Re: Coronavirus
 

This Brazilian variant seems to be like a 'cut and shut' of the UK and South African variants around the business parts of the spike (amino acids 400-600ish)

Here are the three compared - https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/s...75542097825792

Considering most of the vaccines out there work well against both the UK and South Africa types, I wouldn't panic just yet.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting.
Which vaccines work well against both the UK and South African types?

Re: Coronavirus
 

All of the current ones, in the UK at least..

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nice to see your even-handed comments on this.

They made an stupid error, realised it, and are correcting it - this is a common occurrence, not the end of earth or a massive conspiracy against the British.

The throbbing vein on your forehead must be a sight to behold....

"Pig headed, self righteous, and pompous" - oh, the irony...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm expecting delays in easing lockdown due to the Brazilian variant.


My dad and I are hoping to be able to sit in my sister garden on the 27th which will be her 50th.


Even though hugging won't be allowed, at least we can sit in their garden and living room, but I'm expecting this to be cancelled.

Re: Coronavirus
 

An unfortunate combination of German cultural nationalism (we won’t have that, it’s Not Made Here), a population already prone to anti-vax, tinfoil hat stupidity, and crassly expressed, institutional outrage that the Brits dared make a flying success out of their vaccine programme at the same time as the EU was royally fecking up its own, has made for a toxic combination.

It’s only mildly entertaining watching German experts scratching their heads and wondering how the official denigration of a vaccine has led to a plummet in confidence and refusals to accept it. Mostly it’s tragic because they now have quantities of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine sitting in fridges rather than in the arms of people who may now get very sick or even die of covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yup - letting nationalism over-ride rationality, and the negative impact on the German population, was very dumb.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Great, so that should make it less of an issue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They followed the science.

At the time of submission, there was insufficient data to support the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine in over 65s. There is no reason to expect the reaction over over 65s to be significantly different based on the reactions to COVID infections but also no hard evidence to say it will work. That's good enough for an Emergency Use Authorisation but probably not for a Conditional Market Authorisation.

Probably explained better by people with brains much bigger than mine here - https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...for-under-65s/

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a tad naïve - you offer “they followed the science” as if it’s an absolute statement that can be offered without qualification, when clearly, as you acknowledge yourself, it is not. Those countries that authorised it for over 65s and those that did not were all following the science and yet somehow came to different conclusions.

There was actually perfectly adequate scientific data to support emergency use authorisation, and we are after all in an emergency. The phase 3 trials lacked sufficient test subjects in that age group to produce definitive data but there was ample data on antibody response and equally ample understanding that it was most likely this would translate into comparable vaccine efficacy in that group.

Given the problem Germany and France have with anti-vax movements they more than anyone should have understood that you can’t simply say you’re following the science as if science exists in a cultureless vacuum. How the science is communicated and how it is used politically are vitally important - as Germany is now discovering to its cost.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Covid vaccines cut risk of serious illness by 80%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56240220 Excellent news.

Source - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...n-older-adults

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

But these countries chose not to do an Emergency Use Authorisation so the weight of evidence needs to be stronger. The opinion of the various regulatory bodies in a number of countries was that there was insufficient evidence of efficacy in the over 65s. In the absence of any other vaccine, that's a bold move but with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine being on line, not such a risk as under 65s get AZ and over 65s get Pfizer/BioNTech who did produce enough data to make a judgement.

Where there's a stronger anti-vaccine sentiment, I don't think 'it will probably work in over 65s' is a strong argument to increase vaccine uptake. We have lots of arguments that it hasn't been tested enough in this country. The fact that efficacy in over 65s was assumed rather than proved was somewhat glossed over.

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

No governments make errors, they simply 'do not recognise' the accusations levelled at them :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

They certainly are. Merkel is still refusing the Oxford vaccine because she’s in the older age group! Not setting a very good example, is she?

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

I doubt there will be a delay to the easing of the lockdown. There is an extremely small number of that variant over here and we are coming down hard on it wherever we find new cases.

At the very least, the existing vaccines should prevent people from getting so ill they end up in hospital, so there’s no reason to adjust the ‘roadmap’.

By the autumn, the successor vaccine will be able to tackle the variants much more effectively.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seriously - of all the arguments you could have put forward on the things Germany have got wrong about the COVID pandemic (and, like most countries, there have been quite a few), you went with the one where in fact our COVID death rate is much higher than theirs?

Germany, population 84 million, COVID deaths 72,000 (1 in 1177)

U.K., population 68 million, COVID deaths 123,000 (1 in 553)

Our COVID death rate is more than twice Germany’s...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did Covid actually cause all of those deaths? I know that Covid is mentioned on the death certificate but I'm not convinced that Covid was the actual cause, also, do other countries count their deaths in the same way as we do?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Misleading figures of course. What is the comparative death rate for the number of hospitalisations?
Plenty of countries will have lower death rates, but they will tend to be ones that had a LOWER number of infections and hospitalisations in the first place.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Misleading only because they don't portray the UK in the best light on this crucial issue or another reason?

Persuade us that it is an unfair comparison.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Already in my post. If you have a lower number of infections in the first place, then you are almost certainly going to have a lower death rate per head of population.:rolleyes:

Parts of World have had very few or no cases. They haven't done anything special to have lower death rates.
If there are a lot of big gatherings at funerals, marriages, parties, religious gatherings, etc, then there are going to be a lot of cases, and therefore deaths. Eg In the UK and New York(and perhaps more generally in the world), Orthodox Jews have been disproportionately affected. That is because they insist on constantly having big gatherings, not wearing masks, and not social distancing. Their fault, not any governments.
Ethiopia has a death rate a fraction of that of most countries. Why is that? A better health system? Extremely unlikely, or would it be fewer cases, and fewer people spreading it around.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But this is the point isn’t it. We’re in an emergency, but apparently not enough of an emergency for some governments. The science is what it is and doesn’t change regardless of which government is looking at it. There was ample evidence to infer efficacy in over 65s; for some, in an emergency, the inference was enough. For some it wasn’t.

Everyone followed the science, right up to the point when a political decision had to be taken. Which is why “they followed the science” is an inadequate explanation for the decisions that have been made.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is the "science" not that they have (or at least were due) more of the Pfizer vaccine and we do not?

All things being equal based on the data available there'd be no reason to risk the AZ vaccine on groups it hadn't been tested on when you could offer them Pfizer, concentrating AZ on groups it had been tested on.

As it stands both suppliers let the EU down, but that doesn't make it an unsound judgement based on the circumstances. Despite the emergency the United States haven't approved the AZ vaccine at all. South Africa have handed theirs to neighbouring countries instead of distributing them. It seems somewhat bizarre that the UK are seeking vindication for their own decisions from the EU of all people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Correct - given that they were likely to have had a bigger supply of the Pfizer vaccine they could afford to restrict the use of AstraZeneca. As a simple logistical measure it makes sense.

Of course, they may also have thought it was politically helpful to be able to talk down the British vaccine thereby enhancing the status of the German one. There is no doubt the EU’s procurement shortcomings reflect poorly on member states who supported it - especially those that abandoned their own promising procurement programmes in order to take part.

Whatever’s the case, they failed to calculate was the lasting damage they were doing to the reputation of the AstraZeneca vaccine and how this would start to compromise their vaccination programme among younger adults who would still be offered it. This is what senior experts in Germany are now starting to acknowledge.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is the most cogent explanation you will receive from anyone, if you don’t/won’t/can’t understand after reading this, you’re either stupid, or just stupid........it happens.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Germany is in the unique position (I think) of some states offering a choice to individuals. If uptake is that much of a concern they should simply withdraw the choice.

AstraZeneca’s own press release from December is enough that (again all things being equal) a rational individual would pick the higher performing vaccine. There’s no individual benefit in taking a lesser performing vaccine - it’s a collective one.

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Any explanation that doesn’t include the availability of alternative vaccines is omitting an important element of “emergency” decision making. For the UK the choice was easy. For the United States, EU, others...

Had emerging data gone the other way they’d have to redo everyone given an AZ vaccine with a Pfizer one, essentially wasting tens of millions of doses in the process slowing down the vaccination programme and leaving the most vulnerable at risk for longer.

It’s taken what, a month for data to come from the UK? It’s hard to see the political benefit of u-turning after 4 weeks, which if it was the unambiguous science they would have known to be inevitable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apologies, I struggled to hear that above the whinge, whinge, whinge, and the realisation there is no cogent counter point or argument, therefore the need to take a more outlayer stance that will just look daft in in a few short weeks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Forgive me if this has already been posted today but the Public Health England data published today agrees with that already published in Scotland a week or so ago. Either the Pfizer or AZ jab reduces hospitalisations amongst those aged over 80 by more than 80%; after a single dose the AZ jab is more effective than the Pfizer one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56240220

Rejoice at that news.

Unless of course we’re still being conned by the propaganda apparatus of the British State. :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

A lower number of infections is not a matter of luck. Key things like swiftly implementing socialising and travel restrictions swiftly are key. Areas which the UK has not excelled in.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also having a reasonably compliant, young and healthy population helps. The UK’s average age is high, our incidence of obesity is high (a known risk factor), and, frankly, we’re a belligerent lot who won’t be told.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Compared to other countries in Europe, I think we're a pretty compliant bunch - just look at our acceptance of vaccines and lack of rioting. But I agree on the age/obesity aspect.

But to state that if you have a lower number of infections in the first place as if this is somewhat dealt out randomly is flawed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If it holds up in the population as a whole, yes.

The most obvious question is the methodology that gave them their sample size, which has a test positivity rate at over 60% for the unvaccinated 80+ year olds. This at face value seems high.

I’m surprised we don’t have something using population wide data by now breaking down cases, hospitalisations and deaths by age tracking back to the start of vaccinations. All of these figures will be reducing due to lockdown but a nice graph should show a clear and increasing effect of the vaccine in older age groups compared to the population as a whole.



---------- Post added at 04:07 ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 ----------

Evidently you only hear what you want to hear.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There was ample inferred evidence but insufficient direct evidence, that's the point. The UK, the EU in the form of EMA and WHO recommended use in over 65s and a lot of countries were not convinced. Hey, Switzerland sent the application back and said try again. Some countries are more stringent than others when it comes to drug safety. That's the remit of the regulatory bodies. Of course, the current picture with infections and the options for other vaccines in each country will influence the decision and that's more health policy. I guess in this country that will be the MHRA and JCVI - MHRA says the vaccine is safe and effective and JCVI decides how the vaccine will be implemented.

If there's an alternative that is proven to be effective in over 65s rather than inferred, then the pressure is off to take the chance, however small.

Re: Coronavirus
 

5 taxis and several cars outside a nearby house piqued police interest early this morning. All in the "high risk" category.

Immigration officers are there now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here you go. This is daily deaths in England for under and over-60s (data from ONS). I've scaled the 0-59 graph by a factor of 10 to make them roughly the same height. You'd expect the over 60s to be better at complying with the lockdowns so any difference isn't entirely due to vaccines. However in the first spike the over-60s deaths came down slower than the under-60. This time the over-60s are coming down quicker.

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2021/03/3.jpg

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've been catching up on some work related news websites to see what's new and found this article - Top 7 Best Selling COVID-19 Vaccines and Drugs of 2020 . This has 2020 sales figures and forecasts for 2021.

There's a lot of money out there for the pharma companies (and their suppliers :D )

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s worth remembering that sales revenue is not the same as profit. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are significantly more expensive than most of the others listed there, especially the AZ vaccine which by some measures is the cheapest of the lot, although this may be partly due to the not-for-profit basis on which AstraZeneca was given the formulation developed at Oxford University.

There’s a decent infographic here, detailing what unit price the pharma companies are selling covid vaccines at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55170756

Re: Coronavirus
 

Novavax is also being sold to the African Union at the same price as Oxford-AstraZeneca's vaccine at $3 per shot. The Russian Sputnik V vaccine is $9.75 a shot so considerably more expensive, but not Pfizer and Moderna levels.

So I guess the West is winning on soft diplomacy thanks to the two $3 vaccines.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The most important coronavirus information you need today - https://onewayroadtobeer.com/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except for viewers in Scotland :(

Re: Coronavirus
 

Aye. :mad:

Re: Coronavirus
 

You'll have less moderating to do as a lot of your posters will be entertaining themselves in English beer gardens. :D :beer:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, arguing about the finer details on non-tariff barriers to trade and pharmaceutical regulation vs who is getting the next round in.

Let me think about it....:scratch:

Re: Coronavirus
 

A third study has further substantiated the claim that a single dose of either the Pfizer or the AZ vaccine reduces hospitalisation by 80% in those aged over 80.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56267473

I can't help thinking that this latest piece of research still won't be enough for anyone still desperately hoping that the British government and the devolved administrations made a horrible mistake in opting for the 12-week dosage gap...

Re: Coronavirus
 

the success in our vaccination strategy is purely down to the NHS, no other factors are involved or other bodies contributed/participated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think anyone is desperately hoping for failure merely sceptical as to whether it was the right route to go down. There's a lot of money being put into studies to proactively demonstrate what should be obvious from population wide data tracking divergence of those in vaccinated cohorts with unvaccinated cohorts to remove the effect of lockdown.

I'm still yet to see an explanation for the test positivity rate of over 60% for unvaccinated over 70s in the last yet to be peer reviewed study. Obviously, when peer reviewed I'm sure glaring errors (or explainations) will get suitable prominence on the BBC website and other mainstream press.

I guess there's also the question of who is funding such studies, and why, when they wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny at this stage for any medical authority seeking to make regulatory changes (e.g. to the quality standard of randomised control trials) but they do make good press releases. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

As I read it, they were only looking at symptomatic people. Is it that surprising that 60% were positive?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, yes.

The majority of NHS testing capacity is for those with symptoms booking a test and positivity never gets that high. Even when at the height of the first wave when testing was only for those with symptoms positivity never got that high.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Got a source for that? It's easy to find positivity rates for all tests, but not just for those symptomatic.

The best I can find is figure 11a in
https://assets.publishing.service.go...ummary_w17.pdf
which shows that the positivity rate increases significantly with age. (And that's of people with any respiratory or flu-like infection, not just those COVID symptomatic)

Re: Coronavirus
 

You never fail to disappoint ...

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you think there’s a deep State propaganda operation in motion here, and that yes, you do need the vaccination policy to fail and this epic display of straw-clutching proves it. It looks to me like all of the above is easier for you to swallow than the idea that el gov may have made a good call and a series of suitably qualified experts are proving it with sound science that has been fairly and broadly reported by a range of news media.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can follow through to the preprint here. The work was done by the Public Health bodies for each of the UK nations plus London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Strathclyde and Imperial College. All authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest (see page 18)

The work was funded directly or indirectly in the case of the Universities by the Government.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, it seems the massive British disinformation effort has been so successful, the Germans think the invasion's coming through Calais the AstraZeneca vaccine is now both safe for over 65s and also even more effective with doses 12 weeks apart.

Hurrah for the BBC!

</SATIRE>

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56275342

Re: Coronavirus
 

The success of failure of the vaccine effort has little to do with whether there is (or isn’t) complicity between Government, the media and some parts of the scientific community who rush out glitzy press releases ahead of peer review.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

It’s good that data has become available to comfort the scientific communities of some other countries. And the vindication that elements of the UK media have been on their knees for over a period of weeks now.

Notably the recommendations for the Pfizer vaccine are unchanged and 12 weeks remains an “up to” figure. I’m sure they’ll be watching closely as the devolved nations have clearly diverged on their policies with England lagging behind on second doses at 13%, NI and Scotland at around 25% and Wales over 60% of those issued yesterday. All following the same science too.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Obviously, not a great situation for anyone. Would be interesting to know what Australia's contract says and when it was signed.
https://www.ft.com/content/bed655ac-...d-b015284798c8

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Switzerland and the USA aren’t in the EU, and Canada only approved it last week...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

So why weren’t the USA, Switzerland, and Canada "vindictive countries which put lives at risk"?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

And you are just being selective in your ire - you suffer from confirmation bias if the EU does something wrong, but if other countries do the same thing, you just ignore it/shrug it off.. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not sure AstraZeneca would be allowed to slow the UK vaccination programme down by exporting vaccinations from the UK right now. In the future, yes.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:35 ----------

The EMA approved it.

What's held it back is sovereign EU countries placing more restrictions on its use. Furthermotre countries like France are traditionally more vaccine-averse than the UK. Plus AstraZeneca is not an experienced vaccine manufacturer (unlike say Merck) so made a few submission mistakes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Australia should be coming online with home grown AZ vaccine soon. It's going to made at CSL near Melbourne. Here's a really nice article on how the vaccine is made - https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/...uring/13140104

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think more on the lines of the UK government allowing the sending of vaccine doses to replace those the Italians are blocking.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no spare AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK to send outside the country. It's all committed to our vaccination programme. Export it and the UK vaccination programme slows down.

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Neat article.
The home-grown manufacturing probably explains in part Australia's muted reaction to Italy's export ban.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, the EU based factories making the AZ vaccine cannot produce enough to meet demand, they can go whistle for UK produced vaccine. Australia based factories making the AZ vaccine cannot produce enough to meet demand, fill your boots...

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Perfidious ****, disreputed, gobshites, vindictive, drop of a hat, pig headed, self righteous, pompous, etc., etc."

Let the emotive vitriolic diatribes begin! :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not me though i don't want it.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do we now campaign for the USA to approve the AZ vaccine or are they allowed to continue clinical trials?

Re: Coronavirus
 

What makes you think the comment was about you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're great value, I'll give you that. :D

Personally I don't care whether the German or the French governments approve of the AstraZeneca vaccine or not, except in the sense that it's mildly entertaining watching them sabotage their own vaccination programmes even as they desperately try to big up European endeavour post-Brexit. Whether or not individual national medicines agencies have acted truly without political interference is neither here nor there. The politically-inspired messaging that followed those decisions in certain key EU member states is the reason they are having vaccine uptake problems now.

Over in the USA, the FDA is being famously slow. It is well known for shredding conclusions offered to them by drug companies, going back to the raw data, examining it closely and forming conclusions of its own from scratch. This takes time. Are they prioritising domestic vaccine producers as well? Probably. Do I care ... no.

Italy's export refusal is the more interesting development this week. For my money that is more likely to have a long-term effect on levels of trust between nations, although I also note Australia doesn't seem enormously concerned. This is most likely due to their low infection rates and the fact that domestic production of AZ is about to begin.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Several months ago I joked (sort of) that we're only a few steps away from men in long leather trench coats and wire rimmed spectacles stopping you and demanding to see your "papers"

Well we just took another step closer.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...-fine-12236847

Re: Coronavirus
 

I dont think checking you have a valid reason is unreasonable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not good politics as there's no extra capacity in the UK, so the UK vaccinations would fall behind. The electorate of Australia might be happy but the electorate of the UK wouldn't be.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They'll be asking for passports and visas to travel abroad next...;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did not expect to see this, would have expected UK Covid 19 death rate to be on the decline now.
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...1#post36073221

Re: Coronavirus
 

That graph was made up to 9 January, ie 8 weeks ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah - makes sense.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Will be interesting to note the divergence between vaccinated groups and unvaccinated groups when they update it.

---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------

+1.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not checking though is it. Checking is asking you at the check in desk whether you packed your own bag, or whether you have banned substances in your carry on. Checking would be at the same time asking if you have a valid reason for travel and you replying yes I'm off to Frankfurt fir a business meeting. That's checking.

This is making you carry around a document authorising you to travel. This is the government saying we don't trust any of you, you must explain why you are travelling in writing and if you don't we'll fine you, oh and yes don't worry you do live in a free society.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------

and now you need permission from the state too!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Isn't that what a visa is?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here's the latest from the ONS.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1614967337

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thanks :tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

No.

A visa is issued by the destination state usually describing the terms of your visit. The U.K. Gov doesn’t issue a visa for me to visit India, the Government does.

The U.K. government issues me with a Passport and I make my own decision on where to go and when, within the boundaries of the law.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D you're one of the good guys, Seph.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would imagine most people travelling from the UK would need to have documentation showing their trip is necessary anyway. Certainly my work colleagues need it to travel across Europe and come back without quarantine/self isolation. They have to fill in an online form to get a letter from our work so it's just one more form to fill out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Looks like the US's lengthy process in approving the AstraZeneca vaccine could work to the advantage of the EU. They're in talks to permit supplies of the AstraZeneca vaccine to be exported from the US. A bit cheeky considering the EU was happy to let Italy bloc exports to Australia. ;)
https://www.ft.com/content/e4aaf7a8-...9-4cd069a9dbf2

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fans of a football club in glasgow prove themselves to be selfish, thick and complete assholes :td:

You really hope they all get covid and suffer. :mad:

IDIOTS

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's happened to both of the big clubs in Glasgow recently, you also seem to forget that Liverpool fans did exactly this last season when they won the EPL, did you post a comment about that? Just asking.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Should we and other countries vaccinate those in poor countries? None of us is safe until we are all safe, unless we completely close our borders.

An interesting question posed by this mornings Hardtalk programme:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000t3l0

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do these people go around with their heads in the sand? Have they never heard of COVAX and the WHO?

Published 19th Feb
Also

https://www.who.int/news/item/19-02-...ccines-in-2021

Re: Coronavirus
 

Being outside reduces the likelyhood of any spread.

I see they always trot out the "lives at risk" excuse (when it suits) - its a very small risk, and one we have been happy to accept in previous years without blinking.

Also, strange how all those BLM [and other] protests last year were not condemmed the same way ....

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s not really “an interesting question” - it shouldn’t be a question at all. Hundreds of billions is put forward globally as international aid. It’d be quite a poor method of spending it to allow a global pandemic to rage in developing nations.