Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody is stopping the terminally paranoid from staying in the cupboard under the stairs for the rest of their lives. The rest of us will be glad to get back to some form of normality and get rid of those horrible masks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Precisely.

This isn’t what Pierre is portraying with his unsubstantiated 90% efficacy claim - even AstraZeneca’s own papers to the FDA put the efficacy against infection figure lower based on the original variants. More infections = more hospitalisations = more deaths even if efficacy against those is higher. You are still dealing with a proportion of a much larger number on the latter two as a result of the first. Less than before but there’s enough in there for a bad winter ahead if we arbitrarily abandon all mitigations.


---------- Post added at 10:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------

In fairness OB you’ve not been debating since the start. You’ve only been clutching at straws.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 ----------

Unfortunately masks is the easy one. Costs nothing.

Distancing does reduce capacity at venues having an economic impact. Masks don’t. What the Government does have is this carefully crafted “legal requirements” which allows them to keep masks in guidance but not regulations.

If people don’t want these things to creep back in later they need to continue with them for now. If we are asking people to exercise “good judgement” then my point above about the numbers of infections is key. Good judgement when there’s a few hundred cases a day and you’re extremely unlikely to encounter anyone with the virus is different from where statistically the chances of encountering someone are much higher. A commuter train is now statistically likely to have a number of active cases on it on average. In an air conditioned tin can. A rational commuter wouldn’t commute given the choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The majority of those testing positive appears to be age groups that haven't had even one vaccination yet.

Hence the open-doors walk-in centres that have been opened.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Efficacy against infection is an irrelevance, efficacy against serious illness, hospitalisation and death is what matters and the vaccines are 90+% effective against that metric.

Also not “unsubstantiated” you have a short memory

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=5957

Rejoice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your decision to describe it as an irrelevance does not make it so. Indeed, you have thought much is irrelevant since the start so forgive me if I doubt your scientific or intellectual vigor in relation to this subject.

My memory is not short - you are simply misrepresenting facts to suit your own agenda. Anyone can freely read the source you have linked to. You have quoted efficacy against hospitalisations, not infections. If more people get infected, more people will get hospitalised by comparison to a highly effective vaccine that prevents both.

I personally wouldn’t be rejoicing if I were you, as you’ve been disappointed before.

Seph’s question on transmission is also pertinent to how and when we get out of the pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well yes, Seph, however for them it’s been ideological from the start against state intervention. Regardless of the question the answer has always been no restrictions then a flimsy evidence gather to justify it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Like these ones?

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n888

Rejoice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know that doesn’t compare against the delta variant. And doesn’t count the AstraZeneca vaccine.

It’s somewhat ironic I accuse you of misrepresenting facts then you misrepresent facts in a clear and obvious manner. So I do thank you for providing context in that regard. It saves me making the effort.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Facts are facts, by the very definition of that I cannot mis-represent them. They are what they are, objective irrefutable facts.

You, however, can mis-interpret them. That’s subjective. Which you do, pretty much all the time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anyone can see that those figures do not present efficacy against infection, which as you say is an objective fact.

You almost acknowledged the difference above.

So to that end realise that efficacy against infection is not 90%+, but you don’t think it matters anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, that and it being a study in the United States (so not against Delta) and without the AstraZeneca vaccine involved at all.

PHE figures are 88% for Pfizer and 60% AstraZeneca (2 doses) against the delta variant. Which is the real world situation on the ground in the UK. This drop is what’s pushed the UK further from the herd immunity threshold than it expected to be. The choice is between making the effort to plug the gap or not bother at all. Now we know some would have chosen option 2 regardless.

Re: Coronavirus