Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Hobby]

Only when there's a low exposure risk, though, as the next two slides show. Probably applicable for Aus but not in Europe. 

[Hobby]

10 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I am programmed for a jab on Monday. I have been told to take a Paracetamol an hour beforehand. 

 

That's a new one, why? 

[Rods_of_Revolution]

10 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Only when there's a low exposure risk, though, as the next two slides show. Probably applicable for Aus but not in Europe. 

 

There is currently a low exposure risk in the UK, the slide says it's applicable to the situation in the UK as of March. The medium exposure risk was applicable to February.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

What pressures are there on the virus to become more lethal? A virus can't spread effectively if the host is sick in bed or dead, so viruses tend to mutate to become less lethal, as the less lethal mutations spread better.

 

You speak as if viruses think.  They don't.  They evolve.  Those evolutions that are successful will live on.  Those that don't die out.

 

There is no pressure on a virus to become more lethal.  Indeed viruses that are too lethal tend to die out - hence we have (so far) controlled Ebola.   Highly infectious and highly deadly.

 

Viruses evolve as they need and successful ones gai traction.  Unsuccessful ones just die out.

 

In the case of Covid it is neither highly lethal nor is it highly infectious - deadly enough for sure, infectious enough ? but not at for example the level of measles (r=15 unconstrained) .  Covid is deadly and it is infectious but in neither case at the extreme.  The opportunity is therefore that it can become more infectious through mutation and therefore evade the current vaccines, and or become a lot more deadly.  There is more than a hint there with the Kent (aka in other parts of the world the British) virus.

This virus has the potential to make itself a whole lot worse before it burns itself out.  For every 10 variants that are less potent, it takes just one that is more potent to wipe out all of our scientific gains.

 

[Reorte]

16 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

You speak as if viruses think.  They don't.  They evolve.  Those evolutions that are successful will live on.  Those that don't die out.

 

There is no pressure on a virus to become more lethal.  Indeed viruses that are too lethal tend to die out - hence we have (so far) controlled Ebola.   Highly infectious and highly deadly.

 

Viruses evolve as they need and successful ones gai traction.  Unsuccessful ones just die out.

 

In the case of Covid it is neither highly lethal nor is it highly infectious - deadly enough for sure, infectious enough ? but not at for example the level of measles (r=15 unconstrained) .  Covid is deadly and it is infectious but in neither case at the extreme.  The opportunity is therefore that it can become more infectious through mutation and therefore evade the current vaccines, and or become a lot more deadly.  There is more than a hint there with the Kent (aka in other parts of the world the British) virus.

This virus has the potential to make itself a whole lot worse before it burns itself out.  For every 10 variants that are less potent, it takes just one that is more potent to wipe out all of our scientific gains.

 

A big if, but if a variant stops re-infection soon afterwards (or during) by other variants then the most successful one will be one that's incredibly infectious but so mild that no-one even knows they have it, or wouldn't if it wasn't for testing, and it would stop others. That's a fairly far-fetched best-case scenario but less extreme versions probably explain why we haven't died out from disease millenia ago.

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

Eugenics was regarded as a legitimate branch of medicine for decades Worldwide and was used to justify some appalling medical programs.

 

Let's not get goaded into attacking your straw man.

 

It's now the weekend and I have no wish to monitor your increasingly provocative references so I'll be disabling your access to the topic.

[Andy Hayter]

9 minutes ago, Reorte said:

A big if, but if a variant stops re-infection soon afterwards (or during) by other variants then the most successful one will be one that's incredibly infectious but so mild that no-one even knows they have it, or wouldn't if it wasn't for testing, and it would stop others. That's a fairly far-fetched best-case scenario but less extreme versions probably explain why we haven't died out from disease millenia ago.

Indeed that is the common cold.  But I wonder how many generations it killed in significant number before it became the "inert" virus it is today.

You could also site Influenza on that spectrum heading towards innocuous but it still kills so many that we think vaccination is a worthwhile activity.

At the other end of the spectrum smallpox (now eradicated in the wild through vaccination - just took the best part of 200 years to get there and I am led to believe that the early 19th century anti-vaxers were just as forward as today.), polio, measles, etc.  

We did not die out because we could reproduce faster than the viruses could kill.  

 

Simple statistics.

[Dunsignalling]

50 minutes ago, Reorte said:

A big if, but if a variant stops re-infection soon afterwards (or during) by other variants then the most successful one will be one that's incredibly infectious but so mild that no-one even knows they have it, or wouldn't if it wasn't for testing, and it would stop others. That's a fairly far-fetched best-case scenario but less extreme versions probably explain why we haven't died out from disease millenia ago.

Maybe, but that will take many years. Currently, the Kent, South African and Brazilian variants are outcompeting earlier forms so are clearly more infectious. However, it also appears they are as or more deadly than the original.

 

As vaccination of those initially at high risk of serious illness nears totality, the virus should be expected to evolve to more effectively target those not so protected. Quite a few younger people seem relaxed about the risks, and their vaccine take-up may well not approach the levels seen in older age groups unless or until their own vulnerability increases.

 

John

Edited April 9, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[monkeysarefun]

5 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I am programmed for a jab on Monday. I have been told to take a Paracetamol an hour beforehand. 

Don't go into childbirth prior,  the odds against you will really stack up.

[monkeysarefun]

7 hours ago, Metr0Land said:

 

Your 1 in 30,000 presumably is across the population as a whole?  What were your risks of dying from covid if you were under 30 (if you were unvaccinated, and not in a particularly at-risk group of medical conditions).  I suspect it would be 1 in a much greater number.

 

 

You are more than likely right, I was just relating the government spin, I assume they just divided  the number of total covid deaths by the number of us Australians who haven't died of covid,  job done.

7 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

@monkeysarefun when you mentioned Paracetamol you missed Asprin which can also have some nasty side effects as well... 

For  sure the government media unit or whoever it is going through lists and informing us of 'things that are more risky than getting the suspended aZ vaccine' will come up with that one eventually , I think they are currently going through our wildlife stats to let us know that getting bitten by a redback while on the toilet  must rate highly because there's a song about it..

 

They have  shifted to listing 'countries who had a bad start to the vaccine rollout'  in order to let us know that of all the countries that have had a chaotic stuffed up rollout, we are the  least worse and therefore the best.

 

There's a term here "doing a Bradbury" to describe a situation where you come out best at something not because of your ability but because everyone else stuffs up worse.

 

It is in honour of Stephen Bradbury who became one of our first winter Olympic gold medallists by leading from the back during his final of the men's speed skating event. He was trailing the field by enough to avoid the spill when the rest of the field in front of him crashed on the last corner and he cruised past for the win.

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[hayfield]

20 hours ago, Reorte said:

"Given that you don't understand the R rate" - I suggest that you refrain from personal sneers like that just because you disagree with what someone is saying. I understand it perfectly well.

 

When the numbers are so low that a few cases can shift it either way then you're in a situation where there's not actually much of a problem.

 

It's displayed as a range because like any measurement of absolutely anything there's an uncertainty attached to it.

 

Of course the numbers are historic, you can't measure (but you can estimate) what the future will be. That's what you've got to work with, that's the data which tells you, as close as is possible, the current state of play, whether we're in an improving or worsening situation, whether measures are effective or more needs to be done.

 

It is not "such an esoteric number that outside of the circle of epidemiologists it has little real value," it's the measure of the key, vastly important factor of whether the pandemic is spreading or declining. Whilst strictly speaking yes, it's the number of people it's passed on to (on average) that's very closely related to the change in the total number of cases. Uncertainties about the real number of cases (tests don't get them all), sample dates, smoothing out the lumps and bumps in the measured numbers (e.g. the weekend effect) mean that you need to estimate it rather than measure it directly, but it's by no means esoteric.

 

This is why the government is not wholly reliant on using the R number. All rates used when the numbers are low are more affected by minor changes. This is why you cannot take any of these rates (infection, death , R number etc) at face value but purely part of story which need interpretation  

[hayfield]

13 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

So Australia has joined the Doubting Thomas club and restricted the AZ vaccine to the over 50's set.

 

I won't get into the rightness or sensibleness of the decision, I was just wondering who came up with the talking points the PM and assorted officials used when they made the announcement.

 

Basically as far as I could understand it:

 

There is a risk that younger people will get blood clots if they get the AZ vaccine.

 

The risk is 1 in 800,000 that if you get a blood clot from the AZ vaccine you will die so we are advising against its use for those under 50.

Older people don't you worry, you are not likely to get blood clots if you get the AZ vaccine. Probably.

 

You are also more likely to get these types of clots during childbirth than you are from the vaccine we just suspended.

 

And if you take the contraceptive pill the chances of blood clots is also higher than from the vaccine we have suspended.

 

And paracetamol. Thats more risky too.

 

Don't worry, none of these things are we  suspending.

 

We can suspend the AZ vaccine because we have no covid out there in the community, so we have time to evaluate vaccines, unlike other countries.

 

Hopefully we won't get any covid  outbreaks happening while we wait for the extra Pfizer vaccine we just ordered to turn up, but if we do we'll vaccinate everyone with the AZ vaccine like we were originally going to because like we just pointed out, its less harmful than a heap of other things we still let you have.

 

Finally, Australia has had 908 deaths from covid, which equates to a 1 in 30,000 chance of dying from covid. This is a much greater risk than dying from clots caused by the vaccine we just suspended.

 

Hope that clears it all up. Any questions?

 

 

 

 

Australia has done ever so well at keeping covid at bay, the trouble is at some time Australia will like everyone else have to open its borders. Until the pandemic subsides your population is at the same high risk of infection as everyone else who are unvaccinated.

 

As for which vaccine should be used for each group, the majority of those affected by these clots are young and possibly female. The risk is apparently similar to long distance flying, but if it can be reduced further, then it should be. Common sense, the risk of dying from covid is many times greater 

[hayfield]

Its still very good to see the 7 day rolling figures still declining across the board, despite higher death rates the past 2 days, though I guess these may be due to the bank holiday delaying reporting.

 

Also with the interactive map swathes of yellow are starting to appear and not just the south of the country, parts of Wales, Scotland, East Anglia and counties bordering Wales. 

 

Locally no infections reported yesterday as well as no deaths and our health care trust only had 2 admissions. I have also noticed positive signs where my relatives live, Kent is looking very good and Milton Keynes is so much better.

 

What is seemingly needed is a push in those areas which are lagging behind in the infection rates

[boxbrownie]

15 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I am programmed for a jab on Monday. I have been told to take a Paracetamol an hour beforehand. 

I wonder which vaccine you will be having and if that has a bearing on the paracetamol advice?

[Pete the Elaner]

17 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

So Australia has joined the Doubting Thomas club and restricted the AZ vaccine to the over 50's set.

 

I won't get into the rightness or sensibleness of the decision, I was just wondering who came up with the talking points the PM and assorted officials used when they made the announcement.

 

Basically as far as I could understand it:

 

There is a risk that younger people will get blood clots if they get the AZ vaccine.

 

The risk is 1 in 800,000 that if you get a blood clot from the AZ vaccine you will die so we are advising against its use for those under 50.

Older people don't you worry, you are not likely to get blood clots if you get the AZ vaccine. Probably.

 

You are also more likely to get these types of clots during childbirth than you are from the vaccine we just suspended.

 

And if you take the contraceptive pill the chances of blood clots is also higher than from the vaccine we have suspended.

 

And paracetamol. Thats more risky too.

 

Don't worry, none of these things are we  suspending.

 

We can suspend the AZ vaccine because we have no covid out there in the community, so we have time to evaluate vaccines, unlike other countries.

 

Hopefully we won't get any covid  outbreaks happening while we wait for the extra Pfizer vaccine we just ordered to turn up, but if we do we'll vaccinate everyone with the AZ vaccine like we were originally going to because like we just pointed out, its less harmful than a heap of other things we still let you have.

 

Finally, Australia has had 908 deaths from covid, which equates to a 1 in 30,000 chance of dying from covid. This is a much greater risk than dying from clots caused by the vaccine we just suspended.

 

Hope that clears it all up. Any questions?

 

 

AZ suspension does sound more politically than scientifically motivated.

 

Australia has done well in controlling the virus & immigration. If the government there is confident it can maintain the conditions it is currently employing to control the spread then it can afford to defer vaccination until any worries about them are either confirmed or quashed.

The same is not true for many countries which are far from in control of the situation, where the virus is more harmful than any vaccine.

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

I wonder which vaccine you will be having and if that has a bearing on the paracetamol advice?

I have just had a reminder that I am booked in for dose No 2 on Tuesday.

No mention of paracetamol or any other special action needed.

I am on AZ.

Bernard

[Dunsignalling]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I have just had a reminder that I am booked in for dose No 2 on Tuesday.

No mention of paracetamol or any other special action needed.

I am on AZ.

Bernard

You aren't in France.....

[Oldddudders]

9 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

You aren't in France.....

But Sherry's neighbour in Torquay said she'd done the same thing. My dishy pharmacist, prime French totty, instructed me and I'm not arguing.....

[Oldddudders]

The Lancet says https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext

 

"Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05)."

 

And I'm not arguing with them, either!

[Dunsignalling]

11 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

But Sherry's neighbour in Torquay said she'd done the same thing. My dishy pharmacist, prime French totty, instructed me and I'm not arguing.....

Having asked if I needed to do anything to prepare, I was just reminded to wear something that would allow easy access to the upper arm.

 

I dug a (new) Network Rail polo shirt out of the drawer and it did just fine.

 

In my case, the Paracetamol came into play about three hours later, when a persistent but not severe headache kicked in.

 

John

Edited April 10, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

I wonder which vaccine you will be having and if that has a bearing on the paracetamol advice?

Definitely AZ, all over 55s here now get that, no doubt helping free-up other vaccines for the younger set, where serious side-effects are more prevalent.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Oldddudders

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

Definitely AZ, all over 55s here now get that, no doubt helping free-up other vaccines for the younger set, where serious side-effects are more prevalent.

But thankfully still rare

[Dunsignalling]

Whilst a direct connection between the clotting in under-30s and the OAZ vaccine has yet to be established, a statistical correlation has emerged between the two, that did not in those of us who received it earlier.

 

Given that alternatives exist, it seems a pretty obvious precaution to ensure those are directed to the age-group in which the higher incidence has become apparent.

 

John

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[hayfield]

Every now and then I look at Euro news to see what's happening around Europe, today's trawl makes interesting reading as it seems business is getting back to normal

 

As for the Halix factory in Holland, the EU vaccine commissioner claims the UK government has not paid anything to the complex , so our claim on 50% of its production is not valid

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/vaccine-tsar-says-eu-will-get-astrazeneca-doses-over-which-uk-made-claim-1.4532523

 

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has also suspected blood clot cases

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/ema-reviewing-blood-clot-reports-in-four-people-who-received-johnson-johnson-vaccine-1.4533074

 

In Italy there seems a bit of a scandal happening over the vaccination process there, with who can be vaccinated (jumping the queue) apparently its much worse in Southern Italy with apparently the Mafia getting their associates vaccinated early

https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-mafia-coronavirus-vaccination-mob-infiltrated/

 

There is also a bit about Spain's holiday market getting preferential supplies to allow its tourism hotspots.

 

Finally Germany is preparing for national government to take over some regional decision making regarding health directorates around covid issues for a more collective responce

 

Certainly with the Dutch Helix factory I think its it the UK's best interests that Europe has as much vaccine as they need to curb the spread of the virus, may put us behind in the short term but Europe's need is far greater at this time, and a more unified approach in Germany seems more logical. Johnson & Johnson seemingly following a similar path as other vaccines. perhaps its something we have to accept. Don't think many will (they may want to, but see it as too risky) to go to southern Europe on holiday this year.  

 

[alastairq]

Oh the irony.......

Just received my own personal lateral flow test kit.

I noticed immediately it is liberally labelled ''Made in China''....