Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine approved

[Kneerly Down]

I think an independent Scotland would have done better...

Oh dear:

At a time when the UK should be accelerating efforts to work with our EU partners towards finding a vaccine, it is concerning that the UK government has instead rejected the opportunity to take part in yet another EU-wide programme.
The UK government’s short-sighted and increasingly isolationist approach does nothing but hinder the ability to tackle the virus effectively.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/185 ... se-scheme/

[Saga Lout]

...
If we are back to some semblance of normality next winter...

You mean the NHS on the verge of collapse because it's overwhelmed with flu sufferers?

[irie]

I'm a Nurse working in a Hospital - We seem to be flying through the staff vaccinAtions at the moment .
In the wider community one can only hope that similar happens - we are doing staff walk ins as the more vaccinations done then the staff go quicker - I think the roll out of the Oxford jab has helped with its more friendly cold chain.
I just hope that the wider community can benefit from this.
If we are back to some semblance of normality next winter then hopefully when it comes to similar projects we can be as agile .

My DIL is "staff" and due to get her jab on Wednesday.

[irie]

Other than Israel, which has effectively been a country on a war footing for the past 70 years, we do seem to be world leading on the vaccinations front. Roughly half of the entire world's gene sequencing on Covid is being done in the UK also.

I mentioned this to an SNP supporter and they reckon an independent Scotland would do better....forgetting that they were previously arguing for us to be part of the joint-EU response...that seems to have been appalling.

As can be seen in the below link, the joint-EU response certainly is appalling.

https://www.politico.eu/article/coronav ... e-numbers/

[asmethurst99]

...
If we are back to some semblance of normality next winter...

You mean the NHS on the verge of collapse because it's overwhelmed with flu sufferers?

I take your point -I meant society in general - god knows what the NHS will be like .

[Druid]

My wife and daughter are both front line NHS staff. They have both had their first vaccines a couple of weeks ago and my wife has had the date for her second dose in mid-Feb. Daughter works for a different NHS trust and is still waiting for the date for her second dose.

[Yambo]

[

You mean the NHS on the verge of collapse because it's overwhelmed with flu sufferers?

It'll be fine, all the usual flu sufferers will have been killed of by Covid!

[Saga Lout]

You mean the NHS on the verge of collapse because it's overwhelmed with flu sufferers?

I take your point -I meant society in general - god knows what the NHS will be like .

But you could make a bloody good guess. It'll be collapsing under the strain and calling for more money like it has been for as long as I can remember.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Agree with you, but the BBC web site makes absolutely no reference to this vaccination progress. Pretty poor for a so-called public service broadcaster, but unsurprising.

They must have heard you.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-5 ... type=share

[irie]

Agree with you, but the BBC web site makes absolutely no reference to this vaccination progress. Pretty poor for a so-called public service broadcaster, but unsurprising.

They must have heard you.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-5 ... type=share

Posted at 15:48 under World News as a numerical fact without any analysis or comment.

More than 3.5 million vaccinations administered in England

[Mr. Dazzle]

I have noticed BBC are much less quick on the trigger with news than the private newspaper websites. Whether that's a result of greater fact checking, less sensationalism or just lower staffing I'm not sure. Probably all 3.

[asmethurst99]

You mean the NHS on the verge of collapse because it's overwhelmed with flu sufferers?

I take your point -I meant society in general - god knows what the NHS will be like .

But you could make a bloody good guess. It'll be collapsing under the strain and calling for more money like it has been for as long as I can remember.

I was being a ray of sunshine but Id also hope that ITU and Resp medicine might learn some new tricks .

[irie]

I have noticed BBC are much less quick on the trigger with news than the private newspaper websites. Whether that's a result of greater fact checking, less sensationalism or just lower staffing I'm not sure. Probably all 3.

I'd add to that: if something fits with its corporate agenda it's quick to publish, and vice versa. As quite obviously applies in this case where even "Can you catch coronavirus from a jogger" takes precedence over reporting the success of the UK mass vaccination effort on the front page. Shocking bias.

Edit: "Lower staffing"?

It is the world's oldest national broadcaster, and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees, employing over 22,000 staff in total, of whom more than 16,000 are in public sector broadcasting. The total number of BBC staff amounts to 35,402 including part-time, flexible, and fixed-contract staff.

Perhaps not.

[Yambo]

From the same page (and its own page yesterday I think):

Doctors and nurses need protection from prosecution over Covid-19 treatment decisions made under the pressures of the pandemic, medical bodies say. Groups including the British Medical Association have written to ministers saying medical workers fear they could be at risk of unlawful killing charges

It is rather awful that medical professionals feel they need protection from prosecution like this but sadly the UK has a history of shitting on people who were just trying to do their job in difficult circumstances. They won't get protection of course because other groups in the same boat are denied it. Can't have one rule for some, can we. But I hope they do.

[wheelnut]

But you could make a bloody good guess. It'll be collapsing under the strain and calling for more money like it has been for as long as I can remember.

https://www.nomoresurgeons.com/post/critical-list

[demographic]

But you could make a bloody good guess. It'll be collapsing under the strain and calling for more money like it has been for as long as I can remember.

https://www.nomoresurgeons.com/post/critical-list

Thats well worth reading, thanks for linking to it.

[Mr. Dazzle]

More downbeat biased reporting from the BBC!

Vaccinations currently reckoned to be outstripping infections by 4:1.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-5 ... type=share

[wheelnut]

There is something related already in existence. For first aiders there is a so called 'good samaritan' rule where the UK courts will not allow someone to sue a first aider because if they did, no one would volunteer to be one. I've no idea if that could be extended to medical staff during the Covid crisis ?

There is also some precedent given that doctors already make judgements that someone is too old to survive surgery, too far gone with cancer etc. and they aren't sued for that (but I bet people have tried).

It is pretty disgusting that during a global crisis medical staff are having to worry about this

I don’t think the Good Samaritan rule applies to people with professional registration. They can be held accountable even outside a hospital setting.

Take level 3 critical care for instance, the normal nursing to patient ratio is 1:1. It’s that way for a reason, as they are dealing with people with multiple organ failure and/or ventilation.

In November NHS England said that could be reduced to 1:2, due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the pandemic. Be lucky if it’s that now, at least with experienced ICU nurses. It’s often the case now that a number of non-ICU nurses are looking after patients under the supervision of an experienced ICU nurse.

They do need some protection if things go wrong.

[cheb]

If the NHS is at it's limits and has never been in such a precarious position before, assuming it doesn't collapse will the Torries being given credit for saving it?

[Tomcat]

The "1/2+1" was administered by mistake. Aside from being rather uninspiring that this sort of error could happen at all in a clinical trial, the fact that they don't understand why the different results were obtained relative to the planned 1+1 doesn't give a whole lot of confidence. As stated it could simply be that the aberrant subject group were younger than the full trial group, who achieved a rather less impressive 60% immunity.

Now, not only does the govt plan to administer this as the preferred vaccine (It's cheaper and it's "British") but they plan to ignore the makers' requirements for dosing by spreading out the shots by many weeks, with absolutely no evidence whether this will maintain the already limited effectiveness of the vaccine. I wonder what happens when the virus encounters someone with partial resistance and the only strains of the virus that survive are the ones resistant to the vaccine-developed antibodies. All so Bozo can unlock a few weeks earlier. I'd love to be wrong on this, we'll see.