Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36080091)

All out of date stuff apparently, because all the scare stories surrounding the vaccines meant nobody wanted the jab.

What a waste eh

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36080087)

I'm gonna start bottling mine and dump it in Hull :D

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36080150)

Oh bugger. It looks like that Indian variant isn't more transmissable as they thought.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...re-flattening-

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080151)

My bold.

Pantsdown hasn’t actually said anything of any note here. And even what he did say did not necessarily relate to the spin in the article.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36080150)

Oh bugger. It looks like that Indian variant isn't more transmissable as they thought.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...re-flattening-

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36080152)

Actually the prof’s verbosity seemed to me to be a painfully self conscious attempt to avoid being tarred a racist. Nobody wants to stick their head above the parapet and suggest that the Indian variant is doing so well because it has a foothold amongst large extended households that are simultaneously less willing to adhere to the public health advice and more likely to refuse to book their vaccination appointment. It’s less awkward to assume its rapid spread is entirely down to its enhanced transmissibility until data makes that assumption untenable.

Anyway, time will tell.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36080154)

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36080157)

No, Chris is right in what he's said and nobody publically want's to say it out of fear of being accused of raciam.
It is being spread in the communities who have not been following guidelines and have not taken up vaccination. The media are however spinning it as deprived areas rather than uneducated ones.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36080157)

No, Chris is right in what he's said and nobody publically want's to say it out of fear of being accused of raciam.
It is being spread in the communities who have not been following guidelines and have not taken up vaccination. The media are however spinning it as deprived areas rather than uneducated ones.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36080073)

It is for those already employed as making vaccination mandatory would be a change of contract. That would open the door for discrimination claims if sacked for not being vaccinated. It would be a minefield unless the Gov made vaccinations compulsory but I doubt that would happen or if necessary cinsidering the success of the roll out so far, notwithstanding the resistance of certain communities so far.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36080160)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36080179)

Once the vaccines have been tweaked a Punjab in the arm will sort it out ;)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080071)

They won't stay flat by themselves.

If you want to make the claim the Government won't introduce some kind of Covid certification for domestic events then knock yourself out. We can add it to the list once you are proven wrong.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080071)

He is.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36080221)

I’m posing the question. The government says it’s being guided by the figures. I am pointing out that hospital admissions are flat. Why? The vaccines.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080226)

Or the fact people don't get hospitalised immediately upon testing positive



It helps to pay attention and play the ball, not the man.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080226)

Or the fact people don't get hospitalised immediately upon testing positive

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080226)

It helps to pay attention and play the ball, not the man.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36080250)

Nor will they if they are vaccinated. Something you don’t appear to have grasped. Glad to have been of help.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080252)

People who have been vaccinated are in hospital with Covid. Clearly you have not been paying attention to Mr Hancock.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36080268)

are they? How many? What Vaccine? What are your information sources?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36080268)

are they? How many? What Vaccine? What are your information sources?

Doesn’t make what he said incorrect?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nor will they if they are vaccinated.

Originally Posted by jfman

Or the fact people don't get hospitalised immediately upon testing positive

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080275)

Matt Hancock confirmed a number late last week.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36080274)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36080280)

That you appear not to know?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36080280)

That you appear not to know?

well you haven’t offered the evidence of that so percentage wise.......I’m struggling to assign a weighting.



The vaccines (pretty much all of them) so far, have been proven to reduce serious symptoms and hospitalisation by the high 90% ages.

If you want to disprove OB’s statement by stating just 1no. Exception disproves the rule.........well that is a bit ****, is it not?





---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:34 ----------



5? I’m literally shitting myself.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36080298)

All of them had also only had their first dose, not both.

Also, no information on when they had that dose - it takes time to have any effect.

Not to mention of course that everyone is different, some peoples immune system is natually weak anyway.

Again, no information on the five, are they old, young, got other conditions, mildly ill, seriously ill ........ at least they did mention the 6th was "frail".

Originally Posted by Guardian

'Nothing in data' to suggest England will deviate from 21 June plan to lift restrictions, says PM

Boris Johnson has said he has not seen any signs that he will have to “deviate” from his plans to scrap all coronavirus restrictions in England by next month, with no intention for so-called vaccine passports to be required to gain entry to pubs.

PA reports:

Speaking to broadcasters in Portsmouth on Friday, the UK prime minister said: “We will be letting everybody know exactly what sort of arrangements to expect for June 21.

“But what I can tell you, and just to stress that I am still seeing nothing in the data that leads me to think that we’re going to have to deviate from the road map - obviously we must remain cautious but I’m seeing nothing that makes me think we have to deviate.

“But on June 21 and vaccine certification - or Covid status certification I should say - people should bear in mind that I don’t see any prospect of certificates to go into pubs or anything else.”

Pressed on whether the public will continue to be asked to wear masks, Johnson replied: “We will let people know as much as we possibly can by the end of the month about weddings, for instance.

“All the details we’ll try and let people know by the end of the month about exactly where we think we’ll be on June 21, Step 4.”

Originally Posted by gov.uk

Step 4 - not before 21 June
Social contact
By Step 4 which will take place no earlier than 21 June, the government hopes to be in a position to remove all legal limits on social contact.

Business, activities and events
We hope to reopen remaining premises, including nightclubs, and ease the restrictions on large events and performances that apply in Step 3. This will be subject to the results of a scientific Events Research Programme to test the outcome of certain pilot events through the spring and summer, where we will trial the use of testing and other techniques to cut the risk of infection. The same Events Research Programme will guide decisions on whether all limits can be removed on weddings and other life events.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36080280)

At a straightforward level a single patient proves OB wrong. We do know it is more than that.

.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36080346)

There is this rather than the normal doom & gloom.



https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...ys-2021-05-20/

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36080351)

Yes, just like if only one linear channel remains in 2035, that proves you right.

What a strange way it is that you look at things. A kind of Donald Trump mentality, where you can never be wrong and you take an extreme position to be able to say you were right.

There’s really no point in having a discussion if you are going to indulge in that degree of pedantry.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36080362)

Just because somebody has been vaccinated doesn't mean they can't carry the virus and test positive for it. It's question of whether they get to the stage of being able to transmit it to others.
How else could the immune system be expected to deal with a reinfection, if the virus wasn't in the blood stream? Immunity doesn't produce an invisible force field which the virus cannot penetrate.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36080346)

There is this rather than the normal doom & gloom.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36080364)

So what you're saying is we should all still be sensible/careful.
Makes sense to me, problem is there a large amount of f*wits about. A lot of them jetted off abroad, headed to the boozer as soon as they could. We'll never be fully of rid of this as we're too stupid, and the Govt too weak.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36080408)

Hasn't two jabs always been shown to provide better protection than one?

Yet another non story involving data, statistics and experts :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36080410)

It wasn’t known if it was the same with variants - good science means you check and confirm when something changes, for consistency of results.

In this case, it showed that while the vaccine is still effective against the new variant, it’s not as effective.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36080413)

The Johnson & Johnson one is a single dose vaccine.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36080408)

Hasn't two jabs always been shown to provide better protection than one?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36080413)

The Johnson & Johnson one is a single dose vaccine.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36080417)

Yes, but in this case the protection from one dose is a lot lower than that from two, which wasn't the case in the original trials. It would explain the sudden rush to give second doses to the over-50s.

"This suggests a single shot offers 35 per cent less protection against B.1.617.2 compared with B.1.1.7, according to Financial Times analysis"



Though not as effective as the leading two-dose vaccines. J&J are now running a two-dose trial:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...acker.html#jnj

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36080421)

Again, point missed. From Andrews post:-

New UK government research suggests two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine are needed to provide strong protection against symptomatic infection from the coronavirus variant first identified in India, according to two people briefed on the preliminary data.

. . which has always been the case (apart from J&J)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080456)

More figures for the AstraZeneca bingo card. 50% after one dose vs Kent - not sure PHE were pushing that figure in February.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080456)

More figures for the AstraZeneca bingo card. 50% after one dose vs Kent - not sure PHE were pushing that figure in February.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080467)

I’m aware that this data set wasn’t available then, however there were no shortage of attempts at providing good news stories. Some purporting to show efficacy figures in the 70s and higher after one dose during February and March that I was naturally cynical about.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36080448)

The protection afforded by a single dose of either Pfizer or Astra is sufficiently low, in the case of the Indian variant, that the calculus has changed. It is no longer advantageous to get as many people as possible single-dosed - it’s important to get the second dose into people quickly. Some emerging data here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57214596

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080467)

I’m aware that this data set wasn’t available then, however there were no shortage of attempts at providing good news stories. Some purporting to show efficacy figures in the 70s and higher after one dose during February and March that I was naturally cynical about.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36080578)

Seemingly on the back of Cummings' leaks, the press have been highlighting that the government did indeed have a herd immunity policy, which it is now denying the existence of.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1396794521946570752



https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/...-robert-peston

---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:35 ----------

Another key person struggling with the Government's denial. This time the FT's chief leader writer.


https://twitter.com/henrymance/statu...18043682779138

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36080596)

It really was the plan and there is news video to prove it. Early on, that did seem to be the way to go, but when numbers started increasing rapidly and they worked out how this would impact on the NHS, there was a quick reversal of that policy.

Incidentally, the PM was following the advice he had received at the time.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080597)

Those pesky scientists/civil servants.

I bet the bold Dom doesn't present it like that on Wednesday. I might watch it live with some popcorn.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36080603)

So after declaring Cummins a liar and untrustworthy charlatan, you're willing to believe anything he says against Boris and the covid plan.:shrug:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36080603)

So after declaring Cummins a liar and untrustworthy charlatan, you're willing to believe anything he says against Boris and the covid plan.:shrug:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36080578)

Seemingly on the back of Cummings' leaks, the press have been highlighting that the government did indeed have a herd immunity policy, which it is now denying the existence of.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36080617)

According to the Telegraph today:

‘On March 13 last year – ten days before Britain entered lockdown – Sir Patrick Vallance appeared on the Radio 4 Today programme to explain the Government strategy.

It was, he said, “to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not to suppress it completely. Also because most people, the vast majority of people get a mild illness – to build up some degree of herd immunity as well – so that more people are immune to this disease, and we reduce the transmission. At the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable from it; those are the key things we need to do”.’

I can’t understand the denials either. Remember, there were no vaccines, nor any certainty of getting any at that time. The speed at which infections increased was not expected.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080619)

Comedy gold OB.

"Not expected". The list of countries locking down, closing schools etc by this point was already extensive.

We were sitting playing the "multi generational households" card. British exceptionalism at its best.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36080611)

When did Andrew describe him in that way?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36080625)

For whatever reason, the scientists thought their strategy would work. Remember, you cannot defeat the virus by lockdowns alone - they only delay the spread. Clearly, they thought hospital admissions could be controlled by protecting those who were susceptible. That may have been the case, but of course they did not protect the vulnerable and allowed infections in care homes get totally out of control. This is where about half the deaths were recorded.

By the way, I am surprised that you find this funny. The scientists were doing their best and so were government ministers in this unprecedented situation. But of course, you are cleverly using your powers of hindsight to vent all your armchair criticisms. You've stolen Sir Kier's clothes.

Tell me, if you had all the answers at the time, and not knowing that we would get vaccines to help us achieve herd immunity, what would your plan have been to release people from lockdown at the end of this incarceration? Where did you think the virus would go, and when?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080631)

I find it absolutely hilarious Old Boy. Consistently wrong throughout but deciding that the Government are infallible and it's only the scientists who are to blame.

.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36080632)

I'm not 'blaming' anyone. This was an unprecedented situation and everyone was doing thdir best to work out a solution. However, it is absolutely appropriate to point out that the government was responding to medical advice. This is something that for some inexplicable reason you fail to acknowledge.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080631)

You're also asking me to hypothesise for a reality that doesn't exist. Which I will not do. There are plenty of countries managing the situation better than we were without vaccines - both in economic terms and public health terms.

Originally Posted by jfman;36080633[B

]Yet ignored alternative options[/B]. Which is the purpose of Ministers - to make decisions.t

I see no reason to allow my mind to descend into your fantasy where hapless politicians sit there and get scientists to tell them what to do. Ministers ask questions, set expectations, and that drives the analysis provided. This is a two way street not the one way street you portray.

As I say, one needn't have had to look far to see alternatives to keeping the economy open and pretending we would be different.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36080642)

And what does the benefit of hindsight show?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36080627)

Obviously I didn't, Papa's just playing to the cheap seats. ;)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36080638)

OB I can safely say that you've explained nothing to me in the hundreds of posts you've made on this subject.

Your fantasy reality in which nobody is working towards vaccines is no reality at all.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36080651)

Not heard that one before - I’ve heard "economical with the actualité", "Terminological inexactitude", "telling porkies", as euphemisms for mendacity, but not that one…

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36080659)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36080662)

Playing to the less discerning elements of the gallery who do not mind mendacious comments. ;)

<SNIP>

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36080656)

Blatant evasion of the question.

Best to move on, I guess. Position noted.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36080737)

The show is starting early! This from Robert Peston

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-05-25/...g-80-year-olds

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36080740)

But who can believe a word he says, he's the swine who won the brexit vote with his lies, ignored lockdown, drove to barnard castle for an eye test, sat in the garden at no 10 and lied to the press....., the untrustworthy swine :td:
in fact he could get a job as a bbc journalist he's that dishonest.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36080740)

But who can believe a word he says, he's the swine who won the brexit vote with his lies, ignored lockdown, drove to barnard castle for an eye test, sat in the garden at no 10 and lied to the press....., the untrustworthy swine :td:
in fact he could get a job as a bbc journalist he's that dishonest.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36080740)

But who can believe a word he says, he's the swine who won the brexit vote with his lies, ignored lockdown, drove to barnard castle for an eye test, sat in the garden at no 10 and lied to the press....., the untrustworthy swine :td:
in fact he could get a job as a bbc journalist he's that dishonest.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36080744)

Yep, strange how people can alter their perception of people once they 'join the other side'.

All the moaning and complaining when the idiot Cummings ignored all the (his) rules and drove up north . . then told lies about an eye test that even Stevie Wonder could see through. He was a villain then but now suddenly is the saviour of the anti government lot.

Kicked out by Boris - something most on here advocated for - and now after some payback. As trustworthy as Tony Blair :D

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36080762)

I wonder if said documentation includes all advice he gave to Boris (and other Govt. Depts) and if that advice was followed?

If the advice was followed, then Cummings is, by default, partly to blame for any Covid failures.

If the advice wasn't followed, why didn't he shout about it much earlier?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36080765)

I spent a couple of years as a contractor working for civil servants. You might be surprised (or not) how many non-trivial conversations take place during entirely coincidental passing encounters on the staircase or other side corridors.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36080768)

For some people, my enemy's enemy is my friend, plain and simple. Their hatred of Cummings is merely derived from their hatred of Boris, who hired him. If Cummings is going to take a pop at Boris they're therefore happy to go along with it, because his is the scalp they really want.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36080771)

Dom has seen the light, and turned back from the forces of darkness. Granted its taken him getting sacked to do that, but better late than never.

What is amusing is those that were defending his Barnard trip at the time, now saying what a porky pie teller he is. If he is such a fibber what does that say about his 'Leave' campaign ?