Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX Read OP For Mod Warnings

04-03-2021 04:16PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

You can only presume though .

I would imagine the aim in most countries is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

Numbers were high in Jan / Feb and it makes sense to have a strict lockdown and get numbers as low as possible and try get as many vaccinated as possible as soon as possible ( whether this is achieved is another argument )

You can only presume though.

Beasty · 04-03-2021 04:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Moderator Graham is right; pandemics don't decide employment levels in a post-pandemic future - consumers do.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Moderator Graham was making a wider point;

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Moderator Graham said it all...

but...WTF!

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Moderator Graham is spot on here.

Threadbanned for trolling another user

big syke · 04-03-2021 04:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Covid vaccination in children will be a harder sell. Mortality rate from Covid-19 in the under 9s seems to be around 0.0016% right now. That's 1.6 in 1,000. The potential for anaphylactic response with any given vaccine is around 1.3 in 1,000,000.

Fixed that for ya

normanoffside · 04-03-2021 04:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Covid vaccination in children will be a harder sell. Mortality rate from Covid-19 in the under 9s seems to be around 0.0016% right now. That's 1.6 in 1,000.

Just a correction.
0.16% is 1.6 in 1000.

0.0016 is 1.6 in 100,000 or 1 in 62,500

big syke · 04-03-2021 04:43PM

normanoffside wrote: »

Just a correction.
0.16% is 1.6 in 1000.

0.0016 is 1.6 in 100,000 or 1 in 62,500

33 confirmed vaccine-triggered anaphylaxis cases that occurred after 25,173,965 vaccine doses.

1 in 762,847 chance or 1.31 per 1,000,000

04-03-2021 04:44PM

normanoffside wrote: »

Just a correction.
0.16% is 1.6 in 1000.

0.0016 is 1.6 in 100,000 or 1 in 62,500

No correction for the 1 in 1000 anaphylaxis rate in vaccinations which is actually 4.7 per million for the pfizer vaccines and even lower in others - and occurs within the monitoring period

is_that_so · 04-03-2021 04:47PM

https://twitter.com/ianbrown/status/1367173085980418055

SAMTALK · 04-03-2021 04:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You can only presume though.

Yes I can, but you are comparing us to the UK which is a different playing field

04-03-2021 04:56PM

is_that_so wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ianbrown/status/1367173085980418055

Wants no restrictions, doesn't want vaccines. Does not compute

Boggles · 04-03-2021 04:59PM

Shít, when did Ian Brown lose his mind?

He didn't even do drugs, if it were the lads from the Happy Mondays it would be understandable.

04-03-2021 05:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No its not - and you claim its not anti vax.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783279/

Apologies, I was looking at the side effects for the Pfizer vaccine this morning and reading about the up-to-1-in-1,000 chance of "temporary one-sided facial drooping" (which I believe turns out to be much less than 1-in-1,000 in practice). Must've got it mixed up while I was typing my post. I'll go back and edit it in any case for those reading. Mea culpa.

I still think there will be hesitance around Covid vaccines for children. The flu vaccine protects against a much more deadly disease (in that age group) and can now be given as a nasal spray instead of the "dreaded" injection, and there's still only an uptake in preschoolers of around 45% and in school-aged children of around 60%.

Many Swedes seem opposed to taking the Covid vaccine after the hastily-developed vaccine for the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic caused hundreds of children and young people to develop narcolepsy.

After the event, Sweden's state epidemiologist said "Of course the decision would have been completely different if we had known about the side effects. But they were completely unknown, they were a surprise to everybody." Which are words that will play on the mind of any parent currently trying to decide whether or not to let their child have a hastily-developed, new technology vaccine.

In Sweden, where there is usually a 90%+ uptake rate for childhood voluntary vaccinations, 26% don't plan to take any Covid-19 vaccines and a further 28% are undecided.

You can think that people who are hesitant to get their children vaccinated with this particular set of vaccines are stupid on a par with the crystal-loving anti-vaxxers who throw pox parties if you like, but I assure you that your opinion won't make a blind bit of difference to those parents. Not if they think there is a potential of the vaccine causing harm to their children.

04-03-2021 05:08PM

normanoffside wrote: »

Just a correction.
0.16% is 1.6 in 1000.

0.0016 is 1.6 in 100,000 or 1 in 62,500

Thanks. I shouldn't try to maths when I'm just up from a nap! :pac: I corrected the first post.

gozunda · 04-03-2021 05:09PM

titan18 wrote: »

Yup, I like the German plans. Give clear incidence rates and what will open when they get below those. They were being one of the more cautious too all along so they're clearly not as worried about the variants as our shambles are.

dalyboy wrote: »

Germany is going reopen businesses and society from next week and they’ll review and proceed “every 14 days”.

Incredible how a civilised and economically advanced nation of proactive leadership can make a spectacle of Ireland’s bumbling leaderless government. (What was being touted in Ireland? Every 6 weeks to “review” our pathetic reopening. Hahaha)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germany-extends-lockdown-with-plan-to-relax-restrictions/a-56763824

What is it with this Bat**** thing of continually comparing ourselves with other countries?

There can be no quid pro quo equivalence when it comes to different countries managing the pandemic. While the grass may appear greener from a far - that's clearly not the case once you get beyond the howls of "Ma - But whaaa-they've got icecream"

Germany is only starting to plan possible rollback restrictions. There is no dramatic reopening of "businesses and society" there. They plan to proceed cautiously and with clear caveats that where infection rates rise - then restrictions will be not be removed but will be reimposed. From the link above:

Germany extends lockdown with plan to relax restrictions

The federal government announced that the lockdown has been extended until at least March 28...

There is a five-step plan to relaxing restrictions on a regional or state level. Each step will be taken every 14 days if regional infection numbers are stable or reduced...

An emergency brake system will return regions to current lockdown levels if there are three consecutive days with an incidence rate above 100 per 100,000 people per week

And Germany are most certainly 'worried' with regard to the spread of new covid variants. They have banned flights from here and the UK and continue to restrict access to help minimise that risk

Germany has added France's eastern Moselle region to its list of "variant of concern" areas, triggering tougher entry requirements at the border between the two neighbors.

Under the new restrictions, almost all travel will be banned. There are only a few exemptions, including lorry drivers and certain key workers.

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-germany-to-tighten-controls-at-french-border/a-56727786

All countries are getting ****e from all angles.
Despite risking a rapid rise in cases - Italy opened up - though not without significant criticism they didn't do enough.

https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-coronavirus-second-wave-wasted-summer/

And as for all governments caught in the **** storm that is Covid-19 - they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. As nice as it it might be to have our ducks in a row with definite dates tied up with pink ribbon and presented on a silver platter as a 'plan' - too often countries have found to their cost that such dates are at best guesswork when so many variables mean that dates are often unachievable.

Its evident that other countries roadmaps for the rollback of restrictions arecbased on a myriad of factors unique to those countries. It does not give any validity to automatically ascribe our own approach as "shambles" or "bumbling".

Criticism certainly - but not criticism composed of thinking that the other kid is getting a bigger or nicer ice-cream cone than we are.

04-03-2021 05:12PM

Boggles wrote: »

And there we are, straight out of the anti vax playbook.

You and your labels, Boggles. It's pitiful at times.

My children are fully vaccinated, including chickenpox vaccines I had to seek out and pay for myself because they're not included in the usual regimen.

But sure go ahead and shove me in your boxes if you must. A little nuance would probably hurt at this stage.

04-03-2021 05:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You and your labels, Boggles. It's pitiful at times.

My children are fully vaccinated, including chickenpox vaccines I had to seek out and pay for myself because they're not included in the usual regimen.

But sure go ahead and shove me in your boxes if you must. A little nuance would probably hurt at this stage.

The unproven, experimental mRNA vaccine talk track is a deliberate strategy by the anti-vax movement to sow the seed of doubt in the minds of those otherwise supportive of vaccination

Strumms · 04-03-2021 05:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A general anti-vaccination stance is different from skepticism about mRNA vaccines based on their entirely absent long-term safety profile.

It is possible to not want to be part of the long-term safety testing group for a new technology while also believing that 1: vaccines are generally good, and 2: the new technology, if safe in the long-term, will be a boon for human medicine going forward.

There are plenty of people being called "anti vaxxers" at the moment who are prepared to take AZ, J&J and the other vaccines that have been made using older, more tested technology, who just won't take Pfizer or Moderna until it has a 5-10 year record of safety. The

Covid vaccination in children will be a harder sell. Mortality rate from Covid-19 in the under 9s seems to be around 0.0016% right now. That's 1.6 in 100,000. The potential for anaphylactic response with any given vaccine is around 1 in 1,000. So you're asking people to intentionally inject their children with a substance that is only marginally less risky to them than a virus they may never contract, and which has no long-term safety profile. (Edit: see corrections by other posters further along in this thread)

Mortality rate isn’t the only concern with covid :rolleyes:

Kids want to be around people, in close contact, they can have covid, mildly symptomatic, then give it to say an older relation, sibling with asthma or just enable it’s spread...more pressure on people, family, loved ones, Heath services... maybe a mortician too.

04-03-2021 05:24PM

Strumms wrote: »

Mortality rate isn’t the only concern with covid :rolleyes:

Kids want to be around people, in close contact, they can have covid, mildly symptomatic, then give it to say an older relation, sibling with asthma or just enable it’s spread...more pressure on people, family, loved ones, Heath services... maybe a mortician too.

But since those older and vulnerable people will have by and large been vaccinated, it changes the calculation.

normanoffside · 04-03-2021 05:25PM

big syke wrote: »

33 confirmed vaccine-triggered anaphylaxis cases that occurred after 25,173,965 vaccine doses.

1 in 762,847 chance or 1.31 per 1,000,000

Not sure what your point is. I was just correcting the Maths. I’m not anti vax. As soon as any vax is approved for kids and enough supply is available I hope they all get it.

04-03-2021 05:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The unproven, experimental mRNA vaccine talk track is a deliberate strategy by the anti-vax movement to sow the seed of doubt in the minds of those otherwise supportive of vaccination

mRNA vaccines do not have a long-term safety profile. It is literally absent.

"This trial and its preliminary report have several limitations. With approximately 19,000 participants per group in the subset of participants with a median follow-up time of 2 months after the second dose, the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably. This report includes 2 months of follow-up after the second dose of vaccine for half the trial participants and up to 14 weeks’ maximum follow-up for a smaller subset. Therefore, both the occurrence of adverse events more than 2 to 3.5 months after the second dose and more comprehensive information on the duration of protection remain to be determined."

That "2-2.5 months" is obviously a shifting figure, but the idea that saying what is in the Pfizer study document is "deliberate strategy by the anti-vax movement to sow the seed of doubt" is pure propaganda.

Boggles · 04-03-2021 05:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You and your labels, Boggles. It's pitiful at times.

My children are fully vaccinated, including chickenpox vaccines I had to seek out and pay for myself because they're not included in the usual regimen.

But sure go ahead and shove me in your boxes if you must. A little nuance would probably hurt at this stage.

That doesn't negate the paragraph I highlighted from you is straight from the anti vax playbook.

i.e vaccines are as bad as the virus.

Now you have come out afterwards and clarified that you mistyped or whatever.

I can only reply to what I see at the time.

But you have decided it's my fault for some reason.

04-03-2021 05:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

mRNA vaccines do not have a long-term safety profile. It is literally absent.

"This trial and its preliminary report have several limitations. With approximately 19,000 participants per group in the subset of participants with a median follow-up time of 2 months after the second dose, the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably. This report includes 2 months of follow-up after the second dose of vaccine for half the trial participants and up to 14 weeks’ maximum follow-up for a smaller subset. Therefore, both the occurrence of adverse events more than 2 to 3.5 months after the second dose and more comprehensive information on the duration of protection remain to be determined."

That "2-2.5 months" is obviously a shifting figure, but the idea that saying what is in the Pfizer study document is "deliberate strategy by the anti-vax movement to sow the seed of doubt" is pure propaganda.

It meets the same safety requirements for approval as any vaccine. Would you suggest we wait 10 years?

04-03-2021 06:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It meets the same safety requirements for approval as any vaccine. Would you suggest we wait 10 years?

Phase 1-3 trials usually last anything from 3-7 years with the average being about 5. That gives a 3-7 year time period for longer-term adverse effects to make themselves known.

Pfizer's phase 3 trials with new mRNA technology began in July, 5 months before the first rollouts. Phase 3 trials usually last 1-3 years.

I think people should make their own decisions factoring in their likely risk from Covid.

As I've said here before, I hope that mRNA vaccines are proven long-term safe and effective. If they are, the technology has potentially huge and impactful wider applications in the future and "pandemics" that have the global effect this one has will be all but a thing of the past. It would be a boon for human medicine in general. But as of right now "long-term safe" is not something that anyone can confidently say about mRNA vaccines, because they have not been through long-term trials and they have not been in long-term use.

Hector Savage · 04-03-2021 06:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But since those older and vulnerable people will have by and large been vaccinated, it changes the calculation.

Don't expect an answer to this.

04-03-2021 07:00PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Phase 1-3 trials usually last anything from 3-7 years with the average being about 5. That gives a 3-7 year time period for longer-term adverse effects to make themselves known.

Pfizer's phase 3 trials with new mRNA technology began in July, 5 months before the first rollouts. Phase 3 trials usually last 1-3 years.

I think people should make their own decisions factoring in their likely risk from Covid.

As I've said here before, I hope that mRNA vaccines are proven long-term safe and effective. If they are, the technology has potentially huge and impactful wider applications in the future and "pandemics" that have the global effect this one has will be all but a thing of the past. It would be a boon for human medicine in general. But as of right now "long-term safe" is not something that anyone can confidently say about mRNA vaccines, because they have not been through long-term trials and they have not been in long-term use.

In a world with limited resources to develop vaccines and limited subjects to test them on. With unlimited cash and large amounts virus in circulation the timelines are compressed.

Also , adverse effects in vaccines show up relatively quickly. It’s two doses over a short period of time and leaves nothing behind except the antibodies the immune system creates itself. The autoimmune conditions that can be triggered by vaccines become apparent early on.

For someone who claims to be pro vaccine you seem to have swallowed at anti vaccine talking points

04-03-2021 07:01PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But since those older and vulnerable people will have by and large been vaccinated, it changes the calculation.

It does, when they are vaccinated

Hector Savage · 04-03-2021 07:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It does, when they are vaccinated

They'll be vaccinated before kids ...

normanoffside · 04-03-2021 07:13PM

NPHET right now are presenting a case study about outbreak among students in the West.
No mention of delayed vaccine roll out yet.

Hector Savage · 04-03-2021 07:22PM

normanoffside wrote: »

NPHET right now are presenting a case study about outbreak among students in the West.
No mention of delayed vaccine roll out yet.

Of course, let's shame young healthy kids for doing NOTHING wrong.

normanoffside · 04-03-2021 07:25PM

Hector Savage wrote: »

Of course, let's shame young healthy kids for doing NOTHING wrong.

One journalist asked a question and it was confirmed that no deaths resulted from such outbreaks or social gatherings among University students.
Questions now change to primary school kids masking, another group from which there are no deaths.

'Look over there' type deflection going on as usual. No mention of the vaccine f** Up yet

04-03-2021 07:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In a world with limited resources to develop vaccines and limited subjects to test them on. With unlimited cash and large amounts virus in circulation the timelines are compressed.

Also , adverse effects in vaccines show up relatively quickly. It’s two doses over a short period of time and leaves nothing behind except the antibodies the immune system creates itself. The autoimmune conditions that can be triggered by vaccines become apparent early on.

For someone who claims to be pro vaccine you seem to have swallowed at anti vaccine talking points

While it's true that phase 1-3 trials ran concurrently rather than consecutively in the unprecedented race to respond to an ongoing pandemic, "long-term" does not compress, and wouldn't with all the resources in the world.

Neither you nor anyone else knows how quickly any long-term adverse effects from mRNA vaccines show up. You don't need to pretend that you have some divine knowledge to say that you're cool with the vaccine. Risk is inherent in all medicine.

And I'm afraid if you're expecting me to start changing my opinions because someone you disagree with shares them you'll be waiting a good long ****ing time, and that's the last time I'll address any such similar nonsense.

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX Read OP For Mod Warnings