Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[nlogax]

I was a little surprised today when I went to the local vaccine centre for my second one that the nurse reminded me I had had my flu vaccination in November. They certainly seem to know everything about you.
I wonder how many people use the app rather than the various other web based system. I use patient access on my desktop.

I've been using Patient Access for a while but only recently installed the NHS app. Tbh the functionality appears to almost identical, Patient Access also now includes a Covid vaccination status section.

 

[peters]

I've been using Patient Access for a while but only recently installed the NHS app. Tbh the functionality appears to almost identical, Patient Access also now includes a Covid vaccination status section.

The idea behind having the info in an app for travel purposes is probably because it's easy for someone to create a web page which looks like the Patient Access page saying they've been vaccinated but not so easy for someone to clone the NHS app to create a fake vaccine record.

 

[yorkie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57134181

The UK has "increasing confidence" that Covid-19 vaccines work against the Indian variant of the virus, the health secretary has said.

Mr Hancock said that it was "quite likely" that the variant would become the dominant [variant] in the UK

In other news, Matt Hancock has increasing confidence that it is "quite likely" that the Pope is Catholic.

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1393915753133449218

Despite scares of the latest variant of concern running wild - our data show no increases for the last few days and risks at an individual level still very low - all thanks to vaccination which is reducing infections and severity as with all variants so far. Thanks for logging!

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1393721604694237189

Good news for your evening! A new study out of Oxford confirms current coronavirus vaccines work well against B.1.617.2! AstraZeneca and Pfizer doses still create enough antibodies to neutralize B.1.617.2 and significantly diminish the risk of hospitalization and death.

And don't forget, one of the body's main defences against a Sars-CoV-2 infection is through a robust and broad T cell response, which the vaccines doe a great job of enabling. And the T-cell epitopes are not changing in any of the variants, and there is no evidence to suggest they will change, so the vaccines remain effective at protecting against severe illness with all variants.

Vaccine efficacy deniers are trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in order to further their pro-lockdown agenda and justify their calls to extend restrictions beyond the current planned dates of easing of restrictions; their scaremongering claptrap should be ignored.

 

[778]

Had my first AZ jab yesterday, and my second one will be on the 1st August. Had some mild side effects (sore arm, fatigue, mild headache). Are the side effects worse for the second AZ dose?

 

[takno]

Had my first AZ jab yesterday, and my second one will be on the 1st August. Had some mild side effects (sore arm, fatigue, mild headache). Are the side effects worse for the second AZ dose?

I believe the side effects are usually more moderate on the second dose of AZ

 

[Tezza1978]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57134181

In other news, Matt Hancock has increasing confidence that it is "quite likely" that the Pope is Catholic.

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1393915753133449218

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1393721604694237189

And don't forget, one of the body's main defences against a Sars-CoV-2 infection is through a robust and broad T cell response, which the vaccines doe a great job of enabling. And the T-cell epitopes are not changing in any of the variants, and there is no evidence to suggest they will change, so the vaccines remain effective at protecting against severe illness with all variants.

Vaccine efficacy deniers are trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in order to further their pro-lockdown agenda and justify their calls to extend restrictions beyond the current planned dates of easing of restrictions; their scaremongering claptrap should be ignored.

Tim Spector and @sailorroosscout have been the voice of the reason the last few months. Thank god for their content. Lunatics like Michie, Hunter, Edmonds and Sridhar would have us in permanent lockdown. Gurdasani and Eric Feigl-Ding are even worse, if that's possible.

All my friends and family have followed the rules but now feel its time to move on - everyone I know is sick to death of people like the above, who seem to be morphing into xenophobic vaccine deniers.....

 

[Cdd89]

Well of course - who needs vaccines which could become useless at any moment when the latest unsourced study indicates that double masking with pleated masks is 97.8% effective at preventing the spread of Covid.

I honestly think some of these people, if made to choose between vaccines and masks, would choose masks..!

 

[davews]

Now with both doses of AZ. No side effects at all from first one. I could convince myself of minor effects after the second but it was probably in my mind... There is a suggestion that if you had no effects from the first you would not get any from the second, but the nurse on Friday said 'no body knows, it is hit or miss'.

I was going to say no but have succumbed anyway...

 

[peters]

Well of course - who needs vaccines which could become useless at any moment when the latest unsourced study indicates that double masking with pleated masks is 97.8% effective at preventing the spread of Covid.

I honestly think some of these people, if made to choose between vaccines and masks, would choose masks..!

Of course you can't wear a mask all the time. For example, on a long train journey on a hot day you will likely end up removing it even if it's just for 30 seconds to drink some water. You may also have to remove your mask if wearing it is causing communication difficulties and in that case you are very likely to be near someone else.

I could convince myself of minor effects after the second but it was probably in my mind... There is a suggestion that if you had no effects from the first you would not get any from the second, but the nurse on Friday said 'no body knows, it is hit or miss'.

With common mild side effects like a headache, feeling hot, fatigue etc. they are things a lot of people experience from time to time anyway so hard to say whether they are a side effect or not.

If what was true for most people applied to everyone then it make things much simpler. For example, some young people have died from COVID despite having no underlying health conditions, while some older people have got COVID without anything disastrous happening.

One thing I've heard is you're more likely to see side effects from the 1st dose of AZ if you already have COVID antibodies in your system, of course some people know they have antibodies in their system while others will have them without necessarily knowing.

 

[yorkie]

If what was true for most people applied to everyone then it make things much simpler. For example, some young people have died from COVID despite having no underlying health conditions

Some is an exaggeration; a very tiny proportion actually.

while some older people have got COVID without anything disastrous happening.

This is an understatement; clearly it is much more than 'some' and is in fact the vast majority.

One thing I've heard is you're more likely to see side effects from the 1st dose of AZ if you already have COVID antibodies in your system, of course some people know they have antibodies in their system while others will have them without necessarily knowing.

I've heard that side effects are more likely for people with preexisting immunity but I've not heard that this is due to, or correlated with, the presence of antibodies specifically.

 

[peters]

Some is an exaggeration; a very tiny proportion actually.


This is an understatement; clearly it is much more than 'some' and is in fact the vast majority.

The reality is we don't know exactly how many people have been infected, we know how many tests have been done and how many have returned positive. That was something some people struggled to get their heads around last year when the government was saying travel to Denmark is OK with an infection rate of 50 in 100,000 but travel is not OK to Bulgaria with an infection rate of 14 in 100,000. The difference between Denmark had tested half the population while Bulgaria had only tested those who they thought had it.

What I was getting at was in early March 2020 the government were saying things like older and more vulnerable people should stay at home where possible and people shouldn't plan to travel to see their mums on Mother's Day. If it was just the elderly and most vulnerable who could get hospitalised by COVID then those would have been adequate solutions. However, the government kept having to go further and further until we ended up in lockdown.

 

[LAX54]

It seems the outbreak in Bolton has seen 18 taken to Hospital, of those 5 had been vaccinated,leaving 13 un-vaccinated, and 1 of the 5, had only just had their second jab in the past week.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 May 2021 ==

Some is an exaggeration; a very tiny proportion actually.


This is an understatement; clearly it is much more than 'some' and is in fact the vast majority.


I've heard that side effects are more likely for people with preexisting immunity but I've not heard that this is due to, or correlated with, the presence of antibodies specifically.

I think there maybe quite a few who had COVID in Dec 2019 / Jan 2020 without knowing it.

 

[peters]

It seems the outbreak in Bolton has seen 18 taken to Hospital, of those 5 had been vaccinated,leaving 13 un-vaccinated, and 1 of the 5, had only just had their second jab in the past week.

I'm sure Matt Hancock was claiming one of them who had been vaccinated was frail before contracting the virus. He also now seems to claiming vaccines take up to 4 weeks to take effect rather than the 2 which was previously being communicated.

I think there maybe quite a few who had COVID in Dec 2019 / Jan 2020 without knowing it.

Indeed. We now know it was circulating in the Paris area just after Christmas 2019, it was probably circulating in London by Jan 2020 if not before.

 

[adc82140]

And of those 5 vaccinated how many are seriously ill or have died? I'd have a punt at the answer being zero.

 

[Bantamzen]

And of those 5 vaccinated how many are seriously ill or have died? I'd have a punt at the answer being zero.

More importantly, did any of those hospitalised have other conditions that may have caused them to require hospital treatment, something that is often forgotten when trying to analyse the situation.

 

[adc82140]

More importantly, did any of those hospitalised have other conditions that may have caused them to require hospital treatment, something that is often forgotten when trying to analyse the situation.

There was a time when the daily death figures quoted numbers with and without underlying health conditions. That's gone quiet lately, so I presume it's all with underlying conditions.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I thought I saw that Matt Hancock said the person with two vaccines who was hospitalised had underlying serious health conditions but can't find it now.

 

[DustyBin]

More importantly, did any of those hospitalised have other conditions that may have caused them to require hospital treatment, something that is often forgotten when trying to analyse the situation.

Good point, unfortunately there are people out there for whom any mild illness knocks them for six so even once vaccinated they remain relatively vulnerable.

At this point we need to maintain a sense of perspective and remember that the vaccines do not offer 100% protection. We accept comparatively huge numbers of flu deaths for example, even when we get the vaccine 'right'.

 

[35B]

And of those 5 vaccinated how many are seriously ill or have died? I'd have a punt at the answer being zero.

I'd suggest that if they've been hospitalised, they're seriously ill.

More importantly, did any of those hospitalised have other conditions that may have caused them to require hospital treatment, something that is often forgotten when trying to analyse the situation.

I agree - the impact of a disease on someone who is already classed as "frail" will, all other things being equal, be harder than on someone who is fighting fit. Equally, if they are being admitted without underlying conditions, that also suggests something about the severity of these cases. In the absence of information, it's impossible to form any kind of informed judgement.

 

[adc82140]

I'd suggest that if they've been hospitalised, they're seriously ill.

I'd disagree. Ventilated patients are seriously ill (of which there are 120 odd at the moment). There are just under 1000 in hospital.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I thought I saw that Matt Hancock said the person with two vaccines who was hospitalised had underlying serious health conditions but can't find it now.

I didn't think the NHS were allowed to disclose this sort of information due to patient confidentiality?

 

[35B]

I'd disagree. Ventilated patients are seriously ill (of which there are 120 odd at the moment). There are just under 1000 in hospital.

We need to agree to disagree then - as a layman, if someone needs hospitalisation for a disease (injuries and surgical cases are obviously in a different category), by definition they are too ill to be cared for at home.

That doesn't alter the fact that patients who need more intensive treatment like ventilation are more seriously ill, and that some understanding of how many people are ill/hospitalised/ventilated/on ICU is a measure of the seriousness of the outbreak.

 

[yorksrob]

I didn't think the NHS were allowed to disclose this sort of information due to patient confidentiality?

Such information is generally fine, so long as it is anonymised.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Such information is generally fine, so long as it is anonymised.

Interesting, thanks. Once COVID patients get lower than 5 per health board in Scotland, the official number isn't published to protect patient confidentiality (instead, the Spreadsheets just say "<5")

 

[peters]

I didn't think the NHS were allowed to disclose this sort of information due to patient confidentiality?

The ONS infection rate data only discloses local infection rates if they are 4 or more cases in an area 'to protect individual's identities.' If Matt Hancock worked on the same basis he wouldn't be able to comment on a person who had received 2 vaccines in a specific hospital unless they were 4 or more of them in the same hospital.

We need to agree to disagree then - as a layman, if someone needs hospitalisation for a disease (injuries and surgical cases are obviously in a different category), by definition they are too ill to be cared for at home.

That doesn't alter the fact that patients who need more intensive treatment like ventilation are more seriously ill, and that some understanding of how many people are ill/hospitalised/ventilated/on ICU is a measure of the seriousness of the outbreak.

Yes I would define hospitalisation as serious as most people who are ill (from any kind of illness) can remain at home to recover. There are of course different levels of patients in hospital, with some fighting for their lives and others being kept in as a precaution but the ones being kept in as a precaution haven't just got a sore throat and a cough.

It's always been a concern of both our government and those around the world over how many beds would be needed for COVID patients if they let everything return to normal overnight. As things are returning to normal a lot of nurses and doctors will now want to take well earned holidays so if the numbers being hospitalised goes back up again then it's a concern for hospitals.

 

[bengley]

It's worth remembering some of those in Hospital aren't in Hospital for COVID treatment - some are just positive for it and could be there for any reason.

 

[LAX54]

Indeed. We now know it was circulating in the Paris area just after Christmas 2019, it was probably circulating in London by Jan 2020 if not before.

I felt absolutely rubbish over the New Year, in fact leading up to Christmas, just put it down to a bad dollop of flu, Covid had not been invented then

I've been using Patient Access for a while but only recently installed the NHS app. Tbh the functionality appears to almost identical, Patient Access also now includes a Covid vaccination status section.

Have the NHS app, mine says when I had the 'invite' plus the details of the days I had the jabs, and the batch number.

 

[Crossover]

The NHS site is now inviting anyone aged 36 and over, or who will be such as of July 1st, to book their slots

 

[kristiang85]

Just had mine. Very efficient, lovely staff, and surprisingly painless.

 

[notlob.divad]

The NHS site is now inviting anyone aged 36 and over, or who will be such as of July 1st, to book their slots

There was me hearing all the rhetoric from the UK politicians about how much faster the UK was going than the EU, and yet here I am aged 35 sat in an EU country already having had my first dose with an apointment to get my 2nd in 4 weeks time. Where as you are indicating to me that I would not currently even be able to register for an apointment in the UK, and then presumably I would have to wait a further 12? weeks for my 2nd dose?