Corona Virus main thread

[ricardo 7,395]

16 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I'm surprised you haven't heard. As an extremely vulnerable I thought you would get the Pfizer.

If there is a delay, I move from 6 to 5.

They are still on the over 80's and care workers KG. More than 5 million in front of me.

[Bill 1,788]

and up to number 5 goes

Keelans Grandad ................... not 'arf

 

 

[ricardo 7,395]

[benchwarmer 625]

Optimism about vaccines needs to be slightly guarded.  Why?  Because the vaccine trials included few people over the age of 60, the group most at risk from serious complications.

A review of the Oxford vaccine trials in the Lancet states that 12.1% of participants were aged over 55, which in their view isn't  enough to give a clear picture of its effectiveness in older age groups.  I wasn't able to find an age breakdown for the Pfizer trials.

So we're whistling in the dark to some extent.

Edited January 13, 2021 by benchwarmer

[Barbe bleu 829]

28 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Unless I'm missing  something I'm not sure that shows the number of admissions falling, only that the rate of increase is dropping.  A good sign for sure but no time yet to be getting stupid.

 

[benchwarmer 625]

1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

Unless I'm missing  something I'm not sure that shows the number of admissions falling, only that the rate of increase is dropping.  A good sign for sure but no time yet to be getting stupid.

 

Yes I think you're right, the graph shows percentages not numbers.

[Barbe bleu 829]

1 minute ago, benchwarmer said:

Optimism about vaccines needs to be slightly guarded.  Why?  Because the vaccine trials included few people over the age of 60, the age group most at risk from serious complications.

A review of the Oxford vaccine trials in the Lancet states that 12.1% of participants were aged over 55, which in their view isn't  enough to give a clear picture of its effectiveness in older age groups.  I couldn't find an age breakdown for the Pfizer trials.

So we're whistling in the dark to some extent.

True but there is no other game in town.   Are you thinking that the focus should be shifted to challenge spread more directly? 

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I don't think any government in living memory has done so much to destroy the union, to push away even those in NI, Scotland and Wales that wanted to stay. At the moment it's a toss up between NI and Scotland who'll be first to leave - NI being the dark horse that's suddenly got its neck in front and already has an agreed mechanism to start. Actually it's already 1/2 way over the finish line anyway - customs formalities and the Irish Sea border in place already. Dopey DUP were easily duped as is obvious by barmy Boris.

I would suggest the SNP has done far more than any government to destroy the union.

[Van wink 2,994]

Hello Contributors,  The current situation is leaving lots of people feeling helpless. But as you already know, there’s one important and very easy way to do your bit to help end this pandemic sooner rather than later - log with the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app.  Our data is accurate, reliable, cost-effective and timely, and is used by the UK Government and NHS on a daily basis. We’ve recently updated the app and we’re now studying vaccines, asking contributors to record their vaccination and to log any after effects. We’re the only study doing this right now!   Here’s 5 more reasons to keep logging To keep us ahead of the curve, we need as many people as possible across the UK to download the app and join the world’s largest community-led study into COVID-19.   So we’re asking you to help us spread the word. Pop a message in a few WhatsApp groups, mention it to a colleague, or create a profile for all the members of your household. Anything you can do, will help us have the greatest impact possible.  Together we’ll get through this. Keep calm and keep logging.  Professor Tim Spector On behalf of the ZOE COVID Symptom Study team

[Van wink 2,994]

Daily cases figures just possibly beginning to head in the right direction.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Van wink

[benchwarmer 625]

12 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

True but there is no other game in town.   Are you thinking that the focus should be shifted to challenge spread more directly? 

 

No, it just concerns me that the usual suspects (ie. politicians) are talking it up a bit too much at this early stage.  As it happens I live in a retirement complex (I'm on the cusp of 70) and am seeing my older neighbours come back from vaccination appointments absolutely jubilant.  I keep my trap firmly shut and fingers tightly crossed that they won't be disappointed.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by benchwarmer

[paul moy 235]

2 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

Optimism about vaccines needs to be slightly guarded.  Why?  Because the vaccine trials included few people over the age of 60, the group most at risk from serious complications.

A review of the Oxford vaccine trials in the Lancet states that 12.1% of participants were aged over 55, which in their view isn't  enough to give a clear picture of its effectiveness in older age groups.  I wasn't able to find an age breakdown for the Pfizer trials.

So we're whistling in the dark to some extent.

Vaccine trials are only done on healthy people so there will obviously be some unknowns.

[paul moy 235]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I would suggest the SNP has done far more than any government to destroy the union.

They are trying to destroy themselves too without realising it....  🤣

[benchwarmer 625]

I really do understand the view of hospital staff who see the most serious covid cases every day.  But having worked in hospitals in the past (non-medical but with direct patient contact) I know from personal experience how easy it is to develop an over-pessimistic view of a disease when you never see the vast majority of cases which won't need hospital treatment.  Their view is important and it grabs the headlines, but it isn't the whole story.  

 

[Well b back 3,232]

1 hour ago, paul moy said:

Vaccine trials are only done on healthy people so there will obviously be some unknowns.

I should stress to people this is untrue, please stop putting anti vax rubbish.
If you wish for the figures regarding those over 80 and with underlying conditions that were on for instance The Oxford-AstraZeneca trial please let me know.

If your misinformation encourages one person not to take the vaccine that person could be a person that dies. A lot of people are reluctant to take the vaccine and it is vital we do everything to reassure anybody that needs reassuring.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

https://mobile.twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1349459843833352192

Very pertinent twitter thread on where the problems lie. This is why I get really irritated about petty debates over people going for short walks etc. and whether they should be 7 miles away from their homes, "outdoor shaming" if you will...

The main problem appears to be key workers that cannot or will not isolate for whatever reason, its all well and good getting the general public to shut themselves way but what is the point if the government are not going to do their bit to stop people with symptoms not isolating for long enough. I'm still confident that symptomatic spread is what is really driving this pandemic, sure asymptomatic spread compounds it but at sheer basic level it seems we are still not doing enough.

If anything, you should make it as easy as possible for people to isolate, put them up in the bloody Hilton with free food for 2 weeks if that's what it takes...

[Well b back 3,232]

4 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

I really do understand the view of hospital staff who see the most serious covid cases every day.  But having worked in hospitals in the past (non-medical but with direct patient contact) I know from personal experience how easy it is to develop an over-pessimistic view of a disease when you never see the vast majority of cases which won't need hospital treatment.  Their view is important and it grabs the headlines, but it isn't the whole story.  

 

Plenty of jobs in the frontline you can volunteer for if you wish. Our hospitals need lots of support as do the vaccine outlets. This is a disease with no proven cures. Like many of us now, should you catch it or it effects your family, let alone that somebody in your family was to pass then you will get and understand why this disease is very serious not something to played down.

 

[Well b back 3,232]

1 hour ago, paul moy said:

Vaccine trials are only done on healthy people so there will obviously be some unknowns.

There has just been 5 minutes on our local news, where they spoke about misinformation resulting in thousands not taking the jab, and how posts are removed, your example was one in particular that they quoted.

[Well b back 3,232]

13 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

Optimism about vaccines needs to be slightly guarded.  Why?  Because the vaccine trials included few people over the age of 60, the group most at risk from serious complications.

A review of the Oxford vaccine trials in the Lancet states that 12.1% of participants were aged over 55, which in their view isn't  enough to give a clear picture of its effectiveness in older age groups.  I wasn't able to find an age breakdown for the Pfizer trials.

So we're whistling in the dark to some extent.

This is very misleading as you have chosen to use a % rather than a number of people  on a trial in what was one of the most participated trials ever. There was no data in the Lancet report or the MHRA ongoing report that suggested older people had a less immune response. If you are interpreting the lower number used for efficacy in the trial to date that is because not so many had caught it in that age group as you would expect. There is no data to suggest a lack of efficacy.

[Van wink 2,994]

9 hours ago, Tetteys Jig said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1349459843833352192

Very pertinent twitter thread on where the problems lie. This is why I get really irritated about petty debates over people going for short walks etc. and whether they should be 7 miles away from their homes, "outdoor shaming" if you will...

The main problem appears to be key workers that cannot or will not isolate for whatever reason, its all well and good getting the general public to shut themselves way but what is the point if the government are not going to do their bit to stop people with symptoms not isolating for long enough. I'm still confident that symptomatic spread is what is really driving this pandemic, sure asymptomatic spread compounds it but at sheer basic level it seems we are still not doing enough.

If anything, you should make it as easy as possible for people to isolate, put them up in the bloody Hilton with free food for 2 weeks if that's what it takes...

Very pertinent post TJ, there was a particular problem locally with a poultry processing plant, mentioning no names, where it became very difficult to control and had a significant impact on local infection figures. Contact tracing was very difficult due to failure to cooperate and importantly the way low paid workers were housed in communal houses, HMO's, in close contact, and also moved between processing plants was a significant driver of infection.

[paul moy 235]

12 hours ago, Well b back said:

There has just been 5 minutes on our local news, where they spoke about misinformation resulting in thousands not taking the jab, and how posts are removed, your example was one in particular that they quoted.

Then you had better complain to Five Live about their virus expert Dr. Chris Smith, who explained weeks ago why some people were going down with allergic reactions...  ie:  because they do not test on unhealthy people, and therefore such reactions may not show up until rollout.  I repeat, as he said, new drugs and vaccines are only tested on healthy and 'young'  people. Simple commonsense......

This will not deter people from taking the jab.... 

Edited January 14, 2021 by paul moy

[paul moy 235]

To the negative people that complained that pharmacists were not included in the rollout, when I said that they will be :

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1383861/boots-superdrug-covid-vaccine-stores-full-list

😎

[Van wink 2,994]

6 minutes ago, paul moy said:

Then you had better complain to Five Live about their virus expert Dr. Chris Smith, who explained weeks ago why some people were going down with allergic reactions...  ie:  because they do not test on unhealthy people, and therefore such reactions may not show up until rollout.  I repeat, as he said, new drugs and vaccines are only tested on healthy and 'young'  people. Simple commonsense......

This will not deter people from taking the jab.... 

Paul, people that show allergic reactions are not  per se unhealthy, you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

[paul moy 235]

Just now, Van wink said:

Paul, people that show allergic reactions are not  per se unhealthy, you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

The people that had the reactions were elderly (over 90)  and the vaccine was not tested on the elderly and thus allergies did not show up in testing.  Elderly people have lower immunity so obviously they are not as healthy as the average younger person. The fact is that when volunteers are sought for drug/vaccine  testing, those that declare allergies etc are not included , the same as those over a certain age are excluded. 

Is it really so difficult for you to understand, as I explain for about the fifth time.  😎

This is normal practice for testing drugs etc.

 

[benchwarmer 625]

3 hours ago, Well b back said:

This is very misleading as you have chosen to use a % rather than a number of people  on a trial in what was one of the most participated trials ever. There was no data in the Lancet report or the MHRA ongoing report that suggested older people had a less immune response. If you are interpreting the lower number used for efficacy in the trial to date that is because not so many had caught it in that age group as you would expect. There is no data to suggest a lack of efficacy.

As I said in my OP it's the Lancet's opinion not mine that the sample was insufficient to draw conclusions either way as to the vaccine's efficacy in older people.  I agree there is no data to suggest lack of efficacy, and I never suggested that there was.  There is lack of data full stop.  Only time will tell - proof of the pudding and all that.  What's the problem with guarded optimism?

Edited January 14, 2021 by benchwarmer

[Aggy 757]

2 minutes ago, paul moy said:

The people that had the reactions were elderly (over 90)  and the vaccine was not tested on the elderly and thus allergies did not show up in testing.  Elderly people have lower immunity so obviously they are not as healthy as the average younger person. The fact is that when volunteers are sought for drug/vaccine  testing, those that declare allergies etc are not included , the same as those over a certain age are excluded. 

Is it really so difficult for you to understand, as I explain for about the fifth time.  😎

This is normal practice for testing drugs etc.

 

For my own understanding of what your point is...

I think you’re saying that all vaccines are the same and aren’t generally tested widely on unhealthy or elderly people. 

In which case, every vaccine that “comes to market” carries a risk to old and unwell people.

You are then arguing that the risk to old and unwell people you refer to means nobody should have the vaccine.

In which case we’ll never know if it’s safe and nobody should ever take it.

In which case there was no point developing the vaccine.

You can apply that to every new vaccine. So we may as well stop developing any new ones.

 Is that what you’re saying?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

However much we debate the pros and cons the simple fact is we have to go with the vaccine. What alternative is there?

[benchwarmer 625]

It seems that people can't raise legitimate issues about vaccines without being branded anti-vax. 

How depressing, and how typical of today's robotic all-or-nothing, black/white, on/off mindset.  

Edited January 14, 2021 by benchwarmer

[benchwarmer 625]

11 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

However much we debate the pros and cons the simple fact is we have to go with the vaccine. What alternative is there?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we shouldn't, just not to get too carried away by the hype issuing from high places.  The only alternative I can see is so-called herd immunity, which would eventually happen of its own accord but would probably take a lot longer.

Edited January 14, 2021 by benchwarmer

[Indy 3,307]

How many times do we need to say that’s paul is talking out his ****. Stage three included all age groups in small numbers, as I posted the link weeks back, large numbers will always have some people with allergies Christ it’s the same for paracetamol to cold medicines.

It’s people like Paul who are Trumpists, make their minds up based on limited ****e and then spins total crap without any consideration he’s ever wrong!