Re: Coronavirus
 

https://assets.publishing.service.go...iant_DELTA.pdf

Notably it was published last night and not 22 February as the news article you linked to. The news article predates the emergence of variant delta.

It confirms a reduction in vaccine efficacy which is being denied and highlights particular concern around the Oxford vaccine.

There is more confidence after two doses.

It's very red as far as risk registers go. It would be very challenging for a following the science Conservative Government to ignore.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have always advocated protecting the vulnerable and allowing the virus to pass through the healthy population. As for the observation that there would not be a need for a second lockdown, that was before we knew that the new Kent variant was far more transmissable.

On your second point, it was only a few posts ago when you said you were 'looking forward' to restrictions being extended beyond 21 June. This despite the continuing hardship that would impose on those struggling to survive under these conditions, so I don't believe that you want this disruption to end at all.

As for personalising this argument, you've got a nerve saying that, given your previous posts! Anyhow, if you want to call a truce to hostilities, I am all for that. Let's just keep to the argument. It is possible to agree to disagree.

---------- Post added at 08:53 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ----------

...And the current average daily tally stands at.....

Covid is no longer the biggest killer in the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course I look forward to the Government making a decision that effectively manages the pandemic as opposed to pandering to Great Barrington Declaration types. That provides the best outcome in both economic and health terms by avoiding a further total lockdown.

It’ll also allow this thread to move forward to consider future management of the pandemic when some finally accept June 22 isn’t happening.

I don’t view this as hostile, but claiming I’m judging my analysis based on personal preference just isn’t true.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, they’ve plastered a big red mark next to it, and then said

I didn’t say that there wasn’t any evidence, I said it was scarce, this does nothing as yet to alter that assessment.

So they don’t really know yet.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sounds to me like proposing to bury your head in the sand rather than acknowledge the inevitable delay that is inbound.

Vaccines are less effective - that means more hospitalisations. More deaths. These things are absolutely inevitable.

If ever there was evidence to support a delay it's all there in red and white. Unless you are that desperate to force another lockdown?

Professor Pantsdown has been on Radio 4 saying the end is nigh so that's a done deal in my book.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact that Portugal has been taken off the green list and no new countries added suggests the government is not afraid to take a cautious approach.

Re: Coronavirus
 

When the alternative is months in lockdown it’s the only sensible course.

The vast, vast majority of people would prefer to keep where they are now as they don’t have an ideological dog in the game.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Would you happen to have on hand any figures to support that claim . . . maybe . . you know . . a poll of 1382 people done by an independent marketing company specialising in hair transplants or something?

;) :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is a high level of uncertainty to that statement...............according to your source.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To the extent - for one specific vaccine after two doses.

That doesn't apply to the statement on reduced efficacy overall or the Pfizer vaccine at all.

Less time spent selectively interpreting it and more time spent reading what it actually says and we'd all spend less time discussing it.

Even if I conceded you were right - which I absolutely do not - uncertainty justifies delay until more data is available.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So it looks like the discussion here is at an impasse - some want to open up unless it is proved unsafe to do so and others want to stay locked down unless it is proved safe to open up.

Only one of these options is fail safe in terms of COVID and that is the second one. I feel that the government got its fingers burnt badly late last year and would tend to err towards being more cautious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's only one vaccine. The report itself states a high degree of confidence in that finding. They do this each week and it's been getting progressively more certain in their finds.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some good news the MHRA has approved the Pfizer vaccine for use 12 years and upwards - safe and effective.

We can now find out how serious the JCVI are about reaching population level immunity via vaccination.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is great news. I would be all up for my kids having the jab if it makes things safer for seeing their grandparents. There will of course be the argument that kids aren't really affected by COVID so why have the jab but reducing the chances of spread is a good thing.

The same argument is used for HPV vaccination of teenage boys - they'll just get warts from HPV (plus an extremely low rate of penile cancer) but it will help reduce cases of cervical cancer in the long term