☣ Coronavirus ☣

Status
Not open for further replies.
claretclubber said:
The question was why they should keep them on. The event was an experiment with different conditions for attendees to help get back to [wait for it] normal wasnt it?

If the wearing of masks, showed no difference to people not wearing
masks - seems worth it to me?
Click to expand...
again....what could possibly be the difference if EVERY ATTENDEE is tested negative before the event?
 
kimajy said:
They're only as effective as a single Astrazeneca jab from the data I've seen and remains to be seen whether there are supply shortages with that one too given both pfizer and AZ have both failed to meet targets. I personally wouldn't pin my hopes on a silver bullet from Janssen !
Click to expand...
It protects you from catching Covid for 66 percent...and it protects you from getting severely ill for 85 percent.
It has been approved and The Netherlands have ordered 11 million doses. We have about 17 million inhabitants.
 
Last edited:
FlatErik said:
again....what could possibly be the difference if EVERY ATTENDEE is tested negative before the event?
Click to expand...
I suppose it's just another level of protection in case tests don't catch every virus carrier. Parents of a childhood friend of mine got Covid late last year. Initial tests were negative, despite them already feeling sick.

Not sure what's the point of enforcing masks at an open air event though. The only open air event thought to have caused massive a virus spread was a football match near Bergamo in Feb 2020. But since football fans love to visit pubs before and after the match, it's not clear at all if those infections happened when outside.
 
2H76 said:
People who think they might fly away in May/June...no chance judging by all the TV punditry. But why let it drag on, make the decision NOW and then those already booked can change their plans, but we have to wait until 12 April at the earliest to find out their plans.

This is government by psychological torture.
Click to expand...
Possibly because they can't afford for travel agents, tour operators and airlines to have another guaranteed summer of no income.

If people are given optimistic timelines, they'll book flights/packages/hotels etc..., and then when it's inevitably cancelled the money is still within the business to give them liquidity for when they allow the customer to re-book.

It's not fair to people who are used to getting away, and it's a bit shitty mentally, but by and large if another year of no international travel means the new 'normal' is much closer to the old one. Just as with the UK lockdown in that we risk opening up too soon and making things worse, opening up to international travel whilst most of Europe is going through their third wave is dangerous.
 
FlatErik said:
again....what could possibly be the difference if EVERY ATTENDEE is tested negative before the event?
Click to expand...
People have suggested in the IRL, and on this thread many many times that tests are not 100% accurate.
*edited to say that tests are not accurate

If you're testing the safety of events it seems sensible to cover as many bases as possible.

I'm hopefully for outdoor events in the summer and have booked outdoor events in May, anything that makes this happen faster and safer I'm all for.
 
Last edited:
Neo95gt said:
Once the 50+ crowd is vaccinated, you really should be able to open up everything. Vaccination and negative test checks for outside events, where most of the attendees are in their 20’s, sounds like a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
Fully agree.
 
from a UK perspective....I hope I'm wrong but I think this year the government won't ban travel as such but you will have to Quarantine upon return for 10 days, regardless where you have been or if you have the vaccine or not as they are concerned about variants abroad.

The government can then say they haven't banned any travel but the reality is no one would travel with that type of restriction in place.

Also you will have to have a vaccine and/or negative test to be allowed in another country.

too much hassle I think for this year. Hope I'm wrong!!
 
Neo95gt said:
Once the 50+ crowd is vaccinated, you really should be able to open up everything. Vaccination and negative test checks for outside events, where most of the attendees are in their 20’s, sounds like a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
Domestically, possibly.

Internationally, unlikely.

People will moan and try and talk down mutations and variants but these are the same people who were talking Covid down as "just the flu" this time last year and should roundly be ignored. Listen to the experts. There's a reason they're experts.

I think @Ibizastu has it right - there will be some travel allowed but it will be similar to how it was over the summer where there will be travel corridors that change regularly depending on the prevalent R rate and levels of vaccination.
 
Ibizastu said:
from a UK perspective....I hope I'm wrong but I think this year the government won't ban travel as such but you will have to Quarantine upon return for 10 days, regardless where you have been or if you have the vaccine or not as they are concerned about variants abroad.

The government can then say they haven't banned any travel but the reality is no one would travel with that type of restriction in place.

Also you will have to have a vaccine and/or negative test to be allowed in another country.

too much hassle I think for this year. Hope I'm wrong!!
Click to expand...
I would...ten days on return (when I'm pretty well whacked for the first five anyway) - just had 365 days of lockdown/quarantine so I should be getting used to it. 10 days away, 10 at home afterwards, I call that a deal.

Of course that's me being selfish - many can't take time off work for a holiday and then time off again to quarantine; but that could suit some working from home though.
 
FlatErik said:
It protects you from catching Covid for 66 percent...and it protects you from getting severely ill for 85 percent.
It has been approved and The Netherlands have ordered 11 million doses. We have about 17 million inhabitants.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are correct there. The 66% is protection from severe / critical Covid, which is about the same as one single dose of Astrazaneca before the additional protection from a second jab >>

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n597

They're both adenoviral vector vaccines which work in similar ways so I can't see why Janssen would be any more effective than AZ as a single dose jab. It's better than nothing but likely no way enough for "at risk" groups.. If that's the target Governments are going for might as well just give them all a single AZ now and have done with it. Save all those vaccines sitting in the cold room whilst people go unprotected !
 
kimajy said:
I don't think you are correct there. The 66% is protection from severe / critical Covid, which is about the same as one single dose of Astrazaneca before the additional protection from a second jab >>

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n597

They're both adenoviral vector vaccines which work in similar ways so I can't see why Janssen would be any more effective than AZ as a single dose jab. It's better than nothing but likely no way enough for "at risk" groups.. If that's the target Governments are going for might as well just give them all a single AZ now and have done with it. Save all those vaccines sitting in the cold room whilst people go unprotected !
Click to expand...
I am not sure what discussion you are trying to have. I just quoted something that has been published by our own government about the Jansen vaccin. I was not claiming one vaccin being more effective than the other (I couldn't care less actually).
It was about how realistic it was to have the entire dutch population over 18 vaccinated before July 1st. And with 11 million doses of Jansen...I guess it is realistic since you only need 1 dose.

Anyway...EMA says this:
The trial found a 67% reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases after 2 weeks in people who received COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (116 cases out of 19,630 people) compared with people given placebo (348 of 19,691 people). This means that the vaccine had a 67% efficacy.
 
FlatErik said:
I am not sure what discussion you are trying to have. I just quoted something that has been published by our own government about the Jansen vaccin. I was not claiming one vaccin being more effective than the other (I couldn't care less actually).
It was about how realistic it was to have the entire dutch population over 18 vaccinated before July 1st. And with 11 million doses of Jansen...I guess it is realistic since you only need 1 dose.

Anyway...EMA says this:
The trial found a 67% reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases after 2 weeks in people who received COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (116 cases out of 19,630 people) compared with people given placebo (348 of 19,691 people). This means that the vaccine had a 67% efficacy.
Click to expand...

The link I gave is from the British Medical Journal - the reduction in symptomatic cases of 67% does not mean a reduction in the chance of contracting Covid, it just means moderate to severe disease is reduced by that but many more may contract and spread the disease. It's the same with one single dose of AZ without the booster. Janssen seems no magic bullet substitute for the other 2-dose vaccines like Moderna, Pfizer or AZ and this will at some point be highlighted in the press.

UK ordered 100m doses of Astrazeneca but has received only a fraction of that. Ordering 11m doses of a vaccine doesn't mean you're going to get them all in the first 3 months. Let's not mention Pfizer ! Aside from the question of whether that vaccine will be enough to support loosening restrictions if used in the elderly, that's the point ...
 
Some even better numbers on the OxfordAZ vaccine coming out of the US today. Hopefully all this helps improve take up rates.

“79% effective in preventing symptomatic illness in a large trial in the US, Chile and Peru.... The vaccine was 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalisation”

www.theguardian.com

Covid: AstraZeneca vaccine 79% effective with no increased blood clot risk – US trial

Study of over 32,000 people included review of risks of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top