Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Neiler]

Great news

Oxford coronavirus vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% during the 3-month interval until the second dose | University of Oxford

Analyses reveal single standard dose efficacy from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination of 76% with protection not falling in this three-month periodAfter the second dose vaccine efficacy from two standard doses is 82.4% with the 3-month interval being used in the UK. (82.4% effective, with a 95%...

www.ox.ac.uk

Good news, reading between the lines that data must have come from a sample of over 65s and likely older as it comes from the U.K. roll out - you guys aren’t vaccinating under 65 yet right?

 

[davek]

Tbf Dave it is an absence of complete data that is the issue, not the current data itself.

I may have missed it but still haven’t seen anything based on the existing incomplete trials that raised a red flag that when all the data is in that the AZ vaccine won’t eventually be expanded to over 65s even for those countries that aren’t recommending it now.

Yes. Absolutely.

The issue though is that seniors in this country have to become their millions-strong test group, when they realy should have extended the cohort of their older group trialists before publishing their overall data. What were they afraid of - diluting ther overall claims? Instead they gave excuses for not testing older groups that simply weren't there for other vaccine makers.

 

[roydo]

Good news, reading between the lines that data must have come from a sample of over 65s and likely older as it comes from the U.K. roll out - you guys aren’t vaccinating under 65 yet right?

As a bloc, not yet.

Health and other key workers do get offered it though.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Good news, reading between the lines that data must have come from a sample of over 65s and likely older as it comes from the U.K. roll out - you guys aren’t vaccinating under 65 yet right?

Yes all health and social care workers are advised and offered vaccine so 18±.

 

[xena]

Good news, reading between the lines that data must have come from a sample of over 65s and likely older as it comes from the U.K. roll out - you guys aren’t vaccinating under 65 yet right?

Would be mainly over 80s if going back 3 months

 

[davek]

Sadly, they, and plenty of other nations in that part of the world are used to them.

They also dont believe a word that comes out of China. At the merest hint that sommet is afoot there, lock down. They dont wait for confirmation/WHO.

Not one person in our region of the world has ever had a lock down, nor worn a mask while shopping in their life as a contrast.

But look at another European nation like Holland which is even more densely populated than here and the fatality rate per 100,000 is much less than here.




It cant be down to population density or culture, the difference has to be down to policy. In particular, locking down earlier and more stringently.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Would be mainly over 80s if going back 3 months

Sorry that's simply not the case... First group is NHS frontline staff, care home residents and workers, and the over 80s are first in line to receive the two vaccines being rolled out in the UK - Pfizer and Oxford University/AstraZeneca jab.

 

[summerisle]

You don't get these masks in B and M.

 

[Toast]

You don't get these masks in B and M.

That was his weekend outfit before anyone had even heard of coronavirus mate.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Yes. Absolutely.

The issue though is that seniors in this country have to become their millions-strong test group, when they realy should have extended the cohort of their older group trialists before publishing their overall data. What were they afraid of - diluting ther overall claims? Instead they gave excuses for not testing older groups that simply weren't there for other vaccine makers.

A perfectly plausible answer is they were trying to balance the risks/rewards of getting data out on the vaccine efficiency as fast as possible whilst minimizing issues with the elderly test cohort if the vaccine had bad side effects - that they didn’t make the exact same decisions on trial demographics as other drug makers I don’t see as necessarily nefarious.

I agree that it doesn’t rule it out either but it leads are back to that “absence of data” issue again!

 

[jinkyali]

Very simply Vaccine efficacy/effectiveness is interpreted as the proportionate reduction in disease among the vaccinated group, it’s worked out in a controlled environment during a usually double blinded study of vaccinated, placebo etc. So a Vaccine efficey of 90% indicates a 90% reduction in disease occurrence among the vaccinated group, or a 90% reduction from the number of cases you would expect if they have not been vaccinated.

So if a 100% of the U.K. is vaccinated then statistically you would still see 10% cases of COVID.

However thats statistically because herd immunity comes into play as well with groups, essentially if there are is a 90% reduction in cases the community and you have a 90% immunity chance then you would be very unfortunate to get COVID, but there is a lot we still don’t know about the antibody response and how long it lasts etc.

Great news

Oxford coronavirus vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% during the 3-month interval until the second dose | University of Oxford

Analyses reveal single standard dose efficacy from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination of 76% with protection not falling in this three-month periodAfter the second dose vaccine efficacy from two standard doses is 82.4% with the 3-month interval being used in the UK. (82.4% effective, with a 95%...

www.ox.ac.uk

This is whst I don't get.
Levels of protection.
I thought it was 100 percent to illicit an antibody response and stop serious illness.
Yet this says 76?

 

[tsubaki]

The xenophobia around at the moment is wild. Just blaming whole countries for finding a strain of the virus.

It's getting to the point where the countries won't bother looking into the strains.

Especially as its a decoy, to suggest to people that the reason something is spreading is because of something foreign (rather than the governments ongoing failure to sort out test, track, trace and isolate).

 

[roydo]

But look at another European nation like Holland which is even more densely populated than here and the fatality rate per 100,000 is much less than here.

View attachment 116400


It cant be down to population density or culture, the difference has to be down to policy. In particular, locking down earlier and more stringently.

Perhaps. But its hardly a raging success is it?

It is a cultural thing. You can deny it, but its the truth. When I was visiting Mrs R in hospital last year, every Asian student I passed walking past the University, wore a mask. That was between 3rd Jan and 16th Feb, 2020.

Most Asian countries are totally used to dealing with the havoc that their neighbour unleashes from time to time.

 

[davek]

A perfectly plausible answer is they were trying to balance the risks/rewards of getting data out on the vaccine efficiency as fast as possible whilst minimizing issues with the elderly test cohort if the vaccine had bad side effects - that they didn’t make the exact same decisions on trial demographics as other drug makers I don’t see as necessarily nefarious.

I agree that it doesn’t rule it out either but it leads are back to that “absence of data” issue again!

It's a strange decision from a vaccine maker who knows the demographic for death from Covid19 are the over 80s - which makes them (or should make them) overwhelmingly their target group to be tested.

 

[xena]

Sorry that's simply not the case... First group is NHS frontline staff, care home residents and workers, and the over 80s are first in line to receive the two vaccines being rolled out in the UK - Pfizer and Oxford University/AstraZeneca jab.

Ill give you care home residents and workers but think nhs front line staff are in priority group 2 with over 80s .So seeing most residents in care homes would be pretty old think most people in the survey would be getting on a bit.