Coronavirus

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A lower number of infections is not a matter of luck. Key things like swiftly implementing socialising and travel restrictions swiftly are key. Areas which the UK has not excelled in.

Also having a reasonably compliant, young and healthy population helps. The UK’s average age is high, our incidence of obesity is high (a known risk factor), and, frankly, we’re a belligerent lot who won’t be told.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Also having a reasonably compliant, young and healthy population helps. The UK’s average age is high, our incidence of obesity is high (a known risk factor), and, frankly, we’re a belligerent lot who won’t be told.

Compared to other countries in Europe, I think we're a pretty compliant bunch - just look at our acceptance of vaccines and lack of rioting. But I agree on the age/obesity aspect.

But to state that if you have a lower number of infections in the first place as if this is somewhat dealt out randomly is flawed.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Forgive me if this has already been posted today but the Public Health England data published today agrees with that already published in Scotland a week or so ago. Either the Pfizer or AZ jab reduces hospitalisations amongst those aged over 80 by more than 80%; after a single dose the AZ jab is more effective than the Pfizer one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56240220

Rejoice at that news.

Unless of course we’re still being conned by the propaganda apparatus of the British State.

If it holds up in the population as a whole, yes.

The most obvious question is the methodology that gave them their sample size, which has a test positivity rate at over 60% for the unvaccinated 80+ year olds. This at face value seems high.

I’m surprised we don’t have something using population wide data by now breaking down cases, hospitalisations and deaths by age tracking back to the start of vaccinations. All of these figures will be reducing due to lockdown but a nice graph should show a clear and increasing effect of the vaccine in older age groups compared to the population as a whole.



---------- Post added at 04:07 ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Apologies, I struggled to hear that above the whinge, whinge, whinge, and the realisation there is no cogent counter point or argument, therefore the need to take a more outlayer stance that will just look daft in in a few short weeks.

Evidently you only hear what you want to hear.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Chris

But this is the point isn’t it. We’re in an emergency, but apparently not enough of an emergency for some governments. The science is what it is and doesn’t change regardless of which government is looking at it. There was ample evidence to infer efficacy in over 65s; for some, in an emergency, the inference was enough. For some it wasn’t.

Everyone followed the science, right up to the point when a political decision had to be taken. Which is why “they followed the science” is an inadequate explanation for the decisions that have been made.

There was ample inferred evidence but insufficient direct evidence, that's the point. The UK, the EU in the form of EMA and WHO recommended use in over 65s and a lot of countries were not convinced. Hey, Switzerland sent the application back and said try again. Some countries are more stringent than others when it comes to drug safety. That's the remit of the regulatory bodies. Of course, the current picture with infections and the options for other vaccines in each country will influence the decision and that's more health policy. I guess in this country that will be the MHRA and JCVI - MHRA says the vaccine is safe and effective and JCVI decides how the vaccine will be implemented.

If there's an alternative that is proven to be effective in over 65s rather than inferred, then the pressure is off to take the chance, however small.