manda wrote: ↑ 02 Dec 2020, 01:37
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.

The pause in trials makes me wonder what difference it makes doing research with all the newspapers watching. Bad enough when a nuanced report is misrepresented by a misleading headline.

I think this has to be the worry in all this.....the media are so powerful and they wield that power sometimes with little consideration as to the effects it has.
The researchers will be under enormous pressure to deliver and I have no doubt there will be vaccines out there that haven't gone through rigorous testing but as I said I hope the govt's will do their due diligence.
I think we can safely say the UK & NZ Govt's will be careful ...I'm also sure there will be many who aren't so much.

That too. I was thinking more of the fact that if trials of other dr-ugs were halted no one would hear about it, the researchers would either find an explanation or change their plans, but now everyone knows that someone has had a problem even though it might not be to do with the vaccine.
A peer reviewed paper as opposed to a blow by blow account and guessing before the facts.

Mo wrote: ↑ 02 Dec 2020, 18:04 That too. I was thinking more of the fact that if trials of other dr-ugs were halted no one would hear about it, the researchers would either find an explanation or change their plans, but now everyone knows that someone has had a problem even though it might not be to do with the vaccine.

Brazil halted the Sinovac developed vaccine after one of the volunteers died. They've resumed it again after they concluded it was unrelated to the vaccine. As I understand it it's not unusual for trials to be paused (several others have also for COVID). and then restart again once any concerns have been addressed/ruled out - large trials participants sometimes become sick by chance. Regardless the cases have to be independently reviewed. The AtroZ vaccine was paused in September for that very reason.
I think it's 9 drug companies have pledged not to move forward with any vaccines before thoroughly vetting them for safety and efficacy.
I see on our news that the UK are going to start vaccinating using the Pfizer Vac now (bearing in mind around 20,000 people have had the vaccine already in trials)

manda wrote: ↑ 02 Dec 2020, 23:56 I see on our news that the UK are going to start vaccinating using the Pfizer Vac now (bearing in mind around 20,000 people have had the vaccine already in trials)

The Guardian says there is a different approach being taken by the EU who are not approving it yet.

Next question, our town is getting the Pfizer, one of the first hospitals as they have storage facilities. But I've not been into town or used public transport since March. Parking at the hospital is horrendous, I usually either get 2 buses or use the park and ride. Over 75s are 3rd in the queue. Would I be better waiting for the Health Centre to get the other vaccine? Since there probably won't be much happening that I'd want to go to until more of the population has been done.

Not sure I can answer that, Mo.
I personally would not be too keen on public transport, but to wait for another vaccine..............not sure about that, either.
Would you be allowed to have another vaccine if you did not go for this one? Maybe you could ask that question, but not sure where you would ask though.

Mo wrote: ↑ 03 Dec 2020, 20:59 But I've not been into town or used public transport since March. Parking at the hospital is horrendous, I usually either get 2 buses or use the park and ride.

This crossed my mind too about expecting the most vulnerable to travel to a central point for the jab - most hospitals have either not enough parking or charge far too much and actively encourage people to use public transport instead (we have a park & ride for the hospital route)

Actually the latest news implies there won't be enough of the first batch for the hospital staff, never mind over 75s.
Had a phone call yesterday from health centre to make appointment for flu jab (which I don't usually bother with). Only 4 chairs in the waiting room, but it still felt odd.

I think my approach would be that you'd be very unlucky as well as statistically unlikely to get covid on the one occasion you ventured out to get the vaccine. As long as you follow all the hands, face, space rules you can minimize the chances.
It's hard to shake off the caution and I probably look a bit nutty when I'm out because I only touch things through my pulled down sleeves and sanitize whenever it's possible, even if I haven't touched anything between times! I still think I'd be nervously OK on a bus with a mask and facing forwards only.

Freeranger wrote: ↑ 04 Dec 2020, 19:06 As long as you follow all the hands, face, space rules you can minimize the chances.

I think that is good advice. To large extent our own personal safety is in our own hands.

Freeranger wrote: ↑ 04 Dec 2020, 19:06 I still think I'd be nervously OK on a bus with a mask and facing forwards only.

Wendy and I have been using buses and we travelled to Manchester on the train last Wednesday (we are now in strict quarantine in Bangkok now but that's another story). I believe it is a case of understanding the risks. What's the chance that someone with covid is on the bus or has been on the bus recently? What is the chance that the covid infected person is close to us? How effective are masks is another consideration?

First one jabbed this morning. Fancy getting a 90 year old out of bed at 6am just to pose for the cameras.
ilona

Hospital life always starts very early so she'd have been awake anyway, unlike most of the journalists, but she'd have also had to give consent for the filming. I think, from what she said, that she's keen to encourage others to do the same, so I'm sure she's fine with it.

I thought that the point of giving the first dose to a 90 year old (and the first dose in Cheshire to a 92 yr old) was to counteract the bad publicity the government got for it's treatment of care homes, early in the pandemic.
Still not sure if it wouldn't be better to inject hospital staff first, to allow them to keep working, and avoid them spreading it while asymptomatic.

Mo wrote: ↑ 08 Dec 2020, 15:20 I thought that the point of giving the first dose to a 90 year old (and the first dose in Cheshire to a 92 yr old) was to counteract the bad publicity the government got for it's treatment of care homes, early in the pandemic.
Still not sure if it wouldn't be better to inject hospital staff first, to allow them to keep working, and avoid them spreading it while asymptomatic.

I can see positives for both ...but I tend to agree more with the vaccinating healthcare workers first because their ability (for want of a better word) to become sick is greater.
The issue is not only the spreading of the virus (which is of course a huge issue) but the virus taking healthcare workers out of the workplace....so depleting an already depleted and increasingly tired workforce.