agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 4,387
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 2, 2021 18:49:04 GMT
After the second lockdown Devon moved into tier 2, and I immediately received an alert from the NHS app to say things have changed. Now that we are in tier 3 the app still says tier 2. Anyone else had this issue? Nice to see the app has caught up and I am now in tier 3.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 2, 2021 18:54:22 GMT
Do any of these vaccines have an age dependent dose profile as per the flu vaccines? Surely, the immune system of older folk require a bit more of a kick start (in general terms that is). Maybe this will come in time as more trials are conducted and data is gathered. The switch to initial single dose and subsequent mix & match vaccines - what does this do to the evolution of the virus? We've got really high incidence (plenty of opportunities to mutate) and a growing number of people with some protection from their first dose. I guess these folk fight the virus better than they could have without a vaccine but get rid of it slower than in those who've received two doses? Sounds like better ground for the virus to evolve more quickly than it otherwise would have done? There isn't much in the way of long term data analysis on how long protection lasts for one dose or even two doses. With the Moderna vaccine for example there has been some early analysis that the vaccine may only be effective for less than a year in the over 56 age group even with 2 doses which would not be great. But the sample size was very small. I assume the delivery of vaccines will follow a similar pattern to testing. That is, a very slow initial base followed by rapid growth in capacity over several months (there's nothing like actually vaccinating people to realise what your job entails as vaccine tzar (or whatever they are called)). Why do I ramble on about this? Because I assume this is a short term issue that will be resolved in time for winter 2021/2. btw did you mean 65?
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,461
|
Post by jlend on Jan 2, 2021 19:14:37 GMT
There isn't much in the way of long term data analysis on how long protection lasts for one dose or even two doses. With the Moderna vaccine for example there has been some early analysis that the vaccine may only be effective for less than a year in the over 56 age group even with 2 doses which would not be great. But the sample size was very small. I assume the delivery of vaccines will follow a similar pattern to testing. That is, a very slow initial base followed by rapid growth in capacity over several months (there's nothing like actually vaccinating people to realise what your job entails as vaccine tzar (or whatever they are called)). Why do I ramble on about this? Because I assume this is a short term issue that will be resolved in time for winter 2021/2. btw did you mean 65? The groups were 18 to 55, 56 to 70, 71+ But the sample was so small as I said. I personally think we will just have to wait and see what happens in the real world scenario now.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 2, 2021 19:36:41 GMT
The switch to initial single dose and subsequent mix & match vaccines - what does this do to the evolution of the virus? We've got really high incidence (plenty of opportunities to mutate) and a growing number of people with some protection from their first dose. I guess these folk fight the virus better than they could have without a vaccine but get rid of it slower than in those who've received two doses? Sounds like better ground for the virus to evolve more quickly than it otherwise would have done? That's what she says:
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 2, 2021 19:57:50 GMT
The switch to initial single dose and subsequent mix & match vaccines - what does this do to the evolution of the virus? We've got really high incidence (plenty of opportunities to mutate) and a growing number of people with some protection from their first dose. I guess these folk fight the virus better than they could have without a vaccine but get rid of it slower than in those who've received two doses? Sounds like better ground for the virus to evolve more quickly than it otherwise would have done? That's what she says: ... and this is the top post of this Profs timeline...
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 2, 2021 20:25:39 GMT
Do any of these vaccines have an age dependent dose profile as per the flu vaccines? Surely, the immune system of older folk require a bit more of a kick start (in general terms that is). Maybe this will come in time as more trials are conducted and data is gathered. The switch to initial single dose and subsequent mix & match vaccines - what does this do to the evolution of the virus? We've got really high incidence (plenty of opportunities to mutate) and a growing number of people with some protection from their first dose. I guess these folk fight the virus better than they could have without a vaccine but get rid of it slower than in those who've received two doses? Sounds like better ground for the virus to evolve more quickly than it otherwise would have done? Before this forum starts propagating false coronavirus news: where is this "news" or announcement about mixing vaccines. I've yet to see any credible source that gives this as a policy. Indeed it would on the face of it also seem illogical right now, given the likely overriding prevalence of availability of one versus the other.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 2, 2021 20:31:00 GMT
Do any of these vaccines have an age dependent dose profile as per the flu vaccines? Surely, the immune system of older folk require a bit more of a kick start (in general terms that is). Maybe this will come in time as more trials are conducted and data is gathered. The switch to initial single dose and subsequent mix & match vaccines - what does this do to the evolution of the virus? We've got really high incidence (plenty of opportunities to mutate) and a growing number of people with some protection from their first dose. I guess these folk fight the virus better than they could have without a vaccine but get rid of it slower than in those who've received two doses? Sounds like better ground for the virus to evolve more quickly than it otherwise would have done? Before this forum starts propagating false coronavirus news: where is this "news" or announcement about mixing vaccines. I've yet to see any credible source that gives this as a policy. Indeed it would on the face of it also seem illogical right now, given the likely overriding prevalence of availability of one versus the other. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948757/Greenbook_chapter_14a_v4.pdfEdit: mrk - now that's what I call x-posting Now since deleted for those wondering
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,421
Likes: 1,701
|
Post by benaj on Jan 2, 2021 20:41:05 GMT
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,536
Likes: 6,332
|
Post by registerme on Jan 3, 2021 2:41:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 3, 2021 10:07:58 GMT
So buried in part of an operations "Greenbook" which is yet to actually be used in anger (since even first doses of the Azn are still not out the stable blocks) is a clear statement that "interchangeability has not been tested" and "every effort should be made to ensure the doses are matched" [my words]. However, it goes on to say that in the event that someone turns up for whom there is no clear record of what they had as first dose* and they are unable to say what they had, and they are considered to be in 'immediate danger' or are unlikely to come back for another appointment, THEN they can be given a second dose regardless. That is hardly tantamount to a 'mix and match' policy, since it is very clear that all attempts should be made to match, not mix. Given that this guide is yet to be deployed in anger, then that section may yet get revised before it does so. But even if it doesn't, the logic is not necessarily at all flawed. Both vaccines have been separately tested for safety. The purpose of a second vaccine jab traditionally is to 'prompt' the immune system into reaction by giving it exposure not too long after it has had initial training, in order to improve its long term "memory". So in the event you have no way of knowing otherwise, it is not necessarily an stupid idea. However, one would also like to think that it would anyways be a very rare occurrence. Anyways, it hardly fits the storyline of promotion of a randomised mix and match policy of vaccination. *This is our world beating NHS we are talking about, so the idea that the records will not be available in the world beating NHS IT systems is of course unthinkable.....
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 3, 2021 10:10:03 GMT
So buried in part of an operations "Greenbook" which is yet to actually be used in anger (since even first doses of the Azn are still not out the stable blocks) is a clear statement that "interchangeability has not been tested" and "every effort should be made to ensure the doses are matched" [my words]. However, it goes on to say that in the event that someone turns up for whom there is no clear record of what they had as first dose* and they are unable to say what they had, and they are considered to be in 'immediate danger' or are unlikely to come back for another appointment, THEN they can be given a second dose regardless. That is hardly tantamount to a 'mix and match' policy, since it is very clear that all attempts should be made to match, not mix. Given that this guide is yet to be deployed in anger, then that section may yet get revised before it does so. But even if it doesn't, the logic is not necessarily at all flawed. Both vaccines have been separately tested for safety. The purpose of a second vaccine jab traditionally is to 'prompt' the immune system into reaction by giving it exposure not too long after it has had initial training, in order to improve its long term "memory". So in the event you have no way of knowing otherwise, it is not necessarily an stupid idea. However, one would also like to think that it would anyways be a very rare occurrence. Anyways, it hardly fits the storyline of promotion of a randomised mix and match policy of vaccination. You took that about as well as I expected
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 3, 2021 10:19:04 GMT
So buried in part of an operations "Greenbook" which is yet to actually be used in anger (since even first doses of the Azn are still not out the stable blocks) is a clear statement that "interchangeability has not been tested" and "every effort should be made to ensure the doses are matched" [my words]. However, it goes on to say that in the event that someone turns up for whom there is no clear record of what they had as first dose* and they are unable to say what they had, and they are considered to be in 'immediate danger' or are unlikely to come back for another appointment, THEN they can be given a second dose regardless. That is hardly tantamount to a 'mix and match' policy, since it is very clear that all attempts should be made to match, not mix. Given that this guide is yet to be deployed in anger, then that section may yet get revised before it does so. But even if it doesn't, the logic is not necessarily at all flawed. Both vaccines have been separately tested for safety. The purpose of a second vaccine jab traditionally is to 'prompt' the immune system into reaction by giving it exposure not too long after it has had initial training, in order to improve its long term "memory". So in the event you have no way of knowing otherwise, it is not necessarily an stupid idea. However, one would also like to think that it would anyways be a very rare occurrence. Anyways, it hardly fits the storyline of promotion of a randomised mix and match policy of vaccination. You took that about as well as I expected It isn't about "taking it well". There is already a load of anti-vax tosh out there, and that will be increasingly so over the coming weeks and months. I think there is a responsibility on all of us to avoid feeding the machine by promoting false or near false stories, and to apply rigour / scrutiny when we come across them. I'd earlier seen this one published out on FB, taken at face value without any deep checking, and promoted as evidence that UK politics was overriding UK regulatory oversight. Through such means does measles rear its ugly head again.....
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 3, 2021 10:23:54 GMT
You took that about as well as I expected It isn't about "taking it well". There is already a load of anti-vax tosh out there, and that will be increasingly so over the coming weeks and months. I think there is a responsibility on all of us to avoid feeding the machine by promoting false or near false stories, and to apply rigour / scrutiny when we come across them. I'd earlier seen this one published out on FB, taken at face value without any deep checking, and promoted as evidence that UK politics was overriding UK regulatory oversight. Through such means does measles rear its ugly head again..... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 3, 2021 10:34:42 GMT
You took that about as well as I expected It isn't about "taking it well". There is already a load of anti-vax tosh out there, and that will be increasingly so over the coming weeks and months. I think there is a responsibility on all of us to avoid feeding the machine by promoting false or near false stories, and to apply rigour / scrutiny when we come across them. I'd earlier seen this one published out on FB, taken at face value without any deep checking, and promoted as evidence that UK politics was overriding UK regulatory oversight. Through such means does measles rear its ugly head again..... I simply referenced and subsequently quoted an extract from the Green Book. I really don't see the problem? It's not anti-vax. If you interpreted it as such then, well, there's not a lot I can do about that. And, I'd suggest you stay away from FB!
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,434
Likes: 2,552
|
Post by keitha on Jan 3, 2021 10:43:54 GMT
adrianc Reasons for "Anti_vax tosh" include scientists on the Radio yesterday referring to the vaccine as "technology", that feeds the antivaxxer theory that it contains a chip. But i do think that Government scientists etc should not overrule the makers of the vaccines with regard to dosages etc, I've heard from a source close to me that the vials hold 5 doses but some are being told give a slightly lower amount and we can get 6 doses from each rather than 5. Have friends in the Netherlands they are fuming, the Government has commissioned a new database to record who had the vaccine and when, the population can't be immunised as the system isn't ready.
|
|