Corona Virus main thread

[Well b back 3,227]

22 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

For what it's worth given what Witty knew at the time (last December) & with the limited vaccine supplies and overwhelming exploding infections I might well have gone for the 12 weeks as the best of an appalling set of options but of been prepared to reverse direction immediately if there where any contraindications.

I think this is exactly what has now happened on Pfizer at least. It's only 50% effective (you can choose your numbers from 33% up c.f. Israel) on 1st dose only after 3 weeks and is likely to be even less effective against say the SA or Brazilian strains. Best we can now do is double back & 2nd dose all the 1st dosers to give them them maximum immunity (90% or so against the old standard CV19) asap against what might follow.

Sadly the government in its typical populist manner has politicized the vaccine roll out which makes any change of direction / revision / course correction and indeed screeching U turn problematic.

By the way a huge open question is even if you are vaccinated can you still be asymptomatically significantly infectious? The answer to that question determines in what order we should vaccinate  to break transmission. At the moment we assume  you can still be infectious post vaccination hence the oldies first (and they then STILL need to follow all lockdown rules) but should it transpire that after vaccination you generally can't be infectious then that is an argument to go for the general working population and youngsters first to break transmission and restart the economy.

Cant disagree with any of that.

I did a jig when I had my Pfizer jab, but would be happier if at least they ensure group 1 and the health and care workers get their second jab straight away.

[Barbe bleu 829]

12 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Cant disagree with any of that.

I did a jig when I had my Pfizer jab, but would be happier if at least they ensure group 1 and the health and care workers get their second jab straight away.

OK but therw is another way to look at it too.

There will likely be people in groups 3+ that die as a result of any decision to bring dose 2 forward. Whereas it might be the case that dose 1 is sufficient to prevent serious illness and also reduce transmission up to week 12 and beyond.

This is a decision for sober analysis based on all the data and not political considerations.

[Well b back 3,227]

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Of course this should be data driven. Its about getting the best outcome for the maximum number of people and eing flexible enough to react to changing circumstances. 

The Israel study is interesting but tells us nothing about efficacy in the period 3-12 weeks and says nothing about efficacy after two doses. Its early days but I cannot see how it undermines the up to 12 weeks policy. If anything it makes a case for more AZ vaccines where a longer gap is proven to be better.

 If there is an argument against 12 weeks it lies not in % that can't be compared but in stock levels and in the potential for limited immunity to be a driver for mutation. I am sure this potential is being studied.

 

Hi BB

Supply is a red herring, it almost certainly does not but there is absolutely no data to say that at week 6 to 12 efficacy does not plummet further or wether the second dose will even work, let alone boost back up to 95%, whereas for Oxford there is and we eagerly await their next paper. Oxford are also currently working with Russia ( Sputnik ) to develop a more efficient vaccine.

One of the worries of the world is that we will have many asymptotic cases passing around the virus the U.K. and South African or Brazilian virus will mix and create a variant that escapes the vaccine.

I fully support our strategy, but now is the time to keep studying the more and more available data and have the conversations now not in months. Doubt has been thrown on the Israel data, but because of their contract with Pfizer it is official Pfizer data.

[Well b back 3,227]

4 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

OK but therw is another way to look at it too.

There will likely be people in groups 3+ that die as a result of any decision to bring dose 2 forward. Whereas it might be the case that dose 1 is sufficient to prevent serious illness and also reduce transmission up to week 12 and beyond.

This is a decision for sober analysis based on all the data and not political considerations.

Indeed see my other posts, no one possibly knows the best strategy. 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,803]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

OK but therw is another way to look at it too.

There will likely be people in groups 3+ that die as a result of any decision to bring dose 2 forward. Whereas it might be the case that dose 1 is sufficient to prevent serious illness and also reduce transmission up to week 12 and beyond.

This is a decision for sober analysis based on all the data and not political considerations.

First we need to acknowledge we are already risking those in 3+ by pushing them down the list. That begs a comparative question of values of any life.

Secondly - I believe 100% that front line NHS workers (of any age) should be front of the queue - and only then those in care home and the rest. An analogy would be the safety instructions on a flight - place the oxygen mask over your own face before you attempt to help others. The NHS is falling over in large part because of staff shortages and isolation. Then they cant help  or save anybody! 

As to Pfizer - see WBB post but if it is only 30 to 50% effective then we are in a very serious danger of misleading idiot people that they are more immune (and hence they relax, hug the grandchildren) than they are likely to be. Disaster. Any vaccine that was only 50% efficacy would be unlikely to be authorized for these very reasons (Pfizer is an excellent vaccine if administered properly - 90 to 95%)!

[paul moy 235]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

If you could produce your evidence for this I would really be interested in seeing it as the jury is really out as to whose strategies are best and surely we can only judge this in the future. As I understand it there is absolutely no data to show wether or not Pfizer carries on falling at the 3 - 6 week point let alone 12 weeks and if you could put some up I would be most grateful. Please do not take that as me saying it does not work but my understanding is there is no data to even show the efficacy with the second dose at 12 weeks. As far as Oxford AstraZeneca goes many countries including WHO are waiting for their next results to be sent to them so they ensure they are administering the second dose at the most effective time. For what it is worth I think we have got this one right, but these recommendations of 12 weeks were the ones submitted to the MHRA as there is data to show if nothing else it at least seems to stop severe COVID but they are hoping it boosts efficacy up to 90%. This was not as claimed a decision made in the same way as Pfizer.

So again my understanding of our strategy ( that has my full support ) is a balanced risk type strategy. We are vaccinating at speed and not storing any doses for second dose. Our vaccines used have data showing 60% - 70 % for Oxford and 52% for Pfizer at 3 weeks. Part of our strategy is that the vaccines should protect against ‘ severe COVID ‘, which for the U.K. is very important, hence slowing deaths, but extending the likelihood of lock downs or restrictions for months to come.

Most ( but not all other ) strategies are to vaccinate and to approve at a slower rate ( because of supply re vaccinations ) but ensuring it is done at the highest efficacy rates possible, Moderna and Pfizer 90 - 95 % and when the Oxford vaccine is approved it is likely to have a 90 % efficacy and May or may not be 12 weeks for second dose. This of course means that for each person they vaccinate they need 2 doses 1 in the arm one in the freezer for 3 weeks time. They are using twice as much of their available vaccine, hence it becomes shorter in supply. 

Whose will be best ? I really don’t think anyone knows, let alone people like you and me. I would like to think they will all work successfully, but there will be some people giving it the we are better than you. Is this not a world problem ? Surely if there are supply issues everybody us included should be helping the producers in anyway they need help, as part of moonshot we were building 2 more manufacturing plants, but we abandoned that. When we made the decision of the 12 weeks it was very sensible, there is now mounting evidence that we could be strolling towards a major problem and there really is no loss of face in saying evidence from around the world is mounting up to show we cannot be ‘ certain ‘. 

There obviously won't be evidence until we have achieved it... Catch 22.  It is a risk based on OUR experts judgement and we simply have to go along with that and trust them. If we can continue to increase vaccinations as we have and continue to get the necessary supply it may well be possible to backtrack to a degree anyway.  Of course then you would accuse Boris of making another U-turn..... 🤣

[It's Character Forming 1,163]

First I hope most people understand your first jab gives limited immunity whether the 2nd is after 3, 6 or 12 weeks. I thought this was widely publicised, otherwise why have the 2nd jab?

 

Also from what’s been said I’m guessing the UK strategy is based on the fact that the first jab gives a good level of protection against serious Covid and especially death. The data are incomplete and particularly we don’t know if Pfizer immunity might tail off between 6-12 weeks - although equally there’s no evidence to say it does.

 

If the UK approach is correct, it will save lives by allowing more people to get that first jab more quickly. Or to put it another way, the proposal to reduce the interval to 6 weeks will cost lives. So I hope the 4 UK medical officers will take a hard look at the data and decide what is the best route, and not bow to pressure. This is science , it should be based on the data, not pressure being applied.

 

personally I think health workers who are at high risk of exposure should be prioritised for a 2nd jab to minimise their risk of infection. But for people on their 80s or 70s who live in the community, they should be able to understand their first jab has only given limited protection and they should continue to social distance just like the rest of us.

[Well b back 3,227]

2 minutes ago, paul moy said:

There obviously won't be evidence until we have achieved it... Catch 22.  It is a risk based on OUR experts judgement and we simply have to go along with that and trust them. If we can continue to increase vaccinations as we have and continue to get the necessary supply it may well be possible to backtrack to a degree anyway.  Of course then you would accuse Boris of making another U-turn..... 🤣

It is indeed a catch 22 as nobody knows which strategy is best, but you quite clearly said the U.K. strategy is better than the rest of the world. There is no evidence so how do you know ?.

I really don’t think you are grasping, we are not questioning our strategy or the strategy of the rest of the world we fully support it but because of new data it is suggested we need to look more closely, do you think we shouldn’t ?
This is a worldwide effort and we should be supporting each other ( that was the Johnson promise to COVAX ) if you concentrate on getting our strategy done and helping that rather than constantly sniping at other countries then our strategy will be done quicker and then in a few years we can have a grown up conversation, to make sure that when the next pandemic comes the world is prepared.

[Van wink 2,994]

It’s a risk based approach, there is no ideal solution, risks are high whatever strategy we adopt but the assessment is best done by those with the greatest knowledge and understanding of the issues. Listening to Peter Horby on the Today program supporting the current strategy I found reassuring. I honestly don’t think this strategy is politically driven, if that is the case then the advisory committees of experts are all in on the plot as well. It’s essentially a risk assessment but like all risk assessment it must be fluid and respond as knowledge and circumstances change, and the government must accept new recommendations for vaccination strategy change if and when they emerge.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Van wink

[Creative Midfielder 1,998]

4 hours ago, ricardo said:

Take it up with Chris Witty

The Department of Health and Social Care said the decision to extend the maximum gap between doses for both the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines "followed a thorough review of the data and was in line with the recommendations of the UK's four chief medical officers".

Well I can think we can be fairly sure that isn't true as Pfizer have said quite explicitly that there is no data for the 12 week gap - so I'd love to know what they think they reviewed.

More worrying still if they are continuing to review the data as it is coming in from around the world then they will know that the Pfizer first jab is struggling to achieve 50% efficacy after 3 weeks - could be wrong but I thought they were expecting it to be around 70% after 3 weeks and then the second jab at that point to take it up to 90+

So the assumption that has been made (and that is all that it is) that we are protecting twice as many people as quickly as possible may very well mean we are simply wasting of lot of vaccine by injecting a huge number of people whilst only giving them a 50:50 chance of protection - positively dangerous unless people do actually follow the advice to carry on with social distancing etc even after being vaccinated.

But realistically human nature being what it is how many people are going to continue to adhere strictly to the advice after they've been vaccinated?

[It's Character Forming 1,163]

39 minutes ago, Van wink said:

It’s a risk based approach, there is no ideal solution, risks are high whatever strategy we adopt but the assessment is best done by those with the greatest knowledge and understanding of the issues. Listening to Peter Horby on the Today program supporting the current strategy I found reassuring. I honestly don’t think this strategy is politically driven, if that is the case then the advisory committees of experts are all in on the plot as well. It’s essentially a risk assessment but like all risk assessment it must be fluid and respond as knowledge and circumstances change, and the government must accept new recommendations for vaccination strategy change if and when they emerge.

Yes also it’s decided by the 4 chief medical officers not just one. Personally I’m happy to back what they decide & if they review new data and decide it should be changed then fair enough.

[ricardo 7,395]

National

33552 - 1348

Local

Vax nearly half a million in the latest 24hrs reported, a great effort by all concerned as I discovered personally today.

Edited January 23, 2021 by ricardo

[ricardo 7,395]

As of this moment in  time we are well past 6 million vaccinated.

[Van wink 2,994]

12 minutes ago, ricardo said:

National

33552 - 1348

Local

Vax nearly half a million in the latest 24hrs reported, a great effort by all concerned as I discovered personally today.

Aylsham improving a bit

 

[ricardo 7,395]

Yes, the ZOE App is showing N.Norfolk declining rapidly also.

Infections have clearly peaked and are on the down slope.

[Essjayess 307]

4 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Of course this should be data driven. Its about getting the best outcome for the maximum number of people and eing flexible enough to react to changing circumstances. 

The Israel study is interesting but tells us nothing about efficacy in the period 3-12 weeks and says nothing about efficacy after two doses. Its early days but I cannot see how it undermines the up to 12 weeks policy. If anything it makes a case for more AZ vaccines where a longer gap is proven to be better.

 If there is an argument against 12 weeks it lies not in % that can't be compared but in stock levels and in the potential for limited immunity to be a driver for mutation. I am sure this potential is being studied.

 

Very sensible  and as it is right now. Facts are that there zero absolute facts about  all these vaccines coming out and being given, whether it is the % effectiveness against the different  variations of Covid or the time factor as to when a 2nd dose is best given. As most new vaccines that combat and control diseases, illnesses etc take up to 10 years methodical and laborious studies before  a vaccine  arrives at the end of that time period, everything concerning Covid 19 vaccines have been pushed thru at breakneck speed to try to deliver forms of protection against this monstrous virus.

Therefore i do not judge or form any opinions from any stats that any medical authority,  government or nation on the planet give out at this time, because they are all battling against the same virus and its variations  in the shortest and fastest time possible when giving out their findings, nearly always in  just a few weeks or at most a few months, when ordinarily it would be years. Hence why any info or findings given out are always  applied  with "maybe", possibly", or at most "probably" or "likely".

[Well b back 3,227]

27 minutes ago, Essjayess said:

Very sensible  and as it is right now. Facts are that there zero absolute facts about  all these vaccines coming out and being given, whether it is the % effectiveness against the different  variations of Covid or the time factor as to when a 2nd dose is best given. As most new vaccines that combat and control diseases, illnesses etc take up to 10 years methodical and laborious studies before  a vaccine  arrives at the end of that time period, everything concerning Covid 19 vaccines have been pushed thru at breakneck speed to try to deliver forms of protection against this monstrous virus.

Therefore i do not judge or form any opinions from any stats that any medical authority,  government or nation on the planet give out at this time, because they are all battling against the same virus and its variations  in the shortest and fastest time possible when giving out their findings, nearly always in  just a few weeks or at most a few months, when ordinarily it would be years. Hence why any info or findings given out are always  applied  with "maybe", possibly", or at most "probably" or "likely".

In fairness the discussion has been brought about by official Pfizer data based on 400,000 people, which has efficacy nose diving at 3 weeks, which matches the trial data. My personal opinion but I think it would be correct to study that data then discuss and comment. As somebody has mentioned if a vaccine was put up for authorisation with the efficacy in that data it would not be approved. We know Oxford in that time period protects most against severe COVID, confirmation from somewhere that Pfizer does the same would be quite reassuring. 

[Van wink 2,994]

45 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Yes, the ZOE App is showing N.Norfolk declining rapidly also.

Infections have clearly peaked and are on the down slope.

Yep good news, had my first jab this afternoon, like a well oiled machine, excellent service

[Van wink 2,994]

"France's national health authority — the Haute Autorité de la Santé — has called for a delay in giving people their second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines of six weeks in order to give more people their first jab.

"The still high number of contaminations and the worrying arrival of new variants call for an acceleration of vaccination to face the risk of an outbreak of the epidemic in the coming weeks," the watchdog wrote in a statement on Saturday. 

"In order to protect more quickly a greater number of people at risk of hospitalization or death, HAS recommends extending to 6 weeks the interval between two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines," it added. 

The call came a day after British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the British variant of coronavirus was more lethal than had been thought.

The French watchdog estimated that delaying the second jab could speed up the protection of the most vulnerable people. It calculated that waiting six weeks before the second vaccine injection would allow 700,000 more people to be vaccinated in the first month. 

Paris has struggled with the rollout of its vaccination campaign, with only 1.21 vaccinations per 100 people (823,567 injections in total). That puts it low on the list compared to other EU countries, according to POLITICO research. 

Following Johnson's declaration about the dangers of the U.K. variant, senior doctors called on the British government to cut the gap between giving the first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine from 12 weeks to six, according to the BBC. 

On Friday, England's Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty said the country was at an "extremely precarious" point, the BBC reported. Although the virus's reproduction (or R) rate is estimated to be at or below one for the first time since early December, Whitty said "a very small change and it could start taking off again from an extremely high base."

[paul moy 235]

3 hours ago, Well b back said:

It is indeed a catch 22 as nobody knows which strategy is best, but you quite clearly said the U.K. strategy is better than the rest of the world. There is no evidence so how do you know ?.

I really don’t think you are grasping, we are not questioning our strategy or the strategy of the rest of the world we fully support it but because of new data it is suggested we need to look more closely, do you think we shouldn’t ?
This is a worldwide effort and we should be supporting each other ( that was the Johnson promise to COVAX ) if you concentrate on getting our strategy done and helping that rather than constantly sniping at other countries then our strategy will be done quicker and then in a few years we can have a grown up conversation, to make sure that when the next pandemic comes the world is prepared.

As I said it is down to our experts and that is why I believe it to be the best strategy. It is definitely better than the EU strategy where they have so far vaccinated very few and appear to be prioritising MEPs and their staff (no surprises there !!).  In fact they have not even approved the Oxford vaccine and they will lose many more lives due to their dithering.  I've just read that Oxford have cut their potential supplies to the EU..... meanwhile we are saving lives  by vaccinating over 5 million so far and up to 400K a day.  If we were still in the EU we would be in deep dodo as they are.

Of course we look at the data... do you think we don't🤣,  as I'm damn sure we have been doing that all along and quicker which has meant we have approved vaccines also far quicker and to higher standards  than any other country. 

[Barbe bleu 829]

39 minutes ago, Well b back said:

In fairness the discussion has been brought about by official Pfizer data based on 400,000 people, which has efficacy nose diving at 3 weeks, 

I don't suppose you have a link for this? sounds like a potential game changer and I wasn't aware of any study of the duration of protection after 3 weeks. The strategy was based on about 89% between days 15 and 21 ans 52% 0-21 so a nose dive after 21 does make you wonder.

[paul moy 235]

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I don't suppose you have a link for this? sounds like a potential game changer and I wasn't aware of any study of the duration of protection after 3 weeks. The strategy was based on about 89% between days 15 and 21 ans 52% 0-21 so a nose dive after 21 does make you wonder.

Indeed, no good spouting a game-changer without a link but even if that is the case it does not necessarily apply to the Oxford vaccine, which is 'old' technology.

Edited January 23, 2021 by paul moy

[Well b back 3,227]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I don't suppose you have a link for this? sounds like a potential game changer and I wasn't aware of any study of the duration of protection after 3 weeks. The strategy was based on about 89% between days 15 and 21 ans 52% 0-21 so a nose dive after 21 does make you wonder.

The links are on here BB, with the test data and the Israel first report. I will try and find them up for you.

 

[Well b back 3,227]

3 minutes ago, paul moy said:

Indeed, no good spouting a game-changer without a link.

You really are a complete wa**** as well as being a nasty piece of work, the links were posted on here days ago.

[Well b back 3,227]

10 minutes ago, paul moy said:

As I said it is down to our experts and that is why I believe it to be the best strategy. It is definitely better than the EU strategy where they have so far vaccinated very few and appear to be prioritising MEPs and their staff (no surprises there !!).  In fact they have not even approved the Oxford vaccine and they will lose many more lives due to their dithering.  I've just read that Oxford have cut their potential supplies to the EU..... meanwhile we are saving lives  by vaccinating over 5 million so far and up to 400K a day.  If we were still in the EU we would be in deep dodo as they are.

Of course we look at the data... do you think we don't🤣,  as I'm damn sure we have been doing that all along and quicker which has meant we have approved vaccines also far quicker and to higher standards  than any other country. 

You really are not getting this grown up conversation are you ?. Why is it always about dead Europeans. When the vaccines were first launched Johnson supporters and donors up here helped themselves, didn’t see you moaning then. Production issues with any vaccine suppliers is not something to celebrate it’s something we should all be concerned about. 
Any chance of getting back to the conversation ? It was you, you may recall amongst your anti vaxing comments that doubted a vaccine because it had not been tested on over 55’s ( something that was untrue ) yet we are having a sensible discussion on a strategy that sees a vaccine being used in an untested way and all you can do is inform us of how many Europeans are going to die. Grow up the vaccines were developed for everybody in the world, whatever your Nationality or skin colour. You are doing exactly what the Jenner group asked people not to do, hence their deal with AstraZeneca.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I've read as much a s I can from kosher sources about a single jab efficacy and I am still unsure of what it actually means.

The vaccine will not prevent you from catching the virus but prevent suffering from it.

If we accept at face value, the Israeli report that it is only 52% effective after a single dose.

What does that really mean? Is your body only producing 52% of effective antibodies? Or have you a 48% chance, if infected, of becoming ill? Or only 52% of those inoculated will be protected?

[Creative Midfielder 1,998]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I've read as much a s I can from kosher sources about a single jab efficacy and I am still unsure of what it actually means.

The vaccine will not prevent you from catching the virus but prevent suffering from it.

If we accept at face value, the Israeli report that it is only 52% effective after a single dose.

What does that really mean? Is your body only producing 52% of effective antibodies? Or have you a 48% chance, if infected, of becoming ill? Or only 52% of those inoculated will be protected?

That is my understanding of what it means.........which is why IMO that delaying the second jab until 12 weeks is a very risky strategy.

And it only reaches 52% three weeks after the first jab is given.

[Van wink 2,994]

If 100 people are vaccinated of those 100, 52 won’t get the disease. Those that do get the disease will get it less severely than if they had not had the vaccine.

[Well b back 3,227]

2 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

That is my understanding of what it means.........which is why IMO that delaying the second jab until 12 weeks is a very risky strategy.

And it only reaches 52% three weeks after the first jab is given.

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

 

[Barbe bleu 829]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

What does that really mean? Is your body only producing 52% of effective antibodies? Or have you a 48% chance, if infected, of becoming ill? Or only 52% of those inoculated will be protected?

As far as I know it means that there were just under half as many infections in the one dose group as there were in the control group who had no jab.

For the two dose group 95% is quoted, so this group had 5% of the infections the control group did ( more precisely this is the same group looked at twice)

It could be that everyone developed some form of protection after one dose, not enough to completely prevent detectable infection but enough that the infection never develops to a serious/fatal level. I dont think the studies say one way or another.

 

52 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

 

And it only reaches 52% three weeks after the first jab is given.

Thats not my quite my understanding.  The 52% really comes as a result of counting all new infections in the trial group between their first and second doses and comparing this to the control. So this is a count of infections acquired from day 0 to day 21 ish. It is probably not surprising that people got ill in the first week or so as no one is claiming results this rapid but they still counted in the study.

The 12 week policy was based partly on a close examination of the data that suggested that during days 15-21 post first dose efficacy was 89% and not 52%. That's intuitive too. If it starts at 0% and Peaks at around 89% it is sensible to the layman to say the average will be about 50%

Edited January 23, 2021 by Barbe bleu