O/T Covid-19 - Discussion for the duration of this crisis. | Page 110 | Vital Football

O/T Covid-19 - Discussion for the duration of this crisis.

Afternoon all, I do not know if its true...but just read a news flash by the Express saying that a 2nd wave of Covid 19 has struck NE China and that 108m people in that province have been put on lockdown, starts to make you think doesn't it.

Keep safe all.

People are already taking the easing as a sign to return to normal interactions - commonsense seemly is a dirty word with too many people.

I hope it isn't the case, but I'm now convinced that unless we have some sort of treatment breakthrough, then a second more deadlier wave is inevitable.
 
I somewhat disagree. Personally I think it is their duty to be transparent and that anything less just simply wouldn't be good enough for any democratic society in a time of crisis. There are aspects that they certainly haven't been transparent enough about too. Good fundamental use of statistics with consistency of metrics used would give a much clearer picture to the public. The not knowing enough about the virus was also why the initial approach by the government was so utterly reckless.

I completely agree about the daily briefing. It is a largely pointless exercise. I'm not sure if anyone actually learns anything of note from it. If anything it just fills me with frustration when I get that notification from the BBC about it happening...

Robbie Savage asked a few questions today and it's the questions from journalists that interests me more than most. I do keep an eye on the infection rate. Robbie's question was perhaps a little daft in comparing football with golf or tennis which are non contact sports when asking why football is being treated more strictly.
 
People are already taking the easing as a sign to return to normal interactions - commonsense seemly is a dirty word with too many people.

I hope it isn't the case, but I'm now convinced that unless we have some sort of treatment breakthrough, then a second more deadlier wave is inevitable.
It’s interesting to note that London is stated as having one of the lowest new infections rates when it was the epicentre of the first wave...it could be indicative of an effective rate of immunity caused by the initial infection rate being several times larger than the hospital cases.....which would be good news.
 
Interesting to see the interview on BBC Breakfast with the guy leading the trials of the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine.....no mention that it failed to immunise monkeys in testing...in simple terms it doesn’t work and that information is in the public domain. When the guy was asked about results he fudged the answer talking about the need to protect the anonymity of those people in the trials.

Many treatments for various diseases work in test tubes and animals but fail in humans....are they hoping this will be the first time something doesn’t work in animals but will work in humans...

Talk about controlling the message. Why is the government continuing to pour money down this apparent black hole?
 
Interesting to see the interview on BBC Breakfast with the guy leading the trials of the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine.....no mention that it failed to immunise monkeys in testing...in simple terms it doesn’t work and that information is in the public domain. When the guy was asked about results he fudged the answer talking about the need to protect the anonymity of those people in the trials.

Many treatments for various diseases work in test tubes and animals but fail in humans....are they hoping this will be the first time something doesn’t work in animals but will work in humans...

Talk about controlling the message. Why is the government continuing to pour money down this apparent black hole?

A partially effective vaccine can be beneficial by lessening the severity of the attack on the body as Chris Whitty explained yesterday at the briefing.
 
It’s interesting to note that London is stated as having one of the lowest new infections rates when it was the epicentre of the first wave...it could be indicative of an effective rate of immunity caused by the initial infection rate being several times larger than the hospital cases.....which would be good news.

Or they are lying to try and get the economy going again.
 
A partially effective vaccine can be beneficial by lessening the severity of the attack on the body as Chris Whitty explained yesterday at the briefing.
The point of a vaccine is to stop people catching the disease and, as importantly, stop people spreading the virus to others.

So far, this vaccine is 0 for 2.

As for lessening the effects, it was reported that the sacrificed monkeys had the virus in their lungs but did not have pneumonia...given that they appear to have been killed a very short time after exposure that may be it just hadn’t developed yet....

Reading some of EX’s previous posts it may be that existing drugs are already more effective at treating the disease than a vaccine that doesn’t immunise.
 
Or they are lying to try and get the economy going again.
Maybe RD, but when you see the daily BS from the MSM it’s hard to know where the the truth lies.

They had one of their tame doctors this morning advising people not to get the antibody test as it may be that if you test positive it is not known if you have immunity and you may put yourself and others at risk.

Even if you accept the notion that having had the virus, survived it without any special treatment and now have antibodies you will not have a level of immunity, which would be a very rare if not unique occurrence, the other side of taking the test and reporting the findings will help to refine models predicting the real IFR rate which is just as important as the R factor in determining public policy.
 
The point of a vaccine is to stop people catching the disease and, as importantly, stop people spreading the virus to others.

So far, this vaccine is 0 for 2.

As for lessening the effects, it was reported that the sacrificed monkeys had the virus in their lungs but did not have pneumonia...given that they appear to have been killed a very short time after exposure that may be it just hadn’t developed yet....

Reading some of EX’s previous posts it may be that existing drugs are already more effective at treating the disease than a vaccine that doesn’t immunise.
Vaccines don't need to be 100% effective or given to everyone in order to prevent the disease from moving about the population.

For example, a highly contagious disease such as Measles requires about 90% of population to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity. Roughly 5% of measles vaccinations aren't effective for various reasons which is why it is so important that everyone gets the vaccination for measles.

For a less contagious disease such as Covid-19, some of the predictions were pointing towards figures maybe as low as 60% in order to reach herd immunity. Presuming people are safe once they have it once, that's roughly 40 million people in the UK need to have either recovered from Covid-19 or have an effective vaccine. So the vaccine doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be safe.
 
Robbie Savage asked a few questions today and it's the questions from journalists that interests me more than most. I do keep an eye on the infection rate. Robbie's question was perhaps a little daft in comparing football with golf or tennis which are non contact sports when asking why football is being treated more strictly.
Robbie Savage asking questions at government briefings tells me all I need to know in terms of how pointless these daily briefings are.
 
Interesting to see the interview on BBC Breakfast with the guy leading the trials of the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine.....no mention that it failed to immunise monkeys in testing...in simple terms it doesn’t work and that information is in the public domain. When the guy was asked about results he fudged the answer talking about the need to protect the anonymity of those people in the trials.

Many treatments for various diseases work in test tubes and animals but fail in humans....are they hoping this will be the first time something doesn’t work in animals but will work in humans...

Talk about controlling the message. Why is the government continuing to pour money down this apparent black hole?

Because there are key indicators that it provides a big protection from the worst of the disease, i.e. in layman's terms - a weaker version. If that is the starting point, then we should grasp the opportunity.
 
It’s interesting to note that London is stated as having one of the lowest new infections rates when it was the epicentre of the first wave...it could be indicative of an effective rate of immunity caused by the initial infection rate being several times larger than the hospital cases.....which would be good news.

The authorities and the scientists will tell you that is because they had almost 100% adherence to the lockdown rules, far far higher than they thought they could achieve, sadly the projected immunity, is still low, but the positive news is that the immunity post infection may well be enduring - let's hope it is.
 
Robbie Savage asking questions at government briefings tells me all I need to know in terms of how pointless these daily briefings are.

Most of the questions from journalists are challenging and relevant. Getting answers and info from the medical and science experts is the part I value most. The trend reports help indicate where we are in battling the virus. Each minister usually has an update linked to their department. I dont find the briefings pointless but each to their own .
 
Vaccines don't need to be 100% effective or given to everyone in order to prevent the disease from moving about the population.

For example, a highly contagious disease such as Measles requires about 90% of population to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity. Roughly 5% of measles vaccinations aren't effective for various reasons which is why it is so important that everyone gets the vaccination for measles.

For a less contagious disease such as Covid-19, some of the predictions were pointing towards figures maybe as low as 60% in order to reach herd immunity. Presuming people are safe once they have it once, that's roughly 40 million people in the UK need to have either recovered from Covid-19 or have an effective vaccine. So the vaccine doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be safe.
Agreed, but it has to work and this one doesn’t on either test...it neither prevents infection nor the spread of it.
 
The authorities and the scientists will tell you that is because they had almost 100% adherence to the lockdown rules, far far higher than they thought they could achieve, sadly the projected immunity, is still low, but the positive news is that the immunity post infection may well be enduring - let's hope it is.
Yes, that’s what they will tell us....I want to see the results of the planned antibody tests before believing any more assumptions from the in crowd.
 
Yes, that’s what they will tell us....I want to see the results of the planned antibody tests before believing any more assumptions from the in crowd.

Well they've run sampling tests in two towns now - both representative of the wider community and they're about to do a 300,000 run - so 10X bigger than previously attempted, but in the first two 'dummy runs' the actual results were remarkable consistent with the modelling, so I personally am not expecting too much of a deviation from it.

In Sweden after their social distancing approach, their targets for her immunity are not even close (you need around 60%) and their mass testing is coming in at around 7.7% - so they have an incredible long way to travel to meet, as will I believe will we, and I'm almost certain now that the only we will is by some sort of vaccination program.
 
The point of a vaccine is to stop people catching the disease and, as importantly, stop people spreading the virus to others.

So far, this vaccine is 0 for 2.

As for lessening the effects, it was reported that the sacrificed monkeys had the virus in their lungs but did not have pneumonia...given that they appear to have been killed a very short time after exposure that may be it just hadn’t developed yet....

Reading some of EX’s previous posts it may be that existing drugs are already more effective at treating the disease than a vaccine that doesn’t immunise.

I think you've made too much of an assumption there; the vaccine is behaving as some in the group predicted, that does not make it unusable or even ineffective.

Now's your chance to step step forward and do or die!!



Oxford team seek 10,000 volunteers to test vaccine

new
Tom Whipple, Science Editor
Friday May 22 2020, 12.00pm, The Times
Health
%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Ff9bb527c-9c11-11ea-aaba-2417e5fa83dd.jpg

The vaccine was the first in Europe to enter human trials, and the initial results are being analysed
JUSTIN SETTERFIELD/GETTY IMAGES


About 10,000 people are due to receive the Oxford vaccine at sites around the country as trials move into their final phases.

The announcement that scientists are recruiting volunteers en masse confirms that the coronavirus vaccine remains on course for completing testing in the autumn — a target that many experts considered too ambitious. If it is shown to work by then it will be the quickest development of a vaccine in medical history.

The Oxford team say that whether or not they meet their goal of proving it works by September — when the government has pledged to have 30 million doses ready — will depend on the rate of transmission of the virus in Britain.

coronavirus
A brief explanation of vaccines

A vaccine is a harmless version of a virus that ‘trains’ your immune system to respond quickly if you are ever infected with the real thing
Human cell
Vaccine
Antibody

1
A vaccine containing weakened bacteria or protein mimicking a virus enters the body



2
After several days, your body starts to produce antibodies to protect you



3
These antibodies are specific for this virus and your body remembers them
4
If you are exposed to the virus in future your body is now primed to respond quickly



In order to be approved for wider use, enough of those given the vaccine need to have been naturally exposed to the virus to be sure that it is effective.


“We are in full flight in a pandemic,” Andrew Pollard, head of the Oxford vaccine group, said. “You have to have evidence of the vaccine working. Now it’s certainly possible if there’s enough transmission that we could know by September. But if there is not much transmission it will take longer.”

The vaccine was the first in Europe to enter human trials, with 1,000 subjects recruited for the initial testing phase in April. The results of that trial are being analysed to assess whether the vaccine is safe and whether it induces an immune response. Separately, a smaller trial is beginning in older adults, whose immune systems often respond differently to vaccinations.
Most scientists believe that any individual vaccine has a relatively low chance of success, but that with more than 100 teams looking for a vaccine around the world one is almost certain to be shown to work. The Oxford team is using a generic “platform” technique that has been shown to work in the past and senior figures in the public health community believe that theirs is one of the most promising vaccines.
Professor Pollard said that finding out whether it works or not by the autumn will depend on everything going perfectly. “Talking about autumn is really the optimistic hope that there’s no bumps in the road. It requires a number of different things to go well.”
Tests of the vaccine in macaques have produced mixed results. Although the monkeys did not develop infections in their lungs the virus still replicated in their upper respiratory tracts.

Professor Pollard said that this was not unexpected and certainly did not justify stopping trials. The way in which the monkeys were tested — by spraying a large dose of the virus into their noses — meant that it was hard to interpret the results.

“It’s very difficult to know whether that large dose that goes into the upper airway into the nose of the animals is anything like what happens in humans,” he said.

“What the vaccine was definitely able to do was prevent pneumonia and prevent actually any virus in the lungs at all. If we have a vaccine that can prevent pneumonia, severe disease, hospital admission, ICU admission and death, then that’s pretty good. That, I think, would be enough for all of us.”
 
IF, IF it can achieve that, it would be a massive win and the beginning of the end of this crisis,.- it would save countless lives.

But as of now, it is an 'if'.


“What the vaccine was definitely able to do was prevent pneumonia and prevent actually any virus in the lungs at all. If we have a vaccine that can prevent pneumonia, severe disease, hospital admission, ICU admission and death, then that’s pretty good. That, I think, would be enough for all of us.”