|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 28, 2020 10:30:44 GMT
Staffs numbers now 220 per 100,000. It was 400+ a week or so ago. ALl hail the lockdown?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2020 10:34:55 GMT
Staffs numbers now 220 per 100,000. It was 400+ a week or so ago. ALl hail the lockdown? All end the lockdown.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2020 10:56:59 GMT
As I understand it, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has been shown to be 90% effective in people <55 and only 60% effective in people 55+, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been more effective in older people compared to Oxford/AZ. Oxford/AZ is now testing a different dosing regimen in older people to try to raise the effectiveness rate among older people before applying for approval. Is this correct? If so, have they considered giving young people the Oxford/AZ vaccine and older people the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine? If Oxford/AZ can get approved now for young people, it can drive down the spread in the community as young people are much more likely to unknowingly spread the virus. I don't see why they have to conduct additional studies on older people before applying for approval for any age group. What am I missing? Cost and politics mate. The Oxford vaccine costs a fraction of the other two and can be stored in ordinary refrigeration. Your suggestion makes absolutely perfect sense, give the one(s) that work best in the elderly TO the elderly and the one (Oxford) that doesn't, to the under 55's. But don't forget the Government wanted to stick the Union Jack on the Oxford vaccine, politically it won't be a good look to have created something that's much less effective than the Yank one and at the end of the day, only 50% efficacy was required in the first place anyway. The Government have put a lot of political capital into the Oxford vaccine and I'm not sure they're too bothered about waiting around to see if the new trial will be a success, I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 28, 2020 11:11:19 GMT
Well done Matt, only 8 months late.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 28, 2020 11:17:22 GMT
As I understand it, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has been shown to be 90% effective in people <55 and only 60% effective in people 55+, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been more effective in older people compared to Oxford/AZ. Oxford/AZ is now testing a different dosing regimen in older people to try to raise the effectiveness rate among older people before applying for approval. Is this correct? If so, have they considered giving young people the Oxford/AZ vaccine and older people the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine? If Oxford/AZ can get approved now for young people, it can drive down the spread in the community as young people are much more likely to unknowingly spread the virus. I don't see why they have to conduct additional studies on older people before applying for approval for any age group. What am I missing? It's not as simple as one vaccine working better for a specific age group, as I understand it it's efficacy is the same regardless of age, the issue is with the dosage as to whether it gives 60% or 90%. It'll just get licenced on the basis it being around 60% effective in all age ranges for now pending further trials which could then get it licenced as being more effective.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 28, 2020 11:19:30 GMT
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it really does make you wonder if this is being used for an ulterior motive. You're no conspiracy theorist but you think there is a conspiracy? Maybe you haven't looked hard enough - there are loads out there. One option is to read a work of fiction and project it on the real world. George Orwell, Michael Crichton and Dan Brown are good starting points. Or make one up yourself - it's become something of a pandemic pastime. The human brain is hardwired to create patterns from sensory data - when you look at clouds you end up seeing animals, when you look at real world events you see hidden narratives. Neither are real - just illusions created by your brain to make sense of a largely haphazard universe. The other option is to adopt Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually correct. Try this: We have a shambolic government with a penchant for giving contracts and jobs to their wives and friends making a balls up of a global pandemic. Boring I know and I must admit it would probably have more general appeal if it involved space lizards. You can chase the white rabbit and get increasingly deranged and hysterical or you can stick to the cock up theory of history and stay sane while all around you try to feed the sky animals. Your choice. This is the best reply to conspiracy theorism I've read up to yet. Bravo. OS.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 28, 2020 11:22:26 GMT
As I understand it, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has been shown to be 90% effective in people <55 and only 60% effective in people 55+, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been more effective in older people compared to Oxford/AZ. Oxford/AZ is now testing a different dosing regimen in older people to try to raise the effectiveness rate among older people before applying for approval. Is this correct? If so, have they considered giving young people the Oxford/AZ vaccine and older people the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine? If Oxford/AZ can get approved now for young people, it can drive down the spread in the community as young people are much more likely to unknowingly spread the virus. I don't see why they have to conduct additional studies on older people before applying for approval for any age group. What am I missing? Cost and politics mate. The Oxford vaccine costs a fraction of the other two and can be stored in ordinary refrigeration. Your suggestion makes absolutely perfect sense, give the one(s) that work best in the elderly TO the elderly and the one (Oxford) that doesn't, to the under 55's. But don't forget the Government wanted to stick the Union Jack on the Oxford vaccine, politically it won't be a good look to have created something that's much less effective than the Yank one and at the end of the day, only 50% efficacy was required in the first place anyway. The Government have put a lot of political capital into the Oxford vaccine and I'm not sure they're too bothered about waiting around to see if the new trial will be a success, I hope I'm wrong. The world seems happy enough to have a flu vaccine with a 60% (at best) efficacy every year so I don't see why this will be any different really. Like you say, its all about cost and no doubt they could get a much higher efficacy for the flu jab if they were to bring to bear the sort of resources Covid 19 has had but it seems to do a good enough job (society accepts 10k or so people die from flu each year without questioning it too much). I think mass vaccinations are largely going to be about restoring confidence as by the time it happens (spring/summer), the virus will be on the decline again due to its seasonal nature. They'll then just roll out the covid jab every year in the autumn like the flu one.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 28, 2020 11:27:46 GMT
This is absolutely staggering. The Government's evidence for decimating our hospitality sector is examples of clusters in the Far East. How can any MP vote for this nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by bertiebigguns on Nov 28, 2020 11:30:34 GMT
You're no conspiracy theorist but you think there is a conspiracy? Maybe you haven't looked hard enough - there are loads out there. One option is to read a work of fiction and project it on the real world. George Orwell, Michael Crichton and Dan Brown are good starting points. Or make one up yourself - it's become something of a pandemic pastime. The human brain is hardwired to create patterns from sensory data - when you look at clouds you end up seeing animals, when you look at real world events you see hidden narratives. Neither are real - just illusions created by your brain to make sense of a largely haphazard universe. The other option is to adopt Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually correct. Try this: We have a shambolic government with a penchant for giving contracts and jobs to their wives and friends making a balls up of a global pandemic. Boring I know and I must admit it would probably have more general appeal if it involved space lizards. You can chase the white rabbit and get increasingly deranged and hysterical or you can stick to the cock up theory of history and stay sane while all around you try to feed the sky animals. Your choice. This is the best reply to conspiracy theorism I've read up to yet. Bravo. OS. Strange how people’s views differ, it’s possibly the biggest load of cobbled together bollocks I’ve had the misfortune to read.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 28, 2020 11:32:27 GMT
As I understand it, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has been shown to be 90% effective in people <55 and only 60% effective in people 55+, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been more effective in older people compared to Oxford/AZ. Oxford/AZ is now testing a different dosing regimen in older people to try to raise the effectiveness rate among older people before applying for approval. Is this correct? If so, have they considered giving young people the Oxford/AZ vaccine and older people the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine? If Oxford/AZ can get approved now for young people, it can drive down the spread in the community as young people are much more likely to unknowingly spread the virus. I don't see why they have to conduct additional studies on older people before applying for approval for any age group. What am I missing? Cost and politics mate. The Oxford vaccine costs a fraction of the other two and can be stored in ordinary refrigeration. Your suggestion makes absolutely perfect sense, give the one(s) that work best in the elderly TO the elderly and the one (Oxford) that doesn't, to the under 55's. But don't forget the Government wanted to stick the Union Jack on the Oxford vaccine, politically it won't be a good look to have created something that's much less effective than the Yank one and at the end of the day, only 50% efficacy was required in the first place anyway. The Government have put a lot of political capital into the Oxford vaccine and I'm not sure they're too bothered about waiting around to see if the new trial will be a success, I hope I'm wrong. Great post Paul. But something in my water says that this shower will prove your last sentence to be right. One of the problems now is that the Oxford people will have to go through all the stages of efficy testing with a half dose and a full dose in the elderly (it was only done this way with younger people) before they will know how it works on them. That could take months. M.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2020 11:35:31 GMT
As I understand it, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has been shown to be 90% effective in people <55 and only 60% effective in people 55+, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been more effective in older people compared to Oxford/AZ. Oxford/AZ is now testing a different dosing regimen in older people to try to raise the effectiveness rate among older people before applying for approval. Is this correct? If so, have they considered giving young people the Oxford/AZ vaccine and older people the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine? If Oxford/AZ can get approved now for young people, it can drive down the spread in the community as young people are much more likely to unknowingly spread the virus. I don't see why they have to conduct additional studies on older people before applying for approval for any age group. What am I missing? It's not as simple as one vaccine working better for a specific age group, as I understand it it's efficacy is the same regardless of age, the issue is with the dosage as to whether it gives 60% or 90%. It'll just get licenced on the basis it being around 60% effective in all age ranges for now pending further trials which could then get it licenced as being more effective. No that's not correct mate. The 90% efficacy was found only in the under 55 age group for the Oxford Vaccine, whereas as Pfizer and Moderna hit over 90% across all age ranges.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 28, 2020 11:47:24 GMT
This is the best reply to conspiracy theorism I've read up to yet. Bravo. OS. Strange how people’s views differ, it’s possibly the biggest load of cobbled together bollocks I’ve had the misfortune to read. Why? It explains it perfectly. Also I don't get why people don't how people can't understand a useless government being useless? I mean is it because you voted for them and don't want to accept that? And I think that's what a lot of conspiracies come from, the mundane seems too mundane and easily avoidable but it very often is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 28, 2020 11:50:13 GMT
I see I have to avoid board games now as well. Has anyone seen any advice on wiping your arse after the Christmas dinner dump, I might have missed it? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55107473Judging by the replies, people aren't buying this nanny state bollocks anymore. Basically, enjoy your Christmas with your family, but if you feel ill or have classic symptoms, stay in bed or away from other households. Pretty simple really Common sense, David. But there seems to be very little of it about these days. Providing they seem to be covid free, I'll be having Xmas dinner at Tony's this year as I always do, but not before (providing that they seem to be covid free) I've been down to my daughter's to see her and my grandkids there. Afterwards, I'll tell them all to sod off and leave me alone (as I usually do) because I quite enjoy my own company where nobody tells me what to do. OS.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 28, 2020 11:52:57 GMT
I read earlier that in any given year a flu vaccine will typically be between 40% and 60% effective. 60% is just about 'as good as it gets' while in some years it can be less than 30% effective.
I do wonder how often anyone outside the medical profession has analysed the arse off that at anytime over the past 20 years?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 28, 2020 12:07:27 GMT
It's not as simple as one vaccine working better for a specific age group, as I understand it it's efficacy is the same regardless of age, the issue is with the dosage as to whether it gives 60% or 90%. It'll just get licenced on the basis it being around 60% effective in all age ranges for now pending further trials which could then get it licenced as being more effective. No that's not correct mate. The 90% efficacy was found only in the under 55 age group for the Oxford Vaccine, whereas as Pfizer and Moderna hit over 90% across all age ranges. I'm only talking about the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine not the others. Its not the age range that gave different results it was the doses in the Oxford vaccine that changed the efficacy. The volunteers who received the erroneous half-dose first shot turned out to have a higher level of protection against covid-19 than those who did not. The “full dose” vaccine was 62 per cent effective but the half dose 90 per cent. That is the source of the 70 per cent average and the notion that the vaccine might be tweaked to hit 90 per Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/2261092-do-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-results-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#ixzz6f5hMcvbq
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2020 12:45:02 GMT
No that's not correct mate. The 90% efficacy was found only in the under 55 age group for the Oxford Vaccine, whereas as Pfizer and Moderna hit over 90% across all age ranges. I'm only talking about the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine not the others. Its not the age range that gave different results it was the doses in the Oxford vaccine that changed the efficacy. The volunteers who received the erroneous half-dose first shot turned out to have a higher level of protection against covid-19 than those who did not. The “full dose” vaccine was 62 per cent effective but the half dose 90 per cent. That is the source of the 70 per cent average and the notion that the vaccine might be tweaked to hit 90 per Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/2261092-do-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-results-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#ixzz6f5hMcvbqI think the bit you're missing mate, is that the half-dose/full dose was only ever tested in the under-55 group which gave the 90% efficacy. In order to see if it will work to the same level in the elderly, they're going to have to redo the trial, which is going to take some time. As it stands today, there is only proof of 90% efficacy for the Oxford vaccine in the under 55's, whereas for Pfizer and Moderna vaccine, we know that there is over 90% efficacy for the elderly group already. As for combining the two results to come up with the 70% figure, well that's a highly questionable way of presenting the results anyway. But as I said originally, only 50% efficacy was required in the first place, so it's going to almost certainly get cleared anyway but at the moment, we're looking at slightly over 60% efficacy for the elderly with the Oxford vaccine but over 90% for that group from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 28, 2020 13:30:48 GMT
I'm only talking about the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine not the others. Its not the age range that gave different results it was the doses in the Oxford vaccine that changed the efficacy. The volunteers who received the erroneous half-dose first shot turned out to have a higher level of protection against covid-19 than those who did not. The “full dose” vaccine was 62 per cent effective but the half dose 90 per cent. That is the source of the 70 per cent average and the notion that the vaccine might be tweaked to hit 90 per Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/2261092-do-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-results-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#ixzz6f5hMcvbqI think the bit you're missing mate, is that the half-dose/full dose was only ever tested in the under-55 group which gave the 90% efficacy. In order to see if it will work to the same level in the elderly, they're going to have to redo the trial, which is going to take some time. As it stands today, there is only proof of 90% efficacy for the Oxford vaccine in the under 55's, whereas for Pfizer and Moderna vaccine, we know that there is over 90% efficacy for the elderly group already. As for combining the two results to come up with the 70% figure, well that's a highly questionable way of presenting the results anyway. But as I said originally, only 50% efficacy was required in the first place, so it's going to almost certainly get cleared anyway but at the moment, we're looking at slightly over 60% efficacy for the elderly with the Oxford vaccine but over 90% for that group from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Paul sorry to be a pedant but the group containing the elderly had a 60% efficacy. I don't think we can quote any efficacy for the elderly.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2020 13:34:47 GMT
I think the bit you're missing mate, is that the half-dose/full dose was only ever tested in the under-55 group which gave the 90% efficacy. In order to see if it will work to the same level in the elderly, they're going to have to redo the trial, which is going to take some time. As it stands today, there is only proof of 90% efficacy for the Oxford vaccine in the under 55's, whereas for Pfizer and Moderna vaccine, we know that there is over 90% efficacy for the elderly group already. As for combining the two results to come up with the 70% figure, well that's a highly questionable way of presenting the results anyway. But as I said originally, only 50% efficacy was required in the first place, so it's going to almost certainly get cleared anyway but at the moment, we're looking at slightly over 60% efficacy for the elderly with the Oxford vaccine but over 90% for that group from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Paul sorry to be a pedant but the group containing the elderly had a 60% efficacy. I don't think we can quote any efficacy for the elderly. Yes you are 100% correct Andy, I actually attempted to make that clear in my original answer but thought my reply was becoming over complicated as it was and edited it. But it's an important point.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 28, 2020 13:39:50 GMT
Paul sorry to be a pedant but the group containing the elderly had a 60% efficacy. I don't think we can quote any efficacy for the elderly. Yes you are 100% correct Andy, I actually attempted to make that clear in my original answer but thought my reply was becoming over complicated as it was and edited it. But it's an important point. I think this is why the dosage is just an extraneous variable. It's plausible the overall average efficacy dropped because it's actually lower in the elderly than 60% dragging he average down. Until data is published showing details of the age distribution, everyone except the regulator is in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 28, 2020 13:46:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Nov 28, 2020 14:19:13 GMT
The Zoe app has been really good. I've been using it since March and the only disappointment is really that more people aren't using it.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 28, 2020 14:23:18 GMT
Well that nails the lockdown doesn’t work myth onwards and upwards ans expect w huge peak to really kick off second week January . Those graphs say tier 3 everywhere is spot on until the end of January with no Xmas break ans we’d really be on top of it
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 28, 2020 14:24:31 GMT
Paul sorry to be a pedant but the group containing the elderly had a 60% efficacy. I don't think we can quote any efficacy for the elderly. Yes you are 100% correct Andy, I actually attempted to make that clear in my original answer but thought my reply was becoming over complicated as it was and edited it. But it's an important point. So the lower dose wasn't given to a trial group which included the elderly?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 28, 2020 14:35:24 GMT
Well that nails the lockdown doesn’t work myth onwards and upwards ans expect w huge peak to really kick off second week January . Those graphs say tier 3 everywhere is spot on until the end of January with no Xmas break ans we’d really be on top of it You talk as much rubbish about this as you do about football. Incredible really.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Nov 28, 2020 14:35:49 GMT
Yes you are 100% correct Andy, I actually attempted to make that clear in my original answer but thought my reply was becoming over complicated as it was and edited it. But it's an important point. So the lower dose wasn't given to a trial group which included the elderly? The lower (initial) dose was accidentally given to a small group out of the total numbers participating. It so happened that this small group didn't include any elderly. Hopefully the further tests they are now doing will show that age was not a factor in the improved percentage potency and that it was ONLY the fact that the initial dose was accidentally halved, which affected the potency. But until those tests are done we won't know. If it was the half dose which made all the difference it does make you wonder how many other vaccines could be improved by giving a low initial dose. This accident "might" revolutionise vaccine effectiveness in those vaccines with low potency.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2020 14:35:51 GMT
Yes you are 100% correct Andy, I actually attempted to make that clear in my original answer but thought my reply was becoming over complicated as it was and edited it. But it's an important point. So the lower dose wasn't given to a trial group which included the elderly? No mate.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 28, 2020 14:40:11 GMT
This is the best reply to conspiracy theorism I've read up to yet. Bravo. OS. Strange how people’s views differ, it’s possibly the biggest load of cobbled together bollocks I’ve had the misfortune to read. Is it the lack of space lizards or the threat to the sky animal fodder industry (aka social media?)
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 28, 2020 14:46:53 GMT
So the lower dose wasn't given to a trial group which included the elderly? No mate. You are right, I missed this from the original announcement on Monday : On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was also limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. Oxford and AstraZeneca did not disclose the age breakdown on Monday, when results were released. Having read that there's no way the lower doses were given in error. They are trying to manipulate the headline figures I have no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 28, 2020 14:49:21 GMT
So the lower dose wasn't given to a trial group which included the elderly? No mate. My understanding is that it was cock up - there was a failure in the manufacturing process that meant a random bunch of people (which wasn't age representative) got a half dose. The half dose/full dose 90% effectiveness was a happy accident jumped on by AstraZeneca and the government to claim we've got a world beater on our hands. Either that or the space lizards scuppered the trial. To be fair the results don't prove that the vaccine isn't effective in the old if given as a half dose/full dose - it's up to AstraZeneca to stop fucking up and design a proper trial. In the interim as you said in an earlier post the way forward might be to give the old and vulnerable one of the other vaccines and use the AstraZeneca one on the everyone else as part of a herd immunity programme - especially as it's cheaper and far easier to store and transport.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 28, 2020 14:53:08 GMT
My understanding is that it was cock up - there was a failure in the manufacturing process that meant a random bunch of people (which wasn't age representative) got a half dose. The half dose/full dose 90% effectiveness was a happy accident jumped on by AstraZeneca and the government to claim we've got a world beater on our hands. Either that or the space lizards scuppered the trial. To be fair the results don't prove that the vaccine isn't effective in the old if given as a half dose/full dose - it's up to AstraZeneca to stop fucking up and design a proper trial. In the interim as you said in an earlier post the way forward might be to give the old and vulnerable one of the other vaccines and use the AstraZeneca one on the everyone else as part of a herd immunity programme - especially as it's cheaper and far easier to store and transport. I can imagine Sarah Gilbert not being very happy with Astrazenica'a trial fuck up. It doesn't look good on her or the bods from Oxford who have their professional integrity questioned.
|
|