Re: Coronavirus
 

Our remainer contributors are strangely silent, it seems.

The reality of Brexit will provide other examples such as this one which will ultimately get many more remainers on board with the whole idea of our new relationship with the EU, as the hard liners increasingly try to defend the indefensible.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a mix. AIUI, most freight comes in unaccompanied containers. Some is unaccompanied trailers, and some (mostly time-critical) comes with a driver.

https://www.lloydsloadinglist.com/fr...m#.YBk1tFjgphE

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is a period between picking up the virus and becoming infectious. It is within that period that the immune system should deal with it, so the person never becomes infectious and is unable to spread it.
Transference by surface contacts is another matter.

Re: Coronavirus
 

More good news in the global battle against Covid.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...cid=spartanntp

---------- Post added at 13:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 ----------

Poland will only deploy the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine on 18- to 60-year-olds,
Michael Dworczyk, the top aide to the prime minister said, on the advice of the country's Medical Council.
Germany's vaccine committee, STIKO, has issued the same advice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No great surprise that the EU can be as ruthless as the UK when it comes to self interest, in a specific and limited way naturally. To be fair they did do an amazingly fast U turn on the decision that even Bojo would have been proud of.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no such thing as a "hard line" remainer. There's people who voted remain in 2016. There's also people unsurprised if the EU acts in the interests of the EU, and not the UK. :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK, as Nomadking said, when you get infected, there will be a while where the amount of virus in your system is so low that you to all intents and purposes would not be infectious. If you have been vaccinated (or had a disease before) there will be a low number of antibodies floating around. The antibodies do two things - they can bind on the virus in this case anywhere that they recognise and act as a marker for immune cells to destroy the virus. This marking will make the immune system more active and you will produce more antibodies.

The second thing antibodies can do is block the virus. If the antibody binds to the 'Receptor Binding Domain' (RBD) of the virus, this will stop the virus getting in to cells and stop any infection. This is why mutations to the RBD are worrying as you could lose this neutralising' effect. You see names of mutations which have a letter, three numbers and another letter. This tells you what part of the protein has changed and what to. TECHY BIT - So the 'UK mutation' N501Y changes an asparagine amino acid at position 501 to a tyrosine.

Anything in positions roughly 319 to 541 is worrying as you could lose that blocking effect. The South African variant has changes at 417, 484 and 501 which could be fun!

Worst case is that a vaccinated individual antibodies won't recognise the variants at all but data so far shows that does seem to be the case. Even if you lost the neutralising effect completely, there will be antibodies against other bits of the spike as some bits are more variable than others. What seems to be seen is a lower response and this needs to be looked at with care. When your immune system is activated, you have a LOT of antibodies and T-cells up and running. It would be like being hit in the head with a 15lb or a 20lb sledgehammer - 25% less weight but still going to do you in

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think your comment about the EU acting in the interests of the EU is spectacularly lacking in nuance. I imagine the Irish government would hope there is at least some overlap between their interests, and those of the EU...

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s not always possible. I’m sure the interests of the EU and successive Governments of, and arguably the people of, Greece have significantly diverged over time.

There will always be contention between Member States.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why on earth did the EU think the UK would sneak things in via NI?
Their regulation wasn't legal in the first place. They can't invoke article 16 until a situation and it's effects, actually occur and are ongoing. They also have to tell the Joint Committee and the UK beforehand, and give one month's notice.
They are not allowed to invoke it on the basis of a purely theoretical and unlikely risk.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't know, you would have to ask the EU. They made a bad decision then made a U turn, which is better than trying to bluster it out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

RIP Sir Tom.

If nothing else, this episode has made them have a look at how commissioners can be ousted from their role. One of the changes that is needed and will be sorted by the member states.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Commission is, rightly or wrongly, one of the key features that makes the EU a political entity in it’s own right as opposed to merely a council of nations. Although I agree it’s a perceived weakness of democratic accountability due to being detached from citizens.

I’ll note we are somewhat digressing from topic and happy to leave the EU aside.

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sort of, yes. It's difficult to get over the fact that mutations and evolution don't have a 'direction' - there's no conscious effort to change, change happens spontaneously and at random. Even hardcore geneticists explain this poorly (I am not, my background is molecular microbiology with a healthy chunk of protein structures and functions) If the virus is not reproducing, then mutations will not happen, mutations are usually because of bad copying of the RNA (possibly coupled with damage to the RNA) The virus has no way of changing itself if it's just floating about as it can't make or change proteins in response to antibodies. Mutations can be silent with no change, lethal in that the virus cannot function any more or somewhere where the action of the virus changes.

Now what can happen is if you get infected and the virus can reproduce. Then you have a race between the immune system and virus reproduction. If you are vaccinated, then your immune system has a 'head start'. This will reduce or eliminate the amount of reproduction the virus can do before the immune system wipes it out. If during reproduction, a mutation occurs, then the fun can start. If you have a million virus without a mutation that allows it to avoid the immune system and one virion that does, then that million will be wiped out and the one will reproduce. Natural selection in action...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

Merkel is covering Merkels backside here! Speaking to my German colleagues, they are pretty angry that Germany didn't go solo like the UK and are blaming the German Government for this..

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Happy to engage if others prefer. It is indeed the executive arm of the EU - as I said that makes it a political entity in it’s own right.

Without the executive arm (as you correctly identify it) it’d merely be a talking shop. Policy decisions would outright be taken by a vote of leaders/Ministers of Member States (Council) or the Parliament. It’d lack its own identity.

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

That'll take a lot of cloth.:D

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

Germany, Poland and now France restrict the upper age limit for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55901957

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

Could be an convenient/interesting strategy. Utilises vaccines where known to be most effective and allows them to skip hardest to reach age groups and get straight into 55-65 year olds in mass vaccination sites.

While I’m sceptical of the real world performance of the AZ vaccine on the ground - and I think we can see Government are particularly concerned that 62% reduced by the 1 dose strategy doesn’t give much headroom against the new UK/SA hybrid variant - my cynicism goes in all directions.

I wonder if the Sputnik V vaccine at 92% will push the Government to revisit it’s strategy and go for the half dose/full dose AZ that discovered highest results by accident - I think Sputnik V does the same low then high dose.

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

RIP Sir Tom.

As China is the world's second largest economy, you'd think that the other countries affected by covid would sue them. It may not be possible to sue them for bringing the virus into the human food chain if it is their culture to eat such things, but they certainly made the situation much worse by initially trying to keep it quiet.

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

Not to worry, we’re going to get the AstraZeneca vaccine into the arms of a very large number of people here, and the data coming from that will soon leave them looking silly.

It is a strange decision really, and hard to understand unless they think the quantities of the various vaccines they expect to receive mean they won’t end up leaving their most vulnerable citizens waiting longer, with the attendant risk, before they get any kind of vaccine at all.

I’m curious though, whether your scepticism is based on a deeper understanding of the science, or just general cynicism?

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

I wouldn’t describe it as a deeper understanding of the science, no. But I don’t see much science in the decision going against the advice of those who conducted the trials.

All other trials are finding that results against UK and SA variants are lower so unless we have a case of British exceptionalism I’d expect 62% to drop on the basis of one dose and drop against new mutations. To what degree is unknown.

Watching the Government spring into action like I’ve never seen it before with door to door testing makes me naturally wonder what do they know that I don’t?

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

https://twitter.com/Coronavirusgoo1/...32557325062146

:)

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

Fretting about the South Africa variant is a red herring, given that deployment decisions were taken well before the data around it had been collated, or indeed that there was evidence of community transmission in the UK. Nobody can be said to have taken a risk with that. The timing doesn’t fit.

Furthermore I think you’re misunderstanding the words of advice from the vaccine manufacturers, none of whom have said “don’t change the dosage schedule” - what they have said is, “we have no data for that schedule” which is a bald, factual statement and exactly what you would expect from a scientist qualified only to report what their actual trial results are.

In fact there is evidence that the first dose of any of the approved Covid vaccines is sufficient to very significantly reduce the incidence of serious disease. This is the public health outcome the UK government is pursuing at the moment; the first aim is to stop people dying of it. The AZ CEO said as much last week, and endorsed the UK government strategy for both the Pfizer and AZ vaccines. Of course I’m aware you rejected that when it came up in discussion last week - that’s why I tend to be cynical about your profession of concern, and tend to ascribe it to cynicism yourself. I don’t think you’re engaging in good faith with data or genuine public health policy aims, and are instead taking the usual path of least resistance, which is to assume everyone involved is incompetent, on the take, covering their own backs, etc.

---------- Post added at 18:02 ---------- Previous post was at 17:55 ----------

Yup ... that’s still pre-print, but given that it builds on earlier work and is not inconsistent with what you’d expect from comparable vaccines there’s reason to be confident in the findings. I’m pretty sure Pascal Soirot had this research very much in mind when giving his interview last week.

And of course the point about comparable vaccines is worth stressing again and again. UK government policy in this area is not being developed in an absolute vacuum.

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

I’m not sure how the South African variant (or indeed any) can be described as a red herring. We’ve always known mutation possible, and indeed likely. The absence of community transmission was simply a matter of inevitability with no border screening or enforced quarantine.

Rather than go round in circles for weeks I’m more than happy to just wait and see what happens as this should become clear in the near future and lockdown restrictions ease. If deaths and hospitalisations among the vaccinated age groups are eliminated or significantly reduced that will clearly vindicate the strategy.

If not I’m sure there will be a new variant along to blame and restrictions continue while further rounds of vaccination are developed.

Re: Coronavirus (R.I.P Captain Sir Tom Moore 1920-2021)
 

Did it not turn out that the time between the doses was the crucial factor? Or have I fallen for government spin?

Two different vectors, apparently.

"Some researchers worry that our immune systems could respond to an adenovirus vaccine by making antibodies against it, which would render a second dose ineffective. To avoid this, the Russian researchers used one type of adenovirus, Ad26, for the first dose, and another, Ad5, for the second."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...9-vaccine.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think if a vaccine manufacturer had a choice of testing at 3 weeks or 12 weeks gap between doses, given the emergency they were always likely to test the shorter one first. However, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and as I've said before we are not designing vaccines in a vacuum. There is lots of data from other vaccines that give us an idea how things *should* work, all being well.

And in this case, not only does prior experience suggest the Oxford vaccine *should* work well with a longer gap between doses, there is now direct evidence that it *does* - and that it may in fact work better. The BBC has now written up a story based on that Lancet pre-press paper:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are remainers who accepted the democratic decision and there are hardliner remainers who still refuse to accept the result and even plan to campaign to rejoin.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know, it’s fun to be able to see the last time any particular member viewed this thread. Because it means some of the loudest critics of British government policy around vaccine rollout, and serial doubters of the efficacy data for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in particular, have been on the forum and have viewed this thread since the new data began to get wide coverage this evening. Yet none of them has had anything to say about it. :scratch:

Re: Coronavirus
 

The proof in the pudding of the Pfizer jab, will be whether people get a second booster dose within the time frame and the effect of that on the variants.

I would not be surprised if yet another variant appears before a month is out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why would they?

We’d simply be dismissed for having the audacity to think that this Government would take short cuts to get out of the pandemic. Herd immunity, antibody testing, rapid testing and Operation Moonshot all strategies to shorten the pandemic in the hope we’d gain some economic benefit. You’ve made the point yourself that there are serial doubters. I’ll happily put myself in that category and to be honest no number of scientists mulling over the data and presenting it in a slightly different way is going to give me confidence given it could be presented as 62/70/90/95% by the company responsible for testing it themselves.

The real world activity is ongoing now and against the active variants in the community. The only results that count.

---------- Post added at 08:21 ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 ----------

Given the lag time for information on new variants to enter the public domain it’s certainly possible there are further mutations out there already.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm sure there are many variants out there but many will be unviable for the virus, make no change to the proteins due to redundancy in coding, make no relevant change, make a relevant change but no practical difference to infectivity/antibody response/severity of infection.

It's hard talking about virii as they aren't really alive so they can't really be thought of as mutating. Mutations occur because of errors in processing in host cells and if that results in a virus that infects better it will grow in the population.

---
The issue with CV is that it's novel to the world. Think of the impact of European explorers taking disease to the New World and how that decimated local populations to whom it was novel. Once we've cycled around this virus for a bit I'd expect death rates to reduce as we build up "herd immunity". Although the virus can still pass around and infect we get used to the type of virus and hopefully it becomes like flu or cold and for most people a minor disease with vaccinations/boosters for more vulnerable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

EU vaccine war: Belgium bans AstraZeneca for over-55s in Brussels jibe as UK stands alone
BELGIUM has advised against giving the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to over-55s because of a lack of data about its efficacy.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...e-covid-latest

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why over 55? I personally know someone who is a semi retired Nurse in her 60s who was one of the test subjects, who has been informed she has had two doses of the AZ vaccine. No bother whatsoever.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect it a cunning plan to make the British population not want it, so the EU can get more stock.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect the criticism was because the government were making the decisions before that data was publicly available. Which makes it look like taking a dangerous gamble rather than following the science. However, it's certainly possibly that SAGE got view of the data some time before it was published. (That Lancet article must have taken a fair bit of time to produce)

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the data shown in this tweet is correct - https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/sta...81400071860230 then there is a point in not giving older people the vaccine as it doesn't seem to work. Of course, more data is coming through on this

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let them crack on, it just makes their slow roll out even slower. It just means that when the data is there - and it will be - that it is perfectly effective in over 55's, 65's, they'll just look even more incompetent to their populations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nah it's a plan to placate their own populations about screwing up the procurement for it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What’s German for “following the science”?

Re: Coronavirus
 

der Wissenschaft folgen

Re: Coronavirus
 

Something other than what they’re actually doing ;)

To reiterate - there is nothing new here. Oxford’s trial group was tilted towards younger test subjects. This was widely known from quite early on. The calculations the German regulator has done, and has published, are plain silly, and TBH they just look like an extension of the cack-handed smear campaign someone in the German government was obviously trying to perpetrate last week.

It pays not to underestimate the scale of the PR crisis we have caused for the EU and most importantly for its principal member states by getting so far ahead with our vaccine campaign. We have shown them and the EU up and there is nothing they can do at present to catch up with us. All they can do is to try to create a scenario where we are wasting our effort and they can say it’s better to do it right than do it fast.

Repeat until you’re blue in the face: this vaccine has not been developed in a vacuum. If it works (and it does), it can be expected to have certain characteristics. This is in part what gave the government confidence to press ahead with the longer dosage interval - a decision now backed by hard data. It is also what gives the necessary confidence to use it in older patients. Vaccine efficacy does not typically drop off a cliff in the way it would have to do for it to suddenly be so unsuitable to use in anyone over 65. And in the case of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, the antibody response data that does exist is typical for what would be expected from a vaccine working as hoped, and adds to the confidence that it is efficacious in that age group.

But of course, if you choose instead to be taken in by smear campaigns designed by governments that are actually failing their citizens, and are actively attempting to misdirect them, rather than vaccinate them, that is your privilege.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are you trying to say that on your 65th birthday your immune response to vaccines doesn't just stop working?

I would have thought anyone with an ounce of common sense would see from the data that is exactly what happens.

You must be vaccinated before midnight the day before your 65th birthday otherwise it's just a waste of time and it won't work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

By “following the science” in quotation marks I also intended to use the term somewhat ironically.

Once you get into the grounds of modelling outcomes outside those in the actual trial science becomes somewhat selective. If you had a desired policy outcome (e.g. to bypass the hardest to reach patients and into mass vaccination centres) you could propose this under the cloak of “following the science”. Something we know the UK Government has done, at all times.

When emerging data becomes available - and it will from the UK in either direction - “the science” can be amended accordingly.

Other, politically unpalatable, vaccination models have proposed to start with age groups with greater social contacts than the elderly. This way such a strategy could be shoehorned in without actually saying it was your intent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hopefully further research will confirm the efficacy of the single dose, but it was from a small sampling.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...b7562376d49159

Re: Coronavirus
 

Daftest part is, there are older recipients insisting on the Oxford vaccine regardless, so this as a plan is failing before it started.

Re: Coronavirus
 

AstraZeneca believes it can produce a modified vaccine fully effective against variant-covid by the autumn.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55917793



---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

You have quoted extremely selectively from that article, which makes a rather better attempt at handling the balance between optimism and caution, and leads on the pre-press paper’s findings (it’s wise to remember that even prior to peer review, a paper from a respected source that finds its way onto one of these major pre-press servers is highly likely to be good research with sound conclusions).

The summary analysis at the foot of the Times article says thus:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry if it came across that way - it wasn't intended to (which is why I started with "Hopefully further research will confirm the efficacy of the single dose").

I want these vaccines to work, but it's important it's based on science/appropriate risk management.

I think they've done the right thing by giving a greater amount of people a reasonable level of resistance, rather than a smaller amount of people a greater resistance - but I would have hated to be the one making the call on that decision.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Switzerland bans AstraZeneca vaccine for ALL citizens as Europe declares war on UK jab


https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...cine-uk-latest


The decision makes it the only country in Europe not to authorise doses of the Oxford-produced jab for use. The Swiss medical regulator claimed there was a lack of data to reach conclusions on the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine. Approval of the jab had been widely expected by many in Switzerland.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, you're right, the numbers don't look good but check out the confidence intervals (last column) All over the place! However, there's no technical reason to suspect that the vaccines won't work and/or are unsafe in over 65s.

The release for vaccines for use by either the MHRA in the UK or EMA in the EU are being done under different frameworks. The UK has given the vaccines we're having now an 'Emergency Use Authorisation' (EUA) This is not an approval of the vaccine in the traditional sense but more of a 'go ahead but you're on your own' status during the COVID emergency. One day, if COVID is gone, the authorisation will be withdrawn.

The EMA is working on a Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) which is a step above an EUA in terms of the robustness of the data needed. CMAs can be converted to a full authorisation often quite easily. CMAs are time limited to 1 year.

I think it's due to the lack of data that the vaccine isn't being recommended for older recipients rather than any firm reason to doubt safety or efficacy.

Of course, the UK is currently generating a HUGE data set for over 65s right now which I am sure will be used to convert the various flavours of interim drug licencing into full licences

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where does that leave Switzerland then which has declined to authorise it entirely?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Isn't that the point of countries having their own independent regulators - they have to feel that it meets their criteria, rather than just following others.

Pretty sure Europe hasn't declared a "war" on the British-Swedish jab, sounds like the Excess is trying to inflame passions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Notably not in the EU or part of the EU vaccination plan.

Toning down the nationalist rhetoric and reading the FT analysis they added:

https://www.ft.com/content/e20c3070-...f-87abe7778188

Also not specified is whether they have any and when they’d be due to get delivery. Otherwise there’s no rush.

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

Yet. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, I (happily) left my statistics behind a looong time ago! I read the confidence interval as -1405 to 94.2%. Obviously a negative efficacy would mean that the vaccine made you more susceptible to COVID which isn't really where we want to be going with a vaccine.

The elephant in the room is the control group showing 1/319 against the 1/341 for the dosed group.

I think there's something missing datawise. If this is the total of the submitted data to the EMA/EU countries, I can understand the reasoning for the stopping of doses for the elderly - why give it to them if it doesn't work and there are alternatives. Unfortunately, regulatory submissions are very much not public domain :td:

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.ggd.amsterdam.nl/coronav...ten/spironose/ Sounds interesting.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think something got lost in the translation. The companies web site is in English.

https://www.breathomix.com/science-technology/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The COVID-19 page isn’t, unfortunately - but a quick Google translate gives this -

https://www.breathomix.com/covid-ademtest/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Presumably it would be a good thing for us (UK) if they actually did- all the more for us :)

Typical of the EU, moan like hell they are not getting the vaccine, then decide they dont want to give to a load of people anyway. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

If we had a similar order as their Pfizer vaccine we’d likely do the same. However we don’t, we are all-in on the AstraZeneca vaccine either way. To that extent I don’t blame the Government for rolling the dice in the absence of data as it’s the only dice we have. Sitting around waiting for now emerging data would only delay the inevitability that they didn’t have a meaningful choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We’re not exactly “all in” on the AZ vaccine. It’s the one we’ve backed and ordered most of.

100 million.

But we also have ordered 300million further vaccines from other manufacturers.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-01/...more-than-400m

So given we’ve ordered enough vaccines to immunise the nation several times over I think HMG are doing alright.

Certainly we’re not constrained to the one vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but these would incur (significant) delays to the schedule, well into later this year and next.

As someone keen to get out of lockdown I’m sure you’d appreciate that even without elements of data, unless there was evidence that the vaccine was dangerous in it’s own right, even at lower efficacy it’d be better than doing nothing.

However that may be to reduce the R number, rather than deliver a return to normal and “herd immunity” by the middle of June as I’ve seen claimed elsewhere. If (or when) this isn’t achieved higher performing or a newer version of the vaccine will be required although I take comfort that they say this is deliverable by Autumn. We will have well developed distribution chains that it shouldn’t take too long to deliver to the requisite number of the population beyond then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, you won’t get any objection from me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Have there been any other examples where a vaccine has actually been shown to be less effective in the over-65s? If not, then saying use in over-65s is not proven, is a bit flimsy. If there have been examples where a vaccine has been found to be less effective, then caution might make more sense.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think their point is they dont have much in the way of examples/data at all.

Much the same was as they could not recommend it for pregnant women - not becasue it wont work, or is less effective, but simply because they had no data on it.

To think it will suddenly become less effective on your 65th birthday is just random nonsense though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was referring to vaccines in general. If no other vaccine that has ever been used, has been found to have differences in effectiveness based upon age, there is little to expect this one will.
Unless there is a further breakdown by age for the under 65s, it might be possible that it isn't effective eg on the over 50s. The 60-64 group might also be small compared to the 65+ group.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I discussed this with my brother in law, who works in this field (and has for over 40 years).

The older you get, the more your body wears out (he says we’ll all die of some form of cancer, if something else doesn’t get us - your body’s repair mechanisms make more and more faulty cells, rather than the good ones).

Because of this, vaccines (and medications) can cause different reactions in older people than in those in younger age groups - this is why older people often need additional medications to counter-act some of the effects of taking medications which those younger than them don’t need.

So, they like to confirm that medications/vaccines won’t cause adverse effects in older people, rather than assume it (which is why the cohort I was in for the Novavax vaccine was mainly 60+).

Re: Coronavirus
 

This study shows flu vaccination efficacy dropping from 51% in under 65's to 37% which is quite a drop. As Hugh said, as you age, your immune system drops off. There can also be inflammation issues in the elderly - think rheumatoid arthritis for example which is the immune system going awry.

Clinical trial design is tough as you really want to remove 'confounding factors' - other issues with the subjects of the trial that might affect the results and the elderly may have lots of those.

In all likelihood, the vaccines will be effective in the elderly and this is how the UK has approached things but for a formal acceptance of a drug on to the market this isn't enough, you need to prove it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm quite worried, atm I'm quite fit /don't take any medications and my immune system seems to work just fine, but the science seems to say that from June 22 [my 65 birthday] i'm going to become a doddering old fart a vulnerable old fogey, a drain on the NHS.........:(

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep! I can confirm that as soon as I reached 65 bits began to fall off or degrade. You will be on the downward slope after that. It begins with the doctor putting you on Statins and off you go. I've had an op on my degraded wrist, breast cancer treatment, and the basement refurbished and currently I'm fighting arthritis in various joints. I'm currently pleased to be able to avoid my doctor's surgery due to the current panic over covid because it seems like every time I visit they find something else to fix.

You are doomed! ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Actually Jfman raised an interesting point the other day ... a useful side-effect of the decision not to use the Oxford vaccine on older people in many European countries has handed their governments a decent excuse to explain their limited supply and also to do what the statistics say you should, but human decency says you shouldn't, which is to give the vaccine to younger people, who have more life ahead of them, and leave the elderly to take their chances...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know we shouldn't go by anecdotal evidence, but of the seven people over 80 I know across England, all have received the Pfizer vaccine.
Really putting it out there. It's obviously not a sufficient sample size to be meaningful.
If this pattern did proves to be more widespread, it might be that delivery schedules mean that more over-80s are receiving the Pfizer vaccine than the AstraZeneca one anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe the over 80's got Pfizer because that was what was available when they were called in?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The AZ vaccinations did not start until 2nd January whilst the Pzizer Vaccinations started in early December so many over 80s and those in that first group had the Pfizer jab as it was the only one available.

:D beaten to the line by tweetiepooh. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

The science says that from around that age (could be before, could be after, it’s an average), things start working less well in a slow downward curve (if you’re lucky) rather than just a "falling off a cliff" plummet - hope that reassures you... :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

All seven were vaccinated in January.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It will just come down to where supplies have been assigned and how quickly they have been used. Storage is also a factor with the Pfizer vaccine which will affect where it can be sent. Given the speed and scale of the vaccine programme I don't think they're going to be making any more than purely practical decisions about which one to use in any given location.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well it allows them to take a differentiated approach to it by guaranteeing the elderly the more effective vaccines and the younger, who are less likely to develop complications in any case, can use the least effective of the approved vaccines.

It also applies the logic we did of using the 12 week window that it’s better to give more people some immunity than people than a small number of people strong immunity.

It’s very easy to spin given the immediate confusion in the AZ trial results.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't understand the point you are making.

I had my Pfizer jab in late January because that was the vaccine that one of the large Surgeries was using as it had the necessary freezer to store that vaccine. The other Surgery hub in my area didn't have that capability so they used the AZ vaccine. It all depended in which postcode our actual Surgery was located where we ended up getting vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3582124/

This article explains the reduced immune system capability in elderly people.

Apparently it is principally due to shrinkage of the Thymus.

Quote:

Abstract The effects of aging on the immune system are manifest at multiple levels that include reduced production of B and T cells in bone marrow and thymus and diminished function of mature lymphocytes in secondary lymphoid tissues. As a result, elderly individuals do not respond to immune challenge as robustly as the young. An important goal of aging research is to define the cellular changes that occur in the immune system and the molecular events that underlie them. Considerable progress has been made in this regard, and this information has provided the rationale for clinical trials to rejuvenate the aging immune system.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Everyone I know has also been given Pfizer but it could just be a coincidence if there was any policy I am sure it would have leaked by now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was given the Oxford jab

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not that I think they have, I think it's more likely the Pfizer one has been in the supply chain longer, but you could in theory implement this idea quietly by controlling who gets supply, when in line with how far along the JCVI list they are.

In terms of being in the supply chain longer the leaked Scottish Government documents (assuming they get 10% of the vaccines as a proportion of population) puts 7 million of the Pfizer vaccine in the supply to date. The AZ vaccine gets there this week, rising from 800 000 total supply in week commencing 11th January.

I don't know how long it takes from delivery to arm but it's extremely likely anyone vaccinated before 18th January had the Pfizer one, on a sliding scale to next week where it should become about a 50/50 across everyone vaccinated to date.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I tried to see which vials were being used in the package broadcast on the BBC news at 10 last night. The only bottle I could read a label on was an AstraZeneca one, so it’s definitely out there, although of course it’s impossible to say anything more about it than that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

My dads first jab was the pfizer jab on the 14th

Re: Coronavirus
 

Someone I know had to fill in a form to book their appointment and it gave them the choice if which one to take which I thought was odd for both medical reasons (why give people the choice?) and logistically too. However, when they turned up they were only offering Pfizer anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.skysports.com/share/12208376

Suppose it’s easy to fudge the numbers if you let anyone passing by the mass vaccination site jump the queue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is possible that football club employees are getting the defrosted dregs at the end of the shift. Their stadium has been used as a testing centre which has probably allowed them to develop contacts and know who to ask. Any leftovers of the Pfizer vaccine must otherwise be destroyed. I would be more surprised if this hasn’t happened in lots of places where the Pfizer vaccine is used. Obviously it is better if it’s used on more vulnerable people first but if they don’t know how much vaccine is going to be left at the end of the day and it’s a matter of phoning someone and telling them they can have it provided they arrive within 20 minutes, that’s a difficult procedure to incorporate into the regular schedule.

It’s bad PR though, and if that’s what is happening then some effort must be made to regulate it so someone other than the fittest in society gets to ‘jump’ the queue.