bob

COVID-19 (The artist formally known as Coronavirus)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Pestneb said:

yup. If they can give 200 jabs over x time, they can give either

200 people 65% immunity

or

100 people 95% immunity.

So it's simple maths,

200*.65 = 130

100*1=100.(technically 100*.95 but theoretically boosting the vaccine to 100% immunity still leaves it falling short to any vaccine that gives above 50% immunity)

greater effect short term by giving one dose to more people. the risk involved is that it's unknown how long the 65% will last, and if the 100% comes with the second dose after a larger gap. It's an educated guess, but right now given the time of year and stress the NHS is under, even if the vaccine proves ineffective and a third booster is needed, it probably is going to save more lives by taking this gamble. the 65% is I understand 100% protection against severe disease, so the main benefit is relieving pressure on the NHS. If it works out well (we won't know for some time yet) they can continue, if it goes very badly (we may find that out much sooner) then they back track and follow the original schedule.

I think the fact it is winter and the NHS is annually heavily burdened at this time figures quite heavily into making a single dose approach a reasonably wise one.time will show if it was the correct one.

Sadly that’s not how things work...

We don’t know how long that initial protection lasts, we don’t know if a second dose is even effective at all if it gets delayed.

We simply don’t have the scientific evidence to support what the Tories are doing here.  They’re making a complete mockery of the trials that gave us the evidence we needed to actually use these vaccines.

Quite frankly, their use of the Pfizer vaccine is completely Off Label; and is not based on any scientific evidence at all.  It does not work like a traditional vaccine, we do not know how long the initial immunity lasts for.  They are using us as lab rats; and all just to boost their numbers up and make themselves look good.

What they are doing is incredibly dangerous.  It’s quite possible that it could even result in the development of a viral strain that is resistant to the vaccine, as it gets into immunocompromised people that aren’t fully protected.

Edited by Dcubed
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Danish government has just announced that everyone who wants to get the vaccine here in Denmark will have got the second dose by June 27th at the latest. That's great! Soon we will have a normal country again (with a new massive debt to mink farmers and other people). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 7:29 PM, Dcubed said:

Sadly that’s not how things work...

We don’t know how long that initial protection lasts, we don’t know if a second dose is even effective at all if it gets delayed.

We simply don’t have the scientific evidence to support what the Tories are doing here.  They’re making a complete mockery of the trials that gave us the evidence we needed to actually use these vaccines.

Quite frankly, their use of the Pfizer vaccine is completely Off Label; and is not based on any scientific evidence at all.  It does not work like a traditional vaccine, we do not know how long the initial immunity lasts for.  They are using us as lab rats; and all just to boost their numbers up and make themselves look good.

What they are doing is incredibly dangerous.  It’s quite possible that it could even result in the development of a viral strain that is resistant to the vaccine, as it gets into immunocompromised people that aren’t fully protected.

So, if you have two friends who are vulnerable, in the next 2 months they will contract covid. Without the vaccine they will suffer from the worst of covid. (ie die, long term health issues). You'd rather have one vaccinated and covered for however long it lasts (hey, guess what, we still don't know how long even the double dose is effective for!), over having  both receive a single dose and at worst suffer a cold?

This vaccine isn't that radically different from other vaccines, the immune response it provokes is unlikely to stop working at all after 43 days, and the efficacy of the second dose may be affected, but it could be improved for all we know. What we do know is that using the single dose approach at this point WILL protect the NHS and save lives. If in a few weeks time data becomes available that suggests the gap is too long to give the best effect from the vaccination program, then is the time (when strain on the NHS will hopefully have been greatly reduced) to change tact. Short term, if they insisted on giving the two doses at the recommended gap it would, at this stage with low supply, result in avoidable death and suffering. I sincerely hope your intention isn't to influence things toward that outcome??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pestneb said:

So, if you have two friends who are vulnerable, in the next 2 months they will contract covid. Without the vaccine they will suffer from the worst of covid. (ie die, long term health issues). You'd rather have one vaccinated and covered for however long it lasts (hey, guess what, we still don't know how long even the double dose is effective for!), over having  both receive a single dose and at worst suffer a cold?

This vaccine isn't that radically different from other vaccines, the immune response it provokes is unlikely to stop working at all after 43 days, and the efficacy of the second dose may be affected, but it could be improved for all we know. What we do know is that using the single dose approach at this point WILL protect the NHS and save lives. If in a few weeks time data becomes available that suggests the gap is too long to give the best effect from the vaccination program, then is the time (when strain on the NHS will hopefully have been greatly reduced) to change tact. Short term, if they insisted on giving the two doses at the recommended gap it would, at this stage with low supply, result in avoidable death and suffering. I sincerely hope your intention isn't to influence things toward that outcome??

The Pfizer vaccine is NOT like a traditional vaccine at all.  It is the first ever mRNA vaccine ever produced.

We have robust scientific trial data that shows that the vaccine (after having the double dose administered within the 21 day window, as tested) remains effective more than 6 months after it is administered.

This modified regimen that the Tories have come up with? We know fuck all about if it works or not!

And yes, I would rather the government sticks to the regime that has actually been tested, the regime that we know actually works!

”Vaccinating” 2 people with a half dose means fuck all if that protection runs out in weeks, or (God forbid!) results in the development of a viral strain that is resistant to the damn thing!

This is why you do these trials in the first place! You establish what works BEFORE you start using it! You do not deviate from what is tested because you have no idea what kind of effect a change in dose, or dosing regime might have on the efficacy of a drug before you test it!

Short term gain for long term pain though.  That’s the Tory way as per usual.

Edited by Dcubed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously though, once you're dead, long term effects don't really matter so much do they?

Do you realise how close we are in certain parts of the country to the NHS hitting 100% capacity?

So imagine you're in a vehicle/walking along a path to do food shopping. A car hits some ice, loses control, hits you. You need medical attention promptly, but your injuries are survivable. Oh. wait, no they aren't.. the 2 vaccines in two weeks approach was taken. NHS staff ill, large numbers of the elderly in covid wards, no beds available. The ambulance that ought to have taken you to a hospital is queued up waiting to drop a covid patient who's dying in the ambulance.. no beds for that poor sod either. Still, at least the tories followed the guidelines on vaccination.

That's the situation we are in, which people don't seem to understand. the R number is 1-1.4 IN this lockdown. that means cases are going up. If we can't cut down the numbers being hospitalised then the above scenario is possible.

In regards to the vaccine being different, the immune systems they are working on are not. the immune response may in fact be better/prolonged with this method. as you say we don't know. So as we don't know, is it worth the gamble of assuming that the 6 weeks is fixed in stone, when we know, with things going as they are, if we follow the 6 weeks it is sure that people will die?

It's pretty much like paying £5000 for a lottery ticket where you may win £6000, or you may win £0. The risk/reward ratio is wrong. Yes in 6 weeks we are unsure if these people will continue being covered, but we are sure that other strains on the NHS will be diminished so the NHS will be better able to deal with covid. Supply of the vaccines will be higher which will mean that getting the second dose (or a 3rd boost maybe) for vulnerable people will be feasible.

 

Edited by Pestneb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pestneb said:

seriously though, once you're dead, long term effects don't really matter so much do they?

Do you realise how close we are in certain parts of the country to the NHS hitting 100% capacity?

So imagine you're in a vehicle/walking along a path to do food shopping. A car hits some ice, loses control, hits you. You need medical attention promptly, but your injuries are survivable. Oh. wait, no they aren't.. the 2 vaccines in two weeks approach was taken. NHS staff ill, large numbers of the elderly in covid wards, no beds available. The ambulance that ought to have taken you to a hospital is queued up waiting to drop a covid patient who's dying in the ambulance.. no beds for that poor sod either. Still, at least the tories followed the guidelines on vaccination.

That's the situation we are in, which people don't seem to understand. the R number is 1-1.4 IN this lockdown. that means cases are going up. If we can't cut down the numbers being hospitalised then the above scenario is possible.

In regards to the vaccine being different, the immune systems they are working on are not. the immune response may in fact be better/prolonged with this method. as you say we don't know. So as we don't know, is it worth the gamble of assuming that the 6 weeks is fixed in stone, when we know, with things going as they are, if we follow the 6 weeks it is sure that people will die?

It's pretty much like paying £5000 for a lottery ticket where you may win £6000, or you may win £0. The risk/reward ratio is wrong. Yes in 6 weeks we are unsure if these people will continue being covered, but we are sure that other strains on the NHS will be diminished so the NHS will be better able to deal with covid. Supply of the vaccines will be higher which will mean that getting the second dose (or a 3rd boost maybe) for vulnerable people will be feasible.

 

We are not at the point where we are vaccinating the general public; we are still getting through the first set of people, and are only just now starting to include health & social care workers outside of care homes.  The “doubling” of the vaccine numbers will not get us to the point where it will have an effect on the R number any time soon; so that is absolute bollocks.  All it means is that you’ll have more NHS staff half protected, unable to get the full protection that the vaccine is supposed to offer.

We don’t know if the second dose will even work at all, because we have no data available.  The vaccine is completely untested outside of the 21 day window.

This measure they are taking is not based on any scientific data whatsoever.  It will not solve the issue of vaccine availability for the general public either.

This measure is being taken for one reason only, to improve the Tory government’s optics.  That’s it.  There’s no virtuous motive here, instead they’re playing pretend scientist and are messing around with things that they SHOULD NOT be messing with!

Medicine is not basic maths; you can’t just give a half dose and have half protection! That isn’t how medicines work!

The real way to get the R Number down is to put strict lockdown measures in place and actually strictly enforce them! That’s what the Tories needed to do months ago, and they are STILL fucking this up! Messing around with the vaccine dose regime (with NO evidence!!!) only puts us at risk of making the vaccine ineffective; which is the worst case scenario imaginable!

Edited by Dcubed
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dcubed said:

We are not at the point where we are vaccinating the 1) general public; we are still getting through the first set of people, and are only just now starting to include health & social care workers outside of care homes. 2) The “doubling” of the vaccine numbers will not get us to the point where it will have an effect on the R number any time soon; so that is absolute bollocks.  All it means is that you’ll have more NHS staff half protected, unable to get the full protection that the vaccine is supposed to offer.

3)We don’t know if the second dose will even work at all, because we have no data available.  The vaccine is completely untested outside of the 21 day window.

This measure they are taking is not based on any scientific data whatsoever. 4) It will not solve the issue of vaccine availability for the general public either.

This measure is being taken for one reason only, 5) to improve the Tory government’s optics.  That’s it.  There’s no virtuous motive here, instead they’re playing pretend scientist and are messing around with things that they SHOULD NOT be messing with!

Medicine is not basic maths; 6) you can’t just give a half dose and have half protection! That isn’t how medicines work!

The real way to get the R Number down is to put strict lockdown measures in place and actually strictly enforce them! That’s what the Tories needed to do months ago, and they are STILL fucking this up! Messing around with the vaccine dose regime (with NO evidence!!!) only puts us at risk of making the vaccine ineffective; which is the worst case scenario imaginable!

1) General public - what's your definition? I would say that a segment of those being vaccinated now fall into that category, or if you want to argue specific groups being targetted means it isn't the general public then tbh I don't think any vaccine is ever given to the general public, it's always specific age ranges or risk factors (ie tetanus if you haven't had a booster in 10 years and get a qualifying injury)

2) I never said single dosing would significantly (or even slightly) lower the R number - please read the section you bolded. The individuals being injected at the moment are those most likely to develop severe symptoms and require hospital treatment. So yes, it is absolute

Quote

bollocks

to suggest the R number will be significantly affected - equally from my understanding the R number isn't necessarily a reflection of the current situation, but it does strongly suggest very short term we can expect a 6% or so increase in covid related burden in the NHS and that likely requires some sort of timely mitigation

3) afaik they are testing outside the 21 day window, there is no public data available (though possibly some unpublished)  however it is possible to use experience and knowledge of other vaccines to extrapolate and make an reasonably educated guess how this will affect immunity. It is worth bearing in mind that with the SA variant, it is possible that a later booster that is less narrow in its protection will be necessary even if the second dose is given at the recommended time.

4) Again I didn't say this would solve vaccine availability, it is buying some time while vaccine ability issues are resolved. It's absolutely a sub optimal approach, but until the infrastructure is in place and coincidentally non covid issues ease in the NHS, it does make some sense.

5)Yes, it is fairly bad optics for any government if the health service is allowed to collapse. I would also suggest it's less than ideal for the affected populace as well.

6)I couldn't agree more, you are quite right, a single dose isn't half protection, it gives greater protection than that for the initial tested period. Protection offered beyond that is unknown, but hopefully adequate.

7) I agree a strict lockdown would be my preferred solution, and imo far less destructive at all levels than these repeated "gentle" lockdowns that damage society, the economy, health system.. the uk in generally really, far more effectively than they hamper the spread of the virus. Schools certainly should not be physically open imo, shops shouldn't be open to the public, deliveries should be made in full ppe etc. but equally I can't see that passing parliament.

 

Anyway, I am sure we won't agree on the single vaccine dose in general, but I imagine we can agree that the sooner they begin giving second doses (ideally in the recommended time frame) the better.

For me I think that once they have vaccinated over 70's and those who are clinically very vulnerable, they definitely need to be following the recommendations, because the NHS caveat loses it's potency the less vulnerable the target population becomes.

I also hope that the second dose efficacy doesn't become reduced when received later, and basically that covid can become a thoroughly unpleasant memory sooner rather than later.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-06/is-the-uk-right-to-extend-period-between-covid-vaccine-doses

Quote

 

Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, says: “This is not a simple problem. The idea that there is a definite clear-cut answer is not true because respected scientists differ in their views.

He adds that it is "simply not true to say that there is evidence that using the vaccines in a different way will have dramatically reduced efficacy".

"We have some evidence that the efficacy is quite good, and there are no reasons to believe it will show a sudden decline between three and 12 weeks."

 

 

Quote

 

Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds, said: "Given the tremendous effort and investment required to mount clinical trials on this scale, it feels unwise to alter the Pfizer protocol – put simply, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…

“The Pfizer vaccine has been judged by JCVI to confer 90% protection following the first injection, yet there is no data to support how long this might last and what may or may not happen if the second dose is delayed.

"This is also difficult to reconcile with data showing that robust antibody responses are coincident with the second Pfizer injection at day 21 – without data on appropriate patients, we should not merely assume that these will be the same if second doses are delayed."

 

Think those two are more qualified than both of us DCubed, I'd say I sit pretty much with Prof. Evans on this, while you're more Dr Griffin?

Edited by Pestneb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I get furloughed I seem to rearrange my room out of boredom. Just finished dismantling my desk, shifting everything around and getting ready to order a smaller desk. Didn't help that this time because I've barely done anything over Christmas with my muscles in my side being fucked I basically had no strength and am now knackered 😆

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Happenstance said:

Every time I get furloughed I seem to rearrange my room out of boredom. Just finished dismantling my desk, shifting everything around and getting ready to order a smaller desk. Didn't help that this time because I've barely done anything over Christmas with my muscles in my side being fucked I basically had no strength and am now knackered 😆

maybe your room will end up the same way it was by the time covid is over :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure which thread a post like this should go in but it really feels like the state of government is the worst it's ever been right now. This global pandemic has seen so many bad calls by the government as they only seem to care about improving profitability and productivity of those already in employment and those higher up the food chain, they are showing a complete lack of understanding in how properly to handle trying to contain a global pandemic and not listening to the people who actually do know, aka scientists and health professionals.

 

The worst part of all of this is that I feel they are being unchallenged in many of their decisions because the Labour party are not providing the counter balance and not looking after the general population of the UK as they are supposed to be doing, instead just letting everything go without question. The one person who could have actually handled this global pandemic well was Jeremy Corbyn but the people in charge of our local newspapers just scared people off voting him but bigging up anti semitism.

 

At least there's a vaccine available now but I feel like the pandemic is masking bigger problems with the country and they're only going to become more apparent when everyone has received the vaccine and this crisis is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites