Coronavirus Pandemic Information- Local and Worldwide

wrangler

Water John wrote: »

AFAIK Govn'ts will be indemnifying the manufacturers.
The Oxford one is a traditional type vaccine, so I don't think I'd have any bother with that. Walter Isaacson has a book coming out in March called The Code Breaker, he took part in one of the trials, also.

I'll take it too, I won't be affected by the side affects for too long

endainoz

I'd probably take it myself, it may well be basically mandotary to have it. Possible side effects may be a very small possibility but it's a miniscule risk that I'd be willing to take. This is different to someone "taking their chances" with contracting the virus as you would still risk infection of some more vunerable.

People may not be foreced. To take it but be denied entry to certain events/public buildings etc. This may also open a massive legal can of worms for people's rights being infringed or whatever. The solicitor will do well no doubt.

endainoz

Water John wrote: »

AFAIK Govn'ts will be indemnifying the manufacturers.
The Oxford one is a traditional type vaccine, so I don't think I'd have any bother with that. Walter Isaacson has a book coming out in March called The Code Breaker, he took part in one of the trials, also.

Great idea to cash in with a book. Smart fella.

Reggie.

Well the thing about the vaccine for me is this. Last March we were constantly told that it would take upto 2 to 3 years for a proper vaccine to be developed. Now here we are roughly 7 months on and we have a vaccine when every expert told us it wouldnt be possible.

Also the pziser vaccine was 90% effective when it first came out. Then when its rival was 95% then its vaccine was 95% effective aswell. Sound awful like big pharma trying it's best to cash in on the gravy train. That's why majority of people are sceptical of the vaccine imo

greysides

People found to be most infectious in first five days after symptoms begin, with shedding stopping after nine days.

http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-people-are-most-infectious-in-first-week-of-contracting-virus-12136772

_Brian

Reggie. wrote: »

Well the thing about the vaccine for me is this. Last March we were constantly told that it would take upto 2 to 3 years for a proper vaccine to be developed. Now here we are roughly 7 months on and we have a vaccine when every expert told us it wouldnt be possible.

Also the pziser vaccine was 90% effective when it first came out. Then when its rival was 95% then its vaccine was 95% effective aswell. Sound awful like big pharma trying it's best to cash in on the gravy train. That's why majority of people are sceptical of the vaccine imo

Vaccine uptake will be a big challenge.

Chatting with my mum yesterday about it. She gets the flu jab in recent years although that took a bit of convincing in fairness.

She wants it but is concerned as you say abkut the speed of development. The speed of development reflects the money thrown into it and that reflects the potential cash cow it is. The flu vaccine for example is developed differently each year and is ready to rollout in about 9 months.

So she will get it, she just doesn’t want to be the first.

For vaccines in general we need something like 80% uptake to achieve herd immunity. I was explaining to her that if we hit 40-50% that the danger is probably increased for unvaccinated people as we would see the end to social distancing, sanitising and mask wearing, yet we won’t have herd immunity coverage.

Big public health challenge ahead for sure.

Reggie.

Reggie. wrote: »

Well the thing about the vaccine for me is this. Last March we were constantly told that it would take upto 2 to 3 years for a proper vaccine to be developed. Now here we are roughly 7 months on and we have a vaccine when every expert told us it wouldnt be possible.

Also the pziser vaccine was 90% effective when it first came out. Then when its rival was 95% then its vaccine was 95% effective aswell. Sound awful like big pharma trying it's best to cash in on the gravy train. That's why majority of people are sceptical of the vaccine imo

There has never been as much resources poured into making a vaccine either,every government donated millions into the effort

Its a scientific achievement unrivaled in human history (afaik its a new method/type vs older vaccines)......though some side effects such as sick/nausea and fatigue for few days are reported in upto 30% cases of those what took it


I understand peoples reluctance to take it,but my folks are still only in their early 60s and have poor health....im deffo gonna take it

gozunda

I'll be taking it as well when it becomes available- mainly because the OH is a type 1 diabetic. Tbh they are finding waiting this out fairly hard going. But doing whats needed tbf.

_Brian

My youngest got the flu vaccine this week, she’s a bit sniffly after it and her temperature is up a bit. We’re saying in Surgury that uptake among children is only 20% of what they expected.

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

My youngest got the flu vaccine this week, she’s a bit sniffly after it and her temperature is up a bit. We’re saying in Surgury that uptake among children is only 20% of what they expected.

Is there any reason for any child who's not in the seriously at risk groups to get the flu vaccine? Having had exposure to multiple strains of the real flu is of benefit to the immune system later on in life

wrangler

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Is there any reason for any child who's not in the seriously at risk groups to get the flu vaccine? Having had exposure to multiple strains of the real flu is of benefit to the immune system later on in life

Sure vaccine will expose him/her to many more strains than any years flu will,
It always exposes you to four strains. why make them go through the virus

yosemitesam1

wrangler wrote: »

Sure vaccine will expose him/her to many more strains than any years flu will,
It always exposes you to four strains. why make them go through the virus

It gives much better and longer lasting immunity to get the actual flu.
In the long-term at a population level, having a large proportion of the population carrying a broader immunity also gives a benefit by reducing the likelihood of very severe outbreaks.

wrangler

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It gives much better and longer lasting immunity to get the actual flu.
In the long-term at a population level, having a large proportion of the population carrying a broader immunity also gives a benefit by reducing the likelihood of very severe outbreaks.

This is not the year for letting children get flu and the upheaval that it brings with testing and upsetting classes. They have a reason for recommending a flu jab for children this year and not every year. `They want to minimise the upheaval in schools.

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Is there any reason for any child who's not in the seriously at risk groups to get the flu vaccine? Having had exposure to multiple strains of the real flu is of benefit to the immune system later on in life

Yea it’s a community effort to minimise the volume of flu circulating. That’s what being a member of society is about, not always thinking what’s in this for me but rather if we all play our part it’s better for everyone.

Covid vaccine will rely similarly on people being responsible citizens and getting the % immunised home high enough to provide decent cover for all.

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It gives much better and longer lasting immunity to get the actual flu.
In the long-term at a population level, having a large proportion of the population carrying a broader immunity also gives a benefit by reducing the likelihood of very severe outbreaks.

I’ll take advice from public health officials thanks rather than internet physicians.

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

I’ll take advice from public health officials thanks rather than internet physicians.

The real world is far more complicated than they give it credit for. At best the majority of public health officials have got a very two dimensional understanding of disease, many not even that unfortunately...

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The real world is far more complicated than they give it credit for. At best the majority of public health officials have got a very two dimensional understanding of disease, many not even that unfortunately...

Yea.
So you think you’ve figured our tie complexity of public health that the actual public health professionals haven’t. Will you share your qualifications and research papers and then maybe we can take your public health claims seriously, otherwise I think it’s best listen to the professionals.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know too many people eager to rush out and get these new vaccines tbh.

More fodder for my ruminations today. I had a physio appointment and they were asking would I get the vaccination, so we had that conversation about it being rushed and had Govt's let companies off the hook in case anything goes wrong in terms of side effects.

They told me they were seeing lots of "long covid" side effects. Where 10-30% of people contracting covid are experiencing shoulder and chest problems (in particular to a physio) and many other internal organ issues also.

Damned if ya do...

alps

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know too many people eager to rush out and get these new vaccines tbh.

If it's made compulsory for international flights and for concert goers....all the anti vac will suddenly disappear..

alps

alps wrote: »

If it's made compulsory for international flights and for concert goers....all the anti vac will suddenly disappear..

I'm not anti vac, for example the health centre rang about our young lad getting the flu jab and we'll be sending him. I do have concerns over a vaccine that has been fast tracked and from what I hear governments have told companies they have their back.

yosemitesam1

Deleted User wrote: »

More fodder for my ruminations today. I had a physio appointment and they were asking would I get the vaccination, so we had that conversation about it being rushed and had Govt's let companies off the hook in case anything goes wrong in terms of side effects.

They told me they were seeing lots of "long covid" side effects. Where 10-30% of people contracting covid are experiencing shoulder and chest problems (in particular to a physio) and many other internal organ issues also.

Damned if ya do...

In reality long covid is thought to occur in less than 2% of infections but when you look at the list of symptoms of long covid. The question has to be how much of long covid symptoms are actually caused by restrictions on people's lives.

Similar symptoms can also occur after non covid infections...

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

Yea.
So you think you’ve figured our tie complexity of public health that the actual public health professionals haven’t. Will you share your qualifications and research papers and then maybe we can take your public health claims seriously, otherwise I think it’s best listen to the professionals.

Why not actually consider the point instead of attacking me?

Have studied epidemiology and pests/disease in quite a bit of detail. Was offered a PhD with teagasc but academia didn't appeal to me so I went out on my own but all that is irrelevant to this thread

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Why not actually consider the point instead of attacking me?

Have studied epidemiology and pests/disease in quite a bit of detail. Was offered a PhD with teagasc but academia didn't appeal to me so I went out on my own but all that is irrelevant to this thread

I’m not specifically attacking anyone.
I appreciate your if the belief you’ve cracked some nugget of public health that all the actual experts seem to have missed.

Public health strategy works by people playing their part and not second guessing decisions and going off on a solo.

The idea to just let people get the flu to gain immunity is as bizarre as letting everyone get covid to gain immunity.

Yes your preventing people who it wouldn’t affect get it. But that’s missing the point. By getting immunisation your into really high numbers we create a buffer of vaccinated people so the virus can’t travel to people not vaccinated, I’m sure I don’t need to explain herd immunity to you.

Letting thing s just run their course isn’t a public health strategy, it’s denial of science and demonstrating a lack of respect to those you will kill along the way, America’s handling of covid is a prime example.

I know you feel nephet has steered us wrong and you know better, but in all likelihood you don’t and everyone should really listen to the professionals rather than stuff on the internet published by got knows who with god knows what hidden agenda.

paddysdream

Not directed at anyone in particular but experts have been wrong a fair bit in the last few years.
This total and absolute faith in experts is what has led to a lot of difficulties.
All those expert bankers and economist's about 2007 those expert pollsters in US 4 years ago, David Camerons experts in 2016.
In farming you have the experts who ran the greenfield site
Far as i can see the definition of an expert as one who brings his lunch in a briefcase has never run truer

_Brian

paddysdream wrote: »

Not directed at anyone in particular but experts have been wrong a fair bit in the last few years.
This total and absolute faith in experts is what has led to a lot of difficulties.
All those expert bankers and economist's about 2007 those expert pollsters in US 4 years ago, David Camerons experts in 2016.
In farming you have the experts who ran the greenfield site
Far as i can see the definition of an expert as one who brings his lunch in a briefcase has never run truer

Public health has eliminated polio, Tb, and a host of other nasties that killed and destroyed the lives of countless Irish citizens. The flu vaccine saves countless from sickness and death every year. We thankfully have lived to see the first tranche of vaccines rolling out in schools to prevent cancers.

No vaccine is 100% safe, none. But regardless vaccination is how covid will be controlled.

Vaccination programs are a central pillar to public health and their effectiveness has been proven over and over across the world.

paddysdream

Not meaning experts as re vaccination but rather the blind faith in the public pronouncements of a group of 40 "experts"
Remind me of vets who cant hack it in practice and migrate to fulltime dept positions.Easy to spot when they call around.

Studying something for years doesnt make you an expert on a subject,just means you have studied it for years

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

I’m not specifically attacking anyone.
I appreciate your if the belief you’ve cracked some nugget of public health that all the actual experts seem to have missed.

Public health strategy works by people playing their part and not second guessing decisions and going off on a solo.

The idea to just let people get the flu to gain immunity is as bizarre as letting everyone get covid to gain immunity.

Yes your preventing people who it wouldn’t affect get it. But that’s missing the point. By getting immunisation your into really high numbers we create a buffer of vaccinated people so the virus can’t travel to people not vaccinated, I’m sure I don’t need to explain herd immunity to you.

Letting thing s just run their course isn’t a public health strategy, it’s denial of science and demonstrating a lack of respect to those you will kill along the way, America’s handling of covid is a prime example.

I know you feel nephet has steered us wrong and you know better, but in all likelihood you don’t and everyone should really listen to the professionals rather than stuff on the internet published by got knows who with god knows what hidden agenda.

Consider though.
You vaccinate a much higher proportion of the population against flu than is currently vaccinated.
Who is going to spread the strains of flu in the vaccine? Very few people. So what you end up with is more selection pressure for the strains not in the vaccine to predominate.
So what will end up happening is that you will end up with a strain of flu that the vaccine does not protect against as we can't vaccinate against all strains.

Scale the above back to only the vulnerable getting vaccinated and you give the strains of flu in the vaccine the best chance of becoming the dominant strains which means that those vulnerable people will have the best possible chance against it.

In reality we're somewhere in between those two extremes and probably get results somewhere between the two with a lot of randomness thrown in that will give years where the vulnerable are protected very well and years when they're given no protection at all.
There is also the factor of natural Vs vaccine immunity access the population. Natural immunity is longer lasting and broader acting. So even though the general population won't have anywhere near full immunity against a fresh strain. They do have the potential to slow spread by being less susceptible to infection and/or shedding lower levels of virus. This occurs without increasing selection pressure for non vaccine strains.
Compare that to someone who has been receiving the vaccine long-term. They will have less long-term broad acting immunity. But because they've been vaccinated, they actually act to encourage further the non vaccine strains.
What you end up doing by over vaccinating against flu is destabilising things over the medium to long-term. Yes you'll get good years with near perfect results but you're also going to encourage many more bad years.

You can see broadly similar strategies to managing worm resistance, GM insect resistance etc. There has to be some element of encouragement for the easily controlled strains to survive or else they will just circumvent your active ingredient, vaccine or whatever other control method you use

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Consider though.
You vaccinate a much higher proportion of the population against flu than is currently vaccinated.
Who is going to spread the strains of flu in the vaccine? Very few people. So what you end up with is more selection pressure for the strains not in the vaccine to predominate.
So what will end up happening is that you will end up with a strain of flu that the vaccine does not protect against as we can't vaccinate against all strains.

Scale the above back to only the vulnerable getting vaccinated and you give the strains of flu in the vaccine the best chance of becoming the dominant strains which means that those vulnerable people will have the best possible chance against it.

In reality we're somewhere in between those two extremes and probably get results somewhere between the two with a lot of randomness thrown in that will give years where the vulnerable are protected very well and years when they're given no protection at all.
There is also the factor of natural Vs vaccine immunity access the population. Natural immunity is longer lasting and broader acting. So even though the general population won't have anywhere near full immunity against a fresh strain. They do have the potential to slow spread by being less susceptible to infection and/or shedding lower levels of virus. This occurs without increasing selection pressure for non vaccine strains.
Compare that to someone who has been receiving the vaccine long-term. They will have less long-term broad acting immunity. But because they've been vaccinated, they actually act to encourage further the non vaccine strains.
What you end up doing by over vaccinating against flu is destabilising things over the medium to long-term. Yes you'll get good years with near perfect results but you're also going to encourage many more bad years.

You can see broadly similar strategies to managing worm resistance, GM insect resistance etc. There has to be some element of encouragement for the easily controlled strains to survive or else they will just circumvent your active ingredient, vaccine or whatever other control method you use

With the likes of the annual flu vaccine we protect the vulnerable only, we don’t aim for herd immunity so strains of flu getting out of hand isn’t a problem. Occasionally a strain of flu will be prevalent that’s not covered in that years vaccine but that is rare.

Covid is different and my understanding is we will start with the most vulnerable and then everyone else to move towards herd immunity. Reason being the impact and deaths from covid are significantly more serious.

You can slice and dice things many ways. But the professionals are tasked with constructing a strategy for the whole country to Get the best result for public health overall. It’s not the only way we could move but it’s the one that’s chosen for the nation to follow. They need and deserve our support because of the only strategy we have is undermined and not engaged with we will all loose in the long run. Your either a member of a society or your not, you won’t like every decision but that doesn’t mean you don’t follow them.

minerleague

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Consider though.
You vaccinate a much higher proportion of the population against flu than is currently vaccinated.
Who is going to spread the strains of flu in the vaccine? Very few people. So what you end up with is more selection pressure for the strains not in the vaccine to predominate.
So what will end up happening is that you will end up with a strain of flu that the vaccine does not protect against as we can't vaccinate against all strains.

Scale the above back to only the vulnerable getting vaccinated and you give the strains of flu in the vaccine the best chance of becoming the dominant strains which means that those vulnerable people will have the best possible chance against it.

In reality we're somewhere in between those two extremes and probably get results somewhere between the two with a lot of randomness thrown in that will give years where the vulnerable are protected very well and years when they're given no protection at all.
There is also the factor of natural Vs vaccine immunity access the population. Natural immunity is longer lasting and broader acting. So even though the general population won't have anywhere near full immunity against a fresh strain. They do have the potential to slow spread by being less susceptible to infection and/or shedding lower levels of virus. This occurs without increasing selection pressure for non vaccine strains.
Compare that to someone who has been receiving the vaccine long-term. They will have less long-term broad acting immunity. But because they've been vaccinated, they actually act to encourage further the non vaccine strains.
What you end up doing by over vaccinating against flu is destabilising things over the medium to long-term. Yes you'll get good years with near perfect results but you're also going to encourage many more bad years.

You can see broadly similar strategies to managing worm resistance, GM insect resistance etc. There has to be some element of encouragement for the easily controlled strains to survive or else they will just circumvent your active ingredient, vaccine or whatever other control method you use

No expertise in science here but this last paragraph aligns with what i believe. We are trying to beat bacteria / virus / worms (cattle )but all we seem to do is encourage ever more resistent varieties. ( Overuse is a problem but I think would happen anyway).
As for experts, a lot of progress has been made in the past by people questioning experts of the day and trying something new.
Didnt experts tell pregnant women to take talidomide (spelling?) in the 70s?

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

Yea it’s a community effort to minimise the volume of flu circulating. That’s what being a member of society is about, not always thinking what’s in this for me but rather if we all play our part it’s better for everyone.

Covid vaccine will rely similarly on people being responsible citizens and getting the % immunised home high enough to provide decent cover for all.

_Brian wrote: »

With the likes of the annual flu vaccine we protect the vulnerable only, we don’t aim for herd immunity so strains of flu getting out of hand isn’t a problem. Occasionally a strain of flu will be prevalent that’s not covered in that years vaccine but that is rare.

Covid is different and my understanding is we will start with the most vulnerable and then everyone else to move towards herd immunity. Reason being the impact and deaths from covid are significantly more serious.

You can slice and dice things many ways. But the professionals are tasked with constructing a strategy for the whole country to Get the best result for public health overall. It’s not the only way we could move but it’s the one that’s chosen for the nation to follow. They need and deserve our support because if the only strategy we have is undermined and not engaged with we will all loose in the long run. Your either a member of a society or your not, you won’t like every decision but that doesn’t mean you don’t follow them.

Those posts seem to contradict eachother about the flu vaccine, maybe we're not talking about the same thing?

Ultimately though every strategy has to be questioned hard. If you put anyone on a pedestal above questioning, all you will end up with is incompetence and poor decisions.
With private business having such an influence on health policy and many health "experts" actually having quite a narrow education with little real world experience, it is especially important to question everything.