Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

No, I meant AZ is slow to kick in. It takes 8-12 weeks to get full protection, much slower than Pfizer.

Where have you seen that? I know that AZ is more effective with the longer gap if that's what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that lockdown has basically caused this third wave. If we'd gone ahead and reopened fully on 12th April we'd have had a moderately sized exit wave but probably not overwhelmed the NHS, but with the advantage of having achieved herd immunity before Delta got here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Where have you seen that? I know that AZ is more effective with the longer gap if that's what you mean.

I've not looked at the data comparing the two for a while - it all gets a bit mixed up with the reporting on whether two doses is actually the important factor or whether the timing is more important. So I'm up for seeing the data in more detail if anyone has anything recent - I may have things wrong. 

Having said all that, I could have sworn that the mRNA vaccines now have a shorter gap between the two doses in the UK, but a quick Google hasn't brought up anything to support that - there's a lot out there. I might have just got my wires crossed between advice I've read and actual practice here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, zahidf said:

If that's the case, let's use the spare AZN and drop the under 40 ban

As has been noted by a few posters above, the risk:benefit ratio for AZ (and J&J) in younger cohorts is shifting as cases increase. It’s also shifted on another front. Despite the hesitance by some, the proper investigation of the underlying pathology of the clots and communication of this to medical professionals has led to the robust early diagnosis and treatment of the clots when they do (in rare instances) arise. So, the incidence of clotting events in Europe as these vaccines have continued to be used hasn’t changed…however, mortality from them has dropped, shifting the risk lower again and strengthening the argument for more widespread use (they are currently available in younger age groups here by consent, but we still have way more Pfizer, so there’s not much spare AZ/J&J anyway…we are due a stack at the end of June/start of July, so we’ll see what happens)…this is why it was important to be transparent and to look into this thoroughly, as it means we can use them in a safer manner (and if the Germans are correct, a quick tweak of the vaccine might fix it altogether)…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Also worth noting that lockdown has basically caused this third wave. If we'd gone ahead and reopened fully on 12th April we'd have had a moderately sized exit wave but probably not overwhelmed the NHS, but with the advantage of having achieved herd immunity before Delta got here.

Citation needed

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

I've not looked at the data comparing the two for a while - it all gets a bit mixed up with the reporting on whether two doses is actually the important factor or whether the timing is more important. So I'm up for seeing the data in more detail if anyone has anything recent - I may have things wrong. 

Having said all that, I could have sworn that the mRNA vaccines now have a shorter gap between the two doses in the UK, but a quick Google hasn't brought up anything to support that - there's a lot out there. I might have just got my wires crossed between advice I've read and actual practice here.

 

That's not quite right, I'll need @Toilet Duck to confirm but this is my rough understanding of it:

 

1. Pfizer and Moderna originally recommended 3 week gaps, purely because this was the gap used in the trial and they hadn't tested out any longer gaps.

 

2. AstraZeneca recommended a 12 week gap, because they'd accidentally stumbled across it in the trial due to some mistake where a small number of participants were given 1.5 doses rather than 2 and it turned out better for the 1.5 dose group.

 

3. UKG started ramping up the vaccine programme in early January after a soft launch in December and employed the 12 week strategy to get as many people protection as possible (The Kent variant, dominant at the time, was very well protected by just 1 dose with the 2nd just being there to provide longer term immunity, so made sense to give twice as many people one dose rather than using the shorter gap used in the States and elsewhere). This was seen as a gamble for those getting the Pfizer as it hadn't been trialled with a 12 week gap although subsequent analysis has showed that it provides more antibodies with the longer gap as per AZ.

 

4. Some time around mid-May when we started to see the Delta variant change the equation, the JCVI recommended the gap be cut from 12 weeks to 8 for those in groups 1-9. This is because the Delta variant is better at beating the vaccine when you've only had one dose and you really need the second one to be properly protected, unlike the Kent/Alpha variant where the first dose cigars it. The 8 week gap was used regardless of what vaccine you had.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

 

That's not quite right, I'll need @Toilet Duck to confirm but this is my rough understanding of it:

 

1. Pfizer and Moderna originally recommended 3 week gaps, purely because this was the gap used in the trial and they hadn't tested out any longer gaps.

 

2. AstraZeneca recommended a 12 week gap, because they'd accidentally stumbled across it in the trial due to some mistake where a small number of participants were given 1.5 doses rather than 2 and it turned out better for the 1.5 dose group.

 

3. UKG started ramping up the vaccine programme in early January after a soft launch in December and employed the 12 week strategy to get as many people protection as possible (The Kent variant, dominant at the time, was very well protected by just 1 dose with the 2nd just being there to provide longer term immunity, so made sense to give twice as many people one dose rather than using the shorter gap used in the States and elsewhere). This was seen as a gamble for those getting the Pfizer as it hadn't been trialled with a 12 week gap although subsequent analysis has showed that it provides more antibodies with the longer gap as per AZ.

 

4. Some time around mid-May when we started to see the Delta variant change the equation, the JCVI recommended the gap be cut from 12 weeks to 8 for those in groups 1-9. This is because the Delta variant is better at beating the vaccine when you've only had one dose and you really need the second one to be properly protected, unlike the Kent/Alpha variant where the first dose cigars it. The 8 week gap was used regardless of what vaccine you had.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that sounds right. I've mixed up data from Israel and the US on how Pfizer has been used there. I don't think we're using different gaps here.

I think we probably should though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Yeah, that sounds right. I've mixed up data from Israel and the US on how Pfizer has been used there. I don't think we're using different gaps here.

I think we probably should though.

Different gaps between Pfizer and AZ? Why?

 

It's a trade-off between a longer gap which has the advantage of a better antibody response (and also getting more people partially vaccinated in a shorter time, although that's less of an issue now that we're in the final stage of first doses) and a shorter gap which has the advantage of fully-vaccinating people more quickly given we have a variant on the loose that is good at escaping the first dose (but not as escaping in fully vaccinated people). This is true of both Oxford and Pfizer as far as I'm aware.

 

IMO, at this stage we need to be getting people fully vaccinated ASAP. That means speeding up outstanding second doses and probably vaccinating younger adults and children with a very short gap. This will probably have long term consequences as the total immune response will be less so we will need to give these people boosters eventually but on balance it's probably better to kick the can down the road than risk having a choice between maintaining restrictions through the summer or an exit wave with 10,000 fatalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

Different gaps between Pfizer and AZ? Why?

 

It's a trade-off between a longer gap which has the advantage of a better antibody response (and also getting more people partially vaccinated in a shorter time, although that's less of an issue now that we're in the final stage of first doses) and a shorter gap which has the advantage of fully-vaccinating people more quickly given we have a variant on the loose that is good at escaping the first dose (but not as escaping in fully vaccinated people). This is true of both Oxford and Pfizer as far as I'm aware.

 

IMO, at this stage we need to be getting people fully vaccinated ASAP. That means speeding up outstanding second doses and probably vaccinating younger adults and children with a very short gap. This will probably have long term consequences as the total immune response will be less so we will need to give these people boosters eventually but on balance it's probably better to kick the can down the road than risk having a choice between maintaining restrictions through the summer or an exit wave with 10,000 fatalities.

Do you not remember the initial efficacy trials for AZ which showed it to be considerably less efficacious than the mRNA vaccines after 3 weeks? Pfizer just kicks in more quickly.  They were only ever aligned because we wanted to get more first doses jabbed and made an educated (correct) guess that it wouldn't be worse with a longer gap.

It just doesn't need as much time for the b-cells to mature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Do you not remember the initial efficacy trials for AZ which showed it to be considerably less efficacious than the mRNA vaccines after 3 weeks? Pfizer just kicks in more quickly.  They were only ever aligned because we wanted to get more first doses jabbed and made an educated (correct) guess that it wouldn't be worse with a longer gap.

It just doesn't need as much time for the b-cells to mature.

 

I was under the impression that it was less efficacious when the gap between doses was 3 weeks, rather than less efficacious 3 weeks after the first dose. Could be wrong though. Sure @Toilet Duck will tell us 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It’s a shame we allowed the Delta variant in all for a trade deal. 

Well we have loads of Indian citizens who went back to India for funerals in that time.

I appreciate hindsight but it wasn't all just for a trade deal. Lets not get too nigel farage about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Give this thread a read

 

 

He's an economist... who also spent most of yesterday having a go at BLM...

He's not stupid but he isn't really an expert on epidemiology or race relations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobWillis2 said:

One thing the government must show on Monday is what level of risk and death we have to accept going forward. 

We need something to base everything off, is opening on the 21st going to put us above that level? Is a 2 week delay going to keep us below that level? If not what is. 

Not sure even Boris is dumb enough to go on record and say the death of x number of British citizens is acceptable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

 

I was under the impression that it was less efficacious when the gap between doses was 3 weeks, rather than less efficacious 3 weeks after the first dose. Could be wrong though. Sure @Toilet Duck will tell us 

It's been a while since those trials, agreed TD will be able to explain properly what the data did and did not say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well we have loads of Indian citizens who went back to India for funerals in that time.

That’s a good point, even more reasons India should’ve been put on the red list along with Pakistan and Bangladesh. 

Edited by Ozanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MrBarry465 said:

He's a hopium addict.

Ozanne talking shit as usual.

 

Point 1, the link between hospitalisations and deaths is a key factor in 21 June going ahead.

 

Point 2, I agree is moot since protections won’t kick in by the 21st.

 

Point 3 on the economy absolutely is a factor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crikey…I watch a quick Seinfeld before bed and there’s a ton of questions when I pick the phone back up! 
 

so…gaps and efficacy. For the mRNA ones, optimum gap is about 4 weeks, after that the antibody levels start to dip a bit. There was a trade off in the UK between more jabs and dwindling protection from 4-12 weeks, but any protection was better than none and it doesn’t appear to harm long term immunity if dose 2 is given later (as you would expect, but nice to know for sure). Almost everywhere else is using these vaccines with a 3-4 week gap (we use Pfizer with 4, Moderna with 3 or 4 as it’s currently mostly being used in pregnant women, so it depends on when the clinics are scheduled)…I’d do the same thing in your current position now (since 2 dose > 1 dose for delta)…

For AZ, there was a screw up in the trial where some participants got a half dose for their first one by accident (manufacturing issue in Italy I believe)…but, both LD:SD and SD:SD participants got varying gaps between doses (for a variety of reasons). When the data was first unblinded, AZ stormed ahead and said they had ~70% efficacy and it could be as high as 90%+ (with a half dose). By the time the authorisation submission was made, Oxford had fully analysed the data and saw that it was the longer gap that improved efficacy rather than the different doses (as SD:SD participants with a longer gap had better antibody responses too). This was all fairly clearly explained in the submission for emergency use authorisation. The increase in antibody response starts to plateau at about 8 or 9 weeks and there isn’t much additional benefit after that. But, some participants had waited up to 12 weeks to get their second dose. So when prioritising 1st doses, JCVI figured they could safely go to 12 weeks and, again, like the extended gap with Pfizer, get some protection into more people (as well as improving the effectiveness of AZ)  Most other places using AZ have gone with a similar gap (I think I said at the time I’d probably go for 8 or 9). At about 6 weeks, the response is still not that far off, so where full vaccination was required quickly, this gap has been used (for example, many healthcare workers here that got AZ had a 6 week gap…and cases have fallen off a cliff among them). So, quickest route to full vaccination with the vaccines ye have is probably, Pfizer with a 4 week gap, Moderna with a 3 week gap, AZ with an 8 week gap (6 if you have to) and one shot of J&J (or any vaccine) in people with PCR confirmed Covid in the last 9 months (as we get more data, that could extend out to ever having PCR confirmed Covid)…

As for the “if we were still only dealing with the Kent variant, R would be below 1” thing, it’s very hard to untangle that…delta is outcompeting it, so of course alpha cases are dropping. How much of that is vaccination or competition with a fitter variant is incredibly hard to model. I dare say a beta or gamma outbreak in a vaccinated population would outcompete delta (but luckily those outbreaks had to compete with alpha in a mostly immunologically naive population…would be a different proposition now and they are fitter variants in a vaccinated cohort due to superior vaccine escape compared to delta or alpha)...

 

edit: sorry, forgot to tag @Fuzzy Afro and @stuartbert two hats

 

Edited by Toilet Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobWillis2 said:

One thing the government must show on Monday is what level of risk and death we have to accept going forward. 

We need something to base everything off, is opening on the 21st going to put us above that level? Is a 2 week delay going to keep us below that level? If not what is. 

I think Chris Whitty has pretty much already done that and said that a CFR in the ballpark of seasonal flu is one we would need to accept (the alternative is elimination followed by eradication…the first could take a decade of travel restrictions at least, the latter may never be attainable)…and it does look at the moment like the vaccines will get us to that point (current CFR is bang on seasonal flu, but cases aren’t distributed as evenly across age groups for a direct comparison…maybe that’s full vaccination in the higher risk cohort, or maybe as cases rise we’ll see more fully vaccinated older patients turning up in hospital and ultimately succumbing to it…it doesn’t look like that at the moment, so hopefully it stays that way…just need a bit more time to see how it develops…it’s still all pointing in the right direction on that front though)…but more of the population needs to be fully protected to make sure of that…I think if you have over 40s fully vaccinated (and maybe one dose in under 40s, especially since there is more natural infection already in this group), the CFR should stay near flu (it’s about 0.15% in the UK at the moment and vaccine-controlled flu is usually 0.1-0.2%…really need to see if seasonality impacts on this though…of course case load then impacts on the CFR, so if Covid cases vastly outstrip typical flu case loads, then it ends up with higher mortality. They both have similar secondary attack rate ranges though (5-15% depending on the circulating flu strain) so I’d like to think that wider vaccination for Covid will keep a lid on things better than we do for flu since lots of people don’t bother to get vaccinated for that). 

So, based on vaccination schedules, when you reach that point (40+ fully vaccinated) should be predictable. After that, the main variables left in there then are hospital admissions in younger unvaccinated/partially vaccinated folks (even short stays impact indirectly on patient care elsewhere in the hospital…if this is a problem, then finishing the vaccination programme is the point where all restrictions go, if not, then we’re ok before that…and that’s pretty close to where we are now), long Covid (I know some of you think it is hypochondriac nonsense, but until we have robust reporting of it, it’s an unknown burden and one that is also taken out of the equation by finishing the vaccination programme) and the aforementioned seasonality (which is a black box at the moment). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...