Re: Coronavirus
 

You could be on to something there! In fairness, the JCVI does look beyond simple clinical need.

Pfizer are ramping up and bringing in house supply of their vaccines which is good news - https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ring-1.4581419

Re: Coronavirus
 

The evidence is that a single Pfizer dose is very effective in this age group, and that a second dose presents a risk of complications (enlarged heart muscle being the principal concern). As always it’s a matter of balancing risk and reward.

You’re starting to sound a bit deranged though. Maybe go out for a walk in the fresh air?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bet we give second doses once (if?) we have supply. Probably at a magical 22 weeks when some DHSC funded dubious research describes as “optimal”.

Time will tell. However no doubt the risk and reward balance will have shifted so they are still always right.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58091693

It’s almost comedy gold to see the mental gymnastics required to cover the supply side issues.

A very pertinent question. The MHRA have described it as “safe and effective” so which is it?

Maybe if Andy’s vaccine had higher efficacy we’d have hit the herd immunity threshold by now and not be relying on topping it up with millions of infections?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The comedy gold lies in watching someone who styles himself “architect of ideas” peddling conspiracy theories that would make QAnon blush.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I fail to see that stating our vaccination campaign has been restricted by limited supplies of vaccines (and in particular mRNA vaccines) as a conspiracy theory.

The creative studies to produce wildly varying efficacy figures, after one and two doses and on the basis of multiple different dosing schedules are testimony to that. Similarly the horror at our European neighbours identifying risks associated with the Oxford vaccine to ourselves restrict it’s use (conveniently once we had additional supplies of mRNA vaccines).

There’s two possible reasons - one that the science is being manufactured to produce evidence in favour of the Government position based on supplies at the time or the second being sheer luck.

I think unfortunately you’ve been so heavily invested in your position that you cannot consider any alternatives than British exceptionalism.

At this rate OB will never get the millions he needs from under the stairs with no clear route to herd immunity through vaccination and nobody volunteering for natural infection, and indeed natural infection after vaccination.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I thought we were going into lockdown in September...:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I find it amusing that you back the scientists to the hilt when they appear to be at odds with the government, but then you trash them when it suits you.

Why are you always just spoiling for an argument? It’s impossible to have a sensible discussion with you.

---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

I think jfman’s emergency provisions including his year-long supply of loo rolls might have been a slight over-reaction.

Now I must get back to organising our grand Christmas party - with no masks in sight and an abundance of hugs!!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who stated that?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly who you’d expect to have stated it. ;)

On 5 July.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not me, I think I said August ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I’m sure you’d agree that science has offered many differing contradictory opinions - it’s impossible to agree with them all. However what is a realistic position to take when considering credibility is who is funding them, why and what other countries leading scientists do. The FDA are expected to shortly announce vaccines for those aged 5-12 whereas we are announcing plans for mass infections to supplement vaccine induced immunity.

As I’ve said before I don’t do British exceptionalism. If other countries are reintroducing masks and maintaining measures with higher coverage of greater efficacy vaccines then I’d bet against us being exceptional every single time.

As ever with the personal remarks and digs. I think you’ll find rarely (if ever) do I refer to my personal perspective instead I consider the pandemic at a population level.

---------- Post added at 09:50 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

It remains the emergency brake. If, and when, it’s deployed depends on a large number of factors.

I’ve linked in recent days to articles with night club owners bemoaning having to cancel events and the evidence suggesting no mass return to offices. Personal responsibility has people self selecting their way out of the economy and Old Boy’s wet dream of a return to a 2019 economy is nowhere to be seen. Schools closing appears to have offered some breathing space in the system. But that won’t last forever.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Isn't that what science is? The very reason why statements such as "the science" are contradictory, there is no such thing as "the science". The truth is derived by continually testing the method and comparing results.




Also

and

in the same post........you're the gift that keeps giving, the whole year through

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody is disputing that, but it’s an assumption to believe they are all acting in good faith and not in their financial interests. See Monsanto, big tobacco, the Nazis, etc.

Old Boy’s flawed view that the economy will recover in an era of “personal responsibility” are well documented. The number of toilet rolls I own is speculative bullshit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Considering the amount of bullshit you come out with a years supply would seem reasonable.:D:D:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: England's R number estimate falls to between 0.8 and 1.1

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...study-12374160