Coronavirus

[littletedwest]

Yeah thats a bit of a concern 

[SasaS]

It would be helpful to know their age and if there were co-morbidities. There was something in Finland too recently where there was a virus breach into the care home and fully vaccinated people died.

[Jairzinho]

8 minutes ago, SasaS said:

It would be helpful to know their age and if there were co-morbidities. There was something in Finland too recently where there was a virus breach into the care home and fully vaccinated people died.

And which vaccine they took. 

[Captain Turdseye]

And their favourite biscuits. 

[Mudface]

29 minutes ago, SasaS said:

It would be helpful to know their age and if there were co-morbidities. There was something in Finland too recently where there was a virus breach into the care home and fully vaccinated people died.

Exactly what I was thinking. I bunged the figures in a spreadsheet, and they actually look very promising, given that the age profile of people with two vaccinations will be much older than the unvaccinated or those with a single dose.

 

 

~68% of the people who tested positive were unvaccinated, compared to ~6% of those who'd had both doses- so if everything's equal, you have about a 90% chance of avoiding catching the virus.

 

On the face of it, hospitalisations as a percentage of the total who tested positive is double the rate in doubly vaccinated people (2.4% vs 1.3%) and deaths as a percentage of those hospitalised is triple (28.6% vs 9.2%). People dying as a percentage of those testing positive is nearly 6 times higher in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated (0.67% vs 0.12%). Presumably this is purely due to the double vaccinated group being predominantly composed of more elderly and possibly vulnerable people. But the chance of getting the virus in the first place is massively reduced by being doubly vaccinated. I would expect that once we get more people 50 and under vaccinated, those figures will balance out.

[Mudface]

Well there's a surprise- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/11/us-health-agency-gives-innova-lateral-flow-covid-tests-scathing-review

 

US health agency gives lateral flow Covid tests scathing report
Innova rapid tests’ performance not proven and they should be returned to manufacturer or thrown in bin, says FDA

 

The US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) has raised significant concerns about the rapid Covid test on which the UK government has based its multibillion-pound mass-testing programme.

In a scathing review, the US health agency suggested the performance of the test had not been established, presenting a risk to health, and that the tests should be thrown in the bin or returned to its California-based manufacturer Innova.

In the UK, these lateral flow Innova tests form the cornerstone of Operation Moonshot, the mass-testing scheme championed by the prime minister’s former chief adviser. The idea was that the ability to deliver results within 30 minutes – that need not be processed in a laboratory, provides a cheap, pragmatic and efficient way to identify people who have caught the virus but not fallen ill. But critics have raised concerns about accuracy.

Given the tests have been offered free to millions in England, for use at home or at test centres, workplaces and schools, with the aim of detecting more cases, breaking chains of transmission and saving lives since April – the FDA announcement is particularly damning.

The US agency has not authorised the use of the Innova test in the US, although the manufacturer has submitted a request for authorisation. But when the FDA discovered the Innova test was being distributed for US use regardless, it conducted an inspection of Innova’s medical device operations between March and April 2021.

In its report, the agency accused the company of “false or misleading” estimates of the test’s clinical performance, saying the estimates did not accurately reflect the performance of the diagnostic devices during clinical studies.

The FDA also highlighted that the clinical study data submitted by Innova as part of its request for US authorisation was identical to data previously provided by other manufacturers in separate requests.

In the UK, criticism of the Innova test has been fierce: the tests are not as effective as the gold-standard PCR tests, which can take days to produce results. The accuracy of the Innova tests also falls dramatically when administered by self-trained, non-healthcare workers versus lab scientists.


But perhaps the biggest concern is that the tests only tend to pick up cases when the person has high levels of the virus. Typically, when a person is first infected – they have low levels of virus.

The UK government’s first contract with Innova was agreed on 17 September, before the evaluation of its tests had been completed. In December, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) – which is an executive agency sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care – accepted the DHSC’s request to issue special authorisation of the Innova test.


In early April, the UK government announced plans for the use of universal Covid-19 tests as a means to ease England out of lockdown. By the end of the month, the MHRA expressed concerns that the people who test negative would be given false reassurance by their result and would let down their guard if they believe they are Covid-free – suggesting the government’s universal testing plan was “a stretch” of the authorised use of rapid tests.

The MHRA’s special authorisation of the Innova test – which is repackaged and deployed by the NHS – is due for another review by 22 June.

“It is important to realise that the UK and EU process for assuring the safety of most medical tests is mainly based on trust – manufacturers’ provide notification that they abide by the required legislation – there is no scrutiny of the evidence,” said Jon Deeks, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Birmingham.

“It is time that this is changed to ensure that our regulator has the legal ability and independence to act in the right ways to protect the health of the public. Bad tests do harm.”

The Guardian has contacted the DSHC and MHRA for comment.

[TheHowieLama]

I think we are past the testing phase - people are getting it. 

 

Any airtime should be given to numbers/analysis of the efficacy of the different vaccines against variants. There does seem to be some blag vaccine around. 

[Jairzinho]

24 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Exactly what I was thinking. I bunged the figures in a spreadsheet, and they actually look very promising, given that the age profile of people with two vaccinations will be much older than the unvaccinated or those with a single dose.

 

 

~68% of the people who tested positive were unvaccinated, compared to ~6% of those who'd had both doses- so if everything's equal, you have about a 90% chance of avoiding catching the virus.

 

On the face of it, hospitalisations as a percentage of the total who tested positive is double the rate in doubly vaccinated people (2.4% vs 1.3%) and deaths as a percentage of those hospitalised is triple (28.6% vs 9.2%). People dying as a percentage of those testing positive is nearly 6 times higher in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated (0.67% vs 0.12%). Presumably this is purely due to the double vaccinated group being predominantly composed of more elderly and possibly vulnerable people. But the chance of getting the virus in the first place is massively reduced by being doubly vaccinated. I would expect that once we get more people 50 and under vaccinated, those figures will balance out.

Fuck off, Code. 

[Mudface]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

Fuck off, Code. 

Hey, that was just Excel, not a 32 terabyte database hooked up to Power BI.

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, Mudface said:

Hey, that was just Excel, not a 32 terabyte database hooked up to Power BI.

Operation Loonshot. 

[Bjornebye]

53 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Exactly what I was thinking. I bunged the figures in a spreadsheet, and they actually look very promising, given that the age profile of people with two vaccinations will be much older than the unvaccinated or those with a single dose.

 

 

~68% of the people who tested positive were unvaccinated, compared to ~6% of those who'd had both doses- so if everything's equal, you have about a 90% chance of avoiding catching the virus.

 

On the face of it, hospitalisations as a percentage of the total who tested positive is double the rate in doubly vaccinated people (2.4% vs 1.3%) and deaths as a percentage of those hospitalised is triple (28.6% vs 9.2%). People dying as a percentage of those testing positive is nearly 6 times higher in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated (0.67% vs 0.12%). Presumably this is purely due to the double vaccinated group being predominantly composed of more elderly and possibly vulnerable people. But the chance of getting the virus in the first place is massively reduced by being doubly vaccinated. I would expect that once we get more people 50 and under vaccinated, those figures will balance out.

Fair play. Although you could have just drawn a smiley face on the wall with a crayon and realised that this will all be over by last winter. 

[Colonel Bumcunt]

3 hours ago, Tony Moanero said:

More than a quarter of those who died were fully vaccined. Extremely worrying.

It doesn't tell you how many came in contact with Covid and didn't contract it.  

It's half a statistic, so it's largely bro science.  

[Rico1304]

Mates of ours were supposed to be going to their place in Portugal last week, obviously that’s done. This week their little boy has been sent home from nursery for 10 days after a teacher who has had COVID, has had  both jabs has tested positive.  

[Tony Moanero]

19 minutes ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

It doesn't tell you how many came in contact with Covid and didn't contract it.  

It's half a statistic, so it's largely bro science.  

Well, yeah, there is that. But, I’m a worrier by nature.

[Mudface]

2 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

Well, yeah, there is that. But, I’m a worrier by nature.

It looks like there's a 90% reduction in vaccinated people catching it in the first place, so that's really good.

[Davelfc]

1 hour ago, Mudface said:

It looks like there's a 90% reduction in vaccinated people catching it in the first place, so that's really good.

Why not open up to vaccinated people and let those that haven't been vaccinated wait a month. 

 

[Mudface]

21 minutes ago, Poster said:

Why not open up to vaccinated people and let those that haven't been vaccinated wait a month. 

It wouldn't work, it's a similar idea to the original nonsense at the start of the pandemic about keeping vulnerable and elderly people separate- there's too many people involved for it to be feasible. 

[Davelfc]

27 minutes ago, Mudface said:

It wouldn't work, it's a similar idea to the original nonsense at the start of the pandemic about keeping vulnerable and elderly people separate- there's too many people involved for it to be feasible. 

But that nonsense was before we had a vaccine, that BTW will have been offered a second jab to all over 50s by June 21st. Plus the claim that there's a 90% reduction in vaccinated people catching it in the first place, according to your post.

 

Why those that are already vaccinated cannot enjoy at least a few relaxations to the rules is beyond me. 

[Davelfc]

9 June 2021

It is estimated that 8 in 10 adults (80.3%) in the community population in England would have tested positive for antibodies to coronavirus (COVID-19) in the week beginning 17 May 2021. 

 

In Wales, an estimated 82.7% of adults would have tested positive for antibodies. In Northern Ireland, 79.9% would have tested positive, and in Scotland, 72.6%. 

 

Across all four UK countries, there is a clear pattern between vaccination and testing positive for antibodies, although antibodies alone are not a precise measure of immunity as a result of vaccination. 

 

We estimate that between 70.9% and 81.5% of the UK adult population had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine in the week beginning 17 May 2021, with between 38.0% and 52.6% of adults having received both doses. 

Antibody positivity is highest among older age groups but rose among those aged 25 to 49 years in England in recent weeks. In Wales and Scotland, positivity rose in those aged 16 to 49 years, and in Northern Ireland, it increased in all adults aged over 25 years. 

 

The impact of second vaccination doses is now apparent in those in their 60s and 50s: antibody positivity flattened in these age groups before increasing in April 2021 and May 2021, respectively. 

 

Antibody positivity continues to rise in younger age groups and remains high in older age groups

Modelled percentage of: adults testing positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, adults who have received one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine; and fully vaccinated adults, by grouped age, UK countries, 7 December 2020 to 23 May 

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26

[Mudface]

6 minutes ago, Poster said:

But that nonsense was before we had a vaccine, that BTW will have been offered a second jab to all over 50s by June 21st. Plus the claim that there's a 90% reduction in vaccinated people catching it in the first place, according to your post.

 

Why those that are already vaccinated cannot enjoy at least a few relaxations to the rules is beyond me. 

Well, apart from the difficulties of policing it, you'd have over half the population (mostly 18-40 year olds) still under restrictions and unable to mix with vaccinated people. There'd be riots. 

[Davelfc]

9 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Well, apart from the difficulties of policing it, you'd have over half the population (mostly 18-40 year olds) still under restrictions and unable to mix with vaccinated people. There'd be riots. 

There wouldn't be riots, that's just bullshit. if that's the case I await the riots if they announce the extension for one month, I'll be waiting a long time. 

 

I agree policing all of it would be an issue but there are some sensible relaxations that would be a lot easier to police. I have the NHS app, it takes minutes to set up and hey presto there's real time proof I have two vaccinations.

 

Instead of riots if they announce an extension to the proposed 21 June date, you may get just lots of people pissed off and just doing what they want anyway, it's already getting there. 

 

I can't have my mates around inside for a few beers and to watch a match, we are all vaccinated. Doesn't make much sense to me. 

 

It is incomprehensible that one of the most heavily-vaccinated countries in the world is one that is most reluctant to give its citizens the freedoms those vaccinations should support.

[Mudface]

4 minutes ago, Poster said:

I can't have my mates around inside for a few beers and to watch a match, we are all vaccinated. Doesn't make much sense to me. 

Yes you can. You can have a group of up to 6 people indoors or two households. And to be honest, if you have all been vaccinated and you wanted more round, then go for it.

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-coronavirus-restrictions-what-you-can-and-cannot-do#meeting-friends-and-family-indoors-rule-of-6

 

[Sugar Ape]

I think you both have a point @Mudface and @Poster. I agree with Mudface that bringing in a scheme like that now would be profoundly unfair on people who haven’t had a chance to get vaccinated yet and I think for compliance you have to treat everyone the same. 
 

However, once we end the restrictions I really don’t see a problem with a vaccine passport as was originally mooted to make sure we don’t have to bring some restrictions back. The original idea was you needed to have either been vaccinated, had a recent negative test or tested positive for Covid within the last three months and you just show this on an app to gain entry with paper copies available for people who needed one. 
 

I never understood the issue with this. If you don’t want the vaccine then fine, just take a test and if negative you can go where you want. If you refuse to have the vaccine or take a test then tough shit in my view. I don’t see why your right not to have a vaccine or take a test is more important than the rights of people to not want to mingle with unvaccinated and untested people. 
 

The argument usually goes if you are vaccinated then it doesn’t matter if other people are or not but it clearly does as you can still get ill and even die if you are fully vaccinated (even though it’s much less likely) and the unvaccinated are more likely to have it and to pass it on to you. 
 

The only reason it never came in is because of the malign libertarian cunts on his back benches and the likes of The Mail and The Telegraph.

 

It’s rumoured there will be a four week delay to 21st June so that’s enough time to get this sorted by then and if things look good enough to lift the restrictions at the end of July then bring a vaccine passport in until we have time to assess how the vaccines are working and prepare any booster jabs for the new variants. 
 

One of his biggest failings is insisting on naming dates months in advance when you don’t know how things are going to be and also promising the lifting of restrictions will be irreversible. He should be upfront and tell people that he can’t promise they will be irreversible as we are in a world wide pandemic instead of indulging his pathological desire to be liked and deliver good news. 

[Sugar Ape]

 

 

[Mudface]

11 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

I think you both have a point @Mudface and @Poster. I agree with Mudface that bringing in a scheme like that now would be profoundly unfair on people who haven’t had a chance to get vaccinated yet and I think for compliance you have to treat everyone the same. 
 

However, once we end the restrictions I really don’t see a problem with a vaccine passport as was originally mooted to make sure we don’t have to bring some restrictions back. The original idea was you needed to have either been vaccinated, had a recent negative test or tested positive for Covid within the last three months and you just show this on an app to gain entry with paper copies available for people who needed one. 
 

I never understood the issue with this. If you don’t want the vaccine then fine, just take a test and if negative you can go where you want. If you refuse to have the vaccine or take a test then tough shit in my view. I don’t see why your right not to have a vaccine or take a test is more important than the rights of people to not want to mingle with unvaccinated and untested people. 
 

The argument usually goes if you are vaccinated then it doesn’t matter if other people are or not but it clearly does as you can still get ill and even die if you are fully vaccinated (even though it’s much less likely) and the unvaccinated are more likely to have it and to pass it on to you. 
 

The only reason it never came in is because of the malign libertarian cunts on his back benches and the likes of The Mail and The Telegraph.

 

It’s rumoured there will be a four week delay to 21st June so that’s enough time to get this sorted by then and if things look good enough to lift the restrictions at the end of July then bring a vaccine passport in until we have time to assess how the vaccines are working and prepare any booster jabs for the new variants. 
 

One of his biggest failings is insisting on naming dates months in advance when you don’t know how things are going to be and also promising the lifting of restrictions will be irreversible. He should be upfront and tell people that he can’t promise they will be irreversible as we are in a world wide pandemic instead of indulging his pathological desire to be liked and deliver good news. 

Oh yeah, I don't have a problem with a vaccine passport once the bulk of people have had it, or requiring a negative test if you can't be vaccinated or are dumb enough not to get it done.

 

I'd also go further and make it mandatory that if you work in a health or care home setting that you have the vaccine- we already do that with other vaccines, including shots you have to have before going to certain countries.

 

I would like it to be passed as a law though after proper parliamentary debate with scientific advice used as the justification. Not just forced through on government say-so, as that would immediately lead to illegitimacy in many people's eyes. I'd also like the law to be reviewed on a regular basis and withdrawn when it's no longer deemed necessary. I don't trust either party not to use this as the thin end of a wedge to drive through other restrictions using this as a 'precedent'. It should be made very clear that this is only a time-limited thing used in an acute crisis.

 

One of his biggest failings is insisting on naming dates months in advance when you don’t know how things are going to be and also promising the lifting of restrictions will be irreversible. He should be upfront and tell people that he can’t promise they will be irreversible as we are in a world wide pandemic instead of indulging his pathological desire to be liked and deliver good news.

 

His ridiculous boosterism and unwarranted, specious and arch optimism along with playing to his Spectator and Telegraph media cunts is a constant theme with him. Stupid man.