(02-06-2021, 11:56 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: https://www.ft.com/content/e9bbd4fe-e6bf-4383-bfd3-be64140a3f36

Oxford/AstraZeneca jab fails to prevent mild and moderate Covid from S African strain, study shows

Impact on hospitalisations and deaths caused by variant not yet determined, according to preliminary findings

The Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine does not appear to offer protection against mild and moderate disease caused by the viral variant first identified in South Africa, according to a study due to be published on Monday. Although none of the more than 2,000 mainly healthy and young patients in the study died or was hospitalised, the findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, could complicate the race to roll out vaccines as new strains emerge. In both the human trials and tests on the blood of those vaccinated, the jab showed significantly reduced efficacy against the 501Y.V2 viral variant, which is dominant in South Africa, according to the randomised, double-blind study seen by the Financial Times.

“A two-dose regimen of [the vaccine] did not show protection against mild-moderate Covid-19 due to [the South African variant]”, the study says, adding that efficacy against severe Covid-19, hospitalisations and deaths was not yet determined.

(02-10-2021, 10:14 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Oh Sh*t indeed. I find it extremely offensive that the strains are labeled South African and UK. Prejudice and xenophobia, here we come. . . .

(02-10-2021, 10:57 AM)M_T Wrote:

(02-10-2021, 10:14 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Oh Sh*t indeed. I find it extremely offensive that the strains are labeled South African and UK. Prejudice and xenophobia, here we come. . . .

Hey, didya hear about B.1.426?  No, not the prison joke, but the COVID strain.  Better watch out!

Seriously though, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1 are hard to keep distinct.  If someone referred to "B.1.1.351" or "B.1.315", did he just make a typo or did he mean something different that "B.1.351".  There's a reason we don't refer to laws by their numbers, or people by SSNs, etc.   Words have a lot of extra (or extraneous) information in them.  That makes them easy to distinguish.  "UK", "South African", and "Brazil" are unlikely to get confused; especially so because we have a geography in our mind that keeps them separate.  Sure, they could be named  "Blue", "Prejudice", and "Trot" and still be very distinct.

I wouldn't want them named "UK", "England", and "Britain"  or  "51.5,-0.1", "-25.7,28.2", "-15.8,-47.9".

I bet you're going to have to Google "B.1.426" to find out what I used as a teaser.  Not much info in that name.

I don't find it offensive to have a disease named after where it was first identified, or a dog named for the kennels where it was born.   What is offensive to me is associating the location to a negative connotation.

(02-10-2021, 12:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Just a tad bit of sarcasm after the msm consternation over the "Chinese Virus". . . .

As for B.1.426, I assume you're referring to the Newsom/Garcetti strain. . . .