The doctor appears to be ignoring the science on this
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03824-5
"The protection that I've got from transmission is probably the equivalent to someone who is vaccinated," Mr James said.“
so is he wrong on everything or just covid vaccination?
so is he wrong on everything or just covid vaccination?
Hes not looked at the studies on vax vs infection
so is he wrong on everything or just covid vaccination?
If I was one of his patients, that would be my concern
Thank you for the answers regarding unvaccinated populations v us in the UK. Its a little bit clearer 🙂
“The protection that I’ve got from transmission is probably the equivalent to someone who is vaccinated,” Mr James said.“
"Probably" doesn't sound very certain but surely that comment is making the case for vaccination?
He is saying that protection afforded by the vaccine is (probably) the same as the protection afforded by transmission, except presumably without the risk associated with catching the virus, such as lasting damage to vital organs, long covid, and death.
Steve James, a consultant anaesthetist at King’s College Hospital in London who has worked in the ICU since early 2020 treating Covid patients, told Sajid Javid why he did not believe in vaccination.
To a degree he has a point, for nhs and care stuff it shouldn't be no jab no job. It should be please get the jab and if you don't heres a system in place to ensure we keep everyone as safe as they can. The nhs employ over a million people I feel like if they impose this rule on nhs staff it should be for everyone no matter who you work for.
Re reporting lfts. I do it. Not all the time as I might be in a hurry to get out for whatever reason. The reporting procedure is clunky with too many steps even with a log in.
It should be via or like the NHS app and be 4 steps max:
Fingerprint, select LFT report, scan, yes/no.
I can see his point, the issue for me is that while previous infection does convey protection, that wanes with time and there's no equivalent booster other than what, getting it again with the risks / impact caused by isolation, etc? What is his proposal for a few months time?
Also how do you check in a quantitative way that he has enough antibodies (still)? I know you can say the same post vaccination/booster as different people have different responses, but it is at least a bit more controllable. Infections in the wild, I would presume create substantially different antibody responses / future immunity.
TL;DR - sounds far too complex to simply say 'I've had it therefore I can be considered safe'
for nhs and care stuff it shouldn’t be no jab no job.
Why not?
I'm getting increasingly bored of this "yes but..." narrative from grown-ass adults (not least from the anti-everything halfwit who spread CV to me, my partner and her vulnerable and pregnant daughter). Assuming you can have it there is literally no rational reason to refuse it beyond idiocy and selfishness. It's a pin in your arm and you'll have a cold for an afternoon.
Also,
Steve James, a consultant anaesthetist
Why do we care what some random **** thinks? Are we holding him up as some sort of authority? He isn't. This might as well read "Steve James, a consultant plasterer."
Thanks @seosamh77 @kelvin @TiRed
You're right - focus on the bigger picture of as many vaccinated globally rather than the individuals who can't/won't/is not effective.
at best it shows that even highly qualified medical professionals aren't immune form irrational thinking or an inability to weigh risks when presented with choice.unfortunately stories like this just give the antivax ammunition.
edit: in response to Cougar.
further i think the guy's point is 'why should i face mandatory vaccination if i've already had covid so enjoy some protection that way'. he's got a point in the sense that having run the gauntlet why would he be forced to take what is an additional risk of vaccination? doesn't explain why the asshat didn't just get his jabs in the first place. some of these guys just 'know better' though i suppose (they don't afaikt)
I’m not really sure the number of neg LFT’s taken is really particularly useful data.
I suppose if every result from a particular batch of LFTs is coming up negative when 1 in 15 people have the virus, it permits a dodgy batch to be identified quickly.
“The protection that I’ve got from transmission is probably the equivalent to someone who is vaccinated,”
1 - probably not
2 - nowhere near equivalent to having had natural infection and also been vaccinated, and boosted
if they impose this rule on nhs staff it should be for everyone no matter who you work for
Anyone who works with the ill as vulnerable seems wise. They have already done so for care staff outside the NHS.
he also goes on to make what i think is an incorrect observation that protection wanes in two months so that unless you were going to boost every month the jabs are pointless. from what i've read this appears incorrect because antibodies are still knocking around most people's systems in useful quantities at 6 months.
TBF i suppose the guy has some education and is hardly likely to be intimidated by any member of cabinet so if an intellectual hobit like javid is going to ask for opinions then anyone feels qualified to give theirs to him.
Surely the point is this. The benefits of vaccination have been proven and established for decades, even centuries, they're pretty much inarguable. The guy is (supposedly) a medical professional, and he therefore has an obligation to set an example. Arguing against vacc, even to a politician, seems the act of a divvy. Am I missing something?
so is he wrong on everything or just covid vaccination?
He seems to be mistaken on how the covid vaccines are working. Firstly, in trials the endpoint is symptomatic infection. This is a hard endpoint and measured in every trial for approval. It’s also inferred for omicron based on medical record comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated for delta and omicron - with data on time since vaccination and number received.
Transmission is much harder to measure and has typically come from observation of close contacts not clinical trials. It’s a softer endpoint.
Secondly, the half life of antibodies is two months. But serial boosting raises their levels in a non-proportional way. So each boost buys longer protection than the last one. Even though we don’t know the absolute levels needed, the decline is relatively constant. Eventually one hopes that annual boosting might result in sufficiently high levels to carry protection for 5-6 halvings. Unfortunately omicron reset the bar due to a 40-fold dilution (about five half-lives) thanks to the mutations on the spike protein escaping neutralisation. That it works at all should be grounds for rejoicing.
Eventually we will have a broader response from different vaccines targeting multiple spikes protein epitopes. But this is still very early days. At the moment, NHS vaccinations will reduce morbidity and keep people at work. That will help with maintaining services at what is the highest pressure of the year. They may also reduce nosocomial (hospital) transmission levels.
I guess the question is: what is the purpose of mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers?
Is it because they are at high risk of catching it and vaccination means they don't get it so bad and are back to work quickly, helping with the capacity issues?
But if so, will it keep more of them working than will quit/get fired over it? If so it could be counter productive or quite a phyrric victory, especially if they're so pissed off they change careers meaning the NHS loses staff and experience.
The big focus is on protection of healthcare from too many patients as opposed to telling people what to put in their bodies...
Or is it to stop them catching it and infecting others? If so, do we know how vaccination affects transmission? Would an unvaccinated schoolteacher or shop worker be considered a similar risk?
As a slight aside, I find it ... interesting... that we all seem to know better than a medical professional. You could even describe him as a well educated expert...
I mean the guy is, on balance, probably wrong. But it could be viewed from the perspective of having had enough of experts
I find it … interesting… that we all seem to know better than a medical professional.
I think the thing to come away with is that most people agree with the medical profession, or at least accept their advice given to them concerning covid vaccination. And not just here but across the world.
So billions of people across the World have accepted the advice provided by medical professionals and received covid vaccinations.
There's not much evidence that many people feel they know better than medical professionals. In the UK over 90% over the age of 12 have had a least one covid vaccination jab.
I mean the guy is, on balance, probably wrong. But it could be viewed from the perspective of having had enough of experts
So the doctor in question has maybe had enough of experts? If he has so little faith in the opinion of experts is he in the correct profession?
If you think medical professionals agree with each other, you would be shocked were you to read a clinical incident report or patient complaint.
Some have been struck off due to their opinions on vaccinations.
I think the thing to come away with is that most people agree with the medical profession, or at least accept their advice given to them concerning covid vaccination. And not just here but across the world.
You put that very well Ernie.
The danger here is, that people will start to “balance” the feelings of a few outspoken sceptical medical professionals against the weight of all the expert research, observations and understandings of the medical and research professions as a whole. This is something our media fail at again and again, IMHO. People will cling to the simple reporting of a few less informed view points as if it they have the same value as medical science as a whole. “He has a good point”… no, I’m afraid that just because he is making a superficially agreeable point, that happens to be at odds with the evidence, doesn’t mean it is a good point at all… or that it is being reported appropriately.
There are lessons to be learnt from the way Andrew Wakefield was covered by the media, and the damage caused. The media have, on the whole, taken their responsibility seriously as regards acting on those lessons during the pandemic. They need to be careful that as the “it’s all over” feeling settles in, especially where they are mostly based, in London, that they don’t go for the easy simple attention grabbing way of delivering stories, and fuel anti-vax sentiment by doing so.
I think it is a mistake to equate medical professionals with scientists. My experience with the profession, both directly and observing the treatment of family members,is that the scientific method is completely alien to most doctors, and even more of a mystery to nursing staff. On the one occasion when a consultant said 'that's interesting, I don't know what is going on here, let's try an experiment' I was so surprised I nearly fell off my chair.
The danger here is, that people will start to “balance” the feelings of a few outspoken sceptical medical professionals against the weight of all the expert research, observations and understandings of the medical and research professions as a whole.
agree completely. As well as validity, I think there is another problem of balance. Oversimplification but for the sake of argument assume it's a binary split; is media compelled to reflect both opinions (in general I think yes) but what when it's a 10:1 or 100:1 or 1000:1 divide of opinions - how do you reflect a minority opinion, while still reflecting there is one.
And as I've said before - you don't even need a 'proper' media channel that can ensure a degree of proportionality when anyone with an internet connection and an opinion can get frightening amounts of airtime, especially when retweeded or whatever by bot farms, etc. Yet counter that by censorship and that's also something we're in general against.....
So back to this particular - should his opinion be seen? Yes, absolutely, but how do you also let it be known that 100 of his colleagues disagree with him without doing 100 other interviews (made up number, you get the point)
Flaperon
Free Member
I’m not really sure the number of neg LFT’s taken is really particularly useful data.I suppose if every result from a particular batch of LFTs is coming up negative when 1 in 15 people have the virus, it permits a dodgy batch to be identified quickly.
Can see that might be valid, aye. I'm just suggesting in the light of the change over to LFT's expecting compliance from the population in reporting every LFT they take is highly unlikely, so focus should be put on getting people to report their positive results.
If people want to report every test they take. I wouldn't discourage that.
They need to be careful
yes. i think this has been and continues to be a big problem for journalists and/or editorial staff not just confined to reporting on covid but across the board. simply reporting what happened without adding anything to mitigate the BS is only doing half the job and why we can't have nice things. they might cling to their assertion that they report the facts of the matter at hand but there is in my mind an obligation to throw in some fact checking and explanation for the hard of thinking. we complain that people don't read past the headline or can't think critically but what point is there reading past the headline? in this case 'ICU doctor thinks vaccination a waste of time' is what a lot of people take away but for anyone who hadn't already got the message who decided to read the piece through they wouldn't be any the wiser. in particular it is disappointing that the BBC fail to to this but when news budgets are slashed to the bone it is to some degree understandable i suppose.
article on the rise of the LFT, including why its inaccuracy is not necessarily a major issue.
I can follow the maths but doesn't mean I can explain it myself, but covered in the middle paragraphs a bit, and in more depth in this BMJ calculator, where the importance of accuracy is not only in the test but also in the likelihood / proportion of people that have the virus
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr
As I keep saying… very useful tool at the population level (eg. reducing number of infectious pupils in a school, for example). Not so good for individual diagnosis (eg. first tested positive 7 days ago, am I no longer infectious and ready to visit granny).
Balance in media reporting is always hard to achieve. But in this instance an anaesthetist (not an immunologist) does not think vaccination should be mandatory.
The correct response is to survey the proportion of anaesthetists and the proportion of clinical immunologists who think vaccination should be mandatory for their employment. Then report that ratio. His views are exceptional and uninformed.
But in this instance an anaesthetist (not an immunologist) does not think vaccination should be mandatory
Which is a perfectly worthy point of view, even TJ agrees.
But what he was actually reported to say was that the science didn't support getting vaccinated, which is a very different matter.
This Steve James chap… who won’t get vaccinated… have you seen who he offers private services to…?
www.thebreathlessnessclinic.com
Yes, those are people with symptoms analogous to long covid. Yes, these people need encouraging to get vaccinated, if they can, and those helping them should be doing all they can to avoid them being exposed to another strain.
I would tend to look at this a different way.
If a consultant anaesthetist was the only person telling me to get a jab I'd have deep concerns about being vaccinated. His area of expertise has nothing to do with vaccine development or science.
Why treat him with more authority on the vaccine just because his view is the opposite?
kelvin
Full Member
This Steve James chap… who won’t get vaccinated… have you seen who he offers private services to…?http://www.thebreathlessnessclinic.com
Yes, those are people with symptoms analogous to long covid. Yes, these people need encouraging to get vaccinated, if they can, and those helping them should be doing all they can to avoid them being exposed to another strain.
Ha, wonder if this will have a negative or positive effect on his side like?
^^ Meant, "side line."
Why treat him with more authority on the vaccine just because his view is the opposite?
We aren't - the concern is that less informed folk might....
But what he was actually reported to say was that the science didn’t support getting vaccinated, which is a very different matter.
In the context of his own medical situation, he wasn't making a general statement about the vaccination programme.
It’s being reported in the Tines that the gov plans to stop free Lat Flow tests as part of its “Live with COVID” announcement in the coming weeks.
Sounds like we’re going full “You can’t get it if you don’t test”…
Not sure that’s best idea to be honest.
Should have its own thread really but now officially 150,000 dead due to Covid.
What a horrific milestone. The lives lost, the families torn apart and the untold toll it took and continues to take, on the people within the health service and social care who had to witness these deaths.
Horrific.
Well, Steve James is getting his 15 minutes of fame… Radio4 this morning… not really challenged on his claim that previous infection means vaccination is not useful… he dropped in lots or “personal” and “probably”, so the letter of what he says is entirely reasonable… but the take away was that vaccinations aren’t for those who consider themselves strong and fit… which is antiVax gold.
Thanks for listening to that Kelvin, I couldn't bring myself to listen.
Yup that guy is the Antivaxxers dream
Piers Corbyn will be Loving it
Quick What Would STW do question.....
My father in law has covid and is on day 10. He's going to do a LFT today, he was positive on the LFT a couple of days ago. My mother in law normally looks after our 1 year old on a monday / tuesday - she's been staying away (effectively self isolating) for the last 10 days as well - she's been negative on LFT the whole time. Father in law doesn't have any symptoms left other than general fatigue (tho apparently he did 10,000 steps up and down the stairs yesterday - at 87!).
If he is still positive, what's the risk of letting the mother in law look after the toddler (assuming she has tested negative on an LFT)? It doesn't feel super risky...
Obviously according to the government he's out of isolation on day 10 even if he is still positive, but that doesn't seem to be based on much science.
FWIW I tested negative on day 8+9 of my isolation, that was last Tues/Weds. I've just tested myself again out of curiosity and got a positive result. As far as I know I've not infected anyone since I came out of isolation.
Ok thanks.
He has just tested positive still... it doesn't feel massively risky.