☣ Coronavirus ☣

Status
Not open for further replies.
kimajy said:
The 12-week wait thing is a joke. Won't do the 1/2 followed by full dose approach as the testing sample sub-group was too small and yet proposing to go with a 12 week wait between doses on both jabs, something which has not been subject to any clinical trials AT ALL AFAIK. When politicians suddenly decide they can mix and match in a knee-jerk response to queueing ambulances. And we're being asked to trust them ? Elderly mum has just said she's lost all confidence and will be refusing the vaccine. That's from a household who were 100% pro. F'king shambles.
Click to expand...
The first jab basically does all the hard work and gives plenty of protection AFAIK. It also doesn't have to be 12 weeks - that's the max and it should be a lot less. Your elderly mum should speak to a doc, and ignore what's on telly etc!
 
MrHullMysterious said:
Confusing eh!?
Click to expand...

Totally. Nowhere near enough context being given and clearly causing resistance now !! There have always been a lot of older Brits who just take what doctor tells them to but those who have lived abroad have learned that this is not always the right way to go !!

2H76 said:
Your elderly mum should speak to a doc, and ignore what's on telly etc!
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: speak to a doctor ??? That'll be the day she can get near speaking to one of those :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Cutting through the crap in the U.K., I think this is the situation in terms of a route out of this.

It’s looking likely that society will open up more at the end of July as opposed Spring. That is very much dependent on the government sourcing sufficient doses, that two jabs are applied 12 weeks apart and that 2m jabs are administered each week. Still a lot of ifs and this only jabs up the most at risk and elderly. It remains important to remember that when society opens up, infection rates will go berserk for under 50s and therefore lead to excess deaths, long Covid consequences and a lot of sick people in that age group. The idea that this only really affects the elderly and those with long term (diagnosed) underlying health issues needs dispelling. And for those vaxed up, it will be between 70-90% effective, which is a great clinical outcome but still leaves 10-30% exposed.

However, at least we have access to a potentially widely accessible vaccine which is good news for the U.K. I hope the rest of the world can gain similar access.

Below is taken from the bbc website.

The health secretary told the Commons the UK already has 530,000 doses available from Monday, "with millions due from AstraZeneca by the beginning of February". He added that the "clinical advice is that the Oxford vaccine is best deployed as two doses up to 12 weeks apart"
 
Last edited:
kimajy said:
We're not a frigging Socialist / communist country yet. Or are we ?? :rolleyes:

You just spin it that the Government can't justify spending taxpayer money on the Pfizer / Moderna when there is a more affordable alternative which meets public health objectives. So if you want the fancy ones you have to pay for them. Plus NHS is then supporting UK industry over foreign industry. All the bullsh*t that brexit is about.
Click to expand...
Just going to butt in here. I don’t disagree with your sentiment. However, while we are not a socialist or communist state, this government and most world governments have become authoritarian during Covid, and that is necessary imo because it is quite apparent that a large minority of the public (at least) can’t be trusted to do the right thing. My concern is what comes next. Pre Covid we certainly saw a lot more countries with right wing or centre right governments start to adopt an authoritarian capitalist ideology. It will be interesting to see how far this extends in the post Covid world. If we ever get a post Covid world.
 
Last edited:
4tothefloor said:
That is very much dependent on the government sourcing sufficient doses, that two jabs are applied 12 weeks apart and that 2m jabs are administered each month.
Click to expand...

Think it’s 2m a week, no? Provided they can get the stock obviously, and not immediately, but a ramp up to that level.

Theoretically, that’s 24m people getting their first dose and first 60%+ efficacy level in the first 12 weeks which is give or take half of those who need it.

Make those 12 weeks 18 in reality and we’re talking mid/end May to 24m folk having the first level of protection (ish- fag packet maths)

www.bbc.com

Covid-19: Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine approved for use in UK

The first doses are due to be given on Monday, amid concern over rising coronavirus cases.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Last edited:
eclipse15 said:
Think it’s 2m a week, no? Provided they can get the stock obviously, and not immediately, but a ramp up to that level.

Theoretically, that’s 24m people getting their first dose and first 60%+ efficacy level in the first 12 weeks which is give or take half of those who need it.

Make those 12 weeks 18 in reality and we’re talking mid/end May to 24m folk having the first level of protection (ish- fag packet maths)

www.bbc.com

Covid-19: Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine approved for use in UK

The first doses are due to be given on Monday, amid concern over rising coronavirus cases.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
Sorry, my bad. I meant 2m a week in my analysis. Will amend.

My maths suggests 2m a week from February, two doses each required and that would lead us to full coverage for the elderly and those with underlying health issues by end of July. I can’t see them opening up until both doses are administered.

Equally, I can’t see 2m doses a week being administered, can you? The government said they would have 4m doses available by the end of this year, they have just over 500k in reality.
 
4tothefloor said:
Sorry, my bad. I meant 2m a week in my analysis. Will amend.

My maths suggests 2m a week from February, two doses each required and that would lead us to full coverage for the elderly and those with underlying health issues by end of July. I can’t see them opening up until both doses are administered.

Equally, I can’t see 2m doses a week being administered, can you? The government said they would have 4m doses available by the end of this year, they have just over 500k in reality.
Click to expand...


... and all back to my earlier predictions that a 2021 Summer of travel abroad for the under-50s is basically a pipedream scenario. Especially when airlines start demanding that people have vaccinations before they are allowed to travel.
 
kimajy said:
... and all back to my earlier predictions that a 2021 Summer of travel abroad for the under-50s is basically a pipedream scenario. Especially when airlines start demanding that people have vaccinations before they are allowed to travel.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. Sadly.
 
4tothefloor said:
Couldn’t agree more. Sadly.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit more hopeful, but of course it depends on where you want to go and how far along they are with their vaccinations as well. Doubt that places will open up to other until they’ve got a good chunk of their own folk sorted
 
kimajy said:
The 12-week wait thing is a joke. Won't do the 1/2 followed by full dose approach as the testing sample sub-group was too small and yet proposing to go with a 12 week wait between doses on both jabs, something which has not been subject to any clinical trials AT ALL AFAIK. When politicians suddenly decide they can mix and match in a knee-jerk response to queueing ambulances. And we're being asked to trust them ? Elderly mum has just said she's lost all confidence and will be refusing the vaccine. That's from a household who were 100% pro. F'king shambles.
Click to expand...
So your conclusion is to not have a vaccine? Sounds like a logical one. I for one would certainly trust that over MHRA's approval of this dosage.
 
JayDR8 said:
So your conclusion is to not have a vaccine? Sounds like a logical one. I for one would certainly trust that over MHRA's approval of this dosage.
Click to expand...
I'd have it so long as I get the 2nd booster dose ~3 months later.

1st dose - results in extremely small risk of severe illness, hospitalization/death.
2nd dose - boost immune response so smaller chance of becoming infected with covid at all.

The data seems to show longer period between doses is much more effective. (Up to 90%). The 1/2 + 1 had 8 weeks between doses, other groups had varying time.

If majority get 1st dose of oxford then life can return to normal - we don't shut down the country for people with colds?‍♂️

But guess it's a choice each person has to make.

For what its worth, all these vaccines are safer than the old school ones that deactivated or otherwise crippled the actual virus, then injected that in you. These ones are the lockpick without the thief as it where.
 
www.nytimes.com

U.K. Authorizes Covid-19 Vaccine From Oxford and AstraZeneca (Published 2020)

Health officials hope to soon vaccinate up to two million people per week as the country’s hospitals are overwhelmed by cases of a new, more contagious coronavirus variant.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Probs helps understand their thinking a bit (emphasise mine)

British regulators said on Wednesday that the vaccine’s efficacy appeared to rise to 80 percent in a smaller group of volunteers who were given the two doses roughly three months, rather than a single month, apart, a result that has not been published but that nevertheless emboldened the regulators to authorize a longer gap between doses.

Professor Pollard said in the interview that the longer interval provoked higher levels of antibodies in participants. And he said that finding may help solve a puzzle that has hung over the Oxford-AstraZeneca group: why the vaccine had a 90 percent efficacy in volunteers who were given a half-strength, rather than full-strength, initial dose. Those volunteers happened to get their two doses further apart, making it likely that the higher efficacy was a result of the elongated gap between doses, and not the size of the initial dose at all, as originally believed
 
I've got to say, as someone who was all for vaccines in the first place I'm really not keen on the lack of understanding they seem to have regarding the Oxford vaccine. Fortunately I'll be at the back of the queue anyway by which stage they'll have done plenty more peer-reviews of the data, but at the moment I wouldn't be happy sticking it in my arm.
 
I don't see what the issue is. The half/full subgroup was too small (and only 18-55yo) for MHRA approval. But the subgroup that was approved (evidently) was not. Why does one subgroup not fitting the criteria, but another subgroup fitting it, and therefore able to be accepted, a bad thing? A perfectly acceptable method has been found. There is nothing wrong with have a method that passes regulatory approval, people seem to be implying figures have been fudged. The figures have been released if you want to look at them, it's weird you'd take a lack of understanding the evidence as a reason to not trust medical professionals.

This was 12,000 people (6,000 in each arm) who received their second dose between 4-26 weeks after their first dose. Up until either a) the day they got the second dose or b) 12 weeks after their first dose, there had been 30 infections in the vaccine arm, and 101 in the control arm = so around 70 infections prevented by one dose of the vaccine for every 100 that occur. So 70% protection.

Data here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca
 
Last edited:
JayDR8 said:
I don't see what the issue is. The half/full subgroup was too small (and only 18-55yo) for MHRA approval. But the subgroup that was approved (evidently) was not. Why does one subgroup not fitting the criteria, but another subgroup fitting it, and therefore able to be accepted, a bad thing? A perfectly acceptable method has been found. There is nothing wrong with have a method that passes regulatory approval, people seem to be implying figures have been fudged. The figures have been released if you want to look at them, it's weird you'd take a lack of understanding the evidence as a reason to not trust medical professionals.

This was 12,000 people (6,000 in each arm) who received their second dose between 4-26 weeks after their first dose. Up until either a) the day they got the second dose or b) 12 weeks after their first dose, there had been 30 infections in the vaccine arm, and 101 in the control arm = so around 70 infections prevented by one dose of the vaccine for every 100 that occur. So 70% protection.

Data here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca
Click to expand...
In addition to this, of those who did get infected, none of them developed serious disease.

The 70% thing isn’t “of those vaccinated 70% will live and 30% will get covid and die”

It’s 70% against any infection at all, but a much higher protection against serious illness or death.
 
lee111s said:
In addition to this, of those who did get infected, none of them developed serious disease.

The 70% thing isn’t “of those vaccinated 70% will live and 30% will get covid and die”

It’s 70% against any infection at all, but a much higher protection against serious illness or death.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's the main point. If not a single person died after being vaccinated, 70% less people caught it, but the 30% that did still catch it got a flu-like illness without the need for hospitalisation for example, that's an incredible success.

Or as the tories would say a GREAT BRITISH success.
 
Last edited:
4tothefloor said:
CuttingIt remains important to remember that when society opens up, infection rates will go berserk for under 50s and therefore lead to excess deaths, long Covid consequences and a lot of sick people in that age group. The idea that this only really affects the elderly and those with long term (diagnosed) underlying health issues needs dispelling. And for those vaxed up, it will be between 70-90% effective, which is a great clinical outcome but still leaves 10-30% exposed.
Click to expand...

95% of deaths are people aged over 50. Once those people are vaccinated, deaths and hospitalizations will drop like a rock.

Also, while 10-30% may still be exposed, the vaccine limits the severity of the disease and should keep them out of the hospital.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top