Re: Coronavirus
 

The one with the higher number of white collars working from home is probably your lower risk.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wash your mouth out! (with beer)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I thought we were bad with the most deaths in Europe (53k), but the US now have over quarter of million !
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Wonder how many of them were Trump supporting, none mask wearing, virus deniers ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

So a breakdown by ethnic group would support that biased nonsense claim?

Re: Coronavirus
 

A breakdown of who has the most incompetent governments in the World might tell us more.
No 1 the USA, No 2,. The European covid death leader, the UK.

Still never mind lets gave an Xmas free for all and make it worse...

Re: Coronavirus
 

The US and the UK have devolved adminstrations with the main powers.
Eg legally not possible to have a UK wide or US wide set of rules or lockdowns.
The number of deaths is directly related to the behaviour of the people. Eg gather in large groups, and a large proportion is going to get infected. If it was purely down to governments, there there would be no differences.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The UK Government could have invoked the Civil Contingencies Act.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not strictly true for the UK.

HMG decided at the outset to treat this as a public health issue, making it a devolved responsibility, but it could have chosen to use powers under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, effectively treating Covid as a national emergency to be managed centrally by Westminster.

(Edit) beaten to it!

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's imperfect, but surely a better indicator is the death rate per million people.

From your scource, the countries with the highest death rates are:

1. Belgium
2. San Marino
3. Peru
4. Andor
5. Spain
6. Argentina
7. Italy
8. UK
9. Brazil
10. Chile

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pandemic planning was devolved long before this year.
2011 Scottish report.
Imagine the bleating if anything had been UK-wide.

Still of course dodging the US issue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know what would be great ... if you talked in complete sentences and made some effort to explain what on earth you’re on about.

What is the US issue and who is dodging it?

As far as pandemic influenza is concerned, you might not have noticed but this isn’t an influenza pandemic and it was fairly clear, quite early on, that Covid doesn’t behave like influenza. The Civil Contingencies Act is there and available (and, frankly, could have been used even if a flu pandemic got bad enough). No amount of planning done by the Scottish Government changes that. Their 2011 report was prepared on the basis of public health powers that have been devolved since the outset of devolution itself.

You are factually wrong to assert that the UK government cannot legally act UK wide to control the covid pandemic. You are wrong on the basis of laws already passed, and you are wrong on the constitutional basis because devolution does not prevent the Westminster parliament from legislating on anything, at any time. This is because we don’t have a written constitution with an associated supreme constitutional court - unlike the USA where the legal situation is very different.

There, I’ve given you your starter for ten...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Update from PHE.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1605827942

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Scottish report specifies "such as". It's not meant to be a complete list. The report itself says "Natural Hazards (including human pandemic disease and flooding)".



If the UK government had to legislate for something then that is proof they don't currently have control over it. They would have to overturn primary legislation. That would take time.

World Health Organisation
The transmission methods are the same. That makes any precautions the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’ve misinterpreted the post Chris made.

All Coronavirus restrictions require legislation - the Coronavirus Act 2020 and Coronavirus (Scotland) Act and associated secondary legislation are the legislative vehicles for the restrictions that are in law.

However the UK Parliament can, at any time, legislate on a matter considered devolved with or without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. By convention this is not normally done without consent and a process exists whereby the Scottish Parliament can give consent for the UK Parliament to do so - usually on matters uncontroversial to save time and reduce complexity.

Separately, the Civil Contingencies Act (as opposed to public health regulations) could have been used which can give greater power to the UK Government and it’s Ministers during the pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jfman has ably rebutted this nonsense. You’re fixating on the wrong part of the problem - it makes no difference what similarities or differences exist between an influenza strain and SARS-CoV-2, as I said above. The UK government can act regardless. The Scottish Government has quite rightly made plans for dealing with an influenza pandemic because that is its responsibility under devolved public health law. The civil contingencies act, however, can be used to override this because it is a UK wide piece of legislation.

The Civil Contingencies Act is activated by an Order in Council. The powers exist; they have already been legislated for. No significant parliamentary time is required.

If further legislation is needed later, then in emergencies it can be dealt with in only a couple of days.

As to why they didn’t use the CCA, I think it is most likely they didn’t think it would become serious enough to warrant the use of what is after all really designed to counter existential threats to our national life. Their reason for doing it would have been to dodge the problems caused by the devolution settlement, which has not adequately considered how crises like this should be dealt with. Doing it to get round devolution would have carried a political cost, especially with all four nations under different political control.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Although equally powers under the Civil Contingencies Act also carry greater opportunities for scrutiny than the public health regulations being used. Arguments have been made that the CCA was not used to get around this.

That said the case for keeping the devolved administrations in the tent rather than outside it slinging mud is compelling.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wee Krankie cranking it up.

You can only screw the top down on the pressure cooker so far before it blows.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hyperbole, or what?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s already the case that you shouldn’t leave England for other than ‘essential reasons’. I’m not sure Scotland are doing anything different.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or...

They’re trying to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from dying/having long-term health issues.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The road to Hell is paved in good intentions. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

There was a clear potential political benefit in forcing Nicola Sturgeon to govern, rather than endlessly campaigning, in the hope that even her most ardent supporters would come to see her as a fallible human just like the rest of us.

It doesn’t seem to have happened so far though. :D

In most respects you can barely get a fag paper in between her decisions and Boris’. Where more obvious differences exist they’re around timing and necessary adjustments for local circumstances. Their approaches simply aren’t fundamentally different. Yet Nicola is very popular and Boris ... isn’t. The polls presently tell us a lot more about how politics is viewed in England and in Scotland than how people really feel about coronavirus measures.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm really worried about Tories in Scotland they're fast becoming extinct. They should get the same protection as red squirrels... Maybe on a reserve on some small island somewhere..

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think Scottish Labour are the true red squirrels in name and rareness. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Buddy, I lived in West Berlin during the height of the Cold War, surrounded by the totalitarian East German regime - can I politely suggest you are being rather hyperbolic?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Now, there you go virtue signalling again :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Better than ‘complete lack of virtue" signalling... ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f...-from-december

I know this is not Covid-19 but it is a step forward in safe gyarding a younger age group who could be at risk in catching flu which could well reduce their chance of just shaking off covid-19.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I got mine last Saturday.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely no side effects, Seph.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A previous employer used to give me a flu vaccine - every year for 7 years, never had any side effects.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It must have been hell for you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Actually, it was mostly enjoyable, as West Berlin was a showplace of freedom and Capitalism to rebut the GDR propaganda, and the locals were really pleased we were there (considering the alternative), but with the ever-present presence of an East German Armoured Guards Brigade about a kilometer from our Married Quarter, and working in the most visible target in West Berlin (NSA Teufelsberg), and being 110 kilometres from the West German border meaning in the event of conflict very little chance of getting out, which put a slight dark cloud over the experience.

But we were soldiers* once, and young... :)

*airmen, actually

Re: Coronavirus
 

Airperson :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nah, we had airmen (who were in the RAF), and airwomen (who were in the WRAF) - there’s only the RAF now, as they merged in 1994, and now there are airmen and airwomen in the RAF. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ok I’ve left it 9 days more than enough.

Still.............

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

The data hasn’t changed. Deaths and those in ICU still at 30% of the initial wave and now dropping.

No evidence at all that rates are dropping are due to this “lockdown”*. * not a lockdown at all anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not sure how that conclusion follows, but either way with a vaccination in sight the Government are simply not going to take any unnecessary risks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well my initial point was that after more than a week, after being told that my view was potentially incorrect due to a time delay in the data being collated, that actually what I posted has stayed firm.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It has stayed firm with increasing restrictions in more areas over time.

The logical conclusion would be that not increasing restrictions, or worse easing them, would cause more cases, more hospitalisations, more ICU admission and ultimately more deaths.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also with a vacation in sight, the Government are simply not going to take any unnecessary risks. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

So there were no tiered restrictions in place before 5th Nov? No partial lockdowns in Scotland and Wales?
If restrictions hadn't been imposed then figures would've gone upwards.
If restrictions had been lifted the figures would've sky-rocketed and further overwhelmed the NHS etc.
Today Northamptonshire

Not a uniform picture

Doesn't sound too good
Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

In fairness to the Government, I doubt they would take significant risks anyway. Despite the "Back to the office" push from the right wing press, Graham Brady and IDS (Ian Duncan-Smith, but IDS sounds like a virus so seemed apt) the evidence has always been clear to avoid unnecessary contact with others.

How, where and when we can push the limits has, rightly, been up for question over time. However, for those who take the bury-head-in-sand approach the same decision making that forced lockdown in March has created these restrictions now. While schools are open everything else is gone.

The decision making has remained the same - therefore what has changed between March and now. If the answer is, as I have said all along, absolutely nothing. Then we see predictable outcomes and greater restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The logical conclusion would have been seeing deaths and ICU continue to rise, due to the “lag”. But the data shows them levelling off before then.

Just confirms that shutting the pubs and boutique shops (as that’s really all that has changed) was unnecessary.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I genuinely don’t see how your conclusion links with the data.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or...

That the new treatments and learnings from the first wave have reduced the number of patients progressing to ICU and/or deaths.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Great! Can stop “lockdown” then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why? - the hospital patient numbers are still rising (and the numbers in vents), and we don’t know the long term effects of "long COVID".

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1605967499

Re: Coronavirus
 

Covid 19 lockdown farce
 

I personally dont think that joker Boris, or his cronies know what the hell to do with the Covid 19 lockdown scenario.

We had a total lockdown in March, and various businesses went under, jobs were lost.
Now we are under another one which ends in December 3rd. What Boris is doing is playing with the lives of thousands of people.

He has stated in various newspapers that IF, we have two weeks off at Xmas, it will result in a full lockdown for another month. We also have members of his own party saying that there should NOT not another lockdown as it will totally ruin the economy The Chancellor has stated that Xmas will NOT be a normal one. You try telling kids that, the people that have lost there jobs over this.

Where l park my car in a local pub or work, l was told recently that he is losing £20.000 per week( surely, they cannot claim that back) and has had to lay off all his staff.

The Government is going on the science of it all, and yet some scientist have stated that the government has gone to far.

Now we have Nicola Sturgeon saying what about Hogmanay.

This country cannot keep borrowing money to support the country, it will take years to get the country back on its feet, due to a farcical PM who should have taken control of this back in March.:mad::mad:

Arthur please do not start another thread about the virus but post in the original.

Re: Covid 19 lockdown farce
 

On the one hand you talk about jobs being lost, but then you say the government can't keep borrowing money - which is arguably helping to protect jobs.

What would you do differently?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oxford vaccine is 70% effective in trials

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55040635

However the data suggests that by varying dosage levels that might rise to 90% - in the trial, amongst those given 2 high doses protection was 62%, while those who got a low dose then a high dose had 90% protection. 70% seems to be the average for the whole trial and as of right now nobody knows what mechanism is causing better protection by varying dosage.

Anyway the best news for the wider world is that the Oxford vaccine is cheaper and quicker to produce than either of last week’s RNA vaccines and doesn’t need to be stored at ultra low temperatures. So it can easily be deployed anywhere in the world.

Re: Covid 19 lockdown farce
 

I think it's more rant than roadmap, which is understandable. ;)

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 ----------

Great news, the more the merrier especially if it doesn't need the low temperatures that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires and the complex manufacturing process that the Moderna one does. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Excellent news!:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fantastic news on the Oxford/AZ vaccine. Not sure why the focus seems to be on the 70% single dose efficacy and not the 90% 1.5 dose one. Of course, if 70% is sufficient to give herd immunity, then we're getting a much better 'bang for the buck' over multi-dose regimes both in terms of efficiency of use of the material but also in the resources needed to administer the vaccine. It would be interesting to see the single dose efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

The good wife and I were discussing the various vaccine approaches over the weekend and the deals with various companies is smart not just because we didn't know which vaccines would work but also how they're made. There will almost certainly be bottlenecks in production not just of the vaccines but also their raw materials.

The RNA vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna) use raw materials (nucleotides and enzymes) that will directly compete with the needs for production of COVID RT-PCR test kits. The AZ/Oxford doesn't but, as cell culture is involved, uses other specialised chemicals such as cell culture grade amino acids. Also, the facilities for cell culture are a lot more complex than RNA production.

I know raw materials suppliers are wildly working to expand production of pharmaceutical grade chemicals and equipment to meet these needs

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think that's poor headline writing on the BBC website - Sky News says "up to 90%" which more accurately describes the situation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Irony jumped the tracks, careened down the embankment, crashed through a circus, drove over a mink farm, and finally plowed into a protected wetland where it rolled over, leaking oil, and exploded, raining down smoking clown shrapnel and flaming weasels over the countryside.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1760195.html Steve Baker previously... https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1606128055

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are ethical issues for some - the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine is developed using HEK-293 cell line sourced for an aborted baby in 1973. (Another line used is PER.C6 from a child aborted in the 1980's.)
While most will likely look at the greater good of getting the vaccine it will be an issue for some, maybe to the extent of not wanting the vaccine. Hopefully good alternatives not using such cell lines will be available also.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the BBC left Job's comforters in charge of the newsdesk overnight. At 7am today the intro paragraph to the story described the Oxford results as 'a triumph and a disappointment' and only much further down did it discuss the findings that a certain dosage regime could result in 90% efficacy. It almost entirely ignored the fact that 70% is itself in absolute terms an unqualified triumph for a newly developed vaccine of this type.

The word 'disappointment' vanished from the top of the story by around 8.30am and now the headline itself has dropped '70%' and simply talks in terms of it being 'highly effective'. The nearest it gets to expressing disappointment is in para 3: "The results will be seen as a triumph, but also come off the back of Pfizer and Moderna showing 95% protection."

I think someone at BBC News very badly wanted this to be a dramatic failure, or at least a poor second best. I suspect that there have been a few irritated phone calls from actual experts to the news room this morning asking them what the hell they think they're trying to do, talking down something that could be almost as effective as either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, at a fraction of the cost or complexity.

"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story," my own news editor used to say, with his tongue at least partially in his cheek. Sadly it looks like the BBC Newsdesk thinks it's a motto for life.

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------

Ah, deontological ethics ... don't get me started :D

I think that sort of rule-based ethics creates more problems than it solves personally.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Vatican seems (reluctantly) happy with aborted tissue derived cells at least - https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/03/...nate-children/

Unfortunately, HEK-293 cells are your 'go to' cells for Adenovirus production as they are really easy to handle and persuade to make Adenovirus for you.

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Ah, I see the issue now. The press release says the following;

So 70.4% is technically correct but an averaging of two different approaches

Press release here - https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/si...ss_release.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, a press release written by someone who doesn't understand how journalists work, picked up by a journalist who doesn't understand how science works.

We're all screwed. (I read somewhere)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree, but I don’t think there’s anything sinister in the reporting. I don’t think anyone intended for the press release to be used that way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It looks like the 90% protection rate is established from a sample of participants in the trial that is too small to justify headlining the 90% figure. Most participants seem to have been given the dosage regimen that resulted in 62% protection. Nevertheless the scientists appear to be sufficiently confident they can replicate 90% protection in a large trial of that regimen that that’s what they really want to talk about this morning.

The BBC original report however is what almost inevitably happens when you give technical press releases to the non specialist, probably quite junior hacks running the graveyard shift. The word “disappointment” shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the page. That wasn’t in the Oxford press release and isn’t attributed to anyone else who might actually know what they were talking about. It is however the sort of interpretive commentary the BBC is very good at - suggesting what people should think about the news rather than just telling it as it is. Try watching any live to-camera report on the Six or the Ten and see how many of them sign off with an unattributed suggestion as to how “many” will react to what’s just been said.

And I won’t go off on one about the editors’ code of conduct that makes clear the importance of clear distinctions between a journalist reporting the news and a journalist offering opinion or commentary ...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Chris I'm not in disagreement here I just think they're crap and seeking clicks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I can as I drink Cider or one of my 18 different bottle of vodka.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He drinks a lager drink, he drinks a cider drink, he sings the songs that remind him of the good times...

Sorry Maggy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The AZ press release - https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...zd1222hlr.html gives a little more detail on the statistical significance;

The 'p' value of <0.0001 is pretty compelling, roughly saying that there is a 0.01% chance of these results happening by chance. The release correctly says that this is still preliminary data with more to come. Without challenge testing (deliberately infecting trial subjects with SARS-COV2 to see what happens) there needs to be a lot of people in a Phase III trial.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given that the Flu Vaccine is about 50% at best, I'll take 70% as being good.

Im sure I read somewhere that you only need about 70% of the population immune for a virus to stop spreading (the infamous herd immunity :)).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hey, that's enough of the banter. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Had an important looking letter today from the NHS. . . they're now almost begging me to have a flu jab.

Included in the envelope was a second letter, this one informing me that sending letters out was costing the NHS money it could use elsewhere . . .

well excuse me, but if you'd taken notice the first, second, and third, even the fourth time I said I didn't want one, you wouldn't be wasting your bloody money.

I suspect Flu is transmitted in a very similar way to Covid-19 . . and I'm already taking rather stringent measures to prevent that, thanks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I just got a text from our Surgery for a flu jab (eligible because I'm between 50-65), and I'll be booking it once I've had the 2nd jab (3rd December) from the COVID vaccine test I'm part of (there has to be a 7 day gap between the 2nd jab and getting a flu jab).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good luck. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Had my flu jab on Saturday just. :)

Also was offered the pneumococcal (sp.) jab so had that too.

Both in my left arm as I'm only 9 weeks past major surgery on my right arm.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had the flu jab along with my dad the other week, I wonder as we live in the same house, and he is offered the COVID-19 jab should I be also offereed it

Re: Coronavirus
 

I doubt it. I should imagine it will be dispensed in order of priority.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It will be given what was announced last week.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, I saw the new tiers, T3 is just lockdown under another name.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Overseas quarantine for England to be slashed to 5 days from 14 days.

https://www.ft.com/content/5953cafb-...5-397744d5b9bb

Re: Coronavirus
 

Won't affect me personally but that's a positive development. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are many scientific breakthroughs "by accident" no reason for this to be different nor unwelcomed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The anti vax brigade will be all over that. Such a basic error what else might not be right about it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good job there was no one to tell Jenner he was doing it all wrong when he discovered how to vaccinate against smallpox.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And that Alexander Fleming, what was he doing running filthy experiments. You’re not injecting any of that mouldy crap into me. :dunce:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately....

https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/obj...ry-vaccination

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pity there's no actual antidote against stupidity.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately if you can imagine vaccines being abused it's certain that someone in power somewhere has also imagined it and possibly even worked out plans to implement it. Is that the actual case in the UK any other nation? Probably not but with what we know now of genetics and so on it would make a rather nasty and targeted weapon.

That said the objections listed above are more an issue of personal vs corporate responsibility and that is likely true for most nations now. There is the ethical issue of vaccines produced/developed with foetal cell lines that may be of major concern for some.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What could the possible abuses be, please?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Imagine adding something to the vaccine, maybe a genetic tag that makes the person vulnerable to a poison that can be released at a later date, targeted killing.
Or even simply dosing one group with a placebo or weakened vaccine, that group then remains vulnerable possibly after a short period.
Just use your imagination how you would abuse mass vaccination and someone else likely has also thought of it as more than simply a thought experiment.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Off topic but I bet they are happy to consume cheese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese...o%20curd%20and