CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 5)

[Alucidnation]

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

[21st Century Man]

Alucidnation said:

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

[Boringvolvodriver]

Alucidnation said:

Is it?

How do you know this?

But the question is - will a vaccine give us Herd immunity?

[EddieSteadyGo]

isaldiri said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

On the vaccine, I am wondering if there is a case to offer vaccinations to be over 70's before the Phase III trial is completed.

We know it should be safe, and we know it looks to be safe, so far. So I wouldn't advocate offering it to a healthy 30 year old, but considering the IFR is so high if you are over 80 for example, maybe the small risk of the vaccine is lower than the larger risk of catching covid?

Most over 70s or even 80s still survive. Surely the better option is for them simply to avoid circumstances that they might get covid than subject them Russia style to a vaccine that hasn't completed phase 3.

The data suggests that older people aren't managing to avoid getting covid particularly well. And from where we are now, I doubt a "protect the vulnerable" strategy could be setup quickly enough - we needed to start that work back in the summer if it was going to be viable imo.

The Russian vaccine was only tested on a handful of volunteers - the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines have been tested on something like 30,000 people each. So I don't think a comparision to the Russian jab is at all fair.

Both vaccines are due to report "soon". And we know there are two aspects to the reporting i) does it seem safe ii) does it seem to work

I suspect with the data we already have, we can already answer point (i) and conclude that it is safe (enough). The question hinges on whether it is effective at stopping people dying from covid.

At this point, the risk comparison isn't about "most people over 70 getting covid still survive" but between many of this group might be saved by taking a vaccine vs the risks of said vaccine.

[jmflare]

Alucidnation said:

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

Speculation between people on the Internet. Whatever next.

[Douglas Quaid]

Boringvolvodriver said:

But the question is - will a vaccine give us Herd immunity?

A saline solution vaccine would give herd immunity.

Herd immunity is coming at some point regardless of what the politicians do as the virus is running through the population. Even if the vaccine does nothing it will give people confidence to go out again and then herd immunity will happen.

[Pupbelly]

Alucidnation said:

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

because the product data says in black and white it will not prevent Covid deaths but the perception by Joe Public that there is a vaccine means the end of Covid. A vaccine is not the end but it will give an possible exit strategy for Boris & Co.

read the data here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full...

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:47

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:48

[ant1973]

Pupbelly said:

ant1973 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

the-photographer said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-hope...

Oxford has lost its lead in the race, however great news if it happens

The government believes that a German vaccine backed by Pfizer could be ready to distribute before Christmas, with the first doses earmarked for the elderly and vulnerable.

Albert Bourla, the chief executive of Pfizer, said that the vaccine was in the “last mile” and that the pharmaceutical company expected results within a matter of weeks.

This is a more balanced article though

https://uk.reuters.com/article/pfizer-results/pfiz...

On the vaccine, I am wondering if there is a case to offer vaccinations to be over 70's before the Phase III trial is completed.

We know it should be safe, and we know it looks to be safe, so far. So I wouldn't advocate offering it to a healthy 30 year old, but considering the IFR is so high if you are over 80 for example, maybe the small risk of the vaccine is lower than the larger risk of catching covid?

Even if Pfizer had results, they would not announce them pre-election. It's way too political.

The vaccine is bound to come with some risk - particularly for older people. The real issue will be the politicians having to explain that the vaccine is not "risk free". The impression created to date by the politicians is that a vaccine would represent a complete answer.

That's the issue this miracle vaccine won't actually prevent Covid or stop the deaths, it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses. The technical details of each vaccine developer was posted many pages back, ultimately it won't stop the infections or deaths but will be seen as a way out of the madness, reporting will stop and life will return to some kind of normality as we move on to a different moan such as errrr Brexit for example!!

What are they going to do if SAGE say that a better vaccine will be available in 6-12 months and that the NPIs should continue?

I fear the clamour to continue as we are will be too great for the politicians to resist.

Who will rid us of these turbulent scientists?

[df76]

Pupbelly said:

Alucidnation said:

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

because the product data says in black and white it will not prevent Covid deaths but the perception by Joe Public that there is a vaccine means the end of Covid. A vaccine is not the end but it will give an possible exit strategy for Boris & Co.

read the data here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full...

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:47

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:48

Isn't that table just showing the trial characteristics rather than what the limitations of any vaccine may be??

[Plymo]

I suppose the issue with "protect the vulnerable" and shielding is that it's very porous...
For example, my partner is a care worker, going round to (mostly) old folk's houses.
Lots of the calls need 2 people, and it's different people all the time. Most of the staff are mums of children in the local primary school as well.
One of the staff was suspected of having covid because she had a cough and temperature, so went for a test. The company never even mentioned it to any of the other staff who had been working with her for the past few days, my partner found out on the grapevine.
The company also doesn't pay any sick pay.
It was negative in the end although it took nearly 3 days.
If it was positive then there's a lot of close contacts who would have still been going into old people's houses over a 3 day period completely unaware.

[Pupbelly]

df76 said:

Pupbelly said:

Alucidnation said:

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

because the product data says in black and white it will not prevent Covid deaths but the perception by Joe Public that there is a vaccine means the end of Covid. A vaccine is not the end but it will give an possible exit strategy for Boris & Co.

read the data here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full...

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:47

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:48

Isn't that table just showing the trial characteristics rather than what the limitations of any vaccine may be??

Read the BMJ article

[anonymous-user]

JPJPJP said:

The PPE procurement mess takes a new twist today with the release of documents that show friends of the government were offered beneficial access to contracts.

That's not a good look

https://goodlawproject.org/news/special-procuremen...

The Tory Boys will say, nothing another party would have done, neglecting the fact it is there party that did it. Shambles really, corruption and makes you realise that forces the message is better for them to do more of this stuff.

[alangla]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Agree that the social long term cost of shutting schools maybe worthwhile although not shutting schools will not bring the numbers down. I suspect that they are the ones causing the “cases” to rise in homes.

While I agree that not closing schools is definitely a political decision, here's a thought. Given infection rates amongst typical University age individuals in areas with high student populations appear to be declining rapidly, that presumably leads to the conclusion that the virus has done what it was going to do with those students. Is it possible that it's largely done what it was going to do with the school-age population and we might see a significant decline there in the near future as well?

[df76]

Pupbelly said:

df76 said:

Pupbelly said:

Alucidnation said:

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

because the product data says in black and white it will not prevent Covid deaths but the perception by Joe Public that there is a vaccine means the end of Covid. A vaccine is not the end but it will give an possible exit strategy for Boris & Co.

read the data here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full...

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:47

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:48

Isn't that table just showing the trial characteristics rather than what the limitations of any vaccine may be??

Read the BMJ article

Thanks, have done now. It's exactly as I thought, about the trial characteristics rather than the vaccine effect on transmission.

[isaldiri]

EddieSteadyGo said:

The data suggests that older people aren't managing to avoid getting covid particularly well. And from where we are now, I doubt a "protect the vulnerable" strategy could be setup quickly enough - we needed to start that work back in the summer if it was going to be viable imo.

The Russian vaccine was only tested on a handful of volunteers - the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines have been tested on something like 30,000 people each. So I don't think a comparision to the Russian jab is at all fair.

Both vaccines are due to report "soon". And we know there are two aspects to the reporting i) does it seem safe ii) does it seem to work

I suspect with the data we already have, we can already answer point (i) and conclude that it is safe (enough). The question hinges on whether it is effective at stopping people dying from covid.

At this point, the risk comparison isn't about "most people over 70 getting covid still survive" but between many of this group might be saved by taking a vaccine vs the risks of said vaccine.

How many of their trial group are over 70 such that efficacy in that group can be proven? Efficacy in lower age group isn't a given it will be the same for them. It is senseless to give healthy over 70s a vaccine that isn't fully tested. If covid had a mers like fatality rate in that group ie 30+% perhaps you might be right. I personally think it would be crazy to pre-emptively start early on them at this stage given what we know.

[alangla]

Plymo said:

Various issues with care staff but this stuck out-

The company also doesn't pay any sick pay.

Is this not the biggest mistake we've made, given the apparent levels of compliance with home isolation? If the government were paying 80%, say, of wages as sick pay due to self-isolation, either as an infection/awaiting test or after a test & trace call, then presumably compliance would go up dramatically. There must be some individuals, especially if they've got kids at school, who are now stuck in the house for the 2nd or 3rd time. A mate of mine had 2 (thankfully overlapping) 2 weeks as a result of colleagues testing positive and nearly had a 3rd.

I realise some people would absolutely take the piss out of this, but the money lost to fraud would be a drop in the ocean compared to what's been pissed away so far.

[markyb_lcy]

Alucidnation said:

mondeoman said:

Alucidnation said:

Herd immunity is pie in the sky.

BOT BOT BOT

Sorry to be the voice of reason.


Why do you think we have vaccines for Flu every year?

H.I. isn't really working for that has it?

It’s not the voice of reason, it’s an assertion pulled out of your arse and delivered with nothing to back it up.

Influenza frequently mutates in a way that coronaviruses don’t. As a virus to vaccinate against or reach natural herd immunity, it is much more of a moving target.

Additionally, we don’t go for herd immunity with our vaccination programmes for it. We vaccinate only those who are most at risk from it, to protect them and only them rather than to attempt to achieve immunity of the herd, which would require vaccinating many more people (annually, and for the specific strain of flu that’s prevalent in that given year) who otherwise wouldn’t be at risk of serious issues from it.

[Pupbelly]

df76 said:

Pupbelly said:

df76 said:

Pupbelly said:

Alucidnation said:

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

because the product data says in black and white it will not prevent Covid deaths but the perception by Joe Public that there is a vaccine means the end of Covid. A vaccine is not the end but it will give an possible exit strategy for Boris & Co.

read the data here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full...

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:47

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:48

Isn't that table just showing the trial characteristics rather than what the limitations of any vaccine may be??

Read the BMJ article

Thanks, have done now. It's exactly as I thought, about the trial characteristics rather than the vaccine effect on transmission.

So the vaccine will cure the world then?

[bodhi]

The Spruce Goose said:

JPJPJP said:

The PPE procurement mess takes a new twist today with the release of documents that show friends of the government were offered beneficial access to contracts.

That's not a good look

https://goodlawproject.org/news/special-procuremen...

The Tory Boys will say, nothing another party would have done, neglecting the fact it is there party that did it. Shambles really, corruption and makes you realise that forces the message is better for them to do more of this stuff.

I'm sure this will mark me down as a Tory boy, but I worked in Public Sector Procurement 10 - 15 years ago.

Nothing has changed in that respect.

[df76]

Pupbelly said:

df76 said:

Pupbelly said:

df76 said:

Pupbelly said:

Alucidnation said:

Pupbelly said:

......it is a supposed comfort blanket that the government will used to reassure the masses.

Is it?

How do you know this?

because the product data says in black and white it will not prevent Covid deaths but the perception by Joe Public that there is a vaccine means the end of Covid. A vaccine is not the end but it will give an possible exit strategy for Boris & Co.

read the data here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full...

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:47

Edited by Pupbelly on Thursday 29th October 09:48

Isn't that table just showing the trial characteristics rather than what the limitations of any vaccine may be??

Read the BMJ article

Thanks, have done now. It's exactly as I thought, about the trial characteristics rather than the vaccine effect on transmission.

So the vaccine will cure the world then?

As per the BMJ link above, the current trials won't be able to confirm that quite yet..