Coronavirus

Originally Posted by downquark1

It's worth noting that the UK is ahead of most countries (I think 3rd in the world) for vaccine distribution. So props to the NHS and Boris.

I’m with you in 50% of that...

Not sure what value BoJo added to the vaccine situation.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I’m with you in 50% of that...

Not sure what value BoJo added to the vaccine situation.

He's appointed a good person to head up the programme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55115037

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

He's appointed a good person to head up the programme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55115037

OK - 75% then...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

OK - 75% then...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by downquark1

It's worth noting that the UK is ahead of most countries (I think 3rd in the world) for vaccine distribution. So props to the NHS and Boris.

We are well ahead of the EU.

[Sephiroth]

Am I right in thinking that the 12 week gap decision was foolhardy in the light of the (perfidious) EU position on vaccine exports? Might some first jab Pfizer recipients end up stranded?

The Guvmin's lack of transparency is worrying. Maybe there is a reason for this, like not giving the game away to the EU. But it would be better for Zahawi to say straight that we should accept his assurances because full disclosure would potentially prejudice supply arrangements or similar better than weasel words.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Am I right in thinking that the 12 week gap decision was foolhardy in the light of the (perfidious) EU position on vaccine exports? Might some first jab Pfizer recipients end up stranded?

The Guvmin's lack of transparency is worrying. Maybe there is a reason for this, like not giving the game away to the EU. But it would be better for Zahawi to say straight that we should accept his assurances because full disclosure would potentially prejudice supply arrangements or similar better than weasel words.

We may or may not have enough vaccine to do the initial job the gov aren't giving much info away.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Am I right in thinking that the 12 week gap decision was foolhardy in the light of the (perfidious) EU position on vaccine exports? Might some first jab Pfizer recipients end up stranded?

The Guvmin's lack of transparency is worrying. Maybe there is a reason for this, like not giving the game away to the EU. But it would be better for Zahawi to say straight that we should accept his assurances because full disclosure would potentially prejudice supply arrangements or similar better than weasel words.

Unlikely, because so far the Oxford-AstraZenica vaccine is the only truly versatile vaccine available, the EU is going to need a substantial amount of it eventually, and it is mostly made in the UK. If the EU were to put export controls on consignments we had already contracted and paid for, all they would achieve would be to find their supplies of Ox/AZ compromised by HMG defensively doing likewise. Ultimately, nobody wins.

I also think you need to stop fretting over lack of transparency. Vaccine production, distribution and storage is highly sensitive information. Excessive details of the timetable present a risk to public order in the event that unforeseen problems cause delays.

[Pierre]

As we pass 100,000 deaths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757378

The distribution is interesting.


99% of deaths aged 45 or over

90% of deaths aged 65 or over

75% of deaths aged 75 or over

42% of deaths aged 85 or over

30% of all deaths within Care Homes.

All the data based on the rather loose definition of dying within 28days of a positive test, regardless of any other conditions the individual may have had.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Pierre

As we pass 100,000 deaths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757378

The distribution is interesting.


99% of deaths aged 45 or over

90% of deaths aged 65 or over

75% of deaths aged 75 or over

42% of deaths aged 85 or over

30% of all deaths within Care Homes.

All the data based on the rather loose definition of dying within 28days of a positive test, regardless of any other conditions the individual may have had.

ONS Figures are more accurate and include those who have died with CV-19 as a factor, regardless of how long it took them to die from 1st test/diagnosis.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@jonbxx

Jon - you might know the answer.

Let's say that a CV sufferer of a couple of months tests positive at that point. That sufferer appears to be recovering.

Some people are saying that although testing positive, the sufferer is no longer contagious. Is that right? Can the swab test differentiate between active and inactive virus cells? Logic tells me that whatever the sufferer is spewing out at that point would be contagion unless virus cells detected were inactive.

Cheers.

I can answer that, no problems. The current COVID RT-PCR test looks for SARS-Cov2 RNA only. When you have a swab taken, the swab is put in to a solution full of nice ingredients which break down the virus including the proteins around it. This opens things up for testing and stabilises the RNA.

We are full of enzymes which happily break down RNA and this is a good thing. RNA is how we make proteins so you make RNA to make proteins and the enzymes which break down RNA are an 'off switch', stopping the protein manufacture. RNA in cells doesn't hand around long with a half life usually of minutes to hours. Again, this is a good thing. The mRNA vaccines have had their mRNA modified to slow down the rate they are broken down in the cell

Now, the virus could be inactive in that it can't get into cells but still be picked up by the COVID test. The big question is how long would virus hang around in the usual places for a test swab. The inside of the nose and back of throat are designed to trap and kill nasties so the environment is pretty harsh but it's certainly not impossible for some virus to hang around.

A big deal is made of the 'number of cycles' for a COVID test. The test makes copies of DNA from the SARS-Cov2 RNA, DNA being easier to handle. It's the DNA we are measuring during a test. Each cycle of making more DNA amplifies the amount present until you can measure it. However, the more cycles you have, the more chance of picking something up that isn't really there by mistake which could give you a higher false positive rate.

So yes, the current COVID test could pick up false signals from RNA from dead virus and if you push things too hard, you can get false positives from nothing. The unknown thing here is how long SARS-COV2 RNA will hang about in a throat or nose. the general feeling is not long.

You could try and culture virus from suspected COVID patients but this is hard and time consuming. It could a couple of weeks to get a result so at present, the RT-PCR test is the best we have

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Angua

ONS Figures are more accurate and include those who have died with CV-19 as a factor, regardless of how long it took them to die from 1st test/diagnosis.

That’s just as spurious.

Originally Posted by Pierre

As we pass 100,000 deaths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757378

The distribution is interesting.


99% of deaths aged 45 or over

90% of deaths aged 65 or over

75% of deaths aged 75 or over

42% of deaths aged 85 or over

30% of all deaths within Care Homes.

All the data based on the rather loose definition of dying within 28days of a positive test, regardless of any other conditions the individual may have had.

Those age groups make up 1/3 of the U.K. population.

What are all these extra people dying of (80k+ YTD over the 5 year average, and the number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 15 January 2021 was 20,019, which was 4,347 higher than the five-year average), if COVID is not contributing to the deaths?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I’m with you in 50% of that...

Not sure what value BoJo added to the vaccine situation.

So in your world, when something goes wrong it’s Boris’s fault and when it goes right it’s to someone else’s credit.

No bias there in your thinking, then....

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s just as spurious.

In what way?

---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So in your world, when something goes wrong it’s Boris’s fault and when it goes right it’s to someone else’s credit.

No bias there in your thinking, then....

No - I’ve defended him on this in the past, when he was blamed for things beyond his control.

Your thinking that shows the bias in your thinking - seems to be "my Boris, tight or wrong!".

He’s in charge - he doesn’t like doing things that are unpopular, which has meant delays in lockdowns or other measures being implemented.