COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[artfuldodger]

Tier 3 very high for me :( ( kent )

Getting really fed up with this. But having read what tier 3 is less of a lockdown than now ! I dont understand what's going on. We are at the highest level yet more shops, pubs ( by serving food )etc can open into tier 3. Confused.

So are we above or below tier 3 in this lockdown ?

Tier 3 is just shops, gyms, hairdressers, No pubs, restaurants, cafes, cinemas, theatres

 

[roubaixtuesday]

maybe theirs is just better? I don't know why, if the UK rushed to get Oxford out if approved over here, you'd go and have that when you could potentially wait for a more effective one from elsewhere, particularly when there doesn't appear to be any confirmation that if you wanted to take a more effective one later it would still work.

That would be because we want to get out of this nightmare as soon as possible.

And you should be very wary comparing vaccines with results from different trials.

All indications are that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is good enough. That's all that matters.

 

[Len Rum]

Looking at the comments on the presser it appears totally mixed messages are coming out of it.
Real risk that Xmas blow out ( not just the family five days ) will lead to third lockdown in January.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I think the data should have been released unequivocally on the basis of 62% efficacy but that trials were continuing on the smaller sample that might give improved results.
Instead there was a nod and a wink to the 90%efficacy figure.
Sky for example ran with this figure all day in their coverage.
So competitors have been allowed to muddy the waters and cast doubt on the figures.
There just seems to be a lot of bad shit around this at the moment.
PS you say 62% is good enough but if I'm in a vulnerable or older group surely it's better to have 90% plus. II'll have that one thank you.

exactly, why would you have something 62% effective when you can get something more rigorously studied and reviewed in a more legitimate, transparent way that 90%+ effective? Doing yourself out of long-term prospects if you take 1 that's nearly 50% chance of not working.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

I don't think that would be any cause for concern. The 62% is good enough.

Also, they've recently published separate data showing the immune response is actually better if anything in older subjects (that was a surprise).

What is the reason for concern?

I agree but I’m no expert. The up to 90% efficacy was a mention in the press release and the 70% average was the main focus (with the 62% efficacy for the rest of the cohorts also mentioned). Some posters seem to want to rewrite history by claiming Oxford / AZ reported that the up to 90% result was the main finding. (That said, I can understand people being a bit concerned that the Moderna and Pfizer trials seem to have been better organised though).

It’s good thst there is a further trial on the half dose plus full dose approach, versus the full 2 doses method, since this hasn’t been researched sufficiently to satisfy all the key regulators).

At the end of the day the MHRA will decide if and when the Oxford / AZ vaccine gets the go ahead in the U.K. It’s still very promising IMHO if the efficacy is 62% or 70%

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

That would be because we want to get out of this nightmare as soon as possible.

And you should be very wary comparing vaccines with results from different trials.

All indications are that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is good enough. That's all that matters.

Can i ask what may be a dumb question?

If 10.000 vulnerable people get the full dose AZ vaccine are 3800 totally unprotected and still at the same high risk of death before vaccination?

or is there some protection for the 3800? i thought i read that no one who took the AZ vaccine got seriously ill. I also mean averages for all equations.

 

[Healdplace]

Incidentally for the Liverpool v Manchester argument here are todays numbers with both case totals and Pop Score (as in cases per 100,000 to smooth out population differences between the two cities).

Lowest Pop Score always best.


Manchester - cases - 181 With pop score up 33 to 5514.

Liverpool - cases - 84 (fifth straight day under 100 to Manchester's none in past 3 months). With Pop score up 17 to 4773.

As you can see on all measures Liverpool outperforms Manchester city to city - less cases - half the daily pop score v 100K population and a lower score across the entire pandemic - though not by a huge margin and much of that Manchester rise was created a week or so ago by the student reallocation.

Indeed if you took out the over 500 student reallocation rise in the Pop score last week Manchester would be much closer to Liverpool at about 5000.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

exactly, why would you have something 62% effective when you can get something more rigorously studied and reviewed in a more legitimate, transparent way that 90%+ effective? Doing yourself out of long-term prospects if you take 1 that's nearly 50% chance of not working.

In the same way that you'd take a good parachute now rather than wait a few flights for the promise of a better one, which may well turn out not to be any better in reality.

There's absolutely nothing less transparent or less legitimate about the Oxford /AZ trials. I've posted links to them on multiple occasions before. That's just BS.

People are dying in their hundreds every day, people are going out of business every day, the health service is in turmoil.

Why would you want to extend this nightmare?

 

[carlosthejackal]

I agree but I’m no expert. The up to 90% efficacy was a mention in the press release and the 70% average was the main focus (with the 62% efficacy for the rest of the cohorts also mentioned). Some posters seem to want to rewrite history by claiming Oxford / AZ reported that the up to 90% result was the main finding. (That said, I can understand people being a bit concerned that the Moderna and Pfizer trials seem to have been better organised though).

It’s good thst there is a further trial on the half dose plus full dose approach, versus the full 2 doses method, since this hasn’t been researched sufficiently to satisfy all the key regulators).

At the end of the day the MHRA will decide if and when the Oxford / AZ vaccine gets the go ahead in the U.K. It’s still very promising IMHO if the efficacy is 62% or 70%

Article on Sky news website states no reason for the roll out of the vaccine being delayed , looks more a case of the economics worrying the Americans

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

In the same way that you'd take a good parachute now rather than wait a few flights for the promise of a better one, which may well turn out not to be any better in reality.

There's absolutely nothing less transparent or less legitimate about the Oxford /AZ trials. I've posted links to them on multiple occasions before. That's just BS.

People are dying in their hundreds every day, people are going out of business every day, the health service is in turmoil.

Why would you want to extend this nightmare?

because I'm not going to be coerced by emotional pleading about a "nightmare" when I should be able, as should everyone, to make an educated choice on the vaccine they want that is safe and has a 9.5/10 chance of working as opposed to 6/10, the latter leaving you with 40% chance of being buggered anyway. That's hardly the end of the nightmare, it just singles you out as the likely victim when everyone who's had a good one reverts to normal behaviour and spreads the virus whilst you're unprotected.

Your "nightmare" emotional blackmailing is exactly why people will distrust vaccination and it being thrust on them, until Oxford is up to the same thresholds and unanimous positive feedback and approval then even the most optimistic person should be reserved about it.