Coronavirus: Please use this thread for all COVID19 talk!

[StJabbo1]

A calculated risk then..? But not a gamble..? I'm just thankful I've had my first jab and look forward to the second..

Whatever, it's the ongoing research into the best use of various vaccines in different risk groups. Swift coordinated responses to new variants without finger pointing essential to any means of control of the virus. I'm in a high risk group and still waiting for jab 1, not going well here in the Netherlands.

 

[Schad]

did you want full lockdown for everyone, until it was 100% safe?

There is a profound middle space between "full lockdown for everyone, until it's 100% safe" and letting the virus run rampant until it overwhelms the health system, and only then acting. There are enough countries and regions across a wide enough geographic, socioeconomic and even cultural span to demonstrate that it was far, far more possible to mitigate this than has been done, up to the point of eradicating domestic spread, and allowing for normal life.

 

[Billy Bates]

There is a profound middle space between "full lockdown for everyone, until it's 100% safe" and letting the virus run rampant until it overwhelms the health system, and only then acting. There are enough countries and regions across a wide enough geographic, socioeconomic and even cultural span to demonstrate that it was far, far more possible to mitigate this than has been done, up to the point of eradicating domestic spread, and allowing for normal life.

Yeah I get that and it easnt where in going.
I'm sure there was more our Gov could and should have done, and others around the globe. But no one had all the right answers, and what was say right for China or New Zealand maybe wasnt able to be applied everywhere, because in reality we all had different situations.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I also get the feeling that acceptable responses to the pandemic vary for age groups too (whilst not defective the same position for everyone in those groups), but largely it seems very easy to be very critical for those in the older age groups as they are less likely to need to work or look after kids.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not in that she group, but at times you come over with a one size fits all approach, which imo I'm not sure really works everywhere for everyone.

 

[San Tejón]

A calculated risk then..? But not a gamble..? I'm just thankful I've had my first jab and look forward to the second..

I would say it’s a combination of both.
Initially it was a gamble, but further investigation into the AZ vaccine has shown that extending the gap between the two jabs doesn’t harm the vaccine’s efficacy.

Regarding the Pfizer vaccine, I would say that it is still very much a gamble.
Unlike the AZ vaccine, there have been no tests to check it’s efficacy if not delivered on a 3 week schedule.
The manufacturers still stress that the 3 week rule should be followed.
As the Pfizer vaccine was the first available to be used, it has been given, almost exclusively, to people from the highest vulnerability groups, the people most likely to die as a result of catching the virus, so messing with the inoculation schedule is a gamble.

 

[West Kent Saint]

Not sure I understand Badger. I had the Pfizer, so are we saying there is no evidence that the second after 12 weeks is actually worth it?

 

[San Tejón]

Not sure I understand Badger. I had the Pfizer, so are we saying there is no evidence that the second after 12 weeks is actually worth it?

I have a vested interest in finding out more about this as it is the one my wife was given last week. I believe that, if given over a 3 week cycle, it will be as effective as Pfizer suggests, but no one knows how effective it will be if the gap between the two jabs is longer.

The USA and some EU countries have already stated that they will only give the Pfizer jab in accordance with Pfizer’s directions.
The tests during manufacturing showed efficacy, I believe, of 89% when given 3 weeks apart.
They don’t know what the efficacy would be if the gap was stretched, as it wasn’t researched.

The AZ vaccine is DNA based, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA based (don’t ask me what this means) and according to a report in the Scientific American the DNA based vaccine is “hardier”, so it isn’t surprised that extending the gap doesn’t impact on it’s efficacy.
The link I posted last night to the Scientific American also touched on a small test on the Moderna vaccine that showed it’s efficacy dropped after a few months (particularly in people older than 56 years) so I think the fear is that, with the Pfizer also being mRNA based, this could potentially happen to the Pfizer vaccine. And if it does, what would be it’s efficacy after the second dose, if the efficacy after the first dose is not as high as advertised.

In tests done by the Israelis, on more than 200,000 people, they recorded the efficacy of the first Pfizer jab being just 33% and not 50%, so if that is the case, and the efficacy should drop over a few months, the second jab is working from a lower starting point, so the overall efficacy could be lower than advertised.

This is just my opinion based on what I have found and I would love someone to give me a link that shows my concerns to be groundless.

 

[One of yer Norvern Saints]

I have a vested interest in finding out more about this as it is the one my wife was given last week. I believe that, if given over a 3 week cycle, it will be as effective as Pfizer suggests, but no one knows how effective it will be if the gap between the two jabs is longer.

The USA and some EU countries have already stated that they will only give the Pfizer jab in accordance with Pfizer’s directions.
The tests during manufacturing showed efficacy, I believe, of 89% when given 3 weeks apart.
They don’t know what the efficacy would be if the gap was stretched, as it wasn’t researched.

The AZ vaccine is DNA based, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA based (don’t ask me what this means) and according to a report in the Scientific American the DNA based vaccine is “hardier”, so it isn’t surprised that extending the gap doesn’t impact on it’s efficacy.
The link I posted last night to the Scientific American also touched on a small test on the Moderna vaccine that showed it’s efficacy dropped after a few months (particularly in people older than 56 years) so I think the fear is that, with the Pfizer also being mRNA based, this could potentially happen to the Pfizer vaccine. And if it does, what would be it’s efficacy after the second dose, if the efficacy after the first dose is not as high as advertised.

In tests done by the Israelis, on more than 200,000 people, they recorded the efficacy of the first Pfizer jab being just 33% and not 50%, so if that is the case, and the efficacy should drop over a few months, the second jab is working from a lower starting point, so the overall efficacy could be lower than advertised.

This is just my opinion based on what I have found and I would love someone to give me a link that shows my concerns to be groundless.

Wouldn't we all, mate! Sums up the problem really, which is lack of good information. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone here. The logic behind getting everyone to have the first jab is clear. OK the clever woman in Oxford believes that there is no reason why Pfizer shouldn't maintain a level of protection for longer than three weeks, but some evidence - based guidance on this would be handy.

The French are using Pfizer in line with the manufacturer's guidelines. I have spoken to a few people who are 70+ over there and they've had two doses. The problem, of course, is that you vaccinate less people this way. The claim that x million have been jabbed is fine, but NHS front line staff are still waiting for their second dose. Giving second doses takes up resources and slows down the headline figure. However, I'd quite like it if my daughter working in ICU could be fully protected, rather than my wife and I having first jabs which will have no impact on our lives yet.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

Not sure I understand Badger. I had the Pfizer, so are we saying there is no evidence that the second after 12 weeks is actually worth it?

Another vaccination will always be worth it....either to boost the effect of the 2nd one or, if there is no boost effect, to give you protection again. My guess would be (based purely on common sense) there will be some protection from the 1st injection, so a 2nd dose will have an improved effect because your body is already primed....the memory cells of the immune system will still be present. And there is talk of mixing the vaccines....if an ongoing study comes up trumps.

 

[One of yer Norvern Saints]

Another vaccination will always be worth it....either to boost the effect of the 2nd one or, if there is no boost effect, to give you protection again. My guess would be (based purely on common sense) there will be some protection from the 1st injection, so a 2nd dose will have an improved effect because your body is already primed....the memory cells of the immune system will still be present. And there is talk of mixing the vaccines....if an ongoing study comes up trumps.

Oi Don't come on here and mention common sense, for goodness sake. This is a Saints forum

 

[West Kent Saint]

Another vaccination will always be worth it....either to boost the effect of the 2nd one or, if there is no boost effect, to give you protection again. My guess would be (based purely on common sense) there will be some protection from the 1st injection, so a 2nd dose will have an improved effect because your body is already primed....the memory cells of the immune system will still be present. And there is talk of mixing the vaccines....if an ongoing study comes up trumps.

Thanks. I seem to not have contracted Covid, as did a flow test. I’ve certainly had no symptoms. I wonder if this was due to the one jab? My wife had two bad days and has bounced back quickly. Current sensory issues, and couldn’t taste the furious jerk chicken the other night!

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

The Pfizer jab apparently produces fewer side effects than the Oxford one, but is associated with a higher risk of an allergic reaction...hence why you stay for 10 mins after the Pfizer one. I felt poorly for a day and a half after the Oxford jab and still don’t fancy food 3 days later. Checked the list of common side effects and can only think my body was playing side effect bingo as I had the lot

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

I felt poorly for a day and a half after the Oxford jab and still don’t fancy food 3 days later.

*** Lucky chocolate isn't food

 

[saintrichie123]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

*** Lucky chocolate isn't food

No, it’s a vitamin.

 

[Schad]

I'm sure there was more our Gov could and should have done, and others around the globe. But no one had all the right answers, and what was say right for China or New Zealand maybe wasnt able to be applied everywhere, because in reality we all had different situations.

What are the different situations, though? What element outside the control of the government and public has resulted in the disease killing almost 50x as many people per capita in the UK than Australia?

 

[Billy Bates]

What are the different situations, though? What element outside the control of the government and public has resulted in the disease killing almost 50x as many people per capita in the UK than Australia?

I think youre being a bit deliberate dumb here Schad.

Spread of population in that we have heavily populated towns and cities, the entry points at where the virus started from, health of nations, economy, willingness of the people, age maybe. They are also no where near as populous to go through as a hub for business, those around them closed boarders. I think you know too well there are different factors, I’m surprised you wrote this actually.

I’m not saying the UK Gov did everything right, there are in fact very few Govs that did/could have done so.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

What are the different situations, though? What element outside the control of the government and public has resulted in the disease killing almost 50x as many people per capita in the UK than Australia?

Mmm. Much easier to control in Australia as they are not centrally places and a transport hub....with large cities in close proximity....filled with a population that is older and fatter. Of course things could have been done better...and quicker....whether anyone else would have done is hard to prove since it’s easier to make suggestions than actually do it. Australia and New Zealand are bad examples as they are nothing like us.

 

[San Tejón]

What are the different situations, though? What element outside the control of the government and public has resulted in the disease killing almost 50x as many people per capita in the UK than Australia?

A better comparison would be Japan because their population and population density is greater than the UK, yet their death count and control was better than most countries. That fewer of their population is obese possibly helped, but other than that it was down to government control and decision making.

Having said that Oz and NZ did fantastically well because they aimed for Zero Covid and that, more than them having a smaller population and maybe smaller density (although I would imagine the population density in their major cities is not to be ignored) played a bigger part in controlling the virus.
The recent example of one positive test in an Oz city bringing about an immediate 5 day lockdown showed just how seriously they have taken the virus.
Dismissing their success is only done by people trying to excuse the poor effort by our government, IMO.

 

[Schad]

I think youre being a bit deliberate dumb here Schad.

Spread of population in that we have heavily populated towns and cities, the entry points at where the virus started from, health of nations, economy, willingness of the people, age maybe. They are also no where near as populous to go through as a hub for business, those around them closed boarders. I think you know too well there are different factors, I’m surprised you wrote this actually.

People have this strange idea that Australia is a country where most people are rural. 86.12% of Australians live in urban areas, compared to 83.65% for the UK, per the World Bank. The massive, empty middle of the country has no tangible effect on COVID spread one way or the other.

 

[Billy Bates]

A better comparison would be Japan because their population and population density is greater than the UK, yet their death count and control was better than most countries. That fewer of their population is obese possibly helped, but other than that it was down to government control and decision making.

Having said that Oz and NZ did fantastically well because they aimed for Zero Covid and that, more than them having a smaller population and maybe smaller density (although I would imagine the population density in their major cities is not to be ignored) played a bigger part in controlling the virus.
The recent example of one positive test in an Oz city bringing about an immediate 5 day lockdown showed just how seriously they have taken the virus.
Dismissing their success is only done by people trying to excuse the poor effort by our government, IMO.

Who on earth is dismissing their success? They barely had the same starting point of multiple entries in the 1000’s of Covid at the start, that is a huge factor in being able to stop it. it is like trying to stop a leak in a tyre with one hole, compared to countries who had tyres burst in 10000 places.