Coronavirus Thread

[VLC86]

Just now, Finnaldo said:

Is that even correct? I’m sure I’ve heard one dose isn’t particularly effective at all yet alone 90%

That’s what the article says, if it’s not then obviously would depend on what 1 dose give you but if it is correct surely it’s a no brainer.

[Jon the Hat]

54 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

That’s what the article says, if it’s not then obviously would depend on what 1 dose give you but if it is correct surely it’s a no brainer.

It strange becuase you would think there would be a single dose trial in parrallel.

[VLC86]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

It strange becuase you would think there would be a single dose trial in parrallel.

Must have been surely, they wouldn’t have started with “let’s give them 2 lots” knowing that it doubles the time to vaccinate.

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, Costock_Fox said:

Must have been surely, they wouldn’t have started with “let’s give them 2 lots” knowing that it doubles the time to vaccinate.

Unless that is a known way to improve the outcome, in which case trying both would make sense.

[String fellow]

I thought that Tony Blair's opinions on anything had lost all credibility years ago. The man's a complete has-been.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

2 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

BBC News - Coronavirus: Vaccinate more people with one dose, urges Tony Blair
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55410349

 

Having had a flick through this, I don't think I agree. 

All the vaccines are two doses though?

[UniFox21]

2 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

For a 4% increase it surely makes sense to give people 90% chance of being protected when they currently have 0% chance?

The article gave contrasting on that, Pfizer suggested 52% after Jab 1, but we'll see if more work comes out. 

[Stivo]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Unless that is a known way to improve the outcome, in which case trying both would make sense.

I think you are right  that its thought to improve the likely outcome.  

 

A trial needs 30k participants so you cannot easily trial different dosages and at the beginning their concern would have been falling under the 50% cutoff that the US had said they needed.

 

Tony’s foundation ( I doubt its his own idea)  have a good point if they are correct.

 

to add to this, my concern would be that the quoted figure of 90% so many weeks after first jab may be based on a very small numbers of cases that are not statistically significant.

Edited 23 December 2020 by Stivo

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

The article gave contrasting on that, Pfizer suggested 52% after Jab 1, but we'll see if more work comes out. 

Blair's point is that in between the instant you have jab 1 and the instant you have jab 2, protection on average is 52%.  This is because you are no more protected when you leave the health centre after the jab than you were when you went in - the body takes time to prepare the antibodies and get its defences ready for the real thing.  

 

So if the protection is 0% on day 1 and 91% on day 21, then an average of 52% over the three weeks sounds about right.

[Legend_in_blue]

While the new variant of coronavirus is now "everywhere" in the UK, restrictions over Christmas should slow its spread, a scientist advising the government has said.

Prof Neil Ferguson told the Commons Science and Technology Committee: "Schools are now shut, we are in a near-lockdown situation across the country, contact rates are lower over Christmas.

"I expect, though I hesitate to make any sort of predictions, we will see a flattening of the curve in the next two weeks. We will see at least a slowing of growth."

However, he said the "critical question" was what happens in January, "and the extent we want to make public health measures more uniform across the country if the new variant is everywhere".

 

 

Damage done there, on multiple counts already.  

[CosbehFox]

I have had enough of the negativity - I did some hasty maths today. 

 

3% of the UK population has tested positive since testing began 

Yesterday 0.005% of UK tested positive - of those tests carried out yesterday, 10% were positive and 90% negative. 

If you use Leicester - 0.00036% of the city's population tested positive yesterday - further more in the last seven days, it's around 3 people for every 100 who've tested positive. 

 

It's clearly dangerous, it's clearly really shitty but fcuk sake rationalise the stats. Highlight the hospital situation more than anything else. 

[UniFox21]

4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Blair's point is that in between the instant you have jab 1 and the instant you have jab 2, protection on average is 52%.  This is because you are no more protected when you leave the health centre after the jab than you were when you went in - the body takes time to prepare the antibodies and get its defences ready for the real thing.  

 

So if the protection is 0% on day 1 and 91% on day 21, then an average of 52% over the three weeks sounds about right.

It's not simply a case of switching instantly to a 1 jab system, this would need to be tested and reviewed further before it would be allowed or approved. 

 

We haven't seen if there is an impact to the level of immunity produced from delaying that 2nd jab, would anyone having a single jab potentially need a 3rd if there is too much of a gap? These are all questions that haven't been answered and would need answering before we can even consider switching to this system. 

[Stivo]

9 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Blair's point is that in between the instant you have jab 1 and the instant you have jab 2, protection on average is 52%.  This is because you are no more protected when you leave the health centre after the jab than you were when you went in - the body takes time to prepare the antibodies and get its defences ready for the real thing.  

 

So if the protection is 0% on day 1 and 91% on day 21, then an average of 52% over the three weeks sounds about right.

Yes but the only thing they can base this on is the number of participants who caught covid19 in day 1-21 after the first jab.  As I recall there were 150 in total over the whole trial.  For the first 3 weeks the numbers must be tiny?

[UniFox21]

Fair few more places in Tier 4 and Tier 3. Worrying another new strain has been detected, linked to 2 people returning from South Africa. 

[bovril]

Going a bit 'ITK' here but a journalist friend of mine in Brussels suggests that a few EU governments think the Conservatives are slightly exaggerating the new variants. 

[Legend_in_blue]

Hancock seems a little hesitant here.  Tiered systems are effective against one variant but not another - this is fact.  1 in 3 carry the virus without even knowing it. 

 

Where's the evidence for all of this?

 

Oh, here we go, the slides will tell us all...!!!

[Voll Blau]

5 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Fair few more places in Tier 4 and Tier 3. Worrying another new strain has been detected, linked to 2 people returning from South Africa. 

Really hope it's a coincidence two England cricketers tested positive over there earlier this month. 

 

Sorry to any Northants Foxes who were looking forward to a few swigs out on Boxing Day. 

[Pliskin]

"We must take action early" - God he makes my arsehole clench. I don't know how they have the bollocks to stand there and say what they say.... "must take action" ..... "cant delay any action"..... Action should have been taken in February, if you really wanted to protect people.

[VLC86]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

The article gave contrasting on that, Pfizer suggested 52% after Jab 1, but we'll see if more work comes out. 

Ah fair enough.

[rachhere]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Going a bit 'ITK' here but a journalist friend of mine in Brussels suggests that a few EU governments think the Conservatives are slightly exaggerating the new variants. 

I don’t doubt we need to be careful with this new variant, but I do think it’s been used as their get out clause after overpromising re Christmas plans 

[Stuntman_Mike]

Woody is a bit of a robot ain't he? 

[bovril]

I feel personally responsible having travelled from London to Norfolk last Thursday. 

[String fellow]

11 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Fair few more places in Tier 4 and Tier 3. Worrying another new strain has been detected, linked to 2 people returning from South Africa. 

I mentioned the South African variant on here a couple of days ago.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Just now, String fellow said:

I mentioned the South African variant on here a couple of days ago.

Well done. 

[Legend_in_blue]

13 minutes ago, bovril said:

I feel personally responsible having travelled from London to Norfolk last Thursday. 

Vincent Racaniello, who is Professor of Virology at Columbia University and co-author of the textbook Principles of Virology, explains in a new video why he is not worried about the new virus variant.

The Government’s evidence, he says, is all “circumstantial”, being based in poor epidemiological data rather than biological data, and beset with problems of relying on PCR testing, which “does not detect infectious virus”. The argument of NERVTAG is “completely flawed”, he thinks, and he sees no reason to think this mutation is any more concerning than any of the others that have been identified. “If anything this variant is going to cause less severe disease,” he says.

 

 

I wouldn't.  They're using this one variant as a driver for further restrictions and to push the testing regime further after the school break.  

 

We've been continuously told that tiered systems are the way forward, but this one variant, which has gone against the flaky correlation between tiers and cases, has bucked the trend.  Therefore the current tiered system doesn't work, so impose another tier - whatever .  It doesn't sound particularly scientific to me.

 

And if that doesn't work - as Hancock has just eluded to - blame the people for not following the rules!  

 

We're going round and round in circles.

Edited 23 December 2020 by Legend_in_blue