Off Topic Coronavirus

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Stroller said:
It wasn't just what Cummings did, though. It was Johnson and all his Cabinet queueing up to defend it that did the damage.

This government are delighted to have saps like you blaming the public for the spread of the virus rather than their own utter failure on Test, Track and Trace.
Click to expand...
zzzzzzz you don't give up on blaming the government for everything. Today is a great day for the Oxford vaccine and whether you try to bend the information or not, the government help support the Oxford lot and will receive credit for doing so. get over it.
I will agree that the stupid excuses for Cummings were embarrassing.
 
ELLERS said:
I just listen to the people that know and not Dave off of Facebook. This vaccine has be done properly and I am happy to have it.
Click to expand...

With respect, I wasn't asking you.
The whole point was to ask someone in the industry who has an infinitely better understanding than me and not someone on Facebook or indeed, Ellers on a football forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobmid
sb_73 said:
To be honest, from a professional perspective, I am confused with the way this has happened, and within the industry, the way AZ has handled this is a bit of a joke. As soon as they published a 70% effectiveness rate which was based on an amalgamation of two different doses it looked wrong.

The Oxford virus has actually been in review for longer than the Pfizer one was, both here and by the EMA in Europe, which indicates that the data is a bit more ambiguous and difficult to interpret. That’s because of the way the studies were done and how the data was presented. The FDA looks at the raw data, not the company interpretation, so that will be interesting.

But in terms of safety I have no worries. It won’t be as effective as the Pfizer jab, and this ‘oh, we can give it three months rather than 3 weeks between jabs’ needs published data behind it because it’s just too convenient. A single dose should, at least, help stop people developing serious disease, and I would be keen to get it if the alternative is nothing. But it won’t stop everyone from getting serious disease (there might be data on this buried within the trials somewhere) and I don’t think it will necessarily slow the spread of the virus and it might encourage riskier behaviour if people think they have immunity.

Sorry Col, not a very clear answer. Overall I’m happy that we have this available at last.
Click to expand...

That hasn't filled me with much confidence, especially as you don't think it will halt the spread of the virus, which is surely the whole point?
At least you think it's safe.
Hopefully, you're wrong and the Professor from Oxford who was on TV this week, and was very upbeat about it, is right.
Or have I misunderstood your response?
 
rangercol said:
With respect, I wasn't asking you.
The whole point was to ask someone in the industry who has an infinitely better understanding than me and not someone on Facebook or indeed, Ellers on a football forum.
Click to expand...
My point is you should listen to the people that matter and you won't find them on here... including me.
 
You must log in or register to see images

Can ignore the 90% effectiveness rating for AZ, based on a dose that no one will be getting.
rangercol said:
That hasn't filled me with much confidence, especially as you don't think it will halt the spread of the virus, which is surely the whole point?
At least you think it's safe.
Hopefully, you're wrong and the Professor from Oxford who was on TV this week, and was very upbeat about it, is right.
Or have I misunderstood your response?
Click to expand...
There’s no two ways about it it’s not as good as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, or even the Russian one if we are to believe the data on that, but it is cheap and allegedly available and considerably better than nothing. From what I understand it’s about as effective as standard vaccines for other diseases, which require very high uptake to have an impact on disease spreading. The professor is right, it is a massive step forward, particularly given the time that it took to develop, and I will queue up to get it when it is offered. I’d prefer to get the Pfizer one, and I’m very glad that my mum is having that one, but the key thing is that as many people as possible have some level of protection as quickly as possible.

I have probably missed it, but I haven’t seen any figures on how effective a single jab is. If two doses give 62% protection a single dose has to be lower than that, which is probably why they are talking about reducing the risk of serious disease/hospitalisation rather than absolute protection. Which should at least help ‘protect the NHS’. If this jab makes the virus akin in seriousness to the common cold in those who develop symptoms, I’ll take that.

My concerns are more boring and about the regulatory process, but that’s because it’s a little bit of my job. The safety and overall effectiveness are exactly as expected. The dosing regime, specifically the gap between doses (which I see is approved at ‘between 4 and 12 weeks’) isn’t.

How will you feel if the FDA in the US does not approve the AZ jab? It’s based on old technology and the FDA has never approved a vaccine using the same approach before. Mind you it had never approved anything using the Pfizer approach either, but that is a brand new technology.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sooperhoop, BobbyD, ELLERS and 1 other person
Horrendous scenes out walking the dog this morning. Children laughing, mothers chatting and even people fishing. Nobody was willing to fill out my survey to confirm if they were with people from a different household but I shall try again tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobmid, kiwiqpr and Stroller
sb_73 said:
You must log in or register to see images

Can ignore the 90% effectiveness rating for AZ, based on a dose that no one will be getting.

There’s no two ways about it it’s not as good as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, or even the Russian one if we are to believe the data on that, but it is cheap and allegedly available and considerably better than nothing. From what I understand it’s about as effective as standard vaccines for other diseases, which require very high uptake to have an impact on disease spreading. The professor is right, it is a massive step forward, particularly given the time that it took to develop, and I will queue up to get it when it is offered. I’d prefer to get the Pfizer one, and I’m very glad that my mum is having that one, but the key thing is that as many people as possible have some level of protection as quickly as possible.

I have probably missed it, but I haven’t seen any figures on how effective a single jab is. If two doses give 62% protection a single dose has to be lower than that, which is probably why they are talking about reducing the risk of serious disease/hospitalisation rather than absolute protection. Which should at least help ‘protect the NHS’. If this jab makes the virus akin in seriousness to the common cold in those who develop symptoms, I’ll take that.

My concerns are more boring and about the regulatory process, but that’s because it’s a little bit of my job. The safety and overall effectiveness are exactly as expected. The dosing regime, specifically the gap between doses (which I see is approved at ‘between 4 and 12 weeks’) isn’t.

How will you feel if the FDA in the US does not approve the AZ jab? It’s based on old technology and the FDA has never approved a vaccine using the same approach before. Mind you it had never approved anything using the Pfizer approach either, but that is a brand new technology.
Click to expand...

I'll trust our regulators and scientists I reckon.
The Prof from Oxford said he expected nearer 70% from both jabs (I think).
Isn't efficacy for the seasonal flu vaccine around 60%?
Cheers for the input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sooperhoop and sb_73
rangercol said:
Stan, just edited my reply with another query.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think so re the 60% flu. And people still get flu, and the vulnerable, even with vaccination, can sometimes die of it. But then again we don’t do mass vaccination for flu usually, just for the aged. Part of AZs problem is that the Pfizer and Moderna results really are sensationally, almost unprecedentedly, good, and the science they used is a genuine breakthrough, very hard to look good in comparison, but compared to normal expectations the AZ vaccine is fine for effectiveness. All the vaccines claim to be as effective for the elderly as for other age groups, which isn’t the case for flu, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
Really annoying when they leak this stuff to journalists to test the waters rather than just saying something if it needs to be said but assuming this **** is right it’s another utterly predictable u-turn giving parents little notice.

You must log in or register to see media
 
It was said today ( but I have not yet seen the science that supports this) that one jab of the Oxford vaccine gives you a good deal of protection...even if you get the virus, it is mild. Obviously not ideal as you can pass it on....but

Anyway this may alter the way the government approach the vaccination program.

Give 50 million people one shot ( now-ish)..and then go around and give them a second shot in the summer.
Rather than give 25 million the full vaccine 3 weeks apart.

I am not going to make any comment on this, as I have not seen any scientific evidence to back this up for the Oxford vaccine... Although textbook science says it should work
 
  • Like
Reactions: mapleranger, peter1954qpr, BobbyD and 4 others
ELLERS said:
I agree SM but if you are alluding to Cummings in some way then you are off target. Just because someone sticks their head in an oven doesn't mean I will? Cummings was a muppet but compared to what most people have done, then it looks pretty insignificant. There will be some who blame this on him (due to their political view) but he and others (celebrities) are no better or worse than the idiots who had parties and ignored the guidelines. They are all as bad as each other.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that. They are all guilty of the same selfishness. However those in public life in particular those who are involved in setting the rules are far worse and should be punished and exposed. Fred next door who nobody knows apart from his mates and family is not as damaging as those who should be setting an example, then lie and their lies are given the seal of approval by the government. There is something to be said for a mistake, whether through carelessness or alcohol and the speed and nature of the apology That is on any view, not as bad. DC failed in every respect and deserves nothing but contempt for the rest of his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW Ranger and Steelmonkey
Not so sure about that. They are all guilty of the same selfishness. However those in public life in particular those who are involved in setting the rules are far worse and should be punished and exposed. Fred next door who nobody knows apart from his mates and family is not as damaging as those who should be setting an example, then lie and their lies are given the seal of approval by the government. There is something to be said for a mistake, whether through carelessness or alcohol and the speed and nature of the apology That is on any view, not as bad. DC failed in every respect and deserves nothing but contempt for the rest of his career.[/QUOTE]
you contradicted yourself there. You are correct they are all as bad as each other. Half the idiots breaking the rules probably don’t even know who DC is? I’m sure that group of 25 idiots that had a party in our neighbourhood 2 weeks ago really think about DC actions?
Anyway DC is old news as the government has come up trumps by supporting the Oxford lot. happy days.
 
qprbeth said:
It was said today ( but I have not yet seen the science that supports this) that one jab of the Oxford vaccine gives you a good deal of protection...even if you get the virus, it is mild. Obviously not ideal as you can pass it on....but

Anyway this may alter the way the government approach the vaccination program.

Give 50 million people one shot ( now-ish)..and then go around and give them a second shot in the summer.
Rather than give 25 million the full vaccine 3 weeks apart.

I am not going to make any comment on this, as I have not seen any scientific evidence to back this up for the Oxford vaccine... Although textbook science says it should work
Click to expand...

I heard a scientist on radio today saying the 'advantage' of the Oxford vax was one shot gives 'protection' in 2 to 3 weeks, it may not stop you getting the virus but would prevent it becoming a 'serious' condition. The 2nd shot at 12 weeks completes the course. He also mentioned it's flexibility in the 4-12 week option on the 2nd shot, it's far easier storage and transit and it's far cheaper cost.

Do we trust the science? At my age I would say a cautious yes, anything that reduces it's potency has to be a plus as well as giving a semblance of normality back to everyday life...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol, sb_73 and qprbeth
Sooperhoop said:
I heard a scientist on radio today saying the 'advantage' of the Oxford vax was one shot gives 'protection' in 2 to 3 weeks, it may not stop you getting the virus but would prevent it becoming a 'serious' condition. The 2nd shot at 12 weeks completes the course. He also mentioned it's flexibility in the 4-12 week option on the 2nd shot, it's far easier storage and transit and it's far cheaper cost.

Do we trust the science? At my age I would say a cautious yes, anything that reduces it's potency has to be a plus as well as giving a semblance of normality back to everyday life...
Click to expand...
The Pfizer jab gives ‘protection’ against serious illness (I assume this means hospitalisation) in 89% of people who are given it 12 days after the first dose. I would like to see similar information for the AZ vaccine.

Yay, we’re in Tier 4. I’m glad these changes are virtually immediate and there was no ‘next Sunday’ stuff.

Wow, 981 deaths announced. I wonder if any were ‘held over’ from the holidays?

Let’s get vaccinating, its the only way out of this. We don’t need to obliterate the virus, that’s not possible, we just need to get to the stage where the vulnerable are much safer and we don’t hear daily scare stories about hospitals collapsing, when they should be working on the backlog of other illnesses that haven’t gone way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hoop-Leif, SW Ranger, UTRs and 2 others
Quite an interesting presser today. Jonathan Van Tam, one of the few to have come out of this in credit so far, had a very difficult job in explaining the technicalities of how vaccines work, which includes how much we don’t know yet. He did an ok job, but fell back on ‘trust me I’m a doctor’ type answers a couple of times, and went up a blind alley saying you can’t compare the endpoints/% of the Pfizer and AZ trials, then failing to explain why. He got one response spectacularly wrong in tone - when asked if a vulnerable person who has had both doses of a vaccine can then visit their grandchildren, he said that you can’t ‘go mad’ and go trolling off to bingo etc etc, not really answering a very reasonable question.

takeaways:
- big claim that speed of roll out will depend on supply of vaccine rather than capacity/organisation of NHS. But we won’t have ‘tens of millions’ of doses until March (according to Johnson)
- no evidence yet that any vaccine reduces transmission of the virus, just that they stop you getting seriously ill. Fair enough.
- ‘things will feel different’ - I assume better - ‘by Easter - April 5th’ - Johnson, at last giving us a specific date.

Later on, on the news, I heard someone say that the AZ vaccine gives 70% protection against serious illness 3 weeks after the first jab.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back