NPR

Ovals wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:30 am

Ovals wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:51 pm Got my jab today

Been awake most of the night with flu like symptoms (aches, pains and shivers) - known short term side effects of the AZ vax. My sister had the same after her jab. Bloody uncomfortable.

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 9:28 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:14 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:39 pm

You should have left it at that.

Spectacular it is - Probably because we asked the NHS supported by the army to lead the vaccine drive and told Serco, Deliottes, etc to feck off! Just imagine how good the Test, Trace and Isolate programme could have been for a fraction of the price we paid the Tory pals. Dont even mention the PPE prices ... I see the £100+m of stuff they ordered via the Florida Jewellery designer is not fit for purpose and can't be used.

So return it, it it doesn’t meet specifications.

Ovals wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:00 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 9:28 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:14 pm

Spectacular it is - Probably because we asked the NHS supported by the army to lead the vaccine drive and told Serco, Deliottes, etc to feck off! Just imagine how good the Test, Trace and Isolate programme could have been for a fraction of the price we paid the Tory pals. Dont even mention the PPE prices ... I see the £100+m of stuff they ordered via the Florida Jewellery designer is not fit for purpose and can't be used.

So return it, it it doesn’t meet specifications.

If their contracts are as watertight as the tendering process, we'll be stuck with them. Anyway, I doubt that they'd be very enthusiastic about sueing their buddies. It'll probably all be swept under the carpet.

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:45 am https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... protection

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:34 am

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:45 am https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... protection

So, real world data shows that the different vaccines provide roughly the same levels of efficacy.

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:14 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:39 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:20 pm Pretty fucking spectacular vaccine program so far!! I don't know how they managed to get it going so fast, but I can only imagine how many Tory Party fundraisers are getting £1 per jab completed.

You should have left it at that.

I see the £100+m of stuff they ordered via the Florida Jewellery designer is not fit for purpose and can't be used.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:47 am

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:34 am

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:45 am https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... protection

So, real world data shows that the different vaccines provide roughly the same levels of efficacy.

News at 10!

As they all work roughly the same way this is massively unsurprising. Maybe some differences in how quickly you generate an immune response maybe?

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:48 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:14 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:39 pm

You should have left it at that.

I see the £100+m of stuff they ordered via the Florida Jewellery designer is not fit for purpose and can't be used.

So either somebody didn't specify the product properly or it wasn't delivered according to specification, either way sue the buggers. I spent most of my working life trying to make sure the NHS wasn't screwed on building contracts. Why did I bother?

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:51 am

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:47 am

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:34 am

So, real world data shows that the different vaccines provide roughly the same levels of efficacy.

News at 10!

As they all work roughly the same way this is massively unsurprising. Maybe some differences in how quickly you generate an immune response maybe?

I didnt think they all work the same way . Iwas under the impression that Pfizer and Moderna was the new MRNA technology and OAZ was a more traditional type of vaccine.

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:53 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:51 am

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:47 am
News at 10!

As they all work roughly the same way this is massively unsurprising. Maybe some differences in how quickly you generate an immune response maybe?

I didnt think they all work the same way . Iwas under the impression that Pfizer and Moderna was the new MRNA technology and OAZ was a more traditional type of vaccine.

They all train the body to produce anti bodies that recognise the protein spike on the outside of the virus itself.

So whilst the training method is different the actual immune response is the same.

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:48 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:14 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:39 pm

You should have left it at that.

I see the £100+m of stuff they ordered via the Florida Jewellery designer is not fit for purpose and can't be used.

So either somebody didn't specify the product properly or it wasn't delivered according to specification, either way sue the buggers. I spent most of my working life trying to make sure the NHS wasn't screwed on building contracts. Why did I bother?

Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:19 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:48 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:14 pm

I see the £100+m of stuff they ordered via the Florida Jewellery designer is not fit for purpose and can't be used.

So either somebody didn't specify the product properly or it wasn't delivered according to specification, either way sue the buggers. I spent most of my working life trying to make sure the NHS wasn't screwed on building contracts. Why did I bother?

You really think that a government that chose not to offer these contracts for PPE up for tender, but rather give them privately to friends and donors, who ran pest control, forex companies, sweet distributors and jewellery shops, was actually worried about the quality of the product they were going to receive?

They're now refusing to divulge information and ramping up legal costs for the good will project lawyers that are trying to get answers on this.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:17 pm It seems the public are uninterested in the obvious corruption scandals. And the papers can't be bothered reporting on it past the FT and Guardian who have low readerships.

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:19 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:17 pm It seems the public are uninterested in the obvious corruption scandals. And the papers can't be bothered reporting on it past the FT and Guardian who have low readerships.

Its the courts who will decide if this is important not the readers of the FT and Guardian. Good Law Project have actions underway.

Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:22 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:19 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:17 pm It seems the public are uninterested in the obvious corruption scandals. And the papers can't be bothered reporting on it past the FT and Guardian who have low readerships.

Its the courts who will decide if this is important not the readers of the FT and Guardian. Good Law Project have actions underway.

The good law project need funds though, since the government are trying to bleed them dry. The public knowing about it would boost their coffers to keep fighitng.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:19 pm 57,000 vaccinations in Scotland yesterday, good work in the snow.

99.8% of Care Home residents
90% of Care Home staff
96% of over 80s in the community
276k front line workers (estimate was 230k)
80% of 75-79 year olds in the community
45% of 70-74 year olds in the community

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:19 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:17 pm It seems the public are uninterested in the obvious corruption scandals. And the papers can't be bothered reporting on it past the FT and Guardian who have low readerships.

Its the courts who will decide if this is important not the readers of the FT and Guardian. Good Law Project have actions underway.

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:59 am

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:53 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:51 am

I didnt think they all work the same way . Iwas under the impression that Pfizer and Moderna was the new MRNA technology and OAZ was a more traditional type of vaccine.

They all train the body to produce anti bodies that recognise the protein spike on the outside of the virus itself.

So whilst the training method is different the actual immune response is the same.

I presume that is true of every vaccine No?

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:53 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:59 am

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:53 am

They all train the body to produce anti bodies that recognise the protein spike on the outside of the virus itself.

So whilst the training method is different the actual immune response is the same.

I presume that is true of every vaccine No?

Historically it's not always been the case. Old school vaccines used "whole" attenuated or deactivated viruses. The process of doing this would sometimes modify the virus to the point that the immunity was less than perfect, and a different process could result in a different immune response all together.

In these cases, in the case of the AZ/Sputnik type vaccines we're taking the outer shell and protein spike and grafting it to a deactivated core of a different virus. In terms case of the mRNA vaccines they delivering instructions to the bodies cells to create the protein spike in order for the immune system to see it. The theory has always been that this should result in near identical immune responses, but it's never really been tested before now.

One of the interesting side effects of this kind of parallel technology vaccine development is that we're proving a lot of theoretical concepts that are going to really progress vaccine e development for other viruses in future.

Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:22 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:19 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:17 pm It seems the public are uninterested in the obvious corruption scandals. And the papers can't be bothered reporting on it past the FT and Guardian who have low readerships.

Its the courts who will decide if this is important not the readers of the FT and Guardian. Good Law Project have actions underway.

The good law project need funds though, since the government are trying to bleed them dry. The public knowing about it would boost their coffers to keep fighitng.

Lobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:31 pm WHO are now recommending an 8 to 12 week gap between jabs for the AZ vaccine, as the longer gap is "associated with greater vaccine efficacy" and will reach more people, and also confirm it is recommended for all groups, including the over 65s

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item ... 22-2021.1/

Red faces all round for the EU?

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:19 pm 57,000 vaccinations in Scotland yesterday, good work in the snow.

99.8% of Care Home residents
90% of Care Home staff
96% of over 80s in the community
276k front line workers (estimate was 230k)
80% of 75-79 year olds in the community
45% of 70-74 year olds in the community

Lobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:31 pm WHO are now recommending an 8 to 12 week gap between jabs for the AZ vaccine, as the longer gap is "associated with greater vaccine efficacy" and will reach more people, and also confirm it is recommended for all groups, including the over 65s

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item ... 22-2021.1/

Red faces all round for the EU?

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:05 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:31 pm WHO are now recommending an 8 to 12 week gap between jabs for the AZ vaccine, as the longer gap is "associated with greater vaccine efficacy" and will reach more people, and also confirm it is recommended for all groups, including the over 65s

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item ... 22-2021.1/

Red faces all round for the EU?

IIRC the greater efficacy with a longer interval was known from the original AZ trial - certainly up to 8 weeks, not sure about 12. The BS from the EU has primarily come from politicians, not medics / EMA.

Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at these doses, 1-10% of people will develop either cardiovascular, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, blood or liver adverse effects. In post-marketing surveillance reports of adverse events in people taking ivermectin since the drug was registered and licensed, the following is reported in less than 1% of people taking it:

Abdominal distention, abdominal pain, abnormal gait, abnormal sensation in eyes, anaemia, anorexia, anterior uveitis, ataxia, back pain, brain disease (rare; associated with loiasis), chest discomfort, chorioretinitis, coma, confusion, conjunctival haemorrhage (associated with onchocerciasis), conjunctivitis, constipation, drowsiness, dyspnoea, exacerbation of asthma, eye redness, eyelid oedema, fatigue, faecal incontinence, headache, hepatitis, hypotension, increased serum bilirubin, keratitis, lethargy, leukopenia, mental status changes, myalgia, neck pain, posterior uveitis, seizure, skin rash, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, stupor, temporary vision loss, toxic epidermal necrolysis, tremor, urinary incontinence, urticaria, vertigo, vomiting, weakness.

A not dissimilar list is likely to be true for most medicines, but again, the wide variety and potential severity of these adverse events are here to illustrate that any use of a medicine must weigh up the potential benefits and the harms. The national regulator, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), has the responsibility of ensuring that medicines are only consumed by humans that show statistically proven benefit, and where the balance of benefit to the risk of adverse effects does not swing towards harm. Similarly, the South African Medical Association, other national and regional professional bodies, and each and every healthcare professional that prescribes a medicine, has an equal duty of care.

The evidence for ivermectin’s benefit in Covid-19 falls short of that required to make a proper assessment. Like hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir, it has some activity against the virus in the laboratory. It can prevent the action of certain proteins used by the virus to suppress our immune response against it. It might act to reduce binding of the virus to our cell receptors, and it has been shown to inhibit the replication of the virus when it is grown in the lab.

But it has been estimated that for these laboratory effects to be seen in humans, we would need a dose of ivermectin of up to 100x the maximum dose that is usually used to treat worm infections or scabies.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:05 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:31 pm WHO are now recommending an 8 to 12 week gap between jabs for the AZ vaccine, as the longer gap is "associated with greater vaccine efficacy" and will reach more people, and also confirm it is recommended for all groups, including the over 65s

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item ... 22-2021.1/

Red faces all round for the EU?

IIRC the greater efficacy with a longer interval was known from the original AZ trial - certainly up to 8 weeks, not sure about 12. The BS from the EU has primarily come from politicians, not medics / EMA.

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:43 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:19 pm 57,000 vaccinations in Scotland yesterday, good work in the snow.

99.8% of Care Home residents
90% of Care Home staff
96% of over 80s in the community
276k front line workers (estimate was 230k)
80% of 75-79 year olds in the community
45% of 70-74 year olds in the community

313,827 England
58,056 Scotland
26,855 Wales

Should be comfortably over 400k once NI reports.

Lobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:31 pm WHO are now recommending an 8 to 12 week gap between jabs for the AZ vaccine, as the longer gap is "associated with greater vaccine efficacy" and will reach more people, and also confirm it is recommended for all groups, including the over 65s

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item ... 22-2021.1/

Red faces all round for the EU?

Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:19 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:48 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:14 pm

I see the £100+m of stuff they ordered via the Florida Jewellery designer is not fit for purpose and can't be used.

So either somebody didn't specify the product properly or it wasn't delivered according to specification, either way sue the buggers. I spent most of my working life trying to make sure the NHS wasn't screwed on building contracts. Why did I bother?

You really think that a government that chose not to offer these contracts for PPE up for tender, but rather give them privately to friends and donors, who ran pest control, forex companies, sweet distributors and jewellery shops, was actually worried about the quality of the product they were going to receive?

They're now refusing to divulge information and ramping up legal costs for the good will project lawyers that are trying to get answers on this.

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:53 pm

In these cases, in the case of the AZ/Sputnik type vaccines we're taking the outer shell and protein spike and grafting it to a deactivated core of a different virus. In terms case of the mRNA vaccines they delivering instructions to the bodies cells to create the protein spike in order for the immune system to see it. The theory has always been that this should result in near identical immune responses, but it's never really been tested before now.
.

Calculon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:28 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:53 pm

In these cases, in the case of the AZ/Sputnik type vaccines we're taking the outer shell and protein spike and grafting it to a deactivated core of a different virus. In terms case of the mRNA vaccines they delivering instructions to the bodies cells to create the protein spike in order for the immune system to see it. The theory has always been that this should result in near identical immune responses, but it's never really been tested before now.
.

That is not how adenovirus vector vaccine works. They use an adenovirus as a vector, hence their name, to deliver the genetic material , in this case in the form of DNA, for the manufacturer of the sarscov2 spike proteins, to the cell which then starts production of said spike proteins, which the cell then releases thereby starting the immune reposonse. Mrna vaccines are similar but use Mrna as the genetic instructions and instead of using a vector, the Mrna is coated in a lipid nanoparticles which let's your cells take them up.

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:33 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:28 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:53 pm

In these cases, in the case of the AZ/Sputnik type vaccines we're taking the outer shell and protein spike and grafting it to a deactivated core of a different virus. In terms case of the mRNA vaccines they delivering instructions to the bodies cells to create the protein spike in order for the immune system to see it. The theory has always been that this should result in near identical immune responses, but it's never really been tested before now.
.

That is not how adenovirus vector vaccine works. They use an adenovirus as a vector, hence their name, to deliver the genetic material , in this case in the form of DNA, for the manufacturer of the sarscov2 spike proteins, to the cell which then starts production of said spike proteins, which the cell then releases thereby starting the immune reposonse. Mrna vaccines are similar but use Mrna as the genetic instructions and instead of using a vector, the Mrna is coated in a lipid nanoparticles which let's your cells take them up.

Is a much more complex description of what's going on. What you're describing in process is actually how Covid19 actually works. The core difference being that by doing it this way the virus itself can't replicate itself

Glaston wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:35 pm Come on Raggs, Maugham is a cnut .
Anything he does has little veracity.


Though the Govt do need holding to account .