Covid-19

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That's right. You can't ethically force people to take any medication against their will just as you can't stop people from smoking. Vaccines are being pushed through the trials very quickly and are not without risk. I would agree that it is wrong to force people to have a vaccine.

What you can do though is ban those people from certain places and events until the pandemic is over. Probably not shopping for essentials and medicine but from most other places such as non-essential shops, pubs, football stadiums, concerts, hairdressers, cafe's, care homes, hospitals (unless being treated), public buildings and such.

This would be protecting both the 'opt-out person' and all those who they come into contact with. An individuals liberty to be 'free from being contaminated by a 'vaccine refuser' is just as important as the refuser's liberty to opt out of the vaccine. I would argue that both of these liberties are equal in weight.

We don't entertain the idea of restricting those who don't have MMR vaccinations, so there's not a chance we would do the same with a Covid one.

[UnderSeige]

We don't entertain the idea of restricting those who don't have MMR vaccinations, so there's not a chance we would do the same with a Covid one.

That's true. The government won't do it but it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

[Lowbankclaret]

Once again the world sets a new record number of Covid cases.

[UnderSeige]

Once again the world sets a new record number of Covid cases.

Of the countries near us Spain looks the most worrying at the moment. Their daily case rates have been above 600 for a week now. In the last two days they have been above 1,300. Prior to this they have been around the 300-400 level since the beginning of June.

Spain has also had problems with British tourists getting drunk and ignoring social distancing rules. They have had to close all the bars down on some of the traditional hobbledehoy streets.

Belgium have had a slightly bad three days worth of figures but not too much to worry about at this stage. Romania, Luxembourg, Croatia and Slovenia look to be in second spikes but not with high figures.

Austria and Greece have had slightly higher cases.

Scandanavia is doing very well and no big problems in the rest of Europe. The UK's seven day average is about the same as this time last week.

[dpinsussex]

Just watched BBC news re Blackburn and they showed clip of a bloke in a Burnley shirt being tested. Ffs do none of those fiddlers ever wear one of their own shirts or are they starting to see that football life is all about BFC

[cricketfieldclarets]

If I recall correctly you're not a believer in the MMR vaccine either so it's not a massive shock that you'd refuse a Covid vaccine.

I'd take the Covid one, just like I've taken other vaccines when available.
I prefer to think about others around me being at risk if I catch it

You recall incorrectly.

[cricketfieldclarets]

That's right. You can't ethically force people to take any medication against their will just as you can't stop people from smoking. Vaccines are being pushed through the trials very quickly and are not without risk. I would agree that it is wrong to force people to have a vaccine.

What you can do though is ban those people from certain places and events until the pandemic is over. Probably not shopping for essentials and medicine but from most other places such as non-essential shops, pubs, football stadiums, concerts, hairdressers, cafe's, care homes, hospitals (unless being treated), public buildings and such.

This would be protecting both the 'opt-out person' and all those who they come into contact with. An individuals liberty to be 'free from being contaminated by a 'vaccine refuser' is just as important as the refuser's liberty to opt out of the vaccine. I would argue that both of these liberties are equal in weight.

If people who have had the vaccine can attend, then what is the issue with people who havent also attending? The only people then at risk are the people who opted against the vaccine therefore they are only at risk to themselves.

It makes no sense to ban people from anything for refusing a vaccine. Besides its impractical, impossible and illegal.

[Grumps]

If people who have had the vaccine can attend, then what is the issue with people who havent also attending? The only people then at risk are the people who opted against the vaccine therefore they are only at risk to themselves.

It makes no sense to ban people from anything for refusing a vaccine. Besides its impractical, impossible and illegal.

Not illegal, private places can stop anyone they want going in, so BFC could say only people who have had the vaccine can enter.... How they would enforce it is a different matter.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Not illegal, private places can stop anyone they want going in, so BFC could say only people who have had the vaccine can enter.... How they would enforce it is a different matter.

It wont happen so pointless worrying about it.

[Grumps]

It wont happen so pointless worrying about it.

Not worried.... I'd just get the vaccine and go.... If no vaccine, I'd still go.

[mdd2]

Whilst it is correct that people should be able to opt out of certain things in our society this pandemic is something different. By refusing to social distance, wear masks when requested, get tested when ill, self isolate when asked to, giving name and contact when asked to ; refusing to engage with all or some of these facets to our present lives is putting not only the individual who chooses to play a form of Russian roulette at risk but others who may be less able to fight this disease as well as the NHS and Social care workers who have to deal with the mess created by selfish irresponsible people waving their human rights banners.
To all those who want no part in these ways we can help ourselves to stay well, carry on but if or when you get ill, stay away for society until you recover or peg it.

[mdd2]

The vaccine is unlikely to be 100% effective but the more who have it the greater the chances of a low infectivity. The problem by not being vaccinated
is the risk of fit people carrying the virus and infecting other more vulnerable people who may die as a result.
Most health care staff have a flu vaccine not really for self protection but to assist in not spreading flu to the sick and helping to keep staffing levels high in winter to deal with those who become ill, some because they have a bad dose of flu inspite of the vaccine or because they refused to have it.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

If people who have had the vaccine can attend, then what is the issue with people who havent also attending? The only people then at risk are the people who opted against the vaccine therefore they are only at risk to themselves.

It makes no sense to ban people from anything for refusing a vaccine. Besides its impractical, impossible and illegal.

There are some people who can't have the MMR jab for medical reasons, this may be the same for Covid.

So they're going to be put at risk by the selfish people who refuse to have it, just like MMR.

[UnderSeige]

If people who have had the vaccine can attend, then what is the issue with people who havent also attending? The only people then at risk are the people who opted against the vaccine therefore they are only at risk to themselves.

It makes no sense to ban people from anything for refusing a vaccine. Besides its impractical, impossible and illegal.

‘Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke and full many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally;
Some said, "Put a fence ’round the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley." Joseph Malins

It's not quite that simple:

• The early vaccines might not stop all people from becoming sick. Trials have shown that they stop the illness from becoming critical but do not completely stop people from catching it. The antibodies overwhelm the virus before it becomes serious.

• We don't yet know whether the early vaccines will stop people from spreading the virus. Vaccinated people who contract a mild illness might still be spreading the virus (albeit for a shorter time).

• If everyone had the vaccine, and the virus was spreading, it would be an epidemic of mild illness at worst - no lockdown needed. If 'vaccine refusers' are allowed to go to mass sporting events, pubs and such they are at risk of developing the more critical forms of the illness and overwhelming NHS resources. Plus the tax payer has to pay for all this in the longrun.

• Overwhelming the NHS would also lead to another lockdown. It is unfair to cause economic hardship and restriction of liberties to the whole nation due to 'vaccine refusers' wanting to go to the football and the pub.

• Polling last week showed that around a third of the population will refuse. A more recent poll says 25%. This is still a significant part of the population who can, if unfettered, go around spreading the virus.

• Spreading the virus about during winter time could still put the Health Service under pressure. Especially if there is also a bad flu season.

• Vaccine refusers are likely to be unpopular in work places where most of the employees have taken the vaccine.

• A vaccine is likely to give people more confidence to go out to the shops and help to revive the economy. 'Vaccine refusers' could stifle this.

• The early vaccines are unlikely to have toxin adjuvants added to them. The usual reason for people refusing vaccines.

Policing this would be difficult. I prefer the 'carrot approach'. A financial reward at the end of the pandemic for those who have complied with government regulations and taken recommended preventative measures (including vaccine).

Government could also police organisations. For example, football clubs to only allow people with vaccination proof into the grounds. Season tickets could be de-activated until proof provided. It would only need to be provided once. Some organisations might do this anyway.

[UnderSeige]

It wont happen so pointless worrying about it.

The Premier league, and many other organisations, closed down before the government restrictions in March.

[cricketfieldclarets]

I understand the counter argument. And generally speaking encourage (and take myself) vaccines.

However this particular virus’ vaccine I wouldn’t take. Not yet. And wouldn’t have an issue with people who did or didn’t opt to have it.

[cricketfieldclarets]

There are some people who can't have the MMR jab for medical reasons, this may be the same for Covid.

So they're going to be put at risk by the selfish people who refuse to have it, just like MMR.

We are a nation (indeed world) of selfish people.

Sometimes justified. Others not.

[mdd2]

Vaccines get a lot of bad press especially the flu one with folk claiming it even gives them flu.
There can be problems with live vaccines like small pox and polio- the first children given the Salk 'dead virus' contracted the disease as it wasn't dead and those with egg allergy may have problems with some vaccines. Those with immune deficiency should not have live vaccines and may respond poorly to other vaccines. Bacterial vaccines as opposed to viral ones seem to cause more short term sickness and some vaccines like MMR carry a small risk of severe neurological problems.
This or these vaccines when available will not have been tested as thoroughly as others but if preparation is similar to other vaccine production they should be OK and worth taking for those at greatest risk

[mdd2]

Hi cricketfield
Just read a report about inhaled interferon a substance we produce naturally in infections and was used by injection for hep B and C with some effect before better antivirals came along. When inhaled with nebulisers in a small study of 101 with a 50:50ish split the need for ICU treatment with ventilation or death fell by 79%. It has come from Southampton workers in several UK hospitals led by Prof Wilkinson. Southampton is a well known centre for research in respiratory diseases.
So with a bit of luck this could be another game changer whilst we await a vaccine.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Hi cricketfield
Just read a report about inhaled interferon a substance we produce naturally in infections and was used by injection for hep B and C with some effect before better antivirals came along. When inhaled with nebulisers in a small study of 101 with a 50:50ish split the need for ICU treatment with ventilation or death fell by 79%. It has come from Southampton workers in several UK hospitals led by Prof Wilkinson. Southampton is a well known centre for research in respiratory diseases.
So with a bit of luck this could be another game changer whilst we await a vaccine.

Science is incredible!

[UnderSeige]

I understand the counter argument. And generally speaking encourage (and take myself) vaccines.

However this particular virus’ vaccine I wouldn’t take. Not yet. And wouldn’t have an issue with people who did or didn’t opt to have it.

What are your objections to this vaccine?

• Civil liberties?

• Safety issues?

• Aversion to needles?

• Game theory - Feeling double safe because most others have had the vaccine and I have avoided risk of vaccine side effects?

• Conspiracy theory - the government might slip something else in the vaccine?

• Just don't think that you will catch the virus anyway so no point in taking it.

[mdd2]

I am sure the main reason with CF will be safety issues and perhaps as an individual a risk benefit analysis.
What we don't know until the trial results are through is if it works-how effective is it and how long will that effectiveness last.
Think flu is only 40% effective and lasts a year as the bug keeps changing-so what level of protection would you want before taking something with no long term safety issues? More so if you are well and under 50. For me the risk benefit ratio would be far greater than for someone under 50 so I may (in fact will) take it purely on that risk:benefit ratio

[UnderSeige]

I am sure the main reason with CF will be safety issues and perhaps as an individual a risk benefit analysis.
What we don't know until the trial results are through is if it works-how effective is it and how long will that effectiveness last.
Think flu is only 40% effective and lasts a year as the bug keeps changing-so what level of protection would you want before taking something with no long term safety issues? More so if you are well and under 50. For me the risk benefit ratio would be far greater than for someone under 50 so I may (in fact will) take it purely on that risk:benefit ratio

These early vaccines should be safer than the traditional vaccines that have toxins added to them but no one can say that they will be long term safe even after the trials. I think that your 'risk assessment' way of looking at it is the right way.

Risks of not having it are to ourselves and others. Risks of large numbers of people opting out are to the economy and the risk of a second spike (if that hasn't already happened before the vaccine).

[UnderSeige]

More news on the vaccine
According to the BBC the UK are now signed up to 190 million vaccine doses:

• 100m doses of the Oxford vaccine made from a genetically engineered virus

• 30 million doses of the BioNtech/Pfizer vaccine, which injects part of the coronavirus' genetic code

• 60 million doses of the Valneva, which uses an inactive version of the coronavirus

Kate Bingham, the chair of the government's Vaccine Taskforce, said: "The fact that we have so many promising candidates already shows the unprecedented pace at which we are moving.

"But I urge against being complacent or over optimistic.

"The fact remains we may never get a vaccine and if we do get one, we have to be prepared that it may not be a vaccine which prevents getting the virus, but rather one that reduces symptoms."

If an effective vaccine is developed then health and social care workers, as well as those at highest risk of the disease, will be prioritised. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53469269

[cricketfieldclarets]

What are your objections to this vaccine?

• Civil liberties?

• Safety issues?

• Aversion to needles?

• Game theory - Feeling double safe because most others have had the vaccine and I have avoided risk of vaccine side effects?

• Conspiracy theory - the government might slip something else in the vaccine?

• Just don't think that you will catch the virus anyway so no point in taking it.

Risk vs Reward being one.

Long term effects being another.

There is zero evidence of what the long term effects of the vaccine(s) are. Great that the process and 'ingredients' are tried and tested in the main. And years worth of research has gone into this in 6 months. Again that's a great thing and I've no objection with taking something that's been produced in record time per se. But there is simply no evidence to show how this might affect you in the long term.

Given that I personally am at extremely low risk based on evidence to date, the pros and cons dont stack up for me personally. If I had diabetes, was obese / overweight, had respiratory issues, was over a certain age, had underlying health concerns I would take it. As it would make sense.

No conspiracy theories

[cricketfieldclarets]

I am sure the main reason with CF will be safety issues and perhaps as an individual a risk benefit analysis.
What we don't know until the trial results are through is if it works-how effective is it and how long will that effectiveness last.
Think flu is only 40% effective and lasts a year as the bug keeps changing-so what level of protection would you want before taking something with no long term safety issues? More so if you are well and under 50. For me the risk benefit ratio would be far greater than for someone under 50 so I may (in fact will) take it purely on that risk:benefit ratio

Exactly my logic. See last post. Pretty much exactly why I wouldnt based on my personal circumstances.

[mdd2]

Exactly my logic. See last post. Pretty much exactly why I wouldnt based on my personal circumstances.

Can't argue with that CF, but better get the tin hat out just in case-after all it is the UTC message board.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Can't argue with that CF, but better get the tin hat out just in case-after all it is the UTC message board.

Exactly. has to be black and white for some

[Spijed]

More news on the vaccine
According to the BBC the UK are now signed up to 190 million vaccine doses:

• 100m doses of the Oxford vaccine made from a genetically engineered virus

• 30 million doses of the BioNtech/Pfizer vaccine, which injects part of the coronavirus' genetic code

• 60 million doses of the Valneva, which uses an inactive version of the coronavirus

If each of the vaccines are developed in a different way then how will they be able to keep track of people if there are different side effects around the country?

Will one part of the country say London have one vaccine and Manchester one of the others?

[Billy Balfour]

The govt aren't putting all their eggs in one baskets. We are buying up multiple vaccines in vast quantities in the hope that one of them will actually work. If we don't do this and one works - we will end up at the back of the queue. I'm glad they are doing this. Got to give them credit where credit is due.

[Spijed]

The govt aren't putting all their eggs in one baskets. We are buying up multiple vaccines in vast quantities in the hope that one of them will actually work. If we don't do this and one works - we will end up at the back of the queue. I'm glad they are doing this. Got to give them credit where credit is due.

Even if one does work those companies are not suddenly going to down tools, especially if more than one vaccine looks likely to work. They will be developed as well

[cricketfieldclarets]

Slight increase in cases this week, but with added context that 13% more tests were carried out. So you would expect to see more cases.

More importantly hospital admissions down again. I think hospitals and deaths are a much more important update than new cases for many reasons. Hopefully the trajectory continues as we are seeing.

With pubs now being open for over two weeks and deaths still decreasing, hospital admissions still decreasing and new cases seeming to level out at a low number this all has to be positives.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Two more positive articles. One about people having more protection / immunity than first thought. (One study related to this thinks only 20% of the population were exposed /needed for herd immunity).

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... m-covid-19

One on a new scientific discovery.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53467022

[Fretters]

Good news from the Oxford trial: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53469839

[cricketfieldclarets]

Good news from the Oxford trial: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53469839

Brilliant news. Ive been optimistic that this one would be a success based on how much focus and investment has gone into it. While it makes sense to proactively order 'just in case' i dont believe theyd have just done this on a whim. But caution definitely needed so as not to get everyone too excited or complacent.

[Fretters]

Brilliant news. Ive been optimistic that this one would be a success based on how much focus and investment has gone into it. While it makes sense to proactively order 'just in case' i dont believe theyd have just done this on a whim. But caution definitely needed so as not to get everyone too excited or complacent.

It's the part about T cells that is most exciting as it fights the virus on two fronts.

[tiger76]

No new deaths in Scotland and Wales

Scotland has recorded seven new cases of coronavirus, the first fall in the daily infection numbers for five days.

It comes after positive tests for 23 people were reported on Sunday, the highest increase for almost a month. The nation also saw an outbreak at a contact tracing centre in North Lanarkshire, which serves the NHS in England.

With no new deaths reported, leaving the toll at 2,941, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said all the latest cases would still be closely examined and contact tracing carried out where necessary.

In Wales, the toll remains at 1,547 after Public Health Wales said no additional deaths were recorded in the last 24 hours. There were 15 more cases confirmed by testing.

Good news that cases are minimal in the Celtic nations again, and although we might experience the odd local cluster, overall the signs are very promising, and the deaths have been none or in low single figures for a few weeks now in the devolved areas.

[cricketfieldclarets]

It's the part about T cells that is most exciting as it fights the virus on two fronts.

Absolutely And the much malligned Karol Sikora has said this from day one.

[cricketfieldclarets]

No new deaths in Scotland and Wales

Scotland has recorded seven new cases of coronavirus, the first fall in the daily infection numbers for five days.

It comes after positive tests for 23 people were reported on Sunday, the highest increase for almost a month. The nation also saw an outbreak at a contact tracing centre in North Lanarkshire, which serves the NHS in England.

With no new deaths reported, leaving the toll at 2,941, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said all the latest cases would still be closely examined and contact tracing carried out where necessary.

In Wales, the toll remains at 1,547 after Public Health Wales said no additional deaths were recorded in the last 24 hours. There were 15 more cases confirmed by testing.

Good news that cases are minimal in the Celtic nations again, and although we might experience the odd local cluster, overall the signs are very promising, and the deaths have been none or in low single figures for a few weeks now in the devolved areas.

Also even in England numbers are nowhere near epidemic levels.

[FactualFrank]

According to the NHS stats, on the 8th April, 899 people died in England. Yesterday, 1 person died in England.

Quite amazing at how quickly and continuous the numbers have been dropping.

[cricketfieldclarets]

[Lowbankclaret]

Hi cricketfield
Just read a report about inhaled interferon a substance we produce naturally in infections and was used by injection for hep B and C with some effect before better antivirals came along. When inhaled with nebulisers in a small study of 101 with a 50:50ish split the need for ICU treatment with ventilation or death fell by 79%. It has come from Southampton workers in several UK hospitals led by Prof Wilkinson. Southampton is a well known centre for research in respiratory diseases.
So with a bit of luck this could be another game changer whilst we await a vaccine.

I read about that, the companies shares went up 161% today. Missed buying them.

[bfcjg]

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Winston Churchill

I sense optimism at last, I have tracked this vaccine for months. The worst part was the queens speech and the PM in hospital it just seemed so dark with bleakness ahead ,if people can just behave responsibly for a few more months the light at the end of the tunnel will get nearer and nearer and we will get there.

[UnderSeige]

Slight increase in cases this week, but with added context that 13% more tests were carried out. So you would expect to see more cases.

Does this mean that cases have been under reported prior to this then?

The seven day moving average for the UK cases is little changed over the last week. It has increased from 598 to 628.

[UnderSeige]

Two more positive articles. One about people having more protection / immunity than first thought. (One study related to this thinks only 20% of the population were exposed /needed for herd immunity).

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... m-covid-19

One on a new scientific discovery.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53467022

The interferon beta treatment (if it becomes available) sounds to be almost as good as these early vaccines (if they become available).

[UnderSeige]

Brilliant news. Ive been optimistic that this one would be a success based on how much focus and investment has gone into it. While it makes sense to proactively order 'just in case' i dont believe theyd have just done this on a whim. But caution definitely needed so as not to get everyone too excited or complacent.

For quite some time Astrazenica and the government have been saying that, if successful the vaccine will be available round about September/October. They are now saying that this is the 'optimistic best case scenario' and early next year is more likely.

I wonder if they are fully expecting it to be Sept/Oct but playing it down to avoid wide scale disappointment if it does arrive a bit later or if it is not successful and we need to switch to one of the other vaccines? My best guess (just a guess) is that it will be successful and will provide enough immunity to prevent 'critical cases of COVID'. I also think (but don't know) that it will be available round about October in millions of doses with millions more to follow throughout the winter.

The reason why I am thinking this is the governments recent measures to release lockdown. They look to be getting more bullish with every week. They also seem to be very lax about seaside mass visiting and such. On the lunchtime news one of the items was about a beach where the covidiots had flocked to at weekend and left piles of rubbish all over the place for the locals to clean up.

I can only think that the government are of the mindset that they can allow more things to be released because they are confident of the vaccine being available soon.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Does this mean that cases have been under reported prior to this then?

The seven day moving average for the UK cases is little changed over the last week. It has increased from 598 to 628.

I couldn’t say. But from day one I always said one of the most important things was to get maximum testing.

It’s pointless reporting on numbers if we don’t know the context.

If only 1,000 people have it but we’ve only done 2,000 tests it looks totally different to 10,000 but we’ve done 10,000,000 tests.

Same for mortality rate.

[cricketfieldclarets]

The interferon beta treatment (if it becomes available) sounds to be almost as good as these early vaccines (if they become available).

Certainly does.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-ruth-may

The government only supports the science that supports the government.

[cricketfieldclarets]

For quite some time Astrazenica and the government have been saying that, if successful the vaccine will be available round about September/October. They are now saying that this is the 'optimistic best case scenario' and early next year is more likely.

I wonder if they are fully expecting it to be Sept/Oct but playing it down to avoid wide scale disappointment if it does arrive a bit later or if it is not successful and we need to switch to one of the other vaccines? My best guess (just a guess) is that it will be successful and will provide enough immunity to prevent 'critical cases of COVID'. I also think (but don't know) that it will be available round about October in millions of doses with millions more to follow throughout the winter.

The reason why I am thinking this is the governments recent measures to release lockdown. They look to be getting more bullish with every week. They also seem to be very lax about seaside mass visiting and such. On the lunchtime news one of the items was about a beach where the covidiots had flocked to at weekend and left piles of rubbish all over the place for the locals to clean up.

I can only think that the government are of the mindset that they can allow more things to be released because they are confident of the vaccine being available soon.

I think they always know more than they let on - good and bad! They’d be daft not to.