davek
Player Valuation: £150m
So is 1%.
We're talking relatively. If there's a vaccine that gives a third more coverage then why not have that?
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
So is 1%.
We're talking relatively. If there's a vaccine that gives a third more coverage then why not have that?
The Oxford vaccine is apparently looking between 62%-90% protection and will work in conjunction with the Pfizer, which has a much higher level of protection.
If the most needy are provided the Pfizer and the cheaper and more readily accessible Oxford vaccine is provided to the masses, surely that's a decent strategy.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Because there are real issues with the numbers available and distributing it. The Oxford vaccine is good enough based on the test data published to provide a solution to this crisis provided it’s deployed correctly.
Perhaps. But we live in a country which is ran by a government that is a hop, skip and a jump away from authoritarianism and is ran by a complete moron.
Just as I wouldn't trust Putin's "Sputnik" stuff, I am automatically concerned about anything that has flaws and stinks of political pressure here too.
My point is that the danger has came from the communication, not the reaction of people to it. Here's the question - if you had the choice between the Pfizer vaccine and the AstraZeneca one now, based on what you know, what would you take?
Because I know what my answer would be.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
That's not what I stated.
I was specific: the vulnerable are better served by a higher coverage and I;d advise them to get another vaccine. That is all. I stated also that people who are less vulnerable should take it if that's what there is available. I also said that I'm not against the vaccine per se.
I couldn't have been more elaborate, but you chose to caricatrure my argument.
Thanks roydo.
Turn it around though. If you got offered the Oxford one by the end of January or the Pfizer one by the end of March which one would you take. Id definitely take the January offer.
Deckard2049
Player Valuation: £15m
It is very possible that the approval of the vaccine in this current state will be carried out alongside ongoing research which may at a later date result in the higher efficacy being confirmed (Up to 90%) that Oxford and AZ are claiming.
This is being dished out now quite simply because this situation needs to be over ASAP, and in that context this vaccine will help immensely. Just for the simple fact that our healthcare system and the staff are probably well past breaking point already, if this vaccine improves that situation then it’s a good thing.
I know you’d rather just implement a lockdown and wait for more research to be done or for the Pfizer jab to be dished out to much more of the population. And that’s cool, that’s your prerogative. I just don’t think a majority of people, both laymen and scientific experts in virology would agree. The latter would probably agree with the lockdown but they’d still encourage everyone to take the Oxford jab.
But that's desperation, not science.
Sure, you'll get a take-up based on desperation, but we're looking at mass public confidence here so as to get consistent take-up and therefore, for want of a better term, "herd immunity". We've got to remember that once this is in circulation to a good degree, the public will naturally be less cautious and take riskier behaviour. So we absolutely need widespread, consistent take-up of the vaccination program, undertaken in confidence.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
And around we go.
You have zero idea about the nuances of any vax. So please dont advise anyone what to do, other than if folk do have concerns, ask someone who has some idea.
You are welcome.
Maybe I’m a bit dim but surely since this is a global crisis if there is a better vaccine out there why isn’t the “recipe” shared with all pharm companies to make it? I’m guessing profit is involved.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
I stated one thing, you then presented my point in an entirely different way. That's all there is to see really.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Shall we just leave it?
Dont advise folk what to do, either directly, or by implication.
All valid points. But do we presently know that it is 62%? Or are they just reporting the rate from the information published weeks ago? Hopefully we will find more about this in this government briefing coming up. Obviously if pfizer is 90% you would take that over 62% but even 62% is better than 0%
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
TBF a lot of the press / social media negativity around the Oxford vaccine is probably not unrelated to the fact that it’s cheaper and easier to use than it’s even more expensively produced rivals.
It's the same as weeks ago, meaning this has been approved with no further study.
AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine authorised for emergency supply in the UK
... which links through to: https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-c...analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
Alarmingly, they're using the headline figure of 70% which is the "primary efficacy endpoint" instead of 62%, which again comes across as PR. Indeed, no mention of efficacy is made initially; it's buried later in the press release, with the focus at the front end being "no serious illness".
If Russia did this, we'd be immediately calling it shady.
- Status