So, coronavirus...

[Longshanks]

When is the AZ vaccine expected? It was one of the furthest ahead wasn't it, not heard much on it recently? That'll be the game changer for the UK you'd think.

Imminently is the word. All 3 entered Phase III at roughly the same stage, but I think Pfizer and Moderna may have recruited test subjects faster (also, AZ started in the UK when there wasn't much Covid around - the other 2 were in the US where they've had much higher amounts of Covid all the way through, so they were more likely to reach the threshold numbers for the trial faster).

Assuming AZ is succesful; it's a global game changer - significantly cheaper (around a 10th of the price), simpler logistics, etc.

The mRNA stuff though is the long term game-changer for all vaccine development, as well as potentially an answer to Cancer

You know more about this than me so - am I right in saying that trial length isn’t a certain amount of time, it’s determined by the number of infections in the trial group? And that’s why the AZ trial starting in the UK when rates were lower will take longer?

He's answered that in his post

[Saint]

When is the AZ vaccine expected? It was one of the furthest ahead wasn't it, not heard much on it recently? That'll be the game changer for the UK you'd think.

Imminently is the word. All 3 entered Phase III at roughly the same stage, but I think Pfizer and Moderna may have recruited test subjects faster (also, AZ started in the UK when there wasn't much Covid around - the other 2 were in the US where they've had much higher amounts of Covid all the way through, so they were more likely to reach the threshold numbers for the trial faster).

Assuming AZ is succesful; it's a global game changer - significantly cheaper (around a 10th of the price), simpler logistics, etc.

The mRNA stuff though is the long term game-changer for all vaccine development, as well as potentially an answer to Cancer

You know more about this than me so - am I right in saying that trial length isn’t a certain amount of time, it’s determined by the number of infections in the trial group? And that’s why the AZ trial starting in the UK when rates were lower will take longer?

Basically, yes. I'm unsure about the exact criteria used to determine how many infections are needed (it's partly a function of the size of the trial group). but that's how it works - they need to get to x number of infections, at which point they un-blind the trial and see how many had the vaccine and how many the placebo. You can under certain circumstances un-blind early but it's risky - once un-blinded the trial is over, so if the numbers aren't definitive then you start from scratch and throw the data you've already got away. So AZ started in spring in the UK as numbers were rapidly tailing off, they added Brazil, India, Japan, South Africa and the US - but the US trials didn't start till August, and it's a double dose 4 weeks apart so even for the first US volunteers they're only a month or two into the immunity (also worth noting they had trouble restarting in the US after the hold due to an issue with presenting data to the FDA in the correct format). Also the scale for the AZ trial is huge - they have more participants in the US than Pfizer had globally for instance

There is some un-blinded work being done on the safety data with the AZ vaccine, where that's being independently analysed already, so as to short circuit the approval process assuming the trial is successful - but they don't have access to the actual success or otherwise of the vaccine, they're just analysing side effects, age groups etc

[Sandstorm]

I'm assuming the Army will run the UK roll out - they seem to be the most competent of anyone in the public sector.

The Army might co-ordinate some logistics, but that's as far as it would go - administering the vaccine will need to be handled by nurses/doctors/trained pharmacists

The GPsin West Berkshire have been sitting at home offering vague diagnosis and half-hearted patient care over the phone since April.

No reason why they shouldn’t head into the surgery and work overtime to administer these new vaccines.

[Saint]

I'm assuming the Army will run the UK roll out - they seem to be the most competent of anyone in the public sector.

The Army might co-ordinate some logistics, but that's as far as it would go - administering the vaccine will need to be handled by nurses/doctors/trained pharmacists

The GPsin West Berkshire have been sitting at home offering vague diagnosis and half-hearted patient care over the phone since April.

No reason why they shouldn’t head into the surgery and work overtime to administer these new vaccines.

Sam as round here - almost all in-person stuff has been pushed out to community/district nursing. There's going to be a major re-drawing of the GP contracts once we've got through this as they've really not done what was expected of them

[Sandstorm]

The Army might co-ordinate some logistics, but that's as far as it would go - administering the vaccine will need to be handled by nurses/doctors/trained pharmacists

The GPsin West Berkshire have been sitting at home offering vague diagnosis and half-hearted patient care over the phone since April.

No reason why they shouldn’t head into the surgery and work overtime to administer these new vaccines.

Sam as round here - almost all in-person stuff has been pushed out to community/district nursing. There's going to be a major re-drawing of the GP contracts once we've got through this as they've really not done what was expected of them

Interesting. Guess it’s county-dependant. My mate lives in Hampshire and he got a non-emergency appointment to see his own GP in just 2 hours.

[Insane_Homer]

18th November 2020

Cases: +19,609
Deaths: +529

Compared to last Wednesday, there were 595 deaths (-66) and 22,950 cases (-3,341).

Average Cases: 24,802.29 (down from 25,279.57 yesterday)
Average Deaths: 415.57 (down from 425.00 yesterday)

Start of sustained downward trend? Hopefully.

[Raggs]

The GPsin West Berkshire have been sitting at home offering vague diagnosis and half-hearted patient care over the phone since April.

No reason why they shouldn’t head into the surgery and work overtime to administer these new vaccines.

Sam as round here - almost all in-person stuff has been pushed out to community/district nursing. There's going to be a major re-drawing of the GP contracts once we've got through this as they've really not done what was expected of them

Interesting. Guess it’s county-dependant. My mate lives in Hampshire and he got a non-emergency appointment to see his own GP in just 2 hours.

Friend of my mum's failed multiple times to see a GP, despite having clear signs of sepsis. Things definitely aren't working well here. Possible your mate got very lucky with a cancellation?

[dpedin]

Sam as round here - almost all in-person stuff has been pushed out to community/district nursing. There's going to be a major re-drawing of the GP contracts once we've got through this as they've really not done what was expected of them

Interesting. Guess it’s county-dependant. My mate lives in Hampshire and he got a non-emergency appointment to see his own GP in just 2 hours.

Friend of my mum's failed multiple times to see a GP, despite having clear signs of sepsis. Things definitely aren't working well here. Possible your mate got very lucky with a cancellation?

Not had a problem with seeing the right person including a GP when required. However also had telephone consultations where appropriate. They are trying hard to avoid unnecessary face to face contact when it isn't required and are using various triage systems to make sure only those that need to be seen are seen. Seems sensible? I suppose it depends on your GP practice and there will be the good and the bad?

[Bimbowomxn]

nd it's a double dose 4 weeks apart so even for the first US volunteers they're only a month or two into the immunity (also worth noting they had trouble restarting in the US after the hold due to an issue with presenting data to the FDA in the correct format). Also the scale for the AZ trial is huge - they have more participants in the US than Pfizer had globally for instance

Quite a lot of me wants to wait for this one.

[Bimbowomxn]

My GP service has been fully staffed with a choice of face to face or phone appointments. And has been available at all times.

They’ve expanded the practice during 2020.

It’s a private GP service.

[Saint]

nd it's a double dose 4 weeks apart so even for the first US volunteers they're only a month or two into the immunity (also worth noting they had trouble restarting in the US after the hold due to an issue with presenting data to the FDA in the correct format). Also the scale for the AZ trial is huge - they have more participants in the US than Pfizer had globally for instance

Quite a lot of me wants to wait for this one.

Given that you're not going to get Pfizer or Moderna unless this goes into 2022, it's not going to be a case if "wait for this one" as much as "this is what will be made available to the majority of people". Don't be thinking there's any sort of choice here

Pfizer and Moderna is going to at risk and healthcare, care workers etc

[Bimbowomxn]

nd it's a double dose 4 weeks apart so even for the first US volunteers they're only a month or two into the immunity (also worth noting they had trouble restarting in the US after the hold due to an issue with presenting data to the FDA in the correct format). Also the scale for the AZ trial is huge - they have more participants in the US than Pfizer had globally for instance

Quite a lot of me wants to wait for this one.

Given that you're not going to get Pfizer or Moderna unless this goes into 2022, it's not going to be a case if "wait for this one" as much as "this is what will be made available to the majority of people". Don't be thinking there's any sort of choice here

Pfizer and Moderna is going to at risk and healthcare, care workers etc

I’d be able to buy either privately.

[Openside]

I'm assuming the Army will run the UK roll out - they seem to be the most competent of anyone in the public sector.

The Army might co-ordinate some logistics, but that's as far as it would go - administering the vaccine will need to be handled by nurses/doctors/trained pharmacists

Don't be too sure the Army are already trained, they have been shoving pricks into humans since the dawn of time!!

[Openside]

The GPsin West Berkshire have been sitting at home offering vague diagnosis and half-hearted patient care over the phone since April.

No reason why they shouldn’t head into the surgery and work overtime to administer these new vaccines.

Sam as round here - almost all in-person stuff has been pushed out to community/district nursing. There's going to be a major re-drawing of the GP contracts once we've got through this as they've really not done what was expected of them

Interesting. Guess it’s county-dependant. My mate lives in Hampshire and he got a non-emergency appointment to see his own GP in just 2 hours.

Ditto - I have always seen my GP on the day I call them. The exception is inoculations where you have to book the nurse.

[JM2K6]

I'm assuming the Army will run the UK roll out - they seem to be the most competent of anyone in the public sector.

The Army might co-ordinate some logistics, but that's as far as it would go - administering the vaccine will need to be handled by nurses/doctors/trained pharmacists

Don't be too sure the Army are already trained, they have been shoving pricks into humans since the dawn of time!!

I think those are war crimes

[Bimbowomxn]

England is definitely falling.

[Longshanks]

UK researchers develop nasal spray that protects against Covid
University of Birmingham develops formula that catches virus in the nose and encapsulates it in coating from which it cannot escape

18 November 2020 • 3:52pm
A nasal spray that prevents infection from coronavirus as well as stopping people from infecting others has been developed by British researchers.

The University of Birmingham has developed a formula that catches the virus in the nose and then encapsulates it in a viscous coating from which it cannot escape to cause infection. It means the virus would be harmless if it entered the respiratory tract and safe for a person to breathe out because it would already be inactive even if inhaled by another person.

Cell-culture laboratory experiments showed that the spray prevented infection for up to 48 hours, and the team believes it could be useful in areas in which crowding is unavoidable, such as aeroplanes and classrooms.

Researchers deliberately chose ingredients that are already approved for medical use, meaning the spray is safe to be used by humans. They now want to find a distribution partner and plan more trials to check that it has the same protective effect in humans as seen in the lab.

"With the right partners, we could start mass production within weeks," said Dr Richard Moakes, of Birmingham University. "We engineered the product using materials which we knew were both food and pharma approved. This means that we know that large amounts of the polymers can be ingested without toxic effects.

"We have tried to formulate the material so that it will cling to the inside of the nasal cavity for as long as possible. Current nasal sprays are typically reapplied four times per day, and we would expect similar for this product.

"The data that we have collected shows that the active component is potent at very low concentrations, so the retention of even a thin layer would likely have a positive effect."

Researchers believe using the spray four times a day would be enough for general protection, although it is safe enough to be applied every 20 minutes if in a high-risk environment.

The spray is a combination of an antiviral agent called carrageenan, commonly used in foods as a thickening agent, and a solution called gellan – a gelling agent selected for its ability to stick to cells inside the nose.

Gellan is an important component because it has the ability to be sprayed into fine droplets inside the nasal cavity, where it can cover the surface evenly and stay at the delivery site rather than sliding downwards and out of the nose.

Professor Liam Grover, the study's co-author, said: "Although our noses filter thousands of litres of air each day, there is not much protection from infection and most airborne viruses are transmitted via the nasal passage. The spray we have formulated delivers that protection but can also prevent the virus being passed from person to person."

However, the researchers stressed that hand-washing remained important because Covid could still be picked up through touch.

"Products like these don't replace existing measures such as mask-wearing and hand-washing, which will continue to be vital to preventing the spread of the virus," added Dr Moakes. "What this spray will do, however, is add a second layer of protection to prevent and slow virus transmission."

[Bimbowomxn]

Oh,

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

[Uncle fester]

How do they know it can be stored safely for 6 months.

Through stability trialling throughout the development

Accelerated conditions, so warmer and at higher humidity.

[Saint]

Quite a lot of me wants to wait for this one.

Given that you're not going to get Pfizer or Moderna unless this goes into 2022, it's not going to be a case if "wait for this one" as much as "this is what will be made available to the majority of people". Don't be thinking there's any sort of choice here

Pfizer and Moderna is going to at risk and healthcare, care workers etc

I’d be able to buy either privately.

I suspect it will be some time before any covid vaccine will be available privately, at least in Europe anyway

[Bimbowomxn]

I suspect it will be some time before any covid vaccine will be available privately, at least in Europe anyway

Private Docs seem to think otherwise. Remember I could get a covid test and an antibody test in April. What makes you think that private sales will be banned ?


You realise almost anything is available to the private market.

[Saint]

I suspect it will be some time before any covid vaccine will be available privately, at least in Europe anyway

Private Docs seem to think otherwise. Remember I could get a covid test and an antibody test in April. What makes you think that private sales will be banned ?


You realise almost anything is available to the private market.

I never said banned. But world governments are buying up all initial supplies - so in the UK they're going to the NHS. Private will have to get in line at the back of the queue

[Bimbowomxn]

I suspect it will be some time before any covid vaccine will be available privately, at least in Europe anyway

Private Docs seem to think otherwise. Remember I could get a covid test and an antibody test in April. What makes you think that private sales will be banned ?


You realise almost anything is available to the private market.

I never said banned. But world governments are buying up all initial supplies - so in the UK they're going to the NHS. Private will have to get in line at the back of the queue

Like they did with tests and antibody tests...... none of which were UK produced or procured.


We shall see.

[Northern Lights]

And over in Canada

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... Vey8hnWAnw

Leading Canadian Health Expert Outraged at Government Response to COVID:

“I would remind you all that using the province's own statistics, the risk of death under 65 in this province is one in 300,000. One in 300,000. You’ve got to get a grip on this.”

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP, CEO and medical director of Western Medical Assessments, spoke at the Edmonton City Council Community and Public Services Committee meeting on Nov. 13 about the city’s move to extend its face-covering bylaw. He was listed as speaker number 95 on the meeting agenda.

Hodkinson was trained at Cambridge University in the UK. He is ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. He was the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada Examination Committee and Pathology in Ottawa, Canada.

Here’s the transcript of Hodkinson’s testimony:

....Thank you very much. I do appreciate the opportunity to address you on this very important matter. What I’m going to say is lay language, and blunt. It is counter-narrative, and so you don’t immediately think I’m a quack, I’m going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I’m coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this.

I’m a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I’m the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada Examination Committee and Pathology in Ottawa, but more to the point I’m currently the chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling the COVID-19 test.

And [inaudible] you might say I know a little bit about all of this. The bottom line is simply this: There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. Other than protecting older, more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season. This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine and that’s a very dangerous game.

There is no action of any kind needed other than what happened last year when we felt unwell. We stayed home, we took chicken noodle soup, we didn’t visit granny and we decided when we would return to work. We didn’t need anyone to tell us.

Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue-signaling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — seeing these people walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base, to put the mask on their face.

Social distancing is also useless because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing. Enclosures have had such terrible unintended consequences. Everywhere should be opened tomorrow as well as was stated in the Great Barrington Declaration that I circulated prior to this meeting.

And a word on testing: I do want to emphasize that I’m in the business of testing for COVID. I do want to emphasize that positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop. Unless you’re presenting to the hospital with some respiratory problem.

All that should be done is to protect the vulnerable and to give them all in the nursing homes that are under your control, give them all 3,000 to 5,000 international units of vitamin D every day which has been shown to radically reduce the likelihood of Infection.

And I would remind you all that using the province’s own statistics, the risk of death under 65 in this province is one in 300,000. One in 300,000. You’ve got to get a grip on this.

The scale of the response that you are undertaking with no evidence for it is utterly ridiculous given the consequences of acting in a way that you’re proposing. All kinds of suicides, business closures, funerals, weddings etc. It’s simply outrageous! It’s just another bad flu and you’ve got to get your minds around that.

Let people make their own decisions. You should be totally out of the business of medicine. You’re being led down the garden path by the chief medical officer of health for this province. I am absolutely outraged that this has reached this level. It should all stop tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

[Dogbert]

It's a point of view but in the rest of the world

expert reaction to Barrington Declaration, an open letter arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’
An open letter has been published, arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’.



Dr Julian Tang, Honorary Associate Professor in Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, said:

“Having watched their video and read their Declaration, I can understand their concerns and their aims, but they are not very clear about how they will carry out their proposed ‘Focused Protection’.

“The interviewer gave a very simple example of a grandparent looking after a school-age child, highlighting one household member (the child) who would not be expected to suffer from COVID-19 much, who would attend a large gathering with other young people on a daily basis, but where the other household member (the grandparent) should be ‘protected’.

“But the reply from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya in the video was not really understandable and had no practical details of how this would be done.

“In fact, this ‘Focused Protection’ approach is used each year during our annual influenza season, where we vaccinate the vulnerable – elderly and those with comorbidities – including pregnancy: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinati ... a-vaccine/; and even primary school children who have contact with such vulnerable groups in an effort to further protect the vulnerable: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinati ... u-vaccine/

“And if this fails to prevent influenza infection of the vulnerable groups, we have antivirals like oseltamivir and zanamivir that we can give to anyone who has influenza or in whom we even just suspect influenza (as empirical therapy during the influenza season) to reduce the severity of their illness.

“But we don’t yet have these additional ‘tools’ (the vaccine and antivirals) for COVID-19, to assist with this ‘Focused Protection’ approach.

“A similar approach may also work for COVID-19 one day – indeed a similar vaccination strategy for COVID-19 to that of influenza (targeting the most vulnerable) has already been discussed in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... accination; but we don’t have a COVID-19 vaccine yet, nor a more general use antiviral treatment.

“So I appreciate and understand the concerns and the sentiment behind this declaration, and of course other diseases are important and need attention, but without these anti-COVID-19 ‘tools’, I cannot see how they will achieve this ‘Focused Protection’ for these vulnerable groups in any practical, reliable or safe way.”



Dr Rupert Beale, Group Leader, Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, said:

“An effective response to the Covid pandemic requires multiple targeted interventions to reduce transmission, to develop better treatments and to protect vulnerable people. This declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine. Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”



Dr Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton, said:

“The Barrington Declaration is based upon a false premise – that governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available. Lockdowns are only ever used when transmission is high, and now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much ‘lighter’ than the full suppressions we have seen for example in the UK across the spring of 2020.

“Those behind the Barrington Declaration are advocates of herd immunity within a population. They state that “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal”, with the idea being that somehow the vulnerable of society will be protected from ensuing transmission of a dangerous virus. It is a very bad idea. We saw that even with intensive lockdowns in place, there was a huge excess death toll, with the elderly bearing the brunt of that, and 20-30% of the UK population would be classed as vulnerable to a severe COVID-19 infection. Around 8% of the UK population has some level of immunity to this novel coronavirus, and that immunity will likely wane over time and be insufficient to prevent a second infection. A strategy for herd immunity would also promote further inequalities across society, for example across the Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The declaration also ignores the emerging burdens of ‘long COVID’. We know that many people, even younger populations who suffered from an initially mild illness, are suffering from longer-term consequences of a COVID-19 infection.

“Independent SAGE are among the many scientists who have eloquently pointed out1 the many reasons why these initiatives are ultimately harmful and misleading as to the scientific evidence base. There are countries who are managing the pandemic relatively well, including South Korea and New Zealand, and their strategies do not include simply letting the virus run wild whilst hoping that the asthmatic community and the elderly can find somewhere to hide for 12 months. They have a proactive approach to ‘test and trace’ to reduce the impact of new outbreaks, and good public health messaging from the government to their populations. Ultimately, the Barrington Declaration is based on principles that are dangerous to national and global public health.

1 Independent SAGE report – https://www.independentsage.org/a-delib ... -be-tried/



Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds, said:

“The Barrington Declaration, as per the recent letter to UK government CMOs, seeks to reduce the impact of interventions taken to combat the SARS-CoV2 pandemic upon healthcare systems and the most disadvantaged amongst our population. This is clearly a well-intentioned movement, and nobody can deny that COVID-19 has highlighted inequality and instability across a great many aspects of our society.

“Sadly, focusing on the pandemic rather than the cultures and environments in which it arose ignores long-standing issues in society that existed prior to, and likely long after the pandemic has passed. Moreover, the means by which the signatories propose to achieve their aim relies upon achieving so-called “herd immunity”, which at best is currently a theoretical concept for SARS-CoV2. By contrast, societal restrictions combined with effective rapid testing measures have effectively curtailed the spread of the virus in several countries.

“The signatories propose that members of the population deemed well enough to endure infection should be allowed to operate normally, enjoying full access to work, education, the arts, hospitality etc. By contrast, those deemed “vulnerable” to severe COVID-19 are to be somehow protected from the infection. This approach has profound ethical, logistical and scientific flaws:

“Ethically, history has taught us that the notion of segregating society, even perhaps with good initial intentions, usually ends in suffering. For want of a better term, the “vulnerable” amongst us come from all walks of life, have families and friends and deserve, fundamentally, to be treated equally amongst society. It is interesting to note that the signatories are not proposing that BAME or other COVID-susceptible groups be segregated along similar lines.

“Logistically, how on earth are we to both identify those at risk and effectively separate them from the rest of society? Basing risk primarily upon risk of death completely ignores the profound morbidity associated with the pandemic, including what we now term as “long COVID”, plus the criteria by which one or more risk factors might predispose towards severe disease remain both uncertain and incredibly diverse – we have only lived with this virus for ten months, we simply do not understand it well enough to attempt this with any surety.

“Scientifically, no evidence from our current understanding of this virus and how we respond to it in any way suggests that herd immunity would be achievable, even if a high proportion of the population were to become infected. We know that responses to natural infection wane, and that reinfection occurs and can have more severe consequences than the first. It is hoped that vaccines will provide superior responses, and indeed vaccination remains the only robust means of achieving herd immunity. Moreover, in the US, with its high end (albeit restrictive) healthcare system, over seven million confirmed infections have occurred to date, yet this represents only a small percentage of that population and no evidence of herd immunity is apparent despite over 200K deaths and untold morbidity. What then, might be the cost of attempting the strategy proposed in this document?

“We are all exhausted by the pandemic and are rightly angry at the notion of potentially enduring a second round of local and national lockdowns or other restrictions. However, we must not conflate the failures of certain governments to capitalise upon the sacrifices people make during lockdowns with these measures themselves being ineffective. Policies are enacted by those that govern, are multifactorial in nature, and so do not mean that contributing strategies are themselves flawed. However, the dangers of seizing upon dissatisfaction and political failings to support what amounts to little more than an ideology, runs the risk of inaction and an ensuing limbo of cyclical epidemic waves of infection for the foreseeable future.”



Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading, said:

“There is no current evidence about COVID-19 to suggest that a long-term passive approach has any merit. Despite the huge advances in our understand of the coronavirus and resulting infection, we don’t know that herd immunity is even possible. Natural, lasting, protective immunity to the disease would be needed and we don’t know how effective or long-lasting people’s post-infection immunity will be. Just to find out whether this is possible, would be to consign a great many more thousands of people to their deaths, and many more would be left suffering from the effects of long covid, which even less is well understood.

“There is also the fact that we haven’t properly got to grips with how to shield vulnerable populations adequately and neither do we have the capacity in the UK to test for asymptomatic infections. Furthermore, we’re also still only scratching the surface of how the virus is transmitted.”



Prof James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, and University of Oxford, said:

“The main signatories include many accomplished scientists and I read it with interest. I will not be signing it however.

“At one level this declaration is a statement of a series of scientific truths and as such is non-controversial. The declaration identifies the elderly and vulnerable to be at far far greater risk from covid-19 than the bulk of the population, an established fact. I do not think anyone disagrees that the disruption to education, social life and the economy have been very hard to bear and that they particularly disadvantage the young, the group least likely to suffer serious ill effects from covid-19.

“The declaration is correct, that once herd immunity is reached in the non-elderly population this will protect the elderly by greatly reducing the general viral spread. A vaccine would be a short cut.

“The authors have neglected to point out that our ability to treat covid19 is greatly improving due to scientific and medical breakthroughs, a point that strengthens arguments for their policy by reducing the toll of the virus.

“That said, the declaration omits some rather critical scientific information that would help better inform policy makers. It would help to consider the following points:

“We do not know yet how long immunity will last, so achieving herd immunity may not be simple. We do not have herd immunity to the common cold despite many of us having one or more each year. It would have helped had the leading scientists who signed this declaration estimated achievability of herd immunity with different immune response decays.

“The desired range for herd immunity is not stated nor how far away we are from it, thus no estimate of the number of deaths or the life changing complications that will result in the lower vulnerability group is made. Whilst these numbers are much lower than in the elderly, they are not zero. I suspect the public would like to know this.

“A working description of vulnerability is not given, the Goldacre paper in Nature assigned probabilities, what is the personal score threshold being advocated?

“From a public health point of view, it would have been useful to estimate the gains with different assumptions of the timing of the arrival of the vaccine.

“With respect to the UK, there are a limited number of critical care beds. Is there an estimate of the risk of overwhelming the NHS and ending up with triage (thus rising fatalities)?

“I agree wholeheartedly that protecting the most vulnerable will reduce deaths. We knew this by April and to my knowledge everyone advocates this. However, the continuing number of deaths in the USA and the rise in infections in the UK amongst this very group seen in ONS surveys would indicate this is hard to achieve. The declaration thus risks the same error we have seen with the UK’s track trace and isolate scheme – one can promise a scheme that is very easy to describe but is hard to deliver. Whilst actual implementation maybe beyond the expertise of the signatories, when scientists offer advice in a public forum it would help if they could be clear with the public about the risks of failure or error. The declaration is silent about what happens if we resume normal life (the easy bit) and fail, for whatever reason, to protect the vulnerable (the hard part). Further, the declaration is silent as to what success in shielding looks like? 100 % protection is impossible to achieve. How many deaths and how many life changing events will result if we are 80% or 60% successful? A more cautious policy might be government demonstrating that it can shield the old and vulnerable under current restrictions, as measured by the infection prevalence in this age group. These data would give a best case estimate of the toll of the policy. With this information we could move to resume normal life in stages fully aware of the consequences whilst continuing to monitor viral spread in the elderly.

“It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does. In this pandemic, which has been such a disaster, it is clear that there have been many mistakes by medics, scientists and politicians. Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.

“I would support the signatories giving their full consideration to all the scientific issues surrounding their prescription so that they might give more actionable policy advice.”



Prof Jeremy Rossman, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology, University of Kent, said:

“The actions taken to control COVID-19 have clearly had significant physical and mental health impacts across the population, often with the most disadvantaged suffering these consequences most acutely. The Great Barrington Declaration attempts to alleviate these impacts by promoting herd immunity and the protection of vulnerable populations. Unfortunately, this declaration ignores three critical aspects that could result in significant impacts to health and lives. First, we still do not know if herd immunity is possible to achieve. Herd immunity relies on lasting immunological protection from coronavirus re-infection; however, we have heard many recent cases of re-infection occurring and some research suggests protective antibody responses may decay rapidly. Second, the declaration focuses only on the risk of death from COVID-19 but ignores the growing awareness of long-COVID, that many healthy young adults with ‘mild’ COVID-19 infections are experiencing protracted symptoms and long-term disability. Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population. While there is clearly a need to support and ease the physical and mental health burdens many are suffering under, the proposed declaration is both unlikely to succeed and puts the long-term health of many at risk.”

[Saint]

Another vaccine announcement to be made at 7am UK time

[C69]

Another vaccine announcement to be made at 7am UK time

News out from the Oxford group, phase 3 info looks very promising, it's the one we have bougt the most of and the logistics of vaccine delivery to the population look promising.

[Saint]

Another vaccine announcement to be made at 7am UK time

News out from the Oxford group, phase 3 info looks very promising, it's the one we have bougt the most of and the logistics of vaccine delivery to the population look promising.

Was a bit if a damp squib. Analysis of phase II, not phase III. But promising nonetheless

[C69]

Another vaccine announcement to be made at 7am UK time

News out from the Oxford group, phase 3 info looks very promising, it's the one we have bougt the most of and the logistics of vaccine delivery to the population look promising.

Was a bit if a damp squib. Analysis of phase II, not phase III. But promising nonetheless

Must have misheard that, anyway lets hope things go well.

[Bimbowomxn]

Probably used Wikipedia for the info like the SAGE committee did.



The science , the science.

[Insane_Homer]

... but hey here you are after warning us of 4,000 deaths a day with a semantic.

You've mentioned that twice now. I've stated no such thing.

Bump, seeing as you seemed to have missed/ignored this yesterday.

[JM2K6]

Oh,

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

This is an interesting study, thank you. I'm not sure it says what you think it says, though.

[Bimbowomxn]

Oh,

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

This is an interesting study, thank you. I'm not sure it says what you think it says, though.

I think it’s pretty clear what it says, but hey I’m sure you’re ready to reinterpret the whole thing.

[JM2K6]

Oh,

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

This is an interesting study, thank you. I'm not sure it says what you think it says, though.

I think it’s pretty clear what it says, but hey I’m sure you’re ready to reinterpret the whole thing.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. What do you think it says?

[Bimbowomxn]

This is an interesting study, thank you. I'm not sure it says what you think it says, though.

I think it’s pretty clear what it says, but hey I’m sure you’re ready to reinterpret the whole thing.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. What do you think it says?

That mask wearing in the study demonstrated little or no statistical difference to infection rates.

[JM2K6]

I think it’s pretty clear what it says, but hey I’m sure you’re ready to reinterpret the whole thing.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. What do you think it says?

That mask wearing in the study demonstrated little or no statistical difference to infection rates.

No. They go to quite some lengths to explain this.

a) It's about wearing masks when no-one else is wearing masks
b) They acknowledge that their data is inconclusive: "The most important limitation is that the findings are inconclusive, with CIs compatible with a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection."
c) It says nothing about whether a mask helps prevent you infecting other people
d) It is specifically about measuring the impact of wearing a mask as to whether a person will be infected in an environment with some anti-COVID measures in play (social distancing, etc)
e) "It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect."

It's a very, very specific study (with inconclusive findings). It would be folly to treat it as anything other than what they actually say it is.

Reduction in release of virus from infected persons into the environment may be the mechanism for mitigation of transmission in communities where mask use is common or mandated, as noted in observational studies. Thus, these findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections. They do, however, offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings also suggest that persons should not abandon other COVID-19 safety measures regardless of the use of masks. While we await additional data to inform mask recommendations, communities must balance the seriousness of COVID-19, uncertainty about the degree of source control and protective effect, and the absence of data suggesting serious adverse effects of masks (45).

[Bimbowomxn]

It inconclusively demonstrates that masks make little difference to a corona virus spread.


The desperation to dismiss it though is hilarious.

[JM2K6]

It inconclusively demonstrates that masks make little difference to a corona virus spread.


The desperation to dismiss it though is hilarious.

No-one dismissed it, unless you think quoting the authors' own very careful words is dismissal.

"It inconclusively demonstrates that masks make little difference to a corona virus spread." is one thing it explicitly does not do. Jesus Christ. Here, once again, their very own words:

"Thus, these findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections."

[Bimbowomxn]

Phew.

[Raggs]

It inconclusively demonstrates that masks make little difference to a corona virus spread.


The desperation to dismiss it though is hilarious.

No it doesn't. It inconclusively demonstrates that wearing a mask, when no one else is, doesn't protect you.

OK, let's pretend clothing is a mask.

If I take my trousers and pants off, and piss on you, you get wet, even if you're wearing trousers. If I leave my trousers and pants on, and attempt to piss on you, you probably stay dry. As has been repeated to you, masks do not protect the wearer very much, unless it's a high grade properly fitted medical mask. However, even a basic cloth mask can stop me from spreading the virus to others.

Me wearing a mask doesn't protect me from you. It protects you from me.