Coronavirus

[Blackshep]

The few sources I saw listed him as a virologist but if he's an immunologist fair enough he's still qualified to talk about this and surely he has a viewpoint that should be available to the public.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Blackshep

The few sources I saw listed him as a virologist but if he's an immunologist fair enough he's still qualified to talk about this and surely he has a viewpoint that should be available to the public.

Yes he has a viewpoint that he makes available but not much else. How long ago since he was a part of the research (not the inventor as claimed) of mRNA? How much did he input into it? What part of the reasearch was he involved with? Does his appearence on more than one time on Fox news make him more reliable to be truthful than anyone else?

Meanwhile I see the Scots are trying to appear sensible.

Originally Posted by Carth

Not saying you're right or wrong, but I think there may be some 'front line staff' who, after working hard in probably stressful circumstances for the last month or longer, may be inclined to take advantage of a 'short rest' in order to get their heads straight and recharge their batteries rather than continue to push themselves beyond physical and mental boundaries.

Personally, although it's probably morally wrong, I'd cut them some slack because that short break may be the thing that stops them quitting and walking away for good.

Originally Posted by Blackshep

The few sources I saw listed him as a virologist but if he's an immunologist fair enough he's still qualified to talk about this and surely he has a viewpoint that should be available to the public.

Thats what people said about Andrew Wakefield…

The point about science is documented research, consensus, and peer-review - just going on to Fox News doesn’t make their view correct.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by Chris

There’s not much point countering a baseless assertion with another baseless assertion.

There is absolutely no chance of any government in the foreseeable future introducing a health service based on private insurance. It is politically impossible, no matter how fond of the idea a few dislocated nut jobs on the Tory far right might be.

“Tories will privatise the NHS” has been a standard Labour attack line for the best part of 50 years now. They brandish it like an evil shaman stick every election, without fail. Note, however, that despite there being more Tory governments than Labour ones since the NHS’s inception, it’s still here, it’s still free at point of need and there isn’t even a whiff of a national debate about changing that.

Privatisation doesn't happen that way and the encroachment of private insurance won't be done that way. It will be done, and is being done, by stealth, bit by bit, without making waves in the political pond. With perennial underfunding the NHS becomes less effective and less available. If waiting queues for knee ops, cataracts, hip replacement, physiotherapy etc are months or years long, people with the cash will go private. Private insurance companies are burgeoning currently, tempting those with the funds to take whole or partial cover for all or some of their health needs. If you or I have taken out a £15.00 a month dental plan we are part of that trend. Private schemes giving access to GPs is currently being piloted without any particular government action or change in law.

Recently, I went to my doctor to have my troubled left knee looked at. I have been on a waiting list for surgery to tidy up my cartilage for four years! The doctor said it has been so long I have dropped off the list and that they will have to do X-Rays and soft tissue scans again before they can operate. There is a six-month wait to get a consultation. She offered me private consultation to speed things up. I refused on principle, so will have sleepless nights and difficulty walking downstairs until I get seen to. I pay an osteopath £48 a pop to keep me going. This service is not, and never has been, available anywhere in the NHS, so I'm not jumping any queues.

An old school friend of mine has cataracts that are making it impossible to drive at night and give him 'yellow-outs' when the sun is low. He has been told that he won't get them removed until he is virtually housebound. His job, as a buildings inspector, requiring a lot of driving is in jeopardy. The company running this contracted-out function of local authorities has lost patience. My friend has dug deep into savings to pay to get the op done!

There are 100s of thousands out there in long queues without the budget to jump the queue or who still hang on to their principles. In time, a decade or so, the majority will be on some kind private health insurance because, in the end, health, quality of life and saving life is a priority. People will not suffer for years if they can possibly pay a consultant or fund a monthly premium. In time we will be in exactly the same position as the USA, without a single change in legislation or any media furore. Those who protest loudly will be pronounced to be the looney left. We will have bog standard NHS hospitals with limited services and limited access for the poorest 25% to life-saving drugs and then a network of top-notch private hospitals and private services in NHS hospitals for the other 75%. Free at the point of need will be a principle still, but realistically only taken up by those with limited funds..

Originally Posted by pip08456

Meanwhile I see the Scots are trying to appear sensible.

or just a tad dramatic ...

[Carth]

Jab all over 5's to save schools

Stupid ill thought out idea.

People who are double/triple jabbed can still catch the virus, and if you do you (should) have to isolate so you don't spread it. One pupil testing positive puts the whole class into the 'close contact with' bracket of track & trace.

I'd guess 80% of the UK have had at least one jab, probably two by now, yet look at the rising number of people off work isolating

Studies show the vaccinated are less likely to infect others.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.21264959v1

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Carth

Jab all over 5's to save schools

Stupid ill thought out idea.

People who are double/triple jabbed can still catch the virus, and if you do you (should) have to isolate so you don't spread it. One pupil testing positive puts the whole class into the 'close contact with' bracket of track & trace.

I'd guess 80% of the UK have had at least one jab, probably two by now, yet look at the rising number of people off work isolating

There is no benefit to the child in being vaccinated.

Teachers should be vaccinated.

If you test positive but are asymptomatic, or just have a mild common cold type illness, you shouldn’t self isolate. Take a couple of lemsip max strength and get on with it.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Studies show the vaccinated are less likely to infect others.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.21264959v1

it only takes one

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

There is no benefit to the child in being vaccinated

As a school governor I’d have expected you to have concern about child hospitalisations at their highest level in the pandemic, and recognise the value of vaccination at preventing this.

Equally as someone who hates the state mandating (or restricting) anything I’m also surprised you don’t support the rights of parents to have a safe and effective vaccine for their children.

All the anti-vax theories about mass infection of children being a positive, and boosting immunity, have been absolutely discredited by the emergence of Omicron.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

As a school governor I’d have expected you to have concern about child hospitalisations at their highest level in the pandemic, and recognise the value of vaccination at preventing this.

Approx rate 10 per 100,000, and considering there is only approx 20,000 in total in hospital with COVID , that you then reduce that to a fifth of the total, which makes it a whopping total of 2.

As per ONS stats as of 7th January.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...issions-by-age

Aren’t Stats a wonderful way to misrepresent anything?

Equally as someone who hates the state mandating (or restricting) anything I’m also surprised you don’t support the rights of parents to have a safe and effective vaccine for their children.

Hey, when it’s approved for kids under 12, I have no objection whatsoever to parents jabbing their kids if they want. I personally do not believe it is necessary for that cohort.

All the anti-vax theories about mass infection of children being a positive, and boosting immunity, have been absolutely discredited by the emergence of Omicron.

Well I’m not anti-vax, I have had all three Jabs. The benefit/risk for me seems clear. The same case has not been made for u12s, in my view.

But it’s something I’ll keep under review.

[jfman]

Yes, I’ll agree you have done a job at at manipulating stats there to suit your agenda in that you’ve just used figures that don’t measure child hospitalisations to claim that they do. Ironically, you’ve bundled them in with vaccinated and boosted hospitalisations to skew the figures.

I didn’t describe you as anti-vax - I just pointed out their agenda had been discredited by reinfection in the population as a whole and increased hospitalisations among children.

Originally Posted by Carth

it only takes one

But the more that are infected and asymptomatic, the higher the likelyhood of spreading the infection through greater viral load - so if only one is infected and unvaccinated, less likely to infect others.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes, I’ll agree you have done a job at at manipulating stats there to suit your agenda in that you’ve just used figures that don’t measure child hospitalisations to claim that they do

It’s the one in the middle

Ironically, you’ve bundled them in with vaccinated and boosted hospitalisations to skew the figures.

Don’t see how being in hospital with COVID either unvaccinated, vaccinated or boostered skews anything.

and increased hospitalisations among children.

All two or three of them.