Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Deadly Virus is Spreading/ Covid19 Pandemic 2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    One of the vaccines in development is said to work in older people. Maybe it works best in older people? Maybe more risks can be taken in the older population? It is frightening how all of medicine is politicized.

    For some reason, we hear of neurological complications from new vaccines, as happened with the swine flu vaccine many years ago. I have not looked into this phenomena recently to see if science has any better ideas of why.

    Unfortunately, such evidence as there is suggests that these coronavirus vaccines will work less well in older people than in younger people. Another reason why vaccinating only the "vulnerable" is such a stupid idea.

    The possibility of neurological complication is the reason why the trials of the Oxford vaccine were halted, and as far as I know remain halted in the USA. But of course, the evaluation of safety is one of the most important reasons - probably the most important reason - for having these large-scale trials. That's why the implication of Ms Bingham's comments - that the UK is going to approve a vaccine with such dangerous side effects that its use can be justified only in people at high risk from the virus - is so particularly witless.

    Someone needs to sit her down and give her some basic advice before she makes any more public pronouncements.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
      She even went so far as to suggest younger people shouldn't be vaccinated because they might suffer "freak harm". (Does her job description actually include providing ammunition for anti-vaxers??)
      That is bloody disgraceful, Chris! It's an uphill struggle as it is to get back public confidence in basic life-saving vaccinations, after the world-wide harm done by Andrew Wakefield.

      I was only wondering this morning what percentage of the public would actually agree to be vaccinated if and when one becomes available, but my thinking was based on everyone being offered it and strongly advised to have it.

      We will all remain vulnerable without it.

      Incidentally, do you know of many cases where one person has been infected by this virus more than once?

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
        That is bloody disgraceful, Chris! It's an uphill struggle as it is to get back public confidence in basic life-saving vaccinations, after the world-wide harm done by Andrew Wakefield.

        I was only wondering this morning what percentage of the public would actually agree to be vaccinated if and when one becomes available, but my thinking was based on everyone being offered it and strongly advised to have it.

        We will all remain vulnerable without it.

        Incidentally, do you know of many cases where one person has been infected by this virus more than once?
        I think there is at least one case where genetic analysis has shown that it is a genuine reinfection, rather than a resurgence of the same infection. From what I've read about coronaviruses in general, I don't think we can expect immunity (whether acquired through infection or vaccination) to be permanent. That simply means it won't be a one-off, once-and-for-all vaccination, but it shouldn't change any of the arguments about the utility of vaccination.

        In every informed discussion I have read, it is taken as an axiom that if a safe and reasonably effective vaccine becomes available, it will be desirable to vaccinate as large a proportion of the population as possible. I thought that anyone with two brain cells to rub together understood this. I can't express how disturbing I find it that the person in charge of the UK's vaccination strategy doesn't understand it.

        Her bone-headed argument against universal vaccination is based on completely ignoring the collective benefits ("herd immunity"), and focussing on an exclusive reading of the benefits to the individual - on the scientifically illiterate and quite ludicrous assumption that the number of individuals vaccinated has no effect on the outcome for the population as a whole.

        After more than six months of this kind of incompetence, I have no more patience with it. Ms Bingham should be sent packing, and replaced with someone with some basic scientific experience.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
          I think there is at least one case where genetic analysis has shown that it is a genuine reinfection, rather than a resurgence of the same infection. From what I've read about coronaviruses in general, I don't think we can expect immunity (whether acquired through infection or vaccination) to be permanent. That simply means it won't be a one-off, once-and-for-all vaccination, but it shouldn't change any of the arguments about the utility of vaccination.

          In every informed discussion I have read, it is taken as an axiom that if a safe and reasonably effective vaccine becomes available, it will be desirable to vaccinate as large a proportion of the population as possible. I thought that anyone with two brain cells to rub together understood this. I can't express how disturbing I find it that the person in charge of the UK's vaccination strategy doesn't understand it.

          Her bone-headed argument against universal vaccination is based on completely ignoring the collective benefits ("herd immunity"), and focussing on an exclusive reading of the benefits to the individual - on the scientifically illiterate and quite ludicrous assumption that the number of individuals vaccinated has no effect on the outcome for the population as a whole.

          After more than six months of this kind of incompetence, I have no more patience with it. Ms Bingham should be sent packing, and replaced with someone with some basic scientific experience.
          Is she not just a mouthpiece for the government?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
            Is she not just a mouthpiece for the government?
            Is this what she was trying to convey?

            https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nation#fnref:2

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
              Is this what she was trying to convey?

              https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nation#fnref:2
              I don't know whether she is a mouthpiece for the government. But the report of what she says is here, and it really doesn't seem to be a question of prioritising the available vaccine, but a deliberate policy to vaccinate only half the population:
              https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-...3-43e51355a751

              Incidentally, in one respect that report is demonstrably wrong. It says that all the vaccines in the UK portfolio will require two doses. On the contrary, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is being tested in Phase 3 with a single dose:
              Initial immunogenicity and safety data (28 days post-Dose 1 data from Cohort 1aand available data from Cohort 3) from study VAC31518COV1001 havedemonstrated that a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S at 51010vp and 11011vp induces an immune response that meets prespecified minimum criteriaand is safe. The sponsor has therefore decided to proceed with the single dose regimen at a 51010vp dose level in this Phase 3 study.
              https://www.jnj.com/coronavirus/covi...nical-protocol

              However, the UK has indeed ordered only 30 million doses of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. But it's certainly not the case that the UK has consistently ordered enough doses for half the population. It has ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine (two doses), 60 million of Novavax, Sanofi and Valneva, but only 30 million of Pfizer (two doses). Like so much else, there seems to be little rhyme or reason to this.

              Comment


              • Vaccinations are not just to protect at-risk individuals from catching a disease. Surely they should be given to as many people as possible, across the board, to try and prevent those people infecting others, who may be waiting for a vaccination or unable to have one for whatever reason.

                The same principle applies to face coverings, which are more effective at protecting others than the wearer.

                IIRC, one of the problems with parents refusing to allow their children to have the MMR vaccine was that very young babies could not be given it, leaving them vulnerable if, for example, an older sibling got measles.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
                  Vaccinations are not just to protect at-risk individuals from catching a disease. Surely they should be given to as many people as possible, across the board, to try and prevent those people infecting others, who may be waiting for a vaccination or unable to have one for whatever reason.

                  The same principle applies to face coverings, which are more effective at protecting others than the wearer.

                  IIRC, one of the problems with parents refusing to allow their children to have the MMR vaccine was that very young babies could not be given it, leaving them vulnerable if, for example, an older sibling got measles.

                  Precisely. In essence, Bingham's reasoning is exactly what causes people to refuse to let their children be vaccinated against measles.

                  Comment


                  • I see Trump now views the virus as a "blessing from God".


                    Perhaps he should give a thought to the million people who have died of COVID-19 without dedicated medical support from dozens of specialists. Many of them perhaps without any medical care at all.

                    Comment


                    • To be fair, Chris, money is God to that sick moron.
                      I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
                        To be fair, Chris, money is God to that sick moron.
                        To be fair to God, he did do his best to knock him off. Even God has the odd bad day.
                        Be nice to one another!
                        Merv

                        Comment


                        • Donald Trump has called his Covid-19 infection “a blessing from God” as he returned to the Oval Office on Wednesday despite concerns that he should be self-isolating, as the virus continued to spread among senior White House figures.

                          In a video message posted to Twitter, Trump said that an experimental drug cocktail from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals was key to recovering from his infection. He said it was his suggestion to be treated with the drug, which has rarely been used outside clinical trials.

                          “I feel great. I feel, like, perfect,” the president says in the video. “I think this was a blessing from God, that I caught it. This was a blessing in disguise. I caught it, I heard about this drug, I said let me take it. It was my suggestion.”
                          To Join JTR Forums :
                          Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                            Chris:

                            Not that I doubt you, but do you have a link to the comment Trump is stated as having made ?

                            Thanks !

                            "I think this was a blessing from God that I caught it. This was a blessing in disguise," Trump said, adding that his use of the medication from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc REGN.O had allowed him to experience first-hand how effective it could be.
                            https://uk.reuters.com/article/healt...-idUSKBN26S2KM

                            Comment


                            • Thanks Chris...

                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                              Comment


                              • I think this article about the pandemic hits an important nail on the head, in that the transmission of the virus is known to vary a lot between different individuals and different conditions. The article concentrates on the implications for contact tracing and other prevention strategies. But another implication is that effective herd immunity might occur as a result of far lower infection rates than estimated from average statistics (particularly statistics relating to the initial rapid growth phase):
                                https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ndemic/616548/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X