jackboy wrote: » Primetime last night.
Sconsey wrote: » It would be great if you could provide a single example.
Gael23 wrote: » Anything to be read into this?https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-first-covid-vaccines-likely-to-be-imperfect-and-might-not-prevent-infection-says-taskforce-boss-12116593
astrofool wrote: » In the meantime, I sell the apples, and try and ensure the masks I have go where is needed to avoid a panic When masks have been manufactured, I start selling them as well
Micky 32 wrote: » I think he/she is going by the spin of all ‘boards’ experts on here. I think Jackboy will be deeply disappointed when he sees the difference the vaccines/treatments are going to make to life.
TomSweeney wrote: » sure !! :rolleyes:
jackboy wrote: » Personal attacks. The majority opinions of experts now is that the first generation of vaccines are unlikely to end restrictions and social distancing.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » It’s literally what was discussed on national television last night by people more educated and knowledgeable on the topic than the “boards experts”.
Micky 32 wrote: » So you’re saying they have all the data released from the Pharma companies and based their “ opinion” on that?
FintanMcluskey wrote: » It sounds like you have?
Micky 32 wrote: » A typical answer to avoid the question.
dominatinMC wrote: » I agree. The end game is when the virus is sufficiently suppressed, so that the health service can function as normal whilst also having the capacity to deal with any covid patients. I think this is what the experts mean when they say "living with the virus". It's fairly obvious that the disease cannot be eradicated now, and a zero covid policy probably isn't a feasible option for us given the NI border. However, the question remains - at what point do we settle for an adequate approach, rather than seeking a perfect solution? Some are still stating that we will be living with social distancing for a long time, even with a vaccine. That's fine, when looking at the problem from a purely medical perspective. However, social distancing is destroying economies (not to mention the wellbeing of the general public) and at what point do we (or more precisely, the government) decide to abandon it. For instance, if the vaccine has an efficacy of 75% and an uptake is 75%, then that is 56% protection - will that be considered enough? I guess we will have to wait and see how that translates to hospital admissions. Because, as cold and callous as it sounds, at some point the risk to the economy will exceed the risk to public health, and a decision will have to be made to move on. I can only see these voices growing louder as we move into 2021.
Hmmzis wrote: » Pfizer not going to have a readout this week:https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/27/no-news-on-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-is-good-news-and-bad-news/ Reason being, not enough cases in the study participants to do so.
AdamD wrote: » Correct me if I'm being thick here but surely 56% would be more than enough to relax restrictions? At our level of growth in the last 2 months didn't the R0 number peak at 1.4? If half the population are vaccinated surely the R0 is virtually guaranteed to be below 1 most of the time so the virus can't really run rampant? I'm hoping expectations aren't too high for this, we shouldn't have a locked down country at that point..
Gael23 wrote: » On reading the article this can potentially be very good news if it turns out the participants have been protected from infection
Irish Stones wrote: » And tell everybody the masks save lives, that is the opposite to what they said earlier. So when they say something else, who is going to believe them? Like I said, wouldn't it have been wiser to produce everything, rather than just food and fashion, or anything else? After all, a pandemic was expected, it wasn't a matter of if, but of when.
stephenjmcd wrote: » Could look at it either way really, its either a) doing what it's supposed to do or (B) There's less infection circulating which slows things down, Oxford flagged similar in the UK at the tail end of the first wave and moved trials to Brazil. Pfizer still seem confident of submitted for EUA in late November. Personally I'd have AstraZeneca/Oxford slightly ahead of them. A wait and see really, I think only the orange idiot in the white house might have expected full results by now seeing as he built the claim of a vaccine before the election which the CEOs basically dismissed straight away
tobefrank321 wrote: » I I won't be the only one seriously p*ssed off if NPHET are still advising the government next summer on restrictions and levels to get the spread under control.
plodder wrote: » But, the control participants are not reporting infection either, which is frustrating. I wonder will this raise the possibility of human challenge trials again. That would definitely be the quickest way to get results, but they are reluctant to go down that road. I believe one such trial is planned in the UK in the new year. You'd have to wonder if the kind of person willing to take part in a trial like this, is also taking other precautions like vitamins which could be reducing the incidence among the group.
timsey tiger wrote: » There is only one way to read this, not enough infections in the control group. What is being looked at is the relative difference in infections between the two groups. You need a certain amount of infections before you can declare this statistically significant.
tobefrank321 wrote: » I don't think anyone would mind if the R0 was 10 or more among college age students and youngish people. But when it gets to the vulnerable groups the problems starts. If they are all or mostly protected, we are in a good place. If there is still a large number of them not protected even after a vaccine for one reason or another, we could still be facing restrictions.Problem is a large number of people in the vulnerable group may never be fully immune via vaccine. Even if the vaccine is 90% effective for this group, 10% would be close to 100,000 people. Hopefully second generation vaccines will close off any gaps. I won't be the only one seriously p*ssed off if NPHET are still advising the government next summer on restrictions and levels to get the spread under control.
dominatinMC wrote: » As cruel as it sounds, if that is the case - so be it. Society at large will have to move on. Countries cannot afford to wait another 2/3 years for a 2nd generation vaccine. If the risk is mitigated to some degree by the first vaccine, there will be a push for normality to resume. In the end, the government will have the unenviable task of deciding if the risk (which is hopefully reduced as a result of the vaccine) posed to the vulnerable groups is large enough to justify closing the economy. At the moment, the risk is large enough, and public goodwill supports this, but if a vaccine arrives and reduces this risk, I think things will change.
stephenjmcd wrote: » I'm well aware of that and not enough infections is down to a set of circumstances which I mentioned 2 possible ones.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0ec48fe92b0cf92f5cdae52d3485d794.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
