Cable Forum
Page 73 of 86 « First 236369707172 73 7475767783 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

OLD BOY 13-09-2021 14:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36092877)
It's far safer being under the stairs than on top of them. ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/790609.stm
Well, if that’s the kind of life you are happy to embrace, knock yourself out!

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092876)
OB said that 450/day die of cancer. Full fact.org says:


Quote:
Mr Melville told Full Fact he reached these figures by comparing government statistics for deaths recorded within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 result, and data from Cancer Research that showed an average of 450 people a day died from cancer between 2016 and 2018.
Yes, that’s the other thing. The Covid figures come ready-inflated. Whilst an unknown number of patients in hospital may test positive for Covid, it appears that a significant number have not died because of it.

Chris 13-09-2021 15:24
Re: Coronavirus
 
Chief medical officers now recommending that all UK 12-15 year olds get a single dose of vaccine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58547659

papa smurf 13-09-2021 15:45
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092881)
Chief medical officers now recommending that all UK 12-15 year olds get a single dose of vaccine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58547659
How much £ will he make out of that.

jonbxx 13-09-2021 15:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092878)
Yes, that’s the other thing. The Covid figures come ready-inflated. Whilst an unknown number of patients in hospital may test positive for Covid, it appears that a significant number have not died because of it.
This is where the ONS numbers are better than deaths with a positive test within 28 days. The ONS figures use cause of death as noted on the death certificate using WHO guidelines.

Here's the latest data. In the year to date, COVID was the number 1 cause of death. Table 11a is our friend here for the figures for England. Note that cancer is broken down by type but even if you add up the three cancers in the top ten (Lung at 5, colorectal at 8 and leukaemias at 10) they still don't add up to the numbers for COVID
-------------------------------------
Just to add, where each disease ranks shouldn't necessarily mean that's how much effort is put in to treating. Dementia is always way up at the top of the causes of death but that is much more regarded as 'that's just getting old' than, say, certain types of cancer

BenMcr 13-09-2021 15:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36092882)
How much £ will he make out of that.
It's all the CMOs that have agreed this.

Also you're mistaking Chris Whitty who doesn't have any Pfizer shares as far as I know with Sir Patrick Vallance.

1andrew1 13-09-2021 16:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092866)
2. That's what boosters are for.
Nothing to do with the decline in immunity after a few months post vaccination then?

OLD BOY 13-09-2021 17:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36092886)
Nothing to do with the decline in immunity after a few months post vaccination then?
That, too.

Incidentally, you get far more protection from actually contracting the virus. So if you get it while vaccinated, that’s a good thing.

If you are not vaccinated you may not be so lucky, although most don’t realise they’ve even had it.

Hugh 13-09-2021 18:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092891)
That, too.

Incidentally, you get far more protection from actually contracting the virus. So if you get it while vaccinated, that’s a good thing.

If you are not vaccinated you may not be so lucky, although most don’t realise they’ve even had it.
Side effects may include death... :dozey:

Maggy 13-09-2021 18:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092891)
That, too.

Incidentally, you get far more protection from actually contracting the virus. So if you get it while vaccinated, that’s a good thing.

If you are not vaccinated you may not be so lucky, although most don’t realise they’ve even had it.
Link?

Hugh 13-09-2021 19:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092891)
That, too.

Incidentally, you get far more protection from actually contracting the virus. So if you get it while vaccinated, that’s a good thing.

If you are not vaccinated you may not be so lucky, although most don’t realise they’ve even had it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36092905)
Link?
From a non peer-reviewed Israeli paper, which is specific to the Pfizer vaccine…

https://fullfact.org/health/maajid-n...cine-immunity/

Quote:
Professor Bangham said: “I think [this study is] very likely to be correct. I'd see no reason to doubt it. More importantly, it's exactly what any immunologist would expect to be true.”

Professor Paul Hunter, Professor in Medicine at The Norwich School of Medicine at the University of East Anglia, agreed. He told Full Fact: “Yes, the balance of evidence does suggest that natural infection will provide a more durable immunity especially to severe disease.

“But of course the downside of that is that during your first natural infection if unvaccinated you are just as much at risk of severe disease and death depending on your age and other risk factors at any time during the pandemic.”

jfman 13-09-2021 19:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092881)
Chief medical officers now recommending that all UK 12-15 year olds get a single dose of vaccine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58547659
Sounds like a supply issue going for a dosage interval not mandated anywhere in the world.

---------- Post added at 19:53 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092891)
That, too.

Incidentally, you get far more protection from actually contracting the virus. So if you get it while vaccinated, that’s a good thing.

If you are not vaccinated you may not be so lucky, although most don’t realise they’ve even had it.
More great barrington bullshit

OLD BOY 13-09-2021 20:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36092914)

More great barrington bullshit
You really are so desperate for these emergency measures to stay, you are willing us to fail, aren’t you?

Here’s something else you might not like. I take it you are prepared to believe the ONS figures…

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/c...d-b955024.html

People who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 accounted for only 1% of all deaths involving coronavirus that occurred in England in the first seven months of this year, new analysis shows.

Most were infected before they had received both jabs or had tested positive for Covid-19 within 14 days of their second dose.

The figures have been published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

jfman 13-09-2021 20:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092916)
You really are so desperate for these emergency measures to stay, you are willing us to fail, aren’t you?
On the contrary I’m desperate for us to succeed because the alternative is lockdown to desperately recover the situation. As it always has been.

Quote:
Here’s something else you might not like. I take it you are prepared to believe the ONS figures…

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/c...d-b955024.html

People who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 accounted for only 1% of all deaths involving coronavirus that occurred in England in the first seven months of this year, new analysis shows.

Most were infected before they had received both jabs or had tested positive for Covid-19 within 14 days of their second dose.

The figures have been published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
I’m not sure why I’d not like ONS statistics. The cut off point is interesting. :)

Chris 13-09-2021 20:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36092914)
Sounds like a supply issue going for a dosage interval not mandated anywhere in the world.

---------- Post added at 19:53 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------



More great barrington bullshit
Guessing you didn’t bother to read it then.

The risk/reward analysis with regards to protection against disease and risk of myocarditis is pretty clear. The second dose affords negligible additional protection in this age group while the risk of complications rises significantly.

But by all means, rock that tinfoil hat …

Sephiroth 13-09-2021 21:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092881)
Chief medical officers now recommending that all UK 12-15 year olds get a single dose of vaccine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58547659
Does vaccinating a youth mean that cannot transmit COVID? That is the implication of the decision with words such as “reducing transmission”?

Chris 13-09-2021 21:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092925)
Does vaccinating a youth mean that cannot transmit COVID? That is the implication of the decision with words such as “reducing transmission”?
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.

Paul 14-09-2021 04:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092851)
Do you think that the pandemic is over ?
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36092895)
Side effects may include death... :dozey:
A side effect of many illnesses can include death, such a statement is just dramatic nonsense.

OLD BOY 14-09-2021 08:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36092883)
This is where the ONS numbers are better than deaths with a positive test within 28 days. The ONS figures use cause of death as noted on the death certificate using WHO guidelines.

Here's the latest data. In the year to date, COVID was the number 1 cause of death. Table 11a is our friend here for the figures for England. Note that cancer is broken down by type but even if you add up the three cancers in the top ten (Lung at 5, colorectal at 8 and leukaemias at 10) they still don't add up to the numbers for COVID
-------------------------------------
Just to add, where each disease ranks shouldn't necessarily mean that's how much effort is put in to treating. Dementia is always way up at the top of the causes of death but that is much more regarded as 'that's just getting old' than, say, certain types of cancer
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.

jfman 14-09-2021 09:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092920)
Guessing you didn’t bother to read it then.

The risk/reward analysis with regards to protection against disease and risk of myocarditis is pretty clear. The second dose affords negligible additional protection in this age group while the risk of complications rises significantly.

But by all means, rock that tinfoil hat …
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.

jonbxx 14-09-2021 09:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092949)
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.
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

jfman 14-09-2021 09:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092949)
Yes, that's over the whole year, and obviously includes the period when we were in a wave, with a largely unvaccinated population.
Heaven forbid we use complete statistics.

Quote:
the number of deaths will be much lower, but frankly, we can already see very clearly the direction in which this is going.
That crystal ball must be on all day.

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

Hugh 14-09-2021 10:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36092941)
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.
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.;)

Chris 14-09-2021 10:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36092963)
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.;)
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.

joglynne 14-09-2021 13:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Snippets of to-days announcement. Booster shots.

Quote:
The government has announced that the nine groups most vulnerable to coronavirus will be eligible for a third booster vaccine no earlier than six months after their second.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will be the main ones used in the initial rollout of third doses, which is expected to start in the coming days.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca jab has also been approved for use as a booster, but the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) will only recommend it for people who are allergic to the other two vaccines.

People who were in the JCVI's original one to nine priority groups to get their first and second doses will get their third doses before anyone else.

They will be eligible for a booster jab when at least six months have passed since their second dose.

The initial booster rollout will be divided into two stages, with the JCVI considering third doses for people under 50 at a later date when more data is available.

The following people are expected to be called in the coming days:

• Adults aged 16 and over who are immunosuppressed

• People living in residential care homes for older adults

• All adults aged 70 and over

• Adults aged 16 and over who are clinically extremely vulnerable

• Frontline health and social care workers

Stage 2

"As soon as is practicable after Stage 1", the following people will be called:

• All adults aged 50 and over

• All adults 16 - 49 years who are in an influenza or COVID at-risk group as outlined in the Green Book

• Adult household contacts of immunosuppressed people
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

TheDaddy 14-09-2021 13:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Can you get a booster if you don't fall into those categories but have good reason?

joglynne 14-09-2021 13:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36092983)
Can you get a booster if you don't fall into those categories but have good reason?
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.

Carth 14-09-2021 14:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36092983)
Can you get a booster if you don't fall into those categories but have good reason?
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

1andrew1 14-09-2021 14:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36092986)
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
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?

papa smurf 14-09-2021 14:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36092988)
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?
There are some great boozers in Scunthorpe the trick is leaving alive;)

Carth 14-09-2021 14:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36092988)
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?
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36092989)
There are some great boozers in Scunthorpe the trick is leaving alive;)
I can get out alive no problem, it's paying for the taxi there and back that pisses me off 'sigh'

OLD BOY 14-09-2021 14:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36092957)
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
They are indeed tragedies, every one. But my point is, we do not take such extreme measures or any other cause of death, even though they may be more numerous.

We have learned to live with risk during the whole existence of mankind. Now this one virus has turned many of us into timid, fearful beings who want to isolate themselves against the world. We have to turn this around.

1andrew1 14-09-2021 14:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36092989)
There are some great boozers in Scunthorpe the trick is leaving alive;)
I was going to say, what about Wetherspoons? but then I read this.
https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2021/...olice-news-uk/

Carth 14-09-2021 14:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Wetherspoons :sick:

mrmistoffelees 14-09-2021 14:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092994)
They are indeed tragedies, every one. But my point is, we do not take such extreme measures or any other cause of death, even though they may be more numerous.

We have learned to live with risk during the whole existence of mankind. Now this one virus has turned many of us into timid, fearful beings who want to isolate themselves against the world. We have to turn this around.

Name one disease that’s as infectious as covid & that has a similar death rate as covid and is currently causing a pandemic ?

Comparing covid to other diseases is like comparing apples and oranges

Carth 14-09-2021 14:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092999)
Name one disease that’s as infectious as covid & that has a similar death rate as covid and is currently causing a pandemic ?

Comparing covid to other diseases is like comparing apples and oranges
Stupidity? ;)

papa smurf 14-09-2021 14:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092999)
Name one disease that’s as infectious as covid & that has a similar death rate as covid and is currently causing a pandemic ?

Comparing covid to other diseases is like comparing apples and oranges
Wokeism

mrmistoffelees 14-09-2021 14:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36093002)
Wokeism

Hello Billy ! Not visited any hospitals recently ?

papa smurf 14-09-2021 15:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36093003)
Hello Billy ! Not visited any hospitals recently ?
Goole on the 24th meet me there if you like

mrmistoffelees 14-09-2021 15:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36093008)
Goole on the 24th meet me there if you like
:D:D:D:D

Sephiroth 14-09-2021 15:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092926)
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.
I don't really understand how vaccination reduces transmission unless there's a time gap between encountering the virus in the throat and it taking sufficient hold to spew out with a cough, then killed by the antibodies before the victim knows it's happened.

Is that how the 60% reduction in transmission occurs?

Chris 14-09-2021 15:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36093010)
I don't really understand how vaccination reduces transmission unless there's a time gap between encountering the virus in the throat and it taking sufficient hold to spew out with a cough, then killed by the antibodies before the victim knows it's happened.

Is that how the 60% reduction in transmission occurs?
You have to incubate the virus and give it space to infect your cells and multiply. Only once it has had time to do this will there be measurable quantities of viral particles in your body fluids that can then infect other people. As this coronavirus is novel to our species we have no latent immunity and the virus rapidly infects and becomes transmissible from an unvaccinated individual.

If you are vaccinated, while the virus is trying to take hold in your body your immune system is attacking it vigorously. Exactly how vigorous this fight-back is, determines whether or not you become infectious. Six out of ten vaccinated people (IIRC) will have a sufficiently robust immune response that the virus never gets a foothold and they therefore never become infectious. The other four will have an immune response but it is weaker; while the virus is under attack, for a while at least it is still able to multiply to the point where the host can pass it on. Those whose immune response is weakest will likely also display significant symptoms, in a few cases requiring hospital treatment and in the rarest cases still dying.

Sephiroth 14-09-2021 15:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36093014)
You have to incubate the virus and give it space to infect your cells and multiply. Only once it has had time to do this will there be measurable quantities of viral particles in your body fluids that can then infect other people. As this coronavirus is novel to our species we have no latent immunity and the virus rapidly infects and becomes transmissible from an unvaccinated individual.

If you are vaccinated, while the virus is trying to take hold in your body your immune system is attacking it vigorously. Exactly how vigorous this fight-back is, determines whether or not you become infectious. Six out of ten vaccinated people (IIRC) will have a sufficiently robust immune response that the virus never gets a foothold and they therefore never become infectious. The other four will have an immune response but it is weaker; the while the virus is under attack, for a while at least it is still able to multiply to the point where the host can pass it on. Those whose immune response is weakest will likely also display significant symptoms, in a few cases requiring hospital treatment and in the rarest cases still dying.
Thanks. Usefully clear now.

TheDaddy 14-09-2021 16:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36092984)
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.
Other half has blood cancer, her sister has a chronic lung condition and her parents are in their eighties, I stopped going in the house before the first lockdown, don't want to go back to sitting in the garden whilst she's in the conservatory

joglynne 14-09-2021 16:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36093026)
Other half has blood cancer, her sister has a chronic lung condition and her parents are in their eighties, I stopped going in the house before the first lockdown, don't want to go back to sitting in the garden whilst she's in the conservatory
Would you be able to use the " Adult household contacts of immunosuppressed people" option that is part of stage 2 booster group? I think you should maybe have a word with their doctors once the full details have been sent down to ground level. <<hugs>>

I dip into the following site, it tends to have more information than the newspapers and doesn't use such headline grabbing tactics.

https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/cl...-jab-campaign/

BenMcr 14-09-2021 16:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36093026)
Other half has blood cancer, her sister has a chronic lung condition and her parents are in their eighties, I stopped going in the house before the first lockdown, don't want to go back to sitting in the garden whilst she's in the conservatory
Quote:
Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36093028)
Would you be able to use the " Adult household contacts of immunosuppressed people" option that is part of stage 2 booster group? I think you should maybe have a word with their doctors once the full details have been sent down to ground level. <<hugs>>

I dip into the following site, it tends to have more information than the newspapers and doesn't use such headline grabbing tactics.

https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/cl...-jab-campaign/
According to the Government PDF it's the priority groups for the boosters:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...-plan-2021.pdf
Quote:
Offering booster doses to individuals who received vaccination in Phase 1 of the COVID-19 vaccination programme (priority groups 1-9).
Those are here from the initial phase of the vaccine https://www.gov.uk/government/public...riority-groups

So it should follow that if you got it early for the first shot, you'll be able to get the Booster at your group stage soon.

Hugh 14-09-2021 16:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36093008)
Goole on the 24th meet me there if you like
I thought they shut when they heard you were visiting…

jonbxx 14-09-2021 16:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36093014)
You have to incubate the virus and give it space to infect your cells and multiply. Only once it has had time to do this will there be measurable quantities of viral particles in your body fluids that can then infect other people. As this coronavirus is novel to our species we have no latent immunity and the virus rapidly infects and becomes transmissible from an unvaccinated individual.

If you are vaccinated, while the virus is trying to take hold in your body your immune system is attacking it vigorously. Exactly how vigorous this fight-back is, determines whether or not you become infectious. Six out of ten vaccinated people (IIRC) will have a sufficiently robust immune response that the virus never gets a foothold and they therefore never become infectious. The other four will have an immune response but it is weaker; while the virus is under attack, for a while at least it is still able to multiply to the point where the host can pass it on. Those whose immune response is weakest will likely also display significant symptoms, in a few cases requiring hospital treatment and in the rarest cases still dying.
Yep, lower levels of virus in vaccinated patients is the answer (lower viral load is the techy term) Here's a paper showing this with the Pfizer vaccine.

This is less pronounced with the Delta variant, especially some time after vaccination (preprint link)

Paul 15-09-2021 02:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
On what evidence exactly is the need for boosters being based ?

I was more than happy to take the initial jabs 1 & 2, Im far less convinced about the need for a 3rd.

Chris 15-09-2021 07:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36093069)
On what evidence exactly is the need for boosters being based ?

I was more than happy to take the initial jabs 1 & 2, Im far less convinced about the need for a 3rd.
There is evidence of waning immunity with time, which is as you would expect. This leads to an increased risk of serious illness in those whose immune response is weaker. The booster dose will address that, provided it’s given not less than 6 months after the second dose.

At some point in the (hopefully not too distant) future we should arrive at a situation where covid is simply endemic in the population and fairly regular encounters with it in the wild will keep our immune systems primed. Boosters should no longer be necessary for the vast majority of the population from that point. But we’re not there yet.

OLD BOY 15-09-2021 07:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
We were also told that the scientists would tweak the boosters to deal more effectively with the Delta variant, but it seems to have gone quiet on that, so I doubt that it is ready yet.

Chris 15-09-2021 08:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36093072)
We were also told that the scientists would tweak the boosters to deal more effectively with the Delta variant, but it seems to have gone quiet on that, so I doubt that it is ready yet.
Formulations to target Delta directly are in the pipeline. There was some talk about producing alpha-targeted vaccine earlier in the year but that all seems to have gone quiet, presumably because attention switched to the more problematic delta. However Pfizer is saying its original formula produces a good antibody response against delta when given as a booster, so there’s no critical hurry.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...-effectiveness

Carth 15-09-2021 11:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
We could vaccinate everyone in the UK and give boosters every 3 months, but there would still be people in hospitals that die 'within 28 days of a positive test'.

Still lots of money to be made though, carry on ;)

papa smurf 15-09-2021 11:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36093076)
We could vaccinate everyone in the UK and give boosters every 3 months, but there would still be people in hospitals that die 'within 28 days of a positive test'.

Still lots of money to be made though, carry on ;)
Steady on or you'll trigger the experts to post something from google.

Hugh 15-09-2021 12:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36093077)
Steady on or you'll trigger the experts to post something from google.
Heaven forbid people should back up their propositions with researched information, rather than just ask their bruncles... ;)

pip08456 16-09-2021 13:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Sage's modelling cock-up.

Quote:
SAGE has had to release an embarrassing mea culpa after getting their summer Covid modelling badly wrong. A new document released by the advice body admits the modelling “did not foresee such rapid transient change in dynamics”, citing possible reasons such as:

The closure of schools for the summer
“A period of warm weather”
Changes in behaviour following the Euros
The pingdemic forcing so many isolations

How the nation’s brainiest boffins did not foresee warm weather during the summer, nor the closure of schools, is pretty astonishing.
https://order-order.com/2021/09/15/s...r-over-summer/

Hugh 16-09-2021 13:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36093218)
Sage's modelling cock-up.

https://order-order.com/2021/09/15/s...r-over-summer/
Quote:
SAGE has had to release an embarrassing mea culpa after getting their summer Covid modelling badly wrong. A new document released by the advice body admits the modelling “did not foresee such rapid transient change in dynamics”, citing possible reasons such as:

The closure of schools for the summer
“A period of warm weather”
Changes in behaviour following the Euros
The pingdemic forcing so many isolations

How the nation’s brainiest boffins did not foresee warm weather during the summer, nor the closure of schools, is pretty astonishing.
Guido doing some highly selective quoting there…

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Statement.pdf

The original says
Quote:
The modelling did not foresee such rapid transient change in dynamics, with possible reasons including the closure of schools for the summer, changes in behaviour during and following the Euro 2020 football matches, a period of warm weather, and a large proportion of the population isolating as a result of being identified as a contact of a case, as discussed in a previous consensus statement2. Outturn data for hospital admissions over the month of August did, nevertheless, fall within expectations for some scenarios, although hospital occupancy and deaths have been lower than expected under central vaccination assumptions. It is, however, still possible to use these scenarios to understand plausible future trajectories over the next few months into winter.

papa smurf 16-09-2021 13:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36093218)
It's what we have come to expect.

jonbxx 16-09-2021 14:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
It's nice for the modelling to be wrong but the actual results being better than modeled than worse! It does show how hard it is to model populations

Chris 16-09-2021 18:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36093232)
It's nice for the modelling to be wrong but the actual results being better than modeled than worse! It does show how hard it is to model populations
Given the obvious shortcomings of this particular model I’m not sure this is a good example of complexity ….

jonbxx 17-09-2021 09:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36093274)
Given the obvious shortcomings of this particular model I’m not sure this is a good example of complexity ….
True, the behaviours shown over the June/July period weren't expected with older people staying at home more than was thought but hey, that's science, the modelling will be improved and refined to reflect these learnings.

Mick 17-09-2021 09:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: Government U-Turn on parental consent on Covid vaccines. Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty says, Healthcare professionals will seek parent or carer consent for anyone aged 12-15 to get the #COVID19 vaccine. Witty has highlighted a case law from the 1980’s that says the decision to weigh up consent for children was laid down in law and cannot be overruled by doctors or ministers, a change in the law is required that must go through Parliament.

https://twitter.com/dhscgovuk/status...993487360?s=21

Sephiroth 17-09-2021 09:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36093361)
True, the behaviours shown over the June/July period weren't expected with older people staying at home more than was thought but hey, that's science, the modelling will be improved and refined to reflect these learnings.
Presumably you are referring to the science of modelling.
The unexpected behaviours of people can't really be modelled; one month's behaviour X can't be modelled in terms of another month's behaviour Y unless all the variable factors are understood - which they can't be.

The way to do this, imo, is to publish a set of models based on different behaviour assumptions. This has a greater chance of influencing behaviour. Such models cam be refined in the light of actuality and thus avoid being ridiculed.

heero_yuy 17-09-2021 09:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
The models that make the headlines in MSM are those of doom and destruction.

Those that make a case for a better outcome are conveniently ignored especially when El Gov. want to clamp down on peoples rights.

pip08456 17-09-2021 09:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36093361)
True, the behaviours shown over the June/July period weren't expected with older people staying at home more than was thought but hey, that's science, the modelling will be improved and refined to reflect these learnings.
Will it also be improved to reflect the normal warmer weather in summer and schools closing as normal or was that unexpected?

Carth 17-09-2021 10:04
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think it was called 'guesswork' before someone had the bright idea to call it 'modelling' in order to make it sound much more clever and believable . . .

Sephiroth 17-09-2021 10:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36093374)
I think it was called 'guesswork' before someone had the bright idea to call it 'modelling' in order to make it sound much more clever and believable . . .
Right up there with the best of your posts!

jonbxx 17-09-2021 11:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36093368)
The models that make the headlines in MSM are those of doom and destruction.

Those that make a case for a better outcome are conveniently ignored especially when El Gov. want to clamp down on peoples rights.
Pretty much, yes. If you look at the original SPI-M reports such as this one there are multiple models compared with optimistic, middle and pessimistic predictions for outcomes. The ranges are huge in the graphs which does reflect the uncertainty in predictions. The SPI-M reports are very honest about the uncertainties and are also honest when the actual outcomes differ from predictions.

The press does like to pick up on the worst of worst cases as 'this is what is predicted'. It's just bad reporting to sell papers, and get clicks

Mick 17-09-2021 18:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: Health Secretary, Sajid Javid just announced on Twitter:

Quote:
Delighted to announce that we have secured a new treatment for hospitalised COVID patients which reduces the risk of death by a fifth.

Ronapreve will be available to NHS patients who have a weakened antibody response such as the immunocompromised from next week.

Hugh 17-09-2021 18:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
That’ll please my brother in law - he works for Regeneron…

Mick 17-09-2021 22:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Ouch: He’s not having a very good end to the week, no wonder it’s being reported that President Biden’s sodded off to the North Shores beach for the weekend.

White House intended on rolling out booster shots in 3 days. Today, FDA overwhelmingly voted to shut that down. 1st clear revolt from bureaucracy during this admin. Sparked by 2 top officials retiring & denouncing boosters in Lancet paper.

joglynne 19-09-2021 15:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
19 September 2021
snippet.....
Invitations to book a COVID booster jab will be sent to one and a half million people this week as the NHS vaccination programme enters a new phase ahead of winter.

Texts allowing people to arrange a top-up through the National Booking Service will start going out from tomorrow (Monday), with letters also being sent later this week.

Those who have had their second vaccine at least six months ago are eligible for the booster jab to increase their protection.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/o...abs-this-week/

Paul 19-09-2021 15:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Six months .. so even if I decided to take it, I have a while to wait.

heero_yuy 19-09-2021 16:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
My second shot was at the end of May so I'll probably get the invite.

Damien 19-09-2021 20:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36093499)

White House intended on rolling out booster shots in 3 days. Today, FDA overwhelmingly voted to shut that down. 1st clear revolt from bureaucracy during this admin. Sparked by 2 top officials retiring & denouncing boosters in Lancet paper.
IIRC This is only for a widespread booster program right? I believe they're still following the same approach as us in a booster for those at at higher risk or not?

jonbxx 20-09-2021 09:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36093431)
That’ll please my brother in law - he works for Regeneron…
The Regeneron plant in Ireland (used to be a factory for Dell until they moved to Poland) is HUGELY expanding as the plant is taking on drugs currently manufactured in the US to make space for this new COVID therapy. 400 jobs have been added already and there are 72 vacancies at the Limerick plant right now.

Anyone want a job? - https://careers.regeneron.com/c/indu...ct-supply-jobs

Mick 20-09-2021 15:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: U.S President Joe Biden will allow travellers from the UK from November, so long as they are double vaccinated. Source BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg,

1andrew1 21-09-2021 00:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36093755)
The Regeneron plant in Ireland (used to be a factory for Dell until they moved to Poland) is HUGELY expanding as the plant is taking on drugs currently manufactured in the US to make space for this new COVID therapy. 400 jobs have been added already and there are 72 vacancies at the Limerick plant right now.

Anyone want a job? - https://careers.regeneron.com/c/indu...ct-supply-jobs
More jobs coming to Ireland soon as AstraZeneca decides to invest in Ireland and not expand its Macclesfield plant.
Quote:
Ministers were lining up £55million of subsidies for Astra for the project before the rift. This was intended to convince the FTSE 100 company to invest in the UK rather than Ireland. The plans were discussed with officials on the fringes of the G7 summit, which included Boris Johnson visiting one of its sites. But Soriot was so incensed by the booster vaccine snub that it has now reverted to its original plan to build a site in Ireland, where there are more favourable tax breaks.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/othe...?ocid=msedgntp

Taf 21-09-2021 16:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
..

1andrew1 21-09-2021 17:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36093931)
..
If we removed non-infectious causes of death from that list, I wonder how it might look?

Hugh 21-09-2021 17:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36093931)
..
Jumped up a bit since the previous month...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1632241169

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1632241312

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...wales/july2021

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...les/august2021

Taf 21-09-2021 19:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
That's big jump in just a month. :shocked::shocked:

Paul 21-09-2021 20:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36093933)
If we removed non-infectious causes of death from that list, I wonder how it might look?
Like a smaller list, obviously :dozey:

Itshim 21-09-2021 22:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Road accident kills you , but have had covid how ever mild and in you go

spiderplant 22-09-2021 08:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36093957)
Road accident kills you , but have had covid how ever mild and in you go
No, this is primary cause of death. Click the links Hugh provided for a very good explanation how the figures are calculated.

Also note that "Symptoms signs and ill-defined conditions" is the only other bucket that is above the 5 year average. Which suggests there are also some undiagnosed COVID deaths in that bucket.

pip08456 22-09-2021 15:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Early days but this sounds promising.

Quote:
A Covid therapy derived from a llama named Fifi has shown "significant potential" in early trials.

It is a treatment made of "nanobodies", small, simpler versions of antibodies, which llamas and camels produce naturally in response to infection.

Once the therapy has been tested in humans, scientists say, it could be given as a simple nasal spray - to treat and even prevent early infection.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-e...t-58628689.amp

BenMcr 22-09-2021 16:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36094018)
Early days but this sounds promising.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-e...t-58628689.amp
Be good if that could be extended to the other Coronaviruses.

Star Trek's prediction for a 'cure' for the Common Cold may yet come true :D

jonbxx 23-09-2021 09:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Just signed up my kids for their jab next week with their consent of course. My kids school is being super cagey and neutral about not being seen to promote the vaccination. The kids are seeing the same thing in class. The teachers have clearly been told to have no opinion on vaccines.

I guess they looked at the potential 'schools are brainwashing our kids to put poison in them' headlines and decided to avoid that noise!

I did see on the news this morning an 80% take up at a school that was used as a trial which is great news though

Chris 23-09-2021 09:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36094099)
Just signed up my kids for their jab next week with their consent of course. My kids school is being super cagey and neutral about not being seen to promote the vaccination. The kids are seeing the same thing in class. The teachers have clearly been told to have no opinion on vaccines.

I guess they looked at the potential 'schools are brainwashing our kids to put poison in them' headlines and decided to avoid that noise!

I did see on the news this morning an 80% take up at a school that was used as a trial which is great news though
Meanwhile in Scotland the 12-15 vaccination plan seems actively designed to circumvent anti-vaxxer parents. Phase 1 is to open drop-ins, phase 2 is to send out appointment letters, and phase 3 is to hold vaccination sessions in schools that will aim to get consent from the kids directly if necessary.

But this is what happens when you elect an authoritarian, centralising, nannying nationalist party to run the country (and I say this as someone who, for once, is inclined to forgive them … we did our infant parenting at the time of the MMR controversy and I’ve seen the damage and heartache scientifically illiterate, loud-mouthed Mumsnetters can do. Frankly the question of whether kids should be vaccinated against covid against their parents’ wishes is overcoming my socially conservative instinct to protect the sanctity of the family unit).

jfman 23-09-2021 10:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
I’m sure the authoritarian, centralising nationalist party in London could do the same if anti-vaxxers weren’t actively driving policy making.

The massive overlap between anti-vax, anti-mask, GBD and pressure groups like UsForThem is slowly unravelling. It's almost as if there's venture capital funding misinformation to extend the economic disruption.

heero_yuy 23-09-2021 10:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36094107)
I’m sure the authoritarian, centralising nationalist party in London could do the same if anti-vaxxers weren’t actively driving policy making.

The massive overlap between anti-vax, anti-mask, GBD and pressure groups like UsForThem is slowly unravelling. It's almost as if there's venture capital funding misinformation to extend the economic disruption.
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1632389279

Attachment 29239

papa smurf 23-09-2021 12:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Leading expert says issue of long COVID 'slightly overblown'

Some more now from Professor Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, who's been giving his thoughts on the pandemic today.

He said he believed the issue of long COVID "has been slightly overblown", with "proper epidemiological studies" finding the incidence of it is "much lower than people had anticipated".

Sir John told Times Radio he agreed with England's chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, that the vast majority of children would get infected without a jab.

But he added there are "no bad consequences" in children with COVID and "I don't think there's any reason to panic".

He said: "I don't think we're going to have a lot of children in intensive care units. And in fact, the evidence is we don't, we never have."

The likelihood of severe disease is quite small, he added.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-new...emand-12406800

jfman 23-09-2021 12:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
I always question the credibility of people who contradict themselves within a mere few sentences.

“No bad consequences”. Makes a great headline. Clear. Definitive. Absolute.

“I don't think” feature twice in the follow up. Speculation. Guesswork.

“a lot of children” subjective.

“is quite small” subjective and sounds very likely to be non-zero. Quite a climbdown from “no bad consequences”.

What he means to say is there’s some bad consequences but as long as the coin keeps coming in for saying the right things at the right time he thinks that’s a price worth paying.

Hugh 23-09-2021 13:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Since there are 13 million under-16s in the U.K., ”quite small" could be "quite a lot"…

heero_yuy 23-09-2021 14:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Professor Chris Witty reckons half of children have already had it:



Seeing as they're not queueing round the block to get into ICU suggests that the effects are mild.

papa smurf 23-09-2021 14:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36094128)
Since there are 13 million under-16s in the U.K., ”quite small" could be "quite a lot"…
or it could be 6,but what does he know he's only a leading expert.

jfman 23-09-2021 14:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36094134)
or it could be 6,but what does he know he's only a leading expert.
2016 mate. We’ve had enough of experts.

OLD BOY 23-09-2021 15:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36094126)
I always question the credibility of people who contradict themselves within a mere few sentences.

“No bad consequences”. Makes a great headline. Clear. Definitive. Absolute.

“I don't think” feature twice in the follow up. Speculation. Guesswork.

“a lot of children” subjective.

“is quite small” subjective and sounds very likely to be non-zero. Quite a climbdown from “no bad consequences”.

What he means to say is there’s some bad consequences but as long as the coin keeps coming in for saying the right things at the right time he thinks that’s a price worth paying.
You are far too word-pedantic, jfman. I’d stick to ranting about ‘linear’ if I were you.

The number of children who even know they’ve had Covid is vanishingly small. Nothing to see here, let’s move on.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36094132)
Professor Chris Witty reckons half of children have already had it:



Seeing as they're not queueing round the block to get into ICU suggests that the effects are mild.
Quite, Heero.

jfman 23-09-2021 15:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36094136)
You are far too word-pedantic, jfman. I’d stick to ranting about ‘linear’ if I were you.

The number of children who even know they’ve had Covid is vanishingly small. Nothing to see here, let’s move on.

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



Quite, Heero.
If there’s ever someone to wade in with speculative nonsense upon speculative nonsense it’s you OB.

I take it Covid will go away by itself next summer as it didn’t last, nor this.

I’m not being pedantic. Those are his actual words presented in context from the quoted article.

If he believes mass transmission between children is a price worth paying then he should say that. Not the words he actually said.

We know where you stand regardless with your persistently discredited shield the vulnerable.

OLD BOY 23-09-2021 15:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
All of us on here, I think, know what was meant by the words used.

As for me, I stand by the things I have said previously on this subject, jfman, based on what was known at the time I said them.

Why would we not want to shield the vulnerable?

You really are a hindsight visionary of the first order.

jonbxx 23-09-2021 15:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36094120)
Leading expert says issue of long COVID 'slightly overblown'

Some more now from Professor Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, who's been giving his thoughts on the pandemic today.

He said he believed the issue of long COVID "has been slightly overblown", with "proper epidemiological studies" finding the incidence of it is "much lower than people had anticipated".

Sir John told Times Radio he agreed with England's chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, that the vast majority of children would get infected without a jab.

But he added there are "no bad consequences" in children with COVID and "I don't think there's any reason to panic".

He said: "I don't think we're going to have a lot of children in intensive care units. And in fact, the evidence is we don't, we never have."

The likelihood of severe disease is quite small, he added.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-new...emand-12406800
As others have said, there are some words doing some heavy lifting there that don't inspire confidence. It also assumes that the sole reason to vaccinate children is to stop them getting ill which is not necessarily the case. Yes, it stops kids getting sick, it may also lower the number of kids being kept at home due to positive test but most importantly, it will lower the chances of infecting those that will get seriously ill if they get it.

That's a decision we have had to make in our house. My mother (in her mid-70s) lives at the other end of the country and we have not seen her in real life for getting on for two years. She's double jabbed and so am I and my wife but the kids weren't and the infection rate in kids is pretty high. Knowing that they will get the jab next week gives me the confidence that the chance of giving her COVID that sneaks past her vaccination is much lower. It's the old 'Swiss cheese' for lowering risk. Getting the kids vaccinated adds another layer of 'cheese'.

This was also how I sold the vaccination to my kids. One hates jabs but lowering the risk of infecting their nan was incentive enough. I also used the example of HPV jabs for boys as they are of that age. My two are girls who really need the HPV jab. Boys don't, they get warts, not cervical cancer but jabbing boys lowers the risk for girls on top of their own jabs.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29.
Page 73 of 86 « First 236369707172 73 7475767783 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum