When will this shit end?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I think so.  The fact that the US government funded and monopolised supply of one of the many successful vaccines doesn't seem like something I would blame our government for.

Yeah I agree. I don’t think this is one stick to beat them with (there are many others!)

[xxialac]

5 minutes ago, sedra said:

My only consolation from having a very unexciting 60th birthday this year and feeling I am now officially in the older age range is that I might be in Phase 1 of vaccine roll out in time to get to Glastonbury 😀

Sorry to burst your bubble but aged 60 is Phase 3 or 4. By June might be touch and go.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

Sorry to burst your bubble but aged 60 is Phase 3 or 4. By June might be touch and go.

Bingham said all over 50s by easter

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Bingham said all over 50s by easter

No, she didn't.

[stuartbert two hats]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

No, she didn't.

Are you sure? I thought she did.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Name a better combination than Monday lunchtime and a vaccine announcement?

 

Getting serious deja vu from last week. 

Trump losing an election on a saturday afternoon?

Cummimgs leaving Downing St on a Friday evening?

[Copperface]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Bingham said all over 50s by easter

You keep parroting this. She did not say this. Before she stepped down she said this. 

"She said that she was more than 50 per cent confident that a vaccine will have been given to the population's most vulnerable by spring of next year or early summer."

Very different.

Accuracy is important and you are getting quite selective in what you want to put forward.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-latest-trial-covid-uk-b1588405.html

Edited November 16, 2020 by Copperface

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, Copperface said:

You keep parroting this. She did not say this. Before she stepped down she said this. 

"She said that she was more than 50 per cent confident that a vaccine will have been given to the population's most vulnerable by spring of next year or early summer."

Very different.

Accuracy is important and you are getting quite selective in what you want to put forward.

 

Well said.

A bit embarrassing when the truth can be revealed in a 2-second google search.

[steviewevie]

The Moderna one doesn't need to be stored at silly cold temperatures...so that's good.

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, Copperface said:

You keep parroting this. She did not say this. Before she stepped down she said this. 

"She said that she was more than 50 per cent confident that a vaccine will have been given to the population's most vulnerable by spring of next year or early summer."

Very different.

Accuracy is important and you are getting quite selective in what you want to put forward.

 

I think there may be a mix up between private and public statements.  Bingham has indeed said she believes over 50s will be vaccinated by easter, but not definitively and not in public:

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Well said.

A bit embarrassing when the truth can be revealed in a 2-second google search.

 

4 minutes ago, Copperface said:

You keep parroting this. She did not say this. Before she stepped down she said this. 

"She said that she was more than 50 per cent confident that a vaccine will have been given to the population's most vulnerable by spring of next year or early summer."

Very different.

Accuracy is important and you are getting quite selective in what you want to put forward.

 

Come on, let's not assume bad faith.  I also did a two second google search that backed up the claim.  Of course the truth is a bit more nuanced as it always is, but I don't think anyone is being purposely selective or has cause for embarrassment - even if there was some missing context.  

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I think there may be a mix up between private and public statements.  Bingham has indeed said she believes over 50s will be vaccinated by easter, but not definitively and not in public:

Yes, the key word is 'likely'.

60% chance is 'likely' and in any case she has since rowed back from these comments. 

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I think there may be a mix up between private and public statements.  Bingham has indeed said she believes over 50s will be vaccinated by easter, but not definitively and not in public:

Yeah thats what I was referring to.

 

But id imagine time frame wise people 4th or so on the priority list would have it by spring rather than summer 

[Toilet Duck]

It's probably worth noting a couple of additional things about the Oxford trial while we wait for the results. Both Pfizer and Moderna are claiming 90%+ efficacy for their vaccines and the way it has been reported suggested sterilising immunity, however, listening to those involved in the trials more closely suggests they haven't looked at this yet. Oxford on the other hand have been conducting weekly PCR tests on their trial participants (maybe not all), so would be in a position to at least get an idea of how protective the vaccine is from infection (ie, they should pick up asymptomatic infections in trial participants via their weekly tests which would be missed in other trials if they are only looking at participants that develop disease). This isn't part of the trial protocol (or, at least, it isn't one of the outcomes they have to meet in order to get their vaccine approved) but the fact they did it shows how deeply they thought about their trial. They also used a 2:1 ratio of vaccine vs placebo (Pfizer and Moderna used a 1:1 ratio). So, there are fewer participants that have the opportunity to develop the disease if the vaccine actually works  (and coupled with the pauses in the US where infections are currently rampant, probably accounts for why it is taking a while to get to the interim analysis). However, this gives them a bigger vaccinated population to look in for rarer side effects, so should give better safety data (which, given the speed we are moving at is also a good thing). 

[Fuzzy Afro]

All of a sudden I’m potentially in the extremely vulnerable group, how the tables have turned. At least I’ll get the vaccine early 🤣

[zahidf]

Trump's uselessness has potentially saved the world

 

[Guest]

Poor Zahidf, he just saw some info on a Coronavirus vaccine and thought it was worth a shot passing it on.... 😎

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Poor Zahidf, he just saw some info on a Coronavirus vaccine and thought it was worth a shot passing it on.... 😎

Ha! I'm taking the more positive aspect of what she said. But I do think of Oxford gets approved, we should have 1-4 of the priority list vaccinated by Easter.

[xxialac]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

 

Come on, let's not assume bad faith.  I also did a two second google search that backed up the claim.  Of course the truth is a bit more nuanced as it always is, but I don't think anyone is being purposely selective or has cause for embarrassment - even if there was some missing context.  

Fair enough.  I do still think 'likely to be vaccinated by Easter' is not remotely the same as 'vaccinated by Easter' and the comment was one challenging an earlier statement.

Liverpool are likely to retain the Premier League title. Doesn't mean they will. 

[xxialac]

In theory this is the priority list. 50-55 year olds could face a relatively long wait.

1. Older adults in a care home and care home workers
2. All those aged 80 and over and health and social care workers, though they may move up the list
3. Anyone 75 and over
4. People aged 70 and over
5. All those aged 65 and over
6. High-risk adults under 65
7. Moderate-risk adults under 65
8. All those aged 60 and over
9. All those 55 and over
10. All those aged 50 and over

[steviewevie]

More optimistic bullshit from the gruadian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/16/vaccine-hope-fight-covid-tests-treatments

[Leyrulion]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Apparently, Oxford approach is only to announce in combination with publication of the academic paper.

I think I'm right in saying that the Oxford vaccine didn't go for an interim analysis, or if it did the number of events is significantly higher then moderna or Pfizer.

 

With all these vaccines coming out quite quickly now we'll find ourselves in a bit of a problem for future vaccines. 

There's news today about another phase 3 trial starting that will report in 6-9months but if we know that we have at least 2 (potentially 3) workable vaccines that prevent infection is it ethical to continue with phase 3 trials for the other ones? 

How do you stop your trial participants from getting another vaccine that definitely works? 

And potentially huge problems in proving it works if infection in the community is significantly reduced. 

Thorny solutions for the future!

[xxialac]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

More optimistic bullshit from the gruadian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/16/vaccine-hope-fight-covid-tests-treatments

Huh? Seems a very balanced article written by a respected scientist? The youngest ever Rhodes Scholar at University of Oxford back in the day.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Huh? Seems a very balanced article written by a respected scientist? The youngest ever Rhodes Scholar at University of Oxford back in the day.

I was being silly.

[xxialac]

Just now, steviewevie said:

I was being silly.

Apologies!!!