Coronavirus

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, Toepoke said:

It wasn't the vaccine he was wanting to be injected with, it was the disease itself!

Might explain his eagerness to shake hands with everyone he could find that had it...

 

Aye, I was aware if that, hence calling him a clown instead of a simple exhibitionist. I should have made it clearer. I absolutely believe this is true. 

[Squirrelhumper]

On 5/25/2021 at 2:06 PM, Squirrelhumper said:

Still not had my first dose (or even an appointment) and most my mates the same. and we are all mid to late 30s. 

Did the missing app thing to chase it up and fuck all. 

Finally got one sorted for the 15th June. 

You'd never guess glasgow was the only city in the UK that you can't get a beer inside a pub or visit your brothers house given how hard it's been to get a bloody appointment!  My mate would have missed his had he not chased it up as the letter never arrived.

[phart]

Things really starting to creep up now we're starting to get the new variant and cases from the easing of restrictions starting to build up. Let's hope disconnect now from hospitalisation/deaths due to vaccine.

[Lamia]

1 hour ago, phart said:

Things really starting to creep up now we're starting to get the new variant and cases from the easing of restrictions starting to build up. Let's hope disconnect now from hospitalisation/deaths due to vaccine.

I am confused by the current line. They are saying cases are growing in younger age groups and suggesting it is down to vaccine protection in older groups. They are also saying the think the link to hospital admissions and ICU is being broken by the vaccine because we are not seeing a significant increase in cases.

However I distinctly remember in previous waves where cases were rising being told that it starts in younger age groups then moves to the old ones and then we see the hospital admissions and deaths increase. To me I don't see that we can actually say that what is currently happening is down to the vaccine. It just seems to be following the usual pattern so we wouldn't actually know if the vaccine is working for a while longer, but maybe I am missing something! 🤔

[Lamia]

10 hours ago, Orraloon said:

This is why I thought it was a bit strange that the UK was moving to 8 weeks. That paper was published back in February and was one of the main reasons given for moving to 12 weeks in the first place. They may have new studies indicating that 8 weeks could be better against the Indian variant? But I haven't read anything to indicate that yet. That study indicated that 12 weeks was better than less than six weeks so maybe they have now optimised it better now, and they think that 8 weeks is the  optimal gap? 

 

 

I think it is a balancing act they are carrying out. I think they are wanting to increase the protection quicker because of the increase in cases so are willing to sacrifice a bit of the vaccine efficacy because they think overall it will save most lives.

[Lamia]

13 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The dosing interval of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was 28 days during its phase 3 trials was shifted to 12 weeks in Britain after researchers discovered that AstraZeneca is a “slow burn” vaccine that takes time to build its strength. After a first dose, the immune response keeps growing to around 76 per cent efficacy, then, after a second shot at around 12 weeks, climbs further, reaching an efficacy of 82.4 per cent. In contrast, if doses were given less than six weeks apart, the efficacy was around 54 per cent, according to a pre-print for the Lancet. 

"In Britain, second doses of the Pfizer vaccine are being administered at the 28-day mark, however authorities extended the interval between doses to 12 weeks for AstraZeneca. " This isn't the case. Pfizer is being administered on the 12 week gap the same as the AZ vaccine.

[tartandon]

1 hour ago, Lamia said:

I am confused by the current line. They are saying cases are growing in younger age groups and suggesting it is down to vaccine protection in older groups. They are also saying the think the link to hospital admissions and ICU is being broken by the vaccine because we are not seeing a significant increase in cases.

However I distinctly remember in previous waves where cases were rising being told that it starts in younger age groups then moves to the old ones and then we see the hospital admissions and deaths increase. To me I don't see that we can actually say that what is currently happening is down to the vaccine. It just seems to be following the usual pattern so we wouldn't actually know if the vaccine is working for a while longer, but maybe I am missing something! 🤔

spot on.

They have said all along that you get infections starting in the younger population who tend to mix more, with it then spreading to older demographics. They've also said that rises in cases are then followed 2-3 week later by hospitalisations, then rising ICU numbers and then deaths.

It may well be that they are no longer seeing a rise in hospitalisations among the older population, with the resultant lower level of ICU numbers and deaths.

Do they actually publish the positive cases, ICU cases and death number split by age range? That would be the best way to check whether there is actually a substantive change in the demographics of hospital admissions.

Mutations are inevitable while the virus is in circulation and that is why it is utter madness for any countries to allow foreign travel. The only certain way of avoiding importation of a mutant variant that is vaccine-resistant is to completely limit foreign travel. But those in power are putting financial consideration before the health of the domestic population.

Even if you manage to vaccinate everybody domestically, there will be the risk of importation of vaccine-resistant strains as long as foreign travel is permitted. Foreign travel to any overseas destination should come with a mandatory two week quarantine in a hotel. The traffic light system for foreign travel is a public health ticking time bomb.

The vaccine roll out in Australia and New Zealand is not progressing nearly as fast as it is here but their domestic life is largely back to 'normal' due to tight border controls.

[tartandon]

1 hour ago, Lamia said:

"In Britain, second doses of the Pfizer vaccine are being administered at the 28-day mark, however authorities extended the interval between doses to 12 weeks for AstraZeneca. " This isn't the case. Pfizer is being administered on the 12 week gap the same as the AZ vaccine.

I believe the 12-week thing was a line they spun so that they could massage the numbers. By spreading the interval to 12 weeks for all vaccines they were able to report larger numbers of first doses because vaccine weren't needing to be held back fro second doses.

We are now in a position where we have significant numbers of people vaccinated with a single dose who think they are fully protected. The new variant means that these people now only have minimal protection after a single dose and that was always a danger when you dont follow the manufacturer guidance on dosing.

The manufacturers have done extensive clinical trials and as a result of these clinical trial, they have come up with an optimal doing pattern. But the JCVI think they know better and decided on a dosing pattern that is four time longer than the manufacturer recommendation. This decision will have led to the needless infection of people who have only had one dose.

I wouldnt be surprised if there has been political interference that led to the JCVI recommendations on the 12-week gap.

The whole thing stinks. 

 

[phart]

I think they only trialed under 3 weeks so that's why, not that they had an extensive trail of different intervals and 3 weeks proved most effective. I might be wrong though, this is regards the mRNA ones.

[phart]

As an aside Ibrox east and cessnock is ranked first for 7 day average in the whole of Scotland i believe.

Pollokshaws is 10th

Edited May 28, 2021 by phart

[tartandon]

4 hours ago, phart said:

I think they only trialed under 3 weeks so that's why, not that they had an extensive trail of different intervals and 3 weeks proved most effective. I might be wrong though, this is regards the mRNA ones.

If they only trialled a 3-week interval, where is the justification for extending it to 12 weeks. I bet there weren't any clinical trials that would have justified this decision from the JCVI

[phart]

16 minutes ago, tartandon said:

If they only trialled a 3-week interval, where is the justification for extending it to 12 weeks. I bet there weren't any clinical trials that would have justified this decision from the JCVI

The AZ trials had longer intervals and showed the longer intervals were better

With the mRNA ones this was the rationale

"In an ideal world, decisions about treatments would only be made within the exact parameters of the trials which have been conducted. In the real world, this is never so . . . We know that vaccinating only half of a vulnerable population will lead to a notable increase in cases of covid-19, with all that this entails, including deaths. When resources of doses and people to vaccinate are limited, then vaccinating more people with potentially less efficacy is demonstrably better than a fuller efficacy in only half.”

[Lamia]

11 hours ago, tartandon said:

spot on.

They have said all along that you get infections starting in the younger population who tend to mix more, with it then spreading to older demographics. They've also said that rises in cases are then followed 2-3 week later by hospitalisations, then rising ICU numbers and then deaths.

It may well be that they are no longer seeing a rise in hospitalisations among the older population, with the resultant lower level of ICU numbers and deaths.

 

This may well turn out to be true I just think it is far too soon to tell and don't understand why they are not referencing the previous pattern and explaining why they think it is different this time. I don't get why the journalists are not raising it either.

[tartandon]

1 hour ago, Lamia said:

This may well turn out to be true I just think it is far too soon to tell and don't understand why they are not referencing the previous pattern and explaining why they think it is different this time. I don't get why the journalists are not raising it either.

I expect an element of 'spin' from anybody doing a press briefing.

I agree with you that the fault lies squarely with the journalists for failing to do their job. The majority of outlets have had the same 2 or 3 journalists covering the press briefings from the start, so there is no excuse for them not being up to speed on things. Quite a few of them have their wee question written down and go ahead and ask it if even if it has already been answered earlier in the briefing.

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, Lamia said:

This may well turn out to be true I just think it is far too soon to tell and don't understand why they are not referencing the previous pattern and explaining why they think it is different this time. I don't get why the journalists are not raising it either.

The main difference this time round is that a lot of folk have been vaccinated and that is their justification for thinking things will be different this time. Like you, I'm not convinced that this will be enough to stop a "third wave" if we allow it to take off again. Time will tell but I think the authorities are getting too complacent too quickly.

It may be that mass vaccination will dramatically reduce the number of hospitalisations, even if we do get a third wave. But people being hospitalised shouldn't be our main measure now, IMO. At some point we have to start to focus on the huge numbers of people who get very sick with COVID but not quite severe enough to need hospital treatment. A lot of these people still haven't recovered months, and months, after infection. Some of them may never fully recover. We haven't even started to scratch the surface of the impact of this yet.

 

[tartandon]

11 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

But people being hospitalised shouldn't be our main measure now, IMO. At some point we have to start to focus on the huge numbers of people who get very sick with COVID but not quite severe enough to need hospital treatment. A lot of these people still haven't recovered months, and months, after infection. Some of them may never fully recover. We haven't even started to scratch the surface of the impact of this yet.

 

Post viral debility can be life changing.

I got a virus in 1998, which led to M.E. I was off work for 3 years. I still suffer with the after-effects 20 years later. 

The impact of Covid will be long-lasting for many people and some may never truly recover

[Morrisandmoo]

31 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

The main difference this time round is that a lot of folk have been vaccinated and that is their justification for thinking things will be different this time. Like you, I'm not convinced that this will be enough to stop a "third wave" if we allow it to take off again. Time will tell but I think the authorities are getting too complacent too quickly.

It may be that mass vaccination will dramatically reduce the number of hospitalisations, even if we do get a third wave. But people being hospitalised shouldn't be our main measure now, IMO. At some point we have to start to focus on the huge numbers of people who get very sick with COVID but not quite severe enough to need hospital treatment. A lot of these people still haven't recovered months, and months, after infection. Some of them may never fully recover. We haven't even started to scratch the surface of the impact of this yet.

 

I believe the authorities are expecting a third wave.

Re serious illness and long covid - It's the reverse that is true, 49/50 are fully recovered within 12 weeks. 

it's not that I'm saying fuck the 1/50. It's just that what you are saying doesn't read as true. 

You don't want folk just moving on to being unnecessarily obsessed by a disease (like long covid) when they should be much more concerned about other things in life.

[Morrisandmoo]

For example, before we go onto having daily briefings for long covid - we need to be having daily briefings on cancer, which is a much more serious disease where huge numbers do, in fact, get seriously ill and a lot, in fact, have not recovered after 12 weeks. 

And unfortunately the pausing of screening programs and (what must have been the terrifying) delays to treatment for those that were diagnosed - to focus on covid  - as well as the marked drop in referrals for diagnosis is going to mean even more people unnecessarily dying than normal. 

This is why we need to have great care in how we measure, interpret and talk about risk. As we don't have an unlimited attention span or unlimited resources - and we need to use them wisely. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[phart]

Where's the only 2% aren't fully recovered after 12 weeks stat coming from?

ONS survey had it as 1/7 after 12 weeks.

Among a sample of over 20,000 study participants who tested positive for COVID-19 between 26 April 2020 and 6 March 2021, 13.7% continued to experience symptoms for at least 12 weeks.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1april2021

[phart]

Got my 2nd jag 2 hours ago as well. Pfizier jab line at the centre as well.

[Morrisandmoo]

11 minutes ago, phart said:

Where's the only 2% aren't fully recovered after 12 weeks stat coming from?

ONS survey had it as 1/7 after 12 weeks.

Among a sample of over 20,000 study participants who tested positive for COVID-19 between 26 April 2020 and 6 March 2021, 13.7% continued to experience symptoms for at least 12 weeks.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1april2021

This one here: Attributes and predictors of Long-COVID: analysis of COVID cases and their symptoms collected by the Covid Symptoms Study App | medRxiv

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, Morrisandmoo said:

I believe the authorities are expecting a third wave.

Re serious illness and long covid - It's the reverse that is true, 49/50 are fully recovered within 12 weeks. 

it's not that I'm saying fuck the 1/50. It's just that what you are saying doesn't read as true. 

You don't want folk just moving on to being unnecessarily obsessed by a disease (like long covid) when they should be much more concerned about other things in life.

Even if your "1/50" is correct, that is still a huge number of people. We have no way of telling how much bigger that number would have been if we hadn't had lockdowns. All those people have developed this illness over the space of just over a year, despite the restrictions being in place. If we just open up and let it rip how many more of these cases will we have? Double ? Treble? Who knows?

 

[Morrisandmoo]

13 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Even if your "1/50" is correct, that is still a huge number of people. We have no way of telling how much bigger that number would have been if we hadn't had lockdowns. All those people have developed this illness over the space of just over a year, despite the restrictions being in place. If we just open up and let it rip how many more of these cases will we have? Double ? Treble? Who knows?

 

The point you were making is that we should move onto focusing on long covid if hospitalisations are continuously under control because of the huge numbers impacted by long covid. I think that would be a mistake, as the harm caused by that focus would outweigh the benefits. Cancer care was one example I've given, where we are genuinely dealing with huge numbers.

You were also painting a false picture. It would be much more accurate to say: a huge number of people recover very quickly from Covid and a lot of them experience no symptoms at all. A small number die or experience symptoms for a long time. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[dipped flake]

15 hours ago, tartandon said:

spot on.

They have said all along that you get infections starting in the younger population who tend to mix more, with it then spreading to older demographics. They've also said that rises in cases are then followed 2-3 week later by hospitalisations, then rising ICU numbers and then deaths.

It may well be that they are no longer seeing a rise in hospitalisations among the older population, with the resultant lower level of ICU numbers and deaths.

Do they actually publish the positive cases, ICU cases and death number split by age range? That would be the best way to check whether there is actually a substantive change in the demographics of hospital admissions.

Mutations are inevitable while the virus is in circulation and that is why it is utter madness for any countries to allow foreign travel. The only certain way of avoiding importation of a mutant variant that is vaccine-resistant is to completely limit foreign travel. But those in power are putting financial consideration before the health of the domestic population.

Even if you manage to vaccinate everybody domestically, there will be the risk of importation of vaccine-resistant strains as long as foreign travel is permitted. Foreign travel to any overseas destination should come with a mandatory two week quarantine in a hotel. The traffic light system for foreign travel is a public health ticking time bomb.

The vaccine roll out in Australia and New Zealand is not progressing nearly as fast as it is here but their domestic life is largely back to 'normal' due to tight border controls.

Travelling tabby site shows hospital/death figures by age 

[phart]

38 minutes ago, Morrisandmoo said:

This one here: Attributes and predictors of Long-COVID: analysis of COVID cases and their symptoms collected by the Covid Symptoms Study App | medRxiv

The Zoe app is self reported: We analysed data from 4182 incident cases of COVID-19 who logged their symptoms prospectively in the COVID Symptom Study app

The ONS was actual positive tests: Analysis of 21 622 Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey (CIS) participants who tested positive for coronavirus The study cohort comprised Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey (CIS) participants who tested positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test during study follow-up.

One study is from people who think they had covid and self reported, the other is from people who had PCR tests to cofirm they had covid.

Just two studies but there is already a qualatative difference in the cohorts used for data.

As an aside Zoe is pretty unethical about using the data to advertise to people as well.

An app tracking coronavirus symptoms has apologised after facing a backlash for promoting face masks designed by Samantha Cameron’s fashion label.

The Covid Symptom Study app is run by health science company Zoe and shares the data it collects with King’s College London.

But it faced criticism over the weekend after users received “inappropriate” adverts from Cefinn, the label founded by the wife of the former prime minister David Cameron.

An email sent to those who have signed up to the study says the app is “proud” to work with Cefinn, and features a photograph of Cameron modelling the brand’s Rust Circle Geo Print mask, which is currently sold out. It’s priced at £25.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/covid-19-app-samantha-cameron-face-mask_uk_5f8de253c5b62dbe71c563ea

Edited May 29, 2021 by phart