Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[MikeWM]

He's not 'asking a question', he is using the situation and social media to further his own agenda against authority. If someone abuses social media like he has been doing in this way, then there should be every right for his access rights to be removed, as he is potentially threatening the whole vaccine programme as there will be some who take his word as gospel, and so refuse the vaccine.

Do you really think the arguments for the vaccine are so weak, that a handful of tweets from a singer who hasn't been especially relevant for decades could 'threaten the whole program'?

These same people (and the singer himself) will be hypocrites if they then start complaining about continuing restrictions.

Only if you buy into the false dichotomy that they are the only two choices available.

 

[Philip]

Do you really think the arguments for the vaccine are so weak, that a handful of tweets from a singer who hasn't been especially relevant for decades could 'threaten the whole program'?



Only if you buy into the false dichotomy that they are the only two choices available.

It will only be a small minority who will buy into it, but on top of the number of people who can't have the vaccine for medical or any other reasons then it all adds up and we want to keep the number of people unvaccinated as low as possible, within reason. He is a relevant enough figure for his stance to have made the BBC homepage. It is unnecessary at best for him to broadcast these views across social media and he should keep them to himself in future.

What are the other choices?

 

[Dent]

He's not 'asking a question', he is using the situation and social media to further his own agenda against authority. If someone abuses social media like he has been doing in this way, then there should be every right for his access rights to be removed

I haven't followed any of his social media, but that's not the point I was making. You are advocating that someone should be silenced and have rights removed just because they questioned something, is that really the kind of oppressive society you want to live in?

Questioning things is a democratic right. A civilised society should welcome and answer questions, not try to suppress them and remove the rights of those who ask them.

 

[Philip]

I haven't followed any of his social media, but that's not the point I was making. You are advocating that someone should be silenced and have rights removed just because they questioned something, is that really the kind of oppressive society you want to live in?

Questioning things is a democratic right. A civilised society should welcome and answer questions, not try to suppress them and remove the rights of those who ask them.

That depends on what the person is saying/what point they're trying to make. If it is potentially harmful to the country like in this instance, then yes they should have the rights removed. Social media isn't a free-for-all. This doesn't make it an oppressive society.

 

[Dent]

That depends on what the person is saying/what point they're trying to make. If it is potentially harmful to the country like in this instance, then yes they should have the rights removed. Social media isn't a free-for-all. You have very black and white views if you think this makes it an oppressive society.

As a democratic principle, no it doesn't depend what they are saying. It is a democratic right to question anything, deeming certain questions to be "potentially harmful to the country" and making that an excuse for oppression is a dangerous descent into a totalitarian state.

 

[nlogax]

Social media is truly the great leveller and provides the true democratisation of viewpoints from the sane and sensible to the daft and conspiratorial. As dumb as some of these opinions are we shouldn't removing them. There's a debating opportunity in there, and the possibility - however small - of bringing someone around to accept some facts.

Echo chambers don't work. If anything they are counterproductive. Let's not pursue them.

 

[MikeWM]

It will only be a small minority who will buy into it, but on top of the number of people who can't have the vaccine for medical or any other reasons then it all adds up and we want to keep the number of people unvaccinated as low as possible, within reason. He is a relevant enough figure for his stance to have made the BBC homepage. It is unnecessary at best for him to broadcast these views across social media and he should keep them to himself in future.

If people are silly enough to make a decision like this simply based on the ramblings of a z-list celebrity, maybe we should consider countering that with some z-list celebrities telling us to be vaccinated? People like Elton John or Dolly Parton, perhaps

For what it is worth, if he is willing to follow his principles and refuse to play anywhere that is going to require proof of vaccination, then I have a lot more respect for him than most, whatever his opinions on Twitter.

What are the other choices?

There are many. We've been debating them extensively on here for the best part of a year...

 

[Wuffle]

On the subject of rushed vaccines for Imperial College GIGO software modelling anyone remember the Pandemrix vaccine for Swine Flu ?
I believe the UK government indemnified the manufacturer (GSK) and it has cost the taxpayer over £60 million in compensation
awards

 

[Ediswan]

Without that indemity, no pharmaceutical company would have taken on the risk of developing a vaccine on the required reduced timescale.

Disclsure: I worked for GSK prior to Swine Flu, but in IT.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is a separate debate where interactions with other conditions or medical problems mean can’t be given, to the debate on those who choose not to have a vaccine (but medically could)

I’m in the camp that if someone chooses to decline a free vaccine, then NHS shouldn’t be burdened with treating the illness if they get it. If they then want treatment should pay for it, as why should NHS have to pick up extra cost, and utilise one of their scarce beds that could be treating someone else.

Might sound tough to some, but why should someone who needs treatment for another condition have hospital admission delayed because of someone else’s selfishness.

Fortunately this country treats individuals as having sovereignty over their bodies, and we respect the healthcare decisions of people who are able to give or withold consent.

That's not how the NHS works. If someone climbs a mountain and falls off, would you tell them tough too? Or if someone crosses the road and doesn't look properly? Or if someone doesn't have a perfectly balanced diet?

Quite honestly I am getting sick and tired of the nastiness that covid-mania is creating. And it needs to stop.

It really is tedious, isn't it? Brought out the worst in a lot of people!

Vaccines shouldn't be mandatory, but what IS wrong is when people like Ian Brown use their influence in the media to cast doubt on the vaccine, purely for their own agendas. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56278140

Someone should shut this guy up, these comments of his have ensured a fair extra number of people will now refuse to have the vaccine.

He is allowed to dissent. FWIW, I don't really care much for domestic restrictions based on vaccine proof. Just get to herd immunity when the 70-80% of people who have done their bit to be vaccinated and provide protection for the vulnerable, and you won't need to worry much about those who have refused.

 

[Ediswan]

That's not how the NHS works. If someone climbs a mountain and falls off, would you tell them tough too? Or if someone crosses the road and doesn't look properly? Or if someone doesn't have a perfectly balanced diet?

If you fall of a mountian you get search and rescue for free as well. Not how every country works, but it is how this country works. I like it this way.

 

[nlogax]

Group 6 comes through..have just received text to confirm my vaccination appt for a week from tomorrow. Can't recall being quite so excited about getting a needle in the arm.

 

[35B]

That's not how the NHS works. If someone climbs a mountain and falls off, would you tell them tough too? Or if someone crosses the road and doesn't look properly? Or if someone doesn't have a perfectly balanced diet?

Quite honestly I am getting sick and tired of the nastiness that covid-mania is creating. And it needs to stop.

It's a new variant on an old argument, which will never go away while we have a health service that is free at the point of use.

 

[kez19]

He's not 'asking a question', he is using the situation and social media to further his own agenda against authority. If someone abuses social media like he has been doing in this way, then there should be every right for his access rights to be removed, as he is potentially threatening the whole vaccine programme as there will be some who take his word as gospel, and so refuse the vaccine. These same people (and the singer himself) will be hypocrites if they then start complaining about continuing restrictions.

Why is it people "assume" that someone has an agenda? Ever heard of keeping an open mind and maybe look at things in greater detail than take for what its worth from the MSM all the time?

I don't follow Ian Brown I am familar with him as he was part of The Stone Roses back in its heyday.

Just to pick up on something you said - "there should be every right for his access rights to be removed" - so for speaking your mind he must be silenced? OK lets turn it up a notch how would you feel if someone said this back to you? I bet you would kick up a fuss about it and demand that your rights have been taken from you and want them back.

Can I ask that we shut up all those in SAGE if this was the view you were to take? Lets shut up Devi Sridhar yeah, I would be happy if all of those people were to be gone/shut off but again as its Ian Brown having a different view it doesn't suit the narrative though does it? Cancel Culture in the UK is getting real now.

How about as a society we look at the 2 sides than the current approach which seems pretty much 1 sided? Unless that attitude changes society is doomed.

It's a new variant on an old argument, which will never go away while we have a health service that is free at the point of use.

and variants happen all the time since the dawn of time.

 

[35B]

I haven't followed any of his social media, but that's not the point I was making. You are advocating that someone should be silenced and have rights removed just because they questioned something, is that really the kind of oppressive society you want to live in?

Questioning things is a democratic right. A civilised society should welcome and answer questions, not try to suppress them and remove the rights of those who ask them.

There's a problem, which is that "just asking questions" is used as a technique in argument - referred to in some circles as JAQing off (see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions). It is characterised by consistently asking questions from a single standpoint, but taking minimal (if any) interest in answers.

I've no idea who this guy is, and have never willingly listened to his music, but what's reported suggests that his approach is very much at the JAQing off end of the spectrum. He has the right to speak freely, but with that goes the right of others to challenge him, or to say that he may not use their platform to preach his views.

 

[kez19]

There's a problem, which is that "just asking questions" is used as a technique in argument - referred to in some circles as JAQing off (see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions). It is characterised by consistently asking questions from a single standpoint, but taking minimal (if any) interest in answers.

I've no idea who this guy is, and have never willingly listened to his music, but what's reported suggests that his approach is very much at the JAQing off end of the spectrum.

If he is on social media he isn't going to answer everyones ideas is he? I looked at a few on twitter can't remember names but lets say on both sides - some will reply, some don't but isn't that not the point in getting ideas/opinions of others?


Yet we are led to believe everything MSM tells us? My eyes have been pretty much made wide open during this and my estimation in UK media overall is appalling - over sensationalist claptrap (you may say the same about him and that will be a part I may agree) but relying on the UK media these days has become a laughing stock.

I use to trust the BBC as a source but I have fallen out of every since its began (just the same with all media), they have become nothing more than clickbait, throw in overdramatic headlines and boom - public panic - yes what happened to the days where media kept the public informed and civil? Those days are gone.

 

[Chester1]

UK is apparently importing 10 million doses from India made by Serum Institute on behalf of AZ. First delivery expected in the next week or so.

Italy and EU have blocked export of 250,000 AZ doses to Australia.

 

[Dent]

I've no idea who this guy is, and have never willingly listened to his music, but what's reported suggests that his approach is very much at the JAQing off end of the spectrum. He has the right to speak freely, but with that goes the right of others to challenge him, or to say that he may not use their platform to preach his views.

To question him yes, but denying him access to a platform is oppressing his democratic right to ask questions.

 

[VauxhallandI]

UK is apparently importing 10 million doses from India made by Serum Institute on behalf of AZ. First delivery expected in the next week or so.

Italy and EU have blocked export of 250,000 AZ doses to Australia.

“EU not looking after its citizens” - “EU stopping their vaccinations from disappearing”

The press arguing for both ends of a story for a change........

 

[35B]

To question him yes, but denying him access to a platform is oppressing his democratic right to ask questions.

I agree. But social media platforms are private bodies and entitled to make their own decisions about who they allow on their platforms.

 

[kez19]

I agree. But social media platforms are private bodies and entitled to make their own decisions about who they allow on their platforms.

Next you'll want Twitter to go the Trump route and switch off his account?, pat yourself on the back. (I thought social media was all about freedom of speech etc - seems within the last decade its getting curtailed again where is the freedom?)

EDIT: Trump comment - proves a point in how far we have ventured down a black hole, any chance we can get back?

 

[yorkie]

I meant to link to this interview earlier but I don't think I did. It's nearly 4 weeks old now but if anyone missed it, it's well worth listening to:

BBC One - The Andrew Marr Show, 07/02/2021, Prof Sarah Gilbert on coronavirus vaccines and the South African variant

Andrew Marr spoke to the Oxford Vaccine lead researcher Prof Sarah Gilbert

www.bbc.co.uk

Prof Sarah Gilbert on coronavirus vaccines and the South African variant​

Andrew Marr spoke to the Oxford Vaccine lead researcher Prof Sarah Gilbert

A study that is mentioned in the interview has the potential to be really interesting and informative:

World's first COVID-19 vaccine alternating dose study launches in UK

The study will examine using different approved vaccines for the two doses, as well as different intervals between doses, and is backed by £7 million of government funding.

www.nihr.ac.uk

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) supported study, referred to as the COVID-19 Heterologous Prime Boost study, or ‘Com-Cov’, will determine the effects of using a different approved vaccine for the second dose to the first dose, in addition to examining the efficacy of two different time intervals between doses.

The study will initially have eight different arms, testing eight different combinations, but more products may be added:

• Oxford/AstraZeneca and Oxford/AstraZeneca - 28 days apart
• Oxford/AstraZeneca and Oxford/AstraZeneca - 12 weeks apart - as a control group
• Pfizer/BioNTech and Pfizer/BioNTech - 28 days apart
• Pfizer/BioNTech and Pfizer/BioNTech - 12 weeks apart - as a control group
• Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech - 28 days apart
• Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech - 12 weeks apart
• Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca - 28 days apart
• Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca - 12 weeks apart

Initial results are expected to be available this Summer; this is one to watch out for!

Some people who completely lack any understanding of how the immune system works falsely claim that a heterologous booster could be dangerous or reduce efficacy, but the reality is that :

In many cases such heterologous prime-boost can be more immunogenic than homologous prime-boost.

(source)

Of course the ill-informed individuals who make such bogus claims completely ignore the fact that people routinely get completely different influenza vaccine boosters.

For an example of the sort of nonsense that gets said, see this twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1345335438421217281

I will provide just one quote from this, to demonstrate the sort of nonsense I am referring to, though there are plenty more where this came from:

This is frightening, is this gov deliberately trying to kill us all?!

Something I didn't realise until today is that the Sputnik V vaccine has actually been designed in a heterologous way:

Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: an interim analysis of a randomised controlled phase 3 trial in Russia

This interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of Gam-COVID-Vac showed 91·6% efficacy against COVID-19 and was well tolerated in a large cohort.

www.thelancet.com

Gam-COVID-Vac is a combined vector vaccine, based on rAd type 26 (rAd26) and rAd type 5 (rAd5)—both of which carry the gene for SARS-CoV-2 full-length glycoprotein S (rAd26-S and rAd5-S). rAd26-S and rAd5-S are administered intramuscularly separately with a 21-day interval. The phase 1/2 clinical trials of the vaccine were completed in August, 2020.
12
The results showed that the vaccine was well tolerated and highly immunogenic in healthy participants

 

[35B]

So another case where individual governments used their sovereignty to make a decision for them which apparently isn’t allowed.

Therefore the Italian action is a success that was achievable whilst being a member of the EU.

Because explicitly authorised by the EU

Next you'll want Twitter to go the Trump route and switch off his account?, pat yourself on the back. (I thought social media was all about freedom of speech etc - seems within the last decade its getting curtailed again where is the freedom?)

EDIT: Trump comment - proves a point in how far we have ventured down a black hole, any chance we can get back?

Twitter are entitled to make their own decisions under their terms of service and applicable laws, just like mods here. And, no, I won’t shed tears if they choose not to provide a platform to a liar.

 

[kez19]

Because explicitly authorised by the EU


Twitter are entitled to make their own decisions under their terms of service and applicable laws, just like mods here. And, no, I won’t shed tears if they choose not to provide a platform to a liar.

So how do you know that he is lying? Politicians lie all the time but you don’t see them banned? Oh wait pot kettle..

Media/politicians/SAGE exaggerate claims too but again that’s another free pass

If the aim is to close down questioning be from Trump or to the likes of Katie Hopkins let alone even Ian Brown it leads more as to why curtailing them - the whole claim of misinformation is well played now even our own MSM are getting good at that aren't they not? I am no fan of names mentioned but I would have said at first I wouldn't have believed any of them but now I do wonder if there is some truth in what is being said but of course we are not allowed to think for ourselves as we get told on social media to go to certain sites etc but come on I can tell the difference when a politician lies let alone at local level, I rather have someone like them in charge than trust the politicians we have.

Just a thought: rather than believe every you see or hear maybe think outside the box it does you good and you realise that its not all as it seems.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Because explicitly authorised by the EU


Twitter are entitled to make their own decisions under their terms of service and applicable laws, just like mods here. And, no, I won’t shed tears if they choose not to provide a platform to a liar.

So the EU are doing a good thing then?

Admitting an error and correcting it for the benefits fits members.

You can’t have it both ways in a desperate attempt to demonstrate one thing that has worked out better in the UK.

If only it was born out of concern for others but we know that not the Brexit way

 

[Cdd89]

Something I didn't realise until today is that the Sputnik V vaccine has actually been designed in a heterologous way

Anecdotally, the Russian team (who are incredibly highly regarded by the Oxford team) texted the Oxford team on the day efficacy was unveiled with a single word: “Swap?” (I.e. swap a dose of ChAdOx1 for Sputnik V).

 

[35B]

So the EU are doing a good thing then?

Admitting an error and correcting it for the benefits fits members.

You can’t have it both ways in a desperate attempt to demonstrate one thing that has worked out better in the UK.

If only it was born out of concern for others but we know that not the Brexit way

I think the decision by Italy/EU is disgraceful, on any level whatever. I'm making no argument for or against Brexit when I observe that the counter-factual hypotheses advanced by opponents of Brexit that either the UK could have not joined the EU scheme, or (most recently presented as I understand by Layla Moran MP in a panel discussion yesterday) that if the UK had still been in the EU, the EU process would have been better, are entirely speculative and implausible.

That's not about whether the EU or UK have done things better; as time passes, I suspect the gap between EU members and UK will be narrower than I'd have dreamed possible 3 months ago.

But if the EU are going to parade their concern about vaccine nationalism (NB - a reasonable concern), then the onus is on the EU and its member states to rise above vaccine nationalistic behaviour and, given that AZ stocks are not being used fully in some countries but are apparently in demand in at least Italy, finding ways to redistribute supplies. They should also put pressure on AZ to deliver on AZ's commitments to supply.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Questioning things is a democratic right. A civilised society should welcome and answer questions, not try to suppress them and remove the rights of those who ask them.

The problem is that you are assuming they are questioning things in good faith.
A lot of the times that just isn't the case and certain groups of people (e.g. antivaxers) use the guise of "asking a question" to spread conspiracy ladened BS.
I saw it with some people I know on Facebook last year when the 5G causes COVID rubbish was flying around. Anytime anyone called them out on their bull, their reply was "Oh but I'm just asking the question". Sorry but no, those people are not "just asking a question". They are spreading conspiracy theories that are damaging to the country (in the case of the 5G stuff it resulted in multiple attacks on critical national infrastructure and multiple occasions of harassments or assault against communications engineers - some of whom weren't even involved in 5G stuff but were targeted by idiots).
People have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. If the consequence of someone's action (spreading bull online) is that infrastructure or people get attacked, then you absolutely should be responsible for that, and the same goes for antivaxers too.

As a democratic principle, no it doesn't depend what they are saying. It is a democratic right to question anything, deeming certain questions to be "potentially harmful to the country" and making that an excuse for oppression is a dangerous descent into a totalitarian state.

Social media is truly the great leveller and provides the true democratisation of viewpoints from the sane and sensible to the daft and conspiratorial. As dumb as some of these opinions are we shouldn't removing them. There's a debating opportunity in there, and the possibility - however small - of bringing someone around to accept some facts.

Echo chambers don't work. If anything they are counterproductive. Let's not pursue them.

Again part of this is covered by what I said above - your ideas work if you assume everyone acts in good faith. But they do not.
And in terms of "free speech", again this conversation seems to be have been confused by American standards of free speech. We do not have that in this country. Proven by the fact we banned people like Anjem Choudary from spreading their bull too.

 

[Yew]

Again part of this is covered by what I said above - your ideas work if you assume everyone acts in good faith. But they do not.
And in terms of "free speech", again this conversation seems to be have been confused by American standards of free speech. We do not have that in this country. Proven by the fact we banned people like Anjem Choudary from spreading their bull too.

I do think we have to worry a little about fake science, anyone remember the 'masks are 95% effective infographics circulating on Facebook? Or the 'herd immunity is eugenics' drivel?

 

[Dent]

I do think we have to worry a little about fake science, anyone remember the 'masks are 95% effective infographics circulating on Facebook? Or the 'herd immunity is eugenics' drivel?

The right way to deal with this is to demonstrate with evidence that these claims are false. Arbitrarily violating people's democratic right to question things is not a civilised way to behave.