Re: Coronavirus
 

I just want one that works so 70% or so of other people can take it and I don't need to. :)

(I'm joking)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Oxford vaccine is DNA based however. Gut feeling with out evidence makes me more comfortable to the mRNA vaccines than the AZ/Oxford vaccine for two reasons;

• mRNA has a shorter half life in the cell (minutes to hours) compared with adenoviral DNA so the vaccine gets in, does its job and is gone
• The mRNA vaccines are synthetic rather than being based on live virus. I know primate adenovirus shouldn't affect humans but there's a small worry in the back of the head on this

Based on nothing of course and if the only option were adenoviral vaccines like the AZ/Oxford one then jab me up but if I had a choice, I would prefer the BioNTech/Pfizer one

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lizard-man doom-monger ain't convinced. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or has he got shares in another vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sounds like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement - let the organisation whose job it is to approve these things decide whether to approve these things.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah let the regulators deal with it and ignore the Americans who are probably just trying to sell the American public on why they need to pay 4x as much as Europeans for their vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp...k_5fbfdd14c5b6

When I initially posted this it was a turn of phrase. I suppose we have a Government beyond parody.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or he understands the proper process better than Sun hacks who earn a living asking loaded questions.

It isn’t the Chief Medical Adviser’s job to endorse a medicine that hasn’t completed assessment and certification. In fact doing so could be construed as interference in that process.

Of course that won’t stop red-top tabloids from scoring a cheap headline by making it look like he’s equivocating.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b68ca87f827a0e

Revised link above as yours is broken.

Ha ha. :D

I've read the British government's policy is to coat anything they've funded with the Union Jack in the same way that the EU flag was used for EU funded projects. I'm not sure it worked out well for the EU. ;)

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Good article here on how the tiers were arrived at.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54250626

Re: Coronavirus
 

I always thought EU funded projects were draped with the Skull & Crossbones ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some very good news and credit to the Government's efforts here.
https://www.ft.com/content/ebd9ca50-...5-e90e93c0c495

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's a flag I can toast a rum to!

Re: Coronavirus
 

1st doses of Pfizer vaccine flown to US.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hmm i await the results with great interest.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Looks like the delays in locking down the country in Spring and Autumn to led this appalling economic situation. We look to be doing well on the vaccination front though so maybe we can come out of the situation earlier than our peers?
https://www.ft.com/content/1f52fd2b-...b-acc38f819b8d

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Nightingale setups are in limited(seven) locations, so what about people who don't live near one? Plus we have the annual winter surge in demand yet to come.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody to staff them, apparently 1/3 of NHS on sick or self isolating :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

NHS staff = 1.4 million

NHS staff self-isolating = 30,000

30k as percentage/fraction of 1.4 million = 2.14%, or about 1/50th of NHS staff.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/n...ve-b50461.html

---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------

You may have missed the point...


*point - not enough trained staff

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a couple of years old, but problems roughly the same numbers

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0077.html

Around 1,500 nurses, most of whom are already doing other stuff...

During the Cold War, the Forces had quite a few of their own hospitals (both of my children from my first marriage were born at RAF Nocton Hall in Lincolnshire) - most of those no longer exist.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Could be worse - we could be in the USA...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1606661589

Re: Coronavirus
 

We had a Royal Naval hospital down here in our city but that got closed just after the Cold War.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Aren't 60% of those pen pushers?

Re: Coronavirus
 

l suspect all staff are important to the NHS as without them the NHS would not be able to function...

Re: Coronavirus
 

. . . or it might function a lot better ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Have you any substantiation of that claim Carth?.

Re: Coronavirus
 

christ, don't you start that game too Den

Re: Coronavirus
 

Any more figures you'd like to make up?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't know whether he's i) too weak-minded to have forgotten about staffing or ii) he judges that his followers are, and they won't have worked it out.

Neither is a good look.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How many of the Nightingale hospitals are for Covid patients directly?
Link
In the main, only lower level staff needed, not ICU experts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no precise figure for the number of healthcare workers in the NHS. The best estimate appears to be somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000, which would include all doctors, nurses and healthcare support staff.

https://www.hsj.co.uk/exclusive-deat...027471.article

Re: Coronavirus
 

King's Fund do a reasonable breakdown.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/project...MaAgE-EALw_wcB

They estimate it around 210k out of 1.4 million FTE for the UK, so around 15%

Re: Coronavirus
 

Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just following the mainstream regarding made up figures

Take that any way you want :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not sure of which made-up figures in particular you're refering to.

I see a poacher-turned-gamekeeper situation in play here. After years of Michael Gove & Co telling us they've had enough of experts and preaching "Project Fear" at independent assessments of Brexit scenarios, it must be harder for them to flip roles and say "listen to the experts on Coronaviris or X number of lives will be lost."

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pick some figures, any figures.

The only 'proof' of them are what they tell you, and one minute everyone's a liar and con artist, next minute they're honest as the day is long . . I guess it's all a matter of taste :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Andrew will follow the flock.....;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

So that’s a solid "no", then? ;)

On the bright side (well, for me, anyway), if I should be unfortunate enough to catch (apparently non-existent, fake) COVID, I will have access to the Regeneron monoclonal antibody cocktail, as my brother in law works for them, and they have granted access to immediate family and their spouses/children (the way it works medically is that if you get symptoms/contract the virus, it will prevent you getting serious disease/ICU/ventilation/death...., it is not a vaccine that will prevent you getting infected).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

You may have had it already ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

No idea who's saying it's 'apparently non-existent, fake' . . . unless you're taking it from my post?

In which case it shows that different people get different meanings from the same 'data' ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

You've invoked the woke ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nope - been tested twice.

---------- Post added at 11:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Nope...

Thinking more of Lozza Fox

Re: Coronavirus
 

You must be his only follower.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good, but that only means you hadn’t had it then.............

I’m having a minor surgical procedure done in two weeks and have to be tested on the 10th before I have it. So I’ll find out then!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doesn’t matter. If you have had only 2 tests, since March, you could have still have had Covid-19, and not have known about it. Majority of individuals who have got infected, have been asymptomatic, such individuals can carry the virus and show on repeated tests that they are infected for up to six weeks. In my case. I’ve now been tested over 20 times. One result came back positive. I had zero symptoms. I had a follow up test about 4 weeks later, the result came back negative.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Correct. The tests are a snapshot of a person’s biological infectious state at the time of the test only. A person could have had the test, comes back negative but they were infected on the way home from the test.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which is slightly alarming considering people who test positive self isolate for a week before returning to work . . . or can't you 'transmit' it after a week?

Re: Coronavirus
 

What has happened to the antibody tests. We don't seem to hear anything about them anymore.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wonder if that's anything to do with this

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4353

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's an interesting read.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is a 10 day window in which after incubation occurs, a person is most infectious. After which Covid can remain in the body for several more weeks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

More mixed messaging from the government it seems on what counts as a substantial meal in tier 2 pubs.


https://twitter.com/theousherwood/st...63535276093440

Re: Coronavirus
 

And, away from the twattersphere, what George Eustace actually said:

Emphasis added by me for the benefit of the hard of thinking. It’s also worth stressing that the restaurant trade understands exactly what the phrase “substantial meal” means because it is integral to certain types of alcohol licence. El Gov is appealing to well-understood concepts in the trade. It’s up to the restaurant owners to follow the rules and to answer to a judge if they don’t. Given the full context of Eustace’s quote it seems unlikely a judge would accept a defence that the restaurant didn’t know what was meant by “substantial meal”.

I think unless you’re a Labour party hack or a second rate political journalist still desperate for new COVID story angles, there really isn’t anything difficult to understand about these rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Den, I think your first quote should have a "not" in it. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

So much for "firebreaks" working.
Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

My tests were October 24th and November 12th, and I’m having another on on Thursday 3rd December.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They don't work, they just ruin peoples businesses.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And how would not having them make a difference to the spreading and catching of the virus?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The important thing is that the London elite are in tier 2.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Isn't Wales closing pubs, restaurants, etc etc? after their recent lockdown, just seems a waste of time with these lockdowns as the virus just takes off again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, starts Friday.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If people are obeying the rules and are social distancing, wearing masks, and not mixing, then after a while, the virus should "die out". The virus needs to keep finding a new host in order to continue it's spread.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The lockdowns are essential to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. When the brake is taken off, transmission and deaths rise, yes. But in terms of saving businesses and people's mental health, it's seen as better not to have a permanent lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Today's announcement in Wales made no mention of the NHS(Wales) being overwhelmed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well that doesn't seem to be working either, does it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hang on a minute here . .

I've seen the following at least a dozen times at my workplace:

Person A tests positive, isolates for 7 days then returns to work.

*There is a 10 day window after incubation when they are most infectious.*

Somehow during the time before, during, and after their isolation, they fail to infect anyone else, whether it's work colleagues, close family or friends.

Is it a dozen miracles, a dozen cases of damn good luck, or a dozen cases of a false positive test :confused: :shrug:

:scratch: My money is on the latter

Re: Coronavirus
 

Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hang on a minute here . .

Why are they only isolating for 7 days?
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...-self-isolate/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Would a permanent lockdown save more businesses then? Possibly. We don't know as we've not tried it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Isolate for only 7 days?
Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

No good asking me, it aint my company.

Good to see you picked up on that though . . while missing the real question :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Tomorrow's Daily Mirror headline is 'No jab, no entry' to restaurants, bars etc:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...cMu7BO0bbqqPuk

As I suspected, they won't want the political fallout of mandatory or forced vaccines, but it will be a Hobsons choice for a lot of people if this policy is introduced.

Will employers require it?

Meanwhile, if things go wrong, the manufacturers are immune from some civil liabilty:

https://fullfact.org/health/unlicens...vil-liability/

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK then, let's look at your "real question". You've known at least a dozen people isolate for 7 days, and you're telling us with certainty that none of those infected the others? That's at least 12 completely separate weeks. A miracle indeed.

It also makes me wonder where these people are catching it, if there's no transmission to friends, family and colleagues. :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good job there was no one around to tell Jenner not to experiment with finding a vaccination against smallpox.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

OFF THE MARK Whitty & Vallance’s doomsday 4K daily Covid deaths winter scenario versus what actually happened revealed


SAGE doom-mongers were WRONG when they predicted 4,000 daily Covid deaths this winter before they plunged the country into a crippling second lockdown, a shocking graph shows.

The graph below shows the actual number of deaths compared to the grim "winter scenario" laid out by Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance.

And according to The Spectator, this lower number of deaths over the last two weeks is not due to the second lockdown.

That's because it takes three to four weeks for changes in restrictions to show in Covid fatality data.

The current figures - which show daily deaths peaking at 425 on November 18 - actually reflects pre-lockdown infections, the report says.



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/133438...-predications/

Re: Coronavirus
 

4K worst possible case if nothing was done - things were done...

If you jumped off a cliff head first, worst possible case is that your brains(?) would decorate the beach - if you decide not to jump, no decoration takes place.

Not hard to understand.

He said

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is hard to understand for readers of The Sun.

There seems to be a lot of controversy over scotch eggs and whether they constitute a substantial meal. Take this opportunity to ban them permanently , for everyone's sake.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The media as all to often, especially over Covid-19, just stirring up nonsense.
Just as with all this "Scotch Egg" nonsense. The meaning of "substantial meal" has the same legal definition as it did a year or even FIFTY FIVE years ago under the Licensing Act 1964.:rolleyes:
Venues could insist on people having had a vaccination, but it is purely down to them. Too much wilfully misinterpreting and applying "could" as "would".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just a thought but will we be given some form of verifiable certification that we have been vaccinated that can be produced to gain entry into these 'venues.' Maybe we will all get an indelible stamp on our foreheads? Or will everyone just be trusted to tell the truth and obey the rules. 'cause if the latter is the case I guess many people will do as they please ...as usual.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ask the venues that might or might not require it. Their requirement, nobody else's.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Me thinks one reason for the England tiering is also geography. The tier one areas are either islands or have only a fairly small border on one side.
Just look at the "fun" in border areas where parts of a town are in one tier and other parts in another. Distances in the UK are generally small so it's easy if you are in a high tier to get to a lower tier place for whatever without travelling long distances.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To help protect our dad my said has said this Christmas we won't be over.

I'm a bit upset but understand.

So no Turkey in our house this year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Cook it yourself it's not hard, plenty of instructions online.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But on the other side of the coin everybody thought that Thalidomide etc was safe. People are going to have to weigh up the risks and downsides of whether to have the vaccination or not on an individual basis,

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

The article suggests the app could be used for verification. The venues may want to put health before wealth, but may ultimately be forced to abandon this strategy for economic reasons.

What if employers insist on their employees having the vaccination to try and keep their premises Covid free and some decide that they don't want it? What if they then need to claim benefits? It's going to be a legal minefield.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't recall Thalidomide being a vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He didn't say it was' he said "everybody thought that Thalidomide etc was safe".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thalidomide was not a vaccine, and its repeated use as a comparison to the development of any vaccine is ignorant in the extreme.

Drug treatments that deploy novel chemical compounds, designed deliberately to alter body chemistry for therapeutic effect may at the same time alter it in such a way as to cause damaging side effects. This is what clinical trials are supposed to identify. In fact modern modelling techniques would aim to identify such serious possible side effects before wide-scale clinical trials even start.

A vaccine does not set out to invent a new chemical, or to purify and utilise a discovered chemical. In one way or another, a vaccine uses bits of the target virus itself (or a close relative) to provoke an immune response. The cure comes from persuading the human body to do more effectively what it is already capable of doing, not in chemically altering the human body.

Obviously there are always risks in injecting something into someone, however the risks from a vaccine simply aren't in the same category as thalidomide, which was itself a once in a generation catastrophe whose most famous unwanted side effects were caused in a patient group which had not even been tested (pregnant women).

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one has claimed it was.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then why set it up as a comparison? It doesn’t work the same way, it wasn’t tested the same way. It’s like refusing to go on a train because you witnessed a plane crash.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In my opinion it was just to show that just because you believe something is safe it may have hidden dangers that are not thought of at the time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you're being very charitable. I don't think it's an accident that some people are choosing the most extreme example of a disaster caused by an inadequately controlled and tested drug to compare with covid vaccines. It's not a general observation about drug safety, it's an attempt to undermine confidence in the covid vaccines themselves. Unfortunately, it's based on an appeal to fear, and lacks understanding of how modern drugs are controlled and tested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But the testing has been rushed, most new treatments don't go into production for use in the general population in such a short timeframe, if people want to take the vaccine then they should be aware that it has been rushed into the final stages of production, I personally will not be having the vaccination until it has a few years safety record behind it, but I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone who wants it, it has to be down to the individuals choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It hasn’t been rushed - what has happened is that a long ton of resources have been thrown at it, at the expense of everything else those researchers would otherwise have been working on at the same time. In normal circumstances it is economics that drives the pharmaceutical development schedule as much as the actual science.

And, this can’t be stressed enough, this is a vaccine, not a drug therapy. All vaccines use a limited range of approaches to achieve the same basic response in the human body. There is a lot less that is unknown at the start of the process and a lot of work the researchers could simply get on and do, without first having to design and test novel chemical compounds in a lab (which does often take years).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well if you're happy with it then get in line, I'll let patience be my strategy;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Demographics have put me at the back of the queue already, but as I know several people who have had to deal with the fallout from COVID deaths of older people, I would simply say that the risks of not having the vaccine, especially in the over 60s, are vastly greater than the risks of having it. When I get my appointment I won’t be turning it down.