Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[caradoc]

4 hours ago, -missy- said:

Isn't the phrase "no one is safe until we are all safe" appropriate at the moment?

 

I'm not sure that statement, whoever it comes from, bears examination; Do they really mean that no-one (ie anyone anywhere in the entire world) is safe until we all (ie every single person everywhere in the world) is safe ? Presumably vaccinated against all possible variants of Covid ? Because I don't see how the latter state can ever possibly be achieved. It sounds more like a political statement designed to shame and pressurise those countries able to produce the vaccines into distributing them to others. 

 

 

[2mm Andy]

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I'm not sure that statement, whoever it comes from, bears examination; Do they really mean that no-one (ie anyone anywhere in the entire world) is safe until we all (ie every single person everywhere in the world) is safe ? Presumably vaccinated against all possible variants of Covid ? Because I don't see how the latter state can ever possibly be achieved. It sounds more like a political statement designed to shame and pressurise those countries able to produce the vaccines into distributing them to others. 

 

 

 

If you read the articles that Missy linked to, what they are arguing is that everyone across the world should have equal access to vaccines, not that the virus can be eliminated. I think too much meaning is being read into what is essentially a headline (ie, something to grab your attention). 

 

edit - one further note: Countries don't produce vaccines. Multi-national pharmaceutical companies do.

 

Andy

Edited March 26, 2021 by 2mm Andy
grammar

[hayfield]

21 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Nick

 

No idea but given the millions the UK has thrown at covid the way this company has reacted is no surprise. I know quite a few Asians in business, they are very hard working and when they see an opportunity they jump at it. When a government official contacts you in a situation like the pandemic doors are opened, I doubt if he had to fill in a detailed analysis for a bank loan and wait months for the health department to rubber stamp everything. No doubt a few films will be in the making

 

Perhaps one think that has changed for the good is that when there is a medical need it is possible to speed up the process, condensing what took years into months

 

Firstly the vaccine whilst taking 4 years to get to early 2020, it then took months to go into production

 

Health care with that steroid dexamethasone, took weeks to go firstly into trials then be authorised for general use

 

A new dawn for medical treatments ?  

 

 

The next day there is one piece in the I this morning  saying a similar thing about medical research now possibly being speed up, A new way of working ?

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by hayfield

[Pete the Elaner]

15 hours ago, Reorte said:

If that's how vaccines behaved we'd still have smallpox, and vaccines have effectively eliminated various other diseases locally, if not worldwide. In theory it's possible to eliminate a virus via vaccination, as that demonstrated.  There are actually two diseases that have been completely eradicated, smallpox and rinderpest, the latter a disease of cattle.

 

So whatever the reasons for some possible and others not I think the claim that vaccines only prevent or reduce bad outcomes is overly pessimistic. And I believe the evidence to date does suggest a reduction, if not to zero, of transmissibility with covid-19 vaccines.

 

edit: which the post just above this one has already pointed out!

 

If vaccines don't simply manage the response then maybe you could suggest exactly what they do?

The idea that they provide a magic bubble which repels the virus is not logical.

 

Once the virus is in your body, it deals with it. A vaccinated body will deal with it more efficiently & quickly. The re-transmission rate has been seen to reduce, not be eliminated. This is because the body deals with it more quickly, after which time re-transmission (which the "above post" pointed out actually described).

The more aware our immune systems are, the quicker they will respond. This may not ever be instant.

 

Don't think of it as negative. Spanish flu was a huge problem at the end of WW1. We had no vaccine to stop that. The vaccine we have for Covid19 is simply accelerating our fight against this one.

[hayfield]

From Politico

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to make a statement around April 5, coinciding with the launch of a detailed consultation on making jabs a condition of employment for those working in care homes, according to an internal civil service memo seen by POLITICO.

 

SAGE, a body that provides scientific advice to the government, was consulted on the move and concluded that “ensuring very high levels of vaccination in vulnerable residents and people who care for them in these settings is an appropriate public health intervention for a serious vaccine-preventable disease.”

 

Internal briefings, however, have highlighted the risk that people could quit the over-stretched care workforce as a result of the new rule. There's also the chance that government ministers could be held responsible for potential side effects following “compelled” vaccinations. 

 

Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, sees an ethical case for such an effort, noting that it's important to distinguish between making vaccines compulsory for the public and doing so for health and care workers. 

[Reorte]

53 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

If vaccines don't simply manage the response then maybe you could suggest exactly what they do?

The idea that they provide a magic bubble which repels the virus is not logical.

 

Once the virus is in your body, it deals with it. A vaccinated body will deal with it more efficiently & quickly. The re-transmission rate has been seen to reduce, not be eliminated. This is because the body deals with it more quickly, after which time re-transmission (which the "above post" pointed out actually described).

The more aware our immune systems are, the quicker they will respond. This may not ever be instant.

I never said anything about instant, or the transmission being eliminated entirely, please don't put words in my mouth. But if the body can deal with a disease before it really gets established then it's almost as good as. The whole point is that vaccines can make very significant difference to how infectious someone is (in some cases to the point where it may be pretty much close to zero), just as your immune system does normally so you don't keep re-catching the same cold that's going around. If that wasn't the case we'd still be living with smallpox.

 

It looks like Covid vaccines aren't quite that powerful but it also looks like they still have a  fairly significant impact on transmission, which makes sense if your immune system can deal with it before it really gets well established.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

If vaccines don't simply manage the response then maybe you could suggest exactly what they do?

The idea that they provide a magic bubble which repels the virus is not logical.

 

Once the virus is in your body, it deals with it. A vaccinated body will deal with it more efficiently & quickly. The re-transmission rate has been seen to reduce, not be eliminated. This is because the body deals with it more quickly, after which time re-transmission (which the "above post" pointed out actually described).

The more aware our immune systems are, the quicker they will respond. This may not ever be instant.

 

Don't think of it as negative. Spanish flu was a huge problem at the end of WW1. We had no vaccine to stop that. The vaccine we have for Covid19 is simply accelerating our fight against this one.

It gets quite interesting when you hear some of the numbers in respect of an individual's Covid antibodies.  Vaccination is supposed to give an individual a minimum of 50 antobodies (I'm not sure if that is from the first jab or from full vaccination).  A couple of weeks back my daughter and her colleagues  - who had all just spent a bit over two months working on a High Dependency Covid ward,  had their second antibody test.  Her first antibody test back in early December had recorded the presence of anybodies which if nothing else proved her strong suspicion that she'd had some Covid infection early last year (possibly caught while on holiday in Germany or maybe from a patient on the ward where she was then working).

 

Since December she and her colleagues have had both their Covid jabs using the Pfizer vaccine - but not at the recommended interval of course.   When tested recently their Charge Nurse, who had a touch of Covid around the New Year recorded 12,000 antibodies, another colleague recorded 22,000, my daughter recorded 27,000, while another colleague, who had been quite ill with Covid last year (caught from a patient)  recorded 40,000 antibodies.

 

If the vaccine should create a minimum of 50 antibodies it is quite a way short of the antibodies exposure to the disease has developed in some people.  But even at that verlo level it sill has a measurable effect in reducing teh seriousness of infection and reducing the rate of transmission.  But it doesn't stop teh disease totally - as you said.

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

One thing about this spat with the EU about vaccines , their manufacture and rollout is what have the EU done to help themselves out?

 

In the UK we have acted fast and thrown everything at finding a vaccine and producing it on mass  and get its into people

 

I am sure all is not all as simple as this flag waving makes out. Can we tone down the anti-EU and British bulldog rhetoric please? We've enough with the papers doing it and trying to lead public thinking in this regard - I don't want RMweb to be part of that.

[2mm Andy]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Vaccination is supposed to give an individual a minimum of 50 antobodies (I'm not sure if that is from the first jab or from full vaccination).  

 

If the vaccine should create a minimum of 50 antibodies it is quite a way short of the antibodies exposure to the disease has developed in some people.  But even at that verlo level it sill has a measurable effect in reducing teh seriousness of infection and reducing the rate of transmission.  But it doesn't stop teh disease totally - as you said.

 

Could you give the source for the "minimum 50 antibodies" information please Mike?

 

My understanding (as a layman) was that the vaccines in use produce different types of antibodies to those produced as a result of having had the virus,  and that some of the antibody tests in use don't actually detect the antibodies generated as a result of the vaccination, but it may be i've misunderstood that.

 

Andy

Edited March 27, 2021 by 2mm Andy
clarification

[-missy-]

11 minutes ago, 2mm Andy said:

 

Could you give the source for the "minimum 50 antibodies" information please Mike?

 

Andy

 

That just doesn't make any sense to me as well. I was always under the impression your body produces millions of antibody cells when fighting a virus or similar. I think 50 million would be more appropriate. I would assume the figures being quoted are 'per something' like per '10ml or blood'?  Of course, more than willing to be told I am wrong (as it seems common in this thread).

 

Missy.

Edited March 27, 2021 by -missy-

[lapford34102]

1 hour ago, 2mm Andy said:

My understanding (as a layman) was that the vaccines in use produce different types of antibodies to those produced as a result of having had the virus,  and that some of the antibody tests in use don't actually detect the antibodies generated as a result of the vaccination, but it may be i've misunderstood that.

 

No. you haven't misunderstood. The antibody test for people who have had covid checks for different things than the antibody test for the vaccinated. Otherwise those being tested in the trials for the vaccines might be showing antibodies that came from a asymptomatic covid infection rather than the vaccine.

Hope that clears that up :-)

 

Stu

Edited March 27, 2021 by lapford34102
Lousy typeing

[PenrithBeacon]

A friend has just had her second jab postponed because of a shortage of Pfizer vaccine.  Hopefully this doesn't get to be more serious.

[Metr0Land]

My friend in Narberth (76) had just had her 2nd Pfizer jab on Thurs (actually done in Haverfordwest).  The only person I know that's had 2 of anything so far.

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, -missy- said:

 

That just doesn't make any sense to me as well. I was always under the impression your body produces millions of antibody cells when fighting a virus or similar. I think 50 million would be more appropriate. I would assume the figures being quoted are 'per something' like per '10ml or blood'?  Of course, more than willing to be told I am wrong (as it seems common in this thread).

 

Missy.

 

At a guess is the count for the small sample taken, not the whole amount in the body ?

[tender]

Everyone I know (myself included) that's had the Pfizer jab have also had their second. Interestingly only a six-seven week gap between the two doses. Don't know anyone that's had their 2nd AZ jab, although one has an appointment after Easter. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by tender

[Gopher]

47 minutes ago, tender said:

Everyone I know (myself included) that's had the Pfizer jab have also had their second. Interestingly only a six-seven week gap between the two doses. Don't know anyone that's had their 2nd AZ jab, although one has an appointment after Easter. 

I think because the AZ jab is apparently more effective with a 12 week gap between the two doses.   

[Neil]

There's a rather moving piece in the Guardian's magazine supplement today. It looks at loss and grief, telling the stories of just a few of the bereaved, something we tend to forget when we're looking forward to pub openings, holidays and family gatherings.

[RFS]

55 minutes ago, tender said:

Everyone I know (myself included) that's had the Pfizer jab have also had their second. Interestingly only a six-seven week gap between the two doses. Don't know anyone that's had their 2nd AZ jab, although one has an appointment after Easter. 

 

Wife and I had our first jabs on 31st January. She was given Pfizer and I got AZ. We're both scheduled to have our second on April 18th. 

[eastglosmog]

My mother (100) had her second Pfizer jab on Wednesday

[tender]

56 minutes ago, RFS said:

 

Wife and I had our first jabs on 31st January. She was given Pfizer and I got AZ. We're both scheduled to have our second on April 18th. 

I wonder what determines which vaccine you get, I had my Pfizer at the local Vaccination Centre (converted from a Rainbow Hospital) my wife had the AZ at the GP surgery.

[Bernard Lamb]

27 minutes ago, tender said:

I wonder what determines which vaccine you get, I had my Pfizer at the local Vaccination Centre (converted from a Rainbow Hospital) my wife had the AZ at the GP surgery.

Partly due to the manner in which they have to be stored.

The Pfizer needing lower temperature storage facilities seems to be mainly used at the large centres while the easier to handle AZ  seems to be used at smaller places. That's how it worked with me as I went to a pharmacy and had AZ while several neighbours had Pfizer at the main centre.

Bernard

[tender]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Partly due to the manner in which they have to be stored.

The Pfizer needing lower temperature storage facilities seems to be mainly used at the large centres while the easier to handle AZ  seems to be used at smaller places. That's how it worked with me as I went to a pharmacy and had AZ while several neighbours had Pfizer at the main centre.

Bernard

 

Yes, but why split married couples/partners between Pfizer/AZ vaccines especially when registered with the same GP practice.

[Hobby]

It was the reverse with us, the large centre I used had the AZ and our local GP pfizer. 

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, tender said:

 

Yes, but why split married couples/partners between Pfizer/AZ vaccines especially when registered with the same GP practice.

 

Some conditions may preclude the use of one or the other vaccine.  Given that it was give at the GP practice they will already have had all the relevant information.  

While I cannot claim to be anything of an expert I think I am right in saying that patients with some immuno-suppressed conditions cannot/should not have the AZ vaccine.

[boxbrownie]

12 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Some conditions may preclude the use of one or the other vaccine.  Given that it was give at the GP practice they will already have had all the relevant information.  

While I cannot claim to be anything of an expert I think I am right in saying that patients with some immuno-suppressed conditions cannot/should not have the AZ vaccine.

Mrs BB is immuno suppressed but got the AZ same as me, but there are various IS conditions, the Pfizer vaccine was noted for giving a severe reaction to some of the first trial volunteers with Asthma or allergic conditions, this is why I was told I would not be getting the Pfizer jab.