Corona Virus main thread

[Well b back 3,285]

Just now, Van wink said:

Will be interested  to see how that goes, I have heard a number of experts suggest that the longer you leave the gap between first and second dose the better the immune response, would like to see evidence of that from trials.

That’s exactly why it happened VW, it was nothing to do with Blair AstraZeneca actually passed it to the regulators with an 8 - 12 week gap as the data seemed to show that if you left dose two longer it gained efficacy, their paper is due out shortly. Hopefully it will be correct as they are hoping that boosts efficacy to 90% plus, remember currently it says 62% at 1 month, but the 1/2 dose 90% ( but that was an accident and wasn’t meant to be part of the trial ). I suspect that there is more data on some 55 - 65’s catching it now in the placebo group at least, but we won’t know that until it is mentioned officially.

That of course is why the second set of Israeli data was so encouraging and next weeks is eagerly anticipated. Did you watch Peston last night ? They actually put that Israeli data on a chart, so it must be somewhere, like you just wish I knew if it was before or after dose 2.

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, Well b back said:

That’s exactly why it happened VW, it was nothing to do with Blair AstraZeneca actually passed it to the regulators with an 8 - 12 week gap as the data seemed to show that if you left dose two longer it gained efficacy, their paper is due out shortly. Hopefully it will be correct as they are hoping that boosts efficacy to 90% plus, remember currently it says 62% at 1 month, but the 1/2 dose 90% ( but that was an accident and wasn’t meant to be part of the trial ). I suspect that there is more data on some 55 - 65’s catching it now in the placebo group at least, but we won’t know that until it is mentioned officially.

That of course is why the second set of Israeli data was so encouraging and next weeks is eagerly anticipated. Did you watch Peston last night ? They actually put that Israeli data on a chart, so it must be somewhere, like you just wish I knew if it was before or after dose 2.

No I didnt watch, would have done if I had know. Im pretty confident its the right strategy for AZ and hopefully for Pfizer. There has been discussion in the past about mix and match, I know with AZ and Sputnik but also AZ and Pfizer, that may become more of a reality if this embargo happens. Presumably would need an emergency approval, again based on limited data

[Well b back 3,285]

3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

No I didnt watch, would have done if I had know. Im pretty confident its the right strategy for AZ and hopefully for Pfizer. There has been discussion in the past about mix and match, I know with AZ and Sputnik but also AZ and Pfizer, that may become more of a reality if this embargo happens. Presumably would need an emergency approval, again based on limited data

I have Pfizer, I have an email from my MP ( Tory ) assuring me my second jab will be Pfizer. 

[Van wink 2,994]

Just now, Well b back said:

I have Pfizer, I have an email from my MP ( Tory ) assuring me my second jab will be Pfizer. 

Well you must decide how much reliance you place on that 😉 

Seriously though, I do wonder how much we already have in the country.

[ricardo 7,416]

4 minutes ago, Well b back said:

I have Pfizer, I have an email from my MP ( Tory ) assuring me my second jab will be Pfizer. 

Have you checked for small print or invisible ink?

[Van wink 2,994]

Just now, ricardo said:

Have you checked for small print or invisible ink?

probably a best endeavour clause

[ricardo 7,416]

1 minute ago, Van wink said:

probably a best endeavour clause

Get on to UVL, she'll send the boys round.

[Van wink 2,994]

According to wiki when she studied at the LSE she went under the name of Rose Ladson..........make of that what you will

Edited January 28, 2021 by Van wink

[ricardo 7,416]

4 minutes ago, Van wink said:

According to wiki when she studied at the LSE she went under the name of Rose Ladson..........make of that what you will

I am led to believe she won the Gavin Williamson Management award, beating Gavin Willaimson in the final.😉

[Mark .Y. 352]

1 hour ago, CANARYKING said:

Because they ran out, our nearest at Southwold will not start again till next week

Oh right................so there are supply problems  :(

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

26 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

The UK authority had looked at wider info such as antibody levels and projecting efficacy from under 65s to decide it’s worth giving to over 65s. Neither approach is right or wrong, personally I’m happy with the approach the UK is taking.

You may think that neither approach is right or wrong but I don't think most scientists would go along with that.

We, and all other developed countries, have over the years developed very high and rigorous standards for the testing of vaccines and medicines generally because we've learnt some very harsh lessons from things going disastrously wrong when treatments that were initially looking very promising were deployed without sufficiently rigorous testing.

So frankly, projecting efficacy just isn't the way we do things any more, especially on a treatment that is going to be given to many millions of people. Just as giving a second dose after 12 weeks when we only have data to prove efficacy after 4 weeks because we think it's very likely that it will be ok.

And it may very well be OK but the proper way to do it, by which I mean the scientific way accepted all round the globe, is that we test our theories first in very controlled circumstances, with a very detailed and precise evaluation of the results - and if a treatment meets the standard then it is rolled out.

That is still the way that nearly every country other than the UK is approaching the pandemic, but we are effectively conducting a massive unlicensed and uncontrolled vaccine trial. Like all gambles it may work out, or of course sadly for us it may not.

So far Johnson has taken several high risk gambles and every one has blown up in his and our faces. Hopefully, for all our sakes he has got lucky this time.

But it seems pretty bizarre to me, given we've known of significant concerns about vaccine take up for a long while and we're currently spending many millions of pounds on advertising campaigns to convince people that the vaccine is safe whilst pretty much shouting from the rooftops that we're so smart that we don't need to apply the same rigour to testing and licensing the vaccine as the rest of the world.

Seems to me the same muddled thinking and complete absence of a strategy that has be-devilled this country's response to the pandemic from the very start of the crisis.

[Mark .Y. 352]

4 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

You may think that neither approach is right or wrong but I don't think most scientists would go along with that.

We, and all other developed countries, have over the years developed very high and rigorous standards for the testing of vaccines and medicines generally because we've learnt some very harsh lessons from things going disastrously wrong when treatments that were initially looking very promising were deployed without sufficiently rigorous testing.

So frankly, projecting efficacy just isn't the way we do things any more, especially on a treatment that is going to be given to many millions of people. Just as giving a second dose after 12 weeks when we only have data to prove efficacy after 4 weeks because we think it's very likely that it will be ok.

And it may very well be OK but the proper way to do it, by which I mean the scientific way accepted all round the globe, is that we test our theories first in very controlled circumstances, with a very detailed and precise evaluation of the results - and if a treatment meets the standard then it is rolled out.

That is still the way that nearly every country other than the UK is approaching the pandemic, but we are effectively conducting a massive unlicensed and uncontrolled vaccine trial. Like all gambles it may work out, or of course sadly for us it may not.

So far Johnson has taken several high risk gambles and every one has blown up in his and our faces. Hopefully, for all our sakes he has got lucky this time.

But it seems pretty bizarre to me, given we've known of significant concerns about vaccine take up for a long while and we're currently spending many millions of pounds on advertising campaigns to convince people that the vaccine is safe whilst pretty much shouting from the rooftops that we're so smart that we don't need to apply the same rigour to testing and licensing the vaccine as the rest of the world.

Seems to me the same muddled thinking and complete absence of a strategy that has be-devilled this country's response to the pandemic from the very start of the crisis.

"But Dr Ramsay, head of immunisations at Public Health England, said: "Both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are safe and provide high levels of protection against Covid-19, particularly against severe disease.

"There were too few cases in older people in the AstraZeneca trials to observe precise levels of protection in this group, but data on immune responses were very reassuring."

 

"An AstraZeneca spokesperson said the latest analyses of clinical trial data for its vaccine "support efficacy in the over 65 years age group", adding that the firm was awaiting "a regulatory decision on the vaccine by the EMA in the coming days".

 

Prof Paul Hunter, of the University of East Anglia, told BBC News that the elderly should not worry about receiving the jab.He said: "I'm almost 65 myself and I would happily take any of the vaccines, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. We do know that it is safe in people over 65.

"They have much fewer side effects than younger people and it almost certainly provides substantial benefits in terms of preventing severe disease and reducing the chances of going into hospital."

 

Selected quotes................but, of course, you don't think most scientists would go along with that...............not that you're an expert but you have a political point to make.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

I think it’s because when you do a lateral flow now, you have a number on that test and you should record that number on the website and the result of the test. You then get an email / text from NHS just like the ones from the test centres. 
I have had 4 negative tests since 18/1. 

Just so, also don't know whether this is typical or other trusts or not but in our area all NHS staff (or maybe just NHS hospital staff, not sure on that) are being given 2 lateral flow tests per week, irrespective of whether they have any symptoms or not.

Good thing in many ways but accuracy is still a major problem - a couple of weeks ago my daughter woke up one morning feeling fairly rough but not really thinking it was Covid. She had taken a lateral flow test 2 or 3 days previously which was negative but took another one that morning which was also negative. But when she rang the ward  to say she was ok to come in they said ignore the flow tests and go and get a proper test which she did - and to our great relief that also came back negative, so that was three tests in less than a week but only 1 that came with a high degree of confidence in the result.

So whilst I'm all in favour in testing as much as possible if her experience is typical, and I'm pretty sure it is, then I don't believe we can read too much into either the total number of tests or the perentage of positives

[ricardo 7,416]

NEW Another vaccine is showing almost 90% efficacy in trials. The U.K. has 60 million doses of the Novavax jab on order. It will be manufactured in Teesside. Next stop is the regulator. 

https://t.co/NT7u0VV870

If we send the health inspectors and police round we will probably get them on Monday morning.😀

[ricardo 7,416]

15 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

 

Selected quotes................but, of course, you don't think most scientists would go along with that...............not that you're an expert but you have a political point to make.

Oh, surely not.

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

NEW Another vaccine is showing almost 90% efficacy in trials. The U.K. has 60 million doses of the Novavax jab on order. It will be manufactured in Teesside. Next stop is the regulator. 

https://t.co/NT7u0VV870

If we send the health inspectors and police round we will probably get them on Monday morning.😀

Excellent news....

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

Oh, surely not.

How very rude

[Well b back 3,285]

8 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Just so, also don't know whether this is typical or other trusts or not but in our area all NHS staff (or maybe just NHS hospital staff, not sure on that) are being given 2 lateral flow tests per week, irrespective of whether they have any symptoms or not.

Good thing in many ways but accuracy is still a major problem - a couple of weeks ago my daughter woke up one morning feeling fairly rough but not really thinking it was Covid. She had taken a lateral flow test 2 or 3 days previously which was negative but took another one that morning which was also negative. But when she rang the ward  to say she was ok to come in they said ignore the flow tests and go and get a proper test which she did - and to our great relief that also came back negative, so that was three tests in less than a week but only 1 that came with a high degree of confidence in the result.

So whilst I'm all in favour in testing as much as possible if her experience is typical, and I'm pretty sure it is, then I don't believe we can read too much into either the total number of tests or the perentage of positives

I help in a care home and the vaccination sites.

Care home you have to go in every Monday, working or not for a test done by them. I have a supply of tests at home, I have to do one before I go onto the vaccination sites, although that’s only regular volunteers. You can be tested at random when on a care home shift.

[Van wink 2,994]

36 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

You may think that neither approach is right or wrong but I don't think most scientists would go along with that.

We, and all other developed countries, have over the years developed very high and rigorous standards for the testing of vaccines and medicines generally because we've learnt some very harsh lessons from things going disastrously wrong when treatments that were initially looking very promising were deployed without sufficiently rigorous testing.

So frankly, projecting efficacy just isn't the way we do things any more, especially on a treatment that is going to be given to many millions of people. Just as giving a second dose after 12 weeks when we only have data to prove efficacy after 4 weeks because we think it's very likely that it will be ok.

And it may very well be OK but the proper way to do it, by which I mean the scientific way accepted all round the globe, is that we test our theories first in very controlled circumstances, with a very detailed and precise evaluation of the results - and if a treatment meets the standard then it is rolled out.

That is still the way that nearly every country other than the UK is approaching the pandemic, but we are effectively conducting a massive unlicensed and uncontrolled vaccine trial. Like all gambles it may work out, or of course sadly for us it may not.

So far Johnson has taken several high risk gambles and every one has blown up in his and our faces. Hopefully, for all our sakes he has got lucky this time.

But it seems pretty bizarre to me, given we've known of significant concerns about vaccine take up for a long while and we're currently spending many millions of pounds on advertising campaigns to convince people that the vaccine is safe whilst pretty much shouting from the rooftops that we're so smart that we don't need to apply the same rigour to testing and licensing the vaccine as the rest of the world.

Seems to me the same muddled thinking and complete absence of a strategy that has be-devilled this country's response to the pandemic from the very start of the crisis.

Thank god the brilliant minds that have seen the vaccine program through from conception to a jab in the arm in record time think differently.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Van wink

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

14 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

Selected quotes................but, of course, you don't think most scientists would go along with that...............not that you're an expert but you have a political point to make.

Nothing to do with politics and I never said I was an expert - your selected quotes are fine but they prove the point I was trying to make.

They are expressing opinions on safety, or saying that they have indications but that isn't the way we do it or should do it. We do it on the basis of rock solid evidence and they don't have it.

They have belief, they have promising indications and projections, they have educated speculations but they don't have sufficient evidence to meet the high bar applied to licensing drugs and vaccines which is why it is expected that the EMA won't license Oxford for the over 65s. They are following the scientific approach, it is you and the UK generally that seem to be trying to make a political point.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

1 minute ago, Van wink said:

Thank god the brilliant minds that have seen the vaccine program through from conception to a jab in the arm think differently.

I assume you're referring to those brilliant minds that have repeatedly changed their minds over the last six weeks?  😃

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I assume you're referring to those brilliant minds that have repeatedly changed their minds over the last six weeks?  😃

You do realise that it normally takes at least 10 years to develop and approve a vaccine dont you

[ricardo 7,416]

So 60 million Novavax ordered by the UK for delivery July. Yet again, not ordered by the EU. They need to stop dicking around start cooperating. They have done some things better than us and we have done some things better than them. Time to get it together, there are people dying out there.

Edited January 28, 2021 by ricardo

[Herman 9,842]

Just now, Van wink said:

You do realise that it normally takes at least 10 years to develop and approve a vaccine dont you

Most vaccines don't have the full weight and money of the world's governments thrown at them.

[Van wink 2,994]

Just now, Herman said:

Most vaccines don't have the full weight and money of the world's governments thrown at them.

absolutely but its the scientists that develop them

[The Real Buh 3,486]

5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

So 60 million Novavax ordered by the UK for delivery July. Yet again, not ordered by the EU. They need to stop dicking around start cooperating. They have done some things better than us and we have done some things better than them. Time to get it together, there are people dying out there.

Let them dawdle. It’s what the EU does best. And it will cost lives.

[Barbe bleu 834]

42 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Nothing to do with politics and I never said I was an expert - your selected quotes are fine but they prove the point I was trying to make.

They are expressing opinions on safety, or saying that they have indications but that isn't the way we do it or should do it. We do it on the basis of rock solid evidence and they don't have it.

They have belief, they have promising indications and projections, they have educated speculations but they don't have sufficient evidence to meet the high bar applied to licensing drugs and vaccines which is why it is expected that the EMA won't license Oxford for the over 65s. They are following the scientific approach, it is you and the UK generally that seem to be trying to make a political point.

I agree that the way we are doing it isnt ideal but given choice between people possibly dying of covid and people definitely dying of covid option 1 surely wins. 

The jab has been thoroughly tested for safety in the over 65s and has been tested for immune response.  Rhe only thing that has not been proved to the highest of level is efficacy but given it provokes the same response in younger patients where it is proven it is hardly a jump to say acceptable levels of efficacy  are almost certain.

[paul moy 235]

40 minutes ago, ricardo said:

So 60 million Novavax ordered by the UK for delivery July. Yet again, not ordered by the EU. They need to stop dicking around start cooperating. They have done some things better than us and we have done some things better than them. Time to get it together, there are people dying out there.

Indeed, and i've just tallied up some figures for comparison with USA out of interest, as I could not find totals for the EU anywhere.  Make of it as you will  but the EU is rapidly heading for half a million deaths   : 

Total deaths throughout EU countries to-date =  463,189

Additional deaths reported today                       =      3,660

Population 488 million

 

Total deaths in USA to-date                                 =   442,631

Additional deaths today                                       =       2,793 

Population  332 million

           

[paul moy 235]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Nothing to do with politics and I never said I was an expert - your selected quotes are fine but they prove the point I was trying to make.

They are expressing opinions on safety, or saying that they have indications but that isn't the way we do it or should do it. We do it on the basis of rock solid evidence and they don't have it.

They have belief, they have promising indications and projections, they have educated speculations but they don't have sufficient evidence to meet the high bar applied to licensing drugs and vaccines which is why it is expected that the EMA won't license Oxford for the over 65s. They are following the scientific approach, it is you and the UK generally that seem to be trying to make a political point.

If it works on the under 65s without issues then surely all that can go wrong on the elderly/vulnerable  is that it may not work and obviously there could be some yet unseen side effects as with Pfizer, but we will see those early on if serious and can backtrack if necessary, so there is really nothing much to lose, as the upside is that it may well work and save thousands of lives. 

 

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

8 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Of course we haven't determined what they are doing so well because this government hasn't given it a moment's thought.

I would have thought that you, more than most, are thoroughly conversant with the theory that Britain is such a 'world beating' nation that we have no need to study or learn anything from what mere foreigners are doing - that seems to be the principle underlying most government policies nowadays and one that many of their supporters seem quite happy with - so much so that they really don't like having it pointed out that we're actually doing rather badly and have been for nigh a year now...............🙄

I did go on to add that no other European country were copying the Japan/Taiwan model as far as I can tell and only Sweden has tried something significantly different to the rest of Europe, so it's not just us that your comments should be directed to.