Coronavirus vaccine

That seemed, on the surface, to good to be true Brian.

But I've just done a few quick checks and you are bang on the money.

You have just gone to the top of the leader board in the tidings of comfort and joy stakes

Darren

I had to read it a few times myself before posting on here, as you don't want to give wrong information about something as important as this. Because it wasnt a random tweet but was on the BBC website it has a lot more creedence.

If this fantastic news is true, then at least the yanks are good for something then. Finally!!

Brian.

Its now on Main BBC news, Experts saying this looks like it will be "It"
Money men definitely think so, as stock markets are going through the roof.

One little caveat that keeps cropping up is that the vaccine is unlikely to be widely available until the new year.

Great news non the less

Darren

Seems I got the name wrong of the company which has produced this vaccine, its not the Oxford/Astra Zenaca group it is in fact the American company Pfizer. Mind I also think the Oxford group will also be producing a vaccine very soon.

Those who applaud the BBC for accuracy and ethics are deluded. But news from Twitter/Facebook is even more dodgy.

Paul #34
BBC employees are no longer able to air their personal views on any subject (Apart from their undying love for all things red), so there is more chance that the social media posts from the correspondents will be more accurate, more often, besides which CNN and other outlets are reporting the news of the vaccine breakthrough, which is most welcome no matter how cynically you may view the information outlets.

The world has to try and get out of this idea that every source of news is suspect or innacurate, if it doesn't happen to fit someone's personal preferences or world view. If all news is treated as misinformation we have nobody to hold anybody else to account apart from which group has the loudest voice, or the voice of the mob.

Patrick@35: You're right, good journalism is important. However, bad journalism is unfortunately widespread, and the BBC (equally unfortunately) has large elements of it, despite its undoubted good journalism. The reporting of COVID is an example on a large scale.

I wouldn't normally rush to tell anyone what to do with their lives, unasked. Circumstances now however are a little different. Line up with joyful hope for the vaccine by all means, but do yourself an important favour first.

Spend a few hours reading and researching, global vaccine history of recent decades, the people and companies/corporations involved, the outcomes for recipients. The testing in third world countries by first world interests. Recent changes of law to leave vaccine manufacturers fully absolved of all consequences for any harm to recipients... and more.

Read about a certain Mr.Gates, and the wider picture generally re. this situation.

Do this not with Google but using a smaller search engine/resource.

Bit of time input but surely not a big commitment before allowing a chemical construct apparently developed with unprecedented, unimaginable haste (like no seven years-plus of testing), to be introduced into the fabric of your body.

"Before allowing a chemical construct apparently developed with unprecedented, unimaginable haste (like no seven year plus of testing) to be introduced into the fabric of your body".

Used to give The Widows on Scottie a wide berth then did you, Will ?

I wouldn't normally rush to tell anyone what to do with their lives, unasked.
That's good thinking Will, stick with that.

I'll be snorting a few lines of that vaccine as soon as it's available, if it means I'll be first back into Goodison in the spring.

COYB! COYV!

OK Brian. I wonder do you ever react that way to the government. I know it ruffles feathers that not everyone takes everything on face value. Rather an important issue I believe, surely better to be informed, and no harm if people actually research.

Darren - of course.

Mildly irked the Americans and not the Brits won the vaccine race I've written to Kenwright castigating him for his part in the failure but no reply just yet.

I will keep you all informed

Will, I make my own mind up mate. I research where I feel it necessary. I respect others and let them do what they feel is right for them without "informing" them what they should do, except on match days when I shout "Shoot you bloody useless git" at any number of Everton players. 🤣

Fuck knows what they do down at FF Barry.

No Vaccine ?...Bastards are stealing a living

We seem within this thread to have moved seamlessly from scepticism about Premier League football to scepticism about vaccines. Of one thing we can be certain: none of us will be attending Premier League games until a vaccine is available.

Brian, I'm sure you do, and if you understand and benefit from research, then I'd guess you have no problem with others doing it, or advocating it.

If I'd suggested people research something other than the vaccine, I wonder would you have responded that way. As I said, ruffles feathers. Maybe people will look - that's why I posted.

Brian #51, I'm getting it too. Probably a message from Bill Gates saying 'We're going to turn you into zombies with the fake vaccine for the fake disease.' (irony alert)

Keep washing your hands, keep your distance, and wear that mask. If not, stay away from the Highlands. We're in Tier 1 and we wanna stay that way!

I would have done Will, honestly. Simply because again I respect people's right/ability to make their own mind up without me educating them.

It just smacks a bit of "I know better than you and you need to do this."

PT, surely there's a Mink farm in your neighborhood?!

I can't see what's so wrong with the post, Brian. So, I'm going to stick with what I said, and respectfully we'll have to differ.

The idea was simply that people might research the issue, and hopefully some will.

Darren, Brian and all... here's the most detailed press coverage I have found to explain the vaccine news from Pfizer/BioNTech. It's important to note that these are only preliminary results, but those results are stunning -- the researchers would have been ecstatic with 70% efficacy, and it's showing 90%.

Hopes rise for end of pandemic as Pfizer says vaccine is 90% effective

And by the way, the USA's Pfizer is bringing the drug through, but Germany's BioNTech is the original developer and partner, so like most major drug development today this is truly an international effort. (Their stock is up 15% today.)

Of course, none of this will mean much here in the US of A, because probably 40% of our brain-dead citizens will refuse to take the vaccine.

No mink up here, John, just plenty of cows, pigs and deer.

Will's point is fair enough – rushing out a vaccine is rarely a sound move, especially if it results in prematurely careless behaviour before people can get it.

PT #68, there may be a rush to approve this vaccine, but it would be logistically impossible to rush it to market.

First, it'll take months to manufacture enough to even start to meet the demand.

Second, my understanding is that it has to be kept frozen until right before treatment, so the distribution and storage logistics will be challenging -- how many doctor's offices have big freezers?

And third, the vaccination actually consists of two injections given 21 days apart, so coordinating patient schedules will be an additional hurdle.

So, even if swiftly approved, this vaccine won't solve the problem anytime soon.

I think there is sound reason to doubt any new vaccine based solely on how quickly it's been developed against how long we would normally take to assiduously test it, and document long-term issues. We simply don't have the data.

Balance that with Pharmaceuticals dropping nearly everything they're doing to devote a truly international collaboration then those man-hours have been greatly reduced by virtue of the resources thrown at it.

We do also have a good base knowledge of the Corona ‘style' virus as this isn't something we aren't aware of and other varieties have been about for some time.

Reticence is natural, however transparency of data, info. and a volunteer group will go a long way to convince the general public of its efficacy.

Promising news.

Don't worry about the –80 degrees. Vets transport horse semen around at that temperature. As part of their job, I mean, not just for fun.

Wow, this thread is why I come on here when the world is twisting in it's contorted spasms of regret and despair. Somehow, ToffeeWeb puts things into perspective.

Oh and John, the speed of the progress of this vaccine just shows that, if you pay enough clever people to work things out, then anything is possible. Breakthroughs always happen in wartime etc... needs must and all that.

Boris is obviously terrified that street parties will erupt all over Britain, desperately trying to play things down, just like the crap spouted saying facemasks were not very important (when the government just wanted them all for frontline workers). We plebs can't be trusted with the truth because we might all just not give a shit anymore.

On a lesser note, I see Mason (laugh-a-minute) Holgate was wheeled out to tell us that they are working to sort stuff out. Great... half the team on international duty, so just who will Davide and Carlo be sorting the defence out with?

The buggers will get back here, hopefully uninjured, hopefully uninfested and hopefully not to tired. So some great work ahead at Finch Farm... Not.

Eddie #80, actually it's less about paying enough clever people and more about having enough supercomputers. Today's computing power can process and analyze medical study data millions of times faster than just 10 years ago.

Kinda like the difference in thought speed between James on the ball and Ross Barkley.

Mike @67:

That's interesting if it is 90%. At the moment, the government estimates that about 1% of people have Coviid-19. So if people are vaccinated and the vaccine has a 90% success rate, ie, a 10% rate of failing to protect, that 1% figure would go down to a tenth of that, ie, one-in-a-thousand would have Covid-19 rather than one-in-a-hundred. Unless I'm missing something.

Mike @81:

No, it's more about clever people. Computers are a tool to help, but the basic driver for anything like this is insight and creativity.

Mike, better get that supercomputer down to Finch Farm pronto so Carlo and Davide can put the data in... then we might find out why that little Freddie Mercury rat ghosted between our totems to score.

Stan #82, the only thing you're missing is the number of people who will refuse or neglect to take the vaccine. Judging by the election results, about 47% of us Yanks will fall into that category.

I have no doubt that, for at least the first two years after the vaccine is approved, more than half of us Colonials will still be eagerly infecting each other at motorcycle rallies and tractor pulls.

Your point about the clever people is right, of course, but, given today's dynamic tools, they can be creative and insightful a whole lot faster than before.

Mike, good point about refusal to have a vaccine, a classic problem at the moment. On computer processing, yes it makes things faster, but the big bottlenecks are always the need for a new insight into a problem that's not a ‘routine problem'.

Mike #70, that would be my concern. Rush it out before it's safe and in the meantime people get careless because there's 'nearly a vaccine'.

By the way American webbers, what do you think about the timing of this vaccine announcement..? Do you think they may have waited till now so Trump couldn't claim any credit for it and hang on in there?

Eddie #89,
I believe that Mike Pence has tried to claim that it was Trump's private/public funding which accelerated the arrival of a vaccine but the company which makes it denies this as they weren't part of the scheme.

To anybody what is ths 'Loge Seating' that Everton are proposing at Bramley-Moore Dock? Apparently all of those who are Adult Season Ticket holders or have purchased individual tickets in the past will be asked for their thoughts on pricing, preferred location to watch and many other things via a survey in the next few days – not a great time to ask but perhaps it's a positive sign for our hopes of seeing the new ground built?

Pfizer did not receive any help from the Administration so what credit could he claim?

Dale #91,

You know how it works, claim credit for the positive and avoid responsibility for the negative stuff, it's the shape of things today.

Eddie, I would laugh for a week if I thought that were true, and of course Trump immediately (and falsely) claimed credit anyway. But according to Pfizer's CEO, a Trump donor, it didn't happen that way... says he didn't see the results until yesterday.

The Trumpies couldn't have found this information anyway. I swear this is true -- over the weekend they announced a press conference at the Four Seasons in Philadelphia for their lawyers fighting the election results. But somebody made a little mistake and booked Four Seasons Total Landscaping for the presser, instead of the posh hotel. So the lawyers just went with it. Held their press conference in a parking lot behind a small gardening store on the edge of town near the freeway, next to a porno shop and a crematorium. And right in the middle of their presentation, Biden was declared the winner of the election. Yes, this really happened.

Only in America.

Apparently Pfizer / BioN Tech have stated they have not received any finance from the Federal Government.

BioN Tech the small biotechnology company is the originator of the vaccine and was founded by two married German scientists. Ugur Sahn and OzLem Turici (apologize if names spelled wrong), both born of Turkish immigrants, and the Austrian oncologist Christian Huber.

BioN Tech was originally researching cancer treatment but turned to Covid-19 when the epidemic broke out.

Mike. I could take a guess at were there won't be a high take up of any vaccine! I've no problem with quarantining those particular states.

Shall we build a wall around them 😭😭😭

And hey Mike, what's happening? I'm impressed with that Vac breakdown as well as the Giuliani info. Don't want to pollute the thread but the tidbit I got a kick out of was that Biden found out at church while Trump was notified on the golf course. Sounds about right.

How can Trump claim credit for anything? He has claimed that Covid-19 was fake, the numbers were faked by the ''radical'' left and that the US was ''turning'' the corner several months ago. He basically called everything a hoax even information given by his own medical experts and the WHO.

The man is a total hoax himself and is totally out of his depth as a president. Now he calls the election fake, BTW he won easily.

COYB.

Tom. There are some on here that believe the pandemic is fake!

There are some on here that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.

As someone who lived in South Liverpool when the government, without notice, trialled a new whooping cough vaccine in the mid-1950s without proper testing and which left a brother handicapped for life, I would suggest you be very wary of any vaccine that hasn't been properly tested.

Alan,

A quick look at today's front pages here would give you pause for thought.

Not a sign of caution or balance visible. It's all sorted mate, all over bar the shouting, at least in the headlines.

I'm all for optimism, but not like this.

Alan J, a lot of bad things happened 60-plus years ago that don't happen today. Medical science has come a long way, and so has society.

It's been many decades since you heard about people in first world nations experiencing catastrophic, undisclosed side effects from vaccines.

Russia and China are currently vaccinating their citizens with drugs that have not been through Phase 3 testing, and rolling the dice on both efficacy and safety... but nothing like that has happened in the UK or the US for a very, very long time.

As fellow survivors of the big C, you and I should be at the head of the line when a proven, approved vaccine becomes available.

Mike @ 107; Never say never mate...forget the 50s and 60s
No vaccine is perfect
"Between 1978 and April 2017. The UK Govt. stated over 900 payments were made totalling over £74M"

Its none the less very good news and I might be a tad cynical, but getting the good word out first...and the resultant share leap may have had a bearing on things.

The news reporting on the vaccine is like the news reporting about football, of limited reliability. The news tends to be sensationalist when it comes to reporting of new drugs and their potential, and a lot of reporting turns out to be prematurely optimistic.

There are rigorous processes in place for assessing the suitability of a new vaccine, and not every vaccine survives regulatory scrutiny beyond Stage 3 clinical trials. This new vaccine may or may not survive that scrutiny, but the press reporting offers little insight at present, but they always offer plenty of hype and, unfortunately often, misplaced hope and optimism.

A danger of such hype and optimism is people, through the media, becoming complacent enough to relax other measures to guard against the virus. Let's hope the vaccine proves successful given the initial promising results, but there's no guarantee at this stage.

There's nothing worse than false hope and raised expectations, as us Evertonians know too well.

Stan 111

I totally agree with what you say about complacency setting in, as there are still many things that have to happen before a vaccine is rolled out. Its one thing to produce a vaccine but to mass produce a vaccine can lead to many difficulties. The other drawback is that this particular vaccine has to be kept at a very special temperature until its administered to the patient. I also believe that it can only be removed from this temperature on 4 occasions so that will have its drawbacks. I listened to a leading professor last night who said that he has never known a company announce a vaccine when they were still carrying out clinical trials, and he seemed just a tad concerned about that.

But the good thing is that there are other vaccines based on the same genetic make up as the Pfizer vaccine, and the head of the Oxford University/ Astra Zenaca group believed their vaccine would be ready in weeks also. So this is good news and one we can all be hopeful about. I am sure come the summer of 2021 things will be massively improved to what they are now. So while we must not be complacent there is a great deal of hope on the horizon. Now I know a watch phrase on here is its the hope that kills you when it comes to Everton, but in this case the hope isn't misplaced.

Will #104,
They are probably Brexit voters.

Andrew- don't start!

Sorry Eddie. I couldn't resist it.

‘At the moment, the government estimates that about 1% of people have Coviid-19. So if people are vaccinated and the vaccine has a 90% success rate, ie, a 10% rate of failing to protect, that 1% figure would go down to a tenth of that, ie, one-in-a-thousand would have Covid-19 rather than one-in-a-hundred. Unless I'm missing something.'

Stan, I think that sums it up in a way. The whole point of the vaccination is to reduce the number of people the already infected can then pass it on to. If 10% have already had it and the recovered have some level of immunity, then we are looking at reducing the something like 50 to 55 million in this country who could be infected to about a tenth of that. Without someone around to pass the infection onto, the virus simply disappears in the population as the last of those infected recover.

It will take a long time to get those 50 to 55 million people vaccinated (the Pfizer vaccine requires 2 doses per person and we are only due about 10 million from them) but fortunately the government has booked vaccine from multiple prospective manufacturers up to about 340 million doses. There are a range of different vaccine manufacturing approaches being tried. The Pfizer BioNtech mRNA vaccine is one of the more radical (ie, not really tried and tested) approaches. Some of the more traditional methods will have much better-understood safety and risk profiles.

Love the ‘truth' aficionados who seem to think they have a proven capability of sniffing out what is genuine rather than what is conspiracy theory bullshit. People need to declare their expertise and how they peer review before dismissing others as hoodwinked by the mainstream media.

As I understand it, this vaccine does not stop you getting this virus or from passing it on but it does lessen the effects and therefore the number of deaths. Has anyone else seen such a report?

Alan @57: Yes, I downloaded the actual report on the study by Pfizer.

About 22,000 were given a placebo, and 22,000 the vaccine. Then the study observed how many in each group got symptoms of Covid-19, as opposed to how many tested positive for Covid-19.

The placebo group had 90% of the Covid cases, and the vaccine group 10%. Hence the 90% chance of protection quoted in the media.

Si @56: The original statement I made to Mike Gaynes, which you quoted, was my initial interpretation of what Mike said, but after looking at the stuff in more detail as mentioned @58, my statement is not correct at this stage.

The 90% rate refers to protection against getting ill from the virus, rather than protection from getting the virus or passing it on. I believe the latter facets are part of the further studies following the initial findings.

Billions of dollars to be made from the vaccine, especially those that are first out the gate. Buyer beware!!!

Just for info I found that taking vitamin C and D3 supplements and immune boosters like Echinacea together with Paracetamol (to reduce the fever) was enough to reduce the symptoms to a minimum and get over it quickly.

I guess I was one of the luckier ones even though I am in the high risk category (old, overweight and high blood pressure).

Pfizer is in partnership wit BioNTech, a small biotechnology company that is the originator of the vaccine and was founded by 2 married German scientists, with an Austrian oncologist.

It also seems that a number of other countries are working with American pharmaceutical institutions and hopefully something will be available soon to help our Health Care workers, and after that, the general population can be helped in an order that the governments believe who need it first.

There will most probably be disputes on who gets a vaccine first but we have to gain a foothold on this pandemic, and the sooner the better. It seems it is difficult for a number of people to follow the rules to contain this pandemic but hopefully, with help on the way, they will start to work with the scientists and follow the prevention of Covid-19 to assist in the cure.

Jay - don't wait until you get COVID to take the vitamin D.

It is a natural vitamin we make from getting UVA/UVB rays from the sun to convert fat in our bodies. At this time of the year in the northern hemisphere we do not get enough strong sunlight to do this.

That is why so many are low on Vitamin D and why the first thing the Germans did was dose up patients with Vitamin D. They have 14 deaths per 100,000, we have over 70. Obviously no link. PHE have eventually come out and said Vitamin D helps.

Beware. 4000IU per day is the max to be safe but 800-1600IU is the normal levels (drops or tablets).

Si - from what I hear

Day 1 = dose 1

Day 22 = dose 2

then it takes 2-3 weeks to build up immunity in the body so that is

Day 43 = you are now protected.

The fear must be that people get the vaccine and then think that's it – party time but they need to keep the same social distancing, wearing a mask, washing hands for at least 6 weeks more.

And given it will be:

Group 1 - Care home residents

Group 2 - Care staff

Group 3 - >85 year olds

Group 4 - >80 year olds

etc etc, then I am not sure there is going to be too much partying after the injection but there could be the desire to get around to see the grandchild home from Uni who has been partying and simply oozes with the virus

Phil @63:

One of the details yet to be clarified is how the 90% protection rate is distributed with respect to age. For example, flu vaccines have a broad average protection of around 50% over all ages, but less than 20% for the over-65 age range.

If the new vaccine, or collection of new vaccines, also showed such skewness with age, then the protection afforded to older people could be somewhat less than might be suggested by initial hype from the media and some politicians. All the more reason to ensure vigilance towards other protection measures.

Phil,

Too late I already had it a couple of months ago but did some research and was already taking the echinacea which I'm sure made it a bit milder on me.

It also makes you anaemic so I'm currently taking iron tablets and fish oil supplements but my energy levels have now got back to normal after a couple of months of heavy breathing and lack of energy.

Alan (57) and Stan (58),

That would mean it wouldn't be classed as a vaccine and doesn't tally with needing two doses and getting the full response a couple of weeks later, which is how you prime and then trigger an immune response.

I haven't yet checked this out (but I will) and if this ‘treatment' doesn't protect you from catching (and therefore also transmitting) this virus, then it shouldn't be being promoted as a vaccine and it is shameful that Pfizer are boosting their share price on the back of what could only be considered to be taking advantage of a naive media.

The treatment of those infected has already come on in leaps and bounds; a vaccine, ie, something that can give a population immunity and will stop the virus from spreading, is the game-changer that is now required.

Alan and Stan,

Where are you getting that interpretation that this vaccine hasn't prevented 90% of the people who have received it in the trial from contracting the virus?

The sources I have seen make it clear they are claiming immunity, not just a lessening of symptoms.

Si. You're right. 90% prevention is the claim, not 90% reduction in symptoms.

The company said that the analysis found that the vaccine was more than 90 percent effective in preventing the disease among trial volunteers who had no evidence of prior coronavirus infection. 

Si, my reading of various articles on it, and looking at the 150-page report from Pfizer, is that the findings are to do with symptomatic outcomes, ie, those individuals who get ill with Covid-19. Of the 44,000 volunteers, there were 94 symptomatic cases of Covid-19.

I can't see any results that deal with cases where people are tested positive for Covid but have no symptoms. It's possible I'm not understanding it well enough, I'm not a specialist in this stuff, but that's my reading of the stuff I've looked at.

Brian, again, I'm reading the phrase 'preventing the disease' as 'the prevention of sickness'. I also interpreted the current government strategy for vaccination as targeting susceptible individuals to try to stop them getting sick due to the virus, rather than targeting transmission of the virus. But again, I could be wrong.

Yeh, Stan, there are conflicting reports on it and it now seems to say It is not yet clear whether or not the vaccine could protect against coronavirus infection or simply against developing symptoms once you are infected. I suppose it depends on which report you read.

All very confusing.

But then there's this which suggests it does indeed stop Covid-19:

During the trial, volunteers, none of whom had Covid-19 previously, got either two doses of the vaccine or placebo shots. Then doctors waited to see who developed Covid-19. According to the companies, 94 people have developed the disease during the trial so far.

The claim of 90% efficacy means nearly all these cases were among volunteers who received the placebo, a few who received the vaccine got sick too.

Brian, exactly. That's why I ended up having a look at the actual report from Pfizer, rather than the various second-hand accounts in the media. Just trying to make some sense of it as a non-expert.

This all seems a prime example where media reports are okay for a potted idea about something, but often lack clarity. The devil's in the detail and all that.

What you've stated there underlines that it's the disease that's been looked at, the 94 cases with symptoms, not asymptomatic.

Covid-19 is the disease (symptomatic) that results from the virus Sars-Cov-2. The 94 cases are cases of Covid-19. There may be a far greater number of cases where participants have Sars-Cov-2 (and could test positive for it) without having Covid-19.

Quick update: Turns out the vaccine will likely have unpleasant -- but not serious or dangerous -- side effects.

"...enervating flu-like side effects — including sore arms, muscle aches and fever — that could last days and temporarily sideline some people from work or school."

It's described as similar to the new Shingrix shingles vaccine, which also requires two shots. I did have similar side effects from that.

Stan, I think you are reading things wrong. Those 94 who showed symptoms had caught the virus because they didn't have any immunity. Only half the people in the trial get the vaccine, the others get a placebo so are reliant on any natural immunity in the population.

All in the trial were screened to show they didn't already have the high levels of Covid-specific antibodies that you would find in those who had already contracted the virus, because what you want in this trial is a group of people who haven't already had the virus.

Then they will check the numbers of those in the infected 94 who had the vaccine against those who did not (prior to this, neither the people who were in the trial nor the people who administered the shots would know what was in the shots each person got but there is a database that could be checked to see what each of the 94 had actually got).

To get a 90% figure of projected immunity, only something around 5% of the 94 could be people who actually got the vaccine, so that would be 4 out of the 94. The other 90 who showed symptoms must have received the placebo.

Ultimately they want a symptomatic group of something around 160. The figures are low (out of the 44,000 I think are in the trial) because it's not ethical to actively seek to infect people with a virus that could kill them, so they are relying on people catching it in a normal way and they won't be routinely testing everyone so they won't pick up any asymptomatic cases anyway.

The assumption is that, if it protects 90% of those who display symptoms, then it is also protecting 90% of those who wouldn't display symptoms if they were infected.

Mike (73), those symptoms are basically an immune response because that is what a vaccine has to do; trigger your immune system so that it becomes primed to prevent the real thing from hijacking your body at a later date.

Some people will get worse side-effects than others (some will not have / notice any) simply because our immune systems are as individual as we are.

Some side-effects (including different immune responses) may be caused by what are known as excipients, which are in the vaccine for a variety of reasons but are not there to trigger the desired specific immune response. For example, many flu vaccines have been derived from virus grown in eggs and so some egg proteins will exist in even the most highly purified vaccines. People with an egg allergy shouldn't take them.

Si @74: Thanks for that. I understand what you're saying but, nevertheless, the results presented in the trial are for symptomatic Covid-19, with no results being presented for participants who might test positive for the virus but are asymptomatic.

I think the key phrase in what you say is your last sentence, that assumption. Although that assumption seems plausible, I cannot see anything about the current trial results that supports it. That looks like something for the ongoing work and further results.

Stan, there are no asymptomatic positives because they are not trying to identify every positive. They are reliant on the people in the trial self-checking against the known symptoms and reporting if they have developed them. Then they are checking those who have reported symptoms, and so only people who have symptoms are confirmed as positive.

They are just not going to continuously test 44,000 people from a broad spectrum of society (which is the only way they could pick up the asymptomatic positives) because it would be ridiculously expensive and prevent the triallists from leading their normal lives (which is one of the things they are reliant on for people to be exposed to and infected by this virus in a wholly natural way). This is a real-life trial, not something carried out in a laboratory or hospital.

Also, they don't have to waste resources trying to find the asymptomatic infected because that assumption is actually a very reasonable one. Asymptomatic infected are, as far as anyone is aware (and plenty of work will have shown it), no more or less immune to the virus than those who display symptoms. Equally, they will acquire immunity from the vaccine in the same way as the infected who display symptoms and in the same proportion unless something completely unprecedented occurs.

The fact that asymptomatic people acquire the infection like everyone else is why they are such a problem in this pandemic and can be superspreaders. They are still infected; you can't be churning out the virus otherwise and they do. They are just lucky that they don't display the symptoms that others do. It is just not worth tracking them down for this trial and so they don't end up being assessed which is what seems to be throwing you.

Si, nevertheless, it's an assumption that a 90% protection for preventing the disease corresponds to a 90% reduction in the prevalence of the virus. As I say, the further work following the current findings could well clarify this.

Stan, it is preventing infection, not preventing the disease which is merely the consequence of having been infected. It is not a vaccine if it does not confer immunity.

If 90% get immunity, then of course that will reduce the infection levels by the same amount because those potential hosts are no longer available to the virus.

Stan, it appears to me that you have developed an unshakeable faith in an erroneous interpretation of what this trial is measuring. They are only interested in those who can be confirmed to have become infected having received the vaccine. If that number remains low in the confirmed infected, then they are onto something.

Si, I'm simply looking at the results as they appear in the published report from Pfizer. I'm not making any assumptions, or relying on faith. Just the facts that I can see from the 150-page report.

In contrast, you have made an assumption that a 90% rate of protection from symptomatic Covid-19 of vaccinated individuals means that there will be a 90% reduction in how widespread the virus is.

My initial impression of the study from the media aligned with your assumption but, after seeing the actual report from Pfizer, I can see that that impression and your assumption are not necessarily correct. It seems that further work might clarify how valid the assumption is.

Whatever the assumptions are, aligned or not, I'm having the vaccines the first chance I get!

One of the main issues relating to the release of the interim reports about the efficacy of the vaccines is that it might change the behaviour of the people taking part in the trials. It had been agreed that no company would release any information until the trial had been fully completed, but it would seem the need to become the first to announce was too tempting for the companies.

I can fully understand those who might be reluctant to be vaccinated but once the vaccine has passed through its various stages and it is deemed to be safe by the relevant authorities, surely it is better to be vaccinated than not, just so long as no short-cuts have been taken.

Patrick@83: Don't think there's much argument about your last point (some, but not much). Generally speaking, vaccination is one of the main reasons for increasing health over the years and things like reduction of childhood mortality (the latter being a driver for increased average life expectancy). The healthier and safer folks get, the increasing tendency there is for many of them to be worried about less and less significant things. The difference between perception of risk and actual risk.

I think it's a bit like Everton and Evertonians. Supporters from loads of other clubs would love to be habitually midtable in the Premier League as we are. But Evertonians aren't satisfied with that, we want to be top dog, and will concern ourselves with details that affect whether we finish 10th or 6th, that many other supporters might regard as not worth worrying about.

We all want a silver bullet, that seems unlikely to me, in the short term.

I'll be happy with a product which reduces the severity of symptoms and level of hospitalization to the level of a bad cold etc.

It will stop heath services being overwhelmed and allow people to restart their lives without the Damoclean dilemma everyday that they may unintentionally infect someone who could suffer significant symptoms as a result when going about their essential business.

I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I can't for the life of me understand why this vaccine will only really be useful for more than 25% of the population?

Tony, because a vaccine is only as effective as the number of people who get it.

It'll be quite a while before it's available to everyone and, even then, lots of people won't take it.

I'm not being funny, Mike, but if Covid-19 is more devastating to certain people, then, once they've got the vaccine, does this not cover them?

I know what you're saying, but if most of the population don't suffer too badly once infected by Covid-19, then I still find it hard to comprehend why these people need a vaccine?

Give it to the people who need it definitely, but it's not something I'd want my younger kids to have, because I just don't feel it's necessary for a lot of society.

I got inoculated for TB when I was 13 or 14, but I'm not sure about immunity, because I got that very nasty disease, around 10 years later.

If giving everyone in the population a vaccine could eradicate Covid-19, I'd get a needle, but I'm not convinced it will, so this is why I'm not convinced it's for everyone, mate.

I've not done my proper research on this but, since this is a ToffeeWeb forum, I'm going to weigh in with complete overconfidence. Seriously, one thing to keep in mind is the long-term organ damage that has been identified for some of those infected. We still don't know if that could manifest later in those who've already contracted Covid-19.

Thanks, Brian, for doing this, and thanks Mike, Si and others for helping the rest of us figure it out.

I think there is every reason for optimism with the news about the vaccine, as far as I can see.

But I had thought that the intention was always to vaccinate about 50% of the population, on a prioritised basis, which will take a fair bit of time, especially if people need a couple of injections. Of course things may change over time. But a major logistical exercise.

So it's really only one strand in the plan. The other is test, trace and isolate, hopefully done better than currently, and on a massive scale, hence the trial in Liverpool.

I believe this is being ratcheted up further in the city from next week, with more stations, and people getting 2 tests. And if it works repeat elsewhere. Again a massive logistical exercise.

Only both working well and in tandem will have a chance of controlling this properly. Attacking both ends of the problem.

So be optimistic about the news and opportunity and keep your fingers crossed about the logistics! At least on the evidence so far.

Tony, I think that's what the government approach to the vaccine currently is, to give it to those most at risk so as to protect them. Seems to be the most effective use of the vaccine.

I've been convinced by my grown-up daughters to be first in line. They reckon if I grow 2 heads as a result, the compensation will be in the millions if not I'm safe.

According to the smooth-talking monkeys, there is no downside.

Barry, if you grow two heads you won't be the only one, and the compensation will be doled out accordingly.

No compensation, Stan. Laws all been changed, all manufacturers/suppliers absolved from blame and liability claims.

So hopefully the rumours (there's plenty – I know) about people needing a Covid passport to get into gigs and sporting events is false then, Will?

For purely selfish reasons, how many volunteers were over the age of 75?

If there were any, how successful was the vaccine on them?

Not sure of the correlation in what you're saying there, Tony? The concept has been widely discussed among what I'll call various global bodies with a certain interest in this whole thing. It's not a street rumour.

The eventual goal of Health Passports would be as a document to be held by all for use and interactions across their whole life, not simply for particular events and gatherings.

Essentially a way of redefining a human, from a mostly healthy creature that occasionally falls ill, to a potentially unsafe or dangerous entity that must actively prove a specified "Health" at all times. The qualification for this being based on receiving an ongoing programme of vaccinations and treatments as and when defined.

It all points to simulation for me, Will, because with so many people on the planet, why would anyone want to start producing robots? Even if It's obvious robots will be cheaper to employ than humans, and won't mind doing the jobs that nobody really wants to do?

It's mind boggling. I'm writing in jest but, being serious for a minute, it's obvious that there are too many people on the planet, for a species that is all about greed.

Tony,

There has always been an appetite for ‘control' by those in power.

Wartime ID cards were still in use here and only cancelled in the 1950s.

It explains why ID cards come back as a serious topic at least once a decade, by the government of the day, regardless of whether it's Tory, Labour, Thatcherite, New Labour, Brexiteer, Neoliberal. They all have the same appetite.

This may possibly be the latest version, who knows? But it's not some conspiracy theory, it's just an established pattern.

Which is not a good thing!

Dr Norman Swann.

If they get rid of money, Chris, they can establish where we all are at any given time mate (unless we're skint) but this topic is about the vaccine, and I remain to be convinced it should be taken by everyone.

Going off topic, but I hope this vaccine is not the next great divide, because we all know how certain parts of the human race are with each other. I can still remember the week the smoking ban came in, and on this particular day it was absolutely pouring with rain. A fella was smoking in the Asda foyer, and this woman was screaming at him to get outside.

“It's teaming” he said, “So what?” she replied “We've had to put up with you inconsiderate bastards for years” she said. And that's just the way it is for loads of people, especially those who take the moral high ground!

Tony,

If you have a mobile phone they can find you anyway, if that's what they want to do.

The vaccine, we are told, will be tested to our normal rigorous standards and no dilution, so if it comes along, I'll take it when my turn comes, because I am officially vulnerable and enfeebled.

As far as I know, it's not compulsory but, as I said earlier, it probably can't be fully effective without the mass testing, tracing and isolation programme, properly implemented.

What's happening in Liverpool is pretty important to this. I'll wait and see about the passport. That's been swirling around social media for a good while.

I'll believe it when I see it basically, but it wouldn't be a surprise given history.

As for smoking, a filthy antisocial habit! [Said with the conviction of a former heavy smoker!]

Chris (#102); Not sure how you define "normal rigorous standards" as a lot of people knowledgeable in the field are saying that, in the past, a credible vaccine was usually 10 years in the making and testing. Also, they are questioning just how effective it will be in older people.

I permanently gave up that filthy habit the moment the Doctor whispered the magic word in my ear but must admit to occasionally wondering if you still get that lift when you resumed after another fruitless week or two refraining?

Alan,

It was his definition, not mine. I'm hoping that, just like in war, science can take big leaps, and progress can be rapid.

And of course the government ‘follow the science'.

After I started after a break, it sent me really light-headed, but in a good way. Not indulged for 35 years on New Year's Eve.

You can even get those Roy Harper, or John Martin concert style cigarettes in a vape now Chris, nice and mellow, great for pain relief, but they still give out a bad chest unfortunately!

Tony

I saw Roy Harper at Theatr Clwyd a long time ago with My family. My sons were much younger then. Roy walked on with one on, and members of the crowd threw a few more on. Andy who was only young then, asked why people were chucking ciggies at him. His older brother regarded him with scorn. I said nothing, to my shame.

Opened with One of those Days In England, and An Old Cricketer leaves The Crease. Lovely, very English.

I'll have to dig some of his stuff out now!

I see Mr Salah has returned a second positive Covid-19 test while away in Egypt. He'll miss a couple of RS games. Let's hope none of our players have been in contact with anyone infectious while on international duty.

Watch it while it remains:

Dr Roger Hodkinson CEO & Medical Director – MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP

And - would you be comfortable with this?

Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus

Last December.

Okay Will, calm down. I'm not sure what you think Dr Hodkinson's opinion proves. As he says he is counter narrative, which means his professional opinion is not shared by all his peers. Of course, to you that probably just proves he is right and all those who don't agree are just puppets of... who exactly?
What is his opinion? I'd say he is just saying that he doesn't think there is anything to be gained from putting in all this effort to stop what he says is just like a bad flu and which can't be stopped from spreading anyhow. What is he calling a hoax? The idea that we can should be doing anything to prevent this virus from spreading?
But he has no vested interest does he? Well, except that his company sell Covid-19 testing kits! Control the virus by good hygiene / sensible behaviours or eradicate it with a vaccine and guess what? You don't need those blinkin' testing kits do you?! What about the countries that have got this virus under control? Are they not in on the conspiracy? Why aren't they yelling ‘hoax' whilst they let their citizens get on with their lives?
When did he make his remarks? One in 300,000 fatality? So a maximum of approx 200 deaths in this country once everyone has caught it? If he made those remarks in early March he certainly wouldn't be alone, but I've read plenty have drastically revised their opinions since then and are saying this virus is very much worse than any flu. Give me the date for these remarks (not the date they were posted) and I'll decide for myself whether they are the current views of a professional.
As for Bill Gates being Satan. Or perhaps just a well meaning wealthy philanthropist who would like to use technology(his speciality) to solve what are some real problems in parts of the world? Of course, practically everything made for good purposes can be twisted by bad people and often is. When they start to demand everyone takes vaccines for no obvious reason, I'll be in the crowd telling them where to stick it. When they start to limit civil liberties based on what rationally should be personal choice then I'll be storming the seat of power and overthrowing the dictators with everyone else.
It's just nuts that people think that the whole of the world's leaders have got together to fabricate this pandemic. We are already firmly yoked, most of us to ‘necessities' that are really just luxuries.

I watched the first and read the second.
One expert comes out with an opinion and he's the one who's right? Maybe, maybe not.

As for the second.

The main reason many Christians and some Shia Muslims are opposed to body-invasive identification technologies, however helpful such technologies are for preventing pandemics, is because they believe that such technologies are the so called ‘Mark of Satan' mentioned in the Bible and some Mahdi prophecies. In the Book of Revelations in the Bible, anyone who does not have this “mark” is not allowed to buy or sell anything.

Enough said!

Si, if you don't mind, I don't need to "Calm down", no need to patronize 'cos you don't agree. Ditto the "to you" line. It also isn't one opinion, there are many, many more, countless, but they all keep getting taken down, continually, across multiple platforms and have been throughout. Why would that be? Surely it's all just harmless "Conspiracy" nonsense.

Before dismissing as "Just nuts", why not look into the background. There is much more than just national governments running things, it's all there to be found and read (for now), it goes back a long way. If you wish to believe the UK's whole response and actions are all simply Boris and the cabinet, then OK.

Since you didn't answer as such, I'll take from what you wrote about Gates that you are happy to have such sub-dermal tattooing.

" When they start to demand everyone takes vaccines for no obvious reason, I'll be in the crowd telling them where to stick it. When they start to limit civil liberties based on what rationally should be personal choice then I'll be storming the seat of power and overthrowing the dictators with everyone else."

How will you decide when a vaccine is for "No obvious reason"? What if there are follow-on vaccines every year, required to maintain a Health Passport/Digital ID?

What is "Rational" personal choice? Your rational, or theirs? Civil liberties - well how about needing vaccinations to work, shop, travel, meet others/groups; the liberties we have now?

Brian:

An attack on people's religion and nothing else? Is this the guy that wanted to correct my manner in earlier posts?

You extracted that piece but didn't comment regarding having a Gates special tattoo in your body, so I assume you think it's fine too.

I'm sorry Will but I can't take anyone seriously when they talk about the subject of a powerful deity and his arch enemy Satan. I just can't.
And if people believe that certain technologies are the mark of Satan and are prophecies from a book written a couple of thousand years ago and aimed at the people of that time, then I don't know what to think of them.
If it makes some people feel better then that's good for them, but I'm sorry science has pretty much proven where we came from and how we came to be here.
I'll not "attack" someone's religion for them believing, or even bring it up, but if asked I will be honest and say I think it's a fairytale, much like you think a lot of this Covid stuff is.
You have your beliefs Will and I'd not oppose or comment on them unless I consider that you're trying to push them and influence people, ie. those who read ToffeeWeb.
I read ToffeeWeb so consider you're trying to influence me, educate me if you will.
I believe that's what you were doing in the first place, and continue to do with your links post.
When you do that I'm going to oppose them because I vehemently disagree with you.
I come on ToffeeWeb for footballing reasons, as do most others, and personally don't consider it to be a suitable place for trying to educate and influence the posters.
Now I consider this post to be an honest, reasonable and not disrespectful reply to yours but it'll be my last to you as I'd really rather not converse (if that's the right term for replying and commenting on posts) with you. I have a sneaky feeling you won't be too gutted about that, lol.

Well Brian, it is indeed a football site - but this is a virus thread, with relevant posts and links by many. Seems being "For" the virus situation is seen as discussing it, being against it, a nefarious form of educating or influencing.

But no worries, it's a normal response that goes with the territory, along with the tin foil hat lines. I might add I'm not religious whatsoever but those who are, are expressing their beliefs in their terms; it doesn't detract from the facts as they are. Facts that can be found easily and checked for veracity, including those within the article from which you mentioned only the religious angle as a means to discredit. Ironically, that article supports what Gates is doing; I linked for the content.

I assume you have no opinion re. the tattoo, or don't wish to share it. Please feel free to vehemently disagree with or discuss my views should you wish, or not. Please do not disagree only with my right to post them, or share them with others, simply because you disagree with them. Alternatively, tell those you do agree with to stop too.

When does individual freedom of choice impact the collective health and result in a national crisis? When should individual choice be secondary to collective security?
One has a right to choose but has a responsibility to others as well. Ones actions have consequences not just for yourself but for others but this pandemic in particular is often spread through infection by those who are largely unaffected carriers, is it not their responsibility to ensure protection of others?
I oppose the use of a health passport, I see no need or justification, the only problem with that is some people just don't care enough for the health of others.
A virus doesn't make choices, people do, unfortunately the consequences of making personal stand can mean a collective calamity.

Will, I hardly think Si is 'patronising' you in his post you take issue with.

You do a far better job of that @ 46 when you wrote:

'There are some on here that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.'

Presumptious much..?...whilst also implying your own research is more profund and critical than other TWers.

As it is, you've put up just two links. One in which a medic with vested interests calls the global pandemic response 'a hoax' (without detailing what the hoax is, who it is being perpetuated by, and what is the objective of the hoax).

He clearly favours the (overwhelmingly debunked) herd immunity solution even referencing the esteemed 'Great Barrington Declaration' on the subject.

For one who advocates deeper research and reading of a subject, you might want to delve more into how easy it is to be a signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, who funds it, their political and corporate leanings and other 'causes' they have supported down the decades.

THAT is more akin to the 'manipulative illumanti' you seem to believe in that is behind the CV-19 'hoax'.

For a bunch of deviant Mr Blofield's, if there is a 'manipulative illumanti' they don't seem very competent. There must be easier, less conspicuous paths to world domination.

As for the good medic's claims that there is nothing that we can do to stop this virus, that is at odds with nations who have achieved just that by doing the polar opposite of all that he advocates.

That some nations are failing is due more to the incompetence of their ruling politicians in failing to implement necessary measures at the appropriate time to halt contagion.

I further wonder how deeply he (or you, for that matter Will) have researched not just the case numbers and mortality rates, but also those suffering from months-long long haul CV-19 which is preventing previously perfectly healthy individuals returning to work or anything approaching the normal lifestyle they previously enjoyed.

Just like the common flu, this ain't.

As for the Bill Gates article and his Satanical intentions...seriously?

That has been thoroughly fact-checked and debunked countless times. You just have to read the many comments below it to recognize who this conspiracy theory appeals to. To paraphrase your own words:

'Those that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.'

Finally, a short video showing how perfectly normal events can have a perfectly normal explanation without resorting to conspiracy theories.

The Umbrella Man

Sometimes the most benign of explanations is the truth, with no need to contrive fanciful conspiracies.

Meanwhile, who is going to be our right back this weekend ?

Thats it Derek, get it back on football. I would like to see JJK against Lookman but I have a feeling CArlo will put Holgate there and bring Mina back into the fold to please James.

Thats it Derek, get it back on football. I would like to see JJK against Lookman but I have a feeling CArlo will put Holgate there and bring Mina back into the fold to please James.

Jay, that particular "...believe anything" one was a retort to Brian's post above it at the time.

It's impossible to post everything, Jay - I have linked/mentioned the odd thing so that some may read/dig further if they wish. In case you should default to thinking I'm some loony conspiracy theorist (I know you haven't actually said that), I have spent approaching four decades since the age of 21 researching to levels and depths that would take me hours to even summarize as an overview.

Claims against Gates have been fact-checked and debunked - really? Have you researched deeply? Not Reuters "Fake news debunker" pieces from Google. Do you refer to "Satanical intentions" in response to that article I linked? I didn't mention satanical intentions.

That article mentioned quotes Gates himself and refers to Quantum-Dot Tattoos. I asked if people would be comfortable with that. So far, no-one answers, and contra-opinion goes down as usual, like the lead balloon.

The whole ID2020 thing - "Digital Identity". RFID microchip implants; yes, in your body. Is this all "Conspiracy"?

'Those that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.'

= the vast majority, like it or not. Mainstream media is "King".

Will

"Those that simply believe anything and everything without checking for themselves.'

= the vast majority, like it or not. Mainstream media is "King".

Quite right, history is littered with science fuck ups and in recent times a monstrous "fake news" media.

I will get the vaccine but with trepidation.

Whatever the behaviour of governments, corporations and populations there are examples of zero infection rates around the planet, specifically where drastic action was taken early and complied with by the entire population. The Isle of Man is currently exemplifying this.

To me Christine (#114) hits the nail on the head. Behave yourself for your own sake and, more importantly, your fellow citizens.

If this entity known as Satan doesn't exist, exactly who was it that has helped our neighbours for the last sixty-odd years? Plus if science is all that, why has the school of science been so poor for so long? Asking for a friend!

Satan hasn't just helped our neighbours Patrick, Satan is in our neighbours every single paw!

F all to do with Satan, Patrick. For the most part, the blame can be attached to crap managers and directors.

I'm far from confident that the present regime is much above average but at least their money gives them a chance.

Thanks Christine for getting things into proper perspective. We all have opinions and the rights to them but this is about how we live together. The common space we share as Evertonians and human beings is set by those things we agree to do for one another's best interests. Arguments for individual agency must be weighed with an account of what happens to the collective. Otherwise, why are we on the same team?

Will, I am not denying or suppressing your right to express, promote or believe in what your own research leads you to conclude.

You clearly (for me) wish to promote the notion that others (presumably not just here on TW) are more gullible and more poorly read than your good self.

That may well be the case. Personally, I wouldn't be so presumptious to make that claim. There is absolutely no way of knowing who reads and researches what and where, or to what depth. Or, indeed, whether the judgements and conclusions they reach based on such readings and research are legitimate or not.

We can only get a hint of their influences and their thought processes if they share with us the source of their reading and research.

You did this with two dedicated links. For someone 'approaching four decades of deep research', in this instance, it is my opinion that you didn't make a compelling case for the position you are trying to present. Neither the content nor the links for either are profound or authoritative.

Yes. The claims against Gates (in the conspiracy theories in which his comments were distorted and manipulated) have been fact-checked and debunked.

Gates himself is not the author or proposer of Quantum-Dot Tattoos. ID2020 is a not-for-profit NGO that, quite innocently, got caught up in some wild conspiracy theory formented by the alt-right in the US, adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 666.

This article from The New Humanitarian (not a mainstream news outlet, but a quality independent news site) explains more:

The ID 2020 Conspiracy

Not quite as conspiratorial as you possibly want to make it out to be.

Finally, I have absolutely no issue with contra-opinions to my own. On the contrary (see what I did there..?) I welcome them and give them serious attention.

But equally, I won't spend excessive amounts of time on alternative views with little or no merit when weighed against more compelling evidence.

Such was my personal assessment of the only two links you shared. Other opinions totally allowed, of course. And welcome.

It's been said often that the virus has no respect for borders. But there is no cohesive approach on continents where only land borders separate countries with the result that the virus infections spread through the inhabitants of a continent almost irrespective of individual country borders. Each country has its own approach but unless population movement between countries is restricted it's was almost impossible to say whose strategy would be successful or not. But some are paying a horrendous price under the banner of liberty and incompetence of leadership.

Readers of history see plagues decimate populations over the centuries were isolation and controlling movement being the only way to reduce the spread and eventually eliminate a contagion, with the advent of vaccines it has significantly reduced the world's risk to infection and mortality rate. With no vaccine, there is only conjecture on the best way to control and prevent further repeat infections.

Those with natural borders of sea and enforced prevention of cross border travel halt the immediate threat but are only pressing the pause button until an erradication strategy can be found (vaccines)

Until then where no natural borders exist there has to be a strategy that can constantly adapt but minimise exposure to the public and maximise awareness of how to safeguard yourself.

In today's world of an absence of collective responsibility and individual ownership ( a lack of care or consideration for what you do), Most people just want clear, effective and consistent communication and be led by example by their government. As a very basic foundation of control and eventual eradication.

I must be bored waiting for the football...

Christine #127
I think this modern world philisophy whereby something that can't be used in a selfie mustn't exist, some folks don't even know they've eaten unless they've taken a picture of their dinner on their smart phone - if only this virus showed itself visibly so that everybody could recognise it and the damage it can do.

Gates predicted a near future pandemic in the summer of 2019 and then, after it happened, all we ever hear about from Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum is this "Great Reset" dystopian nightmare and how the COVID-19 crisis is - to quote him, "A great opportunity" to bring this into being.

Apparently they are now "deeply concerned" about the next crisis, which will make the COVID-19 scenario pale by comparison: a crippling cyberattack that will destroy transport, comms, etc., and plunge the world into a mini Dark Age.

Jay (Wood, @126), you looked and had a dig, which is great. Then we come to what is "Profound or authoritative"... or compelling. And the myriad sources... and counter-claims... and vested interests... and insiders... and "Debunks", who's behind them and why... and on it goes. And disinformation. And gatekeepers. And nutters. And fools.

It is not straightforward. What I posted, the article is a great example. Do you accept the existence of the Digital Tattoo? RFID chips? The elements are there - is the truth?

The New Humanitarian article you link claims conspiracists "Seized upon" work on a skin patch used on rats, partially funded by the Gates Foundation... but no mention of the earlier fully-funded work at MIT (and elsewhere) from a December MIT article on cadavers, with plans for human testing (Has this begun??).

It's not so easy to pin down every last detail of the whole truth all the time; but much work and research has been undertaken for decades, policies exist, products have been tested and are in use (including RFID chips, which is old news).

It's not just conspiratorial. There is an enormous global push to digitize the whole planet and its population, with enormous control being the goal. It isn't just happening. The "Internet of Things" is the ultimate (if ever possible) dream and it's moving fast. It has potentially great impacts and dangers.

I can understand you will not spend excessive time on alternate views to yours. These are not views with no merit, but realities.

I'm sure we could go on ad infinitum but that's not possible. I dripped in a couple of things - maybe people will look, maybe they won't, that's fine. As I said earlier... are people comfortable with their body being invaded and connected in - digitized?

Jay @ 129;

Search out video of Event 201(from last October) online, if you're not already aware.

Will, I didn't just 'look and have a dig' on the back of your posts today. I could quickly and easily locate an alternative perspective to your own because I was already aware of it, having much, much earlier (months ago) researched this 'stuff' trying to get a balanced perspective of things.

If you have but noticed I haven't challenged, questioned or denied the 'ID digitalization' of the whole world. Why? Because it's undeniable. It already exists and will only grow ever more 'sophisticated' as technology continues to develop.

I had this discussion at least 20 years ago with friends in a pre-IT, home PC, cell phone and social media era. I was surprised how little anyone else considered the implications of something as seemingly banal as a supermarket loyalty card.

I pointed out then just how much data Tescos and the like were gathering on you each time you shopped and claimed your loyalty points.

They could identify your dietary, cosmetic, reading preferences, your spending budget. Hell! They could calculate near-as-damn-it when a woman would have her menstrual cycle determined by when she bought sanitary towels!

It is an extremely naive view, IMO, if you are not aware of just how much data on your habits and personal traits multiple anonymous actors hold on you in this day and age.

Unless you regularly go incognito or use a VPN when browsing the internet, you leave an historical record about whatever you do. Your cell phone's and car's GPS traces your movements and habits 24-7. Your credit and debit card transactions further feed into this anonymous data bank, as does your social media interaction. Each time you fill in your email address to access walled content on the internet, you open another portal to the data gatherers.

People have become millionaires knowing how to manipulate Facebook's audience data in their targetted marketing. Politicians have been elected by devious manipulation of search engine algorithms and who to present with what type of content in their newsfeed.

So you are preaching to the converted if your message is we need to be vigilant against initiatives to gather ever-more personal data on us.

Where we possibly differ is your stated belief that the overriding intention is 'enormous control being the goal'.

My view is that that horse has already bolted and that many are already passively compliant in feeding the databanks that shape and determine our present and future, but only ever in the short term. Never for the long term.

And whilst I'm not so naive as to not believe that very powerful players are at work behind the scenes, I personally don't subscribe to your implied beliefs that we will be nothing more than zoombied serfs in some Matrix-like parallel universe due to Quantum-Dot Tattoos or Microchip Implants.

Be it terraforming the planet or genetically altering life forms, nature has an extremely annoying resilience and tendency to doing things her way and usurping plans dreamt up in secretive labs - biological or social - as you seemingly imagine.

Jay,please don't waste your time on here. Same with you, Brian. You are pissing in the wind. You know, like the holocaust denier shown proof, undeniable proof,that the holocaust happened. His response was "I spit on your proof"

Some views are just too entrenched to debate with. My ex son- in law thinks that his belief that the moon landings never happened, that Hitler ran a chippy in Montevideo, that a flying saucer dipped it's wings as a mark of respect at a pope's funeral, make him a free thinker with an open mind.

This is where divorce takes precedence over debate. Your words are wasted, you are entering a world that is assured in it's narrow mindedness. Talk about football instead.

Andy, thanks for the wide-minded input.

In case you hadn't noticed, no-one mentioned anything of what's in your post, anywhere in the thread.

"I personally don't subscribe to your implied beliefs that we will be nothing more than zoombied serfs in some Matrix-like parallel universe due to Quantum-Dot Tattoos or Microchip Implants."

Jay, is this you accepting the concept(s)?

Jay, I agree that most of the horse has bolted. I don't share the optimism of your last paragraph though, much as I'd like to!

What Andy C said!

Andy, it's what some theorists call Global Cabal thinking. The belief that the world is secretly controlled by a single sinister group -- be it Freemasons, Jews, witches, Satanists aliens or reptilian lizard-people goes way, way back. The world was transformed 88 years ago by a theory that Jewish financiers secretly dominated the world, plotting to destroy the Aryan race, and that only Adolph Hitler had seen through their perfidy well enough to save civilization. Nearly five percent of the people on Earth were killed in the next 13 years to put that theory to rest.

Today in the US the Republican Party is in thrall to believers in QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory launched by one anonymous guy on the Internet that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring (out of a Washington DC pizzeria) and plotting to destroy Donald Trump. The leaders of the conspiracy are (of course) Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the ultimate perfidious Jewish banker George Soros. They believe Trump alone was endowed with the wisdom to arrest thousands of cabal members and engineer a military takeover of the United States -- which will of course make us a Utopia.

Several Q believers have recently been elected to Congress.

You're scaring me Mike. You are way too up on this.

Andy @ 133; "This is where divorce takes precedence over debate."
I thought you Were talking about football.

Fat finger trouble? or The StoneCutters are the cause of all Lyndon's problems

Mike, wasn't it a guy on the 4-Chan message board who originally posted stuff as a joke and now it's become a full blown movement. Living in the South, I'm in QAnon country. Thankfully in Raleigh there's more brains that silence the idiots, but once you head out into the rural areas, its full of them.

‘How will you decide when a vaccine is for "No obvious reason"? What if there are follow-on vaccines every year, required to maintain a Health Passport?'
Will, your last sentence sums up a couple of good examples of ‘no obvious reason' unless you are fighting a pandemic of something much more like Ebola than this virus.

Covid-19 needs a concerted campaign to be brought under control because our standard medical services are currently very much at risk of being swamped, but that will naturally pass in a couple of years and Covid will then become just another ‘flu' like virus that people will have options to take reasonable precautions against. Any effort to sign me up to a lifetime of repeat vaccinations or a health passport scheme for this virus will fall on deaf ears but a ‘one off' attempt to provide prophylaxis for the current population, however, makes sense to me.

I just don't think enough people will ever be softened up enough by a virus at the risk level of Covid-19 for the various governments to get widespread acceptance for that ubiquitous health passport. Digital ID implanted at the cellular level isn't a reasonable requirement either for most people.

I've worked in the pharma industry and know how difficult it is to consistently manufacture biological treatments, compared to other products. I've seen failures cripple or even effectively destroy companies. It is such a constant battle that I just don't see it as a likely vehicle for effectively delivering some perfidious mechanism to control us all, primarily because so many expert people involved will have a clear idea of what is going into the various vaccines and will notice if any of the constituents do not make sound scientific sense. Or do you think the global supply of pharmaceutical grade chemicals has already been seeded prior to the introduction of the ‘hoax' virus?

A global pandemic has been largely 'predictable' for a long time and increasing population density, environmental impact and global traffic just made it so much more likely with each passing year.

There are just too many unnecessary ‘parts' of this global conspiracy that have to come together to make it work as ‘planned'. May as well put your ‘nanotech' in tattoo ink and a few common meds, beauty treatments and basic food items, and then ramp up the social media and you'll end up with the majority of the population simply self-dosing themselves in short order.

The Virus SARS-CoV-2 is a 'major hazard', a hazard to people that can kill a large number of people in a short time. Like other major hazards in life, its threats can be largely hidden from most people until something very bad happens like the deaths it produces. And like other major hazards, the objective is to try to avoid or prevent its potential effects being realised, rather than trying to control or mitigate the effects once they are realised.

This objective of avoid and prevent is a bit like the security services stopping potential terrorist attacks before they happen. If the strategy is successful, we don't see the bad outcomes, and folks can fail to appreciate the work that has gone on to stop the thing in the first place. In contrast, once very bad things happen, attempts to control and mitigate things tend to be transparent, we can see them. We can applaud the front line NHS workers, or the guy who wrestles the terrorist to the ground, because we can see it in action.

But the work done, for the most part behind the scenes, to avoid and prevent major threats is often seen with neutral or even sceptical eyes, because it is less tangible to folks. However, it is arguably far more influential than the laudable front line work that we tend to applaud. That is ironic, but not surprising, since most folks may not be substantially informed of all this background work. Lack of awareness, and in its worst guise ignorance, tends to breed scepticism. And in some cases it breeds theories of conspiracy.

That is not to say that conspiracies don't happen, because they do, it's human nature. But it's also human nature to work together collectively to solve problems. That's what science, engineering and medicine are all about. The degree to which folks adhere to conspiracies compared with working together, or all points in between on that spectrum between selfishness and collaboration, depends on their individual experiences, both personal and professional.

In the case of COVID, there are significant issues about the way governments have handled the basic hazard SARS-CoV-2, for example issues in the UK about the makeup of SAGE and the quality of their advice to COBR. Many things could have been done better, and people have raised valid issues accordingly. But none of this should detract from the important background work carried out aimed at protecting people from this hazard.

So far as I can see, the overall global effort to handle this hazard is something we've never seen before. The only comparable efforts appear to have been in times of war, but in those cases nations had been trying to kill each other. In contrast, in the case of COVID, nations have been trying to help each other. Imperfectly, yes, but try they have, even with all the vested financial interests and opportunistic instincts that many individual human beings inevitably have. I think that's a great thing, you could say a giant leap for mankind.

"Your [Klaus Schwab] work, bringing together as you do all the best minds on the planet, has informed what we are doing, and I'm delighted to work with you."

- Matt Hancock speaking at the Autumn Reception for the APPG on the Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2017

If this goes on a bit more, I have a good theory to offer as to whether they're idiots or just play one in their sociocultural setting. To some extent, this is a small-time psy-ops program but it actually has an explanation in culture theory.

SI#77 and others. I'm late to this thread so have only scanned most posts.

Re your point about continuous testing of trial participants, Si, I'm not sure about the Pfizer trial but I know for a fact that participants in the Astrazeneca trial are required to carry out weekly swab tests for a year or more, so asymptomatic cases will definitely be identified.

On the subject of vaccine trials, anyone on here either taking part or know anyone who is? If so, what are your views and observations?

Stan @ 144.

I enjoyed that. A superbly framed and constructed post. Well done.

Martin, can you be specific about whether those participants are in the Phase 1, 2 or 3 trials? Because that makes a big difference (which you may or may not already know! :) ).

I have now read the detailed Pfizer report (rather than just articles from what I would consider to be more reliable elements of the media) and that hasn't changed my interpretation of how that trial was constructed.

It is difficult at times to separate out what is being done to whom, when and why. Phase 2 and 3 are being carried out together, with a much smaller number being part of the Phase 2 cadre. These are much more intently tested than the majority because it is from these that they will get the required data on a host of relevant parameters.

Phase 3 is really just about how the vaccine operates in ‘real world' conditions and those in that phase are definitely not on short interval testing (apart from an immunogenicity test a week after the actual injection because they need to discount from their positive group anyone who coincidentally had contracted the virus before the immune response had a chance to kick in).

The monitoring staff are basically relying on Phase 3 participants assessing themselves daily against particular symptoms and reporting if they think something significant has occurred, after which they could be tested and confirmed as infected. Even the Phase 3 lot will get some long-interval follow-up testing, because it is important to gain as much information as possible from everyone in the trial because of the severely contracted timeframe they are pushing these vaccines through in. But, in the Pfizer case, it is clear it is not their primary intent to capture any and all infected, just those who report back as symptomatic.

I don't know the details of any other trials but I know that, apart from the fact that it would be massively expensive to employ enough clinicians to visit and screen tens of thousands of volunteers every week, you risk skewing the results of your trial by giving the participants an unnatural regime that may also greatly change their normal behaviour.

I hope I've made it clear that I just have some experience of clinical trials and how they need to operate but I wouldn't consider myself an expert. I would appreciate it if you would clarify your experience and knowledge base. I'm not trying to score points; I'm open to people correcting what I'm posting if I've got things wrong but, to be totally honest, I'm just going to be much more likely to review my assessment of a subject if I know that someone else probably or definitely does or should know more about it.

To anyone who isn't anything remotely like an expert, I'd say simply trying to read the reports to get a full understanding is made much more difficult if you don't know what the big differences are between the phases of a clinical trial, because those reports are written for peer review, not lay people.

Si@149: What someone posts on this subject should be judged on its substance as it appears on the page, and you don't need to know anything about that person.

If anyone, in trying to present an argument, feels a need to present their experience, status, or qualifications in support of that argument, then they need to put forward the argument differently so that it stands on its own merits.

I'm not saying what my experience is in any detail, because you don't need to know for the purposes of this discussion, but I will say that I have never been influenced by anyone claiming that they are an expert or have some special experience that should sway their argument. Indeed, I have often found that such claims are things that they hide behind when they are unable to convincingly sway an argument on its merits and only its merits.

Mike(#138); Reminds me of a story that came out of Leningrad after the siege in WW2.

A rumour spread through the town that the butcher had received a delivery of meat and a large queue started outside in the freezing cold weather.

After half an hour the butcher came out and announced that there was some meat but not enough for everyone so would all the Jews kindly leave the queue.

This reduced the line by about a quarter and after another 20 minutes the butcher came out and again announced there was some meat but not enough for everyone and would anyone who didn't take part in the recent defence of the Motherland kindly leave the queue.

This again reduced the lines but after another 30 minutes the butcher again made the announcement that there was not enough meat for everyone so would any non-members of the Communist Party kindly leave the queue. After a further 20 minutes the butcher came out and made the same announcement and asked that anyone who didn't take part in the great revolution leave the queue.

This left three little old men who stood in the -30C weather and after another 30 minutes the butcher came out and said that he was sorry but there was no meat at all. The three old men turned and walked away and one of them turned to the other two and said; "That's the trouble, the Jews get the best of everything!"

The last premier league match I attended was Arsenal v West Ham in March 2020, just before the Premier League shutdown. (My son-in-law is a gooner and had a spare ticket!)

On the approach to the ground, I was frisked before I got to the turnstile, as per usual at some grounds.

With Covid just starting to take hold, I wondered then about how football could be made safer for attending supporters.

Applying what we know about transmission,

1. Socially distanced queuing

2. All supporters to wear masks and plastic gloves

3. Temperature scans before entry to the turnstile

4. Gloved hand disinfectant stations before entry to turnstile

5. Some sort of whole body mister spray? I have seen cold water cooling spray machines in Kuwait

6. No corporate boxes and dining room areas where people are INSIDE

I am no expert, just trying to see a way through

Trevor @152 - As Boris has announced a maximum of 4,000 spectators at a game (and that's only in Tier One, which will mainly be small villages in Norfolk), I think it will be pretty safe to go to a match. You will enter through your own turnstile, to be greeted by a steward in a bio-hazard suit, who will hand you a mask and show you to your seat. BoysPen Bill will then give you a virtual hug and burst into tears on the big screen, while Denise Barrett-Baxendale rattles a collection box at you and tries to hit you up for a donation to EITC. The players will take to the field and individually wave at every fan, who each have a row of seats to themselves. Everyone will then start their own chant until they get bored and start slagging off Tom Davies. At half time you will amuse yourself by trying to piss on the person nearest you, and at full time you will be asked to walk through the pitch sprinklers on your way out.

Stan (150),

For me it's not about doffing the cap to a presumed superiority, it's about making a judgement about whether someone is likely, through training and lived experience, to have insights beyond what can easily be presented merely through the written word.

If you think scientific papers are generally written so that any layperson can fully understand their content, then I think you are mistaken. If anyone could get a full understanding, there would be no need for peer review.

I'm not dismissing the layperson's perspective – the ‘fresh pair of eyes' / different angle on things is very useful at times, especially in root cause analysis – it's just that often a certain level of understanding will be assumed by the writers of clinical reports.

Life sciences are often not as ‘pure' as the likes of mathematics and physics because of the many variables that may need to be considered. Insignificant variables may even need to be glossed over in order to come up with a workable study, and the researchers won't take the time to explain why certain things have been assumed if they would expect their peer reviewers to work out what is significant and what isn't on their own.

You write a lot of very good stuff, Stan. I don't doubt you are capable of making a good fist of understanding things by reading about them. I just think that you have fixated on what you are seeing as a significant flaw in the study and the conclusions so far simply because you expect the report to be detailed enough to give you all the information you require.

Si @154:

I don't know what your experience is, and it doesn't interest me for the purpose of this discussion, but I would suggest to you that you focus on what I've actually written. Whether you're a layperson or a highly-skilled and intellectually rigorous specialist, the first trick is to focus on that.

For example, I have not suggested anywhere that the Pfizer study has any flaws. Similarly, there is no indication in what I've written that scientific papers can be understood by lay people. So you have misinterpreted what I've written.

Will @134. Whether I agree with your views or not, I have re-read my post @133 and accept your point. The tone of my post is poor indeed.

Si@154: By the way, let me assure that mathematics and physics can be just as 'impure' and 'messy' as the biological sciences.

Stan, it seemed to me that you were questioning the actual potential ability of this vaccine to prevent 90% of infections because they weren't seeking to capture anything other than symptomatic positives. Did I get that wrong?

I've merely said that we should assume that they have a good scientific reason for setting up their trial this way (which is what I saw first reported and then in the report itself), suggesting that extrapolation from that subset may not be unreasonable if you have a good understanding of how the immune system works (in most people).

If Pfizer (and now others) were really being very cavalier in trumpeting it is likely 90% of recipients will not subsequently get infected, then it could be disastrous both for dealing with this pandemic and for the future of other vaccination projects.

I'm assuming the science is sound and we are not all going to be bitterly disappointed when these vaccines are eventually rolled out, because it seems to me that idle speculation on efficacy claims fuels the suspicion that Big Pharma may simply be blowing its own trumpet for the sake of its share price in the middle of a global crisis and that just opens the door for the anti-vaxxers and Will's paranoid mob.

Si @158:

Yes, you did get that wrong. I wasn't seeking to question anything.

Look, instead of asking me now if you've interpreted what I'd said correctly or not, why don't you simply have another look at what I wrote. It would be quicker.

You seem to be going off on all kinds of tangents of misinterpretation, and you can avoid that by reading what I actually wrote. If I'd wanted to question the study, make no mistake, I would have made that very clear.

Stan, this is what you posted:

“The 90% rate refers to protection against getting ill from the virus, rather than protection from getting the virus or passing it on. I believe the latter facets are part of the further studies following the initial findings.”

That is not right; it is protection from ‘getting the virus' that they mean. There is no vaccine that actually stops a virus from getting into the body, they all work by snuffing out those initial invaders. That is what stops you from then producing masses of the virus (whether you are symptomatic or asymptomatic) and passing it on to others.

Then you post:

“Si @74: Thanks for that. I understand what you're saying but, nevertheless, the results presented in the trial are for symptomatic Covid-19, with no results being presented for participants who might test positive for the virus but are asymptomatic.

"I think the key phrase in what you say is your last sentence, that assumption. Although that assumption seems plausible, I cannot see anything about the current trial results that supports it. That looks like something for the ongoing work and further results.”

I've tried to explain that there must be a good reason this trial isn't set-up to capture the asymptomatic cases, even if you are dead-set on refuting the considered assumption that must underpin that decision, and that they will be trying to get this vaccine released without waiting for the ‘further results' you are wanting to see. Those ‘further results' will only be collected from those trial participants that are on the phase 2 regime who will continue to be monitored long after the vaccine has been rolled out, or from whatever is reported through standard Pharmacovigilance.

You basically insult me by saying I'm reliant on assumption and faith whilst you are only interested in facts, and continue the passive aggressive commentary by effectively sneering at the notion that there is anything to be gained by knowing someone's knowledge base and professional expertise.

People need to get used to the fact that these vaccines are being rushed through and there simply will not be the breadth or depth of ‘facts' that you want to see, but that doesn't mean there will be a significantly increased risk from taking them, nor that they won't be effective.

We are all going to have to take some things on faith and take the plunge when we are offered a vaccine if we are going to have any chance of shortening the remaining duration of this pandemic from years down to months.

Other examples of you ‘pouring cold water' on the potential benefits of this vaccine:

“This all seems a prime example where media reports are okay for a potted idea about something, but often lack clarity. The devil's in the detail and all that.

“What you've stated there underlines that it's the disease that's been looked at, the 94 cases with symptoms, not asymptomatic.

“Covid-19 is the disease (symptomatic) that results from the virus Sars-Cov-2. The 94 cases are cases of Covid-19. There may be a far greater number of cases where participants have Sars-Cov-2 (and could test positive for it) without having Covid-19.”

“Patrick @83: Don't think there's much argument about your last point (some, but not much).”

Please, Stan, tell me what you mean by ‘some, but not much', because it seemed to me (and still does) that your apparent dissatisfaction with the accuracy of the initial media reports and the lack of results for ‘asymptomatic infected' is exactly what people will use to shake other people's resolve to get vaccinated.

Si, get a grip. the main art of discussing any serious subject is to do so without making emotive or personal comments.

Chris @106, thanks for the music mate🙏I've just listened to “When an old cricketer leaves the crease” and it's a song that makes me think about life.

This virus has disrupted “life” for so many people, and at the end of the day, “life is everything”. Its why we are born, it's why we exist, and I really feel for the people without company, because this virus has taken life away for so many.

Hopefully soon it will be better, more laughing, more joking, more living, and a much better Everton team to watch!

Cheers Tony,

It's a lovely poignant song and so English.

Keep listening and keep sane!

I'll always listen, Chris, but it doesn't always decipher, it's one of the reasons I will never be sane!

Sounds sane to me, Tony!

Stan, you are the one who took the discussion into thinly veiled sneering.

All I've done is try to engage you on a conclusion you”d drawn and, instead of clarifying your concern over what you are not seeing in the results of the trial, you've repeatedly simply dismissed my view or tried to undermine it as merely ‘faith'-based (rather than a considered opinion based on knowledge and experience). I've tried to clarify my thinking whilst you have flatly refused to concede that you are also operating on assumption rather than facts a lot of the time.

In future, I'll read your posts with interest but I don't think I'll waste my time in trying to discuss anything I might have an alternative explanation for.

Si, I'll let you have the last word 😉