Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[BlueToff]

Well there are a few risks really, say a vaccine in 90% effective, there is still 10% it could impact. Then what we know about the vaccine is that antibodies wane over time so the efficacy % will wane also- what that time is we don't know yet, then we have the variants - all the vaccines we have so far were developed before th4e UK., SA, Brazil variants as, as the JJ study shows that that could impact to. There is a fair argument there we are inviting new variants because of the roll out strategy - the Uk has come in for criticism around this, virsus can mutate to beat vaccines also. The vaccine is a massive help but doesn't mean Covid isn't problematic or we are invincible to it going forward. The vaccine is another brilliant and powerful tool of course -perhaps our most powerful, but we have other tools we should continue to use. Particularly as some will be vaccinated and others wont be as this year goes on.

Well it's why the UK have done what they've done - or at least part of the reason.

The current approach could well see every adult in the UK having been offered their first dose by mid-to-late June. That'd be a superb result.

In the meantime, we have more vaccines getting approved and on order, while there's 10m doses of Moderna to come in the spring, there's also the scale up of the AZ vaccine production and Pfizer too.

So, if it carries on like this (big if I know), we're going to be ahead of the curve heading into the summer, because there'll be plenty of people fully vaccinated by end of March/early April too.

For example, those 400,000 that received a first dose on Saturday, well they're going to be fully vaccinated end of April latest aren't they.

I know there's risks, but it's looking good from that point of view and yes I appreciate it doesn't mean we're invincible. But we're not invincible from anything mate. They'll just need to be topped up and tweaked every year to be a yearly jab for those that need it - for those that just the initial vaccine won't be enough for, or whatever, surely?

 

[peteblue]

21 days ago pete, we'd given 2.29 million people their first jab

21 days after the 1st dose is the ideal time to give the second dose for Pfizer

we only started using AZ on Jan 4th, so most of the people would have had Pfizer at that point

So you completely ignore the other 5.5 Million jabs....gotcha.....

 

[tsubaki]

So you completely ignore the other 5.5 Million jabs....gotcha.....

why not? you're ignoring the fact that all the vaccines we've got require two doses and to be given as intended

 

[LinekersLegs]

There is nothing like you say, just a lack of it, and so far there's no evidence that the risk the UK are taking with the vaccines coming spaced out.

I'm not saying I agree with it on Pfizer, cos they should have stuck with 3 weeks or maybe gone 6 weeks tops like Denmark/France, but so far there's no evidence of adverse effects or people who have had the first dose contracting COVID en masse as a rule of thumb or whatever.

Will help that the majority of the people who have had it are still shielding, mind.

For me the risk of using AZ on over 65s seems low (certainly on a risk/reward basis) as there was still some data of older volunteers, just not a complete data set and we do have complete data for younger groups.

The spacing of vaccine doses I’m far more conflicted about, less so the AZ one as (because of a mess up in the trial) there some data, although incomplete, on what happened if you extended the gap and it was an improvement on the original spacing,

However the Pfizer one is a big black data hole as they kept to a tight dose window. That combined with it being a new type of vaccine we haven’t used much before makes me feel there are greater risks of using it outside the parameters proved by the trials. Is it still worth the risk/reward - I’ve seen those with far more knowledge of the subject than I argue both sides.

From a worldview it is probably a good thing that different countries are trying out a range of approaches, we’ll find out quicker which is the best one.

 

[peteblue]

why not? you're ignoring the fact that all the vaccines we've got require two doses and to be given as intended

It‘s very simple. Half a million of the eldest of our population are fully covered. A further 9.5 Million have protection against having to go into hospital or death from this virus. The 9,5 million will all receive a second dose upping their immunity twelve weeks after the first. Meanwhile the programme moves forward, massively reducing the number of people likely to catch the virus while driving down the number of virus hosts and moving the country to the fabled herd immunity level. The U.K. scientists, CSA, CMO , all agree that this is the best way forward. Even the CEO of AZ and the Oxford scientists agree. But obviously you know better.....

 

[davmaher]

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.

It's just the way people are. Not helped by some governments basically acting the same. A few weeks ago it was the UK, now it seems to be South Africa and Brazil. It will be someone else next week. The media help fan the flames and Joe Public doesn't know enough to see it for what it is.

 

[tsubaki]

It‘s very simple. Half a million of the eldest of our population are fully covered. A further 9.5 Million have protection against having to go into hospital or death from this virus. The 9,5 million will all receive a second dose upping their immunity twelve weeks after the first. Meanwhile the programme moves forward, massively reducing the number of people likely to catch the virus while driving down the number of virus hosts and moving the country to the fabled herd immunity level. The U.K. scientists, CSA, CMO , all agree that this is the best way forward. Even the CEO of AZ and the Oxford scientists agree. But obviously you know better.....

nice try chum, but the vaccine in question is the Pfizer one

you know, the one that our most vulnerable got, the people we are using in an experiment

 

[peteblue]

For me the risk of using AZ on over 65s seems low (certainly on a risk/reward basis) as there was still some data of older volunteers, just not a complete data set and we do have complete data for younger groups.

The spacing of vaccine doses I’m far more conflicted about, less so the AZ one as (because of a mess up in the trial) there some data, although incomplete, on what happened if you extended the gap and it was an improvement on the original spacing,

However the Pfizer one is a big black data hole as they kept to a tight dose window. That combined with it being a new type of vaccine we haven’t used much before makes me feel there are greater risks of using it outside the parameters proved by the trials. Is it still worth the risk/reward - I’ve seen those with far more knowledge of the subject than I argue both sides.

From a worldview it is probably a good thing that different countries are trying out a range of approaches, we’ll find out quicker which is the best one.

Absolutely. The more we try the more we learn. Like you I am more concerned over the gap period for the Pfizer jab, I am very comfortable, especially with Oxford confirming, that the AZ will be fine or even better with a 12 week gap. The AZ jab will be the UK’s main vaccine.....

 

[peteblue]

nice try chum, but the vaccine in question is the Pfizer one

you know, the one that our most vulnerable got, the people we are using in an experiment

Our most vulnerable were amongst the half million who got the two jabs.....the UK’s main vaccine is the AZ....but you obviously know better ......

 

[peteblue]

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.

I think they should be congratulated for finding them....

 

[davek]

Killing them/putting them in hospital due to bad side effects of the vaccine (or drug interactions with their existing meds) isn’t great though either.

If things had gone wrong I could have seen you vehemently arguing that they were irresponsible for not fully testing their vaccine on younger volunteers first

They'd have been part of orthodox testing practices, so there'd be no pointing at just them.

They've deviated from science...and they expect others to ignore that. But as a whole host of European nations are now telling them: 'no data, no vaccinating our elderly'. That's just good governance.

 

[tsubaki]

Our most vulnerable were amongst the half million who got the two jabs.....the UK’s main vaccine is the AZ....but you obviously know better ......

Yes pete, I do - and you do too, which is why you're doing your usual trick of gently beeping as you try to go into reverse.

Take this post for example. "Our most vulnerable were amongst the half million who got the two jabs".

By January 3rd (ie: the day before AZ started), we had 1.37 million people having their first dose, of which the overwhelming majority (if not all, its not clear whether the stats include the trials that took place) will be Pfizer (edit) and given to those at most risk. There is no reason why they couldn't all have been offered their second jab by the 24th; if they had done that we'd have more than three times the number of actually vaccinated people we have now. By January 8th this was 2.27 million, of which the large majority are likely to have been Pfizer too (but even the AZ ones is approved to be used for a second dose within four weeks) so we could have had four or five times as many as we have now fully protected.

Again, if you are comfortable doing this to the most vulnerable in society then crack on. Personally, I really hope it works but the moral question here is significant and should be addressed.

stats from here: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

 

[peteblue]

They'd have been part of orthodox testing practices, so there'd be no pointing at just them.

They've deviated from science...and they expect others to ignore that. But as a whole host of European nations are now telling them: 'no data, no vaccinating our elderly'. That's just good governance.

Then why did the EMA, you know the highest Medical Authority in Europe, approve them also for the over 65’s ?......

 

[peteblue]

Yes pete, I do - and you do too, which is why you're doing your usual trick of gently beeping as you try to go into reverse.

Take this post for example. "Our most vulnerable were amongst the half million who got the two jabs".

By January 3rd (ie: the day before AZ started), we had 1.37 million people having their first dose, of which the overwhelming majority (if not all, its not clear whether the stats include the trials that took place) will be Pfizer. There is no reason why they couldn't all have been offered their second jab by the 24th; if they had done that we'd have more than three times the number of actually vaccinated people we have now. By January 8th this was 2.27 million, of which the large majority are likely to have been Pfizer too (but even the AZ ones is approved to be used for a second dose within four weeks) so we could have had four or five times as many as we have now fully protected.

Again, if you are comfortable doing this to the most vulnerable in society then crack on. Personally, I really hope it works but the moral question here is significant and should be addressed.

stats from here: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

I would assume we all hope it works, and in this respect considering the scientists lined up behind it, and the Macrons and VDL’s throwing the stones, I tend to go with our scientists tbh.....

 

[peteblue]

Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread

New data also shows the vaccine was 76% effective during the three months after the first dose.

www.bbc.co.uk