manda wrote: ↑ 18 Nov 2020, 00:09 Kings College did a poll in mid August which showed that 16% of people said they wouldn't have the vaccine - so straight away, with those figures, you are looking at a vaccine failing.

Polls tend to be a small sample of a population and if elections are anything to go by, are not that accurate. Considering the disruption to people's lives and livelihoods living in lockdown and restrictions, uptake may actually be higher.
My concern is the initial targeted recipients of a new vaccine - I can understand some of the reasoning that the vulnerable and older age groups are more likely to develop serious illness and death rates are higher, so the idea of offering it to them first sounds like a good idea to protect them. But at the same time, vaccines don't necessarily work as effectively for older age groups so if vaccinating 85% of a population is the aim to beat this virus, then choosing this age group first doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it especially if the quantity of vaccine available in the first stage is limited. On the other hand, younger age groups (aged 12-60) are much more mobile in their day to day lives and are at greater increased risk of contracting the virus and passing it on to others - surely choosing this group would be more beneficial for both those who need to work, and also prevent passing on the virus to the more susceptible groups until more vaccine becomes available.

manda wrote: ↑ 18 Nov 2020, 00:09 I find it fascinating that people will listen to "Madge from down the road" or "thingy on facebook" but they won't listen to people who have spent years studying epidemiology and immunology and have taken on the responsibility of tracking diseases and developing these vaccines.

I might agree with you there. During the early stages of the pandemic, I got absolutely riled when friends were posting the same "current death rates from this coronavirus are lower than annual flu" on FB when clearly governments around the world took it much more seriously and were taking drastic actions such as lockdowns to try and curb the spread and rising death rates.

Mo wrote: ↑ 18 Nov 2020, 10:56

Gwenoakes wrote: ↑ 18 Nov 2020, 10:30 The problem I think with listening to the 'correct' people is that ordinary people like me are unable to digest sufficiently exactly what they are saying/meaning,

Trouble is, a scientist knows that things are rarely clear-cut 100%. Yet if they give all the uncertainties and exceptions it sounds too complicated. Or Madge gets the idea that they are not sure so can't be relied on. But if they decide (on the basis of the evidence) that it's sure enough and give a definite message then someone will accuse them of hiding the evidence.

Sadly, this is true. I cringe when I see the daily briefing on the tv and the scientist show lots of different graphs and tables to explain the spread (and not done very well on live tv) to the point where even I'm struggling to follow with a degree of confidence. It would make more sense to explain it more simply (by all means highlight something such as the rising cases in hotspots rather than a page of graphs for different towns) so that the man on the street can follow it (and refer to detailed information available on a website for those who want to see more) I also get angry with the media questions after - yes, there are shortcomings particularly the financial packages, but they are like a dog with a bone and it is as if they are ridiculing the measures put into place. Little wonder there's discontent at a time when people should be working together on curbing the spread.

lancashire lass wrote: ↑ 18 Nov 2020, 11:50 Polls tend to be a small sample of a population and if elections are anything to go by, are not that accurate. Considering the disruption to people's lives and livelihoods living in lockdown and restrictions, uptake may actually be higher.

I hope you're right, who knows polls may be either totally incorrect or only capture people's opinions at that moment in time and probably dependent on what information is floating around at that time or until they read some other "reliable" piece of information off FB
I think the way they are looking at distributing vaccine is being drawn from experiences from past vaccine campaigns. I know the US have already started putting the information out there of how their task force has made decisions from the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak and 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa....
Risk of acquiring infection: people who have a greater risk of being in an environment where COVID-19 spreads
Risk of severe morbidity and mortality: people who have a higher risk of experiencing severe complications or death from the disease
Risk of negative societal impact: people whom society depends on for essential tasks
Risk of transmitting disease: people who have a greater chance of spreading the disease to other
So Phase 1, first responders, healthcare workers in high-risk settings — like hospitals or nursing homes — people with serious comorbidities that significantly increase their risk, and older adults in congregate settings like nursing homes would take priority.
They cited the findings of a recent study in the UK (I've put the link below if you're interested in having a read) which found that frontline workers are 12 times more likely to get COVID-19 than the general population.
So they will vaccinate front line workers to continue their work safely and cut the chances they’d contract and spread the virus at work.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanp ... X/fulltext
On top of that people who are compromised, living in close proximity because of the impact health wise or the increase risk of spread of the virus.

lancashire lass wrote: ... During the early stages of the pandemic, I got absolutely riled when friends were posting the same "current death rates from this coronavirus are lower than annual flu" on FB when clearly governments around the world took it much more seriously and were taking drastic actions such as lockdowns to try and curb the spread and rising death rates.

I could understand it to begin with as it was like SARS and MERS which kind of fizzled out so people looking at "another" new epidemic were cynical. What I find unconscionable is how people can now not consider it something more than the flu. The ongoing chaos it causes to a person after they have supposedly recovered makes it so much more than a flu bug.
The 2002-2003 SARS-CoV-1 virus was a more lethal virus, but the outbreak was easier to control because it spread after symptoms began. For SARS-CoV-2, its ability to spread asymptomatically and pre-symptomatically has made the pandemic much more difficult to control and has greatly increased the number of infections. Thankfully, SARS-CoV-2 mutates very slowly and so it's likely that new treatments will continue to be effective and that the behaviour of the virus wo't dramatically change over the coming months, however ass Coronoa viruses are known to mutate it's important to work toward viral containment and ending the pandemic asap because the longer the virus continues to circulate, the greater the chances of a new mutations emerging and treatments then becoming ineffective.
We have the most fabulous Souxsie Wiles ( who is a British microbiologist and science communicator based in New Zealand. Her specialist areas are infectious diseases and bioluminescence.
She is the head of University of Auckland's Bioluminescent Superbugs Lab in which bioluminescence is used to advance the understanding of microbial infections such as food poisoning, tuberculosis and hospital superbugs) and we are HUGELY blessed to have her here (pity they couldn't have got someone to do the same in the UK because the Boris show was painful!!). That is the one thing above everything that our PM Jacinda was great about - there was no grandstanding - we had daily COVID updates - Jacinda would let us know figures and then hand over to the Director of Health. Souxsie would do chats and answer questions on You Tube and on the news - the link below is at the beginning of the outbreak but it gives you an idea of her communication style which is (in my opinion) just fab
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=So ... ORM=VDRVSR
I do think this has made a huge difference in public response to public health measures that have been needed. I do appreciate we are more isolated and we have closed our borders with anyone coming into NZ having to do 2 weeks quarantine and I also appreciate that we have a smaller population, however whilst we do have a smaller population we still have cities with hundreds of thousands in them I do think our Govt's response to hard in the beginning made all the difference.
Our media have been more careful in their reporting because they get ridiculed if they don't fact check and they get found out. There has been a tendency to sensationalise recently and the public have jumped all over them because of it....as receivers of the news we're not interested in that - we want the news facts not a drama - it's amazing how because of all the fake stuff around there has been an increased demand for the news to be researched thoroughly and factual - it's interesting how small the papers have become and how the news has reduced somewhat
I feel very lucky as a nurse to be in NZ we have had few cases to deal with in mental health. I spend a lot of time reading about covid. I'm the infection control nurse rep for my ward. My ward is also allocated as the "red zone ward" - so if we have anyone in mental health who is suspected as positive covid or is confirmed positive then they will come to us. We have an area that can be isolated (so that they can be nursed in isolation) and our ward will be red zoned from the rest of the service - as a result I feel I have an extra obligation to keep up to date (as much as I'm able ...because sometimes it's information overload !).

Thank you Manda. Very helpful to have someone on here who I trust to have done her homework. And to have a background to understand it.

Meanqueen wrote: ↑ 14 Nov 2020, 23:01 I watched a video today, Professor Sucharit Bhackdi said he wont be having it.

What I don't understand is that is a process that is already in place every year for already existing infections like Influenza....which also includes vaccinating as part of the toolbox to deal with it.
He has made it clear that whilst he has beliefs regarding vaccinations with regard to COVID he has no proof to back up his theories.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... rotection/
This Professor is a signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration which advocates an alternative, risk-based approach to the COVID-19 pandemic that involves "Focused Protection" of those most at risk and seeks to avoid or minimize the societal harm of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.
It's a statement drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington. It advocates that people should be allowed to resume their normal lives, working normally at their usual workplaces rather than from home, socialise in bars, restaurants, gathering at sporting and cultural events etc. It gives no mention of physical distancing and masks, nor of testing and tracing, nor of "long COVID", which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection.
The WHO reckon mask use by 95% would avoid lockdowns but this declaration hasn't mentioned this ...I wonder why ? - maybe because the POTUS isn't advocating them - in fact he does the exact opposite despite the opinion of the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who's only been that position since 1984
The Great Barrington Declaration is a statement drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts and signed there on 4 October 2020. It advocates an alternative, risk-based approach to the COVID-19 pandemic that involves "Focused Protection" of those most at risk and seeks to avoid or minimize the societal harm of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.
The declaration calls for individuals at significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 – as well as those at higher risk who so wish – to be allowed to resume their normal lives, working normally at their usual workplaces rather than from home, socializing in bars and restaurants, and gathering at sporting and cultural events. The declaration claims that increased infection of those at lower risk would lead to a build-up of immunity in the population that would eventually also protect those at higher risk from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The declaration makes no mention of physical distancing and masks, nor of testing and tracing, nor of "long COVID", which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection.
I don't think it's any surprise to know that the institute gets much of it's funding from investments in a wide range of fossil fuel companies including Chevron and ExxonMobil, tobacco giant Philip Morris International, Microsoft, Alphabet Inc. and many other companies - so it's position comes as no surprise I suppose....but it's not science based it's driven by investment and funding.
The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis. They say that it would be impossible to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with underlying health conditions, and they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood. Moreover, they say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity but Researchers from Public Health England and the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC) studied T cell responses in 100 people who have survived COVID-19 and found a “robust” T cell response after six months (T cells are harder to test for than antibodies but are white blood cells involved in the response to various pathogens, not just the coronavirus. The important thing is these cells can remember the coronavirus and summon an additional army of antibodies upon reencounter with the same pathogen. This is good news because studies undertaken re antibodies were a bit bleak - the longest they found antibodies was around 50 days...so 6months + is fabulous.
Things are changing daily so as I say it's an information overload, however I will still listen more favourably to those who have evidence to back up their theories than those who have signed up to an economy based institution (that would always raise alarm bells for me).
Whilst I'm writing this there is another report on our news re a new vaccine in the UK by Astro Zeneka which is cheaper than the Pfizer and Moderna vacs

manda wrote: ↑ 20 Nov 2020, 00:17
The declaration calls for individuals at significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 – as well as those at higher risk who so wish – to be allowed to resume their normal lives,
I don't think it's any surprise to know that the institute gets much of it's funding from... fossil fuel companies ... it's driven by investment and funding.
The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis. They say that it would be impossible to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with underlying health conditions, and they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood. Moreover, they say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity....

Thank you Manda for that summing up. My other worry with that approach is that it would leave many elderly people afraid to go out. I am in my late 70s and I spent the first months of lockdown hardly leaving the house. And all the things I enjoyed doing had stopped. Exactly the opposite of what is recommended for a healthy old age.
My other fear is that those who insist on their rights not to be vaccinated will not bother to wear masks or to self isolate if they have symptoms.

Mo wrote: ↑ 20 Nov 2020, 11:31 I will still listen more favourably to those who have evidence to back up their theories than those who have signed up to an economy based institution (that would always raise alarm bells for me).

And mine too.
The problem with the uncontained herd immunity scenario is that it allows the virus to circulate freely and widely for longer during which time it increases the risk of mutation. Some mutations may make infection less aggressive which is how most pathogens evolve - it allows it to spread it more widely without killing the host (like the common cold) but some mutations could have the opposite effect and even spread to and from other hosts such as wildlife, farm animals or pets where current vaccine programmes will be ineffective (the recent mink farming being one of them - saying that, I would happily like to see mink farms being closed from an ethical point of view)

Mo wrote: ↑ 20 Nov 2020, 11:31 My other fear is that those who insist on their rights not to be vaccinated will not bother to wear masks or to self isolate if they have symptoms.

that sounds familiar - I can remember when smoking in the workplace was normal. The few who smoked had little regard for the health and well-being of others sharing the office. Worse, when politely asked not to, the response was very selfish as though it was their right to smoke anywhere they wanted to.

Some interesting comments and views here.
The bottom line is that if we did absolutely nothing about this current Covid virus, mankind wouldn't die out, there would be many who survived and many would develop strong immunity. BUT, that is not how we work as a society, we feel the need to protect and care for the most vulnerable in society. Therefore, I am of the view that it is my duty to have the jab to both protect myself and others.

fabindia wrote: ↑ 20 Nov 2020, 22:24 .......The bottom line is that if we did absolutely nothing about this current Covid virus, mankind wouldn't die out, there would be many who survived and many would develop strong immunity.

The trouble is we don't actually know that people would develop a strong immunity because it is such a new virus which is so infectious. The study on T cells suggests that people could have an immune response but if it mutates and they get the virus with another genome would it further deplete them physically....I don't know the answer to that. I do know that there have been people who had the virus, tested negative and then months later tested positive again (but the issue there is the virus sheds for a log time so there hasn't been enough evidence of post-viral shedding from the first infection).
There are enough to indicate that people previously diagnosed with COVID-19 should not relax and should take the same precautions as everyone else, to prevent reinfection.

fabindia wrote: ↑ 20 Nov 2020, 22:24 .....BUT, that is not how we work as a society, we feel the need to protect and care for the most vulnerable in society. Therefore, I am of the view that it is my duty to have the jab to both protect myself and others.

The sad thing is that there are plenty of people who don't feel that way Michael...they don't feel the need to protect the vulnerable. That is enough of an issue in one country then put that globally where in some countries it is even more of a problem that is where COVID has the advantage. People get all precious about "their" freedoms (never mind the freedoms of their fellow human beings) or about their needs. Don't get me wrong I completely understand that for some they are the centre of their universe but what they don't get is that as far as a virus is concerned they could be signing a death sentence to someone else.
As far as COVID is concerned it could care less about our wants and needs all it cares about (if a virus can care) is multiplying end of. I do think everyone has a duty to everyone else to either commit to a lockdown to break the curve (because we did do that in NZ but you have to close borders) or commit to a vaccine program - when a vaccine has been established to be effective and available to cover the required % of population ....one or the other. Allowing people to come in and out of the country without quarantine when not every country has done this is just a waste of time (and we've had people come back to NZ and break out the quarantine...all they had to do was 2 weeks and 2 swabs and they couldn't even do that - in my opinion they should be jailed for that).

manda wrote: ↑ 20 Nov 2020, 23:12 ...and we've had people come back to NZ and break out the quarantine...all they had to do was 2 weeks and 2 swabs and they couldn't even do that - in my opinion they should be jailed for that).

Not to mention government advisers and a Scottish MP who is still in parliament (though without the party whip).
Travelling by train after taking the test and then after a positive result!!
I remember being guiltily taken on a train with mumps as a child. We were thrown out of our holiday accommodation so not much choice, but her journey was completely avoidable. No wonder some ordinary people think the rules don't matter.

I heard on TV this morning that the first antibody injection has been given to a volunteer. Can't remember the professors name but he is working on the antibody line. He said that the treatment about to be rolled out may not work on all people. Apparently the way the vaccination works is help your immune system fight the virus. However it is more than possible that it won't work on people with low immune systems such as people suffering with certain illnesses and people with cancer and receiving treatment for it. It is also not known for how long you will be immune
As I am going to have more tumours removed from my bladder at the beginning of Dec I really don't know what I should do if offered the vaccination. I am 83, so expect I will be in one of the top bands. To make it more confusing, we have bought 7 different vaccinations which all act differently. I have had to isolate since early March so may carry on this way until I get strong advice on what is best for me.

Sensible, June. It sounds as if you have looked into it.
Are you finding isolation easier or harder as time goes on (far too long).

Mo wrote: ↑ 21 Nov 2020, 13:48 Sensible, June. It sounds as if you have looked into it.
Are you finding isolation easier or harder as time goes on (far too long).

I have found it very hard, especially as my family live so far away. They have their own families so have had no one in a "bubble". Have been told not to shop and just go out for medical reasons so have to try and keep up with hobbies. i am however losing my motivation so am on the phone a lot. was shocked to have four more growths appear just 2 months after my first op. I will need a form of bladder chemo after so must accept this way of life. Bet you wish you hadn't asked Mo....

I think a lot of people are losing motivation at the things we started keeping ourselves busy with at the beginning. I'm lucky to have a bubble, though since both grandchildren are at different schools I only see them outside. And I do shop once a week, at 9pm when the local co-op is empty.
But I get cross with people saying, no vaccines, no muzzles, lock up the old folks.
Glad you have friends to phone. (I don't do well on the phone hearing aids don't seem to help much)

Thank you Manda for all the information you have shared here.
Not long now. The NHS are recruiting people to act as Volunteer Vaccinators. They will be trained to deliver a vaccination to a patient. They will also be ready to act if a patient has an adverse reaction. Looks like it's on it's way.
(From the NHS Volunteer web site)
ilona

It looks like there are 3 major players currently in the running: The US Pfizer, Moderna (that are very similar in their base) and the British/Swedish AstroZeneca and Oxford Uni which is great - a vaccine being developed by the Chinese has had to be suspended as there was a death which is devastating not only for the person and their loved ones but for us all...because lets face it he more effective vaccines available the better.
Out of the 2 US vaccines the most significant thing is the Moderna vaccine is considered more "stable" (that's not to do with how it works in your body, just relates to it's storage). The Moderna can be stored at regular freezer temperatures, whereas the Pfizer vaccine needs to stay at negative 94 degrees. Needing storage at those temps is going to make distribution of the vaccine more difficult so I'm sure that will influence where and how orders are made by Governments.
As it stands at the moment researchers are testing 57 vaccines in clinical trials on humans.
Johnson & Johnson also have a vaccine in stage 3 testing. In early October they put their trial on pause to investigate an adverse reaction in a volunteer. The trial resumed eleven days later. Despite the delay, the company expects to get results by the end of the year. On Nov. 16, Johnson & Johnson announced that they were launching a second Phase 3 trial to observe the effects of two doses of their vaccine, instead of just one.
China and Russia have approved vaccines without waiting for the results of Phase 3 trials. Experts say the rushed process has serious risks so that would influence what I think about vaccination - but I would hope that any responsible Govt wouldn't be sourcing vaccinations unless they had gone through the Phase 3 efficacy trials and if I thought they weren't then I wouldn't be stepping forward to have a vaccine. As I say I would hope that a responsible Govt would do their due diligence which is why I will be having it when it becomes available.