Cable Forum
Page 38 of 86 « First 2834353637 38 3940414248 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

OLD BOY 14-02-2021 18:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070597)
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.
I understand your reasoning, but frankly, maintaining restrictions when the elderly and vulnerable have been inoculated is unnecessary.

I see no reason why we shouldn't lift all restrictions by Easter.

Chris 14-02-2021 18:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070667)
I understand your reasoning, but frankly, maintaining restrictions when the elderly and vulnerable have been inoculated is unnecessary.

I see no reason why we shouldn't lift all restrictions by Easter.
Because the virus would still be moving freely through the un-vaccinated half of the population. The risk of vaccine-escape mutations is higher, the more the virus reproduces. And even if the vaccine is 75% effective in vulnerable groups, 25% of that group is still vulnerable. Allowing the virus to move freely through the unvaccinated population puts vulnerable people for whom the vaccine has been ineffective, at unnecessary risk.

You see no reasons now, because you’ve barely acknowledged any reasons since day one, as your tedious forum status line has stated for months now, to the enlightenment of precisely no-one.

Pierre 14-02-2021 18:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36070662)
My wifes school never closed, they currently get about 40 - 50% of their pupils attending.
Likewise, very few schools have closed, my kids school is at 60-70% occupancy depending on what day.

I’ll rephrase that to “all kids going back”. Which is what I meant.

Hugh 14-02-2021 18:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36070669)
Because the virus would still be moving freely through the un-vaccinated half of the population. The risk of vaccine-escape mutations is higher, the more the virus reproduces. And even if the vaccine is 75% effective in vulnerable groups, 25% of that group is still vulnerable. Allowing the virus to move freely through the unvaccinated population puts vulnerable people for whom the vaccine has been ineffective, at unnecessary risk.

You see no reasons now, because you’ve barely acknowledged any reasons since day one, as your tedious forum status line has stated for months now, to the enlightenment of precisely no-one.
It’s up there with
Quote:
We will not avoid deaths by the measures being taken. We can only delay them
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2145

jfman 14-02-2021 19:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36070669)
Because the virus would still be moving freely through the un-vaccinated half of the population. The risk of vaccine-escape mutations is higher, the more the virus reproduces. And even if the vaccine is 75% effective in vulnerable groups, 25% of that group is still vulnerable. Allowing the virus to move freely through the unvaccinated population puts vulnerable people for whom the vaccine has been ineffective, at unnecessary risk.

You see no reasons now, because you’ve barely acknowledged any reasons since day one, as your tedious forum status line has stated for months now, to the enlightenment of precisely no-one.
I was going to come back to OB but can’t say it any better than this.

1andrew1 14-02-2021 19:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070614)
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.
:clap::clap::clap:
The end looks firmly in sight and we need this to be the final lockdown.

Sephiroth 14-02-2021 20:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
I don't think the end is in sight at all. Jfman's key point is to "stick with it for a few weeks"; he want the Guvmin to get it right.

Carriers who infect anyone else introduce the risk of virus mutation into something that will get us.

Quote:
Easing restrictions will get safer and quicker the further down case numbers go and further up vaccinations go.



papa smurf 14-02-2021 20:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Let's hope it's over before paranoia sets in:rolleyes:

pip08456 14-02-2021 21:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36070680)
Let's hope it's over before paranoia sets in:rolleyes:
A bit late for that papa.

1andrew1 14-02-2021 21:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36070678)
I don't think the end is in sight at all. Jfman's key point is to "stick with it for a few weeks"; he want the Guvmin to get it right.

Carriers who infect anyone else introduce the risk of virus mutation into something that will get us
The end is definitely in sight, but it's clearly not days away. We definitely can't have another lockdown so I'm happy for this one to last a bit longer to ensure we get it right. I think we're on the same page here. :)

jfman 14-02-2021 21:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think Seph means "the end" to be no restrictions, which depends on a lot of intermediate steps taking place safely with a gradual approach for the reasons Chris outlined above. That's much, much further away than Easter/May/early summer. However every 4-6 weeks it could/should ease.

Masks, distancing and working from home encouraged as offices will initially return at reduced capacity for a period (months) will likely to be the last to go.

Hospitality will probably reopen with multiple phases initially outdoor, probably a 2 metre distance followed by a one metre distancing to reduce capacity before no restrictions. International tourism will remain precarious until other countries get to a better situation.

There will likely be a nervousness around the return of school after summer and students flocking to university in September if those remain largely unvaccinated. (I think there's an argument to vaccinate students before they start moving round the country en masse).

1andrew1 14-02-2021 21:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070691)
I think Seph means "the end" to be no restrictions, which depends on a lot of intermediate steps taking place safely with a gradual approach for the reasons Chris outlined above. That's much, much further away than Easter/May/early summer. However every 4-6 weeks it could/should ease.

Masks, distancing and working from home encouraged as offices will initially return at reduced capacity for a period (months) will likely to be the last to go.

Hospitality will probably reopen with multiple phases initially outdoor, probably a 2 metre distance followed by a one metre distancing to reduce capacity before no restrictions. International tourism will remain precarious until other countries get to a better situation.

There will likely be a nervousness around the return of school after summer and students flocking to university in September if those remain largely unvaccinated. (I think there's an argument to vaccinate students before they start moving round the country en masse).
Got you - was thinking of the end to lockdown, full normality is some way off, I agree.

Damien 14-02-2021 22:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
This has to the last lockdown. I can't imagine the mental hit, let alone the economical one, if they announced ANOTHER lockdown in the summer or winter.

So as horrible as it is a few more weeks to drive the cases down and ensure a higher amount of people are vaccinated before slowly opening up might be worth it.

Paul 15-02-2021 03:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070667)
I see no reason why we shouldn't lift all restrictions by Easter.
I hate (really hate) lockdowns, as well as the hype & paranoia around the virus.

However, anyone can see that Easter is never going to be an option to lift all restrictions.
Its only 7 weeks away - I would expect some restrictions to be gone by then, but ALL of them ? Not happening.

You are living in fantasy land if you think that.

jfman 15-02-2021 09:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Interesting from the scientists in China trying to get to the bottom of the original source that there were 13 different variants in December 2019.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/14/h...ntl/index.html

Although there are thousands and we only hear about the most prevalent/most concerning it certainly moves back he timeline for the outbreak.

jonbxx 15-02-2021 09:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36070671)
Likewise, very few schools have closed, my kids school is at 60-70% occupancy depending on what day.
There does seem to be a huge variation in school occupancy. My kids school was really empty in January. My eldest (14) was with one other pupil which is 1.7% occupancy. The younger one shared her year with 3 others (3.3%) Even last week, it was around 15% with the numbers going up due to getting all the kids in who never turned up to online lessons/drove their parents mad going in.

My kids loved it when it was really empty as they essentially had personal tutors. Not so happy now that all the kids not interested in learning are showing up but still prefer it to home study

tweetiepooh 15-02-2021 10:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Was thinking that once we vaccinate those at most clinical risk of acute symptoms from CV19 maybe we target those at a higher risk of infection. That is those with the greatest number of varied interactions.

So we protect the vulnerable, then try to create choke points to reduce spread. This does rely on the data that indicates vaccines reducing infectivity are correct. So hospitality workers, shop keeps/store workers, police, teachers (and related), students and so on. Some will be in the vulnerable groups others in other priority groups but we do want to prevent any "typhoid Mary" types.

I guess part of the problem there is defining the groups accurately and the data is less accurate and more variable than age and clinical need.

Hom3r 15-02-2021 10:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
My mental health has suffered during this nightmare.

As you know I lost my job, but worst of all my mum.

We are a close family, and we would see my sister who lives locally, but because of coronavirus this stopped us meeting apart from the few time the law allowed.

The last time I hugged my family was the day of my mums funeral on October the 13th.

So now it just me and my dad who at the beginning of the year possibly had a TIA and we are waiting for a trip to Romford's Queen Hospital for test.

So I just spend my days job searching, cooking and doing the laundry and shopping as required.

Even though I live with my dad I sometimes do feel very lonely and miss going to work and the abuse you give/get to colleges.

jfman 15-02-2021 13:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
"Cautious but irreversible".

I should write for Boris.

Sephiroth 15-02-2021 14:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070754)
"Cautious but irreversible".

I should write for Boris.
It's about being sufficiently cautious (aka slow?) so that the incremental steps need not be reversed at any point.

jfman 15-02-2021 14:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
I know I fully agree - sums up most of what I said yesterday.

Mad Max 15-02-2021 14:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070763)
I know I fully agree - sums up most of what I said yesterday.
Another couple of months, jfman, and you'll be watching that glorious pint being poured.:beer:

jfman 15-02-2021 14:24
Re: Coronavirus
 
I absolutely cannot wait. Even if I have to sit out in the Scottish cold. Or as we call it all the months except July. :D

1andrew1 15-02-2021 14:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36070764)
Another couple of months, jfman, and you'll be watching that glorious pint being poured.:beer:
I'll be doing more than just watching it being poured! :D

Mad Max 15-02-2021 14:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070765)
I absolutely cannot wait. Even if I have to sit out in the Scottish cold. Or as we call it all the months except July. :D
Cannot argue with that....:D

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36070766)
I'll be doing more than just watching it being poured! :D
Same here, Andrew.:tu:

Hom3r 15-02-2021 16:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
last January (2020) if you saw someone wearing a mask in your local supermarket you would think WTF.


now you wouldn't bat an eyelid, and the same will happen in the next few years, i will still wear mine until we hit the 80/90% of the population having their second jab.

Mad Max 15-02-2021 16:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36070783)
last January (2020) if you saw someone wearing a mask in your local supermarket you would think WTF.


now you wouldn't bat an eyelid, and the same will happen in the next few years, i will still wear mine until we hit the 80/90% of the population having their second jab.
I will wear one where and if it's necessary, if it's dropped and therefore not required then I will definitely not wear one.

heero_yuy 15-02-2021 17:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36070785)
I will wear one where and if it's necessary, if it's dropped and therefore not required then I will definitely not wear one.
Me too. As a glasses wearer it's a PITA.

Hom3r 15-02-2021 19:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36070788)
Me too. As a glasses wearer it's a PITA.

I bought some antifog stuff from Amazon, no agro this time of year.

Mr K 15-02-2021 21:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
There's new variant out, oh joy.... Bit concerning how often this bleeding thing mutates.
Quote:
Another coronavirus variant with a potentially worrying set of mutations has been detected in the UK and should be targeted in surge testing, experts have said.

The variant, known as B1525, is the subject of a report by researchers at the University of Edinburgh, who say it has been detected through genome sequencing in 10 countries including Denmark, the US and Australia, with 32 cases found in the UK so far. The earliest sequences were dated to December and cropped up in the UK and Nigeria.

The team say the variant has similarities in its genome to the Kent variant, B117, and it contains a number of mutations that have worried researchers, including the E484K mutation to the spike protein – a protein found on the outside of the virus that plays an important role in helping the virus to enter cells.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...droidApp_Other

Pierre 15-02-2021 22:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36070825)
There's new variant out, oh joy.... Bit concerning how often this bleeding thing mutates.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...droidApp_Other
Like every virus known to man?

The very reason why the “common cold” is incurable. The very reason we need a flu jab every year.

More sensationalist clap trap, if a new variant is going to make the headlines every time one appears we’ll hear of nothing else.

jfman 15-02-2021 22:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36070829)
Like every virus known to man?

The very reason why the “common cold” is incurable. The very reason we need a flu jab every year.

More sensationalist clap trap, if a new variant is going to make the headlines every time one appears we’ll hear of nothing else.
Well it doesn't hit the news every time. Only where it's identified as a variant of concern by our esteemed scientists, or has the same qualities as one or more of them (and likely will be added).

This could be because it is more transmissible or it evades the vaccines. Considering the success of the vaccine programme to date it's vital that everything is done to ensure that this isn't rapidly undone by an emerging new strain or we are back to lockdown and restrictions. Which we all agree is undesirable.

Keeping R below 1 for now while trying to test, trace, isolate cases is key to future success.

Sephiroth 15-02-2021 22:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070830)
Well it doesn't hit the news every time. Only where it's identified as a variant of concern by our esteemed scientists, or has the same qualities as one or more of them (and likely will be added).

This could be because it is more transmissible or it evades the vaccines. Considering the success of the vaccine programme to date it's vital that everything is done to ensure that this isn't rapidly undone by an emerging new strain or we are back to lockdown and restrictions. Which we all agree is undesirable.

Keeping R below 1 for now while trying to test, trace, isolate cases is key to future success.
That would be keeping R below 1 for the vaccine susceptible virus. If a more transmissive mutation takes hold, you've got another R number to worry about until the vaccine has been updated and administered.

We really could be in trouble.

papa smurf 16-02-2021 09:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Don't forget your paranoia jabs.

jonbxx 16-02-2021 10:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Yeah, it's easy to get excited about new strains but new strains can and do pop up all the time. Check this site out on how many different strains have been sequenced globally - https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global . Press 'Play' on the left hand side for some great data visualisation :-) Note that this site can only handle 3000 strains at a time.

New strains are of interest but it's what happens clinically that is important here.

The good news is that the mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines have been shown to work well in trials and the preliminary data from vaccinated populations seems to look good. These vaccines can be easily modified to take into account any changes which elude the immunity raised from the current vaccines. Remember, the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine was designed and made in 2 days...

tweetiepooh 16-02-2021 10:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
R becomes less relevant IF people don't get really sick from the virus.

OLD BOY 16-02-2021 11:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36070672)
It’s up there with

Quote:
‘We will not avoid deaths by the measures being taken. We can only delay them’

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2145
That was also true at the time. Now we have vaccines (and it was far from sure that we would actually see these delivered), the position has changed.

With vaccines being rolled out, delaying the spread of the virus is a viable solution. But without it, delaying was prolonging and risking more mutations along the way.

---------- Post added at 11:53 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36070711)
I hate (really hate) lockdowns, as well as the hype & paranoia around the virus.

However, anyone can see that Easter is never going to be an option to lift all restrictions.
Its only 7 weeks away - I would expect some restrictions to be gone by then, but ALL of them ? Not happening.

You are living in fantasy land if you think that.
I don’t see it happening either, but it should. Given that the vaccination rollout will have got to the stage it will have by Easter, hospitals will no longer be in danger of being overwhelmed, which was the justification for both lockdowns.

More people will still be advised to get vaccinated, sure, but these are the people who have a far lower risk of hospitalisation. You only have to look at the figures to see that.

1andrew1 16-02-2021 12:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070891)
But without it, delaying was prolonging and risking more mutations along the way.
I don't think that's correct, Old Boy.

Everytime a virus reproduces, there's another chance for it to mutate. Locking down, social distancing etc all reduce the number of times the Coronavirus reproduces and therefore diminishes the number of mutations.

Chris 16-02-2021 12:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36070897)
I don't think that's correct, Old Boy.
It categorically isn't correct.

Quote:
Everytime a virus reproduces, there's another chance for it to mutate. Locking down, social distancing etc all reduce the number of times the Coronavirus reproduces and therefore diminishes the number of mutations.
This is, however, correct.

The clue is in the R number. R for Reproduction Rate. Lockdown reduces the R number. The fewer reproduction cycles the virus has, the few opportunities it has to mutate.

OLD BOY 16-02-2021 12:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36070897)
I don't think that's correct, Old Boy.

Everytime a virus reproduces, there's another chance for it to mutate. Locking down, social distancing etc all reduce the number of times the Coronavirus reproduces and therefore diminishes the number of mutations.
I understand your point. But time is also a factor. The longer we delay transmissions, the more chance of a highly dangerous mutation materialising.

Anyway, that debate has lost its urgency now that we have a vaccine. The annual boosters can sort out the mutations until it dies off of its own accord, which hopefully, it will.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36070899)
It categorically isn't correct.



This is, however, correct.

The clue is in the R number. R for Reproduction Rate. Lockdown reduces the R number. The fewer reproduction cycles the virus has, the few opportunities it has to mutate.
My point has always been that at the end of every lockdown, there will be another surge, so the number of times it transmits will ultimately be the same without a vaccine. The fact that this takes place over a longer period is my concern.

nomadking 16-02-2021 12:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Time by itself is not a factor in new variants. It's a matter of chance. Eg The more times you throw a set of dice(ie new infection), the more likely it is to come up all sixes(ie new variant). If instead, you don't throw the dice at all(ie not allow it to infect and reproduce), you can't get a new variant.

spiderplant 16-02-2021 13:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070903)
But time is also a factor
No it isn't. If that were true, viruses that have been around a long time would be mutating at an amazing rate.

TheDaddy 16-02-2021 17:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36070910)
No it isn't. If that were true, viruses that have been around a long time would be mutating at an amazing rate.
I think what he's saying with regard to time is getting as many people vaccinated as possible before it mutates into something the vaccine is less effective against, the obvious aim being to stop that new strain getting a foothold amid an already virus riddled population and if that isn't what he meant, it probably should have been!

OLD BOY 16-02-2021 17:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Post deleted.

SnoopZ 16-02-2021 17:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Got my jab next week, surprised it's so quick considering I'm healthy and not too old at 52.

daveeb 16-02-2021 19:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 36070934)
Got my jab next week, surprised it's so quick considering I'm healthy and not too old at 52.
Good on you, but I'm amazed you're getting done so quickly being presumably in group 9 of first phase.

RichardCoulter 16-02-2021 21:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
More people to be advised to shield:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965

1andrew1 16-02-2021 21:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Every UK adult could receive both jabs by August, says head of UK's vaccine taskforce
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...force-12220149

RichardCoulter 17-02-2021 01:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36070967)
More people to be advised to shield:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965
Correction: As per BBC 10pm news "Told to shield".

pip08456 17-02-2021 01:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36070967)
More people to be advised to shield:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965
Quote:
Medical records have been searched to identify high-risk patients, based on their combined risk factors.

They are now being sent letters by the NHS informing of them of their new status, which means they are entitled to statutory sick pay, prioritisation for online shopping slots and help collecting medicines.
Why don't they send vaccine appointment as well?

nomadking 17-02-2021 01:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36070979)
Correction: As per BBC 10pm news "Told to shield".
From your link
Quote:
Government guidelines strongly advise clinically extremely vulnerable people to stay at home at all times, apart from going out to exercise or to attend a medical appointment.
Men are twice as likely as women to die, so should that be factored in?
How much of the supposed increased risk comes from the behaviour of people in those groups. Not socially distancing, not using hand sanitiser, gathering in large groups etc.

Paul 17-02-2021 02:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36070967)
More people to be advised to shield:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965
Why are they advising more people to shield now - its a bit late in the day surely ?

---------- Post added at 02:09 ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 36070934)
Got my jab next week, surprised it's so quick considering I'm healthy and not too old at 52.
Given I'm 58, and technically on the "with underlying medical conditions" list, I'd say its very surprising, esp to me ......

RichardCoulter 17-02-2021 03:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36070982)
From your link
Men are twice as likely as women to die, so should that be factored in?
How much of the supposed increased risk comes from the behaviour of people in those groups. Not socially distancing, not using hand sanitiser, gathering in large groups etc.
It is, along with ethnicity, postcode, weight etc.

nomadking 17-02-2021 04:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36070988)
It is, along with ethnicity, postcode, weight etc.
It's not mentioned in the article, although it is mentioned in the "new model" link in the article. People now have their own QCovid® Score.
Quote:
We have used QCovid® to develop the COVID-19 Population Risk Assessment. This combines a number of factors such as age, sex registered at birth, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI) and specific health conditions and treatments to estimate the risk of a person catching coronavirus and becoming seriously unwell.
Having suffered a double pulmonary embolism and heart failure a few years back, looks like I should be getting a letter.

denphone 17-02-2021 05:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36070986)
Given I'm 58, and technically on the "with underlying medical conditions" list, I'd say its very surprising, esp to me ......
Same here as well as l have had heart failure for a good while now plus several other underlying long term medical conditions.

jonbxx 17-02-2021 09:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36070967)
More people to be advised to shield:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965
Lest we forget, these, along with the people being vaccinated now, were the people fans of the Great Barrington Declaration wanted to lock up
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This made me laugh though;

Damien 17-02-2021 09:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
The new list of people being advised to shield is pretty interesting I think and possibly exciting.

They're talking about a new algorithm coming up with this list which suggests they've plugged in data about mortality, compared against their existing list of patients and come up with a much more tailored risk assessment than the broad category of groups we've used so far.

Politicians have talked about using big data, cloud and algorithms for years but it's usually just buzz words but this would be a very good example of what can be done with it and the NHS is in a unique position to take full advantage given its relative monolithic structure compared to other healthcare systems.

A constant real time dataset advising whose at risk for certain illnesses and which treatments might be most effective for someone based on much more precise details about any given person. Cancer screening brought forward not based simply on age, gender or race but multiple factors that suggest YOU might benefit from moving it a bit earlier.

All of this already exists of course but the speed at which it can now happen the degree of precision they could get into makes it very exciting.

tweetiepooh 17-02-2021 10:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
My wife had text to get her jab last week, I got call from GP for mine yesterday. We are mid fifties but possible underlying conditions. A lot seems to be about demographics in the area. Some areas could possibly get through the lists quicker.


What is concerning is the lower take up in some groups, some of which have a higher mortality (or appear to).

pip08456 17-02-2021 10:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36071014)
The new list of people being advised to shield is pretty interesting I think and possibly exciting.

They're talking about a new algorithm coming up with this list which suggests they've plugged in data about mortality, compared against their existing list of patients and come up with a much more tailored risk assessment than the broad category of groups we've used so far.

Politicians have talked about using big data, cloud and algorithms for years but it's usually just buzz words but this would be a very good example of what can be done with it and the NHS is in a unique position to take full advantage given its relative monolithic structure compared to other healthcare systems.

A constant real time dataset advising whose at risk for certain illnesses and which treatments might be most effective for someone based on much more precise details about any given person. Cancer screening brought forward not based simply on age, gender or race but multiple factors that suggest YOU might benefit from moving it a bit earlier.

All of this already exists of course but the speed at which it can now happen the degree of precision they could get into makes it very exciting.
I don't find it exciting at all. If they have been found to be more at risk why send a letter advising them to shield rather than an appointment to get vaccinated? Surely if they are at higher risk they should be moved to the higher risk group for vaccination.

I'm in group 6 and recieved my jab last Monday, I would gladly have given way to someone at more risk.

spiderplant 17-02-2021 10:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36070986)
Given I'm 58, and technically on the "with underlying medical conditions" list, I'd say its very surprising, esp to me ......
Last week one of the papers reported that some regions were so far ahead that they were inviting over 50s.

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36071017)
I don't find it exciting at all. If they have been found to be more at risk why send a letter advising them to shield rather than an appointment to get vaccinated? Surely if they are at higher risk they should be moved to the higher risk group for vaccination..
AIUI about half of them will be prioritised for vaccination, but some won't be able to have the vaccine for medical reasons. Meanwhile telling them to shield is a quick win.

Damien 17-02-2021 11:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36071017)
I don't find it exciting at all. If they have been found to be more at risk why send a letter advising them to shield rather than an appointment to get vaccinated? Surely if they are at higher risk they should be moved to the higher risk group for vaccination.

I'm in group 6 and recieved my jab last Monday, I would gladly have given way to someone at more risk.
They are being moved up the list aren't they?

Paul 17-02-2021 15:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
Human Covid Trials to start ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56097088

1andrew1 17-02-2021 22:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
The Swedish government on Wednesday presented a draft legislation that would enable new measures to combat a new wave of the spread of COVID-19, including a partial lockdown.

The spread of the virus has started to accelerate in six of Sweden's counties, according to the latest statistics. There are also indications that the more contagious mutation first discovered in Britain is becoming increasingly prevalent in Sweden.

"The declining trend in the spread of infection has stopped. It is worrying and there is a significant risk of a third wave," Swedish Minister for Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren said when presenting the proposed amendment at a press conference.

"A partial shutdown of Swedish society may be necessary," she said.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/eur..._139748265.htm
Similar article also at https://www.ft.com/content/ccb52f41-...d-f59745e25e7d

Pierre 18-02-2021 09:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
After full on campaign by Germany and most of Europe to discredit the efficacy of the AZ vaccine. German Health ministers are baffled that people don't want it.

You reap what you sow.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...fects-12221175

---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 ----------

https://news.sky.com/story/lockdown-...study-12221339

Yes........ but we have been in "Lockdown" pretty much since November, bar a couple of weeks before Christmas and infections went through the roof. So I keep my powder dry before I jump on the lockdown bandwagon.


Also I was just pondering the other day, that there doesn't seem to be any problems in naming the new variants as the "British Variant", South African Variant, Brazilian Variant".

Yet when Trump called Covid the "Chinese Virus" he got lambasted for it.

jfman 18-02-2021 09:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well the problem isn't really the campaign it's giving people a choice for free.

If you gave me the choice I'd do exactly the same thing. You can't blame Germans for being stereotypically rational.

papa smurf 18-02-2021 10:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36071093)
Well the problem isn't really the campaign it's giving people a choice for free.

If you gave me the choice I'd do exactly the same thing. You can't blame Germans for being stereotypically rational.
Which one would you choose?

jfman 18-02-2021 10:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36071095)
Which one would you choose?
The Pfizer one. All the scientific data to date makes it the rational choice for an individual all things being equal.

An AZ one now versus a Pfizer one in three, six, nine months is a different question. But that's not how it's presented to individuals in Germany.

They should stop offering a choice as the collective benefit of the AZ one being out there in low risk age groups is better than none being out there.

papa smurf 18-02-2021 10:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36071096)
The Pfizer one. All the scientific data to date makes it the rational choice for an individual all things being equal.

An AZ one now versus a Pfizer one in three, six, nine months is a different question. But that's not how it's presented to individuals in Germany.

They should stop offering a choice as the collective benefit of the AZ one being out there in low risk age groups is better than none being out there.
would you have the other jab if was called the Glasgow...... jab and not the oxford....jab?

jfman 18-02-2021 10:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36071098)
would you have the other jab if was called the Glasgow...... jab and not the oxford....jab?
I've had a few jabs in Glasgow in my time it's not a pleasant experience

denphone 18-02-2021 10:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Just received a email letter from the NHS telling me to shield as they have just classed me as clinically extremely vulnerable.

papa smurf 18-02-2021 10:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36071100)
Just received a email letter from the NHS telling me to shield as they have just classed me as clinically extremely vulnerable.
So what will you do differently to what you have done for the past year?

denphone 18-02-2021 10:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36071101)
So what will you do differently to what you have done for the past year?
Apart from 2 and a bit months last summer stay at home.

pip08456 18-02-2021 11:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
This could be interesting.

Quote:
This some are saying is broadcasting history. We hope it helps. Commercial TV channels unite to screen Covid vaccine myth-busting video. Tonight at the same time 9.56pm @itv
@Channel4
⁦@channel5_tv
⁩ @skytv

spiderplant 18-02-2021 11:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36071107)
This could be interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56101990

jfman 18-02-2021 11:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36071107)
This could be interesting.
Don’t they know nobody watches linear television? :angel:

Paul 18-02-2021 17:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36071109)
Don’t they know nobody watches linear television? :angel:
Actually, I dont, all Ive watched in the last year is a couple of covid announcements by Boris.

Its possible the people they are aiming for dont either.

pip08456 18-02-2021 18:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36071177)
Actually, I dont, all Ive watched in the last year is a couple of covid announcements by Boris.

Its possible the people they are aiming for dont either.
It's already been shared online. I've watched a couple of Boris' covid annoucement too but online.

1andrew1 18-02-2021 20:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine is less potent against South African variant

Covid-19 jab still works but produces only a third of the antibodies it did for original virus, study finds

The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine appears to be significantly less effective against the virus variant that emerged in South Africa, according to a study published on Wednesday.

The vaccine still works against the strain known as 501Y.V2, but the shot produced only a third of the antibodies that it did for the original virus in a lab study using an engineered virus.

The partners said there was “no clinical evidence” that people vaccinated with their Covid-19 shot lacked protection against the variant. It is hard to draw firm conclusions from lab experiments on how the vaccines will work on the variants in humans.

But they said they were making investments and talking to regulators so they could seek authorisation for an updated vaccine or a booster shot “once a strain that significantly reduces protection from the vaccine is identified”. ...

The paper, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, is based on experiments using the blood of 20 vaccine trial participants. The scientists from Pfizer, BioNTech and the University of Texas Medical Branch tested three different genetically engineered viruses, one with all the mutations of 501Y.V2, and two with subsets of the changes.
https://www.ft.com/content/2eb05859-...8-fa50fa6ca7da

pip08456 18-02-2021 21:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071207)
Alt link to Andrews paywalled one.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/17/...virus-variant/

You couldn't make this up!

Quote:
Man hands himself in as he'd rather be in jail than spend any longer with people at home during lockdown
https://news.sky.com/story/man-hands...kdown-12221682

1andrew1 19-02-2021 10:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36071213)
:D:D:D

joglynne 19-02-2021 11:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
A new COVID vaccine efficacy study from Israel has concluded that Pfizer/BioNTech's jab is up to 85% effective after the first dose.

The research, conducted by the Sheba Medical Centre, the country's largest hospital, has been published in the Lancet medical journal.

The hospital assessed the effectiveness of the first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine among 7,000 of its healthcare employees.

The workers each received their first dose in January and the research team observed an 85% reduction of clinical (symptomatic) COVID-19 between 15 and 28 days after the jab.

But critically, they also observed efficacy in asymptomatic patients.

The study found that all infections, including asymptomatic, were reduced by 75% after the first dose.

Professor Eyal Leshem, an infectious disease expert and director of Sheba's Institute for Travel and Tropical Medicine, told Sky News: "This is first real-world evidence of effectiveness that shows up after the first dose of the vaccine.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...finds-12222164

1andrew1 19-02-2021 14:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Hearing that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine no longer needs ultra cold storage. Just reported in the FT and doubtless will be reported elsewhere soon.

papa smurf 19-02-2021 14:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071268)
Hearing that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine no longer needs ultra cold storage. Just reported in the FT and doubtless will be reported elsewhere soon.
https://www.ft.com/content/919d16c8-...9-04a48fdb0a36


.
https://www.ft.com/content/919d16c8-...9-04a48fdb0a36

The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine no longer needs to be kept at ultra-low temperatures colder than the Antarctic winter, according to new results that will allow distribution to be dramatically expanded to doctors’ clinics, pharmacies and more remote regions.

Stability data, which the companies have submitted to the US regulator, show the shot can be kept at normal medical freezer temperatures of minus 15C to minus 25C for up to two weeks, compared with the previous required storage conditions of between minus 60C and minus 80C.

Ugur Sahin, BioNTech’s chief executive, said the ability to store the vaccine at higher temperatures would give vaccination centres “greater flexibility”, adding that the company continues to develop new formulations to make the jab “even easier to transport and use”.

BioNTech/Pfizer’s breakthrough vaccine was the first to win regulatory approval in the UK, US and EU last year, but the need to store and transport the shot below minus 60C has complicated the rollout, particularly in remote areas without “cold-chain” infrastructure.

https://www.politico.eu/article/bion...-higher-temps/

Chris 22-02-2021 11:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Great news from Public Health Scotland this morning. Their real-world study of vaccine effectiveness shows that after 28 days, just one dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine reduces the risk of hospitalisation by 94%. Pfizer also turned in very good results, showing an 85% reduction in hospitalisations in patients who had received that vaccine. Amongst all patients over 80 (regardless of which vaccine they have had), there has been an 81% reduction in hospitalisations overall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56153600

What we learn from this:

1. The single dose strategy pursued jointly by HMG and the devolved authorities has been a public health policy triumph. Other nations should emulate it immediately.
2. After a single dose, the Oxford vaccine is significantly more effective at preventing acute Covid than the Pfizer vaccine.

Halcyon 22-02-2021 12:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Having just come out of 10 days isolation due to Covid, I can say it is the strangest feeling ever. Still not got my taste or smell completely bavck and feel puffed out quite a lot of the time.


I think the plan to re-open schools for just 2 weeks before Easter is completely bonkers. We should have waited til after Easter.

You cant get all kids back into learning and up to same level in 2 weeks.

Pierre 22-02-2021 12:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36071585)
1. The single dose strategy pursued jointly by HMG and the devolved authorities has been a public health policy triumph. Other nations should emulate it immediately.
2. After a single dose, the Oxford vaccine is significantly more effective at preventing acute Covid than the Pfizer vaccine.
1. Don't expect the government to get any credit whatsoever, there's already been faux outrage because of bureaucracy that wasn't correctly followed whilst we're up to our necks in trying to obtain PPE in competition with the rest of the world.

No credit for Hancock backing the Oxford vaccine and tying them up with AZ and bank rolling it. No credit for the vaccine rollout (the NHS have done all themselves), no credit for the single jab method.

Mistakes have been made in the past year, of course they have, but HMG have been focused on the pathway out of this and on that item, they have delivered.

2. Unfortunately for the EU and their attempts to discredit the AZ vaccine we have real world data that trumps political games.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halcyon (Post 36071587)
I think the plan to re-open schools for just 2 weeks before Easter is completely bonkers. We should have waited til after Easter.

You cant get all kids back into learning and up to same level in 2 weeks.
No more bonkers than having them go back for 1 day.

Football and Golf return on March 29th. Brilliant!

Pubs open by May I should think, not that I'm an avid pub-goer, but I do enjoy a steak dinner on a Friday.

jfman 22-02-2021 12:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
I hope the paper when published stands up to the headlines and isn't a selective interpretation of available data to make useful headlines.

Chris 22-02-2021 12:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36071590)
I hope the paper when published stands up to the headlines and isn't a selective interpretation of available data to make useful headlines.
Wow. It took you 20 minutes to formulate that sentence ... following the science is a real kicker, isn't it? :D

jfman 22-02-2021 12:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36071591)
Wow. It took you 20 minutes to formulate that sentence ... following the science is a real kicker, isn't it? :D
Didn't see any point in going into great detail.

Nothing wrong with following the science as long as that's what the science says. So far we have a press release. I'm sure once scrutinised the scientific community will either agree or disagree but peer review is always an important part of the process.

If other countries are to rip up their vaccination plans to follow ours I'm sure you'd agree they're likely to want the supporting data first.

1andrew1 22-02-2021 12:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36071585)
Great news from Public Health Scotland this morning. Their real-world study of vaccine effectiveness shows that after 28 days, just one dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine reduces the risk of hospitalisation by 94%. Pfizer also turned in very good results, showing an 85% reduction in hospitalisations in patients who had received that vaccine. Amongst all patients over 80 (regardless of which vaccine they have had), there has been an 81% reduction in hospitalisations overall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56153600

What we learn from this:

1. The single dose strategy pursued jointly by HMG and the devolved authorities has been a public health policy triumph. Other nations should emulate it immediately.
2. After a single dose, the Oxford vaccine is significantly more effective at preventing acute Covid than the Pfizer vaccine.
The single dose strategy - which I believe was advocated by Tony Blair of all people before HMG adopted it - would seem to be a quick win for every country given that supply can't be ramped up rapidly.

Sephiroth 22-02-2021 13:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
... but those EU blockheads think otherwise.

That said, ikt appears that needs are beginning to must:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...63f_story.html

Quote:
France is weighing whether to give people previously infected with the coronavirus only one vaccine dose instead of two, a practice that if enacted here and followed by other countries could free up tens of millions of doses.

“It’s likely that we’ll see similar moves elsewhere, given that we’re facing a shortage of vaccine doses,” said Tobias Kurth, the director of the Institute of Public Health at Berlin’s Charité hospital.

France’s health advisory body has recommended that one shot provides sufficient protection, acting like a booster shot, for previously infected people.
Ouefs en visages comes to mind.

Chris 22-02-2021 13:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36071596)
The single dose strategy - which I believe was advocated by Tony Blair of all people before HMG adopted it - would seem to be a quick win for every country given that supply can't be ramped up rapidly.
Yes, it all became part of the public debate around the same time. I seem to recall that many of us thought that Blair, both as a well-connected former PM and also through his charitable foundation work, had got access to the same data that was informing government policy development. HMG went public with it around a week later.

pip08456 22-02-2021 17:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Government roadmap out of lockdown.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...pring_2021.pdf

Paul 22-02-2021 18:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well, I got my jab at 4.24pm today. :)

1andrew1 22-02-2021 18:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36071638)
Well, I got my jab at 4.24pm today. :)
:tu:

Hugh 22-02-2021 19:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36071638)
Well, I got my jab at 4.24pm today. :)
:clap:

jfman 22-02-2021 20:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36071638)
Well, I got my jab at 4.24pm today. :)
Excellent stuff.

Pierre 22-02-2021 22:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36071633)
Government roadmap out of lockdown.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...pring_2021.pdf
I haven’t read the link, but I have watched the news conference and read other information and I think it’s a sensible solid roadmap.

People will say that this is what we should have done in Autumn last year, but we didn’t have the vaccine then. This is good and clear direction from HMG.

pip08456 22-02-2021 22:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36071667)
I haven’t read the link, but I have watched the news conference and read other information and I think it’s a sensible solid roadmap.

People will say that this is what we should have done in Autumn last year, but we didn’t have the vaccine then. This is good and clear direction from HMG.
I agree but it appears SAGE don't like it.

Quote:
Modelling indicates that relaxation of measures over six or nine months results in much smaller subsequent epidemic waves than relaxing measures over three months. Relaxation of a significant number of restrictions over three months starting from the beginning of April couldlead to hospital occupancy higher than the January peakwhereas relaxation over nine months would result in a much smaller peak(medium confidence, the modelling has some uncertainties and does not include seasonal changes).Retaininga baseline set of measures to reduce transmission even after otherrestrictions have been lifted would also reduce the scaleof a resurgence (high confidence).These and potentially additional measures may be needed throughout Winter 2021/22
https://assets.publishing.service.go...79_Minutes.pdf

Chris 22-02-2021 23:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
The BBC report at 10pm did say that ongoing low-level, especially seasonal, measures may continue to be needed. And BoJo said there was no roadmap to a COVID free future.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39.
Page 38 of 86 « First 2834353637 38 3940414248 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum