The jab ..

[Flyingfifer]

Politifact is in itself fake news. Read many of the articles yourself and take some time doing so. Scrutinise the wording. It's so heavily biased to the left. Even 'snopes' is going that way.

This.

The way a lot of these "fact checker" sites are going is deeply dishonest.
For example:
Trump "its mostly cloudy today"
"Fact checker" - Eye witnesses advised that while it was cloudy that day they believe a little less than half the sky was cloudy therefore Trumps claim that its mostly cloudy today is FALSE.

 

[ronk]

I’m not planning any substantial holiday wise until late summer - I’d like to know that I’m well jabbed up before I go away from my own home.

Looks like day trips only In early days.

 

[Z4C_er]

100% but from the limited research I have done I see that most white people are far short of it too- everyone needs it.

Sorry I wasn't more clear, yes we all need it, but it should be presented to the BAME community as a medical fact and this is a way to perhaps provide you with a greater level of protection.
Rather than playing the racist & discrimination card.

 

[rdgreen]

just give grandma a pill

Nice try.....but to quote a has been....it's fake news.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/aug/03/dan-lungren/lungren-says-obama-would-have-government-require-c/

Politifact is in itself fake news. Read many of the articles yourself and take some time doing so. Scrutinise the wording. It's so heavily biased to the left. Even 'snopes' is going that way.

Don't believe...that's fine....don't expect any ideologue to agree with something that goes against their ideology....but there's plenty of other reputable outlets reporting the same story, but I'm not getting into pointless arguments. You can have your own opinions...but not your own facts.

 

[Nanu]

Nice to see/hear some sense at last.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/conservative-mp-calls-for-nationwide-rollout-of-vitamin-d-tablets/ar-BB1cLdqC
https://youtu.be/bQyhjQUjHjU

What makes me laugh is these studies (on the deficiencies of vit D+ Covid) have been widely available (albeit they were on Asian's subjects and not Black, White's for months). I wanna say April/May last year.

We were discussing yesterday (before the death figure of 1800 came out) That there were 1,027 hospital deaths (so not at home or carehome). Of that number there were 9 people in the age range of 0-39) and over half the deaths 80+ (average life expectancy minus covid is 81 in the UK).

I don't know what the figures were in terms of age that died at home or in carehomes yesterday but I would imagine that the % were the same. This lockdown is just not protecting the people that it's designed to protect.

My personal guess (no numbers to back it up) is the old folk are getting taken to hospital from carehomes and are transmitting it back into them when they return having caught it at hospital or people are catching it in hospital and dieing of it (or dieing with it alongside the existing disease).

Most of the transmission is in hospitals. The very places where Covid Security should be at it's highest. Not a good time to break a leg or something and have to go into hospital. The main spreaders in care homes are the same as in the previous waves, staff. Or more precisely the ones that go between care homes and are not employed by a single home. These tend to be nurses who are doing work on top of the NHS hours or part time / agency nurses. Each home must have by law a qualified nurse "on duty" 24 hrs a day. On duty can mean on call and available so one nurse can cover several homes travelling between each on a regular basis. They assume that if they test negative then they are OK for the rest of the time between tests which is not the case.

 

[Nanu]

I’m not planning any substantial holiday wise until late summer - I’d like to know that I’m well jabbed up before I go away from my own home.

Looks like day trips only In early days.

Suspect that unless you are "jabbed up" you won't be able to go on a substantial holiday. Certainly not on a plane or a cruise anyway. Like you planning driving "down south" for long country house weekends looking for somewhere to move to.

 

[ronk]

I like my Euro trips each year, Im not a cruise person - Its nice to take the car down thro Germany into Schwarzwald and enjoy the car in its natural habitat.
If I can do that this year I will be happy. We have friends in Celle in the north Germany and also in the Netherlands so perhaps two trips this year? DFDS will be clapping their hands when I go into the office.

No doubt about getting away for short breaks in the UK tho

 

[Z4C_er]

Nice try.....but to quote a has been....it's fake news.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/aug/03/dan-lungren/lungren-says-obama-would-have-government-require-c/

Politifact is in itself fake news. Read many of the articles yourself and take some time doing so. Scrutinise the wording. It's so heavily biased to the left. Even 'snopes' is going that way.

Don't believe...that's fine....don't expect any ideologue to agree with something that goes against their ideology....but there's plenty of other reputable outlets reporting the same story, but I'm not getting into pointless arguments. You can have your own opinions...but not your own facts.

Flyingfifer put it very well. They distort facts to make a story. That's a blanket statement, I know, and I'm sure there are examples where they haven't, but I've seen many of them where they have.

 

[Old-Duckman]

just give grandma a pill

Nice try.....but to quote a has been....it's fake news.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/aug/03/dan-lungren/lungren-says-obama-would-have-government-require-c/

Nice try but I heard it with my own ears, I don't care what kind of spin the article tried to put on it. You might have gathered I'm rather interested in politics and I followed obama's campaign rather closely. Did he also not say that he wanted to "fundamentally change America"? You might as well look up that quote on some liberal rag and dispute that as well.

 

[Old-Duckman]

[ref]Old-Duckman[/ref],
My thoughts were, “hmmm undesirables“

Guys you misunderstood my use of "undesirables". Not undesirable in my opinion

No, not having that p!sh, first response MY thoughts, second response NOT in MY opinion, called out, now backtracking.

There were countless terms could have used for the at risk groups but you chose to pick, and post, a derogatory one :thumbsdown:

I guess the nuances of my missive have escaped you...Let me TRY to explain.

When I said "My thoughts were hmmm undesirables" I was saying what I believed those who want to eliminate such people from society were thinking.

Quite frankly I don't care if YOU believe me or not but those were my thoughts.

 

[Argyll Andy]

[ref]Old-Duckman[/ref],
My thoughts were, “hmmm undesirables“

Guys you misunderstood my use of "undesirables". Not undesirable in my opinion

No, not having that p!sh, first response MY thoughts, second response NOT in MY opinion, called out, now backtracking.

There were countless terms could have used for the at risk groups but you chose to pick, and post, a derogatory one :thumbsdown:

I guess the nuances of my missive have escaped you...Let me TRY to explain.

When I said "My thoughts were hmmm undesirables" I was saying what I believed those who want to eliminate such people from society were thinking.

Quite frankly I don't care if YOU believe me or not but those were my thoughts.

Don’t talk down to me you

YOUR thoughts were hmmm undesirables, NOT looks tome like they’re targeting the people THEY think are undesirables. Which has a completely different meaning. You quite clearly said YOUR thoughts.

As for your thoughts on me, I don’t give a flying ....... what you think!

 

[Old-Duckman]

[ref]Old-Duckman[/ref],
My thoughts were, “hmmm undesirables“



No, not having that p!sh, first response MY thoughts, second response NOT in MY opinion, called out, now backtracking.

There were countless terms could have used for the at risk groups but you chose to pick, and post, a derogatory one :thumbsdown:

I guess the nuances of my missive have escaped you...Let me TRY to explain.

When I said "My thoughts were hmmm undesirables" I was saying what I believed those who want to eliminate such people from society were thinking.

Quite frankly I don't care if YOU believe me or not but those were my thoughts.

Don’t talk down to me you

YOUR thoughts were hmmm undesirables, NOT looks tome like they’re targeting the people THEY think are undesirables. Which has a completely different meaning. You quite clearly said YOUR thoughts.

As for your thoughts on me, I don’t give a flying ....... what you think!

Wow, you are amazing, a mind reader for sure...and oceans away as well. You'll make a fantastic living in night clubs with that act. Good luck and best wishes!

 

[Z4C_er]

I’m not planning any substantial holiday wise until late summer - I’d like to know that I’m well jabbed up before I go away from my own home.

Looks like day trips only In early days.

Suspect that unless you are "jabbed up" you won't be able to go on a substantial holiday. Certainly not on a plane or a cruise anyway. Like you planning driving "down south" for long country house weekends looking for somewhere to move to.

It's OK, I will offer to wear a mask whilst on the plane.
Wait......... are you going to tell me masks are useless now?

 

[Z4C_er]

How interesting:
https://youtu.be/bw5ldWr9QD0

 

[exdos]

How interesting:
https://youtu.be/bw5ldWr9QD0

I've just watched that. But she fails to point out that the purpose of the UK lockdowns and restrictions is to attempt to regulate the admissions into our hospitals of patients suffering from severe effects from C-19 infection, where each patient requires many specialist staff and equipment over a long period and thus potentially completely overwhelming the system. Excess deaths would certainly increase should our hospitals ever become overwhelmed.

Back in the day of the Spanish Flu pandemic, they had no idea of how to treat the victims, so many would die within days, whereas now, each victim in hospital is a "bed-blocker" for weeks.

 

[Crazy Harry]

I've tried hard not to express my views through this thread but I have commented on the 'mechanics' of why positions are polarized and to some extend the influences of various forms of media and reliability of sources.

I've been reading reports in American news papers online - of all shades in the political spectrum and this was interesting relating to how the science facts are used as a basis for buliding individuals' conceptions of beliefs - in this instance related to Covid and to Trump

So I offer you (an edited) interview with Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard from The New Yorker. Got me interested enough to buy a copy of her book.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-to-talk-to-coronavirus-skeptics

 

[Nictrix]

Can anybody explain the change from it supposed to be 3 weeks between the vaccines to now being 12 weeks in between them when the professionals seem to say it should be a maximum of 42 days?

 

[exdos]

Can anybody explain the change from it supposed to be 3 weeks between the vaccines to now being 12 weeks in between them when the professionals seem to say it should be a maximum of 42 days?

When the vaccine trials were conducted, the manufacturers followed a specific protocol, where there was an interval of, say, 3 weeks between the first and second dose of the vaccine under test, therefore, all the data recorded and presented to the various regulation authorities relates only to such conditions and licensing is granted on that basis. Obviously, not all vaccinated individuals were given their second dose on the stroke of midnight of day 21, and there would be some variability in the actual intervals between the administration of the 2 doses, and the data will probably contain information for some individuals who received their second dose after a much greater interval than 3 weeks. I understand the Oxford/AstraZeneca trial included some variable intervals between administration of the 2 doses.

Under the principles of vaccination, the administration of a single dose of a vaccine will initiate an immune response which will develop in the few weeks that follow, which will provide a period of immunity to the vaccinated individual which will last for a few months at least. The administration of a second dose of the vaccine will "boost" the initial level of immunity, which should prolong the immunity for a much longer period, providing protection to the individual.

The logic is now of providing a first vaccine dose to as many people as possible in order to give initial immunity to a much higher percentage of the most vulnerable groups within a 12 week period, rather than providing a much smaller group a longer lasting level of immunity, before the second dose is administered to this larger group.

Now that the vaccination programme is well underway, the researchers/statisticians have access to a considerably greater amount of data in "real world" use than the manufacturers had during their trials, therefore it's now possible to assess antibody levels/immunity amongst all cohorts of vaccinated people (the most vulnerable) and not just healthy volunteers, as in the trials. It would appear that the scientists advising the government are acting empirically from more information gathered from a very large sample group (the vaccinated population), rather than restrictively from information gathered from a much smaller sample group during clinical trials to "suck and see" if their vaccines were effective or not.

 

[Nictrix]

Can anybody explain the change from it supposed to be 3 weeks between the vaccines to now being 12 weeks in between them when the professionals seem to say it should be a maximum of 42 days?

When the vaccine trials were conducted, the manufacturers followed a specific protocol, where there was an interval of, say, 3 weeks between the first and second dose of the vaccine under test, therefore, all the data recorded and presented to the various regulation authorities relates only to such conditions and licensing is granted on that basis. Obviously, not all vaccinated individuals were given their second dose on the stroke of midnight of day 21, and there would be some variability in the actual intervals between the administration of the 2 doses, and the data will probably contain information for some individuals who received their second dose after a much greater interval than 3 weeks. I understand the Oxford/AstraZeneca trial included some variable intervals between administration of the 2 doses.

Under the principles of vaccination, the administration of a single dose of a vaccine will initiate an immune response which will develop in the few weeks that follow, which will provide a period of immunity to the vaccinated individual which will last for a few months at least. The administration of a second dose of the vaccine will "boost" the initial level of immunity, which should prolong the immunity for a much longer period, providing protection to the individual.

The logic is now of providing a first vaccine dose to as many people as possible in order to give initial immunity to a much higher percentage of the most vulnerable groups within a 12 week period, rather than providing a much smaller group a longer lasting level of immunity, before the second dose is administered to this larger group.

Now that the vaccination programme is well underway, the researchers/statisticians have access to a considerably greater amount of data in "real world" use than the manufacturers had during their trials, therefore it's now possible to assess antibody levels/immunity amongst all cohorts of vaccinated people (the most vulnerable) and not just healthy volunteers, as in the trials. It would appear that the scientists advising the government are acting empirically from more information gathered from a very large sample group (the vaccinated population), rather than restrictively from information gathered from a much smaller sample group during clinical trials to "suck and see" if their vaccines were effective or not.

So do they have information on a difference of 12 weeks between doses now or is everybody that is part of the group that are being given doses 12 weeks apart part of the testing.
Unless I am missing something this info is not available yet as we are not 12 weeks into the program.

"What do the manufacturers say?
In a joint statement Pfizer and BioNTech said, “The safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design . . . There is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”

The European Medicines Agency has said that the gap between the first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine should not exceed 42 days. “Any change to this would require a variation to the marketing authorisation as well as more clinical data to support such a change, otherwise it would be considered as ‘off-label use,’” the agency said."

I do hope for everybody relying on the vaccines that this approach is not a waste of time, effort and money.

 

[exdos]

So do they have information on a difference of 12 weeks between doses now or is everybody that is part of the group that are being given doses 12 weeks apart part of the testing.
Unless I am missing something this info is not available yet as we are not 12 weeks into the program.

"What do the manufacturers say?
In a joint statement Pfizer and BioNTech said, “The safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design . . . There is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”

The European Medicines Agency has said that the gap between the first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine should not exceed 42 days. “Any change to this would require a variation to the marketing authorisation as well as more clinical data to support such a change, otherwise it would be considered as ‘off-label use,’” the agency said."

I do hope for everybody relying on the vaccines that this approach is not a waste of time, effort and money.

See: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18
It states:
"The trials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine did include different spacing between doses, finding that a longer gap (two to three months) led to a greater immune response, but the overall participant numbers were small. In the UK study 59% (1407 of 2377) of the participants who had two standard doses received the second dose between nine and 12 weeks after the first."

The government advisers aren't just making this stuff up: they're experts in their fields with specialist knowledge. Of course the C-19 in humans is novel, but the experts can see the data and compare it to the behaviours and patterns of all other known viruses and act accordingly. This is how scientific advances are made: they're not just blind leaps into the dark.

And this: https://assets.publishing.service.g...n-spc-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-reg174.pdf