Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[bramling]

The NHS backlog was vast before the pandemic. It has got larger, but you're kidding yourself if you think that backlogs are a good reason to continue restrictions. To put it bluntly, it is the job of the NHS to manage the backlogs, not the rest of society. The backlogs will not clear in months, it will takes years and there is no way we can continue this way for as long as it will take.

Now it is true that the NHS needs more support, and this is the job of the government. Instead of spending billions propping up restrictions & mass testing they should be diverting these funds to building capacity for the future. But that won't happen if millions of people are not paying taxes whilst be made to stay at home instead of earning their living.

Another thing with regard to the NHS backlog, how many people have found their health deteriorate thanks to being cooped up? Many of the shielding people at my work have put on massive amounts of weight, which if they already had underlying health conditions is absolutely not a good thing. I feel less healthy compared to 2 years ago, despite having done quite a bit of exercise - I put on weight last year but fortunately have managed to get it back off this year mainly thanks to a massive amount of local walking (in lieu of doing pretty much anything else enjoyable).

I agree with the view that a lot of the money spent on furlough would have been much more wisely spent on the NHS, especially latterly.

 

[Chris125]

You really are sounding desperate to scaremonger; it has been broken to such a huge extent that we need to get on with our lives, and that is what really matters.

Fair enough if that's what you think - but in my defence you pointed to Tim Spector and even his tone has changed now going by the press release linked to by 35B above.

(I think I'll take a break from this thread for now, it's a stressful time for everyone atm)

 

[Bantamzen]

I’ve read Spector’s latest press release, and his tone is markedly less sanguine than you assert from that video. The key quote is directly from him (emphasis mine):

Well talk about cherry picking. I'm afraid this confirms for me what I have suspected, that you are looking for anything that keeps restrictions ongoing.

 

[yorkie]

Fair enough if that's what you think - but in my defence you pointed to Tim Spector and even his tone has changed now going by the press release linked to by 35B above, acknowledging the possibility of a 'wave' in the young and only softening the restrictions.

(I think I'll take a break from this thread for now, it's a stressful time for everyone atm)

The only restrictions he proposes retaining are the work from home guidance and masks on public transport.

Well talk about cherry picking. I'm afraid this confirms for me what I have suspected, that you are looking for anything that keeps restrictions ongoing.

I completely agree.

I don't understand the mentality of people who are pro restrictions; the vaccines are highly effective against severe symptoms (which is what actually matters) and almost everyone who is in the categories most susceptible to severe illness have been vaccinated.

Yes there will be some hospitalisations and deaths and this will continue until we have built up a greater level of population immunity (as we already have with many other viruses) but people who fuss over that and don't fuss over other causes of hospitalisation and death clearly have dubious agendas as well as failing to be objective and rational.

 

[The Ham]

The only restrictions he proposes retaining are the work from home guidance and masks on public transport.


I completely agree.

And as long as we keep progressing with high uptake of vaccines then chances are even those restrictions will continue to ease (with some companies already returning more and more of of their staff to their offices). As to how long such easing takes generally (except if there's a significant wave, which give the current high vaccine take-up is fairly unlikely) almost the sooner the better.

Obviously things like travel from high risk areas should be considered on a case by case basis (although again it maybe due to the rules set for other countries by themselves which limits our travel options).

 

[35B]

Well talk about cherry picking. I'm afraid this confirms for me what I have suspected, that you are looking for anything that keeps restrictions ongoing.

The only restrictions he proposes retaining are the work from home guidance and masks on public transport.


I completely agree.

Cobblers. I quoted from his press release because the picture it painted was so different from that cited in the quote referencing Spector’s YouTube video. I found it because I have the Zoe app so get the mailings, and looked because I’m trying to understand the significance of the numbers we’re seeing.

Meanwhile, I am not (unlike some here) Panglossian in my optimism about the course of this pandemic.

 

[The Ham]

Serious question, can you highlight some examples? I've just checked Dehli (large capital city) and the region of Maharashtra (highest total death toll and containing city of Mumbai). Both have a significantly lower death tolls than the UK on a per capita basis which was the point the previous poster was making.

Of course, after the media panic a month ago announcing cases are exponentially increasing, positive test results in India are down 60%+ from the peak. No nationwide lockdown and (relevant to this thread) vaccine rollout still ongoing. Do we see that in the media....

Death rates over what timeframe, the whole pandemic?

Well given the low number of cases in India before this year then that's no surprise.

If it's over the last month or two then that's a worry.

As to following up on news stories, that's fairly normal to report this bad thing is happening and that to be the last that is reported. It's probably easier to think, I've not heard about X in the news for some time and so chances are things have improved. You're more likely to be right than wrong (there are exceptions, however if it's a matter of interest there trends to be press releases from relevant organisations to keep you up to date).

 

[hwl]

Maybe then we should keep on track for end of July offering to all adults and get as many under 18s done as possible before schools return in the autumn, but we can't keep finding reasons to hide away and we can't let the roadmap be delayed because these groups need doing.

I'm not against vaccination by any stretch, but why is it that this pandemic must rely so heavily on vaccinations bringing it to an end, when every other pandemic prior to this one had little or no vaccinations on offer to do so? Humans are not exceptional and as unfortunate as it is we can't win everything.

I think we are probably fairly close to agreeing as we have both made short comments rather than detailed essays!

We should be able to have some relaxation on the 21st but delaying some of the low economic impact changes e.g. back to office, mask wearing in shops, public transport for another 5 week cycle till the end of July would far better match vaccination roll out and enable hospital to focus on non-Covid health (the backlog will be very politically challenging soon).

The 21st June seems to have been decided in Feb/March on the basis that 75% of adults and 90%+ of those over 50 would have had the jab 3 or more weeks before the 21st - that would of worked well with Alpha (Kent, B.1.117) still being the main issue.

With Delta (India B.1.617.2) the goal posts have been moved:
a) It spreads more effectively in secondary school age groups (or is this partially related to relaxation on masks in secondary schools on 17th May?)
b) the nominal herd level is higher due to the R0 being higher (looking like ~83% or 55-57million vaccinated, i.e. 2-4 million more than the 18+ population)
c) being 3+weeks post second vaccine dose appears to be the big step change point for max effectiveness, one jab is far better than nothing but 2 really needed.

So adding an additional 5 week cycle to end of July would see:
i) maximum effective take up of first jabs in 18+ occurring about 10days before (ignoring the small long tail of those who could have got it earlier but didn't and do much later)
ii) circa 65% of adults having second jab and it taking effect

This is the first intermediate R0 value pathogen pandemic, the other have previously been low R0 (inc. Spanish Flu a century ago). (High R0 pathogens have effectively been endemic for millennia e.g. Measles and Chicken Pox)

Vaccinating 12 to 18 year olds is probably the right thing to do, but only providing their risk of death of Covid is greater than the risk of dying from an adverse reaction from the vaccines, for example from anaphylaxis. Obviously we are talking about two things that both are extremely low risk for that age group, it is more a question of which of those two things have a lower risk.

For 12 to 18 year olds I suspect they are safer getting the vaccine than getting Covid. However for those younger than 12, given their risk from Covid is so low I wonder if it is safer for them to get a Covid 19 infection than it is to get vaccinated.

Agree on the >12 vs <12 split.

With the high R0 value of the delta variant (India, B.1.617.2) reaching herd type thresholds isn't possible without vaccinating most of the 12-18 group.

 

[yorkie]

I doubt mask mandates make much difference but that's for another thread really and has been done to death; the virus is gaining increased fitness to infect human cells. People who are non-experts like to use hyperbolic terms such as "more transmissable" but virologists don't favour such language.

I agree that as the virus adapts for humans (which was always predicted to happen!) it does indeed mean we are going to require increased levels of immunity in order to 'end' the epidemic phase than was hitherto the case with previous variants of the virus.

But given how effective the vaccines are, and given how many people have been vaccinated, including all vulnerable groups, there really is no good reason not to end the vast majority of restrictions on 21 June.

 

[Bantamzen]

Cobblers. I quoted from his press release because the picture it painted was so different from that cited in the quote referencing Spector’s YouTube video. I found it because I have the Zoe app so get the mailings, and looked because I’m trying to understand the significance of the numbers we’re seeing.

Meanwhile, I am not (unlike some here) Panglossian in my optimism about the course of this pandemic.

Its not cobblers, at every stage where there has been discussion on relaxing restrictions, you've been there trying to pour cold water over everything and demanding more time. If you had bothered to take in all that was in that press release you will have noted that whilst rates are going up in younger people, they say its unlikely that there will be any major impact on hospitals. Or in other words for the vast majority of younger people it will not be severe enough for them to require medical attention.

Once again, we cannot sit on our hands forever waiting for confirming data. You try looking someone in the face who has been on 20% less pay for months, and whose job is still at risk and tell them they will have to wait for the data. Every single week that passes with restrictions costs more jobs, loses more much needed tax revenue, causes more stress & anxiety, even potentially health issues. We have over 75% first dose take up in adults, and over 50% second dose. I honestly cannot fathom why some people still want to wait, or what it is they are waiting for because they seem happy to shift the goalposts constantly.

 

[35B]

Its not cobblers, at every stage where there has been discussion on relaxing restrictions, you've been there trying to pour cold water over everything and demanding more time. If you had bothered to take in all that was in that press release you will have noted that whilst rates are going up in younger people, they say its unlikely that there will be any major impact on hospitals. Or in other words for the vast majority of younger people it will not be severe enough for them to require medical attention.

Once again, we cannot sit on our hands forever waiting for confirming data. You try looking someone in the face who has been on 20% less pay for months, and whose job is still at risk and tell them they will have to wait for the data. Every single week that passes with restrictions costs more jobs, loses more much needed tax revenue, causes more stress & anxiety, even potentially health issues. We have over 75% first dose take up in adults, and over 50% second dose. I honestly cannot fathom why some people still want to wait, or what it is they are waiting for because they seem happy to shift the goalposts constantly.

You choose, and long have done, to discount risks from Covid and believe like Professor Pangloss that all will be right in the best of all possible worlds. I don’t. In particular, having seen what happened last autumn, I take seriously the risk that if we get it wrong, those people and businesses you are so concerned about will lose out. Again. Precisely as we’ve seen this week for the travel industry and Portugal’s return to the Amber list (PS - I don’t begin to understand that decision or how it’s been taken either).

One of the respected, and centrist, voices on Covid was cited here as saying everything’s fine. I saw that at the same I’d just read his newsletter - which made clear that he doesn’t believe. Hence my post.

If you wish to live in a bubbled echo chamber where the news is always as you want it, that is your prerogative. I prefer to try to understand the world around me, and the implications of facts.

Those facts, right now, are hard to read. Vaccination is well advanced, but not yet near a level of herd immunity where we can say “job done”. We are seeing significant increases in case numbers from a low base, and they are having effects on hospitals. Just as we did last year, and just like last year, the question is whether the trend is self limiting, or needs to be addressed in some way. That deserves serious consideration, not blasé ignoring.

Like you, I see the risk - and it’s balances - in a different place now to last year. I don’t consider those risks nil, nor do I consider them overwhelming. Interestingly, when I see polling reported, I notice that caution is the dominant voice.

As for the restrictions, I had a great day out with the family at a busy attraction (Chatsworth); there are features of the restrictions (like limiting the numbers allowed into stately homes at any one time) that I think owners and operators would do well to consider in future. I was aware of them and they grated a little in one or two places, but not in a way I’d consider unsustainable.

 

[Darandio]

Just had my first dose of AZ. No lollipop. Disappointed.

 

[Bantamzen]

You choose, and long have done, to discount risks from Covid and believe like Professor Pangloss that all will be right in the best of all possible worlds. I don’t. In particular, having seen what happened last autumn, I take seriously the risk that if we get it wrong, those people and businesses you are so concerned about will lose out. Again. Precisely as we’ve seen this week for the travel industry and Portugal’s return to the Amber list (PS - I don’t begin to understand that decision or how it’s been taken either).

One of the respected, and centrist, voices on Covid was cited here as saying everything’s fine. I saw that at the same I’d just read his newsletter - which made clear that he doesn’t believe. Hence my post.

If you wish to live in a bubbled echo chamber where the news is always as you want it, that is your prerogative. I prefer to try to understand the world around me, and the implications of facts.

Those facts, right now, are hard to read. Vaccination is well advanced, but not yet near a level of herd immunity where we can say “job done”. We are seeing significant increases in case numbers from a low base, and they are having effects on hospitals. Just as we did last year, and just like last year, the question is whether the trend is self limiting, or needs to be addressed in some way. That deserves serious consideration, not blasé ignoring.

Like you, I see the risk - and it’s balances - in a different place now to last year. I don’t consider those risks nil, nor do I consider them overwhelming. Interestingly, when I see polling reported, I notice that caution is the dominant voice.

As for the restrictions, I had a great day out with the family at a busy attraction (Chatsworth); there are features of the restrictions (like limiting the numbers allowed into stately homes at any one time) that I think owners and operators would do well to consider in future. I was aware of them and they grated a little in one or two places, but not in a way I’d consider unsustainable.

You are right, it is all about balance. However we have tipped the scales in one direction for far too long. The cost of this to ordinary, working class people has far too much. At least 800K people have been made unemployed, although this figure could be far higher. And other reports suggest that personal debt has soared, meaning another ticking time bomb is in the making. How much longer do you suppose the government can afford to prop up these people and their businesses? Because at the end of the day all that money going to restrictions isn't going to public services like the NHS. Its one of the reasons NHE England staff got offered such a crap deal.

 

[brad465]

I think we are probably fairly close to agreeing as we have both made short comments rather than detailed essays!

We should be able to have some relaxation on the 21st but delaying some of the low economic impact changes e.g. back to office, mask wearing in shops, public transport for another 5 week cycle till the end of July would far better match vaccination roll out and enable hospital to focus on non-Covid health (the backlog will be very politically challenging soon).

The 21st June seems to have been decided in Feb/March on the basis that 75% of adults and 90%+ of those over 50 would have had the jab 3 or more weeks before the 21st - that would of worked well with Alpha (Kent, B.1.117) still being the main issue.

With Delta (India B.1.617.2) the goal posts have been moved:
a) It spreads more effectively in secondary school age groups (or is this partially related to relaxation on masks in secondary schools on 17th May?)
b) the nominal herd level is higher due to the R0 being higher (looking like ~83% or 55-57million vaccinated, i.e. 2-4 million more than the 18+ population)
c) being 3+weeks post second vaccine dose appears to be the big step change point for max effectiveness, one jab is far better than nothing but 2 really needed.

So adding an additional 5 week cycle to end of July would see:
i) maximum effective take up of first jabs in 18+ occurring about 10days before (ignoring the small long tail of those who could have got it earlier but didn't and do much later)
ii) circa 65% of adults having second jab and it taking effect

This is the first intermediate R0 value pathogen pandemic, the other have previously been low R0 (inc. Spanish Flu a century ago). (High R0 pathogens have effectively been endemic for millennia e.g. Measles and Chicken Pox)


Agree on the >12 vs <12 split.

With the high R0 value of the delta variant (India, B.1.617.2) reaching herd type thresholds isn't possible without vaccinating most of the 12-18 group.

How much is the Delta variant spreading more in the school age groups simply down to the fact older groups have largely got vaccine protection, so by default it's not going to show up so much in them? We're already accelerating second dose rollout to support the notion it's needed more against this variant, but there's not much available to school kids right now, or for a while yet considering doing the remainder of adults and future supply, especially if vulnerable people boosters are needed.

At the moment we're lucky that vaccines are still providing good response to the Delta and other variants, but what happens if a mutation leads to negligible response? Do we vaccinate the whole population again, only to find when we've done so another mutation takes us back to square one? We don't vaccinate the whole country against flu because it's logistically impossible to do this every year, so we focus on the most vulnerable of all ages, and get on with life otherwise. If doing the same for covid isn't enough then maybe we need to reconsider our risk adversity issues. After all our ancestors had to put up with far worse due to less advancement in medical science, and even when the smallpox vaccine came around its eradication was nearly 2 centuries in the making.

 

[philosopher]

You choose, and long have done, to discount risks from Covid and believe like Professor Pangloss that all will be right in the best of all possible worlds. I don’t. In particular, having seen what happened last autumn, I take seriously the risk that if we get it wrong, those people and businesses you are so concerned about will lose out. Again. Precisely as we’ve seen this week for the travel industry and Portugal’s return to the Amber list (PS - I don’t begin to understand that decision or how it’s been taken either).

One of the respected, and centrist, voices on Covid was cited here as saying everything’s fine. I saw that at the same I’d just read his newsletter - which made clear that he doesn’t believe. Hence my post.

If you wish to live in a bubbled echo chamber where the news is always as you want it, that is your prerogative. I prefer to try to understand the world around me, and the implications of facts.

Those facts, right now, are hard to read. Vaccination is well advanced, but not yet near a level of herd immunity where we can say “job done”. We are seeing significant increases in case numbers from a low base, and they are having effects on hospitals. Just as we did last year, and just like last year, the question is whether the trend is self limiting, or needs to be addressed in some way. That deserves serious consideration, not blasé ignoring.

Like you, I see the risk - and it’s balances - in a different place now to last year. I don’t consider those risks nil, nor do I consider them overwhelming. Interestingly, when I see polling reported, I notice that caution is the dominant voice.

As for the restrictions, I had a great day out with the family at a busy attraction (Chatsworth); there are features of the restrictions (like limiting the numbers allowed into stately homes at any one time) that I think owners and operators would do well to consider in future. I was aware of them and they grated a little in one or two places, but not in a way I’d consider unsustainable.

I have three comments

1st, I just don’t think we are going to get herd immunity with Covid, it‘s R0 value is now just too high. Let’s say the R0 of the Delta variant is 6, then you need 83% vaccinated to get herd immunity and that assumes vaccines are 100% effective in stopping transmission, which they are not. Given some, including all those under 12 will not be vaccinated it is unlikely we will get to the herd immunity threshold. What vaccination does do however is massively reduce the risk of hospitalisation. Therefore I think the goal of vaccination should be to reduce hospitalisations from Covid to a very low number, not to try to stop the spread of Covid through herd immunity.

2nd, what people say they will do in polls differs from what they actually do. In London on weekends for example, people seem to be behaving no differently than they were in 2019, except perhaps sitting outside more often.

3rd cultural attractions and pretty much the entire hospitality industry need to make money. Limiting their numbers permanently in effect limits how many can attend per day, so they will likely have to push up prices to compensate. If attractions like Chatsworth House restrict their numbers long term they may end up becoming unaffordable to many.

 

[HSTEd]

I have three comments

1st, I just don’t think we are going to get herd immunity with Covid, it‘s R0 value is now just too high. Let’s say the R0 of the Delta variant is 6, then you need 83% vaccinated to get herd immunity and that assumes vaccines are 100% effective in stopping transmission, which they are not. Given some, including all those under 12 will not be vaccinated it is unlikely we will get to the herd immunity threshold. What vaccination does do however is massively reduce the risk of hospitalisation. Therefore I think the goal of vaccination should be to reduce hospitalisations from Covid to a very low number, not to try to stop the spread of Covid through herd immunity.

Well then you get an exit wave followed by a top up to herd immunity by infection.

Viruses not being constrained by medical ethics.

 

[Jonny]

Its not cobblers, at every stage where there has been discussion on relaxing restrictions, you've been there trying to pour cold water over everything and demanding more time. If you had bothered to take in all that was in that press release you will have noted that whilst rates are going up in younger people, they say its unlikely that there will be any major impact on hospitals. Or in other words for the vast majority of younger people it will not be severe enough for them to require medical attention.

Once again, we cannot sit on our hands forever waiting for confirming data. You try looking someone in the face who has been on 20% less pay for months, and whose job is still at risk and tell them they will have to wait for the data. Every single week that passes with restrictions costs more jobs, loses more much needed tax revenue, causes more stress & anxiety, even potentially health issues. We have over 75% first dose take up in adults, and over 50% second dose. I honestly cannot fathom why some people still want to wait, or what it is they are waiting for because they seem happy to shift the goalposts constantly.

Exactly. It is also ultimately the politicians' choice. No ifs, no buts.

 

[35B]

You are right, it is all about balance. However we have tipped the scales in one direction for far too long. The cost of this to ordinary, working class people has far too much. At least 800K people have been made unemployed, although this figure could be far higher. And other reports suggest that personal debt has soared, meaning another ticking time bomb is in the making. How much longer do you suppose the government can afford to prop up these people and their businesses? Because at the end of the day all that money going to restrictions isn't going to public services like the NHS. Its one of the reasons NHE England staff got offered such a crap deal.

I suspect they got more than they would have otherwise.

More seriously, I agree - and always have done - that this is a question of balance. If businesses can’t be sure of their environment, they won’t invest - which includes the jobs you’re rightly concerned about. For example, I’m involved in organising a beer festival for this autumn. We have had to define a go/no go decision point because neither of the organisations running it can afford to lay out large amounts on stock if we’re not going to sell it. That decision are is hard at any time, harder still if we’re trying to predict how people may feel about going to indoor events with significant levels of Covid around. And our decision point is 8 weeks before the event - leave it any later, and we just can’t make it work.

That’s why I argued - and stand by - that whatever decisions are made, they need to be explained in a way that allows people to understand what the balance of risk and opportunity is. If restrictions - perhaps just offices and masks in trains - remain, what needs to change to allow them to be relaxed; if restrictions do come off, what would need to happen to cause them to be reinstated.

I have three comments

1st, I just don’t think we are going to get herd immunity with Covid, it‘s R0 value is now just too high. Let’s say the R0 of the Delta variant is 6, then you need 83% vaccinated to get herd immunity and that assumes vaccines are 100% effective in stopping transmission, which they are not. Given some, including all those under 12 will not be vaccinated it is unlikely we will get to the herd immunity threshold. What vaccination does do however is massively reduce the risk of hospitalisation. Therefore I think the goal of vaccination should be to reduce hospitalisations from Covid to a very low number, not to try to stop the spread of Covid through herd immunity.

2nd, what people say they will do in polls differs from what they actually do. In London on weekends for example, people seem to be behaving no differently than they were in 2019, except perhaps sitting outside more often.

3rd cultural attractions and pretty much the entire hospitality industry need to make money. Limiting their numbers permanently in effect limits how many can attend per day, so they will likely have to push up prices to compensate. If attractions like Chatsworth House restrict their numbers long term they may end up becoming unaffordable to many.

I accept , but it also provides an indication of what is publicly acceptable; likewise, I recognise that there are implications to 3. But on 1, I think that herd immunity through vaccination has to be the policy objective. The numbers you give, though I think extreme, illustrate the challenge (not to mention the fallacy of those demanding that as x% have been vaccinated, we’re all ok).

It’s that level of herd immunity that will protect the unvaccinated from falling ill, whether in the the groups that won’t be covered, or those individuals who can’t or won’t be vaccinated. It’s also the level that will prevent Covid, if there are cases, from expanding in the general population.

* - an aside, the fickleness of crowds has been commented on since Biblical times - just compare the reactions on Palm Sunday and Good Friday. What the Gospels don’t tell us is whether the same people were in the crowds on both days, or whether the two views existed in parallel. After all, it may be that those who sit out now are both those who sat out in 2019 and who say they want to in polls - and are a minority in all cases.

 

[Yew]

I have three comments

1st, I just don’t think we are going to get herd immunity with Covid, it‘s R0 value is now just too high. Let’s say the R0 of the Delta variant is 6, then you need 83% vaccinated to get herd immunity and that assumes vaccines are 100% effective in stopping transmission, which they are not. Given some, including all those under 12 will not be vaccinated it is unlikely we will get to the herd immunity threshold. What vaccination does do however is massively reduce the risk of hospitalisation. Therefore I think the goal of vaccination should be to reduce hospitalisations from Covid to a very low number, not to try to stop the spread of Covid through herd immunity.

Indeed, widespread transmission of an illness which causes a cough and someone feeling a bit groggy for a few days is not an issue. I'd be interested to see how the post vaccination Infection fatality rate compares to other widespread diseases.

I think that herd immunity through vaccination has to be the policy objective.

I would agree, it should be an objective; but it shouldn't be a prerequisite of opening society back up. It's not that long ago that the head of the vaccine task-force was saying that vaccinating everybody was 'not going to happen', and I do worry that the supplies could be used to save more lives-per-dose in outer countries, as opposed to gold-plating our immunity in low-risk groups.

 

[LAX54]

Mr Hancock talking on Sky News this morning, and I assume the BBC News too, saying that Indian variant is 40% more transmissable, and the link between hospitalisation and deaths is "severed but not broken" surely that is not what he means ? If it's severed, then there is no connection, it's cut away / severed ! but broken of course means it is still possibly connected.

 

[yorkie]

Can we try to stick a bit more rigidly to discussing vaccine progress in this thread please?

I have moved the discussion about future risks of viruses to a new thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...cov-2-and-influenza-viruses-in-future.218305/

 

[nlogax]

Mr Hancock talking on Sky News this morning, and I assume the BBC News too, saying that Indian variant is 40% more transmissable, and the link between hospitalisation and deaths is "severed but not broken" surely that is not what he means ? If it's severed, then there is no connection, it's cut away / severed ! but broken of course means it is still possibly connected.

I suspect he meant broken, not severed. Which was always going to be the case. For a small minority vaccines won't be effective and therefore an even smaller minority will end up in hospital.

 

[LAX54]

I suspect he meant broken, not severed. Which was always going to be the case. For a small minority vaccines won't be effective and therefore an even smaller minority will end up in hospital.

Indeed, as severed would be a good thing, but too good for some ! and yes some will always end up in Hospital, and some, if not many will still die, as they do every year from Flu and associated illnesses, many seem to have put flu back into the minor, almost irritation illness, rather than in the serious category.

 

[ainsworth74]

I am speaking to you now from the Nightingale Hospital near Washington which has been turned into a vaccination centre whilst I wait my fifteen minutes to have an allergic reaction.

I've been given Moderna which took me by surprise as I was expecting Pfizer. Anyone know if this Moderna business is any good?

 

[nlogax]

I've been given Moderna which took me by surprise as I was expecting Pfizer. Anyone know if this Moderna business is any good?

Sweet as a nut, guv. CDC research confirmed 94% efficacy after two doses or your money back. You know it makes sense

 

[Darandio]

I am speaking to you now from the Nightingale Hospital near Washington which has been turned into a vaccination centre whilst I wait my fifteen minutes to have an allergic reaction.

I've been given Moderna which took me by surprise as I was expecting Pfizer. Anyone know if this Moderna business is any good?

I had AZ on Saturday. Do let us know how it goes, my arm is still killing me and I thought I was dying early Sunday morning.

Did they give you a lollipop?

 

[35B]

I am speaking to you now from the Nightingale Hospital near Washington which has been turned into a vaccination centre whilst I wait my fifteen minutes to have an allergic reaction.

I've been given Moderna which took me by surprise as I was expecting Pfizer. Anyone know if this Moderna business is any good?

Not just allergic reactions - there is also the possibility of a reaction to having a needle inserted, regardless of what is injected (or removed).

 

[nlogax]

Not just allergic reactions - there is also the possibility of a reaction to having a needle inserted, regardless of what is injected (or removed).

As possibilities go that's mega rare to the point of being negligible..

 

[ainsworth74]

Sweet as a nut, guv. CDC research confirmed 94% efficacy after two doses or your money back.

Excellent, well I have my receipt (vaccination card) in case I need to claim a refund!

I had AZ on Saturday. Do let us know how it goes, my arm is still killing me and I thought I was dying early Sunday morning.

So far so good! No side effects to report as yet but I'll be sure to keep the Forum informed seeing as I've not spotted many people around here (nor people that I know in real life as it were) that have gotten it!

Did they give you a lollipop?

No sadly not

 

[35B]

As possibilities go that's mega rare to the point of being negligible..

Vasovagal syncope is apparently relatively common - and entirely harmless, save for the consequences of the faint.