Nobody could have predicted this.Seems conerning?
COVID-19: UK to look 'very carefully' at vaccine dosing after concerns raised over level of protection
http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...erns-raised-over-level-of-protection-12193205
Nobody could have predicted this.Seems conerning?
COVID-19: UK to look 'very carefully' at vaccine dosing after concerns raised over level of protection
http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...erns-raised-over-level-of-protection-12193205
So from that article this 'strong' evidence is one family? Which the WHO actually mentioned in a news conference as limited human to human transmission?There was strong evidence of human-to-human transmission as early as mid January. WHO chose to ignore the threat and time has proven who is right.
https://time.com/5826025/taiwan-who-trump-coronavirus-covid19/
Richer nations are buying up the vaccine supply as expected. What is wrong with the WHO raising concerns that other nations need vaccine as well? Surely not to do so would be grounds for criticism?Yes, and richer regions have also played their parts in donating to COVAX. After this point, it's WHO's responsibility to make good use of the fund and distribute vaccines as equal as possible. Pointing the fingers at richer regions is merely shirking their responsibility.
My opinion is that if WHO did not recommend against issuing a travelling ban to China and provide a false sense of security to the world, countries would have stepped up precautions like Taiwan and the spread would have been much more controllable.So from that article this 'strong' evidence is one family? Which the WHO actually mentioned in a news conference as limited human to human transmission?
This great corruption was to wait a further week for more evidence before making a conclusive statement. What a terrible attempt at a cover up that is.
I'm guessing your of the opinion if they'd have said human to human on the 14th rather than limited then miraculously this would never have got out of China?
Vaccines are an obvious exception. Especially when it comes to covid.Why don't they say anything but their total failure in preventing this pandemic, leading to the inevitable consequence that poorer regions suffer more? Wealth, food, resources etc are all distributed unequally in the world and I don't see vaccine as an exception. It is not ideal but it is something you have to cope with, especially when you are the major culprit for the mess in the first place. Plus, WHO received a lump sum of donation from China (for covering up), they could have spent it on vaccines if they care so much.
Ideally yes, but it's never gonna happen and everyone knows it. At a purely selfish level, richer countries would have all their citizens vaccinated before worrying about developing nations and resistant strains. This is what happening but Tedros calls this catastrophic moral failure. It's also worth to note that many richer countries have already played their part by donating a lump sum to COVAX, aiming to support those poorer countries.Vaccines are an obvious exception. Especially when it comes to covid.
Even at a purely selfish level, it’s in the interest of every country on the planet to help with vaccine distribution to the countries that might struggle to vaccinate their citizens without that support.
Otherwise we face years of anxiety about vaccine resistant strains evolving in countries with partial/ineffective vaccination programs.
So all countries put in a China travel ban (except business because that's the reality), cases still get out and the west still faces an explosion of cases perhaps a week or two later because they aren't prepared anyway.My opinion is that if WHO did not recommend against issuing a travelling ban to China and provide a false sense of security to the world, countries would have stepped up precautions like Taiwan and the spread would have been much more controllable.
Nobody could have predicted this.
The Taiwan-like control is to activate enhanced border control and quarantine measures at early stage (Dec 31) such as screening passengers on flights from Wuhan prior to disembarkation. I don't see why other countries are not in a place to implement these measures. Countries aren't prepared only because WHO keeps providinig a false sense of security to the world, while Taiwan knows China and WHO are hiding something. Cases may still get out but keeping the case number low is key to contact tracing and isolation.So all countries put in a China travel ban (except business because that's the reality), cases still get out and the west still faces an explosion of cases perhaps a week or two later because they aren't prepared anyway.
I think you're quite misguided thinking all other countries were in a place to put in Taiwan like controls.
It’s alright, @ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg has already agreed ”it wasn’t a gamble and that promulgation of such an argument is reminiscent of Facebook arguments”, so it’ll be fine.Nobody could have predicted this.
Vallance’s response is reasonable and the Sky News article where their “science expert “ supposedly digs into the data is flimsy to the point of deliberately misleading.Nobody could have predicted this.
you are pretty tiresome.It’s alright, @ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg has already agreed ”it wasn’t a gamble and that promulgation of such an argument is reminiscent of Facebook arguments”, so it’ll be fine.
Just ignore the Israel data.
I mean, look at the quote man, as though people saying it was a ”gamble” by the UK to go with 12 weeks was ”reminiscent of Facebook arguments”. Ffs man, and just a couple of days later and those fears of “gamble” are now shared by the UK experts and the data from Israel is concerning.you are pretty tiresome.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ow-germany-in-making-clinical-masks-mandatoryI dont see that here. We are doing fine in Italy, over a million doses given in 2 weeks.
I suspect theres an element of individual countries trying to pass the blame for their own screwups.
In fairness, without having seen the original post myself, if that quote is accurate.....it very clearly is a gamble. It may ultimately end up being a brilliant one but for now, it is a gamble.you are pretty tiresome.
Get in da choppa!
She should've said "Get out".Get in da choppa!
Everyone involved in the conversation admitted it might be a brilliant gamble, and is also one that is easy to understand why they took it. But a gamble it is.In fairness, without having seen the original post myself, if that quote is accurate.....it very clearly is a gamble. It may ultimately end up being a brilliant one but for now, it is a gamble.
Taiwan didn't act how they did because they knew that "China and WHO are hiding something" any more than NZ, Australia or Singapore did. That is pure fantasy.The Taiwan-like control is to activate enhanced border control and quarantine measures at early stage (Dec 31) such as screening passengers on flights from Wuhan prior to disembarkation. I don't see why other countries are not in a place to implement these measures. Countries aren't prepared only because WHO keeps providinig a false sense of security to the world, while Taiwan knows China and WHO are hiding something. Cases may still get out but keeping the case number low is key to contact tracing and isolation.
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/Detail/PAD-lbwDHeN_bLa-viBOuw?typeid=158
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I can express an opinion, without some random bloke on the internet turning into a drama Queen.I mean, look at the quote man, as though people saying it was a ”gamble” by the UK to go with 12 weeks was ”reminiscent of Facebook arguments”. Ffs man, and just a couple of days later and those fears of “gamble” are now shared by the UK experts and the data from Israel is concerning.
I’d say Facebook arguments are the ones in which a clear gamble according to the known science is declared bollocks, cause bloke on FB (or redcafe) knows better.
No data from the Pfizer or Moderna said it was the right thing to do, ergo... gamble.
“Assist with national distribution” seems to mean “help vaccinate their staff”. Which is good, I guess. But clearly motivated by their bottom line.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Out of interest, are they going to be running this like a clinical trial? As in, are they committed to collecting data on everyone vaccinated on this different schedule? Did they sign you up to any kind of observational study? They should have.In fairness, without having seen the original post myself, if that quote is accurate.....it very clearly is a gamble. It may ultimately end up being a brilliant one but for now, it is a gamble.
I personally would not have taken the vaccine if I had known they would do this. I did not give my consent to essentially be part of a clinical trial.
There's a video interview from Taiwan saying they didn't believe China and acted accordingly.Taiwan didn't act how they did because they knew that "China and WHO are hiding something" any more than NZ, Australia or Singapore did. That is pure fantasy.
China could say it was dark at night and Taiwan would think they were pulling a fast one.There's a video interview from Taiwan saying they didn't believe China and acted accordingly.
Did NZ, Australia or Singapore implement any measure in Dec 2019? The clarification from Taiwan CDC clear states that they are not satisfied with the responses from China and WHO, this is fact not fantasy.Taiwan didn't act how they did because they knew that "China and WHO are hiding something" any more than NZ, Australia or Singapore did. That is pure fantasy.
I'm not talking about when each country implemented anything necessarily. I'm saying that WHO's response was not the reason countries did not react.Did NZ, Australia or Singapore implement any measure in Dec 2019? The clarification from Taiwan CDC clear states that they are not satisfied with the responses from China and WHO, this is fact not fantasy.
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/Detail/PAD-lbwDHeN_bLa-viBOuw?typeid=158
One of the reasons why governments didn't listen to their own scientists is that WHO was a photocopying machine of China and kept providing a false sense of security to the world. They ignored the threat of the virus and recommended against a travelling ban till late January, missing the best shot to contain the virus and limit the spread as much as possible. After this point, the virus has already been spread all over the world (e.g. Italy) and any effort is nothing more than damage limitation.China could say it was dark at night and Taiwan would think they were pulling a fast one.
The point is that Taiwan and other countries like Australia, South Korean, Singapore and New Zealand had enough information to act in time, so trying to say the rest of the world wouldn't have had a pandemic if only the WHO had said something more definitive and/or earlier isn't true. Most countries chose not to lock down despite the evidence and wouldn't have done any different no matter what the WHO said because they weren't even listening to their own scientists. I'm not claiming that the WHO are perfect. Far from it. But to lay the blame for the pandemic at their feet is just unsupportable.
Not hard to disagree with that. The WHO spent critical days and weeks at the beginning refusing to admit the seriousness of it, and many countries followed their advice. It took until 11 March for them to declare a pandemic, by which time it was ripping through Europe, the Middle East and Asia, and well underway in the US.One of the reasons why governments didn't listen to their own scientists is that WHO was a photocopying machine of China and kept providing a false sense of security to the world. They ignored the threat of the virus and recommended against a travelling ban till late January, missing the best shot to contain the virus and limit the spread as much as possible. After this point, the virus has already been spread all over the world (e.g. Italy) and any effort is nothing more than damage limitation.
Like I said in my earlier post, I totally agree some countries are doing the damage limitation better than others. My Taiwan example is not to show their success in combating the pandemic (so NZ, Australia, Singapore are irrelevant), but to contrast the incompetence of WHO. They suspected, knew and warned about the human-to-human transmission much earlier, and their experts had their investigation in Wuhan in early stage. WHO, on the other hand, sent their team to China only in last week.
To be honest I'm not trying to defend any government, especially when I have no idea about what's happening in the west. What triggers me is how WHO complains about moral failure, when they themselves are the major culprit of the mess in the first place.
The Pfizer vaccine manufacturer scientists advise against the UK strategy. So if we got it wrong it will be down to the UK making yet more mistakes, just so the government can shout a larger number of people vaccinated in the media. E.g "3 million have had their first jab"Does anyone know what these vaccines do or have they just been approved out of desperation and then hope for the best . It all seems very hit and miss . Chopping and changing when to give the 2nd dose and what the actual protection will be. It is hard to know what to believe when people are desperate to get back to some level of normality socially and economically . I hope the scientists haven't got it wrong .
Yet the latest real world studies in Israel show that effectiveness after the first jab is closer to 31% which undermines the UKs gamble. There is still more data to come.We know very well what they do. The vaccines are safe and effective or very effective. Like all non-sterilising vaccines (the vast majority in all cases) we won't know how much this will reduce the R value and/or the transmission but it is looking very optimistic.
The gap between doses isn't anything to do with scientists getting it right or wrong but rather a public health response to the pandemic. Ideally you stick to the gap that was tested during trials but in this unprecedented case they are hoping that giving as many people as possible the first shot will on average reduce transmission as compare to giving a reduced number of people 2 shots on schedule. As a former scientist (biologist not immunologist) my instinct would be to go as fast as possible with the approved gap between but I can see the advantage of maybe getting 60/70% effectiveness for nearly twice as many people vs 90+% for the lesser number. I guess the danger is we don't really know what leaving a bigger gap will do to the overall effectiveness (hopefully nothing).
Denmark have gone down that route. USA & Germany considering it as well.How many other countries are increasing the gap between jabs as far apart as the UK?
If that data is true then maintaining the gap is obviously more important than anyone would have guessed but 31% does seem rather low. Not saying it is wrong but you wouldn't expect such low effectiveness.Yet the latest real world studies in Israel show that effectiveness after the first jab is closer to 31% which undermines the UKs gamble. There is still more data to come.
This is not only a public health to a pandemic internationally. This is quite a gamble from the UK. How many other countries are increasing the gap between jabs as far apart as the UK?
That's why I feel it's more than fair and reasonable to say the WHO is the major culprit responsible for the pandemic. From what I see, it has already become a heavily corrupted organization and it speaks for whoever donates more. For you it may look a hindsight, but in Hong Kong we shared the same suspicion as Taiwan and we demanded to close the border against Wuhan in very early stage. Yet our Chief Executive refused and took the BS advice from the WHO.Not hard to disagree with that. The WHO spent critical days and weeks at the beginning refusing to admit the seriousness of it, and many countries followed their advice. It took until 11 March for them to declare a pandemic, by which time it was ripping through Europe, the Middle East and Asia, and well underway in the US.
They'll be lucky if they leave this whole thing with any credibility left. At best they'll be seen as another UN but i expect there will be some changes brought about in the aftermath.
I believe this is due to a number of people contracting the virus straight after getting the jab (before it reaches high levels of efficacy). A bit misleading to say the leastYet the latest real world studies in Israel show that effectiveness after the first jab is closer to 31% which undermines the UKs gamble. There is still more data to come.
This is not only a public health to a pandemic internationally. This is quite a gamble from the UK. How many other countries are increasing the gap between jabs as far apart as the UK?