Minister @DrZweliMkhize committs to uploading MAC Vaccine ADVISORIES by end of briefing. Commits to urgency and expediting availability.
#Vaccines
#nocovidmonopolies
#1Country1Plan
The Sunday that keeps getting weirder ... very odd charge against CSO groups.
— Fatima Hassan (@_HassanF) January 3, 2021
We need transparency.#1Country1Plan
Please @GovernmentZA -
get comms expert advice and support.
Now for 6.30...https://t.co/AcG6APtmsZ pic.twitter.com/UY1YMhwJRn
@tianjohnson
2.outreach / mobile, PHCs
3.vaccination centres for remote areas too.
-where is @CompComSA to review prices BEFORE? OTHERWISE PANDEMIC gouging will happen).
(NDAs with public money is shameful!)
So, we wait (not critique).
And expect 2nd Q 2021.
(Hence, deadline as I said before, was a big fat red herring...)
Who pays the COVAX balance of payment?
Where are the many women business leaders?
So we not pursuing price control or patent restrictions - phrma triumphs?
Oh my.
Why coudn't @GovernmentZA simply reply *in writing* to a letter asking these very questions from mid-Nov 2020 by @HealthJusticeIn ...major state capacity issues...
#nopandemicgouging
Over to drug companies to PROVE PRICE IS CORRECT. Share data & either way, remember Dischem/Babelegi.
Hope @HealthZA gives a briefing every 3 to 5 days until roll out is complete.
We need info, not whispers...
@GCISMedia
Big black box.
Cost: approx ZAR 2 BILL.
NO JUSTIFICATION for rich countries to hoard vaccines, 'release it'. And 'we fight behind the scenes'.
I hope @pfizer @JNJNews @aspenpharma @CiplaRSA @AstraZeneca @UniofOxford @BioNTech_Group and others are listening.
South Africans are tired of waiting, of paying too much, of being blocked.
Salute HCWs.
@HealthZA
@the_dti
Why?
We did warn. Months ago.
... seems like we did get #1country1plan through agreed upon national allocation *approach* that follows a triage system...
(Not a plan, cos I don't see it in writing, nor tabled in @ParliamentofRSA ! )
At present, slides and national presser.
☕
Help out at @HealthZA and
@SAHPRA1
Laws needed to PRICE ASSESS BEFORE WE SPEND THE MONEY.
Justify the price, or price variations. Prove it is low or no profit. And, not time bound.
More from Health
This is a limited point about availability of efficacy data for vaccines under development in the context of the approval for CovidShield and Covaxin in India.
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
🚨Important changes to lockdown/self-isolation regulations from 5pm
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
£800 'house party' FPN & police can now access track & trace data
https://t.co/k9XCpVsXhC
“Large gathering offence”
As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence
Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400
Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000
Second big change:
Since September has been a legal requirement to sell-isolate if you test positive/notified by Track & Trace of exposure to someone else who tested positive
Police can now be given access to NHS Track & Trace data if for the purpose of enforcement/prosecution
This will make it easier for police to enforce people breaking self-isolation rules. Currently there has been practically no enforcement.
Data says only a small proportion of people meant to be self-isolating are fully doing so.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
£800 'house party' FPN & police can now access track & trace data
https://t.co/k9XCpVsXhC
“Large gathering offence”
As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence
Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400
Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000
Second big change:
Since September has been a legal requirement to sell-isolate if you test positive/notified by Track & Trace of exposure to someone else who tested positive
Police can now be given access to NHS Track & Trace data if for the purpose of enforcement/prosecution
This will make it easier for police to enforce people breaking self-isolation rules. Currently there has been practically no enforcement.
Data says only a small proportion of people meant to be self-isolating are fully doing so.
Very important that obvious failures with Track and Trace and self-isolation (study late last year said 18% of people complying https://t.co/dhJUZ7Pm0l) are not painted as an enforcement issue. Plainly not. Would just pass buck to police who have almost no capacity to enforce https://t.co/Eb4Kl5Ze0E
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) January 25, 2021
You gotta think about this one carefully!
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.
More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.
The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."
So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?
I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
It\u2019s #CervicalCancerPreventionWeek \U0001f499
— myGP (@myGPapp) January 18, 2021
Here\u2019s how you can help to raise awareness:
\U0001f431 Share an image of the cat that best reflects your undercarriage/flower/bits (technical term vulva!) current look.
#\u20e3Use the Hashtag #myCat.
\U0001f46dTell and tag your friends to let them know. pic.twitter.com/8aHf96ynjT
More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.
The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."
So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?
I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
