Jump to content

Coronavirus II, the Vitamin D-free discussion thread.


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

So nearly correct Hamish, I believe you've been mislead by the 1984 film of it's name Razorback which is a large boar 

 

 

 

That’ll be it. A really bad film. Typical of the era. 
 

thanks Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, john.r.davies said:

Another factor that will have speeded Covid vaccine development will have been guaranteed government finance.      To have contracts in place for delivery before a vaccine is produced is unheard of!

John

John

Agreed. Also, you will know better than me, vaccine development is by its nature generally faster than seeking a molecule that might be effective in say halting a specific cancer. The virus is clearly identified and pharma and biotech companies will already have lots of models available to build on promptly .

22 hours ago, john.r.davies said:

But I wonder at your confidence that governments cannot influence medicine licencing bodies.  Yesterday Trump told America that the vaccine would be available "in a few weeks", and whatever happens on January 20th, he is still POTUS until then!

John

The key word in your comment is "Trump"! However, I am not so naive as to believe that in certain circumstances, our government would not seek to 'pressure' a regulator, including MHRA. Having a little knowledge of the MHRA and Dr Raine, I am personally comforted though.

Ultimately, individuals can decide for themselves whether they wish to take the 'risk' of taking a specific vaccine and balance that against the 'risk' of contracting the virus (or infecting others). If some can provide more context to help people make that decision, that is to the good I think. Keep it coming.

Miles

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Miles!   But I should hasten to say, I am A/retired, and B/ not a specialist in immunology or vaccination!     I'll try to pass on the information I have and can glean from reputable sources.

One such, which others may deny, is the Guardian!   And many newspapers  may be publishing similar articles.   There is wide concern about vaccines and vaccination so they have a whole page of questions with expert answers, which  may be of interest.  See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/13/is-the-vaccine-safe-do-i-need-it-if-ive-had-covid-readers-questions-answered

Briefly, side effects  are rare.   The Pfizer vaccine has been given to about half of the more than 40,000 in their trial, and it has been well tolerated.     Any are likely to be early, not late, possibly allergy related, and those given vaccines will look out for and report them to the Medicines Regulatory Agency.   If any group were to appear to be at risk, they can be either treated carefully or even excluded.

messengerRNA, the Pfizer vaccine, lasts for only a few days once it's injected.   It is broken down and cannot get into the cell nucleus so cannot affect genetic change.

The immune response to a Covid infection varies widely , person to person, hence to some extent the wide variation in how ill or not they are, and seems to fade afterwards.      The Pfizer vaccine needs two doses to build a good response anyway, so a booster is a good idea, and previous infection not a reason to avoid it.     We may need this for the future, just as we need a flu jab every year, but for a different reason (the flu virus changes rapidly).

The infrastructure to distribute the Pfizer vaccine, at -70C is being designed and built.    Pfizer has designed suitcase-sized carrying cases that will keep it cold for a day or more, and may be recharged with dry ice as required.       The vaccine is viable for up to 24 hours once it is removed from the freezer.     This means that rather than a surgery giving a few vaccine injections a day, it will be necessary to have vaccination centres where hundreds can receive it daily.   This can be done by GP groups, as I described above in my town, for flu jabs.

John

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that the UKs Lockdown One was hard?     You don't live in Oz!

At the beginning of August, in the State of Melbourne, daily cases of Covid rose to over 500 a day, similar to many other countries,  the result of 'break-outs' from Australia's stringent control of its citizens (and only it's citizens, no one else allowed in!) who had returned from furren parts.  They were obliged to spend 14 days in quarantine in a hotel, but some 'broke out' and spread the virus.

To control it, Melbourne and neighbouring states started the strictest form of lockdown.   Stay at home , general curfew and no travel beyond  5kms, except for essential workers.   Police enforced this and closed some state boundaries.   Surprisingly, despite the image of a feisty, anti-authoritarian Aussie personality it was most successful and generally supported for over three months (UK's seven weeks!).   At the end of October there were no new cases and no deaths from Covid!    A "Double-doughnut day" was announced to congratulate the diligent citizens, and restrictions were lifted!

So lockdown can work, especially on an island, where the sea makes an effective barrier to casual travel.    Wonder why it didn't work here?

John

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other Covid related research.

Blood donors can be assumed to be individuals who are a bit more altruistic than others.   So there have been several studies that have invited them to take part, and TRACK-COVID is another.     It hopes to make clearer why some are very ill ina Covid infection and others shrug it off, and donors have not disappointed the investigators at Cambridge University, as they are following 90,000 people!

Results are some way away, but you can read about the study here:  https://www.trackcovid.org.uk/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass testing for Covid, Operation Moonshot, it all sounds like a good idea, if belated, doesn't it?   But as usual, the people who actually KNOW about such things and could have advised the Government, have not been consulted, and as a result the project is expensive, inadequate and full of errors.

An Editorial, no less, in the British Medical Journal this weekend, "Covid-19: Screening without scrutiny, spending taxpayers’ billions" quotes several British experts' criticisms of both the local Liverpool trial, and the national 'Moonshot' project.

Dr.Sir John Muir Gray (Knight for his work, CBE ditto, FRCPSGlas, FCLIP) of the Nuffield Dept. of Primary Care at Oxford, is pre-eminent in the field - read his brief CV on the Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muir_Gray)    He has said that the Liverpool scheme should be shut down at once, because it is an "An unevaluated, underdesigned, and costly mess".   He explains why, in detail,  in the same edition of the BMJ at: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4436?ijkey=3b13a97100393d2dd0dc0250133f1da9e6e272b2&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Dr Angela E Raffle, B.Sc., M.B., Ch.B.(Birm.), F.F.P.H.M, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Social and Community Medicine, Bristol Medical School  (I give all these qualifications to show that these are substantial, not armchair critics) has done the same - "Screening the healthy population for covid-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced nationwide"  https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4438  A mild, almost restrained title, but Dr.Raffle says that the Moonshot Project  "takes us back to the paternalistic 1960s, ignores data protection and privacy laws, and is potentially in breach of the Declaration of Helsinki."

And these are far from the only experts in screening, public health and disease control whose expertise has not been ignored, it has been completely disregarded, in favour of a programme that the BMJ describes as, " a £100bn mass testing programme that the experts say is fatally flawed, founded on inadequate diagnostic tests, not backed up by adequate contact tracing and isolation, with a track record of maladministration. Among these failures, perhaps the gravest error is an arrogant disregard for scrutiny."

John

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now reliably informed that the Pfizer vaccine is stable at ordinary fridge temps, 5-8C, for five days!    So if deliveries to a GP surgery are on a Monday, they can be used all the working week.      My own surgery (the one I'm registered with) is planning all day and evening, seven days a week, vaccination sessions from the 7th December, IF supplies are delivered by then, and they can accept deliveries on any day and be sure they will be used and not wasted.

Let's hope that the enterprise of local medics is supported, and that the previous centralised and failed 'organisation' is abandoned.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, john.r.davies said:

I am now reliably informed that the Pfizer vaccine is stable at ordinary fridge temps, 5-8C, for five days!   

 

Yep, as mentioned on this thread 6 days ago

...... Andy 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Peter Cobbold said:

Cardice, solid CO2, is at ca -70C and could be used where-70C freezers are not available. Until cardice runs out.

Cardice is used in some of the intended logistical storage devices for extending shelf-life prior to usage

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Oxford/AstraZeneca trial results released this morning and as usual the media seem unable to translate a press release into headlines without getting it wrong. BBC news was reporting "70% effective, single dose" which is nothing like what the AZN news release actually says.

Actually both sub-samples on the trial used two jabs, a month apart, but one sub-sample was of a half-dose first jab. The sample sizes look to me to be way too small to say reliably that the 'low then high' dose regimen achieves 90% efficacy, although it probably is in that ball park.

Still excellent news of course, given that UKG has bought 100m does of this one.

 

 

Edited by Bleednipple
Link to post
Share on other sites

New Scientist last week raised questions including

not many elderly in the trials

endpoint was catching the virus not severity of C-19 or death

mRNA vaccines are new technology in humans

duration of immunity not known, could be short.

For me its early days for making a yay/nay decision to be vaccinated - I want to see bigger numbers of oldies tested, at present there may only be a tiny number vaccinated who went on the be infected,, maybe only 10 to 20. Deciding on the basis of press releases is not for me.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Peter, at the moment it’s the world according to the BBC"...........

The data we have heard via the new outlets is all very glossy.....not surprising as its aimed at the financial institutions and it has achieved its aim with stocks recovering markedly as a result. 

The data needed, but which no-one has seen is the full dossier that will be evaluated by the licensing authorities. Until such time its all looking promising nothing more.

 

 

 

Edited by iain
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m happy to try one of each. 
 

got to be better than seeing every single positive case for a city come across my desk. And all those having to isolate as a close contact in homes workplaces and schools. 
 

and the hospital beds filling even tho the rate is declining. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Hamish said:

I’m happy to try one of each. 
 

got to be better than seeing every single positive case for a city come across my desk. And all those having to isolate as a close contact in homes workplaces and schools. 
 

and the hospital beds filling even tho the rate is declining. 

Absolutely, once the licensing agencies have completed their job with the complete dossiers, robustly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so concerned aboout safety , that will be covered by the Ph111 trials in progress. What I want to know is: does a vaccine reduce severity/death in oldies, and for how long?  I gather the annual flu jab is only 50% effective in >65 olds. If a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine only achieves that, I want to know so I can decide not to rush out and mingle, and risk severe/long/lethal C-19. On balance accepting vaccination with a demonstrably safe vaccine makes sense, but it may not improve my quality of life due to this uncertainty.

Likewise the aged in care homes: efficacy in the aged is the crucial data we lack. It would be catastrophic to rush to vaccinate them and assume they are then all safe and open to un-vaccinated visitors.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, analysis fof the complete data set will reveal answers to those questions......one hopes. If it doesn't then there is more work to be done. We have known from very early on that the target group most likely to benefit is the elderly. Unfortunately this does not match with early clinical trials development which likes to reduce relative risk by selecting younger patient cohorts. It could be we see a mismatch in the data available and the data required.

Iain

Edited by iain
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.