Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[tsubaki]

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.....

If it was only politicians doing that I'd agree with you, but when you have Pfizer themselves saying publicly that they do not know if it will work then I really think we should just follow the instructions they've given. As LL said, this is a new vaccine thats been tested in a specific way and approved on that basis.

 

[davek]

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

Because they need the vaccine to help out with the under 65 population and simply gave a license to AZ and the option for national health regulators to make their own judgement.

 

[Wizard]

Because they need the vaccine to help out with the under 65 population and simply gave a license to AZ and the option for national health regulators to make their own judgement.

The EMA obviously think it is safe to use in over 65s though otherwise they wouldn't have licensed it

 

[davek]

The EMA obviously think it is safe to use in over 65s though otherwise they wouldn't have licensed it

They knew the various national bodies would take care of the age issue with the vaccine. Their job was to license the AZ vaccine and allow national bodies to determine its use.

 

[LinekersLegs]

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.

I honestly don’t know enough about the subject to be able to say if what Oxford did in its non-US trials in their various phases could be classed as unorthodox or not. None of the primarily US based scientists I follow appear to be flagging the age profile aspect - their critiques of AZ are on how they messed up the doses (although as it turns out that was fortuitous)

AZ haven’t completed their Phase 3 trials in the US yet to gain FDA approval but I thought the delay was more that they started their US trials later than Pfizer/Moderna than an incorrect study design.

And I’m going to exit on the same point I entered this conversation - it isn’t ”no data” it is “incomplete data” and add that countries are at liberty to decide whether going ahead on encouraging incomplete data is a decent risk/reward.

Personally I’m glad the UK is, my uncle got the AZ first jab today

 

[Wizard]

They knew the various national bodies would take care of the age issue with the vaccine. Their job was to license the AZ vaccine and allow national bodies to determine its use.

That would be a very dangerous strategy as lots of national bodies will go with vaccinating over 65s based on EMA giving it the ok. If the EMA didn't trust the results, they wouldn't have given it a license.

I'm pretty sure in the past you said you would trust the AZ vaccine once the EMA licensed it as you didn't trust the MHRA. Now that EMA have licensed it that trust seems to have disappeared even though the underlying data hasn't. What's changed?

 

[davek]

That would be a very dangerous strategy as lots of national bodies will go with vaccinating over 65s based on EMA giving it the ok. If the EMA didn't trust the results, they wouldn't have given it a license.

I'm pretty sure in the past you said you would trust the AZ vaccine once the EMA licensed it as you didn't trust the MHRA. Now that EMA have licensed it that trust seems to have disappeared even though the underlying data hasn't. What's changed?

I'd take it myself. But Ilm not over 65, so that's an easy call.

The EMA hedged their bets in giving the license. So I dont think it was a blessing for the vaccine as a whole.

 

[summerisle]

Good news continuing.

 

[chrismpw]

Nice to hear none other than the BMJ saying what I've been saying for a year about how the Boris' govt has NOT been following science but is simply being opportunistic to embezzle the nation's wealth. The BMJ ffs!

This government HAS to go (to prison).

Top medical journal slams UK 'state corruption' and 'suppression of science'

THE BMJ has published a damning attack on the UK Government, saying “science is being suppressed for political and financial gain” in the mould…

www.thenational.scot

 

[BlueToff]

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.

Yeah I agree. But given the position the UK got themselves into, they had to try something...

Personally with Pfizer I'd have just stayed the 3 weeks or if we see good results from Denmark, reduce it to six weeks - less risk.

 

[BlueToff]

If it was only politicians doing that I'd agree with you, but when you have Pfizer themselves saying publicly that they do not know if it will work then I really think we should just follow the instructions they've given. As LL said, this is a new vaccine thats been tested in a specific way and approved on that basis.

Surely now though, there's some people who before Xmas will have had the pfizer jab and be, what, 6 weeks into it now, and still waiting for their second dose?

Given all the uproar, if people who fall into that category now started falling ill, I think there'll be plenty of stories about it.

But every time I check, it's continued warnings etc etc but no actual evidence. I'm not disputing your point, you know I agree with you on the Pfizer one, but as it stands right now, we're not seeing what the fear would be beyond 3 weeks spacing.

However, we obviously could do in a few weeks, that's the worry, if people who had Pfizer before Xmas but then had their seocnd dose pushed back start to get ill and they're, say, 8-9 weeks into it.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[tsubaki]

Surely now though, there's some people who before Xmas will have had the pfizer jab and be, what, 6 weeks into it now, and still waiting for their second dose?

Given all the uproar, if people who fall into that category now started falling ill, I think there'll be plenty of stories about it.

But every time I check, it's continued warnings etc etc but no actual evidence. I'm not disputing your point, you know I agree with you on the Pfizer one, but as it stands right now, we're not seeing what the fear would be beyond 3 weeks spacing.

However, we obviously could do in a few weeks, that's the worry, if people who had Pfizer before Xmas but then had their seocnd dose pushed back start to get ill and they're, say, 8-9 weeks into it.

Would there, though? I think you are giving an awful lot of credit to the British press there.

What Pfizer has said is clear; what the requirements of the vaccination programme ultimately are (to **fully** vaccinate the population) are clear too.

I think it’s crazy that we’ve used this period to test an idea when we could have had two million extremely vulnerable people fully protected, and several million partially protected (with AZ).

I also TBH think it’s daft to think that a media as complicit in this disaster as ours are would ever report if it failed, especially given how much the right wing majority of it has crowed these past few days.

 

[peteblue]

They knew the various national bodies would take care of the age issue with the vaccine. Their job was to license the AZ vaccine and allow national bodies to determine its use.

So what is the point of the EMA, might as well get rid of it.....

 

[davmaher]

Would there, though? I think you are giving an awful lot of credit to the British press there.

What Pfizer has said is clear; what the requirements of the vaccination programme ultimately are (to **fully** vaccinate the population) are clear too.

I think it’s crazy that we’ve used this period to test an idea when we could have had two million extremely vulnerable people fully protected, and several million partially protected (with AZ).

I also TBH think it’s daft to think that a media as complicit in this disaster as ours are would ever report if it failed, especially given how much the right wing majority of it has crowed these past few days.

The Guardian, Independent and Mirror would report it, as would all of the main TV news outlets. I'm not aware of any negative reports whatsoever. That may change in the near future as more evidence is collated but suggesting that problems may be getting suppressed seems somewhat extreme to me.