Coronavirus

Originally Posted by jfman

That prompted me to ask the following, which he ignored.

Now I appreciate that was in the Starmer thread, but I thought I’d ask in the rightful place that is the Coronavirus thread.

I will also note the following from that same topic.

The UK provides two stats ;

1. Deaths within 28 days of positive test.

2. Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate.

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

The second one could possibly be considered as more accurate of virus related deaths.

(Both are pretty similar, the 2nd count being a little lower overall).

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:

Politicians got plastered at a secret party in the Welsh Parliament in breach of Covid rules.

They sank numerous bottles of wine and whisky in a seven-hour drinking marathon which was broken up by security staff.

A handful of legless politicians were asked to leave and stumbled out at 2am, a source said.

They were said to have been caught red-handed, helping themselves to booze from an open bar.

It was just days after the Welsh government ordered all pubs and restaurants to stop serving alcohol and close by 6pm. An investigation has been launched.

An assembly insider said: “They were absolutely legless, being very loud and raucous. They didn’t give a hoot about social distancing.”

Only the plebs have to obey the rules.

[joglynne]

BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine likely to protect against highly infectious UK variant

A new study found that antibodies in patients vaccinated against COVID-19 were able to neutralize a version of the new variant. Researchers tested 10 mutations of the highly contagious UK coronavirus, B117........ snip........

Unlike for influenza vaccines, the reduction in neutralization that might indicate the need for a strain change has not been established for COVID-19 vaccines," the study said. "It is possible that vaccine efficacy could be preserved, even with substantial losses of neutralization by vaccine-elicited sera.

https://www.dw.com/en/biontech-pfize...ant/a-56284614

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by joglynne

https://www.dw.com/en/biontech-pfize...ant/a-56284614

Just saw the original paper (linky) The results look good, really good. I am however waiting for the antivax and conspiracy theorists to have a pile on as the authors work for Pfizer and BioNTech

[joglynne]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Just saw the original paper (linky) The results look good, really good. I am however waiting for the antivax and conspiracy theorists to have a pile on as the authors work for Pfizer and BioNTech

As the authors are the only ones in the position to do the required tests I would have been suspicious if the findings were being reported by a 3rd party.

As to your last point..... There have always been people that see their glass not only half full but also chipped and falling on to a diry floor.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by joglynne

As the authors are the only ones in the position to do the required tests I would have been suspicious if the findings were being reported by a 3rd party.

As to your last point..... There have always been people that see their glass not only half full but also chipped and falling on to a dirty floor.

Oh, I agree completely, if anyone knows how to test serum from vaccinated people, it will be those guys I'm just getting ready for the inevitable 'well they would say that wouldn't they' comments

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Oh, I agree completely, if anyone knows how to test serum from vaccinated people, it will be those guys I'm just getting ready for the inevitable 'well they would say that wouldn't they' comments

Well, they would. Money to be made here.

[joglynne]

Originally Posted by jfman

Well, they would. Money to be made here.

... and I award you a Prize for being the first to doubt that the Pfizer/ 1BioNTech, vaccine will not work on the B.1.1.7 variant. Maybe you could give us a link to also discredit the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg, University who also helped to produce the paper that jonbxx linked to.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by joglynne

... and I award you a Prize for being the first to doubt that the Pfizer/ 1BioNTech, vaccine will not work on the B.1.1.7 variant. Maybe you could give us a link to also discredit the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg, University who also helped to produce the paper that jonbxx linked to.

I didn't say I doubted it. I merely pointed out that - as capitalist entities - there's financial interest in putting out the good news stories and suppressing any bad ones.

The more openness and transparency in the data is certainly something to be welcomed. As is independent real world analysis in an actual population - and not a selected population or lab experiments - as the vaccine rolls out.

None of the above is particularly contentious. I fail to see what interest you have in pretending it is.

[joglynne]

.......and I fail to see how you would consider that they are only saying that it will probably work on the new UK varient just because it will generate more money. Seems as though you just wanted to cast doubt on the validity of the findings to cause doubt at it being true.

Anyhow I will continue to hope that they are correct and not assume that they are only publishing what may well be good news just because of the financial implications.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by joglynne

.......and I fail to see how you would consider that they are only saying that it will probably work on the new UK varient just because it will generate more money. Seems as though you just wanted to cast doubt on the validity of the findings to cause doubt at it being true.

Anyhow I will continue to hope that they are correct and not assume that they are only publishing what may well be good news just because of the financial implications.

Where did I say they are "only" saying it to make more money?

I'm simply pointing out that rational actors in the economy, be it big pharmaceutical companies - or even Universities as let's not forget education is a market driven economy - have a profit driven motive.

It "seems" to you that I have a motive that I do not.

I also "hope" they are correct and it translates to real world protection.

Saga Cruises will require proof of full vaccination before letting any holidaymakers on board when they re-start in May. They’ll be the first of many such organisations to do this I think. By the end of this year, I believe the anti-vaxxers and other fellow travelling, tinfoil-hat wearing nutters are going to start finding there are fewer and fewer places they’re welcome.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55738918

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by joglynne

.......and I fail to see how you would consider that they are only saying that it will probably work on the new UK varient just because it will generate more money. Seems as though you just wanted to cast doubt on the validity of the findings to cause doubt at it being true.

Anyhow I will continue to hope that they are correct and not assume that they are only publishing what may well be good news just because of the financial implications.

How would saying the current vaccine still works generate more money, when new variant needing new vaccine = another vaccine = more money?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Chris

Saga Cruises will require proof of full vaccination before letting any holidaymakers on board when they re-start in May. They’ll be the first of many such organisations to do this I think. By the end of this year, I believe the anti-vaxxers and other fellow travelling, tinfoil-hat wearing nutters are going to start finding there are fewer and fewer places they’re welcome.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55738918

Yup, if you don't have the jab you don't get on the jet....

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

How would it generate more money, when new variant needing new vaccine = another vaccine = more money?

You're assuming the only way to make money is a straight sales Vs costs of production. As stock markets are shall we say, speculative, there's the possibility for some who make the right decisions (wink wink) at the right time (obviously by chance) to make money on both hyped up sales of an inferior product short term and a quality product longer term. These aren't mutually exclusive.

I should point out I don't believe this is actually happening - I merely objected of scepticism of "they would say that, wouldn't they" as a prospective response. These are the reasons scientific evidence gets continually peer reviewed and rebutted.

---------- Post added at 22:34 ---------- Previous post was at 22:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Yup, if you don't have the jab you don't get on the jet....

I do welcome this and as I've said before if offered a vaccine I'd take it.

The most at risk person closest to me should get theirs next month and it'll be a huge sigh of relief from me and I hope the vaccines hold up against new strains. It doesn't mean I'll be blindly optimistic though. If I've learned anything in this pandemic it's that blind optimism is extremely flawed and liable to end in disappointment.