Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

road2ruin said:
From the racecourses point of view, the racing is their income and it was made aware to the NHS that (at this point) they would not be operating the vaccine hub on the same day, this was accepted so it's not a sudden surprise. Apparently they're looking at ways of having the racing and the vaccinations working on the same day going forward.
Click to expand...

I don't think they have thought that through. Its going to be a bit tricky to stab the jockeys as they are thundering by.
 
Ethan said:
Interestingly, that 33% number came from one of the two health insurers in Israel. The other one, which is also doing vaccination and taking part n the same review have reported a higher number for the effects. Times of Israel

This illustrates that these real world studies are messy and less well controlled than proper randomised studies. Studies of these size (hundred of thousands) have enormous statistical power to produce tight results and should not produce different results unless the people involved are different or there are other structural biases. Until we see peer reviewed detailed data, I am sticking with the numbers for the Pfizer randomised trials used for approval.
Click to expand...

Yes, as this is your field, no doubt you are right.
I only read the report briefly, but I noticed something that made me wonder ( in my laymans limitations). There was something said that xx number of the vaccinated who were found to be positive were not showing symptoms, but the virus was present, as opposed to those with symptoms.
I understand this vaccination does not act as a "force field" , keeping the vaccine away from you, but more it acts that the virus may be with you but your body doesn't become ill with it. .i.e. the antibodies successfully fight it off.?
If that's right, then this report seems iffy to me.
Then again, I know three quarters of bugger all on the subject really?
 
Swinglowandslow said:
Yes, as this is your field, no doubt you are right.
I only read the report briefly, but I noticed something that made me wonder ( in my laymans limitations). There was something said that xx number of the vaccinated who were found to be positive were not showing symptoms, but the virus was present, as opposed to those with symptoms.
I understand this vaccination does not act as a "force field" , keeping the vaccine away from you, but more it acts that the virus may be with you but your body doesn't become ill with it. .i.e. the antibodies successfully fight it off.?
If that's right, then this report seems iffy to me.
Then again, I know three quarters of bugger all on the subject really?
Click to expand...

The vaccine provides an immunological response to the virus. Rather than let it start to take over all your cells, the vacc should stop it in its tracks and not let it spread to the point you get symptoms. You could still test positive, though, as the likely entry point is the nasopharynx and that is where testing samples. Most of the people who tested positive or got Covid in this study did so in the very early days around vaccination when we all know it wouldn't be effective. In some cases, the PCR may be picking up dead virus that the vaccine has stimulated your immune system to deal with. And even if you are vaccinated and your immune system is primed and ready to act, if you touch a door knob that someone has coughed on and then another object that someone else later touches, you may still pick up and pass on the virus even though it doesn't affect you.

It also sounds that the Israeli study used a simple test rather than use a test plus symptoms like in the Pfizer study, but the main problem is they tested a bit too soon.
 
Last edited:
Ethan said:
The vaccine provides an immunological response to the virus. Rather than let it start to take over all your cells, the vacc should stop it in its tracks and not let it spread to the point you get symptoms. You could still test positive, though, as the likely entry point is the nasopharynx and that is where testing samples. Most of the people who tested positive or got Covid in this study did so in the very early days around vaccination when we all know it wouldn't be effective. In some cases, the PCR may be picking up dead virus that the vaccine has stimulated your immune system to deal with. And even if you are vaccinated and your immune system is primed and ready to act, if you touch a door knob that someone has coughed on and then another object that someone else later touches, you may still pick up and pass on the virus even though it doesn't affect you.

It also sounds that the Israeli study used a simple test rather than use a test plus symptoms like in the Pfizer study, but the main problem is they tested a bit too soon.
Click to expand...

Got it - Thanks.
 
The below just a snippet why I find it harder and harder to care, or trust what media says.

From the BBC daily live reporting:
"The Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech appears to protect against a coronavirus variant which is rapidly spreading across the UK.

The variant has mutations which it is feared may reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.

But a study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, has suggested this is not the case."

So it starts with concluding that there's a new variant of the virus that the vaccines, as far as we know it, will work on. But they have to chuck in scare curve ball, before again giving evidence which, although not peer reviewed, suggests that the new variant isn't to be more worried about.

Where this fear of the vaccine not being as effective comes from I do not know. I'm gonna hazard a guess it's from the journalist and the editor to keep the clicks coming.
 
Lilyhawk said:
The below just a snippet why I find it harder and harder to care, or trust what media says.

From the BBC daily live reporting:
"The Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech appears to protect against a coronavirus variant which is rapidly spreading across the UK.

The variant has mutations which it is feared may reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.

But a study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, has suggested this is not the case."

So it starts with concluding that there's a new variant of the virus that the vaccines, as far as we know it, will work on. But they have to chuck in scare curve ball, before again giving evidence which, although not peer reviewed, suggests that the new variant isn't to be more worried about.

Where this fear of the vaccine not being as effective comes from I do not know. I'm gonna hazard a guess it's from the journalist and the editor to keep the clicks coming.
Click to expand...
...or you could say that what the BBC reported is both sides/opinion of the debate/argument - alternatives for 'balance'.

A millstone that the BBC has to carry around - and that finds it having to give 'airtime' to assertions and beliefs to balance facts from expert community. Of course we know where that has come from and to where it has led us, but upon which I cannot expand further. I don't see it as a problem specific to the BBC - and I do not blame the BBC. Suffice to say that the extremes of it has corrupted public debate and understanding of the management of the coronavirus pandemic.
 
Lilyhawk said:
The below just a snippet why I find it harder and harder to care, or trust what media says.

From the BBC daily live reporting:
"The Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech appears to protect against a coronavirus variant which is rapidly spreading across the UK.

The variant has mutations which it is feared may reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.

But a study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, has suggested this is not the case."

So it starts with concluding that there's a new variant of the virus that the vaccines, as far as we know it, will work on. But they have to chuck in scare curve ball, before again giving evidence which, although not peer reviewed, suggests that the new variant isn't to be more worried about.

Where this fear of the vaccine not being as effective comes from I do not know. I'm gonna hazard a guess it's from the journalist and the editor to keep the clicks coming.
Click to expand...


I do feel a bit for some of the science writers who are looking to convey information that has a lot of complexities to a general audience. And the way science often works is to get it wrong, then a bit less wring and eventually sort of correct, but it can be a seemingly contradictory course.

It has been believed in scientific circles for a while that the new forms of vaccine, mRNA and vectors with the spike protein genomes would provide better broad coverage than some old style vaccines which were somewhat strain specific. It is still likely that in time new strains will evolve which require modified vaccines, so I suspect that we will see vaccine boosters more like firmware updates with updates and refined genomes rather than simply to extend the effectiveness.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
...or you could say that what the BBC reported is both sides/opinion of the debate/argument - alternatives for 'balance'.

A millstone that the BBC has to carry around - and that finds it having to give 'airtime' to assertions and beliefs to balance facts from expert community. Of course we know where that has come from and to where it has led us, but upon which I cannot expand further. Suffice to say it has corrupted public debate and understanding of the management of the coronavirus pandemic.
Click to expand...

If there had been some sort of reference to as where this fear comes from then all good. Now, no.

In regards to your bigger point in your post, I'm not gonna get into it with you as I know where it leads. Let's just say that you and I are not in the same corner on this.
 
Ethan said:
I do feel a bit for some of the science writers who are looking to convey information that has a lot of complexities to a general audience. And the way science often works is to get it wrong, then a bit less wring and eventually sort of correct, but it can be a seemingly contradictory course.

It has been believed in scientific circles for a while that the new forms of vaccine, mRNA and vectors with the spike protein genomes would provide better broad coverage than some old style vaccines which were somewhat strain specific. It is still likely that in time new strains will evolve which require modified vaccines, so I suspect that we will see vaccine boosters more like firmware updates with updates and refined genomes rather than simply to extend the effectiveness.
Click to expand...

That is perfectly fine! I know that the science change with new emerging data etc, but in this particular instance I mean that perhaps it could be written in another way or at least have some sort of reference to as to where the fear comes from.

But of course hard to get things perfect in a world where speed is of the essence to get the live updates out.
 
Ethan said:
I do feel a bit for some of the science writers who are looking to convey information that has a lot of complexities to a general audience. And the way science often works is to get it wrong, then a bit less wring and eventually sort of correct, but it can be a seemingly contradictory course.

It has been believed in scientific circles for a while that the new forms of vaccine, mRNA and vectors with the spike protein genomes would provide better broad coverage than some old style vaccines which were somewhat strain specific. It is still likely that in time new strains will evolve which require modified vaccines, so I suspect that we will see vaccine boosters more like firmware updates with updates and refined genomes rather than simply to extend the effectiveness.
Click to expand...

I have to say that your postings on the vaccine have been a massive help. I know that you speak your mind and so I feel inherently more confident when you post positively on something like this (especially when there are negative press reports going around). So, anyway, thanks for that, it does help me keep a more positive disposition.
 
Lilyhawk said:
That is perfectly fine! I know that the science change with new emerging data etc, but in this particular instance I mean that perhaps it could be written in another way or at least have some sort of reference to as to where the fear comes from.

But of course hard to get things perfect in a world where speed is of the essence to get the live updates out.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think the bits you have highlighted are that bad, you can find much worse coverage pretty easily.

The key word in the whole story is 'appears', the vaccine appears to protect .....

Lets break it down.

There are concerns about mutations and new variants, that is true, although there have been tens of thousands of variants identified so far, the vast majority of which are very similar to each other. The virus undergoes evolution, which is mostly random errors in the genetic code creating slightly different versions because the virus goes through generations incredibly fast. The mutations that reduce the virus's ability to spread or attach die out, and the ones which improve its viral fitness then take over.

There have been fears voiced that the vaccine may not work with these. That is true, although probably not reflecting the real experts in virology and vaccinology.

The study appears to suggest these fears re not justified. That is also true, as is the qualifier that it has not been peer-reviewed, meaning it hasn't been pressure tested for its design, conduct and conclusions. Sometimes preliminary studies are altered by the comments made by peer reviewers.

So I don't think this was a terrible news story. They are always a bit clickbaity these days but the content was OK if not exactly compelling.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
...or you could say that what the BBC reported is both sides/opinion of the debate/argument - alternatives for 'balance'.

A millstone that the BBC has to carry around - and that finds it having to give 'airtime' to assertions and beliefs to balance facts from expert community. Of course we know where that has come from and to where it has led us, but upon which I cannot expand further. I don't see it as a problem specific to the BBC - and I do not blame the BBC. Suffice to say that the extremes of it has corrupted public debate and understanding of the management of the coronavirus pandemic.
Click to expand...

If I say it's raining and you say it isn't, it's not the BBC's or any other journalist's job to tell the public what we say, it's their job to go outside and check.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
...or you could say that what the BBC reported is both sides/opinion of the debate/argument - alternatives for 'balance'.

A millstone that the BBC has to carry around - and that finds it having to give 'airtime' to assertions and beliefs to balance facts from expert community. Of course we know where that has come from and to where it has led us, but upon which I cannot expand further. I don't see it as a problem specific to the BBC - and I do not blame the BBC. Suffice to say that the extremes of it has corrupted public debate and understanding of the management of the coronavirus pandemic.
Click to expand...
Maybe the news should just be that!
Report the facts as they have happened that’s news as I understand it.
So no need to put the other side.

By all means put both sides in as many programmes as they like and discuss to their heart’s content.
But keep all speculation off the news!
 
Ethan said:
I don't think they have thought that through. Its going to be a bit tricky to stab the jockeys as they are thundering by.
Click to expand...
There is an American dentist that might be able to help. And a soon to be ex-presidents son.
(Or did they just shot stationary animals?)
 
Ethan said:
Short version: They looked too soon. Needed to leave it another week.

Longer version:
This study was a case control study, which provides less persuasive data than a randomised controlled trial. You need to be certain that the controls are selected in a way that resembles the elements that matter. You may not even know what all of those factors are. In an RCT of adequate size, that is not a concern, because the unknown factors should be distributed evenly.

Second, I think they looked too soon. The text of the report says: "Then we looked to see what is the daily positivity rate... And we saw that there was no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated until day 14 post-vaccination. But on day 14 post-vaccination, a drop of 33% in positivity was witnessed in the vaccinated group and not in the unvaccinated... this is really good news."

This suggests their primary analysis was on day 14. That is just after the lines separate. A week later it would have been much more convincing. Then after the booster, it jumps to 95%. Highly unlikely if 33% was the first shot ceiling. You can see the lines separate much more with time.

Third, sounds like they were looking at tests alone rather than tests and cases. Doing so captures a larger number, including those who were incubating when they got the shot, and asymptomatic, as well as false positives with old virus. This will dilute any perceived treatment effect. By the time of the second shot, that virus has cleared off and you get a clean treatment effect. In contrast, Pfizer required a PCR test AND characteristic symptoms.
Click to expand...

When you joind the forum over 11 years ago, I wonder if you ever thought the forum would be so interested in what you did for a living. :)
Keep up the good work
 
azazel said:
If I say it's raining and you say it isn't, it's not the BBC's or any other journalist's job to tell the public what we say, it's their job to go outside and check.
Click to expand...
That is indeed what you'd hope of them...and I believe what they try and do. However we know the power of what some individuals would prefer to believe even when faced with the facts.

I fear that not putting the 'other side' - regardless of what the other side actually is or is based upon - just leads to claims of BBC bias or scaremongering. And that just seems to be were we have got to - most unfortunately. However if other outlets I watch, listen and read (see @Ethan :) ) report very similar or the same as the BBC then I am OK that what the BBC is saying is not deliberate or even unconscious bias.

Anyway...enough of that - and back to watching NBC News :)
 
Last edited:
bobmac said:
When you joind the forum over 11 years ago, I wonder if you ever thought the forum would be so interested in what you did for a living. :)
Keep up the good work
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bob. I wish the circumstances that led to all this discussion had never occurred and instead we were all exercised about whether Justin Thomas was being treated fairly or if well-fed golfers should wear white belts.
 
Ethan said:
Thanks, Bob. I wish the circumstances that led to all this discussion had never occurred and instead we were all exercised about whether Justin Thomas was being treated fairly or if well-fed golfers should wear white belts.
Click to expand...
Since we are at it I'll pass my thanks also - your explanation of what can happen in respect of cytokines after about 7 days really helped my wife understand what happened to her aunt - and explain to her mum. She knew about the effect cytokines can have but hadn't put 2 and 2 together for her aunt as she seemed to be recovering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top