Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

As if more evidence of his ability to be wrong was needed

The linked article has the truth, it's the open border between North and South created by Britain's long history of interference in Ireland which is responsible, making it impossible to have a single sensible policy of dealing with Covid by sealing off their island, New Zealand fashion.
.

 

[oyster]

Dido Harding - live HoC committee questioning.

 

[Woosh]

And when bat corona fades, we can look forward to goat pneumonia:

it's not surprising. We destroy ancient forests, get closer to wild animals by butchering and eating them, giving their viruses a far greater chance hitting us.
Zoonosis.

 

[flecc]

At one point, they were definitely not testing after death. And I simply do not know if they are, whether post mortem testing is reliable, etc.

My brother's death was put down to Covid-19 but with what we've learnt since may that seems very doubtful. We've seen what Covid does to patients, leaving then exhausted and having huge difficulty in breathing.

In stark contrast when found semi conscious he was breathing ok and the terrible situation in his home indicated a possible brainstorm with obviously violent extreme activity having taken place over time. Given his underlying conditions I'd have thought this was more likely to be due to reaction to unbearable extremes of pain and not at all commensurate with breathing difficulty.

I think it highly likely that a fairly large proportion of deaths put down to Covid were from other causes such as the underlying conditions that so many of the deceased suffered from.
Covid was perhaps too easy a decision cop-out.
.

 

[flecc]

it's not surprising. We destroy ancient forests, get closer to wild animals by butchering and eating them, giving their viruses a far greater chance hitting us.
Zoonosis.

Us too. Some supermarkets sell wild venison products as well as farmed and many pheasants live much or all of their life in the wild.
.

 

[daveboy]

Zlatan.. you buy a new car which says make your oil should be changed after 2000km from new. You decide ,for finance or because you know better than the guys in the lab to leave the oil in for 2 years . The Engine wears badly and fails after 3 years .... Who is now the chump?.

Your analogy makes no sense....A better comparison would be that you have 2 cars
(OG and his wife) and a limited amount of engine oil....Do you put 90% in both cars or 100% in one car and none in the other? I know what I would do.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

Your analogy makes no sense....A better comparison would be that you have 2 cars
(OG and his wife) and a limited amount of engine oil....Do you put 90% in both cars or 100% in one car and none in the other? I know what I would do.

Perfect. That’s a great analogy. I saw DL’s post at the time and couldn’t be bothered to correct him (fatigue setting in). You did a much better job than I could have done.

 

[Woosh]

Your analogy makes no sense....A better comparison would be that you have 2 cars
(OG and his wife) and a limited amount of engine oil....Do you put 90% in both cars or 100% in one car and none in the other? I know what I would do.

but the choice is not 90% in both though. It's 50% in each or 100% in one.
If I had to, I'll put 100% in one car and use that one.

 

[Zlatan]

but the choice is not 90% in both though. It's 50% in each or 100% in one.
If I had to, I'll put 100% in one car and use that one.

No, it isn't really Woosh. The 90% in both relates to vaccine. It's estimated one jab gives you 90% protection for 12 weeks.. Does depend what your yardstick is... I suspect the %age is free from severe illness or hospitalisation. Its why Dave made figures as he has...
The 2nd jab probably is equal volume but we are talking about each doses relative affects.
One jab for best protection but single jab gives you 90% of that best protection.
Short term 2nd jab is diminishing return. From what I, ve read 2nd jab is more likely to give longer protection. (ie 5 months plus)

 

[Danidl]

As if more evidence of his ability to be wrong was needed

Yes and my area has that highest incidence. Now why?.
1. It is affluent..with many wealthy people with global connections .. kids in Australia, Middle East, USA, China
2. The relaxation of the restrictions "to save Christmas", was as I predicted going to be a disaster
3. My village, which was actually highlighted on the Irish news has a range of restaurants and pubs and once the restrictions were lifted social distancing went out the window.
4. We are close to the NI Border where rates and mortalities are triple that in the South.

Now we ,my family and I kept to all the guidelines, including avoiding my son living a mile away. Who would otherwise share the family meal , And the Irish Government did react quickly post Christmas, but the damage was done. At this stage we are are down to 1/3 of the recent peak infection rate, but the deaths and acute hospital care take weeks to occur.. so that will be next week and the one after.

 

[flecc]

One jab for best protection but single jab gives you 90% of that best protection.
Short term 2nd jab is diminishing return. From what I, ve read 2nd jab is more likely to give longer protection. (ie 5 months plus)

50% with the first jab of the Pfizer as we are receiving it in two parts.

Indeed I remember Pfizer saying their testing indicated 57%.

"Professor David Salisbury, in charge of immunization programs at the Department of Health until 2013, is quoted as saying, “If you look at the New England Journal of Medicine paper about the Pfizer vaccine..you give one dose and you get 91 per cent protection, you give two doses and you get 95 per cent."
The NEJM paper actually states that the efficacy between the first and second doses was found to be 52 percent when given 21 days apart. After the second dose, the efficacy raises to 95 percent."
.

 

[Danidl]

No, it isn't really Woosh. The 90% in both relates to vaccine. It's estimated one jab gives you 90% protection for 12 weeks.. Does depend what your yardstick is... I suspect the %age is free from severe illness or hospitalisation. Its why Dave made figures as he has...
The 2nd jab probably is equal volume but we are talking about each doses relative affects.
One jab for best protection but single jab gives you 90% of that best protection.
Short term 2nd jab is diminishing return. From what I, ve read 2nd jab is more likely to give longer protection. (ie 5 months plus)

Who is doing the estimating?. That is actually the kernel of the debate, not whether my cap is green . My point remains that the people BEST placed to make that judgement are the designers, not PR people no matter how highly placed in Government. . If the designers were of the informed opinion that a single jab was good enough for 80% protection , would they not have said so? . For goodness sake, lives are being lost, and if the designers considered one was enough they would have said so.

 

[Zlatan]

50% with the first jab of the Pfizer as we are receiving it in two parts.

Indeed I remember Pfizer saying their testing indicated 57%.

"Professor David Salisbury, in charge of immunization programs at the Department of Health until 2013, is quoted as saying, “If you look at the New England Journal of Medicine paper about the Pfizer vaccine..you give one dose and you get 91 per cent protection, you give two doses and you get 95 per cent."
The NEJM paper actually states that the efficacy between the first and second doses was found to be 52 percent when given 21 days apart. After the second dose, the efficacy raises to 95 percent."
.

Trouble is nobody is quite sure what 90% efficy means and apparently the two trials on AZ and Biontech utilised different criteria.
From what I understand even 90% efficy doesn't mean 90% don't become infected.
From our point of view the important issues must be. A)death b) hospitalisationC) serious disease.
It seems none of the vaccines actually prevent infection but do prevent illness developing. Suspect its why nobody is sure whether vaccination will prevent spread... But you would guess if severe infection is prevented viral dose will be reduced and hence, you, d guess, less chance of spreading.
Listening to Oxford rep on R4 last week she assured listeners even tho efficy rates appear lower (for AZ) that even after only a single dose nobody was hospitalised and nobody had serious disease 3 weeks after single dose. (she also said time between doses on AZ was always 12 weeks, which was news to me, I, d thought that was 3 weeks as with Biontech)
As far as I, m concerned no deaths, no serious disease is 100% efficy.???
I, ve never found anyone willing to disclose the exact criteria when discussing efficy.
Let's face it even Ice cream can test positive for covid I, m pretty sure no vaccine could stop you testing positive at some time or another.
Ps
4 million plus single doses administered.
425,000 have had 2 doses.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

but the choice is not 90% in both though. It's 50% in each or 100% in one.
If I had to, I'll put 100% in one car and use that one.

You have the vaccine, you don’t go into hospital and die. That’s the way things are looking. I’d call that a win from the situation we are at now.

The choice is, one person has two jabs and has a 90% chance of not feeling poorly, the other risks death and overburdening the hospital.

Or, you give both one jab and nobody goes into hospital and dies, or overburdens the hospital. Both might have mild symptoms for a few days.

Option 2 has to be the best way forward at this time.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

Yes and my area has that highest incidence. Now why?.
1. It is affluent..with many wealthy people with global connections .. kids in Australia, Middle East, USA, China
2. The relaxation of the restrictions "to save Christmas", was as I predicted going to be a disaster
3. My village, which was actually highlighted on the Irish news has a range of restaurants and pubs and once the restrictions were lifted social distancing went out the window.
4. We are close to the NI Border where rates and mortalities are triple that in the South.

Now we ,my family and I kept to all the guidelines, including avoiding my son living a mile away. Who would otherwise share the family meal , And the Irish Government did react quickly post Christmas, but the damage was done. At this stage we are are down to 1/3 of the recent peak infection rate, but the deaths and acute hospital care take weeks to occur.. so that will be next week and the one after.

Just because the boozer is open, it doesn’t mean you are compelled to go in it. Just because Boris Johnson can’t stop himself throwing a party, it doesn’t mean you should have a big get together with family and friends. It’s dangerous out there, the scientists have given us plenty of information, we are all grown ups, so we should behave as such.

 

[Danidl]

Just because the boozer is open, it doesn’t mean you are compelled to go in it. Just because Boris Johnson can’t stop himself throwing a party, it doesn’t mean you should have a big get together with family and friends. It’s dangerous out there, the scientists have given us plenty of information, we are all grown ups, so we should behave as such.

Finally we can agree on something. Yes. Unfortunately people with a lesser IQ than yourself, take their cues from major public figures.

 

[Woosh]

No, it isn't really Woosh. The 90% in both relates to vaccine. It's estimated one jab gives you 90% protection for 12 weeks..

the vaccine people didn't say that. I don't know where you got the 90% from.
They would be lucky to get half the protection that two jabs give.
I did post the 4 typical antibodies profiles after someone gets the first jab then the second jab.
There are a few steps that the immune system has to go through before it is able to fight the disease. The key point is the peak of antibody titre after the second jab is twice as high as the peak of antibody titre after the first jab.
If you assume that the antibody titre (or concentration) in your blood is proportional to your fighting chance, you most certainly need two jabs. Otherwise, what's the point of giving two jabs in the first place?

Titer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Zlatan]

Woosh
Perhaps you could explain exactly what criteria are used for efficy. I can't find them. I did hear they were different for AZ and Biontech..
AZ were actually saying in some respects there vaccine was 100% efficient, if criteria was no deaths or no serious disease.???
Even a vaccine with 100% efficy does not prevent infection???

 

[daveboy]

the vaccine people didn't say that. I don't know where you got the 90% from.
They would be lucky to get half the protection that two jabs give.
I did post the 4 typical antibodies profiles after someone gets the first jab then the second jab.
There are a few steps that the immune system has to go through before it is able to fight the disease. The key point is the peak of antibody titre after the second jab is twice as high as the peak of antibody titre after the first jab.
If you assume that the antibody titre (or concentration) in your blood is proportional to your fighting chance, you most certainly need two jabs. Otherwise, what's the point of giving two jabs in the first place?

Titer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Matt Hancock says 89%.........must be true
Coronavirus vaccine latest: Two to three weeks first jab protection kicks in | Express.co.uk

 

[Jesus H Christ]

Finally we can agree on something. Yes. Unfortunately people with a lesser IQ than yourself,

I didn’t think it was possible to have an IQ with a negative value. Thank you, I’m delighted