I was wasn't referring to you as an individual... more the wider *you*... But if you do have health anxiety then I'd probably avoid the BNF too... sometimes ignorance is bliss...
Ha! I like Gareth's bus analogy and I also like Byron's last about medicine needing to address the general lack of public faith - both very valid. To clarify my side of some of the above, though - I am a bit of a generalist. An enthusiastic amateur at best, as I think the vast majority of us are. I'm not a research-type dude, journalistic, science or otherwise, mainly because I look at this stuff quickly on the internet when I'm having ten minutes off of the work PC and then just trust what I read on this site (partly because of the range of different opinions and partly because other people have more time or skill to do better research than I could (see above)). I do where possible (especially with respect to this virus) have a quick check into something and then form an opinion on the reliability of the source, but if a site looks kosher on the surface, I don't have time to dig past that, probably how misinformation spreads so effectively. I'm not uneducated, I just defer to others who have more experience (or make it sound like they do, at least!) and call it out where it seems unreasonable. I found that article I mentioned, but I can't link to it as it popped up on the work PC. It looks like it was a Yahoo news tile from five days ago on a Bing recommended new tab section, so it's probably a load of old tosh, but it says Oxford's phase 2 was 160 people aged 18-55, 160 aged 56-59 and 240 aged 70+, then says they were all healthy, no underlying conditions even though stats show those with underlyings are more at risk; people with existing antibodies were excluded; almost all were white, non-smokers; and phase three is hoping to include people from "a range of backgrounds, countries and ethnicities [...and...] older adults with underlying health issues." So you can see how I formed my opinion of the test group. Side note though, if that group is, as you say, four times larger than before, that's still not a lot of people. And it doesn't say how many "thousands" is when referencing phase three in the article. If it's three "thousands" then that's not enough either in my opinion. The OVG vid was good and cleared up some misconceptions re: time to market - why they don't just publish this **** on the news/ad breaks etc and make people aware, I don't know. Unless they do, because I tend not to watch too much TV, thinking about it. But even if the core of the vaccine is fine, any change to that is a new unknown variable, no? The Guardian also had a piece that said the half-dose being given was an error - apparently some had a full dose, then another full dose some time later and resulted in 65%(ish?) efficacy; the ones given half then full doses were more like 97% (again, ish). The source cited they thought this was to do with the way the immune system was kicked off differently with the half than full dose initially, but it was an admin error. But then, so was penicillin and that worked out fine. Fair point on the paracetamol too, but aren't they all short-term? Long-term diarrhoea would be most upsetting otherwise... With the smallpox thing, what struck me was the prevalence/frequency and severity of most of the issues. With the bus, if you clarified that the trial was of one and involved a bus travelling at 100mph, that would give more context and we could avoid playing chicken with buses travelling at 100mph. If it was a bus at 40mph and the person survived, that would indicate success. If that person walked off but later died of a brain bleed (again, generalising the "long-term" as "later that day"), we could assume long-term effects of 40mph bus crashes, no? Whilst I haven't seen an article about forced vaccinations as such, there is a Bloomberg news item entitled "Wear wristbands to show you tested covid-free, uk advisers say" from 10/11/20 14:12 (again, can't link, so apologies). The main gist of it is about some pseudo-research group called the Behavioral Insights Team, which is a govt-backed company using "behavioral psychology to change peoples' actions and is helping to shape the govt's pandemic strategy". It's utterly incredulous, but the take home is that they suggest things like giving people back some freedoms if they test negative, citing Slovakia's use of the police to demand spot checks of certificates and only allowing people into certain venues with a wristband confirming test status. And these are apparently a govt advisory body. Again, as I say above, I take this as tripe, with the exception that they seem to be established and advisory, not just someone's opinion and THAT's the bit I don't like. Must get back to work but will catch up later - it's good that we can discuss like adults!
There were 10260 people involved in phase 2 of the trials. The numbers you refer to represent the number of people in additional age groups added for the phase 2 that were not included in phase 1. Phase 3 included 50,000 people in the UK, Brazil, South Africa , India and the US.
Ah. That wasn't clear from the article (see if you can find it, for interest). Where did you get your figures from? And from the way mine was written, being only five days old, it didn't sound like P3 had kicked off yet...? EDIT: It also says phase three will include more diverse candidates, which suggests the 10k you mention are not such, which I would be reluctant to believe as well. I was meant to put this down but have come back!
Found this, which backs up the Yahoo one: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-11-phase-trial-oxford-covid-vaccine.html EDIT: It's actually word for word, so this must be the original. EDITED EDIT: This looks of more use, but it says 10k over the whole trial, not phase two as you mention (unless you meant to type phase one?): https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials It does specify 1k already and next "a large number over 18", so it could be clearer.
Nope. Liver failure's kinda permanent, at least until you get a new liver. Major gastrointestinal haemorrhage is also not something that you can really class as "short term" - well, I mean, it stops pretty quickly without treatment, but that's mostly 'cos it's difficult to bleed when your heart stops beating. Remember Lyell's syndrome in the list? Yeah, that makes your skin fall off. Again, this is a recorded side effect of taking paracetamol in standard therapeutic doses. This particular patient spent the first two days after taking the drug in a critical condition, and the next month in hospital - during which she lost "most of the surface of her skin, plus fingernails and toenails." Her lips grew together. She needed regular check-ups for months afterwards, and to this day needs eye-drops. From taking a couple of paracetamol. The point about side-effects is you appear to be treating them as something you'll definitely get; they're not. They're something that has been recorded. Each are categorised: Very Common side effects happen in 1 in 10 cases; Common between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100; Uncommon between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000; Rare between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000; Very Rare occur in fewer than 1 in 10,000 cases. You're looking at Very Rare side effects and treating them as though they're guaranteed.
Agreed, I'll check the smallpox one again, as that looks like the one I was referring to most, but Lyell's above is still a short-term thing - it came on within 48h. Just to avoid crossed wires - and although I agree the lasting effects are long-term, I'm talking stuff you don't know about now, that rears up in five/ten/whatever years' time. You might turn out cancerous, or sterile, neither of which they'll pick up within 48h (unless you're THAT nocturnally keen and after a clone). The severe "within 48h" stuff is what they'll be picking up in these trials and that's not my question. I'd even argue that liver damage and gastro-bleeding are shorter-term and this is probably all on the basis that paracetamol disappears from the system very quickly when compared to the vaccine (unless used repeatedly, of course, which is out of scope here). But I have to say, I'm not treating any side effects as common, rarity notwithstanding, but then I'm also not saying side effects are something you'll definitely get. I'm saying that there is no 5/10/15 year research into long-term effects because it doesn't exist. That's all.
Ah, we have a terminology mix-up: what you're referring to isn't long-term (something which drags on, contrasted with short-term which means it's quickly resolved) but late-onset (something which can rear its ugly head years down the line, contrasted with sudden- or early-onset which means it's pretty immediately apparent.) Again, the original study into the Oxford vaccine for a coronavirus took place a decade ago and included human trials. The only change that's been made is which coronavirus they're targeting: the original study was using the delivery system against MERS, this time they're using it against SARS-CoV-2. It's roughly equivalent to switching the dye in your can of paint from red to orange. Is it a new paint? Kinda yeah, but also no. Do you ever have a flu vaccine? They're reformulated every single year in the same way the original Oxford MERS vaccine has been reformulated for SARS-CoV-2. Note that bit: every single year. Therefore, by your stated standards, we can never know more about the long-term/late-onset effects of the flu vaccine than a single year - and even if you were happy that a year was long enough, once a year has passed you need the new vaccine rather than the now-outdated one. If you've ever had a flu jab, you've literally received a vaccine that has been around for less time than the Oxford vaccine that's currently being trialled.
So a super spreading 5 days over Christmas for 3 households. We were due to go see my mum but we ain't going to now. It's just not worth it. Mind you, depending on the tiers travel is probably out of the question anyway. Edit: Hang on have I read that right? Travel ok for those days anywhere? Christ January will be bleak unless Covid is having a Christmas break too.
The flu vaccine is reformulated each year to reflect the strains of the virus expected to be most common that Winter. The decision is based on surveillance data of the strains in circulation.
Absolutely - and the Oxford vaccine has been reformulated to reflect the strain of coronavirus expected to be most common right now. Well, less "expected" and more... "is". SARS-CoV-2.
What is it about Sovereign Citizens and the Magna Carta? Begs the question, at what point will the Police enforce the fines via High Court?
How else would all the young people who f**ked off to civilisation to attend university bring corona back to their relatives in rural areas?
This is a threat to the very fabric of our society, but we're not having this little germ spoil chrimbo, oh, no! Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the graves...
It does feel that the UK is applying some 'Brexit' methodology to Covid. The reality is this but we want it to be that and if you disagree you're just a nasty old fear mongerer.
