Do you remember?

The chuntering from the P³ expert on everything about how first doses first meant we’d not beat covid? How moving from 3 week (?4?) to 12 weeks between jabs was bad science, thetoriesarebastards, that will kill us all in our beds?

Delay in giving second jabs of Pfizer vaccine improves immunity
Study finds antibodies against Sars-CoV-2 three-and-a-half times higher in people vaccinated again after 12 weeks rather than three

Oh.

37 thoughts on “Do you remember?”

  1. Spud has 5 (yes, 5!) videos on his dreary YouTube channel all about ‘money’

    “I don’t guarantee that by watching all five videos in this series that you will be an expert on money.”

    He modestly (if unintentionally accurately) explains.

  2. Well, they didn’t *know* that Pfizer was going to be more effective back in January: it, unlike the AZ vaccine, had only been tested on a three week interval. It was a gamble that paid off.

  3. ” It was a gamble that paid off.”
    When experts gamble it is not like when mere mortals gamble.

  4. The biggest gamble is the one unknowingly entered into by anyone taking this stuff on the recommendation of politicians.
    Average length of time for a drug to be given full market authorisation (completed ALL clinical trials, been validated by the regulatory authorities and put on the market) is about 12 years.
    Average length of time for said FMA drug to display side effects serious enough for a ‘Black Box’ warning to pull it from use is 4 years. What could possibly go wrong?

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    Well, they didn’t *know* that Pfizer was going to be more effective back in January: it, unlike the AZ vaccine, had only been tested on a three week interval. It was a gamble that paid off.

    If anything it was the other way round. They chose 3 weeks because they thought it would be just enough of a break to allow them to see an improvement in efficacy with the 2nd dose. Leaving it any longer meant delay in starting the roll out and so more deaths.

    As ND Reader says, no gamble but scientists using their expert knowledge.

  6. Dennis, Dragger of Knuckles

    Study finds antibodies against Sars-CoV-2 three-and-a-half times higher in people vaccinated again after 12 weeks rather than three

    The authors of that study have been banned from commenting on Tax Research UK.

  7. But now, HMG is considering shrinking the interval to improve the protection for ‘vulnerable’ groups! After assuring us that stretching the interval would do no harm. These people are making it up as they go along. The only constant is their lying to us. I guess that, in this context, ‘vulnerable’ actually means afflicted with a reluctance to be vaccinated coupled with a degree of … vibrancy.

  8. @Addolff
    The Oxford-AstraZenenca is just a standard vaccine, the cleverness is mainly in the speed with which it’s been put together. It’s not impossible that there might be unexpected side effects, but it’s extremely unlikely (similar to the ‘new’ flu jabs that are produced every year). This is very different from a brand-new pharmaceutical, whose side effects cannot be easily predicted.

    Some of the other vaccines (e.g. Pfizer-BioNTech) use mRNA, which is a novel technique, so perhaps a slightly greater chance of unpredictable side effects.

  9. Chris, If the Az vaccine is ‘just a standard vaccine’ it would have been given Full Market Authorisation. It hasn’t.
    I’m not anti vax, not especially knowledgeable about this and it might just be me, but it doesn’t instill confidence when people say “the cleverness is mainly in the speed with which it’s been put together” when advocating something that is to be injected into my body.
    ‘Speed’ may mean ‘hasty'(Perhaps the reason the EU delayed authorisation)? and ‘Cleverness’ isn’t a scientific term and sounds like the sort of talk someone flogging snake oil would use.

    And were the blood clots (plus alleged menstrual irregularites) predicted?

  10. @decnine

    “But now, HMG is considering shrinking the interval to improve the protection for ‘vulnerable’ groups! After assuring us that stretching the interval would do no harm. These people are making it up as they go along”

    That’s missing the point of the current discussion. The risk a vaccinated person faces at any moment in time depends both on how effective your vaccine is, partly on how vulnerable you are, and partly on current levels of the virus in your area (see also the debate about the risk-benefit ratio with vaccine side-effects where similar issues cropped up). The trade-off currently being faced is this: vulnerable people get a good level of protection from one jab but in some local hotspots the risk of them catching the virus is now rising again. Bringing the second jab forward will substantially increase their protection during this potentially risky period (though not instantly, there’s a time lag, hence the need to make decisions before we have a totally clear picture of what’s going on) whereas holding their nerve and maintaining the wait until the second jab seems likely to bolster protection in the long run.

    There’s also some second-order stuff to consider, eg does bringing forward second jabs for the vulnerable in hotspots reduce capacity to jab younger people and hence slowing or halting the growth in hotspots. On the other hand, if you look at the social contact matrices, the vulnerable mostly mix with each other. Since most of the harm is concentrated in the vulnerable, the fact that older people get indirect protection from jabbing other older people has to be taken into account. (As well as indirect benefits of jabbing younger people with close contact to older people – care home workers were a previous priority but young people in multigenerational households may also be a prime target if capacity is available.)

    But the core issue is whether very good protection during a potentially dicey period is worth more than excellent protection at a time when things may have died down a lot. (Or alternatively, things may be even worse by then, at least within hotspots. Which is why you need to do local dynamic modelling, but that’s a pain to get right as everyone is well aware, especially if you have a variant with uncertain R0 combined with the uncertain effects of lifting restrictions.)

    Getting these kinds of decisions right is not trivial. Can’t just stick rigidly a pre-defined strategy, you need to adapt to what’s going on – so yeah, they are “making things up as they go along” to a certain extent, and they are having to apply a certain degree of judgment when evidence is uncertain. The people doing this aren’t idiots and I think it does them a disservice to imagine they’re flailing around cluelessly or that the task they’ve been given is straightforward. I think they were vindicated in their (at the time, very controversial) decision not to give way to pressure to prioritise jabbing teachers, for example, as well as the decision to prioritise first doses by delaying second doses.

    (I happen to know someone who works on the management side of the AZ vaccine and is still absolutely fuming at that decision, regarding it as dangerous and unscientific that the regimen was changed. Don’t underestimate the extent to which even this highly successful choice was considered controversial and encountered resistance. Largely not from scientists themselves, fwiw, even when Blair was touting it, it’s only an idea he picked up on because was already well-established in immunological circles. But getting a programme delivered does require managerial decisions both on the pharma and political / health service / local administrative sides, so even when scientists broadly agree it doesn’t mean their views hold away. Given how things worked in the USA, it’s quite conceivable a Corbyn administration would have given in to teaching unions re prioritising their members, for example.)

  11. To add to all that, they have to juggle the different types of jab. Can’t always swap second-jabbing an oldie for first-jabbing a youngster, or vice versa, if you can’t use the AZ on the young’uns. Plus they have different knock-on effects on your future demand – first-jabbing means you have to have a second jab (currently required to be of the same type) in stock in a few weeks time, plus capacity to get it into the arm, whereas second-jab someone and you’re done until the winter booster. When you have to combine this with uncertainty about your supply chain, particularly in regards to imported jabs, this is definitely not a trivial optimisation problem.

  12. I’m with Addolff here, this is not a medical/science issue any more its politics. And if you want to let politicians (and in that category I include the politicians who are masquerading as scientists) decide what is and is not safe to stick in your body based on their political viewpoints/political advantage be my guest. I’m standing well back and letting everyone else get on with it.

    The one thought experiment I’d like everyone to consider is this: what do you think it would take for the all those driving these vaccines forward to have to admit they’d made a mistake? How many bodies would have to pile up before they admitted they’d f*cked up? Or (as I now consider) would they NEVER admit that, because the consequences would be so horrendous? Because if you conclude the latter anything they say is utterly unreliable, its all entirely self serving guff. It might be true by accident, but you have no way of knowing.

  13. @ Adolff
    Yes, there were some blood clots – just fewer than one would expect in the general population without a vaccination jab.
    Then they discovered that there was a special rare blood clot occurring in younger women – at a much lower rate than that caused by contraceptive drugs. But they weren’t allowed to know which women were taking contraceptive drugs so they assume that there MAY be a one in several million risk of blood clots.
    Boris deserves no credit for the Oxford-AZ vaccine but he is claiming it so various EU politicians who understandably hate Boris are trying to rubbish the Oxford-AZ vaccine – until Macron needs a shot whereupon he chooses that in preference to the Pfizer or Moderna ones …

  14. @ Jim
    The people trying to rubbish the AZ vaccine are the ones that I don’t trust. The Oxford scientists I do trust. I’ve known some Oxford (and a few Cambridge) scientists: they care about getting it right more than about PR

  15. John77, without the vaccine I have a 99.9% chance of NOT dying from covid. If I take the vaccine I have a 99.9% chance of NOT dying from covid but an increased risk of having a blood clot.

    Please tell me why people with a 99.9% chance of not dying from Covid 19 would take the vaccine…….(p.s. my brother had the vaccine and was in intensive care 12 days later).

  16. Does anyone know whether there is any kind of study of all-cause mortality, all-cause illness and all-cause injury among those who have been injected against those who haven’t? Preferably stratified by age, gender, concomitant medication and pre-existing conditions.

    Because those are the one and only numbers that concern me, and I can’t find them anywhere. Hence my ignoring the repeated letters to get injected.

    I know there are studies showing reductions in dying with Covid or being hospitalized with Covid after receiving these drugs. But those are of no interest to me. All I’m concerned about is not being hospitalized or dying full-stop, and it doesn’t matter to me personally whether that’s due to Covid or whatever else.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    MBE,

    Some good insights, thanks.

    One thing to be considered in Bolton is that it’s not necessarily a problem of bringing 2nd jabs forward but getting some of the more vulnerable their first. According to the Spectator data website 22% of Pakistanis, 15% Bangladeshis and 11% of Indians over the age of 60 haven’t had their 1st jab. That’s compared to 4% of whites.

  18. . . . whereas second-jab someone and you’re done until the winter booster.

    And after that third jab you’re all done until the fourth . . .

  19. Thanks MBE for some Sanity.. This time the Wall’o’Text was worth it. 🙂

    What surprises me is that a lot of “Experts” aren’t picking up on a very obvious (and in this case non-trivial) data point in this research: This should not have happened.

    The “three weeks” is the result of a Lab Conditions test, which is based on the decay of our immune system reponse when introduced to a single instance of a pathogen. That second jab is needed to reïnforce the initial response and must take place before the body “forgets” because it doesn’t encounter more instances of that particular pathogen.
    If the initial response has decayed too far, that second jab is simply treated as a “first”, with the obvious drop in effectiveness as a result.
    This is a matter of “simple” biology. And it’s the basis for every dual-jab immunisation strategy where the hibbly-gribbly is not native to the local environment. No natural reinforcement, so we have to provide it.

    And the Pfizer (et.var.) vaccine has been tested for this to determine the margins where the second jab would be most effective, and what leeway we would have. With results that actually confirm the medicobiological validity of the method, and re-affirm the underlying theories.
    In. The. Lab.

    But of course we don’t live in the lab… And to be fair, when the vaccine was developed they had to, rightly, assume that the virus was a relative rarity in the total mix of gribblies that try to assault us every day. And that, as such, reinforcement from “the environment” wasn’t a given, so it had to be provided.
    Especially since the Pfizer technique works from a very low pathogen load, to minimise side-effects and adverse reactions. ( as opposed to the single-jabs.)

    And the “Hey… That’s funny..” bit here is that the effectiveness decay curve does not match the lab results in vivo. At all.. To the point where the reinforcement jab becomes more effective when we know the decay of the initial response should have entered “significant loss of efficacy” territory.
    This means the immune response must be reinforced by an external factor, and significantly so..

    Given the fact that the “spike” we’re being immunised against is in and of itself rare enough to not have a “standard” immune response in humans ( else CoVid simply would not have had a chance ) you can rule out most, if not all, “natural” pathogens including those hitting other species and/or virus families.
    Which leaves CoVid itself… But then that virus must be much more prevalent than the current models indicate, and “infections” a regular occurrence.

    Which is funny, because all the lockdown measures were supposed to absolutely limit exposure.. And should have kept the virus titer in the environment down to levels that fit within the constraints of the lab model and tests of the vaccinations.

    For which this is proof that definitely did not happen. At all, it seems.
    What this implies for validity of the freedom- and economy-wrecking measures taken by the Powers-that-Be is left up to the reader.

  20. “I’ve known some Oxford (and a few Cambridge) scientists: they care about getting it right more than about PR”

    They might not care about PR or politics, but PR and politics will care about them. Do you really think that anyone involved in creating these vaccines would be allowed to stand up and say ‘Sorry chaps, we made a mistake, everyone should stop taking our vaccine, they are more dangerous than the disease’? There’s too much money and political capital invested in them, nothing would be allowed to stop the process now.

  21. “I’ve known some Oxford (and a few Cambridge) scientists: they care about getting it right more than about PR”

    The majority of actual scientists, really. In fact, real scientists generally are wholly unsuited for Politics and PR.

    Of course, their bosses very much run on Politics and PR.. It’s how they got where they are. “Academia” is notoriously famous for it.
    And that’s the lads/lasses you see in the various boards and committees Advising the Clueless Politicians and Forwarding Protocols.

  22. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ Grikath
    May 14, 2021 at 7:57 pm”

    Very interesting, thanks.

    (I sometime wish I hadn’t hated my 1st year grammar school biology teacher with a vergence because I now know the subject can be quite interesting)

  23. Thanks for that 7.57 pm post, Grikath.

    Am I right in understanding that the implication of those findings regarding reinforcement of immunity in vivo, where it had been previously shown to have disappeared in vitro, is that the vaccines are in fact pointless for anyone with a healthy immune system? That for whatever reason our bodies are being exposed to the pathogen so frequently that anyone with a healthy immune system is protected quite naturally? And that Covid the disease is therefore a disease caused by poor health, and only coincidentally by this particular virus?

  24. Ditto the 7:57 post, Grikath.

    Incidentally, I think it was Dawkins(?) who said that it wasn’t art that was the antithesis of science, it was politics.

  25. @ Paul, Somerset

    Not quite. The vaccines perform per-spec as in the lab tests, even for people who already have antibodies for whatever reason. For them it’s simply a booster shot.
    The vaccines aren’t useless as such, given that they give even a healthy body the chance to build up resistance without the song-and-dance of actually getting sick. Even if that “sick” would be no more than a Sniffle or case of Man-Flu for most.

    Of course, that “for most” has a bit of legwork to do, because there’s a x*10^-n (n=2..9) chance that even a healthy body runs into one of the more serious complications associated with CoVid, ranging from precautionary hospitalisation to literally dropping dead because of induced thrombosis for n progressing.
    This is simply a matter of Murphy dancing with Random Chance applied to Very Large Numbers. And it is a given for any pathogen. It’s just that CoVid has the Press at the moment, and pointing out that exactly the same symptoms/odds apply to influenza or charmers like measles and chickenpox, and do happen each year on year.. is essentially useless.

    The vaccines themselves seriously mitigate, if not eliminate, any adverse side-effects a healthy body could experience in the case of a full infection for up to the 10^-3/-4 odds. More so if you are essentially “unhealthy” already.
    As such the vaccines are useful.

    What the vaccines do not help against, and may, nope sorry.. will trigger is the 10^-5 odds and lower effects.
    Because those are caused by the immune system itself going haywire against, in the case of vaccination, the spike protein.
    Even in otherwise “perfectly healthy” people. Because they have that Secret Vulnerability you cannot predict, or do anything about anyway.
    Pointing out those people would end up in the same situation if they ran into the Real Deal™ (worse, because more proteins = bigger target= more chance on adverse reactions not related to the spike..) is useless, because you get shouted down and branded as a Mengele by the Mob if you do.

    It’s not a matter of healthy/unhealthy, it’s a matter of your general health influencing the odds at Bad Things Happening. With “good health” making that n a n+1, maybe even n+2. With the inverse for seriously bad health/immunodeficiencies.
    With, of course, the famous million-in-one chance lurking around the corner doing general loitering-with-and/or-without-intent, to paraphrase a certain Duke of Ankh.
    The people going Full Ecksian from any number of viewpoints, helped by the Media (any flavour) giving them a platform are actually doing far more damage than the virus and vaccinations together possibly could.

    So.. for a “healthy” person getting inoculated or not wouldn’t really make much difference, other than the desire not to have a potential case of ManFlu.
    With the virus, as per the article, being more prevalent than expected your chances of running into the Real Deal™ are much higher than projected, and it depends on how masochistic you are, I guess.. I don’t like bouts of ManFLu, but ymmv.
    The odds at Dropping Dead stay exactly the same for both, so no difference there. And given the nature as to why ( and the actual odds..) not a reason to not inoculate.

    Doesn’t change the fact that all lockdown measures have not, in any way, kept the presence/incidence of the virus to a minimum. Where they, by any reasonable logic, should have made a difference, however minimal. They did a number on the incidence of flu and to a lesser extent the common cold, so you can’t argue they are wholly ineffective. Just out of proportion to the risks involved.

    The fact that they did not work for CoVid strongly indicates we’ve missed a very large vector. Very large and near omnipresent to get this much of a discrepancy.
    Whatever the vector**, it moots any of the lockdown measures to the point of uselessness. But we already knew this from the exercises performed during the Spanish Flu where they didn’t help either, and in a world that very much wasn’t as “mobile” to boot. And certainly the Experts must have known when new and unconnected infection clusters started showing up despite restrictions..
    But by then it’d have meant that Politicians and Officials would have had to backpedal on their Affirmative Statements… Baelzebub would freeze his balls off before that would ever happen.

    **[mytwocents] Given that the coronaviruses are actually intestinal pathogens (they just hit us in the Odd/Wrong Place..), and that the family likes to hop species..
    Only three types of critters that are both kept as pets and live feral in impressive numbers in the western world ( if not the entire world by now..) : birds, cats, and rats. Two types if you correctly class pigeons as flying rats for this purpose. And the corona family acts mostly as an intestinal bug for all three.
    Any Bookies taking odds? [/mytwocents]

  26. Bloke in North Dorset

    Grikath,

    Thanks again.

    A good article here about it being aerosol and the investigation in to it. It reminded me of the plate tectonics story and Plank’s quote on the advancement of science:

    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/

  27. Great article, BiND. Didn’t the orange one get pilloried for suggesting that UV light might be effective?

  28. It also implies that the millions spent on equipping shops and checkouts with perspex screens were wasted. UV lights would have been better, especially when you wear white

  29. We need to balance risks, and we need to balance consequences. If the incidence of serious covid and the incidence of serious vaccine side effects are comparable then it’s a wash. Getting vaccinated is a personal decision, maybe biased to vaccination by contributing to herd immunity.

    But consequences can be devastating. Thalidomide presents a fairly low risk to pregnant mothers and babies. The drug was assumed incapable of crossing the placenta boundary, and 10-20,000 birth defects over 4 or 5 years worldwide means the overwhelming majority of women who took thalidomide (millions of them) suffered no side effects. Yet the deformities were devastating.

    It’s probably “safe” for pregnant women to be vaccinated; the vaccine is unlikely to cross the placenta boundary. But we don’t know for sure. Government reassurance about safety is worthless. Anyone pregnant or likely to become pregnant would be mad to take the vaccine, because the known risk to a healthy nubile (18-35) from covid is trivial compared to the unknown risk to the foetus.

  30. philip: “It’s probably “safe” for pregnant women to be vaccinated; the vaccine is unlikely to cross the placenta boundary.”

    The vaccine cannot ever possibly cross the placenta boundary… It’s an intramuscular depot of mRNA that’s processed locally and is used up before it can get anywhere.
    That’s the whole bloody point of the technique, making use of some very specific physiological characteristics of the cellular fusion complex we call “muscle” that other cells have not.
    The mRNA and the resulting transcribed protein are stuck there.

    You’re probably confusing the vaccination with the slow-release intramuscular depots that are used in medication and contraception. Different substances, a factor 10 to even 100 smaller than the spike protein, can cross the cell membrane, work through osmotic spread.
    Same spot, entirely different mechanism.

    Any risk to a pregnancy is because you kick up the immune system, and there’s that 1:10.000 chance it’ll go haywire. Which it would do anyway, at even higher probabilities, if the woman in question would fall ill with the actual pathogen, but hey… details..
    But because the chance isn’t absolute zero, and people are ..quite irrational.. about pregnancies (and not just the expectant mother..) , (bio)medical types are ..extremely careful.. about making statements regarding “safety” when it comes to things like this.
    Because whatever they do or say they will cop the blame. If not by the actual parents, then the Meddlesome Family With An Expert Opinion From YouTube.

    The vaccine is safe, for a given value of “safe”. It’s the people getting it and their families that are bloody dangerous.

  31. @Diogenes Oh yes.. UV works a treat. So much so it’s a standard lighting fitting in any lab/environment that needs to be really sterile.

    There is, of course, the bit that they’re only turned on when there’s no-one there…
    Something about ionising radiation, blindness ( retinal damage, so no hope of fixing..) , superficial burns on exposed sin, and skin cancer and all…

    The places where they’re on with people present, those people are already in full hazmat gear, including the UV filters in the visor.
    These are, obviously I hope, places you don’t want to be if you haven’t got any business there. If you’re allowed to get near to begin with..

    UV works. Whether it’s a practical solution. Weeeellll.. Radium coatings are actually far safer, and you don’t see those proposed for some silly reason..

  32. Bloke in North Dorset

    Diogenes,

    It’s probably because Trump suggested it that the scientific community turned against it.

    I remember seeing clips of the Chinese using strong UV to cleanse areas during lockdown 1 and I looked into buying a good sterilising UV light but then it all went quiet n the subject.

  33. Grikath

    You’ve mentioned a couple of times that anyone getting bad side effects from the vaccine would have got them anyway had they contacted the virus, and with much greater probability.

    1) Is that an absolute given? Ie, no one gets side effects (however serious) from the vaccine but then rides the disease just fine without those specific effects? Or, for someone who *is going to get Covid*, the potential increase in risk by taking the vaccine in advance of getting the illness is in effect “nil”?

    2) If 1) is true, then of course, it’s still not a slam dunk decision by any stretch, because an awful lot of people (and especially at this stage) are simply not ever going to catch the bug. I see no evidence for the “everyone will ultimately get it” scenario. And in which case, for some it is still a genuine additional risk by taking the vaccine?

    3) The odds you quoted above of 10^-5 (effects from the vaccine). Are they from the yellow card system / VAERS etc? Because we do know for certain that those systems are materially understating such effects.

    4) And of course there are no (material) side effects from simply boosting one’s immune system with lots of stuff like C, D, zinc (and others like Ivermectin etc though less easily obtained), reducing all those odds above further, to the point where for anyone younger you are dealing in far lower than car accident levels of probability.

    Fifthly) Channeling my inner spud.

  34. PF: Those questions would be answered if anyone provided the sort of figures I asked for in my first post (a comparison of ALL-CAUSE mortality, illness and injury in the injected population against the non-injected population).

    The nearest I’ve found to such a study comes in the drug vs control study for the Pfizer drug. 18,310 participants in the injected group vs 18.319 non-injected.

    There were 1,594 cases of “suspected Covid-19 symptoms” in the injected group, as opposed to 1.816 in the non-injected group. Bearing in mind that this is from a period of only months, while the irreversible effects of this drug will be with you for the rest of your life, those numbers don’t cut it for me at all.

    The 95% efficacy claimed for the drug comes from suspected Covid-19 symptoms ‘confirmed’ by PCR test. Then the figures dwindle to 8 in the injected group as opposed to 162 among the non-injected. But as a consumer it honestly doesn’t bother me at all whether my symptoms are due to the Covid virus, the drug or due to anything else. All I’m concerned about is avoiding symptoms in general, and from that point of view the level of avoidance with this drug in no way compensates for possible, unknown chronic effects.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m really grateful for Grikath’s contributions. But I don’t really see where my question has been answered (that if the virus is circulating as freely as the rise in antibodies between injections indicates – and the case made for that by Grikath seems persuasive – then why the need to be vaccinated?). My point is that the virus must be passing through everyone on an ongoing basis, as you’d expect with one now categorized as endemic. And that those of us unaffected by Covid-19 the disease are unaffected not because we haven’t encountered the virus, but because we have indeed encountered it, and dealt with it via our innate immune system (e.g. the musocal membranes of our noses and throats), without the messy symptoms generated by our adaptive immune systems (e.g., antibodies generated because the virus has broken through our nose and throat defences and reached our organs).

    Of course, people’s innate immune systems will deteriorate, with age, obesity and ill-health, leading to more cases of Covid-19 the disease. But is that enough to justify being injected with these drugs for something that for the time being is not a problem?

    Just to emphasize, I’m really not looking for an argument here. I genuinely want to tap Grikath’s expertise. Thanks.

  35. *mucosal membranes
    Why do I always type the c and s the wrong way round? I spent three years TippEx-ing that mistake out when I used to translate pharmaceutical patents and clinical trials back in the ’80s.

  36. Paul,

    Thanks, that’s interesting. Yes, me too – however hard I try, hence the questions, I still can’t arrive anywhere near the calculation that says I should go and get myself jabbed…

Leave a Reply

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