[COVID-19] General Discussion

[RedruthRFC]

Aye, that's what I was thinking as well - but I just remember the messaging of "Under 40s will be offered a choice/an alternative", but there's no more details beyond that that I can find on the official site

I Googled it and found the caveat "as long as one is available and it does not cause a substantial delay" in the BMJ, so everyone needs to keep fingers crossed that the supply of Pfizer remains healthy. The BMJ were reporting what the committee overseeing the rollout said, so it's strange that this hasn't hit the official site.

 

[Which Tyler]

The NHS site just says:
"For people under 40 without other health conditions, it's currently advised that it's preferable to have another COVID-19 vaccine instead of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine."

That's to do with the risk of stroke. Going by memory, if you're (female), <40 and with no comorbidities, whilst infection rates are low locally... risk of death from Covid is about 1 in 400,000. For that same individual, the risk of death from AZ vaccine is about 1 in 300,000 - so take a different one for preference.

Is that good news?

Yes; when you look at the time frames used.

Point 1: Pfizer is 88% effective against B617 after 2 doses + 2 weeks - that's brilliant, even if it's 5% less than against B117
Point 2: This one's a little confusing. Back in March, the figures for 1 dose of AZ were 70-75% effective after 6 weeks, and not yet plateaued in effect, with 90-95% total effectives after 2doses + 3 weeks being bandied about (but no variant specific; and at that time, 2nd doses of AZ hadn't been handed out yet). Either way, 60% is good but not great.
Point 3: Time frames are all important. As mentioned above, 1 dose of AZ still hadn't reached peak effectiveness after 6 weeks, measuring after 3 weeks gives an idea, but little more than an indication at this point. It would be like declaring a rugby match as done and dusted with the score 3 vs 5 about a quarter of the way through the first half

The 3 week cut-off that has been talked about for vaccines for the last 6 weeks or so has been because when conducting the original research Pfizer and Moderna pulled 3 weeks between doses out of their arses, and tested it at that frequency and found it effective - in reality, it's a random time frame. We need more data; but Point 3 is not a bad thing, just not an ideal thing either.


ETA: As ever, the above is my understanding, and I reserve the right to be wrong; it's still way outside my speciality.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Statement from Henry Slade

www.exeterchiefs.co.uk

 

[RedruthRFC]

Point 2: This one's a little confusing. Back in March, the figures for 1 dose of AZ were 70-75% effective after 6 weeks, and not yet plateaued in effect, with 90-95% total effectives after 2doses + 3 weeks being bandied about (but no variant specific; and at that time, 2nd doses of AZ hadn't been handed out yet). Either way, 60% is good but not great.

This was what I was questioning, not the other two bullets. The quote function mangling it made it difficult to communicate this, although everything that I said only related to that point. If 60% efficacy is still good news, what proportion of the population would we need to vaccinate with AZ to achieve herd immunity against B.1.617.2 (assuming only using AZ and ignoring other factors)?

 

[RedruthRFC]

View attachment 11012

Statement from Henry Slade

www.exeterchiefs.co.uk

"When the time comes for me to make an informed decision on whether or not I take up the option of having the vaccination, I will of course consider the thoughts of my family and friends, the latest Government advice, as well as all others around me."

Surely that time was February / March. I'm also in risk group 6 and got my first dose at the end of February.

 

[ncurd]

In related stuff how big a **** is Andrew Wakefield?



Turns out far far bigger than I was aware of.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Yeh, I don't get what Henry is trying to say.

He has a serious underlying health condition in type 1 diabetes. He has to take insulin and monitor his glucose level for this otherwise it will lead to complications which could see him dying, but he's not happy to take a vaccine for a virus which would likely lead to complications because of his diabetes, because he doesn't seem it safe to take himself???!!

He gave the interview in the context of his diabetes, but he's not doing the cause any favours.

 

[Which Tyler]

This was what I was questioning, not the other two bullets. The quote function mangling it made it difficult to communicate this, although everything that I said only related to that point. If 60% efficacy is still good news, what proportion of the population would we need to vaccinate with AZ to achieve herd immunity against B.1.617.2 (assuming only using AZ and ignoring other factors)?

Fair enough.
A high percentage; probably 85-90% - but that's a bullpark estimate. A year ago, WHO were looking to acheive 50% efficacy to be considered a successful vaccine _ I think that was having a chance of eventually put this virus to bed (absent variations etc etc).
Generally, 30-40% efficacy vaccine is well worth using, even if it won't acheive a herd immunity at any point.

Bulletpoint 2's figures are odd though, and are much lower than what has been previously published. I'd need time (and inclination) with the actual published research to get my head around explaining the disparity. ETA: Actually, I suspect it'll be a case of identifying and chasing down the reference list.

Again, I'm a chiropractor; immunology is absolutely not my bag. Whilst we covered it at Uni, that was 20 years ago, and only really a study of the basics and concepts, not the specifics (added to which, I personally always had difficutly with subjects I couldn't see the relevance of for my future career). Essentially, I'm an informed layman, just one who's accustomed to reading medical research and the general type of statistics used.

 

[Which Tyler]

Okay - I THINK I' might have it; it's that mixing of what counts as "effective" which I keep managing to forget about. This one is talking about "symptomatic disease" - so mild versions; whilst the higher effectiveness results were (by memory - haven't chased) looking at moderate (AKA "contacted GP about"), severe (AKA "reqquired hospital treatment") or deadly disease. By memory, all the vaccines were more effective against the more severe presentations.
I probably simply missed the 66% figure for mild presentation amongst all the noise.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Fair enough.
A high percentage; probably 85-90% - but that's a bullpark estimate. A year ago, WHO were looking to acheive 50% efficacy to be considered a successful vaccine _ I think that was having a chance of eventually put this virus to bed (absent variations etc etc).
Generally, 30-40% efficacy vaccine is well worth using, even if it won't acheive a herd immunity at any point.

Bulletpoint 2's figures are odd though, and are much lower than what has been previously published. I'd need time (and inclination) with the actual published research to get my head around explaining the disparity. ETA: Actually, I suspect it'll be a case of identifying and chasing down the reference list.

Again, I'm a chiropractor; immunology is absolutely not my bag. Whilst we covered it at Uni, that was 20 years ago, and only really a study of the basics and concepts, not the specifics (added to which, I personally always had difficutly with subjects I couldn't see the relevance of for my future career). Essentially, I'm an informed layman, just one who's accustomed to reading medical research and the general type of statistics used.

All good points.

You're one up on me in terms of academic grounding - a combined science GCSE and an A-level and bits of degree level maths are the most relevant bits of education I've had! That being the case, I'm inclined to distil complex things into black and white to make them easier to understand in my head. In this instance, defining the success / failure of a vaccine as whether it achieved herd immunity. On a sliding scale, that would be the ultimate goal, but the reduction in transmission that a lower efficacy / less widespread vaccine would achieve is still a useful / desirable outcome. The quote from the WHO that I can't remember to the word has resonated with me throughout the pandemic and absolutely applies here - doing something is always better than doing nothing.

 

[RedruthRFC]

In related stuff how big a **** is Andrew Wakefield?

TIL who Andrew Wakefield is!

I would wholeheartedly support much harsher consequences for people in positions of power that come with people's trust who are caught out like Wakefield. Based on a skim read of his Wiki page, he mistreated patients, caused measles outbreaks and mislead his colleagues / profession. All that happened to him was that he was struck off and waved off to the states to grift another bunch of people rather than facing criminal charges for something widely referred to as fraud.

 

[ncurd]

TIL who Andrew Wakefield is!

I would wholeheartedly support much harsher consequences for people in positions of power that come with people's trust who are caught out like Wakefield. Based on a skim read of his Wiki page, he mistreated patients, caused measles outbreaks and mislead his colleagues / profession. All that happened to him was that he was struck off and waved off to the states to grift another bunch of people rather than facing criminal charges for something widely referred to as fraud.

Basically the entire current Anti-Vax movements stems from a paper with half baked conclusions that he was paid to come to so people could litigate against MMR. In the process he ignored findings that categorically proved him wrong, falsified results and basically did what amounted to child abuse for doing invasive tests on them without conducting proper informed consent.

Yes the guy should be in prison I'm honestly surprised the CPS after he was struck off didn't have a case against him.

The only good thing is looking at graphs is the scare he caused basically is why the UK is so high on uptake in them now.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I remember Andrew Wakefield but the video reminded me what a vile individual he is.

 

[McTallshort]

Back to 4k plus cases

 

[RedruthRFC]

Basically the entire current Anti-Vax movements stems from a paper with half baked conclusions that he was paid to come to so people could litigate against MMR. In the process he ignored findings that categorically proved him wrong, falsified results and basically did what amounted to child abuse for doing invasive tests on them without conducting proper informed consent.

Yes the guy should be in prison I'm honestly surprised the CPS after he was struck off didn't have a case against him.

It's a bit worrying that his nonsense garnered support from colleagues and got as far as being published in the Lancet before a bit of academic rigour kicked in and and it was peer reviewed diligently enough for it to be exposed as nonsense.

The trouble with what has happened since then is that it plays right into the sort of rubbish that love - "he knew the truth, so the authorities got him out of the way, hear what Big Pharma don't want you to know".

I'd have thought that most doctors who are struck off would have done something that should be considered criminal. It seems like there is (or at least was) no mechanism for the GMC to refer this conduct to the police or CPS.

 

[ncurd]

It's a bit worrying that his nonsense garnered support from colleagues and got as far as being published in the Lancet before a bit of academic rigour kicked in and and it was peer reviewed diligently enough for it to be exposed as nonsense.

The trouble with what has happened since then is that it plays right into the sort of rubbish that love - "he knew the truth, so the authorities got him out of the way, hear what Big Pharma don't want you to know".

I'd have thought that most doctors who are struck off would have done something that should be considered criminal. It seems like there is (or at least was) no mechanism for the GMC to refer this conduct to the police or CPS.

One colleague already asked before publication for his name to be removed and The Lancet in that issue had a counter piece warning of its findings.

What happened after publication was Wakefield's self promotion (held a press conference immediately) and the press running with it.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Upgrade done

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Ministers knew Indian Covid variant was in UK two weeks before telling public

However, a Whitehall source has claimed that the borders were kept open for India to ensure vaccine supplies from the country: "The government was told that if they effectively closed our border with India and put them on the red list, it would be much harder for us to access their vaccines and that was the reason for the delay. It had nothing to do with the trade deal. The data was presented by officials, which suggested that India should have gone on the red list much sooner."

Ironically, the Indian government had not hesitated when the dangers of the Kent variant became clear in December. Within four days of the UK issuing a warning about the strain, India suspended all flights to and from the UK. When flights resumed in January, India forced arrivals to go into special "institutional" quarantine.

In January, the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) warned that only a complete closure of the borders or the mandatory quarantine of all visitors in hotels "can get close to fully preventing the importation of cases or new variants".

source: https://apple.news/AIle10SuZRceKxXeaF94mIw

 

[duncanb]

source: https://apple.news/AIle10SuZRceKxXeaF94mIw

Indian Variant is the Covid we have , vaccines seem to provide a wall.
I'm not concerned other than for age groups who can't be vaccinated.
I have no sympathy for those who chose not to.
This is of course personal opinion and choice which all allowed.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Indian Variant is the Covid we have , vaccines seem to provide a wall.
I'm not concerned other than for age groups who can't be vaccinated.
I have no sympathy for those who chose not to.
This is of course personal opinion and choice which all allowed.

But we've only vaccinated up to 30 and over or made available to those, and only 46% with 2 doses. There is still a large % of the population not yet vaccinated, who could still catch it, transmit it and also get long Covid. Also vaccines aren't 100%, especially against new variants, such as B1.617.2 and B.1.351.