Coronavirus

Originally Posted by Pierre

The logical conclusion would have been seeing deaths and ICU continue to rise, due to the “lag”. But the data shows them levelling off before then.

Just confirms that shutting the pubs and boutique shops (as that’s really all that has changed) was unnecessary.

Or...

That the new treatments and learnings from the first wave have reduced the number of patients progressing to ICU and/or deaths.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or...

That the new treatments and learnings from the first wave have reduced the number of patients progressing to ICU and/or deaths.

Great! Can stop “lockdown” then.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Great! Can stop “lockdown” then.

Why? - the hospital patient numbers are still rising (and the numbers in vents), and we don’t know the long term effects of "long COVID".

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Great! Can stop “lockdown” then.

What lockdown? Just a few shops and venues shut. Many people on the street and not at home.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I personally dont think that joker Boris, or his cronies know what the hell to do with the Covid 19 lockdown scenario.

We had a total lockdown in March, and various businesses went under, jobs were lost.
Now we are under another one which ends in December 3rd. What Boris is doing is playing with the lives of thousands of people.

He has stated in various newspapers that IF, we have two weeks off at Xmas, it will result in a full lockdown for another month. We also have members of his own party saying that there should NOT not another lockdown as it will totally ruin the economy The Chancellor has stated that Xmas will NOT be a normal one. You try telling kids that, the people that have lost there jobs over this.

Where l park my car in a local pub or work, l was told recently that he is losing £20.000 per week( surely, they cannot claim that back) and has had to lay off all his staff.

The Government is going on the science of it all, and yet some scientist have stated that the government has gone to far.

Now we have Nicola Sturgeon saying what about Hogmanay.

This country cannot keep borrowing money to support the country, it will take years to get the country back on its feet, due to a farcical PM who should have taken control of this back in March.

Arthur please do not start another thread about the virus but post in the original.

[Inactive Digital]

On the one hand you talk about jobs being lost, but then you say the government can't keep borrowing money - which is arguably helping to protect jobs.

What would you do differently?

Oxford vaccine is 70% effective in trials

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55040635

However the data suggests that by varying dosage levels that might rise to 90% - in the trial, amongst those given 2 high doses protection was 62%, while those who got a low dose then a high dose had 90% protection. 70% seems to be the average for the whole trial and as of right now nobody knows what mechanism is causing better protection by varying dosage.

Anyway the best news for the wider world is that the Oxford vaccine is cheaper and quicker to produce than either of last week’s RNA vaccines and doesn’t need to be stored at ultra low temperatures. So it can easily be deployed anywhere in the world.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Inactive Digital

On the one hand you talk about jobs being lost, but then you say the government can't keep borrowing money - which is arguably helping to protect jobs.

What would you do differently?

I think it's more rant than roadmap, which is understandable.

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Oxford vaccine is 70% effective in trials

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55040635

However the data suggests that by varying dosage levels that might rise to 90% - in the trial, amongst those given 2 high doses protection was 62%, while those who got a low dose then a high dose had 90% protection. 70% seems to be the average for the whole trial and as of right now nobody knows what mechanism is causing better protection by varying dosage.

Anyway the best news for the wider world is that the Oxford vaccine is cheaper and quicker to produce than either of last week’s RNA vaccines and doesn’t need to be stored at ultra low temperatures. So it can easily be deployed anywhere in the world.

Great news, the more the merrier especially if it doesn't need the low temperatures that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires and the complex manufacturing process that the Moderna one does.

Originally Posted by Chris

Oxford vaccine is 70% effective in trials

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55040635

However the data suggests that by varying dosage levels that might rise to 90% - in the trial, amongst those given 2 high doses protection was 62%, while those who got a low dose then a high dose had 90% protection. 70% seems to be the average for the whole trial and as of right now nobody knows what mechanism is causing better protection by varying dosage.

Anyway the best news for the wider world is that the Oxford vaccine is cheaper and quicker to produce than either of last week’s RNA vaccines and doesn’t need to be stored at ultra low temperatures. So it can easily be deployed anywhere in the world.

Excellent news!

[jonbxx]

Fantastic news on the Oxford/AZ vaccine. Not sure why the focus seems to be on the 70% single dose efficacy and not the 90% 1.5 dose one. Of course, if 70% is sufficient to give herd immunity, then we're getting a much better 'bang for the buck' over multi-dose regimes both in terms of efficiency of use of the material but also in the resources needed to administer the vaccine. It would be interesting to see the single dose efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

The good wife and I were discussing the various vaccine approaches over the weekend and the deals with various companies is smart not just because we didn't know which vaccines would work but also how they're made. There will almost certainly be bottlenecks in production not just of the vaccines but also their raw materials.

The RNA vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna) use raw materials (nucleotides and enzymes) that will directly compete with the needs for production of COVID RT-PCR test kits. The AZ/Oxford doesn't but, as cell culture is involved, uses other specialised chemicals such as cell culture grade amino acids. Also, the facilities for cell culture are a lot more complex than RNA production.

I know raw materials suppliers are wildly working to expand production of pharmaceutical grade chemicals and equipment to meet these needs

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Fantastic news on the Oxford/AZ vaccine. Not sure why the focus seems to be on the 70% single dose efficacy and not the 90% 1.5 dose one.

I think that's poor headline writing on the BBC website - Sky News says "up to 90%" which more accurately describes the situation.

Irony jumped the tracks, careened down the embankment, crashed through a circus, drove over a mink farm, and finally plowed into a protected wetland where it rolled over, leaking oil, and exploded, raining down smoking clown shrapnel and flaming weasels over the countryside.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1760195.html

Conservative MPs could still vote against Boris Johnson's coronavirus measures despite attempts to placate them with looser restrictions, the prime minister has been warned.

MP Steve Baker, who leads the 50-strong Coronavirus Research Group caucus, said he was "reassured" by the planned lifting of limits on retail, sport and religious services and but that it might not be enough to secure the support of his colleagues.

While such a rebellion would be embarrassing for the prime minister, Labour's support for the government means there is little chance of the measures actually being defeated.

"This is a major infringement on a right to a family life. I'm looking at the European Convention on Human Rights as I speak to you," the staunch Brexiteer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Steve Baker previously...

[tweetiepooh]

There are ethical issues for some - the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine is developed using HEK-293 cell line sourced for an aborted baby in 1973. (Another line used is PER.C6 from a child aborted in the 1980's.)
While most will likely look at the greater good of getting the vaccine it will be an issue for some, maybe to the extent of not wanting the vaccine. Hopefully good alternatives not using such cell lines will be available also.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think that's poor headline writing on the BBC website - Sky News says "up to 90%" which more accurately describes the situation.

I think the BBC left Job's comforters in charge of the newsdesk overnight. At 7am today the intro paragraph to the story described the Oxford results as 'a triumph and a disappointment' and only much further down did it discuss the findings that a certain dosage regime could result in 90% efficacy. It almost entirely ignored the fact that 70% is itself in absolute terms an unqualified triumph for a newly developed vaccine of this type.

The word 'disappointment' vanished from the top of the story by around 8.30am and now the headline itself has dropped '70%' and simply talks in terms of it being 'highly effective'. The nearest it gets to expressing disappointment is in para 3: "The results will be seen as a triumph, but also come off the back of Pfizer and Moderna showing 95% protection."

I think someone at BBC News very badly wanted this to be a dramatic failure, or at least a poor second best. I suspect that there have been a few irritated phone calls from actual experts to the news room this morning asking them what the hell they think they're trying to do, talking down something that could be almost as effective as either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, at a fraction of the cost or complexity.

"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story," my own news editor used to say, with his tongue at least partially in his cheek. Sadly it looks like the BBC Newsdesk thinks it's a motto for life.

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

There are ethical issues for some - the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine is developed using HEK-293 cell line sourced for an aborted baby in 1973. (Another line used is PER.C6 from a child aborted in the 1980's.)
While most will likely look at the greater good of getting the vaccine it will be an issue for some, maybe to the extent of not wanting the vaccine. Hopefully good alternatives not using such cell lines will be available also.

Ah, deontological ethics ... don't get me started

I think that sort of rule-based ethics creates more problems than it solves personally.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

There are ethical issues for some - the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine is developed using HEK-293 cell line sourced for an aborted baby in 1973. (Another line used is PER.C6 from a child aborted in the 1980's.)
While most will likely look at the greater good of getting the vaccine it will be an issue for some, maybe to the extent of not wanting the vaccine. Hopefully good alternatives not using such cell lines will be available also.

The Vatican seems (reluctantly) happy with aborted tissue derived cells at least - https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/03/...nate-children/

Unfortunately, HEK-293 cells are your 'go to' cells for Adenovirus production as they are really easy to handle and persuade to make Adenovirus for you.

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think that's poor headline writing on the BBC website - Sky News says "up to 90%" which more accurately describes the situation.

Ah, I see the issue now. The press release says the following;

These preliminary data indicate that the vaccine is 70.4% effective, with tests on two different dose regimes showing that the vaccine was 90% effective if administered at a half dose and then at a full dose, or 62% effective if administered in two full doses.

So 70.4% is technically correct but an averaging of two different approaches

Press release here - https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/si...ss_release.pdf