Coronavirus Thread

[Nalis]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Can someone explain to me why care home residents are prioritised in the first set of vaccinations?  I get why you would want to vaccinate the staff but surely the residents are then protected and it’s more important to protect the elderly general public and vulnerable so the economy can restart properly. 

Possibly the knock on effect, visitors come in and see family memebers in care home -> care home resident get covid ->hospitals get overwhelmed with high risk care home patients which in turn reduce capacity for over key hospital services.

[yorkie1999]

I would have thought it was the highest risk of deaths determined by the stats then down from that. 

[Costock_Fox]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Can someone explain to me why care home residents are prioritised in the first set of vaccinations?  I get why you would want to vaccinate the staff but surely the residents are then protected and it’s more important to protect the elderly general public and vulnerable so the economy can restart properly. 

As others have said, clearly on risk of death.

[st albans fox]

16 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Possibly the knock on effect, visitors come in and see family memebers in care home -> care home resident get covid ->hospitals get overwhelmed with high risk care home patients which in turn reduce capacity for over key hospital services.

I haven’t seen my mum since feb - I can get through an extra couple months if it keeps people in jobs.  Using the new quick flow tests will help ensure that residents aren’t returned to care homes if they are infectious without too much delay. Those patients can then be monitored daily with these tests over the next two weeks.  
 

 

13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I would have thought it was the highest risk of deaths determined by the stats then down from that. 

The care home death rates were so much higher than they should have been due to the incompetence of the system employed at the time ...

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

As others have said, clearly on risk of death.

That’s my point - care home residents can be protected by the fact they live in care homes. I get it but I just think we should be trying to get the economy moving on the back of vaccinations ..... 

[Costock_Fox]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That’s my point - care home residents can be protected by the fact they live in care homes. I get it but I just think we should be trying to get the economy moving on the back of vaccinations ..... 

I get what you are saying, but the last 7 months have shown it’s not really possible.

[Stivo]

22 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That’s my point - care home residents can be protected by the fact they live in care homes. I get it but I just think we should be trying to get the economy moving on the back of vaccinations ..... 

van-tam said that the ordering was provisional.  There will need to be a lot of planning, modelling and expectation management.  

[The whole world smiles]

26 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That’s my point - care home residents can be protected by the fact they live in care homes. I get it but I just think we should be trying to get the economy moving on the back of vaccinations ..... 

If we get older people vaccinated including care home residents the economy will start moving anyway as there will be less people dying, less people hospitalised, less pressure on the NHS and restrictions to the economy will be eased/lifted much like they were in the summer. 

 

It's not necessarily the virus that causes the economic chaos its the fear of the NHS being overan and care home/80+ are going to be the biggest burden vaccinate them straight away and the picture changes instantly. 

Edited 9 November 2020 by The whole world smiles

[Bryn]

Really good news. I don't think anyone was expecting that kind of efficacy.

 

Still a long way off widespread deployment. It has to be stored at -80c so it can really only be administered by large facilities. I imagine most large hospitals can do that and I imagine the private sector will be called upon. Also just the sheer scale of planned vaccination, you're looking at billions of doses of vaccine being used worldwide. Again bearing in mind the storage and transport requirements, getting them about and finding people to administer them is going to huge as well.

 

Still though, even proof of concept is a huge step forward.

[yorkie1999]

24 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That’s my point - care home residents can be protected by the fact they live in care homes. I get it but I just think we should be trying to get the economy moving on the back of vaccinations ..... 

it’s also relatively easy to administer an injection to people who you know where they are though, and let’s face it, the whole point of lockdown is to protect the people who are susceptible to dying from the virus, it makes sense to help them first as it would mean everyone else can get back to living even if the virus is still going round until a time when we have enough vaccine to cover everyone without fear of passing it on to your granny.

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Bryn said:

Really good news. I don't think anyone was expecting that kind of efficacy.

 

Still a long way off widespread deployment. It has to be stored at -80c so it can really only be administered by large facilities. I imagine most large hospitals can do that and I imagine the private sector will be called upon. Also just the sheer scale of planned vaccination, you're looking at billions of doses of vaccine being used worldwide. Again bearing in mind the storage and transport requirements, getting them about and finding people to administer them is going to huge as well.

 

Still though, even proof of concept is a huge step forward.

Get your money on liquid nitrogen manufacturers shares.

[dsr-burnley]

58 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Can someone explain to me why care home residents are prioritised in the first set of vaccinations?  I get why you would want to vaccinate the staff but surely the residents are then protected and it’s more important to protect the elderly general public and vulnerable so the economy can restart properly. 

Because to keep elderly, confused people in solitary confinement without any visits from their families is barbaric if there is any alternative at all, and to claim they can continue their desperately lonely existence for another few months, or until they die, just to save a few quid would be considered cruel.  Perhaps

 

32 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I haven’t seen my mum since feb - I can get through an extra couple months if it keeps people in jobs.  Using the new quick flow tests will help ensure that residents aren’t returned to care homes if they are infectious without too much delay. Those patients can then be monitored daily with these tests over the next two weeks.  
 

 

The care home death rates were so much higher than they should have been due to the incompetence of the system employed at the time ...

Your mother may have a fair certainty of living through the next couple of months.  30,000 other people won't, and many of them are in care homes.  They can't get through another couple of months without seeing anyone they love.

 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

43,000 is a huge sample size, you're not going to get many RCT's (this sort of trial) with that many participants. 90% efficacy gives a lot of leeway in effectiveness. This is the GAME changer, it'll get authorised in the UK and across Europe by the end of this month and I suspect the Astra Zeneca/Oxford vaccine will soon follow before Christmas. Then once the most vulnerable are protected, there'll be a 'third wave' of cases but minimal hospitalisations and deaths, before the rest of the population get their jab. The ONLY danger is a lot of people refusing to take the vaccine however with such high effectiveness, around 70% of the population taking it should induce herd immunity.

Great news indeed and let’s hope this whole thing is over by the middle of next year.
 

Just a word of caution. I don’t think it’s clear yet whether these vaccines make people immune from the virus or just from the disease. The difference is that if only immune from the disease, vaccinated people would in theory still get infected and therefore capable of passing on the virus. This would dilute the herd immunity effect to some degree.

 

Hopefully both types of immunity go hand in hand, or at least immunity from the disease makes people less infectious.

[Stevosevic]

5 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Great news indeed and let’s hope this whole thing is over by the middle of next year.
 

Just a word of caution. I don’t think it’s clear yet whether these vaccines make people immune from the virus or just from the disease. The difference is that if only immune from the disease, vaccinated people would in theory still get infected and therefore capable of passing on the virus. This would dilute the herd immunity effect to some degree.

 

Hopefully both types of immunity go hand in hand, or at least immunity from the disease makes people less infectious.

They said in the press conference that it stops people from getting the virus.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 minute ago, Stevosevic said:

They said in the press conference that it stops people from getting the virus.

That’s good, but let’s hope that it is accurate. The difference might be a bit subtle for the media. Was it an expert saying this?

[Nod.E]

30 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Great news indeed and let’s hope this whole thing is over by the middle of next year.
 

Just a word of caution. I don’t think it’s clear yet whether these vaccines make people immune from the virus or just from the disease. The difference is that if only immune from the disease, vaccinated people would in theory still get infected and therefore capable of passing on the virus. This would dilute the herd immunity effect to some degree.

 

Hopefully both types of immunity go hand in hand, or at least immunity from the disease makes people less infectious.

Not like you. 

 

Seriously though. Nobody can be certain but even you have to admit things are looking up.

[WigstonWanderer]

9 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Not like you. 

 

Seriously though. Nobody can be certain but even you have to admit things are looking up.

Not really quite sure why you say “even you” (even if somewhat tongue in cheek ) . People who wanted to keep the virus in check long enough to hang on for a vaccine or other treatment should certainly be celebrating if a vaccine looks like being imminently available. Doesn’t mean we should go all happy clappy about a private company talking up its product just yet though.

Edited 10 November 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Nod.E]

2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Not really quite sure why you say “even you” (even if somewhat tongue in cheek) . People who wanted to keep the virus in check long enough to hang on for a vaccine or other treatment should certainly be celebrating if a vaccine looks like being imminently available. Doesn’t mean we should go all happy clappy about a private company talking up its product just yet though.

this is why I said 'even' you.

 

Are you celebrating or sitting on the sidelines calling everyone happy clappers? Make your mind up!

 

This is more than a private company talking up its product and I think you know that. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

this is why I said 'even' you.

 

Are you celebrating or sitting on the sidelines calling everyone happy clappers? Make your mind up!

 

This is more than a private company talking up its product and I think you know that. 

I dunno, in a world where nuance actually exists I'm guessing it's possible to both be happy and relieved that a vaccine is likely just round the corner and at the same time have a little bit of reticence until the matter is really done and dusted? One's mileage may vary, though.

 

Speaking personally I think this is brilliant news - how can it not be - and the Oxford vaccine will likely follow close behind, I just hope they get the logistics of distribution and administration correct and money-grubbing doesn't end up coming into it.

[Nod.E]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I dunno, in a world where nuance actually exists I'm guessing it's possible to both be happy and relieved that a vaccine is likely just round the corner and at the same time have a little bit of reticence until the matter is really done and dusted? One's mileage may vary, though.

 

Speaking personally I think this is brilliant news - how can it not be - and the Oxford vaccine will likely follow close behind, I just hope they get the logistics of distribution and administration correct and money-grubbing doesn't end up coming into it.

Of course you can have a nuanced reaction.

 

Pleased to see the overarching feeling is a positive one.

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

43,000 is a huge sample size, you're not going to get many RCT's (this sort of trial) with that many participants. 90% efficacy gives a lot of leeway in effectiveness. This is the GAME changer, it'll get authorised in the UK and across Europe by the end of this month and I suspect the Astra Zeneca/Oxford vaccine will soon follow before Christmas. Then once the most vulnerable are protected, there'll be a 'third wave' of cases but minimal hospitalisations and deaths, before the rest of the population get their jab. The ONLY danger is a lot of people refusing to take the vaccine however with such high effectiveness, around 70% of the population taking it should induce herd immunity.

The point with sample size isn’t the trial itself but the fact this is a preliminary analysis based on the first 94 to report developing Covid. In the 3 months the trial has been going, you’d expect a couple of % to get it, say 500 of the 22000 to get the placebo. Good place to be in 20% of the way through but no certainties yet.

 

Pfizer haven’t analysed the data yet, let alone released it for anyone else to look at and yet you have someone like John Bell, who should know better, saying that life will be back to normal in March. It might be but so far we’ve had one press release, it’s not quite sufficient to be making such grand statements.

 

It’s fantastic news that Pfizer feel confident enough to put this out there, the light at the end of the tunnel is beginning to get brighter and highlights the folly of those content to sacrifice other people’s lives. I get the excitement to get rid of this shitshow but it should be bounded by ample caution.

[nnickn]

why are people not refused entry into supermarkets, if they don't have a mask?

[Bugg]

1 hour ago, nnickn said:

why are people not refused entry into supermarkets, if they don't have a mask?

I work in a supermarket and basically we're told that we can't refuse entry for people not wearing masks due to people potentially being exempt.

Also, supermarket staff take enough shit from customers over nothing so adding another reason to be abused really just isn't worth their time considering most are paid less than £10 an hour.

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, Nod.E said:

this is why I said 'even' you.

 

Are you celebrating or sitting on the sidelines calling everyone happy clappers? Make your mind up!

 

This is more than a private company talking up its product and I think you know that. 

Well I’ll leave the misplaced attempts at petty point scoring to you.

 

As regards the vaccine, I am as they say, cautiously optimistic, but I’ll take healthy scientific scepticism over religious zeal any time.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

The point with sample size isn’t the trial itself but the fact this is a preliminary analysis based on the first 94 to report developing Covid. In the 3 months the trial has been going, you’d expect a couple of % to get it, say 500 of the 22000 to get the placebo. Good place to be in 20% of the way through but no certainties yet.

 

Pfizer haven’t analysed the data yet, let alone released it for anyone else to look at and yet you have someone like John Bell, who should know better, saying that life will be back to normal in March. It might be but so far we’ve had one press release, it’s not quite sufficient to be making such grand statements.

 

It’s fantastic news that Pfizer feel confident enough to put this out there, the light at the end of the tunnel is beginning to get brighter and highlights the folly of those content to sacrifice other people’s lives. I get the excitement to get rid of this shitshow but it should be bounded by ample caution.