Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Joey66]

Double mask to be on the safe side

Place was like a ghost town ........

 

[Tubey]

Yes, and I’d said 1-2 days (not 2-3, there’s no requirement to wait for second test) but they’d be asked to isolate for that period, until the test results come back.

Sorry mate but its completely unrealistic. People just wouldn't test. It comes back to what I was saying about this illness being mild for most - you're asking people to risk their livelihoods for a mild illness. In an ideal world, sure, that would help - in the real world, not a chance in hell of it happening.

 

[whiteshadow]

That data I posted mate from public health England says 55% after 21 days.

My mistake, I missed the over 80's part when I read it. lol

Sorry.

 

[tsubaki]

But this is where it falls down too imo, because the vast majority of illnesses last 1-2 days, and if they last more than that, then people tend to really know about it?

Is it really realistic that somebody is going to isolate for 24-48 hours waiting for a test result when they could well feel better before that test even comes back?

Yes, I think it is. If someone feels better after 24-48 hours then they’ll just go back to whatever when the results they are expecting comes back during that period. It’s not like they are going to get better after 24/48 hours and then spend the next week quarantined, unless they actually have something.

 

[tsubaki]

Sorry mate but its completely unrealistic. People just wouldn't test. It comes back to what I was saying about this illness being mild for most - you're asking people to risk their livelihoods for a mild illness. In an ideal world, sure, that would help - in the real world, not a chance in hell of it happening.

Tubey as I said above - if taking two days sick leave, when you are actually sick, puts people’s livelihoods at risk then this country has a serious problem. I don’t think that’s the case for most people, and wouldn’t be the case for even more than that if this was part of something the state was asking everyone to do.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

The data goes up to four weeks mate, 60% at that mark. It pretty much followes what Pfizer recommend. I don’t know why the data stopped there, it’s public health England so you can draw any conclusion on that really. The 4 week to 12 week data , would be really useful not just for the UK, but the rest of the world if it proved to be a master stroke!

Why do you think it stopped there?

It was real life data not clinical trials. Up to the week starting January 8th England had given two jabs but the painfully slow progress through extremely vulnerable groups that this would entail if continued meant an urgent rethink on strategy absolutely essential.

In the teeth of a raging pandemic, measures to give some protection to as many extremely vulnerable people as possible meant the single dose strategy had to be put in place, after considering the likelihood of benefits against the horrendous risk in continuing with the status quo.

Four weeks later takes the date into February, it is still February now no lengthier timescale for actual data is possible without time travel.

How could they possibly do 12 weeks actual data? Unfortunately no ability to use hindsight, and see what the results would be like 12 weeks later, existed at the time. A decision on the overwhelmingly best likelihood and strategy to cope with such an emergency had to be made at the time. Accordingly by a huge margin the balance of any probabilities pointed to the current single dose strategy being the best one to arrest the growing numbers amongst seriously vulnerable groups.

There was no time for delay or taking the safety first slow approach, it wasn't even an option.

 

[Neiler]

Why do you think it stopped there?

It was real life data not clinical trials. Up to the week starting January 8th England had given two jabs but the painfully slow progress through extremely vulnerable groups that this would entail if continued meant an urgent rethink on strategy absolutely essential.

In the teeth of a raging pandemic, measures to give some protection to as many extremely vulnerable people as possible meant the single dose strategy had to be put in place, after considering the likelihood of benefits against the horrendous risk in continuing with the status quo.

Four weeks later takes the date into February, it is still February now no lengthier timescale for actual data is possible without time travel.

How could they possibly do 12 weeks actual data? Unfortunately no ability to use hindsight, and see what the results would be like 12 weeks later, existed at the time. A decision on the overwhelmingly best likelihood and strategy to cope with such an emergency had to be made at the time. Accordingly by a huge margin the balance of any probabilities pointed to the current single dose strategy being the best one to arrest the growing numbers amongst seriously vulnerable groups.

There was no time for delay or taking the safety first slow approach, it wasn't even an option.

I think everyone understands the UKs motivation and goal mate.

It is as yet unknown as to the risks/benefits of the 12 week dosing spacing, what the data I posted shows is the context of protection on a scale, it’s the first I’ve seen from the UK on an actual population data sample.

I don’t know whether the UK dosing method is inspired or fool hearty, on the positive it would be great to have the data, because it would be reassuring for the UK, but also help inform the rest of the world on dosing. On the negative the protection might wane between week 4 to 12. The data is useful, when people say they have been vaccinated that shouldn’t be overarching term, they’ve been vaccinated with a measure of protection, less then with a second dose. That’s an important distinction. The data is useful in defining that level of protection.

The first doses of Pfizer were given in the first week of Dec the data should be there. Why did this data set only show four weeks? I don’t know, a suspicious mind might say is there something to hide or not to cause public panic if the level of protection waines during that period - if the data is positive why not release it - that’s conjecture, but not out ruled by the data - you could go the opposite way with that to with a more positive spin, by saying the trend is an increasing level of protection.

Simply the data doesn’t support or not support the UK vaccine programme, but the levels of protection are interesting. Really the two doses is the gold standard of protection, everyone’s aiming for that however eventually.

 

[tsubaki]

Why do you think it stopped there?

It was real life data not clinical trials. Up to the week starting January 8th England had given two jabs but the painfully slow progress through extremely vulnerable groups that this would entail if continued meant an urgent rethink on strategy absolutely essential.

In the teeth of a raging pandemic, measures to give some protection to as many extremely vulnerable people as possible meant the single dose strategy had to be put in place, after considering the likelihood of benefits against the horrendous risk in continuing with the status quo.

Four weeks later takes the date into February, it is still February now no lengthier timescale for actual data is possible without time travel.

How could they possibly do 12 weeks actual data? Unfortunately no ability to use hindsight, and see what the results would be like 12 weeks later, existed at the time. A decision on the overwhelmingly best likelihood and strategy to cope with such an emergency had to be made at the time. Accordingly by a huge margin the balance of any probabilities pointed to the current single dose strategy being the best one to arrest the growing numbers amongst seriously vulnerable groups.

There was no time for delay or taking the safety first slow approach, it wasn't even an option.

lol

A fantastic way to respond to a point that there’s still a query over the data for Pfizer 1st dose, with a huge screed that doesn’t contain any actual facts either - just a load of inferences, all of which are designed to paint the best possible picture of those responsible.

As for “it wasn’t even an option”, that’s pretty risible even when compared to the rest of it - there was an option, they’d just done that option for the past month and the rest of the world has just done it too.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

I think everyone understands the UKs motivation and goal mate.

It is as yet unknown as to the risks/benefits of the 12 week dosing spacing, what the data I posted shows is the context of protection on a scale, it’s the first I’ve seen from the UK on an actual population data sample.

I don’t know whether the UK dosing method is inspired or fool hearty, on the positive it would be great to have the data, because it would be reassuring for the UK, but also help inform the rest of the world on dosing. On the negative the protection might wand between week four to 12. The data is useful, when people say they have been vaccinated that shouldn’t be overarching term, they’ve been vaccinated with a measure of protection, less then with a second dose. That’s an important distinction.

The first doses of Pfizer were given in the first week of Dec the data should be there. Why did this data set only show four weeks? I don’t know, a suspicious mind might say is there something to hide or not cause public panic if the level of protection waines during that period - that’s conjecture, but not out ruled by the data - you could go the opposite way with that to with a more positive spin.

Simply the data doesn’t support or not support the UK vaccine programme, but the levels of protection are interesting. Really the two doses is the gold standard of protection, but everyone’s aiming for that however eventually.

What's the point of having something as a gold standard if it's not even an option we could afford to aim for? Doing that would have been a disaster, a tiny proportion of highly vulnerable individuals offered 90% protection while the overwhelming majority were offered 0% protection.

The overwhelming majority of highly vulnerable people would be infected, rates would rise exponentially almost cettainly giving multiple mutations which would possibly invalidate the protection of even the few that had any.

This went with the one dose option because they dealt with reality, the situation as it was and made a decision when they had to.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

lol

A fantastic way to respond to a point that there’s still a query over the data for Pfizer 1st dose, with a huge screed that doesn’t contain any actual facts either - just a load of inferences, all of which are designed to paint the best possible picture of those responsible.

As for “it wasn’t even an option”, that’s pretty risible even when compared to the rest of it - there was an option, they’d just done that option for the past month and the rest of the world has just done it too.

I've had this with you before, I disagree with most of what you post nearly all the time, I'll ignore your posts in future and invite you to do the same with mine.

 

[Goat]

All is well doe

Has anybody claimed all is well?

No, not a single person is claiming that lockdowns are great.

Very strange you.

 

[tsubaki]

I've had this with you before, I disagree with most of what you post nearly all the time, I'll ignore your posts in future and invite you to do the same with mine.

You do whatever you like, but if you’re going to post things like you just have then you should really expect to have that queried.

If we followed the Pfizer dosing instructions - which remember is still how the vaccine was authorised in the U.K. - the difference in the number of people with first doses only would not be that much lower than it is now, probably around 12-16 million. The second dose numbers would be much higher than they are now though, with several millions having had it rather than 700000.

To say we’d have had loads more sick if they’d not done what they did is just not something you can say with any certainty, especially given the lockdown and when the case numbers started falling (ie: before the vaccination programme could have had an impact).

 

[Tubey]

Tubey as I said above - if taking two days sick leave, when you are actually sick, puts people’s livelihoods at risk then this country has a serious problem. I don’t think that’s the case for most people, and wouldn’t be the case for even more than that if this was part of something the state was asking everyone to do.

No you said if someone tests positive for an existing strain, they'd have to isolate. Even if the disease is killing or hospitalising basically no one.

That will result in people swerving testing altogether. They wouldn't take the risk. It's not realistic.

 

[Neiler]

What's the point of having something as a gold standard if it's not even an option we could afford to aim for. Doing that would have been a disaster, s tiny proportion of highly vulnerable individuals offered 90% protection while the overwhelming majority were offered 0% protection.

The overwhelming majority of highly vulnerable people would be infected, rates would rise exponentially almost cettainly giving multiple mutations which would possibly invalidate the protection of even the few that had any.

This want an option because they dealt with reality, the situation as it was and made a decision when they had to.

It is an option though. The UK are in the minority in the spacing of their dosing strategy with their MRNA vaccines.

I understand the motivation behind it mate, the UK have been the hardest hit country by this in Europe and up there globally. The rationale behind the decision I can understand in that context they need cases and deaths down. They made a decision on the welfare of the country. That decision will either be inspired or foolherty, I hope inspired. Do I have concerns, absolutely, we all understand the reasons and motivation for the decision, does the currrent science, data or recommendations support - not at the moment. Anedotely I’ve read conflicting opinions by Immunologists and scientists on is positives or negatives.

You mention new variants, a concern I have is the gap in dosing is giving the virus more of an exposure and chance with our current vaccines to evolve within a limited measure of protection, it’s an ideal environment to progress evolution.

You are right of course, the Goverment I’m sure have made the best decision, with the best information for the right reasons - personally I hope it’s inspired.

 

[tsubaki]

No you said if someone tests positive for an existing strain, they'd have to isolate. Even if the disease is killing or hospitalising basically no one.

That will result in people swerving testing altogether. They wouldn't take the risk. It's not realistic.

Tubey you are arguing for COVID to become endemic. There’s no reason why it should, and it being endemic here causes many problems beyond just hospitalisations and deaths (and it absolutely would still kill people).