Coronavirus Thread

[filbertway]

I wonder how much of our pay packet is going to be used to pay this off when it's over, its gonna be brutal

[CosbehFox]

31 minutes ago, Buce said:

British press leading with articles that the data is telling them to stop using on people under 30. 

[String fellow]

1 hour ago, Samilktray said:

Say what you want about Corbyn and those who like him, but these Brand Boris followers are weirdos in their own right 

Being a 'weirdo' is sometimes a good thing. It may even be regarded as a compliment, especially if you're a weirdo!   

https://listverse.com/2017/06/10/10-surprising-reasons-that-smart-people-are-weird/

 

Lots of things seem weird to me, including the fact there are at least three different forms of nomenclature used to describe the variants of SARS-CoV-2. We have the GISAID clades, the Nextstrain clades and the Pango lineages. When the world is united against a common enemy, you'd expect it to unite under one method of describing the virus's pathogenesis. 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

British press leading with articles that the data is telling them to stop using on people under 30. 

 

Channel 4 News led on this a few nights ago. Their inside sources said that the MHRA (UK equivalent?) was considering offering similar advice.

 

I think the UK figures quoted were that 30 people who'd had the AZ vaccine had got a particular type of dangerous blood clot and about 7 had died - out of about 18 million who'd had the vaccine. But any connection was unconfirmed.

There was another figure thrown around of 1 in 400,000 among AZ-vaccinated getting a clot (not sure what this figure was - possibly taking account of EU data?).

 

Clearly, that's still very, very long odds - and no argument whatsoever against anyone middle-aged, old or vulnerable having the AZ vaccine......the risks of Covid are massively higher.

 

But as those under 30 are at very low risk from Covid (unless vulnerable), I can see why the regulators would wonder about accepting even those long odds of a dangerous blood clot, especially as it seems to particularly affect younger women.

 

Regulators & Govt will have to be ultra-careful over their advice, given the crucial role of AZ in the UK response - and potential for encouraging vaccine hesitancy unless the message is very clear indeed (as well as the small but serious risk involcws, though all meds and vaccines come with a tiny risk of something very bad happening).

[filbertway]

24 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

British press leading with articles that the data is telling them to stop using on people under 30. 

Which seems to suggest that an u30 you have a smaller than 0.00016% chance of dieing from covid

[Legend_in_blue]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

I thought the vaccine was the way out of it? 

Not an unreliable test.

 

Apparently costs involved in your unreliable Made in China test kit are £2.8 billion.

 

Current data on testing is as follows:

 

 

 

In the past 3 months we've tested the equivalent of the whole population of the UK.  Not only that, we've managed to place 3rd in the world rankings for overall testing numbers.  This, despite the average positivity rate being at 0.4% for the past month as can be seen in the graph on the right.  The increase in testing coincides there with school returns on March 8th.  And yet Boris wants to extend the testing even further!

 

Over half of the population is now vaccinated, including the vulnerable and the at risk older age groups.

 

Why are we doing this?  

 

 

 

[String fellow]

If younger women are the main victims of blood clots, maybe there's small contraindication between the AZ vaccine and the pill, or if they're recently postpartum. I believe that pregnancy is a reason for not having the jab, but this is due to lack of test data rather than anything related to oestrogen levels.  

[UniFox21]

3 hours ago, Shane said:

If the govt give you a vaccine passport just grind it up and eat it on your cornflakes folks 

 

 

 

 

I dislike the idea of vaccine passports as much as the rest, but can't go quoting Boris from 17 years ago to make a point. The world is significantly different from what it was back then. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56645990

 

Some good news!

[Shane]

6 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

I dislike the idea of vaccine passports as much as the rest, but can't go quoting Boris from 17 years ago to make a point. The world is significantly different from what it was back then. 

Yeah I know its just a joke

[Alf Bentley]

Even among younger women, I presume that the chance of getting a blood clot after vaccination must be very small indeed.

 

Health and care workers were an early priority group for vaccination - and a high proportion of health/care workers will be younger women.

It seems that 3m+ people work in health/social care in the UK. So, it is reasonable to assume that hundreds of thousands of women aged under 50 will have been vaccinated, mainly with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

 

So, if only about 30 people (not all of them younger women) got a blood clot, and hundreds of thousands of younger women have been vaccinated, then that's still long odds....and maybe a few would have got a clot anyway.

I suppose they'll just need to compare that small risk to the small risk that Covid presents to younger women, while taking account of the wider health context and risk of encouraging vaccine hesitancy.

[martyn]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Channel 4 News led on this a few nights ago. Their inside sources said that the MHRA (UK equivalent?) was considering offering similar advice.

 

I think the UK figures quoted were that 30 people who'd had the AZ vaccine had got a particular type of dangerous blood clot and about 7 had died - out of about 18 million who'd had the vaccine. But any connection was unconfirmed.

There was another figure thrown around of 1 in 400,000 among AZ-vaccinated getting a clot (not sure what this figure was - possibly taking account of EU data?).

 

Clearly, that's still very, very long odds - and no argument whatsoever against anyone middle-aged, old or vulnerable having the AZ vaccine......the risks of Covid are massively higher.

 

But as those under 30 are at very low risk from Covid (unless vulnerable), I can see why the regulators would wonder about accepting even those long odds of a dangerous blood clot, especially as it seems to particularly affect younger women.

 

Regulators & Govt will have to be ultra-careful over their advice, given the crucial role of AZ in the UK response - and potential for encouraging vaccine hesitancy unless the message is very clear indeed (as well as the small but serious risk involcws, though all meds and vaccines come with a tiny risk of something very bad happening).

 

The difficulty will be in the messaging. If the vaccine is not recommended for under 30's, for example, how many 30-40 year olds are going to be dissuaded from taking it.

 

We could really do with seeing the exact data regarding the demographics suffering the clots, but a high level analysis still seems to suggest that the risk of dying from covid (once caught) is higher in these younger age groups than the risk of clotting. What is harder to factor into the equation however is the risk of catching covid in any interim period between being offered the AZ vaccine, and another vaccine then becoming available.

Edited 6 April 2021 by martyn

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Who knew, turns out that particular vaccine might be slightly problematic and all the people mocking me and everyone else who showed a bit of genuine concern will just bang the same drum refusing to accept anyone might have genuine concerns because your a stupid AnTi VaXxeYNe. If there was a gun with 400,000 Chambers in it and one bullet, would you point that gun at your 25 year old son or daughter and pull the trigger because you know only 1 in 400k are going to actually get killed? It seems like a ridiculous analogy but that's what it is without the gymnastics of the gun etc, potentially. 

[String fellow]

2 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Who knew, turns out that particular vaccine might be slightly problematic and all the people mocking me and everyone else who showed a bit of genuine concern will just bang the same drum refusing to accept anyone might have genuine concerns because your a stupid AnTi VaXxeYNe. If there was a gun with 400,000 Chambers in it and one bullet, would you point that gun at your 25 year old son or daughter and pull the trigger because you know only 1 in 400k are going to actually get killed? It seems like a ridiculous analogy but that's what it is without the gymnastics of the gun etc, potentially. 

I like your analogy. However you could use a similar analogy involving a gun with fewer chambers, one of which contains a lethal Covid-19 bullet.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Who knew, turns out that particular vaccine might be slightly problematic and all the people mocking me and everyone else who showed a bit of genuine concern will just bang the same drum refusing to accept anyone might have genuine concerns because your a stupid AnTi VaXxeYNe. If there was a gun with 400,000 Chambers in it and one bullet, would you point that gun at your 25 year old son or daughter and pull the trigger because you know only 1 in 400k are going to actually get killed? It seems like a ridiculous analogy but that's what it is without the gymnastics of the gun etc, potentially. 

Yeah, lack of nuance is a pain, agreed. However:

 

- anti-vaxxers are sadly causing public health crises (other diseases) in a lot of places right now so people overreact and reasonable concern sometimes does get dismissed.

- every single person takes far shorter odds than 1 in 400,000 of killing themselves and any loved ones with them every time they get into a car or any other form of public transport than an airliner, to say nothing of other activities that carry inherent risk. I'm not sure there's much to talk about in terms of risk/necessity here, other than comparing the risks and if the risk is higher of dying from Covid (or someone else dying from Covid, that's important), then vaccinate.

Edited 6 April 2021 by leicsmac

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, String fellow said:

I like your analogy. However you could use a similar analogy involving a gun with fewer chambers, one of which contains a lethal Covid-19 bullet.

 

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, lack of nuance is a pain, agreed. However:

 

- anti-vaxxers are sadly causing public health crises (other diseases) in a lot of places right now so people overreact and reasonable concern sometimes does get dismissed.

- every single person takes far shorter odds than 1 in 400,000 of killing themselves and any loved ones with them every time they get into a car or any other form of public transport than an airliner, to say nothing of other activities that carry inherent risk. I'm not sure there's much to talk about in terms of risk/necessity here, other than comparing the risks and if the risk is higher of dying from Covid (or someone else dying from Covid, that's important), then vaccinate.

Thing that got my feathers ruffled is if we've got other vaccines lined up and ready to go, is it necessary to use one with a risk of death, even if it's a minute one? It's one thing to have people die and be able to say well they would have likely died anyways, and have people die who otherwise would have lived long and happy lives. Make like others and leave the other vaccines for the younger folks imo.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

Thing that got my feathers ruffled is if we've got other vaccines lined up and ready to go, is it necessary to use one with a risk of death, even if it's a minute one? It's one thing to have people die and be able to say well they would have likely died anyways, and have people die who otherwise would have lived long and happy lives. Make like others and leave the other vaccines for the younger folks imo.

If the risk numbers check out officially and the supply of other vaccines is there, then I'd agree.

[Paninistickers]

5 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Not naming names

 

 

The weirdest subset for me are those that follow the rules through rigid fear, even when the rules increase their risk.profile..

 

I work from.home, shop.alone, don't commute, exercise alone...but I've 'illegally' visited/had visit a.couple of freinds since Xmas. Rule breaker! Bad man!

 

Yet the rule followers who had family round for Xmas as it was 'allowed', go to work, cycle with freinds, natter at the school gate and now have weekend barbecues in the garden. The righteous!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MattFox]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

The weirdest subset for me are those that follow the rules through rigid fear, even when the rules increase their risk.profile..

 

I work from.home, shop.alone, don't commute, exercise alone...but I've 'illegally' visited/had visit a.couple of freinds since Xmas. Rule breaker! Bad man!

 

Yet the rule followers who had family round for Xmas as it was 'allowed', go to work, cycle with freinds, natter at the school gate and now have weekend barbecues in the garden. The righteous!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rules allow me to have workmen in my kitchen fixing my boiler ,who probably visit dozens of houses a week.

 

But relatives who have had both vaccines and have been at home all year can’t even use my toilet.

 

You really have to make your own judgment on these things at this stage

[Paninistickers]

3 minutes ago, MattFox said:

The rules allow me to have workmen in my kitchen fixing my boiler ,who probably visit dozens of houses a week.

 

But relatives who have had both vaccines and have been at home all year can’t even use my toilet.

 

You really have to make your own judgment on these things at this stage

Totally agree. 

 

But much of the brain dead English 'boris' brigade (I use English deliberately) have been incapable of making their own risk.assessments.since day 1. 

 

It's the single most thing that's irked me.of the whole thing. Morons want to.know only if something is 'allowed'....and flatly will not calculate if something is safe, or low risk 

 

[dsr-burnley]

43 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Who knew, turns out that particular vaccine might be slightly problematic and all the people mocking me and everyone else who showed a bit of genuine concern will just bang the same drum refusing to accept anyone might have genuine concerns because your a stupid AnTi VaXxeYNe. If there was a gun with 400,000 Chambers in it and one bullet, would you point that gun at your 25 year old son or daughter and pull the trigger because you know only 1 in 400k are going to actually get killed? It seems like a ridiculous analogy but that's what it is without the gymnastics of the gun etc, potentially. 

Which is of course why no parent on earth would ever buy a car for their children or let them take driving lessons.  Because they know that the "lethal bullet" of driving a car gives a greater than 1 in 400,000 chance of death in the young, so few if any young people are allowed to drive.

 

Or are they?

 

Incidentally, about 1 out of every 30,000 people between 20 and 30 have died of coronavirus.  If your 1-in-400,000 bullet saves you from a 1-in-30,000 chance, the question becomes a bit different.

 

If we have plenty of all sorts of vaccine, then perhaps they can use other stuff on under-30 year old females just in case.  But only if it doesn't slow things down.  The EU's problem, which to a very large extent we don't share, is that they don't have enough anyway.  We can afford (if necessary) to shuffle young women who don't want the AstraZeneca vaccine to the back of the queue for when the other vaccines are available; the EU is still trying to vaccinate the front of the queue and can't afford this shilly-shallying.

[Babylon]

45 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Who knew, turns out that particular vaccine might be slightly problematic and all the people mocking me and everyone else who showed a bit of genuine concern will just bang the same drum refusing to accept anyone might have genuine concerns because your a stupid AnTi VaXxeYNe. If there was a gun with 400,000 Chambers in it and one bullet, would you point that gun at your 25 year old son or daughter and pull the trigger because you know only 1 in 400k are going to actually get killed? It seems like a ridiculous analogy but that's what it is without the gymnastics of the gun etc, potentially. 

The pill has higher rates of causing blood clots, most medicines are going to cause a reaction in a small number of people. Hence them all coming with a huge pamphlet outlining lots of possible issues that could happen if you take it.

 

Do you consider the pill to be like playing Russian roulette? Do you not let your child take other medication? You you not let them get in a car for fear of death?

[dsr-burnley]

Just now, Babylon said:

The pill has higher rates of causing blood clots, most medicines are going to cause a reaction in a small number of people. Hence them all coming with a huge pamphlet outlining lots of possible issues that could happen if you take it.

 

Do you consider the pill to be like playing Russian roulette? Do you not let your child take other medication? You you not let them get in a car for fear of death?

Exactly.  Taking the pill for 10 years has a 1% chance of causing blood clots, but that is tolerated because of the greater health risk of pregnancy; and of course the societal and financial risk of lower numbers of unwanted pregnancies.  Ditto this vaccine.  There is a possibility that it causes small numbers of blood clots, but if there is no alternative is is blindingly obvious that taking it is wise.  If there is a choice of vaccine, and all 10m or so 20-30 year olds take the non-AZ vaccine and it saves 3 or 4 lives, then hooray for that.  But as the AZ results show a reduction in blood clots as a whole, it may be that taking the AZ vaccine reduces your chances of death overall even if it increases it from this one, specific, rare case.

 

In a typical year in the UK there will be about 200-300 cases of CVST, about 10% of them fatal.  They are most common at ages 20-30 and three quarters of them are women.  Hence the obvious suggested link to the contraceptive pill.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

The pill has higher rates of causing blood clots, most medicines are going to cause a reaction in a small number of people. Hence them all coming with a huge pamphlet outlining lots of possible issues that could happen if you take it.

 

Do you consider the pill to be like playing Russian roulette? Do you not let your child take other medication? You you not let them get in a car for fear of death?

Considering how many people I know who have been conceived or have conceived while on the pill then yes I do. 

 

I know my analogy was borderline daft, it was on purpose. Yes risks exist in life but there are more problems and conflicting things coming out about this astra vaccine all the time and it makes me uncomfortable, is that so ridiculous? 

[KrefelderFox666]

Whether the chance of dying from the vaccine is 1 in 400,000 or not makes no difference. Each individual has to risk assess by themselves. If they don't want to fly because there is a 1 in many thousand chance that they die in a crash, fine. If someone will risk getting pregnant over taking a pill (or alternative) due to health risks, fine.

 

If someone would rather not have the vaccine because they feel safer taking that risk, fine as well. We are now at the point where those most at risk of becoming ill or dying are protected by having a vaccine (in theory). Not everyone can be forced to have a vaccine, people have to make their own choice whether you agree or not. You can explain all the pros and cons but you can't make a decision for someone else.