Coronavirus

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

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]

Originally Posted by Chris

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...

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]

Originally Posted by jfman

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]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

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]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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)

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by jfman

<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 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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".

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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".

So why weren’t the USA, Switzerland, and Canada "vindictive countries which put lives at risk"?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So why weren’t the USA, Switzerland, and Canada "vindictive countries which put lives at risk"?

You're just being difficult. You know exactly that the EU will punish the UK in any possible way at the drop of a hat.