Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

we take the temperature of myself , the wife and daughter every time we go out and the little has hers taken before she goes into Nursery- I also scan the QR code every day , also when going into any establishment
 
ColchesterFC said:
I'm more surprised that so few places seem to have QR codes or paper sheets for people to sign in when they enter. In the least week I've been to Tesco, our local butchers and Morrisons and haven't had to sign in at any of them. I think the only places that I have had to sign in are at the local farmers' market and at my kids football matches.
Click to expand...

A lot of the pubs in Reading had the QR codes at the front door when we came out of the first lockdown and I've seen them at a few other places here and there. Mainly in food and drink establishments rather than retail outlets
 
Ethan said:
Some places around my area do temp checks. They can be useful, but not everybody with Covid, especially in the early stages, gets a temp and there are loads of other reasons apart from Covid for a temp, especially at this time of year, so it is at best rather insensitive (in accuracy terms) and non-specific. I think it often serves as ticking the box "doing something". Still, doesn't do any harm and is quick and cheap.

I think enforcing mask-wearing is probably the most useful action shops and public buildings can take.
Click to expand...

I think it’s exactly this, all the building sites I visit use one, normally being weilded by the site labourer who asks you questions about your general health and if you have been in contact with anyone with coronavirus. He then writes your name and temperature down and ticks a box! All pretty pointless but it’s now part of the RAMs and a condition of the sites being open.
 
Slab said:
Maybe I'm just missing it but when someone on here talks about what prevention/avoidance measures are taking place when they go to xyz/abc etc, they never seem to mention having their temp taken

View attachment 33868

Am I just missing the references, is it happening and not mentioned, is it not really a thing in the UK? How many times since 1st lockdown started have you had your temp taken entering a public place?

It seems to be one of the main indicators of covid and even if its not but you still have a high temp, then something is probably wrong with you
Click to expand...

My 3 year old gets checked every day at pre school
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55228422

Ethan, there is a table on there showing the difference between the vaccones that are now available. couple sorry now 3 questions if you don’t mind.
1, it shows the Oxford vaccine as having a better results with the lesser dose first time around. Have any of the other vaccines been administered with lesser or more dosage.
2, it mentions that the different vaccines are different types, so what exactly are they trying to “ activate”.
3, could any of these vaccines be combined for better effectivenes.

Cheers me man.
 
Tashyboy said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55228422

Ethan, there is a table on there showing the difference between the vaccones that are now available. couple sorry now 3 questions if you don’t mind.
1, it shows the Oxford vaccine as having a better results with the lesser dose first time around. Have any of the other vaccines been administered with lesser or more dosage.
2, it mentions that the different vaccines are different types, so what exactly are they trying to “ activate”.
3, could any of these vaccines be combined for better effectivenes.

Cheers me man.
Click to expand...
I will try and answer your questions
1)The other vaccines or at least the Pfizer one had a dose finding study to determine how much to give to get a decent reponse of antibodies, but thereafter everyone got the same dose.

2) They are all trying to activate the same response which is to raise an immune reaction to the virus, The vaccines that have reported so far are all trying to get the response to one particular part of the virus the 'S' or spike protein which is the bit of the outside of the virus that reacts with the receptor to get aentrance to the cell which it infects.
In order to get the immune response to the S protein you have to get the S protein into the body. The vaccines gaining approval so far do it in different ways tbut they basically get the cells in the body to make the protein. Either by injecting a virus with genes to make the protein into the body (Oxford and Sputnik) or by injeting the genetic material in the form of RNA encapsulated in a lipid for stability and entrance to the cells. (Moderna and Pfizer) But the bodies response they are trying to elicit is the same.

3) There is talk of combining the vaccines but I don't know how serious it is.
 
Backache said:
I will try and answer your questions
1)The other vaccines or at least the Pfizer one had a dose finding study to determine how much to give to get a decent reponse of antibodies, but thereafter everyone got the same dose.

2) They are all trying to activate the same response which is to raise an immune reaction to the virus, The vaccines that have reported so far are all trying to get the response to one particular part of the virus the 'S' or spike protein which is the bit of the outside of the virus that reacts with the receptor to get aentrance to the cell which it infects.
In order to get the immune response to the S protein you have to get the S protein into the body. The vaccines gaining approval so far do it in different ways tbut they basically get the cells in the body to make the protein. Either by injecting a virus with genes to make the protein into the body (Oxford and Sputnik) or by injeting the genetic material in the form of RNA encapsulated in a lipid for stability and entrance to the cells. (Moderna and Pfizer) But the bodies response they are trying to elicit is the same.

3) There is talk of combining the vaccines but I don't know how serious it is.
Click to expand...

cheers backache me man.
 
Backache said:
I will try and answer your questions
1)The other vaccines or at least the Pfizer one had a dose finding study to determine how much to give to get a decent reponse of antibodies, but thereafter everyone got the same dose.

2) They are all trying to activate the same response which is to raise an immune reaction to the virus, The vaccines that have reported so far are all trying to get the response to one particular part of the virus the 'S' or spike protein which is the bit of the outside of the virus that reacts with the receptor to get aentrance to the cell which it infects.
In order to get the immune response to the S protein you have to get the S protein into the body. The vaccines gaining approval so far do it in different ways tbut they basically get the cells in the body to make the protein. Either by injecting a virus with genes to make the protein into the body (Oxford and Sputnik) or by injeting the genetic material in the form of RNA encapsulated in a lipid for stability and entrance to the cells. (Moderna and Pfizer) But the bodies response they are trying to elicit is the same.

3) There is talk of combining the vaccines but I don't know how serious it is.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. All of them did dose finding, some in earlier studies and some in adaptive studies, larger studies where each phase's results determine the precise shape of the next phase. There are plausible theories behind both a low dose-standard dose regime and mixing two different vaccines as initial and booster, but the latter needs to be tested more formally.

There are also vaccines in development which are more like the traditional style, where you take the target virus and inactivate or attenuate (weaken) it.
 
Ethan said:
I agree with that. All of them did dose finding, some in earlier studies and some in adaptive studies, larger studies where each phase's results determine the precise shape of the next phase. There are plausible theories behind both a low dose-standard dose regime and mixing two different vaccines as initial and booster, but the latter needs to be tested more formally.

There are also vaccines in development which are more like the traditional style, where you take the target virus and inactivate or attenuate (weaken) it.
Click to expand...

What are your current thoughts on the Oxford vaccine. I get the feeling that the press are trying to taint opinions on this one as it is the one that we have backed the strongest and yet my (very much unqualified) opinion is that this is the one that the world as a whole needs to succeed as it is cheap and easier to store and distribute.
 
GB72 said:
What are your current thoughts on the Oxford vaccine. I get the feeling that the press are trying to taint opinions on this one as it is the one that we have backed the strongest and yet my (very much unqualified) opinion is that this is the one that the world as a whole needs to succeed as it is cheap and easier to store and distribute.
Click to expand...

I think it is a very effective vaccine. The results from all 3 vaccines show that the body is pretty good at mounting an immune response to the spike protein if presented properly, and the Oxford/Pfizer/Moderna vaccines all present the protein (or its code, more precisely) in slightly different ways but with little apparent difference. The low-standard dosing regime for Ozford appears to overcome the one potential disadvantage of that one, that it is presented within an inactivated virus which can stimulate its own immune response. And, as you say, the ease of administration is a major advantage and AZ/Oxford offering it at cost makes it much cheaper for health systems, especially less well funded systems, to cope. Unless we are over 80 or a frontline NHS worker, that is the one we will be offered. I am happy to take it.
 
Ethan said:
I think it is a very effective vaccine. The results from all 3 vaccines show that the body is pretty good at mounting an immune response to the spike protein if presented properly, and the Oxford/Pfizer/Moderna vaccines all present the protein (or its code, more precisely) in slightly different ways but with little apparent difference. The low-standard dosing regime for Ozford appears to overcome the one potential disadvantage of that one, that it is presented within an inactivated virus which can stimulate its own immune response. And, as you say, the ease of administration is a major advantage and AZ/Oxford offering it at cost makes it much cheaper for health systems, especially less well funded systems, to cope. Unless we are over 80 or a frontline NHS worker, that is the one we will be offered. I am happy to take it.
Click to expand...

I would have been happy with any of them but then again I volunteered for the trials as well (not selected). Just get the feeling that the press have painted a bit of a target on this vaccine and every story about it tends to be negative.

Are we testing any of the other ones. I am sure someone at my mum's golf club said that they were going to be in a trial for the Russian vaccine.
 
GB72 said:
I would have been happy with any of them but then again I volunteered for the trials as well (not selected). Just get the feeling that the press have painted a bit of a target on this vaccine and every story about it tends to be negative.

Are we testing any of the other ones. I am sure someone at my mum's golf club said that they were going to be in a trial for the Russian vaccine.
Click to expand...

There are other vaccines in clinical trials, including some big companies like Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson etc. Not sure if they are in the UK or not. Haven't heard that Sputnik is landing around here. It is similar to Oxford in that it is an adenovirus with the spike protein gene inside. In fact, they have an interesting twist by using two different adenoviruses for the primary and booster, so that any immune response generated by the first doesn't inhibit the second. It is a very plausible vaccine, but my experience of clinical trials in Russia leads me to apply an abundance of caution. The underlying science is good, though.

The problem with Oxford is that clinical trials are a bit bumpy, but rarely anything that can't be sorted out. However this sorting is not usuall done in the full glare of global media interest and loads of people pontificating (like me) on social media. If the EMA or MHRA thinks there is no problem, we shouldn't think differently.
 
The people with the adverse reactions to the vaccine,
A) are they still building up resistance to the actual virus?
B) are they in any proper danger?
C) would they likely have reacted to another vaccine? Like a flu jab for example? Or the Oxford vaccine?
just wondering what the implications might be.
 
3000 cakes arrived today courtesy of the royal visitors yesterday. Enough for every department (and then some). Simple touch but has been well received. No, I don't think the HRH's and their kids were there with the rolling pin baking away and clearly ordered in but as I say a nice touch seeing as they couldn't visit any wards or areas in person
 
larmen said:
The people with the adverse reactions to the vaccine,
A) are they still building up resistance to the actual virus?
B) are they in any proper danger?
C) would they likely have reacted to another vaccine? Like a flu jab for example? Or the Oxford vaccine?
just wondering what the implications might be.
Click to expand...

The adverse reactions usually don't affect the beneficial response. 6 people died in the Pfizer study, 2 on vaccine and 4 on placebo. Neither of the 2 who died on vaccine were thought to be connected to the vaccine. The SAEs were mostly not related to vaccine, quite a lot happened in the placebo arm too. This is often the case, because SAEs include everything that havens, including people falling over or breaking a leg playing football. There were only 3 SAEs considered related to vaccine; swollen lymph nodes, a heart arrhythmia in someone who had pre-existing heart disease and a shoulder injury, perhaps due to a clumsy injection.

I have done a few clinical trials. This is very good safety data.
 
Mrs SILH went into Guildford to do some shopping yesterday. Came home pretty sad about her trip - about a dozen shops closed on the High Street 'hill' (for those who know the town) and a big Closing Down sign on Debenhams at it's bottom. And Guildford is a wealthy town in a wealthy area :(
 
So if you are going to the Canaries, from Saturday when you return you will have to isolate for 2 weeks. Yet London which has figures rising May go into Tier 3 on Wednesday. Am I missing something.
 
Tashyboy said:
So if you are going to the Canaries, from Saturday when you return you will have to isolate for 2 weeks. Yet London which has figures rising May go into Tier 3 on Wednesday. Am I missing something.
Click to expand...

Should be in tier 3 already but thats Politics in play....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top