Jump to content

We shall fight those coronaviruses.


DonPeffers

Recommended Posts

It will be in two to three weeks time when we will know if the relaxation has caused a significant spike or not. I am sure the press will see one or two extra cases as armageddon but there will be ups and down now until the winter months when the normal seasonal flu will kick in.

 

It appears they are looking at free flu jabs for all over 50's which will help and I also hear they are going to make in a mandatory requirement for all NHS staff to have it as well. I can see that one being contentious with the anti vaxxers movement.

 

I am sure it will rise in the winter but not convinced we will see a huge spike due to relaxation of the rules.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, jim_l said:

 

Before we read too much into Caucasian and Asian resistance to it I would need to  eliminate other differences between countries first. 

 

One third of UK victims are diabetic, what is it about diabetes, or indeed how we treat it, that makes Covid more likely to kill?  same with obesity, heart disease and dementia and others?  

 

For all those ailments, how do  nations compare, are  other nations aging in better health than us, fewer with underlying diseases? 

 

So many of the deaths in Europe and elsewhere have been in care homes, is the care home a factor, compared with extended families live together.

 

Those are just a few of the questions I would need answers to, but in any case I think it is complex enough that people will be able to apply the same data and reach different conclusions for a while yet. 

 

There is a huge interplay between viruses, vaccines and other illnesses, this is from the WHO:

 

"Elderly individuals given influenza vaccine in the USA had approximately 20% less chance of suffering cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease and 50% lower risk of mortality from all causes compared to their unvaccinated counterparts."

 

Jim

UK and Japan 

 

Dementia 1.3% v 3.6%-----Diabetes  both about 7%   Care home residents both about 0.7%.

 

Where Japan really wins is in obesity with UK about 29% and Japan 3.6%.

 

Jim..do you have a link for the WHO report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

Jim..do you have a link for the WHO report?

 

About halfway down this fairly long paper Don,    under "Extending life expectancy" (I think there are other reports around giving more detail) I was surprised by those numbers,  other information I read suggests that you are 6 times more likely to have a heart attack in the week after a bad bout of flu,  I am guessing that few of those cases would have flu reported as the cause of death, but you could argue that it was? 

 

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/2/07-040089/en/

 

CDC in the US appears to be undertaking a substantial study called 'Assessing Risk Factors for Severe COVID-19 Illness'  (you'll find it using that expression)  that will be interesting. 

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim.

 

I am unclear how a flu vaccine could beneficially affect blood vessels in the heart and brain.

 

Of course catching flu (lung infection) reducing oxygen uptake, increases workload on heart so that is a concern. Then again the flu jab isn't guaranteed to stop someone catching flu.

It might be more health conscious individuals who have the flu jab in the first place, hence their greater longevity.

 

The CDC covid-19 risk factors for severe illness will be interesting when completed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When those two, whose names I've forgotten, were kicking off in the press about being held prisoner on that cruise ship right in the early days, he (the patient) was told by the doctor that if he had been given the pneumonia jab he would be more resistant. It struck me at the time that the doctor would be hard pressed to know at that point what was good, bad, or indifferent, but what do I know! I have had the pneumonia jab, and this year's flu jab, but I'm still very wary of catching the CV19 virus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonPeffers said:

I am unclear how a flu vaccine could beneficially affect blood vessels in the heart and brain.

 

I am not sure that is what they are suggesting Don,  I think there are two points a) The vaccine reduces your chances of getting Flu, b) Even in the event that it doesn't prevent it, then of two people that both have Flu, the vaccinated one will have a less severe bout of Flu, fewer complications, less chance of it being followed by a cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event. 

 

The study is available (NEJM I think) and was fairly comprehensive (over 100,000 people observed in each of two consecutive flu seasons)  Some possible mechanisms for the cerebrovascular angle are discussed.    I am no expert but I think they factored in relative health of the participants going in. 

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding flu vaccine I, as an asthmatic, have had it for years with only a sore arm to show for it and no flu. My last bout of flu was 2009 suspected 'swine flu' and hospital prescribed prednisolone and I had about 7-10 days off work IIRC. I had been given my 2009-2010 flu jab weeks before the onset of my suspected 'swine flu'.

 

From gov.uk and BBC there is the following:- https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flu-vaccine-effectiveness-in-2017-to-2018-season#:~:text=Public Health England ( PHE ) has,effective in all age groups.

and

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47332484#:~:text=Last year's final figures for,those aged 65 and over. "Flu vaccine 'working better for children'"

 

"Public Health England (PHE) has today (Wednesday, 18 July 2018) published data on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in the 2017 to 2018 season. The data show that overall, flu vaccine was 15% effective in all age groups. However, effectiveness varied considerably. By age-group, the vaccine was overall:

26.9% effective in children aged 2 to 17 years (who received the nasal spray)

12.2% in at risk groups aged 18 to 64 years

10.1% in those aged 65 and over."

 

From https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flu-vaccine-effectiveness-in-2017-to-2018-season#:~:text=Public Health England ( PHE ) has,effective in all age groups.  In 2018 to 2019, a new ‘booster’ vaccine is being made available for all those aged 65 and over which should provide better protection than the current vaccines.

We are also recommending that the ('booster') quadrivalent vaccine, which protects against 4 strains of flu rather than 3 and is currently used for all children under 18 years of age, is made available to all adults in at-risk groups aged between 16 to 64 years."

 

My experience was that within hours of having my 2018 flu jab I was feeling very unwell, shivering uncontrollably, had to crank the heating up to max. and went to bed fully clothed. I was very unwell for 48 hrs; then the symptoms cleared. Said many times that you cannot get flu from the jab but it seemed I had a very bad reaction and not one I would wish to repeat.

 

I have not had the flu vaccine since and know it is a risk, but as with covid-19, currently no vaccine available, I just have to be careful. 

Recent UK yougov poll (only 1600 sample) indicated 1 in 6 were against having a covid vaccine. Might be the Fizzogbook generation with some dodgy news and I will have to make my mind up if/when a vaccine becomes available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall the figures tend to be quite a lot better than the year you have quoted Don,  2017/18 was a  'miss' in terms of predicting which strains would be around, but 40-60% is often quoted. 

image.png.21ba122ac52482340fef29130ede2e9c.png

 

A lot of people do report symptoms after vaccination, it isn't supposed to be related, I hear it often enough not to ignore it though.  I guess if the idea is that the vaccine triggers antibody production, and the virus itself triggers antibody production, then there might be something there?  

 

Like you, if a vaccine appears I will take 'an analytical laypersons'  view of the science, put that alongside the prevalence of the virus wherever I am ,  and make a call. Having worked in big pharma and studied a bit of science myself, I may be a little more trusting of the science than many. 

 

The FB generation will feel much more strongly about being told what is best for them than they will about the vaccine pros and cons. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, is there a link for the chart above? I am not sure if stats. are USA or UK.

Also are there yearly stats. showing flu vaccine effectiveness for at risk groups aged 18 to 64 years and those aged 65 and over?

 

I've lost count of the number of years I've had the flu jab and 2017 was the last trivalent vaccine I had and I'd never had a bad reaction hence I quoted that year.

2018 was my first (and last) quadrivalent (4 flu viruses) vaccine and a very bad experience. 

 

Influenza vaccine is often less than 50% effective overall but that figure is dragged up by much greater effectiveness for the younger age groups who are usually at less risk anyway.

 

I wonder how sure the public can be regarding a covid-19 vaccine (if developed) in terms of effectiveness, especially for at risk and aged over 65, and individual reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Those are UK numbers from the Oxford Uni vaccine knowledge project, good read too, about effectiveness, side effects, etc.  I read somewhere but can't recall where,  that quadrivalent one is worse for side effects. 

 

I think a lot of the research into this coronavirus will spill over into future flu vaccines, new approaches to creating antibodies in humans. 

 

https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/inactivated-flu-vaccine

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the key is that most people are mis-understanding what they should be doing and that is because the message from government is either not clear (yes I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) and/or the media reporting is letting us down. The media don't get the benefit of the doubt.

 

As far as I can tell, the rules/guidelines/restrictions are still in place, in so far as we should stay home as much as possible including working from home, and avoid crowded and enclosed places as much as possible. Unfortunately it seems to me an awful lot of people see "restrictions lifted" and re-interpret that to mean "everything is safe". 

 

Me, I wear gloves when I leave my house and a face mask when going into the supermarket where I note they are starting to remove the social distancing notices and stickers. That's just dumb.

 

What is my mindset to help me to pay attention and stay focused? My house is safe 'cos I'm taking steps.

Everywhere outside is treated like a public toilet... the one in Trainspotting... and that helps focus my mind... :oops: 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Blatman said:

For me the key is that most people are mis-understanding what they should be doing and that is because the message from government is either not clear (yes I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) and/or the media reporting is letting us down. The media don't get the benefit of the doubt.

 

As far as I can tell, the rules/guidelines/restrictions are still in place, in so far as we should stay home as much as possible including working from home, and avoid crowded and enclosed places as much as possible. Unfortunately it seems to me an awful lot of people see "restrictions lifted" and re-interpret that to mean "everything is safe". 

 

Me, I wear gloves when I leave my house and a face mask when going into the supermarket where I note they are starting to remove the social distancing notices and stickers. That's just dumb.

 

What is my mindset to help me to pay attention and stay focused? My house is safe 'cos I'm taking steps.

Everywhere outside is treated like a public toilet... the one in Trainspotting... and that helps focus my mind... :oops: 

Laughed my socks off at the Trainspotting comment but it does help retain focus.

 

I'm not long back from the supermarket on Scotland's first day of 'mandatory in shops face mask wearing'. I wore my mask and soon spotted a tracksuit wearing gentleman with no mask who seemed to be window shopping only as had no basket or trolley. Store staff informed me that asthmatics don't have to wear a mask (which I knew) and only police could challenge a customer, not store staff. Later at checkout I saw the same bloke with a lady but now he was wearing a face mask although the lady was not.

 

I am unsure what to make of this. Maybe the couple only had one mask between two so each wore it for half the shopping time hoping only to get half-covid (I jest).

 

If planes are allowed to fly with full complement of passengers then the public will readily get the message that all is safe, when it isn't.

 

Unlike Blatman I don't give any Government the benefit of the doubt and my faith in Scotland's Government hasn't been enhanced by discovering incoming travellers quarantine supposed to start 08 June 2020 (day 1) was finally in place in Scotland from 07 Jul 2020 (day 30)  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/06/air-travellers-to-scotland-to-face-quarantine-spot-checks-and-fines

 

although new air bridge rules come in from today 10 jul 2020.

 

I sometimes wonder if our politicians are just playing.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-airborne-transmission-of-covid-19-cannot-be-ruled-out-says-who-12023741  

"Coronavirus: Airborne transmission of COVID-19 cannot be ruled out, says WHO

Hundreds of scientists say evidence shows some virus particles linger in the air rather than dropping to the floor."

 

With unenforceable guidelines we have to live in hope of defeating covid.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

Hundreds of scientists say evidence shows some virus particles linger in the air rather than dropping to the floor."

 

I think that one has been doing the rounds since about Wednesday. The key phrase in the story I read (I'll try and find it) was that the findings were yet to be peer reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

 

It was a "commentary" asking for the WHO "to be open to the possibility/potential" of airborne transmission.

The WHO then take this commentary/request and call it "evidence" later in the article despite (as far as I can see) there being no actual empirical data set to show.

 

Mixed messages anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please review our Terms of Use, Guidelines and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.