When will this shit end?

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

1 hour ago, FestivalJamie said:

I understand this but surely the MHRA approved procedure is 2 doses? I’d rather we just followed the scientific approved procedure of vaccine rollout rather than changing it to try and get ahead.

Slow and steady wins the race is an important phrase here.

If Gene Kranz had followed the procedures rather than adapt to a fluid situation and run the numbers and experiment.

Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert, Fred Haise would all have died in space. 

Putting pressure on a gunshot wound isn't the fix but it can save the person's life. If the scientists are able to with some confidence show that one dose is effective to an acceptable level and safe. It has to be a consideration. Especially in these early days where demand outstrips supply.

Edited December 23, 2020 by RobertProsineckisLighter

[xxialac]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it's not society that thinks he's dull, just me.

I dunno. I think you are onto something there. People do seem to think he's dull (and would explain in part why Labour not polling better). 

[Lycra]

22 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

No, and I suspect that's why it's not been approved already.

Re: AZ  There are issues with the sample size (number of people vaccinated) with the half then full dose AZ trial. That's something regulators would be making a very considered look at. Then we have the question of the new covid variant. Both AZ & PB will be trying to establish whether their vaccines protect against it. 

[Copperface]

56 minutes ago, mike46 said:

I haven’t been following the rollout strategy so not sure if this is a recent amendment ( @Copperface seems a lot more clued up than most on this) but phase 1 seems to now be the over 65s, I don’t remember seeing the “those aged 50-64 will be offered it later” before? Does that mean their strategy has changed slightly or is it just poorly worded? Assuming that significantly reduces the phase 1 rollout if it is an update?

 

from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-why-you-are-being-asked-to-wait/why-you-have-to-wait-for-your-covid-19-vaccine?priority-taxon=774cee22-d896-44c1-a611-e3109cce8eae

No, I think you are correct. Dated 7th December. I think the only real change is that it now specifically mentions availability of vaccine.

The nine groups/25 million still stands, but they are having to really prioritise given what appears to be a shortage of vaccine and/or means to deliver in the numbers needed. So the at risk groups have not changed, just the more nuanced targetting.

When more vaccine becomes available, the vaccines will be offered to other people at risk as soon as possible.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Copperface

[steviewevie]

Just now, xxialac said:

I dunno. I think you are onto something there. People do seem to think he's dull (and would explain in part why Labour not polling better). 

His speech the other day on devolution was supposed to be a big moment and I just zoned out after a while. Maybe I'm just conditioned to lose concentration for anything longer than a tweet.

The main thing for labour is to look like a government in waiting. Maybe Starmer has that, I think more people could see him as PM than Corbyn...but not sure about his cabinet, it's all about him at moment. In contrast Blair's shadow cabinet in 97 had some big players in there, and they just looked ready to form a govenment (whether they actually were is another thing).

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

If Gene Kranz had followed the procedures rather than adapt to a fluid situation and run the numbers and experiment.

Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert, Fred Haise would all have died in space. 

Putting pressure on a gunshot wound isn't the fix but it can save the person's life. If the scientists are able to with some confidence show that one dose is effective to an acceptable level and safe. It has to be a consideration. Especially in these early days where demand outstrips supply.

Yup. If the effacy difference really is just 4%, then you are much better off getting the vaccine to more people with one dose

[Copperface]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

that's not what you said that I disagreed with. 

You said "very slow". It won't be. It'll be very fast long before "we hit the 65-70% mark".

Define very fast.

[Mouseboy11]

1 hour ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Also hearing that a lot of the vaccines aren’t actually being given to frontline workers, but instead are being booked up by NHS bosses who are working from home 

There’s enough going on in this thread without the need for unsubstantiated bollocks like this.

[Copperface]

1 minute ago, Mouseboy11 said:

There’s enough going on in this thread without the need for unsubstantiated bollocks like this.

More of this please.👍

[xxialac]

2 minutes ago, Mouseboy11 said:

There’s enough going on in this thread without the need for unsubstantiated bollocks like this.

Top, top comment.

[incident]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Yup. If the effacy difference really is just 4%, then you are much better off getting the vaccine to more people with one dose

Part of the problem is that nearly everyone in the trial got 2 doses, so any claims about what protection 1 dose provides is based on substantially less data and for the most part only over that 3 week window between doses.

So it's entirely possible for example that 4% difference becomes 40% after say 2 months. Or the gap could even narrow. We don't know and while there's a case to be made that it should be studied, it's not the time or place to experiment.

[xxialac]

A good read: One thing that is unlikely to make much of an impact is the kind of travel ban ostensibly imposed to prevent the export of B.1.1.7 from the UK. This reflects a simplistic understanding of how viruses spread and evolve, as well as how we detect the emergence of new, potentially consequential variants such as B.1.1.7. The UK is a global leader in genomic surveillance, the practice of sequencing the genomes of the viruses causing new cases. B.1.1.7 is likely to be circulating in other countries already, and simply hasn’t been detected yet because of already high Sars-CoV-2 prevalence and less comprehensive genomic surveillance. Draconian measures can encourage panic and make the situation worse. When the lockdown and domestic travel restrictions were announced in the UK, passengers packed train station platforms and crowded carriages to leave London prior to enforcement of tier 4 restrictions, creating conditions conducive to virus spread.

Rather than harsh and largely ineffective travel bans, we should instead focus on encouraging compliance with proven interventions such as masking, distancing, avoiding crowds and enclosed spaces, avoiding gathering outside of one’s household or quarantine pod, and practising good hand hygiene. By emphasising the additive nature of risk reduction, transmission can be reduced in a way that empowers people with the information to make good decisions to protect themselves and their families.

Though we do not yet know for sure whether or not B.1.1.7 is substantially more transmissible, we do know that the pandemic is out of control throughout most of the world. We must balance scientific uncertainty with sensible approaches that we already know are effective at reducing community transmission, regardless of what we learn about B.1.1.7. Dramatic measures put in place through fear and uncertainty squander an opportunity to increase participation in the measures that are known to reduce transmission, regardless of a virus’s innate propensity to spread to new hosts. We have already suffered unacceptable losses from Covid-19. To truly contain the pandemic, leaders and policymakers should calmly educate and engage the public, rather than risking panic through scrambled, incoherent measures.

Angela Rasmussen is a virologist at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security

[squirrelarmy]

Port towns in the south are expected to be going into Tier 4 shortly. 
 

This is due to a large proportion of returning pirates increasing the Arrrr rate

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Define very fast.

down to just masks and social distancing as the maximum. 

(within 'social distancing' I'm including a possible ban still on crowds for bands).

We'll hit that by 1st June at latest (providing Oxford vaccine is approved by NY).

We'll go from tiered restrictions to almost nothing long before vaccine rollout gets to the 65-70% mark.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Copperface]

Just now, eFestivals said:

down to just masks and social distancing as the maximum. 

(within 'social distancing' I'm including a possible ban still on crowds for bands).

We'll hit that by 1st June at latest (providing Oxford vaccine is approved by NY).

We'll go from tiered restrictions to almost nothing long before vaccine rollout gets to the 65-70% mark.

When  you say 'ban on crowds', do you include numerical limits as well? Festivals as well?

Which is the prism we are all viewing this through particularly on this forum. 

I've repeatedly said that 95% of restrictions will be lifted by summer, and the majority of the population will be perfectly satisfied with that, and that late summer will be when we hit that measure. For most people life will seem 'back to normal' to a far greater degree.

I was never part of the 'normality at Easter' grouping or the 'Tories won't stand for anything restrictive after Easter' brigade.

 

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 hour ago, Lycra said:

l echo your argument. People are putting too much faith into the unknown and unproven. The situation will improve in 2021 but at a slow (& hopefully sustained pace).

Consider the position right now. Roll out of the PB vaccine has been slow, only 42% of NHS trusts have received the vaccine (reported in the Guardian yesterday) & government have not confirmed any additional deliveries subsequent to the first one. The AZ vaccine has still to be approved. Quick lateral flow tests are being rejected by Public Health due to their inaccuracy. And we have the new covid variant which is infecting younger & older age groups alike and appears faster replicating. It's not a good base to suggest "back to normal after Easter" or even the summer

This makes sense from what a friend of mine has been telling me. He works for a hospital in Cambridgeshire, for the PALS service dealing with complaints etc. He has had tons of people calling up complaining that they received letters saying they can get a vaccine but then being told there aren't enough available. Seems a bit of a shambles to be telling people they can get it when they can't. 

He said 10,000 letters went out when they only had 1,000 or so doses of the vaccine. Probably improved by now but still.

[Fuzzy Afro]

This is significant 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Copperface said:

When  you say 'ban on crowds', do you include numerical limits as well? Festivals as well?

Yes, possibly.

That's an almost-nothing restriction (except for gigs and festivals, obvs). We'll get to almost nothing as far as restrictions go by early summer*, long before vaccine rollout gets to the 65-70% mark.

(*based on getting the oxford vac approved, and it working as claimed).

[Losing my hair]

11 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

This makes sense from what a friend of mine has been telling me. He works for a hospital in Cambridgeshire, for the PALS service dealing with complaints etc. He has had tons of people calling up complaining that they received letters saying they can get a vaccine but then being told there aren't enough available. Seems a bit of a shambles to be telling people they can get it when they can't. 

He said 10,000 letters went out when they only had 1,000 or so doses of the vaccine. Probably improved by now but still.

At a vaccination hub near me (Northants) last week people were called for their vaccination only for it to be cancelled at the last minute because the cold chain had failed and the batch had to be thrown away. This can't be the only incident of this around the country.

Roll on Oxford/AZ

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

Conversely, there are also stories (on here) of elderly or vulnerable people being given the vaccine on routine trips to the hospital, ‘while they’re there’ and any spare vaccines being given out by ringing round local Doctors etc, so it’s not all bad news, and in some instances there are spare vaccines as opposed to not enough. 

[efcfanwirral]

4 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Conversely, there are also stories (on here) of elderly or vulnerable people being given the vaccine on routine trips to the hospital, ‘while they’re there’ and any spare vaccines being given out by ringing round local Doctors etc, so it’s not all bad news, and in some instances there are spare vaccines as opposed to not enough. 

My Grandad is an outpatient (technically - only goes once every few months) at one of the hub hospitals and they called him in for it. That would suggest convenience is one of the factors 

[zahidf]

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, efcfanwirral said:

My Grandad is an outpatient (technically - only goes once every few months) at one of the hub hospitals and they called him in for it. That would suggest convenience is one of the factors 

Yeah I think with the Pfizer one there must be an element of needing to get it used up by the end of the day, so some people are getting it unexpectedly and others aren’t able to get it that expected to, not ideal, but the main thing is as long as none are going to waste, then as many people are getting vaccinated as can be until we get the Oxford one.