Forum menu
To be honest I think it’s a “prove that it is” vs “prove that it isn’t” type thing.
I can understand the perspective of: “You want me to take it, prove that it’s safe”. However, whether something is “safe” is something that different people will have different bars for – and some people will find data, whether official or anaecdotal to support a position of “I’m not 100% convinced it’s 100% safe, therefore I’m not taking it”.
I don't think that is the primary reason just based on our local FB.
The main "reason" is simply "the man can't tell me what to do".
Based on communications from our "government" with flips/u-turns and seemingly illogical instructions this is human nature.
Every "justification" for this is really subsidiary to this. Case in point ...
Ok, there is debate about just what level of protection a mask affords….. but until we understand that, why not just wear one now? Not a rhetorical question – would genuinely like to hear what the objection is, beyond the “it’s not been proven” or “BuT mOi LiBeRtIeS!”
No debate... communications said "masks don't work" .."masks do work" ... no actual information about who a mask is meant to protect... where and how to use one.
Not wearing one or wearing it poorly (chin/no nose) has become a point of pride...A group of 10-12 MTBers in Peaslake were loudly discussing how to NOT wear a FREE mask before going into the store. [masks for free with optional donation]
In the meantime... things are being contained admissions wise...
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
Let's not mess that up over December... please.
Really good to see batfink's informed opinion on the speed of vaccine development, would be nice to see that message getting put across more to help inform the debate.
The only doubt really would be around long term effects, and I'm happy to take my chance on that.
I'm assuming it's still too soon to judge how long the vaccine protection will remain with you? Any news on where they are with that, or can anyone explain using small words how they actually test and assess the length of protection?
The longevity of protection will be monitored as the trials will most likely not finish on approval by the regulators.
I might have to look up the documents if I can find them.
I'm not allowed to comment on the az results as it is in my contract as I work for them. But the details as released are really interesting and it is all systems go for submission
no actual information about who a mask is meant to protect…
I thought it was made fairly clear when they flipped to wanting us to wear masks that it was because it was felt to slightly reduce the risk of the wearer spreading it to someone else when worn properly and in conjunction with other actions let proper distancing.
The government have brought this on themselves through shambolic communication, but I think it suits their agenda of blaming the public if we all immediately start looking for the problems.
I guess the question for the Oxford Vaccine is:
If I’m in the 30% it doesn’t protect, am I likely to get less severe illness?
Hopefully that proves to be the case, so the general population get the cheaper Oxford one, leaving the most at risk the better one, and an Antibody jab for those immuno-compromised.
More cash
I thought it was made fairly clear when they flipped to wanting us to wear masks that it was because it was felt to slightly reduce the risk of the wearer spreading it to someone else when worn properly and in conjunction with other actions let proper distancing.
My observation based on the excuses I hear is it wasn't made clear ... certainly not clear enough to change opinion over a total U turn and not from a government that has a very low trust.
[even many supporters don't actually believe what is said in general, rather they are happy to believe its a lie that works better for them]
Who really believes kids can't spread the virus in a classroom for example?
The government have brought this on themselves through shambolic communication, but I think it suits their agenda of blaming the public if we all immediately start looking for the problems.
Agree completely...
I'd love to see the numbers as to how people who test negative or those who have active antibodies
have a higher chance of transmitting the virus than those who don't test ...
If the vaccine doesn't protect you, you will still be protected by a reduction in the infectious population so reduces the chances of you catching it in the first place
If I’m in the 30% it doesn’t protect, am I likely to get less severe illness?
No idea about whether you have some improved ability to fight an infection off. Interested to hear anything about that too.
But even if your in the 30% it doesn’t protect don’t forget you’re still getting protected by the 70% it works for.
The more ignorant anti-vaxxers there are, the better. Means there will be more to go round for the rest of us and I will get my dose quicker.
(Yes I know it matters if there are too many of them.)
I think, certainly, there needs to be a significant communications effort from the government to explain to people what the vaccines is/does, and what the potential side effects could be, including some that are unknown. This worries me, because if there’s one thing that Bojo et all have shown over and over again since the start of the current unpleasantness….. is that they are crap at communication (either deliberately, or via incompetence).
Could you boil all that down to three words?
Basically the remaining obstacles to a successful vaccination programme fall almost entirely on the government. You would have thought that this was something of an open goal, but this lot have shown themselves to be able to miss those consistently.
If I’m in the 30% it doesn’t protect, am I likely to get less severe illness?
what is likely and less severe ?
How do you even know if you already had the virus and didn't notice?
yet you state it as if it’s a fact when it’s just an unproven theory
natural immunity is a fact, you understand that right? I mean, how do you think humans survived plagues and pandemics when medical science didn’t exist and couldn’t provide a cure?
If the vaccine doesn’t protect you, you will still be protected by a reduction in the infectious population so reduces the chances of you catching it in the first place
Which goes back to the point about why we need as many people to take it as possible...
Maybe it's just me that found the Oxford results slightly disappointing after the previous announcements. Am i right in thinking it stops 2 out of 3 infections, whilst the others prevent 9 out of 10? On the flip side, as the Oxford vaccine is 'old tech ', I'm assuming there is less chance of an 'I am Legend' scenario..
I wonder if they'll tell you which one you are getting?
Who really believes kids can’t spread the virus in a classroom for example?
You have to read the detail of some of the reports. It seems that young children don't have some of the galnds / chemicals / processes going on in their body.
By puberty these things are then changing, and although they don't usually have poor symptoms they are getting and sharing the virus.
Clearly by 16+ they are basically adults, so as susceptible and as spreading as any of us.
You have to read the detail of some of the reports.
Which ones?
You have to read the detail of some of the reports. It seems that young children don’t have some of the galnds / chemicals / processes going on in their body.
2 seperate things I suppose and playing the devils advocate
Who really believes kids can’t spread the virus
So I'm wondering how our Yr7 got the virus and why they are self isolating if they can't.
Are those who came down with it pubescent earlier and if so why are the entire year self isolating? or doesn't can't = less likely ???
in a classroom for example?
So what is the magical unicorn dust in classrooms? Why can't they just sprinkle the same stuff that makes classroom safe outside?
(or could it be classrooms aren't actually safe???)
Just a scientific point, but thus far the vaccines have not shown a reduction in transmission. The studies were designed to test for a reduction in symptomatic COVID19 infection. And all three vaccines, and most likely the others will reduce this likelihood.
That effect had been seen with two antibodies.
Now it is probable that viral load is reduced if challenged, and protection afforded (just like influenza which I’m also working on) but it is not a given. As I said earlier, I view a vaccine as giving me a lifetimes past history of coronavirus infection and protection from disease. Anything else is an upside. Currently an unproven upside.
And of course there is the challenge of durability, waning antibodies that might enhance infection. All sorts of unknowns.
[tl:dr] I’m miserable fun at parties 😷
I wonder if they’ll tell you which one you are getting?
I think it probably depends where you end up being vaccinated. The Pfizer one will probably be given out at the mass sites. Logistically it’s very hard to administer in the tradition way (via GP) and almost uniquely unsuitable for use at someone’s house (the over 80 demographic) so I think we’ll be asked to do those with the Oxford version later on next month.
I get logistics, but surely the one with highest efficacy hoes to the higher risk categories?
As a fit <50 y/o I’ll be happy to get the lesser one so my mum gets the best.
I’m thinking back to the early Oxford animal studies of macaques. Wasn’t it proved to lessen severe disease there even in the ones who did catch it?
Depends on the dosing strategy.
if the half dose /full dose of the Oxford one demonstrates the initial results in bigger numbers then it isn't a long way off the mRNA vaccines yet an awful lot easier to transport and dose
The studies were designed to test for a reduction in symptomatic COVID19 infection
I think this was asked earlier, but would the 3rd who show symptoms expect to have a reduction in severity due to gaining some immunity from the jab?
Maybe it’s just me that found the Oxford results slightly disappointing after the previous announcements.
Not me. Fridge temperature distribution is more useful for the world in 2021 than ultra cold store.
Just a scientific point, but thus far the vaccines have not shown a reduction in transmission.
It is being reported that there is some evidence the Oxford one does.
natural immunity is a fact, you understand that right? I mean, how do you think humans survived plagues and pandemics when medical science didn’t exist and couldn’t provide a cure?
A working immune system and natural immunity aren't the same thing.
Very few viruses are lethal, a virus that kills every host won't spread very far. If you catch Covid and suffer mild symptoms its not because you were "naturally immune". As far as the virus is concerned it got inside you, multiplied and you probably passed it on to two people.
Natural immunity would be being exposed to a normal infective dose of the virus and not having it infect you in an even asymptomatic manner, so you didn't pass it on to anyone.
No one knows exactly what percentage of the population is immune but its not likely to be very high given its a novel disease
I get logistics, but surely the one with highest efficacy hoes to the higher risk categories?
Surely ???
The Pfizer one will probably be given out at the mass sites. Logistically it’s very hard to administer in the tradition way (via GP) and almost uniquely unsuitable for use at someone’s house (the over 80 demographic)
I suspect it will be administered based on public opinion and political pointscoring....
They will doubtless waste many doses on people who already had the virus and have active antibodies.
natural natural immunity is a fact, you understand that right? I mean, how do you think humans survived plagues and pandemics when medical science didn’t exist and couldn’t provide a cure?
Says the person who clearly doesn't understand medical science.
It is being reported that there is some evidence the Oxford one does.
The only evidence that exists is currently in the AZ press release I linked to. Everything else is presumption and can be ignored. That’s how things work when data is released prior to a publication. Buyer beware.
I think this was asked earlier, but would the 3rd who show symptoms expect to have a reduction in severity due to gaining some immunity from the jab?
You should watch (or rewatch) the how testing works YT vid
This would need a staggering number of tests and for them to be meaningful would need to infect and test the most vulnerable.
Most people will have hardly any symptoms and symptoms that can't be differentiated from a cold.
This will hugely bias the results ... so specific targetting would be needed on the very people most likely to die or have serious complications.
As Tired says nothing else has been released on the Oxford vaccine.
it won't be either until full unblinding and after analysis.
same way as all other companies will
I mean, how do you think humans survived plagues and pandemics when medical science didn’t exist and couldn’t provide a cure?
Which plague?
The Black death which killed between 30-60% of the European population?
The Justinian plague which killed up to 40% of the population of Constantinople?
Or maybe smallpox which although less spectacular in terms of its peak probably killed more overall.
but its not likely to be very high given its a novel disease
its a new version of a very common virus type.
Which plague?
pick any one. If the Black Death comes ripping through your village your survival strategy is going to be either 1. Don’t get it, 2 hope you’re immune.
how else do you think people survived?
how else do you think people survived?
Generally by trying to quarantine the infected although this didnt work that well given the lack of understanding about the cause.
Read the histories about the roadblocks being set up to try and stop people coming into the villages etc.
As plans go natural immunity is a rather flawed one. Since whilst it can occur a)it doesnt always (see smallpox) and b)the bodycount to get it is rather high and over a couple of generations.
Also why do you think Africa has done so well in containing infection. It isn't due to natural immunity, it is primarily (I suspect) due to the fact that Africa as a whole is sadly very used to isolation and dealing with new zoonoses. So they know how to act as a culture to minimise risk
I remember reading about the need to have a viable infecting dose as well as exposure to the virus - likelihood is that one particle will not lead to an infection as natural systems (not immunity, it's different - stuff like nose hairs and mucus and...nice) can prevent it taking hold.
Is it possible to get a low infection that primes the immune system but isn't big enough to develop full blown symptoms and thus gain 'natural immunity' in this way? So you weren't really immune but by getting exposed to a low dose you develop it without needing vaccination or falling ill.
Who really believes kids can’t spread the virus
No one. But I don't remember anyone claiming that!
It was said that they pose a lower risk of transmission than adults... which anecdotally at least does seem to be case. Perhaps a biological reason for that, or maybe just the nature of their social contacts compared to teenagers and adults.
Africa as a whole is sadly very used to isolation and dealing with new zoonoses
It might also be that a significant proportion of the population have a more outdoor lifestyle. I expect in the cities, it's as rampant as elsewhere in the world.
@theotherjonv
Yes receiving a lower dose may lead to a level of immunity.
trouble with that is how do you know what that dose is, and even harder how do you make sure that is the dose you receive.
It may also be totally different for different people. What may not even induce immunity for one person could kill another.
Edit - Tired, yep that is likely too. It did seem to pick up much lower, I do have a suspicion that the detection of cases is way lower too.
grahamt1980
Full MemberAlso why do you think Africa has done so well in containing infection. It isn’t due to natural immunity, it is primarily (I suspect) due to the fact that Africa as a whole is sadly very used to isolation and dealing with new zoonoses
Age distribution?
Booze bans?
Surely excess deaths by country will be the only measure?
Who really believes kids can’t spread the virus
There was suggestion a few months back of reduced transmission in kids. Something relative recent here - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02973-3
No one. But I don’t remember anyone claiming that!
It was said that they pose a lower risk of transmission than adults… which anecdotally at least does seem to be case. Perhaps a biological reason for that, or maybe just the nature of their social contacts compared to teenagers and adults.
This is what has been implied by PHE and Govt statements or more accurately perhaps what people have chosen to believe.
The PHE/government statement has been that "schools are safe". Hence why they forced kids living with vulnerable carers to go back to school killing many vulnerable carers.
However, that's only the start as since "schools are safe" schools have be told there is no need for kids in the same class to self isolate when kids test positive as it's impossible they picked it up at school (cos "schools are safe"). We have had countless letters saying x pupils have tested positive but no need for anyone else to self isolate according to PHE.
Even if schools really were safe (for some definition of safe) what are people hearing?
PHE can make an argument that the chance of a child picking the virus up at school and dying is very very small and schools don't have a duty of care to parents, grandparents, carers or other siblings (unless they work at/attend the school). So they can claim "schools are safe" ((compared to say the commute to school?)