SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Ecstatic said:
Good article, thanks.

Extract below

20210227_woc818.png
Click to expand...
Last week was a low point for AZ supply according to the Scottish forecasts that were released back in January (and then quickly retracted) and as F-red posted there was an expected temporary slowdown in Pfizer. I've seen a number of doctors suggesting they're expecting big influxes of doses over the next couple of weeks, so could rapidly get back on track.

Apparently 65-69 is going so well they're calling in 64 year olds now.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/02/...thirds-of-65-69-year-olds-already-vaccinated/
 
Ecstatic said:
Good article, thanks.

Extract below

20210227_woc818.png
Click to expand...

If I’m interpreting that correctly there’s still no separation in outcomes according to age? (i.e. vaccination status)

Has anyone seen any Uk data which looks like what we saw in Israel? I know there’s been some good data coming out of Scotland. Not seen anything at a UK level though.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
That is no one knows, how effective any of the vaccines are against the South African variant, or the brazil variant. There is also still some questions about the Kent variant. The uncertainty seems to be even higher when it comes to how the Oxford Vaccine will protect against the variants, which is the vaccine the UK has ordered the most doses of so the 1 likely to be received by most people. Plus these are just the current variants.

No one has any idea what gonna happen when we start opening up. Anyone saying otherwise is just lying.
Click to expand...

 
F-Red said:
This is all I've seen so far - https://assets.publishing.service.g...s_surveillance_report_February_2021_FINAL.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks. Getting just over 50% efficacy 3 weeks after single dose of Pfizer. Good but not amazing. Hospitalisations and deaths cut by about half. Again, good, but nowhere near the 100% protection against severe disease line that’s been trotted out recently.

They also don’t seem to have any results for AZ vaccine in there. Not sure why.

Obviously, still early days so hopefully get better idea in weeks ahead. I’m finding it quite frustrating reading Telegraph headlines about fantastic data on vaccines in England when the reality seems a bit less hyperbolic.

EDIT: Although primary care data in Scotland does look very good (see above)
 
Unbelievable- they're pushing to delay the Grand National until betting shops are open, as it's the biggest betting event of the year

https://www.skysports.com/racing/ne...kmakers-back-proposal-to-delay-grand-national

Yes let's encourage crowding round betting shops!

Looks like the flipping hunts are already planning to be back out as they class themselves as "organised sport" so will be back from 29th March.....
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Thanks. Getting just over 50% efficacy 3 weeks after single dose of Pfizer. Good but not amazing. Hospitalisations and deaths cut by about half. Again, good, but nowhere near the 100% protection against severe disease line that’s been trotted out recently.

They also don’t seem to have any results for AZ vaccine in there. Not sure why.

Obviously, still early days so hopefully get better idea in weeks ahead. I’m finding it quite frustrating reading Telegraph headlines about fantastic data on vaccines in England when the reality seems a bit less hyperbolic.

EDIT: Although primary care data in Scotland does look very good (see above)
Click to expand...

I think the reduction in hospitalisation is on top of the reduction in cases as I read it. So they're half as likely to get covid, and then if they do, half as likely to get it badly. That would be consistent with the Scottish data.

The reason for no AZ in that report is that it is focused on the earliest roll out when it was all Pfizer. That also means that we're judging effectiveness in the very frailest of the population, where even a fairly mild hit could have severe consequences, so they were never likely to hit 100% success.
 
United Hobbit said:
Unbelievable- they're pushing to delay the Grand National until betting shops are open, as it's the biggest betting event of the year

https://www.skysports.com/racing/ne...kmakers-back-proposal-to-delay-grand-national

Yes let's encourage crowding round betting shops!
Click to expand...

They're looking to do it after June 21st, I don't really see any issue with this? Considering all of the 40+ groups would of had their second dose by then, and hopefully a decent number of the age groups below.
 
Wolverine said:
You're not alone. Saw a few very mild asthmatics today (including many who haven't been on a preventer or used any relievers for yonks). I think the invitations for the clinically vulnerable are based on algorithms that pick up major, active clinical conditions coded on primary care software system at GP practices. For a few conditions I think their algorithm isn't great at differentiating asthmatics well.

Don't feel cheeky though, not your fault. I was happy to give out the vaccines today to everyone including some very young, slightly bemused patients who came in.

Good news is that in March we are due to have a huge influx of Pfizer as well which is encouraging
Click to expand...

Cheers for the info, much appreciated.
Pogue Mahone said:
Are you fat shaming @Sparky_Hughes? ;)
Click to expand...
:lol: 5 years and 15 stone ago he might have had a point.
 
FireballXL5 said:
Yeah, they seem like a great bunch of lads.

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-shocking-conditions-in-ppe-factories-supplying-uk
Click to expand...

You're referring to a manufacturer there, Topglove, who produce the largest volume of nitrile gloves in the world. Pretty much all governments would have sourced PPE from this supplier at some point during the pandemic. It's not an exclusively UK thing, nor any form of cronyism that you was originally implying. There are far worse suppliers on the government books that should have more focus on. Back to your point in April...

FireballXL5 said:
If the political will was there to get the proper kit to NHS staff, it could be done in days. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

If you're going to get the kit to the NHS quickly then you have to engage with the biggest global supplier of gloves. The aftermath of ethical procurement of PPE at a time of critical supply in the pandemic is hindsight at best. It's back the analogy of good, cheap, fast. You'll never get all three without sacrificing one. Considering the wider rhetoric in a pandemic was that PPE was urgently needed, and then the inquests we've seen of the prices paid, doesn't surprise me that Far East suppliers were trying to send in substandard product to meet demand (from my own experience if you give a factory an inch, they'll try to take a mile).
 
Hancock is trying to re-write history, here is the NAO report
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/u...-PPE-during-the-COVID-19-pandemic-Summary.pdf

That's being cited by him to claim that there was no PPE shortage nationally. Same report says
Member surveys by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and Unison in April and May 2020 showed that a significant proportion (at least 30%) of participating care workers, doctors and nurses reported having insufficient PPE, even in high-risk settings.
Click to expand...

Hospitals in many areas were largely ok, but there were many areas, many days when we had to ration supply. Community support was minimal, we had to source our own supply, local manufacturers for visors etc. Government trying to state that there were "individual problems" rather than systemic to downplay just how bad the situation was at the time. They'll probably get away with it.
 
Wolverine said:
Hancock is trying to re-write history, here is the NAO report
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/u...-PPE-during-the-COVID-19-pandemic-Summary.pdf

That's being cited by him to claim that there was no PPE shortage nationally. Same report says


Hospitals in many areas were largely ok, but there were many areas, many days when we had to ration supply. Community support was minimal, we had to source our own supply, local manufacturers for visors etc. Government trying to state that there were "individual problems" rather than systemic to downplay just how bad the situation was at the time. They'll probably get away with it.
Click to expand...
They’re some craic.
 
Pogue Mahone said:


Interesting.
Click to expand...

It is, but we all know that the main transmission is not coming from the kids but those dropping off, picking up and congregating for a good old chat. At my school I see some parents picking up kids from multiple households.

also I know from seeing it happen, there are kids brought to school sick. Parents aren’t getting their kids tested so not going to show up as positive cases
 
golden_blunder said:
It is, but we all know that the main transmission is not coming from the kids but those dropping off, picking up and congregating for a good old chat. At my school I see some parents picking up kids from multiple households.

also I know from seeing it happen, there are kids brought to school sick. Parents aren’t getting their kids tested so not going to show up as positive cases
Click to expand...

We don’t know though. I haven’t seen a single report of a cluster from parents gathering outside schools.

If people are sending their kids to school sick - or deliberately avoiding getting them tested - then they’re selfish idiots. That goes without saying. I don’t think its relevant to this study, though. Which seems to have either involved random testing or testing everyone at the school (would need to see paper to know for sure)
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I’ve no idea. The US definition of “schools” (which includes universities) makes all their data hard to interpret. So it’s good to see US data which references specific ages.
Click to expand...
I think they have. From a quick Google I seen this:

“Students can only return if they have already signed up for in-person learning. About 190,000 elementary students and their parents must sign a consent form. In total, about 335,000 students out of the 1.1 million in the city have chosen in-person classes.”

That was in November. When schools had already been closed for ten days. So about a third of students.
 
acnumber9 said:
I think they have. From a quick Google I seen this:

“Students can only return if they have already signed up for in-person learning. About 190,000 elementary students and their parents must sign a consent form. In total, about 335,000 students out of the 1.1 million in the city have chosen in-person classes.”

That was in November. When schools had already been closed for ten days. So about a third of students.
Click to expand...

Well there you go.

Although I’m assuming the data above is from the 335,000 students that chose in-person classes.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Well there you go.

Although I’m assuming the data above is from the 335,000 students that chose in-person classes.
Click to expand...
Presumably. Doesn’t really tell us a whole lot about what to expect from schools returning at full capacity though. Split learning always seemed like the best compromise to me.
 
Eire Red United said:
Horrible idea. Bad enough for travelling never mind domestic
Click to expand...
It's going to happen, however, even though there's no precedent. Yellow Fever vaccination is required to visit a small number of places, but that's a vaccine where there's only one version and it protects you for life. It's also to protect the individual traveller rather than to protect other people.
 
starman said:
What do people think of Vaccine passports? It seems a given for international travel, but for domestic uses?

Click to expand...


With stuff like this what happens if you've not had the vaccine yet? I.e you've just not had your call to get it rather than refuse it? Apologises it been answered already bit can never find the answer to it. Seems pretty unfair to be excluded through no fault of your own.
 
starman said:
What do people think of Vaccine passports? It seems a given for international travel, but for domestic uses?

Click to expand...

My main issue is any form of implementation before widespread availability of vaccines. For International travel then it would only be "fair" when the vaccine was widely available in all countries which will take quite a while. Not that fairness will keep it from actually being implemented, but I for sure am against it.

Think of it this way: the younger/healthier parts of society -- for whom covid presents a fraction sometimes 1/100 of the risk for older/people with comorbidities -- sacrificed many of their usual activities (incl travel) to protect those at risk. Same with vaccine distribution prioritizing those most at risk. But then on top of that will the younger/healthier population also be the last ones to return to normal life?
 
Oggmonster said:
With stuff like this what happens if you've not had the vaccine yet? I.e you've just not had your call to get it rather than refuse it? Apologises it been answered already bit can never find the answer to it. Seems pretty unfair to be excluded through no fault of your own.
Click to expand...
Quiet Plague bearer. Us Vaxxies will now rule the world, for at least a few months this summer. Every last wheezing, grunting crippled one of us.
 
I would have been totally against the idea of vaccine passports until yesterday, but now that my appointment has come through Im totally in favour joking
 
starman said:
What do people think of Vaccine passports? It seems a given for international travel, but for domestic uses?

Click to expand...


Not a fan here for domestic uses, the roll out has been driven by age primarily which means a passport is penalising the young in a pandemic which has naturally prioritised the older generations. Then there is a proposition of people who cannot take a vaccine for medical reasons, and therefore by having a vaccine passport penalises them through no fault of their own.

Outside of the moral discussion on it, operationally it's going to be a nightmare to manage in day to day life, and more so for businesses.
 
F-Red said:
Not a fan here for domestic uses, the roll out has been driven by age primarily which means a passport is penalising the young in a pandemic which has naturally prioritised the older generations. Then there is a proposition of people who cannot take a vaccine for medical reasons, and therefore by having a vaccine passport penalises them through no fault of their own.

Outside of the moral discussion on it, operationally it's going to be a nightmare to manage in day to day life, and more so for businesses.
Click to expand...

Why think of it as penalising anyone?

There’s been a bit of a theme throughout this pandemic of young people being quick to talk up their own hardship and slow to consider how much harder this has been for the elderly. At an individual level, the sense of threat and risk of imminent death has been horrendous for everyone above a certain age. Plus the months and months of “normal” life already lost to this pandemic are for more precious to them than to someone with decades of life ahead of them.

They’re being vaccinated first for a reason and if this means they get a passport for earlier access to certain locations/activities then good on them. They deserve it.

A bit of empathy and patience is what’s needed here instead of griping about being penalised for being young
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Why think of it as penalising anyone?

There’s been a bit of a theme throughout this pandemic of young people being quick to talk up their own hardship and slow to consider how much harder this has been for the elderly. At an individual level, the sense of threat and risk of imminent death has been horrendous for everyone above a certain age. Plus the months and months of “normal” life already lost to this pandemic are for more precious to them than to someone with decades of life ahead of them.

They’re being vaccinated first for a reason and if this means they get a passport for earlier access to certain locations/activities then good on them. They deserve it.

A bit of empathy and patience is what’s needed here instead of griping about being penalised for being young
Click to expand...

Because they'll get the vaccine later. We're not all 45 year old dentists pogue.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Why think of it as penalising anyone?

There’s been a bit of a theme throughout this pandemic of young people being quick to talk up their own hardship and slow to consider how much harder this has been for the elderly. At an individual level, the sense of threat and risk of imminent death has been horrendous for everyone above a certain age. Plus the months and months of “normal” life already lost to this pandemic are for more precious to them than to someone with decades of life ahead of them.

They’re being vaccinated first for a reason and if this means they get a passport for earlier access to certain locations/activities then good on them. They deserve it.

A bit of empathy and patience is what’s needed here instead of griping about being penalised for being young
Click to expand...

Surely it's pretty obvious to see why younger people would be annoyed??

They've not refused the vaccine they've just not been called up go get it. The statistics clearly show younger people wouldn't be as high risk as older. The message throughout was ororext everyone and younger people were told to do it to help the elderly and vulnerable...they did that and are then potentially told they won't be allowed to do anything til they get the vaccine themselves through no fault of their own
 
You must log in or register to reply here.