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.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Make of this as you will.


Manchester and Liverpool Weekly Pops every week from Aug on

Date //// Manchester v Liverpool


1 Aug /// 34 v 14

8 Aug /// 38 v 13

15 Aug /// 49 v 12

22 Aug /// 46 v 19

29 Aug /// 42 v 15

5 Sep /// 69 v 51

12 Sep /// 87 v 101

19 Sep /// 177 v 176

26 Sep /// 396 v 324

3 Oct /// 812 v 619

10 Oct /// 553 v 752

17 Oct ///463 v 596

24 Oct ///530 v 477

31 Oct /// 495 v 339


And for November daily

1 Nov /// 491 v 327
2 Nov /// 495 v 314
3 Nov ///484 v 301
4 Nov /// 475 v 287
5 Nov ///458 v 276
6 Nov /// 443 v 271
7 Nov /// 438 v 273
8 Nov/// 437 v 285
9 Nov /// 410 v 288
10 Nov /// 401 v 285
11 Nov /// 398 v 293
12 Nov /// 391 v 294
13 Nov /// 383 v 282
14 Nov /// 376 v 279
15 Nov /// 361 v 261
16 Nov /// 343 v 234
17 Nov /// 324 v 229
18 Nov /// 302 v 206
19 Nov /// 284 v 187
20 Nov /// 266 v 174

so when Liverpool got to 174 cases that was good enough to be classed as Tier 2. If and when GM gets to that level logically the area should be regraded to Tier 2. Do you know what GM level is at present Healdplace? Apologies if you have posted this already and i havent read it.

 

[The Northern Baptist]

I really think there is little evidence that it would have made more than minimal difference. The biggest drop has come in the national restrictions over the past month. Not in the period of tier 3 for the two regions. Though they had more impact on Merseyside than in most of GM. Probably as numbers had already started going down in Liverpool by then.

The sensible thing might have been to keep the national restrictions going until just before Christmas. Which is sure to impact numbers everywhere. Then introduce these tiers based on in what way cases tick up because of the Christmas truce.

when the government advised us to go into tier 3, our infection rate in Salford was 353 per 100k. When we eventually went into tier 3 it had gone up to 514 per 100k. There’s your evidence.

Burnham has blood on his hands.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and I don't know for sure the numbers. So please take these as indicative, not absolute.

But as I understand it, what we know is:

A large number of people have been dosed, divided 50:50 active to placebo. Let's say 10,000 each for arguments sake. The 10,000 on placebo have no protection.

100 people of 10,000 on the placebo arm got symptomatic covid.

30 people of 10,000 on the active arm got symptomatic covid.

Of the 30 cases on the active arm, they announced none were "severe". I don't think we know how many for the placebo - I don't recall seeing it.

They were also testing everyone weekly. We don't know how many people on either arm tested positive without symptoms.

I think you're asking if the vaccine protects against serious disease ie you get a milder case if you get it? The implication of the above is "probably", but it may be that there aren't sufficient severe cases on the placebo arm to draw a strong conclusion that the lack of severe cases on the active arm means much.

The big picture remains: even the worst case efficacy for seems good enough to reduce covid to not much worse than flu, and therefore lift restrictions.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Your "nightmare" emotional blackmailing

How is it emotional blackmailing?

It's a fact. We're in a nightmare and delaying vaccinating for what is perceived* to be a more effective vaccine will extend the nightmare unnecessarily.

* you should be very wary of drawing strong conclusions on comparative efficacy unless the treatments are compared had to head in different arms of the same trial.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and I don't know for sure the numbers. So please take these as indicative, not absolute.

But as I understand it, what we know is:

A large number of people have been dosed, divided 50:50 active to placebo. Let's say 10,000 each for arguments sake. The 10,000 on placebo have no protection.

100 people of 10,000 on the placebo arm got symptomatic covid.

30 people of 10,000 on the active arm got symptomatic covid.

Of the 30 cases on the active arm, they announced none were "severe". I don't think we know how many for the placebo - I don't recall seeing it.

They were also testing everyone weekly. We don't know how many people on either arm tested positive without symptoms.

I think you're asking if the vaccine protects against serious disease ie you get a milder case if you get it? The implication of the above is "probably", but it may be that there aren't sufficient severe cases on the placebo arm to draw a strong conclusion that the lack of severe cases on the active arm means much.

The big picture remains: even the worst case efficacy for seems good enough to reduce covid to not much worse than flu, and therefore lift restrictions.

Im probably not being clear, basically if the vaccine is approved at 2 doses will only 62% of 100 people have protection and will 38 of those 100 have no protection. hence the 62% for the full doses they said.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

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)

Agree all round.

It's also worth noting that the above is standard practice - if a drug shows outstanding results but without a full dataset then interim approval is given with a further trial mandated to confirm.

It's not uncommon for cancer drugs, for instance, to get interim approval on phase II results, with a confirmatory phase III.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Im probably not being clear, basically if the vaccine is approved at 2 doses will only 62% of 100 people have protection and will 38 of those 100 have no protection. hence the 62% for the full doses they said.

62% is the primary endpoint - getting any symptoms and testing positive. It may well be (is likely) that even those who were positive had some protection and got a milder case, but they haven't published enough data to be sure on that, and they may not have enough data yet.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

62% is the primary endpoint - getting any symptoms and testing positive. It may well be (is likely) that even those who were positive had some protection and got a milder case, but they haven't published enough data to be sure on that, and they may not have enough data yet.

Cheers mate. That's about what i thought.

 

[Mike N]

What can we do next week that we can’t this week?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

How is it emotional blackmailing?

It's a fact. We're in a nightmare and delaying vaccinating for what is perceived* to be a more effective vaccine will extend the nightmare unnecessarily.

* you should be very wary of drawing strong conclusions on comparative efficacy unless the treatments are compared had to head in different arms of the same trial.

a nightmare is a dream, this is reality. Reality is people want the safest vaccine with the most protection, their way out of the nightmare is not chancing it on a 60/40 to be done "quickly", so things can open up, spread the virus and we have hundreds if not thousands of deaths from it next winter because 40% don't have any protection because we did it quickly to "get it over with". Prove it at 80%/90% to the same transparency and unanimous approval as the others and we trust in the science and the experts. Hopefully, their apparent fudge to get this through by not following the same standards as the other 2 programmes is a wake-up call and they get their act together and deliver honest, transparent results that clearly show what they were hinting at earlier in the week without much basis.