Coronavirus

[Dave2002]

This seems to me to nail Johnson completely:

Very interesting, and either taken from or very similar to what the author wrote here - https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...hristmas-covid

There are a few other choice bits in that article - such as the para which has this sentence

He likes to be liked and hates direct confrontation.

...then read the rest of that paragraph. I have known a few people like that.

I have known some people to find hesitation works well for them. It's hard to know whether it's always deliberate - it may not start off that way. Possibly people do a lot of dithering, then discover that they are still put in a (for them) better position as a result. After that it may become a possible strategy for the future. As such, from a purely selfish point of view, it may be a strategy that will work, and as such is not an unintelligent approach - on occasions.

A better approach IMO for someone with that degree of perceptiveness is for even greater awareness of one's own actions and statements on what other people will do - and whether that will be a "good thing" or not. That should not only take into account one's own personal benefits, but also whether other people benefit or are disadvantaged, things which some people don't seem to care much about.

Possibly many of us have said and done things where we didn't anticipate how others would interpret and act, sometimes with regret afterwards. Someone interacting and influencing many other people needs to be aware of possible outcomes, and hopefully avoid the worst problems, rather than trying to backtrack, U-turn, and backtrack again as events unfold.

[johnb]

Today, the Science Media Centre carries three further reactions to the plan to extend the time period between doses. I do urge anyone interested to read these contributions.

Prof Sheila Bird (formerly Programme Leader, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge) writes extensively about the available (or lack thereof). Much of this goes over my head but is nevertheless worth reading.

Prof Stephen Evans (Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine) writes an extended summary which makes a compelling case IMO.

There is also a useful contribution from Dr Andrew Garrett (Executive VP, Scientific Operations, ICON Clinical Research, [a commercial company])

The Science Media Centre has become an extremely valuable source throughout this pandemic and is my "go to" place for unfiltered responses from scientists.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-whether-giving-two-doses-of-covid-vaccine-separated-by-a-longer-period-is-sensible/

[Serial_Apologist]

Very interesting, and either taken from or very similar to what the author wrote here - https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...hristmas-covid

There are a few other choice bits in that article - such as the para which has this sentence

...then read the rest of that paragraph. I have known a few people like that.

I have known some people to find hesitation works well for them. It's hard to know whether it's always deliberate - it may not start off that way. Possibly people do a lot of dithering, then discover that they are still put in a (for them) better position as a result. After that it may become a possible strategy for the future. As such, from a purely selfish point of view, it may be a strategy that will work, and as such is not an unintelligent approach - on occasions.

A better approach IMO for someone with that degree of perceptiveness is for even greater awareness of one's own actions and statements on what other people will do - and whether that will be a "good thing" or not. That should not only take into account one's own personal benefits, but also whether other people benefit or are disadvantaged, things which some people don't seem to care much about.

Possibly many of us have said and done things where we didn't anticipate how others would interpret and act, sometimes with regret afterwards. Someone interacting and influencing many other people needs to be aware of possible outcomes, and hopefully avoid the worst problems, rather than trying to backtrack, U-turn, and backtrack again as events unfold.

A very Machievellian interpretation of Johnson and the likes of him - or what some social theorists might describe as holding to an instrumentalist approach to life.

It reminds me of someone who accused me to my face of holding political beliefs which more reflected my psychology than reality - to which my friend replied, "Yes, maybe so; but if he has correct political positions, who cares if that's for the wrong reasons?"!

[Dave2002]

A very Machievellian interpretation of Johnson and the likes of him - or what some social theorists might describe as holding to an instrumentalist approach to life.

It reminds me of someone who accused me to my face of holding political beliefs which more reflected my psychology than reality - to which my friend replied, "Yes, maybe so; but if he has correct political positions, who cares if that's for the wrong reasons?"!

I shall file those choice phrases away for later use!

[Anastasius]

This seems to me to nail Johnson completely:

Or to put it another way

"Dear Prime Minister. What part of the phrase "Bring in tighter controls now' are you having difficulty in understanding ?

[Anastasius]

....
It is a plausible conjecture that it’ll work, which may bear fruit, but it is untested.

Isn't that BoJO's modus operandi ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Or to put it another way

"Dear Prime Minister. What part of the phrase "Bring in tighter controls now' are you having difficulty in understanding ?

The part that was urged this morning by Keir Starmer. But, as that notoriously unpleasant loudmouth Caroline Mahone summed it up so platitudinously this morning on The Jeremy Vine Show, "Well he can say anything he likes, because he doesn't hold any responsibilities for being in government"!

[oddoneout]

Or to put it another way

"Dear Prime Minister. What part of the phrase "Bring in tighter controls now' are you having difficulty in understanding ?

"All of it" is the simple answer, especially when you bear in mind that this article appeared online 15th December when he was still selling a happy mass infection christmas as the way forward.

[Dave2002]

Isn't that BoJO's modus operandi ?

No - at the meta level it works for him. It has so far been tested, and tested, and tested ......

Re everyone else - well ...............

[oddoneout]

Today, the Science Media Centre carries three further reactions to the plan to extend the time period between doses. I do urge anyone interested to read these contributions.

Prof Sheila Bird (formerly Programme Leader, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge) writes extensively about the available (or lack thereof). Much of this goes over my head but is nevertheless worth reading.

Prof Stephen Evans (Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine) writes an extended summary which makes a compelling case IMO.

There is also a useful contribution from Dr Andrew Garrett (Executive VP, Scientific Operations, ICON Clinical Research, [a commercial company])

The Science Media Centre has become an extremely valuable source throughout this pandemic and is my "go to" place for unfiltered responses from scientists.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...d-is-sensible/

Thanks for the link John. I had been unable to track down the comment from Pfizer that I had read which led to my earlier comment about messing with the manufacturer's protocol for administering the vaccine, but I think it is what is mentioned as Pfizer's 'distancing' from the UK decision about the interval between dose 1 and 2. In essence their figures on efficacy, and optimising a response, were based on the published procedure; altering that would mean those figures could not be assumed to still apply?
It was disheartening to read about GP practices which had got all their appointments organised and then were given only a few hours notice that the vaccine wasn't going to arrive and were then expected to cancel them all. Complete waste of their valuable time and resources and, given the type of patients they were dealing, with an enormous disruption to often complex arrangements by many people to get the patients to the surgery for the appointments in the first place.
It's probably the same elsewhere but many people up here are offering their premises, currently unused due to Covid restrictions, as vaccination centres, and retired medics are offering their services to give the jabs, but it looks as if such offers are being ignored. I know as I assume do they, that there are issues with storage and handling, but that doesn't preclude doing preparatory work to see what and who might be suitable, particularly bearing in mind there is a 5 day window of opportunity once the Pfizer doses are out of extreme cold handling. Better to have the chance to use all the doses available rather than let them go to waste because a session elsewhere has been cancelled or, as is very likely to happen, not all appointments are kept?

[johnb]

Thanks for the link John. I had been unable to track down the comment from Pfizer that I had read which led to my earlier comment about messing with the manufacturer's protocol for administering the vaccine, but I think it is what is mentioned as Pfizer's 'distancing' from the UK decision about the interval between dose 1 and 2. In essence their figures on efficacy, and optimising a response, were based on the published procedure; altering that would mean those figures could not be assumed to still apply?

Pfizer *might* in an awkward position on this. Legally, they cannot endorse use of their vaccine in any configuration other than that used in the trials.

The efficacy figures for the Pfizer vaccine were 89% between days 15 and 21 after the first dose and 91% between days 15 and 28 (before the second, booster dose takes effect). There seems to be no data after 28 days.

Prof Stephen Evens wrote on the Science Media Centre:

It is clearly on stronger ground to use the vaccine in exactly the same way as it was used in the trials, but it is simply not true to say that there is evidence that using the vaccines in a different way will have dramatically reduced efficacy. We have some evidence that the efficacy is quite good, and there are no reasons to believe it will show a sudden decline between three and twelve weeks.

“We must take into account that in the current UK context there will be many more cases of disease and therefore more deaths by vaccinating fewer people.

There might well be a range of views from other scientists but that seems pretty reasonable to me.

It was disheartening to read about GP practices which had got all their appointments organised and then were given only a few hours notice that the vaccine wasn't going to arrive and were then expected to cancel them all. Complete waste of their valuable time and resources and, given the type of patients they were dealing, with an enormous disruption to often complex arrangements by many people to get the patients to the surgery for the appointments in the first place.

My initial reaction was the same as yours. I thought the second appointments should have been honoured, but then some 1 million elderly, vulnerable people and heath workers wouldn't get any protection until much later - so it's a difficult decision. Perhaps a compromise would have been better - allowing second dose appointments booked in the coming 7 days to go ahead but delaying the rest.

[oddoneout]

Pfizer *might* in an awkward position on this. Legally, they cannot endorse use of their vaccine in any configuration other than that used in the trials.

The efficacy figures for the Pfizer vaccine were 89% between days 15 and 21 after the first dose and 91% between days 15 and 28 (before the second, booster dose takes effect). There seems to be no data after 28 days.

Prof Stephen Evens wrote on the Science Media Centre:



There might well be a range of views from other scientists but that seems pretty reasonable to me.



My initial reaction was the same as yours. I thought the second appointments should have been honoured, but then some 1 million elderly, vulnerable people and heath workers wouldn't get any protection until much later - so it's a difficult decision. Perhaps a compromise would have been better - allowing second dose appointments booked in the coming 7 days to go ahead but delaying the rest.

I don't think they were all 2nd jabs, and that was one of the reasons for the anger. If arrangements, already hard to make, foundered the first time what hope for the second, especially once all the additional aspects(illness, lack of transport/help, forgetting) were added in.

[Bryn]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jan/10/does-vitamin-d-combat-covid?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[oddoneout]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...e_iOSApp_Other

I saw that yesterday and my first thought was 'why use that image'. Vit D tablets aren't pretty I admit but an alternative way of playing up the 'sunshine vitamin angle' could have been chosen.
Something I find a bit frustrating in all the Covid/Vit D debate is that the UK population, as a generalisation, is deficient in VitD, with osteomalacia and rickets being seen by medics at worrying levels( a family member working in paediatrics in a deprived area said that she worked on the basis that every child she saw would need supplements) - and with all the longer term implications for bone health. In which case supplements would be helpful even if there is no direct beneficial effect on Covid infections.

[teamsaint]

The Kings Covid app definitely showing good signs of the increase slowing down.