Coronavirus outbreak

[Ajax Bay]

Thus, from a scientific viewpoint, the decision to extend the time between doses fourfold was exactly that: a gamble. No data means no evidence!

We agree, I think. I said "to increase the gap between first and second doses to 12 weeks (from 3)" was "a 'gamble'!" (Description of risk/gain odds ^^^) Much to gain and the betting slip was cheap: a 'slam dunk' win - hundreds of lives saved; even if effectiveness (against immunological theory/experience) dropped after 3 weeks. Chris Whitty (CMO) said that delaying the second dose was a “public health decision” based on the best advice and balance of risks.
Edit: Just in: https://www.ndmrb.ox.ac.uk/about/ne...ng-the-3-month-interval-until-the-second-dose
An attraction of the extension to 12 weeks gap 'gamble' is that the JCVI could withdraw that bet quickly and without much vaccination programme friction if evidence emerged of a significant drop-off in effectiveness after 3 (or more) week gap. But from a pure scientific viewpoint, you're dead right: no evidence (narrowness of Pfizer trial design?).
However typifying some of the other examples I gave above (eg procurement haste, acceptance of unknown risk, licensing) as "gambles" or even "Boris's gambles" (presumably with intent to invite pejorative inference as opposed to (PM, government, MHRA or JCVI) reasonable judgement calls) lacks utility. If one wants to cast the 'gamble' net that wide, every decision with uncertain result made by every government, indeed every individual, could be described as a gamble.
I don't discount that the 'gamble' will be extended (ie to more than 12 weeks) as evidence is gathered of immunological levels enduring. However the potential gain is probably not worth the various types of cost. By the time the first of the 12 week gap second doses are due (about 14 Mar) JCVI Groups 1-7 (ie all over 60 and CEV) will have had a first jab.

 

[Unkraut]

Can our German correspondents tell us if they can get reusable ones there and are they cheaper than the €11 they're selling for in Boots's in the UK?

5 non-reusable for €14:75. I didn't think to ask about reusable. You can get 8 hours per mask not necessarily on the same day, and at the price doesn't seem worth getting reusable. If I needed to go anywhere on public transport regularly I'd think about reusable though.

 

[Unkraut]

I really do bridle at the use of the term "gamble" here and in similar Covid contexts

It does sound as though the government is 'gambling' with people's lives. As others have said, calculated risk is better.

Needless to say Johnson is not particularly popular on the continent, but I have seen no criticism here of the emergency authorisation of the vaccine nor risking only giving the first shot and prolonging the time until the second. The infection rates necessitate this, and there has been some admiration for the British getting on with it.

It might be Portugal will have to take a similar approach if the out of control infection rate cannot be brought under control again.

 

[mjr]

5 non-reusable for €14:75. I didn't think to ask about reusable. You can get 8 hours per mask not necessarily on the same day, and at the price doesn't seem worth getting reusable. If I needed to go anywhere on public transport regularly I'd think about reusable though.

Apparently the Boots €11 box contains 5 but I guess there is more demand where you are. I've also been told B+M Stores are selling them at about €0.55 each but I hate finding stuff in there! All FFP2NR so non reusable.

 

[PK99]

We agree, I think. I said "to increase the gap between first and second doses to 12 weeks (from 3)" was "a 'gamble'!" (Description of risk/gain odds ^^^) Much to gain and the betting slip was cheap: a 'slam dunk' win - hundreds of lives saved; even if effectiveness (against immunological theory/experience) dropped after 3 weeks. Chris Whitty (CMO) said that delaying the second dose was a “public health decision” based on the best advice and balance of risks.
An attraction of the extension to 12 weeks gap 'gamble' is that the JCVI could withdraw that bet quickly and without much vaccination programme friction if evidence emerged of a significant drop-off in effectiveness after 3 (or more) week gap. But from a pure scientific viewpoint, you're dead right: no evidence (narrowness of Pfizer trial design?).
However typifying some of the other examples I gave above (eg procurement haste, acceptance of unknown risk, licensing) as "gambles" or even "Boris's gambles" (presumably with intent to invite pejorative inference as opposed to (PM, government, MHRA or JCVI) reasonable judgement calls) lacks utility. If one wants to cast the 'gamble' net that wide, every decision with uncertain result made by every government, indeed every individual, could be described as a gamble.
I don't discount that the 'gamble' will be extended (ie to more than 12 weeks) as evidence is gathered of immunological levels enduring. However the potential gain is probably not worth the various types of cost. By the time the first of the 12 week gap second doses are due (about 14 Mar) JCVI Groups 1-7 (ie all over 60 and CEV) will have had a first jab.

Every medication I take (currently 7 and about to start a new aggressive med for a new condition) is in those terms a "gamble" - just check out the info sheet in any box of pills for the probabilities of side effects.

I've had 2 instances of bad side effects: A drug induced Lupus like rash/syndrome from Statins and a potentially life threatening reaction (major skin rash over whole of back, legs and arms) to Omeprazole - I have been told NEVER to take it again as any future reaction would likely be far more serious. My Consultants were not "gambling" they were making sound clinical judgments based on balance of risk.

Gamble is the wrong word in the vaccine context and is being used in a deliberately pejorative sense.

 

[mjr]

Gamble is the wrong word in the vaccine context and is being used in a deliberately pejorative sense.

It's really not, in either way. I feel strongly that we need to make people realise there are few certainties in this field. Some bets will be sound. Others are good bets but we still lose some. One thing we really really need is idiot journalists to stop demanding certainty on dates and shoot and some idiot politicians to stop giving them false certainty on some topics.

And yes, meds are gambles. I've been through worse station hell and even worse on another. Three others I tolerate find. I'll probably still try at least two more emerging treatments. Whether I do or not, it's still a gamble. The main choice is which bets to stake my life on. Covid is similar, with many more lives. There is no way not to bet now.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I think this widening of the definition of 'gamble' lacks utility. You are using it in @PK99 's phrase: "in a deliberately pejorative sense."
Is it a 'gamble' to ride on the road when there's a perfectly good cycle track (or shared pavement) running alongside? (My answer is 'no' btw.)

 

[classic33]

Apparently the Boots €11 box contains 5 but I guess there is more demand where you are. I've also been told B+M Stores are selling them at about €0.55 each but I hate finding stuff in there! All FFP2NR so non reusable.

 

[classic33]

It's really not, in either way. I feel strongly that we need to make people realise there are few certainties in this field. Some bets will be sound. Others are good bets but we still lose some. One thing we really really need is idiot journalists to stop demanding certainty on dates and shoot and some idiot politicians to stop giving them false certainty on some topics.

And yes, meds are gambles. I've been through worse station hell and even worse on another. Three others I tolerate find. I'll probably still try at least two more emerging treatments. Whether I do or not, it's still a gamble. The main choice is which bets to stake my life on. Covid is similar, with many more lives. There is no way not to bet now.

Two things,
There's very little that's certain in life. Health even less so.

As for "bets" on medications, you make the best call you can on what will cause
you the fewer and less damaging side effects. They are not gambles.

 

[mjr]

I think this widening of the definition of 'gamble' lacks utility.

That comment lacks utility because it is not a widening. Example https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gamble

You are using it in @PK99 's phrase: "in a deliberately pejorative sense."

Cute! A literal tag team!

Is it a 'gamble' to ride on the road when there's a perfectly good cycle track (or shared pavement) running alongside? (My answer is 'no' btw.)

Then your answer is wrong. Riding on either is a gamble. As is not riding.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Then your answer is wrong. Riding on either is a gamble. As is not riding.

Indeed. Everyday life is one big gamble.

 

[PK99]

That comment lacks utility because it is not a widening. Example https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gamble


Cute! A literal tag team!


Then your answer is wrong. Riding on either is a gamble. As is not riding.

By your logic life is a gamble with a 100% certainty of losing.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

By your logic life is a gamble with a 100% certainty of losing.

Life is a rollercoaster, just gotta ride it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Life is a rollercoaster, just gotta ride it.

Life is a minestrone.

 

[mjr]

By your logic life is a gamble with a 100% certainty of losing.

Yep. It's just a question of when. Another poster elsewhere in my old uni department said "is life a terminal illness with 100% mortality?" Awfully pragmatic outlook, mathematicians. The stuff we/they work with/on is about as permanent as anything known, which gives you a frightening sense of perspective on your lifespan pretty early on, but most come out of it better than Douglas Adams seemed to suggest.