Re: Coronavirus
 

I’ve not seen the data but I’d assume a similar reduction in transmissibility as for adults, which IIRC is around 60%. That’s a worthwhile benefit to the population at large, although the CMOs are stressing that it’s the benefit to the individual that’s key to the decision - which is why, if one is following the science and not a gibbering conspiracy nut, you can see the efficacy versus side-effects data support the single dose strategy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That really depends on what you are actually asking.

You have Cases & Outbreaks, and if they become large enough within a country, its becomes an Epidemic. A Pandemic is an Epidemic that speads across multiple countries.

Since covid is still affecting pretty much every country, then the 'Pandemic' is obviously not over, and wont be for a long time.

Of course 'large' is ambiguous - in England its currently just over 20,000 per day, which sounds a lot, but is a very small amount of the total population (about 0.04% ish).

Most of those cases are minor, not requiring any hospital treatment (96%).
Its no longer a major issue in England, which is why most restrictions have gone away.

Life around here has largely returned to normal.

---------- Post added at 04:30 ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 ----------

A side effect of many illnesses can include death, such a statement is just dramatic nonsense.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, that's over the whole year, and obviously includes the period when we were in a wave, with a largely unvaccinated population.

By July 2021, the latest figures shown, Covid was down to the ninth leading cause of death. If we can get something like 95% of the population vaccinated, the number of deaths will be much lower, but frankly, we can already see very clearly the direction in which this is going.

I do think it is important that we roll out the boosters to the over-50s, though, and this should seal our success in tackling this virus in the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As I’ve said before it’s funny how the UK comes up with a different risks/rewards analysis from the rest of the world if there isn’t a problem with supplies of the Pfizer vaccine.

The reality is we are working on the assumption that the vast majority of kids will have had Covid by the time second doses would be given.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, without a doubt, things are going in the right direction. The big question is at what point do we say 'that's enough, we're all good now'? 969 people died of COVID is July, is this acceptable but can we go further, get better here? Is 500 acceptable, 250 OK?

Those 969 deaths are 969 tragedies for the families involved. I would doubt that they would take much solace in the fact more people died of cancer

Re: Coronavirus
 

Heaven forbid we use complete statistics.

That crystal ball must be on all day.

So vaccinating 95% of the population isn’t the answer then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It was in the context of the statement that catching the disease gave (allegedly) better protection than inoculation - I was pointing out one of the downsides of that approach.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s also inversely related to actuality … you get a stronger immune response from the vaccine than from the virus itself. Though there is some evidence that vaccination followed by exposure in the wild produces an even better immune response.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Snippets of to-days announcement. Booster shots.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...-jabs-12406982

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ----------

Other areas which have been covered to-day are all being reported in the following live link.

Quite afew topics including vaccinations for 12 - 15 year olds, social distancing, masks. Testing, tracing and self-isolation support to continue, treatments, Consultation on vaccination of NHS staff. and .... Meeting outdoors and masks recommended to 'keep seasonal illnesses at bay'

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...veals-21565302

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you get a booster if you don't fall into those categories but have good reason?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I expect we will get more clarification in the next couple of days. I guess it will also depend on whether your good reason is one that is accepted it seems as though they are closely following the original roll out criteria.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm starting to think you can have mine mate . . .

There are no 'proper' pubs to go to, the local library is closed, I don't do cinemas or night clubs, I rarely get to a football game anymore (distance + cost), I won't be going on holiday anytime in the next 6 months, and 'restaurants' seem to be populated by families with screaming kids or people with mobiles grafted onto their hands.

I'll just sit here staring out of the window at the lawn, and wishing it would grow so I can mow it :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Crikey, that sounds a bit grim especially as the libraries near me are all back to normal. Surely there must be a decent boozer near you, if nothing else?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are some great boozers in Scunthorpe the trick is leaving alive;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

All the drinking establishments within walking distance (or staggering distance depending if going or coming) have reverted to selling food . . or have been demolished and are now 'affordable' housing of the rabbit hutch variety.

Venues that have live music are also scarce . . . and have crap bands on anyway :D

Nah I'm just an old fart that misses the things he used to enjoy before they became unfashionable . . or unsociable . . or unhealthy . . or something ;)


edit:

I can get out alive no problem, it's paying for the taxi there and back that pisses me off 'sigh'