Coronavirus

[joglynne]

Originally Posted by Angua

You will still need the 2nd dose, to strengthen and prolong protection. All that is currently happening is the government encouraging more people to get at least one dose of something.

Oh John will definitely be getting his second dose. I have to wait to see if my AIHA is triggered before I get permission from my Consultant to have mine.

<<<Fingers crossed tightly on both hands.>>>

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by joglynne

Oh John will definitely be getting his second dose. I have to wait to see if my AIHA is triggered before I get permission from my Consultant to have mine.

<<<Fingers crossed tightly on both hands.>>>

Good luck, I hope it all goes well for you both.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nobody told anyone to hide under the stairs.

As with all things that involve risk it’s measured. The risks from the vaccine are extremely low - as the Government control supply and are monitoring outcomes the chances of the NHS being overwhelmed by simultaneous negative reactions to the vaccine are extremely low. The same cannot be said for the ludicrous and discredited “let it rip” strategy.

The potential benefits to the vaccine are obvious - a return to normal. Increased economic output, greater NHS resource returning to day to day business.

Again, the same cannot be said for the above mentioned discredited strategy. The Coronavirus Health Service would have no resource for traditional healthcare provision.

“Extremely low” a vague and subjective term

A conservative estimate is that at least 20M have been infected by the virus and 87K have died, which is 0.4%. I think that comes under the “Extremely low” banner too.

Or do you mean “very really almost none really bad side affects or deaths low” or are you just guessing because you don’t have any real data yet?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Is that like "I heard" or "someone told me" or "did you know"?

Or i observed it was released after a very short test period.

The total numbers are only a part of the picture. The more significant part is how many of them are sick enough to need hospital treatment simultaneously. Right now, we have doctors and nurses all over the UK on the verge of nervous breakdowns because of the sheer number of cases they’re dealing with, and the number of people dying under their noses every day.

It is nothing short of absurd that we’re still arguing over the severity of this pandemic when our screens are full of the hard evidence.

---------- Post added at 18:01 ---------- Previous post was at 17:56 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Or i observed it was released after a very short test period.

You observed the same numbers of test patients and the same duration of trial stages. You also observed the various stages overlapping, and production commencing before final trials were complete. This was a risk, because had any of the prior stages thrown up any serious issues, they would have to have discarded the subsequent work and start again. It was a risk only taken because of the emergency. A drug company operating under normal commercial rules wouldn’t do this. Fortunately each stage of the trials went as hoped, and the drug companies have been able to supply the product they had already made, once the trials concluded it was safe.

But you already knew all this, because you’re an observant sort of person. Aren’t you?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

The total numbers are only a part of the picture. The more significant part is how many of them are sick enough to need hospital treatment simultaneously. Right now, we have doctors and nurses all over the UK on the verge of nervous breakdowns because of the sheer number of cases they’re dealing with, and the number of people dying under their noses every day.

It is nothing short of absurd that we’re still arguing over the severity of this pandemic when our screens are full of the hard evidence.

---------- Post added at 18:01 ---------- Previous post was at 17:56 ----------



You observed the same numbers of test patients and the same duration of trial stages. You also observed the various stages overlapping, and production commencing before final trials were complete. This was a risk, because had any of the prior stages thrown up any serious issues, they would have to have discarded the subsequent work and start again. It was a risk only taken because of the emergency. A drug company operating under normal commercial rules wouldn’t do this. Fortunately each stage of the trials went as hoped, and the drug companies have been able to supply the product they had already made, once the trials concluded it was safe.

But you already knew all this, because you’re an observant sort of person. Aren’t you?

I wasn't referring to myself, it was more a generalisation re observers, on a personal note, i think you credit me with powers of observation that i don't have

◀️

[jfman]

I think papa is, in his own inimitable fashion, making a reasonable point here. It's not really about whether the people here can be convinced the vaccine is safe despite reservations.

Chris rightly lists an exhaustive set of steps that each manufacturer has gone through to get to this point. However Chris also said the following:

Originally Posted by Chris

It is nothing short of absurd that we’re still arguing over the severity of this pandemic when our screens are full of the hard evidence.

These statements don't contradict one another but the second points to the challenge faced. The Toby Young's and Julia Hartley-Brewer's of this world have been out there for 13 months whipping everyone up into a frenzy. This isn't about public health it's about stealing your freedoms. The idiots out there who buy into this nonsense are easy pickings for the anti-vax brigade.

If the aim is 'herd immunity' why can't I stay in the 20% that don't need to get it? That way I don't take the risk but get the collective benefit from everyone else doing so.

I'm playing devil's advocate here for the purposes of discussion - if I were offered it tomorrow I'd take it but there is going to be a challenge in convincing everyone/enough people to take it. I'm not on the priority list so it will be some months before it comes my way

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by jfman

I think papa is, in his own inimitable fashion, making a reasonable point here. It's not really about whether the people here can be convinced the vaccine is safe despite reservations.

Chris rightly lists an exhaustive set of steps that each manufacturer has gone through to get to this point. However Chris also said the following:



These statements don't contradict one another but the second points to the challenge faced. The Toby Young's and Julia Hartley-Brewer's of this world have been out there for 13 months whipping everyone up into a frenzy. This isn't about public health it's about stealing your freedoms. The idiots out there who buy into this nonsense are easy pickings for the anti-vax brigade.

If the aim is 'herd immunity' why can't I stay in the 20% that don't need to get it? That way I don't take the risk but get the collective benefit from everyone else doing so.

I'm playing devil's advocate here for the purposes of discussion - if I were offered it tomorrow I'd take it but there is going to be a challenge in convincing everyone/enough people to take it. I'm not on the priority list so it will be some months before it comes my way

You should be

[jfman]

Sadly supporting the socialist revolution, while perhaps indicative of mental health conditions, didn't make the cut

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The Toby Young's and Julia Hartley-Brewer's of this world have been out there for 13 months whipping everyone up into a frenzy. This isn't about public health it's about stealing your freedoms. The idiots out there who buy into this nonsense are easy pickings for the anti-vax brigade.

Julia Hartley-brewer is not anti-vax, and I and most people are not anti-vax. Many people are parents, and only the most stupid don’t vaccinate their kids.

People may be a bit wary of these particular vaccines, and there is nothing wrong with that, at this point.

“Stealing your freedoms” anxiety is totally justified, as you watch videos of people being stopped by, Ill educated, Ill informed, council wombels stopping people running for “breathing too heavily”. It exists, along with the countless heavy handed examples also available of police not knowing how to use their new given ( without parliamentry oversight) powers.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Julia Hartley-brewer is not anti-vax, and I and most people are not anti-vax. Many people are parents, and only the most stupid don’t vaccinate their kids.

People may be a bit wary of these particular vaccines, and there is nothing wrong with that, at this point.

“Stealing your freedoms” anxiety is totally justified, as you watch videos of people being stopped by, Ill educated, Ill informed, council wombels stopping people running for “breathing too heavily”. It exists, along with the countless heavy handed examples also available of police not knowing how to use their new given ( without parliamentry oversight) powers.

I didn't intend for that to read as calling JHB anti-vax I'm just pointing out how easy it is for some to be taken along into an alternate reality.

I think it's correct to say that everyone's "freedom" is being curtailed. Many people are being denied the ability to work, socialise, travel as they ordinarily would. It is how it is being portrayed, with emotive terminology, to provoke people to rebel that I have greater issue with. We're all having to sacrifice here - the goal is to get back to 'normal'. However the greater resistance, the more people don't adhere, the longer this will drag on. And we are all worse off for it.

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

Originally Posted by Pierre

“Extremely low” a vague and subjective term

A conservative estimate is that at least 20M have been infected by the virus and 87K have died, which is 0.4%. I think that comes under the “Extremely low” banner too.

Or do you mean “very really almost none really bad side affects or deaths low” or are you just guessing because you don’t have any real data yet?

It is vague and subjective - but also extremely high relative to the healthcare capacity available in most countries.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Julia Hartley-brewer is not anti-vax, and I and most people are not anti-vax. Many people are parents, and only the most stupid don’t vaccinate their kids.

People may be a bit wary of these particular vaccines, and there is nothing wrong with that, at this point.

“Stealing your freedoms” anxiety is totally justified, as you watch videos of people being stopped by, Ill educated, Ill informed, council wombels stopping people running for “breathing too heavily”. It exists, along with the countless heavy handed examples also available of police not knowing how to use their new given ( without parliamentry oversight) powers.

Protecting freedoms is all very well as long as it only affects you. Unfortunately with this virus it could impact on others freedoms not to be seriously ill/die. It's a balance. Authorities are damned if they uphold rules, and damned if they don't. Common sense, without laws, would be ideal but there's a fair proportion that don't have it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Common sense, without laws, would be ideal but there's a fair proportion that don't have it.

The problem is those with powers are those without common sense. This is where problems occur.

Stopping someone jogging because he may be “breathing too heavily” , giving fines to two ladies because their coffees can be construed as a “picnic”.

These examples are just what get highlighted.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The problem is those with powers are those without common sense. This is where problems occur.

Stopping someone jogging because he may be “breathing too heavily” , giving fines to two ladies because their coffees can be construed as a “picnic”.

These examples are just what get highlighted.

Common sense on both sides is needed. Some of the rules depend on it.
e.g. how far away from your home you can exercise. People will just push it. 2 miles ? ok . 5 miles ? ok think so. 10miles? You're pushing it... 100 miles? you"re taking the pee (as in those Londoners who fancied a day trip to Wales to see some snow...)
If anything they've credited folks with too much common sense.