Second Lockdown 😥😥😥😥😥😥😥

[Mel]

In which case I am proud to be a do gooder. Never once in my 39 year NHS career did I refuse to treat anyone because their behaviour had somehow adversely affected other. And there were plenty of folks who fell into that category. It is not , nor ever was my place to judge. Fortunately for all of us, the rest of the NHS takes a similar view.
mel

 

[Beachball]

I worked for the NHS as a chef and was proud to do so, I never felt it was my place to refuse anyone help for their actions, In seventeen years I was one of a team responsible for providing a good meals for people who were at their most vulnerable and for the staff caring for them. A proud part of my history and I would not differentiative between those who needed this.

 

[WayneS]

In which case I am proud to be a do gooder. Never once in my 39 year NHS career did I refuse to treat anyone because their behaviour had somehow adversely affected other. And there were plenty of folks who fell into that category. It is not , nor ever was my place to judge. Fortunately for all of us, the rest of the NHS takes a similar view.
mel

I worked for the NHS as a chef and was proud to do so, I never felt it was my place to refuse anyone help for their actions, In seventeen years I was one of a team responsible for providing a good meals for people who were at their most vulnerable and for the staff caring for them. A proud part of my history and I would not differentiative between those who needed this.

...............Thank you so much & ditto! A huge gratitude & debt of appreciation also to those such as Beachball's wife for coming out of retirement in this time of risk & need.

 

[Buckman]

Can we agree?

Finally, here's something that perhaps we can all agree on:

The vaccine should be tested on politicians first.
If they survive, the vaccine is safe.
If they don't, the country is safe.

 

[otherclive]

Astonishing all four home nations have had Covid restrictions either nationally or regional, then national for quite a few weeks Yet today’s case figures of 33470 are the highest since the pandemic began, and not due to under reporting. It would be nice to see more data on what is driving the increase. Is it more testing, the two new lab on line giving more results out? Interesting to see how hospital admissions are going in the various areas that were restricted before the more restrictive lockdowns occurred.

 

[ProfJohnL]

According to

Data on testing for COVID-19 by week and country

Data in multiple file formats with information about testing volume for COVID-19, sorted by week and country, and updated on a weekly basis.

www.ecdc.europa.eu

At the end of March we tested 81,413/Week and had 25159 cases confirmed (31%)
At the begging of November we tested 2122963 people with 159781 cases confirmed (7.5%)
The percentage rate of infection to tests is down, but the number of confirmed cases 134622 is higher.

Don't forget that at the start, only people who were exhibited symptoms were being tested, which is likely to yield a higher proportion of positive tests, Where as now there is wider blanket testing which means a number of people who are not exhibiting symptoms are now being tested. There are also some people who may have two or more tests which will skew the results

I believe the most reliable figure to use that shows how hard the wave is hitting is the rate of hospital admissions, as only those who have confirmed serious symptoms will be counted.

Official UK Coronavirus Dashboard

GOV.UK Coronavirus dashboard

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

.

If you look at the daily admissions page, the graph shows the first wave which had a very dramatic rise, The latest dates are showing another rise but over a longer time.

The Cumulative page shows the initial steep rise which was the first wave, then the numbers are continue to climb but more slowly, until mid September when the rate of rise again increases. The steepness of second wave from mid September is not quite as great as Marches but it has a been sustained over a longer period and has not showed the slowing of the first wave after 1 month.

The hospitals never emptied completely from the first wave, so some beds have been occupied throughout the period. This has reduced the spare capacity in the system, so is means the hospitals will fill up even though the rate of rise may not be quite as acute as the first wave.

The graphs tend show how teh first lock down did make a difference, and it is perhaps too soon to see the effects of the second lockdown, but it is also noticeable how the infection rate has risen since the end of full lockdown.

It is almost certain that the better personal hygiene we have been practicing has been a major factor in keeping the rate of increase down during the second wave. but clearly it is not enough to be relied on to control the virus.

The longer it takes to get a handle on how to reduce infection routes gives teh virus more time to establish new safe havens and paths, consequently I now believe will not eradicate the virus, it will be necessary to learn to live with partial controls on the spread and methods of preventing infection, and treating the infection. And there is the long term probability that new mutations will find their ways in to the human populations needing continual revisions to any vaccines.

We should also be looking for likely new host species and making effort's to prevent the viral spread in those too.

This is going to be a long project. Hopefully with teh vaccines we will be able to release lock downs, and re invigorate our countries, but there is going to be long term financial and human costs to this.

The old normal has gone. We have got to forge a new normal.

 

[Dustydog]

If and only if the lockdown is finished on 2.12.2020 We shall be off to North Yorkshire. However I appreciate we may well see the reinstatement of the Tier system. This seems reasonable to me particularly as in Scotland north and south of the Glasgow / Edinburgh belt is pretty clear. Same for most of Wales. My latest take is we really need to start being more selective and structured in what we lockdown. If we don’t we may have nothing left to save, ie economy jobs etc.

 

[Beachball]

...............Thank you so much & ditto! A huge gratitude & debt of appreciation also to those such as Beachball's wife for coming out of retirement in this time of risk & need.

Hi WayneS Thankyou for your kind words appreciated

 

[Buckman]

Astonishing all four home nations have had Covid restrictions either nationally or regional, then national for quite a few weeks Yet today’s case figures of 33470 are the highest since the pandemic began, and not due to under reporting. It would be nice to see more data on what is driving the increase. Is it more testing, the two new lab on line giving more results out? Interesting to see how hospital admissions are going in the various areas that were restricted before the more restrictive lockdowns occurred.

Perhaps that is because of the people rushing out last week to party, rave, shop before the lockdown kicked in?

 

[Buckman]

Also in the rush to get a vaccine people will have forgotten about the issues surrounding the drug Thalidomide !

 

[Dustydog]

Also in the rush to get a vaccine people will have forgotten about the issues surrounding the drug Thalidomide !

See post 132. People really need to remember .

 

[ProfJohnL]

The Thalidomide issue was one of the main causes for governments all over the world to create national bodies to approve drugs before they can be prescribed by their health services.

Regulators actions are one reason why it normally requires extensive testing and many years before a drug can be used. I am confident the companies and each countries approvals organisations will be very wary of possible drug interactions and will have considered the relative risks of the vaccine

What is a new pressure in this instance is the risk of not using it.

At the time of writing non of the proposed vaccines have not received regulatory approval, so are not yet available. The extensive trial tests will be scruitinised by peers and the regulators for any signs of danger before ANY approval (fast track or otherwise) will be issued.

It is very common that drugs may be approved in one country but not another, so its far from a slam-dunk, that the Pfizer or any other vaccine will be approved worldwide.

The Thalidomide debacle was a very serious matter, and I do not seek to diminish it, but the risk that C19 presents to the world is on an entirely differnt scale, and it might need a risk to be taken to allow humankind to survive.

 

[Dustydog]

The Thalidomide issue was one of the main causes for governments all over the world to create national bodies to approve drugs before they can be prescribed by their health services.

Regulators actions are one reason why it normally requires extensive testing and many years before a drug can be used. I am confident the companies and each countries approvals organisations will be very wary of possible drug interactions and will have considered the relative risks of the vaccine

What is a new pressure in this instance is the risk of not using it.

At the time of writing non of the proposed vaccines have not received regulatory approval, so are not yet available. The extensive trial tests will be scruitinised by peers and the regulators for any signs of danger before ANY approval (fast track or otherwise) will be issued.

It is very common that drugs may be approved in one country but not another, so its far from a slam-dunk, that the Pfizer or any other vaccine will be approved worldwide.

The Thalidomide debacle was a very serious matter, and I do not seek to diminish it, but the risk that C19 presents to the world is on an entirely differnt scale, and it might need a risk to be taken to allow humankind to survive.

Prof
I cannot downgrade the Thalidomide factor here. I worked many years ago with a result. Put in simple arithmetic terms nine months hasn’t yet elapsed.
I reiterate my earlier post. Any pregnant or about to become pregnant woman should think very carefully before taking this vaccine.
For the record I repeat I will be taking it as and when offered but please do not dismiss the Thalidomide issue.

 

[Jcloughie]

What is a new pressure in this instance is the risk of not using it.

Yes and also the immense economic pressures.

I

The extensive trial tests will be scruitinised by peers and the regulators for any signs of danger before ANY approval (fast track or otherwise) will be issued.

Again I am sure (hope) you are correct. But scrutiny can never be up to the normally 3 year level. Nevertheless. Personally I will trust the science.

John

 

[Beachball]

See post 132. People really need to remember .

Hi Dusty i would agree because i saw it on post 132 (Thalidomide)

 

[otherclive]

The Thalidomide issue was one of the main causes for governments all over the world to create national bodies to approve drugs before they can be prescribed by their health services.

Regulators actions are one reason why it normally requires extensive testing and many years before a drug can be used. I am confident the companies and each countries approvals organisations will be very wary of possible drug interactions and will have considered the relative risks of the vaccine

What is a new pressure in this instance is the risk of not using it.

At the time of writing non of the proposed vaccines have not received regulatory approval, so are not yet available. The extensive trial tests will be scruitinised by peers and the regulators for any signs of danger before ANY approval (fast track or otherwise) will be issued.

It is very common that drugs may be approved in one country but not another, so its far from a slam-dunk, that the Pfizer or any other vaccine will be approved worldwide.

The Thalidomide debacle was a very serious matter, and I do not seek to diminish it, but the risk that C19 presents to the world is on an entirely differnt scale, and it might need a risk to be taken to allow humankind to survive.

A bit over dramatic. Survival of humankind isn’t at risk when there have been 1.3million deaths, and 34 million recovered people. Admittedly it’s not a nice disease to have around but for a lot of people they don’t know they’ve got it, or may only have mild symptoms. Those most at risk are the elderly, or vulnerable.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Prof
I cannot downgrade the Thalidomide factor here. I worked many years ago with a result. Put in simple arithmetic terms nine months hasn’t yet elapsed.
I reiterate my earlier post. Any pregnant or about to become pregnant woman should think very carefully before taking this vaccine.
For the record I repeat I will be taking it as and when offered but please do not dismiss the Thalidomide issue.

I specifically pointed out that I was not dismissing the thalidomide issue!!! and I object to you implying I was.

What I would add is, when Thalidomide was introduced it was not subjected too anything like the same scrutiny that is currently normally applied. We also have far more sophisticated process to investigate most interactions, in a more ethically based system.

Obviously shortening the approval process does have potential risks, but in this case time is a very pressing matter, and the decision about taking risks about drug testing vs safety have a rather different background.

 

[ProfJohnL]

A bit over dramatic. Survival of humankind isn’t at risk when there have been 1.3million deaths, and 34 million recovered people. Admittedly it’s not a nice disease to have around but for a lot of people they don’t know they’ve got it, or may only have mild symptoms. Those most at risk are the elderly, or vulnerable.

Ok perhaps a little dramatic, but it is the most significant medical threat we have seen for 100 years, and in terms of its infectiousness its probably greater than the Spanish flu. The smaller impact we have seen is probably due to the general better hygiene and healthcare we have compared the early 1900's.

 

[Dustydog]

I specifically pointed out that I was not dismissing the thalidomide issue!!! and I object to you implying I was.

What I would add is, when Thalidomide was introduced it was not subjected too anything like the same scrutiny that is currently normally applied. We also have far more sophisticated process to investigate most interactions, in a more ethically based system.

Obviously shortening the approval process does have potential risks, but in this case time is a very pressing matter, and the decision about taking risks about drug testing vs safety have a rather different background.

Prof said
“The Thalidomide debacle was a very serious matter, and I do not seek to diminish it, but the risk that C19 presents to the world is on an entirely differnt scale, and it might need a risk to be taken to allow humankind to survive”.

Object as much as you like Prof but with all due
respect your last few words propose taking risks. Tell that to a Thalidomide victim and you will not be flavour of the month.[/QUOTE]

 

[ProfJohnL]

I think it is ill advised to try and compare the present Covid situation to that of thalidomide. There is no doubt in my mind the thalidomide mistakes were a product of an over eager pharmaceutical company in a time when there were no strong national regulations about the testing and prescribing of new drugs before they were licenced to be prescribed.

I would venture to suggest that if thalidomide were presented new to market now - it would be rejected because of the checks and balances that we now require. It certainly would not be given a quick licence, as teh conditions it was being indicated for were not life threatening, nor contagious. We now live with the fact those checks were not present at the time and it has damaged far too many people.

Even today when a new drug has gone through all the checks, there is still a risk it won't work or might have unfortunate side effects for some people, but overall the risk is lower because of the checks.

But we have seen instances in recent years where a new drug has been developed for a particular condition with a high risk of morbidity, and becasue of the high risk, the new drug has been licenced quickly. Example include some of the drugs used to fight AIDS and Ebola. However In both these cases the populations at risk were smaller or had specific traits that made them more susceptible to infection.

Covid-19 has few social or demographic barriers which is why the potential harm it can do is so much greater, and why it may be the case the regulatory bodies may take a considered risk in issuing a quick licence.

And after all It's not as if the vaccines have not been tested, in the case of the a American/German vaccine it has bee tested on 45000 people - which is a huge test sample. The peer reviews will be looking for any procedural failures or bias in the reporting, and if they find any significant deviations from accepted protocols they may well block the licence and look for clarification, But each country will have to make that decision based on their own criteria.

 

[Parksy]

I think that we should all take a deep breath and await further developments.
No anti Covid 19 vaccine has yet been approved for general usage anywhere and there's a very long way to go before any of the vaccines under development will be licensed and available on prescription.
When these drugs do become available each individual must do some research in consultation with their GP and health professionals to decide if a particular treatment is suitable or advisable for their particular situation.
The best that we can all do for now would be to follow the advice that's available, wash our hands, socially isolate, obey the advice given, and be thankful that the brightest and the best are working hard to deliver us from this sword of Damocles that is currently hanging over us.
We can debate the merits or otherwise of compulsory mass immunisation when a proven and risk free treatment finally arrives.
It's too early to put the bunting and flags out yet.

 

[Buckman]

How often do you need to have the injection, every month, every quarter, every 6 months or annually?

 

[Damian]

How often do you need to have the injection, every month, every quarter, every 6 months or annually?

The current information is it is 2 injections given 21 to 28 days apart.

 

[Buckman]

The current information is it is 2 injections given 21 to 28 days apart.

Any idea at this stage how often the injections will be required?

 

[otherclive]

How often do you need to have the injection, every month, every quarter, every 6 months or annually?

The initial course seems to be two jabs close together. But at present no one knows how long the protection will last, so it could be likely that a periodic repeat may be required.