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.

[Taf]

5 taxis and several cars outside a nearby house piqued police interest early this morning. All in the "high risk" category.

Immigration officers are there now.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Here you go. This is daily deaths in England for under and over-60s (data from ONS). I've scaled the 0-59 graph by a factor of 10 to make them roughly the same height. You'd expect the over 60s to be better at complying with the lockdowns so any difference isn't entirely due to vaccines. However in the first spike the over-60s deaths came down slower than the under-60. This time the over-60s are coming down quicker.

[jonbxx]

I've been catching up on some work related news websites to see what's new and found this article - Top 7 Best Selling COVID-19 Vaccines and Drugs of 2020 . This has 2020 sales figures and forecasts for 2021.

There's a lot of money out there for the pharma companies (and their suppliers )

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I've been catching up on some work related news websites to see what's new and found this article - Top 7 Best Selling COVID-19 Vaccines and Drugs of 2020 . This has 2020 sales figures and forecasts for 2021.

There's a lot of money out there for the pharma companies (and their suppliers )

It’s worth remembering that sales revenue is not the same as profit. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are significantly more expensive than most of the others listed there, especially the AZ vaccine which by some measures is the cheapest of the lot, although this may be partly due to the not-for-profit basis on which AstraZeneca was given the formulation developed at Oxford University.

There’s a decent infographic here, detailing what unit price the pharma companies are selling covid vaccines at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55170756

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s worth remembering that sales revenue is not the same as profit. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are significantly more expensive than most of the others listed there, especially the AZ vaccine which by some measures is the cheapest of the lot, although this may be partly due to the not-for-profit basis on which AstraZeneca was given the formulation developed at Oxford University.

There’s a decent infographic here, detailing what unit price the pharma companies are selling covid vaccines at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55170756

Novavax is also being sold to the African Union at the same price as Oxford-AstraZeneca's vaccine at $3 per shot. The Russian Sputnik V vaccine is $9.75 a shot so considerably more expensive, but not Pfizer and Moderna levels.

So I guess the West is winning on soft diplomacy thanks to the two $3 vaccines.

[jonbxx]

The most important coronavirus information you need today - https://onewayroadtobeer.com/

Except for viewers in Scotland

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Chris

Except for viewers in Scotland

Aye.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Except for viewers in Scotland

You'll have less moderating to do as a lot of your posters will be entertaining themselves in English beer gardens.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You'll have less moderating to do as a lot of your posters will be entertaining themselves in English beer gardens.

Yeah, arguing about the finer details on non-tariff barriers to trade and pharmaceutical regulation vs who is getting the next round in.

Let me think about it....

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...