OT: Happy Birthday - follow the science

[Old_pie]

Just under a year ago we were being told to wash our hands to the length of time it took to sing Happy Birthday.

Yesterday's BBC website https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52040138 says:

There is little direct evidence of people catching the virus from droplets that have ended up on objects (such as food or food packaging) - although it's difficult to gather this evidence so we can't rule it out as a route of transmission.

I recall being around the Market Square at the end of Feb and all the Asians (Chinese) were wearing masks and in the pub (remember those) I argued that this virus could not have spread from Wuhan to Europe and other parts of the world by touching. It didn't make sense despite soon afterwards animations were shown of painting something on someone's hand and watching how it spread.

In March we got the Happy Birthday message despite there being articles about aerosol transmission, and again I recall discussion (don't be eating your lunch whilst you read this) that anal spray due to the squat toilets used in China were responsible for the rapid rate of transmission. This article is from last February: https://fortune.com/2020/02/20/coron...-transmission/

Our scientists then got into a tizz because they did not differentiate between face coverings and medical masks. So we had an unnecessary delay in keeping the aerosol transmission down. At that time both my wife and I started to wear some dust masks that were in my d-i-y box.

At every point our government was slow to take action "guided by the science" and that has continued at every stage of this epidemic.

We now thankfully have vaccines which, provide the distribution is not messed up, and someone takes a note of recipient details (unlike what has happened with mass testing) then there is an end in sight. But a last minute swerve says delay the second dose. In the case of the Pfizer vaccine - where trials show 90% efficacy, neither Pfizer nor the WHO support this approach. The situation is worse with the AZ/Oxford vaccine which only shows 70% efficacy after the first jab.

The doctors are in somewhat of a dilemma because they would normally follow the guidelines provided with the medication.

If I have a jab and know in 3 weeks I'll get another I'll be very careful in those 3 weeks, but if that 3 weeks is going to be 3 months I'm going to struggle. It feels to me like another algorithm exercise such as happened with exams last year. Punch the numbers through a computer but ignore the behaviour of the subjects.

Happy Birthday covid - we've let you score more than you should have.

[drillerpie]

The mask thing was and in my eyes still is bizarre. Pretty much everyone apart from the UK and US was mandating masks when we were still talking about singing happy birthday.

Credit where credit is due, this government seems to have rolled out the vaccinations better than a lot of countries, but the idea of purposely leaving the second dose of the vaccine until later could be a master stroke or a an absolute disaster, given that some scientists see it as creating perfect conditions for the virus to mutate and become vaccine-immune.

[jackal2]

Credit where credit is due, this government seems to have rolled out the vaccinations better than a lot of countries, but the idea of purposely leaving the second dose of the vaccine until later could be a master stroke or a an absolute disaster, given that some scientists see it as creating perfect conditions for the virus to mutate and become vaccine-immune.

I saw an expert last week saying that the greater delay between the two treatments could make it more effective, because the body has more time to assimilate the first dose and this can be beneficial to the effect of the second. I've got no idea if that's true, but it illustrates the ever changing and sometimes competing scientific advice on which the Government has to make judgement calls.

[drillerpie]

I saw an expert last week saying that the greater delay between the two treatments could make it more effective, because the body has more time to assimilate the first dose and this can be beneficial to the effect of the second. I've got no idea if that's true, but it illustrates the ever changing and sometimes competing scientific advice on which the Government has to make judgement calls.

I've got no idea either, but if I was faced with a choice between squeezing an extra bit of effectiveness out of an already effective enough vaccine but potentially catapulting everyone back to square one by creating a vaccine resistant version of the virus, or rolling the vaccines out more slowly, a quick cost/benefit analysis would push me fairly quickly towards the latter.

[jackal2]

I've got no idea either, but if I was faced with a choice between squeezing an extra bit of effectiveness out of an already effective enough vaccine but potentially catapulting everyone back to square one by creating a vaccine resistant version of the virus, or rolling the vaccines out more slowly, a quick cost/benefit analysis would push me fairly quickly towards the latter.

This reminds me of another interview I saw last week on Sky News where an(other) expert said that in the event that a vaccine-resistant strain does emerge, tweaking the existing vaccines to address that problem is a much simpler, easier, quicker process than designing a vaccine from scratch. It sounds logical to me, but again it's a matter for those who know.

[TheBlackHorse]

... some complain about government performance. The scientists (alias God) can't agree amongst themselves (so which God are we to believe). How the hell can the gov get it right under those circumstances, especially as they have to take into account all the variables - economy, media, education - which the scientists don't. Although we may be making mistakes, through our narrow outlook, others abroad appear to be not much better. As ever t'was, many in the UK are so narrow minded and inward looking ... not to mention the d-heads who couldn't give a damn about hygiene ...

[drillerpie]

This reminds me of another interview I saw last week on Sky News where an(other) expert said that in the event that a vaccine-resistant strain does emerge, tweaking the existing vaccines to address that problem is a much simpler, easier, quicker process than designing a vaccine from scratch. It sounds logical to me, but again it's a matter for those who know.

I think they designed the vaccine for Covid19 in a few days. As far as I know the time consuming part is the testing, which would presumably have to be done again, so I'm not sure that would help, but again I'm commenting with my layman's knowledge so not 100% sure.

[matt_magpie]

I think they designed the vaccine for Covid19 in a few days. As far as I know the time consuming part is the testing, which would presumably have to be done again, so I'm not sure that would help, but again I'm commenting with my layman's knowledge so not 100% sure.

I think that was the case, either days or a couple of weeks as I watched a documentary on it interviewing the scientists developing one of them, can remember it as I was really surprised, but as you said its all the rigor around testing.