The biology of coronavirus COVID-19 - including research and treatments

"Realistic possibility" they said, while settling in for a long sit on the fence. Presumably they feel duty bound to report adverse findings ASAP.

The three UK analyses appear to based on the same data set which nervtag say has "limitations".

The BBC News article I saw this morning said the variant data was gathered for 8% of known infections, which leaves 92% unknown. We spectators have no way of knowing whether there are any systematic biases in the data gathering. Independent data from other countries about the same variants should help to clarify eventually, might take a while.

The booster shot is being discussed this morning by the BBC in relation to "senior doctors" calling for frontline health workers to get the booster on time to ensure their immunity.

If the UK variant has evolved higher infectivity then it is significant for the delayed booster strategy which, as the "pissed off virologist" discussed, will increase the population of active virus under high selection pressure for vaccine survival, making it more likely that vaccine resistant variants will evolve, along the same lines as antibiotic resistance, by which logic its best to complete the course as it were and knock the virus out with maximum efficacy wherever vaccines are employed.

 

I have just read an article in the Guardian which throws an interesting perspective on being a trial participant when vaccines are being developed. One disappointed individual. Shouldn't the consent process prior to participation cover this?


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...vaccine-trial-should-i-also-accept-a-real-jab

 

I agree that HE is. In fact he's a writer and it's not the first article he has written about the experience of being a trial participant. Maybe having an article accepted has replaced a usual source of income and reflecting on his personal responses informs his writing.

I was just surprised that he did not seem to know the consequences of being involved in a vaccine trial. I would have thought it would have been explained that if a different successful vaccine was found and approved, the MHRA does not advise vaccination with it immediately ie it recommends waiting for the results of the trial in which he is participating because there is no research evidence of the effects of being double vaccinated.

.( "Because of this lack of knowledge, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MRHA) advises those in a vaccine study not to take an approved vaccine.")

I read it as a personal experience story (and the idiosyncrasies of one's reactions) rather than a science based one but did think the MHRA advice would have been explained. Perhaps it was but was then forgotten, or he really wanted to have had the placebo so that he could have the Oxford vaccine and know where he stood.

 

The writer seems to have lost the plot at the end. One can only really sympathise with an attempt to argue through a complex situation if the argument makes sense.

It is interesting that he says that: Because of this lack of knowledge, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MRHA) advises those in a vaccine study not to take an approved vaccine.

This must be unethical. It is completely against the principle that someone in a trial can do whatever they want when they want. IN fact the author's statement does not make sense and betrays a failure of logic. Whatever the MHRA said it was not because of a lack of knowledge. it might have been because of a desire to avoid overuse of vaccines but it is far from clear.



Then at the end he calls a friend who seems to provide the same irrational argument - that he should not have the proven vaccine because there is uncertainty. But there isn't uncertainty about the proven vaccine. It seems to me either that the scientist friend should have. been a bit clearers or that the author simply does not understand his own dilemma. The GP does not seem to help either. Why do they recommend not taking a proven vaccine? To save doses? That is the one thing you are not allowed to advise in the context of trials. The ethics of trials are all about the individual, not about the population at large. That is why we have trial ethics.

 

A summary of what the science says about delaying the second vaccine dose:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/me...cine-doses/ar-BB1d92qB?ocid=ASUDHP&li=AAnZ9Ug

 

Moved post

Why Germany did not approve the use of AstraZeneca vaccine for over 65s:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1354781400071860230


Novavax interim data is good (especially given Australia's vaccine supply issues...), but worse South African variant data is a little concerning:
https://twitter.com/user/status/1354904243807772672

 

The Astrazenica vaccine started to be used around 4th January [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55525542]

So lets say 11th January for general rollout.
14 days to develop immunity [25th January]
deterioration, requiring hospitalisation, usually occur 10 days after infection [infected 25th - hospitalised 4th February]
so I guess the "real world" evidence of whether 1 shot Astrazenica prevents serious illness (hospitalisation) should be evident from mid-February (14th).

I'm hoping one shot is enough to keep you out of hospital i.e. that the UK can continue with 1 shot vaccination - vulnerable family member (55-60 year old), due to be vaccinated in March.

 

The virus will never go away now so the hope is that vaccines will help stop people getting infected so the likelihood of meeting someone excreting virus will become low.

People with ME are vulnerable to all infections as they carry the risk of the disease becoming worse so it makes sense to carry on with handwashing and so on even if the number of covid cases drop. Viruses need to enter our bodies to replicate so making sure we have no particles on our hands and that we avoid touching the entrance points of mouth nose and eyes would always have been good for us but it was never really spelled out.

One thing the pandemic has done is to make it easier for us to take these precautions. I was never happy about shaking hands but now have an excuse.

Jonathan Edwards has spoken about doctors he knew who did all the handwashing and so on to protect themselves from ebola and carried on with not touching their faces when they returned to the UK and found that they had much fewer colds.

Distancing will be more difficult when other people forget though. It is a strange thought, but when I needed to use a walking stick people gave me more room so that could be something to try.

Making sure you have your own dishes and things and disinfecting the bathroom before you use it may make you feel more secure. personally I think it will be a long time before I go out without a mask and alcohol gel.

Try not to worry too much.

 

Can't read the tweet, but I understood they've now changed their mind and approved it for all age groups?

 

The EU approved it, I think Germany is still going to avoid it's use for over 65s. The tweet shows the lack of data (1 covid case each in both vaccine and placebo groups)

 

More than 50 Long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250617v1

 

Of course this is not the same as LongCovid - some of the people with dyspnea or ageusia might not have the other most common LongCovid symptoms (fatigue, headache, brainfog).

 

Defining the role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission – a living systematic review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1198743X21000380

So (reported) asymptomatic cases are around 85-90% less likely to transmit the virus to someone else given the mean figures. This compares to around 90% less that I mentioned previously in the Wuhan contact tracing study.

 

Interesting ( but long) thread
https://twitter.com/user/status/1355689990487896065

 

article in the Independent:

I’m a Covid vaccinator and thousands of doses are being thrown away every day – it’s an outrage | The Independent

 

And yet, despite all this, apparently still 1 In 7 Brits Believe There Is A Huge Coronavirus Cover-Up Involving Politicians, Scientists And Journalists

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ournalists/ar-BB1dfKfc?ocid=ASUDHP&li=AAnZ9Ug

Sorry, I couldn't think where else to put it, but it just shows what people are having to fight against - as well as the virus, obviously. You can have special reports from the "frontline" on the news all week, show care staff desperately begging us to follow the rules so we don't make anyone else sick, show exhausted NHS personnel struggling to hold it together, and so many people still believe it's a con? It makes me REALLY ANGRY

 

the article says 1-3 doses a day and there are around 1,350 vaccination centres.
I think the point the author is making is that if they can't get people on the official 'list' at short notice then they should be able to 'use up' the leftover doses by giving frontline staff their second shot.