Covid vaccine

[Steven B]

The problem with the science early on was nobody really knew enough about the virus and how it spread to be 100% certain the advice they were giving was correct. As time went on we learnt more and the advice changed accordingly (e.g. face masks made a difference). The problem then was that having been given advice, how the government decided to use it balancing the needs of the NHS against that of the economy. That subject will keep politics and economics PhD students busy for years to come and isn't one to discuss here!

The Covid-19 vaccines haven't been rushed through at the expense of safety. No country on earth is going to authorise the use of a drug across its whole population unless it's been proven safe. Likewise, no drug company is going to open themselves up to litigation should there be side effects.

Vaccines are a well understood science and Covid-19 has probably been studied to a level no other virus has been. The speed of the production of the vaccines has been due to a number of events. Some examples:

The group behind the Oxford vaccine was involved in producing one for Ebola. What they learnt from that meant that they had a method of creating vaccines for other virus very quickly. Having the bare bones of a vaccine means that much of the risks are already well known before trials commence.

The size of the pandemic meant that the drug companies had no trouble getting volunteers for the studies. Normally they can struggle.

Computer modelling has come on so much that little safety testing needs to be done on animals before the drug can be tested on humans. I believe in the case of the Oxford vaccine only a couple of monkeys were tested on before human trials started.

In many cases the teams involved in making the vaccines are confident enough of their product that they started production long before clinical trials have finished. This will cut down the time from getting the green light from the regulators to actually giving injections considerably.

As was mentioned a couple of posts ago, there's been some really interesting features on the vaccines on Radio Four recently which are well worth finding on BBC Sounds/iPlayer.

I'd be very surprised if it takes until the autumn until the vaccine is fully rolled out. The NHS currently gives out over 20 million seasonal flu vaccines each year over about an 8 week period, with more paid for vaccines being given out by pharmacists. Add in the support of the military and I can see it only being 3-4 months until most of the population could have had it.

Also, bear in mind that even early on the first few hundred thousand vaccinated individuals will be helping lower infection rates.

Steven B.

[Karhedron]

A vaccine for a fading form of what is now mild flu? Probably not for me.

https://lockdownsceptics.org/the-pcr-false-positive-pseudo-epidemic/

One thing Covid-19 is not doing is fading. Cases are accelerating across the northern hemisphere. Your "mild flu" has killed one aquaintance of ours (who was neither old nor at risk), left 2 of our friends with "long covid" and has currently put my mother-in-law in hospital.

If you don't trust governments, that is your prerogative. But if nothing else, trust the science because numbers don't lie. We have nearly 60K dead in the UK alone and well over a million worldwide. If you choose not to trust mainstream media and scientists then you have a responsibility to get your facts from reliable sources and not anti-scientific conspiracy sites like the one above. 20 years ago this is the sort of site that would have been publishing UFO sightings.

[acko22]

A vaccine for a fading form of what is now mild flu?

Mild flu? Rather sure that the mild flu doesn't have anywhere near the fatality rate per infection that Covid has had, and the long term effects of the actual flu viruses are no where near as severe as we are only just beginning to see from people whom have survived Covid!

https://lockdownsceptics.org/the-pcr-false-positive-pseudo-epidemic/

Have you actually looked at who wrote the piece? Dr Mike Yeadon the former CSO of Pfizer who was "asked" to step down (Polite way of saying given a P45), who since then has gone on to try and discredit his former employers research in multiple fields, even basically trying to discredit research he was involved in! Which basically says to me if his research while at his former employer was a load of rubbish why on earth am I going to listen to him now, it makes anything he says even more unreliable at best!
Also the same man whom on the very same website in September said "there is no evidence for a second wave", despite the global scientific and medical community saying there is a very real danger of a second wave and having the very real evidence to back it up, and now less than 3 months later we have seen that very real evidence play out....Oops guess he was wrong on that one!

Call me cynical but this sounds like a man with an axe to grind against his former employer and colleagues! Funnily enough in the same vain as a Professor who was on BBC Radio 2 last week (I cannot remember her name), but she pretty much said the same as him and guess what she had been "asked to leave" her employer and even better had been struck off the medical register, now don't know about anyone else but I am beginning to see a theme develop here......

[Karhedron]

Vaccines are a well understood science and Covid-19 has probably been studied to a level no other virus has been. The speed of the production of the vaccines has been due to a number of events. Some examples:

Don't forget the astronomical sums of money being thrown at the problem. One doctor mentioned a trivial example of the fact that they had the resources to charter aircraft to get personnel and materials where they needed to be as fast as possible. This sort of thing is normally unheard of for medical research.

[Snowwolflair]

The vaccines have not been rushed.

90% of vaccine development time is arguing for funding with drug companies trying to decide if it will be profitable to continue.

So with free flowing funding ten years development shrinks to one.

Its not rocket science, (well actually it is  )

[Paddy]

Hi Folks,

To be frank, I am not sure there is a viable alternative to not taking the vaccine.  Large parts of our economy have been severely damaged by the pandemic and will take years to recover.  People have lost loved ones, colleagues etc. so the emotional scars will also last a lifetime.  We cannot spend our lives in lockdown (even though personally I have rather enjoyed the peace!) and our Government will run out of money (well it didn't have any real money before CV19).

There is one thing I struggle to understand the logic of though.  The Government's experts say there will be a second wave and it is going to be bad unless we lockdown.  The second wave comes and the numbers start rising.  The Government puts us all in to lockdown, the numbers fall and then you hear "well, that was a waste of time" from certain quarters.  Surely the fact we went in the lockdown and the numbers are dropping proves it was a reasonable (I was going to write "good" but that is subjective) decision?

My family has been fortunate not to have been hit by CV19 (numbers in the west country have been lower).  The downside of not being exposed to the disease (and I suspect we are not alone but rather the majority) is that it can appear unreal or less serious.  I have been overly cautious with my own family, drumming in to them the need to follow the rules, working on the basis that it is better to be safe than sorry.  I believe they call their Dad a "COVID NAZI"! 

Mind you, I will be glad to get rid of the face masks in due course.

Kind regards

Paddy

[gavin_t]

The only really bad vaccine I can recall was the thalidomide one (and I could be wrong as to whether that was a vaccine).

No as said the Thalidomide is a type of cytotoxic drug that was at the time been used to treat morning sickness.
Main difference here is that the vaccine is not a chemical drug that you are taking on a daily basis and therefore coming with all the associated risks. It is merely a modified RNA profile that gets exposed to the body and therefore stimulating the body to produce antibodies/stop the virus latching onto cells.
The vehicle for delivering the vaccine into the body has been available a while and has been used to give past vaccines with success and safety. The only bit of this vaccine that is new is the modified RNA profile taking from a chimp flu virus. Now although new I cant see this causing any harmful effects personally.

As touched on in other posts the amount of money been spent on the vaccine and its distribution network is massive! I have worked for the NHS for about 15 years and have never seen so much rapid spending on something. Usually its months before finances are agreed for something.
For context our pharmacy department has gain x5 new members of staff extra within a week (attractive wages to get rapid intake of good staff) and already have the equipment to store the vaccines in (-70'C freezers). Again not cheap and easy to install. Amazing what can be achieved when funding is given!


Anyway going off point. We are told as frontline NHS staff to be expecting a vaccine around xmas time. I will certainly be rolling up my sleeve for mine 

[Trainfish]

Will you need to roll up your sleeve though?

[Buffin]

I don't want to get into an argument on this friendly, board, so briefly:

First, I did say what is *now* mild flu.

Second, some of the most eminent epidemiologists have composed The Great Barrington Declaration, saying that the oldest should be shielded and everyone else get on with their lives. https://gbdeclaration.org/

Third, the 'cases' are false positives from the PCR test. The army have found virtually no cases in their mass testing in Liverpool.

There were no excess deaths in October this year, say the ONS. 7 more deaths than in October last year.

Anyway, I'm only giving my point of view, not trying to convert anyone, so I don't intend to return to this topic. Back to trains.

[stevewalker]

... the oldest should be shielded and everyone else get on with their lives.

Except of course that it does not work. Elderly and/or vulnerable people are living in households with individuals that have to go to work or school (often on public transport for the latter); living at home, but relying upon carers coming in multiple times per day; living in care homes with workers who have to travel there each day and are spending the rest of the time with their own family and friends, all of who may pass it on. Even those fully able to care for themselves are still having to shop (a home delivery every fortnight is no good for milk, bread and suchlike, so people have to top up at the local shops). It is impossible to effectively isolate one part of the population completely from another. The only course of action is therefore to do whatever brings the rate of infection and the incidence in the community down, so as to reduce the risk of spreading it to the elderly/vulnerable.

[NGS-PO]

Second, some of the most eminent epidemiologists have composed The Great Barrington Declaration, saying that the oldest should be shielded and everyone else get on with their lives. https://gbdeclaration.org/

There were no excess deaths in October this year, say the ONS. 7 more deaths than in October last year.

The least you could have done was also cite the John Snow Memorandum, signed by equally eminent scientists.

Whilst excess deaths are decidedly unpalatable, that is not the whole problem with this virus. The resources, staff, beds, ventilators, time, money, etc., etc., required to care for those with the virus who DON'T die are an as big if not a bigger problem that we have to deal with. 

Lockdown and restrictions are not there to rid the world of the virus, they are there to allow us to treat those who are infected without overloading health services.

The JSM states: (restrictions to slow the spread of sars -CoV2 [are]) "essential to reduce mortality, prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission". It described focused protection as "a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence" and warned that "uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population". The memorandum concluded by asserting that "controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months".



Best

Scott.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30555-5/fulltext

https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/

[gavin_t]

Will you need to roll up your sleeve though?

Hopefully not. Bad enough I had to get topless in the clinic this year for my flu jab as I couldn't roll my sleeve up enough. Got a sweet and a sticker though so I was happy 

[guest311]

quote " The only bit of this vaccine that is new is the modified RNA profile taking from a chimp flu virus. "

perhaps you'll get a sticker and a banana 

[acko22]

Hi all, me again 

One thing @Paddy said before and I think is fair cop is the groups people generally fall into and how to tackle it:

1. Give it to me

2. Genuine concern about the rushed nature of this particular vaccine.  Personally, I fall in to this category.

3. Anti-vaxers.

Group one is easy of course, group two is where you have to explain more to quell concerns. Now a former colleague of mine and good friend who happens to work at the Defence CBRN school at Porton Down (The site shared by the MoD, PHE and a number of pharmaceutical firms) shared with me an analogy which rings true for me so it's worth a shot:

Imagine if you will a collection of tanks, these are the Coronavirus family a motley collection of vehicles with the same building blocks and work in a broadly similar fashion. They have been around a while so we know how they work and know each individual tanks weakness and where to target them with what weapons with success and in a manner as safe as possible to those who are involved.

Then the new tank (Covid-19) appears we know the basic building blocks, how it broadly works, and we have the weapons to combat it so 75% of the work is done it's the final 25% of where its weak spot is to target it. This is where the research has been done finding that weak spot and choosing the right weapon in the arsenal we have built up to hit it with.

So instead of having to spend years trying to figure out its building blocks, how works, develop new weapons to combat it only been able to tackle the question in hand when the prior one has been answered we are left with where to hit it so instead of trying to answer 4 questions which are all complex were are only trying to answer one single question meaning all the effort can be directed at that question. Which means we can find the answer a lot faster than if this was a completely new tank which works nothing like anything we have ever seen before and we had to answer all four questions.
At the same time when we select the weapon to hit the weak spot with we know how to use it and minimise the dangers to those involved

I got it when my friend explained it like that so thought I would share it as it explained it easier than some of the more technical methods I have seen out there.

[woodbury22uk]

There were no excess deaths in October this year, say the ONS. 7 more deaths than in October last year.

Anyway, I'm only giving my point of view, not trying to convert anyone, so I don't intend to return to this topic. Back to trains.

I cannot find that figure in any of the ONS weekly data. I would really like to see how this was derived from the ONS weekly data. There was one fewer reporting day in 2020 against 2019, so a whole day's deaths not counted as October 2020. @Buffin