It works and it’s a way out of this mess. It’s like at the start of all this the BBC ran pieces on why masks wouldn’t stop the virus at a time when people were literally being begged to wear them.

The media need to be held to account for their part in this fiasco.

Ross Clark especially; he’s still peddling his nonsense even with hospitals about to be overwhelmed.

 

[Tubey]

AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine authorised for emergency supply in the UK

www.astrazeneca.com

The authorisation recommends two doses administered with an interval of between four and 12 weeks.

Is it two full doses then? Or half a dose followed by a full dose?

We don't know.

To have a variation of two months between ideal dosage times is remarkable. Is four weeks later better than twelve, or vice versa?

We don't know.

These are basic questions.

They add the following.

As announced on 23 November 2020, the primary efficacy endpoint based on a pooled analysis showed that the vaccine was 70.4% (confidence interval: 54.8% to 80.6%) effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 occurring more than 14 days after receiving two doses of the vaccine.

Which indicates they've dropped the 90% claim entirely and it's going to be two full doses, at 62%/70% efficacy. Which isn't bad but it's objectively worse than the Pfizer one.

If this isn't the case, communicate it. That's all I'm asking. That isn't being "dangerous" or anti-vax.