Coronavirus

[nomadking]

I have no doubt there are areas in Tier 3 that have 0 cases per 100,000. So what?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm in T3 with 157 cases per 100,000.

Lancaster is below the national average, guess what, tier 3 for there too

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

Originally Posted by nomadking

I have no doubt there are areas in Tier 3 that have 0 cases per 100,000. So what?

Why would you put an area with a 0 case rate in tier 3

[jfman]

Because it's impossible to define geographic areas so small and not have people flout the rules.

[Carth]

I knew it would take something special to compete with VAR as unfit for purpose, looks like the latest Tier restrictions have accomplished that

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Carth

I knew it would take something special to compete with VAR as unfit for purpose, looks like the latest Tier restrictions have accomplished that

On that l think we can agree...

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Carth

I knew it would take something special to compete with VAR as unfit for purpose, looks like the latest Tier restrictions have accomplished that

And your solution would be..................?

[Mr K]

Seems we're taking it seriously now, about time.

'Eat out to Help out (and help spread a deadly disease) was a massive own goal, and whilst I love pubs, I can cope without them.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by denphone

l wholeheartedly disagree.

I rather thought you might Den. Just as I knew you knew what I was talking about without resorting to pathetic pedantry.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A populist theory and not an evidence-based one - Kent is in Level 3, for example.

Kent isn’t Westminster, Victoria, soho, Oxford st. Etc etc.

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Yet despite those concerns, it can still go ahead.... hmmmm, i wonder why?

Having circa 2000 people in an outside 40,000 capacity venue is not a risk. It’s rediculous that it’s taken this long.

[Mr K]

Doubts are growing over the Oxford vaccine claims.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...droidApp_Other

The Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine is coming under increasing scrutiny, with critics questioning the claim that trials showed it could protect up to 90% of people against coronavirus.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...ions-lockdown/

AstraZeneca may run further trials to assess the efficacy of its Covid-19 vaccine, the company's chief has said, after experts raised concerns over the validity of its data.

AstraZeneca and Oxford University on Monday reported that a lower initial dose of the vaccine, followed by a full dose, produced a 90 per cent efficacy rate, compared with 62 per cent for two full doses.

However, Moncef Slaoui, the scientific head of the US's Operation Warp Speed - the programme to supply America with vaccines - told US reporters that the half-dose regime, which was discovered by accident, was only given to adults aged 55 and under - throwing the validity of the results into question.

What a surprise, Americans don’t like the idea that a vastly cheaper and more manageable vaccine might be about as effective as the two cryogenically cooled, eye-wateringly expensive ones developed in ... America.

The Oxford vaccine works, the headline announcement actually went with the average of all test results in any case (70%, which is still very effective), and even on Monday they were quite explicit in explaining where the 90% sample came from and how they were following it up.

Americans have protectionist instincts. No surprise there. This is a non story.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

What a surprise, Americans don’t like the idea that a vastly cheaper and more manageable vaccine might be about as effective as the two cryogenically cooled, eye-wateringly expensive ones developed in ... America.

The Oxford vaccine works, the headline announcement actually went with the average of all test results in any case (70%, which is still very effective), and even on Monday they were quite explicit in explaining where the 90% sample came from and how they were following it up.

Americans have protectionist instincts. No surprise there. This is a non story.

Maybe. We all bow to your scientific expertise.... Lets hope whoever decides which vaccine is best for us, isn't swayed by jingoism/what's cheapest.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

What a surprise, Americans don’t like the idea that a vastly cheaper and more manageable vaccine might be about as effective as the two cryogenically cooled, eye-wateringly expensive ones developed in ... America.

The Oxford vaccine works, the headline announcement actually went with the average of all test results in any case (70%, which is still very effective), and even on Monday they were quite explicit in explaining where the 90% sample came from and how they were following it up.

Americans have protectionist instincts. No surprise there. This is a non story.

While I'm equally sceptical of American input/insight into anything trade related as they'll have obvious protectionist tendencies and they have another dog in this race I look forward to more data and peer review to clear matters up.

I'm sure we all want a vaccine that works, and not just the cheapest one we can drape in a Union Flag.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe. We all bow to your scientific expertise.... Lets hope whoever decides which vaccine is best for us, isn't swayed by jingoism/what's cheapest.

I have access to the same data as you old chum. I simply lack the need to believe everything that happens in this country is doomed to fail.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

While I'm equally sceptical of American input/insight into anything trade related as they'll have obvious protectionist tendencies and they have another dog in this race I look forward to more data and peer review to clear matters up.

I'm sure we all want a vaccine that works, and not just the cheapest one we can drape in a Union Flag.

Yes that's right. I want a vaccine that has no ability to induce an auto-immune response. I'll have to check with my GP about all that.

It seems that the Oxford vaccine meets my requirement. The Pfizer vaccine seems to have seriously active components being RNA based.

Useful comparison is at https://www.expressandstar.com/news/...er-to-pfizers/.