Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[Red Cat]

I really hope my carefully worded posts trying to explore and asking for more clarity from people who might know more about the new strain, don't read as if I think "it's all made up"!

It doesn't no but sometimes we have to read as carefully as others post (hard on phones I think)

 

[Artaxerxes]

I really hope my carefully worded posts trying to explore and asking for more clarity from people who might know more about the new strain, don't read as if I think "it's all made up"!

Just covering my own arse.

 

[zora]

Just covering my own arse.

And I read your disclaimer as not having noticed my disclaimers. Makes sense, thanks!

 

[Spandex]

Tbh I have also been somewhat alarmed at the abandon with which news, politicians and other influential people including Independent Sage have been throwing the narrative of the much more infectious new strain around.

I was going to ask on the covid mutations thread, but I guess it is of wider interest, where we are at with that.

So just after the news broke before Christmas, high-profile virologists cautioned against extrapolating from epidemiological data to actual properties of the virus.

Ten days is a long time at the moment in virology, so there might be more evidence now?
Guardian had a piece yesterday on a study in its early stages finding respiratory samples patients with the strain having a high viral load in 35% of cases against 10% with the old strain, which could be a step towards demonstrating the actual higher transmissibility?

It did occur to me yesterday that if this turns out to be over-hyped and the horrific transmission and hospitalization rates are instead down to the rubbish tiers/schools open without mitigations and failure to trace, isolate and support - it could well give more fuel to the anti-vaxx flames and the turning away from experts in future. Or maybe it won't matter. Who knows anymore.

I think the new strain is as alarmingly fast spreading as everyone says it is and has changed the situation about what measures are needed to control the spread of Covid.

But it can also be used as a handy answer to any questions about whether lockdown 2 ended too soon or about the wisdom of trying to plough on with Christmas right up until the last minute.

 

[teuchter]

If the trials for the vaccines - on which their approval is based - had included groups who were only given one dose, and it could be seen that it provided some protection, even if that were somewhat less protection, then I think it could be quite appropriate to decide to decide to go with a one-dose approach if it meant that overall you could protect a larger number of people in a shorter time.

But as far as I understand, that wasn't included in the trials, so this is using the vaccines in a way that hasn't been tested. Maybe there is enough knowledge about how similar vaccines work, that it's legitimate to be confident that the results will be predictable, but it does seem to me to be wrong in principle. After emphasising to everyone that careful test procedures have been gone through, and no corners have been cut, to then appear to be happy to kind of make it up as you go along - I don't see that it is good for general public confidence. I wouldn't quite say that it's definitely a bad move but I don't feel very comfortable with it.

 

[zora]

I got briefly excited about it, seeing as it might get b/f's 75 yr old mum pushed closer to the front of the queue, and thought briefly that the rationale makes some kind of sense, but as far as consistent, clear, confidence-inspiring public health messaging goes...

 

[belboid]

If the trials for the vaccines - on which their approval is based - had included groups who were only given one dose, and it could be seen that it provided some protection, even if that were somewhat less protection, then I think it could be quite appropriate to decide to decide to go with a one-dose approach if it meant that overall you could protect a larger number of people in a shorter time.

But as far as I understand, that wasn't included in the trials, so this is using the vaccines in a way that hasn't been tested. Maybe there is enough knowledge about how similar vaccines work, that it's legitimate to be confident that the results will be predictable, but it does seem to me to be wrong in principle. After emphasising to everyone that careful test procedures have been gone through, and no corners have been cut, to then appear to be happy to kind of make it up as you go along - I don't see that it is good for general public confidence. I wouldn't quite say that it's definitely a bad move but I don't feel very comfortable with it.

some people were given just the initial dose of the oxford vaccine. I wasn't meant to get a second one but when they discovered that worked better they offered it to everyone. There was still a limited group who only got one dose, the Chairman of the JCVI said that the single dose of AZ vaccine is 70% efficacious based on limited unpublished data. More data will follow.

 

[prunus]

some people were given just the initial dose of the oxford vaccine. I wasn't meant to get a second one but when they discovered that worked better they offered it to everyone. There was still a limited group who only got one dose, the Chairman of the JCVI said that the single dose of AZ vaccine is 70% efficacious based on limited unpublished data. More data will follow.

And, and I think this needs to be stressed every time this is talked about, 100% (or as close to as can be determined from the data) efficacious at preventing severe disease/hospitalisation (and therefore death).

Although puncturing my own balloon slightly the numbers of over 65s in the trial wasn’t huge - but even so the 100% holds for those there were.

 

[emanymton]

Was in Aldi this morning. Looked to be lots of people stocking up for new years parties. One women was buying 60 bottles of wine. Could be she is just stocking up for the whole year but I doubt it somehow.

 

[cupid_stunt]

And, and I think this needs to be stressed every time this is talked about, 100% (or as close to as can be determined from the data) efficacious at preventing severe disease/hospitalisation (and therefore death).

Although puncturing my own balloon slightly the numbers of over 65s in the trial wasn’t huge - but even so the 100% holds for those there were.

Yep, with the Oxford/AZ vaccine only 2 people ended-up in hospital because of covid after getting the vaccine, but they both tested positive before immunity kicked in, one 2 days after receiving the vaccine and the other at 10 days.

 

[teuchter]

some people were given just the initial dose of the oxford vaccine. I wasn't meant to get a second one but when they discovered that worked better they offered it to everyone. There was still a limited group who only got one dose, the Chairman of the JCVI said that the single dose of AZ vaccine is 70% efficacious based on limited unpublished data. More data will follow.

Does 'limited unpublished' mean it's not data that is of sufficient quality for an approval? For these things I think you have to say whether you've got good quality data or not. Fudging things undermines the whole principle of having a rigorous testing and approvals process.

The main block to the efficacy of vaccines is the level of uptake. The anti-vaxxers shouldn't be provided with opportunities to say that people are being given untested treatments.

 

[andysays]

some people were given just the initial dose of the oxford vaccine. I wasn't meant to get a second one but when they discovered that worked better they offered it to everyone. There was still a limited group who only got one dose, the Chairman of the JCVI said that the single dose of AZ vaccine is 70% efficacious based on limited unpublished data. More data will follow.

It may be the case that one dose is enough, at least in most cases.

But there's also the issue of public confidence, which it's important to maintain throughout, and which can only be undermined by the government first announcing that there will be two jabs, a few weeks apart, and then deciding, once some people have already had their first jab and been given an appointment for the second, that one is enough for now and the way they're being administered is changing.

 

[platinumsage]

But there's also the issue of public confidence, which it's important to maintain throughout, and which can only be undermined by the government first announcing that there will be two jabs, a few weeks apart, and then deciding, once some people have already had their first jab and been given an appointment for the second, that one is enough for now and the way they're being administered is changing.

OTOH the government shouldn't avoid introducing a measure which could save hundreds if not thousands of lives simply because it might be a bad look.

 

[brogdale]

Christ, there's going to be hundreds of thousands of old folks out there this morning with hopes dashed.

 

[Supine]

I don't know how the numbers are working out but if you are given the option which do you choose?

1. Continue with 2nd dose at 3-4wks. 50,000 deaths in Q1
2. Modify 2nd dose regime which is low risk but will add some confusion to the general public. 30,000 deaths in Q1

I'd go with option 2. If it saves a lot of lives it's worth it imho.

 

[andysays]

OTOH the government shouldn't avoid introducing a measure which could save hundreds if not thousands of lives simply because it might be a bad look.

No, it shouldn't.

But if it's genuinely the case that it will significantly save lives, I wish they'd decided earlier that this was the best way of doing it and announced it from the beginning, because doing it this way makes it look as if they're simply doing it so they can make bullshit announcements about "Freedom by Easter"

 

[platinumsage]

No, it shouldn't.

But if it's genuinely the case that it will significantly save lives, I wish they'd decided earlier that this was the best way of doing it and announced it from the beginning, because doing it this way makes it look as if they're simply doing it so they can make bullshit announcements about "Freedom by Easter"

I don't really care what it looks like tbh. Neither do I want the JCVI or anyone else to rush their decision-making.

 

[teuchter]

I don't know how the numbers are working out but if you are given the option which do you choose?

1. Continue with 2nd dose at 3-4wks. 50,000 deaths in Q1
2. Modify 2nd dose regime which is low risk but will add some confusion to the general public. 30,000 deaths in Q1

I'd go with option 2. If it saves a lot of lives it's worth it imho.

3. Start doing the vaccinations 2 months ago on the basis of "expedited approval"? Where do you draw the line and how?

 

[andysays]

I don't know how the numbers are working out but if you are given the option which do you choose?

1. Continue with 2nd dose at 3-4wks. 50,000 deaths in Q1
2. Modify 2nd dose regime which is low risk but will add some confusion to the general public. 30,000 deaths in Q1

I'd go with option 2. If it saves a lot of lives it's worth it imho.

The number of lives saved or lost isn't just dependent on the vaccination programme though, it also depends on what other measures are in place, and with the government's track record on choosing inadequate restrictions and not leaving those for long enough to do the most good, I'm inclined to be very cynical about the reasoning behind this.

 

[brogdale]

I don't know how the numbers are working out but if you are given the option which do you choose?

1. Continue with 2nd dose at 3-4wks. 50,000 deaths in Q1
2. Modify 2nd dose regime which is low risk but will add some confusion to the general public. 30,000 deaths in Q1

I'd go with option 2. If it saves a lot of lives it's worth it imho.

Maybe my anger this morning is clouding my understanding, but why exactly do you feel the government is faced with this choice?

 

[Supine]

3. Start doing the vaccinations 2 months ago on the basis of "expedited approval"? Where do you draw the line and how?

You employ a group of world leading experts who can make these decisions without undue government pressure. The MHRA and various specialist advisory groups that includes scientists.

 

[frogwoman]

This thread by stavvers makes an important point
'How it looks' is pretty important for the uptake of this and a very important part of public confidence

 

[Supine]

Maybe my anger this morning is clouding my understanding, but why exactly do you feel the government is faced with this choice?

Because the mhra have opened up the possibility. And Matt Hand Cock has communicated it badly.

 

[andysays]

I don't really care what it looks like tbh. Neither do I want the JCVI or anyone else to rush their decision-making.

As far as I can see, it's precisely because the government has rushed their decision making, or rather the announcing of a decision, that they've now had to do yet another flip flop

 

[brogdale]

Because the mhra have opened up the possibility. And Matt Hand Cock has communicated it badly.

Is that what's happened?

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

We're going to be over run by turkeys at this rate.

Turkeys for Easter!

Serco will start resurrecting the Covid dead.

We haven't had zombies in 2020, guess they were saving it for next year.

And yet we're simultaneously being told this todayView attachment 246224

Trump said this months ago and without a vaccine

It doesn't specifically say Easter 2021 though...

same as Trump, hedging their bets.

 

[platinumsage]

As far as I can see, it's precisely because the government has rushed their decision making, or rather the announcing of a decision, that they've now had to do yet another flip flop

That's not how I see it. They could have decided to hold off vaccinating anyone until they had enough preliminary data from somewhere and had made a decision on the second dose timing, but I think that would have been a bad idea.

 

[Sue]

We haven't had zombies in 2020, guess they were saving it for next year.

Twelve hours to go...

 

[brogdale]

This is spot on:



Very elderly and often frail folks have got their cabs/carers booked for the dates on the appointment cards they were issued with a jab 1.

What sort of cunts think this is an acceptable way to treat these people?

 

[Supine]

This is spot on:

View attachment 246248

Very elderly and often frail folks have got their cabs/carers booked for the dates on the appointment cards they were issued with a jab 1.

What sort of cunts think this is an acceptable way to treat these people?

I agree. It would have been much cleaner if they started this for people having the first dose rather than changing plans for people expecting the 2nd.