Coronavirus - Part Two.

[apelike 10]

18 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Excellent news that the Oxford / AstraZenaca vaccine has been approved by our own  regulator and will start being given out from Monday.  One dose gives 70% protection and it makes sense given the circumstances for the second dose to be given up to three months later allowing more individuals to receive their first dose faster.   

I think everybody should be tested first before receiving the vaccine to see if they have any virus antibodies present and had the infection in the past. It seems that many have had this virus without knowing or showing symptoms and they should be at the back of the queue to allow others who are vulnerable to get it first.

[apelike 10]

5 minutes ago, West 77 said:

I don't think that is practical. The most vulnerable are already at the front of the queue.  Now the Oxford / AstraZeneca has been approved there shouldn't be a shortage of vaccines available to all.  The big issue is the huge task of vaccination the whole population in a short period of time.  

I cant see why not.  It would surely show just how many have already been infected who have had either none or just mild symptoms and that would be important data. Its not about any shortages either but whether some people actually need to be vaccinated. We don't need, and probably wont get the whole population vaccinated either unless this is made compulsory. At the moment we still do not know how long people will be protected for once vaccinated or for that matter if being vaccinated can stop the vaccinated person from spreading it on. We also don't know how long any immunity build up in  people who have had it lasts. The more data we can get in the quickest time will be of help in the future.

[Bargepole23 337]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

I cant see why not.  It would surely show just how many have already been infected who have had either none or just mild symptoms and that would be important data. Its not about any shortages either but whether some people actually need to be vaccinated. We don't need, and probably wont get the whole population vaccinated either unless this is made compulsory. At the moment we still do not know how long people will be protected for once vaccinated or for that matter if being vaccinated can stop the vaccinated person from spreading it on. We also don't know how long any immunity build up in  people who have had it lasts. The more data we can get in the quickest time will be of help in the future.

I can understand that the data would be valuable but I would rather see all efforts and resources funneled into vaccination. 

[Pettytom 1]

1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

I can understand that the data would be valuable but I would rather see all efforts and resources funneled into vaccination. 

I think you are right. Just imagine the resources needed to test people before vaccination. 
 

All the advice that I’ve read from professional bodies says that you should still be vaccinated even if you’ve had covid.

 

Other data can be gathered in other ways. I’ve got a testing kit sitting in my back room at the moment, because I’ve volunteered to take part in some research. That’s the way to get information. It also leaves the clinical staff free to do clinical stuff.

[RollingJ 2,001]

9 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

I think you are right. Just imagine the resources needed to test people before vaccination. 
 

All the advice that I’ve read from professional bodies says that you should still be vaccinated even if you’ve had covid.

 

Other data can be gathered in other ways. I’ve got a testing kit sitting in my back room at the moment, because I’ve volunteered to take part in some research. That’s the way to get information. It also leaves the clinical staff free to do clinical stuff.

EEK I'm in agreement with you for once, @Pettytom

[Pettytom 1]

5 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

EEK I'm in agreement with you for once, @Pettytom

You know it makes sense😁

 

Anyway, I’m always right.

 

Honest.

[RollingJ 2,001]

13 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

You know it makes sense😁

 

Anyway, I’m always right.

 

Honest.

Of course. 🤣

[apelike 10]

37 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

I think you are right. Just imagine the resources needed to test people before vaccination. 

It may delay the uptake but that's all and the resources are mainly there anyway otherwise there would be no vaccinations going on at the moment.  Blood testing for antibodies just takes longer that's all although its not as simple as getting a jab in the arm. 

 

Quote

All the advice that I’ve read from professional bodies says that you should still be vaccinated even if you’ve had covid.

But what data are these professional bodies relying on to form that conclusion? By vaccinating those that have already had it it means that any data regards future protection from antibody response without having the vaccine is lost.

 

Quote

Other data can be gathered in other ways. I’ve got a testing kit sitting in my back room at the moment, because I’ve volunteered to take part in some research. That’s the way to get information. It also leaves the clinical staff free to do clinical stuff.

What does that testing kit check for and how many are you checking?

Edited December 30, 2020 by apelike

[Pettytom 1]

I’ll stick with the advice from the MRHA and the stuff published in the BMJ. I think that’s more reliable than the guesswork of a random bloke off the internet.

 

My trial is for the ONS.

[apelike 10]

10 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

I’ll stick with the advice from the MRHA and the stuff published in the BMJ. I think that’s more reliable than the guesswork of a random bloke off the internet.

Oh I agree but it still does not answer what data they are using to form their conclusion as there is hardly any available data given the time frame involved. Maybe you could link to some of that advice?

 

10 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

My trial is for the ONS.

But that does not answer what I have asked and that is... What does the testing kit check for and how many are you checking or is it just checking a random bloke of the internet?

[Pettytom 1]

Just now, apelike said:

Oh I agree but it still does not answer what data they are using to form their conclusion as there is hardly any available data given the time frame involved. Maybe you could link to some of that advice?

 

But that does not answer what I have asked and that is... What does the testing kit check for and how many are you checking or is it just checking a random bloke of the internet?

I’ve no intention of going round in circles with you. It really isn’t worth the effort.

 

There is plenty of high quality research into the virus, without adding a layer of complication to the vaccination process.

I’m sure you can check out the veracity of my claims yourself. I’ll leave you to it.

 

 

[MuteWitness 10]

8 hours ago, RiffRaff said:

Yes....but what with?!

sputnik v ?