Idiots

Spain’s remaining vaccine stocks are dwindling rapidly, leading Madrid and the northern region of Cantabria to stop issuing first doses to concentrate on administering second shots.

Which should be preferred? Quite a lot of protection for someone unprotected or a bit more protection for someone already rather protected?

Use the scarce vaccine to provide first shots is the obvious answer.

26 thoughts on “Idiots”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    OT

    One for TW, you might thatis one that was posted on another forum:

    Should Portugal Invoke The Treaty Of Windsor (1386)❓

    The Treaty of Windsor is the diplomatic alliance signed between Portugal and England on 9 May 1386 at Windsor and sealed by the marriage of King John I of Portugal (House of Aviz) to Philippa of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373 – Wikipedia

    The Treaty of Windsor established a pact of mutual support between the countries.

    Historian Matthew Winslett says, “This treaty has been the cornerstone of both nations’ relations with each other ever since.”

    Under the above treaty (last invoked to support support the UK in the 1982 Falklands War), it is treaty of “perpetual friendships, unions and alliances” between the two seafaring nations.

    In Portugal a quarter of a million have been vaccinated but we hear that as Portugal is running short of Coronavaccine, future vaccinations may have to be delayed ‼

    Isn’t this now the UK Government’s turn to offer the hand of friendship and send Portugal – free, the 20 million jabs required to complete the programme.

    Then just perhaps, I can have my jab ASAP.(y)✅

    Just in case Boris is not following the YBW Forums, I feel a letter coming on to remind the PM of our Treaty obligations.

    Sadly for him (and you) someone pointed out that the EU has made it illegal for Prtugal to import vaccines.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    I wonder how many Spanish politicians and bureaucrats have only had their first jab.

    There is a case for each of the policies. I think this just shows the Spanish know it is not a crisis.

  3. I don’t agree. You make sure the most vulnerable have their proper protection before you worry about much less vulnerable groups. There are some things you can do. For starters, there’s not a lot of point vaccinating anyone who has recovered from Covid recently. So put them to the back of the queue, no matter how old. But, having ended up with a 2-jab vaccination, you need to give people their two jabs.

    Politically, it’s much safer for people in a less vulnerable group to die because they were awaiting their vaccination than for a very vulnerable person to die because you gave ‘their’ second dose to a 50 year old.

  4. “Which should be preferred? Quite a lot of protection for someone unprotected or a bit more protection for someone already rather protected”???

    “Using Pfizer’s figures, the relative risk reduction is 100(1 – (0.044/0.88)). Which is 95%. Voila! However, this was based upon relative risk reduction. That is the declared percentage difference between the vaccinated group’s 8/18310 chance (0.044%) of developing COVID 19 against a 162/18319 (0.88%) chance of COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine…… This sounds fantastic and is a much better marketing strategy than reporting the absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk of developing COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine is supposedly 0.88% and with the vaccine 0.044%. In absolute terms, the effectiveness of the vaccine is (0.88-0.044)%….A risk reduction of 0.84%”:
    https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/03/what-vaccine-trials/.

  5. Other than the Treaty of Windsor (and how did that work out during the Iberian Union period?) what is being suggested on behalf of Portugal doesn’t seem too different from the eu commission line.

    You got stuff, we haven’t. Gimme dat.

  6. Bloke in China (Germany province)

    It should be administered in accordance with the product label which is based on the studied administration schedule. That is what patients have given their consent to.

  7. “Use the scarce vaccine to provide first shots is the obvious answer.”
    Yes, unless you think that the second dose is needed for lasting immunity, and also believe that you might never get a re-supply. Otherwise, 1st dose now is top priority, second dose whenever you can.

  8. Vaccine stocks should be dwindling rapidly. The quicker they go from “stock” to in people’s arms the better. It’s vaccine supply that is the issue.

  9. Can anyone tell me if the EU has actually banned (or otherwise prevented) the Pfizer vaccine from being exported to the UK?

    The news seems very vague about it…

    TIA

  10. You make sure the most vulnerable have their proper protection before you worry about much less vulnerable groups.

    Indeed.
    In terms of a “national emergency” (in which we accept, for the sake of argument, that Covid-19 and the vaccines are real and as described), I see no good reason to blanket vaccinate under 60s at all. Once you’ve vaccinated the over 60s, open society fully and let everyone get a natural infection as soon as possible.
    – Vulnerable protected.
    – Health services not overwhelmed.
    – No vaccine shortage.
    – Herd immunity quickly.

    Can someone (BiG?) see a flaw in this?

  11. ‘Can someone (BiG?) see a flaw in this?’

    PJF: The only flaw I can see would be if the deaths from covid in the under-60’s are greater than those from the vaccines.

    Are they? Damifino.

  12. Bloke in China (Germany province)

    PJF, I see no flaw in opening up right now seeing as the evidence for lockdown efficacy is so poor.

    Bogan, not quite,

    you’d have to have deaths from covid exceed deaths from vaccines plus economic cost, plus social destruction, plus psychological damage, plus continuing loss of life quality, and political consequences (attitude to civil liberties etc) from continued lockdowns.

    However, as we seem to now think that 7+ billion people putting their whole life on hold indefinitely so one person can live 1 extra hour is a fair trade, you could be right.

  13. I sure hope we’re not creating an MRSA condition here. Give one jab, get rid of the weakest 99% of virus, leaving the field clear for 1% drug resistant mutated viruses to spread.

  14. The only flaw I can see would be if the deaths from covid in the under-60’s are greater than those from the vaccines.

    Don’t forget, this is in terms of solving the “national emergency”. No doubt (with the assumptions above) some number of un-vaccinated under 60s would die of Covid-19, just as some do of flu. Would it be enough to overwhelm hospitals? Also, no reason vulnerable under 60s couldn’t be vaccinated individually. But not wait for blanket.

    I see no flaw in opening up right now seeing as the evidence for lockdown efficacy is so poor.

    I agree, but I’m trying to suggest solutions under their terms, not reality.

  15. The purpose of mass vaccination is to get community immunity. Just one dose neither achieves that nor gives adequate protection. The reason why a specific dose of a medicament is determined and stated = efficacy. Not following dosage regime = inefficacy.

    There is no point vaccinating the dying, they ARE going to die from something within next 12 moths. Two weeks ago 5 elderly people in France died just a few days after vaccination… not because of the vaccine, but because that is what elderly people in poor health do – die.

    There is no point vaccinating people for whom the virus has risk approaching zero to protect them – 99,8% of the population.

    Since the most vulnerable are immobile in institutions or their homes, vaccinating those who come into contact with them has some merit, but the supposed aim of the SARS CoV 2 vaccines, to stop spread and ‘eliminate’ the virus is unattainable, a fantasy, no matter how much vaccine there is or how many get it.

    If virus are so easy to eliminate by vaccination why after decades are vaccination for Polio, Measles, Mumps, etc still required.

    Success of vaccines is entirely dependent on the virus and its behaviour, whether it is endemic and whether there is a natural reservoir for it.

    Influenza vaccines have been available and used for decades, the viruses have not been eliminated, the spread each Winter anew despite vaccinations, tens of thousands die.

    SARS CoV 2 is endemic, unless by some natural consequence, it is impossible to eliminate it, it will like ‘flu be back each Winter and new vaccines will most likely be needed each year. People will still die – elderly in poor health.

  16. “the studied administration schedule. That is what patients have given their consent to.”

    The early UK patients yes, the later no. We gave our consent knowing that the inter-jab interval had been lengthened.

  17. As they aren’t generally admitting over 80s to ICU I think the figure for significantly reducing ICU impact (by 50% at least) would involve vaccinating all over 50’s
    Comes down to what you are trying to control, overall deaths or people in the ICU.
    Locally they are vaccinating remote communities claiming as they have restricted access to health services Covid is a bigger risk, ignoring the fact that their risk of catching Covid is also substantially less, personally I think it’s just an excuse to try and cover how few doses of vaccine they have.
    They also seem very unhappy with the drop in numbers the last 6 weeks, again assume they were hoping to give all the credit to the vaccination programme.

  18. “Can someone (BiG?) see a flaw in this?”

    Yes, the flaw is that its the 50-65 age group who are having a collective paddy about covid, and its that age group who are the Big Cheeses in just about every legislature and State department/agency/body going. Ergo all decisions are being made for their benefit. Basically UK policy is being driven by thousands of versions of Boris Johnson, 50 something overweight and unhealthy individuals who have been given the fright of their lives by covid, and will do anything to make sure they don’t die from it, even if that means tens or hundreds of thousands of others dying from not just covid but all manner of other ailments.

  19. @Jim as a 50 something, overweight and unhealthy individual my anecdotal experience is it’s the youngsters that are paranoid and scared silly, I’ve come across some pragmatic 50 year olds all the 25-40’s are crazed.
    Maybe it’s a case of being more cynical or being at the tail end of experiencing the much higher death rates (especially winter) in our youth.
    Those that have grown up where 80/90 is much more normal are the forefront of the no deaths ever brigade

  20. According to who you read, the British death rate, allowing for population ageing and population growth, has returned to the levels of either 2008 or 2000. It ain’t the Black Death.

  21. Re Jim/BniC above.
    People’s attitudes seem to depend on whether they believe themselves financially affected by lockdowns etc & to what degree. And people in the 40s to 50s age range are often in more secure employment & benefiting from furlough payments etc.
    There’s also something we’ve seen right through Coronapanic. The degree of sense of entitlement. Specifically, in the Coronapanic, that the restrictions are for other people to protect ME. I, however, will breach restrictions because reasons. See Piers Morgan’s Barbados holiday jaunt.

  22. Quick, someone call Ursula von der Karen.
    You can be sure she’ll make a situation so awful you’ll all forget about the original problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *