Coronavirus

The place to chat, fluff your feathers, and let off steam!
User avatar
dinosaw
Part of the Flock
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by dinosaw »

Well that was a patronising article. The person writing is not a doctor, they are are a "behavioural strategist", most of the people in the quoted article are also from a behavioural science background. Why do they invoke MMR?, we know the huge benefits and small risks of MMR, a vaccine that has been around since 1971, it bears no comparison to a series of vaccines that have been around for umm... seven months at most.

We have been told repeatedly that there is no herd immunity to be had from this virus as the antibodies degrade, so unless someone can magically manage to vaccinate the whole population within three months of each other and then ban all entries of foreign nationals into the country then the virus will continue to circulate.

Once again, if these vaccines are so very very safe from long term side effects, then why have their manufacturers sought indemnity from civil liability before distribution?. The answer of course is that nobody lacking powers of clairvoyance can predict 2 year, 5 year or 10 year side effects in something that has only been in existence for seven months. They may well be safe, but, and this a big "but", they also may not.

As I have said before, for old people, the vaccine is probably a no brainer. Out of 61000 deaths in the UK, 55,000 have been in the over 65's with the vast majority occurring in the over 75's. In contrast only 661 people under 45 have died of covid and only 6 of them have been under 15. In the case of the under 15's especially, what is being advocated is giving them a vaccine for something that presents virtually no risk to them, without being 100% sure of the side effects, for the benefit of the elderly. I personally don't think that is fair and wouldn't think it was fair if I was aged 101 either.

Just to add, publishing any article that questions the wisdom of rushing out this vaccine would by more than any newspaper editors job was worth. We saw what happened at the NY times recently.
User avatar
rick
Full Member
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by rick »

I saw a similar article, not quite the same one but with practically the same content, and didn't like it either. A label like 'the anti-vaxxers' being used is just stupid (and a bit scary!) The vaccine will protect those who are particularly vulnerable, not just because of age but because of a genetic leaning towards getting hit very hard by it - which is an unknown until getting a large enough exposure. There are a lot of reasons why someone might not go in for having the vaccine and there is no reason at all for them to be made into a pariah or otherwise vilified. Enough people, in the situations that matter, will go for it - mostly because there will be some things that you will probably have to present a vaccination certificate for in order to do. If I'm offered it then I have no worries about it but if not, or I missed the appointment for some reason, then I wouldn't be worried about that either. I'd probably go in for it to make the point that I think the development of the technique, that was underway well before 'the virus' was a thing, is an incredible leap forward in medicine.
But being a coronavirus it wont be like the story of polio - there is no way it will be eradicated. It will merge into the background of flu like viruses posing a general risk for which there is protection available.
The other thing that has been annoying me is the figures that are reported as covid deaths. Obviously hugely lamentable if it is a factor in any deaths but 'dying with covid' and 'dying of covid' are very different things. I know the medical profession understand that very well but there is a tenancy for the media to go for the sensational (encouraged by the political steering I think - for good reason to keep us focused - but still mildly annoying.)
People dying is a terrible thing. The population of the UK is nearly 68 million and current average life expectancy is about 81 years. So that is about 70,000 deaths per month as the norm (sorry, I had to check that twice - its an awful number to calculate.)
User avatar
Marigold
Moderator
Posts: 7387
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:27 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Marigold »

User avatar
dinosaw
Part of the Flock
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by dinosaw »

There you go Marigold, you are in group number 2 out of 9 for vaccination. You'll soon have the vaccine and if the manufacturers are right then you will be protected regardless of what anybody else chooses to do.
User avatar
rick
Full Member
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by rick »

Just thinking out loud...
I'm having trouble making sense of those figures, not because I think there is anything purposely misleading or inaccurate in them as reported, but because of a lack of other information.
Early on there wasn't a test so that may explain the higher number of death certificate mentions than positive tests within 28 days. So it implies that there are a significant number of cases where doctors were/are diagnosing Sars-Cov2 from clinical symptoms without a test - roughly 20% since the beginning. I completely trust doctors to add only significantly contributing factors to a death certificate but cant help wondering how many 'mentions' were at the bottom of the list. There must have been some temptation to add it if in any doubt in order to highlight their very real concerns of a real emerging problem?
The governments unmoderated total is silly as a guide (maybe.) With testing becoming more and more available then the number testing positive generally will keep rising regardless of being a contributing factor and the number testing positive 28 days before dying will rise by a similar, if not the same, proportion. There must be more subtlety to the way the figure is arrived at than just a positive test within 28 days of dying although, if there isn't then that is also interesting - Testing has only really been available since April and in that time about 490,000 deaths would have normally occurred. If 60,000 tested positive within 28 days then the prevalence in that group is about 12%. The most recent estimate of prevalence in the population as a whole is about 1% at the time of the test. What I dont know is how that figure of 1% would change if it was counted as a positive test within 28 days - if a person was tested repeatedly for how long would they remain positive?
Still, it does seem that a person is several times more likely to have it within 28 days of death. Clearly, for an unlucky few it is the main cause but I wonder if there is something else happening as well.
User avatar
dinosaw
Part of the Flock
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by dinosaw »

I think the problem with death certificates is that they have watered down the process in light of the current circumstances. See below:
https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-adv ... 9-outbreak

Normally, if a doctor had not been attending the patient in person then the death would be referred to the coroner. Now that is no longer the case, doctors can in effect guess the cause of death, even remotely if necessary. It is also worth bearing in mind, that in studies carried out into the rationale of doctors when issuing death certificates, that the feelings of the family play heavily upon that issuance. If a post mortem can at all be avoided then it will be, and if a family member is adamant that their relative had Covid then it will go on the certificate if the doctor wants an easy life. Of course the only way to be sure of a Covid death if you haven't been attending the patient is a post mortem.

I presume this is why people have been looking to excess deaths to give the "real" figure on Covid deaths. However this in itself is a minefield as we don't know how many people have died due to cancelled operations, reluctance to visit A&E, suicide, loneliness ,lack of home care etc.
User avatar
dinosaw
Part of the Flock
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by dinosaw »

I'm currently loving the Thalidomide debate on twitter. Some of the people directly comparing Thalidomide with the vaccine are indeed total idiots, but boy do the people shouting them down have an exaggerated opinion of their own intelligence. According to them we live in a different world now, where harmful drugs could never be allowed to be circulated because the regulatory bodies are so very clever and rigorous.

Here is a great list of drugs withdrawn from the market after approval, often within a decade of that approval. There are over 40 of them in the last 20 years, as this list doesn't include Ranitidine which you can no longer get due to cancer risk apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Some of them like Thelin (Sitaxentan) were withdrawn only four years after being licensed. Even better, Pfizer bought the company that developed it in 2008 in order to acquire that particular drug, only to have to withdraw it in 2010!.

Here is the before: "Wow, isn't Thelin great, we've payed $195m to acquire it"
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-relea ... aceuticals

And the after: "Oops, turns out it ain't safe after all folks, sorry"
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-relea ... ent_safety

It's worth stating at this point that many thousands of drugs haven't been withdrawn and have been proven to be perfectly safe. However to suggest that somehow the regulators and big pharma are infallible is almost as dangerous as the assertions of the anti-vaxxer movement.
User avatar
rick
Full Member
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by rick »

Gosh! Busy time for Miss Marple then!
User avatar
dinosaw
Part of the Flock
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by dinosaw »

It would seem that pregnant women, those planning pregnancy and children will not be getting the vaccine. I saw a story in the US press that said they will not license a vaccine for kids over there until late 2021 at the very earliest. The paragraph below from Sky News on UK's advice from the JCVI.

The vaccine has not been advised for pregnant women as there is no data on its safety.

"Women should be advised not to come forward for vaccination if they may be pregnant or are planning a pregnancy within three months of the first dose," the JCVI stated.

It will also not be generally available for children. The JCVI stated that "following infection, almost all children will have asymptomatic infection or mild disease" and as such don't need it.

However, it will be available for "those children at very high risk of exposure and serious outcomes, such as older children with severe neuro-disabilities that require residential care".

So that's about 14 million people not getting the vaccine this year before we even get started.
bigyetiman
Full Member
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:27 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by bigyetiman »

This was snapped on Shetland.
Are you bringing some Covid cheer Hen-Gen?
Attachments
Shetland.jpg
Shetland.jpg (61.67 KiB) Viewed 203 times
Post Reply

Return to “The Dustbath”