Happier diner Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 6 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: It wasn't MY analogy. It was that of Prof Tedder being interviewed. I'm not qualified to question his opinions. Presumably, unlike yourself? I am just saying the analogy is poor not his opinion. He probably thinks we are all too thick to understand the proper science and that he is best quoting something that is not scientifically true (which it is not). You don't need to be a professor to understand that vaccines are not medicines and certainly not antibiotics just like to don't need to be a professor of hydrocarbon science to know that you don't put petrol in a diesel car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 10 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: It wasn't MY analogy. It was that of Prof Tedder being interviewed. I'm not qualified to question his opinions. Presumably, unlike yourself? and i wasn't criticising you ...just the prof 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 4 hours ago, asitis said: The Promenade in a vial is vile !!!!!!!!! 😃 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 Personally, I could see his opinions bring worthy of consideration, simplistically speaking, this vaccine has been developed by scientists to be administered in X amount to be effective. Now for whatever reasons, political/logistical/economic expediency, it's being suggested that the dosage be reduced. Given the virus' ability to mutate relatively quickly it's not beyond the realms of fantasy that it may do that again in order to outmanouvre the vaccine if it's being administered in insufficient dosage to be effective as originally designed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Personally, I could see his opinions bring worthy of consideration, simplistically speaking, this vaccine has been developed by scientists to be administered in X amount to be effective. Now for whatever reasons, political/logistical/economic expediency, it's being suggested that the dosage be reduced. Given the virus' ability to mutate relatively quickly it's not beyond the realms of fantasy that it may do that again in order to outmanouvre the vaccine if it's being administered in insufficient dosage to be effective as originally designed? Selection pressures are different. For antibiotic resistance, if you stop a course too soon you may not have killed all the bugs, particularly those with partial resistance, which then go on to multiply and form a resistant strain. In the immune scenario, if hypothetically a late dose of vaccine means you have a lower level of immunity you’re more likely to get ill. There’s no selection pressure for an antibody resistant strain to predominate. In fact, I’d argue that higher levels of immunity provide that selection pressure. Being vaccinated may not prevent spread of the disease but prevents you getting ill. Presumably, if you are able to spread the virus still, the ones you spread are the ones that are resistant to being mopped up by your high levels of antibodies. This is all theory and speculation. Following the science, I’d argue that vaccines should stick to what’s been demonstrated by the trials. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 19 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Personally, I could see his opinions bring worthy of consideration, simplistically speaking, this vaccine has been developed by scientists to be administered in X amount to be effective. Now for whatever reasons, political/logistical/economic expediency, it's being suggested that the dosage be reduced. Given the virus' ability to mutate relatively quickly it's not beyond the realms of fantasy that it may do that again in order to outmanouvre the vaccine if it's being administered in insufficient dosage to be effective as originally designed? I don't understand the Prof's logic (and I'm also a dunce on these matters but I'll have my two pennyworth! ). The vaccine wasn't available when it produced a variant (in fact quite a few), so it's entirely possible that the current vaccines will prevent any further variations etc. Until a certain percentage (and I've no idea what that may be) of the population has been vaccinated we won't know if that will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 27 minutes ago, wrighty said: . Following the science, I’d argue that vaccines should stick to what’s been demonstrated by the trials. Quite right. Ashford has just reinforced that point, in the most sensible thing he's ever said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 7, 2021 Author Share Posted January 7, 2021 Might need it every year or sooner https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-matt-hancock-says-latest-lockdown-will-be-the-last-but-coronavirus-jabs-might-be-needed-every-six-months-12181677 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 7, 2021 Author Share Posted January 7, 2021 So we’ve got the Oxford vaccine but waiting to check paperwork as usual! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 38 minutes ago, Banker said: So we’ve got the Oxford vaccine but waiting to check paperwork as usual! Maybe they'll change the recipe if we don't like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 44 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Quite right. Ashford has just reinforced that point, in the most sensible thing he's ever said. That makes more sense Teapot. You are correct. When vaccines are developed the developers don't design them with an application/re application target, these things are evaluated by trials. Trials have been carried out to evaluate this but obviously (and rightly) in an accelerated way. It may be that real world trials (that are happening as we speak in the world around) vary the previous view 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 I have only seen the MR 'blog' so I'm not sure if this will be correct, but the Boy Vampire seems to be saying that his target is 1,141 jabs of Pfizer and - in due course - 700 of Oxford vaccine per week. Am I alone in thinking that this is pathetic? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoymouse Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said: I have only seen the MR 'blog' so I'm not sure if this will be correct, but the Boy Vampire seems to be saying that his target is 1,141 jabs of Pfizer and - in due course - 700 of Oxford vaccine per week. Am I alone in thinking that this is pathetic? Given the dire situation in the UK I think it’s impressive we’ve managed to secure any vaccine at all, we can’t exactly be high on the priority list. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 6 minutes ago, Annoymouse said: Given the dire situation in the UK I think it’s impressive we’ve managed to secure any vaccine at all, we can’t exactly be high on the priority list. Impressive? It's pathetic. We are 2 weeks behind and that equates to 2000 shots. We should be in a situation where we are waiting for vaccine and shouting for more not sitting with it in a fridge. We get a pro rata amount from the UK so unless we have done the same % of our population we have failed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 27 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said: I have only seen the MR 'blog' so I'm not sure if this will be correct, but the Boy Vampire seems to be saying that his target is 1,141 jabs of Pfizer and - in due course - 700 of Oxford vaccine per week. Am I alone in thinking that this is pathetic? Presumably they can only inject what they're given. The real problem is that they have been so slow starting and then prioritised the people who were easiest to inject (DHSC staff) rather than those who needed it most (the very elderly). 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.