Coronavirus - will we survive?

Covid: Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs effective against Indian variant - study

The Pfizer and AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccines are highly effective against the variant identified in India after two doses, a study has found.

Two jabs of either vaccine give a similar level of protection against symptomatic disease from the Indian variant as they do for the Kent one.

However, both vaccines were only 33% effective against the Indian variant three weeks after the first dose.

This compared with 50% effectiveness against the Kent variant.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock described the outcome as "groundbreaking".

And Public Health England, which ran the study, said the vaccines are likely to be even more effective at preventing hospital admission and deaths.

The Pfizer vaccine was found to be 88% effective at stopping symptomatic disease from the Indian variant two weeks after the second dose, compared with 93% effectiveness against the Kent variant.

While the AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective against the Indian variant, compared with 66% against the Kent variant.

Public Health England (PHE) said the difference in effectiveness between the vaccines after two doses may be explained by the fact that rollout of second doses of Astra-Zeneca was later than for the Pfizer vaccine, which was approved first.

And other data shows it takes longer to reach maximum effectiveness with the AstraZeneca vaccine, PHE said.

Some 12,675 genome-sequenced cases were included in the study, which took place between 5 April and 16 May. Only 1,054 of those cases were of the Indian variant, known as B.1.617.2.

'Very reassuring'



As the virus changes, protection against infection was always going to be the first thing that slips.

So the fact that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines offer such a high degree of protection against the Indian and Kent variant after the second dose is very reassuring.

But what are the implications of the drop in effectiveness of the first dose where the Indian variant is concerned?

Given it's expected to become the dominant variant in the UK, it's now even more important people get their second jab.

The more difficult question to answer is what this means for the speed of the route back to normality.

Its ability to evade the vaccines even by a small degree will be a factor in how more transmissible this variant is here.

There are also other biological reasons why it might find it easier to spread.

But this does not necessarily mean we will see a surge in cases and, crucially, hospital admissions - the protection vaccines give us against serious illness will be much much higher than their ability to block mild infections.

The Indian variant certainly gives the virus a bit more of an advantage, but it doesn't mean the vaccines won't win out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596

Finally......Heathrow terminal 3 will be used exclusively for passengers arriving from "red" countries - instead of allowing them to queue and mingle with other arrivals for hours and hours on end as they have done since the government came up with the list yonks ago.

I don't know who comes up with the Covid strategy but they want shooting. Think it through you morons!

wanderlust wrote:Finally......Heathrow terminal 3 will be used exclusively for passengers arriving from "red" countries - instead of allowing them to queue and mingle with other arrivals for hours and hours on end as they have done since the government came up with the list yonks ago.

I don't know who comes up with the Covid strategy but they want shooting. Think it through you morons!

As for thinking it through...

If the current problem with the Indian variant is the problem and the problem is in and around Bolton/Blackburn and Glasgow, then why would people arriving at Heathrow have been an issue, surely the issue (if there was one) was at Manchester and Glagow airports?

(And I say 'if there was a problem', what I mean by that is that the virus issue may well have come back from those who have gone out of their way not to isolate and who may well have gone through airports that were Covid complaiant).

Just a thought.

Now what was it you labeled people who didn't things through...?

Thought this was a very good and fair read about the governmen'r response to Covid.

Easy to shout at the time (and even now!) that the government got it all wrong but the article tells us what conflicting thoughts and ideas the government (Boris) was facing each step of the way and the overarching need to keep political factions within the government on-side with every decision along the way.

A shout out to Whitty and Van-Tan who seemed to call it right all the time and surprisingly maybe, a shout out to Cummings who at least called it right over the second lockdown (he's giving evidence on that tomorrow as well).

Mistakes and errors were inevitably made simply because we had no idea what Covid was and how to deal with it and we simply were totally unprepared for it.

Well worth reading imo -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56361599

Sluffy wrote:

Now what was it you labeled people who didn't things through...?

Sluffties

I thought this was an interesting stat from Hancock today -

Hancock continues that: "Of the 49 people who are in hospital with Covid in Bolton, only five have had both vaccine doses."

I'm guessing they've had the Astra-Zenica jab as the stats seem to say it gives less protection than the Pfizer one?

Anyway my point is even though we may have had our jabs we can still catch Covid so don't let your guards down and keep safe.

17:08
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57265134

A bit more on Bolton

17:49
Early signs Bolton cases levelling off

Jen Williams, of the Manchester Evening News, says local health leaders in Greater Manchester implemented a testing regime before discharging care home residents in March and asks why it took a month to become national policy.

She also asks about whether the surge vaccination support in Bolton could be rolled out to other areas of Greater Manchester which are now seeing rising Covid cases.

Matt Hancock says "unfortunately we didn't have the testing capacity to put that policy in place across the whole country".

On Bolton, he says there are "some early signs" that the increase in rates is starting to "cap out".

Dr Jenny Harries says the spread tends to have focal points, such as a school, community centre or faith building and says it is important local understanding is brought into the picture so that surge testing can be put in place in those areas.

Make your own assumptions as to which community group she is refering to?

UK reported zero covid deaths yesterday for the first time in 11 months and despite the ongoing questions over reporting accuracy it's clear that the vaccines are working to ameliorate the full impact of the illness.
Unfortunately a huge rise in new cases was also reported and it looks like the easing of restrictions on June 21st is under threat.

wanderlust wrote:UK reported zero covid deaths yesterday for the first time in 11 months and despite the ongoing questions over reporting accuracy it's clear that the vaccines are working to ameliorate the full impact of the illness.
Unfortunately a huge rise in new cases was also reported and it looks like the easing of restrictions on June 21st is under threat.

Hahaha, you do make me laugh!

There's only you who doubts the reporting accuracy and you only continue to do so because you claimed it to be false from the very begining and can never admit to ever being wrong!

Nobody, the Labour party, the Boris and Cumming haters, not even the likes of Maugham who challenges everything the government in the courts, claims the figures are wrong - just you!

It is all there in black and white how the figuers are collated and reported, it's definitions and time periods.  Even other methods of counting the figures are published in order to be compared against but nope - you say they are wrong/fake/inaccurate.

You could simply just have posted that there is great news that nobody died with Covid yesterday and left it at that, but no you had to put in your dig against the government based on your pathological hatred of them and your desire to see everything they do is wrong.

I really do pity those who have to put up with you in real life.

And for what it is worth there wasn't a "huge rise in new cases" reported yesterday (3,165) at all in fact there was a decrease of a couple of hundred on the day before (3,383) and about three hundred down on the seven day rolling average (3,441).

What was it you were saying about "reporting accuracy"!!!

Maugham getting a mention again of course .

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Maugham getting a mention again of course .

You posting on the forum simply to have a pop at me again...

And you say I'm obsessed!

More I can’t resist correcting you to be honest. But I’ve said that many times.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:More I can’t resist correcting you to be honest. But I’ve said that many times.

Oh good another, obsessive who doesn't indentify with what he really is.

Just so I know do you correct everyone on the internet or is it only me that you're obsessed with can't resist correcting (as you put it)!

In which case I'm flattered...

...I do seem to attract all the internet mentalists on here!

Sluffy wrote:


There's only you who doubts the reporting accuracy and you only continue to do so because you claimed it to be false from the very begining and can never admit to ever being wrong!

"You do make me laugh" (sic erat scriptum)

There's only you who thinks he knows better than than the government who openly admit their data is both flawed and late. The ONS clearly state that the official figures are actually weighted estimates rather than facts - they have to be because reporting is so poor and the criteria they set limit what they record anyway. Educated guesses at best but generally recognised to be 20% light primarily due to the estimation criteria the government introduced early on in the process to try to make it look better than it actually was.
Some of the flaws are outlined here and here and here and lots of other places from reputable sources that even a vanity project like you can't dispute.

So go on then - lead by example and admit you were wrong yet again you "nutjob" - unless of course you do think you know better than the government and a plethora of leading scientists. Wouldn't surprise me if you do.

PS: TROY - I didn't realise you were a fellow mentalist.....

mentalist¹
/ˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
noun
noun: mentalist; plural noun: mentalists
1.
a magician who performs feats that apparently demonstrate extraordinary mental powers, such as mind-reading.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


There's only you who doubts the reporting accuracy and you only continue to do so because you claimed it to be false from the very begining and can never admit to ever being wrong!

"You do make me laugh" (sic erat scriptum)

There's only you who thinks he knows better than than the government who openly admit their data is both flawed and late. The ONS clearly state that the official figures are actually weighted estimates rather than facts - they have to be because reporting is so poor and the criteria they set limit what they record anyway. Educated guesses at best but generally recognised to be 20% light primarily due to the estimation criteria the government introduced early on in the process to try to make it look better than it actually was.
Some of the flaws are outlined here and here and here and lots of other places from reputable sources that even a vanity project like you can't dispute.

So go on then - lead by example and admit you were wrong yet again you "nutjob" - unless of course you do think you know better than the government and a plethora of leading scientists. Wouldn't surprise me if you do.

PS: TROY - I didn't realise you were a fellow mentalist.....

mentalist¹
/ˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
noun
noun: mentalist; plural noun: mentalists
1.
a magician who performs feats that apparently demonstrate extraordinary mental powers, such as mind-reading.

OH MY GOD are you for real?????




1 - Your article from the ONS is in respect of calculating the 'R' number in the community NOT the governments daily totals of positive cases and deaths resulting from Covid in the last 28 days.

In otherwords you are completely on the wrong horse with this one you fool.

2 - The second one is saying that deaths from Covid complications can and do happen AFTER 28 days and these are recorded on death certificates so you should read the ONS (you know the organisation who you just rubbished their data collection above!!!) totals as to the accurate deaths from covid.

That's the very reason why the government daily stats STATE deaths from Covid IN THE LAST 28 DAYS and have been posting the ONS figuers along the side of them!

Sluffy wrote:It is all there in black and white how the figuers are collated and reported, it's definitions and time periods.  Even other methods of counting the figures are published in order to be compared against but nope - you say they are wrong/fake/inaccurate.

What do you want the government to do, wait seventeen years or so until the last death from Covid caught seventeen years earlier finally occurs before they post a daily death total????

3 - The third one is a newspaper article reporting exactly the same as point two above.

4 - The last one is a report from 12 MONTHS AGO and the government has updated and amended their reporting system several times since then!!!

Did you not check the date of the article - I guess clearly not!


Mate, my advice to you would be to seek some professional help as you clearly have issues letting things go as evidenced with your hatred of the government you've carried around with you for years, your obsession not to be wrong about anything and posting pissed up on social media in the middle of the night all the time.

They aren't healthy things for you to be doing.

PS - you never gave me a reply about YOUR reporting accuracy!!!!

Sluffy wrote:And for what it is worth there wasn't a "huge rise in new cases" reported yesterday (3,165) at all in fact there was a decrease of a couple of hundred on the day before (3,383) and about three hundred down on the seven day rolling average (3,441).

What was it you were saying about "reporting accuracy"!!!

Seriously, get yourself some help.

I was planning a trip to Portugal and would you believe it? - Portugal gets on top of the covid problem, gets put on the green list, opens it's doors to hundreds of thousands of Brits (5500 a day at Faro airport alone!) and now cases are rising again so it's back on the amber list i.e. an additional £250 for compulsory testing plus 10 days of self isolation.
Bleedin' Brits!

Sluffy wrote:

Hahaha, you do make me laugh!

There's only you who doubts the reporting accuracy and you only continue to do so because you claimed it to be false from the very begining and can never admit to ever being wrong!

Nobody, the Labour party, the Boris and Cumming haters, not even the likes of Maugham who challenges everything the government in the courts, claims the figures are wrong - just you!

It is all there in black and white how the figuers are collated and reported, it's definitions and time periods.  Even other methods of counting the figures are published in order to be compared against but nope - you say they are wrong/fake/inaccurate.

You could simply just have posted that there is great news that nobody died with Covid yesterday and left it at that, but no you had to put in your dig against the government based on your pathological hatred of them and your desire to see everything they do is wrong.

I really do pity those who have to put up with you in real life.

And for what it is worth there wasn't a "huge rise in new cases" reported yesterday (3,165) at all in fact there was a decrease of a couple of hundred on the day before (3,383) and about three hundred down on the seven day rolling average (3,441).

What was it you were saying about "reporting accuracy"!!!

And today they reported 5,274 new cases - the highest daily figure since March.
Although that is as usual a guesstimate.
This article in the Evening Standard also mentions that the deaths recorded brings the "official" total up to 127,812

It then goes on to say:

"Separate figures published by the Office for National Statistics show there have now been 153,000 deaths registered in the UK where Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate."

Reporting accuracy? This government even contradicts it's own figures

wanderlust wrote:And today they reported 5,274 new cases - the highest daily figure since March.
Although that is as usual a guesstimate.

You're just a raving lunatic mate.

How can it be a 'guesstimate' when they are actual, physical tests that have been taken and processed???

Cases by specimen date

Number of people with at least one positive COVID-19 test result, either lab-reported or rapid lateral flow test (England only), by specimen date. Positive rapid lateral flow test results can be confirmed with PCR tests taken within 72 hours. If the PCR test results are negative, these are not reported as cases. People tested positive more than once are only counted once, on the date of their first positive test. Data for the period ending 5 days before the date when the website was last updated with data for the selected area, highlighted in grey, are incomplete.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

I get it that you don't want to be seen to be wrong but your claims and attempts to wriggle out of not holding your hand up are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

The one thing the government can prove conclusively are the number of positive tests.

Seems we are on the cusp now of yet another wave and the Nepal mutation possibly even being vaccine-defeating!

Back to the start again if that really is the case and get's out of hand!

wanderlust wrote:This article in the Evening Standard also mentions that the deaths recorded brings the "official" total up to 127,812

It then goes on to say:

"Separate figures published by the Office for National Statistics show there have now been 153,000 deaths registered in the UK where Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate."

Reporting accuracy? This government even contradicts it's own figures

You are utterly stupid - you don't seem to understand anything do you???

Let me explain things Janet and John fashion to you again.

The government reports daily the number of Covid deaths - yes?

They do that by means of a daily 'dashboard' - yes?

You've not heard about the daily dashboard even though they've issued one every day since the pandemic struck?

Well here is the link to it -

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

One of the headings is listed as 'Deaths' - you will see the headings to the left of the main page.

If you click on the heading it will take you to this page -

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

If you look at the page you will find that Covid deaths are recorded in two ways, the first by 'deaths within 28 days of a positive test (127,812)' and the second by 'deaths with Covid-19 on the death certificate (152,183)'.

You will see that they are set side by side for comparison to each other.

They have been shown in this form for nearly the entirety of the pandemic!!!!

My quote below is now the THIRD time I've told you this in just the last few days alone!!!

Sluffy wrote:That's the very reason why the government daily stats state deaths from Covid in the last 28 days AND have been posting the ONS figures along the side of them!

It is all there in black and white how the figures are collated and reported, it's definitions and time periods.  Even other methods of counting the figures are published IN ORDER TO BE COMPARED AGAINST but nope - you say they are wrong/fake/inaccurate.

What do you want the government to do, wait seventeen years or so until the last death from Covid caught seventeen years earlier finally occurs before they post a daily death total????

All the information HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE!!!

It's just that you are too stupid and ignorant to know or comprehend that despite me constantly pointing this out to you because you clearly think you know better.

Well matey you don't.

Check mate!

Come now, boys.

Marcus Aurelius once said:

When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own - not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.