New vaccine

[Eddie99]

23 minutes ago, AndyMichelle said:

This is fun!!! 

So glad I came back😊

 

I am only kidding, I know it is a serious subject with relevant contrasting opinions... 

 

As you were... 

 

Andy 

Hey Andy!

There are some pics of my pup in the “How are things with You” thread.  We had a dry day, not like your poor Bella yesterday

Who will look after Bella when Beth cruises with you?

 

You’re right; it is a serious topic.  So difficult to discuss in this medium though - much better and less confrontational over a nice pint/glass of wine

[terrierjohn]

Just now, lincslady said:

Apologies for probably starting this prolonged discussion regarding 'with' and ''of' covid.  It could go on for ever - yes, it is important, but there will never be universal agreement on how the statistics are measured.

And I dont believe we have considered the impact on future excess deaths that covid will have on cancer, heart etc because of the shutdown of the NHS. 

As an older poster I know I would have been distraught if I had survived covid because of this policy, while a close relative had not been able to be assessed for their illness, and subsequently died.

[Windsurfboy]

22 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

And I dont believe we have considered the impact on future excess deaths that covid will have on cancer, heart etc because of the shutdown of the NHS. 

As an older poster I know I would have been distraught if I had survived covid because of this policy, while a close relative had not been able to be assessed for their illness, and subsequently died.

 

The only logical thing to do is to measure cumulative excess deaths from the start of the pandemic for say 5 years to come. Thats when we should take another considered look back. 

[Snow Hill]

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) codes cause of death for deaths registered in England and Wales using the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). 
 

This system is used by all the members of WHO some form or other. 
 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Snow Hill

[MX-Drew]

Another thing to consider is the number of deaths from flu would be down due to a higher number of people having the flu jab and a bi product of lockdown (fewer people exposed to the flu virus). So that will skew the comparison against a 5 year average.

[Windsurfboy]

2 hours ago, MX-Drew said:

Another thing to consider is the number of deaths from flu would be down due to a higher number of people having the flu jab and a bi product of lockdown (fewer people exposed to the flu virus). So that will skew the comparison against a 5 year average.

 

Excess deaths doesn't  measure  deaths from covid,  but the total impact of the pandemic on deaths over the given period.  

 

It measures the sum of ,

-deaths from covid,

-the lives saved from less flu , less car accidents etc,

-the lives lost from the pandemic preventing treatment of other diseases. 

 

The total impact of pandemic and actions taken

 

However It is about the only reliable measure for international comparisons, as it is not impacted by the level of testing which death after a positive test is, or by the differences in recording deaths on death certificates

 

Also as others have said , it will be needed to measure the long-term impact of lack of other treatment during the pandemic. 

 

Last year excess deaths were above tested positive deaths due to lack of testing outside hospital,  now they are below , perhaps in longer-term they may go above again as impact of missed treatment comes to bear.

 

Measuring deaths is only important if it helps us learn especially by looking at other countries who did things differently.  This will be hard because there is so much other context to take into account. Demographics,  general health,  geography , connectivity ,  urbanisation etc. You cannot compare Belgium in the heart of Europe to New Zealand , even though they have similiar population and income.

 

If the measurement of deaths is only used to score points, it will be a disservice and disrespectful to those who died.

[MX-Drew]

1 hour ago, Windsurfboy said:

less car accidents etc,

Fewer car accidents etc. (sorry a pet hate).

 

Seriously though, I was not disputing your point merely pointing out that there are swings and roundabouts that makes comparisons very difficult.  

[zap99]

28 minutes ago, MX-Drew said:

Fewer car accidents etc. (sorry a pet hate).

 

Seriously though, I was not disputing your point merely pointing out that there are swings and roundabouts that makes comparisons very difficult.  

Don't know about swings but roundabouts are more safer as there are less cars.🤣

[d9704011]

4 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Don't know about swings but roundabouts are more safer as there are less cars.🤣

Also, you can go quicker faster.

[MX-Drew]

9 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Don't know about swings but roundabouts are more safer as there are less cars.🤣

Arrrrrgggggghhhhh

 

🤣

[terrierjohn]

7 hours ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

Excess deaths doesn't  measure  deaths from covid,  but the total impact of the pandemic on deaths over the given period.  

 

It measures the sum of ,

-deaths from covid,

-the lives saved from less flu , less car accidents etc,

-the lives lost from the pandemic preventing treatment of other diseases. 

 

The total impact of pandemic and actions taken

 

However It is about the only reliable measure for international comparisons, as it is not impacted by the level of testing which death after a positive test is, or by the differences in recording deaths on death certificates

 

Also as others have said , it will be needed to measure the long-term impact of lack of other treatment during the pandemic. 

 

Last year excess deaths were above tested positive deaths due to lack of testing outside hospital,  now they are below , perhaps in longer-term they may go above again as impact of missed treatment comes to bear.

 

Measuring deaths is only important if it helps us learn especially by looking at other countries who did things differently.  This will be hard because there is so much other context to take into account. Demographics,  general health,  geography , connectivity ,  urbanisation etc. You cannot compare Belgium in the heart of Europe to New Zealand , even though they have similiar population and income.

 

If the measurement of deaths is only used to score points, it will be a disservice and disrespectful to those who died.

I wonder if the ONS, or anyone else for that matter will ever be able to measure whether locking down later really did result in a higher death toll for the UK or would the same numbers have died anyway, only a bit later?

[Windsurfboy]

30 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I wonder if the ONS, or anyone else for that matter will ever be able to measure whether locking down later really did result in a higher death toll for the UK or would the same numbers have died anyway, only a bit later?

 

That's a difficult one, the best answer will come from an in-depth comparison of different  countries with different policies, as I said taking into account , the differences in demographics,  underlying  health before covid, geography, essential  trade  and much more. It is something that is best done carefully by scientists and statisticians.  You certainly won't get an answer from the normal point scoring,  lawyer dominated, pubic enquiry, whiich is what it looks like we may get. 

[lincslady]

For those with long memories, we are having our second jab at home on Sunday, almost 12 weeks after the first.  Once again it took some reminders to get it arranged, but hopefully it will happen and in a couple more weeks we will feel safer.

[Angel57]

5 minutes ago, lincslady said:

For those with long memories, we are having our second jab at home on Sunday, almost 12 weeks after the first.  Once again it took some reminders to get it arranged, but hopefully it will happen and in a couple more weeks we will feel safer.

Great news......

[CI66774]

On 5/17/2021 at 1:20 PM, terrierjohn said:

And I dont believe we have considered the impact on future excess deaths that covid will have on cancer, heart etc because of the shutdown of the NHS. 

As an older poster I know I would have been distraught if I had survived covid because of this policy, while a close relative had not been able to be assessed for their illness, and subsequently died.

We already have such stories in the US. People who delayed routine mammograms, etc. now being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, etc.

[kalos]

News coming in that the single shot vaccine is to be used in the UK ....

 

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-johnson-johnson-single-dose-vaccine-approved-for-use-in-the-uk-12319122   

[Eddie99]

Great news, isn’t it?

We don’t actually have any ‘in stock’ as it were, yet, but it bodes well for the future if I can cut the jabbers workload in half ... and also eliminate the danger of people having one shot but neglecting to go back for the second one to get maximum protection.

Unfortunately I think I read that the J&J jab is a bit like AZ, so prob not ideal for younger people

 

I wonder if we’re going to be in for annual boosters?  It sounds quite likely

[MX-Drew]

37 minutes ago, kalos said:

News coming in that the single shot vaccine is to be used in the UK ....

 

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-johnson-johnson-single-dose-vaccine-approved-for-use-in-the-uk-12319122   

Although it is "only" 67% effective, but that is better than nothing.

[Beckett]

23 minutes ago, Eddie99 said:

Great news, isn’t it?

We don’t actually have any ‘in stock’ as it were, yet, but it bodes well for the future if I can cut the jabbers workload in half ... and also eliminate the danger of people having one shot but neglecting to go back for the second one to get maximum protection.

Unfortunately I think I read that the J&J jab is a bit like AZ, so prob not ideal for younger people

 

I wonder if we’re going to be in for annual boosters?  It sounds quite likely

Very likely Eddie.  We're awaiting confirmation. It will be for the over 65s first, we're told.  A lot of people aren't bothering with the second vaccine at the moment - idiots!  Have a great weekend. Jane.x

[kalos]

1 minute ago, Beckett said:

Very likely Eddie.  We're awaiting confirmation. It will be for the over 65s first, we're told.  A lot of people aren't bothering with the second vaccine at the moment - idiots!  Have a great weekend. Jane.x

I think it would be good for some parts of the world where people live remote or are 

poor and are forced to buy the vaccine . Under those circumstances ,then as Drew says 

67% is better than nothing . To be fair I have had flu jabs that were not that effective 

[zap99]

1 hour ago, Beckett said:

Very likely Eddie.  We're awaiting confirmation. It will be for the over 65s first, we're told.  A lot of people aren't bothering with the second vaccine at the moment - idiots!  Have a great weekend. Jane.x

I wonder if all these folk decline a second dose they may offer us enthusiasts a third one?🤔

[zap99]

1 hour ago, kalos said:

I think it would be good for some parts of the world where people live remote or are 

poor and are forced to buy the vaccine . Under those circumstances ,then as Drew says 

67% is better than nothing . To be fair I have had flu jabs that were not that effective 

Some of these home grown remedies work fine. Years ago I was told if you put garlic in your socks you will never get bitten by vampires. I started in 1968. Guess what?🤣

[kalos]

11 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Some of these home grown remedies work fine. Years ago I was told if you put garlic in your socks you will never get bitten by vampires. I started in 1968. Guess what?🤣

 You need to change your socks ?? 

[Josy1953]

6 hours ago, Eddie99 said:

Great news, isn’t it?

We don’t actually have any ‘in stock’ as it were, yet, but it bodes well for the future if I can cut the jabbers workload in half ... and also eliminate the danger of people having one shot but neglecting to go back for the second one to get maximum protection.

Unfortunately I think I read that the J&J jab is a bit like AZ, so prob not ideal for younger people

 

I wonder if we’re going to be in for annual boosters?  It sounds quite likely

I think that a one shot jab maybe better.  We were discussing the risks involved in not getting the second jab this afternoon at the vaccine clinic this afternoon.  The doctors were both saying that the government is not emphasising enough how important it is to get the second jab and they think that there should be a major campaign to make people aware of the difference that the second makes to the immunity levels. 

[Josy1953]

5 hours ago, zap99 said:

I wonder if all these folk decline a second dose they may offer us enthusiasts a third one?🤔

Possibly a booster jab in the autumn ?