COVID Vaccine !

[mjr]

What seems unfair to individuals or small communities might be justified for the greater benefit to society as a whole; I can see reasons why vaccination should start in, and be co-ordinated from, cities.

I can see reasons why they start with cities, but most of them are basically continuations of the neglect of rural/semi-rural boroughs over the last 10+ years.

My vulnerable loved ones don't live in cities, so I'm not keen on them having to wait either - but I prefer them to wait until they have local vaccination facilities than for them to travel into some urban centre where they'd be at high risk of infection.

Some of mine do, some don't, so I'm fairly neutral in that regard, but on balance, I think it would make more sense to prioritise boroughs with high infection rates and their neighbours, rather than the current practice of sending this short-supply vaccine to outlying cities in low-infection areas.

The announcement on https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/12/...est-ever-nhs-vaccination-programme-this-week/ seems a bit misleading because it listed trusts when it is often only the HQ hospital which is getting any. For example, Boston's hospital is run by the United Lincs Hospitals Trust which is on the list, but I heard that only Lincoln is getting the vaccine despite Boston's semi-rural borough having more cases per 100k per week than Lincoln as of yesterday (418 vs 412).

Gove concedes on EU position on NI protocol.

What's that got to do with the vaccine?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

What's that got to do with the vaccine?

Just my incompetence in posting on the right thread.

But hey, since when has being offtopic ever stopped anyone on here ;-)

 

[tom73]

Just been for an ECG and had a chat about the vaccine, seems that ours will be given at a hospital about 20 miles away, which by bus is a big problem and would take a couple of them at least and they do not connect well. Fine for the majority of us that drive. but not so for the elderly or others that may not drive.

It's not an ideal situation to find yourselves and other will have the same issues. It's something that needs to be worked on the situation will improve once GP hubs are up and running. Which more news is on the way about shortly. Given that supply is limited and will be for a few months. Even if you could get to a hub you may not just have been asked given the supply issues.
Just hold on in and things will improve and ways will be found to get you the vaccine.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Oxford/AstraZeneca interim readout published in the Lancet.

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620326611.pdf

Short version: it works, but not enough data to confidently choose the optimal dose regime. 62% for standard first dose, 90% for low first dose, but overlapping confidence intervals.

First data from any vaccine vs asymptomatic infection: as well as 90% efficacy vs symptomatic, asymptomatic infections significantly lower in the lower first dose arm (60% efficacious against asymptomatic vs 4% for standard dose)

My guess: interim approval with the low dose regime, conditional on confirmation with larger cohort.

[postscript - excellent data vs severe disease - no severe cases at all on active arm beyond 21 days post first dose]

 

[screenman]

It's not an ideal situation to find yourselves and other will have the same issues. It's something that needs to be worked on the situation will improve once GP hubs are up and running. Which more news is on the way about shortly. Given that supply is limited and will be for a few months. Even if you could get to a hub you may not just have been asked given the supply issues.
Just hold on in and things will improve and ways will be found to get you the vaccine.

The concern was not for myself.

 

[marinyork]

The concern was not for myself.

The situation sucks, but it's about the best that can be got at this stage. Tranche 1 will vaccinate 400,000 people. Then there may be a wait and a splurge before/after Christmas for tranche 2. Boris is being cautious now and the 'some months' quote even for some of the high priority people (although that includes as discussed previously there's a month from first jab to the highest level of protection 7 days after the second jab).

Care home staff, workers, those over 80 and frontline NHS staff comes to a shade under 7 million people IIRC. That's not even getting onto the over 75s and over 70s and so on. The numbers are astronomically large.

We knew it was coming like this for months and months and months and it doesn't make it any less frustrating. It was one of the reasons why people got so excited about the Oxford vaccine.

 

[lazybloke]

I can see reasons why they start with cities, but most of them are basically continuations of the neglect of rural/semi-rural boroughs over the last 10+ years.


Some of mine do, some don't, so I'm fairly neutral in that regard, but on balance, I think it would make more sense to prioritise boroughs with high infection rates and their neighbours, rather than the current practice of sending this short-supply vaccine to outlying cities in low-infection areas.

The announcement on https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/12/...est-ever-nhs-vaccination-programme-this-week/ seems a bit misleading because it listed trusts when it is often only the HQ hospital which is getting any. For example, Boston's hospital is run by the United Lincs Hospitals Trust which is on the list, but I heard that only Lincoln is getting the vaccine despite Boston's semi-rural borough having more cases per 100k per week than Lincoln as of yesterday (418 vs 412).

You've looked in more detail than I have, so I don't think I can add anything of value; although a 412 vs 418 is a small difference, probably other factors are more important. Lack of transparency in decision-making is a regular issue, of course.

 

[marinyork]

You've looked in more detail than I have, so I don't think I can add anything of value; although a 412 vs 418 is a small difference, probably other factors are more important. Lack of transparency in decision-making is a regular issue, of course.

That's just terrifying. 400+. The second wave rippling through particularly Eastern areas even as in some other areas it's on the way down or levelled off. 400,000 doses doesn't go very far.

The transparency just reflects the politics. You can't play up the vaccine too much or give too much information or they'll be uproar, people over 50 bombarding health services with requests for the vaccine. I've already had every tamara, deirdre and harriett telling me oh don't worry you can get a vaccine because you care for at risk groups. Erm no fecking chance. If that's what sensible people think, it shows you have to be careful.

If the vaccine is played up too much people will be playing the fiddle while rome burns. If they tell them the truth of how long it'll take, people will be sod it we've got to live our lives.

 

[vickster]

A friend of mine is getting it next week, she's clinically vulnerable and frontline NHS (MH Trust)

 

[PK99]

You've looked in more detail than I have, so I don't think I can add anything of value; although a 412 vs 418 is a small difference, probably other factors are more important. Lack of transparency in decision-making is a regular issue, of course.

418, 412 are essentially the same number and there is nearly a 3x difference in population Lincoln>Boston

 

[srw]

I can see reasons why they start with cities, but most of them are basically continuations of the neglect of rural/semi-rural boroughs over the last 10+ years.

They really aren't. There are very good epidemiological reasons why you might want to focus your efforts on the people who are more likely to have more contacts. It's a question of basic maths.

Your objective is to minimise the risk of people dying. The vaccine does two things - it (a) very significantly reduces the risk that the person you give it to dies, and (b) it very significantly reduces the risk that they infect each person they meet, and therefore reduces the risk that they die.

Risk (a) is independent of the place they live, risk (b) isn't. People who live in cities are more likely to have larger networks than people in market towns, so a vaccination programme that focuses on them maximises risk reduction (b). And I say that as someone who lives in a market town.

 

[marinyork]

The news now saying only 4 million doses expected this year, another update from BioNTech ☹.

 

[Blue Hills]

Good news on the Oxford vaccine?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coro...finds/ar-BB1bK0s4?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBoPWjQ

 

[winjim]

God, I'm going to have to read that paper, aren't I?

 

[lazybloke]

418, 412 are essentially the same number and there is nearly a 3x difference in population Lincoln>Boston

Thank you, I was just looking that up.

But important though it is to understand all the stats, @marinyork makes an important point that we should also acknowledge the magnitute of those infection rates, shockingly high as they are.

Considering the recent short lockdown was supposed to bring things under control, give a bit of breathing space, and thus allow a relaxation at Christmas, there's a clear danger of bad things about to happen.

The vaccines are great news but this is Day 1. There are months still to. Billions to vaccinate.