Corona Virus main thread

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

35 minutes ago, Well b back said:

I am now 4 weeks in to having my first Pfizer jab so should now be at the manufacturers 90 - 95 % efficacy having had my second jab. I follow the vaccines like a hawk and I honestly have no idea what immunity I will have as I approach week 5. I am fairly confident my 12 week booster will get my immunity levels up, but until that time however small there are thoughts in your head unlikely I know that my 2nd jab maybe better than 95% or may not even work.

To be brutally honest even the 'efficacy' numbers get misinterpreted.

What is really happening is that some people will take to the vaccine like ducks to water and will be highly immune - others like cats into water will not gain the same immunity. All sorts of plausible reasons (age already identified as one!). It's really the variance to vaccine induced immunity that increases with elapsed time I would guess (which then appears as a loss of efficacy in base statistics).

[Barbe bleu 823]

57 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Nobody not even the BMA are saying our strategy is definitely wrong, they are saying due to the latest evidence ( Israel as a whole are signed up as Pfizer’s trial ) we should re examine it and if we are keeping to this the realities really need to be pointed as most seem to think after your first dose in a short period you are 90% immune.

 

 

Well this is the decisive leadership people were looking for i guess!

The 90% does have a basis in data and in  theory so its not wrong to think it is probably about right.   What is wrong is for people to assume that they are in the 90% rather than the 10%.  Thats not great odds if the penalty for calling it wrong is death....

Edited January 24, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

To keep it in perspective, the UK approach has uncertainties about the level of protection the vaccine gives whereas the 3 Chinese vaccines are being rolled out in quite a few countries without competing stage 3 trials so those people are very literal guinea pigs with no guarantees the vaccine will be safe, never mind the level of effectiveness. Article in the Economist this week and also mentioned on BBC as linked by YF - reports on them are starting to appear in various countries using them, showing huge variations in the efficacy level. Unfortunately it seems there is very little proper data being put out about the Chinese vaccines for peer review.

 

It’s really important for all of us the Chinese vaccines do well too, we need vaccines provided globally as fast as possible. I disagree with their approach and it’s much more risky than anything we’re doing, but I hope it works.

[Well b back 3,203]

4 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

To keep it in perspective, the UK approach has uncertainties about the level of protection the vaccine gives whereas the 3 Chinese vaccines are being rolled out in quite a few countries without competing stage 3 trials so those people are very literal guinea pigs with no guarantees the vaccine will be safe, never mind the level of effectiveness. Article in the Economist this week and also mentioned on BBC as linked by YF - reports on them are starting to appear in various countries using them, showing huge variations in the efficacy level. Unfortunately it seems there is very little proper data being put out about the Chinese vaccines for peer review.

 

It’s really important for all of us the Chinese vaccines do well too, we need vaccines provided globally as fast as possible. I disagree with their approach and it’s much more risky than anything we’re doing, but I hope it works.

Indeed

It is also very important for the world to share information as has Oxford and Sputnik and work together to design better and better vaccines and of course be ready for the next pandemic, whenever that might happen. What is beginning to happen is of course as Oxford predicted, we will be at version 5 of vaccines before we say we have nailed it.

[ricardo 7,385]

National

30004 - 610

Local

[Bill 1,788]

not sure what these numbers amount to, given the variables involved

as we are back to the guesswork 'r' number with the above

 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Im afraid that this is not good news. When Johnson announced on Friday that the new English  Variant might be much more transmissible and that its deadly impact might kill 30 out of 1000, he was 'disingenuous. To be precise, he choose to use the lowest possible percentage 1.35 % in the report with a one sentence conclusion. The report waffles along until you reach page 6, when it reveals a 1.35% - 2.71% deadliness, of which the medium lies around 1.91%.

Going by past lack of achievement and the daily bamboozling with vaccination figures that do not inform those vaccinated of their second date, mixing elation with further uncertainty, does make it hard to believe that this vexatious choice of information  will mean that 'he's being straight with us' as trumpeted.

This report is freely available to the media and the bbc. with the scientific papers leading to this report showing some other astonishing facts about the ability of this variant to evolve/mutate into an even stronger virus, none of the MSM, as usual, is telling it as it is, conspiring to misinform seems to be the latest new normal.

Please read

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/955239/NERVTAG_paper_on_variant_of_concern__VOC__B.1.1.7.pdf

[Essjayess 307]

Of course the last few weeks Europe has looked at the UK's big numbers of infections and deaths caused by the new variant, so thought i would check Portugal's Covid situation as that country was included at the time in the  travel ban connected to the Brazilian variant of Covid. I dont know at all if the awful Brazilian variant has got into the Portuguese general population as our variant got into ours, but for sure they are suffering  new high increases in both daily infections and deaths, just yesterday recording  record highs in both those categories.

As we are starting to see definite decrease in daily infections and a levelling out of daily deaths, looks like Portugal is now the euro nation with steep increases, whether its thru the original Covid or the Brazilian variant i dont know.

[Van wink 2,994]

10 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Im afraid that this is not good news. When Johnson announced on Friday that the new English  Variant might be much more transmissible and that its deadly impact might kill 30 out of 1000, he was 'disingenuous. To be precise, he choose to use the lowest possible percentage 1.35 % in the report with a one sentence conclusion. The report waffles along until you reach page 6, when it reveals a 1.35% - 2.71% deadliness, of which the medium lies around 1.91%.

Going by past lack of achievement and the daily bamboozling with vaccination figures that do not inform those vaccinated of their second date, mixing elation with further uncertainty, does make it hard to believe that this vexatious choice of information  will mean that 'he's being straight with us' as trumpeted.

This report is freely available to the media and the bbc. with the scientific papers leading to this report showing some other astonishing facts about the ability of this variant to evolve/mutate into an even stronger virus, none of the MSM, as usual, is telling it as it is, conspiring to misinform seems to be the latest new normal.

Please read

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/955239/NERVTAG_paper_on_variant_of_concern__VOC__B.1.1.7.pdf

Look at the table in the annex, he wasn’t far off and all data has a wide range of error. Valance if anything played his announcement down. 

[benchwarmer 625]

10 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Going by past lack of achievement and the daily bamboozling with vaccination figures that do not inform those vaccinated of their second date, mixing elation with further uncertainty, does make it hard to believe that this vexatious choice of information  will mean that 'he's being straight with us' as trumpeted.

 

One thing you can be absolutely sure of, Johnson is never straight with anybody.  If something he says turns out to be true it's pure accident; even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

So a month into this lockdown. And, ignoring the dramatic drop today, the figure s for the number of new cases is coming down over 30%.

Ignoring the amount of deaths and hospitalisations, because we have a deadlier variant, I wonder what the comparisons are between the two major lockdowns on how quickly they became effective.

One happened during the warm weather when people were wanting to be out and about where this one is a time when there is a great deal of hibernation.

[Bill 1,788]

How are those figures collated, and what exactly are new cases ?

Figures for drivers caught drink-driving are not the same as those who are actually drink-driving. Admittance to hospital is dependent by who has been excised to the virus, not how virulent it is..

It was always known that the winter months would see a huge increase in the number of cases of both, as with flu.

I am sure that it provides some sort of fascination to blokes called Colin or Trevor and women who read newspaper horoscopes believing they offer some infallible prediction.

However the underlying danger is that we ascribe to these numbers the same sense of dogged adherence to what they supposedly tell us. Much as with ww.saddo.com, and it's meaningless stats. Where supposedly studying these numbers are a better guide to the game than watching it.

Much as with Starling mutations the spreading and mutating of this virus, and its numerous strains are way too complex for it to be explained by a few very basic numbers, randomly collated.

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

So a month into this lockdown. And, ignoring the dramatic drop today, the figure s for the number of new cases is coming down over 30%.

Ignoring the amount of deaths and hospitalisations, because we have a deadlier variant, I wonder what the comparisons are between the two major lockdowns on how quickly they became effective.

One happened during the warm weather when people were wanting to be out and about where this one is a time when there is a great deal of hibernation.

We’ve also had the most vulnerable people being vaccinated for over a month now which should in some respects negate the impact on deaths and hospitalisations of the ‘deadlier strain’. So I don’t think you can just ignore them if you’re comparing now and March.

We didn’t have a clue about numbers of infections in March/April because we had far fewer tests then than now. Even the Zoe  apps’ statistic-led guesswork  isn’t that useful for comparison with last March as that app as far as I’m aware changed methodology in June - apparently the current method of guessing is more accurate. 

The hospitalisations and deaths are the thing that matters and the only things that can sensibly be compared between last year and this.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Aggy

[Barbe bleu 823]

.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Barbe bleu
Thought better of engaging with it afterall

[Aggy 755]

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Im afraid that this is not good news. When Johnson announced on Friday that the new English  Variant might be much more transmissible and that its deadly impact might kill 30 out of 1000, he was 'disingenuous...

The report waffles along until you reach page 6, when it reveals a 1.35% - 2.71% deadliness, of which the medium lies around 1.91%.

Please read

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/955239/NERVTAG_paper_on_variant_of_concern__VOC__B.1.1.7.pdf

Don’t the other 4 studies say 1.35, 1.36, 1.29 and 1.65? That’s all set out in para 4 of the summary on p2 (the first page with info on it) so you don’t need to wade through 6 pages of waffle.

The Exeter one that says 1.91 is also the only one of the five where detailed info on methodology has not been included. I’m not sure why that is - perhaps it was the newest so they didn’t know the methodology?

 

Edit: and have also just seen VW’s post directing to the appendix of the report where there are figures even lower.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Aggy

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

20 hours ago, Well b back said:

I think that is the confirmed trial stats, they are very in depth, but what has commenced the discussions is the Israeli figures were worse. This is where the debate is, nobody knows what happens after that. Does it continue falling or does it go back up again or even stay the same,  does it protect against severe COVID ( not according to the Israeli data ) or does the second jab work at all after that amount of time it has never been tested so it might even be better, it’s unknown. With Oxford as a for instance they have tested on a small scale over the longer period and feel it is likely it increases the efficacy beyond 62%, but is proven to be effective in preventing most severe COVID cases, as per their monkey trials.  We will have data soon ( mid Feb maybe ? ).

The differences in the efficacy are huge with regards the % of population to be inoculated. Germany are estimating they will need to get to 60 - 70 % of the population based on the trial data standing up at 90 - 95 %. I expect our efficacy to go up compared to trial data, especially Oxford ( if this does not work then you suspect their work with Sputnik will ), however if it does not our estimate would be 80 - 85 % of the population to get to the same herd immunity. 
In my opinion therefore like you I feel this is the time to have the discussion to ensure we have it somewhere near right, if we haven’t it is not to late to change track. 

The Welsh BMA have also now written to the government. If we are not careful trust in the vaccines will begin to get questioned, that really is the last thing we want.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55781860

I think this is an important point which doesn't get enough of an airing.

There has been a lot of concern in most western countries about the extent to which people will accept/refuse the vaccine so against that background the childish triumphalism of the UK government about 'beating' all other counties to an early start to vaccinations via invoking emergency provisions doesn't seem a particularly smart move, irrespective of whether that decision made sense or not from a logistical point of view.

Then within 4 or 5 weeks of that the UK decides they will administer the vaccines in a completely different way from the way it was tested and licensed. So again, irrespective of whether that is a decision which may or may not make logistical sense, what is the impact on people who are sceptical about the virus?

IMO we need to be much smarter in our approach to this issue; there is certainly an element in the anti-vaxers who are bat **** crazy and there is little (nothing) we can do to change their minds. But there are also people who are not crazy but 'sceptical' and whereas many governments, viz Germany, have done everything they can to re-assure people that the vaccine is safe, in the UK we seem to have taken a series of gambles which increase scepticism rather than alleviate it.

[Bill 1,788]

45 minutes ago, Aggy said:

The hospitalisations and deaths are the thing that matters and the only things that can sensibly be compared between last year and this.

Put brutally it is only the former, as the latter cost little - neither do they cause the NHS to almost stop functioning. That is the reason fir the lockdown.

To try to reduce the numbers needing treatment to a level the NHS can cope with. And that is the only number (plus deaths) that is accurate and known in advance ie the number if beds available, not the number of patients expected

The rest is just worthless 'tea leave' gazing

[benchwarmer 625]

So now we not only have covid anxiety but vaccine anxiety as well.  Great.

Having had the virus last spring I've decided to rely on my immune system to protect me for the time being.  When my turn comes for the vaccine (65-70 age group) I'm going to decline it for now and wait until the fog clears.  

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by benchwarmer

[Barbe bleu 823]

2 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

So now we not only have covid anxiety but vaccine anxiety as well.  Great.

Having had the virus last spring I've decided to rely on my immune system to protect me for the time being.  When my turn comes for the vaccine (65-70 age group) I intend to decline it for now and wait until the fog clears.  

 

 

I dont think there is much vaccine anxiety. Afterall, 6 million people have taken the jab so let's not create it on here. 

The data has been studied in depth and the professionals have put forward a public health plan thats makes perfect sense.  The plan will be kept under constant review and I am sure it will be changed if needed but there is no evidence at the moment of a need to change it.

And of course this only applies to one of the two vaccines currently being given and nothing  in any study suggests that the Pfizer jab is unsafe.

 

[benchwarmer 625]

45 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I dont think there is much vaccine anxiety. Afterall, 6 million people have taken the jab so let's not create it on here. 

The data has been studied in depth and the professionals have put forward a public health plan thats makes perfect sense.  The plan will be kept under constant review and I am sure it will be changed if needed but there is no evidence at the moment of a need to change it.

And of course this only applies to one of the two vaccines currently being given and nothing  in any study suggests that the Pfizer jab is unsafe.

 

I speak as I find.  People are really worried about the delay with the second jab, a decision taken by a government whose leader has a well deserved reputation for cutting corners.  The scientific community - apart from those in the pay of the government - clearly isn't happy; one has described it as an "unlicensed clinical trial" and it places the medical staff having to administer the jab in a very difficult position; they're being told by government to act against clinical instructions.  I'm not even sure if that's legal.

People don't know when, or even if, the second jab will actually be given.  They take the vaccine because it's the only game in town but that doesn't mean their minds are at rest.  Like any other medical treatment, they would feel a lot more confident if it was administered according to instructions.  

It's clear that the government's claim to be "following the science" only applies when it suits them.  They've got involved in a childish game to 'win the vaccine race' and get one over on the rest of the world, but what on earth is the point if it's going to be a "very very very" long time before restrictions can end, according to Hancock?

Edited January 24, 2021 by benchwarmer

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

41 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

So now we not only have covid anxiety but vaccine anxiety as well.  Great.

Having had the virus last spring I've decided to rely on my immune system to protect me for the time being.  When my turn comes for the vaccine (65-70 age group) I intend to decline it for now and wait until the fog clears. 

I am in the same age group and, assuming no bad news emerges about the vaccine before my turn arrives, then I will go for it but I'm certainly glad I wasn't one of the relatively small number of people who were offered a jab last month, and perhaps but importantly I know several medics who think exactly the same way.

But I imagine that 10m+ at least will have had one jab before our turn arrives and whereas hopefully you still have some immunity from last Spring I don't, so I am taking the simplistic view that hopefully having the jab is better than nothing.

But it still seems a very open question as how effective one jab is going to be, so even when my turn arrives it isn't going to change, in any way, the things that I'm currently doing/not doing unless and until the general situation significantly improves.

[Van wink 2,994]

10 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I am in the same age group and, assuming no bad news emerges about the vaccine before my turn arrives, then I will go for it but I'm certainly glad I wasn't one of the relatively small number of people who were offered a jab last month, and perhaps but importantly I know several medics who think exactly the same way.

But I imagine that 10m+ at least will have had one jab before our turn arrives and whereas hopefully you still have some immunity from last Spring I don't, so I am taking the simplistic view that hopefully having the jab is better than nothing.

But it still seems a very open question as how effective one jab is going to be, so even when my turn arrives it isn't going to change, in any way, the things that I'm currently doing/not doing unless and until the general situation significantly improves.

I know numerous people working in the NHS and to the best of my knowledge only one has decided not to have the vaccine, and she is a young woman, I do understand her concerns but equally dont agree with her argument. 

 

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

15 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I know numerous people working in the NHS and to the best of my knowledge only one has decided not to have the vaccine, and she is a young woman, I do understand her concerns but equally dont agree with her argument.

I am sure that is true, the point I was making perhaps not as clearly as I intended was that I know people who have had the jab very recently, or are about to have it, who wouldn't have done or at least would have been very concerned if they had been offered it in mid-December.

Not to put too fine a point on it, they don't trust the Government or the senior NHS figures as far as they could kick them - as my Granny used to say 😃

[Van wink 2,994]

10 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I am sure that is true, the point I was making perhaps not as clearly as I intended was that I know people who have had the jab very recently, or are about to have it, who wouldn't have done or at least would have been very concerned if they had been offered it in mid-December.

Not to put too fine a point on it, they don't trust the Government or the senior NHS figures as far as they could kick them - as my Granny used to say 😃

I wouldn’t trust any politician CM.

As for Whittey, Vallance, Van Tan et all, there has been a little hint of blurring of integrity around the edges, a hugely difficult role for them and the public interface at this level is something they will never have been prepared for or expected In their whole careers but I have to say  I respect them all and they have my confidence.

[Herman 9,756]

😀

 

[Well b back 3,203]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

😀

 

Indeed up to his normal tricks having Downing Street running everywhere for cover by stating restrictions maybe eased in Mid February, apparently what he meant to say was we will look at things again in mid February.

[Well b back 3,203]

14 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

So now we not only have covid anxiety but vaccine anxiety as well.  Great.

Having had the virus last spring I've decided to rely on my immune system to protect me for the time being.  When my turn comes for the vaccine (65-70 age group) I'm going to decline it for now and wait until the fog clears.  

 

 

I am very sad to hear this as the discussions should in no way stop you having your jab when your time comes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the safety, or the fact it will give you some immunity and will ‘ likely ‘ give you some protection against severe COVID. The government clearly have some figures, which for whatever reason they do not wish to publish, these are likely to conflict with theIsrael figures, but if we can show our strategy works Johnson can claim he was a saviour of the world not just the U.K. He is fast shooting himself in the foot by not speaking as vaccine hesitancy is on the increase, people who believe they have 95% efficacy at 4 weeks will begin to break the rules on the initial guidance, and as is everywhere people are beginning to believe Tony Blair made this decision. I have shown below the other side of the argument that is likely to be correct, however this is where the discussion is there is no data to support it.

A professor is defending the UK's approach to the Covid vaccine regime - which is seeing many patients facing a 12-week gap between having their first and second doses.

Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, says he expects the immune response to increase - rather than decline - in the weeks following a jab.

His comments come after the British Medical Association urged for a rethink over the delay.

It wrote to England's chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty, saying in the case of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine a maximum gap of six weeks had been mandated by the World Heath Organization, rather than the 12 being used in the UK.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Prof Finn tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are expecting to see first of all is that the impact is as was shown in the studies done by Pfizer - that by around two weeks we see protection.

"Actually, I would anticipate that we will see that protection continue to rise over subsequent weeks rather than fall."

He says this is because what scientists know from other vaccines and from the human immune responses is they "don't plateau and fall in that kind of time period".

"Perhaps most important of all, we expect to see much better protection after the second dose when it's delayed," he adds.

"Other countries are looking at what the UK is doing with enormous interest and this may well turn out to be another example of a long tradition in us being innovative, creative with our resources and producing a much better way of using the vaccine."

[Van wink 2,994]

Blaire was raising this on the Today program before it was ever mentioned elsewhere publicly to my knowledge. 

[CANARYKING 637]

Surely it’s time to divert some of the vaccines to teachers to enable kids to go back, they will soon have missed a year’s schooling which they will never get back.

[Well b back 3,203]

4 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Blaire was raising this on the Today program before it was ever mentioned elsewhere publicly to my knowledge. 

That’s correct and had never been mentioned as a possibility previously. In fact this was immediately knocked back as utter rubbish. Oxford then declared 8 - 12 weeks would likely be the best option for ‘ their vaccine ‘ due to their data. The next day we said we were doing the same with Pfizer ( in the same way as Oxford in reverse Pfizer had no data to show this ). It was probably a bit of opportunist by Blair as maybe he heard something, but you can see why people are putting 2 and 2 together and making 5.

I am sure you will agree from your own experience it is likely to be an amazing strategy, but there is no mention of the risks to those vaccinated, just the benefits, which can give you a false sense of security. I would love to believe professor Finn, but however likely his view is until it is 100 % I must act like I haven’t been vaccinated, but others won’t. I would like the facts as I feel safe on the vaccination sites, but I would like to go and help in some of the care homes that have COVID but I wouldn’t feel safe doing that as it stands, even though I have had a jab and COVID in the last 8 weeks.

The latest doing the rounds is that we do now have data on the one jab and Johnson is not releasing it as he needs to win the vaccine race, highly unlikely I should add.