Whatever. You're hostile and unreliable. And that will stick to you long after this covid-19 thing has disappeared from memory.
Printable View
Whatever. You're hostile and unreliable. And that will stick to you long after this covid-19 thing has disappeared from memory.
Investing first, investing lots and giving away the licence for a vaccine at cost is hostile?
You've lost your frigging mind haven't you? You've been driven mad by jealousy.
Possibly. That whole business is so goddamn' strange. I mean, it's possible the company put off applying for authorization due to production issues or whatever. I saw some people trying in vain to find information confirming that the plant had been authorized by MHRA. Might not make any difference for the EU either way, if the UK has a prior contract with HALIX guaranteeing priority access.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I find it hard to interpret. AZ seems to have serious problems, that causes me to think that it could be either one of their blunders or intentional. Given the way they have tried to screw us over though, I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt too easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
"tried to screw us over"
By giving you millions of life saving vaccines at cost?
Your whinging is pathetic.
Could be AZN, could be HALIX... it's especially interesting that the facility hasn't been authorized by MHRA either. The lack of transparency on the company's part obv doesn't help matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExgmcpkX...name=4096x4096
Can't vouch for provenance or accuracy, but, if it's legit, it's pretty cool :up: around 10 facilities for Pfizer & BioNTech. Interesting to see how facilities are shared.
Those gullible idiots who swallowed lies about first doses not being relevant (despite one dose alone reducing risk of death by 85%) are going to need to find a new "alternative fact" to pin their hopes on if they wish to continue lying that the EU have "caught up" on the UK.
Twitter Link
Almost as if getting first doses done is a prerequisite to getting second doses done. These numbers are rapidly going to diverge now.
This is one of the worst most embarrassing papers I have ever read:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554
Leaving it here as a genuinely depressing illustration of how dudes destroy themselves. Note the disclaimer.
0.15% IFR?
I can't believe people are still making such moronic projections.
Peru have suffered 116,480 deaths and rising by the end of February. To get to 0.15% IFR would require 77.6 million of Peru's 32.5 million to have been infected already.
EDIT: Within Europe 52.9 million of Poland's 38 million population would have to have been infected by 14 February.
The USA would require 364 million out of their 328 million population to have been infected by the start of February to account for their deaths to 6 Feb.
Can't believe people are still so stupid as to say these things.
Interesting prediction by Macron, I wonder whether anyone here believes the President of the French Republic on this one?
France’s vaccination rollout will have caught up with the UK’s “in a few weeks”, the country’s president Emmanuel Macron has said amid tensions over vaccine supplies.
At present, 11.45% of French people have received at least one vaccine, compared with 43.79% of Britons.
However, Macron told Le Journal du Dimanche newspaper that France had significantly stepped up the pace of its vaccine drive and said the UK’s rollout would slow down soon.
“In a few weeks we will have completely caught up with the British, who will meanwhile be increasingly dependent on us to vaccinate their population,” he said, referring to AstraZeneca supplies produced in the EU.
The premier’s remarks follow the European commission earlier this week moving to enhance the bloc’s powers to allow it to potentially block exports to countries with high vaccination rates.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...08774d1beac794
EDIT: Meanwhile the landmark of 30 million people vaccinated has been reached, with an estimated 85% reduction in morbidity from the vaccine. I wonder when France will catch up with that?
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
All those "lol u libtard I'm not a Republican—I'm a Libertarian" dudes
Just had my first pfizer shot. :p
Next one in three weeks.
woohoo!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rille
less woohoo:
Twitter Link
I guess these illegal immigrants will slowly be filtered out as life in the EU becomes harder for them. I would for example no longer accept British tenants without proof of their residency rights in The Netherlands. Before this year their passport would be enough to satisfy my obligations under the law. Today I'd have to see additional documents. All sorts of other services will be harder to get as well.
Sorry, posted it in the wrong thread :o
Dose 1 of Pfizer/BioNTech administered just now. I must admit I actually got a little emotional.
Mass vaccination was done pretty smoothly, looks like they have worked out a lot of the kinks. The site I was at was probably processing ~1k doses an hour, took me about five minutes from arrival to dosing. Scheduling for both doses was seamless. The wait list wasn't super well implemented but overall I'm impressed.
I cannot emphasize how grateful I am to live in a time when this is possible.
Great news Wiggin. :up:
And in The Netherlands the use of the AZ vaccine has been suspended for people under 60. Like the whole damn program wasn't going slow enough yet.
In the U.S. The access to vaccin seems good.
The organisation is probably what we could expect anywhere.
The biggest challange seems to be to get certain socio-economical groups to take it!?
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covi...ace-ethnicity/Quote:
Originally Posted by rille
Some interesting data on that. There are racial disparities in trust of vaccines. There are also political disparities in trust of vaccines.
The organization of the vaccination is so slow that while waiting for the confirmation of my place in the waiting list I lost my preferential status on the basis of my medical condition :rolleyes:
A good friend was telling me last night, while walking down a street local to her in London on thursday, a pharmacist came out of his shop and shouted out "I have 3 vaccines unused from today, first come first served can get a vaccine!" My friend jumped at it, first in line, was fortunate to have her NHS number on her, and got the vaccine. :up:
That's one thing that's been done well here, is that the decision has been made that these vaccines are life-saving and so there should be no waste. Once the day's scheduled doses are done, any leftovers should be used even if it is random who gets it, not thrown away.
In other countries for some reason there's been complaints about who has gotten the leftovers, so some have ended up finding it less controversial to throw leftovers in the bin than give it to someone not yet due. Crazy - your friend's local pharmacist is definitely doing it the right way!
When I heard about the blood cloth thing this week (again) I thought; well, have they thought about the possibility that this is related to the use of birth control. And today I saw mentioned that very often the people who suffer from it are on birth control.
I really wish they would stop fucking around with this. They way they are behaving is totally destroying any trust that people can have in the vaccines.
Wrt the more common types of clotting issues, this question was touched on in the EMA's Q&A with the press, but they didn't have enough data to even speculate at the time. Wrt the more uncommon—and more alarming—issues, it's difficult to identify any such relationship. In much of Europe, AZN has been preferentially given to staff in health- & elder-care sectors, who are predominantly women—mostly in age groups in which the use of hormonal anticonception is very common.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
You're completely right. A great many more people than should otherwise be the case seem to be the heirs to Wakefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I wonder if those spreading unsubstantiated scare stories about vaccines have ever read the side effects of the birth control pill, or Covid itself, or even paracetamol and aspirin.
You realize your reply is wishy-washy to the point that I don't know what you're saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The answer to your question "have they thought about the possibility that this is related to the use of birth control" is that they have thought about both possible association with—and risk of confounding by—the use of hormonal contraceptives; it was widely discussed before the EMA's safety signal review, and touched on at the presser immediately following that review. At the time, they said they were looking into it more closely—but they did not have enough data to even speculatively answer the question. It is a particularly important consideration for some of the types of clotting issues that have been reported (eg. CVST), especially because AZN's vaccine has been preferentially administered—in most of Europe—to groups in which a majority are women in age groups where the use of hormonal contraceptives (as well as clotting disorders) is common; in other words, it was known at the time of the initial review that people who might experience this type of clotting problem after vaccination with AZN's vaccine may well be more likely to use hormonal contraceptives (re. the observation that "very often the people who suffer from it are on birth control"—although it might not be appropriate to say "very often" about such rare occurrences). So the very straightforward answer to your question is: yes—they have thought about that possibility, and it is difficult to determine how—or even if—the use of hormonal contraceptives plays into the issue of more straightforward clotting conditions among people who have been vaccinated with AZN's vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
What complicates matters are the rarer cases of more weird and more dangerous clotting problems that were initially thought to resemble DIC but are now thought to resemble HIT, giving rise to the term "VIPIT". There are very few reported cases of this possible complication, and the EMA's latest review (as of a few days ago) could not determine any patterns wrt. risk factors for developing this condition. There are too few cases for anyone to be able to draw any firm conclusions.
The uncertainty is just the reality we have to deal with, when it comes to answering this type of question; it isn't unique to this year or this substance. The straightforward answer to the more important question about whether or not AZN's vaccine is safe enough that the possible risks are outweighed by the overall benefits—at the group level—is: yes.
I have the strong feeling the risk evaluation is done as if the vaccination is done in a situation where the actual pandemic isn't really happening. If people weren't dying in bigger numbers without the vaccine, not pushing ahead might make sense, but people are dying in much bigger numbers (and that's not even taking into account the other side effects of an overburdened health care system).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well said again. It is Andrew Wakefield writ large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
If its not possible to say whether the clots are caused by birth control or not, it isn't possible to suggest that they're caused by the vaccine either quite frankly and stop/starting the scheme isn't "precautionary" it is an egregious and deadly error.
How many people have died due to the false links between MMR vaccine and autism?
How many will die due to unsubstantiated links between Covid vaccines and clots?
It is ignorant, unscientific bullshit and all the Dr Wakefield's out there sharing this bullshit should be thoroughly ashamed.
Both yes and no. Yes, in the sense that regulators that recommended pausing the deployment of the AZN vaccine clearly prioritized the potential risk to the individual (on the basis of their understanding of their own regulatory & ethical framework wrt communicating risks, informed consent, and the obligation to not do harm), who were as a rule much more likely to be younger people with very low risk of developing severe covid; no in the sense that they all appear to have explicitly taken that factor into consideration. I know that it was an explicit concern in the debate in the Scandinavian countries, and I think the German regulator also mentioned it (although I don't have a link to their comments on the matter). In the case of our Scandinavian neighbours, the pandemic-associated risk was genuinely very low at the time; in the case of the German regulator—whose decision was more controversial—they appear to have concluded that their regulatory and ethical framework compelled them to pause the rollout until the safety signal could be evaluated. It's a complex issue, so it's not surprising if people arrive at different conclusions even if we don't assume everyone involved is a blinkered idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Meanwhile, interesting developments in the UK:
Oxford team pauses pediatric vaccination trial, awaiting updated guidance from MHRA: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56656356
JCVI advisor echoing continental talking points re. pausing rollout: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ccine-certain/
MHRA has updated figures for the incidence of CVST and possible VIPIT following vaccination: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2BO6Y0 and https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting
The real incidence is likely to be higher (although, tbf, the real incidence of CVST in general is probably also likely to be higher than is commonly reported in studies). Some speculation re. possible changes to recommendations for different age groups, but nothing more than rumours at the moment. Current data indicate a clear benefit in people with risk-factors for developing severe covid, but the debate becomes much more complex when you're talking about comparatively young and otherwise healthy people. If the UK has a secure supply of other vaccines by the time those groups are to be vaccinated, the MHRA may be more likely to recommend choosing those alternatives over AZN; difficult to say which approach would entail a greater comms nightmare.
My expectation has always been that AZN wouldn't be given to the final 20s and 30s anyway for completely unrelated reasons.
Quite simply dragging out the dosing schedule to 12 weeks for the original groups was the right thing to do in order to dose more people, while fewer vaccines were available. That was done in order to enable more first doses, not for Pfizer because it required a 12 week gap. However Astrazeneca does require a long gap, it doesn't work as well with a 3-4 week gap.
Due to the prioritisation scheme the second doses for the very vulnerable are now going out before first doses for 20s and 30s.
By the time non-priority 20s and 30s will be getting vaccinated, there will be even more vaccines available: Moderna is coming online now, Novavax soon, Johnson & Johnson soon. These are either single dose, or double dose with a shorter interval available.
Once the young are getting first doses the logic of dragging out to 12 weeks vanishes. There's no point doing that anymore, since there's nobody else waiting behind them. If the under 30s and 20s can be done in a 4 week period, then by the time you've finished doing the 20s you're either going to be moving straight on to second doses for those who got it first at a 4 week interval if you use Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax etc - or be stuck for 2 months with nobody eligible for a dose even though not everyone has their second dose yet if you use Astrazeneca. Or if you have single-dose Johnson & Johnson available then you use that on the 20s and then the vaccination scheme is complete and we can start thinking about autumnal booster shots and exporting doses to the rest of the world/covax.
There is no point giving a 20-something Astrazeneca, then waiting for months to give them their second dose, if other alternatives are available.
This changes of course if the trial on mixing-and-matching works. In which case the timing gap issue goes away.
Reuters reporter (haven't read any local news source on this):
Twitter Link
Well, the first invitation for vaccination in this house has just been delivered. For next Monday. I will have to wait longer.
MHRA recommends other vaccines for under-30s. Makes sense given the very low prevalence of Covid in the UK now, plus the disproportionate risks based on age. Still (obviously) massively beneficial in older groups, but Covid wasn't high risk for under 30s anyway and at very low covid prevalence; there's been no excess deaths in the UK for weeks now, the pandemic is essentially over thanks to the vaccine rollout already done.
Also confirmed this won't affect the rollout timescale, which is as I expected. It never made sense to use AZN for younger groups anyway given the alternatives coming online.
Update from MHRA:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/m...ur-blood-clots
JCVI advises use of other vaccines in healthy people under 30 (note that the press release above explicitly does not recommend age restrictions): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2BU287
New public advice re. headaches and possible symptoms of CVST. Official guidelines have been developed to aid in the diagnosis and management of this syndrome.
Medical rationale similar to that of national regulators in several EU member states, so we can put paid to the asinine notion of those decisions being driven by politics and stupidity. This is how pharmacovigilance systems in modern, developed nations work.
EMA briefing with new details on reported cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R44xKGOZ0kQ (haven't had time to properly review either briefing)
It's a good day for science.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/lo...f-958f881dcb0c
Wasn't all of Texas suppose to die because of the mask mandate being lifted? ;)
This is how you do science yes, medical regulatory bodies reviewing the data and making rational decisions based on evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Not flap around like headless chickens with politicians overriding and second-guessing medical regulators. That was politics and stupidity.
Sane agencies doing their job properly in a calm and measured transparent manner doesn't justify the stupidity that came before it.
The idiotic stop/start and binning of vaccines and politicians overriding EMA/MHRA advice have led to thousands of unnecessary deaths. Because it was stupidly handled and political.
Worth noting of course that the MHRAs decision is based in no small part on the fact that due to prior vaccinations etc the risk in the UK is very low now. We aren't in the midst of a third wave which changes the calculations.
Hopefully some of the more moronic behaviour we've seen from some politicians elsewhere "only use this vaccine for under 65s" "no stop using it" "start using it" "no stop using it" "start using it for over 65s only" can learn from the EMA and MHRA on how to do this properly.
Sadly they'll probably take it as justification for their idiocy instead and ignore the thousands or tens of thousands their incompetence has killed which the MHRA avoided.
Across Europe 3500 people a day excess are dying, of which zero comes from the UK. That changes the risk profile significantly.