Covid-19 Politics

A report from South Dakota on Channel 4 News in the UK last night suggests little is going to change in the State and that as a result more people will fall ill, and too many die. In the same segment one citizen believes his indiviidual liberty cannot, and should not be interfered with by a politician, moments later, a nurse pointing out every hospital bed in the State is full and that they cannot cope with the impact of the virus. She conceded that however angry she is with the irresponsible people who take no action to limit their interactions with others, she is powerless to change the way they behave.

Individual liberty is indeed a precious right, but 'no man is an island, entire unto himself', and until people -in whatever country they live- recognize that their social behaviour has consequences for others that mght threaten their liberty, this virus will have a happy home, and home have unhappy families.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/27/oxfo...e-trials-.html

Over the past few days there have been some concerns about the quality of the data provided from the Oxford/Astrazeneca trials. The larger trial showed efficacy of 62% for two doses of the vaccine. A second protocol, carried out in a smaller cohort that only included people between the ages of 18 and 55, and which used a half dose followed by a full dose, had an efficacy of 90%. The reported efficacy of 70% was the average of these groups.

It turns out that the half shot was administered by mistake. They discovered it was a half dose after the fact and were surprised that this resulted in higher efficacy though there are questions about the fact that the group did not include elderly people. There are also questions about whether it should have been averaged with the data from the two full shot protocol since they were different study designs. Will there be further studies of the half dose/full dose regimen to establish its efficacy?

It will probably get approved in most places and its price and logistical advantages are important. More in the times article below.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/b...ca-oxford.html

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...evere-covid-19

This is a good write up on the most recent results from the Moderna vaccine trials. The vaccine had 94% efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease and none of the people in the vaccine arm developed severe disease. That is going to be an important measure to watch as 6% of millions of people is still a substantial number of people with covid once everyone is vaccinated.

So far it looks like Moderna's vaccine is the most promising. It doesn't need to be stored at super cold temperatures like Pfizer's and is much more effective than the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine.

The FDA makes the decision on EUA approval on December 17th and Moderna hopes to provide 20 million doses by the end of the year.

On the one hand it seems to me that it is the lack of a robust system of barrier measures in the US that is resulting in record numbers of people falling ill, and dying from Covid 19. The White House holds parties where people without masks congregate, apparently Secretary of State Pompeo will have Christmas parties where people can congregate without masks, and when the White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany spoke to reporters yesterday her husband stood at the back of the room not wearing a mask. As for those Governors who refuse to impose severe limits to human congregation, perhaps iike the President they don't much care how many people die or fall ill when there is Golf to play.

On the other hand, I ought to be pleased to report the first vaccines against Covid 19 have arrived in the UK from Belgium, even that there are signs that the R rate is declining, but even as the UK continues to struggle with this viral infection and its management. Does it mean the US should adopt the social distancing measures the UK has imposed -even though they appear inadequate when compared to countries with a better record?

Designating parts of the country as being in three Tiers of severity means, for example, that in Tier 2 "pubs and bars can also open until 23:00, but only if they operate as a restaurant. Alcohol can only be served with a substantial meal"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52977388

But if you thought that was clear, try defining what a 'subsantial meal' actually is, because Michael Gove, who along with Chancellor Rishi Sunak is one of the most favoured replacements for Boris Johnson should he be ousted in the year ahead, has, shall we say, 'egg on his face' by failing to convince anyone, let alone himself, what a 'substantial meal' is.

When it turns on a Scotch Egg, you have to wonder if three tiers make sense -in the space of an hour, Gove on the Radio confirmed that a Scotch Egg is a 'starter' not a substantial meal. An hour later he said ""A scotch egg is a substantial meal. I myself would definitely scoff a couple of scotch eggs if I had the chance".
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/po...l-farce/01/12/

Hmmm...one Scotch Egg is a Starter, two is a meal? Could that be where the distinction lies?

And for the record, the Scots had nothing to do with this egg, boiled and encased in sand. But the true origins are disputed -it originated as a snack -yes, a snack- for the rich to take with them on long carriage journeys, or to be taken on the long train journey from London to Ediburgh; or it originated in India, and like Kedgeree was brought back to the dining tables of old Colonials...or, whatever. If you must, buy one in a pub with your ale, and get tucked in. And don't worry what the Americans will use as a substitute if they have Tier 2 restrictions and bars can only open if they serve a 'substantial meal'.

I wonder what Tucker Carlson would make of it?

The wondrous contentions of the Scotch Egg are debated here-
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/un...he-scotch-egg/

China's Covid-19 gambit

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6522/1263

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

China's Covid-19 gambit

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6522/1263

---

Thank you for linking this fascinating article. On the one hand, China is good at a lot of things -science, selling itself abroad, and they now need to use the positives to repair a damaging virus that has possibly slowed foreign investment in China for a decade. On the other hand, China is aso good at lying, deceiving and using 'stuff' -infrastructure development in Africa, these vaccines - to 'make friends and influence people'. So, in the article, it is stated in one paragraph that "With the pandemic vanquished at home, China is vaccinating its people as insurance—often, against a dangerously infected world." A few paragraphs later, "Yip says the government was even considering vaccinating all of Beijing after a COVID-19 outbreak there in June." ---vanquished? Under control? I don't want to demean the Chinese achievement, but I think a) it is too soon to judge the efficacy of its vaccines over the long term, and with a diverse population receiving it in terms of age, medical condition, etc; and b) China does not give open access to its data, so we don't actually know what the health profile of the country is with regard to Covid-19.

But much food for thought.

Yes,great article well worth the read.
I find it interesting that China's gamble in deciding to produce a 'whole killed virus vaccine' seems to have paid off. Whereas 'Operation Warp Speed' rejected the idea from the beginning due to the history horrific side effects and problems with killed vaccines in the past ,which are well documented and explained in the article .
However it gives one pause to consider the cost in lives and commerce we have incurred in waiting for the more sophisticated and expensive 'messenger RNA ' vaccines now being released in the West. After all ,China was vaccinating thousands as early as February and hundreds of thousands beginning with a wide release of vaccines in June(outside of clinical trials).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

I find it interesting that China's gamble in deciding to produce a 'whole killed virus vaccine' seems to have paid off. Whereas 'Operation Warp Speed' rejected the idea from the beginning due to the history horrific side effects and problems with killed vaccines in the past ,which are well documented and explained in the article .

---

That's the difference between dictatorship and democracy - an authoritarian regime has more scope to take risks with the lives of its citizens. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Chinese approach is the right one for the future. Sometimes risky gambles pay off through luck. The outcomes might be different if the same approach was repeated many times over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

Yes,great article well worth the read.
I find it interesting that China's gamble in deciding to produce a 'whole killed virus vaccine' seems to have paid off. Whereas 'Operation Warp Speed' rejected the idea from the beginning due to the history horrific side effects and problems with killed vaccines in the past ,which are well documented and explained in the article .
However it gives one pause to consider the cost in lives and commerce we have incurred in waiting for the more sophisticated and expensive 'messenger RNA ' vaccines now being released in the West. After all ,China was vaccinating thousands as early as February and hundreds of thousands beginning with a wide release of vaccines in June(outside of clinical trials).

---

Moderna's mRNA-1273 vaccine was produced in January. Within weeks of the virus being sequenced they had already designed a vaccine. As far as I know almost the entire time was taken up by phase 1-3 clinical trials. I don't believe the time difference was the product of using mrna instead of an inactivated vaccine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA-1273

I wonder what kind of safety data they could have had by February or even June. Just having read about antibody dependent enhancement makes me think China was risking an ugly outcome for their people. ADE basically means that a person raises an antibody response from the vaccine but the antibodies not only don't block entry of the virus into cells but facilitate it. So people not only don't have protection against the virus but actually get sicker. There are a whole series of other ugly risks that are difficult to rule out without clinical trials.

I stopped reading about vaccines once Moderna's data came out though I am still interested in what happens with Johnson and Johnson's one shot vaccine.

Giving people untested vaccines is a good way to cause widespread harm and reduce confidence in them. Right now for Pfizer and Moderna we've seen data for effectiveness in preventing symptomatic disease. We don't yet know how effective they are at preventing people who are vaccinated from having asymptomatic infections that they can spread to others.

Yes, a large factor in Operation Warp Speeds' decision to forgo a whole killed virus vaccine was the fear that the possible side effects would undermine the public's confidence in vaccines in general in a world already full of 'anti vaccers'.