Reader Comments (167)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 09/11/2020 at 12:17:45
But I've just done a few quick checks and you are bang on the money.
You have just gone to the top of the leader board in the tidings of comfort and joy stakes
2 Posted 09/11/2020 at 12:22:12
I had to read it a few times myself before posting on here, as you don't want to give wrong information about something as important as this. Because it wasnt a random tweet but was on the BBC website it has a lot more creedence.
3 Posted 09/11/2020 at 12:51:41
4 Posted 09/11/2020 at 13:10:55
Its now on Main BBC news, Experts saying this looks like it will be "It"
Money men definitely think so, as stock markets are going through the roof.
One little caveat that keeps cropping up is that the vaccine is unlikely to be widely available until the new year.
Great news non the less
5 Posted 09/11/2020 at 13:28:16
Seems I got the name wrong of the company which has produced this vaccine, its not the Oxford/Astra Zenaca group it is in fact the American company Pfizer. Mind I also think the Oxford group will also be producing a vaccine very soon.
6 Posted 09/11/2020 at 13:48:17
7 Posted 09/11/2020 at 13:56:27
BBC employees are no longer able to air their personal views on any subject (Apart from their undying love for all things red), so there is more chance that the social media posts from the correspondents will be more accurate, more often, besides which CNN and other outlets are reporting the news of the vaccine breakthrough, which is most welcome no matter how cynically you may view the information outlets.
The world has to try and get out of this idea that every source of news is suspect or innacurate, if it doesn't happen to fit someone's personal preferences or world view. If all news is treated as misinformation we have nobody to hold anybody else to account apart from which group has the loudest voice, or the voice of the mob.
8 Posted 09/11/2020 at 14:17:15
9 Posted 09/11/2020 at 16:18:45
Spend a few hours reading and researching, global vaccine history of recent decades, the people and companies/corporations involved, the outcomes for recipients. The testing in third world countries by first world interests. Recent changes of law to leave vaccine manufacturers fully absolved of all consequences for any harm to recipients... and more.
Read about a certain Mr.Gates, and the wider picture generally re. this situation.
Do this not with Google but using a smaller search engine/resource.
Bit of time input but surely not a big commitment before allowing a chemical construct apparently developed with unprecedented, unimaginable haste (like no seven years-plus of testing), to be introduced into the fabric of your body.
10 Posted 09/11/2020 at 16:28:00
Used to give The Widows on Scottie a wide berth then did you, Will ?
11 Posted 09/11/2020 at 16:44:54
That's good thinking Will, stick with that.
12 Posted 09/11/2020 at 16:47:25
13 Posted 09/11/2020 at 17:01:17
14 Posted 09/11/2020 at 17:03:22
15 Posted 09/11/2020 at 17:11:40
I will keep you all informed
16 Posted 09/11/2020 at 17:18:45
17 Posted 09/11/2020 at 17:30:21
No Vaccine ?...Bastards are stealing a living
18 Posted 09/11/2020 at 17:41:35
19 Posted 09/11/2020 at 17:48:57
If I'd suggested people research something other than the vaccine, I wonder would you have responded that way. As I said, ruffles feathers. Maybe people will look - that's why I posted.
20 Posted 09/11/2020 at 17:52:17
Keep washing your hands, keep your distance, and wear that mask. If not, stay away from the Highlands. We're in Tier 1 and we wanna stay that way!
21 Posted 09/11/2020 at 18:09:19
It just smacks a bit of "I know better than you and you need to do this."
22 Posted 09/11/2020 at 18:32:00
23 Posted 09/11/2020 at 18:44:29
The idea was simply that people might research the issue, and hopefully some will.
24 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:01:56
And by the way, the USA's Pfizer is bringing the drug through, but Germany's BioNTech is the original developer and partner, so like most major drug development today this is truly an international effort. (Their stock is up 15% today.)
Of course, none of this will mean much here in the US of A, because probably 40% of our brain-dead citizens will refuse to take the vaccine.
25 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:05:52
Will's point is fair enough â€“ rushing out a vaccine is rarely a sound move, especially if it results in prematurely careless behaviour before people can get it.
26 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:17:17
First, it'll take months to manufacture enough to even start to meet the demand.
Second, my understanding is that it has to be kept frozen until right before treatment, so the distribution and storage logistics will be challenging -- how many doctor's offices have big freezers?
And third, the vaccination actually consists of two injections given 21 days apart, so coordinating patient schedules will be an additional hurdle.
So, even if swiftly approved, this vaccine won't solve the problem anytime soon.
27 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:31:48
Balance that with Pharmaceuticals dropping nearly everything they're doing to devote a truly international collaboration then those man-hours have been greatly reduced by virtue of the resources thrown at it.
We do also have a good base knowledge of the Corona â€˜style' virus as this isn't something we aren't aware of and other varieties have been about for some time.
Reticence is natural, however transparency of data, info. and a volunteer group will go a long way to convince the general public of its efficacy.
28 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:36:15
29 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:45:35
Oh and John, the speed of the progress of this vaccine just shows that, if you pay enough clever people to work things out, then anything is possible. Breakthroughs always happen in wartime etc... needs must and all that.
Boris is obviously terrified that street parties will erupt all over Britain, desperately trying to play things down, just like the crap spouted saying facemasks were not very important (when the government just wanted them all for frontline workers). We plebs can't be trusted with the truth because we might all just not give a shit anymore.
On a lesser note, I see Mason (laugh-a-minute) Holgate was wheeled out to tell us that they are working to sort stuff out. Great... half the team on international duty, so just who will Davide and Carlo be sorting the defence out with?
The buggers will get back here, hopefully uninjured, hopefully uninfested and hopefully not to tired. So some great work ahead at Finch Farm... Not.
30 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:51:30
Kinda like the difference in thought speed between James on the ball and Ross Barkley.
31 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:52:01
That's interesting if it is 90%. At the moment, the government estimates that about 1% of people have Coviid-19. So if people are vaccinated and the vaccine has a 90% success rate, ie, a 10% rate of failing to protect, that 1% figure would go down to a tenth of that, ie, one-in-a-thousand would have Covid-19 rather than one-in-a-hundred. Unless I'm missing something.
No, it's more about clever people. Computers are a tool to help, but the basic driver for anything like this is insight and creativity.
32 Posted 09/11/2020 at 19:56:29
33 Posted 09/11/2020 at 20:00:29
I have no doubt that, for at least the first two years after the vaccine is approved, more than half of us Colonials will still be eagerly infecting each other at motorcycle rallies and tractor pulls.
Your point about the clever people is right, of course, but, given today's dynamic tools, they can be creative and insightful a whole lot faster than before.
34 Posted 09/11/2020 at 20:09:22
35 Posted 09/11/2020 at 20:13:52
36 Posted 09/11/2020 at 20:18:17
37 Posted 09/11/2020 at 20:29:53
I believe that Mike Pence has tried to claim that it was Trump's private/public funding which accelerated the arrival of a vaccine but the company which makes it denies this as they weren't part of the scheme.
To anybody what is ths 'Loge Seating' that Everton are proposing at Bramley-Moore Dock? Apparently all of those who are Adult Season Ticket holders or have purchased individual tickets in the past will be asked for their thoughts on pricing, preferred location to watch and many other things via a survey in the next few days â€“ not a great time to ask but perhaps it's a positive sign for our hopes of seeing the new ground built?
38 Posted 09/11/2020 at 20:35:40
39 Posted 09/11/2020 at 20:40:25
You know how it works, claim credit for the positive and avoid responsibility for the negative stuff, it's the shape of things today.
40 Posted 09/11/2020 at 20:42:48
The Trumpies couldn't have found this information anyway. I swear this is true -- over the weekend they announced a press conference at the Four Seasons in Philadelphia for their lawyers fighting the election results. But somebody made a little mistake and booked Four Seasons Total Landscaping for the presser, instead of the posh hotel. So the lawyers just went with it. Held their press conference in a parking lot behind a small gardening store on the edge of town near the freeway, next to a porno shop and a crematorium. And right in the middle of their presentation, Biden was declared the winner of the election. Yes, this really happened.
Only in America.
41 Posted 09/11/2020 at 21:01:32
BioN Tech the small biotechnology company is the originator of the vaccine and was founded by two married German scientists. Ugur Sahn and OzLem Turici (apologize if names spelled wrong), both born of Turkish immigrants, and the Austrian oncologist Christian Huber.
BioN Tech was originally researching cancer treatment but turned to Covid-19 when the epidemic broke out.
42 Posted 09/11/2020 at 21:15:40
Shall we build a wall around them ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜
43 Posted 09/11/2020 at 22:40:15
44 Posted 09/11/2020 at 23:04:07
The man is a total hoax himself and is totally out of his depth as a president. Now he calls the election fake, BTW he won easily.
45 Posted 09/11/2020 at 23:20:14
46 Posted 09/11/2020 at 23:51:53
47 Posted 10/11/2020 at 04:34:27
48 Posted 10/11/2020 at 04:52:10
A quick look at today's front pages here would give you pause for thought.
Not a sign of caution or balance visible. It's all sorted mate, all over bar the shouting, at least in the headlines.
I'm all for optimism, but not like this.
49 Posted 10/11/2020 at 07:37:36
It's been many decades since you heard about people in first world nations experiencing catastrophic, undisclosed side effects from vaccines.
Russia and China are currently vaccinating their citizens with drugs that have not been through Phase 3 testing, and rolling the dice on both efficacy and safety... but nothing like that has happened in the UK or the US for a very, very long time.
As fellow survivors of the big C, you and I should be at the head of the line when a proven, approved vaccine becomes available.
50 Posted 10/11/2020 at 08:09:36
No vaccine is perfect
"Between 1978 and April 2017. The UK Govt. stated over 900 payments were made totalling over £74M"
Its none the less very good news and I might be a tad cynical, but getting the good word out first...and the resultant share leap may have had a bearing on things.
51 Posted 10/11/2020 at 09:11:33
There are rigorous processes in place for assessing the suitability of a new vaccine, and not every vaccine survives regulatory scrutiny beyond Stage 3 clinical trials. This new vaccine may or may not survive that scrutiny, but the press reporting offers little insight at present, but they always offer plenty of hype and, unfortunately often, misplaced hope and optimism.
A danger of such hype and optimism is people, through the media, becoming complacent enough to relax other measures to guard against the virus. Let's hope the vaccine proves successful given the initial promising results, but there's no guarantee at this stage.
There's nothing worse than false hope and raised expectations, as us Evertonians know too well.
52 Posted 10/11/2020 at 10:09:22
I totally agree with what you say about complacency setting in, as there are still many things that have to happen before a vaccine is rolled out. Its one thing to produce a vaccine but to mass produce a vaccine can lead to many difficulties. The other drawback is that this particular vaccine has to be kept at a very special temperature until its administered to the patient. I also believe that it can only be removed from this temperature on 4 occasions so that will have its drawbacks. I listened to a leading professor last night who said that he has never known a company announce a vaccine when they were still carrying out clinical trials, and he seemed just a tad concerned about that.
But the good thing is that there are other vaccines based on the same genetic make up as the Pfizer vaccine, and the head of the Oxford University/ Astra Zenaca group believed their vaccine would be ready in weeks also. So this is good news and one we can all be hopeful about. I am sure come the summer of 2021 things will be massively improved to what they are now. So while we must not be complacent there is a great deal of hope on the horizon. Now I know a watch phrase on here is its the hope that kills you when it comes to Everton, but in this case the hope isn't misplaced.
53 Posted 10/11/2020 at 10:36:57
They are probably Brexit voters.
54 Posted 10/11/2020 at 11:20:05
55 Posted 10/11/2020 at 13:01:39
56 Posted 11/11/2020 at 22:39:08
Stan, I think that sums it up in a way. The whole point of the vaccination is to reduce the number of people the already infected can then pass it on to. If 10% have already had it and the recovered have some level of immunity, then we are looking at reducing the something like 50 to 55 million in this country who could be infected to about a tenth of that. Without someone around to pass the infection onto, the virus simply disappears in the population as the last of those infected recover.
It will take a long time to get those 50 to 55 million people vaccinated (the Pfizer vaccine requires 2 doses per person and we are only due about 10 million from them) but fortunately the government has booked vaccine from multiple prospective manufacturers up to about 340 million doses. There are a range of different vaccine manufacturing approaches being tried. The Pfizer BioNtech mRNA vaccine is one of the more radical (ie, not really tried and tested) approaches. Some of the more traditional methods will have much better-understood safety and risk profiles.
Love the â€˜truth' aficionados who seem to think they have a proven capability of sniffing out what is genuine rather than what is conspiracy theory bullshit. People need to declare their expertise and how they peer review before dismissing others as hoodwinked by the mainstream media.
57 Posted 12/11/2020 at 05:32:44
58 Posted 12/11/2020 at 14:20:38
About 22,000 were given a placebo, and 22,000 the vaccine. Then the study observed how many in each group got symptoms of Covid-19, as opposed to how many tested positive for Covid-19.
The placebo group had 90% of the Covid cases, and the vaccine group 10%. Hence the 90% chance of protection quoted in the media.
59 Posted 12/11/2020 at 14:33:28
The 90% rate refers to protection against getting ill from the virus, rather than protection from getting the virus or passing it on. I believe the latter facets are part of the further studies following the initial findings.
60 Posted 12/11/2020 at 15:16:52
61 Posted 12/11/2020 at 15:44:43
I guess I was one of the luckier ones even though I am in the high risk category (old, overweight and high blood pressure).
62 Posted 12/11/2020 at 16:15:00
It also seems that a number of other countries are working with American pharmaceutical institutions and hopefully something will be available soon to help our Health Care workers, and after that, the general population can be helped in an order that the governments believe who need it first.
There will most probably be disputes on who gets a vaccine first but we have to gain a foothold on this pandemic, and the sooner the better. It seems it is difficult for a number of people to follow the rules to contain this pandemic but hopefully, with help on the way, they will start to work with the scientists and follow the prevention of Covid-19 to assist in the cure.
63 Posted 12/11/2020 at 17:48:59
It is a natural vitamin we make from getting UVA/UVB rays from the sun to convert fat in our bodies. At this time of the year in the northern hemisphere we do not get enough strong sunlight to do this.
That is why so many are low on Vitamin D and why the first thing the Germans did was dose up patients with Vitamin D. They have 14 deaths per 100,000, we have over 70. Obviously no link. PHE have eventually come out and said Vitamin D helps.
Beware. 4000IU per day is the max to be safe but 800-1600IU is the normal levels (drops or tablets).
Si - from what I hear
Day 1 = dose 1
Day 22 = dose 2
then it takes 2-3 weeks to build up immunity in the body so that is
Day 43 = you are now protected.
The fear must be that people get the vaccine and then think that's it â€“ party time but they need to keep the same social distancing, wearing a mask, washing hands for at least 6 weeks more.
And given it will be:
Group 1 - Care home residents
Group 2 - Care staff
Group 3 - >85 year olds
Group 4 - >80 year olds
etc etc, then I am not sure there is going to be too much partying after the injection but there could be the desire to get around to see the grandchild home from Uni who has been partying and simply oozes with the virus
64 Posted 12/11/2020 at 18:13:07
One of the details yet to be clarified is how the 90% protection rate is distributed with respect to age. For example, flu vaccines have a broad average protection of around 50% over all ages, but less than 20% for the over-65 age range.
If the new vaccine, or collection of new vaccines, also showed such skewness with age, then the protection afforded to older people could be somewhat less than might be suggested by initial hype from the media and some politicians. All the more reason to ensure vigilance towards other protection measures.
65 Posted 12/11/2020 at 18:28:41
Too late I already had it a couple of months ago but did some research and was already taking the echinacea which I'm sure made it a bit milder on me.
It also makes you anaemic so I'm currently taking iron tablets and fish oil supplements but my energy levels have now got back to normal after a couple of months of heavy breathing and lack of energy.
66 Posted 12/11/2020 at 22:47:22
That would mean it wouldn't be classed as a vaccine and doesn't tally with needing two doses and getting the full response a couple of weeks later, which is how you prime and then trigger an immune response.
I haven't yet checked this out (but I will) and if this â€˜treatment' doesn't protect you from catching (and therefore also transmitting) this virus, then it shouldn't be being promoted as a vaccine and it is shameful that Pfizer are boosting their share price on the back of what could only be considered to be taking advantage of a naive media.
The treatment of those infected has already come on in leaps and bounds; a vaccine, ie, something that can give a population immunity and will stop the virus from spreading, is the game-changer that is now required.
67 Posted 12/11/2020 at 22:55:05
Where are you getting that interpretation that this vaccine hasn't prevented 90% of the people who have received it in the trial from contracting the virus?
The sources I have seen make it clear they are claiming immunity, not just a lessening of symptoms.
68 Posted 12/11/2020 at 23:17:19
The company said that the analysis found that the vaccine was more than 90 percent effective in preventing the disease among trial volunteers who had no evidence of prior coronavirus infection.Â
69 Posted 12/11/2020 at 23:40:19
I can't see any results that deal with cases where people are tested positive for Covid but have no symptoms. It's possible I'm not understanding it well enough, I'm not a specialist in this stuff, but that's my reading of the stuff I've looked at.
Brian, again, I'm reading the phrase 'preventing the disease' as 'the prevention of sickness'. I also interpreted the current government strategy for vaccination as targeting susceptible individuals to try to stop them getting sick due to the virus, rather than targeting transmission of the virus. But again, I could be wrong.
70 Posted 13/11/2020 at 00:04:57
All very confusing.
71 Posted 13/11/2020 at 00:17:19
During the trial, volunteers, none of whom had Covid-19 previously, got either two doses of the vaccine or placebo shots. Then doctors waited to see who developed Covid-19. According to the companies, 94 people have developed the disease during the trial so far.
The claim of 90% efficacy means nearly all these cases were among volunteers who received the placebo, a few who received the vaccine got sick too.
72 Posted 13/11/2020 at 00:17:27
This all seems a prime example where media reports are okay for a potted idea about something, but often lack clarity. The devil's in the detail and all that.
What you've stated there underlines that it's the disease that's been looked at, the 94 cases with symptoms, not asymptomatic.
Covid-19 is the disease (symptomatic) that results from the virus Sars-Cov-2. The 94 cases are cases of Covid-19. There may be a far greater number of cases where participants have Sars-Cov-2 (and could test positive for it) without having Covid-19.
73 Posted 13/11/2020 at 01:24:53
"...enervating flu-like side effects — including sore arms, muscle aches and fever — that could last days and temporarily sideline some people from work or school."
It's described as similar to the new Shingrix shingles vaccine, which also requires two shots. I did have similar side effects from that.
74 Posted 13/11/2020 at 08:40:54
All in the trial were screened to show they didn't already have the high levels of Covid-specific antibodies that you would find in those who had already contracted the virus, because what you want in this trial is a group of people who haven't already had the virus.
Then they will check the numbers of those in the infected 94 who had the vaccine against those who did not (prior to this, neither the people who were in the trial nor the people who administered the shots would know what was in the shots each person got but there is a database that could be checked to see what each of the 94 had actually got).
To get a 90% figure of projected immunity, only something around 5% of the 94 could be people who actually got the vaccine, so that would be 4 out of the 94. The other 90 who showed symptoms must have received the placebo.
Ultimately they want a symptomatic group of something around 160. The figures are low (out of the 44,000 I think are in the trial) because it's not ethical to actively seek to infect people with a virus that could kill them, so they are relying on people catching it in a normal way and they won't be routinely testing everyone so they won't pick up any asymptomatic cases anyway.
The assumption is that, if it protects 90% of those who display symptoms, then it is also protecting 90% of those who wouldn't display symptoms if they were infected.
75 Posted 13/11/2020 at 09:07:42
Some people will get worse side-effects than others (some will not have / notice any) simply because our immune systems are as individual as we are.
Some side-effects (including different immune responses) may be caused by what are known as excipients, which are in the vaccine for a variety of reasons but are not there to trigger the desired specific immune response. For example, many flu vaccines have been derived from virus grown in eggs and so some egg proteins will exist in even the most highly purified vaccines. People with an egg allergy shouldn't take them.
76 Posted 13/11/2020 at 09:26:11
I think the key phrase in what you say is your last sentence, that assumption. Although that assumption seems plausible, I cannot see anything about the current trial results that supports it. That looks like something for the ongoing work and further results.
77 Posted 13/11/2020 at 10:34:39
They are just not going to continuously test 44,000 people from a broad spectrum of society (which is the only way they could pick up the asymptomatic positives) because it would be ridiculously expensive and prevent the triallists from leading their normal lives (which is one of the things they are reliant on for people to be exposed to and infected by this virus in a wholly natural way). This is a real-life trial, not something carried out in a laboratory or hospital.
Also, they don't have to waste resources trying to find the asymptomatic infected because that assumption is actually a very reasonable one. Asymptomatic infected are, as far as anyone is aware (and plenty of work will have shown it), no more or less immune to the virus than those who display symptoms. Equally, they will acquire immunity from the vaccine in the same way as the infected who display symptoms and in the same proportion unless something completely unprecedented occurs.
The fact that asymptomatic people acquire the infection like everyone else is why they are such a problem in this pandemic and can be superspreaders. They are still infected; you can't be churning out the virus otherwise and they do. They are just lucky that they don't display the symptoms that others do. It is just not worth tracking them down for this trial and so they don't end up being assessed which is what seems to be throwing you.
78 Posted 13/11/2020 at 10:40:45
79 Posted 13/11/2020 at 10:48:43
If 90% get immunity, then of course that will reduce the infection levels by the same amount because those potential hosts are no longer available to the virus.
80 Posted 13/11/2020 at 10:54:25
81 Posted 13/11/2020 at 11:27:58
In contrast, you have made an assumption that a 90% rate of protection from symptomatic Covid-19 of vaccinated individuals means that there will be a 90% reduction in how widespread the virus is.
My initial impression of the study from the media aligned with your assumption but, after seeing the actual report from Pfizer, I can see that that impression and your assumption are not necessarily correct. It seems that further work might clarify how valid the assumption is.
82 Posted 13/11/2020 at 15:45:32
83 Posted 13/11/2020 at 15:56:51
I can fully understand those who might be reluctant to be vaccinated but once the vaccine has passed through its various stages and it is deemed to be safe by the relevant authorities, surely it is better to be vaccinated than not, just so long as no short-cuts have been taken.
84 Posted 13/11/2020 at 16:13:55
I think it's a bit like Everton and Evertonians. Supporters from loads of other clubs would love to be habitually midtable in the Premier League as we are. But Evertonians aren't satisfied with that, we want to be top dog, and will concern ourselves with details that affect whether we finish 10th or 6th, that many other supporters might regard as not worth worrying about.
85 Posted 13/11/2020 at 17:05:31
I'll be happy with a product which reduces the severity of symptoms and level of hospitalization to the level of a bad cold etc.
It will stop heath services being overwhelmed and allow people to restart their lives without the Damoclean dilemma everyday that they may unintentionally infect someone who could suffer significant symptoms as a result when going about their essential business.
86 Posted 13/11/2020 at 17:13:09
87 Posted 13/11/2020 at 17:47:16
It'll be quite a while before it's available to everyone and, even then, lots of people won't take it.
88 Posted 13/11/2020 at 18:40:16
I know what you're saying, but if most of the population don't suffer too badly once infected by Covid-19, then I still find it hard to comprehend why these people need a vaccine?
Give it to the people who need it definitely, but it's not something I'd want my younger kids to have, because I just don't feel it's necessary for a lot of society.
I got inoculated for TB when I was 13 or 14, but I'm not sure about immunity, because I got that very nasty disease, around 10 years later.
If giving everyone in the population a vaccine could eradicate Covid-19, I'd get a needle, but I'm not convinced it will, so this is why I'm not convinced it's for everyone, mate.
89 Posted 13/11/2020 at 18:55:09
Thanks, Brian, for doing this, and thanks Mike, Si and others for helping the rest of us figure it out.
90 Posted 13/11/2020 at 19:04:25
But I had thought that the intention was always to vaccinate about 50% of the population, on a prioritised basis, which will take a fair bit of time, especially if people need a couple of injections. Of course things may change over time. But a major logistical exercise.
So it's really only one strand in the plan. The other is test, trace and isolate, hopefully done better than currently, and on a massive scale, hence the trial in Liverpool.
I believe this is being ratcheted up further in the city from next week, with more stations, and people getting 2 tests. And if it works repeat elsewhere. Again a massive logistical exercise.
Only both working well and in tandem will have a chance of controlling this properly. Attacking both ends of the problem.
So be optimistic about the news and opportunity and keep your fingers crossed about the logistics! At least on the evidence so far.
91 Posted 13/11/2020 at 19:10:44
92 Posted 13/11/2020 at 19:13:33
According to the smooth-talking monkeys, there is no downside.
93 Posted 13/11/2020 at 19:17:22
94 Posted 13/11/2020 at 19:49:32
95 Posted 13/11/2020 at 20:11:26
96 Posted 13/11/2020 at 20:13:28
If there were any, how successful was the vaccine on them?
97 Posted 13/11/2020 at 20:42:48
The eventual goal of Health Passports would be as a document to be held by all for use and interactions across their whole life, not simply for particular events and gatherings.
Essentially a way of redefining a human, from a mostly healthy creature that occasionally falls ill, to a potentially unsafe or dangerous entity that must actively prove a specified "Health" at all times. The qualification for this being based on receiving an ongoing programme of vaccinations and treatments as and when defined.
98 Posted 14/11/2020 at 07:18:13
It's mind boggling. I'm writing in jest but, being serious for a minute, it's obvious that there are too many people on the planet, for a species that is all about greed.
99 Posted 14/11/2020 at 09:27:14
There has always been an appetite for â€˜control' by those in power.
Wartime ID cards were still in use here and only cancelled in the 1950s.
It explains why ID cards come back as a serious topic at least once a decade, by the government of the day, regardless of whether it's Tory, Labour, Thatcherite, New Labour, Brexiteer, Neoliberal. They all have the same appetite.
This may possibly be the latest version, who knows? But it's not some conspiracy theory, it's just an established pattern.
Which is not a good thing!
100 Posted 14/11/2020 at 10:08:16
101 Posted 14/11/2020 at 10:31:12
Going off topic, but I hope this vaccine is not the next great divide, because we all know how certain parts of the human race are with each other. I can still remember the week the smoking ban came in, and on this particular day it was absolutely pouring with rain. A fella was smoking in the Asda foyer, and this woman was screaming at him to get outside.
“It's teaming” he said, “So what?â€ she replied “We've had to put up with you inconsiderate bastards for years” she said. And that's just the way it is for loads of people, especially those who take the moral high ground!
102 Posted 14/11/2020 at 11:29:10
If you have a mobile phone they can find you anyway, if that's what they want to do.
The vaccine, we are told, will be tested to our normal rigorous standards and no dilution, so if it comes along, I'll take it when my turn comes, because I am officially vulnerable and enfeebled.
As far as I know, it's not compulsory but, as I said earlier, it probably can't be fully effective without the mass testing, tracing and isolation programme, properly implemented.
What's happening in Liverpool is pretty important to this. I'll wait and see about the passport. That's been swirling around social media for a good while.
I'll believe it when I see it basically, but it wouldn't be a surprise given history.
As for smoking, a filthy antisocial habit! [Said with the conviction of a former heavy smoker!]
103 Posted 15/11/2020 at 12:20:54
I permanently gave up that filthy habit the moment the Doctor whispered the magic word in my ear but must admit to occasionally wondering if you still get that lift when you resumed after another fruitless week or two refraining?
104 Posted 15/11/2020 at 13:24:38
It was his definition, not mine. I'm hoping that, just like in war, science can take big leaps, and progress can be rapid.
And of course the government â€˜follow the science'.
After I started after a break, it sent me really light-headed, but in a good way. Not indulged for 35 years on New Year's Eve.
105 Posted 15/11/2020 at 16:53:33
106 Posted 15/11/2020 at 17:03:43
I saw Roy Harper at Theatr Clwyd a long time ago with My family. My sons were much younger then. Roy walked on with one on, and members of the crowd threw a few more on. Andy who was only young then, asked why people were chucking ciggies at him. His older brother regarded him with scorn. I said nothing, to my shame.
Opened with One of those Days In England, and An Old Cricketer leaves The Crease. Lovely, very English.
I'll have to dig some of his stuff out now!
107 Posted 18/11/2020 at 17:04:27
108 Posted 20/11/2020 at 13:34:04
And - would you be comfortable with this?
109 Posted 20/11/2020 at 15:03:55
What is his opinion? I'd say he is just saying that he doesn't think there is anything to be gained from putting in all this effort to stop what he says is just like a bad flu and which can't be stopped from spreading anyhow. What is he calling a hoax? The idea that we can should be doing anything to prevent this virus from spreading?
But he has no vested interest does he? Well, except that his company sell Covid-19 testing kits! Control the virus by good hygiene / sensible behaviours or eradicate it with a vaccine and guess what? You don't need those blinkin' testing kits do you?! What about the countries that have got this virus under control? Are they not in on the conspiracy? Why aren't they yelling â€˜hoax' whilst they let their citizens get on with their lives?
When did he make his remarks? One in 300,000 fatality? So a maximum of approx 200 deaths in this country once everyone has caught it? If he made those remarks in early March he certainly wouldn't be alone, but I've read plenty have drastically revised their opinions since then and are saying this virus is very much worse than any flu. Give me the date for these remarks (not the date they were posted) and I'll decide for myself whether they are the current views of a professional.
As for Bill Gates being Satan. Or perhaps just a well meaning wealthy philanthropist who would like to use technology(his speciality) to solve what are some real problems in parts of the world? Of course, practically everything made for good purposes can be twisted by bad people and often is. When they start to demand everyone takes vaccines for no obvious reason, I'll be in the crowd telling them where to stick it. When they start to limit civil liberties based on what rationally should be personal choice then I'll be storming the seat of power and overthrowing the dictators with everyone else.
It's just nuts that people think that the whole of the world's leaders have got together to fabricate this pandemic. We are already firmly yoked, most of us to â€˜necessities' that are really just luxuries.
110 Posted 20/11/2020 at 15:12:01
One expert comes out with an opinion and he's the one who's right? Maybe, maybe not.
As for the second.
The main reason many Christians and some Shia Muslims are opposed to body-invasive identification technologies, however helpful such technologies are for preventing pandemics, is because they believe that such technologies are the so called â€˜Mark of Satan' mentioned in the Bible and some Mahdi prophecies. In the Book of Revelations in the Bible, anyone who does not have this “markâ€ is not allowed to buy or sell anything.
111 Posted 20/11/2020 at 15:53:33
Before dismissing as "Just nuts", why not look into the background. There is much more than just national governments running things, it's all there to be found and read (for now), it goes back a long way. If you wish to believe the UK's whole response and actions are all simply Boris and the cabinet, then OK.
Since you didn't answer as such, I'll take from what you wrote about Gates that you are happy to have such sub-dermal tattooing.
" When they start to demand everyone takes vaccines for no obvious reason, I'll be in the crowd telling them where to stick it. When they start to limit civil liberties based on what rationally should be personal choice then I'll be storming the seat of power and overthrowing the dictators with everyone else."
How will you decide when a vaccine is for "No obvious reason"? What if there are follow-on vaccines every year, required to maintain a Health Passport/Digital ID?
What is "Rational" personal choice? Your rational, or theirs? Civil liberties - well how about needing vaccinations to work, shop, travel, meet others/groups; the liberties we have now?
An attack on people's religion and nothing else? Is this the guy that wanted to correct my manner in earlier posts?
You extracted that piece but didn't comment regarding having a Gates special tattoo in your body, so I assume you think it's fine too.
112 Posted 20/11/2020 at 16:31:57
And if people believe that certain technologies are the mark of Satan and are prophecies from a book written a couple of thousand years ago and aimed at the people of that time, then I don't know what to think of them.
If it makes some people feel better then that's good for them, but I'm sorry science has pretty much proven where we came from and how we came to be here.
I'll not "attack" someone's religion for them believing, or even bring it up, but if asked I will be honest and say I think it's a fairytale, much like you think a lot of this Covid stuff is.
You have your beliefs Will and I'd not oppose or comment on them unless I consider that you're trying to push them and influence people, ie. those who read ToffeeWeb.
I read ToffeeWeb so consider you're trying to influence me, educate me if you will.
I believe that's what you were doing in the first place, and continue to do with your links post.
When you do that I'm going to oppose them because I vehemently disagree with you.
I come on ToffeeWeb for footballing reasons, as do most others, and personally don't consider it to be a suitable place for trying to educate and influence the posters.
Now I consider this post to be an honest, reasonable and not disrespectful reply to yours but it'll be my last to you as I'd really rather not converse (if that's the right term for replying and commenting on posts) with you. I have a sneaky feeling you won't be too gutted about that, lol.
113 Posted 20/11/2020 at 17:19:57
But no worries, it's a normal response that goes with the territory, along with the tin foil hat lines. I might add I'm not religious whatsoever but those who are, are expressing their beliefs in their terms; it doesn't detract from the facts as they are. Facts that can be found easily and checked for veracity, including those within the article from which you mentioned only the religious angle as a means to discredit. Ironically, that article supports what Gates is doing; I linked for the content.
I assume you have no opinion re. the tattoo, or don't wish to share it. Please feel free to vehemently disagree with or discuss my views should you wish, or not. Please do not disagree only with my right to post them, or share them with others, simply because you disagree with them. Alternatively, tell those you do agree with to stop too.
114 Posted 20/11/2020 at 18:27:24
One has a right to choose but has a responsibility to others as well. Ones actions have consequences not just for yourself but for others but this pandemic in particular is often spread through infection by those who are largely unaffected carriers, is it not their responsibility to ensure protection of others?
I oppose the use of a health passport, I see no need or justification, the only problem with that is some people just don't care enough for the health of others.
A virus doesn't make choices, people do, unfortunately the consequences of making personal stand can mean a collective calamity.
115 Posted 20/11/2020 at 18:27:56
You do a far better job of that @ 46 when you wrote:
'There are some on here that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.'
Presumptious much..?...whilst also implying your own research is more profund and critical than other TWers.
As it is, you've put up just two links. One in which a medic with vested interests calls the global pandemic response 'a hoax' (without detailing what the hoax is, who it is being perpetuated by, and what is the objective of the hoax).
He clearly favours the (overwhelmingly debunked) herd immunity solution even referencing the esteemed 'Great Barrington Declaration' on the subject.
For one who advocates deeper research and reading of a subject, you might want to delve more into how easy it is to be a signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, who funds it, their political and corporate leanings and other 'causes' they have supported down the decades.
THAT is more akin to the 'manipulative illumanti' you seem to believe in that is behind the CV-19 'hoax'.
For a bunch of deviant Mr Blofield's, if there is a 'manipulative illumanti' they don't seem very competent. There must be easier, less conspicuous paths to world domination.
As for the good medic's claims that there is nothing that we can do to stop this virus, that is at odds with nations who have achieved just that by doing the polar opposite of all that he advocates.
That some nations are failing is due more to the incompetence of their ruling politicians in failing to implement necessary measures at the appropriate time to halt contagion.
I further wonder how deeply he (or you, for that matter Will) have researched not just the case numbers and mortality rates, but also those suffering from months-long long haul CV-19 which is preventing previously perfectly healthy individuals returning to work or anything approaching the normal lifestyle they previously enjoyed.
Just like the common flu, this ain't.
As for the Bill Gates article and his Satanical intentions...seriously?
That has been thoroughly fact-checked and debunked countless times. You just have to read the many comments below it to recognize who this conspiracy theory appeals to. To paraphrase your own words:
'Those that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.'
Finally, a short video showing how perfectly normal events can have a perfectly normal explanation without resorting to conspiracy theories.
Sometimes the most benign of explanations is the truth, with no need to contrive fanciful conspiracies.
116 Posted 20/11/2020 at 18:46:29
117 Posted 20/11/2020 at 19:12:29
118 Posted 20/11/2020 at 19:12:29
119 Posted 20/11/2020 at 19:15:41
It's impossible to post everything, Jay - I have linked/mentioned the odd thing so that some may read/dig further if they wish. In case you should default to thinking I'm some loony conspiracy theorist (I know you haven't actually said that), I have spent approaching four decades since the age of 21 researching to levels and depths that would take me hours to even summarize as an overview.
Claims against Gates have been fact-checked and debunked - really? Have you researched deeply? Not Reuters "Fake news debunker" pieces from Google. Do you refer to "Satanical intentions" in response to that article I linked? I didn't mention satanical intentions.
That article mentioned quotes Gates himself and refers to Quantum-Dot Tattoos. I asked if people would be comfortable with that. So far, no-one answers, and contra-opinion goes down as usual, like the lead balloon.
The whole ID2020 thing - "Digital Identity". RFID microchip implants; yes, in your body. Is this all "Conspiracy"?
'Those that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.'
= the vast majority, like it or not. Mainstream media is "King".
120 Posted 20/11/2020 at 19:41:44
"Those that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.' = the vast majority, like it or not. Mainstream media is "King".
= the vast majority, like it or not. Mainstream media is "King".
Quite right, history is littered with science fuck ups and in recent times a monstrous "fake news" media.
I will get the vaccine but with trepidation.
121 Posted 20/11/2020 at 19:43:25
To me Christine (#114) hits the nail on the head. Behave yourself for your own sake and, more importantly, your fellow citizens.
122 Posted 20/11/2020 at 20:00:32
123 Posted 20/11/2020 at 20:11:19
124 Posted 20/11/2020 at 20:21:11
I'm far from confident that the present regime is much above average but at least their money gives them a chance.
125 Posted 20/11/2020 at 20:37:44
126 Posted 20/11/2020 at 20:50:11
You clearly (for me) wish to promote the notion that others (presumably not just here on TW) are more gullible and more poorly read than your good self.
That may well be the case. Personally, I wouldn't be so presumptious to make that claim. There is absolutely no way of knowing who reads and researches what and where, or to what depth. Or, indeed, whether the judgements and conclusions they reach based on such readings and research are legitimate or not.
We can only get a hint of their influences and their thought processes if they share with us the source of their reading and research.
You did this with two dedicated links. For someone 'approaching four decades of deep research', in this instance, it is my opinion that you didn't make a compelling case for the position you are trying to present. Neither the content nor the links for either are profound or authoritative.
Yes. The claims against Gates (in the conspiracy theories in which his comments were distorted and manipulated) have been fact-checked and debunked.
Gates himself is not the author or proposer of Quantum-Dot Tattoos. ID2020 is a not-for-profit NGO that, quite innocently, got caught up in some wild conspiracy theory formented by the alt-right in the US, adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 666.
This article from The New Humanitarian (not a mainstream news outlet, but a quality independent news site) explains more:
Not quite as conspiratorial as you possibly want to make it out to be.
Finally, I have absolutely no issue with contra-opinions to my own. On the contrary (see what I did there..?) I welcome them and give them serious attention.
But equally, I won't spend excessive amounts of time on alternative views with little or no merit when weighed against more compelling evidence.
Such was my personal assessment of the only two links you shared. Other opinions totally allowed, of course. And welcome.
127 Posted 20/11/2020 at 21:06:55
Readers of history see plagues decimate populations over the centuries were isolation and controlling movement being the only way to reduce the spread and eventually eliminate a contagion, with the advent of vaccines it has significantly reduced the world's risk to infection and mortality rate. With no vaccine, there is only conjecture on the best way to control and prevent further repeat infections.
Those with natural borders of sea and enforced prevention of cross border travel halt the immediate threat but are only pressing the pause button until an erradication strategy can be found (vaccines)
Until then where no natural borders exist there has to be a strategy that can constantly adapt but minimise exposure to the public and maximise awareness of how to safeguard yourself.
In today's world of an absence of collective responsibility and individual ownership ( a lack of care or consideration for what you do), Most people just want clear, effective and consistent communication and be led by example by their government. As a very basic foundation of control and eventual eradication.
I must be bored waiting for the football...
128 Posted 20/11/2020 at 21:58:07
I think this modern world philisophy whereby something that can't be used in a selfie mustn't exist, some folks don't even know they've eaten unless they've taken a picture of their dinner on their smart phone - if only this virus showed itself visibly so that everybody could recognise it and the damage it can do.
129 Posted 20/11/2020 at 22:29:02
Apparently they are now "deeply concerned" about the next crisis, which will make the COVID-19 scenario pale by comparison: a crippling cyberattack that will destroy transport, comms, etc., and plunge the world into a mini Dark Age.
130 Posted 20/11/2020 at 22:46:22
It is not straightforward. What I posted, the article is a great example. Do you accept the existence of the Digital Tattoo? RFID chips? The elements are there - is the truth?
The New Humanitarian article you link claims conspiracists "Seized upon" work on a skin patch used on rats, partially funded by the Gates Foundation... but no mention of the earlier fully-funded work at MIT (and elsewhere) from a December MIT article on cadavers, with plans for human testing (Has this begun??).
It's not so easy to pin down every last detail of the whole truth all the time; but much work and research has been undertaken for decades, policies exist, products have been tested and are in use (including RFID chips, which is old news).
It's not just conspiratorial. There is an enormous global push to digitize the whole planet and its population, with enormous control being the goal. It isn't just happening. The "Internet of Things" is the ultimate (if ever possible) dream and it's moving fast. It has potentially great impacts and dangers.
I can understand you will not spend excessive time on alternate views to yours. These are not views with no merit, but realities.
I'm sure we could go on ad infinitum but that's not possible. I dripped in a couple of things - maybe people will look, maybe they won't, that's fine. As I said earlier... are people comfortable with their body being invaded and connected in - digitized?
131 Posted 20/11/2020 at 22:58:18
Search out video of Event 201(from last October) online, if you're not already aware.
132 Posted 20/11/2020 at 23:40:43
If you have but noticed I haven't challenged, questioned or denied the 'ID digitalization' of the whole world. Why? Because it's undeniable. It already exists and will only grow ever more 'sophisticated' as technology continues to develop.
I had this discussion at least 20 years ago with friends in a pre-IT, home PC, cell phone and social media era. I was surprised how little anyone else considered the implications of something as seemingly banal as a supermarket loyalty card.
I pointed out then just how much data Tescos and the like were gathering on you each time you shopped and claimed your loyalty points.
They could identify your dietary, cosmetic, reading preferences, your spending budget. Hell! They could calculate near-as-damn-it when a woman would have her menstrual cycle determined by when she bought sanitary towels!
It is an extremely naive view, IMO, if you are not aware of just how much data on your habits and personal traits multiple anonymous actors hold on you in this day and age.
Unless you regularly go incognito or use a VPN when browsing the internet, you leave an historical record about whatever you do. Your cell phone's and car's GPS traces your movements and habits 24-7. Your credit and debit card transactions further feed into this anonymous data bank, as does your social media interaction. Each time you fill in your email address to access walled content on the internet, you open another portal to the data gatherers.
People have become millionaires knowing how to manipulate Facebook's audience data in their targetted marketing. Politicians have been elected by devious manipulation of search engine algorithms and who to present with what type of content in their newsfeed.
So you are preaching to the converted if your message is we need to be vigilant against initiatives to gather ever-more personal data on us.
Where we possibly differ is your stated belief that the overriding intention is 'enormous control being the goal'.
My view is that that horse has already bolted and that many are already passively compliant in feeding the databanks that shape and determine our present and future, but only ever in the short term. Never for the long term.
And whilst I'm not so naive as to not believe that very powerful players are at work behind the scenes, I personally don't subscribe to your implied beliefs that we will be nothing more than zoombied serfs in some Matrix-like parallel universe due to Quantum-Dot Tattoos or Microchip Implants.
Be it terraforming the planet or genetically altering life forms, nature has an extremely annoying resilience and tendency to doing things her way and usurping plans dreamt up in secretive labs - biological or social - as you seemingly imagine.
133 Posted 20/11/2020 at 23:45:22
Some views are just too entrenched to debate with. My ex son- in law thinks that his belief that the moon landings never happened, that Hitler ran a chippy in Montevideo, that a flying saucer dipped it's wings as a mark of respect at a pope's funeral, make him a free thinker with an open mind.
This is where divorce takes precedence over debate. Your words are wasted, you are entering a world that is assured in it's narrow mindedness. Talk about football instead.
134 Posted 20/11/2020 at 00:01:44
In case you hadn't noticed, no-one mentioned anything of what's in your post, anywhere in the thread.
135 Posted 21/11/2020 at 00:03:35
Jay, is this you accepting the concept(s)?
136 Posted 21/11/2020 at 00:07:54
137 Posted 21/11/2020 at 00:09:10
138 Posted 21/11/2020 at 00:39:56
Today in the US the Republican Party is in thrall to believers in QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory launched by one anonymous guy on the Internet that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring (out of a Washington DC pizzeria) and plotting to destroy Donald Trump. The leaders of the conspiracy are (of course) Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the ultimate perfidious Jewish banker George Soros. They believe Trump alone was endowed with the wisdom to arrest thousands of cabal members and engineer a military takeover of the United States -- which will of course make us a Utopia.
Several Q believers have recently been elected to Congress.
139 Posted 21/11/2020 at 00:49:24
140 Posted 21/11/2020 at 01:10:37
I thought you Were talking about football.
141 Posted 21/11/2020 at 01:10:37
142 Posted 21/11/2020 at 01:30:19
143 Posted 21/11/2020 at 04:03:01
Will, your last sentence sums up a couple of good examples of â€˜no obvious reason' unless you are fighting a pandemic of something much more like Ebola than this virus.
Covid-19 needs a concerted campaign to be brought under control because our standard medical services are currently very much at risk of being swamped, but that will naturally pass in a couple of years and Covid will then become just another â€˜flu' like virus that people will have options to take reasonable precautions against. Any effort to sign me up to a lifetime of repeat vaccinations or a health passport scheme for this virus will fall on deaf ears but a â€˜one off' attempt to provide prophylaxis for the current population, however, makes sense to me.
I just don't think enough people will ever be softened up enough by a virus at the risk level of Covid-19 for the various governments to get widespread acceptance for that ubiquitous health passport. Digital ID implanted at the cellular level isn't a reasonable requirement either for most people.
I've worked in the pharma industry and know how difficult it is to consistently manufacture biological treatments, compared to other products. I've seen failures cripple or even effectively destroy companies. It is such a constant battle that I just don't see it as a likely vehicle for effectively delivering some perfidious mechanism to control us all, primarily because so many expert people involved will have a clear idea of what is going into the various vaccines and will notice if any of the constituents do not make sound scientific sense. Or do you think the global supply of pharmaceutical grade chemicals has already been seeded prior to the introduction of the â€˜hoax' virus?
A global pandemic has been largely 'predictable' for a long time and increasing population density, environmental impact and global traffic just made it so much more likely with each passing year.
There are just too many unnecessary â€˜parts' of this global conspiracy that have to come together to make it work as â€˜planned'. May as well put your â€˜nanotech' in tattoo ink and a few common meds, beauty treatments and basic food items, and then ramp up the social media and you'll end up with the majority of the population simply self-dosing themselves in short order.
144 Posted 21/11/2020 at 11:02:53
This objective of avoid and prevent is a bit like the security services stopping potential terrorist attacks before they happen. If the strategy is successful, we don't see the bad outcomes, and folks can fail to appreciate the work that has gone on to stop the thing in the first place. In contrast, once very bad things happen, attempts to control and mitigate things tend to be transparent, we can see them. We can applaud the front line NHS workers, or the guy who wrestles the terrorist to the ground, because we can see it in action.
But the work done, for the most part behind the scenes, to avoid and prevent major threats is often seen with neutral or even sceptical eyes, because it is less tangible to folks. However, it is arguably far more influential than the laudable front line work that we tend to applaud. That is ironic, but not surprising, since most folks may not be substantially informed of all this background work. Lack of awareness, and in its worst guise ignorance, tends to breed scepticism. And in some cases it breeds theories of conspiracy.
That is not to say that conspiracies don't happen, because they do, it's human nature. But it's also human nature to work together collectively to solve problems. That's what science, engineering and medicine are all about. The degree to which folks adhere to conspiracies compared with working together, or all points in between on that spectrum between selfishness and collaboration, depends on their individual experiences, both personal and professional.
In the case of COVID, there are significant issues about the way governments have handled the basic hazard SARS-CoV-2, for example issues in the UK about the makeup of SAGE and the quality of their advice to COBR. Many things could have been done better, and people have raised valid issues accordingly. But none of this should detract from the important background work carried out aimed at protecting people from this hazard.
So far as I can see, the overall global effort to handle this hazard is something we've never seen before. The only comparable efforts appear to have been in times of war, but in those cases nations had been trying to kill each other. In contrast, in the case of COVID, nations have been trying to help each other. Imperfectly, yes, but try they have, even with all the vested financial interests and opportunistic instincts that many individual human beings inevitably have. I think that's a great thing, you could say a giant leap for mankind.
145 Posted 21/11/2020 at 11:21:00
- Matt Hancock speaking at the Autumn Reception for the APPG on the Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2017
146 Posted 21/11/2020 at 17:13:54
147 Posted 21/11/2020 at 19:10:07
Re your point about continuous testing of trial participants, Si, I'm not sure about the Pfizer trial but I know for a fact that participants in the Astrazeneca trial are required to carry out weekly swab tests for a year or more, so asymptomatic cases will definitely be identified.
On the subject of vaccine trials, anyone on here either taking part or know anyone who is? If so, what are your views and observations?
148 Posted 22/11/2020 at 11:39:28
I enjoyed that. A superbly framed and constructed post. Well done.
149 Posted 23/11/2020 at 02:01:55
I have now read the detailed Pfizer report (rather than just articles from what I would consider to be more reliable elements of the media) and that hasn't changed my interpretation of how that trial was constructed.
It is difficult at times to separate out what is being done to whom, when and why. Phase 2 and 3 are being carried out together, with a much smaller number being part of the Phase 2 cadre. These are much more intently tested than the majority because it is from these that they will get the required data on a host of relevant parameters.
Phase 3 is really just about how the vaccine operates in â€˜real world' conditions and those in that phase are definitely not on short interval testing (apart from an immunogenicity test a week after the actual injection because they need to discount from their positive group anyone who coincidentally had contracted the virus before the immune response had a chance to kick in).
The monitoring staff are basically relying on Phase 3 participants assessing themselves daily against particular symptoms and reporting if they think something significant has occurred, after which they could be tested and confirmed as infected. Even the Phase 3 lot will get some long-interval follow-up testing, because it is important to gain as much information as possible from everyone in the trial because of the severely contracted timeframe they are pushing these vaccines through in. But, in the Pfizer case, it is clear it is not their primary intent to capture any and all infected, just those who report back as symptomatic.
I don't know the details of any other trials but I know that, apart from the fact that it would be massively expensive to employ enough clinicians to visit and screen tens of thousands of volunteers every week, you risk skewing the results of your trial by giving the participants an unnatural regime that may also greatly change their normal behaviour.
I hope I've made it clear that I just have some experience of clinical trials and how they need to operate but I wouldn't consider myself an expert. I would appreciate it if you would clarify your experience and knowledge base. I'm not trying to score points; I'm open to people correcting what I'm posting if I've got things wrong but, to be totally honest, I'm just going to be much more likely to review my assessment of a subject if I know that someone else probably or definitely does or should know more about it.
To anyone who isn't anything remotely like an expert, I'd say simply trying to read the reports to get a full understanding is made much more difficult if you don't know what the big differences are between the phases of a clinical trial, because those reports are written for peer review, not lay people.
150 Posted 23/11/2020 at 14:14:27
If anyone, in trying to present an argument, feels a need to present their experience, status, or qualifications in support of that argument, then they need to put forward the argument differently so that it stands on its own merits.
I'm not saying what my experience is in any detail, because you don't need to know for the purposes of this discussion, but I will say that I have never been influenced by anyone claiming that they are an expert or have some special experience that should sway their argument. Indeed, I have often found that such claims are things that they hide behind when they are unable to convincingly sway an argument on its merits and only its merits.
151 Posted 23/11/2020 at 17:15:38
A rumour spread through the town that the butcher had received a delivery of meat and a large queue started outside in the freezing cold weather.
After half an hour the butcher came out and announced that there was some meat but not enough for everyone so would all the Jews kindly leave the queue.
This reduced the line by about a quarter and after another 20 minutes the butcher came out and again announced there was some meat but not enough for everyone and would anyone who didn't take part in the recent defence of the Motherland kindly leave the queue.
This again reduced the lines but after another 30 minutes the butcher again made the announcement that there was not enough meat for everyone so would any non-members of the Communist Party kindly leave the queue. After a further 20 minutes the butcher came out and made the same announcement and asked that anyone who didn't take part in the great revolution leave the queue.
This left three little old men who stood in the -30C weather and after another 30 minutes the butcher came out and said that he was sorry but there was no meat at all. The three old men turned and walked away and one of them turned to the other two and said; "That's the trouble, the Jews get the best of everything!"
152 Posted 23/11/2020 at 17:42:39
On the approach to the ground, I was frisked before I got to the turnstile, as per usual at some grounds.
With Covid just starting to take hold, I wondered then about how football could be made safer for attending supporters.
Applying what we know about transmission,
1. Socially distanced queuing
2. All supporters to wear masks and plastic gloves
3. Temperature scans before entry to the turnstile
4. Gloved hand disinfectant stations before entry to turnstile
5. Some sort of whole body mister spray? I have seen cold water cooling spray machines in Kuwait
6. No corporate boxes and dining room areas where people are INSIDE
I am no expert, just trying to see a way through
153 Posted 23/11/2020 at 18:15:56
154 Posted 24/11/2020 at 21:48:56
For me it's not about doffing the cap to a presumed superiority, it's about making a judgement about whether someone is likely, through training and lived experience, to have insights beyond what can easily be presented merely through the written word.
If you think scientific papers are generally written so that any layperson can fully understand their content, then I think you are mistaken. If anyone could get a full understanding, there would be no need for peer review.
I'm not dismissing the layperson's perspective â€“ the â€˜fresh pair of eyes' / different angle on things is very useful at times, especially in root cause analysis â€“ it's just that often a certain level of understanding will be assumed by the writers of clinical reports.
Life sciences are often not as â€˜pure' as the likes of mathematics and physics because of the many variables that may need to be considered. Insignificant variables may even need to be glossed over in order to come up with a workable study, and the researchers won't take the time to explain why certain things have been assumed if they would expect their peer reviewers to work out what is significant and what isn't on their own.
You write a lot of very good stuff, Stan. I don't doubt you are capable of making a good fist of understanding things by reading about them. I just think that you have fixated on what you are seeing as a significant flaw in the study and the conclusions so far simply because you expect the report to be detailed enough to give you all the information you require.
155 Posted 24/11/2020 at 22:01:40
I don't know what your experience is, and it doesn't interest me for the purpose of this discussion, but I would suggest to you that you focus on what I've actually written. Whether you're a layperson or a highly-skilled and intellectually rigorous specialist, the first trick is to focus on that.
For example, I have not suggested anywhere that the Pfizer study has any flaws. Similarly, there is no indication in what I've written that scientific papers can be understood by lay people. So you have misinterpreted what I've written.
156 Posted 24/11/2020 at 22:02:29
157 Posted 24/11/2020 at 22:12:52
158 Posted 24/11/2020 at 23:06:57
I've merely said that we should assume that they have a good scientific reason for setting up their trial this way (which is what I saw first reported and then in the report itself), suggesting that extrapolation from that subset may not be unreasonable if you have a good understanding of how the immune system works (in most people).
If Pfizer (and now others) were really being very cavalier in trumpeting it is likely 90% of recipients will not subsequently get infected, then it could be disastrous both for dealing with this pandemic and for the future of other vaccination projects.
I'm assuming the science is sound and we are not all going to be bitterly disappointed when these vaccines are eventually rolled out, because it seems to me that idle speculation on efficacy claims fuels the suspicion that Big Pharma may simply be blowing its own trumpet for the sake of its share price in the middle of a global crisis and that just opens the door for the anti-vaxxers and Will's paranoid mob.
159 Posted 24/11/2020 at 23:20:22
Yes, you did get that wrong. I wasn't seeking to question anything.
Look, instead of asking me now if you've interpreted what I'd said correctly or not, why don't you simply have another look at what I wrote. It would be quicker.
You seem to be going off on all kinds of tangents of misinterpretation, and you can avoid that by reading what I actually wrote. If I'd wanted to question the study, make no mistake, I would have made that very clear.
160 Posted 24/11/2020 at 02:12:18
“The 90% rate refers to protection against getting ill from the virus, rather than protection from getting the virus or passing it on. I believe the latter facets are part of the further studies following the initial findings.â€
That is not right; it is protection from â€˜getting the virus' that they mean. There is no vaccine that actually stops a virus from getting into the body, they all work by snuffing out those initial invaders. That is what stops you from then producing masses of the virus (whether you are symptomatic or asymptomatic) and passing it on to others.
Then you post:
“Si @74: Thanks for that. I understand what you're saying but, nevertheless, the results presented in the trial are for symptomatic Covid-19, with no results being presented for participants who might test positive for the virus but are asymptomatic.
"I think the key phrase in what you say is your last sentence, that assumption. Although that assumption seems plausible, I cannot see anything about the current trial results that supports it. That looks like something for the ongoing work and further results.â€
I've tried to explain that there must be a good reason this trial isn't set-up to capture the asymptomatic cases, even if you are dead-set on refuting the considered assumption that must underpin that decision, and that they will be trying to get this vaccine released without waiting for the â€˜further results' you are wanting to see. Those â€˜further results' will only be collected from those trial participants that are on the phase 2 regime who will continue to be monitored long after the vaccine has been rolled out, or from whatever is reported through standard Pharmacovigilance.
You basically insult me by saying I'm reliant on assumption and faith whilst you are only interested in facts, and continue the passive aggressive commentary by effectively sneering at the notion that there is anything to be gained by knowing someone's knowledge base and professional expertise.
People need to get used to the fact that these vaccines are being rushed through and there simply will not be the breadth or depth of â€˜facts' that you want to see, but that doesn't mean there will be a significantly increased risk from taking them, nor that they won't be effective.
We are all going to have to take some things on faith and take the plunge when we are offered a vaccine if we are going to have any chance of shortening the remaining duration of this pandemic from years down to months.
Other examples of you â€˜pouring cold water' on the potential benefits of this vaccine:
“This all seems a prime example where media reports are okay for a potted idea about something, but often lack clarity. The devil's in the detail and all that.
“What you've stated there underlines that it's the disease that's been looked at, the 94 cases with symptoms, not asymptomatic.
“Covid-19 is the disease (symptomatic) that results from the virus Sars-Cov-2. The 94 cases are cases of Covid-19. There may be a far greater number of cases where participants have Sars-Cov-2 (and could test positive for it) without having Covid-19.â€
“Patrick @83: Don't think there's much argument about your last point (some, but not much).â€
Please, Stan, tell me what you mean by â€˜some, but not much', because it seemed to me (and still does) that your apparent dissatisfaction with the accuracy of the initial media reports and the lack of results for â€˜asymptomatic infected' is exactly what people will use to shake other people's resolve to get vaccinated.
161 Posted 25/11/2020 at 09:36:23
162 Posted 25/11/2020 at 10:29:08
This virus has disrupted “lifeâ€ for so many people, and at the end of the day, “life is everythingâ€. Its why we are born, it's why we exist, and I really feel for the people without company, because this virus has taken life away for so many.
Hopefully soon it will be better, more laughing, more joking, more living, and a much better Everton team to watch!
163 Posted 25/11/2020 at 10:39:59
It's a lovely poignant song and so English.
Keep listening and keep sane!
164 Posted 25/11/2020 at 11:06:15
165 Posted 25/11/2020 at 11:09:46
166 Posted 25/11/2020 at 14:27:45
All I've done is try to engage you on a conclusion youâ€d drawn and, instead of clarifying your concern over what you are not seeing in the results of the trial, you've repeatedly simply dismissed my view or tried to undermine it as merely â€˜faith'-based (rather than a considered opinion based on knowledge and experience). I've tried to clarify my thinking whilst you have flatly refused to concede that you are also operating on assumption rather than facts a lot of the time.
In future, I'll read your posts with interest but I don't think I'll waste my time in trying to discuss anything I might have an alternative explanation for.
167 Posted 25/11/2020 at 14:36:59
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.