Conundrum
 

Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.

Conundrum
 

Obviously faulty data then.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"jon" wrote in message ...
Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.

Conundrum
 

jon wrote:

Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.

Fully expected, you can see the cumulative and daily first/second rates here

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

As near as buggerit 60% of adults have had 1st plus 10% have had 2nd,
the 2nd doses now have to follow the pattern 3 months behind the 1st
doses, and the less vulnerable under 50s will get 1st doses at a slower
rate.

Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 07:31, jon wrote:
Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.

Wasn't that based on the *daily* figures yesterday?

--

Jeff

Conundrum
 

Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823
second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was
first doses = 752,308
second doses = 91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.

Conundrum
 

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
snip

Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...

I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?

Cheers, T i m

Conundrum
 

On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 10:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
snip
Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...
I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?

Cheers, T i m

I think you are mis-representing the state of play re coronavirus vaccines prior to Covid-19.

Wiki, I think, is reasonably accurate when it says:

"Prior to COVID€‘19, a vaccine for an infectious disease had never been produced in less than several years€”and no vaccine existed for preventing a coronavirus infection in humans.[10] However, vaccines have been produced against several animal diseases caused by coronaviruses, including (as of 2003) infectious bronchitis virus in birds, canine coronavirus, and feline coronavirus.[11] Previous projects to develop vaccines for viruses in the family Coronaviridae that affect humans have been aimed at severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Vaccines against SARS[12] and MERS[13] have been tested in non-human animals.

According to studies published in 2005 and 2006, the identification and development of novel vaccines and medicines to treat SARS was a priority for governments and public health agencies around the world at that time.[14][15][16] As of 2020, there is no cure or protective vaccine proven to be safe and effective against SARS in humans.[17][18] There is also no proven vaccine against MERS.[19] When MERS became prevalent, it was believed that existing SARS research may provide a useful template for developing vaccines and therapeutics against a MERS-CoV infection.[17][20] As of March 2020, there was one (DNA based) MERS vaccine which completed Phase I clinical trials in humans[21] and three others in progress, all being viral-vectored vaccines: two adenoviral-vectored (ChAdOx1-MERS, BVRS-GamVac) and one MVA-vectored (MVA-MERS-S).[22] "

Conundrum
 

T i m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...

I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I think China did actually give out samples of the virus to labs pretty
early, so the parts of the vaccines that "match" the virus could be
worked on. I don't know how much of the AZ vaccine was sitting on a
shelf waiting for its time to come?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?

I can see how some people might be "hesitant" because they think it's
rushed, but by doing stuff in parallel when they know that they'll be
paid by NHS/GOV (isn't it effectively on a cost-plus contract?) they
have shown they can move when they need to, shame that overseas they're
not really getting much thanks for that.

Conundrum
 

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 03:04:18 -0700 (PDT), polygonum_on_google
wrote:

On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 10:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
snip
Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...
I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?


I think you are mis-representing the state of play re coronavirus vaccines prior to Covid-19.

I'm not sure I was trying to 'represent' anything but question, hence
all the question marks? ;-)

Wiki, I think, is reasonably accurate when it says:

"Prior to COVID?19, a vaccine for an infectious disease had never been produced in less than several years—and no vaccine existed for preventing a coronavirus infection in humans.[10] However, vaccines have been produced against several animal diseases caused by coronaviruses, including (as of 2003) infectious bronchitis virus in birds, canine coronavirus, and feline coronavirus.[11] Previous projects to develop vaccines for viruses in the family Coronaviridae that affect humans have been aimed at severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Vaccines against SARS[12] and MERS[13] have been tested in non-human animals.

According to studies published in 2005 and 2006, the identification and development of novel vaccines and medicines to treat SARS was a priority for governments and public health agencies around the world at that time.[14][15][16] As of 2020, there is no cure or protective vaccine proven to be safe and effective against SARS in humans.[17][18] There is also no proven vaccine against MERS.[19] When MERS became prevalent, it was believed that existing SARS research may provide a useful template for developing vaccines and therapeutics against a MERS-CoV infection.[17][20] As of March 2020, there was one (DNA based) MERS vaccine which completed Phase I clinical trials in humans[21] and three others in progress, all being viral-vectored vaccines: two adenoviral-vectored (ChAdOx1-MERS, BVRS-GamVac) and one MVA-vectored (MVA-MERS-S).[22] "

So, to me that says 'they were a good way into developing vaccines for
some things but not some specific ones'?

I mean, if they we able to come up with one (several) for Covid19 so
quickly, are we saying they did so (and very quickly) from scratch?

Were the Covid19 vaccines 'easy', compared with all the others or how
were they able to come up with them so quickly, compared with the
others?

I'm not stating anything (again), still questioning. ;-)

And following up from your initial statement ... was the fact that
they turned out to be '(absolutely) right', '(just) lucky' / well
informed guess?

Cheers, T i m

Conundrum
 

In article ,
jon wrote:
Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.

Because of the much reported shortages in April, they are doing second
jabs in preference to first, until supplies come on stream again. Which
makes sense - otherwise the millions of first jabs may not be effective
for long enough.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 07:31, jon wrote:
Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.


Some of the first 'jabs' are 'jags' (Scottishism.
see jim) ?

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 08:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823
second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was
first doses = 752,308
second doses = 91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.


some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

Conundrum
 

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 11:54:03 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 03/04/2021 07:31, jon wrote:
Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.


Some of the first 'jabs' are 'jags' (Scottishism.
see jim) ?


I had a jag in the sixties, a MK2 3.8

Conundrum
 

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 11:20:44 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...

I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I think China did actually give out samples of the virus to labs pretty
early, so the parts of the vaccines that "match" the virus could be
worked on.

Yeah ... and that must have been difficult with the number of fingers
pointing at them as the source (China / Wuhan) etc. But there may be
several 'layers;' here, the scientists getting on with saving mankind
and the media / government / great unwashed doing other things. ;-)

I don't know how much of the AZ vaccine was sitting on a
shelf waiting for its time to come?

There was likely the raw ingredients (concepts / processes) there at
least.

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?

I can see how some people might be "hesitant" because they think it's
rushed, but by doing stuff in parallel when they know that they'll be
paid by NHS/GOV (isn't it effectively on a cost-plus contract?) they
have shown they can move when they need to,

Agreed, and much of any delay we may think we see is probably all the
testing / approval / manufacturing / distribution?

shame that overseas they're
not really getting much thanks for that.

Quite ... but I'm not surprised how many in Europe are not taking up
any 'British' solution, given how we have snubbed *them* lately
(Brexit) ... even if it's 'cutting off their noses' etc.

Cheers, T i m

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 11:55, Andrew wrote:
On 03/04/2021 08:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823
second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was
first doses = 752,308
second doses = 91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.


some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

as have a number who did not receive Jab #1


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Conundrum
 

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 03/04/2021 11:55, Andrew wrote:
On 03/04/2021 08:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823
second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was
first doses = 752,308
second doses = 91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.


some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

as have a number who did not receive Jab #1

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to measuring
things that they seem incapable of understanding simple statistics?

--
*If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 11:39, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 03:04:18 -0700 (PDT), polygonum_on_google
wrote:

On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 10:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
snip
Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...
I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?


I think you are mis-representing the state of play re coronavirus vaccines prior to Covid-19.

I'm not sure I was trying to 'represent' anything but question, hence
all the question marks? ;-)

There was perhaps a bit, since your question implied that there were
existing human vaccines for other corona viruses, which does not
actually appear to be the case.

Wiki, I think, is reasonably accurate when it says:

"Prior to COVID?19, a vaccine for an infectious disease had never been produced in less than several years€”and no vaccine existed for preventing a coronavirus infection in humans.[10] However, vaccines have been produced against several animal diseases caused by coronaviruses, including (as of 2003) infectious bronchitis virus in birds, canine coronavirus, and feline coronavirus.[11] Previous projects to develop vaccines for viruses in the family Coronaviridae that affect humans have been aimed at severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Vaccines against SARS[12] and MERS[13] have been tested in non-human animals.

According to studies published in 2005 and 2006, the identification and development of novel vaccines and medicines to treat SARS was a priority for governments and public health agencies around the world at that time.[14][15][16] As of 2020, there is no cure or protective vaccine proven to be safe and effective against SARS in humans.[17][18] There is also no proven vaccine against MERS.[19] When MERS became prevalent, it was believed that existing SARS research may provide a useful template for developing vaccines and therapeutics against a MERS-CoV infection.[17][20] As of March 2020, there was one (DNA based) MERS vaccine which completed Phase I clinical trials in humans[21] and three others in progress, all being viral-vectored vaccines: two adenoviral-vectored (ChAdOx1-MERS, BVRS-GamVac) and one MVA-vectored (MVA-MERS-S).[22] "

So, to me that says 'they were a good way into developing vaccines for
some things but not some specific ones'?

Depends on what you mean by a "good way". In the case of traditional
vaccine technologies like viral vector - the technology itself is well
known. The mechanics of production normally (IIUC) require the culturing
of sufficient viral material to facilitate the development of a vaccine.
This can apparently take anything from a couple of weeks to years (ISTR
reading that for measles it took 10 years just for this stage).

With mRNA vaccines - these have been worked on for 20 years or more - it
was understood how they would work in principle, but actually making a
viable product that would work in real life has been a monumental
challenge - so the technology itself was groundbreaking, and the current
vaccines are the first products of their type for human use.

I mean, if they we able to come up with one (several) for Covid19 so
quickly, are we saying they did so (and very quickly) from scratch?

The main "speed" enhancement really comes down to money and global
focus. Normally when a vaccine is developed, it's a private enterprise
project. A maker will need to assess if there is a potential market for
it, before deciding to start development. Once this is done they start
trials. Often each stage needs not only regulatory approval, but also to
raise funding for the trial, and to recruit enough volunteers to create
the first safety studies. Once these are complete and the number
crunched, they can then decide whether to proceed to the next set of
(far more expensive) larger scale trials, or go back a stage and
reformulate the vaccine. So more rounds of approvals and fund raising.
Each phase going through analysis and due diligence to decide if moving
to the next stage is viable and sensible. Many many projects will falter
long before a viable product emerges at the end, and they have a hope of
recouping their expenditure - so the potential "up side" needs not only
cover the costs of this potential product but also the R&D for many of
those that failed.

In this case, with international focus and interest, plus governments
underwriting the costs and supporting the infrastructure, once they had
established that the vaccines were not obviously dangerous, they could
move from stage to stage much more quickly - in many cases overlapping
the end of one trial phase with the start of the next. The world focus
meant finding trail volunteers was also much easier - so putting
together large studies was much easier, and the prevalence of the virus
itself meant that it was easy to find places to do trials where there
was sufficient exposure to the virus to get useful results quickly.

Also it made shared industry knowledge more accessible to to new
entrants, like Oxford / AZ who were not established global players in
the vaccine industry. That enabled them to scale up manufacturing and
production capacity at an unprecedented pace - even if they have still
obviously had teething troubles.

Were the Covid19 vaccines 'easy', compared with all the others or how
were they able to come up with them so quickly, compared with the
others?

With the traditional approach, I read that the culturing stage was
fairly quick. So in one sense not especially difficult (although I
expect that the production of any vaccine is "difficult" in absolute terms).

With mRNA vaccines, one of the great strengths of the technology is the
speed at which it can be targeted - the design taking very little time
once a full gene sequence of the pathogen is available.

I'm not stating anything (again), still questioning. ;-)

And following up from your initial statement ... was the fact that
they turned out to be '(absolutely) right', '(just) lucky' / well
informed guess?

Luck will be a part - but with the old adage about the more your
practice, the more lucky you get. Having said that even some of the
established players did not strike lucky with their first big attempts.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Conundrum
 

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:37:26 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 03/04/2021 11:55, Andrew wrote:
On 03/04/2021 08:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823 second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was first doses = 752,308 second doses =
91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.


some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

as have a number who did not receive Jab #1

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

Measurements are real, not guess work.

Conundrum
 

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 15:05:52 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 03/04/2021 11:39, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 03:04:18 -0700 (PDT), polygonum_on_google
wrote:

On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 10:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
snip
Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...
I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?


I think you are mis-representing the state of play re coronavirus vaccines prior to Covid-19.

I'm not sure I was trying to 'represent' anything but question, hence
all the question marks? ;-)

There was perhaps a bit, since your question implied that there were
existing human vaccines for other corona viruses, which does not
actually appear to be the case.

Oh, I thought there were but most people know I'm not a doctor /
epidemiologist so run off and build a new vaccine centre based on
anything I said on the matter. ;-)

I was watching something about it on TV the other day and they
suggested that 'Corona viruses' were not 'new or unknown' and many
don't have typically bad side effects (and generally aren't fatal) and
they had 'countermeasures' for those that can?

snip

So, to me that says 'they were a good way into developing vaccines for
some things but not some specific ones'?

Depends on what you mean by a "good way". In the case of traditional
vaccine technologies like viral vector - the technology itself is well
known. The mechanics of production normally (IIUC) require the culturing
of sufficient viral material to facilitate the development of a vaccine.
This can apparently take anything from a couple of weeks to years (ISTR
reading that for measles it took 10 years just for this stage).

Ok.

With mRNA vaccines - these have been worked on for 20 years or more - it
was understood how they would work in principle, but actually making a
viable product that would work in real life has been a monumental
challenge - so the technology itself was groundbreaking, and the current
vaccines are the first products of their type for human use.

Ah, ok. Apparently still only took NIAID researchers a couple of
months to come up with the vaccine (mRNA-1273)? Maybe they just got
their fingers out. ;-)

I mean, if they we able to come up with one (several) for Covid19 so
quickly, are we saying they did so (and very quickly) from scratch?

The main "speed" enhancement really comes down to money and global
focus. Normally when a vaccine is developed, it's a private enterprise
project. A maker will need to assess if there is a potential market for
it, before deciding to start development.

Pretty obvious there was in this case. ;-)

Once this is done they start
trials. Often each stage needs not only regulatory approval, but also to
raise funding for the trial, and to recruit enough volunteers to create
the first safety studies. Once these are complete and the number
crunched, they can then decide whether to proceed to the next set of
(far more expensive) larger scale trials, or go back a stage and
reformulate the vaccine.

Makes sense.

So more rounds of approvals and fund raising.
Each phase going through analysis and due diligence to decide if moving
to the next stage is viable and sensible. Many many projects will falter
long before a viable product emerges at the end, and they have a hope of
recouping their expenditure - so the potential "up side" needs not only
cover the costs of this potential product but also the R&D for many of
those that failed.

Which is why some drugs are very expensive ... that and if they are
the only manufacturers (for the cost reasons given) they go on
scalping people way after their costs have been covered? Like some
toll bridges etc.

In this case, with international focus and interest, plus governments
underwriting the costs and supporting the infrastructure, once they had
established that the vaccines were not obviously dangerous, they could
move from stage to stage much more quickly - in many cases overlapping
the end of one trial phase with the start of the next. The world focus
meant finding trail volunteers was also much easier - so putting
together large studies was much easier, and the prevalence of the virus
itself meant that it was easy to find places to do trials where there
was sufficient exposure to the virus to get useful results quickly.

Yeah.

Also it made shared industry knowledge more accessible to to new
entrants, like Oxford / AZ who were not established global players in
the vaccine industry. That enabled them to scale up manufacturing and
production capacity at an unprecedented pace - even if they have still
obviously had teething troubles.

Possibly not helped if they were actually giving it away?

Were the Covid19 vaccines 'easy', compared with all the others or how
were they able to come up with them so quickly, compared with the
others?

With the traditional approach, I read that the culturing stage was
fairly quick. So in one sense not especially difficult (although I
expect that the production of any vaccine is "difficult" in absolute terms).

Understood and running off the back of research into SARS and MERS.

With mRNA vaccines, one of the great strengths of the technology is the
speed at which it can be targeted - the design taking very little time
once a full gene sequence of the pathogen is available.

Gene sequencing seems to be one area where I understand lots of people
have got together. I wonder of any of that was down to any 'grid' type
shared number-crunching?

I'm not stating anything (again), still questioning. ;-)

And following up from your initial statement ... was the fact that
they turned out to be '(absolutely) right', '(just) lucky' / well
informed guess?

Luck will be a part - but with the old adage about the more your
practice, the more lucky you get. Having said that even some of the
established players did not strike lucky with their first big attempts.

And then you have lucky and LUCKY. Like the issues / limitations in
the storage and deployment of the Pfizer solution.

Maybe it has to be kept that cold to stop it solidifying. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 17:07, jon wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:37:26 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 03/04/2021 11:55, Andrew wrote:
On 03/04/2021 08:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823 second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was first doses = 752,308 second doses =
91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.


some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

as have a number who did not receive Jab #1

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

Measurements are real, not guess work.


Statistics are applied to real measurements to prove or disprove
anything you like. Like the University of east Anglia software
'fudge' used to generate that hockey-stick indication of global
warming.

Conundrum
 

In article ,
jon wrote:
Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

Measurements are real, not guess work.

We have pretty accurate statistics for the numbers killed by Covid as a
percentage, and those killed by blood clots after having the vaccine. Even
allowing for the fact that they may or may not have had that clot without
the vaccine.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Conundrum
 

T i m wrote
Andy Burns wrote

Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses
to 3 months has turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...

I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the
jabs for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to
those in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad
things', corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

We don't in fact have vaccines for other human corona viruses.

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually
had the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?

You'd be wrong because we don't in fact have vaccines for other
human corona viruses. Yes the tested / approved / mass produced
etc did take time in the west. Russia, China and India didn't bother
with the same level of tested / approved / mass produced etc and
started using theirs much sooner.

Conundrum
 

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 03:04:18 -0700 (PDT), polygonum_on_google
wrote:

On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 10:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
snip
Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months
has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...
I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?


I think you are mis-representing the state of play re coronavirus vaccines
prior to Covid-19.

I'm not sure I was trying to 'represent' anything but question, hence
all the question marks? ;-)

Wiki, I think, is reasonably accurate when it says:

"Prior to COVID?19, a vaccine for an infectious disease had never been
produced in less than several years-and no vaccine existed for preventing
a coronavirus infection in humans.[10] However, vaccines have been
produced against several animal diseases caused by coronaviruses,
including (as of 2003) infectious bronchitis virus in birds, canine
coronavirus, and feline coronavirus.[11] Previous projects to develop
vaccines for viruses in the family Coronaviridae that affect humans have
been aimed at severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East
respiratory syndrome (MERS). Vaccines against SARS[12] and MERS[13] have
been tested in non-human animals.

According to studies published in 2005 and 2006, the identification and
development of novel vaccines and medicines to treat SARS was a priority
for governments and public health agencies around the world at that
time.[14][15][16] As of 2020, there is no cure or protective vaccine
proven to be safe and effective against SARS in humans.[17][18] There is
also no proven vaccine against MERS.[19] When MERS became prevalent, it
was believed that existing SARS research may provide a useful template for
developing vaccines and therapeutics against a MERS-CoV infection.[17][20]
As of March 2020, there was one (DNA based) MERS vaccine which completed
Phase I clinical trials in humans[21] and three others in progress, all
being viral-vectored vaccines: two adenoviral-vectored (ChAdOx1-MERS,
BVRS-GamVac) and one MVA-vectored (MVA-MERS-S).[22] "

So, to me that says 'they were a good way into developing vaccines for
some things but not some specific ones'?

I mean, if they we able to come up with one (several) for Covid19 so
quickly, are we saying they did so (and very quickly) from scratch?

Yes they did. In spades with the mRNA vaccines.

Were the Covid19 vaccines 'easy', compared with all the others

Harder, because there had been no coronavirus
vaccines for humans previously.

or how were they able to come up with them
so quickly, compared with the others?

By running the phase trials in parallel, and not bothering
with waiting for the phase 3 trials to complete in the case
of russia, china and india before using the new vaccines.

And by mass producing before it was known that the
vaccine would be approved, hoping that they would
be in the case of the west.

I'm not stating anything (again), still questioning. ;-)

And following up from your initial statement ...
was the fact that they turned out to be '(absolutely)
right', '(just) lucky' / well informed guess?

Both. It didn't work out like that with the SARS vaccine,
it turned out to have very serious medical downsides.
They were just lucky that it died out by itself so they
didn't need a vaccine.

Conundrum
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jon wrote:
Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.

Because of the much reported shortages in April, they are doing second
jabs in preference to first, until supplies come on stream again. Which
makes sense - otherwise the millions of first jabs may not be effective
for long enough.

Turns out that the 3 major vaccines all do very well with the first jab
alone.

Conundrum
 

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 03/04/2021 08:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823
second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was
first doses = 752,308
second doses = 91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.


some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

Not enough to explain those stats.

Conundrum
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 03/04/2021 17:07, jon wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:37:26 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 03/04/2021 11:55, Andrew wrote:
On 03/04/2021 08:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823 second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was first doses = 752,308 second doses =
91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.


some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

as have a number who did not receive Jab #1

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

Measurements are real, not guess work.


Statistics are applied to real measurements to prove or disprove
anything you like. Like the University of east Anglia software
'fudge' used to generate that hockey-stick indication of global
warming.

many years ago, the Duke of Edinburgh said that there were only three
statistics that mattered - and they were vital.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

More Heavy Trolling by the Senile Octogenarian Nym-Shifting Ozzie Cretin!
 

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 04:18:55 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

More Heavy Trolling by the Senile Octogenarian Nym-Shifting Ozzie Cretin!
 

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 04:15:15 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland addressing senile Rodent's tall stories:
"Do you really think people believe your stories you come up with to boost
your self esteem."
Message-ID:

More Heavy Trolling by the Senile Octogenarian Nym-Shifting Ozzie Cretin!
 

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 04:02:12 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
 

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 04:16:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Because of the much reported shortages in April, they are doing second
jabs in preference to first, until supplies come on stream again. Which
makes sense - otherwise the millions of first jabs may not be effective
for long enough.

Turns out that the 3 major vaccines all do very well with the first jab
alone.

Obviously not well ENOUGH for the responsibles who prefer pushing second
jabs, you all-knowing senile cretin!

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

Conundrum
 

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 15:05:52 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 03/04/2021 11:39, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 03:04:18 -0700 (PDT), polygonum_on_google
wrote:

On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 10:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
snip
Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months
has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...
I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?


I think you are mis-representing the state of play re coronavirus
vaccines prior to Covid-19.

I'm not sure I was trying to 'represent' anything but question, hence
all the question marks? ;-)

There was perhaps a bit, since your question implied that there were
existing human vaccines for other corona viruses, which does not
actually appear to be the case.

Oh, I thought there were but most people know I'm not a doctor /
epidemiologist so run off and build a new vaccine centre based on
anything I said on the matter. ;-)

I was watching something about it on TV the other day and they
suggested that 'Corona viruses' were not 'new or unknown'

Yes, some of the common cold viruses are corona viruses.

and many don't have typically bad
side effects (and generally aren't fatal)

Yes that's true of the common cold corona viruses.

and they had 'countermeasures' for those that can?

snip

So, to me that says 'they were a good way into developing vaccines for
some things but not some specific ones'?

Depends on what you mean by a "good way". In the case of traditional
vaccine technologies like viral vector - the technology itself is well
known. The mechanics of production normally (IIUC) require the culturing
of sufficient viral material to facilitate the development of a vaccine.
This can apparently take anything from a couple of weeks to years (ISTR
reading that for measles it took 10 years just for this stage).

Ok.

With mRNA vaccines - these have been worked on for 20 years or more - it
was understood how they would work in principle, but actually making a
viable product that would work in real life has been a monumental
challenge - so the technology itself was groundbreaking, and the current
vaccines are the first products of their type for human use.

Ah, ok. Apparently still only took NIAID researchers a couple of
months to come up with the vaccine (mRNA-1273)? Maybe they just got
their fingers out. ;-)

I mean, if they we able to come up with one (several) for Covid19 so
quickly, are we saying they did so (and very quickly) from scratch?

The main "speed" enhancement really comes down to money and global
focus. Normally when a vaccine is developed, it's a private enterprise
project. A maker will need to assess if there is a potential market for
it, before deciding to start development.

Pretty obvious there was in this case. ;-)

Once this is done they start
trials. Often each stage needs not only regulatory approval, but also to
raise funding for the trial, and to recruit enough volunteers to create
the first safety studies. Once these are complete and the number
crunched, they can then decide whether to proceed to the next set of
(far more expensive) larger scale trials, or go back a stage and
reformulate the vaccine.

Makes sense.

So more rounds of approvals and fund raising.
Each phase going through analysis and due diligence to decide if moving
to the next stage is viable and sensible. Many many projects will falter
long before a viable product emerges at the end, and they have a hope of
recouping their expenditure - so the potential "up side" needs not only
cover the costs of this potential product but also the R&D for many of
those that failed.

Which is why some drugs are very expensive ... that and if they are
the only manufacturers (for the cost reasons given) they go on
scalping people way after their costs have been covered? Like some
toll bridges etc.

In this case, with international focus and interest, plus governments
underwriting the costs and supporting the infrastructure, once they had
established that the vaccines were not obviously dangerous, they could
move from stage to stage much more quickly - in many cases overlapping
the end of one trial phase with the start of the next. The world focus
meant finding trail volunteers was also much easier - so putting
together large studies was much easier, and the prevalence of the virus
itself meant that it was easy to find places to do trials where there
was sufficient exposure to the virus to get useful results quickly.

Yeah.

Also it made shared industry knowledge more accessible to to new
entrants, like Oxford / AZ who were not established global players in
the vaccine industry. That enabled them to scale up manufacturing and
production capacity at an unprecedented pace - even if they have still
obviously had teething troubles.

Possibly not helped if they were actually giving it away?

Were the Covid19 vaccines 'easy', compared with all the others or how
were they able to come up with them so quickly, compared with the
others?

With the traditional approach, I read that the culturing stage was
fairly quick. So in one sense not especially difficult (although I
expect that the production of any vaccine is "difficult" in absolute
terms).

Understood and running off the back of research into SARS and MERS.

With mRNA vaccines, one of the great strengths of the technology is the
speed at which it can be targeted - the design taking very little time
once a full gene sequence of the pathogen is available.

Gene sequencing seems to be one area where I understand lots of people
have got together.

Because its very useful information with the various
strains of covid and working out who got the virus
from who etc when contact tracing.

I wonder of any of that was down to any 'grid' type
shared number-crunching?

Not necessary with something as simple as a virus.

I'm not stating anything (again), still questioning. ;-)

And following up from your initial statement ... was the fact that
they turned out to be '(absolutely) right', '(just) lucky' / well
informed guess?

Luck will be a part - but with the old adage about the more your
practice, the more lucky you get. Having said that even some of the
established players did not strike lucky with their first big attempts.

And then you have lucky and LUCKY. Like the issues / limitations in
the storage and deployment of the Pfizer solution.

Maybe it has to be kept that cold to stop it solidifying. ;-)

More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!
 

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 04:54:59 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
Senile Rot about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 17:37, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 15:05:52 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 03/04/2021 11:39, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 03:04:18 -0700 (PDT), polygonum_on_google
wrote:

On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 10:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
snip
Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...
I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs
for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those
in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things',
corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had
the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken
the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?


I think you are mis-representing the state of play re coronavirus vaccines prior to Covid-19.

I'm not sure I was trying to 'represent' anything but question, hence
all the question marks? ;-)

There was perhaps a bit, since your question implied that there were
existing human vaccines for other corona viruses, which does not
actually appear to be the case.

Oh, I thought there were but most people know I'm not a doctor /
epidemiologist so run off and build a new vaccine centre based on
anything I said on the matter. ;-)

I was watching something about it on TV the other day and they
suggested that 'Corona viruses' were not 'new or unknown' and many
don't have typically bad side effects (and generally aren't fatal) and
they had 'countermeasures' for those that can?


Indeed not, some common colds are caused by corona viruses.

snip

So, to me that says 'they were a good way into developing vaccines for
some things but not some specific ones'?

Depends on what you mean by a "good way". In the case of traditional
vaccine technologies like viral vector - the technology itself is well
known. The mechanics of production normally (IIUC) require the culturing
of sufficient viral material to facilitate the development of a vaccine.
This can apparently take anything from a couple of weeks to years (ISTR
reading that for measles it took 10 years just for this stage).

Ok.

With mRNA vaccines - these have been worked on for 20 years or more - it
was understood how they would work in principle, but actually making a
viable product that would work in real life has been a monumental
challenge - so the technology itself was groundbreaking, and the current
vaccines are the first products of their type for human use.

Ah, ok. Apparently still only took NIAID researchers a couple of
months to come up with the vaccine (mRNA-1273)? Maybe they just got
their fingers out. ;-)

With the mRNA vaccines it was not the pathogen specific bit that was
difficult. It was (among many thing) working out how to get the mRNA to
survive long enough in the body to actually do its thing.


I mean, if they we able to come up with one (several) for Covid19 so
quickly, are we saying they did so (and very quickly) from scratch?

The main "speed" enhancement really comes down to money and global
focus. Normally when a vaccine is developed, it's a private enterprise
project. A maker will need to assess if there is a potential market for
it, before deciding to start development.

Pretty obvious there was in this case. ;-)

In a way quite unlike any that proceeded it!

Once this is done they start
trials. Often each stage needs not only regulatory approval, but also to
raise funding for the trial, and to recruit enough volunteers to create
the first safety studies. Once these are complete and the number
crunched, they can then decide whether to proceed to the next set of
(far more expensive) larger scale trials, or go back a stage and
reformulate the vaccine.

Makes sense.

So more rounds of approvals and fund raising.
Each phase going through analysis and due diligence to decide if moving
to the next stage is viable and sensible. Many many projects will falter
long before a viable product emerges at the end, and they have a hope of
recouping their expenditure - so the potential "up side" needs not only
cover the costs of this potential product but also the R&D for many of
those that failed.

Which is why some drugs are very expensive ... that and if they are
the only manufacturers (for the cost reasons given) they go on
scalping people way after their costs have been covered? Like some
toll bridges etc.

As with any business it makes a profit, or eventually ceases to exist.
Some new drugs cost billions to fully bring to market. There is also a
limited window before the patents expire and they can be produced as
"generics".

In this case, with international focus and interest, plus governments
underwriting the costs and supporting the infrastructure, once they had
established that the vaccines were not obviously dangerous, they could
move from stage to stage much more quickly - in many cases overlapping
the end of one trial phase with the start of the next. The world focus
meant finding trail volunteers was also much easier - so putting
together large studies was much easier, and the prevalence of the virus
itself meant that it was easy to find places to do trials where there
was sufficient exposure to the virus to get useful results quickly.

Yeah.

Also it made shared industry knowledge more accessible to to new
entrants, like Oxford / AZ who were not established global players in
the vaccine industry. That enabled them to scale up manufacturing and
production capacity at an unprecedented pace - even if they have still
obviously had teething troubles.

Possibly not helped if they were actually giving it away?

Giving away at cost rather than at a loss I believe that was the plan.

(How well that will turn out will depend on how bigger ****s the EU want
to be I guess. I can see them feeling that the influx of an army of
stroppy lawyers was not quite the type of appreciation they were
expecting as a thank you)

Were the Covid19 vaccines 'easy', compared with all the others or how
were they able to come up with them so quickly, compared with the
others?

With the traditional approach, I read that the culturing stage was
fairly quick. So in one sense not especially difficult (although I
expect that the production of any vaccine is "difficult" in absolute terms).

Understood and running off the back of research into SARS and MERS.

With mRNA vaccines, one of the great strengths of the technology is the
speed at which it can be targeted - the design taking very little time
once a full gene sequence of the pathogen is available.

Gene sequencing seems to be one area where I understand lots of people
have got together. I wonder of any of that was down to any 'grid' type
shared number-crunching?

Not especially - AIUI, its a case of preparing a sample with a bit of
prep chemistry and then feeding it to an automated DNA sequencer.

I'm not stating anything (again), still questioning. ;-)

And following up from your initial statement ... was the fact that
they turned out to be '(absolutely) right', '(just) lucky' / well
informed guess?

Luck will be a part - but with the old adage about the more your
practice, the more lucky you get. Having said that even some of the
established players did not strike lucky with their first big attempts.

And then you have lucky and LUCKY. Like the issues / limitations in
the storage and deployment of the Pfizer solution.

Maybe it has to be kept that cold to stop it solidifying. ;-)

I believe its distributed as a solid and needs to be rehydrated before use?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 19:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
jon wrote:
Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

Measurements are real, not guess work.

We have pretty accurate statistics for the numbers killed by Covid as a
percentage, and those killed by blood clots after having the vaccine. Even
allowing for the fact that they may or may not have had that clot without
the vaccine.

Indeed, and when the risk of being killed by covid is several orders of
magnitude greater than being killed by a clot, it really ought not be
that difficult to decided which option carries least overall risk.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Conundrum
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/04/2021 19:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
jon wrote:
Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

Measurements are real, not guess work.

We have pretty accurate statistics for the numbers killed by Covid as a
percentage, and those killed by blood clots after having the vaccine.
Even
allowing for the fact that they may or may not have had that clot without
the vaccine.

Indeed, and when the risk of being killed by covid is several orders of
magnitude greater than being killed by a clot, it really ought not be that
difficult to decided which option carries least overall risk.

But the other option is to have the Pfizer which works better
and which has far less risk of that very rare blood clot problem.

Conundrum
 

I also remember them saying that they had, for a few weeks to administer 2nd
doses to avoid people going over the time limit, so surely this change in
priority is expected until they catch up a bit. Mine is due toward the end
of this month first week of next so we shall see if they meet that with the
second dose. I have pointed out to them that I'd need a weeks warning to
find a person to bring me to keep social distancing.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Obviously faulty data then.

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823
second doses = 435,177
A couple of weeks ago it was
first doses = 752,308
second doses = 91,977
So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 08:32, Andy Burns wrote:
jon wrote:

Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.

Fully expected, you can see the cumulative and daily first/second rates
here

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

As near as buggerit 60% of adults have had 1st plus 10% have had 2nd,
the 2nd doses now have to follow the pattern 3 months behind the 1st
doses, and the less vulnerable under 50s will get 1st doses at a slower
rate.

Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...


When I booked my jab I was automatically booked in for the 2nd 11 weeks
later.

--
Adam

Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
 

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 08:32:12 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But the other option is to have the Pfizer which works better
and which has far less risk of that very rare blood clot problem.

The best option would be if you finally swallowed your Nembutal, you useless
endlessly bull****ting and quarrelling senile pest!

Conundrum
 

In article ,
Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) wrote:
I also remember them saying that they had, for a few weeks to administer
2nd doses to avoid people going over the time limit, so surely this
change in priority is expected until they catch up a bit. Mine is due
toward the end of this month first week of next so we shall see if they
meet that with the second dose. I have pointed out to them that I'd
need a weeks warning to find a person to bring me to keep social
distancing.

All my (old) friends who had the vaccine early on due to age etc have
either had or have a date for the second one.

--
*Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Conundrum
 

On 03/04/2021 08:32, Andy Burns wrote:
jon wrote:

Alexa News report: second jabs outnumber first jabs.

Fully expected, you can see the cumulative and daily first/second rates
here

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

As near as buggerit 60% of adults have had 1st plus 10% have had 2nd,
the 2nd doses now have to follow the pattern 3 months behind the 1st
doses, and the less vulnerable under 50s will get 1st doses at a slower
rate.

Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has
turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...

There were many articles at the time said that the industry standard for
max effect was a delay of 12 weeks. 12 weeks being the gold standard due
to the way our immune system works

And that the 3 weeks delay in trials was for expediency to get the
vaccine regulatory approval some 2 months earlier than otherwise if a 12
week delay had been used.