Lockdown’s Last Lingerings - (Covid since L2 ended)

[Hobby]

Ah, I see where he's coming from now! Thanks Ian. Although done for the best reasons it seems, at least for the AZ jab, that the delay may well make it more effective...

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18

 

"But Andrew Pollard, the head of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator into the trial of this vaccine, said that extending the gap between vaccines made biological sense. “Generally, a longer gap between vaccine doses leads to a better immune response, with the second dose causing a better boost. (With HPV vaccine for girls, for example, the gap is a year and gives better responses than a one month gap.) From the Oxford vaccine trials, there is 70% protection after the first dose up to the second dose, and the immune response was about three times greater after the second dose when the second dose was delayed, comparing second dose after four weeks versus second dose after 2-3 months,”"

Edited February 19, 2021 by Hobby

[Reorte]

28 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

But surely the first advice was that the second jab would follow the first by 3 weeks? And now that has been stretched to 12, on the basis that some immunity among the majority was better than greater immunity among fewer. So far, almost 17m first jabs have been administered, against only 0.5 m second jabs. 17m strikes me as about one third of the adult population, or thereabouts. I am not amazed that across UK, cases and hospital admissions are tumbling. 

 

I may be wrong here but my belief is that it was given as three weeks because that's what it had been tested at. Therefore they could say for sure what three weeks would do but not twelve, even if twelve was likely to be as or more effective.

[Oldddudders]

18 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

I may be wrong here but my belief is that it was given as three weeks because that's what it had been tested at. Therefore they could say for sure what three weeks would do but not twelve, even if twelve was likely to be as or more effective.

And, thank God, the scientific community remains committed to only speaking what it knows, not what it imagines. We live in times of unprecedented (sorry, that adjective again!) pressure upon pharma science. In ordinary times a range of timescales for the second dose might have been tested and evaluated before the product came to 'market'. I, for one, am deeply grateful that further learning is being undertaken in parallel with vaccinations. 

[Reorte]

13 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

And, thank God, the scientific community remains committed to only speaking what it knows, not what it imagines.

 

Going a bit off-topic but the scientific community is generally the first to admit that it knows nothing for certain, and spends a lot of effort in trying to figure out just how uncertain it is.

 

Meanwhile those in power have to deal with how to work with those uncertainties - do you go with a high degree of confidence about a three week result, or a rather lesser one (but still not completely random, because of general understanding of how vaccines work, and presumably input from those who know these specific ones) of a longer period that might produce better results? By all accounts they've made the right decision, but it wasn't a zero risk one (and in these sorts of circumstances sometimes you have to do that).

[Hobby]

If you check my link in my last post you will see they did test it over other periods of time including up to twelve weeks. Hence my quote. It wasn't guesswork, they had actually done it and although the numbers tested weren't large they were enough to show it would be OK, even better. 

[EddieB]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

Ah, I see where he's coming from now! Thanks Ian. Although done for the best reasons it seems, at least for the AZ jab, that the delay may well make it more effective...

Sorry, but I didn't understand what you first wrote - hence lack of response.  Much clearer for the editing, and Ian since has explained what I was referring to.

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

And, thank God, the scientific community remains committed to only speaking what it knows, not what it imagines. We live in times of unprecedented (sorry, that adjective again!) pressure upon pharma science. In ordinary times a range of timescales for the second dose might have been tested and evaluated before the product came to 'market'. I, for one, am deeply grateful that further learning is being undertaken in parallel with vaccinations. 

 

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

If you check my link in my last post you will see they did test it over other periods of time including up to twelve weeks. Hence my quote. It wasn't guesswork, they had actually done it and although the numbers tested weren't large they were enough to show it would be OK, even better. 

 

Trouble is that we are not in normal times and the doctors are in a dilemma of which whatever they decide it impacts someone

 

Being someone who has to wait 12 weeks for the second dose, I have benefitted in not having to wait so long for the first. I accept its far more beneficial that those would be most affected have some protection quicker rather than wait a longer period for full protection.  I guess I will get my second jab about the same time as if I had to wait my turn if the 3 week regime was kept to, however I would much rather have some protection early. The first jab apparently gives the most protection anyway, the second being a top up dose 

[Hobby]

So another reason for the longer gap between doses. One other thing is that it will have enabled the UK to give at least one jab to everyone over 60 and those in high risk below that age before they've had to start doing the second jab. Done the 3/4 week gap method it would have taken a lot longer and as you say the first dose gives the most protection.

[Hobby]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/matt-hancock-acted-unlawfully-over-covid-contract-details-high-court-judge-rules/ar-BB1dPz3Y?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBoPWjQ

 

I'm in two minds on this, OK they didn't act lawfully, perhaps there was time or perhaps there wasn't... Wonder if those three MPs and the other lot would be as quick to criticise if had done it and it'd have taken longer to get the stuff? Surely in the current situation there has to be some acceptance that things might be done quicker and sorted out later? Seems the only people to benefit are the lawyers monetary wise, but I think it would have come out in the public enquiry that has been promised when all this finishes so would "come out in the wash" anyway, why the rush other than to score political points...

[Fenman]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/matt-hancock-acted-unlawfully-over-covid-contract-details-high-court-judge-rules/ar-BB1dPz3Y?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBoPWjQ

 

I'm in two minds on this, OK they didn't act lawfully, perhaps there was time or perhaps there wasn't... Wonder if those three MPs and the other lot would be as quick to criticise if had done it and it'd have taken longer to get the stuff? Surely in the current situation there has to be some acceptance that things might be done quicker and sorted out later? Seems the only people to benefit are the lawyers monetary wise, but I think it would have come out in the public enquiry that has been promised when all this finishes so would "come out in the wash" anyway, why the rush other than to score political points...

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”. We need transparency in the operation of government or history tells us it rapidly becomes prone to corruption or worse. 
 

Here’s what the judge wrote: The obligations to publish contracts within 30 days, he said, “serve a vital public function and that function was no less important during a pandemic. The secretary of state spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded.”

 

Seems sensible to me. 
 

Paul

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Fenman
Autocorrect lunacy

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/matt-hancock-acted-unlawfully-over-covid-contract-details-high-court-judge-rules/ar-BB1dPz3Y?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBoPWjQ

 

I'm in two minds on this, OK they didn't act lawfully, perhaps there was time or perhaps there wasn't... Wonder if those three MPs and the other lot would be as quick to criticise if had done it and it'd have taken longer to get the stuff? Surely in the current situation there has to be some acceptance that things might be done quicker and sorted out later? Seems the only people to benefit are the lawyers monetary wise, but I think it would have come out in the public enquiry that has been promised when all this finishes so would "come out in the wash" anyway, why the rush other than to score political points...

 

It does seem like petty politician point-scoring.

The government have at times been accused of reacting too slowly to certain things throughout this pandemic. Fair criticism? I would agree.

 

Then when they bypass red tape to get things done more quickly, someone raises a law suit against them...then complain about the amount of public money used to defend it.

[teaky]

Interesting angle on the impact of Covid-19 in the US.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/18/health/life-expectancy-fell-pandemic/index.html

 

And that's only for the first half of 2020.

[Fenman]

26 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

It does seem like petty politician point-scoring.

The government have at times been accused of reacting too slowly to certain things throughout this pandemic. Fair criticism? I would agree.

 

Then when they bypass red tape to get things done more quickly, someone raises a law suit against them...then complain about the amount of public money used to defend it.

I think you’ve misunderstood. The complaint was that the government didn’t bother to publish the contracts within 30 days of awarding them — nothing about holding up procurement for red tape. 
 

A junior grade admin assistant could have emailed the contracts to the London Gazette for publication (I exaggerate, but not much). Hardly a difficult task requiring massive staff effort, nor a distraction from the task at hand. Just obeying the law...
 

Paul

[hayfield]

40 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

It does seem like petty politician point-scoring.

The government have at times been accused of reacting too slowly to certain things throughout this pandemic. Fair criticism? I would agree.

 

Then when they bypass red tape to get things done more quickly, someone raises a law suit against them...then complain about the amount of public money used to defend it.

 

I totally agree with you, we were in unparalleled times, we needed a government which acted quickly. Things had to be done quickly it was a national emergency. Typical shady politics by those MP's concerned.

[Fenman]

11 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

I totally agree with you, we were in unparalleled times, we needed a government which acted quickly. Things had to be done quickly it was a national emergency. Typical shady politics by those MP's concerned.

 

Yep, you've misunderstood too.

 

This case was not about stopping the government acting quickly. They could and they did.

 

All they had to do was within 30 days tell us how they had spent hundreds of millions of pounds of our taxes. You know, so we can see they didn't just give a bung to the secretary of state's mother*, or whatever.

 

Though I suppose you could argue they should be able to spend whatever they like, how they like, and never tell us about it. That would seem like a rum form of democracy to me.

 

Paul

 

 

* A fantastical illustration purely for amusing effect -- I am sure she (and the SoS) are persons of immaculate integrity who would never dream, etc, etc...

 

[Nearholmer]

19 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Typical shady politics by those MP's concerned.

To me the rights and wrongs at a moral, as opposed to legal, level revolve around whether non-publication was deliberate or accidental, and I’ve no idea which it was, but taking a matter to a public court of law can’t fairly be called shady ....... it’s a public court of law. 
 

And, isn’t part of the function of the opposition, any opposition, to help hold the government to account?

[hayfield]

7 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

To me the rights and wrongs at a moral, as opposed to legal, level revolve around whether non-publication was deliberate or accidental, and I’ve no idea which it was, but taking a matter to a public court of law can’t fairly be called shady ....... it’s a public court of law. 
 

And, isn’t part of the function of the opposition, any opposition, to help hold the government to account?

 

There have been many people from all walks of life who have busted a gut to get us where we are now, this includes ministers, MP's and civil servants. I just get fed up with certain factions who just complain whatever happens. We as humans owe so much to so many for keeping us safe, nothing to gloat about but we are the envy of Europe for a change. Now with France it looks like we will be leading the way to assist the 3rd world.

[Nearholmer]

The other day, I mentioned that in my city the drop in cases seemed to have suddenly stopped, and ascribed it to the initiative to identify asymptomatic cases.

 

It may not be that simple/positive.

 

If you look at the national figures, the same affect begins to be hinted-at, and the Covid-Zoe study has this to say today:

 

“Daily new cases have fallen steadily for 6 consecutive weeks now, but in the last few days the rate of decrease has plateaued, with R values moving back towards 0.9.”

 

 

If it is a solid affect, it must put any release of Lockdown, schools or anything else, in peril.

 

Its spookily like what happened towards the end of Lockdown 2, which turned out to be the Kent Variant getting hold.

 

I wonder if all the positive news lately, falling case and death rates, vaccination etc, has made us ever-so-slightly less cautious, or what else might be going-on.

 

 

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

There have been many people from all walks of life who have busted a gut to get us where we are now, this includes ministers, MP's and civil servants. I just get fed up with certain factions who just complain whatever happens. We as humans owe so much to so many for keeping us safe, nothing to gloat about but we are the envy of Europe for a change. Now with France it looks like we will be leading the way to assist the 3rd world.

it's not about complaining, it is about ensuring that 'friends' did not profit unfairly from our misfortune.  A lot of people have gotten quite rich over the pandemic, you may recall the Brexit shipping company that had no ships but still managed to get a contract out of a Government panicking about trade in the event it crashed out of Europe.

[Nearholmer]

6 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I just get fed up with certain factions who just complain whatever happens

It’s a “faction” called The Opposition, and it is a pain in the proverbial to any government, especially in a crisis, but I for one am very glad we’re allowed to have one.

 

And, it isn’t as if MP’s of the government’s own party aren’t bashing away at similar points when they insist on the government coming back to parliament to ‘renew its powers’ on Lockdown.

 

Not a pretty set of processes, but parliamentary democracy in action, methinks.

[hayfield]

4 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

it's not about complaining, it is about ensuring that 'friends' did not profit unfairly from our misfortune.  A lot of people have gotten quite rich over the pandemic, you may recall the Brexit shipping company that had no ships but still managed to get a contract out of a Government panicking about trade in the event it crashed out of Europe.

And I bet these same MP's employs family or friends out of public funds without publishing the jobs to the public at large.  Sour grapes 

[APOLLO]

Had my AZ jab at a Chemist shop in town today (received NHS letter last Friday & booked on line) - Very orderly, quick & efficient, they have rented an empty shop next door. Had to book a time slot, arrived ten minutes early, no queue, In and jabbed in under 5 mins then a 10 minute wait. Guy sanitising seats etc. Second jab also booked, same place 12 weeks hence. Once again thanks NHS & Boris.

 

This is interesting news.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-19/covid-three-month-gap-between-oxfordastrazeneca-vaccine-doses-increases-efficacy-compared-to-six-weeks-study-suggests

 

Not out of the woods yet but glimpses of daylight on the horizon.

 

Brit15

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, hayfield said:

And I bet these same MP's employs family or friends out of public funds without publishing the jobs to the public at large.  Sour grapes 

So you believe one lot to be all good and all the rest to be cheating the system?

 

If I recall the expenses scandals covered all parties and all parties have to be held to account when it comes to spending money from the public purse.

 

No one is arguing that contracts had to be signed quickly, but all contracts should be fully available for public scrutiny in good time to act as a safety net and to ensure that those funds are not going to friends and family without justification.

[Oldddudders]

I think had the Government awarded instant contracts to, say, Boots, a firm implicitly linked with medications, healthcare and associated products, then there might have been less of a furore. The three firms mentioned in the link do not seem to have much history of providing such products, yet got the awards. And as has been pointed out, there was plenty of time, once the contracts had been awarded, to publish full details, with no reason for that to delay supply. Yet it didn't happen. That was what the court case is about. Did the civil servants concerned get instructions not to publish things? And if much of the supply from one firm was unsuitable, why was that? Was the spec inadequate? That hardly lands at the SoS's feet, being a specialist task undertaken by Whitehall. 

[Bernard Lamb]

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/matt-hancock-acted-unlawfully-over-covid-contract-details-high-court-judge-rules/ar-BB1dPz3Y?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBoPWjQ

 

I'm in two minds on this, OK they didn't act lawfully, perhaps there was time or perhaps there wasn't... Wonder if those three MPs and the other lot would be as quick to criticise if had done it and it'd have taken longer to get the stuff? Surely in the current situation there has to be some acceptance that things might be done quicker and sorted out later? Seems the only people to benefit are the lawyers monetary wise, but I think it would have come out in the public enquiry that has been promised when all this finishes so would "come out in the wash" anyway, why the rush other than to score political points...

In two minds?

Obviously you are not directly affected.

Nothing to do with political points scoring, its simple self preservation and looking after your own interests.

I worked for a company that did a lot of work for various government departments. Both my boss and myself would have been rather upset* if we heard that the law had been broken by a minister in cutting corners. We did all we could to get tenders worded in a manner that suited us. Any " new kid on the block" trying to pinch our work would not have been welcome. Certainly I would have been jumping up and down if any minister acted in a way that cost me money.

* sanitized wording for this forum.

Bernard