Coronavirus

[oddoneout]

Buy To Let? Which local rag? I hope the publishers get their comeuppance.

I wouldn't inflict the below the line community's thoughts on landlords on members of this forum - would lose track of how many asterisks to use apart from anything else...

[LHC]

For those who might be worried about receiving the AZ vaccine, the WHO has published new guidelines on its use which endorse the UK government’s approach. They confirm that delaying the administration of the second jab gives a stronger response and are now recommending an 8 to 12 week gap between jabs for the AZ vaccine, as the longer gap is "associated with greater vaccine efficacy” and will also allow more people to be protected quickly. They also confirm it is recommended for all groups, including the over 65s.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-vaccines-SAGE_recommendation-AZD1222-2021.1/

[Serial_Apologist]

For those who might be worried about receiving the AZ vaccine, the WHO has published new guidelines on its use which endorse the UK government’s approach. They confirm that delaying the administration of the second jab gives a stronger response and are now recommending an 8 to 12 week gap between jabs for the AZ vaccine, as the longer gap is "associated with greater vaccine efficacy” and will also allow more people to be protected quickly. They also confirm it is recommended for all groups, including the over 65s.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/i...ZD1222-2021.1/

But not the Pfizer, evidently...

[LHC]

But not the Pfizer, evidently...

There is a report in the Sun (I know, I’m sorry) that monitoring of the vaccinations given so far in the UK shows the Pfizer vaccine provides 65% protection after 1 jab, rising to 85% after two, and that figures for AZ are virtually identical (this is not surprising in that the vaccines are both designed to promote an specific immune response to the spike protein).

UK monitoring thus far suggests that delaying the Pfizer vaccine 2nd jab should have similar outcomes as for the AZ vaccine. The only reason this wasn’t provided for before was that Pfizer didn’t include this level of delay in its clinical trials, and so there was no evidence for or against a delay. There will be soon.

[johnb]

There is a report in the Sun (I know, I’m sorry) that monitoring of the vaccinations given so far in the UK shows the Pfizer vaccine provides 65% protection after 1 jab, rising to 85% after two, and that figures for AZ are virtually identical (this is not surprising in that the vaccines are both designed to promote an specific immune response to the spike protein).

UK monitoring thus far suggests that delaying the Pfizer vaccine 2nd jab should have similar outcomes as for the AZ vaccine. The only reason this wasn’t provided for before was that Pfizer didn’t include this level of delay in its clinical trials, and so there was no evidence for or against a delay. There will be soon.

I feel steam coming out of my ears when I read this type of reporting (I found a Sun online article that quoted those figures.

To baldly say that the Pfizer vaccine provides 65% after 1 jab is meaningless and potentially misleading.

The Phase 3 trial data indicated that the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine had a 90% efficacy from 15 days after the jab. (The data was only available for days 15 to 21, but the data between days 15 and 28, before the second jab took effect, was similar). The overall efficacy between the 1st and 2nd jab was something like 50%, but that obviously included the first two weeks, before the vaccine took effect.

[Serial_Apologist]

I feel steam coming out of my ears when I read this type of reporting (I found a Sun online article that quoted those figures.

To baldly say that the Pfizer vaccine provides 65% after 1 jab is meaningless and potentially misleading.

The Phase 3 trial data indicated that the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine had a 90% efficacy from 15 days after the jab. (The data was only available for days 15 to 21, but the data between days 15 and 28, before the second jab took effect, was similar). The overall efficacy between the 1st and 2nd jab was something like 50%, but that obviously included the first two weeks, before the vaccine took effect.

Well that is re-assuring, to a considerable extent. Thanks!

[Simon B]

It would help if mainstream media reports of these matters would define their terms properly. Or at all.

What actually *are* "efficacy" and "protection" in the context of each study?

I think it generally means - a) reduction in probability of symptomatic infection per challenge, all things being equal. That's not the same thing as b) the reduction in risk of serious illness or death - which has to be at least as great and probably rather greater.

It appears that only a) is knowable at the moment with b) being something that can only be ascertained over time. Can it really be so hard to communicate this distinction clearly for general consumption?

[oddoneout]

It would help if mainstream media reports of these matters would define their terms properly. Or at all.

What actually *are* "efficacy" and "protection" in the context of each study?

I think it generally means - a) reduction in probability of symptomatic infection per challenge, all things being equal. That's not the same thing as b) the reduction in risk of serious illness or death - which has to be at least as great and probably rather greater.

It appears that only a) is knowable at the moment with b) being something that can only be ascertained over time. Can it really be so hard to communicate this distinction clearly for general consumption?

Probably not, but you are assuming that whoever writes the article understands the issues, and the need to differentiate. I don't think that even an elementary knowledge of science is a requirement for a science/medical journalist, judging by what I've read and heard over the years.
The Guardian's energy journalist doesn't understand how the National Grid works, so makes some real clangers when talking about renewable energy generation. I have complained 3 times and had no response so it evidently isn't considered that important - so what hope the the Sun - especially given its 'special ' relationship with the truth?

[Anastasius]

It would help if mainstream media reports of these matters would define their terms properly. Or at all.

What actually *are* "efficacy" and "protection" in the context of each study?

I think it generally means - a) reduction in probability of symptomatic infection per challenge, all things being equal. That's not the same thing as b) the reduction in risk of serious illness or death - which has to be at least as great and probably rather greater.

It appears that only a) is knowable at the moment with b) being something that can only be ascertained over time. Can it really be so hard to communicate this distinction clearly for general consumption?

'Efficacy' has three too many syllables for the majority of readers of main-stream and social media.

[DracoM]

Another somewhat disturbing stat from my part of the nation:

• The 55-64 age group accounted for the greatest number of new cases in this area followed closely by the 25-34, 45-54 and 35-44 age groups;
• There were decreases in new cases in all age groups here from the previous week.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Another somewhat disturbing stat from my part of the nation:

• The 55-64 age group accounted for the greatest number of new cases in this area followed closely by the 25-34, 45-54 and 35-44 age groups;
• There were decreases in new cases in all age groups here from the previous week.

Could that be because of the vaccination programme offering some protection to older groups?

[cloughie]

Could that be because of the vaccination programme offering some protection to older groups?

...and oldies need to go out less - not working, obeying the rules.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for inroducing this, but is anyone else disturbed at the apparent tendency of scientific spokespersons to anthropomorphise viruses? What we seem to be hearing about is ability to "choose" adaptability for purposes of survival. This morning one virologist, in response to a caller asking if more dangerous strains of Covid might emerge in the future, stated that there would be no "purpose" in the Coronavirus evolving new and more dangerous strains if the purpose is survival, since more people would die and thereby not be available for infection, thereby negating the whole point!

I may have got into a semantic trap here, but I thought only humans had purposes since these involved conscious decision-making, and that species diversification arose spontaneously, not because the species in question consciously wanted to survive. Wouldn't imputing purpose to micro-organisms imply some higher innate intelligence beyond the imperative to survive against evolutionary odds?

[Bryn]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for inroducing this, but is anyone else disturbed at the apparent tendency of scientific spokespersons to anthropomorphise viruses? What we seem to be hearing about is ability to "choose" adaptability for purposes of survival. This morning one virologist, in response to a caller asking if more dangerous strains of Covid might emerge in the future, stated that there would be no "purpose" in the Coronavirus evolving new and more dangerous strains if the purpose is survival, since more people would die and thereby not be available for infection, thereby negating the whole point!

I may have got into a semantic trap here, but I thought only humans had purposes since these involved conscious decision-making, and that species diversification arose spontaneously, not because the species in question consciously wanted to survive. Wouldn't imputing purpose to micro-organisms imply some higher innate intelligence beyond the imperative to survive against evolutionary odds?

I blame Richard Dawkins with his effective anthropomorphising of the DNA molecule in the catchy title "The Selfish Gene".

[oddoneout]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for inroducing this, but is anyone else disturbed at the apparent tendency of scientific spokespersons to anthropomorphise viruses? What we seem to be hearing about is ability to "choose" adaptability for purposes of survival. This morning one virologist, in response to a caller asking if more dangerous strains of Covid might emerge in the future, stated that there would be no "purpose" in the Coronavirus evolving new and more dangerous strains if the purpose is survival, since more people would die and thereby not be available for infection, thereby negating the whole point!

I may have got into a semantic trap here, but I thought only humans had purposes since these involved conscious decision-making, and that species diversification arose spontaneously, not because the species in question consciously wanted to survive. Wouldn't imputing purpose to micro-organisms imply some higher innate intelligence beyond the imperative to survive against evolutionary odds?

I wonder if some of that approach(which irritates me as well) is driven by the perceived need to make information more accessible - making the corona virus into a creature-like entity is easier to relate to than the nebulous concept of a virus. Possibly some similarity to the belligerent language used to describe tackling the pandemic - even though punching aerosols(whack a mole) is a patently pointless exercise it is something 'people' understand, or so the reasoning goes?