What is Joe Bilsborough's relevancy here (whoever he is)?
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Absolute idiots. Reading that this morning made me not want to leave my house at a for a hit. Apparently it was going since New Year's Eve. Thankfully I'm very far West from that, but wouldn't surprised if people had made the journey.2500 people participated to a rave party in Brittany.
but that is just theoretical. what if after months of the first dose the immunity of those vaccinated fades away? it can go well, but it can go very badly because there is not data whatsoever. Is basically playing red or black in a roulette. A gamble
if most of the vaccines they opt for 2 doses is because they feel the necessity to reinforce the first
I did watch this and the case being put forward by the doctor, however the efficacy of the pfizer vaccine after the first dose is only around 52% and it's unclear how long that protection would last anyway. Studies have shown that the second dose gives the immune system major long term boost. With an efficacy of around 95%. Data published in The Lancet in early December showed the Oxford/Astrazenica vaccine was 62 per cent effective in preventing Covid-19 at 22 days following the first dose. If the supply of the Oxford vaccine isn't a problem I cant see why we would need to go down this route. If there was a shortage of the vaccine, then yes there is a strong case for considering this option. I think the big problem will be the logistics of delivering a mass vaccination programme under this incompetent Government.
There was such an incredible effort to get these vaccines made, tested and approved and now it seems that we’re just playing fast and loose with the data to jab more people quicker. It might work but pretty much everything that’s happened in this pandemic tell me it’s going to be a massive clusterf*%k
I wasn't sure on the numbers.
If its only 52% then it is a weird call.
If the efficacy after 1 shot was ~80% then I guess a case could be made about having 200 people on 80% effective vaccine over 100 people on 90+ % .. its a lot harder to justify if the gap is that high though..
Also, I have no idea how this works.. is there any way to flush it out and give a proper 2 doze vaccine at a later date when there is plenty in stock? It sounds silly and I suspect that is not how it works.. but I have no idea.
Right now, when no one has any protection, giving as many people some protection sounds good.. but that's pretty short term thinking and if that cant be fixed later, you end up with the highest risk people having the least effective vaccination.
I mean, the average person will get the vaccine when there is plenty in stock.. that person ends up with a doze that is likely 90% effective in preventing serious illness.
If spacing out the dozes longer than the tested 3 weeks means the overall effectiveness is less than ideal (say ~70%) , wouldnt it be bad if a year on, the older people and the doctors who are at the highest risk have a less effective vaccine than the low risk people?
Last edited:
That can't be good.
Looking at the effort it is taking here to contain and hopefully eradicate under 200 cases over a couple of weeks you can see how easily track and trace can be overwhelmed.
I don't think that is a proper characterisation of what is happening at all. The aim is to provide the maximum overall protection and since safety of the vaccines isn't an issue it seems sensible.
Considering this and all the other problems facing vaccination programs, it would make a lot of sense to move directly into the strictest form of lockdown for an eight week period. A March-style lockdown, not the half-measures and tiered nonsense of the past nine months. It seems like this is a crucial window in completely eradicating this virus as a pandemic threat rather than something still dangerous but much less ubiquitous. A lockdown will decrease transmission enormously, if strictly imposed (like March), which window will allow for immune levels to gradually increase. I don't see why governments would take any chances considering the implications of new and potentially much more contagious and even more lethal variants which might not be covered by specific vaccination regimens. All will have been for nothing if the next couple of months is fecked up.
I actually do not think that is so surprising as between the holidays there is less tests and only that that really have to or have symptoms get tested. I guess (I do not know) you can see the same trend elsewhere, too - especially here in Germany where life is usually nearly halted in between the days between Christmas and New Year - especially with the surrounding weekends.
In addition to the lockdowns even in "normal years" a lot people have the whole Xmas eve day and New Years Eve day off + the full holidays on 1st Xmas day, Boxing day, New Years Day and Three King's Day on January 6th.
Last edited:
They should go full lock down at the same time.
I'd assume (possibly naively) that they have done the calculations and done what works best with the supply them have.
I'd assume (possibly naively) that they have done the calculations and done what works best with the supply them have.
The editor of the British Medical Journal has asked the New York Times to correct an article that claims UK guidelines allow two Covid-19 vaccines to be mixed.
Ms Godlee said the paper's report was "seriously misleading and requires urgent correction".
She said the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) does not make any recommendation to mix and match.
Coronavirus: BMJ urges NYT to correct vaccine 'mixing' article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042
Ms Godlee said the paper's report was "seriously misleading and requires urgent correction".
She said the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) does not make any recommendation to mix and match.
Coronavirus: BMJ urges NYT to correct vaccine 'mixing' article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042
This % of positive tests is a bit of a shoddy statistic if you ask me.
For example in March/April when only testing those hospitalised, the % of positive tests would have been very high. If you’d had widespread community testing then the % would have been much lower, even with a similar number of positive cases.
Clearly it does show cases are rising generically but not much more then that.
For example in March/April when only testing those hospitalised, the % of positive tests would have been very high. If you’d had widespread community testing then the % would have been much lower, even with a similar number of positive cases.
Clearly it does show cases are rising generically but not much more then that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The NYT is a highly partisan paper that takes a dim view of the UK as they believe it is representative of a political ideology opposed to the one they espouse. It’s a shame that they claim the policy that they have misrepresented could cause vaccine scepticism when in fact that’s exactly what they’re doing with this politically motivated hit job.
Boris confirms on Andrew Marr show that tougher restrictions are on the way.
He wouldn't say what they would be, but in the discussion reference was made to March restrictions (no household mixing, 1hr exercise, schools closed)
He wouldn't say what they would be, but in the discussion reference was made to March restrictions (no household mixing, 1hr exercise, schools closed)
Right... But they aren't comparing December to march.
They are comparing December to December
That may be the case regarding comparing positive tests with March/April, however the fact that hospital admissions and deaths are rising at an alarming rate suggests otherwise.
feck me it only changed a day or so ago
What a farce.
They need to be straightforward about it now. Don't tell students to go back to college. Don't reopen the schools on Monday. Opening the schools and then closing them down a week or so later does nothing to help the students/pupils or the case numbers.
Go back to the advice that encourages people to work from home, and to avoid going into other people's houses etc to work for any reason other than an emergency.
Do anything they can to buy a bit a time to get hospital admissions and case numbers down and the vaccine rollout running.
The number is more complicated than 52%. This is the key data for Pfizer: after day 14, protection kicked in and cases for the vaccinated group flatlined while they continued on the same growth curve for unvaccinated cases. So between day 14 and day 21 it is reasonable to say that you are almost as well protected as between days 24 and 31.
The problem is everyone in the Pfizer trial got dose 2 on day 21, and we have very firm evidence that the second dose significantly boosted the immune response primarily through providing longer term immunity. We don’t know how long immunity will last after the second dose, but we know from this chart that it lasted for at least 2 months after it. We have no knowledge of how long immunity will last after dose 1, and good reason to expect it will decline to some degree in between doses over a longer time scale. It is entirely possible that by the time people get their second dose, 4 months later, protection will be significantly lower than 52%. No one has the data on that, not Pfizer, not PHE, not Boris. It doesn’t exist.
The problem is everyone in the Pfizer trial got dose 2 on day 21, and we have very firm evidence that the second dose significantly boosted the immune response primarily through providing longer term immunity. We don’t know how long immunity will last after the second dose, but we know from this chart that it lasted for at least 2 months after it. We have no knowledge of how long immunity will last after dose 1, and good reason to expect it will decline to some degree in between doses over a longer time scale.
It is entirely possible that by the time people get their second dose, 4 months later, protection will be significantly lower than 52%. It is completely plausible that 1 month after the first dose, protection starts to decline significantly. No one has the data on that, not Pfizer, not PHE, not Boris. It doesn’t exist.
Something is puzzling me. We’re all used to a two week lag between cases rising and hospitalisations/deaths increasing. In Ireland this week we’ve seen a huge surge in both at the same time. Is this happening anywhere else? Any theories as to why?
Isn’t there a big backlog of registered positive cases which have accumulated over several weeks which have yet to be reported?
So it seems pretty likely schools will be back in for 2 weeks or so and then close.
Would it not of made more sense to of kept schools closed for 2-3 weeks bar keyworker kids. Than bringing schools back, allowing 2 weeks of infection when rates are very likely to be higher currently than they've ever been in this country and that's not even including the effects of Christmas/New Year..
When you think how badly some Countries like America have handled the virus and the UK per capita is still significantly worse.
Would it not of made more sense to of kept schools closed for 2-3 weeks bar keyworker kids. Than bringing schools back, allowing 2 weeks of infection when rates are very likely to be higher currently than they've ever been in this country and that's not even including the effects of Christmas/New Year..
When you think how badly some Countries like America have handled the virus and the UK per capita is still significantly worse.
I thought the reporting of cases was known to be jammed up and inaccurate?
People waiting longer to get tested due to Christmas maybe? That along with the delays in results may explain a bit of it.
I think that's exactly the problem with the schools. I think they will close whether by national order, or just because too many pupils/staff have been sent home as bubbles get told to isolate.
The same lack of foresight (or is it intentional?) may also see some students return to their colleges before they inevitably get locked in their halls of residence or student house. They need to tell them now, not to travel in the next two weeks (a rolling two weeks, because I don't see how any numbers will change before the end of they month - no matter what we do now).
They could also tell the colleges to start preparing for a term with no students on site. Practical subjects will need time to reschedule learning - maybe even into the summer.
Just give staff at schools and colleges time to plan, and don't penalise/criticise them for it.
But the effectiveness of the vaccine has not been tested with these longer gaps. For example if the effectiveness drops to 50% or less, even we vaccinate twice as many people the net outcome will not be an improvement in immunity.
Opening schools to then inevitably close them a couple of weeks later is typical of how these cnuts have handled the pandemic.
To me it seems the pharma companies themselves are not recommending to take this approach. It is our incompetent UK government not "following the science" yet again.
Thanks for that.The number is more complicated than 52%. This is the key data for Pfizer: after day 14, protection kicked in and cases for the vaccinated group flatlined while they continued on the same growth curve for unvaccinated cases. So between day 14 and day 21 it is reasonable to say that you are almost as well protected as between days 24 and 31.
The problem is everyone in the Pfizer trial got dose 2 on day 21, and we have very firm evidence that the second dose significantly boosted the immune response primarily through providing longer term immunity. We don’t know how long immunity will last after the second dose, but we know from this chart that it lasted for at least 2 months after it. We have no knowledge of how long immunity will last after dose 1, and good reason to expect it will decline to some degree in between doses over a longer time scale. It is entirely possible that by the time people get their second dose, 4 months later, protection will be significantly lower than 52%. No one has the data on that, not Pfizer, not PHE, not Boris. It doesn’t exist.
Given that the majority of the effect is given by the first jab and after that all who do become infected are asymptomatic or have minimal symptoms it does seem to make sense when the UK is in such crisis. In an ideal world this isn't how we would roll vaccines out but we aren't in an ideal world.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Can someone explain to me how schools are safe (30-60+ households mixing with no social distancing especially in Primary) whereas 2 or more households mixing in their own home, or in a pub / restaurant with social distancing in place, is not?
Or how schools are safe in the rest of the UK but not in London?
I'm confused. Or is this just Boris and his “loveable buffoon” act again?
Despite this being a very new vaccine and the producers of the vaccine not recommending this approach?
Fauci in the USA publically stated he would not take this approach over there. Have our public health standards dropped below the USA?
Can you quantify the "majority of the effect" coming from the first jab? What tests have been done at these intervals? Very little, if any, I suspect, because it is such a new vaccine.
The testing backlog happened in the last week. The week before that it was supposed to be functioning ok. And, with a two week lag, those are the cases we’re seeing in hospital now.
EDIT: Looking back, there was a surge in cases in the week before last. Not a patch on what we’re seeing now. God help the hospitals in another week’s time.
Fairly sure the backlog is only from last week or so.