Corona Virus main thread

[Indy 3,299]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

I can't vouch for this but ive seen a post on the internet that US regulators are recommending a pause in J &J jabs due to reports of blood clots. Not good news if confirmed.

They have but again 6 serious clots in 6.8 million vaccinated, it has to be monitored and looked into but more people have the same reactions to common medications without any suspensions! It’s a high profile virus and it’s thanks to global social media and the fear of future mass lawsuits that things like this happen.

[Aggy 755]

8 minutes ago, Indy said:

They have but again 6 serious clots in 6.8 million vaccinated, it has to be monitored and looked into but more people have the same reactions to common medications without any suspensions! It’s a high profile virus and it’s thanks to global social media and the fear of future mass lawsuits that things like this happen.

I don’t think it’s just lawsuits. The problem with comparing to other medications is that (1) you know the risks before you take other medications, not a couple of months after you’ve taken it, and (2) you only have other medication when you need it.

I posted figures the other day which showed believably that the risk for females under 30 in particular from covid could be lower than the risk of blood clots from the vaccine. And I hadn’t even thought to factor in that many under 30s will have already caught covid unknowingly and so probably have some degree of immunity on top of that, reducing the risk even further.

For me, whilst the risk from blood clots is tiny, as soon as that risk starts to get even close to being more dangerous than the thing we’re trying to protect people from, then it should rightly be pulled and investigated. 

[Indy 3,299]

30 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I don’t think it’s just lawsuits. The problem with comparing to other medications is that (1) you know the risks before you take other medications, not a couple of months after you’ve taken it, and (2) you only have other medication when you need it.

I posted figures the other day which showed believably that the risk for females under 30 in particular from covid could be lower than the risk of blood clots from the vaccine. And I hadn’t even thought to factor in that many under 30s will have already caught covid unknowingly and so probably have some degree of immunity on top of that, reducing the risk even further.

For me, whilst the risk from blood clots is tiny, as soon as that risk starts to get even close to being more dangerous than the thing we’re trying to protect people from, then it should rightly be pulled and investigated. 

Certainly appreciate risk assessment on any potential issues, but you have to add the risk of not continuing that vaccines roll out against any Covid potential impact on death too! I fully appreciate in normal life the prevention of any risk but when you’re talking of 6 clots per 7 million that’s damn low and has to be considered in stopping any roll out.

[Aggy 755]

17 minutes ago, Indy said:

Certainly appreciate risk assessment on any potential issues, but you have to add the risk of not continuing that vaccines roll out against any Covid potential impact on death too! I fully appreciate in normal life the prevention of any risk but when you’re talking of 6 clots per 7 million that’s damn low and has to be considered in stopping any roll out.

I don’t think it would be stopped in older people - the risk ratio is very different there. The issue is that some reports suggest the blood clotting affects elder people less than younger people (females in particular) and of course the risks from covid for elder people are significantly higher.

If you’re 29, with a 1 in a million chance of dying from covid, you don’t know if you’ve had covid already and so might have some degree of immunity anyway (meaning even less than 1 in a million chance), then why would you take a vaccine with a 1 in a million chance of killing you? Whereas if you’re 80, and you’re weighing up a 1 in a million chance of dying from a blood clot or a much greater risk of dying from covid, why would you not take the vaccine.

If all the elder people are vaccinated, then the younger person isn’t even taking the vaccine to protect others.

Edit: and add in that your 6.8 million is predominantly elder people who have been vaccinated. We haven’t vaccinated many female under 30s yet, so far better to investigate than vaccinate them all and find out later we’ve killed more than we’ve saved. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Aggy

[Indy 3,299]

23 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I don’t think it would be stopped in older people - the risk ratio is very different there. The issue is that some reports suggest the blood clotting affects elder people less than younger people (females in particular) and of course the risks from covid for elder people are significantly higher.

If you’re 29, with a 1 in a million chance of dying from covid, you don’t know if you’ve had covid already and so might have some degree of immunity anyway (meaning even less than 1 in a million chance), then why would you take a vaccine with a 1 in a million chance of killing you? Whereas if you’re 80, and you’re weighing up a 1 in a million chance of dying from a blood clot or a much greater risk of dying from covid, why would you not take the vaccine.

If all the elder people are vaccinated, then the younger person isn’t even taking the vaccine to protect others.

Edit: and add in that your 6.8 million is predominantly elder people who have been vaccinated. We haven’t vaccinated many female under 30s yet, so far better to investigate than vaccinate them all and find out later we’ve killed more than we’ve saved. 

Yes that’s true to initial AZ, not sure the age groups in J&J we’re talking about.

[Aggy 755]

48 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes that’s true to initial AZ, not sure the age groups in J&J we’re talking about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/johnson-johnson-vaccine-blood-clots-fda-cdc.html
 

That suggests all 6 were women aged 18-48. Agree though that seems silly to pause for over 70s/80s in particular. 

[Herman 9,760]

Get my vaccine Saturday morning. Then out snogging grannies on Saturday evening.👍

[Van wink 2,994]

28 minutes ago, Herman said:

Get my vaccine Saturday morning. Then out snogging grannies on Saturday evening.👍

Good news, well ....not for the grannies.....but you never know.

[Rock The Boat 1,331]

37 minutes ago, Herman said:

Get my vaccine Saturday morning. Then out snogging grannies on Saturday evening.👍

You Chippendales!

[ricardo 7,386]

National

2472 - 23

Local

[Barbe bleu 826]

6 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

The question here is has this variant burnt through immunity gained by infection or vacvination or has it spread in the immune naive.  Very different prospects and solutions in the two cases.

BBC provided the answer.  Of 23 people (13 staff, 10 residents) infected with SA in a care home setting 7 had one dose of a vaccine (6 residents with AZ and 1 staff with Pfizer).  so vaccination doesn't warrant complacency.   Data doesn't help on comparative efficacy of the two jabs or efficacy v no jab

Bigger question might be why  so many staff and residents had no vaccine though given that they were in group one....

Edited April 13, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

BBC provided the answer.  Of 23 people (13 staff, 10 residents) infected with SA in a care home setting 7 had one dose of a vaccine (6 residents with AZ and 1 staff with Pfizer).  so vaccination doesn't warrant complacency.   Data doesn't help on comparative efficacy of the two jabs or efficacy v no jab

Bigger question might be why  so many staff and residents had no vaccine though given that they were in group one....

definitely that’s a massive question.
 

Also, how long after the jab were  they infected and was it just the first jab, we know that only gives a % immunity which is generally less for those eg are older.

[Van wink 2,994]

The perceived BBC wisdom is that AZ provides protection against SA variant at a level that prevents hospitalisation. I'm not sure what that actually means but it certainly doesnt mean that it prevents infection.

[Well b back 3,203]

48 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

definitely that’s a massive question.
 

Also, how long after the jab were  they infected and was it just the first jab, we know that only gives a % immunity which is generally less for those eg are older.

2-3 weeks

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

A week ago SAGE said we had reached herd immunity. Now there is worry about variants. And J&Js vaccine.

And at the same time, we are on day release from lockdown.

May is still a way off.

[Aggy 755]

52 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

A week ago SAGE said we had reached herd immunity. Now there is worry about variants. And J&Js vaccine.

And at the same time, we are on day release from lockdown.

May is still a way off.

I did think we hadn’t had much scaremongering on here lately.

Where did SAGE say that? Think you’re talking about the UCL modelling (whose modelling has been woefully wrong throughout).

”Now” there is concern about variants? There always has been. We knew about potential variant and mutation risk and it was even referred to in the “roadmap” for releasing lockdowns. And we have 70 suspected (only half of those confirmed) cases in the UK of one variant which we don’t believe is any more deadly than any other variant, and which both Pfizer and AZ vaccines offer almost as good protection against anyway. Hardly panic stations.

The J&J vaccine hasn’t even been approved in the UK yet.

You forgot to mention anything about deaths and infection rates.

May not as far off as some seem so desperate for it to be.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

The perceived BBC wisdom is that AZ provides protection against SA variant at a level that prevents hospitalisation. I'm not sure what that actually means but it certainly doesnt mean that it prevents infection.

I still can't believe just how much attention is actually being shown to that study of 2k young people in South Africa which seems to be the basis of any talk of AZ not being effective against it. The numbers weren't enough to form much basis, it was a suboptimal dosing regimen (short gap between doses) and there were no serious cases in either arm of the trial.

Sure we should still be careful but it's just funny that we dismiss other not very credible trials that don't fit the narrative.

The main thing needs to still be going hell for leather with vaccination as quick as realistically possible and then the data will be clear.

Come 21st June we need to be in the best place possible regarding vaccinations and current case levels as I really don't think there will be much appetite for continued lockdowns. We can't just keep furloughing millions, closing businesses and adding it to the tab forever.

If that means a compromise on international travel while other places catch up on vaccination campaigns then so be it.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

BBC provided the answer.  Of 23 people (13 staff, 10 residents) infected with SA in a care home setting 7 had one dose of a vaccine (6 residents with AZ and 1 staff with Pfizer).  so vaccination doesn't warrant complacency.   Data doesn't help on comparative efficacy of the two jabs or efficacy v no jab

Bigger question might be why  so many staff and residents had no vaccine though given that they were in group one....

since vulnerable people are some of these cases it will be interesting to see how serious they are. If they are all mild or asymptomatic I'd almost suggest that it's good news, a slight nod to AZ being largely effective against SA variant.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Tetteys Jig

[Barbe bleu 826]

9 hours ago, Tetteys Jig said:

since vulnerable people are some of these cases it will be interesting to see how serious they are. If they are all mild or asymptomatic I'd almost suggest that it's good news, a slight nod to AZ being largely effective against SA variant.

Yes.  The article was frustratingly limited. Yes it did answer some of my questions but some were left unaddressed.

I dont know if the BBC was doing its best with what it had or if it could have got more if only it bothered asking.  

 

 

[kirku 1,332]

16 hours ago, Van wink said:

The perceived BBC wisdom is that AZ provides protection against SA variant at a level that prevents hospitalisation. I'm not sure what that actually means but it certainly doesnt mean that it prevents infection.

Forgive the potential (probable?) ignorance, but do any of the vaccines prevent infection? 

In very simplistic terms, I thought the virus will infect you regardless, but the vaccines will produce an immune response to fight off the virus and prevent damaging symptoms. 

[CANARYKING 638]

11 minutes ago, kirku said:

Forgive the potential (probable?) ignorance, but do any of the vaccines prevent infection? 

In very simplistic terms, I thought the virus will infect you regardless, but the vaccines will produce an immune response to fight off the virus and prevent damaging symptoms. 

As I understand it, you can still get it but too serious Also you can pass it on without knowing you’ve had it.

[Aggy 755]

23 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

As I understand it, you can still get it but too serious Also you can pass it on without knowing you’ve had it.

I think that’s the same with the jab for “normal” flu too (and presumably any similar infectious disease). The vaccine helps you fight it when you get infected, but doesn’t stop you getting infected or infecting others.

[Barbe bleu 826]

2 hours ago, kirku said:

Forgive the potential (probable?) ignorance, but do any of the vaccines prevent infection? 

In very simplistic terms, I thought the virus will infect you regardless, but the vaccines will produce an immune response to fight off the virus and prevent damaging symptoms. 

Yes, I think this is largely correct.

'Sterilising immunity' of the type that will prevent any infection appears very rare.  But that doesn't mean the vaccines have no effect on seriousness or potential for spread.

The main purpose of the vaccine is to give the immune system on the job training so that it can find the best way of fighting an infection and creating memory cells that will spring into action if the pathogen comes around again. 

There are lots of stories today about antibody levels decreasing and what this means for immunity.   Answer probably is 'not a lot'. Antibody levels must fall over time or we wouldn't have much room for actual blood in the blood system.  The bigger question is not around  how many antibodies  we have but rather around how well the learned response is stored in memory.  I think antibody level articles are a case of  us not being able to measure what is most important so instead making more important what we can measure.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Radio Cornwall calling for volunteers to trial having the vaccine (booster I assume) and the flu jab together.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

2 hours ago, kirku said:

Forgive the potential (probable?) ignorance, but do any of the vaccines prevent infection? 

In very simplistic terms, I thought the virus will infect you regardless, but the vaccines will produce an immune response to fight off the virus and prevent damaging symptoms. 

According to the Israelis Pfizer is extremely good at preventing transmission of the virus and is more successful in this than AZ but I think the actual data to back this up is still rather limited - but certainly they are far more unlocked than we are and successfully so (at the moment).

[ricardo 7,386]

National

2491 - 38

Local

[ricardo 7,386]

53 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Radio Cornwall calling for volunteers to trial having the vaccine (booster I assume) and the flu jab together.

Will we get free pasties thrown in?

[Van wink 2,994]

3 hours ago, kirku said:

Forgive the potential (probable?) ignorance, but do any of the vaccines prevent infection? 

In very simplistic terms, I thought the virus will infect you regardless, but the vaccines will produce an immune response to fight off the virus and prevent damaging symptoms. 

Yep you are correct my clumsy words 👍

[Essjayess 307]

There are now 10 European nations with Covid deaths per mill population worse than the UK (not inc. very small states like San Marino)...Italy, Slovakia, Macedonia, Belgium, Hungary, Montenegro, Czechia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Slovenia. Some others, like Poland, are closing in fast.

Considering we had a home grown Covid variant which swept thru the general population and our situation at the start of the year, the combo of a lengthy lockdown and pro active  vaccine program in comparison to the EU has had a very pronounced and hugely needed affect on the numbers with Covid infection and those dying from  Covid.

Huge effort and enormous hard work for so many medical staff and others connected  with all areas of reducing the awful effect of this horrid  virus, im grateful to every one of them.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,716]

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/health-trends/pentagon-creates-microchip-that-senses-covid-19-in-the-body-6762671.html

 

Are you ready for the goverment mandated microchip?