☣ Coronavirus ☣

[Moha]

It looks like we're looking at a schedule as below, if things work out well. Of course it may not work out that way, but another common misconception that the vaccine is being rushed ( ) is another stupid view. The original vaccine is already safety tested as the new one is just a variation of vaccines produced for previous viruses and they are having to test the effectiveness of this now.


Late Autumn/Early Winter - Vaccine results announced (hopefully positive)

January 2021 - Vaccine to start being rolled out to those that need it

March/April 2021 - More doses and restrictions lifted

May/June 2021 - Normality starts to resume - IBIZA ?

I am booking June, then.

 

[stivi]

It looks like we're looking at a schedule as below, if things work out well. Of course it may not work out that way, but another common misconception that the vaccine is being rushed ( ) is another stupid view. The original vaccine is already safety tested as the new one is just a variation of vaccines produced for previous viruses and they are having to test the effectiveness of this now.


Late Autumn/Early Winter - Vaccine results announced (hopefully positive)

January 2021 - Vaccine to start being rolled out to those that need it

March/April 2021 - More doses and restrictions lifted

May/June 2021 - Normality starts to resume - IBIZA ?

where can I sign?
personally I am hoping for this, but am doubtful it'll be that quick.

please please let it be that quick though!!

 

[JayDR8]

where can I sign?
personally I am hoping for this, but am doubtful it'll be that quick.

please please let it be that quick though!!

It's obviously quite an optimistic view of it, but most of the top UK scientists in the panel that is responding to this do seem quite positive about the chances of a vaccine and it being widely available by net summer, which implies rolling it out will start earlier.

Lockdown has been fine for me and if i keep my job then I've actually come out of it better mentally, financially and physically, if gyms stay open over the winter. Winter will be much tougher than a summer lockdown but hopefully we won't get anywhere near as touch with restrictions, at least if we do have an end it sight it will then become much easier

 

[FlatErik]

Sweden spared European surge as coronavirus infections stay low

Chief epidemiologist puts low number of cases down to light-touch ‘sustainable’ approach

www.theguardian.com

?‍

I can see why the Swedish model depends on geography and it would probably be a mistake to use it in Spain...but..
We have yet to see if it will make a difference in the long run. Wether the old and vulnerable die quick or die in phases (in between multiple strict lockdowns)...perhaps in the end the mortality number will be the same for every country unless a vaccine comes real fast.

And about the media praising Sweden...it was totally the other way around in March/April. Every country was trying to tackle their approach because of a quick rise in deaths in care homes etc. Again..in the end...if they die because of this virus...is the governmental approach worse than another country's approach cause they died a few months earlier? I don't know.

At the moment the numbers in Sweden still look good to me btw.

 

[stivi]

quick update on where the balearics stand:

as mentioned already a few days ago, after a pretty bad month (say mid august to mid september) with lots of cases, we do seem to get better. the number of new infections is slowly decreasing: 150 in last 24h on entire archipelago, 39 on the pitiuses. also the positivity rate on tests is now down to 5%, it was at 12-13% still not long ago.

it does seem the fact less tourists around (and with that generally simply less activity) plus the mini lockdowns start to work.

I'm hoping we continue in that manner now and can then look ahead at a quiet winter here on the balearics. this isn't scaremongering and shouldn't be taken as such, but personally I'm really glad I don't live in a big city right now.

 

[stivi]

Sweden spared European surge as coronavirus infections stay low

Chief epidemiologist puts low number of cases down to light-touch ‘sustainable’ approach

www.theguardian.com

?‍

I can see why the Swedish model depends on geography and it would probably be a mistake to use it in Spain...but..
We have yet to see if it will make a difference in the long run. Wether the old and vulnerable die quick or die in phases (in between multiple strict lockdowns)...perhaps in the end the mortality number will be the same for every country unless a vaccine comes real fast.

And about the media praising Sweden...it was totally the other way around in March/April. Every country was trying to tackle their approach because of a quick rise in deaths in care homes etc. Again..in the end...if they die because of this virus...is the governmental approach worse than another country's approach cause they died a few months earlier? I don't know.

At the moment the numbers in Sweden still look good to me btw.

something must be bothering tegnell else he wouldn't be considering making moves don't you think?

 

[stivi]

also, while we're far from first wave numbers, 240 covid deaths in spain in last 24h.

 

[4tothefloor]

also, while we're far from first wave numbers, 240 covid deaths in spain in last 24h.

Goodness me. This should be the wake up call for those that need it. Didn’t realise Spain was so impacted. Good to hear of an improving situation in the Balearics, let hope the rest of Spain follows quickly.

 

[Hally]

It looks like we're looking at a schedule as below, if things work out well. Of course it may not work out that way, but another common misconception that the vaccine is being rushed ( ) is another stupid view. The original vaccine is already safety tested as the new one is just a variation of vaccines produced for previous viruses and they are having to test the effectiveness of this now.


Late Autumn/Early Winter - Vaccine results announced (hopefully positive)

January 2021 - Vaccine to start being rolled out to those that need it

March/April 2021 - More doses and restrictions lifted

May/June 2021 - Normality starts to resume - IBIZA ?

28th June should be the Governments of the world's main target

 

[IainB2]

It looks like we're looking at a schedule as below, if things work out well. Of course it may not work out that way, but another common misconception that the vaccine is being rushed ( ) is another stupid view. The original vaccine is already safety tested as the new one is just a variation of vaccines produced for previous viruses and they are having to test the effectiveness of this now.


Late Autumn/Early Winter - Vaccine results announced (hopefully positive)

January 2021 - Vaccine to start being rolled out to those that need it

March/April 2021 - More doses and restrictions lifted

May/June 2021 - Normality starts to resume - IBIZA ?

The last I heard was there are expecting a vaccine to be 30-50% effective and it probably won't prevent catching and transmitting coronavirus it will only prevent it progressing to a severe illness (COVID-19).

If that's what we are waiting for it sounds a bit shit to be honest.

 

[4tothefloor]

The last I heard was there are expecting a vaccine to be 30-50% effective and it probably won't prevent catching and transmitting coronavirus it will only prevent it progressing to a severe illness (COVID-19).

If that's what we are waiting for it sounds a bit shit to be honest.

Where did you hear this?

 

[IainB2]

Where did you hear this?

I've heard it a few times.

The first was an interview with Chris Whitty where one of the questions was "Do you think the a vaccine should be mandatory" his response was

“We may well get a vaccine that in any case protects the individual but has no benefit to society – it’s simply to protect the individual.

“In which case, it’s entirely a matter of choice as to whether someone wishes to be protected against this very potentially significant disease.”

Chris Whitty

Second time was Kate Bingham chairwomen of the UK's Vaccine Taskforce who said

"I wouldn't bet on having a vaccine this year but I would put a bet on having something early next year that modifies the course of the disease," she said.

"What I think we'll get is a vaccine that reduces the severity of symptoms so that people will stop dying and it will turn into something like flu."

Kate Bingham

It's also mention in this Lancet article that

"the impact of these COVID-19 vaccines on infection and thus transmission is not being assessed"

Lancet

 

[4tothefloor]

I've heard it a few times.

The first was an interview with Chris Whitty where one of the questions was "Do you think the a vaccine should be mandatory" his response was

“We may well get a vaccine that in any case protects the individual but has no benefit to society – it’s simply to protect the individual.

“In which case, it’s entirely a matter of choice as to whether someone wishes to be protected against this very potentially significant disease.”

Chris Whitty

Second time was Kate Bingham chairwomen of the UK's Vaccine Taskforce who said

"I wouldn't bet on having a vaccine this year but I would put a bet on having something early next year that modifies the course of the disease," she said.

"What I think we'll get is a vaccine that reduces the severity of symptoms so that people will stop dying and it will turn into something like flu."

Kate Bingham

It's also mention in this Lancet article that

"the impact of these COVID-19 vaccines on infection and thus transmission is not being assessed"

Lancet

Interesting, cheers. I haven’t heard it could be as low as 30%.

I take a different position to you regarding 50%. A vaccine that achieves 50% efficacy would have a huge impact. It would halve the number of potential positive cases as soon as vaccinated. Then at worst, ‘only’ 50% of the population then become transmittable. It’s a game changer. The third benefit is that it would help lead to herd immunity. 60% of the population being infected is seen as the road to that. We would only be 10% away from that. It’s estimated that many have already had it.

 

[IainB2]

Interesting, cheers. I haven’t heard it could be as low as 30%.

I take a different position to you regarding 50%. A vaccine that achieves 50% efficacy would have a huge impact. It would halve the number of potential positive cases as soon as vaccinated. Then at worst, ‘only’ 50% of the population then become transmittable. It’s a game changer. The third benefit is that it would help lead to herd immunity. 60% of the population being infected is seen as the road to that. We would only be 10% away from that. It’s estimated that many have already had it.

I don't understand your logic due to my other point that its still highly likely that you can still be infected and transmit coronavirus after the vaccine.

How would only 50% become transmittable?

How could you personally be contributing to herd immunity if it was still possible for you still to be infected and transmit it?

 

[tclubber]

The last I heard was there are expecting a vaccine to be 30-50% effective

Where did you get the 30-50% number? I see no such numbers in the sources you quoted.

The Lancet article lists 30-50% as a WHO requirement. Not as a property of actual vaccines.

 

[4tothefloor]

I don't understand your logic due to my other point that its still highly likely that you can still be infected and transmit coronavirus after the vaccine.

How would only 50% become transmittable?

How could you personally be contributing to herd immunity if it was still possible for you still to be infected and transmit it?

My logic is based on the lancet stating that it is unlikely to be transmittable if efficacy is achieved upon vaccination. Like most virus’. It remains to be seen.

Even if not, 50% efficacy plus 10% of the population already infected at some point equals 60%. In pursuit of herd immunity, what could be negative about that?

 

[Hurr1cane]

Interesting, cheers. I haven’t heard it could be as low as 30%.

I take a different position to you regarding 50%. A vaccine that achieves 50% efficacy would have a huge impact. It would halve the number of potential positive cases as soon as vaccinated. Then at worst, ‘only’ 50% of the population then become transmittable. It’s a game changer. The third benefit is that it would help lead to herd immunity. 60% of the population being infected is seen as the road to that. We would only be 10% away from that. It’s estimated that many have already had it.

Dr. Fauci in US says he is looking for 75% but would accept 50-60%. The FDA won't authorize anything less than 50% (assuming Trump doesn't intervene.) There is some percentage of people who vow they will never take the vaccine, and many more who want to 'wait and see.' Fauci has said he is concerned that if the initial vaccine causes a serious issue they might never be able to win people back to be vaccinated.

 

[4tothefloor]

Dr. Fauci in US says he is looking for 75% but would accept 50-60%. The FDA won't authorize anything less than 50% (assuming Trump doesn't intervene.) There is some percentage of people who vow they will never take the vaccine, and many more who want to 'wait and see.' Fauci has said he is concerned that if the initial vaccine causes a serious issue they might never be able to win people back to be vaccinated.

That sounds even more positive to me. There are many vaccines in development and testing. Let hope one sticks. Anything from 50-75% efficacy would great news. Biggest concerns will be licensing production and distribution. Access will inevitably become an issue.

 

[claretclubber]

Article on recent excessive UK deaths at home during coronavirus pandemic https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...hs-than-usual-occurred-in-uk-homes-since-june

 

[IainB2]

Where did you get the 30-50% number? I see no such numbers in the sources you quoted.

The Lancet article lists 30-50% as a WHO requirement. Not as a property of actual vaccines.

The first 2 links I posted were referencing quotes from people who will have seen the data from initial vaccine trials indicating the vaccines will most likely reduce the severity of illness but not prevent transmission.

The 30-50% was just something I knew I had read before so I googled it an came up with the lancet article.

Now I have looked back it was this news piece I came across 30-50% being discussed

Covid vaccine rush could make pandemic worse, say scientists

Fair enough we don't know the exact figure yet, we could even be lucky to get 30%, or it might be 0% or 100%

My logic is based on the lancet stating that it is unlikely to be transmittable if efficacy is achieved upon vaccination.

Can you provide a quote from the lancet article that says this? What I'm reading is

" the impact of these COVID-19 vaccines on infection and thus transmission is not being assessed. Even if vaccines were able to confer protection from disease, they might not reduce transmission similarly. "

and

"Challenge studies in vaccinated primates showed reductions in pathology, symptoms, and viral load in the lower respiratory tract, but failed to elicit sterilising immunity in the upper airways. Sterilising immunity in the upper airways has been claimed for one vaccine, but peer-reviewed publication of these data are awaited."

and

"These observations suggest that we cannot assume COVID-19 vaccines, even if shown to be effective in reducing severity of disease, will reduce virus transmission to a comparable degree. The notion that COVID-19-vaccine-induced population immunity will allow a return to pre-COVID-19 “normalcy” might be based on illusory assumptions. "

You also asked how this can be negative. Here is an example

I get vaccinated and I'm protected from Covid19 but can still transmit it
My dad gets vaccinated but is one of the 50% who is not protected
I catch and transmit the coronavirus to my dad