Cable Forum - Coronavirus

A third study has further substantiated the claim that a single dose of either the Pfizer or the AZ vaccine reduces hospitalisation by 80% in those aged over 80.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56267473

I can't help thinking that this latest piece of research still won't be enough for anyone still desperately hoping that the British government and the devolved administrations made a horrible mistake in opting for the 12-week dosage gap...

the success in our vaccination strategy is purely down to the NHS, no other factors are involved or other bodies contributed/participated.

jfman

03-03-2021 18:52

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072873)

I don't think anyone is desperately hoping for failure merely sceptical as to whether it was the right route to go down. There's a lot of money being put into studies to proactively demonstrate what should be obvious from population wide data tracking divergence of those in vaccinated cohorts with unvaccinated cohorts to remove the effect of lockdown.

I'm still yet to see an explanation for the test positivity rate of over 60% for unvaccinated over 70s in the last yet to be peer reviewed study. Obviously, when peer reviewed I'm sure glaring errors (or explainations) will get suitable prominence on the BBC website and other mainstream press.

I guess there's also the question of who is funding such studies, and why, when they wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny at this stage for any medical authority seeking to make regulatory changes (e.g. to the quality standard of randomised control trials) but they do make good press releases. :)

spiderplant

03-03-2021 19:44

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36072880)

I'm still yet to see an explanation for the test positivity rate of over 60% for unvaccinated over 70s in the last yet to be peer reviewed study.

As I read it, they were only looking at symptomatic people. Is it that surprising that 60% were positive?

jfman

03-03-2021 20:30

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36072885)

As I read it, they were only looking at symptomatic people. Is it that surprising that 60% were positive?

Well, yes.

The majority of NHS testing capacity is for those with symptoms booking a test and positivity never gets that high. Even when at the height of the first wave when testing was only for those with symptoms positivity never got that high.

spiderplant

03-03-2021 21:34

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36072891)

Got a source for that? It's easy to find positivity rates for all tests, but not just for those symptomatic.

The best I can find is figure 11a in
https://assets.publishing.service.go...ummary_w17.pdf
which shows that the positivity rate increases significantly with age. (And that's of people with any respiratory or flu-like infection, not just those COVID symptomatic)

Chris

03-03-2021 22:15

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36072880)

You never fail to disappoint ...

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you think there’s a deep State propaganda operation in motion here, and that yes, you do need the vaccination policy to fail and this epic display of straw-clutching proves it. It looks to me like all of the above is easier for you to swallow than the idea that el gov may have made a good call and a series of suitably qualified experts are proving it with sound science that has been fairly and broadly reported by a range of news media.

jonbxx

04-03-2021 09:18

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36072880)

I guess there's also the question of who is funding such studies, and why, when they wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny at this stage for any medical authority seeking to make regulatory changes (e.g. to the quality standard of randomised control trials) but they do make good press releases. :)

You can follow through to the preprint here. The work was done by the Public Health bodies for each of the UK nations plus London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Strathclyde and Imperial College. All authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest (see page 18)

The work was funded directly or indirectly in the case of the Universities by the Government.

Chris

04-03-2021 15:41

Re: Coronavirus

Well, it seems the massive British disinformation effort has been so successful, the Germans think ~~the invasion's coming through Calais~~ the AstraZeneca vaccine is now both safe for over 65s and also even more effective with doses 12 weeks apart.

Hurrah for the BBC!

</SATIRE>

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56275342

Quote:

Germany's vaccine commission has approved the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab in people aged over 65.
The country previously approved it for under-65s only, citing insufficient data on its effects on older people.
That led to public scepticism about its effectiveness, with some Germans spurning it and leaving many doses unused.
But German Chancellor Angela Merkel said recent studies had now provided enough data to approve it for all ages.

jfman

04-03-2021 16:59

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072910)

The success of failure of the vaccine effort has little to do with whether there is (or isn’t) complicity between Government, the media and some parts of the scientific community who rush out glitzy press releases ahead of peer review.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073000)

It’s good that data has become available to comfort the scientific communities of some other countries. And the vindication that elements of the UK media have been on their knees for over a period of weeks now.

Notably the recommendations for the Pfizer vaccine are unchanged and 12 weeks remains an “up to” figure. I’m sure they’ll be watching closely as the devolved nations have clearly diverged on their policies with England lagging behind on second doses at 13%, NI and Scotland at around 25% and Wales over 60% of those issued yesterday. All following the same science too.

1andrew1

04-03-2021 17:31

Re: Coronavirus

Obviously, not a great situation for anyone. Would be interesting to know what Australia's contract says and when it was signed.

Quote:

Italy blocks shipment of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to Australia

Move threatens to increase global tensions over procurement of Covid jabs

Italy has blocked a shipment of the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine that was destined for Australia, in the first such intervention since the EU introduced new rules governing the shipment of vaccines outside the bloc.

Rome decided to prevent the export of 250,000 doses of the vaccine, officials said, as it moves to keep doses inside the union. Italy notified Brussels of its proposed decision at the end of last week under the EU’s vaccine export transparency regime. The European Commission had the power to object to the Italian decision and did not, officials said.

The move threatens to heighten global tensions over vaccine procurement after EU allies objected to the introduction of its export regime. Under the controversial system announced by the commission at the end of January, EU-based vaccine manufacturers must seek authorisation from their national government where their Covid-19 vaccine is produced before exporting it out of the EU. The scheme was part of Brussels’ response to an admission by AstraZeneca that it would miss targets for vaccine delivery to the EU, stoking EU suspicions that production had been shipped elsewhere.

Mario Draghi, the new Italian prime minister, questioned why the EU was not imposing stricter vaccine export controls for companies that were not in compliance with their contractual commitments at a summit of EU leaders last month.

https://www.ft.com/content/bed655ac-...d-b015284798c8

Sephiroth

04-03-2021 18:33

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073014)

<SNIP>

It’s good that data has become available to comfort the scientific communities of some other countries.

<SNIP>

I'll translate that into even more truth.

It's good that data has become available that sticks two fingers up to the vindictive EU but which has put lives at risk in their member countries.

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36073025)

Obviously, not a great situation for anyone. Would be interesting to know what Australia's contract says and when it was signed.

https://www.ft.com/content/bed655ac-...d-b015284798c8

This is a chance for the UK to immediately fill the gap to "our Australian friends".

Hugh	04-03-2021 18:41

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36073036)

I'll translate that into even more truth.

It's good that data has become available that sticks two fingers up to the vindictive EU but which has put lives at risk in their member countries.

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

This is a chance for the UK to immediately fill the gap to "our Australian friends".

Switzerland and the USA aren’t in the EU, and Canada only approved it last week...

Sephiroth

04-03-2021 18:52

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073040)

Switzerland and the USA aren’t in the EU, and Canada only approved it last week...

I was only referring to the EU under the term "some other countries".