Re: Coronavirus
 

But their mate on the internet told them, so it must be true... ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Real covidiots!

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D:D:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

When the lead presenter of GB News and editor of the Spectator calls you out, you know you might be on the wrong path here;

(link)

Might be an interesting conversation with Neil Oliver when and if he returns to work back at GB News.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Albeit lead presenter for one week. The pandemic will be all but over before Neil returns to GB News or advises he's not returning.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/co...-chief-1144145

Oh dear oh dear. Another goalpost shift for the worlds greatest vaccination programme.

Be interesting to see if the rest of the world follow or whether their vaccination strategies are on a more sustainable footing going forward.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody's interested in the vaccine program anymore, we're living the free life. Got my tickets for Everton's opening game of the season, myself and 45,000 others (x 19 other PL grounds x EFL grounds). Forget nightclubs, this is the real test.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pierre you’ve not been interested in anything to date other than offering a borderline sociopathic, borderline anti-vax view we should just get on with it. So forgive me for not taking your dismissal on behalf of the population as a whole as credible.

However congratulations that you’ve finally found a single activity to do post July 19 that you couldn’t do before.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you must secretly enjoy suffering.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

So wanting to get on with life is borderline anti-vax?

It really is a warped view of the world you hold. I know you like living in a quasi-totalitarian state, where the government tells you when and how to wipe your backside and pays you to watch Judge Judy all day, but it's not for me, if that makes me borderline anti-vax - glad to be it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nice selective quote without context.

I’m not quite sure the furlough scheme and other schemes to support business or jobs really fit the description you offer, but at least it demonstrates the contempt you hold the furloughed workforce in.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Somewhere out there there's a sheep dog looking for him;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

20 times?
That have to recoup the capital investment costs as well as the operational costs. Who knows the total timeframe in which they to recoup the capital costs, including making people redundant when it all dies down.
Not sure comparing costs to those in India is remotely valid.:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Conservative Party donors need to get their money from somewhere.

Re: Coronavirus
 

( 10th August)
I realise that members may have seen reports that " a number of leading scientists in the fight against coronavirus are giving evidence to MPs around vaccines and the future of the pandemic.
Experts will be speaking to politicians in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on coronavirus during an evidence session today. "

The Manchester Evening News has been giving a running summary of what has been said so I am posting a link as there have been several interesting points covered. For those who want a brief idea of some of the main points .......
Actual figures that have been supplied, and other topics can be read in the full article.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...id-19-21271745

Re: Coronavirus
 

JCVI now talking down boosters for over 50s. Clearly they must be under pressure to use the limited supply of Pfizer on the weans.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haven't they just placed an order costing over $1bn with Pfizer (they hiked their prices)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s good to know they are planning ahead, but the chances of those being delivered any time soon must be extremely small.

In the meantime political appointed academics of the JCVI will provide all the political cover the Government needs.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As an add on its now been confirmed this is 35m doses for an Autumn 2022 booster campaign.

At least it confirms that a booster campaign will be valuable, even if we don’t have the doses to do it now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

*phew* thank goodness the experts say we will need a booster, otherwise they'll be a waste eh

Re: Coronavirus
 

A booster for an as yet unknown variant, if there is one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well Carth it’s slightly more complicated.

While we don’t have enough doses “the science” says we don’t. We should give it to poor people, but thankfully when we say “we” we mean other people, or the Oxford vaccine we won’t give to under 40s. However, once we take delivery of millions of shiny new Pfizer doses, “the science” recommends them for us.

Re: Coronavirus
 

but ... but .. isn't that like a shop selling brand new 60" TV's for £50 when they have none, but selling them for £600 when they get more stock in?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's not enough detail here on the 2022 boosters - will they be the same formulation as the current vaccine or a new spike sequence to cover any variants? It would be smart to cover your bases and allow a 'new and improved' vaccine to come through now the principle has been proved.

Clearly the current vaccines are 'leaky', allowing infections and even severe disease in a very small number of cases so improvements could potentially be made.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pfizer are certainly working on a version of their vaccine to increase efficacy against Delta.

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/202...nal_7.8.21.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect that they will be tailored towards the most prevalent and dangerous variants, as they already do with 'flu jabs.

But, as always, W.H.O. will advise, but it's up to individual governments to choose the strains they want to protect us from.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I should imagine the other vaccine producers are doing the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Certainly, AZ are, they confirmed this some weeks ago.

The scientists are looking at whether those who have had the AZ vaccines would benefit from the Pfizer booster and vice versa. I’m still considering whether I trust Pfizer, but there are no worrying ill effects yet.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would imagine so, too. However the AstraZeneca press release I found indicated they were still catching up with effectiveness against Beta, not Delta.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...accinated.html

This of course is the inherent risk of living with the virus that it mutates faster than the vaccines can keep up.

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:07 ----------

I’m sure you’ll be fine, OB. Worst case you catch Covid and get mild symptoms.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What utter nonsense, the flu, cancer, heart attacks etc etc has killed millions since WW2, as have countless other illnesses.

Cancer kills over 160,000 people per year.

Heart disease killed about 63,000 in 2019, and that was the lowest this century, in 2000, the figure was around 168,000.

The flu has averaged 5000 deaths per year since 2000, when it killed 22,000 with further spikes in 2009 and 2015, which killed around 19,000.

Covid is not going to kill another 130,000 a year, it only managed that because we had zero immunity, thats simply no longer the case.

Its now reduced to being like a bad flu year - so remind me, which previous bad flu years did we wear masks, work from home etc ?

---------- Post added at 02:16 ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 ----------

Myself and my middle daughter had pfizer - zero effects.
My wife had AZ, no effects, my youngest also had it, and felt "off" for a day.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I honestly can't fathom why you keep taking on MrK. Doesn't matter what you say he'll still keep coning out with absolute crap!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pots and kettles spring to mind.

It’s not yet clear what Covid deaths would level off at with uncontrolled spread as suggested by Paul. I’d hazard a guess with over 100 deaths a day in August with mitigations like masks, working from home, etc that it would be worse than the worst flu years. We might not see the same deaths as the last 17 months but that’s an extremely low bar for success. And that’s based on current variants - that could change too.

Cancer and heart attacks aren’t contagious, either.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Typical trope.

Ban cigarettes, Ban alcohol, Ban processed foods, Ban sugary drinks, enforce exercise

Protect the NHS

Save lives.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Strange - none of those things are actually happening.

Almost as if you were putting forward a strawman argument...

Re: Coronavirus
 

which leads on....

Raise income tax, decrease cap gains threshold, repeat for many other taxes

Save the treasury......

Re: Coronavirus
 

Smoking is now (and has been for a while) banned from indoor areas and some outdoor areas.

Alcohol is banned from being consumed in many outdoor areas, and strangely enough, the smoking ban has had the effect of closing many pubs down . . or requiring them to become 'restaurants' in order to remain viable as a business.

Sugary drinks (and foods) are now attracting higher taxation rates, sugar also being replaced by 'substitutes' that may be worse than sugar itself.

Processed foods . . . here to stay I'm afraid, no matter what the health experts say. Drive through and home deliveries mean you now don't need to leave your car seat/sofa to get it either, so that's exercise out of the window too.

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pierre? never!

It’s either that, insulting people who were furloughed or a sociopathic disregard for human life that he deems unworthy. We’ve rolled the dice I wonder which Pierre we get today?

For someone who is past covid, doesn’t care any more etc. he certainly spends a lot of time in the thread frothing at the mouth over it. Second only in the post count to myself.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Restrict ≠ ban… ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not only that, the Bats have escaped from the belfry :shocked:

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

You're getting confused between driving at 40 in a 30, and lighting a ciggy in a council meeting ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whose batty belfry are we talking about?

:erm: Just asking for a friend. :D

Sorry Mods., I accept a virtual reprimand I couldn't resist as it's not often this thread makes me smile.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

My point being that although the cancer & heart disease are not "infectious", It doesn't mean that the attitude taken against COVID could not be taken in combating other illnesses and reducing strain on the NHS.

But they don't.

We've just spent 18months throwing money hand over fist at an illness that still when all said and done is a mild infection for the vast majority of people.

A death rate of 2% (and that's from the known recorded positive tests) the death rate is probably much lower than that)

So if they don't do it for other illnesses, then why continue for COVID?

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

you're in no position to critique anyone. You always get Pierre. I think I'm consistent.

Stalker alert.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Being wrong 100% of the time is consistent.

Not saying that you are, of course, but I doubt anyone would view consistency as a desirable quality in that regard. It indicates an inability to adapt to new knowledge, or new events. Dare I say consistent with ideological dogma.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Infectious diseases are relatively cheap and easy to prevent, unlike lifestyle and aging diseases such as cancer and heart disease. The odd jab here and there and simple hygiene measures are all that is needed in general.

If you think a 2% case fatality rate is low, that is about the same as polio, cholera and measles, twice that of whooping cough, lassa fever and cutaneous anthrax and ten to twenty times that of normal influenza, malaria and chickenpox

Re: Coronavirus
 

Useful insights. What stands out to me there is:

ten to twenty times that of normal influenza

Re: Coronavirus
 

Totally agree.

Re: Coronavirus
 

if you don’t lockdown the nation, cause thousands of job losses and pay millions of peoples wages for a year. Do that and it’s not so cheap. Especially if you keep it in the lab where you’re making it.

compared to the overall cancer rate ( which isn’t just an ageing disease) it is.

However, I was pointing out that is the rate from the recorded cases (approx 5.5M) the actual figure will be 2,3,4,5 + times that. So the actual fatality rate will probably be around 0.5% or less, potentially much less.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How’s the Swedish economy going compared to say, New Zealand’s?

The evidence is clear that countries who have managed the health situation most effectively had the best economic outcomes. It doesn’t suit Pierre’s ideological opposition to state intervention, of course, and he has been consistent in not changing his view despite emerging evidence that he is incorrect.

I’m intrigued that covering wages is bad value but a track and trace system and dodgy PPE contracts aren’t worthy of a mention. Presumably because some capitalist creamed off profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Watching Judge Judy = bad, creaming off profits to the Cayman Islands despite not delivering = good.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/r...w-b950281.html

Doesn’t look like Freedom Day is working as intended.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why just focus on New Zealand? Sweden is doing just fine

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ok-at-the-data

I won’t bother responding to the rest of your diatribe, given the time, you’ve probably been drinking since Judge Judy finished.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not like you to ignore the facts Pierre, I must say.

I’m not sure the Spectator is the best source of economic data, but I think you’ll notice they even have Sweden as having negative GDP growth. “Just fine” isn’t usually what I’d call negative growth, but that’s an aside.

As ever your pathetically impotent retorts show what little insight you have to offer on this subject, that you care so little about.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can always offer your own, but don’t forget to include all the other factors that lockdown encompasses. Not just the hard economic ones.

I know you value the whole evidence and data, and not just the ones that suit your narrative.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank you for your invitation to selectively misinterpret data to suit your argument. There’s been a number of academic studies on economic and health outcomes, and given their stature I hold them in far greater esteem than both you and the Spectator. By your own admission you have been consistent throughout regardless of how both evidence and circumstances change.

I’ll politely decline, I’ve got a couple more beers here and Bullseye is on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Noted, and thank you for not referring to them, I know you can, obviously, and your inability to do so, we can all agree does not mean they don’t exist. Just that you don’t feel the need present any evidence to back up your assertions. I find it very surprising as you don’t usually do that………………….hardly ever.


if you’re watching re-runs from the Bowen era, i salute you, they are truly hilarious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m unsure why you are so keen for me to present what you readily admit won’t change your view, on a topic you’re bored with and eager to move on.

But if you insist this made the Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...978-8/fulltext

Will it change your mind? No. Have we achieved anything here? No. Will we be back tomorrow? Almost certainly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You had all night to trawl the internet and that is the best you can come up with? That well known economic bell weather ……..the lancet!.

Will it change my mind? ……… well no……,sorry but no.

The fact that this is the best you can come up with ………….we’ll be back tomorrow.

Try harder.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unsurprisingly. Scientific evidence dismissed with your fingers in your ears not listening because you disagree on an ideological level. No attempts to offer any critical analysis, nor any critical thinking as a result of the paper you presumably read the hyperlink, the title and dismissed out of hand.

Perhaps if you could provide an exhaustive list of economic journals you consider credible, or academics within that field then I could narrow my search. The Spectator and Toby Young don’t count.

Fundamentally your starting point is do they back up what you want to hear - lockdowns and state intervention bad, freedom good, etc. You’ve admitted you will never diverge from this point regardless.

If the emergence of vaccines cannot shift you to a position where some non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. masks, distancing) are valid until the end of the vaccination programme then nothing will.

Not a single country in the world has approached Covid in the manner you suggest. No rational capitalists out there seeking to seize the edge on all of their competitors. Simply because it doesn’t deliver the outcomes you envisage.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wanna go halfs on a hot dog ? :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've just had my weekly food delivery and the only item out of stock was my popcorn. Guess there's quite a few people eating it when watching others using their right to post purposely contentious opinions.

On a secondary note. The young delivery guy was wearing a mask and did his very best to keep his distance whilst he placed our shopping in our hallway. Said he didn't want to put any of his customers in danger. Nice Man, I gave him a cupcake and a can of Coke for his thoughtful actions.:)

Re: Coronavirus
 

My Asda driver this morning was plugged in to his earbuds and I had to ask him everything twice. It was like trying to get a conversation out of my kids. :D

For popcorn, we have a massive sack of kernels bought for end-of-year treats in June. There are many benefits to being married to a teacher. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Lancet article is interesting, but it has made its conclusions before this is over.

The point really is that although countries such as New Zealand and Australia have gone for total elimination of the virus, their populations remain dangerously exposed to the virus, and without the vaccine, they are subjecting their population to lockdown after lockdown.

The only way they can maintain their current status is to get their populations vaccinated without delay. The lacklustre response by these governments to have their populations vaccinated is truly curious. The virus could still take off in these countries if the governments don’t step up.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I dont like popcorn. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

New Zealand going into snap full lockdown for three days due to ONE case (Auckland where the case was detected locked down for seven days, Coromandel also for seven days)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58241619

Re: Coronavirus
 

Over reaction?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps, or perhaps with only 20% of the population vaccinated they’re desperate for it not to spread (assuming it’s the delta variant)

Re: Coronavirus
 

The proof will be in the pudding whether NZ returns to an almost fully open internal economy and continues it’s successful rejection of “living with the virus”.

To date the most successful responses (in both health and economic terms) have been the hardest, earliest interventions - see the Lancet article linked earlier.

Some are desperately hoping for New Zealand’s failure to vindicate our atrocious response under the guise of “we couldn’t have done any better”. I, however, am absolutely rooting for them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

26 deaths and less than 3000 cases seems a fairly successful strategy, for a country with a population of 5 million.

They need to work on their vaccinations, though…

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m more likely to root for a country that isn’t seeking to supplement vaccination with a few million infections in a herd immunity dice roll to be fair.

Plenty of countries have low vaccination rates in the absence of unlimited vaccinations. The question is whether any country can make their position sustainable between now and then. New Zealand appear on a much more solid footing that other countries in that respect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Plenty of countries in that boat long term (including us).

The privileged among us aren’t going to go out and save Pret against a backdrop of hundreds of thousand of infections per week.

Pantsdown is out fear mongering again

https://t.co/vATdqlu3Vs (from the FT).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Their borders are pretty much shut until 2022, with the abruptness they're imposing lockdowns, and IF (big if) they can speed up their vaccine roll out they will should manage to keep this under control.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Suspect New Zealand's situation has contributed to why Amazon moved production of Lord of The Rings Trilogy to Blighty although it was not mentioned at the time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58196473

Re: Coronavirus
 

It might have hastened the decision but really, that decision was inevitable. Amazon is building a significant production base in the UK and it makes no sense for them to be making a show in New Zealand just because a film series based on the same books was made there 20 years ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed they are, but at the end of said ride they will have significantly less cases & deaths than most nations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

A 48 hour lockdown? A week in some parts?

Huge swathes of the economy have been open for prolonged periods. No distancing, no masks, and our freedom day has been a damp squib as those privileged enough to work from home stay hiding under the stairs or in their conservatories.

The long term economic consequences will be felt for years to come.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My but you’re a ray of sunshine this fine evening.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well there are a lot of talking ar**s on here (and I include myself) might as well bring yours in too ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also interesting that Trump was given a personal assurance by the Chinese President that Covid 19 was under control.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tershocks-book

Re: Coronavirus
 

First monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 approved for use in the UK

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f...-use-in-the-uk

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

And the stuff that Florida is now pushing for instead of the vaccine for some reason.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am hoping that's what's happening for sure. The cases are very slowly increasing but not to a huge amount so I do hope that this is the virus slowly spreading ahead of winter and by then the population has a high amount of immunity. What will help is a lot of these numbers now will be double jabbed people with a mild case of COVID giving them even more immunity as well.

I am living as normal now. I was never that cautious. Going to pubs as soon as they opened e.t.c but over the last weekend I've been in a theatre without a mask, the Emirates stadium with 60,000 other people and many pubs.

The best moment was in a busy pub. There was a crowd at the bar to go order. It was all normal. It all felt normal. Not 'new normal' but old normal.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact this is the first post on the subject in five days goes some way to show the lack of interest in COVID currently, I haven’t seen any scary posts from Sky news recently and Neil Ferguson has been quiet.

Afghanistan is where it’s at. COVID who?

One the international travel is sorted, there’ll be nothing newsworthy about COVID.

Of course the “annual” NHS autumn respiratory crisis will be blown out of proportion………if there’s nothing else more important happening.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hmm, this is the most read article in the UK section of the FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/8271a173-...2-9ca25b59507a

Re: Coronavirus
 

FT……..like i said…no ones bothered anymore.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's because jfman is not around and the forum is focused instead on sunny uplands and Afghanistan.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On Tuesday the 17th of August, my 17-Year-old had his first jab. On the 19th he started his first job at McDonald's (the easiest £50 he said he's ever earned), but on the 20th the Side effects hit him, and he could work, but was OK to return on the 21st.


McDonald's were very good, and he's planning his hours around college, so he can have time to study.

Re: Coronavirus
 

;)

I've said before whether people are bothered or not is best measured by who is out spending money, and where. As opposed to Pierre's observation from his self-described privileged position where he was barely impacted by restrictions at all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or your position of not giving a toss as long as the furlough keeps rolling in…………it’s stopping btw.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My stance of protecting jobs and businesses remains the same, yes.

Empty nightclubs don’t make money. Neither do coffee shops in city centres next to empty glass office blocks.

I’m not sure what you mean by “rolling in” - I’m financially unaffected by any of the measures I support for businesses or employees affected by restrictions. However, unlike yourself in the ivory tower, I don’t think employees on universal credit and businesses going bankrupt is the long term economically positive outcome you think it is.

They’re not going to lower our tax bill Pierre. We are £2 trillion in debt with no sustainable plan to pay it, what makes £2.5 trillion is the cut off where they decide you need to pay it back?

Ultimately though as you say you don’t care, it’s not about health, or economics, you just hate state intervention even where it is beneficial. There’s no real reason to feign interest in people you have such absolute disregard and contempt for.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which I’m sure is why you support them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nice selective quote as ever and nothing of value to offer against the substantive point. I’d say a classic Pierre late night post but they don’t get any better during the day.

The intent, obvious to anyone who would be engaging in good faith, is that I’m not a beneficiary of any of the schemes as you implied in your previous post.