Re: Coronavirus
 

Kids can spread Covid amongst themselves and their parents can still go to work. This will go well I am certain of it.

It’s almost as if there’s more money for hedge funds to make while the economy flounders in the next lockdown. What did Mogg’s mob say? Once in a generation opportunity? Now twice in two years.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It will, because their parents are vaccinated and the people they work with are vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, the vaccinated will catch Covid in significant numbers and self isolate.

For businesses forced to close as a result of inevitable Covid outbreaks do you support financial support schemes for them and their workers? I didn’t catch you or OB responding to my question the last time so apologies if I missed it. After all we do want the economy to recover, don’t we?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doesn't completely prevent the transmission of the virus, won't stop all serious illness or death due to Covid. As per my earlier post, we have now modelling data to suggest what will happen once the band aid has been ripped off the wound.

Every serious hospitalization or death is someone's loved one

I kind of agree with what you're saying in this instance, but I think you're being incredibly blase in the way you're saying it. Almost sociopathic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're both on the road to constant lock down . . one hopes you don't run out of fuel and end up thumbing a lift :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Britain is on the road to lock down. I'm trying to tell everyone how to avoid it.

There's no magic return to 2019.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not at all, I recognise that we're through the most dangerous part of the pandemic (so far) and that we need to now get the country going.

The difference being i think we should act with a degree more caution than we are doing. Boris last night to me acted like it's all or nothing when it's not a binary choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why will there be covid outbreaks, if the vast, vast majority of people are vaccinated and stay vaccinated?

---------- Post added at 16:10 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

As already answered it is less than 10% of an already small number.

---------- Post added at 16:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

If that doesn't work out you can always hold a sign for a "golf sale"

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’ll never stop the argument, Pierre. I don’t know whether they seriously do take this stance or are just spoiling for an argument. Even the government’s scientific advisors recognise that the benefits of ending the restrictions now outweigh the disbenefits, and that it is better to do it now rather than in the autumn.

I wonder why these same people are not campaigning to have men and women with red flags walking ahead of every car on the road, given the number of accidents causing death or serious injury each year on the roads.

In the UK, the number stands at 26,610 killed or seriously injured. I don’t hear those same people bleating on about that. We tolerate it because we need to get about and live our lives.

I can only think that the lockdown enthusiasts are on furlough or otherwise lead very boring lives.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you are really referring to Scotland, not Britain. Little Jimmy Crankie is doing such a wonderful job.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57712737

Re: Coronavirus
 

660,000 is not a small number…

And the 1% referred to infection fatality rate, not infection fatality & hospitalisation rate…

Re: Coronavirus
 

They get infected. Infected leading to varying outcomes including death.

All that’s happened is we have nudged the dial on these numbers. However as Hugh points out across the entire population that can still be a considerable number.

However in fairness you didn’t believe the original figures were enough to merit restrictions or lockdowns therefore it’s improbable that you’d reach a different, evidence based, conclusion this time.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------

Exponential growth means they’ll catch up soon enough without mitigations.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

Coming from the man who has offered the worst input consistently throughout the pandemic. You must be really bored to go out your way to come back with wholly inaccurate and speculative retorts so frequently. It’s ironic you accuse others of “spoiling for an argument” when nobody - anywhere in the thread - is advocating a lockdown.

What I’m assuring you is that it’s absolutely inevitable without any other mitigations in place to prevent the spread of the virus. As it always has been.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1% is a small number.

0.19% of total population have died from Covid in total

0.25% die from cancer every year (and that will increase on this year as cancer sufferers have been sacrificed due to Covid)

of the "known" infections 4.93 million 128K have died, that's a mortality rate of 2.6% (and that's a bottom end estimate as there will have been millions infected and not tested. You could probably half that easily and more.)

367K get cancer every year and 166K die. that's a mortality rate of 45%.

I know what I would be scared of getting.

No matter what way you try to carve it up. COVID still is a relatively mild infection, that still mainly affected the elderly and those with co-morbidities and kills a very small % of those it infects, and now with Vaccines offering 90%, and other anti-viral and anti-inflammatory treatments that are available the chances of very serious illness and death is low, in fact they're at rates as low as the "flu" yes, I said it again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You put this one best yourself when you described your privileged position, Pierre. You’ve been unaffected by restrictions.

Fortunate indeed, but as the restrictions are to protect people from “at risk” situations then it’s clear they aren’t designed to protect people like you. While it’s perfectly rational for you to have concern for medical conditions that aren’t contagious (e.g. cancer) not everyone is in that situation. It’s also a bad way to manage public health at a population level.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also including "not death" & "not getting ill" & "getting slightly ill" & "getting seriously ill" and several other states in between before, in a fully vaccinated population, you get to the very small number of people that may die, which in great scheme of things probably wouldn't even make the UK mortality top 20.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...auses-of-death

It certainly didn't make the top 10 in England & Wales last month.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The hospitalisation rate is starting to looking concerning. 38% in a week. That's from a low number but we can't afford for it to increase at that rate at all.

If you look at the official dashboard it's starting to show a steep incline: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

Re: Coronavirus
 

In a fully vaccinated population, what and where are the "at risk" situations?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which fully vaccinated population is this you are hypothesising about?

It’s not here, that’s for sure. I take it you still don’t want mask wearing until then? No? Vaccinating teenagers? No?

Red herring alert.

Re: Coronavirus
 

400 per day on any given week day anything between 50,000 and 60,000 people are admitted to hospital. So at that rate it accounts for 0.7% of admissions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45783005

---------- Post added at 18:02 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

Not counting children as they rarely get seriously ill and will probably been infected and already have antibodies.

As mentioned a few posts ago. 45M have had one jab 86% of the population 34M have had 2 jabs 64% of the population. + the millions that have been infected and recovered and have antibodies.

The nation will be pretty much done in a month or two. Then the booster program starts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Double 400 every 9 days and see where you are in 170 days.

Even if just for entertainment value.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=6293

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:03 ----------

So not a fully vaccinated population then.

No masks for a couple of months then?

Odd given you portray vaccination as success in such a binary fashion that you think the booster programme has any relevance at all. It’s almost as if you’re making it up as you go along as long as it suits a predetermined position you’ve held for 17 months.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We can never have a fully vaccinated country or world. There will also be those who cannot be vaccinated due to health reasons or those who refuse to be. As regards children there is still a risk/benefit study ongoing, until that is completed it would be wrong to offer vaccines to children.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The MHRA have concluded the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective for 12-15 year olds. The JCVI are playing politics with the decision.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...o-15-year-olds

As I noted earlier Pierre’s use of “fully vaccinated” was a red herring. However the clear benefits at an individual and a population level of vaccine maximisation are clear.

Otherwise we just go round and round.

Re: Coronavirus
 

about 104 million?

full vaccinated adult population - there’s no evidence kids need to be vaccinated, unless they have other complications.

no masks from July 19th, I can’t wait.

is it not a success?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty much what I said a few pages ago, which means it will always be here and, as such, will 'allegedly'* mutate into a much more dangerous variant and probably eventually kill us all ;)


*by experts and a few on here

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your ability for double talk is truly breathtaking.

So you agree the vaccination programme is working and a success, and the vaccines are working as they should.

Therefore I can only think you have other reasons for not wanting to open up fully.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not here to answer for your contradictions Pierre. On one hand people being vaccinated is absolute - they are no longer at risk, on the other you are talking up the booster programme that would be unnecessary if your first statement held true.

Fundamentally you’ve misrepresented the risks from outset because of your ideological position against state intervention. And you will continue to do so for months to come.

A mere day after the UK recorded its highest case numbers you were presenting Covid as state scaremongering.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2722

60,000 cases the day before. Within 3 weeks we were averaging 1200 deaths a day (over 7 days).

If you didn’t believe the situation or risks were credible then why should anyone believe you are weighing up the evidence in a genuine or sincere manner now?

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------

A vaccine can simultaneously be of benefit and not completely eliminate risk. At a population level that aggregate benefit rises the more people are vaccinated. I’m not sure how many times you have to be told this.

I can only think you have other reasons for wanting to open up fully regardless (including removing the use of masks) of evident risks. A position you’ve held consistently.

I’ve been clear the risk of too much, too soon, is always lockdown. And we know how much you love those.

Re: Coronavirus
 

given the vaccines are working, but we don’t have any real world data of how long the protection lasts a booster program contingency seems very sensible, unless like you, you are a lover of lockdowns.

I’ve told you, you can’t misrepresent facts only misinterpret them. The are, have been, and always will be low…..for the vast majority of the population, even more so now with vaccines and other treatment.

and by April (Spring) cases were right down again so, yeah I was pretty much correct.

I’m not asking them to, but l’m being objective, which you certainly aren’t.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:22 ----------

Who said anything about “Completely Eliminating” risk. No one ever on the globe about anything ever, has ever suggested such a thing. That in the realm of insanity.

I’m pretty sure that’s what I have been posting these last few pages? In fact it’s been me telling this to you.

Just a small thing called a free society.

Your love of staying in them is clear, is it a fear of freedom or a love of furlough that drives you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s your misguided belief that “all is well” that leads to lockdowns.

You’ve told me, and been consistently incorrect.

Thanks to the emergency brake of lockdown. Not divine intervention or chance.

I’m not quite sure gleefully cheering as variants put tens of thousands to their deaths is objective Pierre to be honest.

Again you’re presenting the situation is binary when it is not.

Alas we are back to you viewing the situation as ideological, regardless of the evidence in front of you.

Telling you that you are wrong offers no insight into my thoughts on lockdown. Neither does their inevitability. However they are inevitable with poor judgement and implementation of other mitigations.

I’d say it’s objective to consider things other than from my personal preference.

As opposed to being unaffected by restrictions, self-proclaimed privileged and deciding everyone else should take risks because I’m bored and ideologically driven. Death isn’t exciting for the dead.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I see jfman has had his bots busy on twitter.:D:D:D

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1625596725

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haha Christmas is a bit far. :D

Distancing I get there’s an economic argument around. Masks less so.

Re: Coronavirus
 

FT makes the point that it's fair enough to end mask-wearing in pubs as people have the choice to enter such premises. But they often don't have the choice on public transport hence a reason for mask-wearing to continue on public transport.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry this is paywalled - it was free on Apple news yesterday on my iPhone but I only skimmed it.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...down-ever-end/


Maybe someone with access can get the more salient quotes out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not paywalled for me but that may be my script blocker kicking in. From your link:

Re: Coronavirus
 

No emotive words/statements there, then...

gilded trappings of lockdown, every movement micromanaged, independent self-direction shrivelled, irresponsible anti-Covid messaging, culture war, freedom lovers, etc.

Who wrote this - Lozza Fox?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The average person sits somewhere in the middle - they want restrictions to ease but not at all costs. The Telegraph making the observation is - without irony - stoking the culture war. Presenting the reality as binary “freedom” versus “terror”. Misrepresenting restrictions as “lockdown”.

However it’s a tried and tested strategy to divide people into two uncompromising camps, allowing Government incompetence to go unchecked. People blame other people for the impact on health (the covid deniers) and the economy (the rationally risk averse who spend less against a backdrop of a public health crisis).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sherelle Jacobs

Re: Coronavirus
 

At least they’ve picked their side in the culture war.

It’s like reading Toby Young last summer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Reading those excerpts of that Telegraph article, you could swap COVID with Brexit very easily...

Get COVID done!
It's all project fear!

I just hope that we don't regret things a few months down the line. Viruses don't really care about bullish optimism

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think author has pretty much nailed it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well some covidiots on my town's FB page have said the threw their mask away early in the year, and fully expect to travel without restrictions even though they have refused to take the vaccine, as they just say Covid-19 is just flu.


They also said stopping them is discrimination

Re: Coronavirus
 

An interesting PMQs ahead!

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...ummer-12350497

Re: Coronavirus
 

Funnily enough her track record is even worse than yours.

Covid is nowhere near as dangerous as our pathological obsession with abolishing risk. 5 November 2020

Where is the Conservative fight back against a statist Covid dystopia. 29 October 2020

Viral second wave fear will send us into another lockdown . 23 July 2020

We risk going over a cliff chasing second wave red herrings. 2 July 2020

Britain has fallen down the rabbit hole of second wave hysteria. 25 June 2020

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 ----------

It’d require Starmer to develop a spine unfortunately.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know it can be hard for anyone to live up to my standards.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Calling the Delta variant the Johnson variant is a good start! ;)
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1412732153234923522

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

A guess then with an unclear definition of “substantial”.

Nobody is presenting masks as a silver bullet. But it’s a tool to be utilised along with everything else if we have a serious intention of keeping the economy open.

I mean the alternative isn’t the best:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...d-coronavirus/

Re: Coronavirus
 

My phone doesn't do the app so I have no need to delete it.:cool:

My local records my name and landline number in their own trace system. As a rule I try to sit outside.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a non-argument. If you want to wear a mask, wear a mask. Wear a Hazmat suit if you want.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------

I've never had the T&T app, whenever I've gone anywhere they just point at the Q-code and I just flash my phone at it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Since the app has been available I have it but only use it if the pub requires it. Then I turn on mobile data, bluetooth and location on my way to the pub scan the Q code on entry and turn them all off when I sit down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

One individual wearing a mask has negligible effect on anything.

It’s only through a collective endeavour it has any meaningful impact. I know, I can just imagine the sick in the back of your throat at that idea.

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Fed up Brits can get fed up in the next lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Governmental diktat?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe people who are paranoid about others not wearing a mask should wear two masks. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Speaking to someone in the events industry and their organisation is a bit annoyed. They wanted BoJo to hang on a bit longer so that they had more certainty for the return of their in-person Winter events.

Now it feels all uncertain again and exhibitors are now rowing back on their earlier enthusiasm after yesterday's news.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps people who don’t seem to understand that masks mainly help prevent those already infected infecting others aren’t in the best position to be making "helpful" comments ?

Wearing a mask is mainly to help others, rather than yourself - is that why you have difficulty with it? ;)

From a study of studies earlier this year, from the National Academy of Sciences (USA).

Re: Coronavirus
 

But if you’re vaccinated:

A) you’re unlikely to get seriously ill

B) your ability to transmit the virus is cut by half after one dose

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56904993

So if your argument is that 90%+ overwhelming majority of the population should wear masks for a tiny % of people that can’t or won’t be vaccinated.

Well that’s a pretty warped stance to take.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Get set to have to pay for your lateral flow tests:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...JgscJEQc8cy2q0

Anyone know how much they cost?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can't means vulnerable and that's whom I aim to protect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Once again, you take a binary approach - all or nothing…

In the U.K. population, half have had only one dose - that half have an over 50% chance of catching Covid (51%-62%, according to your link); and the link isn’t about the Delta Variant, which is much more infectious.

So if your argument that over 50% of the U.K. population should risk a higher than average chance of getting Covid

"Well that’s a pretty warped stance to take"…

Re: Coronavirus
 

The population of the UK is 66.65 million. 45.5 have recieved at least one dose.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The youth of this country have paid a high a price to protect the elderly.

It’s perverse really.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haha yes it is. If only we could make it up to them and reduce their risk some way.

---------- Post added at 01:26 ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 ----------

And the AstraZeneca ones they might well have not bothered.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My phone doesnt do any apps, or even have internet (or wifi) at all.

They can "demand" all they want, you can guess my reply ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hey jfman, have you had your bots at work again?:D

Some Britons crave permanent pandemic lockdown

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1625764303

https://www.economist.com/britain/20...demic-lockdown

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seems like the 100,000 infections per day forecast was way off beam. The rate of increase of infections has slowed for six days in a row.

Should we panic at the thought that things may return to normal soon? :p:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-day-row.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

You see the letter in The Lancet from scientists and health experts calling the governments early lifting of restrictions dangerous and unethical with the potential to create a generation afflicted with chronic health problems and disabilities? Still what do they know

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the opening of a fast food outlet on every street corner has already created a generation afflicted with chronic health problems and disabilities.

Still, what do I know ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, they’ve been flawless so far.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Scientists can only advise, unfortunately its been politicians making the decisions. Not to prepare for a predicted pandemic, not to invest in PPE, not to invest in the NHS, ignore their own advice and get covid themselves and expect everyone to follow the rules that they don't. Scientists aren't to blame for the UK having the highest death toll in Europe.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, they can give bad advice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Show your source.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did you see the behaviour in the pubs last night? I predict Covid's coming home.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Definitely. I think that Johnson wants to let everyone do as they please (whilst telling them to behave responsibiy) as he knows that everyone is sick of it and many are doing as they please anyway, whilst wanting to look good.

Then, when it all gets out of hand, he will say that we have no choice but to go back into lockdown again and will blame the public for their reckless behaviour.

A bit of herd immunity too for good measure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well they created a vaccine and rolled it out flawlessly so much so bozo is happy to take the credit, speaking of that berk remind me who scrapped the Cabinet Pandemic Committee six months before the pandemic started. When it comes to advice I'll listen to the experts and you can take your chances with what ever mood bozo is in

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well they created it, they didn’t roll it out, but I agree on the success. Given the success and the demonstrable evidence that the link between positive cases and deaths has been broken, I sssume you support lifting all restrictions on July 19th?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's a new variant on the way. I'm sure jfman has something to do with it.:D

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1625780958

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who rolled it out, bozo and his chums or the NHS, the only thing they've got right this whole time is staying out the way and letting the experts get on with it and when they have done they're back to interfering and potentially messing it up once more

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not scientists

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation says hi. From their terms of reference;

Re: Coronavirus
 

A bit simplistic but if something cock's up it's Boris' fault, if it works it's in spite of Boris.
(Of course from the Boris POV - if it works it because of him, if not he tried but someone else is to blame!) (For Boris you could likely put in any head, politician, boss etc).


Scientists look at the science, economists at the economy and business owners at their company going down the toilet. Individuals look at the empty seat at the table and care much less about the big picture.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely right! It annoys me when people have a go at various public health scientists when they they comment on public health, their specialist subject. The economy is not relevant to their subject on the whole. From a public health perspective, the best option for the near future would be a continued lockdown and no one dying of COVID. Economically, having everything open would be the best plan.

Therefore a balance has to be met - how many deaths are an acceptable cost for improved economic activity? That's what we have the Prime Minister for - to make that judgement

Re: Coronavirus
 

Er...vaccinations..

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

If you think it would have been better under Labour, you are in cloud cuckoo land.

The predicted pandemic was forecast in the middle of a period of austerity, when making provision for something that might just happen in the future would not have been a priority; failure to invest in PPE was down to NHS procurement, which the government took over when it bècame clear what a pig's ear they had made of it; there was no failure to invest in the NHS (Labour is on record as stating that the amount of extra money put in by the coalition government was 'reckless' in a period of recession); and the scientists themselves were in a muddle about what to do in those early days, even suggesting that allowing the virus to pass through the healthy population was the way forward. Yes, herd immunity!

As for the highest death toll in Europe, I see that other European countries are fast catching up, even though they don't record COVID deaths as thoroughly as we do.

When the final review is concluded, some of you critics will be taken aback when you see that many of your criticisms come to nought.

---------- Post added at 18:37 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------

Link? No, of course not. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:37 ----------

Not much more than we do, it seems. They all contradict each other.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 18:39 ----------

Unless they were all double vaccinated, of course.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Only if you take the raw total. Deaths per 1m population we're not the highest.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1625852568

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course the PM is happy to take the credit. You’re happy for him to take the blame for everything that went ‘wrong’ in your book!

The foresight he showed in signing up early to AZ was a master stroke and it has put us ahead of the rest of the world. I’m not surprised that you would rather ignore that rather obvious fact.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Went wrong, nice way to dismiss tens of thousands of lost lives and I think your ignoring rather more than me to focus on that

You and me both, I'd be about 110 years old

Re: Coronavirus
 

Point to the bit that explains how they rolled it out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The problem with chance is that the more often you "throw the dice", the more likely an event is going to happen. The more times you throw a pair of dice, the more likely it is a double six is going to be thrown.
Up to date info


---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

Pandemic planning was never a constant never ending thing. It was just updated from time to time. There wasn't a constant stream of new info requiring it to be constantly amended.:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 21:40 ---------- Previous post was at 21:31 ----------

Scientists, including the WHO, were against the general use of face masks.
Scientists also gave the ok for large scale sporting events to go ahead.


Which countries didn't have a shortage of PPE? The UK had an estimated £60m of stock in preparation for a pandemic. In 2019, the UK was independently judged to be 2nd best prepared in the world for a pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry for the late reply. The JCVI advise the NHS on who should receive the vaccinations and when. See this nice explainer - https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov...d-19-vaccines/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don’t see anything there on the logistics of supply, distribution and implementation of the vaccine programme i.e. rolling it out. From factory to arm.

Re: Coronavirus
 

PM holding 5pm briefing today about 19th July changes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah, OK. My view on what a vaccine rollout would start from the decisions on who should get it and when, through to jabs in arms and logging that information and ongoing pharmacovigilance. If you're talking about the logistics, then yes, I doubt many scientists delivered vaccines, they bookend the process and manufacture the vaccines.

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: UK Government confirms that restrictions will be lifted on July 19th.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...firms-12354394

Re: Coronavirus
 

They have acknowledged that this will cause cases to rise, but will the NHS not be overwhelmed? This was the whole point of these measures in the first place.

Even though we now have vaccines, there will still be many who become hospitalised.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thanks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris Johnson:
Sajid Javid

Irreversible It’s almost as if they know something, but don’t want to tell us… :erm: