Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

40,000 vaccines allocated to Wales from next week;-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55496058

The downward trend continues in new cases, but an awful deaths figure to go alongside nearly a thousand in the UK yesterday;-

https://public.tableau.com/profile/public.health.wales.health.protection#!/vizhome/RapidCOVID-19virology-Public/Headlinesummary

[Gofer Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

Intensive care doctor tells it like it is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55479018

Powerful stuff.

[surge]

Re: Coronavirus update

Intensive care doctor tells it like it is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55479018

Powerful stuff.

You're alright mate; I get my news from ex-rugby players, right-wing radio hosts and conspiracy theorists who are going to walk away without personal consequence if their ideas turn out to be wrong.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

You're alright mate; I get my news from ex-rugby players, right-wing radio hosts and conspiracy theorists who are going to walk away without personal consequence if their ideas turn out to be wrong.

Who's this ex rugby player you keep on mentioning?

As for what the doctor said, it needs a wider audience than it would have probably got on Radio 5 this morning - hopefully, it's getting plenty of listens on social media.

[Gofer Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

You're alright mate; I get my news from ex-rugby players, right-wing radio hosts and conspiracy theorists who are going to walk away without personal consequence if their ideas turn out to be wrong.

???

[Gofer Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

Who's this ex rugby player you keep on mentioning?

As for what the doctor said, it needs a wider audience than it would have probably got on Radio 5 this morning - hopefully, it's getting plenty of listens on social media.

Yes, disappointing that it wasn't mentioned on the BBC main news at 1.00pm. Should be compulsory listening!

[lisvaneblue]

Re: Coronavirus update

Yes, disappointing that it wasn't mentioned on the BBC main news at 1.00pm. Should be compulsory listening!

Pleased to see it on the main BBC News website

[Hilts]

Re: Coronavirus update

My mother in law is in a Care Home.

Been told today shes having the Pfizer vaccine next week.

Bit strange as i thought there was a delay due to the logistics and now the Oxford is available. At least the home is getting done though and hopefully they are doing other places in the area as well.

[goats]

Re: Coronavirus update

Wonder how long it will take to get the 1.5 million people 50+ or with underlying conditions vaccinated? They hope to do that many a week in England dont they? But this is Wales.....

[surge]

Re: Coronavirus update

Who's this ex rugby player you keep on mentioning?

As for what the doctor said, it needs a wider audience than it would have probably got on Radio 5 this morning - hopefully, it's getting plenty of listens on social media.

Ian Gough.

Regarding the pfizer vaccines, can anyone explain what it meant by this: "The Pfizer and BioNTech covid-19 vaccine may provide some early protection, starting 12 days after the first dose, the peer reviewed results of a phase III trial have found.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,1 found that vaccine efficacy between the first and second doses was 52% (95% credible interval 29.5% to 68.4%)."

(https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826 posting source because I don't know if there is more up-to-date information).

It's obviously an incredibly difficult decision to make regarding how to roll-out vaccines with speed of highest importance for vulnerable people, and some protection much better than none at all.

[goats]

Re: Coronavirus update

Ian Gough.

Regarding the pfizer vaccines, can anyone explain what it meant by this: "The Pfizer and BioNTech covid-19 vaccine may provide some early protection, starting 12 days after the first dose, the peer reviewed results of a phase III trial have found.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,1 found that vaccine efficacy between the first and second doses was 52% (95% credible interval 29.5% to 68.4%)."

(https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826 posting source because I don't know if there is more up-to-date information).

It's obviously an incredibly difficult decision to make regarding how to roll-out vaccines with speed of highest importance for vulnerable people, and some protection much better than none at all.

Not quite sure what those stats refer too, I thought it was 91% after the first jab, hence Tony Bliar saying why bother with 2nd jab as it’s only another 4%? Think the 2nd will give it longevity maybe? But you can wait 12 weeks so get more people done with first one asap which makes sense.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

Who's this ex rugby player you keep on mentioning?

As for what the doctor said, it needs a wider audience than it would have probably got on Radio 5 this morning - hopefully, it's getting plenty of listens on social media.

You don't expect him to reveal his 'sauces' do you?
But when a doctor or whoever from some hospital or university or whatever comes on the TV or in the papers and casts doom and gloom I alwyas wonder how many the news outlet spoke to before they found one who would say what they wanted.

After all, as we know, bad news is good news for journalists.

[lisvaneblue]

Re: Coronavirus update

Ian Gough.

Regarding the pfizer vaccines, can anyone explain what it meant by this: "The Pfizer and BioNTech covid-19 vaccine may provide some early protection, starting 12 days after the first dose, the peer reviewed results of a phase III trial have found.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,1 found that vaccine efficacy between the first and second doses was 52% (95% credible interval 29.5% to 68.4%)."

(https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826 posting source because I don't know if there is more up-to-date information).

It's obviously an incredibly difficult decision to make regarding how to roll-out vaccines with speed of highest importance for vulnerable people, and some protection much better than none at all.

It's saying that after the first dose 52% of people had some protection...this ranged from 29.5% to 68.4% in various trials. The second dose given within 3 weeks lifted the protection rate to 95%. Pfizer have no evidence of effectiveness using the regime the UK proposes which is the second dose within 12 weeks. Dr Chris Whitty says the first injection gives the biggest response the second dose being a booster. He is right but it's marginal...ie 52% protection first dose increasing by another 43% after the second dose.

The MHRA approved the drug based on the Pfizer data and they in turn have said that this was on a regime of a repeat dose within 3 weeks. Looks like in our panic to get this vaccination out asap they are willing to accept that up to half the people having it will not be protected until they get the second dose and there is no evidence that the second dose will be as effective given at 12 weeks compared to the Pfizer recommended regime of repeat in 3 weeks..

The above may not be relevant for the AZ vaccine as I've not looked at the data they have published or the dose regime used

In my opinion this sudden and cavalier change from UK chief medical officers without any scientific evidence risks messing up the whole bloody thing. Have any countries followed our lead....no way!

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

My mother in law is in a Care Home.

Been told today shes having the Pfizer vaccine next week.

Bit strange as i thought there was a delay due to the logistics and now the Oxford is available. At least the home is getting done though and hopefully they are doing other places in the area as well.

If you're not happy about it, you could ask the care home not to give it to her and tell them to wait for the Oxford one.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

Not quite sure what those stats refer too, I thought it was 91% after the first jab, hence Tony Bliar saying why bother with 2nd jab as it’s only another 4%? Think the 2nd will give it longevity maybe? But you can wait 12 weeks so get more people done with first one asap which makes sense.

Yes I realise that the medical standards people wouldn't agree to the 12c week wait just for political reasons, so it must be a science and knowledge based decision.
What does bother me is that if they use all the doses for first jabs then eventually they will have to stop giving first jabs for 12 weeks while all those people get their second jab. That's not science or political it is simple supply and demand