Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066418)

Work. :D

I almost prefer your epidemiology skills, OB.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066460)

I questioned if their journey was essential. I offered no opinion on who took the photo.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066214)

I'm almost certain that any shop already has the power to decide who they let enter and always have.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36066495)

What else would you call, you know, what reporters do?

Then what was the point of your question about ‘work’? Argumentative, as usual. No surprise there, then.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066500)

You brought up work Old Boy, not me.

I merely asked if their staged photo was an essential journey. You got into an argument about it, I'm unsure why when it's plainly not essential to stage a photo for the purposes of a "news" article.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36066504)

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36066498)

I found out as shops are private property that can refuse entry to anyone they want.


Personally I'd ban anyone without a mask, unless they had a Drs letter, then they would only be allowed in at certain times to protect others.


I say Drs leter as you can buy an exemption card online which is pointless.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36066507)

You're wrong... again....

You CANNOT legally ban someone from entering a store due to a disability.

By law a store CANNOT ask someone what disability they have much less ask them to provide proof of it, but they can ask if someone has a disability.


This is why the announcements from the supermarkets are unfortunately just a token gesture.

Thankfully what you have posted will not occur, imagine telling a group of people in society that they can only shop at certain hours to keep another group of people happy.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36066508)

I don't think it's tokenism. If the supermarkets really do the maximum permissible under the Equality Act it will be enough to force the majority of anti-maskers to cave in rather than tell a direct lie about having a disability. After all, if you're taking a principled stand, what's the point lying about it?

They should be able to significantly reduce the problem of unmasked people in their stores, without doing anything illegal.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36066510)

It's not token intent, but due to the laws it becomes a token gesture. I believe the vast majority will just go 'i have a disability....' and then swan off into the store.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36066507)

You're wrong... again....

You CANNOT legally ban someone from entering a store due to a disability.

By law a store CANNOT ask someone what disability they have much less ask them to provide proof of it, but they can ask if someone has a disability.


This is why the announcements from the supermarkets are unfortunately just a token gesture.

Thankfully what you have posted will not occur, imagine telling a group of people in society that they can only shop at certain hours to keep another group of people happy.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36066517)

Nope 100% right. ;)



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55633843


However, supermarkets can deny entry to their premises which is private property, and can call the police if someone refuses to follow the rules or becomes abusive.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:42 ----------

Also they could use health and saftey at work act.


Which basically has a bit that says the company has a duty of care to protect it staff for harm.


Not wearing on can be classed here.


Plus I didn't say disabled.


I said proof should be provided via a doctors letter not some tat, that can be bought without proof.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36066654)

Travel ban on South American arrivals from Friday - also includes Portugal. HMG is increasingly concerned about another new Covid variant that has been spreading in Brazil.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55666198

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36066669)

My dad had his Coronavirus Jab this afternoon.


We just parked up joined the queue, asked a few questions, then had to give permission for the jab, after this we had to wait for 15 minutes to make sure there was no reaction.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066694)

I had my jab today and I had a massive reaction....

Because I arrived naked with a massive ostrich feather sticking out my arse.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066694)

I had my jab today and I had a massive reaction....

Because I arrived naked with a massive ostrich feather sticking out my arse.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36066742)

The Times is reporting that all over 50s could be vaccinated (first dose) by the end of March, citing Whitehall sources. I can't access more of the article than that shown below.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...arch-28p9hqz2g

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36066751)

Here you go...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...arch-28p9hqz2g (Subscribers sharing option)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36066755)

Think Hugh may be over-sharing :D

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36066736)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55...ey%20mutations.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36066749)

Well I'm 52 so that will do me.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36066781)

I will have the jab but act the same as I am now until there is evidence having the extended period between jabs does not render it useless

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066782)

It's certainly not effective for several days. Medical staff in my wife's hospital caught the virus the week after getting the jab. Hopefully they were just unlucky.
Danger is people getting the jab then thinking they're immune. It isn't 100% and immunity takes time, plus of course these new variants.
Politicians saying when 'we'll get back to normal' are either misinformed or misleading.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36066784)

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066782)

It's certainly not effective for several days. Medical staff in my wife's hospital caught the virus the week after getting the jab. Hopefully they were just unlucky.
Danger is people getting the jab then thinking they're immune. It isn't 100% and immunity takes time, plus of course these new variants.
Politicians saying when 'we'll get back to normal' are either misinformed or misleading.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066782)

It's certainly not effective for several days. Medical staff in my wife's hospital caught the virus the week after getting the jab. Hopefully they were just unlucky.
Danger is people getting the jab then thinking they're immune. It isn't 100% and immunity takes time, plus of course these new variants.
Politicians saying when 'we'll get back to normal' are either misinformed or misleading.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066782)

It's certainly not effective for several days. Medical staff in my wife's hospital caught the virus the week after getting the jab. Hopefully they were just unlucky.
Danger is people getting the jab then thinking they're immune. It isn't 100% and immunity takes time, plus of course these new variants.
Politicians saying when 'we'll get back to normal' are either misinformed or misleading.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36066794)

I'm surprised a nurse doesn't know it takes time for the immune system to build a defence.



https://www.gov.uk/government/public...less%20severe.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066796)

They know that, it was Joe Public generally I was referring to.
No such thing as no risk in a hospital at the moment. They can't exactly work from home like the rest if us. Staff sickness and isolation is seriously disrupting the NHS. Wonder if Boris has this factored in to his vaccination programme?

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36066788)

I don't think I have ever seen the notion put forward that the vaccine gives anyone "immunity." The aim is that the antibodies it creates enable our immune systems to react to the virus a lot quicker thus staving off the worse effects of the covid-19 infection. If it did make us all immune then we would, in theory, be able to wipe out the virus which is not something has ever been on the table.

I would, though, love it is someone could give me a link to show that immunity via a vaccination for covid is possibly. It would certainly take away all my fears considering my immune system problems.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36066802)

Norway urgently changes Covid vaccine guidance after 23 die in days following Pfizer jab

The European nation reported that 23 elderly people have died within days of taking the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, with 13 of those deaths said to be related to "side effects". All those who suffered supposed side effects were nursing home patients and at least 80 years old.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...navirus-update

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066796)

They know that, it was Joe Public generally I was referring to.
No such thing as no risk in a hospital at the moment. They can't exactly work from home like the rest if us. Staff sickness and isolation is seriously disrupting the NHS. Wonder if Boris has this factored in to his vaccination programme?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066808)

Loads of positions in the NHS can be done at home. of course doctors, nurses, technicians, porters etc can’t.

But loads of back office, managerial and administrative ones can.

Same as any key sector, such as telecom. The guys in the field and operational people need to be there, but lots of the workforce can WFH.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066808)

Loads of positions in the NHS can be done at home. of course doctors, nurses, technicians, porters etc can’t.

But loads of back office, managerial and administrative ones can.

Same as any key sector, such as telecom. The guys in the field and operational people need to be there, but lots of the workforce can WFH.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36066812)

According to the Kings Fund, that’s about 201k out of 1.3 million - approx. 15%...

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/project.../nhs-workforce

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066807)

Did they die of the Pfizer jab or something else and just so happened to have had it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066814)

The wonderful thing about a term like "loads" is it's subjective, and not clearly defined. All that it really implies that the person who said it thinks there are "too many".

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066814)

The wonderful thing about a term like "loads" is it's subjective, and not clearly defined. All that it really implies that the person who said it thinks there are "too many".

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066846)

Now, now, stop implying that I’m implying anything just to fit your skewed narrative.

201K however is “loads” and if they can WFH they should be, as per guidance.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066846)

Now, now, stop implying that I’m implying anything just to fit your skewed narrative.

201K however is “loads” and if they can WFH they should be, as per guidance.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36066845)

Info on side effects here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...vid-19-vaccine
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ne-astrazeneca
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...accine-moderna

My parents (83 & 85) both had their first Pfizer jab on Thursday. Dad has a sore arm; mum has no side effects so far.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36066850)

Just to stress that I’m talking about second dose side effects among working-age NHS Scotland critical care staff.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36066852)

I'm not doubting it, just throwing a bit more info out there. I did read somewhere else that more people get side-effects on the second jab than the first.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36066847)

Do we know that loads of the 201,000 are not working from home?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066853)

Got to be balanced against of the risk of getting Covid. The 'side effects' of that can be very nasty.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066853)

Got to be balanced against of the risk of getting Covid. The 'side effects' of that can be very nasty.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36066859)

Agreed - the side effects are moderate in the grand scheme of things and are only a real problem because they’re causing staff absence in the one place we can’t afford it right now. Nevertheless I support their PR strategy of not wanting to talk about it. The last thing we need is the tinfoil hat brigade using it to cook up more of their batty anti-vax misinformation.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066861)

I’m not anti-vax, I happily had my first flu jab in December, now that I’m a certain age.

But I’ll wait. The vaccine has been deemed safe after being tested on, I don’t know, a few thousand?

I’ll wait until the control group is several million.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36066850)

Just to stress that I’m talking about second dose side effects among working-age NHS Scotland critical care staff.

The Herald has led on a story this morning complaining that hospitals are now sticking very rigidly to the single-dose policy even where they have defrosted vials with leftover vaccine at the end of the day that must either be used immediately or thrown out. Some staff are asking why it’s getting thrown out.

You can read the front page print story, with a little squinting, here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55687690

The actual reason is as I’ve given above, although you’re not going to get an on-the-record confirmation of that. (I could name you a hospital and a senior staff member, but I’m not going to).

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36066867)

I find it alarming that one of the side effects of this life saving vaccine is death.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36066870)

One of the side effects of living is death...

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066875)

It interesting that suddenly we should all now be “risk takers” , after being told to hide under the stairs.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066875)

It interesting that suddenly we should all now be “risk takers” , after being told to hide under the stairs.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36066878)

Now that death has been revealed as a consequence of the vaccination for some people, the positive act of accepting the vaccination takes control away from them, other than refusing the jab.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36066881)

What do you mean it's 'been revealed'? As a matter of caution and routine vaccines have these warnings but as far as I know there there isn't anything to suggest this vaccine is more likely to cause anyone to die than others.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36066881)

What do you mean it's 'been revealed'? As a matter of caution and routine vaccines have these warnings but as far as I know there there isn't anything to suggest this vaccine is more likely to cause anyone to die than others.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36066883)

You think they are all equally unsafe then?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36066883)

You think they are all equally unsafe then?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066886)

No ones forcing anyone to take a vaccine. Your choice.

Seems to me the antivaxers are probably best left to face Covid alone, its for the best in the end. ;)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36066890)

So any one who is worried about the safety of this product is an antivaxer ?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066882)

There isn’t, and although it’s early days, I doubt there will be.

Seph has made a reasonable point about human psychology and the need for a perception of control. I doubt as many people have ever considered these matters for other vaccines therefore have no baseline from which to measure it in their own minds.

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36066868)

My husband and I were both contacted when our local hub had Pfizer vaccines, which if not used that day, would have to be binned. We are both considered to be at risk and were offered these first jabs if we could get to the center by the end of the session... at least a month earlier than we had expected.

John who is in his late 70's got his the week befor Christmas and I had mine 10 days ago. I understand why they may not be considered as viable for 2nd jabs but binning usable vaccinations when they can be used by someone needing a initial vaccination seems to be a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36066894)

There's also a suspicion that whereas other vaccines have been thoroughly evaluated for side effects over many years before being rolled out, that with these, the blind panic of governments has lead to cutting of corners.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36066894)

There's also a suspicion that whereas other vaccines have been thoroughly evaluated for side effects over many years before being rolled out, that with these, the blind panic of governments has lead to cutting of corners.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 36066893)

You will still need the 2nd dose, to strengthen and prolong protection. All that is currently happening is the government encouraging more people to get at least one dose of something.

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36066902)

Oh John will definitely be getting his second dose. I have to wait to see if my AIHA is triggered before I get permission from my Consultant to have mine.

<<<Fingers crossed tightly on both hands.>>>

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066879)

Nobody told anyone to hide under the stairs.

As with all things that involve risk it’s measured. The risks from the vaccine are extremely low - as the Government control supply and are monitoring outcomes the chances of the NHS being overwhelmed by simultaneous negative reactions to the vaccine are extremely low. The same cannot be said for the ludicrous and discredited “let it rip” strategy.

The potential benefits to the vaccine are obvious - a return to normal. Increased economic output, greater NHS resource returning to day to day business.

Again, the same cannot be said for the above mentioned discredited strategy. The Coronavirus Health Service would have no resource for traditional healthcare provision.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36066899)

Is that like "I heard" or "someone told me" or "did you know"?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36066905)

Or i observed it was released after a very short test period.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36066906)

The total numbers are only a part of the picture. The more significant part is how many of them are sick enough to need hospital treatment simultaneously. Right now, we have doctors and nurses all over the UK on the verge of nervous breakdowns because of the sheer number of cases they’re dealing with, and the number of people dying under their noses every day.

It is nothing short of absurd that we’re still arguing over the severity of this pandemic when our screens are full of the hard evidence.

---------- Post added at 18:01 ---------- Previous post was at 17:56 ----------



You observed the same numbers of test patients and the same duration of trial stages. You also observed the various stages overlapping, and production commencing before final trials were complete. This was a risk, because had any of the prior stages thrown up any serious issues, they would have to have discarded the subsequent work and start again. It was a risk only taken because of the emergency. A drug company operating under normal commercial rules wouldn’t do this. Fortunately each stage of the trials went as hoped, and the drug companies have been able to supply the product they had already made, once the trials concluded it was safe.

But you already knew all this, because you’re an observant sort of person. Aren’t you?

Originally Posted by Chris

It is nothing short of absurd that we’re still arguing over the severity of this pandemic when our screens are full of the hard evidence.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066918)

I think papa is, in his own inimitable fashion, making a reasonable point here. It's not really about whether the people here can be convinced the vaccine is safe despite reservations.

Chris rightly lists an exhaustive set of steps that each manufacturer has gone through to get to this point. However Chris also said the following:



These statements don't contradict one another but the second points to the challenge faced. The Toby Young's and Julia Hartley-Brewer's of this world have been out there for 13 months whipping everyone up into a frenzy. This isn't about public health it's about stealing your freedoms. The idiots out there who buy into this nonsense are easy pickings for the anti-vax brigade.

If the aim is 'herd immunity' why can't I stay in the 20% that don't need to get it? That way I don't take the risk but get the collective benefit from everyone else doing so.

I'm playing devil's advocate here for the purposes of discussion - if I were offered it tomorrow I'd take it but there is going to be a challenge in convincing everyone/enough people to take it. I'm not on the priority list so it will be some months before it comes my way

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066918)

The Toby Young's and Julia Hartley-Brewer's of this world have been out there for 13 months whipping everyone up into a frenzy. This isn't about public health it's about stealing your freedoms. The idiots out there who buy into this nonsense are easy pickings for the anti-vax brigade.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066926)

Julia Hartley-brewer is not anti-vax, and I and most people are not anti-vax. Many people are parents, and only the most stupid don’t vaccinate their kids.

People may be a bit wary of these particular vaccines, and there is nothing wrong with that, at this point.

“Stealing your freedoms” anxiety is totally justified, as you watch videos of people being stopped by, Ill educated, Ill informed, council wombels stopping people running for “breathing too heavily”. It exists, along with the countless heavy handed examples also available of police not knowing how to use their new given ( without parliamentry oversight) powers.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066904)

“Extremely low” a vague and subjective term

A conservative estimate is that at least 20M have been infected by the virus and 87K have died, which is 0.4%. I think that comes under the “Extremely low” banner too.

Or do you mean “very really almost none really bad side affects or deaths low” or are you just guessing because you don’t have any real data yet?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066926)

Julia Hartley-brewer is not anti-vax, and I and most people are not anti-vax. Many people are parents, and only the most stupid don’t vaccinate their kids.

People may be a bit wary of these particular vaccines, and there is nothing wrong with that, at this point.

“Stealing your freedoms” anxiety is totally justified, as you watch videos of people being stopped by, Ill educated, Ill informed, council wombels stopping people running for “breathing too heavily”. It exists, along with the countless heavy handed examples also available of police not knowing how to use their new given ( without parliamentry oversight) powers.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066929)

Common sense, without laws, would be ideal but there's a fair proportion that don't have it.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066931)

The problem is those with powers are those without common sense. This is where problems occur.

Stopping someone jogging because he may be “breathing too heavily” , giving fines to two ladies because their coffees can be construed as a “picnic”.

These examples are just what get highlighted.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066931)

The problem is those with powers are those without common sense. This is where problems occur.

Stopping someone jogging because he may be “breathing too heavily” , giving fines to two ladies because their coffees can be construed as a “picnic”.

These examples are just what get highlighted.

Police have seized a VW Golf on the M62 after spotting it travelling at 90mph in the snow.
When officers pulled over the car they discovered it had not been taxed since September 2020 and seized the vehicle.
When questioning the driver and the two passengers they discovered they were from three different households and were in breach of Covid-19 regulations.

The trio told officers they were heading from Manchester to West Yorkshire to buy a takeaway meal.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36066935)

The 2 "ladies" were from 2 different households and were meeting up.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36066936)

I think Pierre may have been refering to the Derbyshire peppermint tea walkers. ;)
https://www.itv.com/news/central/202...ng-nature-walk

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36066937)

I was referring to that same story.
People from 2 different households arranging a meeting, as I said. The laws are to restrict meeting up of different households.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36066933)

Common sense on both sides is needed. Some of the rules depend on it.
e.g. how far away from your home you can exercise. People will just push it. 2 miles ? ok . 5 miles ? ok think so. 10miles? You're pushing it... 100 miles? you"re taking the pee (as in those Londoners who fancied a day trip to Wales to see some snow...)
If anything they've credited folks with too much common sense.