Re: Coronavirus
 

This year will see the 50th consecutive year that I've had a 'flu jab. And I've never had 'flu or even mild side effects from the jabs, apart from local tenderness for a day.

@joglynne I went through the list, and it's only our local Tesco (fully booked) and one branch of Lloyds (fully booked). A private clinic will be offering them "once supplies stabilise", but ASDA has said no plans to offer them again this year. Boots' booking system doesn't work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So you started getting the jab when you were 15? Why so young?

Re: Coronavirus
 

WOW
That is terrible Taf, we have so many places to get the flu jab that a couple of chemists near us are doing walk in jabs rather than doing appointments.

Our GP has not received any supplies so he's not as yet involved in the flu jabs and this has freed up his staff to do a concerted mop up operation for those patients who they have been identified as still needing/wanting their 1st, 2nd or 3rd/booster covid jabs.

:erm: I do have to wonder if having the 5th highest rate of infections in England has maybe prompted my area, Trafford, to get so many supplies of both the flu and covid vaccinations.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...m_medium=email

Re: Coronavirus
 

No it doesnt.

It might give you flu like symptoms as your body reacts to it, but thats all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It worked for me on Friday so might be worth trying again. I booked one for today.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And me, it worked fine. Maybe it’s different in darkest Wales! ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It also worked for me, I booked mine at my local boots last week [ok].

Re: Coronavirus
 

RAF entry, barely 16, then we had to keep all our jabs up-to-date in case of overseas deployment. One of the first sessions was the old sugar cube (polio?) and 6 jabs in one minute. Then the rest of the day off.... bliss.

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

I chatted with the Tesco Pharmacist today. They had agreed a set number of 'flu jabs for each week. The first week only half arrived, ditto the second, The third week less than a quarter was supplied. Their online booking system is in a total mess, so has now been closed until the correct number of doses arrive and the backlog cleared.

I was told that Boots and Lloyds are in the same boat.

Re: Coronavirus
 

After we got the 6 jabs, we went on a 5 mile run (Swinderby 74).

After that, half the Entry lay in bed feeling poorly, the rest of us went to the NAAFI.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We were more genteel (Locking Craft Apprentices 72). ;)

The only jab that gave me any grief, ever, was the one injected just under the skin to form a half-inch bubble. The site became massively itchy in minutes, and that persisted for hours.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Guardian have an article with some country comparisons of the current state of play with vaccinations, cases and deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...al-and-eastern

The extremely good news is that it’s probably safer to go on holiday than hang around here. I’d maybe wear a mask for the flight though just in case.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why is it "safer".
Wear a mask in case of what ?
What are you afraid of exactly ?

Infection rates as such dont mean much on their own.
The real issue is serious illness (hospitalisations) and/or deaths.

It doesnt matter if the whole country is infected, if almost everyone just shakes it off.
Most of the country gets infected by colds every year, but we just shake it off, no big deal.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely right, Paul. So many people still don’t get it, and concentrate on the number of infections rather than the number of hospitalisations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

One thing I was thinking about earlier is that we've now had covid around for over 18 months.


Obviously we have a test which can detect the presence of virus in a sample but not whether the person is infected or spreading it to others.


And we still have the facility and still are testing people for the virus even though the numbers are largely stable and not making gigantic dents into hospitalisations or deaths thanks to the vaccination, even though it hasn't yet caused it to go away, and maybe never will.


We are surely now around the point where Whitty referred to as a probability some time back, where we have the virus almost endemic, and just have to carry on with it.


I know some people may well logically think 30k positive tests or wherever it is around a day is bad news but this depends surely on who is getting ill, how much at risk they are from serious covid, and how ill they are, e.g. are they picked up asymptomatic, do they have a cough and that's it, or are they likely to end up on oxygen or a ventilator. If these are only going to get as severely ill as if they have flu, then whilst it sucks for that person to be ill, they will get over it and this shouldn't be too much of a concern.


But I don't recall that we have tested so extensively than for this, for anything else such as a cold, or flu, or norovirus, or anything else which is infectious which you can test for (which presumably is always possible with a PCR test and knowing the mRNA sequence). Or if you did, how the pattern would look when we did, and how it would look when we tested people who weren't ill, and what it would look like when real-world observations show it's settled down.

In other words, what figures equate to "it's over" - my guess would be this isn't zero.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s proven that a mask reduces transmission. For the princely sum of 25 pence an FFP2 mask would reduce the chances of catching Covid on a plane. Which overseas I’m sure would likely be an expensive experience if requiring even moderate medical treatment.

The serious illness and/or death figure is indeed more important, we just seem to have higher incidence of those than other countries too.

Now we can either rest on our laurels of British exceptionalism or seek to learn what best practice is going on elsewhere. Our economic recovery isn’t going to be robust with relatively high incidence of the virus, hospitalisations and deaths. In the worst case scenario - and one indeed the Government is planning for - restrictions have to come back in.

I’d say it’s more important to work out what’s going on now rather than too late as we did before every lockdown to date.

---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

I’m inclined to agree it’s not zero, but economic recovery needs a high level of consumer confidence. Which isn’t likely to rebound if the perception is that the levels are high and if, for example, people are unable to get ambulances and hospitals are cancelling routine appointments.

If we are unable to learn lessons from other countries, and have higher levels without economic recovery, then all we’ve achieved is more dead Brits.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But it wasn’t, I once again took of my mask as soon as sat down, and didn’t put it back on until I got off.

A great 5 days of golf, beer and sun. The weather was amazing and whilst there, the Covid hazard level the Canaries was reduced to level 1……low. No restrictions that I saw.

Was in the Dubliner Irish bar/club until 04:00 on Friday, lots of drinking and dancing, no masks.

Even bumped into Ricky Hatton.

Speaking to restaurant owner and he said that a month ago they were at about 40% normal trade, this week they were at 80% and expect for Oct half term to be back to 100%.

Also a friend that lives in Portugal has said that they have dropped the need for any extra checks or requirements to enter there.

Do you hear that? That is the sound of normality returning.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The sound of normality returning... elsewhere.

Portugal are experiencing an average 600 cases a day and 7 deaths a day.

Adjusted for population something like 4000 cases/45 deaths. I think Spain have similar population adjusted figures. Well placed for economic recovery because the starting point is you are extremely unlikely to catch Covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You'd rather believe what the Guardian says than check yourself. Cases do not now mean more deaths and more cases are less severe but that wouldn't fit your or their agenda would it?

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1633984284

Re: Coronavirus
 

What’s the agenda?

Wanting less hospitalisation, less death and a better economic recovery? I’m not sure there’s really anything untoward or unreasonable than that as a position to take.

Cases are less severe than before vaccination, and cases are less likely to die than before vaccination, but clearly if more people catch it more people will have severe cases and deaths (versus less people catching it). These figures still track, but at lower levels than they used to.

Vaccines waning are a legitimate concern as we go into the winter and other countries are pushing a booster dose for all 18+. If that’s the route to go down, shouldn’t we also take it? Or should we bury our heads in the sand as there’s genuinely nothing we can learn from observing anywhere else and their experience? I’d contend that anyone taking that stance would be the one with the agenda, and not my stance.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree we should do all of the above but I did definitely sniff an agenda in that Grauniad report. For my taste they were not nearly curious enough about the reasons behind policy decisions and far to willing to assume they’re comparing like-with-like. The BBC ran a very similar piece a couple of days ago, but the main difference was they were willing to examine the fact that European nations, ever since the beginning of the pandemic, have not gone through their waves at the same time, and are not doing so now.

An uncritical snapshot of comparative levels of infection and death between European countries doesn’t really tell us very much about our pandemic response. It probably tells us more about the Grauniad’s editorial agenda.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, to be honest it's probably worth fact checking most claims from the media at the moment or at least thinking about what they're actually saying.


A lot of it seems to be out to scare people especially around various supply issues right now. Pictures of empty shelves which could just as much be a missed delivery or some muppets panic buying toilet roll again all of a sudden becomes a dossier on a major supply crisis. Yet I was in Morrisons on Saturday night and the shelves were far from empty in most cases. How much can you trust them to be objective?


As for covid it's clear that our figures are because it's ripping through school kids at the moment, and whilst some kids can get ill from it, most will recover after a few days like a cold or similar, and as we have no mitigations in place such as wearing face nappies or year group bubbles and only positive tests need to stay off (by which point you'd argue the class is going to all get it anyway) it's no surprise it's happening especially as they have only recently made the vaccine available to 12+ which doesn't even cover most year 7s and primary age kids at all, and most 12-16 probably haven't had the vaccine yet or had it long enough to be effective. Even if they had, it's not as if the vaccine is mainly designed to stop people getting mildly ill. But seeing figures without context, which is what happens if you want to make a point, ignores the actual issue. Which is hospital admissions and deaths, which whilst they're not minimal, are low enough not to be too concerning, and it's not as if we've monitored a lot of viruses like this before.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What's potentuially concerning is that the downward trend in UK hospitalisations may have ended and in the last seven days rose by 0.9%. This is definitely a stat to watch.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

---------- Post added at 22:27 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

How long would it take you to check that article? I can't see many people doing that. But it will be exposed to public scrutiny so if anything is seriously amiss, it will be corrected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

0.9% isn't much though and could equally be noise or reporting lags.


Don't forget also that "hospitalisations" also include
- those who would for example present to A&E with a broken arm and test positive for covid on arrival even though covid wasn't the reason for them going
- those who were negative for covid on arrival but tested positive whilst in hospital (having caught it from a staff member, another patient, or a visitor).


Yet another point about measuring criteria really.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's always been measured that way, the key issue is that hospitalisations may have declined.

It's a tiny increase but I'm sure this measure will be keenly watched to see if this is a 7-day blip or not.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Any stat that is expressed as a % is only a stat to be viewed with suspicion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All the data's there, that's the headline figure which illustrates the fact that in the last seven days, hospitalisations have stopped decreasing. Hopefully, it's a blip but it's worth keeping a beady eye on.
Pleased you enjoyed Spain, I'm off to Gran Canaria next month.

---------- Post added at 00:27 ---------- Previous post was at 00:05 ----------

Worth a read, Google the headline to read the article, probably no surprises for anyone who's followed developments openly.

https://www.ft.com/content/20e6bf0b-...b-e1d4351368be
Also:
Sky News http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-s...y-mps-12431778

Re: Coronavirus
 

Worth a read only if you subscribe to the FT.

All I can see is 10 lines of waffle there that simply state it was a 'failure' with nothing at all to back it up. So why exactly was it a 'failure' ?

---------- Post added at 02:17 ---------- Previous post was at 00:43 ----------

Edit: A far better link, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58876089

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can always trust Triggle to put a positive spin out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty shocking that Jet2 cabin crew aren't following company procedures if they don't ask passengers to wear masks at all at any point. Makes we wonder what other company procedures they might want to pick and choose that they want to follow.

Of course, if they asked over the PA and people ignored this, then those passengers are breaking the law

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s not the law to wear a face covering on a flight from England. Once they are in the air there’s not much they can do - Jet2 aren’t going to want to land the plane and disrupt hundreds of passengers for something they can’t point to a legislative grounding for.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is the law to obey a lawful command from the captain or, by delegation, the cabin crew however. All covered by Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016. See article 244;

Re: Coronavirus
 

Londons NYE fireworks won't be held on the Thames this year (again)

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/12/londo...05&ai=15406333

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is it a lawful command?

The Government removed the requirement from regulations and their guidance now simply recommends it. If the intent was for this to be the law it could have remained the law.

I suspect Jet2 would be keen to avoid the courts/risk to their reputation to establish case law around it. Especially if you could take your mask of and theoretically nurse a couple of cans of Heineken for the journey.

Re: Coronavirus
 

True, but IATA mandates mask use when travelling by air (link) and airlines will follow those rules. It's not against the law to mandate mask wearing so it would be a lawful command.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed.

Performed well
• Ability of the NHS to absorb the pressures COVID placed on it.
• Rapid deployment of Nightingale hospitals.
• Decision to pre-order vaccines even before trials had proved their effectiveness.
• 100,000 tests target.

Performed badly
• Decisions on lockdowns and social distancing during the early weeks of the pandemic - and the advice that led to them - "rank as one of the most important public health failures the United Kingdom has ever experienced".
• Failure to believe that the British public would accept lockdown helped delay one from being implemented, despite evidence that the NHS was going to be overwhelmed with cases.
• Decision to abandon testing for COVID in the community early on was a mistake that "cost many lives".
• Failing to prioritise social care and discharging people from hospitals into care homes "led to many thousands of deaths".
• Robust border controls were needed sooner.
• “Serious deficiencies" in communication within government and between central and local government.

From https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...y-mps-12431778

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, they only need to serve food (or for you to open a bottle of water you bought in the airport) for you to take it off anyway.


And I'm not the mask's greatest fan but surely if you wanted to you could argue it as a safety consideration protecting the other passengers if someone has the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No mention of ppe or test and trace :rofl:

Bozo picked a great time for his holiday,,,

Re: Coronavirus
 

The delay for the initial lockdown was a huge blunder in retrospect. Not only the deaths but also how long it then took to recover in getting case numbers down. It's only a couple of weeks but it was costly.

I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption that lockdown would not be tolerated though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Everyone can look at things in retrospect and decide hindsight is a wonderful thing. Foresight though is another matter, the Government relied on SAGE which obviously didn't have it.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...Covid-19__.pdf

Agreed but TheDaddy doesn't look at things the same way as you or I. I also can't remember any of the opposition objecting to the route the incumbant Government was taking at the time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not worried about him being in Marbs on holiday - I’m more worried about him coming back… :D

Anyway, the hospital was over 18 months ago (as was the baby), and I’m sure the 7 hour flight from the West Coast was (at least) in Business Class comfort, which strongly reduces the jet lag (lie-flat beds and all that), and if "running" the country is so exhausting, he may wish to examine his options… ;)

(I actually have no issue with our Leaders having holidays)

Re: Coronavirus
 

People on this Forum and elsewhere were calling for an earlier lockdown at the time, if I remember correctly. Certainly there were calls at the time for the March 10th Liverpool v Atletico Madrid match not being played in front of spectators when Madrid itself was locked down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There was heavy reliance upon the “cultural differences” card for a lot of exceptional decision making.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Surely the government didn’t need to be told by SAGE about the situation in Europe who were approx some six weeks ahead of us in terms of infection rates, hospitalisations, deaths & lockdowns.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Better memory than me then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The search function and my username would be a good starting point.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I didn't get out much in 2020. :D

I remember Mr K coming back from Rome as we all learnt what was unravelling. Some quotes from the original thread.

10/03/2020
12/03/2020
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...avirus&page=23

Re: Coronavirus
 

Rory Stewart, 9th March 2020

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a9389051.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Plenty of people were against any such move as well.

The fact is that ordering a lockdown was (quite rightly) a last resort, and not something to just jump into lightly.

They could never win anyway ;
Do it too early, one set blame you for being too soon.
Wait a bit and another set blame you for taking to long.

There will always be people who blame "the government", whatever they do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just as on the other hand since 2016 there appears to be a group that will forgive them regardless of how rubbish their performance is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Government are responsible for these decisions in the end. When a decision is first made they will get flack from either side but that's the nature of the job. If they make the right decision time may vindicate them but in this case, time didn't. It was as the report says it turned out to be a very bad decision.

I have a lot of understanding of why they made the decision. I thought it made sense at the time. It was still a bad decision for which they're responsible though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The other point here is that when it was ordered people could see it was necessary because the extra week showed for sure we were on the same path as Spain and Italy and also that this meant there was serious risk the NHS would end up overwhelmed, but that there was still time to stop it.



A week or so earlier, there perhaps wasn't the case numbers to show this was definitely the case. And some people may well have been reluctant to lock down (it's still possible for this even with businesses closed, they can meet up elsewhere) if the stats showed only 500 people or something had the virus (even though the actual figure was probably many times more).

Re: Coronavirus
 

The week before (Monday) Boris told people to avoid all unnecessary contact with other people and to work from home if they can. Then he closed the pubs on the Friday.

The writing was always on the wall and everyone knew it. The only question mark - for purely economic reasons - was to try and drag a “3 week lockdown” to the Easter school holidays to lessen the impact. Blaming the hypothetical public non-adherence is a red herring, with the appropriate financial support there was no reason to expect the public to not adhere as they had done elsewhere.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe, just maybe, taking back control of our borders meant HMG thought they could prevent the virus entering impenetrable fortress UK ;) :erm:

Think Trumps wall but with twenty ft high posters of Pritti all owa the shop.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a question we'll never know the answer to because we can't suggest what might have happened based on a scenario which did happen.


It also struck me at the time that he was basically locking down from the week before, but giving people the choice; and at the time, there was plenty of reporting with pubs suddenly getting exited when Boris had said to avoid them, they were then left with lower numbers and still the same operating until he formally closed them, but also crucially with no help such as furlough or from insurance if they then took the decision to close due to poor trade. Given that also a lot of people were then still packing out clubs and stuff they presumably felt they did need to move further with the guidance.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have neither the time nor inclination.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Plenty of people still think that the lockdown was a bad idea.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That Select Committee suggest thousands of lives would have been saved. I don't really buy into the argument that the British wouldn't have accepted a lockdown but everywhere else in the world would.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lockdown didn't really affect those whilst working in jobs in power generation and supply, water and drainage, many heavy industries, manufacture and distribution of food and other supplies, policing, hospitals, etc.

But it did affect their social and family lives, and that's why many of them got upset.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In case anyone is wondering . . I'm still pretty peed off that wife & daughter are still working from home while perfectly good council offices are sitting empty. :mad:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, but, it may possibly have saved some of them from hospitalization or worse...

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's all If's, buts and maybes.

There is no way to tell how many, if any, lives were saved by locking down. Or if it would ave been better to do things differently. Because we didn't do things differently so we'll never know. Also comparing ourselves to other countries is also pointless.

The one thing that you can say did kill a lot of people was the sending of infected people back from hospitals to care homes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another thing you can say is that there would of been significantly higher deaths had lockdown not been implemented as one of if not the primary reason was to stop the NHS crashing, from being overloaded and being unable to provide care.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lockdown may have prevented the NHS being overwhelmed by COVID patients, but they failed to treat people with other ailments and people that should have gone to hospital or their GP didn’t.

We also spent millions on Nightingale hospitals that were not used.

The NHS was demonstrably shown to be not fit for purpose.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your point is moot

The NHS would have treated even less had it crashed due to an unmanageable influx of patients which would have been the result of not implementing lockdowns.

What does the Nightingale hospitals have to do with it? that was a ministerial decision which NHS leaders were expected to comply with?

In addition by your logic it highlights medical services globally are unfit for purpose, as the only countries who suffered minimal disruption were those that locked down hard and fast.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes interesting one this, Merck that also produced Ivermectin that was reported to alleviate COVID hospitalization and deaths but has been rubbished left right and centre and ‘no evidence’. Etc etc. Merck’s patent on Ivermectin has ran out meaning it can be produced for about £5 a dose.

But now Merck have produced a new drug “Molnupiravur” which is totally effective against COVID and nothing like Ivermectin guvenor oh no, this is the proper stuff you want.

Price for you? I can do it for £750 a dose.

Good news for all those born yesterday.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And made them more vulnerable to flu, by the sounds of it. Lockdowns and isolation measures have weakened our immune systems, which is why scientists are concerned about a flu epidemic this winter.

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:21 ----------

If longer lockdowns have eroded our normal state of immunity, there could well be a lot more deaths as a result of that.

---------- Post added at 17:24 ---------- Previous post was at 17:23 ----------

That, too.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How do you know they’re the same drug? Even if it is then what’s stopping the NHS using the generic version?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah yes, the classic I’ll make a statement easily disproved but stand by it. You should run for a political office!

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not saying that, but it does seem to be convenient.

There may be very well be nothing in it, a large pharmaceutical company will have many drugs at various states of development that can be tweaked to treat different things, but the critical and cynical part of me, just finds it convenient. That’s all.

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

All I said was that Andrew must have a better memory than me?

Hardly a political stance?

Re: Coronavirus
 

A colleague had an early morning phone call from the Care Home his mother lives in. He was told that she had "passed quietly during the night whilst recovering after a covid infection".

Minutes later, his mother phoned him to ask him to bring some items at his next visit.

Same forename, different surname.

He blew his top at the Care Home boss.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They knew that. BUT:

Sage was advising not to lock down too early because the fear was that people would get fed up and start breaking the rules just at a crucial point, when the infection rate started to come down, AND

We did not have a vaccine, and so lockdowns by themselves would not take out the virus. It would simply come back when the lockdown was withdrawn.

If the government was supremely confident that a vaccine was just around the corner, their decisions would almost certainly have been different.

Re: Coronavirus
 

When did you lock down OB?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

For those born today, here is the reality, not the Internet conspiracy theory…

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2R32JP Strangely enough, exactly the same Bolleaux was being spread about the Pfizer anti-viral treatment when it was announced a couple of days before the Merck announcement, then the tinfoil milliners seamlessly swivelled to spread the same ordure about Merck.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Our Prime Minister addressed the nation on 16 March. Avoid all unnecessary contact.

I as a middle class, white, professional did my civic duty. Abandoning my Republican principles and not celebrating the feast day of Saint Patrick.

Did OB in his personal life “shield the vulnerable” on 17 March or fundamentally go into lockdown?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah yes, the classic I’ll make a statement easily disproved but stand by it. You should run for a political office!

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s a question, not a statement. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whatever…………. :zzz:

Re: Coronavirus
 

We know you don’t care Pierre. Except you do to the extent you have the second most posts in the thread. As ever I can’t wait for what insights you bring tomorrow. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Critical thought Hugh, critical thought…………………….

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

I just don’t care for you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

And here you are, day after day, of all the places to be.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Christ, if you think I frequent this forum because you’re here….that’s some narcissistic issue right there. But yes, I see you could hold such a deluded perspective given your post history. There is definitely a love of self there. ………. A bit single paced though, if you know what I mean?

Re: Coronavirus
 

As I say, despite being a "member" since 2003 your insight (or lack thereof) into this subject accounts for over 5% of your posts. I don't spend my time posting on the internet about subjects of little interest to me - maybe you do, I'm not one to judge.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Obviously not critical thinking enough to do a 30 second search…

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement, not "ooh, this supports my biases, it must be true"; promulgation of baseless rumours is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "critical thinking".

Re: Coronavirus
 

At 574 posts in the thread we might be into infinite monkey theorem territory it we expect anything meaningful from Pierre.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jesus christ, grow up or I'll remove you from this again.

Its like watching 5 year olds in the playground, no one cares how many bloody posts anyone has in this topic, its irrelevant.

Get back on topic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nowhere had a vaccine at that point in time, Nobody ever said that lockdowns would stop the virus spreading merely slow it's spread and in turn allowing the NHS to manage patient flow as best as possible.

The infection rate started to come down? How do you work that one out? At that time we had targeted testing only, you have zero evidence to support that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He didn't say it. For a supposedly intelligent chap you do seem to miss-read posts quite a lot ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

That depends on entirely how much coffee i've had... which in this case wasn't enough :D

Indeed, apologies OB

Re: Coronavirus
 

aah yes, lack of coffee does tend to make those brain cells a bit sluggish, those neuron thingies need a damn good kick starter at my age :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’ll keep my powder dry. Suggesting that the virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan was deemed mis-information, and any mention of such would have shouted down as a conspiracy nut and banned from you tube and Twitter ……………until suddenly 12months or so later it was a viable hypothesis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Comparing apples to pebbles…

When independent professional virologists state as a fact it’s a different drug, that’s not the same as not knowing the provenance of COVID - one is confirmed information based on peer-reviewed documentation, the other is "we don’t know, it might have been".

Trying to say they are the same thing doesn’t just step over the line to a conspiracy theory, it takes a 20 metre run up and then uses a springboard to get over the line… ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

BBC News just now:

"Covid-19 deaths with 28 days of a positive test are rising".

Me, using the data that the ONS is publishing daily: "Nope".

Re: Coronavirus
 

It must be the overcrowding.