When will this shit end?

[Crazyfool01]

[AlexOvd]

The point is that obviously the first ones to take the vaccine will be the old/vulnerable. I doubt the healthy under 50 will have a vaccine by June 2021 (and this is a huge percentage of Glastonbury attendance). 

Do you think that could go ahead without vaccinated people in? And what about people coming from overseas where the vaccine schedule could vary from UK? 

Edited November 9, 2020 by AlexOvd

[whitehorses]

2 minutes ago, AlexOvd said:

The point is that obviously the first ones to take the vaccine will be the old/vulnerable. I doubt the healthy under 50 will have a vaccine by June 2021 (and this is a huge percentage of Glastonbury attendance). 

Do you think that could go ahead without vaccinated people in? 

Assume people who know what they’re talking about will pipe up, but logically once the most vulnerable categories are protected then job done. Most people don’t get an annual flu jab. It might even be beneficial for a certain cohort - under 21s say - to not be vaccinated at all, as their illness is so slight (generally). 

Edited November 9, 2020 by whitehorses
Sp

[AlexOvd]

3 minutes ago, whitehorses said:

Assume people who know what they’re talking about will pipe up, but logically once the most vulnerable categories are protected then job done. Most people don’t get an annual flu jab. It might even be beneficial for a certain cohort - under 21s say - to not be vaccinated at all, as their illness is so slight (generally). 

I am just so scared for a "must be vaccinated prior entry" requirement 😬

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, AlexOvd said:

I am just so scared for a "must be vaccinated prior entry" requirement 😬

Not so sure when the risk to others  is so comparatively low they don’t ask for a flu vaccine certificate ... and yes covid is on a bigger scale at the moment .... added to quicker tests and better treatments ... I reckon we have a goer ... 

[whitehorses]

2 minutes ago, AlexOvd said:

I am just so scared for a "must be vaccinated prior entry" requirement 😬

Shouldn’t have thought so, though interesting conundrum... Of course a vaccine has individual benefits but a vaccine programme like this is primarily for the benefit of the population. 

[mufcok]

12 minutes ago, AlexOvd said:

The point is that obviously the first ones to take the vaccine will be the old/vulnerable. I doubt the healthy under 50 will have a vaccine by June 2021 (and this is a huge percentage of Glastonbury attendance). 

Do you think that could go ahead without vaccinated people in? And what about people coming from overseas where the vaccine schedule could vary from UK? 

My take on it in general, never mind by June 2021, is that most people under 50 with no underlying health conditions won't have it.. unless they really want it. I assume it will be treated like the flu vaccine long term - i.e I've never been offered it as I have nothing major underlying and I'm relatively young but I'm sure if I actively perused it I could get one

[Leyrulion]

14 minutes ago, AlexOvd said:

Do you think that could go ahead without vaccinated people in? And what about people coming from overseas where the vaccine schedule could vary from UK? 

If the vulnerable and over 50's are vaccinated there's no real reason to keep unvaccinated under 50's from social contact? You are at significantly less risk of hospitalisation, if that was to the extent that it wouldn't put additional pressure on the NHS if large numbers of people became ill with it in winter 2021 then the most severe social distancing can be removed.

[mufcok]

10 minutes ago, AlexOvd said:

I am just so scared for a "must be vaccinated prior entry" requirement 😬

Surely not, too much of a variety in ages that go. I can't imagine the NHS dishing it out to someone who's 18 for example, just because that person is attending a festival. Especially if there's older people still in need. I guess.. in theory, that could be the case if you are 'of a certain age', but who knows

[Leyrulion]

20 minutes ago, AlexOvd said:

And what about people coming from overseas where the vaccine schedule could vary from UK? 

I think the overseas thing is potentially more problematic for you international folks. 

Many countries in Asia have a requirement to show a yellow fever vaccination certificate for entry if you're from an at risk area. I would not be surprised if similar requirements were imposed on people entering the u.k. 

[whitehorses]

Just now, Leyrulion said:

I think the overseas thing is potentially more problematic for you international folks. 

Many countries in Asia have a requirement to show a yellow fever vaccination certificate for entry if you're from an at risk area. I would not be surprised if similar requirements were imposed on people entering the u.k. 

yeah that seems like the kind of thing we’d do, accompanied by slogans about keeping “Jonny foreigner with covid out.” Our covid will be British covid goddamit 

[shoptildrop]

 

[balthazarstarbuck]

2 minutes ago, shoptildrop said:

 

He must be the very first one! Wow

[steviewevie]

 

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Peston should have spent more time on eFests if he's just learning this now!

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Peston should have spent more time on eFests if he's just learning this now!

but we don't know this about this pfizer vaccine yet, right?

[Toilet Duck]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Peston should have spent more time on eFests if he's just learning this now!

😁

though, nobody in the Pfizer trial developed severe COVID, therefore, one of their primary efficacy measures (impact on severe disease) can’t be measured yet...the Oxford trial was doing weekly swabs of participants (wasn’t in the protocol, they added it to look for sterilising immunity, but didn’t include it as an outcome just in case there was no impact)...not entirely sure whether Pfizer were doing the same, but based on what they have released today, all they can compare is infection rates between the groups as there were no other disease variables (either that or mild vs asymptomatic). So, it looks like it’s providing protection. We’ll have to wait for the paper when the trial is finished to really get under the hood, but we’re in a good place. Back in the summer I described where we were as the end of the beginning. Today we start the beginning of the end!

[Chef]

9 hours ago, Toilet Duck said:

Howdy folks...sorry I'm late to the party! Was in a meeting and could see notifications coming up!

So, looks very promising indeed. The vaccinated group not only didn't develop severe disease, but also had way fewer infections. Based on this, the suggestion is that the vaccine provides sterilising immunity (how long it lasts? far too early to say). By the numbers (94) it looks like Pfizer skipped their first planned interim analysis at 32 events and held on to get stronger data before unblinding. Appears that has paid off. They still need to wait until November 21st to get their follow up safety data before the FDA will grant EUA, but on the current efficacy data, that's a lock (unless people start keeling over). There's other good news too. The Moderna vaccine is right behind it, using exactly the same technology. Both are a pain in the arse to ship but much easier to scale up than previous vaccine platforms (and also much easier to adapt if the mink variant actually turns out to be a thing, you just insert the new sequence). Having two available would ramp up delivery as well. No indication so far either that the Oxford vaccine won't make it over the line as well, so best case scenario is a hat trick with the front runners with a whole posse of others brining up the rear later next year (J&J could even get there by the end of this year...that one did have sterilising immunity in pre-clinical studies, and Moderna claim theirs did too). The one major note of caution at this stage is that a sub-group analysis would be impossible at this stage, so how well the vaccine performs in high risk groups won't be known til the trials fully play out (not just older individuals, but different ethnic groups, people with different underlying co-morbidities etc). Also, none of the individuals that actually contracted the virus in the control group (or the vaccinated group) developed severe disease, so one of the primary endpoints of the trial can't be evaluated yet...however, if it provides 90% sterilising immunity, then that's a big (and fairly unexpected) win!

 

Edit: I should note, that all this is press releases. I haven't seen the actual data (hasn't been released), it will eventually be published and we can look at it in detail, but that process takes a lot longer than what occurred this morning!

Apologies if I have missed it but what is the significance of November 21st? 

[zahidf]

 

[stuartbert two hats]

13 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

but we don't know this about this pfizer vaccine yet, right?

I'll defer to our resident professor above on what we know about the Pfizer vaccine, but the point was Peston only now seems to be learning about the possibility of non-sterilising vaccines that protect against disease, not infection. I thought anyone who was paying much attention had that figured out when the Oxford vaccine results with the rhesus monkeys were published, many many months ago. I've read long articles talking about this concept in mainstream publications.

Surely he wasn't really confused and it was just a framing device to get quotes from "experts" to explain to the wider public who don't pay that much attention to the news? I'm frankly staggered that it seemed like some new concept he'd only just heard of.

[efcfanwirral]

17 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

Can you imagine if this reduces deaths and hospitalisations now after all this....

[Toilet Duck]

30 minutes ago, Chef said:

Apologies if I have missed it but what is the significance of November 21st? 

The FDA said they needed 2 more months of safety data on September 21st, meaning November 21st as the earliest date for emergency authorisation basically!

[Toilet Duck]

27 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I'll defer to our resident professor above on what we know about the Pfizer vaccine, but the point was Peston only now seems to be learning about the possibility of non-sterilising vaccines that protect against disease, not infection. I thought anyone who was paying much attention had that figured out when the Oxford vaccine results with the rhesus monkeys were published, many many months ago. I've read long articles talking about this concept in mainstream publications.

Surely he wasn't really confused and it was just a framing device to get quotes from "experts" to explain to the wider public who don't pay that much attention to the news? I'm frankly staggered that it seemed like some new concept he'd only just heard of.

No need to defer, you have it spot on!

[stuartbert two hats]

3 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

No need to defer, you have it spot on!

What does your gut say on the sterilising effect? Do you think it will be effective in reducing infections?

[Suprefan]