Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

7 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

13 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

My wifes surgery is doing over 65’s, not sure where you’re getting that assertion from. Shes also not getting £12 a jag. 

There was acknowledgement that in some areas GPs were involved but the vast majority are being done via the mass centres. Welshbairn I think it was gave the GP payment figure.

 

Just now, welshbairn said:

That figure's from the BMA but could be a different amount in Scotland.

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19/vaccines/covid-19-vaccination-programme

The over 65’s and clinically vulnerable/shielders are being done by the GPs, the HSCP is doing the mass vaccinations. To avoid having to shut down the centre most of the practices in Inverclyde were going to use the town hall in a combined effort, however they’ve been papped in favour of the HSCP so that now means scrambling about to find a suitable venue to avoid closing the practice. This is causing further delays. 

[Detournement]

Whatever is getting fucked up here at least we're not American.

I don't see Florida holidays happening anytime soon.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Detournement

[dirty dingus]

2 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

 

The over 65’s and clinically vulnerable/shielders are being done by the GPs, the HSCP is doing the mass vaccinations. To avoid having to shut down the centre most of the practices in Inverclyde were going to use the town hall in a combined effort, however they’ve been papped in favour of the HSCP so that now means scrambling about to find a suitable venue to avoid closing the practice. This is causing further delays. 

My auld dear is to go to the town hall to get hers on the 6th

[ICTChris]

Long read about the EU vaccination programme

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Blootoon87]

Did we get an up to date figure on vaccinations today?

[LongTimeLurker]

9 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

48 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Can anyone provide the annual stats for influenza infections and deaths in the UK/Scotland?  would be interesting for comparison.

To answer my own question, Public Health England state around 15,000 deaths annually from Influenza between 2014-2019. In 2014/15, there were 28,000 deaths. I can't find stats on actual infections rates, but they will be large I'd expect.

COVID-19 is roughly comparable statistically on IFR and deaths occuring to a once every 25 years or so event on influenza pandemics with particularly bad strains. Those historically have not resulted in the sort of lockdowns we have had over the last year. It was more of an unknown quantity though with a scarily high R0 number and longer incubation time so there were rational reasons for it being handled differently but some of the measures implemented have been over the top at times and more about populism than public health.

COVID-19 isn't even close on mortality compared to the 1918 Spanish flu, so it could have been much worse and we may still experience something much worse in future in the decades ahead. Once the vulnerable groups get vaccinated the population needs to start being told to get a grip on their hysteria and prepare for a return to normality.

[Michael W]

Germany won't approve the Oxford/AZ vaccine for over 65s because of insufficient trial data. No idea what the EU will decide when it makes a decision tomorrow. 

AZ's CEO seems fairly comfortable as well with that approach. 

[Burnieman]

28 minutes ago, Elixir said:

The winter of 2017/18 was very bad as well, I believe in part due to an ineffective vaccine. There are countless headlines from the BBC, Guardian etc, about a winter crisis and the NHS running out of beds.

Of course, nobody cared about that then and they won't care now either.

So we all know that Covid is worse than Influenza, and we're at a particularly bad point (but it's gradually getting better), but Influenza still takes thousands of lives a year in the UK.

At what point, with vaccinations ongoing and better treatments coming on-stream, do we accept that we need to live with Covid and remove restrictions?

Yes people will continue to get Covid, yes people will die from Covid, but that's not going to go away.

Like has been mentioned, we're being subject to a constant stream of doom and fear from politicians and media, probably to keep us all in line.  This in itself doesn't come without cost.

[LongTimeLurker]

Looking good on the Valneva vaccine (the one fae West Lothian) apparently:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-55840567

[Jambomo]

31 minutes ago, virginton said:

Which part of the Israel mass vaccination data does not involve 'real-world application? So we have:

1) overwhelming clinical trial evidence showing that vaccines are effective

2) 'real world' evidence from mass vaccination rollout showing that it is also highly effective

Your complaints about incomplete data from 2) can be pointed to the completed data in 1), and vice versa for the 'real world' application claim.

There's no way of slicing and dicing the above to claim that we still don't know if they will be effective or not. We absolutely do. That governments want their public to be kept in the dark about it to justify continued restrictions does not change the facts. 

I’ll have to make this my last post in the subject as I have a bloody Zoom training session for 3 bloody hours.

Nobody is saying that it’s not a real world application but as pointed out by the Israelis themselves in the article I linked to and as said in the briefing last night - whilst it looks very positive, they are initial findings which still need to be verified and peer-reviewed. Whist a good indicator, they will only to be used as such until these stages are done.  

This isn’t especially unusual as a way of scientific studies to be done, initial findings are normally subject to review and verification by more data. This is a part of the process and needs to be followed. 

[madwullie]

It's pretty well known that science, especially health and medicines, doesn't work on assumptions, no matter how absolutely definitely obvious the hypothesis is. Medical outcomes have to be proven by trial, real life applications and (peer reviewed) data. It's an extremely onerous process. 

If this isn't done, companies, governments, institutions are wide open to being sued, and people can die. 

This is why no-one is saying we will be able to do x, y and z by date a, b or c. There's been a number of times during this whole shitshow that specific dates have been given, or promises made, that have subsequently had to be rolled back - and this pissed people off, lost people money, lost people jobs. People lost their lives because of the over-egged optimism about what was going to be possible at Christmas. 

Just because we as (generally) laymen know that vaccines will work, until all the data has been gathered (no matter how obvious it is), no scientist is going to use a word like "will". Scientists know more about this than us, they are 99.9999% certain that things will go as predicted, but implementing plans because they know without proof just isn't the way medical trials work. 

It's the same reason doctors don't just chuck medicine they think might work at patients. The same reason why it can take 5+ years to get a cancer drug to market that will undoubtedly work and save lives. 

I think everyone knows this but they're just understandably frustrated that this has gone on for so long. 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by madwullie

[LongTimeLurker]

1 minute ago, madwullie said:

It's pretty well known that science, especially health, doesn't work on assumptions, no matter how absolutely definitely obvious the hypothesis is. Medical outcomes have to be proven by trial, real life applications and data. 

If this isn't done, companies, governments, institutions are wide open to being sued, and people can die....

...with pandemics there is scope for emergency approvals and removing the ability to sue.

[madwullie]

2 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

...with pandemics there is scope for emergency approvals and removing the ability to sue.

Definitely. There's no recourse to court if you're dead though. 

Edit: the broader point is about why they're not opening everything up based on a vaccine they're sure will work though 

Edit 2: would we really be happy at the ability to sue being removed? That's a dream for anti-vaxxers 

Edited January 28, 2021 by madwullie

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

I’ll have to make this my last post in the subject as I have a bloody Zoom training session for 3 bloody hours.

Nobody is saying that it’s not a real world application but as pointed out by the Israelis themselves in the article I linked to and as said in the briefing last night - whilst it looks very positive, they are initial findings which still need to be verified and peer-reviewed. Whist a good indicator, they will only to be used as such until these stages are done.  

This isn’t especially unusual as a way of scientific studies to be done, initial findings are normally subject to review and verification by more data. This is a part of the process and needs to be followed. 

For verified findings that show the vaccines work, we have the trial data. For 'real world' application, we have the Israel data (and the already demonstrable fact that over 80s are being admitted in fewer numbers because of Covid, in direct relationship to rollout). That is as authoritative as it gets. 

If we were letting 'process that must be followed' dictate our timetable then we'd still be three years away from even having a vaccine. We can in fact draw conclusions and make decisions in a much more rapid manner to deal with an ongoing crisis. Which we did, and so we have the answers that we need.

[Bairnardo]

6 minutes ago, madwullie said:

It's pretty well known that science, especially health and medicines, doesn't work on assumptions, no matter how absolutely definitely obvious the hypothesis is. Medical outcomes have to be proven by trial, real life applications and (peer reviewed) data. It's an extremely onerous process. 

If this isn't done, companies, governments, institutions are wide open to being sued, and people can die. 

This is why no-one is saying we will be able to do x, y and z by date a, b or c. There's been a number of times during this whole shitshow that specific dates have been given, or promises made, that have subsequently had to be rolled back - and this pissed people off, lost people money, lost people jobs. People lost their lives because of the over-egged optimism about what was going to be possible at Christmas. 

Just because we as (generally) laymen know that vaccines will work, until all the data has been gathered (no matter how obvious it is), no scientist is going to use a word like "will". Scientists know more about this than us, they are 99.9999% certain that things will go as predicted, but implementing plans because they know without proof just isn't the way medical trials work. 

It's the same reason doctors don't just chuck medicine they think might work at patients. The same reason why it can take 5+ years to get a cancer drug to market that will undoubtedly work and save lives. 

I think everyone knows this but they're just understandably frustrated that this has gone on for so long. 

 

So now we need to wait till a full set of medical data re the vaccines is gatherd and analysed before opening back up, just in case it transpires someone thinks they didn't get what was advertised and decides to sue the government, rather than using criteria like hospital occupancy? Sorry but given we are pumping this vaccine into millions of people as we speak, I think the horse has bolted on this one

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, madwullie said:

It's pretty well known that science, especially health and medicines, doesn't work on assumptions, no matter how absolutely definitely obvious the hypothesis is. Medical outcomes have to be proven by trial, real life applications and (peer reviewed) data. It's an extremely onerous process. 

If this isn't done, companies, governments, institutions are wide open to being sued, and people can die. 

This is why no-one is saying we will be able to do x, y and z by date a, b or c. There's been a number of times during this whole shitshow that specific dates have been given, or promises made, that have subsequently had to be rolled back - and this pissed people off, lost people money, lost people jobs. People lost their lives because of the over-egged optimism about what was going to be possible at Christmas. 

Just because we as (generally) laymen know that vaccines will work, until all the data has been gathered (no matter how obvious it is), no scientist is going to use a word like "will". Scientists know more about this than us, they are 99.9999% certain that things will go as predicted, but implementing plans because they know without proof just isn't the way medical trials work. 

It's the same reason doctors don't just chuck medicine they think might work at patients. The same reason why it can take 5+ years to get a cancer drug to market that will undoubtedly work and save lives. 

I think everyone knows this but they're just understandably frustrated that this has gone on for so long. 

 

1) This 'that's the way The Science works' argument has already been discarded, to produce not just one but a stack of clearly effective vaccines much faster than any vaccine previously developed in human history.

2) You're once again using the 'specific dates' straw man when the actual demand is 'objective criteria'. If the vaccine proves less effective then it simply takes longer to get to that point; if it proves more effective then restrictions are binned sooner. There is nothing even remotely anti-scientific about this: in fact, by linking cause and effect, it is in fact applying science to solve the policy debate. Rather than leaving it to assorted politicians and Clownshoes Leitch to pull politically convenient measures out of a tombola in a press conference, which does nothing of the sort.

Edited January 28, 2021 by vikingTON

[craigkillie]

40 minutes ago, Blootoon87 said:

Did we get an up to date figure on vaccinations today?

There was an IT issue today so no figures - they'll be bundled into tomorrow's data.

[101]

Just now, craigkillie said:

There was an IT issue today so no figures - they'll be bundled into tomorrow's data.

Spreadsheet is fucked 

[madwullie]

8 minutes ago, virginton said:

1) This 'that's the way The Science works' argument has already been discarded, to produce not just one but a stack of clearly effective vaccines much faster than any vaccine previously developed in human history.

2) You're once again using the 'specific dates' straw man when the actual demand is 'objective criteria'. If the vaccine proves less effective then it simply takes longer to get to that point; if it proves more effective then restrictions are binned sooner. There is nothing even remotely anti-scientific about this: in fact, by linking cause and effect, it is in fact applying science to solve the policy debate. Rather than leaving it to assorted politicians and Clownshoes Leitch to pull politically convenient measures out of a tombola in a press conference, which does nothing of the sort.

In regard to one, they still followed (are following) the same processes that other drugs would go through to get to market in terms of trials. Nothing was missed out - the scientific process for drugs is still being followed. 

I don't disagree about criteria - people here are demanding rough dates / timescales etc, so it's not really my strawman. 

I think they should give an indication of what the criteria are to start opening up, or at least say why they won't be particularly specific. 

[Detournement]

18 minutes ago, madwullie said:

 

Edit 2: would we really be happy at the ability to sue being removed? That's a dream for anti-vaxxers 

UK citizens can't sue vaccine manufacturers.