Coronavirus

Too many talking heads on the news with speculative info and then we have the same from keyboard warriors on social media. I'll take the advice of my own doctor. She's not steered me wrong so far.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Efficacy against the South African variant may not meet your burden of proof test, but it does for the South Africans who are looking to swap or sell their Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...ccine-12214352

With the current low level of cases in the UK of the South African variant, we're obviously fine with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK.

And yet the WHO approves and recommends use of AZ across the board. Can you imagine the backlash here if it was the case that the UK decided not to use a WHO approved vaccine based on a study the UK had done with an extremely small sample size?

---------- Post added at 09:20 ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Let’s face it Pierre has no “burden of proof” test. After all 99.2% recover from this illness as he keeps reminding us.

Apologies if facts get in your way.

It’s about the science though, innit? (Except when it isn’t)

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:

Britain has now vaccinated more people than the whole of the EU put together.

Some 13million Brits have had a first dose, compared to 12.18million people in the 27 EU nations.

The figure emerged as Brussels bosses were forced to admit being far too slow.

Despite an apology, Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen insisted allowing member states to buy jabs separately “would have been the end of our community”.

The Commission chief admitted that the bloc's vaccine programme hasn't gone as well as hoped.

There you have it in a nutshell: Unity of the EU is more important than the lives of its citizens.

[jfman]

It's not a fact, and even if it was it'd be considered an acceptable toll by the population at large.

As I've said on a number of occasions we go into lockdowns because the same principles apply as last February/March. The only thing that changes this is mitigation to control the spread of the virus.

Interesting to use "extremely small sample size" to discount scientific evidence as unworthy of further discussion or investigation.

As I said before if you avoid the British press and the posionous drum of nationalism being played you can find some good quality, independent thought. Fundamentally the WHO don't think the vaccine is dangerous which is why they recommend it's use. They offer no opinion on it's ability to prevent severe cases of the newer variants.

---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

There you have it in a nutshell: Unity of the EU is more important than the lives of its citizens.

That's not really what she's saying. Imagine a bidding war where London and the south east drove up the prices (and bought all the supply of) vaccines to the UK leaving Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the North or England to fend for themselves at the back of the queue?

It'd be preposterous and the same principles applied to the EU - a situation where rich, northern European nations bought up the first doses leaving the rest at the back of th queue would be untenable.

There's no guarantee the EU states working seperately would have got more vaccines - only that they'd be unequally distributed and (in economic theory at least) cost more.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

There you have it in a nutshell: Unity of the EU is more important than the lives of its citizens.

Exactamundo.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s about the science though, innit? (Except when it isn’t)

I think it's apparent there's no single 'the science' and a lot of political noise around it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

<SNIP>

That's not really what she's saying. Imagine a bidding war where London and the south east drove up the prices (and bought all the supply of) vaccines to the UK leaving Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the North or England to fend for themselves at the back of the queue?

It'd be preposterous and the same principles applied to the EU - a situation where rich, northern European nations bought up the first doses leaving the rest at the back of th queue would be untenable.

There's no guarantee the EU states working seperately would have got more vaccines - only that they'd be unequally distributed and (in economic theory at least) cost more.

A ridiculously contrived scenario to make a lame point.
You usually do better than that.

The rest of that argument is reasonable conjecture without the contrived UK comparison. It's just that the centralised Commission should have performed better.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

A ridiculously contrived scenario to make a lame point.
You usually do better than that.

The rest of that argument is reasonable conjecture without the contrived UK comparison. It's just that the centralised Commission should have performed better.

Okay imagine a situation where Madrid, Barcelona and the tourist resorts can pick up all the vaccines in Spain leaving the rest of the country behind? Democrat leaning states in the NE of the USA and California leaving the rest behind... Etc.

The same principle applies that some level of social cohesion requires everyone to play by the same rules.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

It's not a fact

https://www.edgehealth.co.uk/post/ho...e-had-covid-19

Statistical analysis in January reveals that 12.4M people in the UK will have had COVID

and at that time we hit 100,000 deaths = 0.8%

of course you're free to provide your own facts.

As I've said on a number of occasions we go into lockdowns because the same principles apply as last February/March. The only thing that changes this is mitigation to control the spread of the virus.

We go into lockdown for one reason and one reason only, so as not to overwhelm the NHS.

If we had thousands of intensive care beds and unlimited nurses we wouldn't lockdown.

Interesting to use "extremely small sample size" to discount scientific evidence as unworthy of further discussion or investigation.

ahh, but there's the point, They're using a small sample size for "action" not "discussion or Investigation"

Which is totally their prerogative of course, might be considered as a bit knee jerk though.

As I said before if you avoid the British press

I consume my media from a wide variety of sources.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Efficacy against the South African variant may not meet your burden of proof test, but it does for the South Africans who are looking to swap or sell their Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...ccine-12214352

It met the burden of proof test for our own regulators and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

There are numerous concerns about the study that showed it to be 10% effective but even so some immunity is better than none so until proven otherwise we should continue work under the assumption of what we know about vaccines and how they work which is that it's rare for a vaccine to be completely ineffective against mutations.

We have our own experts making these decisions and they're not idiots. If anything the rollout of the vaccine has shown them to have made the right calls at the right time - i.e the single dose regime.

Now they might be wrong and change the approach if the science changes but then it'll be them to judge when and if that happens.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

https://www.edgehealth.co.uk/post/ho...e-had-covid-19

Statistical analysis in January reveals that 12.4M people in the UK will have had COVID

and at that time we hit 100,000 deaths = 0.8%

of course you're free to provide your own facts.

Statistical analysis = estimates not facts.

We go into lockdown for one reason and one reason only, so as not to overwhelm the NHS.

If we had thousands of intensive care beds and unlimited nurses we wouldn't lockdown.

That’s a round about way of saying “to prevent death”.

ahh, but there's the point, They're using a small sample size for "action" not "discussion or Investigation"

Which is totally their prerogative of course, might be considered as a bit knee jerk though.

I fail to see how it’s “knee jerk” to ensure you are making effective use of an extremely limited resource based on actual scientific data which continues to emerge.

There would be no point in any country wasting hundreds of thousands of vaccines on parts of the population (or the entire population) if it didn’t work. If any vaccine is not going to work in South Africa I’d prefer to see it’s doses used in a country it will work (and retain border controls) rather than rushed out to be ineffective meanwhile elsewhere they have no vaccine.

I consume my media from a wide variety of sources.

Yet regardless of the evidence we should ease restrictions. Doesn’t seem like a diverse range of sources to me.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Okay imagine a situation where Madrid, Barcelona and the tourist resorts can pick up all the vaccines in Spain leaving the rest of the country behind? Democrat leaning states in the NE of the USA and California leaving the rest behind... Etc.

The same principle applies that some level of social cohesion requires everyone to play by the same rules.

Still, imo, rather contrived to make an otherwise reasonable point.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

It met the burden of proof test for our own regulators and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

There are numerous concerns about the study that showed it to be 10% effective but even so some immunity is better than none so until proven otherwise we should continue work under the assumption of what we know about vaccines and how they work which is that it's rare for a vaccine to be completely ineffective against mutations.

We have our own experts making these decisions and they're not idiots. If anything the rollout of the vaccine has shown them to have made the right calls at the right time - i.e the single dose regime.

Now they might be wrong and change the approach if the science changes but then it'll be them to judge when and if that happens.

I’m sure in South Africa they’re not idiots either, and importantly they’re assessing the situation on the ground there and not in the UK as JCVI are.

A 10% effective vaccine can influence other factors - human behaviour being one. Very quickly 10% effectiveness could be more than offset by people being less strict about adherence to restrictions. It’s also a gift to the anti-vax brigade and conspiracy theorists who argue it’s about injecting people with microchips and control. It could reduce confidence in future vaccines.

If it was found to be significantly more (relative to 10%) in one age group over another it might change decisions on who you would give it to. I really don’t see why the UK seemingly wants to take offence at anyone trying to make their own, independent, evaluations.

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Still, imo, rather contrived to make an otherwise reasonable point.

Name a country Seph and next time I need to make hypothetical points using geography I’ll use it instead.

Seems to me if you don't want it don't have it.I'm going to listen to my doctor first and foremost.