Re: Coronavirus
 

Too many talking heads on the news with speculative info and then we have the same from keyboard warriors on social media. I'll take the advice of my own doctor. She's not steered me wrong so far.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And yet the WHO approves and recommends use of AZ across the board. Can you imagine the backlash here if it was the case that the UK decided not to use a WHO approved vaccine based on a study the UK had done with an extremely small sample size?

---------- Post added at 09:20 ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 ----------

Apologies if facts get in your way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s about the science though, innit? (Except when it isn’t)

Re: Coronavirus
 

There you have it in a nutshell: Unity of the EU is more important than the lives of its citizens.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not a fact, and even if it was it'd be considered an acceptable toll by the population at large.

As I've said on a number of occasions we go into lockdowns because the same principles apply as last February/March. The only thing that changes this is mitigation to control the spread of the virus.

Interesting to use "extremely small sample size" to discount scientific evidence as unworthy of further discussion or investigation.

As I said before if you avoid the British press and the posionous drum of nationalism being played you can find some good quality, independent thought. Fundamentally the WHO don't think the vaccine is dangerous which is why they recommend it's use. They offer no opinion on it's ability to prevent severe cases of the newer variants.

---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 ----------

That's not really what she's saying. Imagine a bidding war where London and the south east drove up the prices (and bought all the supply of) vaccines to the UK leaving Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the North or England to fend for themselves at the back of the queue?

It'd be preposterous and the same principles applied to the EU - a situation where rich, northern European nations bought up the first doses leaving the rest at the back of th queue would be untenable.

There's no guarantee the EU states working seperately would have got more vaccines - only that they'd be unequally distributed and (in economic theory at least) cost more.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think it's apparent there's no single 'the science' and a lot of political noise around it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Okay imagine a situation where Madrid, Barcelona and the tourist resorts can pick up all the vaccines in Spain leaving the rest of the country behind? Democrat leaning states in the NE of the USA and California leaving the rest behind... Etc.

The same principle applies that some level of social cohesion requires everyone to play by the same rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.edgehealth.co.uk/post/ho...e-had-covid-19

Statistical analysis in January reveals that 12.4M people in the UK will have had COVID

and at that time we hit 100,000 deaths = 0.8%

of course you're free to provide your own facts.

We go into lockdown for one reason and one reason only, so as not to overwhelm the NHS.

If we had thousands of intensive care beds and unlimited nurses we wouldn't lockdown.

ahh, but there's the point, They're using a small sample size for "action" not "discussion or Investigation"

Which is totally their prerogative of course, might be considered as a bit knee jerk though.

I consume my media from a wide variety of sources.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It met the burden of proof test for our own regulators and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

There are numerous concerns about the study that showed it to be 10% effective but even so some immunity is better than none so until proven otherwise we should continue work under the assumption of what we know about vaccines and how they work which is that it's rare for a vaccine to be completely ineffective against mutations.

We have our own experts making these decisions and they're not idiots. If anything the rollout of the vaccine has shown them to have made the right calls at the right time - i.e the single dose regime.

Now they might be wrong and change the approach if the science changes but then it'll be them to judge when and if that happens.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Statistical analysis = estimates not facts.

That’s a round about way of saying “to prevent death”.

I fail to see how it’s “knee jerk” to ensure you are making effective use of an extremely limited resource based on actual scientific data which continues to emerge.

There would be no point in any country wasting hundreds of thousands of vaccines on parts of the population (or the entire population) if it didn’t work. If any vaccine is not going to work in South Africa I’d prefer to see it’s doses used in a country it will work (and retain border controls) rather than rushed out to be ineffective meanwhile elsewhere they have no vaccine.

Yet regardless of the evidence we should ease restrictions. Doesn’t seem like a diverse range of sources to me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m sure in South Africa they’re not idiots either, and importantly they’re assessing the situation on the ground there and not in the UK as JCVI are.

A 10% effective vaccine can influence other factors - human behaviour being one. Very quickly 10% effectiveness could be more than offset by people being less strict about adherence to restrictions. It’s also a gift to the anti-vax brigade and conspiracy theorists who argue it’s about injecting people with microchips and control. It could reduce confidence in future vaccines.

If it was found to be significantly more (relative to 10%) in one age group over another it might change decisions on who you would give it to. I really don’t see why the UK seemingly wants to take offence at anyone trying to make their own, independent, evaluations.

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------

Name a country Seph and next time I need to make hypothetical points using geography I’ll use it instead. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seems to me if you don't want it don't have it.I'm going to listen to my doctor first and foremost.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fortunately, I don't think anyone's suggesting people don't get vaccinated on this forum. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

In principle, the EU's decision to source the vaccine as a block rather than have member states compete against each other makes sense.

The problem is the Commission screwed up the procurement by being to slow to act. They took too long to place orders, they didn't place enough orders and they had a scattergun approach to which vaccines to back so out of the too few orders they had a bunch of them didn't get to release.

That last point is the true success of the U.K effort. Really placing large orders early shouldn't have been that difficult a task but the thing the U.K clearly did well was pick the right vaccines to back.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think's it really an early orders thing - from that FT chart I posted a few pages earlier, the UK, EU and USA have all backed the same vaccines with the notable exception being that the EU did not back the Sanofi-GSK vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be truthful it's hard to work that out..with all the naysayers and armchair warriors who seem to think they are experts in the field posting definitive statements.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed, the way that the EMA works with having a multilevel approval process (drug approval, market approval, country approval) just isn't nimble enough in an emergency situation. The 'big bloc' approach definitely drove the costs down but, in this case, money pretty much wasn't an issue.

I was having a look earlier on what vaccines were ordered and possibly why and there's no consistent theme to explain the difference between the decisions the UK and EU made (if we take any suggestion of vaccine nationalism out of the equation) The main vaccine types are;

mRNA - the biggest unknown in that these have never been really used as drugs but really simple and quick to test
Pfizer/BioNTech - UK 40m, EU 600m
Moderna - UK 17m, EU 160m
Curevac - UK 50m, EU 405m

Adenovirus - bit more tested/known technology
AZ/Oxford - UK 100m, EU 400m
Janssen - UK 30m, EU 400m

Inactivated virus/virus subunits - classic vaccine, safest bet but the longest lead time
GSK/Sanofi - UK 60m, EU 300m
Novavax - UK 60m, EU 200m
Valneva - UK 100m, EU 60m

There's no real big differences in the purchasing decisions. There are differences in the proportions of each vaccine contracted between the UK and EU but no fundamental differences in what was ordered - the UK and EU bet on the same horses. It seems that speed was the winner here rather than betting on the wrong things.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The purchasing decisions in the UK and the EU were both fundamentally sound. There are a range of vaccine types from a range of companies with varying experience. The difference between the two lies in their non-healthcare related policy aims. The EU’s decision to act on behalf of member states, whatever else it was meant to achieve, was an attempt at a deliberate post-Brexit display of the superiority of the EU’s concept of pooled sovereignty. All would benefit from the strength of the biggest members, and the power of the whole would secure the lowest prices and the most favourable terms.

Meanwhile in the UK, where for whatever reason we have not been very good at curbing the spread of the virus or stopping it from killing a lot of people, the overriding policy aim has been getting hold of lots of vaccines quickly. That led HMG to veto Oxford University’s intention to give its vaccine formula to an American manufacturer due to concerns over whether it could then be banned from export back to the UK by the Trump administration, and its strong urging that they choose a company that could manufacture in the UK. It also led HMG to prioritise rapid conclusion of deals over price, although its involvement in the Oxford-AstraZeneca tie-up has allowed it to negotiate at-cost terms for the duration of the pandemic.

It seems unlikely that the EU would have been able to directly intervene in the production process in the way we have done, although ensuring domestic production is less of an issue as they already have several sites in EU member states dedicated to that. The bigger issue for the EU is that trying to devise a system by which states could act together has taken time, acting in an unfamiliar policy area has taken time, and trying to prove the power of the EU by negotiating hard on price, delivery terms, IP rights etc has taken time. The EU has been let down by its inefficient bureaucracy and by focusing on political symbolism rather than on an unfolding public health crisis.

Hence why, if you take vaccine nationalism out of the equation, you can’t understand the disparity of performance. It was an attempt to deal in European nationalism that has put them in this mess.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed.

One aspect that may have influenced the UK purchasing pattern was manufacturing location as the UK is keen to build up its vaccine manufacturing base.

Four groups - BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline — wanted to supply the UK solely from overseas. The other four groups — Oxford-AstraZeneca, Valneva, Novavax and CureVac — accepted funding to help develop and manufacture their products in the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not aware of anyone being a naysayer or “armchair warrior”. It’s healthy to be sceptical of political spin when there’s competing science floating around.

The pandemic is over a year old and likely to extend to the end of this year and for the developing world well into next year. South Africa, or anyone else, taking an extra few weeks to see emerging data from the UK will make little fundamental difference to the end result.

Every individual should take the first vaccine they are offered, it’s the only one they are likely to see before Autumn. However at a national or international level I’m reluctant to place our scientists on a pedestal to the extent I’d apply their knowledge to everyone else’s situation that will vary depending on variants, vaccine supply and the infrastructure to rapidly deploy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Remember though that like the UK, the member states could have set up Emergency Use Authorisations under EU law but chose not to (or at least didn't early on, Hungary has one on the go for Sputnik V) This is from Art. 5(2) of Directive 2001/83;

There's big questions from the public at least in Germany on why governments didn't do this

Re: Coronavirus
 

Member states didn’t even have to participate in the vaccine procurement programme but the fact that they all did simply lends weight to the argument that there was a political, symbolic motive running alongside the public health concerns. A number of EU states were already well advanced in their own plans and they abandoned them in order to go with the EU scheme.

The real significance of them locking themselves into this scheme isn’t in the drug approvals process however. It’s in the scheme’s stipulation that a member state is not allowed to negotiate separately with any manufacturer that the EU is negotiating with. That’s why the group led by Germany stopped its activity. Any one of them could approve any drug at any time, but there could have been no advantage to them in doing that. They couldn’t have got supplies of any Western vaccine any quicker within the rules of the programme they locked themselves in to.

Hungary went with Sputnik V but as that was being rolled out for use on the basis of phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, with phase 3 still ongoing, that was a risk. Serbia and others that have bought the Sinopharm vaccine have likewise taken a chance that the Chinese government isn’t hiding anything. That’s a big assumption on any day of the week.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's a good question - was the EU joint procurement scheme mandatory for EU states for vaccines? I have seen evidence that the PPE joint procurement wasn't (Denmark, Bulgaria, France, Lithuania, Portugal and Finland opted out link)

Don't get me wrong, I reaffirm that the Joint Procurement Schemes are not a nimble tool and not suitable for emergency use, I am just curious, once everything has settled, where the mud will stick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, here we go, member states signed up to the vaccine JPA in June 2020 at a meeting of the European Council (heads of state) - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres...en/QANDA_21_48

Re: Coronavirus
 

In some ways, asking whether it’s mandatory is to misunderstand the way the EU works. It wasn’t mandatory, it was entirely outside of the EU’s competence and certain member states were already well advanced with their own plans. But everyone fell into line anyway. There is enormous peer pressure at the European Council (the forum for heads of government). They tend to negotiate into the small hours and achieve a consensus, with any individual isolated prime minister normally falling into line rather than risking the loss of good will that comes from using a veto. The actual use of one is rare. In this case there was no veto as it was a voluntary scheme but nevertheless the pressure to take part will have been significant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How did their ventilator procurement program pan out? We never heard anything else on that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.politico.eu/article/comm...zech-republic/ https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/...member-states/

Re: Coronavirus
 

So who failed here? It sounds like the heads of state are not representing their respective countries interests at the EU Council, and that's a problem...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, I think it’s fair to say that perhaps a year or two from now, when the UK is holding a full public inquiry into the government’s handling of the crisis, the same exercise will not be taking place in the EU ...

We may never know, however I think the beginning of the problem was that the prospect of a grand act of unity was too tempting to pass up, and the member states probably jumped at it without thinking it through too clearly. Once the programme was up and running, seeing as it is outside of the treaties and the usual established processes of the EU, it’s not clear to me what oversight mechanisms might have been available, though the member states ought to have been watching very closely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All very sad that folks are still trying to make Covid an EU/Brexit issue. It's a World issue where we need to act together. We'll never learn. Divide and conquer works for the virus too.

Re: Coronavirus
 

UK public enquiries are noticeable for dragging on and on - just look at Grenfell. Don't expect anything of note to happen during this term of Parliament.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was thinking more like April/May last year. It’s all very well having a stock pile of ventilators now, so do we.

I meant when the Govt got lambasted last year for not joining the EU ventilator procurement scheme. At what time did those ventilators arrive? Was it before we increased ours.

By September we had 30,000 units.

---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

This is the kind of thing that will get peoples backs up.

COVID-19: Restrictions could be in place until all adults are vaccinated, expert warns
http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-r...warns-12215570

Absolute nonsense.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If only we could have foreseen that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is always one. :rolleyes:

All adults will never vaccinated, there will always be those that are not.

That of course is before you even start thinking about those who turn 18 after the current programme of vaccinations has finished.


As the saying goes, an Ex is a has been, and a Spurt is a Drip under Pressure. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm working on the basis it's a lazy headline and she means "have been offered the vaccine".

Even then, I hope restrictions end before then!

Re: Coronavirus
 

I swear they are just doing this nonsense deliberately. Everyone knows not 100% of everyone is ever vaccinated but once you reach a level of herd immunity the virus becomes unable to sustain transmission and becomes vanishingly rare. So what is it? They think they won't reach herd immunity or they are now not willing to risk a anyone coming near a near extinct virus?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Talking heads for the sake of talking heads just to keep 24/7 news going. I'm weaning myself off the news.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the fear is the development of the new variants.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wales hits target of offering Covid vaccines to first four priority groups

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-...riority-groups

I go for mine Monday.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Behavioural scientists would be all over the statement

"All adults who want the vaccine have had it"

It's optional? Okay wait there will I Google the merits of vaccination versus not getting it. What? There's a newer one coming in Autumn? Might as well wait then.

That's one of the more positive outcomes of googling the merits of vaccination or otherwise without going down the conspiracy theorists rabbit hole.

Anyone with medical reasons to not take it will be advised by professionals and anyone genuinely anti vax will not anyway. The last thing they want to do is nudge people against it.

As I've said before everyone should take it but you'll not hear anyone in authority speak in terms of it being optional unless outright asked "is it optional?".

---------- Post added at 11:56 ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 ----------

Bingo.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The whole situation is very complex and there are multiple factors and situations that need to be looked at. For example why are cases in India dropping the way they are, why in other areas are cases climbing, why are fatalities higher is some areas than others in some groups than others? Is there any way to correlate results for a population group in one country to a similar group in another?

There really are so many variables it does get really hard to make plans and execute them. A further issue is that with wide spread media and reporting small anomalies are inflated. Statistically that may not be that important but it is to those involved, at what point does policy change to cover that anomaly? Is it if the group is "important" enough, or makes enough noise, or gets enough media attention?

What really needs to be made clear is why policies are in place and for how long and what is needed to change that policy. If the reason for lock down is to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed make that really clear and that simply preventing spread/death is "secondary". Also that vaccination isn't a golden bullet that will stop all deaths or major illness it may reduce it to a level that is statistically acceptable. But that is hard to say if you are in the situation of losing a loved one as it appears uncaring.

And there is also the personal factor in all of this. Even if the government had the perfect policy in place, vaccinations all going fine, quarantines. It doesn't take many silly sods breaking the rules in a dangerous way to restart the fires again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good point.

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

This thread is in danger of getting a bit cheerful so I thought I'd better share today's reminder of the huge economic cost the UK is facing.
https://www.ft.com/content/96e19afd-...e-a72bd1f60d3c

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bear in mind, the hit to the economy will be even worse if we come out of lockdown too early.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course it's optional, one of the benefits of living in a free society.

Or at least we used to, not so sure anymore.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

Mr Nail, meet Mr Hammer, how's your head.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you frame my quote in context you'll note I'd never disputed that point.

You should be hoping it's mandatory it's the only chance you've got of restrictions easing soon. And even then, I'd describe it as slim.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I lived in West Berlin for a couple of years during the Cold War, and was very cognisant (it was my job) of the situation about peoples and societal freedom in East Germany and the Soviet Bloc - trust me, we are nowhere near, or even on the road, to those sort of conditions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He’s trying to drop ideas so subtly change the minds of people into thinking it’s a battle for freedom. On the Current Affairs section where I’ve never seen anyone change their minds, ever. :D

---------- Post added at 17:31 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

Some good news for Pierre from Professor Lockdown/Pantsdown (delete as applicable).

Clearly decided he will get more Government coin and media appearances by going all Karol Sikora.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-neil-ferguson

Re: Coronavirus
 

Plus we don't yet know how long those that are vaccinated will be protected for either.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course.

The UK would never jail anyone for 10 years for failing to say they visited certain countries, because that would be totally draconian.

Oh ... wait ..... :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect jailing East Germans for failing to say they visited certain countries was never too much of an issue. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

How about the best part of a year under house arrest, not allowed to meet your family or friends, only allowed out for 1 hours exercise per day, not even allowed to go to work............

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who would that be?

I can go to the shops, walk the dog (not in the shops), and when not in lockdown, I went to restaurants and met friends in pub beer gardens - that’s not "house arrest"...

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:27 ----------

Yes, because a country with a law which states you will be imprisoned if you don’t follow quarantine rules when entering the country from abroad is exactly the same as a State which built a wall with machine-gun posts, mine-fields to keep it’s citizen in, and had everyone terrified of it’s Secret Police... :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

So to sum up you can go out for exercise and get some food shopping, enjoy your freedom. your dog has more freedom than you do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sound of goal posts moving...

I have no issues with some personal inconvenience to help save others lives - I don’t confuse inconvenience with oppression...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Off topic, but I wanted to alert Hugh (and any others with a dog) to this:

Be careful when you walk the dog, there has been a massive increase in dog theft. People are even having their dogs forcibly taken from them whilst taking them for a walk. There was an attempted theft of a friends dog yesterday by a man in a van facing the wrong way! With lockdown there are less people milling about too.

It's up 250% this year alone:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55995738

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately many of the self centred citizens in the UK (and a few on here) can't see the difference.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Though apparently you confuse inconvenience & 10 years in jail.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All the trouble that this virus has caused in the world, yet if we were able to collect every bit of it together, it would all fit into a shot glass. Source: BBC More or Less programme.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’d rather they got 10 years in jail than we got another 10 months of lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which says all we need to know about you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:confused:

We all want out of lockdown do we not? I’m not sure personal freedom extends to freedom to break the rules, potentially spread further variants of the virus and cause significant economic and social harm.

If you think it should then I think it says more about you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What does it say? As it didn't sound unreasonable to me, why should people put up with lockdown and people dying just because some selfish berk can't tell the truth

Re: Coronavirus
 

Paul is holding out for mythical option 3 which I didn't include, which is for covid denial, or at least those who believe it's greatly exaggerated, take over Government policy and we open up pretending it isn't a thing.

Some see it as a battle between left (collective social responsibility) and right (individual responsibility) despite the fact regimes as divergent as China, Iran, Cuba and liberal democracies leaning left and right have all come to the same conclusions around the need for Coronavirus restrictions.

Ultimately I view it as restrictions for the few (international travellers) vs the many (everyone). If opening up is that important then one of those is far preferable to the other. Or we can keep our yo-yo of restrictions into 2022.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The amount of people in hospital with COVID at the peak of the first wave was around 21,300 and those in ICU was inclusive of that was around 3,200.

When lock down restrictions started to ease in June it was around 3,000 & 311 respectively.

Looking at the slope of the current graph curves and extrapolating we may be at around those levels come mid-late March.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There certainly could be scope to the main difference is there's already a commitment to try and get schools back first which wasn't the case in the summer. This will promote greater spread among kids and the unvaccinated (their parents).

That said if we work on the assumption that lockdown and the attempts to test, trace isolate new variants works I'm not a million miles away from you. Mid-late April might only be 4 weeks further along but would push cases right down, and following your trends pushes NHS utilisation right down. That pushes the potential need to reintroduce restrictions further into the long grass and hopefully (at vaccinating 8 million people in a combination of second/first doses in that time) creates a one way path out of restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've taken the daily new case data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases and calculated the R value smoothed over 7 day periods. I've ignored data before June due to the lack of mass testing. What do we conclude? (Other than it's Saturday and I'm bored)

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2021/02/2.jpg

Re: Coronavirus
 

It looks to me like the Kent Variant properly exploded onto the scene in mid November.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Only proper lockdown keeps R below 1?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, of course you think 10 years for failing to fill in a form is reasonable.
I'm not surprised of course.

More of your asshole nonsense, exactly when did I appoint you to speak for me.
Dont make that mistake again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Could be the way forward.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's a few of these stories floating around considering we've a world leading vaccination programme on the go. :confused:

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------

The 10 years has been clarified as being pursued under the Fraud Act. That requires a wilful act of deceit - forgetting to fill in a form and making it to the quarantine hotel wouldn't reach the evidence threshold.

Lying about your country or origin on the other hand would.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

How does a 6 year old know what they are volunteering for ? i don't like this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Parental consent as always is required.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am also concerned about the ramifications of such young children being used.

Who will be held responsible if the vaccination has any long term adverse effects.

As a parent I wouldn't be able to live with myself if my decision harmed my child.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How do vaccines on children usually get trialled?

Re: Coronavirus
 

As seen as kids are very rarely affected by COVID, I don’t see the need to vaccinate them, if everyone else is.

And pursuing this action plays into the hands of the tinfoil hat wearers.

You should only vaccinate those that need to be vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are always the firsts in any vaccination program, without it we would not routinely have MMR vaccines for pre-school children.

The trials will be done in a highly controlled way, based on outcomes thoroughly planned for.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

They may be rarely affected, however, this should not be confused with not infectious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The same way as adults, children take part in clinical trails all the time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s what I suspected so whatever the usual processes are presumably address the consent issues papa raised and safety issues joglynne alluded to. There’s no reason for this one to go any differently.

Pierre’s point might make decisions around emergency use for low risk age groups different at a later date but it’s no reason to not develop one. Just as usefulness doesn’t drop off a cliff at 65 I’m sure it doesn’t emerge as 16.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Children can (and do) catch covid.
The vast majority survive it just fine (better then us oldies) and have little more than mild symptoms (in many cases, none at all).
I suspect vaccinating them will probably be as much about stopping them catching it and becoming [unknown] spreaders as much as it is about actually protecting them.
After all, once everyone else is protected, they will be the main group the virus can still target.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s little evidence to suggest you are not still able to be infectious after being vaccinated asfaik.

So again, pointless.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's extremely early days but the emerging data is actually quite good in Israel, consistent with the CDC decision in the States that fully vaccinated people don't have to self isolate if they encounter a positive case. This would be a huge step forward in giving potential to remove restrictions as vaccinations ramp up here. Assuming we see the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The over 65's and 16-64 year olds with certain medical conditions are set to get their jab invites in the next phase (from Monday).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56057402

I'll be interested to see if I get contacted.

Technically [I believe] I come under the 16-64 clinical group - I get offered the flu jab free every year for the same reason.

---------- Post added at 05:00 ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 ----------

In other news, a group of MPs is suggesting all restrictions be removed by May.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56058744

I would love to see this, and they do have some valid points.
However, I'm not sure we will quite be in a position to do that by May.
I think mid summer is a more realistic target for removing many/most of them.
We need to start getting life back towards normal, and business up and running again (those that have managed to survived three+ lockdowns).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Will be useful for my Son, if I can persuade him to go (he is offered the flu jab every year and never goes). However, in the household he is the one working most with the public.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Raab out on the Sundays warning against setting arbitrary timetables which is understandable. They'll want to tip toe out of the restrictions at first monitoring the real world performance of the vaccine. It's not helpful to have deadlines that put political pressure on to measure success/failure of what's ultimately a scientific endeavour and there's no need for unnecessary risks at this stage so late in the day.

By May it'll have been 15 months all the while we should carrying out 8 million vaccinations a month. Paul is right about mid summer being a more realistic target for removing many/most, and at this stage it's more important (I think anyway) that it's a one way street. The time it takes for restrictions to be reintroduced if it went wrong (June), ease (July, optimistically), evaluate outcomes (end August) is months.

A little bit of hesitation and caution now should reap dividends in the long run so that every 6-8 weeks we take a meaningful step closer to normal. The school holidays impact on R will be a good point to push further.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All very well if you have no life and no plans, personally I've had enough of restrictions, we are going hell for leather vaccinating people time to reap the rewards, those that want to can always stay hidden under the stairs, no one will force them back into society [what's left of it] that is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are no rewards to reap if we suddenly find ourselves reintroducing restrictions in June and reevaluating the whole game plan. Those who want to stay "hidden under the stairs" as you put it often cannot - they need to go out to work, care for family members, buy essential goods. The safety of which depends on prevalence of the virus and the numbers vaccinated.

If it were truly binary I'd get your point, but it isn't. There's no furlough scheme for those with a personal preference to not take the risk, and no guarantee that employers will continue to permit working from home.

I'm also sick of restrictions that's why I want them to get it right first time. Case numbers are falling though the floor, and vaccine numbers going up through the roof. If there's ever been a time to stick with it for a few weeks, that time is absolutely now. Easing restrictions will get safer and quicker the further down case numbers go and further up vaccinations go.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You'll be happy to know that news outlets are reporting we may be allowed to sit on a park bench by April.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

According to the government website the current R number is between 0.7 & 0.9.
The growth rate is -2% to -5% (i.e. going down), its been that rate for a couple of weeks at least.

Both are positive news.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As long as schools go back (mine are in school anyway) and outside sports ( kids football) start again sooner rather than later, I.e. start of April. I’ll be happy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We'll be happy when the pubs can open even if it's outside seating. Assuming there'll be any pubs left. :(

Re: Coronavirus
 

My wifes school never closed, they currently get about 40 - 50% of their pupils attending.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My niece is in her final year of A-Levels and had a yes from all the Universities she wanted (pending results).


I said to her that Covid permitting I am available to take her stuff to her University, (I have a Kuga so loads of room)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Best of luck to her, Hom3r.