COVID Vaccine !

If it’s bothersome, don’t wear the badge?
oh sorry, I meant it's bothersome when you haven't been vaxxed but want to & ppl around you are getting it

I feel bad telling ppl that I got it. not guilty, but like I like I'm causing them consternation. I'd rather they feel uplifted because more ppl are getting it & they will get theirs soon too
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next

Ajax Bay

Guru
Location
East Devon
The SAGE meeting (85) considered modelling (Warwick Uni) of the case levels (and worse) for England assuming relaxation of (most of) the restrictions. On the vaccination programme I thought the facts and assumptions in their brief worth sharing (i have put more in the 'main' thread:
"The uptake of vaccine has been far higher than anticipated; the brief was to assume that:
  • 95% of those in JCVI Phase 1 will accept the vaccine, and
  • 90% of those in JCVI Phase 2 [adults under 50], and
  • uptake of the second dose will be the same as the first [95%].
In many regions the number of over 70s already vaccinated reaches or exceeds the number of individuals from ONS population estimates; but in London the uptake has been lower and may fall below the 95% ideal, currently only vaccinating 91% of the [London] population over 70."
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
"In many regions the number of over 70s already vaccinated reaches or exceeds the number of individuals from ONS population estimates; [...]"

So do we think ONS were wrong or that some people have been accepting both NHS Mass Vaccination Centre and GP invitations to get two doses quickly or something else?


(edited to trim quote - and yet again, what are these UWSL tags appearing everywhere?)
 
Last edited:

Ajax Bay

Guru
Location
East Devon
I think the suggestion is that, at the regional level of detail, the ONS population estimates in a 5 year band of the population are inaccurate (higher than actual); nothing more.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I think the suggestion is that, at the regional level of detail, the ONS population estimates in a 5 year band of the population are inaccurate (higher than actual); nothing more.
I assume you mean "lower than the actual" but it's a bit surprising and I hope ONS will investigate and explain how it happened, as those population estimates are used for a lot of public sector provision.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Bodge invokes the Streisand effect: visits AZ factory, asserts vaccine safe, several foreign TV channels headline it as Boris angrily defending AZ vaccine safety! https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...tes-vaccine-passports-third-wave-b927983.html

Rumours circulate that MHRA may advise against use in under-30s https://www.itv.com/news/2021-04-06...dvice-on-astrazeneca-vaccine-for-young-people
The curse of the chairman's vote of confidence strikes again, as AZ child trial paused: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56656356
 

Eric Olthwaite

Insert witty self-deprecating description here
The curse of the chairman's vote of confidence strikes again, as AZ child trial paused: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56656356
You seem very keen on letting us know about all these developments. I am confused though. Do you agree with the EMA's current guidance that "the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalisation and death, outweigh the risks of side effects"? Or not?
 

Ajax Bay

Guru
Location
East Devon
From the BBC article:
The trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine on children, which started in February, is assessing whether the jab produces a strong immune response in those aged between six and 17 is being paused. Prof Pollard said: "Whilst there are no safety concerns in the paediatric clinical trial, we await additional information from the MHRA on its review of rare cases of thrombosis/thrombocytopaenia that have been reported in adults, before giving any further vaccinations in the trial."
Sensible cautious medic/scientist. Any cursing effect, by whoever, is as likely as these rare cases.
I'd further observe that the BBC article (plus Reuters) allowed a perspective on the report of interview of the Chair of EMA COVID vaccines strategy.
Dr Marco Cavaleri, Head of Office, Biological Health Threats and vaccines strategy, Chair of EMA COVID Task force and responsible for EMA activities for emergent pathogens, vaccines, and AMR, told Italian daily Il Messagero "In my opinion, we can now say it, it is clear that there is an association (of the brain blood clots) with the vaccine. However, we still do not know what causes this reaction." (Meaning or nuance may have been lost in translation.) Cavaleri provided no evidence to support his comment and admitted there was uncertainty how the vaccine would cause the complication. "The EMA has repeatedly said the benefits of the AstraZeneca shot outweigh the risks."
In response to Cavaleri's comments, the Amsterdam-based EMA said in a statement on Tuesday: "EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has not yet reached a conclusion and the review (of any possible link) is currently ongoing."
I suspect this Italian was 'grandstanding' with a newspaper from his home nation (Look at me: an Italian; I have a secret to share) - hence the "in a personal capacity". No right-minded scientist/EU servant / politician would responsibly say this, caveatting it with a 'I say this in a personal capacity; this is not the EMA assessment'. Is he deliberately trying to diminish the standing of the EMA?
 
Last edited:

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
You seem very keen on letting us know about all these developments. I am confused though. Do you agree with the EMA's current guidance that "the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalisation and death, outweigh the risks of side effects"? Or not?
I agree, so far as it goes, for now, for all that matters.
 
Top Bottom