One-*** efficacy questions

[Rorschach]

I am just pointing out that in a big country with a lot of people there are a lot of people who die. 12 million people die in India every year (approx).

 

[Rorschach]

You really don't see anything at all disquieting about 1.6 million people dying?

I never said it was a good thing. But as my mother post points out, 12 million die every year in India, that's a million a month.

 

[D_W]

You're promoting it, Rorschach. Take it somewhere else.

Ivermectin is legitimate, either as prophylaxis or as early treatment, but it's not that practical compared to vaccinating (far more effective than nothing, far less effective than the vaccines - but pennies per dose). I'm not sure that anyone has ever taken it long term or studied it long term, either, and it's script only in the US other than veterinary use (I'd bet that getting it on the vet side is less easy now, too, including for people who actually need it as an antiparasitic for sheep).

It's effective not so much at killing the virus, but making it unable to replicate properly. Less effective for severe cases (which is the case for pretty much everything other than steroids, as far as I know).

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/
Note that this is a USA NIH site, not a quack site. There are small number and small significance outcomes, some inconclusive and a couple that are statistically significant or mild or moderate covid, but nothing great for severe covid. Comments above based on that. No prophylaxis use that I can see in these studies, but heard a doc (an MD, one practicing, not a quack) suggest that population studies show efficacy as prophylaxis (not controlled studies - there's an ethical problem with that type of study, anyway -if you see better outcomes for one group vs. the control group and some of those are life and death, you cannot ethically continue the study - you provide access).

Not in a class of options with any of the vaccines, though - as mentioned above. Not close. Just viable for treatment, possibly prophylaxis, like high dose steroids. The MD mentioned above suggested very high dose steroids for severe covid cases early on and was more or less shunned, but that has become routine treatment now.

 

[Flynnwood]

Time line - there was a fear at the time that mortality could be four to five percent.


December 31st 2019
27 cases of atypical viral pneumonia in Wuhan

January 3rd 2020
44 cases
Traced to South China Seafood City

January 8th 2020
Coronavirus identified on Chinese state media

January 11th 2020
61 year old man dies, severe underlying health issues
Risk of human to human transmission low

January 17th 2020
US starts screening flights from Wuhan

January 20th 2020
Beijing, Shenzhen, Thailand, Japan
Person to person transmission

January 22nd 2020
Wuhan travel lockdown
Deaths 17

January 24th 2020
China transport links shut down in 13 cities
Threat to the UK is "low".

January 30th 2020
WHO; global health emergency.

January 31st 2020
US; public health emergency

February 3rd 2020
China completes first Hospital build in eight days.


February 6th 2020
Dr Li Wenliang

February 22nd 2020
Deaths in Italy.

February 29th 2020
Republic of Ireland, first case

March 5th 2020
First UK death.

March 11th 2020
The Covid-19 outbreak is declared a pandemic by the WHO.

March 14th 2020
US travel ban extended to the UK and Ireland

March 20th 2020
Pubs closed

March 23rd 2020
UK lockdown - Stay at home.

Between Mid-March until around Mid-May 2020, over 15 million people flew into the UK. I watched arrivals on an App (i.e. five passenger flights each weekday morning from New York to Heathrow, and more from Italy).

 

[Spectric]

Then we had the “world beating” track and trace system.

I am not sure whether they were just having a laugh or more worryingly if they were serious but have we really fallen to this level of incompetance when it comes to delivering a technical solution to such a basic problem. In this modern world we have all the ingredients for delivering such a system and the software would not have been such a great challenge, infact there were other systems that actually worked so we could have brought in the system and just tweeked it to suit our requirements. I think maybe the issue boils down to human rights, we are so entangled with our so called rights that they now prevent people from delivering anything that might help save lives because we don't want big brother spying on us or anyone accessing our "data" because that has become such a commodity.

 

[sometimewoodworker]

I don’t agree. Given one thing the UK has done well is acting decisively to source a supply of vaccinations I’d say experience suggests getting an early order in is a sensible step.

However there are significant problems with that reasoning.

There is no data to suggest that a 3rd injection is of any benefit.

There is some data that shows that current vaccines are protective against hospitalisation and severe disease In all variants known to date, (some people can catch it again but nobody gets badly sick)

There is no data showing the time line for vaccination to become less effective. Some vaccines protect for life, some for 10 years. Some are annual because the disease is different each year and they are only 60% or less protective even then.

Since there is no known reason for the formula to change, possibly tweaked a little yes, but not a significant change, a 3rd vaccination is redundant. All medical treatment has risk, many people had a worse reaction to the second vaccination, with no proof that a 3rd vaccination is needed or has any benefits, the risk is disproportionately high.

The only reason for the short interval between vaccination shots was the need to produce vaccines fast. Because of that more usual times of 3 to 6 months between 1st and 2nd doses were not in the trials, if they had tested at those intervals no vaccines would be available today. The British government took a huge step in the dark by not following the test protocol timing. That gamble has paid off and shown that, for the AZ at least, 3 months is better than 4 weeks.

 

[sometimewoodworker]

Comparison with Thailand is somewhat flawed.

In the UK we have elections every 5 years when the electorate can express their views and change leadership. Mostly true despite the attempts to subvert the democratic process during Brexit.

Thailand has a military coup or crisis with about the same frequency. A constitutional monarchy (in theory), it is effectively a military state. They have the capacity (and willingness) for suppression of opposition in a way which would be untenable in the UK (and most of Western Europe).

I am not defending UK covid performance but there are far more appropriate comparators. Thailand clearly acted early and forcefully in a way which the UK simply would or could not.

In some respects through their actions Thailand may be storing up future problems. I understand that vaccine rollout has covered only 1 or 2% of the population. When, in a few months time, Europe and the US are largely open for business as usual, Thailand will still be locked down.

You have a very superficial knowledge of Thailand and most of your conclusions are wrong. It has a military government, yes, it isn’t and hasn’t been a military state. It is far more of a constitutional monarchy than the U.K. the King is of much more influence than the HRH is in the U.K.

Until January the number of infections was under 40,000 and deaths under 100 it has a larger population than the U.K. the health system is less good than the U.K. the tracing system is infinitely better than the U.K.

Given the level of infection and death a timeline of vaccination starting in June was sensible. That it has been moved up almost 2 months is remarkably good given that countries like the EU are stopping or restricting vaccine exports.

the U.K. has an absolute need to vaccinate fast as it has killed off 0.18% of the population (127,000) that is 1,870 per million, Thailand has managed 0.00032% (224) or 3 per million
And infected at a minimum 06.47% of the population (4.4 million) or 64 thousand per million, with Thailand managing 0.096% (64 thousand) or under 1000 per million

Trying a comparison with any other country will always be poor however it's far better than you suggest.

 

[sometimewoodworker]

Your comments are all very valid but our response to the pandemic has been lockdown, close borders face masks etc, the same tools that Thailand has used. Thailand however would seem to have acted more decisively and quickly with far fewer deaths. We have not covered ourselves in glory.
As for vaccine rollout, yes we have done well but our economy is well over five times the size Thailand, they perhaps cannot get the vaccine.

The U.K. responses have been far slower than the responses here in Thailand so the lockdowns much more severe in the U.K. and other reactions stronger but much less effective in the U.K. reported deaths to date is 244 here of course they are under reported as they have been in the U.K. but even if the under reporting means they should be 10 times greater (it isn’t that bad) it’s still tiny compared to the U.K. which is 640 times greater per million.
as to vaccination see my previous post

 

[Blackswanwood]

However there are significant problems with that reasoning.

There is no data to suggest that a 3rd injection is of any benefit.

There is some data that shows that current vaccines are protective against hospitalisation and severe disease In all variants known to date, (some people can catch it again but nobody gets badly sick)

There is no data showing the time line for vaccination to become less effective. Some vaccines protect for life, some for 10 years. Some are annual because the disease is different each year and they are only 60% or less protective even then.

Since there is no known reason for the formula to change, possibly tweaked a little yes, but not a significant change, a 3rd vaccination is redundant. All medical treatment has risk, many people had a worse reaction to the second vaccination, with no proof that a 3rd vaccination is needed or has any benefits, the risk is disproportionately high.

The only reason for the short interval between vaccination shots was the need to produce vaccines fast. Because of that more usual times of 3 to 6 months between 1st and 2nd doses were not in the trials, if they had tested at those intervals no vaccines would be available today. The British government took a huge step in the dark by not following the test protocol timing. That gamble has paid off and shown that, for the AZ at least, 3 months is better than 4 weeks.

You obviously see it differently to me. As discussed in the posts after the one you quote it’s like buying insurance and if the contract securing supply is for the most up to date version (to me) it feels like a sensible thing to do.

 

[RobinBHM]

Where's your proof of that then? (speaking as a 'lefty' with no love of the present idiots in charge)

It is a common conspiracists theory.....along with Bill Gates and the great reset.

This govt have been opportunistic with Covid making money from private contracts, but there is no great conspiracy in terms of them pushing for vaccinating everybody over 18. This govt made many mistakes early on resulting in high death rates and so it has thrown the kitchen sink at vaccine procurement and rollout.

 

[RobinBHM]

You obviously see it differently to me. As discussed in the posts after the one you quote it’s like buying insurance and if the contract securing supply is for the most up to date version (to me) it feels like a sensible thing to do.

The govt have gone for a money no object approach to vaccine procurement, buying anything and everything they can.

Given that vaccines are the only way out of endless lockdown cycles it seems to me a good policy.

I think your analogy of buying insurance is a good one.

 

[Rorschach]

we are so entangled with our so called rights

See it's phrases like this that worry me so much.

 

[Rorschach]

Given that vaccines are the only way out of endless lockdown cycles it seems to me a good policy.

See once again, you think lockdowns are the only option available. If you only have a hammer, everything becomes a nail.

 

[Jonm]

I wonder what uptake % they are basing their orders on?

It's going to be interesting to see the uptake when under 40's are offered jabs, even more so when it reaches the under 30's.

Judging by the orders to date it is nothing to do with uptake %. We appear to have ordered the following:

AstraZeneca 100 million
Pfizer 40 million plus 60 million boosters, total 100 million
Moderna 17 million
Novavax 50 million
Valneva 100 million
Janssen 30 million
Sanofi. 60 million

Total 457 million doses

Adult population of UK is about 50 million so what the logic is for ordering 450 million doses, I do not know. Perhaps it is to ensure sufficient supply for us, or in case of issues with effectiveness or side effects with certain vaccines. Perhaps it is to boost supply and the intention is that most will go elsewhere, or use them as bargaining chips in our trade talks or maybe sell them to fund Boris’s flat. Does anyone know?

 

[Rorschach]

Well some of that ordering was based on not know what would be effective so I can understand over ordering but ordering from a range so whichever works you have coverage. I meant more for future orders now we "know" what works.

 

[Keith Cocker]

What I do know is that for covid there is a lot more money in vaccines than any potential cure/treatment, especially if it's already a commonly available drug.

Vaccine is the “cure” for Covid-19 just as vaccinations was the way to deal with polio, diphtheria and flu etc. As my mum used to say “Prevention is better than Cure”

 

[RobinBHM]

See once again, you think lockdowns are the only option available. If you only have a hammer, everything becomes a nail.

That's because the evidence proves it.
Every govt in the world agrees and they have vast numbers of scientists doing the modelling all the time......yet Rorschach thinks he knows better (actually you don't, but your confirmation bias prevents you from critical thinking)

You keep on repeating the claim that protecting the vulnerable whilst allowing younger people to get on is the solution.

But you constantly refuse to offer any solution as to how it's possible to protect the vulnerable....(GBD doesn't either)

Until you provide a comprehensive and evidence based answer, your alternative is just plausible opinion driven by your libertarian ideology.

 

[RobinBHM]

the disease is not very dangerous

India?

 

[RobinBHM]

actively supressed by facebook and twitter in the case of invermectin

Do you really think the NHS wouldn't use the best treatments available?

During the pandemic clinicians around the world have been constantly collaborating on best treatment methods, hence why hospitalised patients have had better outcomes in the 2nd and 3rd waves.

How has information on invermectin been suppressed, there's plenty of scientific information online about it.

"EMA therefore concluded that use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. Further well-designed, randomised studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19"
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...t-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

 

[RobinBHM]

I know that prevention is better than cure as the saying goes, but when the disease is not very dangerous, a cure doesn't make money as hardly anyone needs it

Your reasoning in this argument is predicated on "the disease is not very dangerous"

Well it's a view