Despite me flashing back to the opening credits of the 1975 version of Survivors a lot recently, it's not clear quite how dangerous coronavirus is.
After following the travel news to Hong Kong because of the protests, I'm now looking for the affects of the disease
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51353279
I flew back in to Heathrow on Friday. I saw a number of Asians in the baggage hall. Every single one of them was wearing one of those surgical masks.Lots of Asians in Glasgow wearing them.
At this rate we'll all end up in burqas!
Just in case anybody isn't aware of this but, when you see people wearing those masks in Japan, it doesn't mean they are concerned about catching colds etc from other people but they are protecting you from catching things off them. It's the opposite of a burqa which men make women wear to stop them (the men) from getting lustful thoughts.
But surely Brexit will stop burqua wearing? If we can't be white and poor, what is the point?
Despite me flashing back to the opening credits of the 1975 version of Survivors a lot recently, it's not clear quite how dangerous coronavirus is.Not very. It's quite virulent, but the death rate is low.
After following the travel news to Hong Kong because of the protests, I'm now looking for the affects of the disease
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51353279
Not very. It's quite virulent, but the death rate is low.Non sequitur
Non sequiturWhy is it a non-sequitur? You asked how dangerous it was, and I answered. I do wish you'd drop the obsessive fallacy-hunting - it pisses people (well, me, anyway) right off.
For a couple of years or so now, whenever I have been out and about mixing with other people I not only put the anti bac hand gel on my hands, I also put a tiny bit in each nostril. Whether it is a coincidence or not, I haven't had a cold since I have been doing that.
Each time your body is exposed to a virus, it develops antibodies that make you immune to that virus in the future, so the older you get, the more likely it is that you'll be immune to some of the estimated 200 cold viruses in circulation.
Viruses and bacteria being completely different, I'm not sure it'd help, though possibly it zaps viruses as well.
For a couple of years or so now, whenever I have been out and about mixing with other people I not only put the anti bac hand gel on my hands, I also put a tiny bit in each nostril. Whether it is a coincidence or not, I haven't had a cold since I have been doing that.
Viruses and bacteria being completely different, I'm not sure it'd help, though possibly it zaps viruses as well.
Today I was due to be flying from Hong Kong to Borneo. I dod look at some alternatives when it became necessary to cancel; one of them was Tenerife.
Today I was due to be flying from Hong Kong to Borneo. I dod look at some alternatives when it became necessary to cancel; one of them was Tenerife.I know a place in Tenerife where you can get some decent fish n' chips ;)
I know a place in Tenerife where you can get some decent fish n' chips ;)Oh, I didn't book it. It was just the spread of Covid 19 to there that made me see it as a little ironic. I had 2 nights in Muthill at the weekend instead of Hong Kong and Borneo. Looking to sort out something later in the year now.
have a safe trip pal x
If it stops people travelling - isn't that a good thing? The wider it spreads the higher the risk of it mutating to a more dangerous variety.It'll probably mutate into a less dangerous variety. From an evolutionary pov, a sucessful virus will not kill its host, nor make the host so ill that they isolate themself, but just give them a cough and cold, so that they can spread the virus by droplets. A disease like that in 'Survivors', which rapidly kills nearly all the world's population, would be very unsuccessful evolutionariy, as it would soon run out of hosts.
It'll probably mutate into a less dangerous variety. From an evolutionary pov, a sucessful virus will not kill its host, nor make the host so ill that they isolate themself, but just give them a cough and cold, so that they can spread the virus by droplets. A disease like that in 'Survivors', which rapidly kills nearly all the world's population, would be very unsuccessful evolutionariy, as it would soon run out of hosts.
A few minutes ago a message popped up on my screen stating that there is malware virus giving alarming misinformation about the corona virus. He anyone else seen that message?
What caused the message to pop up?
Hackers are using the coronavirus scare to spread malware - be careful of clicking on links claiming to provide information but downloading or installing computer viruses.
I never press a link if I am unsure of its veracity, I didn't have to press a link for this one it was a warning from one of my virus protection sites.Lr
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51673068I bet more people than that die in car accidents, but we don't have a national panic about that
There are three more reported cases of the virus, including one here in Wales, bringing the total so far to 19.
Someone, a medical person, on the radio was saying that most flu epidemics 'settle' when spring and summer arrive. He thought that would be the case with coronavirus.
That is what they seem to be hoping for, although another medical expert did sound a note of caution in that there is no guarantee that Covid-19 will behave in the same way as seasonal flu.
...
By the way, the mortality rate from coronavirus is estimated at around 2% which is a bit higher than flu but much lower than ebola. It's my opinion that more people are going to die as a result of the inevitable economic downturn than directly from the virus.
It depends on how many people catch it - given that we are unlikely to have a vaccine or remedy for about a year. It is much more contagious than normal flu. If it spreads freely (ie people give up self-isolating and there are no travel/meeting restrictions) - then assume 60% of the population catch it, and a mortality rate of 1.5% : 66m x 0.6 x 0.015 = 594k ie. around half a million people.What is your reasoning for assuming that 60% of people in the UK will catch it?
How to take on coronavirus;D
https://newsthump.com/2020/02/28/glaswegian-scientists-discover-key-way-of-fighting-coronavirus-is-to-kick-its-fckin-cnt-in/?fbclid=IwAR2pj1Nx0Kch0_y2TJtopWbKt-eB1x325S-Tpbf1mQr9QPjOAbKRRRlX3zM
What is your reasoning for assuming that 60% of people in the UK will catch it?
That is currently the worst case figure being used by various epidemiologists as percentage infected worldwideThe worst case isn't really all that relevant to the point I made. I think it is more likely that the economic downturn will kill more people than the virus does directly.
There is no good estimate of the R0 figure (the number of other people an infected person is likely to infect) normally used to calculate spread. For flu it is 1.2, For coronavirus it seems it might be between 2.5 and 4 - similar to the 1918 pandemic flu version. Ebola is 2.5.In the More or Less article on this very subject, they suggested it was around two. The higher estimates are hysterical nonsense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51697991In a population of 67.5 million - big deal.
Another 12 cases have been reported in the UK, bringing the total up to 35.
The worst case isn't really all that relevant to the point I made. I think it is more likely that the economic downturn will kill more people than the virus does directly.
In the More or Less article on this very subject, they suggested it was around two. The higher estimates are hysterical nonsense.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of those 'end times' dorks have discovered a verse in Revelation predicting the outbreak of the virus!And I'm not surprised at you having a pop at religion in a completely irrelevant thread. It might have been wiser to wait until the dorks actually did say it was predicted in Revelation before commenting, otherwise you could end up looking foolish.
And I'm not surprised at you having a pop at religion in a completely irrelevant thread. It might have been wiser to wait until the dorks actually did say it was predicted in Revelation before commenting, otherwise you could end up looking foolish.
Apparently there is speculation the Pope might have the coronavirus as he has cancelled a lot of engagements due to a 'cold'. I hope Frankie is ok, he is the best Pope the RCC has had in a long while.If it is cold-like, with runny nose etc., it prolly isn't Corvid-19, as apparently it doesn't produce that - it is marked by fever, aches, and a dry cough, but no rhinitis.
If it is cold-like, with runny nose etc., it prolly isn't Corvid-19, as apparently it doesn't produce that - it is marked by fever, aches, and a dry cough, but no rhinitis.
Fever, cough, runny nose, sore throat and trouble breathing are some of the most common symptoms of the novel coronavirus.From the NHS website:
"It can be more severe for some persons and can lead to pneumonia or breathing difficulties," the World Health Organization says.
Symptoms of coronavirus"are", not "include", and no mention of a runny nose.
The symptoms of coronavirus are:
a cough
a high temperature
shortness of breath
But these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness.
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common, such as cold and flu.
From the NHS website: "are", not "include", and no mention of a runny nose.
I definitely read somewhere that one feature which distinguishes Covid-19 from ordinary flu is that it doesn't cause rhinitis, but other websites are mentioning runny nose as a symptom. You may or may not get a runny nose from it, therefore.
ABSTRACT
...
Our results suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination. Population genetic analyses of 103 SARS-CoV-2 genomes indicated that these viruses evolved into two major types (designated L and S), that are well defined by two different SNPs that show nearly complete linkage across the viral strains sequenced to date. Although the L type (∼70%) is more prevalent than the S type (∼30%), the S type was found to be the ancestral version.
Whereas the L type was more prevalent in the early stages of the outbreak in Wuhan, the frequency of the L type decreased after early January 2020. Human intervention may have placed more severe selective pressure on the L type, which might be more aggressive and spread more quickly. On the other hand, the S type, which is evolutionarily older and less aggressive, might have increased in relative frequency due to relatively weaker selective pressure.
...
Italy closing all its schools
Britain could well be doing the same if the virus spread gets any worse.
There are now 84 cases of the virus in the UK.
FlyBe saying they might go bust because of coronavirus
Apparently there is speculation the Pope might have the coronavirus as he has cancelled a lot of engagements due to a 'cold'. I hope Frankie is ok, he is the best Pope the RCC has had in a long while.
Britain could well be doing the same if the virus spread gets any worse.
There are now 84 cases of the virus in the UK.
He doesn't/didn't have Coronavirus, he had a bad cold and cough. If he did he'd have the best care and despite his age, would probably have recovered.
None near me & I'm not saying "I'm alright Jack", I just checked online.Everyone in my area has been asked to check that they can work from home. My wife's international business travel has been cancelled. As already noted FlyBe are calling out they may go under.
People generally aren't as worried about it as the media make out. Honestly nobody at work has even mentioned it - including those who've had a cough. Life goes on regardless, we can do nomore than rigorously observe basic hygiene routines& carry on.
Everyone in my area has been asked to check that they can work from home. My wife's international business travel has been cancelled. As already noted FlyBe are calling out they may go under.
As to the number of cases, is it me or is there a hint of Fibonnaci sequence in the UK numbers, suggesting tomorrow numbers will be up by around 51?
https://www.livescience.com/37470-fibonacci-sequence.htmlYes I know what it is.
Yes I know what it is.
...
As to the number of cases, is it me or is there a hint of Fibonnaci sequence in the UK numbers, suggesting tomorrow numbers will be up by around 51?
They are just the typical kind of numbers you'd expect at the start of an exponential rise.Agree, that was the point I was making
You might but I bet not many others do, I had never heard of it for a start.Ah, in that case , thank you.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51743697
Italy has now confirmed it will close all schools and universities for 10 days.
Everyone in my area has been asked to check that they can work from home.
https://www.livescience.com/37470-fibonacci-sequence.html
What about all those who can't work from home? Working at home must be great if you have that kind of job.Yep, agreed. And many of those jobs where home working isn't possible will be low paid and have little or no benefits
Yep, agreed. And many of those jobs where home working isn't possible will be low paid and have little or no benefits
When I went to Tesco this morning there were no anti-bac products to be had and canned goods, especially soup, were in short supply as people are stocking up for the worst case scenario.
I see Flybe is partly blaming the virus for its collapse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51746564
With all the advice on hand washing, and sanitising, I'm wondering whether it makes sense for people to be reminded more often of this to prevent more common viruses.
When I went to Tesco this morning there were no anti-bac products to be had and canned goods, especially soup, were in short supply as people are stocking up for the worst case scenario.They probably saw a huge drop off in bookings. As they were already in serious trouble, they had no chance. This kind of story is going to become increasingly common.
I see Flybe is partly blaming the virus for its collapse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51746564
Our Vicar daughter told me they had been given a directive not to offer the communion chalice to celebrants.
We use individual cups for each celebrant - tiny glass ones.
Problem solved.
I doubt they are going to bother buying small glasses to hand out to the celebrants.
OK....Communion in the CofS 101;
1. Senior elders serve bread and wine to minister.
Wine is in siver cups (Ours are four centuries old)
Minister serves cup and bread to all elders...democracy, eh? No-one is 'superior'.
The elders take plates of bread and trays containing the tiny cups, already filled with wine before the service, to the congregation.
It's a lot quicker that way than t'other one.
Britain could well be doing the same if the virus spread gets any worse.In a population of over 67 million. I'm not panicking yet.
There are now 84 cases of the virus in the UK.
Bethlehem is now in quarantine
OK....Communion in the CofS 101;
1. Senior elders serve bread and wine to minister.
Wine is in siver cups (Ours are four centuries old)
Minister serves cup and bread to all elders...democracy, eh? No-one is 'superior'.
The elders take plates of bread and trays containing the tiny cups, already filled with wine before the service, to the congregation.
It's a lot quicker that way than t'other one.
I think it would be safer to ditch the communion until this virus is over and done with. The sky fairy isn't going to be offering protection to the congregations.
Communion isn't protection, it's commemoration.
A rather daft one, in my opinion.
In a population of over 67 million. I'm not panicking yet.
Communion isn't protection, it's commemoration.
Indeed. I like those odds. I do think the whole thing is being blown a little out of proportion.
How do you know?Because of the oddss. Pay attention at the back!
Because of the oddss. Pay attention at the back!
And of course, these won't change. What a relief.
My point was that we're in danger of sending people into panic. You already have people worried enough to go and stockpile hand sanitiser and food, and for what? Granted, there's much we don't know but what we do know is that this virus is not as contagious or as deadly as seasonal flu. It's about finding the right balance.
My point was that we're in danger of sending people into panic. You already have people worried enough to go and stockpile hand sanitiser and food, and for what? Granted, there's much we don't know but what we do know is that this virus is not as contagious or as deadly as seasonal flu. It's about finding the right balance.
My point was that we're in danger of sending people into panic. You already have people worried enough to go and stockpile hand sanitiser and food, and for what? Granted, there's much we don't know but what we do know is that this virus is not as contagious or as deadly as seasonal flu. It's about finding the right balance.
Any back-up for your claims on contagion and fatalities? I was reading that it's 10 times deadlier.
That's going according to the goverment's chief medical expert over here. In Wuhan 0.1% of the population have contracted the virus. 0.1% over here would be just over 6000 people. So far we have 15 confirmed cases. Compared to flu, annually in Finland 5% of adults and 10% of children contract the flu virus. So there's no need for panic yet.
what we do know is that this virus is not as contagious or as deadly as seasonal flu. It's about finding the right balance.No. It's more contagious and more deadly than seasonal flu. That's why we don't have panics every year about seasonal flu.
Just as a follow up, the US is reporting 99 cases, with 10 deaths. This is a death rate of 10%. However, it is likely that many more people have the virus mildly or without symptoms, so the death rate is much lower. So the problem is a different one!
I think it would be safer to ditch the communion until this virus is over and done with. The sky fairy isn't going to be offering protection to the congregations.
Just as a follow up, the US is reporting 99 cases, with 10 deaths. This is a death rate of 10%. However, it is likely that many more people have the virus mildly or without symptoms, so the death rate is much lower. So the problem is a different one!
It would appear to be more contagious than seasonal flu, from what they were saying on the news at lunchtime.The Guardian agrees with you. However, the death rate is low.
The Guardian agrees with you. However, the death rate is low.
Depends how you look at it:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
We now have 19, so up by 4. The 4 new cases were confirmed this morning and they were all people recently returned from northern Italy. Good news, as it means it's not spreading amongst the population here yet.
LittleRoses
This is Professor John Oxford, I couldn't quite catch it, but I think he is a biologist and also a flu specialist. Listen from about 4mins in, he just puts things in perspective a little. Apparently, 5,000 have died in the UK from flu already this winter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aZKdrsiEjc
It's sometimes said that the sinking of the Titanic saved many more lives than it cost because the tragedy triggered legislation requiring a passenger ships to have sufficient lifeboats.
An interesting take on the Coronavirus is perhaps that it could do the same - if the number deaths it would cause in the UK is very low but the incidence of deaths from food poisoning (currently around 500 per year) fell significantly because people were washing their hands more thoroughly there could be an overall net "win".
Just a thought.
There are now 273 cases of the virus in the UK.Well, I hope they are kept tightly shut, asnd are leakproof.
Not entirely Covid-19 related but mainly. There is an underlying nervousness to the markets that this is playing on
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51796806
Not entirely Covid-19 related but mainly. There is an underlying nervousness to the markets that this is playing on
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51796806
Covid-19 is a biological phenomenon. The SARS-Cov-2 virus physically exists and affects people.I think rather like virus having a disproportionate effect on those with underlying conditions that's true of the economy.
The economy is bunch of human devised rules and other fluff.
Funny if we can defeat the virus only to be brought down by a collapsing economy?
The price of oil has come right down, I doubt too many people will cry about that if the price at the petrol pumps are reduced.It will affect govt incomes so it may well affect millions who cannot afford a car. In addition will lead to lay offs in the oil industry, and indeed is indicative of a slowdown in demand which will lead to lay offs in other areas.
The 'healing' pools at Lourdes are shut because of coronavirusThe RC church does not officially claim that the pools have any healing property.
The RC church does not officially claim that the pools have any healing property.It had though, certified dozens of miracles eliminating from that place.
Not tactful, but at least accurate as far as its origin is concerned, unlike the 1918-20 "Spanish" flu, which probably arose in Kansas.
There will be an interesting book to.be written about the way Covid-19 has been reported, actioned taken, the different attempts at spinning on it. I've seen a number of US politicians using the name Wuhan flu recently.
Not tactful, but at least accurate as far as its origin is concerned, unlike the 1918-20 "Spanish" flu, which probably arose in Kansas.I think it's more than just a lack of tact, given the sudden concentration of statements I've seen using it, I think it is deliberately manipulative. Though we have also had claims previously from the Chinese that it isn't Wuhan that was the centre.
The shutdown of Italy makes one wonder how long it is until we see this here. At work yesterday, I suggested that we were about 10 days behind Italy.Hopefully, we’ll never go that far.
Saw this yesterday and this sums up a lot of my thoughts
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/09/johnsons-coronavirus-press-conference-is-anything-but-reassuring
They have chosen a particular course of action that they calculate will minimize the impact to the economy and normal life - and the number of people seriously affected. If it doesn't go the way they want they will have to trade-off between the two in a state of crisis.There's a graph about the impact on St louis and Philadelphia of Spanish flu when St Louis stopped big public gatherings, and Philadelphia didn't that's worth seeking out
Given what we know from around the world, my inclination would have been to clamp down hard immediately, then loosen up as possible, from a state where we were in control.
This may be what NS is referring to:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140242/
Graphs and figures are about two thirds of the way through if you scroll down.
Yes. indeed, I'm sure they have taken those lessens into account.I'm not sure from what I see from the govt what they are thinking never mind what lessons they've taken into account. And in that and on the other aspects you mention, I share your insecurity.
I'm just feeling insecure about resilience to unknown factors - further mutations, side-effects, false info on social media, economic effects due to actions (or non-actions) elsewhere and so on.
This may be what NS is referring to:It's similar - I can't seem to access sites with it but I saw the Philadelphia v St Louis graph elsewhere and it's similar in the St Louis v Boston one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140242/
Graphs and figures are about two thirds of the way through if you scroll down.
Just seen an Italian hospital consultant on Victoria Derbyshire and he implied very strongly that we should be taking social distancing measures now. Adding sadly, look what's happened to Italy.We appear to be about 13 days behind Italy in terms of cases - I can't see why we haven't at least switched all sports events to being behind closed doors.
The government is clearly not putting public health as its top priority.
I can't express this strongly enough. Do not trust them on this one.
Some people are saying that an Italian style crackdown is inevitable, but is being held back, for political reasons. I have no idea if this correct. I guess if there is a surge in numbers, into the tens of thousands, it will happen. But it's the severity also, how many intensive care beds will be available, with ventilation equipment?
Some people are saying that an Italian style crackdown is inevitable, but is being held back, for political reasons. I have no idea if this correct. I guess if there is a surge in numbers, into the tens of thousands, it will happen. But it's the severity also, how many intensive care beds will be available, with ventilation equipment?
I'd be more cynical than that. Covid 19 disproportionately affects the older population. Hmmm......you know we just might have the answer to social care here, and a boost to the economy with all those legacies and less to pay out in pensions.
And don't tell me you haven't all thought that.
hmm, extremely cynical! I think even Cummings' new hires would balk at that.
You think.
Hmmmm....claimants for benefits forced back to work 2 weeks before dying. Windrush. Grenfell.
Not cynical. Learning by experience.
The shutdown of Italy makes one wonder how long it is until we see this here. At work yesterday, I suggested that we were about 10 days behind Italy.
I'd be more cynical than that. Covid 19 disproportionately affects the older population. Hmmm......you know we just might have the answer to social care here, and a boost to the economy with all those legacies and less to pay out in pensions.
And don't tell me you haven't all thought that.
We appear to be about 13 days behind Italy in terms of cases - I can't see why we haven't at least switched all sports events to being behind closed doors.It should be obvious. If people can’t go to the game, they’ll watch it on the telly.
Merkel warns that 70% of Germans could catch the virus. And?
But a German virologist, Alexander Kekule, stated that she was wrong, and a max of 40 000, might get infected.
Merkel warns that 70% of Germans could catch the virus. And?
But a German virologist, Alexander Kekule, stated that she was wrong, and a max of 40 000, might get infected.
It should be obvious. If people can’t go to the game, they’ll watch it on the telly.
In a pub.
Italy’s economy is almost certainly in a death spiral thanks to the measures they are taking. The deaths and hardship that will result from that may outnumber the coronavirus deaths.
I’m not saying that it’s wrong to start banning sports events etc, I’m just saying there is a lot more to figuring out the best course of action than panicking. Personally, I think the British government advisors have a better handle on it than you or I do.
It should be obvious. If people can’t go to the game, they’ll watch it on the telly.
In a pub.
Italy’s economy is almost certainly in a death spiral thanks to the measures they are taking. The deaths and hardship that will result from that may outnumber the coronavirus deaths.
I’m not saying that it’s wrong to start banning sports events etc, I’m just saying there is a lot more to figuring out the best course of action than panicking. Personally, I think the British government advisors have a better handle on it than you or I do.
It should be obvious. If people can’t go to the game, they’ll watch it on the telly.The advisors that a govt chooses to listen to, you mean? Or are you saying all govt policy is based on great advisors?
In a pub.
Italy’s economy is almost certainly in a death spiral thanks to the measures they are taking. The deaths and hardship that will result from that may outnumber the coronavirus deaths.
I’m not saying that it’s wrong to start banning sports events etc, I’m just saying there is a lot more to figuring out the best course of action than panicking. Personally, I think the British government advisors have a better handle on it than you or I do.
I thought that statement was irresponsible. What she bases that figure on, I don't know. Of course, being ready for a worst case scenario is a different thing.
The advisors that a govt chooses to listen to, you mean? Or are you saying all govt policy is based on great advisors?Why would they not listen to the most qualified advisors they have?
Why would they not listen to the most qualified advisors they have?Do you think the govt has listened to the most qualiified advisors on the past?
If they get things wrong, perhaps millions of people will die, and not just coronavirus victims. Imagine needing life saving treatment but the hospital is full of coronavirus victims or the doctors are all unavailable because they are self isolating.
I can't see any way to gain political advantage from this except by doing the right thing. Even then, the government may be screwed because it could get really bad.
Let's turn it around. Do you know of any evidence that the Italian government is doing the right thing? They stopped sporting events a while ago and the virus is definitely not under control there.
ETA: When I say "do the right thing" I do not mean to imply that I know what the right thing is. At the moment, my feeling is that the government response is about right, but it is just a feeling.
Do you think the govt has listened to the most qualiified advisors on the past?Yes
YesSo that's why Brexit is working?
So that's why Brexit is working?You didn’t ask me if the government always listens to the best advisors.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51846923It's a little more nuanced than that - it's banning people from travelling to the US from within the Schengen area if they are not U.S citizens.
The White House idiot has suspended all travel from Europe for the next 30 days, but not from the UK. That is much more about politics than the virus, imo. ::)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51846923
The White House idiot has suspended all travel from Europe for the next 30 days, but not from the UK. That is much more about politics than the virus, imo. ::)
That decision doesn't make much sense for preventing spread or politically. They could stop all non-essential flights except from covid-19 free countries.
I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of weeks the USA is in a much worse state than Europe given their delayed reaction and testing problems.
Peston is talking about herd immunity (ITV website), hopefully he has misheard this, as with this virus, that would kill a lot of people. It does sound a bit like Boris, and "take it on the chin".
A leading public health expert has launched a devastating critique of the government’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak in the UK, saying it is too little too late, lacks transparency and fails to mobilise the public.
Prof John Ashton, a former regional director of public health for north-west England, lambasted a lack of preparation and openness from the government and contrasted Britain’s response to that of Hong Kong.
“Right at the beginning of February, they [Hong Kong] adopted a total approach to this, which is what we should have done five weeks ago ourselves. They took a decision to work to three principles – of responding promptly, staying alert, working in an open and transparent manner,” he told the Guardian.
“Our lot haven’t been working openly and transparently. They’ve been doing it in a (non) smoke-filled room and just dribbling out stuff. The chief medical officer only appeared in public after about two weeks. Then they have had a succession of people bobbing up and disappearing. Public Health England’s been almost invisible.
That decision doesn't make much sense for preventing spread or politically. They could stop all non-essential flights except from covid-19 free countries.Donald Trump has a load of golf courses and a hotel in the UK.
I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of weeks the USA is in a much worse state than Europe given their delayed reaction and testing problems.
Donald Trump has a load of golf courses and a hotel in the UK.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was already in a worse state. In a country where going to the doctor costs money, prolonged medical care may bankrupt you and staying away from work may get you fired, under reporting will be a problem.
Preventing spread in the hope of a cure is a big gamble. Currently there are three outcomes
1. Everyone gets it in the next two monthes and the NHS won't cope
2. Slow down the spread so the spread is steady but NHS is better able to cope.
3. Shut everything down hope that you have a cure, if not Winter 2021 will get the 2nd wave and NHS won't cope.
Preventing spread in the hope of a cure is a big gamble. Currently there are three outcomes
1. Everyone gets it in the next two monthes and the NHS won't cope
2. Slow down the spread so the spread is steady but NHS is better able to cope.
3. Shut everything down hope that you have a cure, if not Winter 2021 will get the 2nd wave and NHS won't cope.
Sir Richard Wharton : In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton : In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
I had a macabre laugh when I saw those lists of measures being taken by various countries, and the UK looks like an outlier, in not closing schools, sports events, etc. Somebody said we're a control group, wot a laaf.Belgium hasn't closed its schools yet, either.
Belgium hasn't closed its schools yet, either.
I think that the "prime minister*" has a secret agenda following closely on the budget.
UEFA postpone all matches - I presume this will happen on all major football across Europe shortly
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51870540
I think working from home is sensible, if a person is able to do so.The problem is obviously for those who can't , many of whom are on the worst contracts and have the least protections
But isn't Boris downplaying the effects of herd immunity? Thus, if 50 million are infected, that's 500, 000 deaths, assuming 1% rate. Of course, it may not reach 50 million.
Also a question of beds, plus ventilator. Irish govt is looking at sports halls, etc.
But isn't Boris downplaying the effects of herd immunity? Thus, if 50 million are infected, that's 500, 000 deaths, assuming 1% rate. Of course, it may not reach 50 million.ive heard most of the members of Extinction Rebellion have contracted the virus ,
Also a question of beds, plus ventilator. Irish govt is looking at sports halls, etc.
ive heard most of the members of Extinction Rebellion have contracted the virus ,
That'll teach em ! 😳
Udayana, maybe they don't want to incite fear? Saying that X number will die is not cheery, and Boris strives to be cheery.
ive heard most of the members of Extinction Rebellion have contracted the virus ,
That'll teach em ! 😳
It would be less scary to know the truth - especially as we already know that in China the spread has been (temporarily maybe) stopped after 80k infections with 3k deaths.
Local and mayoral elections in England have been postponed until next year.There will be people wondering about the U S elections.
There will be people wondering about the U S elections.
I read that there were 20 cases in China yesterday. Oh well, ours not to reason why, ours is but to vote Brexit, and die.
However bad the virus becomes in the US, Trump will only postpone them if he thinks he might lose, imo.But he will be tempted by the whole idea of being the longest serving President after FDR.
But he will be tempted by the whole idea of being the longest serving President after FDR.
Left work, all a bit zombie apocalypse, going to head down the Winchester and wait for all this to blow over.
And Bolsoanaro tests positive. Having had dinner with Trump
https://www.businessinsider.com/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-president-coronavirus-test-positive-2020-3?r=US&IR=T
May one ask what job you do?
I see the London Marathon has been postponed until October.
You may.chief stirer ..... in a paint factory?
Left work, all a bit zombie apocalypse, going to head down the Winchester and wait for all this to blow over.Vodka tonic ..... On the slate !
I had a macabre laugh when I saw those lists of measures being taken by various countries, and the UK looks like an outlier, in not closing schools, sports events, etc. Somebody said we're a control group, wot a laaf.
I think not panicking is a good idea. Closing schools for example might be a disaster. If your child is at home but you need to go to work, what do you do with the child? You ask the grandparents to look after it.I've been troubled by this post for the last hour .
I've been troubled by this post for the last hour .Depends how many people are there.
I thought you said pic-nicking 😂
Thought I was getting a cough and a sore throat this morning, but it came to nothing. Damn - i was hoping for a week off work.
In parliament a debate is going on and all parties agree that the government should take emergency powers should the need arise in the coming days.
Even though there has been a sharp rise in the confirmed cases over here, it seems to me that it is because the authorities have been extremely efficient in working out chains of infection and chasing down those who have been exposed. Obviously easier in a country with a relatively smaller population and density.
What does Britain know about the Coronavirus that the rest of Europe doesn't?!
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/13/uk/uk-coronavirus-response-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html
Not 'Britain', Sriram, but a useless fuckwit of a Prime Minister who has all the leadership qualities of a plank of rotten wood, as does his counterpart in the White House.Measures to control the spread of the virus have to be balanced with the need to avoid panic and prevent serious economic consequences. which may be Johnson's reasoning. I don't often defend Tory PMs, but even they may sometimes get things right.
Scotland's FM, Nicola Sturgeon, was well ahead of Johnson in realising that mass gatherings had to be stopped, and Johnson immediately had a go at her the other day for even suggesting this, and since then various organisations have of their own accord decided to take action. It seems Johnson has belatedly changed his mind, but this just further confirms that he is no leader.
I do hope the poor saps who voted Tory last year come to realise just what they have done.
Measures to control the spread of the virus have to be balanced with the need to avoid panic and prevent serious economic consequences. which may be Johnson's reasoning. I don't often defend Tory PMs, but even they may sometimes get things right.
Measures to control the spread of the virus have to be balanced with the need to avoid panic and prevent serious economic consequences. which may be Johnson's reasoning. I don't often defend Tory PMs, but even they may sometimes get things right.
But they need the virus to spread to achieve herd immunity. That's about 70-80% infection rate. Assuming roughly a 1% death rate, you're talking 400 000 to 500 000 deaths. I also don't get how the vulnerable are protected.Presuming I am in the vulnerable group, 84 and having to take medication to avoid strokes and heart attacks, I am simply being sensible. I have most certainly not taken any panic action but am carrying on with my normal, quiet life and will obtain the assistance of taxi drivers and Tesco's assistance service if necessary.
Measures to control the spread of the virus have to be balanced with the need to avoid panic and prevent serious economic consequences. which may be Johnson's reasoning. I don't often defend Tory PMs, but even they may sometimes get things right.
I'd disagree -the speed of the U-Turn, which is how it s being portrayed in the headlines of the likes of the FT and Guardian, suggest he's now running to catch-up.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/uk-to-ban-mass-gatherings-in-coronavirus-u-turn
It’s would concern me if the government ere doing this under pressure from the mass hysteria that seems like o be infecting everybody rather than as a measured and scientifically justified plan.
The virus seems to be particularly virulent with a certain latitude range.
Temperature may not be an issue unlike earlier theories. A cold country like Russia has very few cases. Strange!
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
There's not much point in banging on about herd immunity, as we can only get that if the vast majority of the population get the virus, which is exactly what we want to avoid, and which would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The herd immunity we read about for measles is acquired by mass immunisation, and is threatened by the anti-vax idiots, but there is no vaccine for Covid-19 yet, nor likely to be until it's all over.
Believe it or not I spent last evening in a bar called Korona in my local town. I'm still going to do the things I do but just be more aware of what I touch and when I wash my hands etc.ad_o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/51888491i bet he wins all the medals then 😷
The Japanese PM says the Olympic Games are going ahead, he isn't going to change his mind, we shall see!
ad_o;D ;D ;D
I woke today with a sore throat and throbbing headache , have I been infected by the 7 pints of corona I had last night ? 🍻
i bet he wins all the medals then 😷
There's not much point in banging on about herd immunity, as we can only get that if the vast majority of the population get the virus, which is exactly what we want to avoid,
The arguments between locking down and herd immunity seem a bit clearer. One of the chief arguments against the former, as in some Asian countries, is that when the lockdown is released, the epidemic starts again.
One of the points about herd immunity is that NHS is in poor shape, and cannot cope with a spike now, so delay it for months, so help the virus spread now. Yoiks, do you feel lucky?
There's not much point in banging on about herd immunity, as we can only get that if the vast majority of the population get the virus, which is exactly what we want to avoid, and which would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The herd immunity we read about for measles is acquired by mass immunisation, and is threatened by the anti-vax idiots, but there is no vaccine for Covid-19 yet, nor likely to be until it's all over.
Nope there is no avoiding that, the vast majority will get the virus.Nonsense - you can't know that, and I don't think any experts are saying that.
Some epidemiologists are saying that the virus is uncontrollable. Check out Adam Kucharski, twitter thread.There are always scaremongers, even among the experts. At the height of the BSE crisis, one expert, notorious fro always preseting the wort-case scenario as the most likely outcome, said that we could lose as entire generation.
ad_o
I woke today with a sore throat and throbbing headache , have I been infected by the 7 pints of corona I had last night ? 🍻
Nonsense - you can't know that, and I don't think any experts are saying that.
There are always scaremongers, even among the experts. At the height of the BSE crisis, one expert, notorious fro always preseting the wort-case scenario as the most likely outcome, said that we could lose as entire generation.
I’m sitting in a restaurant in Ouistreham waiting for the ferry to Portsmouth and I’ve just found out that France is shutting down at midnight.so your take is that the UK govt are following expert instruction, but France isn't? How can you tell the difference?
Madness
so your take is that the UK govt are following expert instruction, but France isn't? How can you tell the difference?cos one gvmt doesn't know what it's doing ....
Nonsense - you can't know that, and I don't think any experts are saying that.
I just got that impression from watching the news. I don't think it is scaremongering, this is what the government is trying to do:-
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/39B6/production/_111247741_controlled_uncontrolled_transmission_v02_640-nc.png
They are talking about lowering the peak, most people will still get the virus.
More drastic measures might mean you flatten that peak even more but you will end up in a worse situation by next winter.
Watch the Video.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51632801
COVID 19 and BSE are not comparable. BSE was preventable - it was a consequence of cattle food preparation and was transmitted to humans as a result of poor butchery techniques.. COVID 19 in a virus at loose in the environment.Quite, but that was not the point of my typo-infested post.
COVID 19 and BSE are not comparable. BSE was preventable - it was a consequence of cattle food preparation and was transmitted to humans as a result of poor butchery techniques.. COVID 19 in a virus at loose in the environment.
Sorry, that diagram is just plain wrong. That is not what they want or what will happen if the plan works.
The reason for delaying control measures is to use as much of the free capacity that they have earlier - before the peak. They also think that, as some people will have had the virus and recovered, some people will have immunity by the time of the peak - so it will be flattened.
The risks are that by the time they do impose heavier controls the numbers of infected are rising so fast that they don't work and we just end up with an uncontrolled peak. Also, the number of immune people by that time is not enough to do any flattening.
The only way to avoid those risks (imo) is to quarantine (protect) vulnerable people from infection - that can only be done if there is time to cocoon them (or whatever system is best) before infections take off uncontrollably. Stronger controls earlier can buy that time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51895873Don't worry - you're not over 70.
Within weeks the over 70s are likely to be required to self-isolate in their own homes, without visitors, essential supplies being delivered to their doorsteps. I am really looking forward to that. :o
Don't worry - you're not over 70.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51895873Think this is likely sometime in the next few days rather than weeks.
Within weeks the over 70s are likely to be required to self-isolate in their own homes, without visitors, essential supplies being delivered to their doorsteps. I am really looking forward to that. :o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51895873
Within weeks the over 70s are likely to be required to self-isolate in their own homes, without visitors, essential supplies being delivered to their doorsteps. I am really looking forward to that. :o
Think this is likely sometime in the next few days rather than weeks.Time to panic buy then.
so your take is that the UK govt are following expert instruction, but France isn't? How can you tell the difference?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51895873
Within weeks the over 70s are likely to be required to self-isolate in their own homes, without visitors, essential supplies being delivered to their doorsteps. I am really looking forward to that. :o
The French are panicking. They've shut down everything. Either most people will be in total poverty in a few months or they will be ignoring the government.Meanwhile the UK govt are making policy announcements via anonymous sources in Robert Peston's blog. How can you be sure that you thinking the UK govt are being sensible and following expert advice and the French aren't is nog just because the UK govt are doing what you think is correct?
I know two over 70 people who will ignore the self isolation thing. They are both pretty fit and healthy for their age and they can't see any reason why they should make themselves miserable for their own protection.I'm going out ... I may be some time !
So let's have no more nonsense about "herd immunity" as a possible solution.
Meanwhile the UK govt are making policy announcements via anonymous sources in Robert Peston's blog.No they are not.
How can you be sure that you thinking the UK govt are being sensible and following expert advice and the French aren't is nog just because the UK govt are doing what you think is correct?
It is an outcome not a solution.
First epidemic then endemic.
No they are not.
Why are you so sure that the British are doing the wrong thing? Are you sure it's not just because you despise the government so much you refuse to believe they are capable of doing anything right?
Look, I am not sure if Britain's approach is the best way of containing the virus, but my outlook is not focused just on the virus. I'm looking at the effect on the World. If the French, Spanish and Italian measures carry on for more than a few weeks, their economies will be destroyed. That, in itself, will kill people and otherwise destroy the lives of many others.
This crisis isn't just about stopping the virus, it's about having a world worth living in after it's over.
German government now confirming this report in Welt am Sonntag: Trump administration tried to poach German virologists working on Corona vaccine in Tübingen and offered large sums so it would be exclusive to US https://t.co/DKWnuMHr9p
This looks like confirmation of an earlier story that Trump was attempting to secure a potential vaccine being developed in Germany for exclusive USA use.
Aside from the medical risks and attempts to control the spread of the virus, should restrictions such as requiring the over 70s to isolate be introduced then how could these be effectively enforced?
We, both the population and government, have no practical experience to fall back on which is why effective leadership is important if people are to both police and behave themselves, and especially if it got to a stage where rationing was needed.
I'm not sure they are doing the wrong thing.So neither of us are sure. \At least that's one thing we can be sure about.
I take it you think Peston's reference to a govt source with regards to care homes in his blog is a lie?You characterised an anonymous source as "the UK govt are making policy announcements". That's clearly false. When the government makes a policy announcement, it will hold a press conference and issue an official (not anonymous) statement. What Peston got hold of is not a policy announcement but a leak.
So neither of us are sure. \At least that's one thing we can be sure about.You characterised an anonymous source as "the UK govt are making policy announcements". That's clearly false. When the government makes a policy announcement, it will hold a press conference and issue an official (not anonymous) statement. What Peston got hold of is not a policy announcement but a leak.Govt sources are not leaks. They are the govt using the anonymous briefing to float ideas. If it was a leak, the govt should/would be trying to find out who. They aren't
It may be that the government really is going to do this and this is a way to soften the blow when it arrives or it may be the government is testing the water to see if it is a measure we will put up with. Or it may be that they heard about the "kill off all the old people who are a burden to the state" conspiracy theory and therefore they have decided to do something to counter that.
Govt sources are not leaks.Clearly I have been watching too much Yes Prime Minister.
If it was a leak, the govt should/would be trying to find out who. They aren'tNot if they were the source of the leak. In any case, whether you call it a leak or an anonymous briefing, it is not a policy announcement.
I'm not convinced that herd immunity would work anyway. Nobody has yet said that you can't catch it more than once. After all, a vast proportion of the population has caught flu, and there's no herd immunity to that.
Nobody has yet said that you can't catch it more than once.
I thought as you get a dose of one of the flu's you then become immune for a time. If enough people lose the immunity it spreads.As I understand it, the problem is that there are many different strains of flu and new ones keep mutating all the time. The same might apply to coronavirus.
That diagram was produced by the BBC after attending a press conference presented by chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. As far as I can tell it is a copy of the diagram used by Vallance in the presentation.
Where exactly does Vallance say that?
Again where are you getting this from?
As Vallance stated there is a risk if you do this too early.
I know two over 70 people who will ignore the self isolation thing. They are both pretty fit and healthy for their age and they can't see any reason why they should make themselves miserable for their own protection.
Aside from the medical risks and attempts to control the spread of the virus, should restrictions such as requiring the over 70s to isolate be introduced then how could these be effectively enforced?
We, both the population and government, have no practical experience to fall back on which is why effective leadership is important if people are to both police and behave themselves, and especially if it got to a stage where rationing was needed.
It is an outcome not a solution.Yes, quite - but some people, on here and elsewhere, have been suggesting that herd immunity is something to be aimed at. We can't have that without an apocalyptic epidemic of 1918-19 flu proportions or worse, unless a vaccine is developed, manufactured, and used for a mass immunisation in time.
First epidemic then endemic.
Went to the local bird reserve, expecting a ghost town, but it was completely jammed, partly because they have a cafe. My wife thought it was fin de siecle, or eat drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we d-d-d don't know.Definitely the feeling I got yesterday in Glasgow. Thinking I will pop out to my local this afternoon and bid it farewell for the meantime
An alternative to shaking hands at the peace in church services? It's Hindu, not Christian, but I've always thought it charming and elegant.Agree though the question is how many church services we will have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste
Agree though the question is how many church services we will have.As long as pubs and restaurants are still open, I don't see why churches shouldn't be, with suitable precautions. My church, starting today, is using wafers only at communion ("communion in one kind", officially still valid), using a hand-action instead of shaking hands at the peace, asking people to put their contribution on a plate at the end instead of passing round a bag, not using the tiresome rattly-shaky things they miscall musical instruments (thank heavens), and not having refreshments afterwards. I think that's more than enough precautions.
Given the need to pick teams, cannot see the Olympics going ahead at the current time planned.Especially not in Japan, close to China. Maybe postpone it until next year?
Wondering if there will be any long term effects of this. Might we see less air travel? Will we see labour rights change? Will we see more preparedness and coordination?
An alternative to shaking hands at the peace in church services? It's Hindu, not Christian, but I've always thought it charming and elegant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste
There's also Indian alternatives if you can't find any toilet paper.:o ;D
As long as pubs and restaurants are still open, I don't see why churches shouldn't be, with suitable precautions. My church, starting today, is using wafers only at communion ("communion in one kind", officially still valid), using a hand-action instead of shaking hands at the peace, asking people to put their contribution on a plate at the end instead of passing round a bag, not using the tiresome rattly-shaky things they miscall musical instruments (thank heavens), and not having refreshments afterwards. I think that's more than enough precautions.But how long will they remain open, and given the numbers of at risk people who might attend a service, then there is another factor.
Of-course that is entirely their own choice.Do you approve of effectively putting over 70's under house arrest?
Presumably they can rely on private health insurance to cover them if they get ill.We have the NHS to which they have been contributing all their lives. Why should they rely on private health insurance?
Do you approve of effectively putting over 70's under house arrest?
We have the NHS to which they have been contributing all their lives. Why should they rely on private health insurance?
Of-course not. As I said, what they do is their own choice.Buying up beds from the private sector at great cost it would appear.
The NHS will do their best. But, as each person admitted with covid-19 will occupy a bed for c 15-20 days before recovery or death, they will run out of beds very quickly.
What is in place to avoid what happened in Italy?
As long as pubs and restaurants are still open, I don't see why churches shouldn't be, with suitable precautions. My church, starting today, is using wafers only at communion ("communion in one kind", officially still valid), using a hand-action instead of shaking hands at the peace, asking people to put their contribution on a plate at the end instead of passing round a bag, not using the tiresome rattly-shaky things they miscall musical instruments (thank heavens), and not having refreshments afterwards. I think that's more than enough precautions.you people are obviousely not praying hard enough !
Amazingly this is not satire. And is why satire is deadanyway , I've stopped watching Cruising With Jane Macdonald now, just to be safe!
https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/28/liam-gallagher-thought-coronavirus-house-just-hot-confusing-scary-12321292/
As regards the policy of all over 70's being routinely restricted at some point, as attributed to Health Secretary for England & Wales, it seems the Scottish Government won't be going down this route.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51898288
Routinely restricted?
I think the policy is to advise over 70's to self-isolate, mainly due to the death rate being around 8% for that age group.
Don't know if this data is valid:-
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
Routinely restricted?
I think the policy is to advise over 70's to self-isolate, mainly due to the death rate being around 8% for that age group.
Every Briton over the age of 70 will be told "within the coming weeks" to stay at home for an extended period to shield them from coronavirus, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said....
The Scottish government has set out its interpretation of the strategy, saying it had no plans to isolate the elderly, but would instead "ask them to reduce social contact".
That changes things for me, as the Scottish advice is backed up by medical knowledge.
'But Dr Catherine Calderwood insisted over-70s would not be asked to isolate themselves unless they were ill.'
All pubs to be shut in the Irish Republic on St Paddy's day.Bloody hell - thins must be serious!
If this is even just half-right it is worrying.It’s not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the virus is with us forever.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-coronavirus-crisis-to-last-until-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised
It’s not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the virus is with us forever.Ithink they're assuming that it will be - but by then there'll be a vaccine, and we'll be routinely vaccinated, as we are now with flu, so it's not as bad as it sounds.
If this is even just half-right it is worrying.In view of this I have moved from Touching cloth to following through.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-coronavirus-crisis-to-last-until-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised
It’s not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the virus is with us forever.It was announced as the worst case scenario....the one that would happen if they didn't put their plan in action.
Seeing a lot of chatter from people in the UK saying they think that they had coronavirus before or around Christmas. While I doubt that this is the case, it shows the general lack of trust of the official statements.i think you may be overestimating the level of intelligence in the general population .
According to Matt Hancock, herd immunity is not part of the official strategy.The removal of mass testing and tracking would be a feature of a herd immunity strategy though as would a focus on treatment of the acutely ill concommitant with suspension of mass testing. Although I prefer the backfired policy theory on that.
Seeing a lot of chatter from people in the UK saying they think that they had coronavirus before or around Christmas. While I doubt that this is the case, it shows the general lack of trust of the official statements.
Removal of free tv licences for over 75s delayed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51911065
Fair enough, the Government has much more important things on which to spend its money like NHS at this time of crisis. Besides which, I don't see why the over 75s should have a free TV licence.It's the BBC not the govt.
It's the BBC not the govt.
But the Government was does put money towards the suspension of the licence fee for the over 75s, apparently.Used to but it had been phased out gradually and as from start if June completely. This is a BBC action.
Fair enough, the Government has much more important things on which to spend its money like NHS at this time of crisis. Besides which, I don't see why the over 75s should have a free TV licence.REMOVAL of free tv licence delayed. At least read a post properly before spouting your usual inanities.
REMOVAL of free tv licence delayed. At least read a post properly before spouting your usual inanities.
Talking about yourself again! I don't think the TV licence should be free for anyone!
Why?
I went to the supermarket before 7am this morning thinking that there would be hardly anyone else there as is usual at that time of the morning, but not so! It was like it would be just before Christmas, heaving! However, apart from anti-bac products the shelves weren't too badly stocked, there were even toilet rolls, but they were flying off the shelves, there still aren't any restrictions on the number people can buy at our local Tesco, which very silly! >:(Lr
The government have adopted emergency powers and the schools, public buildings, and borders are closing.No matter the justification, those first six words put a chill in my heart.
No matter the justification, those first six words put a chill in my heart.
The government have adopted emergency powers and the schools, public buildings, and borders are closing.
Not understanding the position on pubs - it seems to put them in the worst position of not being able to claim insurance.
Not understanding the position on pubs - it seems to put them in the worst position of not being able to claim insurance.
Indeed. When the earth is invaded by an alien life form threatening to kill 1% of the population the first thing Dr Who does is take a deep breath and check whether the pubs are insured.But then Dr Who doesn't generally worry about 3 million jobs
Don't worry .. expect emergency powers to be in effect by the end of this week.
Whatever else the corona virus is doing, it has done one lovely thing for me. Yesterday, I was trying to work out the best way of getting to and using the assisted shopping service always provided by Tesco, when the phone rang. It was a young woman I knew well a few years ago. She has just called in to take my list and get it for me. Now that is so very kind and thoughtful of her.
Whatever else the corona virus is doing, it has done one lovely thing for me. Yesterday, I was trying to work out the best way of getting to and using the assisted shopping service always provided by Tesco, when the phone rang. It was a young woman I knew well a few years ago. She has just called in to take my list and get it for me. Now that is so very kind and thoughtful of her.
Our pool league has been suspended now. Can still go down the club to practice or play money games but no official competitons.
That's great.Agree. I think we would need to suspend GDPR
Trying to think through how to generalise this... Between the NHS, Govt, local councils and supermarkets there must be enough information in the various databases to identify nearly everyone at risk of a serious case of covid-19.
Or a specific database could be started where people could self register or be registered. Then the nearest local supermarkets could manage deliveries.
I've just been to the local village co-op near where I am at the moment , all bread sold out .Assistant said people were waiting from 7 AM !
I got to Waitrose at 8am, they had a few loaves left, also spuds and green veg. No fish.
It looks as if herd immunity has been abandoned, since collateral damage is large. Suppression it is, hope it works.
We are trying to decide if we should continue going to the gym or not. There is a risk from the point of possibly catching and spreading the virus but is it unnecessarily risky? Does it help anyone if we don't go? As it is still open, maybe it is fine?
I think swimming is OK - but I always end up chatting to other regulars.
In the USA they are queuing for weaponry.
I got to Waitrose at 8am, they had a few loaves left, also spuds and green veg. No fish.
It looks as if herd immunity has been abandoned, since collateral damage is large. Suppression it is, hope it works.
Balance your risk of dying from coronavirus against your risk of dying of coronary heart disease.I don't think it will be a couple of weeks - more like the end of this week and even that feels optimistic
Don't forget, when you are swimming (in a pool, not open water), you are literally in a bath of (very weak) bleach designed to stop all those pesky viruses and other germs.
People are still overestimating the risk of catching the virus. As of yesterday (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public), there were 1,543 confirmed COVID 19 cases out of 44,105 tested. That means, if you meet somebody who has the symptoms, there is still less than a 1/25 chance they have COVID 19 i.e. if you meet 25 people at random with a cough and high temperature only one will have the virus.
Look at it another way, let's say that we have only recorded 1% of all cases, that means there are 154,300 cases in the country at the moment. The probability of you meeting one of those people at random is about 1 in 500, and, of course, a high proportion of them are already self isolating so you won't meet them.
As things stand right now, you would have to be quite unlucky to catch coronavirus from any random person in the street. The government models say this is all going to change, so my advice is to do all the things you like doing now, because, in a couple of weeks, you won't be allowed to.
Nobody was ever relying on herd immunity. The government's policy has always been to try to balance the cases against NHS capacity and to try to avoid doing too much damage to the economy.
We are trying to decide if we should continue going to the gym or not. There is a risk from the point of possibly catching and spreading the virus but is it unnecessarily risky? Does it help anyone if we don't go? As it is still open, maybe it is fine?
I think swimming is OK - but I always end up chatting to other regulars.
Well, there's a photo of a queue outside one gun shop in California that might be being taken out of context.Yes, apparently in the US bullets are the topof the list of things people are stocking up with.
In the USA they are queuing for weaponry.yes but Warburtons are producing loaves baked around a hidden hand gun !
I belong to a gym too and have been thinking exactly the same thing. Not decided yet. Mind you, I might not have to make the decision.
Balance your risk of dying from coronavirus against your risk of dying of coronary heart disease.
...
As things stand right now, you would have to be quite unlucky to catch coronavirus from any random person in the street. The government models say this is all going to change, so my advice is to do all the things you like doing now, because, in a couple of weeks, you won't be allowed to.
...
Reasons can also be set out on plain paper, but it will be regarded as a sworn statement.
Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said the fine for transgressors would soon be set at €135 ($150; £123).
Le Monde reports that some 100,000 civil servants and soldiers will be deployed nationwide to carry out checks.'
I hope that, when a vaccine is developed, they won't spend too long testing it before releasing it. The current legally required tests for new drugs before release in most Western countries are excessive, and actually cost lives, because people who could be saved die while waiting for it to become available. Hopefully, they'll cutail that (not completely abandon it, of course) in this case.
The US is already testing a vaccine. I believe a number of countries have created their versions of a vaccine and are no doubt testing them too. I think the tests have to be stringent, a vaccine is no good if it kills rather than cures.Yes - but not over-stringent.
Yes - but not over-stringent.
It depends what you mean by over-stringent.What a pointless comment! Are you arguing for the sake of it? Again?
Seems so 20th Century, and they have to deploy people to check ... increasing contact risks.How do you stop everyone moving about though? Hospitals, food delivery needs to continue.
Essentially the problem is one of information: knowing who is vulnerable and where they are and knowing who is infected (and then recovered) and where they are. Testing can be provided (as soon as there is capacity) for everyone to check their status if needed. But then you need to make sure that when people move about the vulnerable don't come in contact with the infected. Need to stop both groups moving about.
Brainstorming, If everyone stopped moving about and having contact for two weeks we would know exactly where all the live cases were, or rather had been, and there would be no more transmission.
ie. Once locked down, you need to get back to strict testing and contact tracing: containment and elimination. Need to lock down well before the health service is overwhelmed as in Korea, Singapore, not after as in China, Italy.
Ffs!saney ,
https://www.thedailybeast.com/boris-johnson-made-operation-last-gasp-joke-about-urgent-respirator-making-project-says-report
I hope that, when a vaccine is developed, they won't spend too long testing it before releasing it. The current legally required tests for new drugs before release in most Western countries are excessive, and actually cost lives, because people who could be saved die while waiting for it to become available. Hopefully, they'll cutail that (not completely abandon it, of course) in this case.I suppose one might argue that the danger of litigation has lead to over stringency but there have been enough issues with drugs not sufficiently tested that I think I need a bit more persuading than some random poster on a message board who has no relevant qualifications in the subject asserting that the testing regs are excessive.
saney ,Johnson was in a meeting with 60 manufacturers to discuss production of respirators and referred to it as 'Operation Last Gasp'
Briefly , what does it say . I can't open it !
Johnson was in a meeting with 60 manufacturers to discuss production of respirators and referred to it as 'Operation Last Gasp'Now that IS funny .😂😱
Now that IS funny .😂😱If you had said it, I would agree but it isn't when the PM is saying it. He wants to be Churchill, but is rather Benny Hill.
Ffs!Gallows humour has its place, but probably not a good idea from the PM.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/boris-johnson-made-operation-last-gasp-joke-about-urgent-respirator-making-project-says-report
I suppose one might argue that the danger of litigation has lead to over stringency but there have been enough issues with drugs not sufficiently tested that I think I need a bit more persuading than some random poster on a message board who has no relevant qualifications in the subject asserting that the testing regs are excessive.Fair point, but I read it in an opinion piece in the 'Guardian' some years ago, so it must be true. (LR - that's a joke.)
Gallows humour has its place, but probably not a good idea from the PM.
Pub landlords and restaurateurs are understandably cross with the government for recommending that people avoid them, but not ordering them to close: if they had to close, they could claim financial compensation, but as it is, they're getting clobbered.
If you had said it, I would agree but it isn't when the PM is saying it. He wants to be Churchill, but is rather Benny Hill.yep , I would have quite proud of that one but you could be right 😎
And yes, I agree on the pubs and restaurants question though the Association of British Insurers are apparently arguing that even if the govt does tell them to shut , the cover won't apply.Perhaps, but they could claim compensation from the government, presumably (which may be why the government isn't ordering them to shut, the cynic in me suggests).
Fair point, but I read it in an opinion piece in the 'Guardian' some years ago, so it must be true. (LR - that's a joke.)The problem is that reducing the time means any longer term effects are not seen. There is a balance to be achieved but not easy to establish. Experimental treatments in those cases which are rare can I think be fast tracked effectively at the choice of those involved but this is about using a drug widely enough to mimic herd immunity, so I think that needs a lot of care.
Perhaps, but they could claim compensation from the government, presumably (which may be why the government isn't ordering them to shut, the cynic in me suggests).Govt has no duty to compensate. It needs to tell them to close and tell the insurers to pay up. Lots of places near me shutting anyway from tonight. Number of friends, ok bar staff that I have developed a symbiotic relationship with, being laid off.
If I had been PM my strategy would have been do nothing let it take its course,Don't overdo the caring, sharing soppiness, or people will think you're a snowflake. (Corrected your punctuation and grammar for you.)
and clear out the dead wood, rather than destroy the lives of millions financially .
If I had been PM my strategy would have been , do nothing let it take it's course ,Meaningless in a global economy. Gets rid of your core vote.
Clear out the dead wood rather than destroy the lives of millions financially .
Don't overdo the caring, sharing soppiness, or people will think you're a snowflake. (Corrected you punctuation and grammar for you.)thanks for the corrections , I'm triping on an old iPhone 4 with little signal and I can't see the screen half the time !!
After? this is over we need to have a proper investigation into the whole process. Not that the below is necessarily true but to just ignore any possible lessons would be foolish.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/alexwickham/coronavirus-uk-strategy-deaths?__twitter_impression=true
Meaningless in a global economy. Gets rid of your core vote.i was only looking at one term anyway , couldn't care less after that !
Just to be serious for a moment ( I know) !Before we start eating each other and searching for food and fuel in the ruins of our abandoned cities, you mean?
I drew out a wad of cash this morning . I'm thinking cash may be required increasingly in the near future 👽
Meaningless in a global economy. Gets rid of your core vote.
How do you stop everyone moving about though? Hospitals, food delivery needs to continue.
I'm seeing this thread quoted a lot, along with Twitter threads by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the Black Swan. Some mathematicians and modellers seem scornful of the initial govt response, especially any reference to herd immunity. I expect one day, there will be an enquiry. Not being a mathematician, I find it hard to follow.
There are a number of different models but the underlying maths is common and well understood. The models give different outputs depending on the assumptions (eg about the virus) and figures fed in - just like a big spreadsheet really.But the question then is are the figures being fed in as a result of political decisions?
You only have to feed in slightly incorrect data to get massive differences in outcomes. It is easy to introduce bias into the input - especially if you do not have reliable figures from sampling or, in this case, testing. Then you will interpret the outputs with the same biases in play.
There are a number of different models but the underlying maths is common and well understood. The models give different outputs depending on the assumptions (eg about the virus) and figures fed in - just like a big spreadsheet really.
You only have to feed in slightly incorrect data to get massive differences in outcomes. It is easy to introduce bias into the input - especially if you do not have reliable figures from sampling or, in this case, testing. Then you will interpret the outputs with the same biases in play.
But the question then is are the figures being fed in as a result of political decisions?
I thought one of Taleb's points was that herd immunity can only be achieved via vaccination. To get there via a lot of people catching the virus involves a lot of deaths, and may not achieve immunity. Did polio?
"Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.”
Patrick Vallance, chief scientific advisor, FT quote.
What a pointless comment! Are you arguing for the sake of it? Again?
Johnson was in a meeting with 60 manufacturers to discuss production of respirators and referred to it as 'Operation Last Gasp'That's good.
More importantly, no horse-racing after today!
Jolly good. Maybe the bookies will go out of business. ;DSo you want lots of poorly paid people to lose their jobs?
That's good.It's passable but it's idiotic coming from the PM
What we have found in this data is that adults aged 20-50 make most of their contacts in workplaces. If those of us who can work remotely start doing so now, it will contribute to lowering overall transmission in the population. Another important finding is that people over 65 – who are particularly at risk from severe Covid-19 illness – make over half of their contacts in other settings (not home, school or work), such as shops, restaurants and leisure centres. By avoiding these interactions, people who are most at risk from the new coronavirus could halve their risk of infection. By changing our behaviour now, and sustaining these changes throughout the outbreak, we can significantly reduce our own risk of infection, and the risk to others, and by doing so help protect those most vulnerable.
This is good, by Petra Klepac from the LSHTM:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/17/scientists-age-groups-covid-19-workplaces-shops-restaurants
Also discusses R, the reproduction number and vaccination/immunity.
I know not all pandemics come from China. The 2009 swine flu came from Mexico, I think, and the Spanish flu maybe from America. But about three have: sars, avian flu and now corona. I know authorities such as WHO don't want to stigmatise China, but is it wrong to suggest they need to change some of their eating and medicinal habits, along with the illegal live animal trade, so that this doesn't happen again? Genuine question. I know I made a flippant remark earlier in this thread which was removed, but I am genuinely interested in what others think.
It's passable but it's idiotic coming from the PM
I know not all pandemics come from China. The 2009 swine flu came from Mexico, I think, and the Spanish flu maybe from America. But about three have: sars, avian flu and now corona. I know authorities such as WHO don't want to stigmatise China, but is it wrong to suggest they need to change some of their eating and medicinal habits, along with the illegal live animal trade, so that this doesn't happen again? Genuine question. I know I made a flippant remark earlier in this thread which was removed, but I am genuinely interested in what others think.
FFS Get a sense of humour.It isn't funny for many people scared of dying to have this idiotic idea from the PM. You appear to have no idea of context or statesmanship, just like Johnson.
It's the only thing that is going to stop you from going insane in the next few weeks...
... oh, wait.
It isn't funny for many people scared of dying to have this idiotic idea from the PM. You appear to have no idea of context or statesmanship, just like Johnson.saney
saneyAnd you need to start understanding the difference between you and the the prick PM.
Get over yourself , you sanctimonious person !
( I cleaned that up before posting )
Oh FFS MY ELECTRIC has just run outTake care
Not only am I in the middle of a field , I'm in pitch dark too !
Self isolation , nice !
Take careyou too old chap
Btw I was just chatting (messaging) with my daughter . Australia seems very far away at the moment 😪can imagine. I'm only 25 miles away from my mother and n it feels like a chasm.
can imagine. I'm only 25 miles away from my mother and n it feels like a chasm.saney
I don't give a flying fuck where the viruses come from. I only care that we deal with them. Pointing fingers really doesn't help that.
China is likely to be the source of a lot of new viruses because there are a lot of people there.
It isn't funny for many people scared of dying to have this idiotic idea from the PM. You appear to have no idea of context or statesmanship, just like Johnson.Just because you are peeing your pants over this doesn't mean I have to.
Only in the scientific sense that it helps us to better understand them. I'm not interested in blaming anybody.
Interesting. Personally I think we should care where they come from.
Just because you are peeing your pants over this doesn't mean I have to.I think it's an odd sense of humour to find the incompetence of the PM funny in 'the worst crisis that's hit our country in our lifetime'
This is the worst crisis that's hit our country in my life time. I'm going to see the funny side of it where I can whether you like it or not. If I don't, I'll go insane.
This was not our PM making a joke about people dying, it was just him being tone deaf. I think that's funny.
Only in the scientific sense that it helps us to better understand them. I'm not interested in blaming anybody.
No, not blame but surely certain practices need to change in order to help prevent things like this happening, surely?
In 2008, Jones and a team of researchers identified 335 diseases that emerged between 1960 and 2004, at least 60% of which came from animals.
Increasingly, says Jones, these zoonotic diseases are linked to environmental change and human behaviour. The disruption of pristine forests driven by logging, mining, road building through remote places, rapid urbanisation and population growth is bringing people into closer contact with animal species they may never have been near before, she says.
The resulting transmission of disease from wildlife to humans, she says, is now “a hidden cost of human economic development. There are just so many more of us, in every environment. We are going into largely undisturbed places and being exposed more and more. We are creating habitats where viruses are transmitted more easily, and then we are surprised that we have new ones.”
On the bright side, they've just cancelled the Eurovision Song contest.
Every cloud.....
On the bright side, they've just cancelled the Eurovision Song contest.
Every cloud.....
Watch it.
Now if we could get rid of that ridiculous military tattoo nonsense that would be a bright side.
Any ideas for occupying the time, anchorman? My not-so-strong-as-it-used-to-be heart doesn't allow for brisk walking; can't manage rain; strong wind I can do, but do not enjoy; strong sunlight ditto. Leisure centre closed, so no gym or swimming; dance studio closed. I do of course realise how lucky I am to be as well as I am at the moment, but …
Looking for an argument?
Hard cheese!
I'm with you all the way!
Any ideas for occupying the time, anchorman? My not-so-strong-as-it-used-to-be heart doesn't allow for brisk walking; can't manage rain; strong wind I can do, but do not enjoy; strong sunlight ditto. Leisure centre closed, so no gym or swimming; dance studio closed. I do of course realise how lucky I am to be as well as I am at the moment, but … I have printed off the Tuesday cryptic crossword and am working on that slowly. I have started a new braille book, 'Bird Sense' which I think will be interesting. I have a skipping rope which I used to use quite a lot, so I think I'll use that in the back area - paved and flat. And, well, typing this has used up a bit of time, so thanks to anyone who has read it!! :)Well, I know you're not into churchy type stuff - although we have suspended formal Sunday Worship, we'll still open the church on Sunday for prayer and reflections. You and i are relatively lucky, Susan, in that we can exercise to some extent, and have access to online stuff....but I know too many Visually impaired folk who have n such access, some of them doubly unfortunate in that they are also hearing impaired. An enforced isolation, whilst possibly helping keep them safe physically, will in all probabability damage them mentally. I'm genuinely concerned for that situation. As for me? I have farmland less than a hundred yards from my house, and plenty of places where I can swing the long cane in self-isolating bliss without breaking anyone's ankles. If I'm indoors, I can work on another E book to add to the one I wrote last year and which was out of date thanks to new discoveries, approximately ten minutes after I finished writing it.
I think it's an odd sense of humour to find the incompetence of the PM funny in 'the worst crisis that's hit our country in our lifetime'It's a relatively minor piece of incompetence.
No, not blame but surely certain practices need to change in order to help prevent things like this happening, surely?What practices?
What practices?
It's a relatively minor piece of incompetence.Nah, no crying just ffsing
If you didn't laugh, you'd have to cry. I'll go with the former.
I think this article really answers your question:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/18/tip-of-the-iceberg-is-our-destruction-of-nature-responsible-for-covid-19-aoe
Humans have taken over the planet with little or no regard for the environment and its other inhabitants. There are not many alternative endings in this kind of story.
Some eating habits and the illegal live animal trade.Can you be a bit more specific on the eating practices?
Can you be a bit more specific on the eating practices?
Illegal live animal trade is already illegal. What else are you intending to do about it?
I was talking to the bloke in Timpsons earlierHe didn't look down at heel?
He was trying to work out if he was a key worker 😆
Well, I know you're not into churchy type stuff - although we have suspended formal Sunday Worship, we'll still open the church on Sunday for prayer and reflections. You and i are relatively lucky, Susan, in that we can exercise to some extent, and have access to online stuff....but I know too many Visually impaired folk who have n such access, some of them doubly unfortunate in that they are also hearing impaired. An enforced isolation, whilst possibly helping keep them safe physically, will in all probabability damage them mentally. I'm genuinely concerned for that situation. As for me? I have farmland less than a hundred yards from my house, and plenty of places where I can swing the long cane in self-isolating bliss without breaking anyone's ankles. If I'm indoors, I can work on another E book to add to the one I wrote last year and which was out of date thanks to new discoveries, approximately ten minutes after I finished writing it.Thank you for reply. Interesting that you go to a more open space to walk. Apart from the fact that I cannot get to the open land of the New Forest, I would not be able to do any walking. I need a firm (pavement) footing and reference points like hedges, clear kerbs and knowing them well.
Well, I know you're not into churchy type stuff - although we have suspended formal Sunday Worship, we'll still open the church on Sunday for prayer and reflections. You and i are relatively lucky, Susan, in that we can exercise to some extent, and have access to online stuff....but I know too many Visually impaired folk who have n such access, some of them doubly unfortunate in that they are also hearing impaired. An enforced isolation, whilst possibly helping keep them safe physically, will in all probabability damage them mentally. I'm genuinely concerned for that situation. As for me? I have farmland less than a hundred yards from my house, and plenty of places where I can swing the long cane in self-isolating bliss without breaking anyone's ankles. If I'm indoors, I can work on another E book to add to the one I wrote last year and which was out of date thanks to new discoveries, approximately ten minutes after I finished writing it.
Chatting on line to friends and we are looking at setting up a regular on line meeting via Zoom or WhatsApp or some such, and look at maybe having some planned stuff in terms of what we know. We could do something similar on here.
You mean we'd have to see posters faces?!not compulsory
Thank you for reply. Interesting that you go to a more open space to walk. Apart from the fact that I cannot get to the open land of the New Forest, I would not be able to do any walking. I need a firm (pavement) footing and reference points like hedges, clear kerbs and knowing them well.
I much admire anyone who can write even a small book - I'd never get past a first sentence, even if I had an idea about what to write! :)
You mean we'd have to see posters faces?!
The collapse of the stock markets is still not properly thought outI'll wait until the arse has totally fallen out then buy a few yen
He didn't look down at heel?thats cobblers mate !
It's bollocks.
Well there is an underlying truth. Diseases do transfer from animals with which we come in contact, but they have been doing this for millennia. What is newish is the mobility of humans. It's much easier for a new disease to become a pandemic thanks to the fact that people can travel almost anywhere on the globe in under 24 hours.
The other thing that is new is that we - in developed countries - are not used to being confronted with diseases that we can't deal with. The R0 value for measles is far higher than coronavirus (12 to 18 compared to about 2.5) but we don't panic about it because it rarely kills healthy westerners.
Back in the day there were epidemics that devastated populations. Spanish flu killed millions. The Black Death killed a third of the people in Europe.
Pretending that this is, in some sense new is nonsense.
It happens all the time. Most of our major diseases originated in some other kind of animal. It's part of life.
The thing is, do we actually start asking questions, or do we just wait until some bird flu variation manages to adapt so it can more efficiently spread from human to human before we do something? If that does happen then we really are all in the shit and coronavirus will seem like a walk in the park.
John Crace's assessment of our fuckwit PM - on the button, as usual.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/18/pantomime-clown-boris-johnson-flounders-as-crisis-deepens
When the country might be economically on its knees, we have a prime minister happy to bankrupt it completely just to keep the rightwing Brexiters on board.That sums it up.
It happens all the time. Most of our major diseases originated in some other kind of animal. It's part of life.
Well, nice to see you being so unbothered by it then. But no, let's not question dodgy eating habits. Do you go along with that herd immunity stuff, other than through vaccines, even if it means a high amount of deaths? After all, that's just nature too.It does look as though the live-animal markets and some dietary habits in China may be responsible, and we ought to be able to say so without being accused of racism.
Was asking on FB about what songs to sing from a Glasgow balcony and this is the best suggestion
https://youtu.be/MMNDwtvAtPg
It does look as though the live-animal markets and some dietary habits in China may be responsible, and we ought to be able to say so without being accused of racism.
Was asking on FB about what songs to sing from a Glasgow balcony and this is the best suggestion
https://youtu.be/MMNDwtvAtPg
I have a question: If vaccination involves being given a small dose of the virus, is there a way in which we could naturally limit exposure to it, and by taking immediate action when experiencing symptoms such as sore throat, not allow the disease to take hold in the body?Please keep your ill-informed non-sense to yourself Spud.
My thinking is based on a two year period during which I went from driving a 2002-reg car to a 2007-reg, which had much better power steering. I didn't get a cold in that period. I then sold it and bought another 2002-reg, and pretty soon got a bad cold.
If the upper body and neck is overstrained, I think this predisposes to catching these viruses (obviously other factors are involved, such as not keeping warm).
I've now bought a 2008-reg with good power steering, and haven't caught a cold yet.
I'm also brushing my teeth after every meal, as logically the viruses come in through the mouth, and so keeping it clean helps prevent invasion.
Also changing handkerchiefs regularly helps prevent microbes getting in through the nose.
Does anyone identify with any of this?
... experiencing symptoms such as sore throat ...A sore throat is not a common symptom of COVID-19. If you have a sore throat it is likely you don't have it but have a cold.
I have a question: If vaccination involves being given a small dose of the virus, is there a way in which we could naturally limit exposure to it, and by taking immediate action when experiencing symptoms such as sore throat, not allow the disease to take hold in the body?Spud
My thinking is based on a two year period during which I went from driving a 2002-reg car to a 2007-reg, which had much better power steering. I didn't get a cold in that period. I then sold it and bought another 2002-reg, and pretty soon got a bad cold.
If the upper body and neck is overstrained, I think this predisposes to catching these viruses (obviously other factors are involved, such as not keeping warm).
I've now bought a 2008-reg with good power steering, and haven't caught a cold yet.
I'm also brushing my teeth after every meal, as logically the viruses come in through the mouth, and so keeping it clean helps prevent invasion.
Also changing handkerchiefs regularly helps prevent microbes getting in through the nose.
Does anyone identify with any of this?
SpudI wish that I thought that Spud was just having a laugh - sadly I don't think he is.
Your gags are much better than mine , Hilarious 😂😂😂
It does look as though the live-animal markets and some dietary habits in China may be responsible, and we ought to be able to say so without being accused of racism.
I wish that I thought that Spud was just having a laugh - sadly I don't think he is.prof
Btw I was just chatting (messaging) with my daughter . Australia seems very far away at the moment 😪
A sore throat is a symptom of the corona virus. One sufferer said it was as if she had broken glass in her throat.A sore throat is not a common symptom of corona-virus although may sometimes occur.
I can believe that. Not long ago the bush fires were so worrying, now this. Glad she's OK anyway Walter & hope you are too.Hi Robbie
I can get that this is a fast moving situation but for so much of the govt decisions, they seem purely reactive. It doesn't feel like we are following a plan despite this all being something we could have modelled for.I think the government have been too slow and too reactive, but we really are in unchartered waters and things are really complex.
...
If you have a sore throat, runny nose and are constantly sneezing you are likely to have a cold as none of these are common symptoms of coronavirus and runny/bunged-up nose and sneezing are rare for people with coronavirus infection.
This is true. However it is still possible to have a cold, or even flu, at the same time as covid-19. It is also possible to have and spread covid-19 without any symptoms at all. Hence the need for better tests and more actual testing.I agree and it is of course possible that people have more than one infection. However if you have a runny nose or sore throat, but you don't have a dry cough or fever then it is unlikely you have covid-19.
This situation is unique in our lifetime, therefore it is very hard to know exactly how to handle it.Lr
This situation is unique in our lifetime, therefore it is very hard to know exactly how to handle it.i doubt that anyone does. Take care
Lr
Please keep safe and well, your posts are invaluable 😷
Well, nice to see you being so unbothered by it then. But no, let's not question dodgy eating habits. Do you go along with that herd immunity stuff, other than through vaccines, even if it means a high amount of deaths? After all, that's just nature too.I’m just not panicking.
It does look as though the live-animal markets and some dietary habits in China may be responsible, and we ought to be able to say so without being accused of racism.There have been live animal markets for millennia, also Chinese dietary habits. So why is this happening now? The answer is because it can and it’s not the first time in history.
This situation is unique in our lifetime, therefore it is very hard to know exactly how to handle it.That seems to be how all feel including our government.
Another withering piece by John Crace regarding this utterly useless shower of fuckwits who are masquerading as a government.gordo
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/19/what-we-wouldnt-give-for-a-gordon-brown-or-john-major-right-now
gordoAnyone could do a better job. Or do you want to remove your tongue from Johnson's arse?
Why don't you knock on the door of 10 Downing Street and offer your services .
You obviously can do a better job of it .
Or you could just STFU 😷
Another withering piece by John Crace regarding this utterly useless shower of fuckwits who are masquerading as a government.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/19/what-we-wouldnt-give-for-a-gordon-brown-or-john-major-right-now
I doubt if there's anybody who would be handling this well.There is a difference in thinking no one could be perfect and the PM is a useless pile of lying racist incompetent shitte
Admittedly, the key worker thing is a complete horlicks. It seems to me the government is turning the education system into the largest ever child minding system.
Anyone could do a better job. Or do you want to remove your tongue from Johnson's arse?.....and stick it up yours ?
.....and stick it up yours ?i love your adoration of the fuckwit PM.
From the producers of The Beeno comes a new exciting comic for your amusement
Gordo & Saney Do Government
out soon FREE to the deluded Order your copy NOW !
i love your adoration of the fuckwit PM.
i love your adoration of the fuckwit PM.what pisses me off are people who constantly whinge and fuckin whine .
There's a difference between adoring the PM and recognising frothing at the mouth hatred of the PM in other people.Indeed, but you seem very confused here.
what pisses me off are people who constantly whinge and fuckin whine .You must be awfully pissed off at yourself
Because that really helps doesn't it !
gordo
Why don't you knock on the door of 10 Downing Street and offer your services .
You obviously can do a better job of it .
Or you could just STFU 😷
You must be awfully pissed off at yourselfyou have mortally wounded me with the power of that comment 💪
Especially galling when the fuckwit concerned (and his party) does not have much electoral support here in Scotland, being voting in by the Brexit-supporting masses elsewhere in the UK, and now that an important issue other than Brexit has emerged we can see just how reckless these said masses were last year in voting as they did - as highlighted in the articles I posted links to: Johnson is clearly out of his depth.oh Gordo
You could do a better job, Walter, and getting back to Coronavirus we've had his usual optimistic 'we'll turn the tide within the next 12 weeks' soundbite earlier so let's see how effective he will be in his leadership and political skills in these coming weeks - though I can't see a current basis for having much in the way of confidence in him, and then of course, as the Coronavirus emergency (which it is) proceeds, the clock is ticking towards the 31st December.
Does Johnson have the leadership and political skills to manage these two major issues at the same time? Personally, I doubt it.
A sore throat is not a common symptom of COVID-19. If you have a sore throat it is likely you don't have it but have a cold.Sorry I got that wrong. I heard that the virus sits in the throat for several days before moving into the lower respiratory tract, so assumed that sore throat might be an initial symptom. Still, if the point of entry is the nose and mouth then it still makes sense to concentrate on hygiene for those areas.
The most common symptoms are persistent dry cough and raised temperature.
Please can posters here not spread gross misinformation - we are dealing with unprecedentedly challenging times, and misinformation of this kind simply makes matters worse.
Spud - if you don't know what you are talking about, better to simply shut up.
A question or two to those who so virulently oppose the PM and seem to consider everything that he, plus the Science, Medical and Finance peoplesay as worthless: who, do you suppose, would in the Conservative Party make abetter job of it? Or do you think there is someone in the Labour Party? Are you thinking of Jeremy Corbyn? I sincerely hope not. Or what about Salmond? The thought of him in charge of a country makes me shudder.Why not Corbyn? He'd make a better job of it (or anything) than Bojo the Clown.
A question or two to those who so virulently oppose the PM and seem to consider everything that he, plus the Science, Medical and Finance peoplesay as worthless: who, do you suppose, would in the Conservative Party make abetter job of it? Or do you think there is someone in the Labour Party? Are you thinking of Jeremy Corbyn? I sincerely hope not. Or what about Salmond? The thought of him in charge of a country makes me shudder.
Sorry I got that wrong. I heard that the virus sits in the throat for several days before moving into the lower respiratory tract, so assumed that sore throat might be an initial symptom.Then perhaps you should actually find out stuff before posting things that are wrong and could, in the rumour mill kind of way, lead to people thinking that if they have a sore throat they have the virus or worse still if they don't have a sore throat they don't have the virus.
Still, if the point of entry is the nose and mouth then it still makes sense to concentrate on hygiene for those areas.No it doesn't - cleaning the nose and mouth doesn't help. Why - because the route of infection is typically either breathing in virus in aerosol from a contaminated person breathing out, coughing etc. Having a clean nose wont prevent you breathing that air into your trachea or lungs. Secondly surface borne contamination that gets onto the hands and then touching the face with the hands - again having a clean nose and mouth doesn't help.
I think you need to separate the politicians from the experts in terms of knowledge and competence, Susan, and that the current PM is a fuckwit really isn't that much of a surprise, since he has long since demonstrated his fuckwittery.
Of course some of us here in Scotland would prefer not to be governed by a political party that has minimal support here in Scotland, and others of us would prefer that Scotland was no longer part of the UK, but Salmond is no longer a political figure here and depending on how things go today, or over the next few days depending on how long the jury takes, his options may be constrained.
Then perhaps you should actually find out stuff before posting things that are wrong and could, in the rumour mill kind of way, lead to people thinking that if they have a sore throat they have the virus or worse still if they don't have a sore throat they don't have the virus."We all began with a sore throat and hoarseness, some had a ‘strange’ headache. Some of us also had an upset stomach, this then moved into slight breathlessness before a fever began which came and went."
No it doesn't - cleaning the nose and mouth doesn't help. Why - because the route of infection is typically either breathing in virus in aerosol from a contaminated person breathing out, coughing etc. Having a clean nose wont prevent you breathing that air into your trachea or lungs. Secondly surface borne contamination that gets onto the hands and then touching the face with the hands - again having a clean nose and mouth doesn't help.I've seen a spoof e-mail with that kind of rumour. If you read my original idea, I said that once exposed to the virus one might be able to limit its proliferation in the upper respiratory tract through oral and nasal hygiene. Yes, if you breathe it straight into your trachea it might take hold more quickly, but I'm just adding to the advice about not touching the face, washing hands, social distancing etc.
And that's why the focus, quite rightly is, social distancing and catch it, bill it, kill it to reduce the likelihood of infection for the former route. And hand washing/avoiding touching the face for the latter.
Why do you just make up stuff Spud? Please can you keep your ill-informed and bizarre ideas to yourself. In normal circumstances this is just irritating, but under the current circumstances rumours that take hold and act against reducing infection can literally result in people dying.
If you read my original idea, I said that once exposed to the virus one might be able to limit its proliferation in the upper respiratory tract through oral and nasal hygiene.And how exactly would that work given that viruses proliferation inside our cells?!? The only way you can stop the virus proliferating in the upper respiratory tract through oral and nasal hygiene would be to kill the infected cells, and that's what our immune systems will be doing anyhow.
Yes, if you breathe it straight into your trachea it might take hold more quickly, but I'm just adding to the advice about not touching the face, washing hands, social distancing etc.But by spouting scientifically illiterate nonsense you aren't adding to the sensible advice based on science - rather you are distracting from it.
If you don't like someone trying to help, that's your problem.But you aren't helping Spud, that's the point. If you want to help (and I'm sure you do) the best thing you can do is to shut up about your ill-informed nonsense.
A question or two to those who so virulently oppose the PM and seem to consider everything that he, plus the Science, Medical and Finance peoplesay as worthless: who, do you suppose, would in the Conservative Party make abetter job of it? Or do you think there is someone in the Labour Party? Are you thinking of Jeremy Corbyn? I sincerely hope not. Or what about Salmond? The thought of him in charge of a country makes me shudder.
Pardon me if I sound a bit smug, but I've been vindicated twice over by today's 'Grauniad'.
Firstly, I said a day or two ago on this thread that if a vaccine was developed, the testing would hopefully be reduced so that it could be made available as soon as possible, testing of new drugs generally being excessive, in the opinion of some experts. That opinion was pooh-poohed by another member, but it transpires that that is exactly what is likely to happen: the testing will be "accelerated" (and it is possible that it will be available much sooner that the 12-18 months originally estimated).
Secondly, I said that aiming for herd immunity was a ridiculous idea, as it could only be achieved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths, in the absense of a vaccine, which would be an abject failure. Nevertheless, it appeared that that was the aim, but now the government has done a reverse ferret, and announced that the official policy is suppression, not herd immunity.
I think you are referring to me. I didn't 'pooh pooh'that it might be dine quicker here but rather your suggestion that all medical testing was unnecessarily overlong.I was thinking of LR, actually, though I now recall that you did say something.
If the testing isn't thorough enough it could cause more problems than the one it is meant to solve.It needs to be thorough enough, but not too thorough. Don't reply "depends what you mean by 'too thorough'", as you did last time, or i will reply "depends what you mean by 'thorough enough'".
If the testing isn't thorough enough it could cause more problems than the one it is meant to solve.That's true of all testing. It is a balance of risk. In this case I can see the logic speeding it up
I have watched a couple of the early evening Downing Street press briefings. To me they are all about Alexander Johnson. He stands at a lectern flanked by two medical/scientific experts. Every question that is asked he answers himself - irrespective of whether he has any specialist knowledge at all. Only when he has finished his extended peroration does he hand over to his flanking academic/medic.
Alcohol should be the least important purchase one makes.is somebody working you with their foot ?
Indeed, but you seem very confused here.Your inability to read what other people write and understand what they mean is not confusing. It's a common human trait.
Especially galling when the fuckwit concerned (and his party) does not have much electoral support here in Scotland,The Scottish government is doing its own measures. If you don't like what's going on there, whine about them.
This is appalling
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-51972372
Alcohol should be the least important purchase one makes.
Alcohol should be the least important purchase one makes.Alcohol, as a legal drug, is actually pretty high on the importance list. It's the only way I have to try to escape the misery of life in the UK at the moment.
I think you need to separate the politicians from the experts in terms of knowledge and competence, Susan, and that the current PM is a fuckwit really isn't that much of a surprise, since he has long since demonstrated his fuckwittery.Gordo , you're doing it again
Of course some of us here in Scotland would prefer not to be governed by a political party that has minimal support here in Scotland, and others of us would prefer that Scotland was no longer part of the UK, but Salmond is no longer a political figure here and depending on how things go today, or over the next few days depending on how long the jury takes, his options may be constrained.
This is appallingi hope the government take it over as a hospital for the duration ,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-51972372
Alcohol, as a legal drug, is actually pretty high on the importance list. It's the only way I have to try to escape the misery of life in the UK at the moment.
i hope the government take it over as a hospital for the duration ,
Then burn it down for sanitation reasons when it's all over
Gordo , you're doing it again
It's like the high pitched whine of a gnat in your ear
What's needed are solutions , not the whinging of a embittered Scotsman .
That sounds bad ... are you requesting suggestions for alternative ways?Nope. I'm quite happy with my current solution.
There is a run on alcohol, my normal wine store has sent me an e-mail suspending orders, though Waitrose seemed to have plenty at the expensive end earlier this morning.As long as single malts don't run out, I'll be fine.
Gordo , you're doing it again
It's like the high pitched whine of a gnat in your ear
What's needed are solutions , not the whinging of a embittered Scotsman .
You mean like a PM who is not a fuckwit, not a Tory, with a history of leadership skills and political competence, and is supported by other competent politicians?i cannot get rid of that pesky fuckin gnat
i cannot get rid of that pesky fuckin gnat
Btw , who would want to be PM right now ?
Me me me Gordo , I've got all the answers . Don't think so old chap 🍻
I don't - but I do have reasonable questions, and given this virus and the insanity of Brexit are live issues then to point out the uselessness of the UK government seems reasonable to me.independance ? I hope so Gordon
Mind you, if they do fuck up, and they will, it all helps the case for Scottish independence..
And also needless. Even if you sack the staff, there's no reason to turf them out of their accommodation because you clearly aren't hiring replacements.
Hopefully this action is illegal and the management will be in serious trouble.
Alcohol, as a legal drug, is actually pretty high on the importance list. It's the only way I have to try to escape the misery of life in the UK at the moment.Agree. Now having virtual pints with friends using Zoom
Indeed, solutions. Unfortunately the current govt is out of stock.
Matt Hancock was on TV this morning talking about delivering protective equipment and how difficult it is to organise. Give the job to fucking Amazon then. They'd have been there yesterday.
Fortunately, Nisa, just round the corner, was much better stocked - and, oddly, had some Co-op own-brand products on the shelves!The owners probably bought them at the Co-Op.
independance ? I hope so GordonThere's an obvious verb conjugation going on here.
I'm sick of the whining .
My son and his wife ( a brewer anda doctor) left Scotland after living there for 7 years mainly because they were sick to death of the whining and whinging
Sad really !
Mind you, if they do fuck up, and they will, it all helps the case for Scottish independence..
There's an obvious verb conjugation going on here.he , she , we thank you for your invaluable observation .
I raise reasonable objections
You whinge
They are whiny snowflakes
It's so convenient for your government to have a bogeyman in Westminster to blame for all their fuckups isn't it.
I don't want to go off topic but SusanDoris and her support for Johnson needs addressing. The reason some of us so distrust this man is because he is untrustworthy.that last bit ;
Some may have forgotten this. Some of us haven't:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/journalist-stuart-collier-boris-johnson-phone-call-darius-guppy-demands-apology
A man who can do this is quite capable of doing anything. That includes floating the idea of herd immunity through mass deaths, just in case he can get away with it.
he , she , we thank you for your invaluable observation .Give me an H
GIRUY 😘
Give me an Hsaney
Give me a Y
Give me a P
Give me an O
Give me a C
Give me an R
Give me an I
Give me an S
Give me a Y
It's so convenient for your government to have a bogeyman in Westminster to blame for all their fuckups isn't it.
That includes floating the idea of herd immunity through mass deathsLet's see if he actually does that before we condemn him for it.
saney
It's not real medicine you know , put more water in it
Cheers old chap , I'm off to find some vitals now and some fresh water !
Despite what you may wish, this is still a UK govt. To hold them to account we need to understand that rather than trying political nonsense such as referring to it as an English govt.
Unfortunately, some of the measures announced by the liar Johnson and Cummings' new chancellor in the English government affect us.
Would that they did not.
Till then, the English government is fair game for all the contempt it deserves.
It certainly helps the case, since the more useless the UK government are the easier it will be to convince the Scottish electorate to ditch them when the opportunity arises.But whatever the UK government does on coronavirus is irrelevant to Scotland since it has its own government that can do what it thinks is the right thing (with the exception of closing the border to England). If it's going badly for you in Scotland, it's Sturgeon's fault, not Johnson's.
Which ones?
Unfortunately, some of the measures announced by the liar Johnson and Cummings' new chancellor in the English government affect us.
Till then, the English government is fair game for all the contempt it deserves.England doesn't have a government, it is governed (at least nominally) by the British government.
I don't want to go off topic but SusanDoris and her support for Johnson needs addressing. The reason some of us so distrust this man is because he is untrustworthy.It matters not a jot how much, or whether, I trust him. The fact is he is in the position he is in because many Labour Party supporters voted against their leader. I challenge any of you to say how they would do better. We cannot know if someone else would have, because Boris is the one who has the position. Please do not assume my trust or otherwise in any particular politician. And I did not vote for him at any time.
But whatever the UK government does on coronavirus is irrelevant to Scotland since it has its own government that can do what it thinks is the right thing (with the exception of closing the border to England). If it's going badly for you in Scotland, it's Sturgeon's fault, not Johnson's.
It matters not a jot how much, or whether, I trust him. The fact is he is in the position he is in because many Labour Party supporters voted against their leader. I challenge any of you to say how they would do better. We cannot know if someone else would have, because Boris is the one who has the position. Please do not assume my trust or otherwise in any particular politician. And I did not vote for him at any time.well said SD 👍
It matters not a jot how much, or whether, I trust him. The fact is he is in the position he is in because many Labour Party supporters voted against their leader. I challenge any of you to say how they would do better. We cannot know if someone else would have, because Boris is the one who has the position. Please do not assume my trust or otherwise in any particular politician. And I did not vote for him at any time.Not lie.
Food is scarce. We are going from shop to shop, as the supermarkets are mainly empty. But don't worry, Boris in control.co-op filling station has run out of diesel , refineries can't keep up with demand !
It matters not a jot how much, or whether, I trust him. The fact is he is in the position he is in because many Labour Party supporters voted against their leader. I challenge any of you to say how they would do better. We cannot know if someone else would have, because Boris is the one who has the position. Please do not assume my trust or otherwise in any particular politician. And I did not vote for him at any time.
Not lie.Well, unless you expand that, I have no idea what you are saying or implying.
But whatever the UK government does on coronavirus is irrelevant to Scotland since it has its own government that can do what it thinks is the right thing (with the exception of closing the border to England). If it's going badly for you in Scotland, it's Sturgeon's fault, not Johnson's.
Oh ffs Susan. Pedantic somersaults. Of course you voted for himNo you are not correct. In the vote for a new leader I voted for anyone else available other than Boris. In the General Election I voted for my local MP, who has done, over the years, a pretty good job.
co-op filling station has run out of diesel , refineries can't keep up with demand !
Seems odd since no ones going anywhere ?
Found one of those old fashioned garages with one pump outside but was rationed to £10 worth
No you are not correct. In the vote for a new leader I voted for anyone else available other than Boris. In the General Election I voted for my local MP, who has done, over the years, a pretty good job.Anyone who isn't a lying racist incompetent thug.
I notice you have not put forward, or backed up with evidence, a name as a far better alternative!
Well, unless you expand that, I have no idea what you are saying or implying.He lies. Or have you just not followed politics?
Again, it's stuff like this I really struggle to understand. It's like there has been no preparatory planning for a scenario that we have had at least 3 previous warnings of.
Very odd since the lack of demand for petrol leading to a crash in price - that was not matched by a reduction in supply by the ME/Russia. Is that something that applied to petrol or kerosene but not diesel?my understanding is you can't make petrol without making diesel first
Anyone who isn't a lying racist incompetent thug.aww bless , do you spend hours at night crying into your pillow ?
Surely, food rationing is imperative. I can't keep going to every shop in the area looking for a loaf of bread, I'm supposed to be at home, as over 70.
aww bless , do you spend hours at night crying into your pillow ?No. I might thump it on occasion when I read posts as boring as your one here.
We were warned and have known this was possible at least since 2003. Since then we have had Iraq war, global banking crisis, austerity (with UC) and brexit. My suspicion is that no one has looked at or kept any contingency plans up to date.It definitely feels that way. Policy seems mainly reactive and instead of announcing a plan, they announce things such as schools closing and then say plan is to follow.
No you are not correct. In the vote for a new leader I voted for anyone else available other than Boris. In the General Election I voted for my local MP, who has done, over the years, a pretty good job.
I notice you have not put forward, or backed up with evidence, a name as a far better alternative!
No. I might thump it on occasion when I read posts as boring as your one here.saney
He lies. Or have you just not followed politics?Well, I have certainly never said that he does not lie.
Well, I have certainly never said that he does not lie.And are they saying it can be beaten 12 weeks? Or that there has been sufficient money put into the NHS? Or that the planning for this has been sufficient?
I do not know whether he has lied about the virus, or if he has, what aspect it was, but he is not making entirely unilateral decisions. There are others working alongside him, including scientists and doctors.
saneyAs Bowie sang 'You better hang onto yourself'
In my head I just changed "crying" into " biting"
Now I cant rid myself of that terrible mental image 😂😂😂
Stay safe and well and don't forget ; keep in touch with yourself 😷
More playing with words. You voted Tory. You voted for Boris as pm. I voted Labour knowing that if theyd won Corbyn would be pm. You wssentially endorsed a lying bully who tried to get someone beaten up. Your choice. Live with it dont try to wriggle out of it.
Seems rather unfair ... if everyone voted for the person who they thought would make the best MP for their area we would end up with a sane parliament. It is the people that only vote with consideration of the personality that will become PM that skew it. The system we have just doesn't work "properly" (at least my idea of properly).
For the benefit of those who appear to think I am a bit like a sheep in my voting, I would just like to point out that although I long since ceased to take any active part in political matters, I do think and consider before making my decisions about voting. You may not like what my decisions are, but at least give me the credit for thinking and considering, and not being just a gullible sheep!Never thought you were a sheep. Just wrong.
For the benefit of those who appear to think I am a bit like a sheep in my voting, I would just like to point out that although I long since ceased to take any active part in political matters, I do think and consider before making my decisions about voting. You may not like what my decisions are, but at least give me the credit for thinking and considering, and not being just a gullible sheep!SD
SDPiss off
There is no requirement for you to justify yourself to anyone , especially on here
where most of us/ them are so full of .... themselves .
In other words tell them to PISS OFF 😘
And how exactly would that work given that viruses proliferation inside our cells?!? The only way you can stop the virus proliferating in the upper respiratory tract through oral and nasal hygiene would be to kill the infected cells, and that's what our immune systems will be doing anyhow.
You clearly know nothing about how viruses function and how viral infections work
Piss offsaney
saney
Thank you , I needed that 😝
Never thought you were a sheep. Just wrong.Thank you! :)
SDThank you for saying- much appreciated. However, actually I wasn't saying it to justify myself - I am quietly confident enough not to need to do so.
There is no requirement for you to justify yourself to anyone , especially on here
For the benefit of those who appear to think I am a bit like a sheep in my voting, I would just like to point out that although I long since ceased to take any active part in political matters, I do think and consider before making my decisions about voting. You may not like what my decisions are, but at least give me the credit for thinking and considering, and not being just a gullible sheep!
At last, they're biting the bullet, closing pubs, etc., and paying wages. No alternative.The announcement, if that is what it is, was badly done. Lots of talk about licensing restrictions without a clear statement.
Moreover, there is still the Brexit issue in the background, which is primarily a Tory-driven policyAnd yet a lot of Labour voters voted for it. Anyway, it's off topic for this thread.
For example, should the Coronavirus issue be one that lasts for a good chunk of the rest of this calendar year, as seems likely,We'd better hope not, or Brexit will pale into insignificance compared to the damage wrought to the economy by the coronavirus lockdown.
And yet a lot of Labour voters voted for it. Anyway, it's off topic for this thread.Brexit will and should pale into insignificance. Anyone who thinks Brexit is going to happen this year is wrong.
We'd better hope not, or Brexit will pale into insignificance compared to the damage wrought to the economy by the coronavirus lockdown.
It has not been needed elsewhere. It is nothing to do with any shortages but the mentality of a population that elected a known liar as PM, supporting policies based on lies or self-deception.Are you saying that only Tory voters are hoarding? Can you back that up with evidence?
More playing with words. You voted Tory. You voted for Boris as pm. I voted Labour knowing that if theyd won Corbyn would be pm. You wssentially endorsed a lying bully who tried to get someone beaten up. Your choice. Live with it dont try to wriggle out of it.And you endorsed a useless turd.
And you endorsed a useless turd.
Are you saying that only Tory voters are hoarding? Can you back that up with evidence?Nothing in Udayana's post says that.
Other opinions are available.Corbyn is a useless turd. The Tory government has been an open goal for a decent opposition ever since the Brexit vote. Labour should have won both of the last two elections with ease.
Nothing in Udayana's post says that.
Really? It sure looks like it.Not to me. Can you point out why?
Not to me. Can you point out why?
It has not been needed elsewhere. It is nothing to do with any shortages butthe mentality of a population that elected a known liar as PM, supporting policies based on lies or self-deception.
Which says nothing like your suggestion
Are you saying that only Tory voters are hoarding? Can you back that up with evidence?
Corbyn is a useless turd. The Tory government has been an open goal for a decent opposition ever since the Brexit vote. Labour should have won both of the last two elections with ease.
Here are a couple of stories from the BBC:it always makes me wonder what they have against the sea?
1: Are we over-reacting?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654
2: While our attention was elsewhere ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51984344
sriram
Just for you Walter...! ;) Govt. closing pubs because people are not heeding advise.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/20/business/coronavirus-uk-pubs-wages/index.html
Here are a couple of stories from the BBC:
1: Are we over-reacting?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654
2: While our attention was elsewhere ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51984344
Interesting piece about the British approach to emergencies, and another about the so-called 'blitz spirit' - both from the Grauniad: in the current circumstances both are worth a read (now that there is more time for reading).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/21/britain-has-always-relished-the-idea-of-a-national-emergency-will-that-change-now-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/19/myth-blitz-spirit-model-coronavirus
On the list of politicians who are utter wankstains, there is a special place for John Mason.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-msp-condemns-his-church-in-scotland-for-halting-sunday-services-0qb0tvhgw
Couldn't help noticing how the 'Federal Europe' is dealing with this pandemic as one and closing various boarders interesting.Couldn't help noticing how many of the key workers we have to help us deal with the pandemic are immigrants.
What was it, ever closer union?
Just an observation.
ippy.
Jesus doesn't appearing to be riding to the rescue of those who have the virus. ::)Too busy finding Alan Burns' contact lens, and saving him getting a parking ticket.
Too busy finding Alan Burns' contact lens, and saving him getting a parking ticket.
Couldn't help noticing how the 'Federal Europe' is dealing with this pandemic as one and closing various boarders interesting.
What was it, ever closer union?
Just an observation.
ippy.
Too busy finding Alan Burns' contact lens, and saving him getting a parking ticket.Hi ho Silver
When you need borders you put them up, when they are a hindrance you leave them open - what's the problem?
Interesting piece about the British approach to emergencies, and another about the so-called 'blitz spirit' - both from the Grauniad: in the current circumstances both are worth a read (now that there is more time for reading).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/21/britain-has-always-relished-the-idea-of-a-national-emergency-will-that-change-now-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/19/myth-blitz-spirit-model-coronavirus
Hi SaneyThat his church shouldn't have cancelled services, and people should go, take the risk and trust in Jesus.
Briefly , what is John Wankstain actually saying , cos I can't open it ?
If you please !
And are they saying it can be beaten 12 weeks? Or that there has been sufficient money put into the NHS? Or that the planning for this has been sufficient?
...
1: Are we over-reacting?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654
...
That his church shouldn't have cancelled services, and people should go, take the risk and trust in Jesus.thanks Saney
Which says nothing like your suggestion
Couldn't help noticing how the 'Federal Europe' is dealing with this pandemic as one and closing various boarders interesting.
What was it, ever closer union?
Just an observation.
ippy.
Yes, aren't Italians closing off whole towns? Too subtle for Brexiters.With their travel restrictions, they have basically put a border around every single household. Ippy must be questioning the viability of countries.
That his church shouldn't have cancelled services, and people should go, take the risk and trust in Jesus.
Did Boris say it would be beaten in 12 weeks?
Did Boris say it would be beaten in 12 weeks?Given you haven't mentioned the other two points, should I think that you agree with them?
If people really believed that, churches would not have lightning conductors...With Mason there is a chance he might actually agree with that.
... or roofs.
If it isn't, we're all fucked.The problem is that even if Johnson were talking confidently to keep morale up, he is going to struggle to be believed because he's a known liar and his demeanour in this time has been lightweight.
The problem is that even if Johnson were talking confidently to keep morale up, he is going to struggle to be believed because he's a known liar and his demeanour in this time has been lightweight.
Finding Sunak impressive though, and one thing Johnson could learn here is less busking.
Given you haven't mentioned the other two points, should I think that you agree with them?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/boris-johnson-uk-can-turn-tide-of-coronavirus-in-12-weeks
Couldn't help noticing how the 'Federal Europe' is dealing with this pandemic as one and closing various boarders interesting.Just a very stupid observastion: these asre exceptional times.
What was it, ever closer union?
Just an observation.
ippy.
So he didn't say it could be beaten in 12 weeks?Turning the tide is surely a claim to beat it? And again, should I take it that your ignoring the other 2 points mean you agree he was lying about those?
Is it time for a coalition government?
A friend phoned today with a story about how the virus came from a research lab in Maryland, then by some soldiers going to woohan (sp?) for a sports occasion and giving them the virus. Or it came from India. It all sounds very far-fetched to sayi the least, but I wonder if anyone has heard anything like this?
A friend phoned today with a story about how the virus came from a research lab in Maryland, then by some soldiers going to woohan (sp?) for a sports occasion and giving them the virus. Or it came from India. It all sounds very far-fetched to sayi the least, but I wonder if anyone has heard anything like this?
There is so much nonsense circulating on the internet. A good website for fact-checking is this one:I haven't heard much from the Homeopaths
https://www.snopes.com/collections/coronavirus-collection-prevention-treatments/
I've certainly seen that rumour elsewhere as well as countless ones about drinking warm water, gargling with garlic, and on and on and on.
Turning the tide is surely a claim to beat it?
A friend phoned today with a story about how the virus came from a research lab in Maryland, then by some soldiers going to woohan (sp?) for a sports occasion and giving them the virus. Or it came from India. It all sounds very far-fetched to sayi the least, but I wonder if anyone has heard anything like this?Yes, I've heard of stories like that. I file them in the same drawer as the ones where the US government did 9/11. If they weren't online and virtual, I'd be less worried about the toilet paper situation.
I haven't heard much from the HomeopathsI know one who has successfully dissolved a toilet roll and made a 100C solution out of it. He says it works quite well but only if applied anally. He also says the pill form is pretty unsuccessful.
They've normally got a cure for everything !
I know one who has successfully dissolved a toilet roll and made a 100C solution out of it. He says it works quite well but only if applied anally. He also says the pill form is pretty unsuccessful.perhaps he's doing it the wrong way round😝
Turning the tide is surely a claim to beat it? And again, should I take it that your ignoring the other 2 points mean you agree he was lying about those?
I'm picking you up on something that is demonstrably false.
In other news, interesting read not drawing any conclusions personally.
https://medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894
A friend phoned today with a story about how the virus came from a research lab in Maryland, then by some soldiers going to woohan (sp?) for a sports occasion and giving them the virus. Or it came from India. It all sounds very far-fetched to sayi the least, but I wonder if anyone has heard anything like this?
:) That's the obviousanswer! But it is sad that so many people spread so many rumours.
Nope.
The virus was genetically engineered by a secretive cartel of toilet roll manufacturers to, firstly, boost their profits, and, ultimately, hold the world to ransom.
Do you really think that's true?
From India...really?! In India we presently have a total of 327 cases with 4 deaths.
Do you really think that's true?
In your position, I would be extremely concerned that most cases are going unreported.
There are now 15 cases of the virus in my home island of Guernsey, all people who have been on holiday to places where they picked up the virus.They'll have spread it to others.
They'll have spread it to others.
Do you really think that's true?
In your position, I would be extremely concerned that most cases are going unreported.
It is true of the UK for sure. But I am confident that we are at least doing something to monitor the situation and people who need treatment are getting it. We aren't testing enough people but the numbers bear some relation to reality.
That could be true of every country in fact.
Even so, it is pretty low at the moment in India and medical professionals say we are still at stage 2. We are hoping to avoid stage 3....or keep it to the minimum.The problem is that, if your numbers are under reporting the incidence of coronavirus, you might find they unexpectedly explode.
But it certainly didn't start in India.....It started in China, but blaming countries is not helpful at the moment. It's more important that we get things under control.
From BBC's rolling coverage
'Iran's Supreme Leader has rejected America's offer of aid to help the country with its battle against coronavirus.
In a televised speech, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the US was Iran's "most evil enemy" and hinted at a conspiracy theory, also voiced by some Chinese officials, that America was responsible for the pandemic.
“I do not know how real this accusation is but when it exists, who in their right mind would trust you to bring them medication?" Mr Khamenei said. "Possibly your medicine is a way to spread the virus more.”
Without offering any evidence, he also alleged that the virus “is specifically built for Iran using the genetic data of Iranians which they have obtained through different means”.'
I'm surprised that the USA has offered to help Iran considering they have enough on their plate with their own cases - which also gives the lie to the idea that the USA engineered the virus to target Iran.Well not if you think in paranoid fashion that the medicine will increase the problem. The help issue is in part related to the US having sanctions imposed on Iran, and this was a way to be compassionate but appear strong. Iran managing to leap to the top of madness league.
Ffs!similar sights in the Yorkshire Dales according to my boy who lives there !
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51994504
similar sights in the Yorkshire Dales according to my boy who lives there !Makes sense to me.
We were discussing wether or not it would be a good idea for me to park up on his land next to his house . I could self isolate and he could get get my supplies
I'm still thinking about it ?
Ffs!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51994504
A handy list of fake remedies etc concerning the virus:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51735367
A handy list of fake remedies etc concerning the virus:natural selection ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51735367
Makes sense to me.thank you for your input👍
It is sad that the gullible will fall for those fake remedies hook, line and sinker without checking out their credibility first. :oLr
Lr
Unless you've spent a considerable amount of time on YouTube , you are
probably not aware of the number of "health" channels there are and how many followers they have .
Most of them are from content providers in the US
And they are all anti vaxers too !
Don't understand why we haven't restricted most of public transport to key workers. India's call seems right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-51957936
I don't use you tube, but I have come across many of these so called, 'health channels', on the internet, and their, 'I believe it all to be true', followers, many of whom are anti vaxers.Lr
The announcement on Friday that pubs and restaurants were being told to shut without being ordered to shut lead to some places staying open. Police in Scotland taking emergency measures to shut those who have remained open. Despite my worries about some aspects of that, good.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5412675/greenock-pub-cheers-nicola-sturgeon-coronavirus-scotland/I think that is the intention, and Police Scotland are being adaptive to get through this. And that the incident you linked to happened in my hometown is both depressing and unsurprising.
Apparently some new emergency powers legislation comes into force tomorrow. They need to start using it as soon as.. .
According to the Guardian rolling news the powers used today by Police Scotland only enforce closing for 24 hrs (?)
May the God of all hope show us his face and his way within the darkness that enfolds us. In all things, God can work with us to transform and bring light, however desperate our present may be
I see the MD of the CofE has decided that we need prayers, and has kicked this off as follows:the religious won't get the irony
https://twitter.com/hashtag/NationalDayOfPrayer?src=hash
One wonders if those praying to 'God' might ask it why it didn't step in much earlier, such as before this all kicked off.
One wonders if those praying to 'God' might ask it why it didn't step in much earlier, such as before this all kicked off.One wonders if you might drop LR's tiresome habit of referring to God as "it".
One wonders if you might drop LR's tiresome habit of referring to God as "it".
I see the MD of the CofE has decided that we need prayers, and has kicked this off as follows:Totally agree - it is so hypocritical.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/NationalDayOfPrayer?src=hash
One wonders if those praying to 'God' might ask it why it didn't step in much earlier, such as before this all kicked off.
Totally agree - it is so hypocritical.Nothing hypocritical about it. You might argue that it's illogical (though there are plenty of answers to the question of why an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God allows natural disasters - I started a thread on the sbject once, but it was completely sabotaged by laboured, childish sarcasm from some other members), but if it's sincere, as I don't think anyone is doubting, it isn't hypocritical. Too many people bandy that word about as a general-purpose insult without, apparently, knowing what it means.
Totally agree - it is so hypocritical.
Clearly, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, the coronavirus is part of his/her/its plan. It seems a bit presumptuous of Christians to assume that he/she/it made a mistake and ask him/her/it to change his/her/its mind.This is exactly the sort of laboured, childish sarcasm and inadequate view of God that I was referring to. Thanks for illustrating my point.
This is exactly the sort of laboured, childish sarcasm and inadequate view of God that I was referring to. Thanks for illustrating my point.
laboured, childish sarcasmpoints more to the fact that you haven't got an adequate explanation, rather than Jeremy having an
inadequate view of God.
I stsarted a thread some time ago about omnipotence: what was it, does God necessarily have it, etc - and was hoping for an intelligent, courteous discussion. I should have known better, of course: all the usual suspects weighed in with non-stop sarcasm and bloody insulting comments, which made me lose my temper and tell them to do something both immoral and physically impossible. I then got suspended for a month. I won't make that mistake again. Few or none of the non-believers on this forum are interested in sensible discussion.
You suggesting that it is [laboured, childish sarcasm] points more to the fact that you haven't got an adequate explanation, rather than Jeremy having an [inadequate view of God].
This is exactly the sort of laboured, childish sarcasm and inadequate view of God that I was referring to. Thanks for illustrating my point.
Could the atheists possibly demonstrate their utterly inadequate understanding of Christian theology on other threads, and let this one return to discussing Covid-19, please?steve
It's been obvious for a couple of weeks that the Olympics can't go ahead, just amazed that they haven't made the decision but individual countries have.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52000044
This is exactly the sort of laboured, childish sarcasm and inadequate view of God that I was referring to. Thanks for illustrating my point.Please join the Graham Hancock forum, go to Inner Space, and join in my topic titled: The corona virus and God'. See if you can offer a point which I do not successfully challenge!
Please join the Graham Hancock forum, go to Inner Space, and join in my topic titled: The corona virus and God'. See if you can offer a point which I do not successfully challenge!SD
Could the atheists possibly demonstrate their utterly inadequate understanding of Christian theology on other threads, and let this one return to discussing Covid-19, please?Ah, now there's another topic I started once on another forum (not GH). I can assure you that there is not a single theologian who knows any fact about god/god/etc. Every single word, thought or idea about God (or any god), whether written or not, has come from an evolved human brain. And the definition of theology is' a study of 'the nature of God', but since the God referred to remains entirely lacking a scrap of objective (etc etc) evidence, the study of its nature is, again, all human ideas.
Ah, now there's another topic I started once on another forum (not GH). I can assure you that there is not a single theologian who knows any fact about god/god/etc. Every single word, thought or idea about God (or any god), whether written or not, has come from an evolved human brain. And the definition of theology is' a study of 'the nature of God', but since the God referred to remains entirely lacking a scrap of objective (etc etc) evidence, the study of its nature is, again, all human ideas.sd
Please join the Graham Hancock forum, go to Inner Space, and join in my topic titled: The corona virus and God'. See if you can offer a point which I do not successfully challenge!Don't think I'll bother, thanks.
Ah, now there's another topic I started once on another forum (not GH). I can assure you that there is not a single theologian who knows any fact about god/god/etc. Every single word, thought or idea about God (or any god), whether written or not, has come from an evolved human brain. And the definition of theology is' a study of 'the nature of God', but since the God referred to remains entirely lacking a scrap of objective (etc etc) evidence, the study of its nature is, again, all human ideas.
I've started a thread called 'God and Suffering' in the Christina section, so perhaps the theological discussion (a flattering description) could continue there, and this thread be left to discussion of the lurgi.
I've started a thread called 'God and Suffering' in the Christina section, so perhaps the theological discussion (a flattering description) could continue there, and this thread be left to discussion of the lurgi.
This is exactly the sort of laboured, childish sarcasm and inadequate view of God that I was referring to. Thanks for illustrating my point.
But it's logically unassailable. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, we can only conclude he wants this pandemic to happen. No amount of you trying to hand wave it away will invalidate the point.I'm not trying to hand-wave anything away - I do not believe in God's omnipotence, unless you make so many qualifications as to make the word meaningless. However, perhaps we could continue on the new thread.
Christina section,Who's Christina Section?
Who's Christina Section?
There is a local rumour, which may or may not be true, that a temporary mortuary is being built on one of the local golf courses.
That wouldn't be the one owned by the clown across the pond by any chance?
Deaths in Lombardy flattening? 320 today after 540 Saturday. Early days, of course. Ferdinando Giugliano, twitter.
Johnson is to do a broadcast at 8.30: I wonder if this might involve implementing restrictions in movement.I'm hoping they won't ban working on allotments.
I stsarted a thread some time ago about omnipotence: what was it, does God necessarily have it, etc - and was hoping for an intelligent, courteous discussion. I should have known better, of course: all the usual suspects weighed in with non-stop sarcasm and bloody insulting comments, which made me lose my temper and tell them to do something both immoral and physically impossible. I then got suspended for a month. I won't make that mistake again. Few or none of the non-believers on this forum are interested in sensible discussion.
Johnson is to do a broadcast at 8.30: I wonder if this might involve implementing restrictions in movement.
More likely he will make suggestions or advise or say it would be good idea or something...by which time we'll have nodded off and some will go to the pub for last orders.It's always seemed a bit reactive but I suspect tonight needs to be a bit more stringent rather than up to now. In addition we will have the emergency powers, and he needs to say what we will do.
No - that one is well south of here.He's got two. One is Turnberry and the other is just North of Aberdeen.
He's got two. One is Turnberry and the other is just North of Aberdeen.
I think he has do advise that implementation of some form of travel restrictions will now be needed - if not he will look weak.Actually he'd look weaker if his scientific advisors say we don't need more stringent travel restrictions but he gives in to the mob anyway.
It would be useful if he said something about the Brexit transition period being extended until after the pandemic is under control, and also to allowing time for a wash-up of all that happens, which is an unknown,He can't do that without the agreement of the EU. He also can't do that without looking weak. :)
Actually he'd look weaker if his scientific advisors say we don't need more stringent travel restrictions but he gives in to the mob anyway.I think not talking about suspension of Brexit makes him look weak. The broadcast was ok but he needs a better speech writer and he needs to be still clearer. There was not a clear statement of sanctions. Tons of stuff badly defined
Maybe it is the right thing to have more travel restrictions, maybe not (the number of new deaths over the last few days seems to have stabilised for now). I, for one, don't want him to be doing things to stop himself from looking weak. I want him to do things because they are the right thing to do. I know there's little hope of that because he is weak.
He can't do that without the agreement of the EU. He also can't do that without looking weak. :)
I think not talking about suspension of Brexit makes him look weak.It does to you and me, but to a Brexiteer it makes him look strong. I think you are right that he does need to ask the EU for a deferment, but he may not be able to.
The broadcast was ok but he needs a better speech writer and he needs to be still clearer. There was not a clear statement of sanctions. Tons of stuff badly definedI just read the BBC story. It seemed pretty clear to me.
It does to you and me, but to a Brexiteer it makes him look strong. I think you are right that he does need to ask the EU for a deferment, but he may not be able to.Then the Brexiteer is an idiot for not understanding that the rules have changed. Trying to not upset Brexit here is weak. If you just want to judge it by the fact that others might disagree it makes any expression of whether you think it strong ir weak worthless. .
I just read the BBC story. It seemed pretty clear to me.
Then the Brexiteer is an idiot for not understanding that the rules have changed.Brexiteers are renowned for not understanding the realities of modern geopolitics. What makes you think they'd get it this time?
Trying to not upset Brexit here is weak.Of course it is. But Johnson needs the Brexiteers to maintain his flimsy grasp on power.
And I watched the speech, so tell me about what enforcement means?It means they've stopped just asking us nicely. Policemen will stop us from going about our lawful business.
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?And your expertise is?
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.
And your expertise is?What the hell's that supposed to mean? What have I said that suggests I'm any kind of expert? You are trying to pick an asrgument just for the hell of it. Again.
What the hell's that supposed to mean? What have I said that suggests I'm any kind of expert? You are trying to pick an asrgument just for the hell of it. Again.If you call something Draconian then you are making a claim. Don't make a claim if you aren't willing to back that up. What is your expertise in calling the actions Draconian?
Don't be silly.can you illustrate what is silly? Other than empty tedious assertion?
It's draconian because of exponential growth. This can run out of control, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and people dying in corridors. Check out the maths.SteveH doesn't care. He knows what the problem is and thinks the decision is wrong - because well it's SteveH stating his opinion
can you illustrate what is silly? Other than empty tedious assertion?"Draconian" means, of laws and regulations, "very severe". These regulations are therefore draconian. It doesn't necessarily mean "excessively severe" - I've just checked.
SteveH doesn't care. He knows what the problem is and thinks the decision is wrong - because well it's SteveH stating his opinionTypical NS bollocks. I did not say the regulations were wrong. Now go away - you're boring me.
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?Yes, but sadly necessary.
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.Yes I do - I know a few people confirmed as having covid-19, plus plenty more who have had symptoms clearly consistent with the infection but who aren't being tested, but simply told to self isolate.
I am doing. Why do you assume I'm not?
Steve - you are a grown man - take some responsibility, stay home and follow the guidance. Don't be the person who's infection prior to developing symptoms results in 400 further infections in just a couple of weeks and (yes read it several times) results in perhaps 4 deaths, based on a conservative 1% death rate.
If you call something Draconian then you are making a claim. Don't make a claim if you aren't willing to back that up. What is your expertise in calling the actions Draconian?
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.
Typical NS bollocks. I did not say the regulations were wrong. Now go away - you're boring me.You often get bored when you are unable to justify your comments.
You don't have to have expertise to have an opinion. Personally, I think this is probably the right decision but then I'm no expert, that's just my opinion.You do indeed not need any expertise to have opinion.
"Draconian" means, of laws and regulations, "very severe". These regulations are therefore draconian. It doesn't necessarily mean "excessively severe" - I've just checked.
You often get bored when you are unable to justify your comments.But I have justified them: I pointed out that "draconian" means "of laws and regulations, very severe". It does not necessarily mean excessively severe. It can hardly be argued that these regulations are not draconian, but they probably need to be. Your original comment which started this ridiculous spat was based on a misunderstanding of Can we now drop it? (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Draconian}the meaning of "draconian".[/url)
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.
One of your dafter statements, if that is possible! ::) This virus is a pandemic and will kill many people before it is through, surely it is far better to take precautions to try to avoid getting it, however stringent. You can spend your time at home making up even crazier user names. ;DI didn't suggest otherwise. I just asked, out of idle curiosity, if anyone had had it or knew anyone who had. Like NS, you should read what people have actually posted before replying.
I didn't suggest otherwise. I just asked, out of idle curiosity, if anyone had had it or knew anyone who had. Like NS, you should read what people have actually posted before replying.
[/quote And maybe you need to be clearer since Prof D also read your statement that way. The use of Draconian which has as its main meaning excessively severe, and the apparent playing down of the spread of the virus created a reasonable impression that you were playing down the seriousness.
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?the boyfriend of a colleague of mine at work is a doctor and he works with coronavirus victims.
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.
If you call something Draconian then you are making a claim. Don't make a claim if you aren't willing to back that up. What is your expertise in calling the actions Draconian?Nobody allowed out of their houses? I’d say that is draconian.
One thing I don't understand is the difference between the advice given by the WHO, which is to take stringent measures to tackle the virus and also to test, test, test; and the advice given by some national health agencies. In Sweden they still haven't advised the government to close pubs and bars or schools, and public gatherings are only limited to 500 people. As for testing, same here in Finland as well, they've set the bar too high. Have they fallen for that herd immunity stuff? People are going to die!
It's draconian because of exponential growth. This can run out of control, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and people dying in corridors. Check out the maths.The UK does not currently have exponential growth on the basis of the last few days figures.
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?You are correct - the measures are being described as draconian by the media as well. To be honest I do not think they are draconian enough - I'm in London and still many people not maintaining the 2m distance.
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.I know a 40 year old carer who got it - she is in intensive care - the hospital kept sending her home initially until her temperature really spiked.
Further official info on business closures.
https://tinyurl.com/ureualq
The UK does not currently have exponential growth on the basis of the last few days figures.
Which figures? Are you talking about infections or deaths or hospital admissions?Deaths in the UK for the last 5 days: 43, 41, 33, 56, 48.
The Times headline is "One million Britons ordered to catch the next flight home"Presumably international flights might stop at any minute.
Why?
If, given a case, you can track down and test every contact then you can limit the spread without too many further measures - eventually you are going to this anyway when trying to get back to normal after the peak. The UK started out OK with this but gave up too early after lack or laxity of other measures allowed community spread - then more or less stopped testing.
Don't know what the case is in Sweden.
Deaths in the UK for the last 5 days: 43, 41, 33, 56, 48.Yesterday's figures are now in
New confirmed infections: 680 647 706 1035 665.
The latter figure doesn’t tell us much because we are only testing hospital admissions. It’s like a Chernobyl radiation dosimeter.
I am doing.Good
Why do you assume I'm not?Because your post:
GoodDoesn't mean he's not complying though.
Because your post:
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.
Implies that you feel everything is being blown out of proportion.
GoodIt actually correctly implies that the measures are beyond what is normal for our society. The new measures are definitely stricter than those we are normally used to. And I didn’t read it as giving any indication of non-compliance. You seem to have made incorrect assumptions by reading things into the post.
Because your post:
Bloody hell! Draconian, or what?
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.
Implies that you feel everything is being blown out of proportion.
Doesn't mean he's not complying though.True - and he has confirmed that he is, which is good.
It actually correctly implies that the measures are beyond what is normal for our society. The new measures are definitely stricter than those we are normally used to. And I didn’t read it as giving any indication of non-compliance. You seem to have made incorrect assumptions by reading things into the post.Read what I said - I agreed with him that the actions were draconian, although implied they were necessary. My main gripe was the later part of his post:
Read what I said - I agreed with him that the actions were draconian, although implied they were necessary. My main gripe was the later part of his post:
Has anyone on this forum got or had Covid-19, or know anyone who has? I don't: there doesn't seem to be significant absence at work, and certainly no-one's off sick in my bit.
This implies that because many people at this stage may not know anyone who is or has been infected that it isn't a big deal. That fundamentally misunderstands the concept of exponential growth in infections of this type, without very serious action.
Could it happen?I've been thinking that a coalition government might be necessary.
I'd be doubtful since I can't see the opposition parties getting involved unless the Brexit transition is extended: then again, this crisis might become so bad that Brexit is put on the back-burner for quite some time.
https://tinyurl.com/tcznorp
I suspect that's more about the level of testing going on rather than a real effect.
The mortality rate for the Coronavirus infection seems to be very different in different countries. In China about 3.5%, US about 1.5 %, France about 5%, Spain about 7% and Italy about 10%. Australia about 0.5%, UK about 5%.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
Could it happen?
I'd be doubtful since I can't see the opposition parties getting involved unless the Brexit transition is extended: then again, this crisis might become so bad that Brexit is put on the back-burner for quite some time.
https://tinyurl.com/tcznorp
Senior Conservatives are questioning whether Boris Johnson will need a national unity government or emergency cross-party council to share responsibility for the coronavirus crisis if the situation worsens.
One Tory MP said there was a political argument that Johnson may be keen to “drag Labour in” so the public do not associate the crisis solely with the Conservatives, if the situation worsens.Oh look. At least one Tory is as cynical as me.
They don't want the buck to stop with the Tories. Or maybe I am just being too cynical
We have a government with an absolute majority. It might not be a very good one, but it is one. Why do we need a coalition? Perhaps these early words in the article tell us.But otoh, if a coalition government's measures were a resounding success, they couldn't claim all the credit.
They don't want the buck to stop with the Tories. Or maybe I am just being too cynical.
Oh look. At least one Tory is as cynical as me.
I suspect that's more about the level of testing going on rather than a real effect.
As of 1pm on 23 March 2020, 335 patients in the UK who tested positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) have died.
But otoh, if a coalition government's measures were a resounding success, they couldn't claim all the credit.
If you are positive for coronavirus and you then die for whatever reason, you are in the British figure. It's possible that another hypothetical country where they wish to downplay the effects of the virus - let's call it the Federated Counties of Vinland - might record the immediate cause of death e.g. somebody who tested positive for coronavirus and who then died of pneumonia would be recorded as having died of pneumonia and not counted.
On the positive side:True and certainly in China it is likely that there have been more lives saved through reduced pollution than lost to covid-19
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/coronavirus-pandemic-leading-to-huge-drop-in-air-pollution
Satellite images show a huge reduction in pollution.
A bit like this event, maybe?Nope
2 Chronicles 36:21
To fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfill three score and ten years.
True and certainly in China it is likely that there have been more lives saved through reduced pollution than lost to covid-19A lock down every seven years might help though!
Nope
A lock down every seven years might help though!
But in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for the land--a Sabbath to the LORD.
A lock down every seven years might help though!How on earth would locking people down every seven years help, unless there is a reason to do so, i.e. a pandemic?
How on earth would locking people down every seven years help, unless there is a reason to do so, i.e. a pandemic?
Ideally it would be permanent, but since that would be unrealistic before the New Heavens and Earth, a seventh-year lock down policy might enable the planet's atmosphere to recover, similar to how leaving the ground fallow for a year enables it to.Your god is a fucking psychopath
In case it wasn't clear, God set the seventh year no-ploughing rule for Israel, but because they apparently didn't apply it he sent the Babylonians to take them out of the land so that it could 'enjoy its sabbath rests' - 70 years, one year to represent every seventh during a 490-year period.
I think Littleroses might disagree, but I wonder if the virus is sent by God to enforce his law that we look after the planet. He said after the flood that the seasons would continue without sending another flood to destroy the earth; but he still has to intervene if we don't look after it.
How on earth would locking people down every seven years help, unless there is a reason to do so, i.e. a pandemic?
Prince Charles has tested positive for Covid 19.Though he shouldn't have travelled to Balmoral
Hopefully for once in his life he will serve a purpose in that it will bring home to the public that anyone can get this.
Your god is a fucking psychopathSwearing just means what we are saying isn't true, so we need some way of emphasizing it to make people believe it.
It also makes us face our mortality and take God seriously.
Swearing just means what we are saying isn't true, so we need some way of emphasizing it to make people believe it.
I am very sorry to hear that Prince Charles has it.
I phoned the local Town Hall and spoke to someone who gave me the number of a Councillor who has taken on the task of co-ordinating local help group. Left a message and she phoned back. They are getting organised as quicly as possible so that sounds promising.
Hopefully Charlie boy will recover soon, and his Mummy hasn't got it.Given that "corona" means "crown", it seems appropriate that it's reached the royals.
Swearing just means what we are saying isn't true, so we need some way of emphasizing it to make people believe it.Swearing doesn't fucking mean that.
I am very sorry to hear that Prince Charles has it.He's a disgrace for travelling with it against the general advice, especially having been in contact with people who had been diagnosed with it.
I phoned the local Town Hall and spoke to someone who gave me the number of a Councillor who has taken on the task of co-ordinating local help group. Left a message and she phoned back. They are getting organised as quicly as possible so that sounds promising.
If they can manage to test Prince Charles for “mild symptoms” of Coronavirus they can damn well test nurses, doctors and paramedics on the frontline. No excuse!#COVID19
Ideally it would be permanent, but since that would be unrealistic before the New Heavens and Earth, a seventh-year lock down policy might enable the planet's atmosphere to recover, similar to how leaving the ground fallow for a year enables it to.Or we can develop cleaner technologies that reduce emissions by 14% or more which would have the same or greater effect without massively impacting on our mental/physical health and our economy.
I see there are a few negative comments coming in, such as this one from the Torygraph journalist, Allison Pearson.I rarely agree with her - yesterday she posted that she hoped Made In China become a mark of shame from her iPhone - but I do here. The whole not behaving as the proles are expected to, and the privileges of this is part of a deep malaise in this country.
I rarely agree with her - yesterday she posted that she hoped Made In China become a mark of shame from her iPhone - but I do here. The whole not behaving as the proles are expected to, and the privileges of this is part of a deep malaise in this country.
One thing I don't understand is the difference between the advice given by the WHO, which is to take stringent measures to tackle the virus and also to test, test, test; and the advice given by some national health agencies. In Sweden they still haven't advised the government to close pubs and bars or schools, and public gatherings are only limited to 500 people. As for testing, same here in Finland as well, they've set the bar too high. Have they fallen for that herd immunity stuff? People are going to die!
Hopeful noises from Neil Ferguson (Imperial College), and Jenny Harries, deputy chief medical officer, that the UK bulge will be flattened, "The peak of it will be pushed forward and the height lower ", hence manageable by NHS. Harries is on Mumsnet, and Ferguson in Times and BBC.
Yesterday's figures are now in
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
Bad news for the UK, unfortunately, there was a significant jump in deaths
Deaths in the UK for the last 5 days: 33, 56, 48 54 87
Hopefully, it should be obvious that deaths lag a bit, so the above is not a reflection of yesterday's lockdown measures or even Friday's closing of pubs etc.
New confirmed infections: 706 1035 665 967 1,427
Italy also seems to have had a slight regression with deaths and new cases increasing slightly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52036333
Drivers have a six month extension on getting their vehicles MOT'd. Blow it, I got mine done early, which means I will have to pay my car tax by April 18th instead of April 28th!
The death figures will lag about 2 weeks behind the 'cases' figures. But you can't just pin hopes on daily figures.There's no other way to check on how we are doing.
The 87 deaths yesterday are not 'significant', just a few people died who would have otherwise died the previous day or today. You would get more from the doubling time figures, but they don't change very fast.That's why I quote five days because it gives a better idea of a trend. Doubling time pretty much assumes that growth is exponential - for instance, talking about a doubling time for China (39 days as of today). However, that is misleading because China's deaths are not growing exponentially. In fact new deaths per day are not growing at all.
As we said, when one deals with deep uncertainty, both governance and precaution require us to hedge for the worst. While risk-taking is a business that is left to individuals, collective safety and systemic risk are the business of the state. Failing that mandate of prudence by gambling with the lives of citizens is a professional wrongdoing that extends beyond academic mistake; it is a violation of the ethics of governing.
The obvious policy left now is a lockdown, with overactive testing and contact tracing: follow the evidence from China and South Korea rather than thousands of error-prone computer codes. So we have wasted weeks, and ones that matter with a multiplicative threat.
Article on Swedish approach to the epidemic ( FT but free to read):
https://www.ft.com/content/31de03b8-6dbc-11ea-89df-41bea055720b
Which is surprising, not the test and track containment I had assumed before. Maybe the Swedish are just more sensible without needing to be ordered about?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-policy-scientific-dominic-cummings?CMP=share_btn_tw
Interesting article but always easier in hindsight:
Hopefully Charlie boy will recover soon, and his Mummy hasn't got it.
Quite incredible
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-challenge-moron-who-licked-21749466.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true
I see big ears has the dreaded virus the even bigger worry is, if his infection did start to take for the worse I hope the authorities can find a bed for him.Yeah, you do. You're crowing about it and you are insulting him by making fun of a physical imperfection.
I don't wish him ill
but I find the whole principle of hereditary inanely mindless and stupidAnd I find the whole little Englander ethos of the Brexiteers inanely mindless and stupid.
we might just as well have 'hereditary mathematicians',No. Being a mathematician requires a level of mental skill. Being the constitutional head of state requires no skill whatsoever.
No doubt the media wont know how to stop when they've already said enough about Charlie boy, more blasted royalist soap.
Taleb has been attacking the mitigation approach from the beginning. He has several threads on Twitter, maths is a bit beyond me. Author of the Black Swan.
Yeah, you do. You're crowing about it and you are insulting him by making fun of a physical imperfection.
And I find the whole little Englander ethos of the Brexiteers inanely mindless and stupid.
No. Being a mathematician requires a level of mental skill. Being the constitutional head of state requires no skill whatsoever.
People like this sort of thing. Even you. And don't tell me you didn't enjoy writing your post.
The censorious self-righteousness on display every day in the 'Hemel Hempstead Community and Conversation' Facebook group is rather depressing. Some people are going out of their way to find things to condemn in posts, such as a video of people walikg in a London park, enjoying the sunshine, and, as far as I could see, keeping a reasonable distance from each other.STEVE
I see the MD of the CofE has decided that we need prayers, and has kicked this off as follows:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/NationalDayOfPrayer?src=hash
One wonders if those praying to 'God' might ask it why it didn't step in much earlier, such as before this all kicked off.
It leaves me in no doubt how much people will be praying for themselves and loves ones at this time. The virus has suddenly broken the daily routine of getting up and feeling safe as you go to work. Some having not prayed for years will suddenly find the need to pray. God answers prayers. Never think he will not listen or answer prayer because until now he has never been a fore runner in your life. 14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. Sometimes we do not realise how much can change by the prayer of one person. According to Paul he said I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus!
2 Corinthians 5:21 We can never be righteous by our own doing but God makes us righteous when we believe him about Jesus his son. So pray not think about being righteous off yourself. Rather pray in the righteousness of God through Christ Jesus. Don't stop praying for the riddence of this virus and for others to be saved and made well. in Jesus Name, Amen
Would it have happened if people like yourself actually believed and prayed?
There is no reason for you reply because the truth is no one even now are really letting this threat sink in as you can see by people being removed from park and being made to keep 2 meters apart from each other. Praying plays a big part read James 5.
The truth is that just one righteous man can make a difference in prayer. Which would you say is most difficult to receive... No rain for three years or no virus for good? Everyone of us can make a difference by praying for others. And who knows if that one believing in Gods righteousness through Christ asks and receives the end of the deaths. Sometimes it pays to pray because who knows you might help save someone by asking God for his help. Ultimately God is the saving power.
Would it have happened if people like yourself actually believed and prayed?Yes, of course it would.
I hope people will be sensible and obey the restrictions being put on their movements, like not visiting parks, beaches or other places where they like to congregate. I have to pick up my husband's meds from the local pharmacy today. Instead of opening from 9am-5.30pm on weekdays as usual, they are opening from 10am-12pm and then 3pm-5pm. Only one person is permitted to go inside at a time.
If god exists most of the time it appears to stick two fingers up at those who pray for healing, maybe it enjoys human suffering.
BORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORING
BORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORING
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52043767
This is absolutely bonkers - we don't need a new, untested ventilator
The order is still subject to the devices passing stringent medical tests but that is expected to happen quickly.
And if Dyson have a facility that can make thousands of ventilators they should make it available to produce existing designs, not some new experimental one.
They don't have any machinery in their unit as yet as they'd originally planned it to be used for manufacturing electric cars. If you have a large empty industrial unit it will be just as easy to introduce the necessary tooling to scale up production for existing designs than a new design. But the advantage is that the existing designs can be produced and used straight away, while the new design cannot be used until sufficient testing has be done to prove the design is safe and effective.
That may not be possible. Dyson factories will be equipped with certain types of machinery and traditional ventilators may not be amongst the items that that machinery can make. Maybe the choice is between thousands of these new ventilators or a few hundred extra traditional ones. Neither of us know the true situation, so ranting about it doesn't seem like a constructive use of time.
They don't have any machinery in their unit as yet as they'd originally planned it to be used for manufacturing electric cars. If you have a large empty industrial unit it will be just as easy to introduce the necessary tooling to scale up production for existing designs than a new design.Can I ask what your expertise is on manufacturing technology?
But that advantage is that the existing designs can be produced and used straight away
The article is talking about weeks, even if there is very rapid regulatory approval - we could be producing thousands of ventilators of existing designs right now.What makes you think people aren't producing ventilators as fast as they can already?
Of course it goes without saying that James Dyson is a tory donor and leading brexit supporter.I thought you better than a mere purveyor of ad hominem arguments.
That may not be possible. Dyson factories will be equipped with certain types of machinery and traditional ventilators may not be amongst the items that that machinery can make. Maybe the choice is between thousands of these new ventilators or a few hundred extra traditional ones. Neither of us know the true situation, so ranting about it doesn't seem like a constructive use of time.See also:
Can I ask what your expertise is on manufacturing technology?Err ex head of an Engineering School in a leading university.
Well they can't can they. Otherwise we would be doing it.They can, that's exactly what a consortium of more than a dozen companies are doing. If Dyson really want to help they should join that consortium, but they've chosen not to.
What makes you think people aren't producing ventilators as fast as they can already?They'd be able to produce them faster if Dyson joined the effort to produce more ventilators of existing designs rather than putting their efforts into designing something new that won't be available for weeks or months and even once available will require NHS staff to use up precious time being trained on the new equipment.
https://www.ft.com/content/4cc667f2-6ee2-11ea-89df-41bea055720bBehind the paywall so unable to read or comment.
Well they can't can they. Otherwise we would be doing it.How come Dyson can't, but the following can:
Yesterday's figures are now in
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
Bad news for the UK, unfortunately, there was a significant jump in deaths
Deaths in the UK for the last 5 days: 33, 56, 48 54 87
Hopefully, it should be obvious that deaths lag a bit, so the above is not a reflection of yesterday's lockdown measures or even Friday's closing of pubs etc.
New confirmed infections: 706 1035 665 967 1,427
Italy also seems to have had a slight regression with deaths and new cases increasing slightly.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirusHmm - somehow think that is because the UK hasn't reported for yesterday yet.
Zero reported deaths in the UK yesterday.
Hmm - somehow think that is because the UK hasn't reported for yesterday yet.
Hmm - somehow think that is because the UK hasn't reported for yesterday yet.I concur.
They have been messing about with the time figures are released:
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1243104190202818561
As far as I have understood we will get figures delayed by nearly two days: today we see figures for 9am on the 25th; Tomorrow we will get figures from 9am today.
That's a bit worrying. We already know the figures for confirmed cases is really measuring the amount of testing that the government can be bothered to do. Now they are planning to massage the death figures and, in fact, because of consent issues, we may always have been under reporting.
There is literally no way in the UK to measure the extent of the outbreak at present. Unbelievable.
A friend who is a nurse has just been moved into Intensive Therapy Unit with suspected coronavirus. Expected to be put on a ventilator this afternoon.Confirmed that they have cv but not needing to be put on a ventilator.
Confirmed that they have cv but not needing to be put on a ventilator.
Confirmed that they have cv but not needing to be put on a ventilator.
103 people have died in the last 24 hrs here in the UK, the highest daily death total so far. There have now been 578 deaths from the virus. :o
Had a phishing text about my phone account. Be very careful about the use of cv on such things.i had one about my Netflix account .
Did the 8o'clock clap on the balcony for NHS staff. Not sure ig it makes a difference but glad to do it.well I can confirm it did . My daughter -in-law was made up!
Did the 8o'clock clap on the balcony for NHS staff. Not sure ig it makes a difference but glad to do it.
This is interesting and bleak
https://www.esquire.com/uk/life/a31915611/coronavirus-timeline/
It sounds remarkably upbeat to me. Particularly the Month 18 Recovery section.
The article is assuming that everybody and every country is going to behave in a predictable and reasonable manner.
I feel no such certainty about matters.
It sounds remarkably upbeat to me. Particularly the Month 18 Recovery section.I realise that it's fashionable and macho to be cynical about other people, but people seem to be behaving well so far, apart from an inevitasble few idiots.
The article is assuming that everybody and every country is going to behave in a predictable and reasonable manner.
I feel no such certainty about matters.
I realise that it's fashionable and macho to be cynical about other people, but people seem to be behaving well so far, apart from an inevitasble few idiots.
Bojo's got the lurgi!
Hope he isolates - permanently.Then we would have Dominic Raab in his place. As noted in earlier post I really don't like Johnson but joking about him having the virus feels off, particularly given he has a pregnant partner.
Hope he isolates - permanently.yeah !
Apparently Boris is still in charge of running the Government by video conferencing.Not sure if that is the best message. It's a difficult one.
Not sure if that is the best message. It's a difficult one.Given that the rest of the country is effectively continuing to work via video conferencing I don't think the optics are bad.
I wonder how many MPs and member of the general public have picked up the virus from Boris, as he insisted on shaking hands with people? :o
Did he insist on shaking hands with people?Matt Hancock now as well
I'm actually quite surprised more members of the government haven't got it given that Nadine Dorries tested positive a while ago.
This just underlines how much lack of planning and slow reactions seem built into the govt's approach
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2020/03/government-documents-show-no-planning-ventilators-event-pandemic#click=https:%2F%2Ft.co%2FognVSpUVJ3
It's actually an interesting problem. The FT article I posted yesterday says the government is trying to procure 60,000 ventilators. I doubt if any level of planning would have had the government procure that many, and if they did, where would they store them and wouldn't they need regular inspections to make sure they remain serviceable?And yet it took them weeks to start the mad scramble, and even as they scramble they seem bumbling and inept as per this posted earlier.
If we manage to get through this with nobody in the UK dying through lack of ventilators you could argue that the strategy of the mad scramble to make them now has paid off.
One of our nieces and my partners God child have both come down with the virus in the last 24 hours. Both, appear to have mild symptoms at the moment, thankfully.I just learned a friend of mine, his wife and their eight year old son all had it last week. Nothing like As bad as NS’s friend but he said it was really scary.
Sorry to hear about your friend, NS.
No, it isn't: many animals care for their weak and elderly.
The way I see it...God must be pleased with humans. We have indeed learnt to care for our weak and elderly. This is a very non animal trait.
More evidence of the failure to plan, or rather the decision not to plan because of austerity.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/advice-on-protective-gear-for-nhs-staff-was-rejected-owing-to-cost?__twitter_impression=true
The way I see it...God must be pleased with humans. We have indeed learnt to care for our weak and elderly. This is a very non animal trait. We really are evolving beyond our animal nature....! :)
In evolution there are no discrete cut off points. There is usually an overlap of qualities from one species to another. Some animals have human like qualities and some humans have animal like qualities. Its a question of how much.what, you mean like starting off on pints then ending up on whiskys ?
The further we move from animal like qualities...the nearer we move to what we normally call 'divine' qualities. This is spiritual evolution.
Go to BBC Sounds and listen to More or Less - Coronavirus Special (Radio 4 Wednesday 09.00).
The programme looks at the numbers surrounding the outbreak. One of the UK's most respected statisticians, Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter, puts the risks of the disease into perspective.
In evolution there are no discrete cut off points. There is usually an overlap of qualities from one species to another. Some animals have human like qualities and some humans have animal like qualities. Its a question of how much.
The further we move from animal like qualities...the nearer we move to what we normally call 'divine' qualities. This is spiritual evolution.
In evolution there are no discrete cut off points. There is usually an overlap of qualities from one species to another. Some animals have human like qualities and some humans have animal like qualities. Its a question of how much.
The further we move from animal like qualities...the nearer we move to what we normally call 'divine' qualities. This is spiritual evolution.
Over 1000 people have now died of the virus in the UK. :o
Professor of virology, John Oxford said three weeks ago that 5,000 people had died from influenza in the UK already this winter gone.
Professor of virology, John Oxford said three weeks ago that 5,000 people had died from influenza in the UK already this winter gone.Which coronavirus will overtake some time in the middle of the week after next if the current doubling rate of every four days remains the same.
Not sure I can take seriously a God who sends a plague to kill people that he supposedly loves. (And for Steveh I am only replying to Spuds specific assertion that God may have sent the virus - he said it not me).I was 'just wondering' - and obviously was wrong, so I feel I should apologize.
Sounds as usual that God is a reflection of the posters views rather than any serious theological thought taking place.
5000 UK deaths from flu seems fairly low given that we are now at the end of the flu season. It will be good if we can keep covid deaths down at a similar level - but to do that we need to stop it spreading as no-one, as far as we know, has immunity whereas most people vulnerable to flu have been vaccinated.Very good point - I had been wondering why such a fuss isn't made for a flu epidemic.
Or we can develop cleaner technologies that reduce emissions by 14% or more which would have the same or greater effect without massively impacting on our mental/physical health and our economy.But to get the effect we see on the satellite images, with such a drastic drop in the pollution, do you really think that is achievable through technology?
I was 'just wondering' - and obviously was wrong, so I feel I should apologize.
Having reflected a bit, God always sent prophets to warn of judgment. I don't know of any prophecies of this virus, so should not claim that God sent it. It is a natural disaster though, a consequence of the Fall. Like in Luke 13:1-5, it warns us that we could die at any time and so should make sure we are ready.
Clocks forward makes the day shorter, not longer, you'll be glad to hear.
sri
Religion teaches humility and respect for the natural order. Recognition of ones tiny place in the totality. That is what has been missing in recent decades/centuries.
The coronavirus will teach us some humility and respect for nature. God is just a word for all those invisible and unknown factors that influence us.
Clocks forward makes the day shorter, not longer, you'll be glad to hear.Well, it's going to feel longer! I got up at today's time, but am working on yesterday's!! At the moment I'm waiting, on an 0800 number, to register for a shopping service.
Religion teaches hum
ility and respect for the natural order. Recognition of ones tiny place in the totality. That is what has been missing in recent decades/centuries.
The coronavirus will teach us some humility and respect for nature. God is just a word for all those invisible and unknown factors that influence us.
First, how does religion teach any of us humility and respect for your ideas about the natural order when we see that there is no sound evidential reason to take any form of religion seriously and it seems that the scientists and the authorities have all combined to help us all of out of the present viral problem plus the opera singing on the balconies in Italy, everybody here in the UK opening their doors cheering and clapping our health services heroic efforts, performed with all of the spirit and all of the HUMILITY necessary to perform the task, we virtually to a person were recognising their fight with our common world wide enemy
Purely out of interest Sriram, these invisible and unknown factors that influence us, if these are actually unknown factors how can anyone know about them.
You should admit that you've written and then posted a bit of a strange contradictory statement I'm aware that you're not one of the odd few posters we get on this forum from time to time, those that are more obviously choosing to live on the borders of rationality but it wouldn't be a bad idea on your part to post a clarification about this post of yours.
I'm not normally a sweary type person but on this occasion as for needing religion to teach us non-religious believing people or anyone else Fu,,,,g Humility, on this one occasion Sriram Fu,, off.
ippy.
:D
I don't want to derail this thread any further...but since this IS a Religion board I thought I should post some relevant aspects about religion on this thread.
...
Praying doesn’t work. Well, it might help the mental state of the person doing the praying but nothing else.
Coronavirus is a natural phenomenon. Your god didn’t do it. Your god won’t help us get out of this.
If god exists most of the time it appears to stick two fingers up at those who pray for healing, maybe it enjoys human suffering.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52043767
This is absolutely bonkers - we don't need a new, untested ventilator (which even if it works NHS won't be experienced in operating and will need to be trained) - what we need are huge numbers of tried and tested designs. And if Dyson have a facility that can make thousands of ventilators they should make it available to produce existing designs, not some new experimental one.
A friend who is a nurse has just been moved into Intensive Therapy Unit with suspected coronavirus. Expected to be put on a ventilator this afternoon.Praying they survive. x
And you know this , WHY? You can make decisions like the above. But when it comes to backing them up you have no evidence either. I would have thought positive better than negative.
The astrophysicist, the magnets and the virusWell, it makes a change from bottles up the arse...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/30/astrophysicist-gets-magnets-stuck-up-nose-while-inventing-coronavirus-device
Cummings now self isolating:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dominic-cummings-self-isolating-after-experiencing-coronavirus_uk_5e7e2c51c5b6cb9dc19f4d75?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000008&fbclid=IwAR0V-1HfoTfJ6TbkIYhkfr17LygdQ3tLaWq8ykGejfPyPDEiX_neSeBOoGE
I can't trust myself to type anything further.
Waiting in a social distancing line this morning on the other side of the shopping centre to be allowed into Tesco was definitely NOT my idea of fun to put it mildly.According to the people I know who have had COVID 19, that's no fun either.
According to the people I know who have had COVID 19, that's no fun either.
You can't get your groceries delivered unless you are disabled in some way.
Don't quite know how I managed it but clicked on Sainsbury's site this morning and got a delivery slot tomorrow.
Happy chappy. Its the little things!
:D
I don't want to derail this thread any further...but since this IS a Religion board I thought I should post some relevant aspects about religion on this thread.
We have an animal nature in us that is primarily selfish and self preservative. But as we humans have evolved, our social and universal aspects have taken precedence over our personal self preservation. This is the way we have evolved. I consider this a spiritual growth...an inner development.
Religion has been at the fore front to help us in this growth and to ensure that we develop this selfless part of our nature more and more and reduce our selfish nature. Christian missionaries are examples of this selfless service.
Without religion we would not have today evolved to a stage where common people are able to selflessly put themselves at risk just to save some elderly people. We have to admire and emulate such people certainly....but I am talking about recognizing the spiritual development that has taken place in society over the centuries, that has made this situation possible.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
Cheers.
Sriram
:D
Your getting angry doesn't change anything ippy! ::)
And also from the BBC live feed - feckin hell!That would be the equivalent of about nine million in Britain. It doesn’t seem beyond the bounds of possibility.
'More than 47 million Americans could lose their jobs in the next three months, pushing the US unemployment rate above 32%.
That’s according to a recent analysis by the Federal Reserve, which describes it as a “back-of-the-envelope” calculation.
However, the heavy economic cost is already clear, with a record 3.28 million Americans filing for unemployment last week.
Those numbers are expected to rise. In just one example, US department store Macy’s on Monday, said it had placed most of its 130,000 workers on unpaid leave, citing the loss of “the majority of our sales”. It said it would continue to pay for staff health insurance until the end of May.'
I posted on Facebook about the delivery gouging prices of Amazon and a friend offered to drop off a pack of cards for my mother. And when I said that it was ok but they were ordered but it was a very kind offer, she replied that being kind was not just for quarantine. And I agree, we should look when we get by this to do more for those who are vulnerable, by the govt, by the private sector and by us. The whatsapp groups who are looking after people, the remote virtual chats. We need to make sure that people can access the internet and have support to do so. The Labour policy of free internet for all looks like a winner to me but that's only the start.Good idea, but certainly would not be taken up by many older people for whom the worry of having to learn how to use it would be far more stressful.
Good idea, but certainly would not be taken up by many older people for whom the worry of having to learn how to use it would be far more stressful.
Most of the older people I know are familiar with computers including those in their 80s and some in their 90s.Some are but there are plenty who aren't - such as my mother-in-law (89) who never got to grips with a traditional mobile phone let alone a computer.
Some are but there are plenty who aren't - such as my mother-in-law (89) who never got to grips with a traditional mobile phone let alone a computer.In part my original comment on this was triggered by my mother having similar problems with a mobile, and is the same age 89. I think there are ways that we could get round that in future by better planning and use of devices. I think a lot of effort is put in to making things simpler for those already computer literate,and for those starting out. Even though I have been working with and on computers for nearly 40 years, there is still a quiet dread when I need to get or am given a new operating system.
But the point is that regardless of the fact that some (maybe most) older people are silver surfer, we need to take care of those that aren't, effectively not disadvantaging or disenfranchising them for not being computer literate.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has said there is no reason Holland America cruise ships with sick passengers on board should dock in Florida.
The MS Zaandam and MS Rotterdam have passed through the Panama Canal and are heading towards Fort Lauderdale. According to the Associated Press, there are over 300 US citizens on the ships.
"It's just a convenient place," he told reporters. "The problem is that takes resources away from the people in South Florida, and yes we do have available beds, but I don't want it to be a situation where those beds could have gone to Floridians."
In order to save the economy Sweden is taking the herd immunity approach, even though we're at least a year away from a vaccine. If I was a Swede I'd be slightly worried.If I lived in a country that shares a land border with Sweden, I'd be slightly worried too.
If I lived in a country that shares a land border with Sweden, I'd be slightly worried too.
I have been watching Jenrick being interviewed on TV this morning, I think he needs help with a couple of phrases he used repeatedly:Trent,
ramping up (production/testing) - do fuck all, but say we are doing it in an effort to fool the public.
International comparisons are not useful (particularly with Germany) - we've not acted fast enough, but please don't point out that some other countries actually give a fuck about their population.
(apologies to those who don't like swearing, but really with these sleazy uncaring fuckwits in charge there isn't an option).
This government wouldn't only sell their Grandmothers down the river, they'd take out a loan on them and agree to death of said grandmothers as a reasonable price to pay for defaulting on payment.
I don't agree with the article but I think the feeling is similar to what I am thinking about when I write Not Just During Quarantine.sounds to me that the author of the piece might have to get a 'proper job' when this is over !
https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-world-be-like-after-coronavirus-four-possible-futures-134085?fbclid=IwAR0nMaEQCiNZr2C0cJm3I6JI8lA28fbYmgTjov2O2a3s61zA2ki2xEelEyk
sounds to me that the author of the piece might have to get a 'proper job' when this is over !We all might
When the virus crisis is eventually over, I suspect the world might be very different to the way it was before."different from", not "different to".
We all mightbut I'm guessing the thought of that to the author is worse than the virus its self . :o
"different from", not "different to".Hurcs
I agree: for one thing, the renationalisation of the railways is likely to become permanent, and for another, they won't dare continue underfunding the NHS.
Hurcs;D ;D ;D
at least she didn't say 'different than' which is what the Merkins say! ::)
I have been watching Jenrick being interviewed on TV this morning, I think he needs help with a couple of phrases he used repeatedly:
ramping up (production/testing) - do fuck all, but say we are doing it in an effort to fool the public.
International comparisons are not useful (particularly with Germany) - we've not acted fast enough, but please don't point out that some other countries actually give a fuck about their population.
(apologies to those who don't like swearing, but really with these sleazy uncaring fuckwits in charge there isn't an option).
This government wouldn't only sell their Grandmothers down the river, they'd take out a loan on them and agree to death of said grandmothers as a reasonable price to pay for defaulting on payment.
Well I've just talked to the Chemical Industries Association, which represents the UK's very substantial chemicals industry.
It has contacted its members, and they've said there is no shortage of the relevant reagents.
So the Association has now been in touch with Mr Gove’s office to find out what he means, because it is stumped.
The Association also points out there was an industry chat with a business minister on Tuesday, who made no attempt to find out if there was a supply problem for the vital ingredients of Covid-19 testing kits.
Trent,
get a grip man, you sound like a whining whipped pup
Sure will if I ever get close enough to someone's neck.:D :D :D
"different from", not "different to".If we have a huge rise in unemployment, there may well be no choice in what we fund. Thge idea that we'll turn into some socialist nirvana is laughable
I agree: for one thing, the renationalisation of the railways is likely to become permanent, and for another, they won't dare continue underfunding the NHS.
"different from", not "different to".I don't think "different to" is necessarily wrong.
the renationalisation of the railways is likely to become permanentWhat renationalisation?
, and for another, they won't dare continue underfunding the NHS.The NHS will always be underfunded. It's the nature of healthcare - and our ageing population. Every government since the war pretty much has increased funding in real terms and yet it is in financial crisis because the cost of healthcare goes up and the number of people needing it goes up.
If we have a huge rise in unemployment, there may well be no choice in what we fund. Thge idea that we'll turn into some socialist nirvana is laughable
I don't know about other parts of the UK but around here people are putting soft toys like teddy bears in their windows to try to cheer kids up.I've put a sign in my window it says ;
In ours as well as my rainbow artwork I have put a couple of teddies and my soft toy dinosaur.
I've put a sign in my window it says ;
KEEP THE F*CK OUT
I hope you are joking! >:(It is only necessary for me to know if I am or not! 8)
In order to save the economy Sweden is taking the herd immunity approach, even though we're at least a year away from a vaccine. If I was a Swede I'd be slightly worried.
I don't agree with the article but I think the feeling is similar to what I am thinking about when I write Not Just During Quarantine.
https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-world-be-like-after-coronavirus-four-possible-futures-134085?fbclid=IwAR0nMaEQCiNZr2C0cJm3I6JI8lA28fbYmgTjov2O2a3s61zA2ki2xEelEyk
I don't know about other parts of the UK but around here people are putting soft toys like teddy bears in their windows to try to cheer kids up.
In ours as well as my rainbow artwork I have put a couple of teddies and my soft toy dinosaur.
If we have a huge rise in unemployment, there may well be no choice in what we fund. Thge idea that we'll turn into some socialist nirvana is laughable
Do kids go out at the moment? I suppose some do, short daily exercise. It's a nice idea Littleroses.Hi Robbie,
I'd have liked being at home when I was a young child, endless holiday. I had my sister and my cousin's garden backed on to ours, we went over the fence all the time.
Working from home is OK, I only go out to deliver stuff to and sometimes pick up from, my in-laws, uncle and aunt's garages, and wave to them. My sister & daughter do the same. It's all weird & worrying though, collective gloom.
Walter i don't blame you for your sign :-). Hope you are OK & safe in the camper.
Do kids go out at the moment? I suppose some do, short daily exercise. It's a nice idea Littleroses.
I'd have liked being at home when I was a young child, endless holiday. I had my sister and my cousin's garden backed on to ours, we went over the fence all the time.
Working from home is OK, I only go out to deliver stuff to and sometimes pick up from, my in-laws, uncle and aunt's garages, and wave to them. My sister & daughter do the same. It's all weird & worrying though, collective gloom.
Walter i don't blame you for your sign :-). Hope you are OK & safe in the camper.
A poignant look at the implications of the lockdown from someone who is unlikely to live long enough to see it end.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/terminal-cancer-lockdown-death
A poignant look at the implications of the lockdown from someone who is unlikely to live long enough to see it end.A friend's father is going to die in the next day or so. They had a choice of the father being taken into hospital but then they would not be allowed to visit. So the family are in the house waiting for him to die, and then they will have to choose which 2 of them goes to the funeral.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/terminal-cancer-lockdown-death
We will be funding the national debt.Though any govt will be forced into a much more interventionist position. In the last week there have been 950,000 applications for universal credit.
A socialist nirvana is indeed laughable. :)
In the USA, the government's response is widely regarded as disastrous.jeremyp
Here in the UK, our number of deaths per capita is now twice as bad as the USA.
Our daily deaths per capita are worse than theirs too.
jeremyp
i know you are familiar with the figures but how many people per day die because of the virus
NOT number of deaths of people who tested positive and died ?
I cant seem to find that information
thanks
Walter
Not jeremy but hey ...thanks for your reply however you could have stopped at the end of the second line !
No-one knows that figure and will not until the epidemic is over .. best can do at the moment is to guess at abut half.
Even if there is some pathology that could uniquely identify covid-19 as the cause of death - more research is needed to identify it. In practice, any death will have multiple factors involved.
But this is not only about the actual number of deaths but when these people die - even if all of these people would have died anyway this year (about half a million die each year in the UK) - if they all die in the next two or three months NHS hospitals themselves will grind to a halt. And it's not as if people will stop dying for other reasons. The alternative is for people with covid-19 not to be treated - and then many will die who could otherwise have been treated and lived happily for years to come...
jeremyp
i know you are familiar with the figures but how many people per day die because of the virus
NOT number of deaths of people who tested positive and died ?
I cant seem to find that information
thanks
Walter
Medical staff do the testing and they can't be in two places at once, when they are looking after the sick. No doubt lay people could be trained to do it, but that takes time.
It doesn't exist. We aren't recording that information. Some people who had coronavirus might have died anyway but they are being counted. There are probably also people who died of coronavirus but who aren't being counted because they weren't known to have coronavirus at the time.thanks old chap
However, it's the only half way reliable statistic we have got even though it lags the situation by two to three weeks.
For example, the number of new cases reported each day is constrained by our woeful lack of testing capacity - it's a Chernobyl geiger counter problem. I am really frustrated by the fact that we are not doing randomised testing in any sense. The government simply doesn't know the extent of the epidemic in this country. It seems obvious to me that they should be trying to find out.
And yet Germany manage to do 500,000 tests a week. Stop letting the government off the hook. They reacted too late, thought they could bluff and bluster Boris style their way through a pandemic. They are negligent. And I would argue wilfully so.Trent
And yet Germany manage to do 500,000 tests a week. Stop letting the government off the hook. They reacted too late, thought they could bluff and bluster Boris style their way through a pandemic. They are negligent. And I would argue wilfully so.
TrentGet your tongue out of Johnson's arse
if Boris himself came up with a cure for ALL ills you would still find something to criticise him for
Trent
if Boris himself came up with a cure for ALL ills you would still find something to criticise him for
I get the impression you are not in love with Boris. ;D ;D ;DWhy would anyone be in love with an incompetent racist lying thug? The incompetence shown by the govt means people will die who didn't have to. They didn't plan, they didn't react fast enough, front line medical staff have been endangered by their failures.
Medical staff do the testing and they can't be in two places at once, when they are looking after the sick. No doubt lay people could be trained to do it, but that takes time.We don’t have to test everybody to get an idea of the prevalence of coronavirus in our country, only a randomized sample.
I can see that the lockdown flattens the curve, so that the NHS doesn't get too many cases at once, and tons of people are just given morphine and left to die. But what happens after that? We can't keep a lockdown for a year. Of course, there is the hunt for a vaccine and anti-virals. I don't think the bugger is going to just go away.I think they're hoping to gradually ease the restrictions, starting in a week or two. I suppose as more and more people get it and become immune, there's a smaller and smaller pool of potential victims, so the epidemic will naturally gradually ease off. It seems to be doing so in China.
Get your tongue out of Johnson's arsesaney
saneyAnd your approach simply enables ineptitude and failure. There's fuck all point in clapping the NHS if you don't try and make it better by holding to account those who are failing it.
we've been here before ::)
and just to be clear, i despise politicians of all colours
We don’t have to test everybody to get an idea of the prevalence of coronavirus in our country, only a randomized sample.
The current testing strategy suggests that the government doesn’t want to know how many people have got it.
I doubt that is true.Then they are simply making it worse by their utter incompetence.
Then they are simply making it worse by their utter incompetence.
I wonder if other countries are really handling it any better?South Korea for one. They did it with a really comprehensive testing programme.
And your approach simply enables ineptitude and failure. There's fuck all point in clapping the NHS if you don't try and make it better by holding to account those who are failing it.and your fucking whining and whimpering on a MESSAGE BOARD is really helpful is it?
and your fucking whining and whimpering on a MESSAGE BOARD is really helpful is it?You need a new act. This one is threadbare.
If i were you I'd send the government a strong letter with a list of solutions but don't sign it with a kiss , that will show them how angry you are
I wonder if other countries are really handling it any better?Well we could be participating in the EU purchasing but we aren't because they decided not to because of dogma and then lied about it being due to a missed email. Why did they say there was no shortage of PPE when medical staff were making it clear there was? Why when they had modelled what was needed ib 2016, did they not follow through with the recommendations?
You need a new act. This one is threadbare.to be fair , i think we all do
to be fair , i think we all doOk, take care.
I'm becoming overloaded , I'm off for a walk now , maybe return with a better frame of mind !
Well we could be participating in the EU purchasing but we aren't because they decided not to because of dogma and then lied about it being due to a missed email. Why did they say there was no shortage of PPE when medical staff were making it clear there was? Why when they had modelled what was needed ib 2016, did they not follow through with the recommendations?
I think they're hoping to gradually ease the restrictions, starting in a week or two. I suppose as more and more people get it and become immune, there's a smaller and smaller pool of potential victims, so the epidemic will naturally gradually ease off. It seems to be doing so in China.
Then they are simply making it worse by their utter incompetence.
There is an app available in which anyone/everyone can record their symptoms or non-symptoms daily. If everyone used that then we could start to move towards a good idea of how many people were infected with symptoms. Without symptoms is still a problem.
Ok, take care.
We don’t have to test everybody to get an idea of the prevalence of coronavirus in our country, only a randomized sample.
The current testing strategy suggests that the government doesn’t want to know how many people have got it.
phew, that was like a long cool drink of Stella Artois .
didn't see another soul , wind a bit strong though! right enjoyed it :D
I wouldn't mind sharing a pint of Stella with you when this is all over. I do miss my locals.saney,
saney,I an having the second of my virtual whisky tastings this evening. Of the 6 people on it we have known each other for at least 35 years. I suspect that we will continue after the lockdown as while 3 of us are in and around Glasgow the others are not near in one case being in Perth, Australia.
what a wonderful idea , we'll have a right old blowout ;D
I an having the second of my virtual whisky tastings this evening. Of the 6 people on it we have known each other for at least 35 years. I suspect that we will continue after the lockdown as while 3 of us are in and around Glasgow the others are not near in one case being in Perth, Australia.
Nice! :)We could even have a virtual meet up of the message board.
I an having the second of my virtual whisky tastings this evening. Of the 6 people on it we have known each other for at least 35 years. I suspect that we will continue after the lockdown as while 3 of us are in and around Glasgow the others are not near in one case being in Perth, Australia.I hope it isn't virtual whisky
I hope it isn't virtual whiskymy head after the last one was evidence that it was very real whisky
We could even have a virtual meet up of the message board.
I'd be up for that. It would be nice to hear poster's voices. Accents. I love accents.And see what people look like.
And see what people look like.
We could even have a virtual meet up of the message board.
Indeed. I'll be the middle-aged bald bloke.😂So will I. I am a bit bearded at the moment.
So who is going to set one up?I am happy to do so and would do so by the Zoom app. But I need to give out my Zoom number for people to join. So I would do that by PM based on who is interested.
So will I. I am a bit bearded at the moment.
Testing by itself isn't of much use,It is if you want to find out how much of the country is infected.
Indeed. I'll be the middle-aged bald bloke.😂So will I.
It is if you want to find out how much of the country is infected.
When I first read this, I thought that's nice, interesting story. But it's now a huge stushie on social media with people hugely offended that it's just pointless localism.I clicked on the tweet and the first reply by somebody called Brexittwat (May have slightly misremembered that) was a rant about a Scottish government naming a Scottish hospital in Scotland after a Scottish nurse. I mean really? 569 people in the UK died yesterday and they post this mean spirited shit. FFS.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52127493
Granted. Statistically it might be useful but not so much if the goal is to slow the spread in the here and now.If you can’t measure the spread, you can’t tell if your actions are working.
If you can’t measure the spread, you can’t tell if your actions are working.
Which is an honourable condition to be in.me too
I clicked on the tweet and the first reply by somebody called Brexittwat (May have slightly misremembered that) was a rant about a Scottish government naming a Scottish hospital in Scotland after a Scottish nurse. I mean really? 569 people in the UK died yesterday and they post this mean spirited shit. FFS.You May say that, I couldn't possibly comment
Hi Robbie,
Im safe and well and currently parked up at my sons place , thanks for your concern.
I was at risk of being asked questions or being moved on and fined for being 'out' without good reason ,so after talking to my son it was decided i should come here for the duration 8)
That was a sensible move. Do you talk at a distance through semi open windows :-)?its a bit like that Robbie,
From BBC live feed
'Indian twins named after coronavirus
Welcome to the world, Corona and Covid- these are the names of newborn twins in India's Raipur city.
The boy and girl were born amid a three-week lockdown in India. Their parents say they gave them the names as a reminder of obstacles overcome during trying times that have disrupted life across the world.
In an interview with local media, the mother said it was a "difficult" delivery. "We faced many challenges and me and my husband wanted to make the day memorable," she said, adding that she went into labour on 26 March.
"The virus is dangerous but its outbreak has made people focus on hygiene and inculcate other good habits. So we thought about these names,” she explained.
Hospital staff started calling the twins as Corona and Covid soon after they were born - which helped the parents make their decision.'
I think they're hoping to gradually ease the restrictions, starting in a week or two. I suppose as more and more people get it and become immune, there's a smaller and smaller pool of potential victims, so the epidemic will naturally gradually ease off. It seems to be doing so in China.
I read elsewhere that apparently in NY, Orthodox Jews are ignoring the social distanceing rules, keeping schools open, etc. Anyone know if this is happening in this country? I tried googling but couldn't find anything relevant.
I haven't seen reports of any organisations in this country ignoring the lock down. In the USA there are churches that are ignoring social distancing because "God will protect them". All the churches in the UK that I know of are being sensible.Not quite all, unfortunately. (https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/plague-protection-kit-church-under-investigation-by-charity-watchdog)
Not quite all, unfortunately. (https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/plague-protection-kit-church-under-investigation-by-charity-watchdog)
I haven't seen reports of any organisations in this country ignoring the lock down. In the USA there are churches that are ignoring social distancing because "God will protect them". All the churches in the UK that I know of are being sensible.Thank you for reply.
Not quite all, unfortunately. (https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/plague-protection-kit-church-under-investigation-by-charity-watchdog)Should've used sapient pearwood. Buggerit, I says.
That guy should be prosecuted! >:(and anyone who buys one should be sectioned
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
I see Ocado have stopped delivering bottled water, as apparently that one change frees up 6000 delivery slots a week.that's terrible, everyone knows middle class people can't drink tap water ! :o
that's terrible, everyone knows middle class people can't drink tap water ! :oBottled water is the biggest scam and rip-off around.
Beginning to think some of the social distancing measures are getting a bit OTT.
I've just got back from my local giant Tesco supermarket. Entrance and exit have been separated (fair enough), and to get into the main area you have to negotiate a ridiculous maze through the newspapers and magazines area, then get your trolly handle disinfected.....
The problem is without that people seem unwilling or unable to maintain social distancing. I have a reasonable sized Aldi that I use and while it's 1 in, 1 out, there is a path through the store, in part because of the layout, so even if you are being careful,it's impossible to see round corners or avoid getting closer than 2m.I was in Sainsbury’s today. It was pretty much impossible to maintain two meters distancing because as soon as somebody stopped in an aisle, it would be effectively blocked.
The queue outside doesn't have anything marked for distance so you get to see what people think is 2m, or rather what they are willing to accept as a distance to stand apart. Given that I am only 3 centimetres off of 2m tall, I am well aware of the distance.
In addition to that there are also the store staff, our new key workers, to consider so I think your Tesco's has it about right.
I believe Tesco are right to impose such measures Hercules. Better safe than sorry. It doesn't seem to have inconvenienced you too much, glad you got your shopping.Happy birthday!
Husband cooked brunch and is planning to do a barbecue for just me and him tonight for my 60th.That sure is novel :-).
It sure is quiet round here as if the whole area is resting.
People setting fire to 5G masts because that's what's behind Covid 19.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52164358?fbclid=IwAR0tqJdcNZwRoew8I8hx_W748tgmJ-u1qbboAppU0RjHVJKWpDvNIjK1JB0
People setting fire to 5G masts because that's what's behind Covid 19.did you know?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52164358?fbclid=IwAR0tqJdcNZwRoew8I8hx_W748tgmJ-u1qbboAppU0RjHVJKWpDvNIjK1JB0
did you know?
chocolate milk comes from brown cows :)
People setting fire to 5G masts because that's what's behind Covid 19.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52164358?fbclid=IwAR0tqJdcNZwRoew8I8hx_W748tgmJ-u1qbboAppU0RjHVJKWpDvNIjK1JB0
But even he doesn't explain why the virus is exploding in some advanced countries and (fortunately) is not so virulent in most other relatively more crowded and poorer countries.
sri
But even he doesn't explain why the virus is exploding in some advanced countries and (fortunately) is not so virulent in most other relatively more crowded and poorer countries.
Only in advanced countries can they afford to do a lot of testing. Maybe in the poorest countries people are dying in droves, but the government simply doesn’t know about it.
Conspiracy-theoretical nonsense.
That is the usual 'explanation' that advanced countries resort to....but it is nonsense. If 5000 people die within a few weeks of similar symptoms, people will notice even in African countries and Bangladesh. You have a very wrong impression about the communication and other facilities in most countries in today's world.
Under reporting could be to the extent of 10 or 20 %.... not 1000 %
There is obviously something that people haven't understood yet.
There is obviously something that people haven't understood yet.
That is the usual 'explanation' that advanced countries resort to....but it is nonsense.No it isn't.
If 5000 people die within a few weeks of similar symptoms, people will notice even in African countries and Bangladesh. You have a very wrong impression about the communication and other facilities in most countries in today's world.Not necessarily. In Bangladesh something like 2,000 people die every day. 5,000 extra in a few weeks might go unnoticed. And a lot of the people coronavirus kills were very ill anyway.
There is obviously something that people haven't understood yet.Quite possibly.
My doctor brother-in-law has been asked to return to the NHS even though he gave up being a medic in the 80s to follow another career path. He is now in his 70s and thinks he has been out of action in that regard for far too long to be of any use. I thought the NHS was only asking the recently retired to return, not those who left so very long ago.He's also in a high risk group. He shouldn't be on the "front line" but there might be other admin things he can do.
He's also in a high risk group. He shouldn't be on the "front line" but there might be other admin things he can do.
No it isn't.
We see it even in advanced countries. The number of cases you have is directly related to the quality of your testing. In the UK, for example, the "confirmed cases" figure really only tells us how many tests the NHS was able to do.
Not necessarily. In Bangladesh something like 2,000 people die every day. 5,000 extra in a few weeks might go unnoticed. And a lot of the people coronavirus kills were very ill anyway.
Quite possibly.
There are good guys and then there are bad guysmy response
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52166185
my responseComplete and utter
a 5 letter word beginning with C ends with S
you got it .........CRASS!
You must understand that "exploding" is dependent on a country actually recording cases and deaths.
You must understand that there are about 150 to 200 countries on this planet where the virus is not exploding the way it is doing in about 15 countries.
'Explanations' such as under reporting and 'no one knows' are dismissive and simply wrong.
I have no idea what the reason isSo you are simply wrong?
.... but some theories such as temperature, temperate zone and malarial resistance have been advanced.I would be sceptical about the malarial resistance one, but all the others could have some effect.
There are good guys and then there are bad guys
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52166185
Is £10,000 per month a lot? If there's 500 patients, that's £20 per patient.Is a £10 call a lot to talk to your family if you can't afford it?
Is a £10 call a lot to talk to your family if you can't afford it?Anything is a lot if you can't afford it.
Anything is a lot if you can't afford it.The gouging was already there. The company continues it, they are as Walter puts it c---s
However, you're talking about two different things. You are talking about a person being price gouged under the current system against a new system that hasn't been instituted yet where the patient is not charged at all. This £10,000 per month is what the hospital would have to pay to stop Irene Simpkin's 87-year-old mother from being charged £11.33 for a 16 minute phone call.
The gouging was already there.Correct.
The company continues it, they are as Walter puts it c---s
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/donald-trump-requested-pm-modi-to-release-us-order-of-hydroxychloroquine-stockpile-2206295?pfrom=home-bigstory
*********
The hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malaria drug will be released through the Strategic National Stockpile for treatment," Donald Trump said.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday said that he has requested Prime Minister Narendra Modi to supply hydroxychloroquine tablets that can be used to treat COVID-19 patients.
"After call today with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is giving serious consideration to releasing the hold it put on a US order for hydroxychloroquine," US President Trump announced at the White House Coronavirus task force briefing that he requested PM Narendra Modi for more Hydroxychloroquine tablets.
President Trump did not shy away from saying he too will take a tablet of hydroxychloroquine after announcing that he has requested Prime Minister during his telephonic conversation on Saturday to lift a hold on the US order of the medicine.
*********
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035I think we've all got the message that you're being socially responsible and observing all the restrictions now, so you don't need to keep mentioning it in passing anymore.
Outdoor exercise could be banned if people don't obey the rules. That would be a great shame and a disservice to those of us who do.
I think we've all got the message that you're being socially responsible and observing all the restrictions now, so you don't need to keep mentioning it in passing anymore.
I hope others like YOU are obeying the rules too?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035
Outdoor exercise could be banned if people don't obey the rules. That would be a great shame and a disservice to those of us who do.
That seems rather odd to me: punish everybody for the actions of a few.
That seems rather odd to me: punish everybody for the actions of a few.
Not sure how else you could enforce it. I mean it's not like we've been recruiting huge numbers of police over the last decade to pursue those resisting social distancing measures.
We went out for a walk yesterday and there were clearly non-family groups of people not observing social distancing on the beach and seafront.
It might seem unfair, but how else can they do it?By punishing the rule-breakers, obviously. Collective punishment was a favourite tactic of the Nazis.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035
Outdoor exercise could be banned if people don't obey the rules. That would be a great shame and a disservice to those of us who do.
Just been for a walk, it was chaos really. Joggers, cyclists, teenagers sauntering along, guys playing football. I remonstrated with one girl, and she said, well, I'm not going to die. Thanks.
Yes, well... actually stopping to "remonstrate" with anyone is probably the most risky activity :)
Not sure how else you could enforce it. I mean it's not like we've been recruiting huge numbers of police over the last decade to pursue those resisting social distancing measures.You enforce it the same way as you enforce all the other laws. You arrest and punish the perpetrators. It’s not like they’re hard to find.
We went out for a walk yesterday and there were clearly non-family groups of people not observing social distancing on the beach and seafront.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52172570No. They need to punish all of us by taking away our mobile phones. It’s the only way /sarcasm.
I hope people who spout this garbage will be prosecuted. >:(
You enforce it the same way as you enforce all the other laws. You arrest and punish the perpetrators. It’s not like they’re hard to find.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52172570For what? Being stupid?
I hope people who spout this garbage will be prosecuted. >:(
For what? Being stupid?
The police haven't got the manpower at present.Yes they have.
Yes they have.
No they haven't, they say they are overstretched.
Is that because they're all busy flying drones over Peak District tourist spots?
It really isn't hard to enforce the rules. You just drive around and arrest people who are outside in groups. There is no justification to punish us all because of a few bad apples.
You give the impression that you are actually enjoying the fact that everybody has to lead miserable lives now. Please stop it.
The police haven't got the manpower at present.Lr
You enforce it the same way as you enforce all the other laws. You arrest and punish the perpetrators. It’s not like they’re hard to find.
Don't be so silly! ::) People have got to comply whether they like it or not, this crisis is probably the worst since WW2.
I think you are missing my point. The police haven't had the ability to enforce all the other laws, what makes you think they'll be able to enforce this one?And yet they don't force us all to keep inside just because they can't prevent burglaries.
But if the regulations are stupid, what then?
How are you going to enforce not going out for exercise? What if I choose to go on a twenty mile hike that includes a shop half way round?
And yet they don't force us all to keep inside just because they can't prevent burglaries.
So is a burglary the same as the possibility of passing on a fatal illness because of stupidity?But you agree we are not all locked up inside because the police can't enforce the rules.
The police haven't got the manpower at present.How do you know?
Johnson in hospital
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52177125
Oh dear: I do hope he recovers, since this is a nasty illness that one wouldn't wish on anyone.
I hope he recovers too, even if he isn't my favourite PM.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52177586
A tiger at a zoo in New York City has tested positive for Covid-19. I didn't think it affected animals.
Being VERY, VERY OLD does have its advantages. I had been advised by our eldest to do my shopping at Tesco during the old people's happy hour 9am-10am on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. I was sceptical, but did as I was told, for once. WOW it was good. There was no queue, I was handed a sanitised trolley and ushered into the store. They had most of the things I required, apart from canned tomato soup. I was home just before 9.30.Lr
Lr
here's some more advice ;
don't lick door handles ! 8)
It is the best way of keeping them clean. :P ;DLr
Unbelievable! :(Lr
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-52183888
Rather lovely story
'A couple in Spain, both 88 and married for 65 years, have both recovered from the virus and left hospital on the same day. Wishing Guadalupe and Jose many more years of happiness!'
this morning, I phoned Hants Adult Social Services and This afternoon, I have had a phone call from a woman who was given my number by them and who was helpful in giving me more information and a couple of phone numbers for eh particular problem I have, i.e. no-one to take the responsibility of doing my shopping. So I hope I'm getting somewhere on that.This is an illustration of how bad the planning was. The modelling exercise in 2016 was ignored. The Tories have created a farce. Additionally it is the people who were the elderly 'well' who are more screwed by this lack of planning.
The Guardian are reporting that Johnson's condition has worsened and that he has been moved to intensive care.I know and do not like the man, but I hope he gets better.
As is the BBC.
I know and do not like the man, but I hope he gets better.
Goop is its usual shite.being a fully qualified civil engineer doesn't mean you are good at building welsh dressers !
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/goop-coronavirus-kelly-brogan-expert-contributor-md-deaths-covid-19-a9421476.html
What's interesting here is that the graphs of increased numbers over time are straight lines: if the rate increases exponentially, as you'd expect, it ought to be a convex curve, becoming increasingly steep.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52133054
What's interesting here is that the graphs of increased numbers over time are straight lines: if the rate increases exponentially, as you'd expect, it ought to be a convex curve, becoming increasingly steep.Err - that's because it is a log-scale on the y-axis - hence an exponential increase appears as a straight line.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52133054
The scale on the y axis is logarithmic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale). A straight line (non horizontal) means an exponential rise.I take it you mean the vertical axis: yes, I see what you mean.
I take it you mean the vertical axis: yes, I see what you mean.Yes - the vertical axis is called the y-axis, the horizontal one being the x-axis.
As a scientist I've been a bit frustrated with the presentation of data and not being clear what it meansI completely agree with this point and it's beginning to wind me up. Watching the BBC last night they presented a number of graphs all with logarithmic scales and didn't point that out a single time. For example, they showed the "number of deaths since the first recorded death" graph. If you compared the UK's line with Spain, they looked similar with the UK just slightly below. However, the scale was logarithmic and the gap between zero and UK deaths represented the same number of people as the gap between the UK and Spain. i.e. Spain has twice as many deaths as the UK at the moment.
There are a lot of employers who are currently pledging to keep employees on until around August. Even if we are out of it by then, there will be a lot of employees who will lose their jobs in those firms in the following 3 months. This is going to be absolutely brutal and the govts are probably just being very careful not to mention this.
The economic consequences will be felt for years.The question is whether it leads to some seismic change in economic systems. We are in uncharted territory.
The question is whether it leads to some seismic change in economic systems. We are in uncharted territory.
Indeed. If any sense is to some of this, then a fairer system has to arise. One where workers rights are more protected and where third world debt is forgiven. The economic impact will go much deeper than that too.My fear is that it will go the opposite way. We will pull up the idea of global responsibility and greatly harm the third world.
My fear is that it will go the opposite way. We will pull up the idea of global responsibility and greatly harm the third world.
Only read this if you are feeling resilient:I think it’s nonsense. Looking at the current death trends, we are well under Spain, for example and the death rate increase is already not exponential.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts
And even though he is ill and I wish him a full recovery, I hope no-one forgets that he was the PM that flirted with the idea of herd immunity derived from mass infection.
Marina Hyde in restrained but excellent form.Excellent as usual. I've long felt myself that the military metaphors with regard ro cancer are not helpful: no-one ever just "has" cancer; they're always "battling" or "fighting" it, which is especially inappropriate, as she says, when all you can do is obey the doctors: if that's battling, it is curiously passive.
https://t.co/6esfQPFBfs?fbclid=IwAR10kVrQCOXU0gMWv5v0HpZZUPzjL8-frlnRBy3g4uhx1VUhiqgcazBKPpg
Marina Hyde in restrained but excellent form.
https://t.co/6esfQPFBfs?fbclid=IwAR10kVrQCOXU0gMWv5v0HpZZUPzjL8-frlnRBy3g4uhx1VUhiqgcazBKPpg
Only read this if you are feeling resilient:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts
And even though he is ill and I wish him a full recovery, I hope no-one forgets that he was the PM that flirted with the idea of herd immunity derived from mass infection.
I absolutely hate the way people characterise crises as wars. The "war on terror" was a mistake the "war on drugs" is a mistake. The "war on coronavirus is a mistake".Agree, it also tends to crowd out ideas as it dictates a siege mentality and leads to group think as the alternatives are seen as being divisive.
If you describe a problem as a nail, everybody brings hammers.
And another good article
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/there-is-nothing-tough-about-beating-coronavirus/amp?__twitter_impression=true
This gets it right for me on the idea of clapping for JohnsonI dare say Johnson has been given the clap a number of times, but that was ridiculous.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1247777868261634048.html
Indeed. If any sense is to some of this, then a fairer system has to arise. One where workers rights are more protected and where third world debt is forgiven. The economic impact will go much deeper than that too.
The system that pulled millions out of poverty and greatly increased living standards throughout the world?
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/former-bishop-of-rochester-michael-nazir-ali-suggests-relaxing-the-rules-for-churches-over-easter?fbclid=IwAR2k71KgqfRb8VOmjZlP7b7yhpd7lRNATVbOshqvjehWCGGtVpzHgNYwVNU
What an idiot - what planet is he on if he thinks that churches should be re-opened for Easter.
Nazir Ali told Premier Christian News: "It's quite nuanced - I'm not saying that safe distancing should not be observed, but why discriminate against churches?
In what way are churches being discriminated against - last time I looked all non essential gatherings are banned - churches are in exactly the same position as sports events, theatres, cinemas, team sports, choirs, non-virtual exercise classes etc etc.
And another good article
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/there-is-nothing-tough-about-beating-coronavirus/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Proff D, leave the christians alone you know how they jump at the chance of becoming victims or being oppressed, all you're doing is trying to stop them enjoying themselves.I know - discrimination in christian terms all too often means not being able to have privileges that other similar organisations don't enjoy.
ippy.
Hmm,True, although not unexpected - I think it is difficult for the leaders of any organisation in the current climate to accept that they need to step back rather than being front and centre.
I think Johnson's "toughness" or desire to appear tough might, in part, be responsible for putting him in his current position in an ICU. He got sick and instead taking time off to give his body a chance to fight the disease, he carried on working.
Another thing that's winding me up: he was described as being in "good spirits" four times by three people in the space of five minutes on the BBC lunchtime news. Sorry, but I don't believe it. He's a human being in an ICU with a life threatening disease. |I would not be in good spirits in that situation. I don't expect Johnson to be, nor would I think any the worse of him if it was reported that he was quite unhappy.I agree entirely and I also don't believe it. Late last week were told that he was was just having a bit of difficulty shaking off some mild symptoms but otherwise fine - then he was carted off to hospital.
In good spirits means stoned from morphine, fighting means seriously ill, etc.And stable in intensive care means you are in a very bad way, just nor deteriorating (nor improving).
Hmm,I agree, and I don't think the article disagrees at all so not sure what is meant here by 'Hmm'
I think Johnson's "toughness" or desire to appear tough might, in part, be responsible for putting him in his current position in an ICU. He got sick and instead taking time off to give his body a chance to fight the disease, he carried on working.
Another thing that's winding me up: he was described as being in "good spirits" four times by three people in the space of five minutes on the BBC lunchtime news. Sorry, but I don't believe it. He's a human being in an ICU with a life threatening disease. |I would not be in good spirits in that situation. I don't expect Johnson to be, nor would I think any the worse of him if it was reported that he was quite unhappy.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/former-bishop-of-rochester-michael-nazir-ali-suggests-relaxing-the-rules-for-churches-over-easter?fbclid=IwAR2k71KgqfRb8VOmjZlP7b7yhpd7lRNATVbOshqvjehWCGGtVpzHgNYwVNUI heard him interviewed on five Live. The presenter who was interviewing should have been harder than she was, I think. There is no excuse for such irresponsible ideas and suggestions.
What an idiot - what planet is he on if he thinks that churches should be re-opened for Easter.
Nazir Ali told Premier Christian News: "It's quite nuanced - I'm not saying that safe distancing should not be observed, but why discriminate against churches?
In what way are churches being discriminated against - last time I looked all non essential gatherings are banned - churches are in exactly the same position as sports events, theatres, cinemas, team sports, choirs, non-virtual exercise classes etc etc.
I agree, and I don't think the article disagrees at all so not sure what is meant here by 'Hmm'
It was a "hmmm" meaning "interesting and perhaps it chimes with the following..." not a sceptical hmmm.Thanks.
I heard him interviewed on five Live. The presenter who was interviewing should have been harder than she was, I think. There is no excuse for such irresponsible ideas and suggestions.
From the BBC's live feed.
'US mayor's social distancing crackdown leads to his wife's arrest
An Illinois mayor directed local police to vigorously enforce the state's social distancing order, after reports of residents defying them.
"These are very serious times and I'm begging you to please stay at home," Alton mayor Brant Walker said on Friday.
Less than two days later, Alton police broke up a party at a local bar. The group was "clearly disregarding the executive order and public pleas for compliance", authorities said.
It turned out that Mayor Walker's wife was in attendance at the illicit party.
"I am embarrassed by this incident and apologise to the citizens of Alton," Walker said in a statement. "My wife is an adult capable of making her own decisions, and in this instance she showed a stunning lack of judgment'
And stable in intensive care means you are in a very bad way, just nor deteriorating (nor improving).just as an example , when i was in ICU couldn't tell them my own name for almost 3 weeks !
GREAT NEWS!
Today's 'Daily Mail' says that the lockdown will last for weeks to come, so it'll probably be over by Saturday! ;D
GREAT NEWS!
Today's 'Daily Mail' says that the lockdown will last for weeks to come, so it'll probably be over by Saturday! ;D
if you think I'm wrong try to find anything on the BBC that looks remotely like a challenge to them,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52227363There will always be idiots - I hope they are caught are appropriately dealt with.
Words fail me! >:(
I hope they are caught...
Police have made two arrests
GREAT NEWS!
Today's 'Daily Mail' says that the lockdown will last for weeks to come, so it'll probably be over by Saturday! ;D
Honestly don't understand the justification for this.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/mps-given-an-extra-10000-to-work-from-home/09/04/?fbclid=IwAR3I6cvNh9aqzHKsE6Cp5OniD_tMX15Kq-DREEJcx2fXjPEgW5to9UDZYx0
Sriram, how are people coping in India ? I can't imagine how poor people on daily wages are surviving with no income since Mr Modi imposed a lock down.
Honestly don't understand the justification for this.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/mps-given-an-extra-10000-to-work-from-home/09/04/?fbclid=IwAR3I6cvNh9aqzHKsE6Cp5OniD_tMX15Kq-DREEJcx2fXjPEgW5to9UDZYx0
If they need a bit more support a truss and surgical boots should be offered to all MPs After all, they are very special .
Having looked into a bit more, I think that there is some justification as it is about ramping up support for expenses in a time of demand.
If they need a bit more support a truss and surgical boots should be offered to all MPs After all, they are very special .The demand is from constituents, and the support is for that.
Brian Cox on Infinite Monkey Cage.
Thanks for asking torri. We are doing fairly well as a country. Three weeks of lock down and perhaps an extension for a further 15 days. But most people seem to be coping very well. The govt has also identified containment zones and is managing to control the situation fairly well. Its not alarming as yet.
As I have written earlier....in India the virus doesn't seem to be behaving in the same way that it has in many countries in the Temperate zone. Trump is happy that India has agreed to his 'request' for supply of hydroxychloroquine. ;)
There was recently a crisis where thousands of people belonging to a muslim sect gathered together (speeches were delivered against the lockdown) and have now traveled far and wide into the country. Many of them are suspected of being positive and could be spreading the infection elsewhere. There have been cases of such people spitting on others, including policemen, selling veggies on which they have spat and so on. This has raised doubts that perhaps some groups affiliated to terrorist organisations are taking advantage of the corona crisis and are spreading the infection on purpose.
About migrant workers....many govt and private organisations have come forward and the workers are being provided food and shelter. It is indeed a problem for daily wagers but the govt and many NGO's are arranging for monetary help. Most of us are donating money and other forms of help.
But the lock down cannot be avoided.
Thought for the Day, on the Today programme BBC radio 4 early morning six days a week, the non-religious beliefs are banned from this slot, the BBC's most obvious bias for religion, anyway you must know about that and they're not going to make it obvious just how much they avoid having religion challenged on their airwaves, it is little and often aligned with its policy of never missing.You asked for an example. You were given one. You lose.
Clever, and you wont see it if you've made your mind up to not see it.
ippy.
Thought for the Day, on the Today programme BBC radio 4 early morning six days a week, the non-religious beliefs are banned from this slot, the BBC's most obvious bias for religion, anyway you must know about that and they're not going to make it obvious just how much they avoid having religion challenged on their airwaves, it is little and often aligned with its policy of never missing.
Clever, and you wont see it if you've made your mind up to not see it.
ippy.
So what? You just asked for examples of people on the BBC bashing religion. I gave you one.
ETA. Ninja’d by Nearly Sane
My first thought on seeing the lock down in India was that India has a young demographic, most people would recover from a viral infection but Modi would kill them with joblessness-induced malnutrition instead. Maybe daily wagers jobs' will still be there to resume once the lock down is over and it is just a question of support networks during the period of lock down. Maybe it is more a western thing that people will find their jobs have disappeared after the lock down as many businesses go bankrupt. Overall though I have a sinking feeling that the economic damage of lock downs is going to lead to a global recession, probably the worst since the great depression of the 1930s and that will drive many millions of people who were just about getting by into destitution and poverty and that might prove in the end to kill more people than if we had carried on working and suffered some herd immunity to grow.
The workers are being taken care of. India has seen lot of poverty over the centuries/decades and has largely come out of it. We are now in a much better position to handle it. The system is geared for it. There is lot of resilience.
However, economic issues are not the priority now. Its about controlling the virus.
All of us have seen lots of economic issues over the years and have handled it. Japan had a nuclear bomb dropped on it but survived and thrived. World wars, depression, recessions, pandemics, natural calamities....and much more has been seen in this world and we have lived and managed.
So...not to worry. :)
Japan had a nuclear bomb dropped on it but survived and thrived. World wars, depression, recessions, pandemics, natural calamities....and much more has been seen in this world and we have lived and managed.
So...not to worry. :)
From the BBC news feed
'A doctor who warned the prime minister about a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for NHS workers has died after contracting coronavirus.
Consultant urologist Abdul Mabud Chowdhury, 53, died at Queen's Hospital in Romford, east London, on Wednesday.
Five days before he was admitted to hospital, Dr Chowdhury had appealed for "appropriate PPE and remedies" to "protect ourselves and our families".
His son told the BBC his father was a "kind and compassionate hero".'
Something amazing and courageous: while recovering from a hip operation and skin cancer, 99yr old Tom Moore is walking 100 laps of his driveway (which is fairly lengthy) before his 100th birthday at the end of the month to raise money for the NHS. Bravo!!
Enjoy:
https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1248516062364106753
250,000 dead as a result of two nukes.
Wow.
Also your description of poverty in India.
" India had 73 million people living in extreme poverty which makes up 5.5% of its total population"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
I suspect Sriram isn't one those 73 million, so he doesn't worry.
I note the Japanese have a museum dedicated to the info about the atomic bombs, there may be two of them one in each town bombed I don't know, but I did wonder if they have set up some similar museums acknowledging how they performed their works on the so called 'Burma Road' although it was in fact a railway, preferably museums set up next door to their atomic bomb museums, just to make things more even handed and more easily understood by all.I take it we have one for the Dresden bombings?
ippy.
I take it we have one for the Dresden bombings?Yeah, it's next door to the museum of the Pacifist
Yeah, it's next door to the museum of the PacifistWe don't need one. The piles of the dead are what qualifies for museums.
I note the Japanese have a museum dedicated to the info about the atomic bombs, there may be two of them one in each town bombed I don't know,
Hiroshima is a city I know quite well. There is indeed a Peace Museum - set in the Peace Park just across the river from the epicentre of the nuclear explosion and adjacent the Aioi Bridge which was the target for the bomb attack. It is not "dedicated to the info about the atomic bombs" but is a record of the events in one day which saw the eventual deaths of perhaps 180,000 people. I have visited it on four occasions - each time being more moved than I can possibly explain. Its primary purpose is to inform and warn and to try to avoid any such incident occurring again.
What the HELL this has to do with coronavirus only you can say, Ippy.
I do think that it is true that - unlike Germany - Japan has never quite come to terms with its role in WW2. However, the relevance of your post is beyond me.
So now we are having a Herculean attempt at getting PPE, as opposed to planning for this, or doing this 3 months ago, and not lying in the interim that everything was fine! People on the front line will have died, and will die because of the incompetence of this govt
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52248423
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52241221
New York state are having to bury bodies in a mass grave!
New York state now has more coronavirus cases than any single country.
The state's confirmed caseload of Covid-19 is almost 162,000, of whom 7,067 have died, according to Johns Hopkins University. :o
I think there are plenty of fresh mortuaries appearing in the UK, I bet that won't be on the front page of the Sun.
Don't know about the front page, Wiggs(I never buy any newspaper) but look at this, seemingly produced by journalists(is that what they are called?)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11373868/morgue-london-nhs-nightingale-coronavirus-hospital/
No doubt the current pandemic will see the anti-vaxxers quietly queuing up for their anti-coronavirus shot as soon as it becomes available. Conspiracy theories are for armchair idiots who are cushioned from real life. Seeing actual people suffer and actually die will be a wake up call for science deniers everywhere.I fear not. There is a lot of stuff about this being a huge vaccination conspiracy which will lead to everyone being injected with microchips. Apparently the whole thing is Bill Gates' idea.
From the BBC live feed - what an unmitigated prick, Hancock is!
'There have been cases where medical workers have used more personal protective equipment (PPE) than necessary, the UK health secretary has said, after a doctor's union warned that many doctors were not getting the equipment they need.
The British Medical Association said doctors faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
Matt Hancock told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that there was enough personal protective equipment to go around if it was used in line with guidance.
"I don't want to impugn blame on people who have used more PPE than the guidelines suggest because I understand the difficulties in the circumstances," he said.
"What I would say it is very important to use the right PPE and not overuse it."
The health secretary confirmed that 19 NHS workers had died since the start of the outbreak.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer tweeted: "It is quite frankly insulting to imply front line staff are wasting PPE."
Dame Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, told Today that no piece of PPE could ever be "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".'
No doubt the current pandemic will see the anti-vaxxers quietly queuing up for their anti-coronavirus shot as soon as it becomes available.Actually, I think a significant proportion of them will refuse the vaccine.
It seems sensible to me, if your quote is accurate. Why would you want to waste PPE since it's in such demand at the moment?Because there is no evidence of it being wasted. Because it's blaming any shortage in an accusation that he isn't evidencing. You want to support the govts mistakes and lies that have lead to deaths of front line staff then on you go.
Have another look at jakswan's post H H, the first line.
Because there is no evidence of it being wasted.Matt Hancock seems to think there is. Are you better informed than he is?
Because it's blaming any shortage in an accusation that he isn't evidencing.He's not blaming people for the shortage. He's just pointing out a fact: if you use more of a resource in short supply, it is a bad thing.
You want to support the govts mistakes and lies that have lead to deaths of front line staff then on you go.It saves lives to stop people from using more PPE than they need.
Yes, I didn't see that. I think there are new mortuaries all over the country. With a 1000 deaths a day, they are needed.
Matt Hancock seems to think there is. Are you better informed than he is?
He's not blaming people for the shortage. He's just pointing out a fact: if you use more of a resource in short supply, it is a bad thing.
It saves lives to stop people from using more PPE than they need.
Not really making a point here but total deaths in England and Wales.
03-Jan-20 10-Jan-20 17-Jan-20 24-Jan-20 31-Jan-20 07-Feb-20 14-Feb-20 21-Feb-20 28-Feb-20 06-Mar-20 13-Mar-20 20-Mar-20 27-Mar-20
12,254 14,058 12,990 11,856 11,612 10,986 10,944 10,841 10,816 10,895 11,019 10,645 11,141
from ONS, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales
From the BBC live feed - what an unmitigated prick, Hancock is!
'There have been cases where medical workers have used more personal protective equipment (PPE) than necessary, the UK health secretary has said, after a doctor's union warned that many doctors were not getting the equipment they need.
The British Medical Association said doctors faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
Matt Hancock told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that there was enough personal protective equipment to go around if it was used in line with guidance.
"I don't want to impugn blame on people who have used more PPE than the guidelines suggest because I understand the difficulties in the circumstances," he said.
"What I would say it is very important to use the right PPE and not overuse it."
The health secretary confirmed that 19 NHS workers had died since the start of the outbreak.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer tweeted: "It is quite frankly insulting to imply front line staff are wasting PPE."
Dame Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, told Today that no piece of PPE could ever be "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".'
Not really making a point here but total deaths in England and Wales.
03-Jan-20 10-Jan-20 17-Jan-20 24-Jan-20 31-Jan-20 07-Feb-20 14-Feb-20 21-Feb-20 28-Feb-20 06-Mar-20 13-Mar-20 20-Mar-20 27-Mar-20
12,254 14,058 12,990 11,856 11,612 10,986 10,944 10,841 10,816 10,895 11,019 10,645 11,141
from ONS, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales
I don't know whether Matt Hancock is right or not because I am not privy to any of the evidence or advice he has, but a couple of points to make here:
Firstly my wife, who was a nurse and then a phlebotamist in the NHS for many years, has continually criticised the NHS for its sheer wastage of equipment. Last year I had two operations for replacement hips(both successful) and I still have the crutches loaned to me by the NHS as well as the special toilet seat loaned to me as I was recovering. On enquiring at the hospital where these operations were done. I was told to get rid of the crutches and the toilet seat contraption as they didn't want them back!
Secondly, the logistics of ensuring that the many thousands of locations where all kinds of PPE are needed are continually and fully stocked is a huge problem. I don't doubt that mistakes have been made and reasonable criticism is, to my mind, quite acceptable. However it seems to me that any politician of any party would struggle under the problems that this pandemic has brought up.
The BBC medical drama Holby City has donated fully working ventilators from its set at Elstree to be used in London's new NHS Nightingale Hospital.
It saves lives to ensure that every patient is greeted by a nurse or doctor wearing a fresh pair of gloves, a fresh gown and a fresh mask.Did Matt Hancock suggest otherwise?
Conservatism is a political philosophy which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.A lot of people seem to be seeing everything through the lens of their hatred of Conservatism.
Those statistics ignore exponential growth. Without the lockdown, how many deaths?That wasn't the point. He was presenting the figures to give some context as to what an extra 1,000 deaths per day means in the context of needing mortuaries (at least that's how I read it). In a normal year about 2,000 people die every day in the UK, so coronavirus is currently adding 50% more bodies to be dealt with. That's why we need temporary mortuaries.
Did Matt Hancock suggest otherwise?Yes, that has been very noticeable. I'd like to know why they think others, or they themselves, would have done better. Yes, perhaps some things might have been, but maybe more would not. It's impossible to know, and hindsight is easy.
No.
He said don't waste the gear.
A lot of people seem to be seeing everything through the lens of their hatred of Conservatism.
No doubt wastage in the NHS has been and is a significant problem - which the regular management re-organisations, attempting to solve it, have only exacerbated. But, there does not seem to have been any indication or evidence that any staff have been wasting ppe in the current crisis or that the procedures would allow them too.
Of course it is logistically difficult - but even more so when planning exercises to ensure that the NHS is prepared for epidemics are ignored - talk about waste! Germany does not seem to be struggling in the way we are.
As regards your last point, fair enough but remember Germany banned any PPE exports on March 4th in order to make sure it had enough. Perhaps we should have done the same earlier. I accept that is a valid criticism.
However, remember that we are not the only country which has had problems.
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/03-03-2020-shortage-of-personal-protective-equipment-endangering-health-workers-worldwide
Did Matt Hancock suggest otherwise?I totally agree with you jezza .
No.
He said don't waste the gear.
A lot of people seem to be seeing everything through the lens of their hatred of Conservatism.
...
A lot of people seem to be seeing everything through the lens of their hatred of Conservatism.
I totally agree with you jezza .
that could be a first ?
actually it's my daughter -in -law to be accurate, saney
Of course the BMA and Royal College of Nurses are just whinging. Nice to see you support the man whose incompetence and lying have put your daughter at risk.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8208991/Health-Secretary-Matt-Hancock-tells-medics-use-PPE-patients.html
That wasn't the point. He was presenting the figures to give some context as to what an extra 1,000 deaths per day means in the context of needing mortuaries (at least that's how I read it). In a normal year about 2,000 people die every day in the UK, so coronavirus is currently adding 50% more bodies to be dealt with. That's why we need temporary mortuaries.
actually it's my daughter -in -law to be accurate, saney
wasting and abusing equipment in the NHS is endemic, it has become 'normal practice' , I hope you have never been in hospital long enough to witness it .
actually it's my daughter -in -law to be accurate, saneyand saney if you don't agree i don't really care , this is all i have to say
wasting and abusing equipment in the NHS is endemic, it has become 'normal practice' , I hope you have never been in hospital long enough to witness it .
And you think that explains the lack of PPE? Because obviously you trust Hancock rather than front line workers.
and saney if you don't agree i don't really care , this is all i have to sayOf their's I prefer this which I think should be the Scottish national anthem
https://youtu.be/mEhkM3X_teQ
😘😘😘
do you spend hours in bed unable to sleep every night trying to eliminate the 'six degrees of separation' ?Whereas you wake up at 2.37, to realise you have been supporting an incompetent liar whose actions may lead to the death of your daughter-in-law, but then think 'hey, It's only a mask for me' and fall asleep at 2.40.
Of their's I prefer this which I think should be the Scottish national anthemwell I can't fault you there pal
https://youtu.be/ytii7-bUxuk
Whereas you wake up at 2.37, to realise you have been supporting an incompetent liar whose actions may lead to the death of your daughter-in-law, but then think 'hey, It's only a mask for me' and fall asleep at 2.40.fuck me ! DON'T
fuck me ! DON'T
, my son is almost at breaking point too . Fortunately she now has 7 days off work
but my previous post still applies
well I can't fault you there palSadly I don't think we celebrate them enough.
they have my admiration , their contribution to pop culture is to be celebrated , I trust Scotland is proud?
I spent time with them , I admired their commitment.
Then so does mine.today the sun and the gin has mellowed me a bit , and the fact she is OFF work for a while and i can see them both enjoying each others company outside in the fresh air sitting on their balcony overlooking the Dales ,renders me unable to argue stupidities on here any more today
today the sun and the gin has mellowed me a bit , and the fact she is OFF work for a while and i can see them both enjoying each others company outside in the fresh air sitting on their balcony overlooking the Dales ,renders me unable to argue stupidities on here any more todayLovely post. Just had a virtual planning
I am glad for them , I am pleased you are well too
so today just be glad to be alive old chap ,
best wishes
A criticism is either valid or not, don't see why political outlook would matter. In fact there is an underlying tendency for people to want to believe that their government is trustworthy and to have confidence in it.That might be true of general society, but it’s not true of some people on this forum.
If there is hatred, why assume it is the reason for criticism, rather than resulting from observation of previous performance?Because people are trying to crucify Matt Hancock for saying something that is common sense: don’t waste stuff that is in short supply.
If anything, the media spin is to try and make the government look half-competent - switching focus onto Boris' recovery or feel-good activities during lockdown stories.Yeah, it must be spin because in my mind there is no way the government could be half competent /sarcasm
That might be true of general society, but it’s not true of some people on this forum.So basically you are saying because you don't want people to be dying because of the govt, you will just deny it.
Because people are trying to crucify Matt Hancock for saying something that is common sense: don’t waste stuff that is in short supply. Yeah, it must be spin because in my mind there is no way the government could be half competent /sarcasm
And you know what? I’d really like some feel good stories right now.
So basically you are saying because you don't want people to be dying because of the govt, you will just deny it.Stop with this bullshit.
Stop with this bullshit.It exactly is that if it affects your inability to criticise the failings of the govt. Stop apologising for bad planning that has lead to the death of people on the front line.
Wanting a feel good story is not the same as denying the absolute horror of the situation.
That might be true of general society, but it’s not true of some people on this forum.
Because people are trying to crucify Matt Hancock for saying something that is common sense: don’t waste stuff that is in short supply. Yeah, it must be spin because in my mind there is no way the government could be half competent /sarcasm
And you know what? I’d really like some feel good stories right now.
I have nothing against you praying if you like, but I strongly advise you to follow the advice of medical professionals. Don't just trust your god to get you through this.
As God provided both why should we not use both? Some times I think people do hot realise we believe everything came from God. :)including coronavirus and child cancer
"I'm sorry if people feel like there have been failings." From Priti Patel this evening. Not an apology but an accusation that the BMA, the RCN are liars. That any front line staff who think they didn't have sufficient PPE are liars. But that's ok for those who eant to dismiss front line staff as whingers, and people wasting resources. It doesn't matter that people like my friend, still on a ventilator, might die because... Honestly up to them to justify why.In general, "I'm sorry you feel that way", "I'm sorry you were offended", and other sentences to that effect are weaselly non-apologies, beloved of politiciasns, which imply that the other person is thin-skinned. Thw word "sorry" on its own is decidedly weaselly. I'm sorry that I've never won s lottery jackpot, but that's not an apology. The only words thast cut the mustard are "I apologise", because they unequivocally take the blame.
Do you mean jakswan's own contribution or the post to which he was replying? I'm assuming the former.
I was referring to the event on 6 August 1945 - not the second explosion three days later.
Prof Ashton, who is also a former president of the Faculty of Public Health, told Sky News: "At the moment, a lot of what's going on in these briefings is coming very close to lies and we must prevent this from happening at all costs."
He said: "It may be one and a half times what we've got…it may even be twice as many…you know if I was to say well if it's 10, let's call it 20….is my truth any better than their truth in this?"
"We need to be able to see the data and crawl over it and really see what's really going on."
No doubt once this is all over, we will have inquiries to determine if what was done or not done was right or wrong at any time.Sorry but you are asking the government to square the circle. You can choose either minimal poverty or minimal excess deaths but not both. That is the reality of the situation.
The immediate concern is what needs to be done now given where we are. Disruption due to the epidemic will be with us for at least the next 6 months. The government should be planning for how society will operate during this time so that we can emerge with a workable economy and minimal poverty or excess deaths or illness.
I haven't seen any sign that they are prepared for this, or even what they will do in three weeks time when we find the peak hospitalisations have passed.
If they do have plans and are just keeping them secret - that in itself is a big mistake.
Good thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1249127908876128259.html?fbclid=IwAR2MNs3yI3jtphDlwfVXUckfLYiYZzDtcx8DrnNpJMDJY2k_ZwsrK3qBUwc
Sorry but you are asking the government to square the circle. You can choose either minimal poverty or minimal excess deaths but not both. That is the reality of the situation.
I'm sure the regrettable events of that time did involve the experimental as well as a terrible necessity to do something and to my mind terrible as it was it was to my mind the only option available at that time and it wasn't in totality wrong doing by the Americans that caused these events and it really gets up my nostrils when it's always, 'how wrong of the Americans', always gets front seat.
A joke going around....👍
'There is no cure for a virus that is killed by soap water...?!'
A joke going around...."It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
'There is no cure for a virus that is killed by soap water...?!'
I agree with you - almost completely. I think that, as you say, the Hiroshima bomb was "the only option at that time". My understanding is that its use and the immediate aftermath virtually paralysed the Japanese high command into total inaction and because Japan did not surrender immediately, Nagasaki was bombed.
It has been suggested that the Americans should have organised a demonstration of the atomic bomb on an uninhabited island rather than drop it on a major city, but the evidence suggests that Hiroshima had been selected as a suitable target some time before. It is enclosed by a ring of hills and the effects of blast and radiation would be contained. It was continually spared when other cities were subjected to fire bombing. Nagasaki was not a prime target and was only used because preferred targets were obscured by bad weather.
There is a very beautiful animated film, available from Amazon, entitled In This Corner of the World which is about ordinary Japanese people living in the Hiroshima area during World War 2. I highly recommend it.
But - as I said before - what has this to do with COVID-19?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52260970
An Oxford eye hospital has seen a increase in serious eye injuries since the lockdown, due to people doing DIY tasks without wearing eye protection.
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
er... but I did say minimal poverty OR excess deaths, not ... AND ...Well what you actually wrote was:
In any case, somewhat separately, I want a workable economy that minimizes poverty - ie. a fair, well balanced economy - not the one we had before covidHow do you know that the economy we had before is not the one that minimises poverty?
which left us unprepared for predictable eventsIf we'd had a huge stock pile of PPE or ventilators, we might have found it unusable when the crisis came around. You can be prepared for a crisis like this, but it has its own cost. You can't just fill a warehouse full of stuff and expect it to be usable in 50 years when the next pandemic happens. You've got to maintain it. You've got to have regular practice runs. It all costs money and time and opportunity. If it was as easy to be prepared for a pandemic as it is to rant about it on a message board, we would be prepared.
and is unable to cope with a temporary shutdown of non-essential activities.I think we are coping by and large.
I agree with you - almost completely. I think that, as you say, the Hiroshima bomb was "the only option at that time".The Hiroshima bomb was not the only option at the time. Two others that come to mind:
It has been suggested that the Americans should have organised a demonstration of the atomic bomb on an uninhabited island rather than drop it on a major city, but the evidence suggests that Hiroshima had been selected as a suitable target some time before. It is enclosed by a ring of hills and the effects of blast and radiation would be contained. It was continually spared when other cities were subjected to fire bombing. Nagasaki was not a prime target and was only used because preferred targets were obscured by bad weather.They only had two bombs. They probably wanted the highest possible impact to drive the message home to the Japanese. If they had just done a demonstration, Japan might have carried on "yes they've got this bomb, but they clearly won't use it against cities". One bomb wasted.
My friend who is on the ventilator is going to be given a tracheostomy as while her lungs and heart are doing ok, her body is very weak so this will give her more time conscious and allow more physio to be done.best wishes to your friend and yourself
But it's all okay, Princess Beatrice is going to raise our spirits next year.will I need a new suit?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1268047/princess-beatrice-royal-wedding-Edoardo-Mapelli-Mozzi-coronavirus
Edgy Eamonn = ignorant Eamonngood ol Eamonn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52270736
Well what you actually wrote was:
"we can emerge with a workable economy and minimal poverty or excess deaths or illness"
which literally means we could have minimal poverty or we could have excess deaths. However, I chose to interpret it as "we can emerge with a workable economy and minimal poverty or minimal excess deaths or illness" because that seemed more like your intent.
i.e. we could choose to focus on minimising poverty or minimising deaths. You could go for some middle way and accept some excess deaths in return for not having the worst possible economy and poverty but that course of action proved very unpopular. How do you know that the economy we had before is not the one that minimises poverty?
If we'd had a huge stock pile of PPE or ventilators, we might have found it unusable when the crisis came around. You can be prepared for a crisis like this, but it has its own cost. You can't just fill a warehouse full of stuff and expect it to be usable in 50 years when the next pandemic happens. You've got to maintain it. You've got to have regular practice runs. It all costs money and time and opportunity. If it was as easy to be prepared for a pandemic as it is to rant about it on a message board, we would be prepared.
I think we are coping by and large.
Something amazing and courageous: while recovering from a hip operation and skin cancer, 99yr old Tom Moore is walking 100 laps of his driveway (which is fairly lengthy) before his 100th birthday at the end of the month to raise money for the NHS. Bravo!!
Enjoy:
https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1248516062364106753
Capt. Tom Moore has now raised over £1m.It's great that he has done it.
Well done to you sir! :)
Capt. Tom Moore has now raised over £1m.
Well done to you sir! :)
Having a system to maintain sufficient stocks for epidemics or other natural or man made disasters is clearly do-able in an effective and efficient manner.Is it? Tell us how you would do it.
Even the preparations for brexit are likely to have helped us in the present one. You only need enough stocks - used as a reservoir so it doesn't become unusable - to keep you going until contingency plans, reassigning production as needed, kick in with sufficient fresh supplies.
Is it? Tell us how you would do it.
How many masks is "only enough"? How many ventilators? Where do you store them? How do you maintain them? Do you know what's involved in "reassigning production as needed"?
It's easy for us to say these things, but we are not the ones who have to actually do this. We can sit here smugly criticising the government for not being able to magic up as million masks or test kits and the drop of the hat, but there are people out there in the government and the NHS desperately trying to source the materiel the NHS needs to not collapse. I assure you, it's a lot harder than banging out "reassigning production as needed" on your keyboard.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/revealed-value-of-uk-pandemic-stockpile-fell-by-40-in-six-years
We actually kept a stock for such emergencies when other countries saw no need for their's and got rid of them. Yes, we're still short, but not as short as we could have been. And yes, they need renewing, which costs money, but this proves it was worth it.
Yes, my impression is that Germany and the Scandinavian countries (possibly apart from Sweden) were better prepared than the UK. ISTR even Italy had more ICU places.
....I assure you, it's a lot harder than banging out "reassigning production as needed" on your keyboard.I am sure it is. Doesn't mean that anyone can't rationally point out failings to use the recommendations from Cygnus, or the lies about sufficient PPE being available, or managing to screw up bulk buying with the EU because of ideology, and lying about that.
My friend has had the tracheostomy. Her husband asked about when she would be well enough to text. 2 weeks.Does this mean she's on the mend?
Does this mean she's on the mend?Bit by very slow bit. It's good news but doesn't mean this is a straight road.
Bit by very slow bit. It's good news but doesn't mean this is a straight road.
Cautiously positive. Good news. :)Thank you
Last week the Finnish goverment started to do random antibody tests and will do till the end of the year, so they can get a clearer picture of how widely the virus has spread. Initially they will only be able to do 750 tests a week in and around the capital but hope to gradually extend testing to the rest of the country. I might see if I can get it done privately. I have a suspicion I might have already had it around the turn of February/March. If it wasn't, it was certainly a dead ringer for it.
Cautiously positive. Good news. :)
The doctor said I qualify for the test. They have drive-in test points near me. I'll do it on the weekend.
I yearn for the rubber dub.
A bit of good news amidst all the gloom. A woman of 106 has been discharged from hospital after recovering from the virus. :)Good stuff! :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-52296196
I yearn for the rubber dub.I know what you mean. This sketch was originally meant to cover Irish pubs being open on Good Friday but it chimes with me.
I know what you mean. This sketch was originally meant to cover Irish pubs being open on Good Friday but it chimes with me.
https://youtu.be/mdBREoaRVzU
The news today in the UK is cautiously optimistic. Number of deaths each day seems to be down from the peak of nearly one thousand. New cases seem to have stabilized and positive tests seem to be on a downward trend. Number of people hospitalized has stabilized and decreased in London - the worst hit region.
The news today in the UK is cautiously optimistic. Number of deaths each day seems to be down from the peak of nearly one thousand. New cases seem to have stabilized and positive tests seem to be on a downward trend. Number of people hospitalized has stabilized and decreased in London - the worst hit region.The question is given the number of overall deaths whether those numbers are in any real sense accurate.
Today's deaths are up on those published yesterday. :(But only slightly. The general trend over the last few days is flat.
Our Down's Syndrome son is in a small care home with only three residents, but plenty of care staff. I am concerned that one of them might bring it into the home. Social distancing isn't possible.That must be very worrying. Do you know if they have had sufficient supplies of PPE?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52308783There's Wigginhall's answer.
9 in 10 people dying of the virus have an existing health condition. I see dementia is one of the conditions listed, I am not quite sure how one's mental health would cause one to die of the virus?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52308783
9 in 10 people dying of the virus have an existing health condition. I see dementia is one of the conditions listed, I am not quite sure how one's mental health would cause one to die of the virus?
From the BBC's rolling news
'More than 21 million Americans have lost their jobs in the past four weeks, new figures show. It is by far the worst run of job losses on record.
According to the latest figures from the Department of Labour, new unemployment claims reached 5.25 million in the week ending 11 April.
The previous week saw 6.6 million applications.
Much of the US population is under some form of lockdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, bringing the US economy to a virtual halt and forcing businesses big and small to lay off employees.
There are projections that the unemployment rate could reach 20% this month.
The US has almost 640,000 confirmed cases of the virus, and 30,985 people have died, according to Johns Hopkins University.'
From the BBC's rolling newssaney,
'More than 21 million Americans have lost their jobs in the past four weeks, new figures show. It is by far the worst run of job losses on record.
According to the latest figures from the Department of Labour, new unemployment claims reached 5.25 million in the week ending 11 April.
The previous week saw 6.6 million applications.
Much of the US population is under some form of lockdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, bringing the US economy to a virtual halt and forcing businesses big and small to lay off employees.
There are projections that the unemployment rate could reach 20% this month.
The US has almost 640,000 confirmed cases of the virus, and 30,985 people have died, according to Johns Hopkins University.'
saney,In 'murica we got gunz
flint knapping and wood working skills may be required in the future
In 'murica we got gunzdon't trust them Merkins 8)
I wish I'd wake up tomorrow and everything would be as it was. I go out to work but staying at home does my bloody head in. Even when I'm sick, two days at home and I start to get all fidgety and need to go out and meet people. Is this cabin fever? 😂
Last night I dreamed things had really gone to pot. I was forced back to work - over a faulty radio from a bunker. Family also sheltering in there...
Was quite relieved when I woke up to the Today programme :)
I've got cabin fever, we were scheduled to go to Bath and Norfolk, all off. However, it's OK, time for a drink!
Today's UK death total is 861 a rise on yesterday, it continues to go up not down.You mean it’s gone up two days in a row. That’s not a disaster as long as the trend doesn’t continue.
My husband has a problem for which I needed advice from our GP. They were supposed to phone me back yesterday morning, but didn't. When I phoned yesterday afternoon to find out why I hadn't heard anything I was told a prescription had been sent to the local pharmacy. Our surgery wants all their patients to use a special app to contact them. Unfortunately I have not been able to upload it onto my computer. Our eldest girl, or one of my grandsons, would normally do it for me, but with social distancing etc it is of course not possible. HEY HO!What's the app? I and others here might be able to help you out.
What's the app? I and others here might be able to help you out.
The instructions are very simple, but my computer refused to accept it for some reason, I have tried it out several times.I'll need more than that if I am going to be able to make any useful suggestions.
I'll need more than that if I am going to be able to make any useful suggestions.
However, is it definitely an app for computers? Most of the apps of this nature tend to be for mobile phones only.
It is also for computers. Thanks for offering to help but I need someone like one of my kids to show me how to do it in person. I am not brilliant at following instructions.I'm sure one of your children could come round and do it for you within the lockdown rules, as long as you stayed at least 2 metres apart, and maybe sterilised the keyboard before and after with a wipe.
I'm sure one of your children could come round and do it for you within the lockdown rules, as long as you stayed at least 2 metres apart, and maybe sterilised the keyboard before and after with a wipe.
My friend is now having half hour stints off and on the ventilator to help her be able to build up her chest muscles. Slow progress but progress.
My friend is now having half hour stints off and on the ventilator to help her be able to build up her chest muscles. Slow progress but progress.
Denmark is reopening some businesses, these are the ones that are considered important.Not as gobsmacked as I am that chiropractors are on the list. If I were i charge, they would be at or near the bottom and I'd forget to all them to open up again after the pandemic.
Hairdressers, dentists, tattooists and driving school instructors will be allowed to resume work. Other professions include:
Physiotherapists
Psychologists
Beauty and massage salons
Optometrists
Podiatrists
Spa clinics
Piercing studios
Chiropractors
I am gobsmacked that tattooists, beauty salons, and piercing studios are included in the list! :o
https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/
I listened to the whole of this - well worth while. A totally different perspective. Probably not a member of the A B deP Johnson fan club.
The figures speak for themselves. Sweden's death rate per million is ten times that of ours. So you tell the elderly and risk groups to stay at home and it doesn't matter how many get it. How long do they have to stay at home? They have all the burden put on then.
Where do you get those figures from ?
Sweden has a lower mortality rate per infected person than the UK (10.63% as opposed to the UK's 13.32%), it also has a lower death rate per head of total population ( 0.01% as opposed to the UK's 0.02%) and a lower known infection rate per head of population (0.12% as opposed to the UK's 0.16%)
France has a very high mortality rate 16.46%, the highest of any large country
Compared to Finland.
https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/
I listened to the whole of this - well worth while. A totally different perspective. Probably not a member of the A B deP Johnson fan club.
including coronavirus and child cancer
Does death really respect age, sex or cause/ The bible is clear that God created man and everything to be good and nothing harmful. Man disobeyed God and brought the fall and the bad things from Satan handing mankind over to his will and harm for man. You throw these things in as if it somehow supports your beliefs about God. But the bible shows God is good and it shows if mankind trusts what he has done they can find his will for their lives now before they face the last judgement. You make your own decisions and you therefore by your choice decide who rules your life and your world. God does not want children dying of cancer and coronavirus I believe is manmade in his labs. When all men at the top care about is money and power how do you expect them to give the healing treatment and lose multi billion pounds from drugs being sold to treat people? We can argue about what is here forever but we have to know what God has to offer before it all ends and you realise like so many that you were wrong. Deception is something Satan is good at.The Bible shows your god to a murderous psychopath who killed everyone but 8 people, murdered the first born in Egypt,and approved of beating slaves, and rape of women.
Does death really respect age, sex or cause/Your chance of dying in the next year is very strongly correlated to age.
The bible is clear that God created man and everything to be good and nothing harmful. Man disobeyed God and brought the fall and the bad things from Satan handing mankind over to his will and harm for man. You throw these things in as if it somehow supports your beliefs about God. But the bible shows God is good and it shows if mankind trusts what he has done they can find his will for their lives now before they face the last judgement. You make your own decisions and you therefore by your choice decide who rules your life and your world. God does not want children dying of cancerI was going to write a detailed rebuttal of this, but since we are on the coronavirus thread and it would be a derail, I am just going to say you can take your religious nonsense and shove it up your own arse.
and coronavirus I believe is manmade in his labs.This is almost certainly a falsehood. Please stop spreading untruths.
When all men at the top care about is money and power how do you expect them to give the healing treatment and lose multi billion pounds from drugs being sold to treat people? We can argue about what is here forever but we have to know what God has to offer before it all ends and you realise like so many that you were wrong. Deception is something Satan is good at.Hopefully there's still some room up your own arse to shove this up it too.
Does death really respect age, sex or cause/ The bible is clear that God created man and everything to be good and nothing harmful. Man disobeyed God and brought the fall and the bad things from Satan handing mankind over to his will and harm for man. You throw these things in as if it somehow supports your beliefs about God. But the bible shows God is good and it shows if mankind trusts what he has done they can find his will for their lives now before they face the last judgement. You make your own decisions and you therefore by your choice decide who rules your life and your world. God does not want children dying of cancer and coronavirus I believe is manmade in his labs. When all men at the top care about is money and power how do you expect them to give the healing treatment and lose multi billion pounds from drugs being sold to treat people? We can argue about what is here forever but we have to know what God has to offer before it all ends and you realise like so many that you were wrong. Deception is something Satan is good at.
Does death really respect age, sex or cause/ The bible is clear that God created man and everything to be good and nothing harmful. Man disobeyed God and brought the fall and the bad things from Satan handing mankind over to his will and harm for man. You throw these things in as if it somehow supports your beliefs about God. But the bible shows God is good and it shows if mankind trusts what he has done they can find his will for their lives now before they face the last judgement. You make your own decisions and you therefore by your choice decide who rules your life and your world. God does not want children dying of cancer and coronavirus I believe is manmade in his labs. When all men at the top care about is money and power how do you expect them to give the healing treatment and lose multi billion pounds from drugs being sold to treat people? We can argue about what is here forever but we have to know what God has to offer before it all ends and you realise like so many that you were wrong. Deception is something Satan is good at.
There may be a vaccine by autumn.
There may be a vaccine by autumn.
The figures speak for themselves. Sweden's death rate per million is ten times that of ours. So you tell the elderly and risk groups to stay at home and it doesn't matter how many get it. How long do they have to stay at home? They have all the burden put on then.
I doubt it. At least, I doubt it will be ready to vaccinate the general population.It's what some Oxford scientists are saying - and, as the i points out, scientists are notoriously cautious.
It's what some Oxford scientists are saying - and, as the i points out, scientists are notoriously cautious.You mean these ones?
Does death really respect age, sex or cause/ The bible is clear that God created man and everything to be good and nothing harmful. Man disobeyed God and brought the fall and the bad things from Satan handing mankind over to his will and harm for man. You throw these things in as if it somehow supports your beliefs about God. But the bible shows God is good and it shows if mankind trusts what he has done they can find his will for their lives now before they face the last judgement. You make your own decisions and you therefore by your choice decide who rules your life and your world. God does not want children dying of cancer and coronavirus I believe is manmade in his labs. When all men at the top care about is money and power how do you expect them to give the healing treatment and lose multi billion pounds from drugs being sold to treat people? We can argue about what is here forever but we have to know what God has to offer before it all ends and you realise like so many that you were wrong. Deception is something Satan is good at.In my opinion, that post is not only disgracefully wrong information, but an insult to those who are carrying out the restrictions placed on us and those who are working to heal.
Idiots
https://metro.co.uk/video/packed-scenes-westminster-bridge-8pm-clap-carers-2153754/
People gathered on Westminster Bridge to clap the NHS. Don't they have any idea why this clapping keeps happening?
Also, the police were joining in.
Sometimes people are just stupid.
You mean these ones?The BBC is being optimistic, not the scientists. In the more sober i report, they were saying there was an 80% chance they'd have a vaccine by the autumn, but it might not work.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52329659
They haven’t even started trials yet. I’d say they’re being optimistic.
Does death really respect age, sex or cause/ The bible is clear that God created man and everything to be good and nothing harmful. Man disobeyed God and brought the fall and the bad things from Satan handing mankind over to his will and harm for man. You throw these things in as if it somehow supports your beliefs about God. But the bible shows God is good and it shows if mankind trusts what he has done they can find his will for their lives now before they face the last judgement. You make your own decisions and you therefore by your choice decide who rules your life and your world. God does not want children dying of cancer and coronavirus I believe is manmade in his labs. When all men at the top care about is money and power how do you expect them to give the healing treatment and lose multi billion pounds from drugs being sold to treat people? We can argue about what is here forever but we have to know what God has to offer before it all ends and you realise like so many that you were wrong. Deception is something Satan is good at.
This really makes no sense at all.
The BBC is being optimistic, not the scientists. In the more sober i report, they were saying there was an 80% chance they'd have a vaccine by the autumn, but it might not work.
Cptn Tom Moore has now raised over 23M for NHS charities. One of my worries about this is that people might think this a significantly large number. Let's consider that even if he were to make 100M, it is way less than 0.1% of the annual budget of the NHSThe umbrella charity, representing a number of NHS charities, to which the money is going, has an explicit rule that its financial contributions must not go on core services, such as nurses' and doctors' salaries. It goes towards extras, which make hospital patients' stays pleasanter: toys for children's wards, artwork to cheer up adult wards, etc. I think £23m will make quite a difference there.
Cptn Tom Moore has now raised over 23M for NHS charities. One of my worries about this is that people might think this a significantly large number. Let's consider that even if he were to make 100M, it is way less than 0.1% of the annual budget of the NHS
The umbrella charity, representing a number of NHS charities, to which the money is going, has an explicit rule that its financial contributions must not go on core services, such as nurses' and doctors' salaries. It goes towards extras, which make hospital patients' stays pleasanter: toys for children's wards, artwork to cheer up adult wards, etc. I think £23m will make quite a difference there.Yes, I get that but people think the number itself is significant in terms of what happens in the NHS because they don't understand the scale. It won't.
I was perusing the statistics on https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus I'm in shock because they are reporting that the USA had almost 5,000 deaths yesterday. I sincerely hope it is an error or an artefact of the Easter weekend (delayed reporting perhaps).
I've bookmarked the link. The problem with the US is Trump and his GOP State cohorts have done everything to stop both testing (Trump does not want accurate numbers because of how it might negatively affect the Stock Market) and accurate data on deaths. I've read where hospitals in conservative states (like Florida here) are complaining that their reports on the COVID related deaths are not being counted. I follow the John's Hopkins data, but even there, they are limited to what's available.
The only government official I listen to is Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York. He holds daily briefings on New York, but his information shows just how effective a government official can be when lives are more important than the stock market, but also when trying to keep the economy from senselessly suffering. On the latter, he was the first to mention how an antibody test could allow people who have had COVID and recovered to return to the workplace, and also possibly help be part of a cure or treatment by donating their blood plasma. Oh, how I wish someone like him was in charge of the federal government. (I'll bet he wishes the same thing.)
My friend managed to sit up today!That is bad news indeed. I wonder how his children have fared if they have not had the regular childhood vaccinations.
That is bad news indeed. I wonder how his children have fared if they have not had the regular childhood vaccinations.I think you quoted the wrong post! Did you mean the one about Djocovic?
I think you quoted the wrong post! Did you mean the one about Djocovic?
My friend managed to sit up today!Good news! ;D
thank you very much for the correction - yes, you are right.No problem, I assumed that is what happened. O don't know if Djokovic is anti vax in principle,or whether it s just against the proposed compulsory vaccination here.
My apologies to NS.
The figures for overall deaths show the impact of the virus far more clearly than the daily death figures
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519
If by some remote and extremely unlikely chance, I was infected by the virus by someone coming into the house to mend something, how long does it take for the symptoms to show? I tried the website but I can't negotiate it.
The incubation period (the time before symptoms begin to show) varies between 1 and 14 days, with an average of about 5 days. However, it is possible be asymptomatic so someone could have covid and recover without noticing any symptoms.Thannk you. Someone came here today and vacuumed the downstairs fllor. - which really needed doing. She was wearing a mask. My cleaner is down in Somerset.
Coronavirus infects the lungs. The two main symptoms are a fever or a dry cough, which can sometimes lead to breathing problems.Thank you, LR. I knew the symptoms, but couldn't remember the info about the 7 or 14 days. I'm not listening to the news any more.
The cough to look out for is a new, continuous cough. This means coughing a lot for more than an hour, or having three or more coughing episodes in 24 hours. If you usually have a cough, it may be worse than usual.
You have a fever if your temperature is above 37.8C. This can make you feel warm, cold or shivery.
A sore throat, headache and diarrhoea have also been reported and a loss of smell and taste may also be a symptom.
It takes five days on average to start showing the symptoms, but some people will get them much later. The World Health Organization (WHO) says the incubation period lasts up to 14 days.
Coronavirus infects the lungs. The two main symptoms are a fever or a dry cough, which can sometimes lead to breathing problems.
The cough to look out for is a new, continuous cough. This means coughing a lot for more than an hour, or having three or more coughing episodes in 24 hours. If you usually have a cough, it may be worse than usual.
You have a fever if your temperature is above 37.8C. This can make you feel warm, cold or shivery.
A sore throat, headache and diarrhoea have also been reported and a loss of smell and taste may also be a symptom.
It takes five days on average to start showing the symptoms, but some people will get them much later. The World Health Organization (WHO) says the incubation period lasts up to 14 days.
Cheering story
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52369708
https://t.co/YPPhk6f4msIt seems logically argued for.
Scary estimate by FT of 41 000 deaths in UK, many outside hospital. Let's hope this is inaccurate.
https://t.co/YPPhk6f4ms
Scary estimate by FT of 41 000 deaths in UK, many outside hospital. Let's hope this is inaccurate.
Yes but it's not based on anything. It's based on extrapolating the total excess deaths between mid March and April 10th to today in a straight line. They don't give any justification for doing that.There's some more detail here
There's some more detail here
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1252841436317315072.html
There's some more detail here
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1252841436317315072.html
It's assumption 3 that I am sceptical about. The "stable pattern" could change over time. For example, there are probably excess deaths caused by people being unable to get the treatment they need due to hospital capacity being overloaded. As the Nightingale hospitals come on line and the peak of people in hospital seems to have been passed, the number of people unable to get the treatment they need should decrease.
Anyone else read the Tony Blair strategy document?
Linked from:
https://institute.global/policy/sustainable-exit-strategy-managing-uncertainty-minimising-harm
Seems a reasonable plan, well set out. Shame that no-one listens to anything TB says nowadays - but why can't the gov. just explain how they are going to go about doing anything?
Is there any evidence of the capacity being overloaded and people being unable to get treatment? In general the lock down measures have suppressed covid infections so that they have not - the Nightingale hospitals have been little used (just as well if they can't be staffed).
There is evidence of people not presenting at hospital due to fear of infection.
but why can't the gov. just explain how they are going to go about doing anything?
My friend has been off the ventilator for 24 hours and manged to sit on a chair for a short time. They are talking about her being moved out from the ITU into the High Dependency Unit in a few days!!!
My friend has been off the ventilator for 24 hours and manged to sit on a chair for a short time. They are talking about her being moved out from the ITU into the High Dependency Unit in a few days!!!Brilliant news. We need it right now.
My friend has been off the ventilator for 24 hours and manged to sit on a chair for a short time. They are talking about her being moved out from the ITU into the High Dependency Unit in a few days!!!
Hope all goes well, NS.Thanks. It's going to be a long slow road.
My friend has been off the ventilator for 24 hours and manged to sit on a chair for a short time. They are talking about her being moved out from the ITU into the High Dependency Unit in a few days!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52378845
A second wave of the coronavirus in the US could be much worse than the first, apparently they have already had 800,000 cases in that country.
Businesses that are important are already open. Pubs are important morale-boosters.
Pubs are one of the least important places, which should be opened anytime soon, people drink far too much, imo.You are the ultimate solipsist. anything you dislike or disapprove of ought to be banned, or at the very least doesn't matter, and objective arguments have no impact on you.
When the lock down is eventually eased it should be businesses that are important, which are opened first, the leisure industry can wait, imo. A second round of Covid-19 could be even worse than the first, which is bad enough.Would you support the Govt continuing to pay 80% of the wages for all leisure industry workers currently being supported by the furlough scheme until they are allowed to open?
Businesses that are important are already open. Pubs are important morale-boosters.
When the lock down is eventually eased it should be businesses that are important, which are opened first, the leisure industry can wait, imo. A second round of Covid-19 could be even worse than the first, which is bad enough.
Pubs are one of the least important places, which should be opened anytime soon, people drink far too much, imo.
The leisure industry is important.It most certainly is. It keeps me out of the doctor's surgery, and gives me a routine of something I can organise and do independently.
Pubs won't be among the businesses that open first because it's hard to social distance in a pub. In fact, the purpose of a pub is the opposite of social distancing.
However, the thing I really want to do now more than anything else in the world is sit in a pub and have a beer with my brother. I vote for them being reopened as soon as it is safe-ish to do so.
Our head of our health and welfare institute said today that a majority of the population need to get the virus so that we can be safe. This was just his opinion and not government policy but I just can't agree with that opinion. It puts all the burden on the risk groups to self isolate. Totally cut off from normal society. Exit strategies have to include risk groups.
That was UK policy briefly, herd immunity. We had to drop it when data from Italy revealed a hospitalisation rate that would have overwhelmed the health service. Add to that, the fact that the more the virus spreads, the more opportunities it has to mutate, and that risks new strains emerging that could be more infectious, or more lethal, or both. High risk strategy.It still is UK policy. If you want the virus to go away, herd immunity will be the only way to stop it given how infectious it is.
It still is UK policy. If you want the virus to go away, herd immunity will be the only way to stop it given how infectious it is.
That was UK policy briefly, herd immunity. We had to drop it when data from Italy revealed a hospitalisation rate that would have overwhelmed the health service. Add to that, the fact that the more the virus spreads, the more opportunities it has to mutate, and that risks new strains emerging that could be more infectious, or more lethal, or both. High risk strategy.
It still is UK policy. If you want the virus to go away, herd immunity will be the only way to stop it given how infectious it is.
Vaccine!If we aren't sure that having had the virus confers immunity, then that undermined a working vaccine, and will extend any testing.
Except of course that as yet, they are not sure that infection confers immunity. And as has been pointed out before herd immunity is fine when arrived at by vaccine, not so easily done by way of hundreds of thousands of deaths.A vaccine is many months away and is, of course, also a form of herd immunity in itself. The lockdown strategy is all about slowing the rate of infection to levels manageable by the NHS. Don’t fool yourself into thinking it’s about anything more than containment until we can achieve herd immunity or find some other effective treatment.
Vaccine!That’s herd immunity but at lower risk than catching the disease.
Indeed. Very risky. Sweden is a good example.I saw this morning that they have a population of 10 million, and 2,000 deaths from coronavirus. That is lower than the proportion of deaths in England relative to its population. Also, the daily death toll has been diminishing from about 100 to about 20 over the last 2 weeks:
A vaccine is many months away and is, of course, also a form of herd immunity in itself. The lockdown strategy is all about slowing the rate of infection to levels manageable by the NHS. Don’t fool yourself into thinking it’s about anything more than containment until we can achieve herd immunity or find some other effective treatment.
I saw this morning that they have a population of 10 million, and 2,000 deaths from coronavirus. That is lower than the proportion of deaths in England relative to its population. Also, the daily death toll has been diminishing from about 100 to about 20 over the last 2 weeks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Sweden
So, risky, yes, but they expect to reach herd immunity within weeks.
The deaths deem to go in waves. Today was about 80 deaths, I think, but the day before that was about 170 and the day before that about 180. Deaths per million are 200, that's somwhere between that of the USA and the UK. Compared to the other Nordic countries that's about 3 times as much as Denmark and about 6-7 times as much as Norway or Finland. So not good.Strange - the table on the wiki page shows 18 new deaths today. Still, whether lockdown is or isn't slowing the infection and mortality rate, it is certainly having a huge effect on pollution in cities.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The leisure industry is important.Yes, it is, but not in the short term. Schools are even more important, but they've closed temporarily.
Yes, it is, but not in the short term. Schools are even more important, but they've closed temporarily.Which is a false dichotomy. At no point did jp make a comparison with schools, or suggest they are not important.
Which is a false dichotomy. At no point did jp make a comparison with schools, or suggest they are not important.It isn't a dichotomy at all, and I didn't suggest that JP did make that comparison. I made it, to point out that something can be important in the medium-to-long term, but less so in the short term. Stop picking arguments for the sake of it.
It isn't a dichotomy at all, and I didn't suggest that JP did make that comparison. I made it, to point out that something can be important in the medium-to-long term, but less so in the short term. Stop picking arguments for the sake of it.You presented it as a dichotomy. If you don't want to be picked up on that you need to write better and clearer. Stop attributing motivation to others because you are not able to express yourself clearly.
You presented it as a dichotomy. If you don't want to be picked up on that you need to write better and clearer. Stop attributing motivation to others because you are not able to express yourself clearly.Do you even know what "dichotomy" means? It means a contrast between two things which are different. I was comparing two things which are, in the relevant respect, the same.
Do you even know what "dichotomy" means? It means a contrast between two things which are different. I was comparing two things which are, in the relevant respect, the same.You really struggle with this sort of basic concept. You added another thing and then portrayed jeremyp as arguing against the second idea. That is the fecking definition of a false dichotomy. Learn to think a bit.
You really struggle with this sort of basic concept. You added another thing and then portrayed jeremyp as arguing against the second idea. That is the fecking definition of a false dichotomy. Learn to think a bit.Completely wrong from start to finish. You are as ignorant as you are rude, and as rude as you are childish.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
"So it'd be interesting to check that."
Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what."
Completely wrong from start to finish. You are as ignorant as you are rude, and as rude as you are childish.I may well be rude. I am also right. I have put the argument explaining why. You have merely asserted that I am wrong with no explanation.
You obviously don't know the meaning of "hypocrite", either.Thank you for succinctly proving my point.
The USA is not the world's richest country by per capita gnp, the only sensible measure; it is either Qatar or Liechtenstein, depending on who's doing the measuring. The USA is 10th, 11th, or 13th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177You first, Donald...
I hope you are all injecting yourselves with disinfectant to keep the virus away? The latest advice from the White House lunatic! >:( >:( >:( Unfortunately the very gullible may believe his 'pearls of wisdom' and do just that, killing themselves in the process! :o
I'm not fooling myself. I just don't see an easy way out currently.
I have heard much talk about shielding the vulnerable lately, which as far as I can see is anyone over 60 or with a condition that makes them more likely to be seriously ill (or die) from the virus.
Even if that is possible and long term it sounds really difficult to sustain, the health service is still going to be at full stretch if the rest of the population is let out of lockdown in some way. The virus really is not that predictable and we would still be suffering huge numbers ill and dying in the lower age groups, with the strain that will put on the NHS - not to mention the add on deaths from the postponement of cancer treatments and all the other diseases we also need to be focusing on.
Having read all that, I think what I am trying to say is that unless we get a vaccine or efficient treatment of the symptoms by medication then we are fucked.
Which is a false dichotomy. At no point did jp make a comparison with schools, or suggest they are not important.
It isn't a dichotomy at all, and I didn't suggest that JP did make that comparison.To be honest, it did sort of look like you were saying that, but now you've clarified it, I accept that I misinterpreted your post.
I made it, to point out that something can be important in the medium-to-long term, but less so in the short term. Stop picking arguments for the sake of it.It is all about priorities. Right now the priority is to prevent the NHS from collapsing, because, if it did, it would cost many more lives than it is at the moment. However, once that danger is past, we'll be able to open up other activities. Schools will probably be first but then some parts of the leisure industry can be looked at amongst other things.
We are so fortunate that the most powerful and richest country in the world has a chief executive who can think so creatively ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177
And his ability to express complex, innovative and revolutionary ideas in such a simple and direct manner is so refreshing ...
He will, surely, go down in history as one of the great masters of the English language.
The USA is not the world's richest country by per capita gnp, the only sensible measure; it is either Qatar or Liechtenstein, depending on who's doing the measuring. The USA is 10th, 11th, or 13th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capitaNo, but it is the richest country. Its GDP is significantly higher than the second richest country - China - even though it has about a quarter of the population.
I'd like to hear one of these people who talk about tracking to explain how they could track people who do not have fancy phones and only have a simple mobile phone which is turned off all the time unless required to phone for a taxi. And have no intention of buying said fancy smart phone - can't use them anyway.In order to be effective it wouldn't need to have 100% coverage.
I'd like to hear one of these people who talk about tracking to explain how they could track people who do not have fancy phones and only have a simple mobile phone which is turned off all the time unless required to phone for a taxi. And have no intention of buying said fancy smart phone - can't use them anyway.They'd have to do it the old fashioned way by asking you who you'd been in contact with.
In order to be effective it wouldn't need to have 100% coverage.Yes. You don't have to stop all infection, only keep R0 below 1.
There is another way and that is strict contact tracking. But it basically means when somebody gets ill, everybody they have been in contact with has to be tracked down and tested and isolated if they have the disease. I believe that is how South Korea is managing the disease. It seems to have worked for them, but it would be much more difficult for us unless we reduce the number of cases significantly.
One of my daughters has just sent me a photo of a funeral director's office with a banner on the window, which says, 'Thank You NHS'! WHOOPS!This one.
The prime minister’s chief political adviser, Dominic Cummings, and a data scientist he worked with on the Vote Leave campaign for Brexit are on the secret scientific group advising the government on the coronavirus pandemic, according to a list leaked to the Guardian.
It reveals that both Cummings and Ben Warner were among 23 attendees present at a crucial convening of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) on 23 March, the day Boris Johnson announced a nationwide lockdown in a televised address.
Multiple attendees of Sage told the Guardian that both Cummings and Warner had been taking part in meetings of the group as far back as February.
This one.
https://images.app.goo.gl/CfytVNiShCeB9LE9A
On my daily walks, seeing as you can't do much else apart from go to work and stay at home I've started Geocaching. Maybe a rucksack with a few sneeky beers. Quite fun but a lot of them are quite hard to find, but that's the point I suppose.I used to do a lot of geocaching. Maybe I’ll take it up again during lockdown.
The hair clippers on sale in Boots the Chemist and other electrical goods shops sell these hair clippers along with combs...Exactly. You can also get a 1.5" comb, I even got a 2" one shipped from the US.
Seriously I go for a short all over nice and tidy and doesn't dangle in the eyes haircut, why pay, I don't know know, say £20 when you can buy a pair of these clippers for somewhere around £10 to £15 and after two or three haircuts you've got your money back, no sitting around waiting your turn.
I see that idiot, David Icke, has been removed from Facebook, for making false statements about Covid-19.Mentally ill, I think, rather than idiotic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52501453
Mentally ill, I think, rather than idiotic.
Mentally ill, I think, rather than idiotic.He makes a living out it.
.....and another one ..... https://tinyurl.com/ya2g98lu
'Some of my best friends are Jewish'As far as I can tell, every other country is putting up with lockdown, however grudgingly, on the whole. Only the yanks are kicking up a stink about it on a big scale, all in the name of liberty, of course. Frankly, I think the yanks over-fetishise liberty.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-arbeit-macht-frei-nazi-slogans-at-illinois-rally-against-coronovirus-lockdown-1.8815257?fbclid=IwAR1Erh6D-oxFJSu0YZe6oug_DwedxJM2Ux32Xm2UVmUkjyzVStVFjnC7Ndo
As far as I can tell, every other country is putting up with lockdown, however grudgingly, on the whole. Only the yanks are kicking up a stink about it on a big scale, all in the name of liberty, of course. Frankly, I think the yanks over-fetishise liberty.
You haven't been observing lockdown by cycling out of your home district for exercise, which you aren't permitted to do. ::)We are allowed to cycle as exercise, and I don't go more than about 15 miles from home, and I observe social distancing, and mind your own bloody business.
Covid-19 seems to be the strangest virus humans have ever encountered. :o
We'll eventually get to herd immunity, presumably, and the disease will live on at a low level as a permanent feature of life.There’s no guarantee of herd immunity.
As far as I can tell, every other country is putting up with lockdown, however grudgingly, on the whole. Only the yanks are kicking up a stink about it on a big scale, all in the name of liberty, of course. Frankly, I think the yanks over-fetishise liberty.There have been some protests in the USA but they are not as widespread or well supported as the media makes it appear. Most of the protests have been from just a handful of people.
There’s no guarantee of herd immunity.
I thought the issue of immunity hasn't been resolved for people who've had the virus. Also, if herd immunity does exist in the future, how many deaths would also occur?I doubt we will have it completely resolved but the news has been better of late
There have been some protests in the USA but they are not as widespread or well supported as the media makes it appear. Most of the protests have been from just a handful of people.And some protests here.
I thought the issue of immunity hasn't been resolved for people who've had the virus. Also, if herd immunity does exist in the future, how many deaths would also occur?
There seems to be a level of immunity (with earlier suspected cases of re-infection now having been discounted). But we don't yet know if immunity is likely to last over a long period or over virus changes. Neither do we know of any long term complications that might be caused by infection.
If the disease persists in the long term we will get used to it as just a another condition tackled with a variety of drugs where needed.
We also don't know that there aren't long term complications for obvious reasons. My friend who has had a serious bout of it has had lots of damage to her lungs and heart and if is not clear that will completely heal.
Yes, from reports, a serious attack can be a major trauma even without needing to go onto ventilator. Hope she does have a rapid recovery.So the current prognosis is another 2 months in hospital and 18 months physio after that. But today she asked for their netflix password and that small thing feels so feckin important
Israel also claims a breakthrough.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/coronavirus-israel-claims-breakthrough-that-can-neutralise-covid-19-1.1014995
Israel also claims a breakthrough.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/coronavirus-israel-claims-breakthrough-that-can-neutralise-covid-19-1.1014995
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/vote-leave-ai-firm-wins-seven-government-contracts-in-18-monthsI think your concerns are unfounded. Here’s how it works
Although I do see mobile technology using a smatphone app as a (partial) solution or at least an aid in contact tracing, it can't possibly work unless it is trusted. I don't think the NHSX app can be.
What is needed is an open source app based on the decentralized Apple/Google framework, that is interoperable worldwide.
Also see:Clearly a completely different issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/04/uk-government-using-crisis-to-transfer-nhs-duties-to-private-sector
UK government clearly gaming the pandemic and handing out sweeties to their mates.
What a fucking prick Matt Hancock is!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/uk-minister-matt-hancock-tells-mp-rosena-allin-khan-to-watch-her-tone-twitter-tells-him-to-watch-his
I think your concerns are unfounded. Here’s how it works
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/security-behind-nhs-contact-tracing-app
...
What a fucking prick Matt Hancock is!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/uk-minister-matt-hancock-tells-mp-rosena-allin-khan-to-watch-her-tone-twitter-tells-him-to-watch-his
Hmmm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nigel-farage-police-visit-lockdown-restrictions-dover-migrant-report-a9498936.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3tvaapLW0U7WbqRrNmwG-yqEbboRWIS3YxO1Nwpqt9duHYKYZHu65Loqg#Echobox=1588677457
Theresa May's take. Which I actually agree with.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/theresa-may-criticises-world-response-to-coronavirus-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR1mGJ2GEDRKOd9Hg3oGUKurFrTC4jsXYhq_vIfUamwgF0TlooVTD06Ph-8
I know how it is supposed to work. People will decide for themselves whether to use it or not unless it is made mandatory. I expect that if it doesn't work we will fall back to the German app/system - losing yet more months.What makes you think the German app is any better than hours.
Theresa May's take. Which I actually agree with.Yes, she's right. I suspect part of the problem is that the post of "leader of the free world" is currently vacant.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/theresa-may-criticises-world-response-to-coronavirus-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR1mGJ2GEDRKOd9Hg3oGUKurFrTC4jsXYhq_vIfUamwgF0TlooVTD06Ph-8
What makes you think the German app is any better than hours.
Also why wouldn't it work?
Yes, she's right. I suspect part of the problem is that the post of "leader of the free world" is currently vacant.
In the the three months prior to UK lockdown, 18m people entered the UK. How many will enter the UK after lockdown is lifted? How will the app work whilst abroad or if in contact with someone who is travelling?
How will it work for people in Ireland/NI?
The German app is based on a common Apple/Google framework and can be interoperable with others also built on that.
That's very interesting Ad-orientum & I'll read more about it. It's first I've read today about Coronavirus, thought I'd have a day off, slept and cycled with husband for a change (the cycling I mean ;). I don't know what's happening here, wot Boris has said today but nothing new I guess. Will put news on later. Hope you're all keeping well.
In the the three months prior to UK lockdown, 18m people entered the UK. How many will enter the UK after lockdown is lifted? How will the app work whilst abroad or if in contact with someone who is travelling?
How will it work for people in Ireland/NI?
The German app is based on a common Apple/Google framework and can be interoperable with others also built on that.
So those people on the front line who point out that govt statements about PPE were wrong should have just shut up? No. That isn't cynicism.
Hey guys.. Why don't you quit this habitual cynicism, criticism and scorn. The world is in crisis. All countries are facing the same problems and I am sure the people in your government are doing their best.
Help along, at least in word and gesture, if not through actual front line efforts.
Hey guys.. Why don't you quit this habitual cynicism, criticism and scorn. The world is in crisis. All countries are facing the same problems and I am sure the people in your government are doing their best.
Help along, at least in word and gesture, if not through actual front line efforts.
Nope. If they were doing their best we wouldn't have the highest death rate in Europe.To be fair we might still have that if they were doing their best but were dangerously fucking incompetent.
You really need to stop to think before you post.
Nope. If they were doing their best we wouldn't have the highest death rate in Europe.
You really need to stop to think before you post.
Nothing wrong with criticism, especially if it's constructive, but it pays to get the facts straight first surely. At this point in time the UK doesn't have the highest death rate in Europe. Spain, Italy and particularly Belgium have worse death rate figures than us.
The Apple/Google app framework still needs a database of ids of people who have tested positive. If each country's app uses its own database, then they will not be interoperable. If there is a global database, fine, but who controls it? Google? Apple? Donald Trump? The WHO in collusion with China?In theory the key lists* can be uploaded/downloaded from multiple servers or shared/distributed between servers or countries without risk of loss of any personal or location data - depends on implementation choices by countries.
Furthermore, by recording the first part of your postcode when you register, the NHS app can be used for resource planning. That seems like a huge advantage to me.
The government has left open the prospect of ditching its own contact-tracing app in favour of the “decentralised” model favoured by Apple and Google after it was revealed that a feasibility study into such a change is under way.
After repeated warnings that the UK will be an outlier if it insists on using its own centralised app rather than relying on Google and Apple’s technology, rights groups and MPs said on Thursday that the lack of privacy and data protections could mean that the app would be illegal.
For some reason I keep thinking of that Mayor in Jaws, who to save the economy of the town told everyone it was safe to go back into the water.
Scientists over here have developed a vaccine ready for testing by about midsummer.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish-developed_open-source_coronavirus_vaccine_nearly_ready_for_testing/11342151
For some reason I keep thinking of that Mayor in Jaws, who to save the economy of the town told everyone it was safe to go back into the water."What's Jaws?"
Nope. If they were doing their best we wouldn't have the highest death rate in Europe.We don't have the highest death rate in Europe.
In theory the key lists* can be uploaded/downloaded from multiple servers or shared/distributed between servers or countries without risk of loss of any personal or location data - depends on implementation choices by countries.In theory...
Not really, as the system has to operate seamlessly with manual contact tracing and the testing/isolation system.What makes you think it won't?
ATM it is is not even clear what the NHSX app user is supposed to do if they are alerted or have symptoms. The data should be collected from the (fully operational) testing system.Isn't it? You don't know what to do if you find out somebody you were in contact with yesterday is positive or if you start experiencing symptoms?
- Essentially, they have contracted a Swiss company to investigate how the app could be switched to the Apple-Google spec.All well and good, but none of that means the NHSX app was worthless or insecure.
ETA: Better link:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/07/uk-may-ditch-nhs-contact-tracing-app-for-apple-and-google-model
* Note that the lists are keys that have been in proximity to someone having symptoms or confirmed as infected - not ids of those reporting infection.
For some reason I keep thinking of that Mayor in Jaws, who to save the economy of the town told everyone it was safe to go back into the water.Which is precisely the opposite of the British Government's line. Or were you thinking of Donald Trump?
We don't have the highest death rate in Europe.
Isn't it? You don't know what to do if you find out somebody you were in contact with yesterday is positive or if you start experiencing symptoms?I would get tested to confirm whether I had been infected and, if so, warn anyone I might have been in contact with. Does the app do that? Has the government told anyone to do that?
All well and good, but none of that means the NHSX app was worthless or insecure.Did anyone say it was?
The US has the highest death rate in the world, the UK the second highest and Italy the third highest.Death rate is not the same as death toll
Death rate is not the same as death toll
Government scientific advisers are furious at what they see as an attempt to censor their advice on government proposals during the Covid-19 lockdown by heavily redacting an official report before it was released to the public, the Guardian can reveal.
The report was one of a series of documents published by the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage) this week to mollify growing criticism about the lack of transparency over the advice given to ministers responding to the coronavirus.
However, large blocks of text in the report, produced by SPI-B, the Sage subcommittee providing advice from behavioural scientists on how the public might respond to lockdown measures, were entirely blanked out.
Yes - we already covered that.
The US has the highest death toll in the world, the UK the second highest and Italy the third highest.
What a savage irony that yesterday people were celebrating the old guard who fought in the war, yet decades of neglect is seeing them dying in droves in care homes and their own homes from covid. Some people are calling it a cull, or a bitter harvest. Let's not forget.
Yes, maybe, if you didn't want people piling on you should have stopped and thought before you posted something that was factually incorrect to rebuke somebody else.
The Sunday papers is the first I’ve seen of the PM’s new slogan. It is of course for him to decide what’s most appropriate for England, but given the critical point we are at in tackling the virus, #StayHomeSaveLives remains my clear message to Scotland at this stage.
Is one apology for me getting it wrong not enough?If you like.
Do you wish me to wear sackcloth and sit in ashes as atonement?
I know that you are always correct and never get anything wrong. Us mere mortals can only gaze in wonder and awe at your perfection.Of course.
It would seem Boris's new slogan is yet another example of how not to bring forward a policy amendment, Nicola Sturgeon making it clear that all she knows about a slogan/message change is what she reads in the newspapers, and that she won't be immediately changing the message here at his behest.
From her twitter account (as posted in the Guardian live blog).
The slogan is just words. I don't know why Sturgeon would even care about it. I'm more concerned that the four governments seem to be unable to coordinate their actions.
The slogan is just words. I don't know why Sturgeon would even care about it. I'm more concerned that the four governments seem to be unable to coordinate their actions.
Hard to coordinate when you've got a PM who doesn't consult with the likes of our First Minister about policy initiatives like this but briefs the press about his intentions: and she's not the only one expressing concern.The slogan is just words. I'd be more concerned if Sturgeon wasn't informed about the initiatives behind it (if any).
The slogan is just words. I'd be more concerned if Sturgeon wasn't informed about the initiatives behind it (if any).
As far as "people might think it's over", the cat's already out of the bag on that one. The media have been speculating for days about what might be happening with the next phase, aided by copious leakage from all four of the governments in the UK.
I’ve seen the media briefings and changed message for England. There has not been a 4 nations agreement or discussion on this. The @WelshGovernment message has not changed. Stay at home and if you do go out observe the social distancing rules.
Utterly awful address from Boris. Unclear and then having been prerecorded no chance for any clarity.What was unclear about it?
The subliminals on the graphic are interesting. A change from red hatching (red for danger) to green hatching (green for go).I didn't notice that. It's interesting because nothing in Boris's speech last night said it was time for us to "go". All he's given us so far is "you can exercise as much as you like and that includes sitting in the park". For a lot of people that just brings the rules in line with reality.
And why wasn't this put before parliament?Because it doesn't need to be.
I didn't notice that. It's interesting because nothing in Boris's speech last night said it was time for us to "go". All he's given us so far is "you can exercise as much as you like and that includes sitting in the park". For a lot of people that just brings the rules in line with reality.Thank you for posting more calm responses, JeremyP. I find all the constant moaning about everything the Gov does or says quite annoying.
ETA: Oh and you're allowed to travel to work even if your job is non essential.
Because it doesn't need to be.
Thank you for posting more calm responses, JeremyP. I find all the constant moaning about everything the Gov does or says quite annoying.
I didn't notice that. It's interesting because nothing in Boris's speech last night said it was time for us to "go". All he's given us so far is "you can exercise as much as you like and that includes sitting in the park". For a lot of people that just brings the rules in line with reality.And the details about what constitutes safe in terms of going to work won't be published till Tuesday but he didn't make that clear.
ETA: Oh and you're allowed to travel to work even if your job is non essential.
Because it doesn't need to be.
Thank you for posting more calm responses, JeremyP. I find all the constant moaning about everything the Gov does or says quite annoying.I suppose those people who have had relatives who have died because of govt incompetence and lies should just shut up then.
I suppose those people who have had relatives who have died because of govt incompetence and lies should just shut up then.No, of course not, and to take such a binary view is, I think, unjustified.
No, of course not, and to take such a binary view is, I think, unjustified.The binary issue was caused by you presenting the criticism of the govt as not calm and moaning. I was just reflecting it back at you.
We listened to Boris's speech last night and found it confusing, it is no wonder people are complaining about it.Part of the issue with it was that the prerecording of it meant no questions.
Part of the issue with it was that the prerecording of it meant no questions.He said he would take questions tonight. So, no it wasn't an issue.
I suppose those people who have had relatives who have died because of govt incompetence and lies should just shut up then.
We don't know if any lives could have been saved by doing some things differently. It seems likely that going into lockdown a few weeks earlier might have saved some lives but we don't know that.
He said he would take questions tonight. So, no it wasn't an issue.Except as already covered Raab has been out this morning saying that the return plan was for Wednesday, not today. So it was an issue.
Except as already covered Raab has been out this morning saying that the return plan was for Wednesday, not today. So it was an issue.
I will be setting out more details in Parliament tomorrow and taking questions from the public in the evening.
OK I figured out where I got the Wednesday impression from. Wednesday was explicitly mentioned in respect of the changes to exercise. However, it should be obvious that most workplaces were not going to be able to change their practices by the day after the prime minister's speech at 7pm to allow people to come back in to work.Which just underlines why it shouldn't have been made without the ability to question, or indeed without those details being available
And for those claiming the speech was a bit vague, Boris pretty much acknowledged that in the speech.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-to-the-nation-on-coronavirus-10-may-2020
That's quite strange because I never thought it was Monday.Because lots of people took it as applying today and the use of public transport has increased with the requisite increase in capacity. It also needed to have the plans for furlough clear as part of an integrated solution.
And so what? In practical terms it couldn't be today anyway.
Which just underlines why it shouldn't have been made without the ability to question, or indeed without those details being availableIt wasn't made without the ability to question. Johnson will be taking questions today. And he will be giving the details today. We've been living in a lockdown since March 23rd. Why is one day suddenly a problem?
Because lots of people took it as applying todayUse some common sense. Would you travel to your place of work today without checking with your employer first that it is even going to be open?
and the use of public transport has increased with the requisite increase in capacity.The speech explicitly said avoid public transport for that exact reason.
It also needed to have the plans for furlough clear as part of an integrated solution.The plans for furlough are clear. It ends on June 30th. I see newspapers are reporting that the government is considering extending it in some modified form (perhaps at 60%) but is it unreasonable for the government to think about modifying it?
Do you know anybody whose deaths in this crisis were definitely caused by government incompetence? Am I allowed to point to my nearly 80 year old parents and say "look their lives have been saved by government competence"?Hear, hear. Very well said.
We don't know if any lives could have been saved by doing some things differently. It seems likely that going into lockdown a few weeks earlier might have saved some lives but we don't know that.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people here and elsewhere for whom the government can do no right. If the government came up with a wider cure tomorrow, people would be whining about how they failed to come up with it yesterday or criticising them because they can't administer it to 66 million people all on the dame day.
The is the worst health crisis that anybody alive today has ever lived through. It's the worst crisis of any sort since WW2 and the people running WW2 mostly remembered WW1. Of course the government is making mistakes. They are having to make up the response as they are going along.
Do you know anybody whose deaths in this crisis were definitely caused by government incompetence? Am I allowed to point to my nearly 80 year old parents and say "look their lives have been saved by government competence"?
We don't know if any lives could have been saved by doing some things differently. It seems likely that going into lockdown a few weeks earlier might have saved some lives but we don't know that.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people here and elsewhere for whom the government can do no right. If the government came up with a wider cure tomorrow, people would be whining about how they failed to come up with it yesterday or criticising them because they can't administer it to 66 million people all on the dame day.
The is the worst health crisis that anybody alive today has ever lived through. It's the worst crisis of any sort since WW2 and the people running WW2 mostly remembered WW1. Of course the government is making mistakes. They are having to make up the response as they are going along.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52618352Put BloJob in the dock, for criminal negligence!
Jury trials are to resume next week in England and Wales.
Put BloJob in the dock, for criminal negligence!much as I think he is a dangerous lazy incompetent, that's nonsense.
much as I think he is a dangerous lazy incompetent, that's nonsense.Ic wasn't being serious!
Ic wasn't being serious!The issue is that there are enough people who argue nonsense like this for it to be no joke.
It wasn't made without the ability to question. Johnson will be taking questions today. And he will be giving the details today. We've been living in a lockdown since March 23rd. Why is one day suddenly a problem?Because lots more people travelled on public transport in London today because of the inability and incompetence to communicate that it didn't mean tomorrow with no qualification, something you have already made clear on here you didn't understand.
Use some common sense. Would you travel to your place of work today without checking with your employer first that it is even going to be open?When and how do you check after the PM makes an announcement at 7pm on a Sunday, an announcement that you have already admitted you made an assumption about because it wasn't clearly explained. And yes it does say avoid public transport but that is just even more confusing for those who can't and who don't know if the public transport can deal with the demand, and where the govt has had no agreement with public transport that it can cover it.
The speech explicitly said avoid public transport for that exact reason.
...
It seems to me that there are a lot of people here and elsewhere for whom the government can do no right. If the government came up with a wider cure tomorrow, people would be whining about how they failed to come up with it yesterday or criticising them because they can't administer it to 66 million people all on the dame day.
The is the worst health crisis that anybody alive today has ever lived through. It's the worst crisis of any sort since WW2 and the people running WW2 mostly remembered WW1. Of course the government is making mistakes. They are having to make up the response as they are going along.
The gap in Boris's plan is contact tracing. The govt has wavered between that, herd immunity, and lockdown. Contact tracing is the best way to identify and isolate cases, but it is getting lost in the PR exercise. Better make a will.
Contact tracing could be put in place but it needs communication and cooperation with local government. There will be contact data from the NHSX app and there are thousands of volunteers who registered to help the NHS but have not been directed to any tasks so far.
Ideally, anyone that may have been infected should be able to get an immediate test.
When and how do you check after the PM makes an announcement at 7pm on a SundayYou wait until Monday morning. Isn't that obvious?
an announcement that you have already admitted you made an assumption about because it wasn't clearly explained.I agree he didn't say "this all starts on Wednesday". Perhaps he assumed we aren't morons that need to be led by the hand.
And yes it does say avoid public transport but that is just even more confusing for those who can't and who don't know if the public transport can deal with the demand, and where the govt has had no agreement with public transport that it can cover it.There's nothing confusing about
So you should avoid public transport if at all possibleI've bolded part of it for the hard of comprehension. He didn't say "don't use public transport", he said "don't use public transport if at all possible". Clearly that means, if you can't avoid using public then you can use it.
Your posts where you declare your confusion illustrate why you are wrong.
My impression is that people, here and elsewhere, including the opposition, have been bending over backwards to provide positive and constructive support for the govt. actions on the health crisis.Yeah, that's bollocks mostly, with the exception of Het Majesty's opposition who have been pretty good IMO.
The damning criticisms of the government have little directly to do with failures in tackling the pandemic but concern the unforced errors due to the dishonesty and incompetence in the administration itself and communications with anyone outside Downing St.And what are they?
The crisis can't be stopped unless people can trust the government. The PM needs to reassure us, the critics, that he and his team can be trusted or put together a team that can be.There is a problem there that the government's record in the past is not stellar to say the least, but I try to judge their actions in this matter based on their performance in this matter and a lot of the criticism is based on what people want to believe about this government, not on what is true.
Yeah, that's bollocks mostly, with the exception of Het Majesty's opposition who have been pretty good IMO.
And what are they?
There is a problem there that the government's record in the past is not stellar to say the least, but I try to judge their actions in this matter based on their performance in this matter and a lot of the criticism is based on what people want to believe about this government, not on what is true.
If we see the R number go up again - particularly above one - we will have to take steps.
We all know what that means - it means going back to staying at home.
Whilst here... might be worth pointing out that:
The current fixation on the R number will not get us out of the crisis, they have just picked up on Angela Merkel's well received explanation and continued with it as an extension to the previous fluffery of watching the daily death figures.
What will determine whether we can actually loosen up on the lockdown and come out is whether or not the govt. have put in place working systems, procedures and applications to test, trace and isolate every case, and ensure vulnerable people are shielded from infection with proper support. The whole point of the lockdown was to stop the NHS being overrun before such systems could be put in place.
Whilst here... might be worth pointing out that:
The current fixation on the R number will not get us out of the crisis, they have just picked up on Angela Merkel's well received explanation and continued with it as an extension to the previous fluffery of watching the daily death figures.
What will determine whether we can actually loosen up on the lockdown and come out is whether or not the govt. have put in place working systems, procedures and applications to test, trace and isolate every case, and ensure vulnerable people are shielded from infection with proper support. The whole point of the lockdown was to stop the NHS being overrun before such systems could be put in place.
They must know this but why not just be honest about what is needed? If they aren't in place we will have a long drawn out decline until a vaccine or cure is found and made available (assuming we can find them).
All that, we're all in this together, was just bollocks.
Couldn't open your link flowers but thes e are probably connected:-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/new-research-links-vitamin-d-deficiency-with-covid-19-severity/ar-BB13TXEX?li=BBnbfcL
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/vitamin-d-could-play-role-in-lessening-risk-if-you-get-covid-19/ar-BB13ZFd0
Here in England over past few weeks we've all been encouraged to take vitamin D supplements which I've been doing religiously.
There's evidence that high doses of vit c are effective in combating the virus:-
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-and-how-to-boost-the-immune-system-with-vitamins/a-53360766
https://www.healtheuropa.eu/vitamin-supplements-effective-for-fighting-covid-19/99573/
Have to laugh at that prize goof Grant Schapps, who the other day was defending the new 'Stay Alert' slogan (for viewers in England that is) - he's just said on Radio 4:
Maybe they shouldn't have rushed to change the slogan - and I do hope that members here who live in England and have to use public transport can keep themselves safe.
I am puzzled by your reason for quoting Grant Schapps in post 1881, Gordon.
I get it that you think that the government has started to relax lockdown too early.
I get it that you think Grant Schapps is a 'prize goof'.
I get it that you think that they 'rushed' to change the slogan.
I get it that you think the new slogan 'stay alert' isn't well thought out.
Given all that, how does your quote of what Grant Schapps said reinforce any of these opinions. or is there something else I'm missing?
For instance, when(I assume there will be a when) Nicola Sturgeon announces dates for relaxing the lockdown in Scotland, won't it be sensible for her to issue some sort of similar warning that if there is a major resurgence of the virus(e.g. R>1), then lockdown might be reimposed? I would have thought that any responsible government would issue words to that effect. Am I wrong?
Interesting, Robbie. Your link is about a similar study here stateside (U of Illinois.) Several years ago, my rheumatologist prescribed high doses of Vitamin D3 (along with a mild dose of K2) because my body kept producing Lupus antibodies that had not yet, thank God, gone on the attack. But, I was obviously in a state of inflammation all the time. Since then, several years of blood tests have revealed zero of these antibodies. Have not had that in almost thirty years. This makes sense re: COVID19, as we're learning most people die not from the ill effects of the virus but from our own immune systems going into overdrive and inadvertently killing off our own weakened cells.
It would be wonderful if the effort to understand and cure COVID19 would also benefit autoimmune diseases.
Grant Schapps was trying to defend to brand new (and much criticised) slogan while acknowledging that they may have to revert to the old one - which seemed an odd admission when other Tories were coming out of the woodwork to defend Boris's wonderful new slogan (which he hadn't taken the trouble to run by the Scottish Government).
Nicola Sturgeon is, by contrast, more circumspect and less inclined to premature sloganising.
I have no problem with the fact that this slogan has been criticised or that other Tories have supported it. I have no problem that you seem to think that it was too soon to relax the stay at home message. That wasn't the point of my query. In the context of who Grant Schapps, is(a member of the government), in the quote that you selected he simply seemed to be suggesting that if it is found that the R number goes up too far, then steps will be needed to rectify the situation, and lockdown will have to be encouraged again(I.E. staying at home). To me that seems eminently sensible. I believe the Scottish Government is suggesting something similar, maybe even harsher, that the lockdown may be repeatedly eased and reimposed, 'with little notice'.
I thought it utterly laughable that so soon after Boris's shiny new slogan was unveiled, and all his fellow Toryphants were falling over themselves to say how sensible it was, that Schapps so easily countenanced reversal when the received wisdom, Tory-wise, seemed to be that the slogan change was an absolutely super idea - so super that they never really needed to consult our the likes of our First Minister, and so super that three of the four parts of the (dis)United Kingdom have so far refused to adopt it.
I don't have an issue regarding the possibility that lockdown measures may need to be varied should circumstances require it.
I see nothing wrong in reversing the message if circumstances suggest that is the right thing to do(which is the message I got from Grant Scapps's statement). That doesn't in itself lead to the conclusion that the message must have been wrong in the first place. like all governments, they're on a learning curve with this virus. However I appreciate that you take a different view. Even though I found your responses unsatisfactory, thank you for taking the trouble to reply to my enquiries. Cheers.
A time line of the governments efforts:When was the right time to introduce lockdown measures then?
https://appeasement.org/
When was the right time to introduce lockdown measures then?
...
I've started trying to catch up on my More or Less backlog. I'm still listening to episodes from March but I've already heard some interesting stuff.
For example Professor David Spiegelhalter calculated the risk of dying from COVID19 once you get it and he found that the risk of death from COVID19 is almost exactly the same as the risk of death within the next year under more normal circumstances no matter what your age or health status.
That is a really hard question as we don't know what the government knew or the advice they had during the build up.
In the end what tipped them was the report from Imperial College (Ferguson) published on 16th March - even then Johnson came over as halfheartedly supporting it - not properly supported by the govt until the 23rd.
The study is essentially based on a basic SIR epidemiological model - that would have given the same projections in mid to late Feb - with assumptions based on the data from China. In addition data from Italy was available late Feb/early March.
Given that info and the knowledge that the testing capacity was running out and PPE stocks inadequate even for a flu epidemic - they could have locked down by Mar 10th or, preferably, introduced a series of restrictions maybe avoiding eventual full lockdown - something more like Germany or maybe even Sweden.
But I feel the fundamental problem we have here is not the exact date of the measures taken, but that the trust in government has been undermined. This was true even even before the crisis, due to 3 years of arguing over brexit.
One group (against the continuing of any lockdown) is trying, even now, to force the gov to publish the scientific evidence presented and advice it had from SAGE
...
On the subject of Neil Ferguson's computer model, it is apparently worryingly badly implemented.
https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/
David Starkey's overall view on our Covid-19 situation.Long time no see, and all that, but who cares tuppence what a right-wing historian thinks about Covid-19, since he has no relevant expertise?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S8Js-tEmlg
Quite harsh at times.
It does sound terrible ... maybe I can find time to look at it later this summer.
There is also this review from Taleb et al. perspective:
https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions
The paper I linked is bad. In a nutshell, if you run the model twice with the same inputs including using the same random number sequence, you will get different results. This non determinism is indicative of a serious bug. My money would be on heap corruption given it is written in C++.
Your paper is worse though because it points out serious flaws in the model which means that, even if they fix the bugs in the program, it’ll still give invalid results.
Long time no see, and all that, but who cares tuppence what a right-wing historian thinks about Covid-19, since he has no relevant expertise?
The whole Thursday clap stuff put into petspectiveCan you imagine the furore from festering rhinos tw**s like N. Ferrari and Ian Bunkum Shit if the NHS did that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-52699962/coronavirus-belgian-hospital-staff-turn-backs-on-pm-sophie-wilms
A sudden loss of smell and taste can be symptoms of the virus.
Prof Nirmal Kumar from ENT UK, the body that represents ear, nose and throat doctors, said the change was "better late than never".
A sudden loss of smell and taste can be symptoms of the virus.It's really odd that something that was being openly talked about as a symptom by people with the virus 4 months ago took this long to be officially added
It's really odd that something that was being openly talked about as a symptom by people with the virus 4 months ago took this long to be officially addedAnecdotes are not evidence. People have been talking about it for a long time but whether it is a reliable symptom of COVID19 or not needs to be investigated properly. That would take a while.
Anecdotes are not evidence. People have been talking about it for a long time but whether it is a reliable symptom of COVID19 or not needs to be investigated properly. That would take a while.How long did the dry cough take to be identified as s symptom?
How long did the dry cough take to be identified as s symptom?No idea. I don't think we really know how long the virus was propagating in China and the authorities were aware of it before its characteristic symptoms were identified.
A sudden loss of smell and taste can be symptoms of the virus.
The taste solution bit could easily be resolved by not relying on the BBC and the Guardian as a source of news and no I'm not a right wing party supporter.
Regards LR, ippy.
It does sound terrible ... maybe I can find time to look at it later this summer.
There is also this review (of the report) from Taleb et al. perspective:
https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions
The taste solution bit could easily be resolved by not relying on the BBC and the Guardian as a source of news and no I'm not a right wing party supporter.
Regards LR, ippy.
Give it a rest.
Not that much about France and Italy having a bit of a protest against the EU, or anything about some German bloke arrested for burning an EU flag.
I'll have to have a look at the Guardian, no doubt, for a full report or the top story on the BBC's six o'clock news on the T V. Not.
ippy
Figures showing that the death toll for men 20 - 34 is down in comparison to normal rates. Presumably lock down has reduced deaths by RTAs and violence.
. . . and STD's?in a reduction of death tolls in 3 months?
See the Brexit thread. Eat your words.
The government has unveiled plans to reopen restaurants and bars on the 1st of June. Tables only, alcohol cam be sold until 10pm and they have to close by 11pm and customer capacity will be halved. These rules will be in force until October. That first beer and game of pool will be so sweet.Thank gawd for that!
Thank gawd for that!Not the UK govts.
Yes Trent I suppose it's a bit of the King Canute syndrome taking over, facing reality, still it's reasonably good news overall.
Regards, ippy.
Whatever you have perceived of the Guardian, it has never been slavishly uncritical of the EU. Nuanced, in favour of it certainly, but not uncritical.
But then the great British public has over the years become less and less used to nuance, which leads us to a place where we can only discuss issues in terms that tend to be diametrically opposed to each other. It bodes ill for the country.
Regards TV.
The reason I don't like the Guardian is mainly the few times I've picked up it has really annoyed me with its unrealistic take on life so I just don't bother with it.
Now the BBC, I would describe them as brilliantly underhanded and never missing a trick.
Not the UK govts.Shitshitshitshitshit! Not till July at the earliest here! >:( >:( >:(
. . . and STD's?Don't generally kill people anymore.
The reason I don't like the Guardian is mainly the few times I've picked up it has really annoyed me with its unrealistic take on life so I just don't bother with it.This just translates as "The Guardian and the BBC challenge my prejudices".
Now the BBC, I would describe them as brilliantly underhanded and never missing a trick.
Regards, ippy.
I hope Serco compensates them for this inexcusable error.It was actually a pretty minor error. Somebody wrote an email and cc'd everybody instead of bcc'ing everybody. If it's a crime, it concerns me because I commit it every time I send an email to more than one person.
It was actually a pretty minor error. Somebody wrote an email and cc'd everybody instead of bcc'ing everybody. If it's a crime, it concerns me because I commit it every time I send an email to more than one person.
What I was really driving at is the fact that Serco are involved at all. It's a terrible company. I've dealt with them a few times on government contracts and they've always been really bad at everything.
I doubt that the people concerned will see it as a minor error.Do you ever write emails and copy it in to other people without using bcc? If so, you've done exactly the same thing.
I doubt that the people concerned will see it as a minor error.
And not before time, we need those workers more than ever now.Thought needs to be given to backdating it.
Thought needs to be given to backdating it.
Good news:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/21/boohoo-founders-team-up-with-biotech-firm-for-covid-19-home-test-kit-uk-july
Exactly what is needed - other companies are also working on home saliva tests.
Bad news:
https://www.ft.com/content/46733256-5a84-4429-89e0-8cce9d4095e4
Death toll remains high in Sweden.
As each day passes it seems John Crace finds it increasingly easy to hit the back of the net: no real surprise there of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/21/matt-hancock-is-not-ok-someone-really-ought-to-furlough-him
Not sure who is annoying me most, the people who want me to clap for Sturgeon or JohnsonWho are those people - I've never met one - I thought we were clapping for our emergency workers and key workers.
,or the people who say that it's like NurembergAgain - who is saying that?
Who are those people - I've never met one - I thought we were clapping for our emergency workers and key workers.Social media. And they want separate claps from the Thursday one. And the people who reply say it's like Nuremberg.
Again - who is saying that?
Social media. And they want separate claps from the Thursday one. And the people who reply say it's like Nuremberg.
Social media. And they want separate claps from the Thursday one. And the people who reply say it's like Nuremberg.Who and where - I've never seen anyone suggest this.
Who and where - I've never seen anyone suggest this.
Who and where - I've never seen anyone suggest this.Again social media.
Again social media.Sorry NS - just going 'social media' isn't really answering the question is it - social media is just a collective term for a range of communication platforms. What I am asking is which people have said this and where - ideally with a link.
Sorry NS - just going 'social media' isn't really answering the question is it - social media is just a collective term for a range of communication platforms. What I am asking is which people have said this and where - ideally with a link.
Just going 'social media' is about as useful as answering 'in a book' if asked where a particular view or piece of information came from.
So can you tell me please which person or people are saying this and on what platform, preferably with a link. Reason being I've never hear these claims myself and I cannot really comment on them until I see those claims.
Why would I need you to comment on them?Because this is a message board - that's how it works NS. Someone makes a point and other people comment on it :o
Because this is a message board - that's how it works NS. Someone makes a point and other people comment on it :oBut people don't have to comment. If you haven't seen something that's fine.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18467324.coronavirus-call-clap-nic-tribute-nicola-sturgeon/So when you say 'the people who want me to clap for Sturgeon', you actually mean Howard Begg, 63 from East Lothian - FFS - I wish I'd never asked.
So when you say 'the people who want me to clap for Sturgeon', you actually mean Howard Begg, 63 from East Lothian - FFS - I wish I'd never asked.
At least people had heard of Ben Fogle and his suggestion of clapping for the Queen was widely derided and universally ignored.
So when you say 'the people who want me to clap for Sturgeon', you actually mean Howard Begg, 63 from East Lothian - FFS - I wish I'd never asked.No, he isn't alone on social media as the report makes clear. And at no point did I say that you had heard of the people so why Fogle's fame has anything to do with it, I have no idea.
At least people had heard of Ben Fogle and his suggestion of clapping for the Queen was widely derided and universally ignored.
I can't image there will be many people round my neck of the woods clapping for Sturgeon between 6pm and 6:10pm (don't you just love the accuracy) tonight. I'll check in at 6:15 tonight for your update on whether anyone was clapping round your neck of the woods - somehow I suspect not.
I am happy to clap for Her Majesty. :)Did you at 9am on the 21st April - which was when Fogle wanted this to happen.
No, he isn't alone on social media as the report makes clear.Yes he is - did you actually read the article.
My friend has just got out of hospital. Hurrah
My friend has just got out of hospital. Hurrah
My friend has just got out of hospital. HurrahGreat - that is worth clapping about ;)
My friend has just got out of hospital. Hurrah
Great - that is worth clapping about ;)I will be raising a glass. We've had a virtual whisky tasting support group for her husband over the last 8 weeks, and it will be good to have the scheduled one on Sunday, and be able to say hello
Instead of clapping try not voting Conservative, in the long run it will do the NHS much more good.It is possible to clap and also not vote Tory - I do (and don't).
It is possible to clap and also not vote Tory - I do (and don't).Trent didn't say that the only people clapping did vote Tory.
Trent didn't say that the only people clapping did vote Tory.I know he didn't - but I think one of the reasons he's stopped clapping (as presumably a non-tory voter) is because he doesn't really want to be part of a hypocritical circus where tory voters are now suddenly wanting to support the NHS when in the ballot box they acted otherwise.
On the clapping. Our household has stopped. Not, because for one moment we don't value the NHS. We do. As some will know I used to work in it and still have friends putting themselves at risk everyday to care for people with Covid 19.
My problem with it is two fold. It's getting a bit poppy day-ish. You now have to clap. People are watching to see who is clapping and who isn't - I mean even Prof D is taking notes of who is clapping on his street ;) and I don't like that kind of enforced "jollity". It smacks too much of New Years Eve where you are forced to have a damn good time whether you want to or not.
The other reason, and this is more difficult to explain, is that it kind of diverts from what has happened in the past and what is happening now in the NHS. I live in Worthing and I can guarantee that the majority of people on my street, all of whom come out and clap (and take note of who is not clapping), vote Conservative.
Well whoop-di-do, if they hadn't voted Tory the NHS would not be in the mess it is in now. Underfunded for the last decade, wages frozen, buildings left to deteriorate way past any safe working levels. This happened in the last 10 years. I have seen it and experienced it.
Instead of clapping try not voting Conservative, in the long run it will do the NHS much more good.
Ffs!
https://www.newsweek.com/covid-19-conspiracy-theories-england-1505899?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
Yo are correct in your presumption. And I can and do ring friends who are still working to ask them how they are and how much I value their work, so I suppose I'm lucky to be able to express my thanks in a more direct fashion.Sure - seems reasonable.
Ffs!
https://www.newsweek.com/covid-19-conspiracy-theories-england-1505899?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
About three quarters of all deaths in Sweden have happened in care homes. Care workers were also told not to send elderly patients with the virus to hospital.So you are saying that people who are known to have coronavirus should be sent to a hospital with a lot of vulnerable people in it (by definition). I'm not saying that is necessarily the wrong thing to do but you need to be aware of what the consequences of that are.
As each day passes it seems John Crace finds it increasingly easy to hit the back of the net: no real surprise there of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/21/matt-hancock-is-not-ok-someone-really-ought-to-furlough-him
It was a nice afternoon, he was about to go on a 10-day Whitsun break with Carrie, Dilyn the dog and some baby that had mysteriously appeared in Downing Street,
If "the back of the net" is showing yourself as a sneering arse, I'd agree.Does Boris like you in the cheerleading outfit?
John Crace probably has some important points to make but the above quote shows he is also a complete wanker.
Why would I need you to comment on them?
Maybe "need" is the wrong verb. "Want" might be better, but in the context of posting on a message board where the main purpose is to solicit other people's opinions, the distinction is not really that important.But why would I want any specific individual to comment on any specific thing? If they have no knowledge of it? I am reluctant to link to Facebook and Twitter for (1) the same reason that I prefer the Guardian to the Times or The Telegraph because of access, (2) because it links in some cases to people I Know, (3) because in some cases it might allow more identification of me than I generally do here.
I don't see why you are so reluctant to provide the information asked for.
Maybe "need" is the wrong verb. "Want" might be better, but in the context of posting on a message board where the main purpose is to solicit other people's opinions, the distinction is not really that important.Exactly.
I don't see why you are so reluctant to provide the information asked for.
If "the back of the net" is showing yourself as a sneering arse, I'd agree.
But why would I want any specific individual to comment on any specific thing? If they have no knowledge of it? I am reluctant to link to Facebook and Twitter for (1) the same reason that I prefer the Guardian to the Times or The Telegraph because of access, (2) because it links in some cases to people I Know, (3) because in some cases it might allow more identification of me than I generally do here.But that's the whole point of the MB - someone posts somethings and we engage with each other by commenting on what has been posted. But if you are unwilling to provide the information to allow that ebb and flow then there is really very little point in a message board.
But that's the whole point of the MB - someone posts somethings and we engage with each other by commenting on what has been posted. But if you are unwilling to provide the information to allow that ebb and flow then there is really very little point in a message board.I am not convinced you are not convinced.
If you are concerned over privacy (I'm not convinced you are - or perhaps you are actually Howard Begg) then don't make the post in the first place. And you can usually provide sufficient information to elicit discussion without risking privacy.
Yo are correct in your presumption. And I can and do ring friends who are still working to ask them how they are and how much I value their work, so I suppose I'm lucky to be able to express my thanks in a more direct fashion.When landlords and mortgage lenders start accepting claps in lieu of actual money, I'll start clapping. Until then, I'll support politicians that support the NHS.
Does Boris like you in the cheerleading outfit?Criticising people who sneer in the way that article does does not imply I an a cheerleader for Boris.
When landlords and mortgage lenders start accepting claps in lieu of actual money, I'll start clapping. Until then, I'll support politicians that support the NHS.That point would seem better addressed to Prof D in context rather than Trent.
Criticising people who sneer in the way that article does does not imply I an a cheerleader for Boris.Yawn.
If you disagree with me about something, that's fine, but the insults are beneath you.
But why would I want any specific individual to comment on any specific thing?Nobody has said you want any specific individual to comment, but the fact you posted here leads to a reasonable inference that you want other people generally to comment.
If they have no knowledge of it? I am reluctant to link to Facebook and Twitter for (1) the same reason that I prefer the Guardian to the Times or The Telegraph because of access, (2) because it links in some cases to people I Know, (3) because in some cases it might allow more identification of me than I generally do here.
The current bunch of Tory fuckwits regularly provide ample grounds to be sneered at - and deservedly so.I prefer reasoned argument, not sneers.
That point would seem better addressed to Prof D in context rather than Trent.I was replying in support of Trent. Replying to somebody does not necessarily imply disagreement.
When landlords and mortgage lenders start accepting claps in lieu of actual money, I'll start clapping. Until then, I'll support politicians that support the NHS.Like I said it isn't one or the other. I've always supported politicians that support the NHS - indeed campaigned very actively for the last government that genuinely did support the NHS, in my opinion.
Yawn.
Nobody has said you want any specific individual to comment, but the fact you posted here leads to a reasonable inference that you want other people generally to comment.I would have been happy to expand. Indeed I did when I found a source that wasn't problematic for the issues i have explained. And Prof D further covered that he knew of some idiot's attempt to clap for Johnson.
If you are not prepared to link to your own sources, that's not our problem, it's yours. Perhaps you could provide the link and quotes from it.
I am not convinced you are not convinced.Why?
I stand correct. Clearly insults are not beneath you.That I find your position tedious is not an insult.
Why?Because you have a modicum of intelligence and my post was saying that I found his position annoying.
That I find your position tedious is not an insult.The cheerleading one was, or at least mockery
Because you have a modicum of intelligence ...Thank you - praise indeed.
... and my post was saying that I found his position annoying.Sorry I think we are talking at cross purposes. In reply 2002 my lack of conviction was over your claim that privacy concerns were what preventing you providing details about who wanted to clap for Sturgeon or Boris.
Thank you - praise indeed.I appreciate your mind reading. However I have explained my issue, and given when I found a non direct link, I provided it, I still don't see why you think I was not telling the truth about my motivation.
Sorry I think we are talking at cross purposes. In reply 2002 my lack of conviction was over your claim that privacy concerns were what preventing you providing details about who wanted to clap for Sturgeon or Boris.
I was asking why you were not convinced that I was not convinced - in other words implying that I was convinced that you'd failed to provide this information on privacy grounds.
So you are saying that people who are known to have coronavirus should be sent to a hospital with a lot of vulnerable people in it (by definition). I'm not saying that is necessarily the wrong thing to do but you need to be aware of what the consequences of that are.
Of course there are risks in sending corona patients to hospital, but I was under the impression that certain hospitals had been set aside for corona patients, in which case there should have been no hesitation in sending them to hospital. And anyway, age shouldn't come into it, especially since their hospitals are still within capacity. In any case, what has happened is that elderly patients have been abandoned, hence the high death rate. A scandal.
Like I said it isn't one or the other. I've always supported politicians that support the NHS - indeed campaigned very actively for the last government that genuinely did support the NHS, in my opinion.
But that doesn't mean I won't clap for the NHS workers and other front line workers - they deserve our recognition through the symbolism of the clapping (there is very little else we can do at this immediate point) and they also deserve the support of a government that genuinely believes in the NHS and it prepared to put in the resources to back the NHS - that we don't have at the moment and, sadly, we are unlikely to be able to change that for a while.
Anyhow it seems that next Thursday's clap will be the last one and I think that is probably right.
My friend has just got out of hospital. Hurrah
My wife and I have clapped every Thursday. Our reasons are quite simple. In this extraordinary situation we feel we needed to come together to support all the frontline workers and especially the NHS workers in our small way. We also felt that these weekly claps were a unifying influence for people of all ages and hopefully strengthened the resolve of the whole community to be continually aware and observe the lockdown as much as possible. We do however accept that it is entirely appropriate that this response is starting to outlive its usefulness and probably needs to finish sometime soon.I really like your posts but there is a tone here where you suggest that your position is representative of this involved in the NHS and front line agree and that is just not true. I get bored of the idea that insults here based on incompetence, lying, and idiocy are bad. And I think the poisoning of the well by saying any such 'insults' are bad gives succour to that incompetence, lying and idiocy. Clap as much as you like but at least realise that you are being used.
My wife worked all her working life as a nurse in the NHS, one of our sons is a firefighter and one of our grandaughters works as a carer, but we all feel that at such an extraordinary time as this any criticisms we may have of the NHS(e.g. the Mid Staffordhire debacle, the NHS's almost indiscriminate wastage, the way Bevan bought the consultants' backing by 'stuffing their mouths with gold', the graduate entry only policy of the RCN or the horrendously expensive and failed National IT system, and many more) are not forgotten but put on the back burner because the human values of the selflessness, heroic dedication and bloody hard work of the key workers are the things that are uppermost in our minds at the moment.
Constructive criticism of the present government and how they are handling this crisis is certainly ok by us. We have plenty of criticisms ourselves, just as we had of all sorts of Health Ministers and Prime Ministers from both parties, especially from Thatcher onwards, and not just Tory ones. However when I read these articles by John Crace(as suggested by Gordon), with their criticism cocooned in a veneer of sneering personal insults, it just turns me off completely. In my opinion such journalism is generally counterproductive although, no doubt, personally satisfying to some.
I didn't vote Tory at the last election by the way. In fact I've never voted Tory in my life.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52779356He has parents? I always thought he was from the Mekon.
Please, please let this mean he will be forced to resign.
Reading back, I've just come across this, NS. Great news.It is but for those eejits thinking Covid 19 isn't real, the current prognosis for her to be 'ok' is 12 months minimum.
Of course
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/uk-pm-johnsons-close-aide-cummings-broke-lockdown-rules-newspapers/ar-BB14tsuH
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-scientist-quicker-exit-lockdown-072039855.html
I've been following the John's Hopkins data and have seen quite an increase in the UK numbers of cases and deaths. Yesterday, I watched a PBS Frontline documentary on one Italian hospital and one of their doctors. It was very well done and showed how quickly they struggled with lack of capacity. I wondered if you all there are experiencing anything like that. We almost did in NYCity (I have one son who lives on Manhattan.) But, the governor there ordered temporary hospitals built, and they built quite a few!
On the Florida front, I was following the data out of our Department of Health, when I noticed a huge spike in the influenza/pneumonia deaths at the end of April (as the season usually is significantly ebbing.) Right after that, the governor ordered that the pneumonia numbers be taken out of the tally. That, and reports from hospitals and coroners that the governor is pressuring them to not report the numbers of COVID19 deaths has me concerned. The deliberate deception seems criminal to me.
Given the preliminary antibody test results from across Europe, it seems highly unlikely that 50% of the UK contracted the virus. Even in Spain, one of the worst affected countries, results suggest that only about 5% had the virus.She is an eminent epidemiologist, albeit only one.
That I find your position tedious is not an insult.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52779356
Please, please let this mean he will be forced to resign.
It is but for those eejits thinking Covid 19 isn't real, the current prognosis for her to be 'ok' is 12 months minimum.
Well I'm quite happy for John Crace, or indeed anyone else for that matter, to sneer, lampoon, ridicule or whatever this particular Tory government since that is, for me, the only reasonable response to a crew consisting of Johnson, Raab, Patel et al: let us not forget that the madness of Brexit is down to them, and that clock is quietly ticking away in the background. My elder daughter, who is a nurse, holds a similar view.
They have no saving graces in my book.
Given the preliminary antibody test results from across Europe, it seems highly unlikely that 50% of the UK contracted the virus. Even in Spain, one of the worst affected countries, results suggest that only about 5% had the virus.
The number of people in power who are ostensibly quite intelligent but who have been caught breaking the government's own lockdown restrictions is quite astonishing.I think he has technically broken the rules many times over by:
Actually, in this case, he may technically not have broken the rules, but the optics are terrible even if he hasn't.
I doubt he'll resign though. He'll probably insist he didn't break the rules or it was essential travel or something.
In more upbeat news, the children’s author Michael Rosen has left intensive care after eight weeks in hospital, and continues his recovery on the ward.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-scientist-quicker-exit-lockdown-072039855.html
'Hearing rumours that Dominic Cummings only travelled to see family in Durham because he'd been rejected by his family in Oxford and Cambridge.'
Where did you hear that?
Where did you hear that?It's a joke.
It's a joke.
?Durham University students are known for being rejected by Oxford and Cambridge Universities
Durham University students are known for being rejected by Oxford and Cambridge Universities
I haven't heard that either.
You haven't heard it because it's not true. It stemmed from a joke!You should be able to register to get a couple of free articles. It's a new article so there isn't a copy available elsewhere just yet. If I find one I will post.
NearlySane, can't see article without subscribing.
Seems he made the trip twice and while there, rather than staying locked down at his parents he took a trip to Barnard Castle, some 30 years ago. Surely he must be toast now - the PM and cabinet must be furious now as he's made them look like muppets as they all lined up to defend he through the day.
Cummings and goings.
;D I hope its goings.#dominicgoings is now a thing
Seems he made the trip twice and while there, rather than staying locked down at his parents he took a trip to Barnard Castle, some 30 years ago. Surely he must be toast now - the PM and cabinet must be furious now as he's made them look like muppets as they all lined up to defend he through the day.
Johnson is an IDIOT to support Cummings, I hope comes back to bit him BIG TIME! >:(Dominic Cummings definitely knows how many kids Boris Johnson has.
Anyone voting Tory after this latest support for lying hypocrisy from Johnson...I would say I have no words but I have so many many words
That was a shock, to see a prime minister so cowardly and deceitful.Yep, amazing to see a lying incompetent defend a liar
Interesting to note that here in Scotland we have our very own wee Tory blowhard, in Jackson Carlaw, who can normally be relied upon to sound off berating Nicola Sturgeon/the SNP at ever available imagined opportunity, has said nothing about this - the silence from him is deafening.The silence from all of the Tories in Scotland has been. Other than a popon/popoff tweet from Davidson which ignored the issue - nothing for 2 days.
Mind you that is an improvement of sorts.
Tweet and presumably tweeter now goneJ K Rowling offers to pay the salary of whoever wrote this if they have been sacked
https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/24/uk-civil-service-account-tweets-about-arrogant-offensive-pm-12751992/
Interesting to note that here in Scotland we have our very own wee Tory blowhard, in Jackson Carlaw, who can normally be relied upon to sound off berating Nicola Sturgeon/the SNP at ever available imagined opportunity, has said nothing about this - the silence from him is deafening.
Mind you that is an improvement of sorts.
The Guardian are reporting that a complaint has been made regarding the Barnard's Castle visit aspect, where the complainant has provided car registration details: if true then Boris the Liar's evasion of this on TV earlier could come back to haunt him.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/24/witness-complains-to-police-about-dominic-cummings-as-pressure-mounts
If the Police have the evidence they require Cumming should be prosecuted.
But... what if their instincts tell them they'd be better off burying it?Bit late for that - it's out in the open.
But... what if their instincts tell them they'd be better off burying it?
That won't happen but I think he has been made into a hate figure by the media & I don't subscribe to that. I'm sick of seeing his name everywhere now and wonder what more important things that obscures.I don't hate him but I do hate that his actions have pissed upon those who obeyed lockdown and lost loved ones that they couldn't see to Covid 19. You worried elsewhere that we would not come out of this kinder, which I do doubt as well,but in part that will have been because of this blatant breach of the rules by someone who didn't think the rules applied. That in itself is why this is very important.
That won't happen but I think he has been made into a hate figure by the media & I don't subscribe to that. I'm sick of seeing his name everywhere now and wonder what more important things that obscures.
Cumming's actions should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and so should the PM for supporting him. Cummings must do the decent thing and resign.I find the excuses being trotted out astonishing - effectively that the self isolation rules apply, unless you don't want them to be.
I find the excuses being trotted out astonishing - effectively that the self isolation rules apply, unless you don't want them to be.
I understand the issue of child-care. But firstly thousands of other people struggled and managed without driving 260 miles. But secondly, surely making a hugely risky drive of that nature would have to be the very, very last option only once every other option that did not involve Cummings and/or his wife (the details aren't clear on who did or did not have symptoms) leaving the house as self isolation means you do not leave the house for any reason and you distance yourself from others in the house.
So were they both so ill that they feared from the safety of their child - clearly not as they drove 260 miles.
Did they not have a network close by in London to help them out. Yes they did - I gather several relatives live in London, including I think her brother who was a friend of Cummings and introduced them.
Does he not have friends and neighbours able to help - surely he or she does.
As a senior member of the government, and her a leading journalist could they not have gained help through those channels - of course they could.
Be back soon, just going for a 30 mile drive to test my eyesight.
Needless to say you're making that up.Would you have taken your 4 year old with you? Would you have broken lockdown at the other end when you said you felt sick? Would have allowed your boss to lie about you not having been in Barnard Castle?
He went for a drive to check if he would be fit enough to do the longer drive back to London. He didn't say his eyesight was still affected at the time. Having said that, it was still pretty questionable: if you think you might not be fit enough for a drive, you're not fit enough for a drive.
Other than that, I won't condemn him for this episode because I probably would have done the same thing in the same situation.
Would you have taken your 4 year old with you? Would you have broken lockdown at the other end when you said you felt sick? Would have allowed your boss to lie about you not having been in Barnard Castle?
He went for a drive to check if he would be fit enough to do the longer drive back to London. He didn't say his eyesight was still affected at the time.Yes he did:
Yes he did:I thought he said his wife was concerned that his eyesight had been bad while he had been ill and she had no idea if it would affect his driving now so he drove for half an hour to check if he could see properly while he drove. I have no idea if he is telling the truth or not - I am not sure how else you would check if your vision was affected while driving without driving for a distance but it seems suspect that he went to a local beauty spot by accident. I think it was wrong that he and his wife and son would get out of the car and sit by the river during lockdown instead of going straight back to their cottage - he should have realised how bad that would look if the public became aware of it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52793960
thought he said his wife was concerned that his eyesight had been bad while he had been ill and she had no idea if it would affect his driving now so he drove for half an hour to check if he could see properly while he drove. I have no idea if he is telling the truth or not - I am not sure how else you would check if your vision was affected while driving without driving for a distance but it seems suspect that he went to a local beauty spot by accident. I think it was wrong that he and his wife and son would get out of the car and sit by the river during lockdown instead of going straight back to their cottage - he should have realised how bad that would look if the public became aware of it.
Simple question, partly because the implicit sexism in this story worries me, but why didn't she drive back to London?
Can she drive?
I thought he said his wife was concerned that his eyesight had been bad while he had been ill and she had no idea if it would affect his driving now so he drove for half an hour to check if he could see properly while he drove. I have no idea if he is telling the truth or not - I am not sure how else you would check if your vision was affected while driving without driving for a distance but it seems suspect that he went to a local beauty spot by accident. I think it was wrong that he and his wife and son would get out of the car and sit by the river during lockdown instead of going straight back to their cottage - he should have realised how bad that would look if the public became aware of it.A superb post, Gabriella, well considered, thoughtful , rational etc. Excellent.
I get that he has a 4 year old child and that during the 14 day isolation period people were permitted to go outside in their gardens, so I can understand why he went for walks in the nearby woods on his parents' private land with his wife and child. But after the 14 day isolation period, any outdoor 1 hour exercise was supposed to be close by, not a 30 minute drive away so I do not consider that as reasonable.
I can understand his reason for driving to his parents' farm - in this age of increased reports of sexual abuse of children I would not trust any old neighbour or friend with my 4 year old if my children were that young, especially if I thought there was a chance that both parents might be incapacitated for a long time or die. I would want my 4 year-old to be with close family such as a trusted sister and nieces on private land with big gates that could keep out Press intrusion.
The Government guidance said you can leave home to care for someone vulnerable during lockdown - and a 4 year old child is someone vulnerable that needs protection and if adequate protection was a 256 mile drive away, I would do the drive. I would put my 4 year old's interests ahead of the public's perceptions and I would not feel responsible for other people not obeying lock down rules because of their perception of my reasons for driving to protect my child. The Government guidelines require us to use our judgement when caring for vulnerable people so I would follow the guidelines by using my judgement and put the interests of the vulnerable person I had a parental duty to protect ahead of the public reaction to my decisions.
My husband and I left home during lockdown and drove to his mother's house every day to be with her as she all alone and was dying from vascular dementia, bed-ridden, sleeping for most of the day and night, unable to eat or drink and her primary carer had been suddenly admitted to hospital with pancreatitis.
I am not buying the argument that Cummings should not have taken the option available to him to protect his son (away from Press intrusion if he or his wife were admitted to hospital or died) simply because there were single mothers in similar situations as him who did not have the option of driving to a cottage on private land to isolate near their sister and helpful nieces who would care for their vulnerable child if necessary.
And one of the other questions asked by a reporter at the Press conference was equally meaningless - the reporter said other children had been denied cancer treatment due to lockdown so why should the Cummings offspring merit any special treatment by being cared for when vulnerable. The Cummings child did not have cancer and receive treatment for it so not seeing the special treatment referred to in the question. If other parents had been prevented from driving long-distance to a trusted sibling. niece to care for a young child in case both parents succumbed to a potentially life-threatening illness, the reporter might have had a point.
Of course we do not know if the details in the Cummings story are accurate, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary I do not see that what he did was unreasonable.
It's a pity there has not been a more calm approach from the moaning phoners-in, 'let's-drag-them-all-down' reporters etc.
I thought he said his wife was concerned that his eyesight had been bad while he had been ill and she had no idea if it would affect his driving now so he drove for half an hour to check if he could see properly while he drove. I have no idea if he is telling the truth or not - I am not sure how else you would check if your vision was affected while driving without driving for a distance but it seems suspect that he went to a local beauty spot by accident. I think it was wrong that he and his wife and son would get out of the car and sit by the river during lockdown instead of going straight back to their cottage - he should have realised how bad that would look if the public became aware of it.Anyone who believes Cummings's load of crapola is taking gullibility to a whole new level. He didn't know if his eyesight was good enough to drive safely, so he went for a drive to find out?!
I get that he has a 4 year old child and that during the 14 day isolation period people were permitted to go outside in their gardens, so I can understand why he went for walks in the nearby woods on his parents' private land with his wife and child. But after the 14 day isolation period, any outdoor 1 hour exercise was supposed to be close by, not a 30 minute drive away so I do not consider that as reasonable.
I can understand his reason for driving to his parents' farm - in this age of increased reports of sexual abuse of children I would not trust any old neighbour or friend with my 4 year old if my children were that young, especially if I thought there was a chance that both parents might be incapacitated for a long time or die. I would want my 4 year-old to be with close family such as a trusted sister and nieces on private land with big gates that could keep out Press intrusion.
The Government guidance said you can leave home to care for someone vulnerable during lockdown - and a 4 year old child is someone vulnerable that needs protection and if adequate protection was a 256 mile drive away, I would do the drive. I would put my 4 year old's interests ahead of the public's perceptions and I would not feel responsible for other people not obeying lock down rules because of their perception of my reasons for driving to protect my child. The Government guidelines require us to use our judgement when caring for vulnerable people so I would follow the guidelines by using my judgement and put the interests of the vulnerable person I had a parental duty to protect ahead of the public reaction to my decisions.
My husband and I left home during lockdown and drove to his mother's house every day to be with her as she all alone and was dying from vascular dementia, bed-ridden, sleeping for most of the day and night, unable to eat or drink and her primary carer had been suddenly admitted to hospital with pancreatitis.
I am not buying the argument that Cummings should not have taken the option available to him to protect his son (away from Press intrusion if he or his wife were admitted to hospital or died) simply because there were single mothers in similar situations as him who did not have the option of driving to a cottage on private land to isolate near their sister and helpful nieces who would care for their vulnerable child if necessary.
And one of the other questions asked by a reporter at the Press conference was equally meaningless - the reporter said other children had been denied cancer treatment due to lockdown so why should the Cummings offspring merit any special treatment by being cared for when vulnerable. The Cummings child did not have cancer and receive treatment for it so not seeing the special treatment referred to in the question. If other parents had been prevented from driving long-distance to a trusted sibling. niece to care for a young child in case both parents succumbed to a potentially life-threatening illness, the reporter might have had a point.
Of course we do not know if the details in the Cummings story are accurate, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary I do not see that what he did was unreasonable.
Anyone who believes Cummings's load of crapola is taking gullibility to a whole new level. He didn't know if his eyesight was good enough to drive safely, so he went for a drive to find out?!
Simple question, partly because the implicit sexism in this story worries me, but why didn't she drive back to London?If I was his wife I would have said "screw your job Dom, it's not that important that I would drive all the way to London for you to go back to work, plus your boss is a tit."
A superb post, Gabriella, well considered, thoughtful , rational etc. Excellent.Thanks Susan. Yes I found the questions from some of the reporters at the Press conference very rehearsed and seemed to have no bearing on the actual statement made by Cummings. The reporters would have been better off finding some evidence to back up their allegations of Cummings breaking the lock down rules. I would have focused on the jolly to the Castle, as the drive to Durham seems to be within the published Government guidance if the reason Cummings went there was that it was the best way to care for a vulnerable 4 year old while putting the least number of people at risk of getting very sick from Covid-19 caught from said 4 year-old. I would agree with the assessment that a 17 year old and 20 year old were at less risk of getting very sick compared to a neighbour or relative or friend of a similar age to Cummings.
I listened to three hours of Stephen Nolan on FiveLive the other day and to Cummings yesterday. It's a pity there has not been a more calm approach from the moaning phoners-in, 'let's-drag-them-all-down' reporters etc.
Thanks Susan. Yes I found the questions from some of the reporters at the Press conference very rehearsed and seemed to have no bearing on the actual statement made by Cummings. The reporters would have been better off finding some evidence to back up their allegations of Cummings breaking the lock down rules. I would have focused on the jolly to the Castle, as the drive to Durham seems to be within the published Government guidance if the reason Cummings went there was that it was the best way to care for a vulnerable 4 year old while putting the least number of people at risk of getting very sick from Covid-19 caught from said 4 year-old. I would agree with the assessment that a 17 year old and 20 year old were at less risk of getting very sick compared to a neighbour or relative or friend of a similar age to Cummings.Mention was made by the Cummings that the law here was not completely comprehensive and to me suggested that he was formulating his defence within that.
Reporter: The British public want an apology /resignation because you broke the lockdown rules because you consider yourself special
Dom: No I didn't - the guidance allows exceptions to the "stay at home" rule if you left to care for a vulnerable person such as a 4 year old child
Reporter: That's a loophole you have found. And other people don't have the privilege of having parents with cottages on private land so you shouldn't be able to avail yourself of any option that the rest of the public do not have access to, if you are claiming we are all in this together. Think of the single mothers and the cancer patients denied treatment so show some solidarity and put your son at risk too"
Dom: Eh no thanks - I'm a parent so won't risk dumping my 4 year old with the nearest neighbour, plus the 4 year old could get sick/ be a carrier of Covid-19 and could make my neighbour very sick. The exception is there in the published government guidance for the public to avail themselves of it if the public think it necessary, because the government always thought caring for a vulnerable person is more important than staying at home during lockdown.
Reporter: You have suddenly introduced the idea that people can use their own judgement
Dom: Um no - it was always in the published government guidance to use your judgement in exceptional cases such as caring for a vulnerable person
Reporter: The public are angry because they haven't seen their relatives and you have so you should apologise and resign
Dom: I wasn't in Durham to visit my parents - I was there to isolate myself for 14 days while also protecting my vulnerable 4 year old child in the event that my wife and I both got too sick to care for him and did not want to dump him on random neighbours, plus I did not want to infect said random neighbour by asking them to care for my 4 year-old...….Plus my neighbours hate me and my boss - because I am a slimy individual with questionable politics and my boss is a tit. (Okay he didn't say that last part)
The Government guidance said you can leave home to care for someone vulnerable during lockdown - and a 4 year old child is someone vulnerable ...In due course I comment in more detail on your lengthy post as it contains numerous inaccuracies. But this one I can mail straight away.
Latest poll makes grim reading.Grim reading for the government; bloody wonderful reading for decent people.
https://savanta.com/coronavirus-data-tracker/
In due course I comment in more detail on your lengthy post as it contains numerous inaccuracies. But this one I can mail straight away.I did not mean "vulnerable" in terms of more at risk of getting very ill from Covid-19. I meant vulnerable as in at risk of being physically harmed and needing looking after because their age meant they cannot look after themselves or protect themselves from harm. In this context, anyone with an ounce of common sense would consider a 4 year old child as being vulnerable if both parents were too ill to care for him - though they are not vulnerable in Covid-19 terms of "at higher risk of severe illness"
A 4 year old child is most definitely NOT considered to be vulnerable in the context of child protection or COVID-19 simply because the are a 4 year old child. They would only be considered vulnerable were that child to have certain underlying health conditions or where there were specific safeguarding concerns - as far as I'm aware neither of those apply to Cummings son.
As you may or may not know I am the owner of a nursery - and when we were required to close we were allowed to remain open for the children of key workers unable to look after their children and children legally defined as vulnerable. We have about 30 4 year olds on our books - not a single one is classified as vulnerable in the legal context which is what would apply in terms of justification of breaking loach-down/self isolation.
The government has provided guidance on who is, and is not, considered vulnerable in cover-19 terms - it does not include 4 year old children.
I assume the Cummings approach means that I can interpret the rules as I see fit. Thus, I have a relative who is suffering badly under lockdown. This is an emergency, therefore I take her on a week's holiday, and she feels better. Why not?
I did not mean "vulnerable" in terms of more at risk of getting very ill from Covid-19. I meant vulnerable as in at risk of being physically harmed and needing looking after because their age meant they cannot look after themselves or protect themselves from harm. In this context, anyone with an ounce of common sense would consider a 4 year old child as being vulnerable if both parents were too ill to care for him - though they are not vulnerable in Covid-19 terms of "at higher risk of severe illness"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52784152
ETA: The day after lockdown began, 24 March, the deputy chief medical officer for England, Dr Jenny Harries, clarified who could look after a child if both parents or carers were incapacitated.
She said: "Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance.
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs."
Any of the government lockdown guidance can be overruled by safeguarding concerns, or prevention of harm, Dr Harries said at Saturday's briefing.
She used the examples of an elderly person with no supply of medication, or a child with both parents too unwell to provide medical care.
"Risk to life" would be a valid reason to break lockdown rules, Dr Harries said.
When Dominic Cummings decided to travel from London to Durham, to stay near his relatives for support, only his wife was displaying coronavirus symptoms. So, he could have cared for their child himself.
But Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said at Saturday's briefing that the welfare of a four-year-old child was the main thing. He said Mr Cummings' actions had prevented the child from being without any support, should things have become worse.
Grim reading for the government; bloody wonderful reading for decent people.There are problems though, the UK govt have a majority that means they can stay easily for the next 4 and a half years. In the mean time in the middle of a crisis people are likely going to be less inclined to follow the instructions on Covid 19 - this may lead to more people dying. It may be the beginning of the end of a Johnson govt but in 4 and half years they could do all sorts of damage under someone else.
Still not getting the reasoning for the journey. They have other family in London and with his connections I am positive if necessary, perfectly safe arrangements could have been made for the child in London.
I assume the Cummings approach means that I can interpret the rules as I see fit. Thus, I have a relative who is suffering badly under lockdown. This is an emergency, therefore I take her on a week's holiday, and she feels better. Why not?The virus isn't paying any attention to how the rules of British politics are being played. The transient joy of a prick like the BBC's Ian Watson over Cummings political Houdiniary cuts no ice with biology.
I thought if he decides that this is an emergency, he has discretion over the rules.What discretion did people who had operations and treatment cancelled have? This is going to rumble on and on. The decay of lockdown and the premature opening of stuff is just going to compound everything.
What discretion did people who had operations and treatment cancelled have? This is going to rumble on and on. The decay of lockdown and the premature opening of stuff is just going to compound everything.
Well, yes, if it becomes a subjective interpretation of the rules, this could be dangerous, a kind of free for all. I can say that I am following the rules as I see fit.The trouble is that somewhere along the line the laws have to be tested. If the law isn't enforced and that results in death or injury then someone is usually liable. If the Government decides they weren't really laws after all, then there is a question of legal negligence, not only was the social contract broken by failure to act it was then trampled by the commission of a herd immunity policy and finally pissed on by a cunt in jeans sitting behind a camping table in a garden all laid on by the prime minister.
I assume the Cummings approach means that I can interpret the rules as I see fit. Thus, I have a relative who is suffering badly under lockdown. This is an emergency, therefore I take her on a week's holiday, and she feels better. Why not?If the relative is a child that is in danger of harm if left on their own without parental care, and the only way available to you to safeguard the child while minimising the risk of infecting someone else is to leave the country, feel free to fly off on your private jet if that means that you will come into minimal contact with anyone on your journey.
I did not mean "vulnerable" in terms of more at risk of getting very ill from Covid-19. I meant vulnerable as in at risk of being physically harmed and needing looking after because their age meant they cannot look after themselves or protect themselves from harm. In this context, anyone with an ounce of common sense would consider a 4 year old child as being vulnerable if both parents were too ill to care for him - though they are not vulnerable in Covid-19 terms of "at higher risk of severe illness"I'm sorry Gabriella - in terms of the rules on self isolation and lock down a 4 year old child is not classified as vulnerable. The rules on traveling to care for a vulnerable person do not apply on two grounds - first because the child is not considered to be a vulnerable person under those rules and secondly because the Cummings' family were in self isolation not lock down - and of course the notion of someone in self isolation (i.e. with symptoms or in the same household as someone with symptoms) traveling to look after a vulnerable person is clearly a non starter and should never happen as by definition someone self isolating must never take an action that brings them into contact with a vulnerable person.
Still not getting the reasoning for the journey. They have other family in London and with his connections I am positive if necessary, perfectly safe arrangements could have been made for the child in London.I do not have sufficient information on their other family in London to know if the arrangements for the child would be safe.
If the relative is a child that is in danger of harm if left on their own without parental care, and the only way available to you to safeguard the child while minimising the risk of infecting someone else is to leave the country, feel free to fly off on your private jet if that means that you will come into minimal contact with anyone on your journey.
The onus would be on you to justify your actions to the police, if you were requested to do so. If the police think Cummings has broken the lockdown rules they should take the appropriate action. What action are the police taking?
I'm sorry Gabriella - in terms of the rules on self isolation and lock down a 4 year old child is not classified as vulnerable. The rules on traveling to care for a vulnerable person do not apply on two grounds - first because the child is not considered to be a vulnerable person under those rules and secondly because the Cummings' family were in self isolation not lock down - and of course the notion of someone in self isolation (i.e. with symptoms or in the same household as someone with symptoms) traveling to look after a vulnerable person is clearly a non starter and should never happen as by definition someone self isolating must never take an action that brings them into contact with a vulnerable person.I'm sorry PD but I already explained that I did not use the word "vulnerable" in the way it is used in Covid-19 regulations. I used the word "vulnerable" in terms of the normal dictionary meaning of the word. I suggest you address that point rather than ignoring it.
Well, that is your interpretation, but I have a different one. It's as valid as yours under the rules Mk 2.Whether it is valid or not would be on you to justify - you may have to justify your interpretation to the police....or the Press.
As a human being, I would be unable to prevent emotion being an influence on my decision when it came to safeguarding my 4 year old child
I'm sorry PD but I already explained that I did not use the word "vulnerable" in the way it is used in Covid-19 regulations. I used the word "vulnerable" in terms of the normal dictionary meaning of the word. I suggest you address that point rather than ignoring it.But in terms of whether Cummings broke the rule the definition of vulnerable in those rules is the only one that matters.
You mean like it is perfectly safe to undertake a 260 mile journey with an already sick wife and the fear that you are also sickening for an illness. That does not make sense to me. Stay at home. Call in help. If top government can't organise a bit of childcare for one of its own, then we really are stuffed.Cummings acknowledged that it was perfectly reasonable to disagree with the decision that he and his wife made. I believe he said his wife had thrown up but was not displaying the symptoms of the virus such as persistent continuous cough or temperature. Did he say that he had any symptoms at the time?
Grim reading for the government; bloody wonderful reading for decent people.Given that Government and Johnsons own polls have plummeted,I wonder if it will end up with Cummings advising the government that Johnson should resign?
But in terms of whether Cummings broke the rule the definition of vulnerable in those rules is the only one that matters.No that's not the guidance - it says "Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.
And in terms of the 'exceptional' circumstance of tow parents unable to look after a small child, then clearly the parents must also retain the principle of self-isolation - in other words not leave the property for 7/14 days. So unless it is impossible for the child to be looked after without the parent's leaving the house they must follow options that mean they can still self isolate. Cummings did not follow those options - so rather than using the 260 trip (which clearly broke self isolation rules) as a last option he seemed to take it as the first options. To note.
Clearly Cummings disagreed with your assessment of the situation.
1. According to Cummings there never was a situation where their child wasn't able to be looked after by one or other parent - as he claimed neither they nor the child had any direct contact with the sister or parents. So the action was pre-emptive and unnecessary. Had they stayed in London they'd have been fine.
2. Why did they not look for solutions closer to home that did not require them to break self-isolation or massively reduce travel so, for example:
What about their normal child-care options. It beggars believe the a couple like Cummings and Wakefield (who will both work long hours etc) won't have extensive options in place. These could have been called upon if needed (they weren't of course - see 1).
What about family in London - it is widely reported that they both have family in London, including Wakefield's two brothers. Why was if better to drive 260 miles with symptoms rather than get close family living close by to help out if needed (it wasn't of course - see 1)
3. Under the rules on lock down and vulnerable people they should have got relative or friend without symptoms to come to them not the other way around. And of course with her brothers just a few miles away they could have come to stay in the house to look after the child (and would themselves be expected to self isolate or pick up the child). That is no different to what they did in terms of support for the child but avoided breaking self isolation rules and driving 260 miles with symptoms.
4. As a high level 'power couple' undoubtedly they could have tapped into a support network, including official support that did not require them to travel 260 mile and break self isolation rules
You will note too that the government put out specific guidance on whether you could choose where to self isolate (or even lock down) if you had a option of places. And the answer was absolutely clear - no - you had to self isolate where you were, you could not choose to travel to a second home (that's effectively what this was) or holiday let, another household etc etc - you have to remain in the same property for 7/14 days. Cummings did not do this - he clearly broke his own rules.
Given that Government and Johnsons own polls have plummeted,I wonder if it will end up with Cummings advising the government that Johnson should resign?
No that's not the guidance - it says "Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.Which part of:
What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to follow this guidance."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance/stay-at-home-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection
Which part of:
'However, if you have any of the symptoms above you should self-isolate at home.' and
'if you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19), then you must stay at home for at least 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill. See the explanatory diagram'
is consistent with driving 260 miles to Durham.
Cummins broke his own rules.
Thanks Susan. Yes I found the questions from some of the reporters at the Press conference very rehearsed and seemed to have no bearing on the actual statement made by Cummings. The reporters would have been better off finding some evidence to back up their allegations of Cummings breaking the lock down rules. I would have focused on the jolly to the Castle, as the drive to Durham seems to be within the published Government guidance if the reason Cummings went there was that it was the best way to care for a vulnerable 4 year old while putting the least number of people at risk of getting very sick from Covid-19 caught from said 4 year-old. I would agree with the assessment that a 17 year old and 20 year old were at less risk of getting very sick compared to a neighbour or relative or friend of a similar age to Cummings.Again - well said indeed! And thank you for posting the text of that particular exchange. Yes, I think Cummings replied sensibly and well.
Reporter: The British public want an apology /resignation because you broke the lockdown rules because you consider yourself special
Dom: No I didn't - the guidance allows exceptions to the "stay at home" rule if you left to care for a vulnerable person such as a 4 year old child
Reporter: That's a loophole you have found. And other people don't have the privilege of having parents with cottages on private land so you shouldn't be able to avail yourself of any option that the rest of the public do not have access to, if you are claiming we are all in this together. Think of the single mothers and the cancer patients denied treatment so show some solidarity and put your son at risk too"
Dom: Eh no thanks - I'm a parent so won't risk dumping my 4 year old with the nearest neighbour, plus the 4 year old could get sick/ be a carrier of Covid-19 and could make my neighbour very sick. The exception is there in the published government guidance for the public to avail themselves of it if the public think it necessary, because the government always thought caring for a vulnerable person is more important than staying at home during lockdown.
Reporter: You have suddenly introduced the idea that people can use their own judgement
Dom: Um no - it was always in the published government guidance to use your judgement in exceptional cases such as caring for a vulnerable person
Reporter: The public are angry because they haven't seen their relatives and you have so you should apologise and resign
Dom: I wasn't in Durham to visit my parents - I was there to isolate myself for 14 days while also protecting my vulnerable 4 year old child in the event that my wife and I both got too sick to care for him and did not want to dump him on random neighbours, plus I did not want to infect said random neighbour by asking them to care for my 4 year-old...….Plus my neighbours hate me and my boss - because I am a slimy individual with questionable politics and my boss is a tit. (Okay he didn't say that last part)
Of course he did. >:(And that's before we even get into his jolly to Barnard Castle under lock down (no longer self isolation) which, let's not forget, was on his wife's birthday.
In due course I comment in more detail on your lengthy post as it contains numerous inaccuracies. But this one I can mail straight away.You use the phrase, 'as far as I know' which means that you simply cannot eliminate the child's possible particular needs.
A 4 year old child is most definitely NOT considered to be vulnerable in the context of child protection or COVID-19 simply because the are a 4 year old child. They would only be considered vulnerable were that child to have certain underlying health conditions or where there were specific safeguarding concerns - as far as I'm aware neither of those apply to Cummings son.
As you may or may not know I am the owner of a nursery - and when we were required to close we were allowed to remain open for the children of key workers unable to look after their children and children legally defined as vulnerable. We have about 30 4 year olds on our books - not a single one is classified as vulnerable in the legal context which is what would apply in terms of justification of breaking lock-down/self isolation.
The government has provided guidance on who is, and is not, considered vulnerable in cover-19 terms - it does not include 4 year old children.
... while also protecting my vulnerable 4 year old child in the event that my wife and I both got too sick to care for him and did not want to dump him on random neighbours ...Emotive non-sense.
You use the phrase, 'as far as I know' which means that you simply cannot eliminate the child's possible particular needs.I said that as I cannot know for sure that he is vulnerable as defined by the government guidelines. Do you have any information to the contrary, for example that Cummings' son is defined as vulnerable which means his is:
Which part of:Selective quoting. The part in the guidance that says if you are living with children we are aware that not all these stay at home measures may be possible and to follow them to the best of your ability.
'However, if you have any of the symptoms above you should self-isolate at home.' and
'if you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19), then you must stay at home for at least 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill. See the explanatory diagram'
is consistent with driving 260 miles to Durham.
Cummins broke his own rules.That’s your opinion. Others are available.
Emotive non-sense.....You’re entitled to your opinion. I feel the same way about many of your posts on this forum.
....Risible.
Fintan O'Toole on Cummings behaviourI get the point he is making. I just don't share the emotion but can understand that some people who feel they have made big sacrifices may feel betrayed. I haven't felt any emotional pain from being in lockdown. Mildly bored sometimes and missing going to the gym, but other than that no big sacrifice here.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/26/cummings-contempt-lockdown-rules-public-catholic-church-ireland?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
I said that as I cannot know for sure that he is vulnerable as defined by the government guidelines. Do you have any information to the contrary, for example that Cummings' son is defined as vulnerable which means his is:As already explained, I used the word "vulnerable" according to the ordinary meaning as in someone who needed safe-guarding, not the Covid-19 meaning. So fixating on the Covid-19 meaning is ignoring the point I was making.
aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
under 70 with an underlying health condition listed below (ie anyone instructed to get a flu jab as an adult each year on medical grounds):
chronic (long-term) mild to moderate respiratory diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or bronchitis
chronic heart disease, such as heart failure
chronic kidney disease
chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis
chronic neurological conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy
diabetes
a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets
being seriously overweight (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or above)
those who are pregnant
people who have received an organ transplant and remain on ongoing immunosuppression medication
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy or radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia who are at any stage of treatment
people with severe chest conditions such as cystic fibrosis or severe asthma (requiring hospital admissions or courses of steroid tablets)
people with severe diseases of body systems, such as severe kidney disease (dialysis)
And if he was, then the most dangerous place to be would be in a car for 6 hours with a person with symptoms. Were he actually vulnerable (as defined by his own guidance) the child should have been removed from a household containing self isolating people to a safe place (again according the Cummings own guidance) - but he wasn't - he remained with symptomatic people for 14 days including a 260 mile car journey in a small confined space.
As already explained, I used the word "vulnerable" according to the ordinary meaning as in someone who needed safe-guarding, not the Covid-19 meaning. So fixating on the Covid-19 meaning is ignoring the point I was making.The only meaning which has any relevant in terms of the cover-19 guidance and whether Cummings broke them is the use of the term in that guidance. You can use as many definitions as you like, but the only relevant ones are:
Selective quoting. The part in the guidance that says if you are living with children we are aware that not all these stay at home measures may be possible and to follow them to the best of your ability.The key word there being possible, not preferred option, what is easiest for us, what my instinct says as a parent, nope possible.
That’s your opinion. Others are available.Leaving aside the self isolation period - please explain to my how Cummins failed to break the lock down (stay at home) rules when he drove to Barnard Castle, had a walk, drove part way back (had another walk).
The only meaning which has any relevant in terms of the cover-19 guidance and whether Cummings broke them is the use of the term in that guidance. You can use as many definitions as you like, but the only relevant ones are:No - the dictionary meaning of "vulnerable" in terms of safeguarding small children is also relevant to the question of whether Cummings acted reasonably in driving to Durham.
aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
under 70 with an underlying health condition listed below (ie anyone instructed to get a flu jab as an adult each year on medical grounds):
chronic (long-term) mild to moderate respiratory diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or bronchitis
chronic heart disease, such as heart failure
chronic kidney disease
chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis
chronic neurological conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy
diabetes
a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets
being seriously overweight (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or above)
those who are pregnant
people who have received an organ transplant and remain on ongoing immunosuppression medication
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy or radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia who are at any stage of treatment
people with severe chest conditions such as cystic fibrosis or severe asthma (requiring hospital admissions or courses of steroid tablets)
people with severe diseases of body systems, such as severe kidney disease (dialysis)
Leaving aside the self isolation period - please explain to my how Cummins failed to break the lock down (stay at home) rules when he drove to Barnard Castle, had a walk, drove part way back (had another walk).You'll have to ask someone else.
You'll have to ask someone else.So let's look at the possibilities.
See #2105 where I said "it seems suspect that he went to a local beauty spot by accident. I think it was wrong that he and his wife and son would get out of the car and sit by the river during lockdown instead of going straight back to their cottage - he should have realised how bad that would look if the public became aware of it."
and #2121 "But I don't believe the journey to a pretty Castle was to test his eyes - it sounds bogus to me."
Don't you read before you post on here or are you just confused?
The key word there being possible, not preferred option, what is easiest for us, what my instinct says as a parent, nope possible.His version is that their normal childcare options were not possible.
Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.
So the question is - was it not possible for Cummings and his wife to self isolate at home due to having a child. And the answer is, of course it was possible, they just chose not to.
And the main message is that you must not leave your home for 7/14 days while self isolating, unless it is not possible - it was perfectly possible for Cummings to stay at home, there were plenty of options for him if he and his wife were both ill and couldn't look after the child (not that that actually happened).
The point is that we have all made sacrifices - not done things that our instincts said we should in order to obey the rules - and yet Cummings drove 260 miles when he should not have left his home which is only allowable if it was not possible for him to remain in the house - it was perfectly possible for him to do that.
So let's look at the possibilities.Yep sure - in relation to the "eye-test drive" and getting out of the car to go for a walk to the river because "he felt sick" you and I are in agreement that he seems to have broken the rules.
1. We went for a drive to test his eyesight - he broke the rules and potentially committed a road traffic offence.
2. He went to Barnard Castle specifically to go for exercise - he broke the rules as somewhere 30 miles aways cannot be considered 'local' nor a necessary trip for exercise (the rule require you to stay local and not travel unnecessarily for exercise)
3. He went for a drive, not intending to go for a walk, but did anyway - he broke the rules as you can only leave your home for essential shopping, exercise (see above) or to travel to work - none apply.
Conclusion, whichever way you cut it, he broke the rules.
I get the point he is making. I just don't share the emotion but can understand that some people who feel they have made big sacrifices may feel betrayed. I haven't felt any emotional pain from being in lockdown. Mildly bored sometimes and missing going to the gym, but other than that no big sacrifice here.Sorry to hear about your mother--in-laws death, and yes, I can understand and agree that some issues have felt for individuals as working better when they have been following lockdown rules. I've been with my wife for longer than any period in the last ten years. I have also connected with people I would not have, and had a couple of friendships deepen because of circumstances.
I was really glad that we could not all get together and grieve my mother-in-law's death the way we normally would, as she died during lockdown; and her funeral is the best one I have ever been to because the limitation on numbers participating made it very peaceful plus the weather was beautiful and we buried her a day after she died. The family got together online every day for 60 days and recited the Quran together and my ability to recite in Arabic improved dramatically - never would have happened if she had not died and we weren't in lockdown.
I'm not too perturbed that my children and parents cannot spend time with each other - my parents' lives do not revolve around their grandchildren despite having cared for them on many occasions when the children were young, hence they seem to be coping with the separation just fine. But then again they left me as a baby in Sri Lanka for a year when I was about 6 months old, and came to England so that my mum could financially support my dad's Masters in civil engineering, so I'm not surprised that they are coping fine without seeing their grandchildren.
Apparently 41 Tory MPs want him gone.And a minister has resigned.
Yep sure - in relation to the "eye-test drive" and getting out of the car to go for a walk to the river because "he felt sick" you and I are in agreement that he seems to have broken the rules.Why can't you just bring yourself to say that he broke the rules. There is not way in which his trip to Barnard Castle can have been within the rules. It is just impossible, whichever way you look at it, and whichever reason for the trip you accept.
And a minister has resigned.Yeah, I think the dishonorable Douglas's resignation has already been mentioned on here. This is quite good but it gets Ross's election year wrong
And we are into terrifying 'revisionist history' territory now.
Cummings clearly broke the rules as they were widely understood in late March/early April - and those clearly understood rules resulted in people being fined for traveling for unnecessary childcare reasons.
Now because Cummings breaks the rules the government firstly tries to pretend that what he did was always understood to be in the rules (it wasn't) and now to try to rewrite history is looking at fines imposed on others simply to try to make it look like what they did was within the rules.
His version is that their normal childcare options were not possible.Actually on the contrary - their normal childcare options were entirely possible.
His version is that their normal childcare options were not possible.
I note you have volunteered the services of all their relatives for child-care without asking them. Cummings' reasoning was that the 17 year old and the 20 year old would be at less risk of getting seriously ill if they had to look after his son compared to his other relatives and friends and that the nieces had volunteered to do child care duties. Do you know if any of the other relatives had volunteered their child-care services? Or whether the Cummings had the kind of relationship with other relatives where they could ask them to risk catching Coronavirus by coming over to their house or taking the 4 year-old into their own home?
We may have made sacrifices. However, the point is that if the Cummings decided they might not be able to care for their child at home if they both became ill and they came to the conclusion that it was not possible to get someone in London to come and live in their home for 14 days or longer as it was too much of an imposition and it was not possible to send the 4 year-old to someone else's house in London for 14 days or longer because of the risks, then a reasonable course of action was to get their child to a place where they can be looked after with the minimum contact with other people possible. They obviously could not drive to Durham once they were actually both too ill to drive.
Did everyone in the government who had recently been in close contact with Boris go into isolation once he tested positive for coronavirus?
And now we see that the UK govt has to accept that the laws they applied to others were breached by Cummings and si they might have to retrospectively change them.Cummings can do no wrong.
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/government-to-look-at-scrapping-lockdown-fines-for-families-seeking-childcare_uk_5ecd2557c5b66801e008e3e3?ncid=other_facebook_eucluwzme5k&utm_campaign=share_facebook&fbclid=IwAR2-sRp_A3427zIH250_JJLjVUtJaLbu7z5tsrbPrDJ_jUVeGb16x09Ippk&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9tLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHF9D4RzCY1PLlAgFNZYnhmu6VvuOHD0LSYPvSXP3VaRYcm2j84jtx99LASyhM9vLPN4UUytGgYnepbud2N0O83imusbkaMEtmUQkkWpnnZuNHsqnuf5rFvVD4WrJ5vEnUSWs--oKoWIs8KJgdtNmpU-TbccUl4dHeSaRIgWoHda
Cummings can do no wrong.It's worth reading the twitter thread from Aamer Anwar that I posted earlier that covers the timings including the article.
So when he is found to have done wrong, everyone else who also did wrong must be proven not to have done wrong to prove that Cummings did no wrong.
Anyone listen to or read the article Wakefield wrote for the Spectator (and also on Thought for the Day in late April) recounting her experience with covid-19. She mentions:
Writing in The Spectator, Ms Wakefield described how she was stricken by the disease first and that her “kind” husband had rushed home to look after her. However, she went on, 24 hours later Mr Cummings said he felt “weird” and collapsed.
Weird that she never mentioned the 260 mile drive between the first sentence and the second one. Was she so out of it that she failed to remember it, was a middle of the night mercy dash of 260 miles with a 4 year old child so unremarkable as not to mention. Or did she know that they'd broken the rules so she mustn't mention that all the rest of the article takes place in Durham.
Also note the following:
Downing Street insisted Mr Cummings he had been working from home during his 14 days off work.
In the same magazine, Mr Cummings described being isolated at home with his wife and son as “sticky”.
New definition of home - a property on your parents' estate 260 mile from home. Why so shy at mentioning that little detail if you hadn't done anything wrong.
According to Sky they have backtracked from that now:So more lies
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-govt-to-look-at-fines-given-to-families-in-lockdown-after-vicar-puts-hancock-on-spot-11995052
It's worth reading the twitter thread from Aamer Anwar that I posted earlier that covers the timings including the article.The item on Radio 4's today in which Wakefield recounts the story of the covid-19 events, while conveniently forgetting to mention a 260 mile trip to Durham.
The item on Radio 4's today in which Wakefield recounts the story of the covid-19 events, while conveniently forgetting to mention a 260 mile trip to Durham.The deconstruction by Aamer is I think the clearest dealing with the dates so far.
I wonder why?
And a detailed thread looking at the claims and timings from Aamer Anwar
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1265241537962749953.html
Sorry to hear about your mother--in-laws death, and yes, I can understand and agree that some issues have felt for individuals as working better when they have been following lockdown rules. I've been with my wife for longer than any period in the last ten years. I have also connected with people I would not have, and had a couple of friendships deepen because of circumstances.NS - Thank you for your condolences and wishes. I appreciate it.
But that doesn't get rid of the betrayal that many who had different experiences of lockdown from you, and for Susa0n Doris to dismiss those angry about having missed being with relatives who died as whingers is another reason why the behaviour of No Regrets Cummings is problematic. It supports people who broke the rules, and spits on those who followed them. As the Metro of all papers managed today, Stay Elite.
Before you reply to this, I would like you to read the Aamer Anwar thread that I posted because your idea that Cummings behaved 'reasonably' seems ripped apart there.
But leaving that aside, my best wishes to you and your family, take care.
And the American beliefs on conspiracies
https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-spreading-on-the-right-may-hamper-vaccine-efforts-152843610.html
Thread 1/23, 2/22, 3/23, 4/23 and 6/23 regarding Mary having symptoms of Covid-19: she threw up, which is not a symptom of Covid-19. So Cummings would not be required to self-isolate.In which case Cummings still broke the rules as the country was in lock down - the only reasons to leave your house being:
Apparently 41 Tory MPs want him gone.From the safety of an 80+ majority, they probably feel they are on safe ground. I think they should think twice before speaking.
Why can't you just bring yourself to say that he broke the rules.Because I normally use words like “seem” when I write posts as opposed to making pompous arrogant declarations like you. You have your irritating style of posting and I have mine. If you can’t tolerate it that’s your problem.
There is not way in which his trip to Barnard Castle can have been within the rules. It is just impossible, whichever way you look at it, and whichever reason for the trip you accept.As I have already said in the first post I made about Cummings’ trip to Durham, I don’t think the trip to the castle was justified.
And if he broke the rules he needs to go - it is corrosive in the extreme to allow the architect of those rules to break them with impunity.Or like the public in a similar situation, he could be spoken to by the police and fined for driving to the Castle. It isn’t a shock to many of the public that MPs breach rules.
In which case Cummings still broke the rules as the country was in lock down - the only reasons to leave your house being:
1. To travel to work if you cannot work at home
2. To buy essential items as infrequently as possible
3. To exercise once a day close to home
Under which one of those is a 260 mile journey justified?
If fact the government had clarified that you must not travel to another property (second home, holiday let, someone else's house etc) for the purposes of either lock down or self isolation.
It doesn't help - it is quite possible that Wakefield didn't have COVID-19, but it would appear that Cummings did so frankly it makes no difference to the issue of breaking the rules.
From the safety of an 80+ majority, they probably feel they are on safe ground. I think they should think twice before speaking.Why should they 'think twice'?
NS - Thank you for your condolences and wishes. I appreciate it.First, Gabriella, I think all your recent post are far and away the best on this current situation. I admire very much the time and care you have taken with reading and watching and responding. As far as I can see, I agree with all you are saying and thank you for writing such very interesting posts.
Yes I can understand the sense of betrayal some people feel because of their experiences, and also there are many who do not feel a sense of betrayal but do view Cummings in a negative way. I thought the Marina Hyde Guardian article you linked to reflected a lot of my views in relation to Boris and Cummings, but I disagreed with some parts.
I am not sure who Susan referred to as whingers - I will have to go back and re-read.
The whingers or moaners are mainly those whom I hear on FiveLive phone-ins. Mind you, since there is so much of it, I have to turn off after a short while every time I turn on!This goes way beyond the usual 'whingers and moaners' (whoever they may be).
You don't seem to get the ludicrous logic of someone in a position of power, supposedly helping to put together a policy that would prevent the spread of a plague by people fleeing from highly infected urban areas to relatively unaffected rural areas, felt that that was exactly what he and his family needed to do - because he was unable to arrange child care in the event that he was taken ill.That’s the whole point - I actually don’t think arranging child care for a 4 year old child who was potentially a carrier of Covid-19 is a simple matter in a pandemic when parents might be severely incapacitated and possibly end up hospitalised and dead. Of course the kid could have been dumped with someone or taken into social care but if I had a better option to keep my 4 year-old from having to be dumped with someone for 14 days or longer, I would take it.
Someone in one of the highest positions of power, with Ministers, MPs, civil servants, the Police and NHS at his beck and call was unable to arrange for someone to look after his child? None of them able to advise him on the correct actions to take? Did he even try them? If it was necessary I'm sure they would have been able to arrange for him to be taken to his refuge, probably accompanied by a police escort - rather than risk a 250+ mile drive whilst infected and with a sick wife and "vulnerable" child. And, just don't ask what any ordinary people are supposed to do in the same or worse situation.
Of-course it wasn't necessary. Did he break the rules? - does it matter? They certainly seem to have taken care to have hidden their activities but the fact is that "the rules" are a sham, for the mugs, to make it look as if something is being done. That he was exposed is just an inconvenience, their main care now is for the lock down to be loosened so the economy can get back flowing.Or I can relate to the reason for driving to Durham to isolate near his sister, nieces and parents for child-care reasons and I don’t feel betrayed or even particularly care that he did.
You and Susan seem to have fallen for a distraction put together by two professional liars and media manipulators.
First, Gabriella, I think all your recent post are far and away the best on this current situation. I admire very much the time and care you have taken with reading and watching and responding. As far as I can see, I agree with all you are saying and thank you for writing such very interesting posts.
The whingers or moaners are mainly those whom I hear on FiveLive phone-ins. Mind you, since there is so much of it, I have to turn off after a short while every time I turn on!
If someone were to have norovirus or something similar, the last thing I would do is pack them and a four year old in a car and try and drive 260 miles without stopping. IF they were sufficiently well to do that, then there is no concept of an emergency.I agree - it would be an extremely foolish thing to do, but in normal circumstances there are no rules to prevent them. But under the current rules there can be no justification unless:
In which case Cummings still broke the rules as the country was in lock down - the only reasons to leave your house being:My answer has not changed from the previous times you asked this.
1. To travel to work if you cannot work at home
2. To buy essential items as infrequently as possible
3. To exercise once a day close to home
Under which one of those is a 260 mile journey justified?
If fact the government had clarified that you must not travel to another property (second home, holiday let, someone else's house etc) for the purposes of either lock down or self isolation.
It doesn't help - it is quite possible that Wakefield didn't have COVID-19, but it would appear that Cummings did so frankly it makes no difference to the issue of breaking the rules.
People have an absolute right to be angry with the way Cummings has behaved. You might not be so thrilled if you picked up the virus from someone who wasn't self-isolating.And let's not forget that at the time when Cummings drove 260 miles to Durham London was the epicentre of infections and the NE had few. A few weeks later and the reverse is true - the NE is a hot spot - where did all those infections come from?
First, Gabriella, I think all your recent post are far and away the best on this current situation. I admire very much the time and care you have taken with reading and watching and responding. As far as I can see, I agree with all you are saying and thank you for writing such very interesting posts.Nice to see you once again portraying the many people who have had people die and not be able to visit them as whingers.
The whingers or moaners are mainly those whom I hear on FiveLive phone-ins. Mind you, since there is so much of it, I have to turn off after a short while every time I turn on!
My answer has not changed from the previous times you asked this.She had made it clear that this was a safeguarding clause - ie. only to be triggering where there are genuine safeguarding concerns - there were no such safeguarding concerns here.
The day after lockdown began, 24 March, the deputy chief medical officer for England, Dr Jenny Harries, clarified who could look after a child if both parents or carers were incapacitated.
She said: "Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance.
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs."
Any of the government lockdown guidance can be overruled by safeguarding concerns, or prevention of harm, Dr Harries said at Saturday's briefing.
She used the examples of an elderly person with no supply of medication, or a child with both parents too unwell to provide medical care.
"Risk to life" would be a valid reason to break lockdown rules, Dr Harries said.
She had made it clear that this was a safeguarding clause - ie. only to be triggering where there are genuine safeguarding concerns - there were no such safeguarding concerns here.This again relates back to the muddled narrative. Cummings and Wakefield had Schrodinger's Covid - it was an emergency because they had it on the drive, but they didn't cause any risk because they didn't have it on the drive.
And you'll note her very words:
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance." - that did not apply - at no time were Cummings and/or his wife unable to look after their child. There was no exceptional circumstance. And even if there were they needed to look for options that did not require them to break self isolation, of which there are of course plenty, not least asking for official support.
I agree - it would be an extremely foolish thing to do, but in normal circumstances there are no rules to prevent them. But under the current rules there can be no justification unless:You do realise they cannot order a friend/ neighbour/ relative in London to provide child-care right? I would be pretty pissed off if all of my friends/ neighbours/ relatives phoned up and just presumed they have a right to ask me to take on child-care of their possibly Covid-19 infected 4 year-old while I also had to deal with existing responsibilities eg work, my own children’s online schooling etc. If I had offered based on the closeness I felt to a particular person or because I was selfless enough to risk my health that’s a different matter.
1. It is clear you cannot look after the child yourself - that wasn't the case at the point they made the decision nor thereafter.
2. You had exhausted all options for child-care that did not involve you breaking self isolation including
a) Relatives/friends nearby being asked to support if necessary
b) Getting someone else to come to your house to help look after the child (they'd need to self isolate themselves, but that is fine within the rules
c) Removing the non-symptomatic child from the household (separating him form symptomatic people) to stay with someone else (they'd need to self isolate too).
All of those are in the rules and only if all of those are exhausted could there be a possible justification for travel. In reality they never got beyond 1, as they were able to look after the child. But they are completely silent on 2) - and it isn't reasonable to say 'hey my neices offered, so that's what we went with' - they were 260 miles away - the onus was on Cummings and Wakefield to look for a solution that didn't requirement breaking self isolation - it is unclear they ever did.
You do realise they cannot order a friend/ neighbour/ relative in London to provide child-care right?We have no idea that they even asked - do we. Despite Wakefield's two brother both living in London, and I think one of them also has two children of similar ages to the neices.
She had made it clear that this was a safeguarding clause - ie. only to be triggering where there are genuine safeguarding concerns - there were no such safeguarding concerns here.That was in relation to who could look after a child once the parents are incapacitated- so that means if Cummings and wife became incapacitated it was ok for the sister and nieces to breach lockdown rules to stay with Cummings st their cottage or take the child to their house.
And you'll note her very words:
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance." - that did not apply - at no time were Cummings and/or his wife unable to look after their child. There was no exceptional circumstance. And even if there were they needed to look for options that did not require them to break self isolation, of which there are of course plenty, not least asking for official support.
This again relates back to the muddled narrative. Cummings and Wakefield had Schrodinger's Covid - it was an emergency because they had it on the drive, but they didn't cause any risk because they didn't have it on the drive.
Jenny Harries also said if there are safeguarding concerns or a need to prevent harm, it was reasonable to break the rules.Indeed she did - and there were no safeguarding concerns in this case.
We have no idea that they even asked - do we. Despite Wakefield's two brother both living in London, and I think one of them also has two children of similar ages to the neices.That depends on how they assessed their abilities to be able to look after a 4 year old for many days while sick. You might find it doable, others might think it is beyond their capabilities.
We are in exceptional times - the only possible justification for leaving self isolation is clearly if you have no alternative and that means working through all the possible options that do not involve leaving their house in London. There was absolutely no justification for leaving their house in London as at that point and for the next 14 days they were able to look after the child themselves. You cannot break self isolation as a pre-emptive move just in case something might happen. Cummings, having been in SAGE meetings etc must have known that even were they both to come down with COVID-19, as healthy people in their 40s the likelihood of them both developing symptoms severe enough at the same that their child could not be looked after is vanishingly small. And that is as it turned out.
Yes, in fact Cummings states in his presser that he wasn't tested. Did they in fact have covid? I can't see any evidence of that.I think we have to take it that at some point in the Durham sojourn that based on the symptoms at least he did. That however doesn't mean that we clear up if Wakefield did or whether at the time they did the first drive whether they thought either of them had it. If they didn't think they had it, they shouldn't have done the drive, and yet if they did think they had they shouldn't have done the drive either,
That depends on how they assessed their abilities to be able to look after a 4 year old for many days while sick. You might find it doable, others might think it is beyond their capabilities.Ah bless - snowflakes - get a grip Gabriella - we are in exceptional times and the government is expecting us all to make considerable sacrifices to keep the country safe. I might find it hard to look after my 4-year old so I'll break self isolation even though at the time:
Indeed she did - and there were no safeguarding concerns in this case.The advice to the public from Harries was you can break lockdown rules in situations where you think it necessary to prevent harm. That would require the public to exercise their judgement.
...
Or I can relate to the reason for driving to Durham to isolate near his sister, nieces and parents for child-care reasons and I don’t feel betrayed or even particularly care that he did.
Ah bless - snowflakes - get a grip Gabriella - we are in exceptional times and the government is expecting us all to make considerable sacrifices to keep the country safe. I might find it hard to look after my 4-year old so I'll break self isolation even though at the time:You do know that calling someone a snowflake does not usually cause them to change their assessment of their abilities though it might make you feel smug and superior? I get that sounding smug and superior is your usual posting style on here.
1. There was no clear evidence that either had covid-19, and Cummings was well enough to drive 260 miles
2. There was no evidence that were they both to become ill that they'd both be ill at the same time
3. There was no evidence that were they both to become ill that they'd both be ill at the same time and their symptoms would be severe enough to be unable to look after their child.
I'm sorry Gab - this isn't about exceptional circumstances, it isn't about safeguarding, it is about Cummings and his wife taking a personal and selfish decision that self isolating in Durham would be easier for them (despite government guidelines being clear that you cannot cherry pick the place to self isolate). Wakefield even says as much in her article - saying that her thoughts when she became ill was that she and Cummings would have a nice 14 days of self isolation, she'd have him back from work etc etc. That was the context in which they made the decision - that's what she said before she knew that all hell would break loose when people found out about the drive.
Sure it's much nicer to spend 14 days self isolation in a nice rural spot where you can go out for walks on private land etc etc, rather than in Islington. But that's not what the rules allow.
The advice to the public from Harries was you can break lockdown rules in situations where you think it necessary to prevent harm. That would require the public to exercise their judgement.
Whether their actions were justified would have to be determined after they had exercised their judgement and broken the rules.
People have an absolute right to be angry with the way Cummings has behaved. You might not be so thrilled if you picked up the virus from someone who wasn't self-isolating.That's not the point. People have all sorts of rights. As I understand it, Cummings broke the spirit of the rule, but not the letter. And it was not a law that had gone through Parliament and been passed.
I should think that, assuming that they were the true reasons, most parents would understand and relate to them. Neither do I feel betrayed.Sure. I didn’t vote Tory and I always thought it was only a matter of time before Boris lost his political capital. It was all built on self-serving spin and lies.
However, I do care that, as the spin doctor in chief for the current regime in the current crisis, having taken the decisions and actions that they took, they attempt to keep it hidden and he does not resign.
This again relates back to the muddled narrative. Cummings and Wakefield had Schrodinger's Covid - it was an emergency because they had it on the drive, but they didn't cause any risk because they didn't have it on the drive.
You do know that calling someone a snowflake does not usually cause them to change their assessment of their abilities though it might make you feel smug and superior? I get that sounding smug and superior is your usual posting style on here.Nice ad hominem attack.
The wife is a journalist- I would not take everything she wrote as being factual- she wasn’t writing a deposition. She was writing an article to project particular images that she wanted to share or convey certain ideas. She also said Cummings was a kind husband.The whole episode as recounted by Wakefield (before the controversy) and by Cummings (after the story broke) are so full of holes it becomes pretty challenging to know where the truth lies sadly.
Sure. I didn’t vote Tory and I always thought it was only a matter of time before Boris lost his political capital. It was all built on self-serving spin and lies.And who is the chief architect of that self service spin and lies?
Cummings has turned the rules into a matter of personal choice, whereas they were taken as a collective effort to defeat the virus. How naive we are.Exactly the anger is two fold.
NS
If your opinion of my character and feelings is as you have portrayed it here i.e. as hard and unfeeling, after many years of reading my posts, then I am very sorry to hear it.
Gabriella
Your rational and impartial assessment would, in my opinion, make you a very good candidate for being on the Enquiry Committee which might or might not be set up later.
Nice ad hominem attack.You’re welcome. You made a similar comment about Sriram’s posting style so I knew you would approve.
The whole episode as recounted by Wakefield (before the controversy) and by Cummings (after the story broke) are so full of holes it becomes pretty challenging to know where the truth lies sadly.Yes that was my point - I agree with you - hard to know what the truth is.
So Wakefield claims:
'Day in, day out for ten days he lay doggo with a high fever and spasms that made the muscles lump and twitch in his legs. He could breathe, but only in a limited, shallow way,'
Yet Cummings claims he was well enough to drive to a hospital smack in the middle of that 10 day period.
And I'm sure she does think he is a kind husband - why would she have married him otherwise. But just being a kind husband doesn't exempt you from being a nightmare boss, nor having a semi-detached acquaintance with the truth.
And who is the chief architect of that self service spin and lies?Cummings - that’s why a lot of people don’t like him and why Boris is so desperate to hang onto him.
Yes that was my point - I agree with you - hard to know what the truth is.What we do know is that Cummings drove 260 miles from London to Durham - that isn't in doubt.
Exactly the anger is two fold.I think lots of members of the public were exercising their own judgement- I know I was. I stayed with my dying mother-in-law for hours each day during lockdown down because she was alone in her home. When my husband and I left another of his siblings took over for a few hours. We didn’t visit my aunt in hospital (my mother-in-law’s primary carer) because the hospital would not allow visitors due to lockdown. I saw lots of neighbours on VE Day exercising their own judgements. Which is probably why there are many of us who don’t feel betrayed.
Firstly the notion that it is one rule for the elite, another for everyone else.
But secondly that we were all being a bit stupid for following the rules rather than bending them to suit our personal needs and 'instinct' - blimey how many people would have taken the agonising decision not to visit a loved one who was dying if they'd thought the rules were, basically, optional, according to our personal choice.
Exactly the anger is two fold.
Firstly the notion that it is one rule for the elite, another for everyone else.
But secondly that we were all being a bit stupid for following the rules rather than bending them to suit our personal needs and 'instinct' - blimey how many people would have taken the agonising decision not to visit a loved one who was dying if they'd thought the rules were, basically, optional, according to our personal choice.
What we do know is that Cummings drove 260 miles from London to Durham - that isn't in doubt.You have not seen credible justification for the drive to Durham but clearly there are others who seem to disagree with your assessment. I agree about the trip to the Castle. I think the police should be looking into it and speaking to Cummings and issuing a fine.
We also know that he drove from Durham to Barnard Castle and back - that also isn't in doubt.
Without clear justification both are breaches of the rules. I have seen no credible justification for the first trip and there can be no justification for the latter.
But you cannot let people create a mist of confusion and confiscation to get away with wrong doing. He is a senior public servant, he was the architect of the rules, he broke the rules.
I think lots of members of the public were exercising their own judgement- I know I was.Well I suspect you are in a minority - I think most people accepted the rules and followed them - they didn't take a decision as to whether an individual rule applied to them because it was inconvenient, or horrible unpalatable.
I stayed with my dying mother-in-law for hours each day during lockdown down because she was alone in her home. When my husband and I left another of his siblings took over for a few hours.But you have said this is because your mother in law was genuinely vulnerable (in the guidance terms) and had lost her care options, as her carer had been hospitalised and I presume you weren't symptomatic while traveling. That eventuality is within the guidance and is entirely different from the 4-year old who had not lost his care options - both his parents were available and at no time were both of them so ill that they couldn't look after him. And they were in self isolation, not lock-down - the rules on the former are, obviously, much stricter than the latter.
We didn’t visit my aunt in hospital (my mother-in-law’s primary carer) because the hospital would not allow visitors due to lockdown. I saw lots of neighbours on VE Day exercising their own judgements. Which is probably why there are many of us who don’t feel betrayed.Many more do however - have you actually seen the polling on the issue - it is vitriolic and across the political spectrum.
You have not seen credible justification for the drive to Durham but clearly there are others who seem to disagree with your assessment.The public have all seen same justification and by an overwhelming majority (about 80% to 9%) they agree with me that he broke the rules, i.e. there was no credible justification for the trip.
I agree about the trip to the Castle. I think the police should be looking into it and speaking to Cummings and issuing a fine.The Police are looking into it, but that isn't the end to it - this a matter of misconduct in his public office role - if he broke his own rules he needs to resign or be sacked from that office.
Well I suspect you are in a minority - I think most people accepted the rules and followed them - they didn't take a decision as to whether an individual rule applied to them because it was inconvenient, or horrible unpalatable.We'll have to see the surveys on how strictly the public were following the rules. There were some rules that were followed strictly - for example not visiting care homes or dying relatives as the care home or hospital staff would not allow it, but I suspect there were some rules being broken especially when it came to social distancing when going into shops or dropping off food to elderly parents and standing 2m away to chat to them or people leaving home to run errands. I have fasted during Ramadan for over 25 years, therefore I know our bodies can function well without food and water for long periods of the day - in fact I dusted, vacuumed and cleaned the whole house the day before Eid while fasting. Yet lots of people have been exercising their judgement to leave the house to buy food they could easily do without even though the rules state only leave the house to buy essential supplies. Lots of people stating they have put on weight during lockdown.
But you have said this is because your mother in law was genuinely vulnerable (in the guidance terms) and had lost her care options, as she had been hospitalised.I'm not sure. She was dying - carers came into the house 3 times a day for about 10 or 15 mins to see to her personal needs - they had access to a key. Possibly the only useful thing we could have done was call the District Nurse to administer morphine if she appeared to be in distress during the process of dying. Obviously we did not want her to die alone and we did not want her to die and not be discovered for hours. She was mostly sleeping and would occasionally appear to half-open her eyes and she would sometimes move her hands but was not responsive as far as I could tell - she would appear to look at us sometimes but no idea if she registered who we were. Her breathing was laboured sometimes and shallow sometimes. Were we providing care or making ourselves feel better - I don't know. We all took shifts - was it essential that we all took turns? I remember when she stopped eating and drinking while still relatively alert and responding to us, the doctor said she was not in discomfort and they would not administer IV fluids as that was just briefly prolonging the inevitable and would be for our benefit so we would feel better that she was not appearing to be starving to death before our eyes.
That eventuality is within the guidance and is entirely different from the 4-year old who had not lost his care options - both his parents were available and at no time were both of them so ill that they couldn't look after him. And they were in self isolation, not lock-down - the rules on the former are, obviously, much stricter than the latter.The carefully crafted story according to Cummings is that they were not in self-isolation at the time of the drive to Durham. The issue hinges on whether preventative measures such as driving to Durham is reasonable. Cummings and some Tory cabinet ministers seem to think it was reasonable. I think it was reasonable if they thought there was no one in London they felt close enough to who they could reasonably ask to risk their health and disrupt their lives for 2 weeks by taking on child-care of a potentially infectious child. In a liberal Parliamentary democracy, who should determine whether it was reasonable? The Press, the public, the police?
Many more do however - have you actually seen the polling on the issue - it is vitriolic and across the political spectrum.What is the percentage of those polled who think he should be investigated by the police and fined and what is the percentage that think he should resign or be sacked? Also do you have a link to the percentages who are vitriolic? What is the vitriolic?
The most recent shows that by 80% (did) to 9% (did not) people think he did break the rules. By 82% to 9% the public think he should apologise, by 78% to 8% people don't believe he drove to Barnard Castle to check his eyesight etc etc.
So you may frequent a bubble out of touch with public opinion on the matter, but most of us here don't.
We'll have to see the surveys on how strictly the public were following the rules.Err - the public were not responsible for generating the rules - are you unable to see that if you are the architect of the rules you have a much greater responsibility to abide by those rules as otherwise it undermines the rules for everyone. And, of course, there is the issue of hypocrisy and double standards if you are responsible for rules that the government expects everyone to abide by, yet you break them yourself.
I am just going on your dismissal of those who didn't get to see their loved ones before death who are upset at this as whingers.Nowhere have I 'dismissed' people or the upset they feel, and I don't think I called people whingers. I don't think I used the word 'whingers', I think I used moaners and nowhere did I dismiss their feelings of upset. What I challenge is their feeling that because they feel that particular way, whatever their particular circumstances, others have to do what they wish them to do, rather than what those others consider is correct and more beneficial to them in their personal circumstances. It is as if I should want to stop Dominic Cummings doing what he thinks is the best for his child because I am unable to get out and about because of my blindness. that would be really stupid. Whatever the moral and factual rights and wrongs of Dominic Cummings' behaviour, it would appear that in London his child could well have been subjected to
As for Gabriella, I would have no problem with her being on an enquiry but you stating that her assessment as rational and impartial seems to me more that you agree with her. So I don't think you are making a rational and impartial statement there.Wrong assumption. There is much that I have disagreed with gabriella on occasions, and I did notice a minor detail or two which I could have picked up on, but overall I think her posts show a calm, considered and considerate tone.
Err - the public were not responsible for generating the rules - are you unable to see that if you are the architect of the rules you have a much greater responsibility to abide by those rules as otherwise it undermines the rules for everyone. And, of course, there is the issue of hypocrisy and double standards if you are responsible for rules that the government expects everyone to abide by, yet you break them yourself.Yes I can certainly see that Cummings should have abided by the rules and not driven to the Castle in breach of the rules and yes I can see the hypocrisy of breaking the rules. I can also see that if Boris thinks he really needs him, he is not going to sack him regardless of the hypocrisy if he thinks his government will survive this.
If Cummings, and not the public, was responsible for generating the rules, presumably Cummings determined that the rules he generated allowed him to drive to Durham ...Indeed, because he felt that the rules didn't apply to him, only to the plebs. Not going to let some pesky lock down rules ruin a nice trip out for his wife's birthday to a well know (but not local) beauty spot.
... to prevent harm to his son, even if that harm was an anticipated harm that had not yet crystallised but had a reasonable probability of occurring in the near future.What harm - there was no harm at the time he made the decision, the possible scenario of both parents at the same time being unable to look after their son never happened and Cummings would have know from the stats that it was very unlikely to happen.
Indeed, because he felt that the rules didn't apply to him, only to the plebs. Not going to let some pesky lock down rules ruin a nice trip out for his wife's birthday to a well know (but not local) beauty spot.Or his exercise of his judgement to drive to Durham for child-care was reasonable for both him and the general public - if members of the public had similar child care concerns and had used their judgement to interpret the statements made by Jenny Harries as allowing them to drive for child-care. I guess we'll find out when we have more information from the people who made the rules.
One rule for the elite, another for everyone else.
What harm - there was no harm at the time he made the decision, the possible scenario of both parents at the same time being unable to look after their son never happened and Cummings would have know from the stats that it was very unlikely to happen.The story is that neither of them were displaying Covid-19 symptoms at the time of the drive to Durham - no continuous cough or temperature so no need to self-isolate until symptoms appeared.
And even if we accept the hypothetical risk (compared to the real risk of driving 260 miles with symptoms) all possible solutions that didn't not require them to break self isolation should have been exhausted before contemplating driving 260 miles. They weren't.
If Cummings and Wakefield were so confident that what they did was right, why did Wakefield fail to mention the midnight 260 mile journey in her article. Why did the news items about Cummings being ill fail to mention that he was in Durham and instead implied he was 'at home'.Could be any number of reasons including the one you are speculating about. It could be that they did not fancy drawing the attention of the Twitter Mob, social-media trolls and fair-minded tabloid Press (famous for not making things up) to Cummings' parents' farm. Cummings might be fair game but his parents and sister and nieces presumably weren't.
Or his exercise of his judgement to drive to Durham for child-care was reasonable for both him and the general public - if members of the public had similar child care concerns and had used their judgement to interpret the statements made by Jenny Harries as allowing them to drive for child-care. I guess we'll find out when we have more information from the people who made the rules.And indeed they did and quite a few were fined as we discovered yesterday.
On the subject of distancing, it could well be said that I have not kept exactly to the right distance. The Age Concern lady who does my shopping for me carries the bags through to the kitchen and takes everything out of the bags. During the time she is in my house, the distance between us can easily be closer than 2 metres. However, I do not worry about that. The instances of covid 19 hereabouts is very low and being a quite long-term volunteer for Age Concern, she is well aware of how to be careful.Must be really tough for you Susan - I am missing my cleaner, who came ad-hoc when I needed her, which was usually every 2 or 3 weeks, but at least I can clean and she had not been to my house for a few weeks before lockdown.
From the time of her visit yesterday until the next time she comes, I shall not be anywhere near any other person, so if by some remote chance I have caught covid 19 from her or any of the food packaging - which I certainly wasn't going to wipe every surface of - then I shall not pass it on to anyone. I realise that I am lucky compared with some of the difficulties other blind people are coping with, according to In Touch yesterday, but not having my reader or my cleaner coming is making life difficult.
The story is that neither of them were displaying Covid-19 symptoms at the time of the drive to Durham - no continuous cough or temperature so no need to self-isolate until symptoms appeared.I don't believe that is true - both Wakefield and Cummings in different responses at different times (both before and after the story broke) believed that Wakefield might have COVID-19 due to her being unwell - therefore self isolation kicked in at the moment symptoms developed - at that point the rules required Wakefield to self isolate and not leave her home (in Islington) and for anyone else in the household (including Cummings and the child) to self isolate and not leave the home for 14 days unless symptoms developed in which case self isolation could end 7 days after appearance of symptoms.
Hiding things is a natural consequence of having online social media and journalists - as much as thinking that people are interested in someone else's every movement or thinking that others are interested in every thought that pops into someone else's brain.There is a fine line between hiding things and downright lying. You can argue that failing to mention a 260 trip to Durham is just hiding things (I think most of us understand why she didn't want to mention it, proved right with the furious response when the story broke), but how about.
And indeed they did and quite a few were fined as we discovered yesterday.Got any links to specifics? I would need details before forming an opinion. Also, given the number of times we disagree on here why would I trust you?
Stop reinventing what others say - Jenny Harries did not say you were allowed to drive for child care (trust me as someone who owns a childcare business I think I'm pretty clued up on what was and was not allowed for child-care). No - under exceptional circumstances where there was a safeguarding concern you may be allowed to leave your house - that is what the rules allowed.
And these were not exceptional circumstances, there was no safeguarding concern and even if there were degree of proportionality would apply - on other words finding the solution that most closely maintained the self isolation restrictions - that would not be drive 260 miles.Prevention of harm is also a reason to break lockdown rules. They weren't required to self-isolate when they drove up to Durham as they weren't displaying symptoms. Let's wait for the investigation to determine what was reasonable. Who is carrying out an investigation Who gets to decide these issues?
And even in Jenny Harries most recent post-Cummings reinterpretation of the advice she gives no comfort to Cummings as her example relates to a child who is 'significantly unwell and has no support' (her very words) - in what way does that apply to the Cummings situation - it doesn't.Given your history of selective quoting on here I won't take your word for it that this is all she said.
Prevention of harm is also a reason to break lockdown rules.What harm - if Wakefield and Cummings can leave lock down while their child is in a house with one ill parent and on well parent, due to potential (not actual) harm, then surely anyone with a kid could do so - perhaps to prevent the kids killing each other. Ok everyones getting a bit hot under the collar - could be harm, yup lets prevent that harm - quick trip to the country 260 miles away - yup that should do the trick.
I don't believe that is true - both Wakefield and Cummings in different responses at different times (both before and after the story broke) believed that Wakefield might have COVID-19 due to her being unwell - therefore self isolation kicked in at the moment symptoms developed - at that point the rules required Wakefield to self isolate and not leave her home (in Islington) and for anyone else in the household (including Cummings and the child) to self isolate and not leave the home for 14 days unless symptoms developed in which case self isolation could end 7 days after appearance of symptoms.Symptoms developing is a matter of fact - either they did or they didn't. Vomiting is not a symptom of Covid-19 therefore symptoms had not developed.
But even if the didn't think they were under self isolation (I think it is pretty clear they did), then they were definitely under lock down and none of the reasons to leave the house under lock down apply to their 260 mile journey.Let's wait for the outcome of any investigation. Who determines whether they did or they didn't break the rules? I think we can agree that it's not you that determines this.
So it really matters not whether they were under self isolation or lock down - they still broke the rules.
Got any links to specifics? I would need details before forming an opinion. Also, given the number of times we disagree on here why would I trust you?Yes the rules around schools, nurseries and other child-care providers remaining open for the children of key workers (if and only if they cannot be looked after at him) - and indeed that key workers are specifically allowed to break lock down to take their child to that designated child-care (and can be placed at an appropriate setting by the relevant local authority).
What harm - if Wakefield and Cummings can leave lock down while their child is in a house with one ill parent and on well parent, due to potential (not actual) harm, then surely anyone with a kid could do so - perhaps to prevent the kids killing each other. Ok everyones getting a bit hot under the collar - could be harm, yup lets prevent that harm - quick trip to the country 260 miles away - yup that should do the trick.Let's wait for the outcome of any investigation to determine this. Who gets to decide? I think we've established that it's not you.
And at that point, surely the only potential harm was the child catching the illness - how does traveling for six hours in a confined car - prevent that harm. Surely it would exacerbate it.Let's wait for the outcome of an investigation to determine of that was the only potential harm. I'm fairly certain it's not you that gets to determine this.
Yes the rules around schools, nurseries and other child-care providers remaining open for the children of key workers (if and only if they cannot be looked after at him) - and indeed that key workers are specifically allowed to break lock down to take their child to that designated child-care (and can be placed at an appropriate setting by the relevant local authority).No I meant links to people being fined for breaching lockdown because they behaved in a similar way to the Cummings when they faced similar child-care issues.
Symptoms developing is a matter of fact - either they did or they didn't. Vomiting is not a symptom of Covid-19 therefore symptoms had not developed.Both Wakefield and Cummings believed her symptoms may be COVID-19. At that point you will be required to self isolate until or unless information is forthcoming to the contrary (in other words clinical advice from 111 or a negative test). For obvious reasons you don't work on best case scenarios but on worse case scenarios.
- this a matter of misconduct in his public office role - if he broke his own rules he needs to resign or be sacked from that office.
Is he in a "public office" or is he an employee of the Conservative Party?He is in a public office as he is the chief advisor to the PM - that is a government appointment not a Conservative party one. He is, in effect, a part of the civil service, hence there was a load of discussion about whether he was actually allowed to make the statement he did on Monday and whether this was a breach of the civil service code.
Both Wakefield and Cummings believed her symptoms may be COVID-19. At that point you will be required to self isolate until or unless information is forthcoming to the contrary (in other words clinical advice from 111 or a negative test). For obvious reasons you don't work on best case scenarios but on worse case scenarios.My husband and I believed that he had contracted Covid-19 when he returned from abroad as I heard him coughing occasionally and he had been at a cricket match where one of the spectators he had been in the vicinity of had tested positive for Covid-19. But then again it's an annual cricket match and he always comes home with a cough or a hoarse voice from all the dust and the shouting.
Wakefield in her piece is convinced that she had the disease - she even starts her piece by talking about the different experiences people had:
"My version of the virus started with a nasty headache and a grubby feeling of unease after which I threw up ... "
She thought she had the virus - therefore she needed to self isolate from that moment on.
Cummings thought so too:
"She was ill, she might have Covid "
Nowhere have I 'dismissed' people or the upset they feel, and I don't think I called people whingers. I don't think I used the word 'whingers', I think I used moaners and nowhere did I dismiss their feelings of upset. What I challenge is their feeling that because they feel that particular way, whatever their particular circumstances, others have to do what they wish them to do, rather than what those others consider is correct and more beneficial to them in their personal circumstances. It is as if I should want to stop Dominic Cummings doing what he thinks is the best for his child because I am unable to get out and about because of my blindness. that would be really stupid. Whatever the moral and factual rights and wrongs of Dominic Cummings' behaviour, it would appear that in London his child could well have been subjected toIn your Reply 2201 you refer to whingers. Not that I see much difference between that and 'moaners' . They believe they were following the rules and Cummings wasn't. It's not about their feelings it's about whether the rules as laid out by the govt were followed by a leading civil servant who wrote those rules. And you think they are just moaning and can be dismissed.
harassment. But I do not know.
I have tried to edit that, but I'll leave it as it is in spite of the repetition. Wrong assumption. There is much that I have disagreed with gabriella on occasions, and I did notice a minor detail or two which I could have picked up on, but overall I think her posts show a calm, considered and considerate tone.
My husband and I believed that he had contracted Covid-19 when he returned from abroad as I heard him coughing occasionally and he had been at a cricket match where one of the spectators he had been in the vicinity of had tested positive for Covid-19. But then again it's an annual cricket match and he always comes home with a cough or a hoarse voice from all the dust and the shouting.Clearly pre-lock down so not really relevant, but none-the-less.
So anyway, I thought we may all have to self-isolate and I was worried that he had the virus. Then I looked up the symptoms and realised that it needed to be a continuous cough to be considered a symptom - “coughing a lot for more than an hour, or three or more coughing episodes in 24 hours”. He did not have those symptoms so that was the end of any self-isolating. Regardless of what I thought or feared there wasn't any evidence as we did not have the accepted symptoms. There may be all kinds of people who believe that they had the virus but never had the required symptoms of high temperature or continuous cough. I think BHS has something to say about beliefs just being guesses and that they should not be taken as fact.Sure, but until or unless you'd verified through a reasonable route (e.g. 111) that you did not need to self isolate you are expected to work on the basis of worse case scenarios, so to self isolate until released as it were.
In Wakefield's case, sure as a journalist she can write an article after she recovered claiming she had the virus because the symptoms of the virus (high temperature) eventually developed but were not there on the day she first started thinking that she may have the virus. So on that first day of no generally accepted symptoms of Covid-19 she was not required to self-isolate. Once she developed the generally accepted symptoms of Covid-19 - a high temperature - she was required to self-isolate.Unless she and Cummings are both simply lying it is clear that they both believed she may have COVID-19 so they needed to self isolate until they'd ascertained that it was not necessary.
Also, Cummings' father apparently informed the police in Durham when Cummings arrived from London - if that's true and the police in Durham have confirmed this - the police have had an opportunity to investigate further. What was the outcome of their investigation? Who gets to decide if Cummings has broken the rules? I think we've established that it's not you that gets to decide.The police are investigating further. We know the police provided advice at the time - I don't think it has been revealed what advice they gave. But remember the police have discretion - if they see that rules or laws have been broken, at their discretion, they may choose to prosecute, fine, advise or do nothing. That the police chose not to fine anyone does not mean that they did not consider that Cummings had broken the rules.
Clearly pre-lock down so not really relevant, but none-the-less.Both before and during. He came back into the country on 18th March and lockdown was from 23 March. He had the cough during lockdown and so I looked up the symptoms on the internet and determined that he was not displaying any of the accepted symptoms.
Sure, but until or unless you'd verified through a reasonable route (e.g. 111) that you did not need to self isolate you are expected to work on the basis of worse case scenarios, so to self isolate until released as it were.Not sure where you are getting that from? If you do not have the accepted symptoms you were not required to self-isolate.
Unless she and Cummings are both simply lying it is clear that they both believed she may have COVID-19 so they needed to self isolate until they'd ascertained that it was not necessary.Where does it say that on the NHS website? I looked it up at the time and the NHS website said call 111 if you have the following symptoms of coronavirus - new continuous cough, high temperature - and you will be advised what to do. It did not say anything about assuming the worst even if you do not have the accepted symptoms and self-isolating until you can get through to the NHS.
And as I keep pointing out it makes no odds whether they were self isolating or just in lock-down - a 260 mile journey was against the rules even if they were in lock down rather than self isolation.So currently we have no view from the police whether Cummings broke the rules. Ok so let's wait for the police to comment on that even if they choose not to fine him.
The police are investigating further. We know the police provided advice at the time - I don't think it has been revealed what advice they gave. But remember the police have discretion - if they see that rules or laws have been broken, at their discretion, they may choose to prosecute, fine, advise or do nothing. That the police chose not to fine anyone does not mean that they did not consider that Cummings had broken the rules.
But there are two elements to this - firstly whether under the law the police might get involved - but there is the point about his position. It is extremely common for someone to be sacked from a role, or be asked to resign with having broken a law in police terms - because the rules around professional conduct are very different to the criminal or civil law.So currently we have no view from the police whether Cummings broke the rules. I assume you meant in your above comment that someone can be asked to resign without breaking the law. So who determines whether the rules of professional conduct have been breached in this situation and that Cummings should be asked to resign?
And besides the rules require self isolation if you have been in close contact with someone who had subsequently tested positive for coronavirus.No - the advice at the time was if you have been in contact with someone who tested positive and you are showing any of the accepted symptoms of Covid-19, you should self-isolate.
The PM tested positive on the 26th March - Cummings knew about this before Wakefield became ill - from his statement:
'Around midnight on Thursday, the 26th of March, I spoke to the prime minister. He told me that he tested positive for Covid.'
'The next morning, I went to work as usual. I was in a succession of meetings about this emergency. I suddenly got a call from my wife who was at home looking after our four year old child. She told me she suddenly felt badly ill.'
'At this point, most of those who I work with most closely, including the prime minister himself and others who sit within 15 feet of me every day, either had had symptoms and had returned to work or were absent with symptoms.'
Under the rules Cummings needed to self isolate because he had been in regular close contact with a person who had tested positive with the virus. In fact by going into 'work as usual' - he broke the rules yet again.
No - the advice at the time was if you have been in contact with someone who tested positive and you are showing any of the accepted symptoms of Covid-19, you should self-isolate.I don't believe that is the case - and besides it makes no sense as you have to self isolate if you have symptoms, so the issue of being in contact with someone tasing positive is moot.
I don't believe that is the case - and besides it makes no sense as you have to self isolate if you have symptoms, so the issue of being in contact with someone tasing positive is moot.I just edited my previous post above. I agree with you. See my post above.
From:
https://www.cipd.co.uk/news-views/coronavirus/faqs/employees-self-isolating-symptoms
'Q: One of our workers has been confirmed as having the virus, should we close the workplace?
Where a worker has the virus the position is as follows:
A worker with a confirmed diagnosis should stay at home with immediate effect and employers should advise them to follow the Government's self-isolation advice and apply for a test.
If a worker has symptoms, however mild, or is in a household where someone has symptoms, they should self-isolate, as should all in their household. These people should not leave their house or go to work and employers should advise them to follow the latest government advice.
Whether the workplace should be closed entirely is not addressed in the Government advice and it appears employers will have to make that decision.
Staff who were exposed to the infected colleague should be sent home. Government advice states those who have been in recent close contact with an infected person should self-isolate, breaking the transmission chain.'
My emphasis.
This goes way beyond the usual 'whingers and moaners' (whoever they may be).You might have noticed that I did not specify at all any particular moaner or any particular story, and that was a deliberate choice in order not to pinpoint one person.
You might have noticed that I did not specify at all any particular moaner or any particular story, and that was a deliberate choice in order not to pinpoint one person.Which then generalised it to cover everyone including those who have been prevented from being with their loved ones as they died.
No - the advice at the time was if you have been in contact with someone who tested positive and you are showing any of the accepted symptoms of Covid-19, you should self-isolate.On the guidance at the time and since, obviously no. Harries talked about it as being a matter of life and death. This obviously was not.
ETA: I have checked and the advice was contact 111 if you have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive and you will be advised what to do. You will probably be advised to self-isolate. So on that basis - everyone who had been in close contact with Boris should have contacted 111 to see if they should be self-isolating once he tested positive.
The question then goes back to whether Cummings acted reasonably by travelling to Durham for childcare reasons when he should have possibly be self-isolating.
No - the advice at the time was if you have been in contact with someone who tested positive and you are showing any of the accepted symptoms of Covid-19, you should self-isolate.Thanks for accepting that I was correct - your lines of argument are one, by one, disappearing.
ETA: I have checked and the advice was contact 111 if you have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive and you will be advised what to do. You will probably be advised to self-isolate. So on that basis - everyone who had been in close contact with Boris should have contacted 111 to see if they should be self-isolating once he tested positive.
The question then goes back to whether Cummings acted reasonably by travelling to Durham for childcare reasons when he should have possibly be self-isolating.
On the guidance at the time and since, obviously no. Harries talked about it as being a matter of life and death. This obviously was not.Indeed and she was clearly talking about vulnerable children (Cummings son, as far as I'm aware isn't one) and safeguarding - as far as I'm aware there were no safeguarding issues.
Thanks for accepting that I was correct - your lines of argument are one, by one, disappearing.Yes you were correct that Cummings would have to isolate based on Boris testing positive.
To have acted reasonably in leaving the house when self isolating (or under lock down) he would need to demonstrate that he had exhausted all avenues to look after the child safely without leaving the house, and to demonstrate that the journey he took was a proportionate response in terms of relative risk (to the child vs to the broader population on public health grounds).
Given that the most obvious route for childcare - the parent's looking after him, remained the case throughout he'd have to argue that although him and his wife were well enough to look after the child in Durham they would have been too ill to look after him in their home in Islington to be acting reasonably. How could they possibly do that?
Their actions were neither reasonable (there were demonstrably other options available that wouldn't require them to leave the house - namely looking after the child while self isolating in Islington). Nor were they proportionate - were they to have had to leave the house proportionality would dictate as short a journey as possible - if only they had family close, perhaps a couple of miles away - oh yes she has a choice of two brothers.
Cummings and Trump have at least one thing in common, they are liars!
On the guidance at the time and since, obviously no. Harries talked about it as being a matter of life and death. This obviously was not.Harries said at the Press Conference on Sat 23rd May "government guidance always accounts for ‘safeguarding’ of children who have ‘no support’. She added: ‘There’s always a safeguarding clause in all of the advice. The interpretation of that advice is probably for others.’
Harries said at the Press Conference on Sat 23rd May "government guidance always accounts for ‘safeguarding’ of children who have ‘no support’. She added: ‘There’s always a safeguarding clause in all of the advice. The interpretation of that advice is probably for others.’She also said as already covered that breaking lockdown was for a matter of life and death. This was not.
Would be good to know the definition of "no support" and who is responsible for the interpretation of what is a safeguarding issue. Who are these "others?"
She also said as already covered that breaking lockdown was for a matter of life and death. This was not.I think the safeguarding clause is a red herring as it is a statutory duty on organisations not on members of the public.
She also said as already covered that breaking lockdown was for a matter of life and death. This was not.I did not see where she said that. Do you have a link please?
This morning I read a comment by a FB friend who lives in Omskirk where he suggests the Cummings' fiasco has exposed Johnson's poor leadership resulting in the latter's decline in popularity. Having followed for awhile the similarities between Trump and Johnson, their actions, their lies, their abject lack of concern for the other 98%, his observations give me hope that we'll soon see a similar decline with Trump as well with his rules for us and different rules for everyone else (beneath us.)You'd better warn him that the non-beievers on here can be savage!
(I'll invite him to this forum. He's the most excellent, armchair journalist who's been documenting the political arena over there since the Brexit vote passed, and he often comments, accurately, on Trump as well.)
You'd better warn him that the non-beievers on here can be savage!
You'd better warn him that the non-beievers on here can be savage!
You'd better warn him that the non-beievers on here can be savage!
Car crash interview with Matt Hancock this morning on the Today programme.
Hancock was banging on about the new track and trace rules - saying it was people's civic duty to do the right thing, that the government would instruct people who had had contact with someone testing positive to stay at home for 14 days even if they had no symptoms themselves.
At which point Nick Robinson asked whether doing your civil duty, doing the right thing, staying at home allowed someone to drive to a beauty spot. Hancock simply had no answer - he blustered and stumbled but simply couldn't answer.
The most corrosive aspect of the whole Cummings affair is its effect on the next stages to deal with the virus. If someone from the government rings you up and tells you to stay at home for 14 days even though you have no symptoms and may not even know who it is you are supposed to have been in contact with - how many will go, thanks, but no thanks - why should I obey the rules and stay at home when Cummings is allowed to break them.
It is a problem - and trust can only be restored by Cummins either falling on his sword or being sacked. While he stays in place the ability of the government to 'instruct' us to do things we really would prefer not to, is critically undermined.
I agree. Cummings screwed up badly and should have to pay the price for doing so.The point is that we will all pay the price - it only involves a relatively small proportion of the population to take a 'sod you - if Cummings can do what he likes, so can I' when instructed to do their civic duty by government to increase virus transmission, illnesses and deaths and also to impact more than necessary on our ability to get the economy and broader society back to normal.
The point is that we will all pay the price - it only involves a relatively small proportion of the population to take a 'sod you - if Cummings can do what he likes, so can I' when instructed to do their civic duty by government to increase virus transmission, illnesses and deaths and also to impact more than necessary on our ability to get the economy and broader society back to normal.
Questionable whether Cummingsgate would be enough to tip over all the support from the public for measures - that could, if people stop and think, keep them and their relatives safe?It doesn't need to have a major effect on behaviour to have a major effect on virus transmission sadly.
Car crash interview with Matt Hancock this morning on the Today programme.I agree with the idea of maintaining a climate of government scrutiny and accountability to stop them becoming complacent. If they thought they could get away with it they would probably do far worse than what they are doing now. So I think it's good to keep holding their feet to the fire. I watched Yvette Cooper grilling Boris yesterday and it was fantastic - she went to the heart of the matter - what is more important to you Prime Minister - the public's health or your loyalty or need for Cummings. However, many others who have questioned Boris and many of the Press who grilled Cummings in the Rose garden did not IMO ask incisive questions that go to what I think is the root of the issue. I think it should be approached from a legality point of view.
Hancock was banging on about the new track and trace rules - saying it was people's civic duty to do the right thing, that the government would instruct people who had had contact with someone testing positive to stay at home for 14 days even if they had no symptoms themselves.
At which point Nick Robinson asked whether doing your civil duty, doing the right thing, staying at home allowed someone to drive to a beauty spot. Hancock simply had no answer - he blustered and stumbled but simply couldn't answer.
The most corrosive aspect of the whole Cummings affair is its effect on the next stages to deal with the virus. If someone from the government rings you up and tells you to stay at home for 14 days even though you have no symptoms and may not even know who it is you are supposed to have been in contact with - how many will go, thanks, but no thanks - why should I obey the rules and stay at home when Cummings is allowed to break them.
It is a problem - and trust can only be restored by Cummins either falling on his sword or being sacked. While he stays in place the ability of the government to 'instruct' us to do things we really would prefer not to, is critically undermined.
Durham police's investigation has found that Cummings did breach the lockdown rules.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/28/dominic-cummings-did-breach-coronavirus-guidelines-durham-police/
Cummings should be held accountable after investigation. I believe Durham police are looking into it.Indeed they are and have concluded their investigation and they have found that Cummings broke the rules when driving to Barnard Castle.
Good - at least someone in authority has reached a conclusion on the trip to the castle.So do you now agree that he should resign or be sacked. It is an untenable position if you are the architect of incredible important rules for public health and then break them yourself.
Indeed they are and have concluded their investigation and they have found that Cummings broke the rules when driving to Barnard Castle.
But they aren't going to take the matter any further!On the basis that they are not applying retrospective action to anyone later found to be in breach of the regulations and that they wouldn't treat Cummings differently to anyone else (which is absolutely right). The police said that had they stopped him they would have given him a verbal warning and required him to return to the Durham property immediately. Again this was their general approach - their so called 4Es, Engage, Explain Encourage before Enforce. Having given Cummings a warning they would only have taken enforcement action if he failed to comply.
So do you now agree that he should resign or be sacked. It is an untenable position if you are the architect of incredible important rules for public health and then break them yourself.I am indifferent. It's a political issue. From a moral perspective I won't be taking that into consideration when I decide whether I am going to observe lock down / social distancing etc. I will be trying to comply with the rules as best as I can/ am willing/ need to in order to avoid fines - so that I can try to avoid infecting other people or becoming infected myself so that the economy can try to recover.
I am indifferent. It's a political issue.But when we were saying that it is a political and moral issue you were claiming it was a matter for the police:
But when we were saying that it is a political and moral issue you were claiming it was a matter for the police:I don't think I am. It was a police matter as to whether Cummings and wife breached the lock down - the police have decided they did by driving to the Castle. They seem to have made no comment about the drive to Durham so not sure what happens or who is responsible for investigating that. The police have decided to not take any further action over the trip to the Castle.
'The people who decide on these things - the police, the CPS and the judiciary will have to investigate and make a decision on whether the drive to Durham was reasonable or not.'
Now when the police have found that he did breach the regulations (not just fail to comply with the guidance which is a lower threshold), you suddenly start saying it is a political matter.
You are tying yourself up in knots Gabriella.
...
Cummings should be held accountable after investigation. I believe Durham police are looking into it. Whether he gets sacked or not depends on how useful he is to the government. I am a pragmatist - if he is actually more use in office than out because his replacement would be even more incompetent, I am ok with him staying in office even though I dislike the spin and lies etc. We're stuck with Boris during this pandemic due to our FPTP electoral system and the way election campaigns are run and the limited attention span and attention to detail and the beliefs of a significant number of UK voters - it's a very imperfect system.
I agree. Cummings screwed up badly and should have to pay the price for doing so.
Well, are we stuck with Johnson? Cummings is no use at all to the government. The Conservatives have a majority of 80 it only takes 40 Tories to side with the opposition to wipe out their lead. Unthinkable at the moment, even without Cummings being held to account.I've always liked Keir Starmer so unless he does something to screw up or the media spin or Twitter mob neutralise him, I guess there is hope that Boris will be banished. And if Boris goes presumably Cummings goes too.
But ... we are already heading for an excess death toll of around 70k, if this starts to rise to 80 or 90k ..., people fail to get back to work, when we fail to get a free trade deal with the EU and all we have is this continuing bumbling incompetence ...?
I agree. He definitely should pay the price by either resigning or by being sacked. Sadly, unless enough Tory MPs object, probably nothing will happen. I assume you would also want Stephen Kinnock to pay the price as he screwed up badly as well. In his case, what should that price be? Sacking of his position as shadow minister for Asian affairs, perhaps? Or, maybe, losing the party whip altogether? What do you think?Kinnock posted a picture of himself breaching guidelines - so the Press and public could not really get a proper head of steam going.
Kinnock posted a picture of himself breaching guidelines - so the Press and public could not really get a proper head of steam going.Kinnock wasn't one of the architects of the rules, so the comparison isn't really relevant.
I don't think I am. It was a police matter as to whether Cummings and wife breached the lock down - the police have decided they did by driving to the Castle. They seem to have made no comment about the drive to Durham so not sure what happens or who is responsible for investigating that. The police have decided to not take any further action over the trip to the Castle.Actually the police only considered whether Cummins breached the regulations (ie.e the law), they did not consider whether he had breached the guidance (or rules) i.e. the stay-at-home or self isolation.
The police action is a separate issue from whether Cummings now resigns or is sacked as a result of the breach of the lockdown. If there are civil service codes that govern this - it becomes a civil service code issue and there must be a process for this. If there is no breach of a civil service code it is a political issue - how much will the government be hurt by Cummings staying rather than Cummings going.
Kinnock wasn't one of the architects of the rules, so the comparison isn't really relevant.He is an MP so is in public office and so presumably should be setting an example.
Kinnock wasn't one of the architects of the rules, so the comparison isn't really relevant.
We are obviously going to disagree about this. I think it's entirely relevant. The same argument applies. He felt it was 'essential travel' even though the police urged him to comply with the restrictions. It has to be the same rule for everyone or anyone could say that they were travelling the equivalent of Wales to London to visit relatives just to deliver essential supplies. He is an MP, voted for by the majority of his constituents, and representing them and their interests. If Cummings should be penalised for his trip to Barnard Castle then Kinnock should be punished for making his trip to see his parents, coincidentally on his Dad's birthday, of course.On the basis that they broke the rules - yes it is the same. We can argue til the cows come home which is a worse breach, but that isn't the point - they both broke the rule and should receive criticism and potentially warnings or action from the police.
We are obviously going to disagree about this. I think it's entirely relevant. The same argument applies. He felt it was 'essential travel' even though the police urged him to comply with the restrictions. It has to be the same rule for everyone or anyone could say that they were travelling the equivalent of Wales to London to visit relatives just to deliver essential supplies. He is an MP, voted for by the majority of his constituents, and representing them and their interests. If Cummings should be penalised for his trip to Barnard Castle then Kinnock should be punished for making his trip to see his parents, coincidentally on his Dad's birthday, of course.
(darn, instead of typing that I could have just waited for, and agreed with PD)Always the best policy ;)
And, in fact, used hospital resources in a remote area rather than London. They know this, which is why they have tried to cover up their actions.That is a very good point and one that hasn't been raised much.
Although he wasn't hiding his actions or guilty of lying about what he did, this still raises awkward questions for Mr Blackford to answer and cuts away that moral high ground he is so fond of:He went home as instructed to do and had no symptoms or reason to think he had Covid 19. Missing the issue.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1288182/Ian-blackford-coronavirus-lockdown-snp-news-dominic-cummings-resign
He went home as instructed to do and had no symptoms or reason to think he had Covid 19. Missing the issue.
Ok - I read it as him having adequate accom in London. But it is the Express!He could have stayed in London but the instruction was for MPs to go home.
He could have stayed in London but the instruction was for MPs to go home.
Yes I've read up on it further. Apologies for getting it wrong.You didn't, the Express did deliberately. Don't get me wrong, I am not Blackford's biggest fan but here it's a non story.
Read a headline online, which I didn't follow up, that the country may be more or less back to normal by August. Let's hope so - we can then at least enjoy the arse-end of summer properly.just after that there will be a second wave. Of redundancies. It will be huge and it will be brutal.
Although he wasn't hiding his actions or guilty of lying about what he did, this still raises awkward questions for Mr Blackford to answer and cuts away that moral high ground he is so fond of:Saw something about this on the Book of Faces. It is a pathetic attempt by right-wingers to deflect attention from Cummings. He went back to his constituency and home when it was still ok to do so, and has stayed there since, and he was asymptomatic. Total non-issue.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1288182/Ian-blackford-coronavirus-lockdown-snp-news-dominic-cummings-resign
Saw something about this on the Book of Faces. It is a pathetic attempt by right-wingers to deflect attention from Cummings. He went back to his constituency and home when it was still ok to do so, and has stayed there since, and he was asymptomatic. Total non-issue.
“Plague! We are in the middle of a plague! And you behave like this! Plague! 40 million infected people is a plague! Until we get our acts together, all of us, we are as good as dead.”
The above was written by Larry Kramer, a famous AIDS activist who died this week.It's very interesting what becomes important to different people. Why the need to sit on a beach? Maybe the people who are not social-distancing have decided that as the NHS has not been overwhelmed, they think it is safer to catch Covid-19 now and get it over and done with - if they live, they live, and if they die they die. I wonder if this will affect recruiting rates for the NHS or if there will still be a considerable section of the population who feel inspired to risk their lives helping others. I was watching a programme last night and the hospital cleaner said he was initially worried but once he had received the training and had the PPE he felt ok and just wanted to be a professional and do his job on the Covid-19 ward as he could see that every role - doctors, nurses, cleaners - was important to combat the spread of the disease.
Looking at people on the beach in Worthing yesterday it is every bit as relevant now to Coronavirus as it was to AIDS then.
The government appears to have orchestrated a wide-scale content marketing blitz across national newspapers including the Sun and the Daily Mail in a bid to secure some positive coverage of its coronavirus response.
This along with the current uptick which may be related to VE day is all a bit worryingYes - I agree it's a political decision. The government always said that they knew that they would only be able to keep people in lockdown for a certain period of time as after a while people would flout it and in a liberal democracy such as the UK it was inconceivable to be able to force people to stay in lockdown to protect vulnerable people.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52858392
He is in a public office as he is the chief advisor to the PM - that is a government appointment not a Conservative party one. He is, in effect, a part of the civil service, hence there was a load of discussion about whether he was actually allowed to make the statement he did on Monday and whether this was a breach of the civil service code.
The official status of special advisors is outlined in the Annual Report on Special Advisors 2019, published by the Cabinet Office. It seems bizarre to me that political advisors can be "civil servants" when the Civil Service is supposed to be apolitical. It would appear (though I have not checked this yet) that "special advisors" can be paid out of the public purse in consequence of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.Yes they are civil servants, although they are political appointments, unlike most civil servants. They work for the government, not the conservative party. They are typically defined as 'temporary' civil servants as their appointment and tenure is usually linked to a particular minister and certainly to a party in government. This is in contrast to 'permanent' civil servants who stay in a department and will remain in place if a government of a different party comes in (and are required to be impartial).
According to the report, the Prime Minister has 44 political advisors (and Dominic Cummings is not the highest paid). The Chancellor of the Exchequer has six.
Large numbers of people were always going to get sick and significant numbers die because firstly, that's what happens in a pandemic if there is no vaccine and secondly, risk-taking is part of human behaviour and also dying when you are old or sick or physically weak in some way is a natural part of being alive.Fatalistic and defeatist.
Fatalistic and defeatist.Oh I agree that other countries have fared better - though we still do not have the information on exactly why or whether mortality rates in other countries will rise. Some suggestions are that Germany apparently has a better biomedical base than us so had far more labs and were therefore more geared up to carry out testing and then were meticulous about tracking people. That's not something the UK government could have fixed easily if the technical competency just isn't there - our system of testing and tracking is not going too well currently. But yes the government was stupid for not focusing on testing far earlier than they did.
Other countries have fared far better than us because they didn't accept this as a given or find any consolation in it.
IMHO the more people relax the more people will get it and the more at risk we will be.I agree - that's why I said I plan on remaining vigilant about maintaining social distancing and washing my hands.
Ffs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52864454
NoNot only stupid idiots but extremely selfish too, since helicopters and police and hospital staff had to spend time on their self-indulgent stupidity.
Stupid idiots! >:(
Not only stupid idiots but extremely selfish too, since helicopters and police and hospital staff had to spend time on their self-indulgent stupidity.
Not only stupid idiots but extremely selfish too, since helicopters and police and hospital staff had to spend time on their self-indulgent stupidity.
Agreed.No doubt you "have no sympathy" for them as usual, no matter how bad their injuries may be.
No doubt you "have no sympathy" for them as usual, no matter how bad their injuries may be.
No sympathy whatsoever, it is their own stupid fault. >:( My sympathies go towards their rescuers who have much better things to do at this time of crisis.People who injure themselves diving into water typically suffer a broken neck, and end up quadriplegic for the rest of their lives, which is a hell of a price to pay for a moment's stupidity - but you, with typically heartless self-righteousness, have no sympathy. (I realise that we don't know what the injuries are, but they are described as "serious".)
People who injure themselves diving into water typically suffer a broken neck, and end up quadriplegic for the rest of their lives, which is a hell of a price to pay for a moment's stupidity - but you, with typically heartless self-righteousness, have no sympathy. (I realise that we don't know what the injuries are, but they are described as "serious".)
I totally agree, however I do wonder where they got the idea that lockdown was essentially over from?And not just them but the many others who had filled the beach.
I totally agree, however I do wonder where they got the idea that lockdown was essentially over from?How do you know that that is what they thought, or what their 'idea'was? You may well be right, but I don't think anyone would have questioned them about what they thought while transporting them to hospital. So you have made an assumption.
How do you know that that is what they thought, or what their 'idea'was? You may well be right, but I don't think anyone would have questioned them about what they thought while transporting them to hospital. So you have made an assumption.
No I have asked a question.No, you made a statement, and then stuck a question mark on the end.
No, you made a statement, and then stuck a question mark on the end.So you are saying it was not a question?
So you are saying it was not a question?Yes - and neither is that.
Yes - and neither is that.
Yes - and neither is that.Except in trying to find out what someone is saying that is both legitimate and a question.
Trentvoyager:- "I totally agree, however I do wonder where they got the idea that lockdown was essentially over from?"'From where did they get the idea that lockdown was essentially over?'
Over from what?
...
Made me think of Joni Ereakson Tada who dived and was paralysed thereafter. I hope that is not the case with these people. I don't know how old they are but imagine they are young.
People have been going to the seaside recently and will do so even more now. I don't think lockdown or lack of it has anything to do with the matter.
More appropriate would be:Even better would be to get rid of the comma-splice and use a more natural word-order, thus: "I totally agree. However, I do wonder where they got the idea that the lockdown was essentially over from".
"I totally agree, however I do wonder from where they got the idea that lockdown was essentially over."
Even better would be to get rid of the comma-splice and use a more natural word-order, thus: "I totally agree. However, I do wonder where they got the idea that the lockdown was essentially over from".And then my arse shut with a traf, and I was stuck up there for all time.
I would like to thank Steve and Robbie for their concerns over my use of the English language.Who did any stone-casting? We simply suggested ways the sentence could have been better expressed.
I appreciate it very much.
I leave you with this thought:
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
Thank you and goodnight sweet posters.
Who did any stone-casting? We simply suggested ways the sentence could have been better expressed.
Sometimes you really do resemble another poster with your concrete thinking.I can't think who you mean - Vlad the Incomprehensible, perhaps?
I can't think who you mean - Vlad the Incomprehensible, perhaps?
Who did any stone-casting? We simply suggested ways the sentence could have been better expressed.
First night out after the bars openned here, met my best mate and his wife, naturally conversation moved to the coronavirus. Both were of the opinion that lockdowns were just a way of reducing peoples rights and that it is tantamount to facism. I tried to point out what facism is, but then they just changed the subject. They said the government said this at the beginning of the crisis but now say that, as proof of their incompetence, even though they could only go on the information they had at the time. Then they went on to vaccines and Bill Gates. I pointed out that even if they don't believe in good intentions, that isn't an argument against a vaccine but only an argument against private involvement in public heath. Then they said he aired an opinion that movement should be restricted according to who might have had any potential vaccine. I said any vaccine should be voluntary but any country has the right to make its own rules as regards to movement. They said that's facism. What do I do to help then see straight? And because I didn't agree with them, apparently I haven't done the research and am brainwashed by the main media corporations.
I wasn't certain whether this belongs here or in the Science section.
Elemental is a publication devoted to health and associated matters. It is clear that it is not peer-reviewed and essentially populist in its approach. But it does appear to be "informed populist". So, anyway, here is an article from its website:
https://elemental.medium.com/coronavirus-may-be-a-blood-vessel-disease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2
Does this really mean that people on warfarin or statins are protected from CORVID 19?
Hope they vote to keep it virtual
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52876395
Hope they vote to keep it virtualIt would seem that the vote on whether to continue to have remote voting is then based on a physical vote so that those MPs who are shielding such as Robert Halfon are excluded. Another example of this govt being a fucking disgrace and illustration that Rees Mogg who is pushing this pisses on democracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52876395
The idea is clearly interesting and needs more investigation. I doubt, though, that warfarin or statins would fully protect anyone from the disease - even if they could be life-saving for certain patients, depending on the course of the disease: It does affect the lung tissue and may then go on to affect blood or nervous system in addition. Some of the drugs that might help with a vascular system infection could also make an initial respiratory system infection more likely or more severe.
It would seem that the vote on whether to continue to have remote voting is then based on a physical vote so that those MPs who are shielding such as Robert Halfon are excluded. Another example of this govt being a fucking disgrace and illustration that Rees Mogg who is pushing this pisses on democracy.And the queue for the 2nd vote is forming before the 1st cote is finished. This is a mockery.
This is a joke. You voted Tory you voted for this antidemocratic farce.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/mps-return-to-parliament-westminster-jacob-rees-mogg-virtual?fbclid=IwAR1QB0KVYrWYKN2ns5dy4AZ3cvpaRdw3brE1WJUpx79z_Tcl6-tpdsRF-fk
Appreciate that. The long recovery time will be when she gets home. The treatment of those with Covid 19 has been getting better over time. I hope that will help with your sister in law
I hope that this message is not going to grate on you or cause you any discomfort, but my sister-in-law was passed clear at her Doctor's appointment yesterday. She returns to her duties on Thursday!Unsure why you might think that would cause me discomfort, it's great news! Hurrah.
I hope that this message is not going to grate on you or cause you any discomfort, but my sister-in-law was passed clear at her Doctor's appointment yesterday. She returns to her duties on Thursday!
FarcicalRees-Mogg is an embarrassment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52910303?fbclid=IwAR3DGIN-0c4c_GA-8C42gXIHgaanz9ggrX9pDOfcVLAQY9wCmLSBaoceAtg
Rees-Mogg is an embarrassment.Indeed - and also achingly out of touch with the public on this, who overwhelmingly want their MPs to be able to work and vote remotely:
I'm fed up with hearing that Britain has the world's third highest covid 19 death toll. Maybe it is because after some initial muddle, the Gov are now being more honest about deaths mainly from the virus?
I'm fed up with hearing that Britain has the world's third highest covid 19 death toll. Maybe it is because after some initial muddle, the Gov are now being more honest about deaths mainly from the virus?
Are you suggesting that other countries are not being honest? Why are you "fed up" with hearing a particular statistic being stated? To you want the British population kept in the dark about about the British government's incompetence?No, none of the above. I just find it hard to believe that this country has more deaths than, for instance, China.
I think that we would all like to believe that, Susan. However, how many other countries have governments led by someone whose appearences on "Have I Got News For You" were possibly influential in determining his suitability for high office for many people?
I'm fed up with hearing that Britain has the world's third highest covid 19 death toll. Maybe it is because after some initial muddle, the Gov are now being more honest about deaths mainly from the virus?
I'm fed up with hearing that Britain has the world's third highest covid 19 death toll. Maybe it is because after some initial muddle, the Gov are now being more honest about deaths mainly from the virus?
Why I wonder did they stop publishing the international comparisons as soon as it became apparent that we were doing much worse than most other countries. Perhaps it was to try to fool some of us into believing that the government was doing a good job. It obviously worked on some people. Still I imagine there must be a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on for some Tory voters.Nope - not this one. I'm not a fool, you know!
Nope - not this one. I'm not a fool, you know!
So you don't think the government is doing a good job?They are, as many Governments are, doing the best they can - they are only human beings - and in my opinion it is quite unreasonable to expect everything to go beautifully, with everything running along smoothly, with decisions made which not only seem to be the best at the time, but which later are also seen to be good with hindsight!
They are, as many Governments are, doing the best they can - they are only human beings - and in my opinion it is quite unreasonable to expect everything to go beautifully, with everything running along smoothly, with decisions made which not only seem to be the best at the time, but which later are also seen to be good with hindsight!
Are you suggesting that other countries are not being honest?That's absolutely the case. Why would you think otherwise?
Why are you "fed up" with hearing a particular statistic being stated? To you want the British population kept in the dark about about the British government's incompetence?The main reason why I'm fed up with it is that it is totally irrelevant. Every country has different problems with respect to the virus. The British government should be judged in respect of what's happening in Britain not in some other country that has about half the population of London in an area 200 times the size with a thousand miles of ocean separating it from its nearest neighbour. There are unique problems for the UK. It has, for example, some very densely populated areas like London and Birmingham.
If there were 500 000 deaths, there would still be people saying, they're doing their best.I doubt if you or I would have done any better.
The British Government has not handled this crisis well at all, very badly in fact. We have the second highest death rate in the world, the US has the highest. :o
I doubt if you or I would have done any better.
I actually think you both would have.
You really believe that?You misrepresent my post by not quoting it in full.
Wow.
No wonder they keep getting elected.
You misrepresent my post by not quoting it in full.
I agree that hindsight is very precise. I mean it's easy to say that the govt were slow to do various things. However, they seemed to be slow on everything, thus, lockdown, testing, PPE, contact tracing. I know that some people believe that pandemics had traditionally been modelled on flu, and people were caught flat-footed, by it being different. Of course, some skeptics still say it's like flu.
I have just googled total covid 19 deaths in china. The answer comes up as 4634. How many of you believe that?
Nobody I know. Your point?I'm pretty sure I posted somewhere above that I'm fed up with listening over and over again to 'Britain has the second highest death toll', so I was wondering if there would be any interesting comments, that's all.
I'm pretty sure I posted somewhere above that I'm fed up with listening over and over again to 'Britain has the second highest death toll', so I was wondering if there would be any interesting comments, that's all.
I'm pretty sure I posted somewhere above that I'm fed up with listening over and over again to 'Britain has the second highest death toll', so I was wondering if there would be any interesting comments, that's all.Apparently aside from the denials Boris Johnson(Conservative) told the Italians he wanted Herd Immunity.
I don't think this can be put down to mistakes by people "doing their best", mistakes that are easy to see in "hindsight".What would be the motive for the current situation.
When someone makes honest mistakes they take responsibility for themDo they? In my experience, they frequently try to cover their arses. It's particularly a problem if their job depend on it.
and change their approach to correct and avoid similar mistakes again.
They don't continue ignoring those who were trying to show them, from the start, what could work and what would not. They are on the job and putting things right - not hiding away refusing to let any light in.
when we were told we were well prepared.Who told us we were well prepared?
For goodness sake Greece has done better than us, with a shit health service and an economy that was already fairly well hobbled.It's almost beyond belief isn't it. Maybe you should ask yourself if Greece is more honest about COVID19 than it was about its fiscal situation.
For all the talk of following the science we really have not, we've sort of meandered around in a field about two counties short of it.When this started, the science was pretty sketchy.
Who told us we were well prepared?
Let’s not forget – we already have a fantastic NHS, fantastic testing systems and fantastic surveillance of the spread of disease.
We will make sure the NHS gets all the support it needs to continue their brilliant response to the virus so far.
The plan does not set out what the government will do, it sets out the steps we could take at the right time along the basis of the scientific advice.
Our country remains extremely well prepared, as it has been since the outbreak began in Wuhan several months ago.
Who told us we were well preparedMatt Hancock and Boris Johnson. And not only well prepared but better prepared. Just like the world leading teach and trace programme. Do you think lying is good?
JeremyP
I had hoped you would comment as what you say is from a cooler, more impartial point of view I think, so thank you for doing so.
Do you think that, when post-pandemic statistics come out, will be the position of the death toll in Britain? An impossible question, I know! I suppose we'll never know which deaths have been included by European countries for instance and which have not. It seems that here anyone who died, whether directly from covid 19 or not is included if they were tested and found to have it in their systems.
So I quote from our own PM and my post isn't more impartial?
You are determined not to acknowledge the truth of the situation. You ignore the lies told by the PM and try to imply that other posters are being hot-headed and more emotional, whilst all they are doing is quoting exactly what the government has said.
And please let us not forget that until this government was forced to it was quite willing to conveniently leave out the number of deaths in care homes.
I'm not the one being "partial" here. You are.
Spot on.
As to Greece. I know it has a smaller population but per head it has done much better.That is not the point I was trying to make. Greece's entire population is only a little bit bigger than the population of London, but Greece is 130 times bigger than London in terms of area.
That is not the point I was trying to make. Greece's entire population is only a little bit bigger than the population of London, but Greece is 130 times bigger than London in terms of area.
The British government has to deal with Greece but packed into a tiny area and another 45 million people. Can you not see that the magnitude of the task facing them was somewhat larger.
JeremyP
I had hoped you would comment as what you say is from a cooler, more impartial point of view I think, so thank you for doing so.
Do you think that, when post-pandemic statistics come out, will be the position of the death toll in Britain? An impossible question, I know! I suppose we'll never know which deaths have been included by European countries for instance and which have not. It seems that here anyone who died, whether directly from covid 19 or not is included if they were tested and found to have it in their systems.
I suspect the scale of infection was always going to be greater here than in Greece.Of course it was. The UK is almost unique in its population size, population density being a democracy and having a twat for a prime minister. The government has made a lot of mistakes, some of which are understandable and some of which are incomprehensible. However, making league tables of countries really isn't constructive.
JeremyP
Thank you for your new posts, level-headed and clear as usual.
What? Even when he called the PM a twat?Particularly that, I would have thought.
Particularly that, I would have thought.Cite a post where I have said I am a supporter of all that the PM does!!!
Cite a post where I have said I am a supporter of all that the PM does!!!Cite a post where I said you were such a supporter.
What would be the motive for the current situation.
Do they? In my experience, they frequently try to cover their arses. It's particularly a problem if their job depend on it.
For that to work properly, you have to have a culture where people can adit to their mistakes and learn from them. In the case of a democratic government, that's problematic because you inevitably get pilloried for your mistakes.
The government has plenty of scientific advisors telling them what they should be doing. Probably they are getting conflicting advice even from these people. Why would they listen to random people on the Internet screaming at them?
The government has made a lot of mistakes and it would be great if we could sit down after this and dispassionately analyse what went wrong and how to do it better next time, but too many people will have too much to lose for that to happen. And I'm not just talking about the political appointees. The civil service is also not up to the job and nor are parts of the NHS (I'm thinking of the procurement department here).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52935644
It is thought the virus was around earlier than first thought.
Our son-in-law, and possibly our grandson, had it in December, they had all the symptoms.
Of course
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/tory-mp-bob-seely-attended-lockdown-barbecue-with-journalists
Seeing some reports of scammers using the idea of track and trace to get money. They phone up say they have been given your name as having been in contact with someone, say that name is confidential, and ask for £500 for tracing kit claiming it to be a one off charge. As ever be careful
“Totally unreliable.” “A buggy mess.” Over the past month, software engineers have sharply criticized the code underpinning an influential coronavirus simulation by scientists at Imperial College London, one of several modelling exercises that helped sway UK politicians into declaring a lockdown. Some media articles even suggested that the simulation couldn’t be repeated by others — casting further doubt on the study. Now, a computational neuroscientist has reported that he has independently rerun the simulation and reproduced its results. And other scientists have told Nature that they had already privately verified that the code is reproducible.
The successful code testing isn’t a review of the scientific accuracy of the simulation, produced by a team led by mathematical epidemiologist Neil Ferguson. But it dispels some misapprehensions about the code, and shows that others can repeat the original findings.
....... or God's Will?I'm not thinking of that, in case you thought I was. I'm more interested in whether lockdown to the extent that it has been imposed was necessary (given the above Japanese stats).
Hungary has only had a few hundred deaths. Africa has not had that many deaths compared with the rest of the world. Japan has 126 million people, and its death toll so far is around 900, with around 16,000 cases of coronavirus. 93% live in cities, and there has been no lockdown, apart from schools closing. Why has the virus hit some countries so much harder than others? I still haven't found an answer to this. Hygiene standards? Better general health? Something to do with pollution?
It will be multifactorial as you allude to - but two obvious things are that the Far East (generalising) are much more likely at a societal level to comply with rules laid down and are much more used to wearing masks which if adopted over a whole society makes transmission that much more difficult.True. But I think our lockdown has been pretty well observed. Japan's government advised everybody to avoid closed spaces, crowded places, and close-contact settings (The three C's). That makes sense to me, and I would say the home is a closed space, unless windows kept open.
True. But I think our lockdown has been pretty well observed. Japan's government advised everybody to avoid closed spaces, crowded places, and close-contact settings (The three C's). That makes sense to me, and I would say the home is a closed space, unless windows kept open.They also required people to self quarantine though when arriving in the country at an early stage - we still don't
But I think our lockdown has been pretty well observed.
Anecdotally I would disagree.Plus of course we had Cheltenham before lock down
I can sit at my kitchen window and point to 3 houses where very little observation of the rules has taken place. Of course it could be just this little corner of West Sussex where rules were/are being flouted but I somehow don't think West Sussex is intrinsically anymore lawless than any other part of the UK.
Cracking "More or Less" episode this morning.We won't have another lockdown unless there is a second wave
Also. on the Today programme, Michael Baker discussed actions used in NZ. He thinks a 4 to 6 week strict lockdown, on China/NZ model, can still eliminate the virus in the UK.
European scientists, including SAGE, made the mistake of treating the virus as similar to influenza rather than SARS.
We won't have another lockdown unless there is a second wave
Well, that would be because of politics.The social and economic damage will already run over a year. There will definitely bea second wave of redundancies in almost all sectors of the economy in the last quarter of this year.
It is quite possible that we will have a second wave - in which case we will have economic/social damage spread over a year or more.
If we don't have a second wave - same effect: The virus level will come down but not be fully eliminated and the misery will drag on until an efficacious vaccine or treatment is available.
The social and economic damage will already run over a year. There will definitely bea second wave of redundancies in almost all sectors of the economy in the last quarter of this year.
True, but I was more thinking of how long we would keep digging, rather than when we actually manage to pull ourselves out - which could be up to a decade or more. If we had had a strict early lockdown, it would be ended around now with, likely, a quick economic recovery?Agree - but as they say, we are where we are. The govt's used up a lot of political capital, and I suspect even if it wanted to have the strict lockdown, couldn't enforce it - particularly with other countries moving out of lockdown
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-masks-study/widespread-mask-wearing-could-prevent-covid-19-second-waves-study-shows-idUSKBN23G37V/I don't know why mask wearing is not already compulsory. When I go out, i see about 20% of people wearing masks.
“Our analyses support the immediate and universal adoption of face masks by the public,” said Richard Stutt, who co-led the study at Cambridge.
He said combining widespread mask use with social distancing and some lockdown measures, could be “an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity” before the development of an effective vaccine against COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus.
I'm not thinking of that, in case you thought I was. I'm more interested in whether lockdown to the extent that it has been imposed was necessary (given the above Japanese stats).
The rules for Israel under Moses were that if someone showed signs and symptoms of a skin disease they were to isolate outside the camp for 7 days, and longer if the symptoms persisted. I can't recall any mention of people without symptoms having to isolate, but I might be wrong.
This is just going to get worse. We seem to have managed to get the worst of all possible scenarios on the UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52990612
The thing that surprises me is that we haven't had more collapses of large companies in the hospitality business. I'd have thought a month with no income would be the end of most of our large restaurant chains.I think due to the furlough scheme and the loan schemes, the govt have kept a lot of people ticking over. I think it's been where the govt have performed best BUT in many ways it's just kicked the can down the road.
No 10 confirmed that the two-metre rule could be reduced in England but not other parts of the UK. At PMQs Boris Johnson said it was being kept under review. He is under strong pressure to replace it with a one metre or 1.5 metre rule, which would make it much easier for schools and commercial premises, especially pubs and restaurants, to open in a Covid secure way. “Matters of public health are devolved, so it is a theoretical possibility that the position could be different in different parts of the UK,” the prime minister’s spokesman said.
Just saw this in the Guardian blog - I thought the English chief medic had ruled this out.
Just been to do the weekly shop. As most people think 2 metres = 2 feet, can we please not reduce it any further.It's got worse in the last week. And people are not wearing masks.
And this is obviously world beating
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52995881
Well according to the latest ONS figures, only one person in 1,700 has the disease (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/12june2020). That means that the average person hardly ever meets anybody with COVID19. Given the technical difficulties and the privacy issues listed in the article, it would be better to scrap the app. I think it's a waste of time.Agree - but once again the govt is guilty of overpromising and underthinking.
Agree - but once again the govt is guilty of overpromising and underthinking.They may have over promised, but they didn't under think it. Under thinking would have been rushing it into production without a trial. I think, apart from not managing expectations properly at the beginning of the trial, they've actually behaved quite responsibly for once.
They may have over promised, but they didn't under think it. Under thinking would have been rushing it into production without a trial. I think, apart from not managing expectations properly at the beginning of the trial, they've actually behaved quite responsibly for once.There is more than one way to underthink these things - they didn't work with other countries, they wanted their own splash so they didn't think through what impact that might have, The issues with data and a third party supplier were an obvious question so either they underthought that or they decided to just brush it under the carpet, SO if they weren't underthinking they were simply lying.
There is more than one way to underthink these things - they didn't work with other countriesNeither did many of the other countries.
they wanted their own splash so they didn't think through what impact that might have, The issues with data and a third party supplier were an obvious questionWhich I think they addressed. The data issues were really not as bad as the detractors were making out.
This is from a month ago, May 12th:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-tracking-tracing-apps-cant-work-south-korea-singapore-australia/
"If you think tracking apps will keep people safe as economies reopen, look to South Korea, Singapore, and Australia to see why you’re mistaken."
Wouldn't everything be so much easier if we had a government/leaders that people could trust?
Just seen this on the Guardian Live blog about Michael Rosen - I didn't realise he was ill, and it isn't clear if he had Coronavirus or not. Hopefully he'll recover and get back to his excellent 'Word of Mouth' Podcast (a must if you like words and their use in English).It would indeed be Covid
Great credit to Marcus Rashford on this campaign about free school meals
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53059683
Yes
What is the point of referring us to an article we cannot access?I don't know when people don't have access. I don't have subscription and can. And it's the sort of thing that would have to be read to get. It isn't a thing that would summarise well.
Do you think that you could summarise the material you consider we should read?
I don't know when people don't have access. I don't have subscription and can. And it's the sort of thing that would have to be read to get. It isn't a thing that would summarise well.
Thasswot i did :o. Is it different to your FT article?No, you should be able to access the article itself though
But it was a world beating system!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53095336
After the demise of the Track and Trace app - John Crace's take on competence.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/18/our-ministers-show-how-world-beating-they-are-all-over-again
Worrying news from America
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53088354
Worrying news from AmericaIs it any wonder after the blatant disregard of social distancing during many of the anti racist demonstrations?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53088354
Lets hope we can all re focus on the fact that all lives matter.
Is it any wonder after the blatant disregard of social distancing during many of the anti racist demonstrations?
Lets hope we can all re focus on the fact that all lives matter.
Is it any wonder after the blatant disregard of social distancing during many of the anti racist demonstrations?I note you mention the BLM protests but not these
Lets hope we can all re focus on the fact that all lives matter.
Is it any wonder after the blatant disregard of social distancing during many of the anti racist demonstrations?
Lets hope we can all re focus on the fact that all lives matter.
Missing the point.The fire brigade may get to the point that they feel the the other houses may also catch fire and then they will start hosing them down to prevent that from happening.
A house is on fire in a street. All the houses matter.
Now do you expect the fire brigade to hose down all the houses or just the one on fire?
Breast Cancer Awareness - oh, how often have I had to chide people with "All cancers matter"?Actually, yes you do. There tend to be a few diseases that get all the awareness and funding for research. Cancer research in the UK is quite well funded but some other diseases like Alzheimer's get far less attention and funding despite their prevalence. Breast cancer is probably the biggest big C in terms of awareness. Your analogy would work better if somebody had come up to you in Movember and said "all cancers matter".
PS, the leading medical advisors are telecasting right now that the single most Coronavirus epicenter in the entire world will be from Trump's Tulsa, Oklahoma rally. I'm watching live nearly 20K people, hardly anyone wearing masks, crowded, literally shoulder to shoulder, inside an enclosed arena for the next five hours for a Trump (ego fest) rally. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone would be okay with this.
I take your general point. In fact, what "Black Lives Matter" means is that Black lives matter too. The point is that they haven't seemed to matter in the past.
Anyway, the pedant in me has to react to your poorly chosen analogies.
The fire brigade may get to the point that they feel the the other houses may also catch fire and then they will start hosing them down to prevent that from happening.
Actually, yes you do. There tend to be a few diseases that get all the awareness and funding for research. Cancer research in the UK is quite well funded but some other diseases like Alzheimer's get far less attention and funding despite their prevalence. Breast cancer is probably the biggest big C in terms of awareness. Your analogy would work better if somebody had come up to you in Movember and said "all cancers matter".
Missing the point.The point I was making was that many people, especially in the US, are still dying of corona virus, but the efforts to help prevent these deaths have been hampered by many demonstrators ignoring social distancing rules.
A house is on fire in a street. All the houses matter.
Now do you expect the fire brigade to hose down all the houses or just the one on fire?
Breast Cancer Awareness - oh, how often have I had to chide people with "All cancers matter"?
Why don't you stop with the stupidity?
The point I was making was that many people, especially in the US, are still dying of corona virus, but the efforts to help prevent these deaths have been hampered by many demonstrators ignoring social distancing rules.
The point I was making was that many people, especially in the US, are still dying of corona virus, but the efforts to help prevent these deaths have been hampered by many demonstrators ignoring social distancing rules.But to highlighted BLM protests ignoring the earlier lockdown protests by amongst others white supremacists that were not condemned by Trump. Why?
But to highlighted BLM protests ignoring the earlier lockdown protests by amongst others white supremacists that were not condemned by Trump. Why?I condemn violent protests of any sort because they invariably cause more harm than good.
And chose to.do it using the All Lives Matter phrase associated with those who play down the racism against black people in the US.
Why?
I condemn violent protests of any sort because they invariably cause more harm than good.
As an aside -
One of the highlights of my life was being invited (along with my future wife) to join up with the Caribbean Christian community in London to play guitar during prayer and worship sessions. We discovered a new dimension of uninhibited joy in their enthusiastic celebration of the Christian life.
You didn't mention violence. You just mentioned social distancing, and completely ignored the earlier protests which were not condemned by Trump. You have now doubled down by implying that all BLM protests were violent, and then tried the'Some of my best friends are...' trope. I suspect your racism may be unconscious but your posts here read strongly of a racist attitudeAB's mention of the Caribbean Christians seemed excruciatingly patronising.
Apparently, not all the Trumpsters are as stupid as they seem. Tulsa rally fails to draw expected crowds (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53121488)
Yes, seeing this in the news today. The estimates were about a third of 19K. When you think about it, that's still over 6000 people, most all not wearing masks, definitely not social distancing, and inside and enclosed area for at least a couple of hours. (I've been logging the John's Hopkins data for awhile now. I'm going to add Oklahoma to my list just to see how much the cases change over the next month.)At least he can drink a glass of water with 1 hand even if he then then throws it away.
Also, the news is reporting that teens using tiktok and one other site were able to create over a million fake tickets for Trump's event. Not sure how, or if, this affected the small number that showed up, but it definitely is embarrassing for Trump who bragged all over conservative media about the 1M number.
The point I was making was that many people, especially in the US, are still dying of corona virus, but the efforts to help prevent these deaths have been hampered by many demonstrators ignoring social distancing rules.
Also, the news is reporting that teens using tiktok and one other site were able to create over a million fake tickets for Trump's event. Not sure how, or if, this affected the small number that showed up, but it definitely is embarrassing for Trump who bragged all over conservative media about the 1M number.
a long drive to get to Tulsa...24 hours, maybe?
At least he can drink a glass of water with 1 hand even if he then then throws it away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA7pdABvpncIndeed, this all hail to the blood god is amazing
Amazing!
...if people are analysing the glass, they are not analysing children in cages (remember that? It's still happening) or packing the judiciary with Republican stooges or any of the other really horrible things Trump is doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA7pdABvpncIndeed, but it's a pity they included the dreadful last verse beginning "When we've been there...": it isn't by John Newton (it dates from the mid-19th Century), it's got nothing to do with the theme of the rest of the hymn, the rhyme scheme is wrong, it's got a horribly trite internal rhyme in line three, and the theology is, to say the least, suspect.
Amazing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA7pdABvpnc
Amazing!
Perhaps the most influential and inspirational of the Christian video responses to coronavirus is summed up in this recent reprise of the original :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9EK8dAXl6I
And this is the original which was first broadcast on 6th March, now with over 17 million views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp6aygmvzM4
My dream is that we could all be united in such praise and worship.
Perhaps the most influential and inspirational of the Christian video responses to coronavirus is summed up in this recent reprise of the original :Your god is a god of blood and pain. You worship and praise a monster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9EK8dAXl6I
And this is the original which was first broadcast on 6th March, now with over 17 million views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp6aygmvzM4
My dream is that we could all be united in such praise and worship.
Praising god for what for pity's sake? ::)I praise God for everything.
I praise God for everything.
I'm sure it's possible to be an atheist without becoming embittered and negative, but NS and LR provide no evidence for that, and one reason I came back to a liberal version of Christianity after my last year out was that I found myself becoming that way, and didn't like what I was becoming.
I'm sure it's possible to be an atheist without becoming embittered and negative, but NS and LR provide no evidence for that, and one reason I came back to a liberal version of Christianity after my last year out was that I found myself becoming that way, and didn't like what I was becoming.The irony is strong with this one
I have no problem whatsoever with moderate Christians, as I have said times without number.Indeed you have - "Many times, many, many times", like Lady Counterblast, nee Beatrice Clissold, but your attitude to some Christians is irrelevant: we're talking about your attitude to God. You remind me of someone-or-other's description of someone else as "the kind of atheist who doesn't so much disbelieve in God, as have a personal grudge against him". Why so much hatred for a being you don't even believe exists?
Indeed you have - "Many times, many, many times", like Lady Counterblast, nee Beatrice Clissold, but your attitude to some Christians is irrelevant: we're talking about your attitude to God. You remind me of someone-or-other description of someone else as "the kind of atheist who doesn't so much disbelieve in God, as have a personal grudge against him". Why so much hatred for a being you don't even believe exists?This is one of the stupid tropes that people use when people use hypotheticals. It's seems like a desperate attempt to avoid the issue that Alan Burns thinks his god found his contact lens for him, but has set up a world full of extraordinarily painful diseases that kill children. I'm not embittered at all but I don't like vapid stupidity.
Indeed you have - "Many times, many, many times", like Lady Counterblast, nee Beatrice Clissold, but your attitude to some Christians is irrelevant: we're talking about your attitude to God. You remind me of someone-or-other's description of someone else as "the kind of atheist who doesn't so much disbelieve in God, as have a personal grudge against him". Why so much hatred for a being you don't even believe exists?
I praise God for everything.
471,000 deaths worldwide from COVID19. You are praising God for that?Alan has previously stated that he regards the Holocaust as a miracle
Alan has previously stated that he regards the Holocaust as a miracleI have never stated such thing.
I have never stated such thing.
I believe I claimed that miracles occurred within the dreadful evil of the holocaust.
I have never stated such thing.We had a discussion once that since you believe all actions of your idea of 'free will' to be miracles, and the act of the Holocaust to be acts of 'free will' then it is a set of miracles. Are you saying you disagree with this now?
I believe I claimed that miracles occurred within the dreadful evil of the holocaust.
471,000 deaths worldwide from COVID19. You are praising God for that?I praise God for everything, because without God, there would nothing to praise and no one to do the praising.
I praise God for everything, because without God, there would nothing to praise and no one to do the praising.and the Holocaust being part free will which you think id a miracle means you give thanks to your thug god for it, amazing grace, indeed
I can praise God for the human freedom which allows us to choose between good and evil, and for the natural freedom in nature which has brought this world to exist as it is. With both these freedoms there are consequences which are not God's will - because in order for freedom to exist, God must delegate power to human will and nature. What God can do and does do to is to give us strength to endure whatever comes if we stay faithful to Him.
We had a discussion once that since you believe all actions of your idea of 'free will' to be miracles, and the act of the Holocaust to be acts of 'free will' then it is a set of miracles. Are you saying you disagree with this now?I did say that every act of human free will is a miracle, because such freedom does not occur in nature. But it is human will not God's will. The freedom we all have to choose between good and evil is a miraculous power given to us by God - but that does not mean that our choice is God's choice. The way we use this power will determine our ultimate destiny.
I did say that every act of human free will is a miracle, because such freedom does not occur in nature. But it is human will not God's will. The freedom we all have to choose between good and evil is a miraculous power given to us by God - but that does not mean that our choice is God's choice.So if every 'free will' decision is a miracle, and the Holocaust is the result of many 'free will' decisions, in what way is it not a miracle.
I did say that every act of human free will is a miracle, because such freedom does not occur in nature. But it is human will not God's will. The freedom we all have to choose between good and evil is a miraculous power given to us by God - but that does not mean that our choice is God's choice. The way we use this power will determine our ultimate destiny.
Pish - Covid is yet another example of the so-called 'Problem of Evil' and indicates that if your version of 'God' exists (which I personally doubt) it is either perverse or else it is incompetent.By what authority can you possibly judge God?
By what authority can you possibly judge God?If you think you can't judge your god , then you can't judge it worthy of worship. Your post is an illogical contradicstion
God has given us the knowledge to discern between Good and evil, and He gives us the freedom to choose between them.
He also allows nature to take its course with good and bad consequences.
If God had given us all a fluffy pink world to live in where no one suffers or needs any help from others, would we be better people, or would we just become self centred individuals living in a loveless world?
Yes, I do praise God for everything - even though I do not fully understand it all - because I love God and I know that He loves us all.
..
Yes, I do praise God for everything - even though I do not fully understand it all - because I love God and I know that He loves us all.
By what authority can you possibly judge God?
God has given us the knowledge to discern between Good and evil, and He gives us the freedom to choose between them.
He also allows nature to take its course with good and bad consequences.
If God had given us all a fluffy pink world to live in where no one suffers or needs any help from others, would we be better people, or would we just become self centred individuals living in a loveless world?
Yes, I do praise God for everything - even though I do not fully understand it all - because I love God and I know that He loves us all.
If you think you can't judge your god , then you can't judge it worthy of worship. Your post is an illogical contradicstionI think you'll be able to make an armchair experts judgment. I should imagine there's no issues with proficiency in that direction.
I think you'll be able to make an armchair experts judgment. I should imagine there's no issues with proficiency in that direction.Idiotic drivel
So if every 'free will' decision is a miracle, and the Holocaust is the result of many 'free will' decisions, in what way is it not a miracle.You sound sillier and more obtuse with every post on this thread. You should quit while you're behind.
And you also said on this thread that you give praise your god for everything, so therefore you praise your god for the Holocaust
I heard an interesting statistic yesterday - apparently of those who have had covid 19, the atheists are twice as likely not to die! A friend was telling me she had read this and when I asked how the information was discovered, she said that the report had explained the researchers had checked census information. No link, I'm afraid, my friend is a non-computer person.Probably because the Christians are older.
You sound sillier and more obtuse with every post on this thread. You should quit while you're behind.
You sound sillier and more obtuse with every post on this thread. You should quit while you're behind.Any chance you might try and point out why you think I am wrong about AB's position?
Any chance you might try and point out why you think I am wrong about AB's position?Certainly. AB argues that free will is miraculous. However, if we have it, we have the ability to make wrong choices. A whole series of very wrong choices led to the holocaust. That is hardly the same as saying that the holocaust is miraculous. There are problems with the free-will defence of evil, but that isn't one of them.
Certainly. AB argues that free will is miraculous. However, if we have it, we have the ability to make wrong choices. A whole series of very wrong choices led to the holocaust. That is hardly the same as saying that the holocaust is miraculous. There are problems with the free-will defence of evil, but that isn't one of them.
God has given us the knowledge to discern between Good and evil, and He gives us the freedom to choose between them.
.
I reckon the opening of pubs is reckless as people who drink too much are unlikely to bother about social distancing.
I agree. And anecdotally I did the weekly shop this morning at Sainsburys and many more people seem to have ditched any attempt at maintaining 2 metres already.
I reckon the opening of pubs is reckless as people who drink too much are unlikely to bother about social distancing.It can be enforced, and why do you assume pub-goers drink too much?
I reckon the opening of pubs is reckless as people who drink too much are unlikely to bother about social distancing.
I agree. And anecdotally I did the weekly shop this morning at Sainsburys and many more people seem to have ditched any attempt at maintaining 2 metres already.
Even at the height, you couldn't keep two metres away from everybody in Sainsbury's. There really isn't a problem with walking past somebody in the aisle at closer than two metres as long as you don't stop and have a chat.
Even at the height, you couldn't keep two metres away from everybody in Sainsbury's. There really isn't a problem with walking past somebody in the aisle at closer than two metres as long as you don't stop and have a chat.
Think about the statistics. Currently one person in 1,700 picked at random from the UK population has COVID19. That means that, if there are 1,000 people in your supermarket, there is about a 55% chance that not one of them has coronavirus.
Yes, I know. My point was that any pretence at social distancing seemed to be pretty much gone with some shoppers, so even if I was managing 1 metre b4, I can't now.Just tell people to back off.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53061288
A trial of a UK Covid-19 vaccine is taking place, I hope it is successful.
Just tell people to back off.
They don't appear to hear me through my mask! And that's another thing. Masks. Maybe 15% of shoppers wearing them.That seems a high estimate to me. I wouldn't based on my experience put it higher than 10%.
(And they're bloody hot in this weather)
They don't appear to hear me through my mask! And that's another thing. Masks. Maybe 15% of shoppers wearing them.Try coughing then.
(And they're bloody hot in this weather)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53061288Just to be clear this is the second Potential vaccine developed in the UK. There are quite a number of others being developed throughout the world. However, there’s no guarantee that any of them will be effective.
A trial of a UK Covid-19 vaccine is taking place, I hope it is successful.
Just to be clear this is the second Potential vaccine developed in the UK. There are quite a number of others being developed throughout the world. However, there’s no guarantee that any of them will be effective.
Oh fg, this isn't really a humorous subject ..
Just to be clear this is the second Potential vaccine developed in the UK. There are quite a number of others being developed throughout the world. However, there’s no guarantee that any of them will be effective.
We shall see, but they appear to be quite hopeful about this one.
They're hopeful about them all, but there's a long way to go and many uncertainties. Coronaviruses are not rare and have been with us for millennia and nobody has managed to develop a vaccine for one before. It's not even known if catching the virus confers permanent immunity on the survivors.
The main advantage of this latest vaccine is that, if it works, it is really easy to manufacture in bulk, and by "bulk" I mean seven billion doses bulk.
Be hopeful, but don't be surprised if it all comes to nothing.
What a little ray of sunshine you are! ::)
What a little ray of sunshine you are! ::)
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Rees-Mogg and Trump obviously have a lot in common! >:(
Ffs!Show some guts. That's easy for a fat cunt like Johnson to say.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/18536400.amp/?ref=twtrec&__twitter_impression=true
What a dangerous eejit, Pence is!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/coronavirus-cases-usa-pence-covid-19-retail-shops-open-a9588251.html
Trump and Pence are like peas in a pod. >:(Not realky, Pence is a career politician and obviously a committed Christian. Trump is a mad narcissist. It just so happens that their causes have overlapped.
Not realky, Pence is a career politician and obviously a committed Christian. Trump is a mad narcissist. It just so happens that their causes have overlapped.I also don't think he's an "eejit" which makes him more dangerous.
Somewhat confused as to why people are being allowed to fly but not go to the theatre.
Flying is the only practical way to get from A to B in some instances. You don't need to go to the theatre.how many of the flights on planes are in any way necessary? Also cinemas will be open.
Also, the air conditioning in a plane makes it difficult to catch the virus through airborne means. There is a danger that you can catch off surfaces - like the back of the seat in front of you - but that can be mitigated through cleaning. The air con in theatres is nowhere near as good - if it exists at all.
Ffs!This might sound a bit old-fashioned, but I find myself thinking the question: Just how were these people brought up? Weren't they taught anything about care and responsibility?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-cumbria-53210470?__twitter_impression=true
This might sound a bit old-fashioned, but I find myself thinking the question: Just how were these people brought up? Weren't they taught anything about care and responsibility?
Sadly that sort of selfish behaviour would occur whichever party was in power, imo.
Rubbish. Different parties can and do set different policies which are quite capable of changing, in the longer run, the behaviour of society as a whole.
You are just resorting to the "they are all the same" argument which is simply not true.
In your opinion. The Labour party screwed things up very badly when Corbyn was leader, he would have made a terrible PM, no better than Boris.Corbyn is at least a decent bloke with decent principles, whereas Johnson, like most Tories, is an unprincipled, greedy rat-bag,
Corbyn is at least a decent bloke with decent principles, whereas Johnson, like most Tories, is an unprincipled, greedy rat-bag,
Nothing decent about Corbyn he supported the IRA at one time! >:( I think Kier Starmer would make a good PM.He supported the Irish republican cause; he opposed the violence.
In your opinion. The Labour party screwed things up very badly when Corbyn was leader, he would have made a terrible PM, no better than Boris.
No matter, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine."Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - CP Scott
No matter, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.
Sadly that sort of selfish behaviour would occur whichever party was in power, imo.The problem is this sort of behaviour has in various ways been encouraged by the UK govt lately - firstly there was the lack of actions on Cummings, then we have had the corruption of the decision of Jenrick as regards Richard Desmond's planning decision - with again no action taken, and then Johnson's idiotic wiffling in reply to Peter Kyle telling him be brave and therefore encouraging people to break the rules. If people feel the rules don't apply to those charge and this govt is providing lots of evidence of that- then they won't obey them,
No matter, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.A flat earther is entitled to their opinion - it does not make it a valid one.
That is a stupid statement.
Why?Because opinions need to be based on facts. see my new signature.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-53217095You are entitled to your opinion, just as am entitled to mine.
It looks as if Leicestershire might have an extension of the lockdown as it has had a spike in new cases.
how many of the flights on planes are in any way necessary?I've no idea, but given the current quarantine rules, probably quite a high proportion.
Also cinemas will be open.
I've no idea, but given the current quarantine rules, probably quite a high proportion.Ah thanks
Hmmm, maybe we can open theatres if the audience is prepared to self isolate for fourteen days afterwards.
Theatres will also be able to re-open on 4th July.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do-after-4-july
Why?
Because you sound like that man you admire so much.
'Some Very Fine People on Both Sides'
Meanwhile in Leicester
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-53229371
One of my work colleagues, who comes from Leicester, said that there was much speculation in the city that Eid which occurred on the 12-13th May might cause a surge in infections. Leicester has quite a large Muslim population. It will be interesting to see if, in six weeks time, we have a similar surge in Liverpool.6 weeks seems like quite a long window given what we know. Is it that something like Eid along with the gradual loosening of restrictions are part of that?
So were going to "build, build, build" our way out of the economic crisis caused by Covid 19.And 5bn won't do a lot of building.
Cummings isn't even trying with the 3 word slogans now. Lazy assed fucker.
One of my work colleagues, who comes from Leicester, said that there was much speculation in the city that Eid which occurred on the 12-13th May might cause a surge in infections. Leicester has quite a large Muslim population. It will be interesting to see if, in six weeks time, we have a similar surge in Liverpool.
It didn't happen in Leicester, the recent upsurge was well past the incubation period from Eid. What's happening in Liverpool which might cause a surge in six weeks?Celebration of Liverpool winning the Premier League
6 weeks seems like quite a long window given what we know. Is it that something like Eid along with the gradual loosening of restrictions are part of that?
It didn't happen in Leicester, the recent upsurge was well past the incubation period from Eid.
What's happening in Liverpool which might cause a surge in six weeks?It might do. Most of the irresponsible gatherings were outdoors, so maybe Liverpool will dodge the bullet.
I should have made it clear that the idea that it was Eid that started Leicester's problems is speculation. However, if it was Eid, six weeks is about right. Eid would cause the initial surge and this would be multiplied over the next few weeks until the trend was noticeably above the national trend. And yes, the loosening of the restrictions would have to be part of it.Why didn't it happen in Bradford, or other places with high Muslim populations?
Why didn't it happen in Bradford, or other places with high Muslim populations?
Entitled prickTo what is he entitled more than anyone else? You mean that he has a sense of entitlement, but I hope this tiresome phrase will soon disappear, and we can go back to calling people "arrogant" etc.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/boris-johnsons-dad-stanley-flouts-22288273
To what is he entitled more than anyone else? You mean that he has a sense of entitlement, but I hope this tiresome phrase will soon disappear, and we can go back to calling people "arrogant" etc.Language changes - he's still a prick
Language changes - he's still a prickIndeed he is, but some language changes should be resisted.
As I've just been to do my weekly shop and as again the vast majority see no reason to wear masks, is it time for mask wearing to be mandatory?Will be in shops in Scotland from next week.
https://tinyurl.com/maskshuff
Will be in shops in Scotland from next week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53252760
To what is he entitled more than anyone else? You mean that he has a sense of entitlement, but I hope this tiresome phrase will soon disappear, and we can go back to calling people "arrogant" etc.
A person may have a sense of entitled or be entitled to something but is not 'entitled'. It's horrible & careless.
Will be in shops in Scotland from next week.Are pubs included once they open?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53252760
Johnson's father should have the full weight of the law upon him for breaking the lockdown rules. :(What actual laws has he broken?
Hmm...
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-new-cases-rise-in-36-local-authorities-in-england-12019667
Are you surprised? We’ve relaxed the lockdown. What else would you expect?Did that happen the same way in New Zealand?
Australia is a federation. Individual states have some executive control over their own borders. The United Kingdom is a highly centralised union with minimal powers devolved to lower levels of government. In England, Whitehall effectively micromanages anything it can.Except the rules in Australia didn't allow them to control the internal borders. They just made the decision to do so. And in the UK, the Welsh did effectively close the border for some transit, and given the powers the Scottish Govt has here it could in theory have a form of border closure. That the Tory UK Govt want to play down the differences is unsurprising if tedious.
This morning my Sensory Support Team guide walked with me into town on the alternative rute. Alongside several sections of narrow pavement hedges had been allowed to overgrow, with branches, some thorny, protruding to an extent which would have made it risky if I had been on my own. I phoned the Highways number, but they are not taking calls. In fact, I shall not try to go that way again until I know it is safe. The area of town I wanted to walk in was not at all busy and I bought an item from the Health Food shop and then we walked back. Apparently there are signs asking people to walk on the left hand side of the, at that point, wide pavement, but there was no problem. This time again I could have done it alone, but it would have been too stressful. That word isn't exactly right, because if I decide to do something, then I get on with it, but it would have been much more tiring.'Stressful's fine by me. As for the d*****d overhanging branches? Tell me about it, Susan! I wear those plastic wrap around anti-glare glasses from Cobolt just to protect my eyes from the blasted things - and I wear a baseball cap as well, in the hope that the skip will finf the obstacle before I do. You could try buying a bowing skip from your local sports shop which will serve the same purpose. I can't access a supermarket alone anymore; where once it was a breeze with the long cane, now those arrows and stickers mean I'm snookered. At least there are a few small shops in the town which, by reason of their size, can't change their set up, meaning that I can still access them myself. For larger shopping, I have to depend on giving a list to a carer. It's very limiting, isn't it? And don't even start me on trying to find a seat which isn't taped off on my local bus....no long cane invented can find the damn tape......
'Stressful's fine by me. As for the d*****d overhanging branches? Tell me about it, Susan! I wear those plastic wrap around anti-glare glasses from Cobolt just to protect my eyes from the blasted things - and I wear a baseball cap as well, in the hope that the skip will finf the obstacle before I do. You could try buying a bowing skip from your local sports shop which will serve the same purpose. I can't access a supermarket alone anymore; where once it was a breeze with the long cane, now those arrows and stickers mean I'm snookered. At least there are a few small shops in the town which, by reason of their size, can't change their set up, meaning that I can still access them myself. For larger shopping, I have to depend on giving a list to a carer. It's very limiting, isn't it? And don't even start me on trying to find a seat which isn't taped off on my local bus....no long cane invented can find the damn tape......Fortunately, I do not need to use any public transport at the moment, but re headgear, I found very early on that a visor (bought from local sports shop - closed recently) is a help because it enables me to avoid the distraction of light from above.
Fortunately, I do not need to use any public transport at the moment, but re headgear, I found very early on that a visor (bought from local sports shop - closed recently) is a help because it enables me to avoid the distraction of light from above.
Listening to the In touch programmes, as well as talking to the Guide chap, I think that the Gov have failed to consider the blind, who are assumed to have carers!
I've no idea, but given the current quarantine rules, probably quite a high proportion.
Hmmm, maybe we can open theatres if the audience is prepared to self isolate for fourteen days afterwards.
Theatres will also be able to re-open on 4th July.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do-after-4-july
Apparently Farage has been reported to the police for going to a pub when he was supposed to be self isolating, having just come back from the US after attending one of Trump's rallies.Pity the UK govt has undermined the regulations continually.
Pity the UK govt has undermined the regulations continually.
Pope Catholic, bear shit woods etc etc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53296689
Matt Hancock 'explaining' govt advice on the Today programme this morning.
“There are two things we do: First of all, we mitigate the risk, but ultimately, even when you mitigate risk by having- not having social distancing, that increases significantly the risk of social distancing and we’re simply not there yet.”
Extremely worrying:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53300784
And more extremely worrying stuff. For those who say I'd like to catch it and get it over with, which I've heard on here and IRL, you may want to reconsider that strategy:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/06/coronavirus-covid-19-mild-symptoms-who?
Try this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/06/coronavirus-covid-19-mild-symptoms-who
Some of these side effects can be fatal. According to Dr Christopher Kellner, a professor of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, “mild” cases of Covid-19 in which the patient was not hospitalized for the virus have been linked to blood clotting and severe strokes in people as young as 30. In May, Kellner told Healthline that Mount Sinai had implemented a plan to give anticoagulant drugs to people with Covid-19 to prevent the strokes they were seeing in “younger patients with no or mild symptoms”. Doctors now know that Covid-19 not only affects the lungs and blood, but kidneys, liver and brain – the last potentially resulting in chronic fatigue and depression, among other symptoms. Although the virus is not yet old enough for long-term effects on those organs to be well understood, they may manifest regardless of whether a patient ever required hospitalization, hindering their recovery process.
That's odd, works for me. :(
The basic thrust of it is that some people who have had the virus in the "mild" version have ongoing health issues, I'll quote some of the article here:
(I'll try to get the link to work another way)
Shift the blame Boris:Lying hypocritical cunt
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-care-home-coronavirus_uk_5f036569c5b612083c5fed73?ncid
Lying hypocritical cuntBut he was probably right.
Bolsonaro tests positive.
I'm probably not the only one indulging in a little Schadenfreude.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-53319517
If Trump tested positive for the virus ...
I would be concerned. Trump is in his 70's and is overweight, but has no other underlying condition that I am aware of (apart from psychopathy). There is every chance he might recover.
Tragic
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/07/florida-carsyn-davis-coronavirus/#click=https://t.co/3sPhF6REDJ
I had to come back to this. The most disturbing aspect of this is the mother's account of her daughter's death. Maybe one could chalk it up to religious denial, but for God's sake. She was focusing on the daughter not being afraid, as she fought for each breath. It's almost sounds criminal as if the mother was smiling down on her daughter, so proud of her, as she struggled and died.it's just so shocking.
Another good performance from Sunak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53268594
Another good performance from Sunak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53268594
I agree. He's basically just thrown £5,000 at me. In my case, he didn't really need to since I was going to buy the house anyway. I should probably donate it to charity but I might need it when the government inevitably has to start clawing it all back.it's not about the measures, though there is at least an attempt to do something, but he doesn't over promise, doesn't waffle much. His follow up interviews highlighting that it isn't going to save all all jobs highlights the clarity.
Even Trump has taken to wearing a mask, things must be bad in the US! :o
Hmmm...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/07/10/disney-world-set-reopen-despite-severe-outbreak-unfolding-florida/#click=https://t.co/i4Euk8j3ES
I've seen around 15% not wearing. There are, of course, some exemptions but not convinced all the people I saw were on the list. I do find the message coming out from the 'English' govt confusing.The English govt? You mean the ''headmasters Conference'' govt.
I do find the message coming out from the 'English' govt confusing.
And people accuse the government of not being consistent ::)I phrased it that way and put in in inverted commas as writing the UK govt making statements that only apply in England is a bit cumbersome.
I got that. I simply meant the govt (Johnson's) are consistent in their inconsistency.I was just conscious that the phrase isn't a normal one to use so was worried that I hadn't been clear.I could happily have stayed in bed this morning.
We may be talking at cross purposes or I simply misunderstood. Lack of sleep. Woken up by rain and then slaughter of pigeon by fox and couldn't get back to sleep.
If true then good grief!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/12/us/30-year-old-covid-party-death.html
I've seen around 15% not wearing. There are, of course, some exemptions but not convinced all the people I saw were on the list. I do find the message coming out from the 'English' govt confusing.
I've seen around 15% not wearing. There are, of course, some exemptions but not convinced all the people I saw were on the list. I do find the message coming out from the 'English' govt confusing.
"Britain may have already achieved a sufficient level of herd immunity to prevent a second wave of Covid-19, an Oxford University study has suggested" - Today's Telegraph.That's fucking bollocks. Just because Tories own land and herds and are sneaky, thick and rich doesn't mean I shouldn't get on my high horse when they refer to British people as a herd.
Immunity developed to seasonal coronaviruses such as the common cold may also prevent infection with Covid-19.
"Britain may have already achieved a sufficient level of herd immunity to prevent a second wave of Covid-19, an Oxford University study has suggested" - Today's Telegraph.I'll be taking that with a pinch of salt for now.
Immunity developed to seasonal coronaviruses such as the common cold may also prevent infection with Covid-19.That's good news because we are all immune to the common cold...
That's fucking bollocks. Just because Tories own land and herds and are sneaky, thick and rich doesn't mean I shouldn't get on my high horse when they refer to British people as a herd.
People should be taken to the courts of human rights for suggesting the unleashing of a lethal pathogen on a population. Herd fucking immunity indeed.
"Britain may have already achieved a sufficient level of herd immunity to prevent a second wave of Covid-19, an Oxford University study has suggested" - Today's Telegraph.
Immunity developed to seasonal coronaviruses such as the common cold may also prevent infection with Covid-19.
Was speaking to a guy on the allotments who thinks that higher levels of sunlight in the summer, and consequent boost in vitamin D manufacture in the skin, could have helped reduce the number of infections, since low levels of vit D have been associated with more frequent respiratory infections.
Was speaking to a guy on the allotments who thinks that higher levels of sunlight in the summer, and consequent boost in vitamin D manufacture in the skin, could have helped reduce the number of infections, since low levels of vit D have been associated with more frequent respiratory infections.Check out which states in the USA are currently the hardest hit. Florida, Arizona, Texas all have out of control growth in cases.
"Herd immunity" is the common accepted term for when enough people have immunity to a disease that it can't spread. It wasn't invented for coronavirus.Sorry to be so PC.
I understand that lots of the herd die of whatever it is in the establishment of herd immunity.
All of which currently have 12-14 hours daylight, compared to our 17-18.
Tell that to the folk in Texas, Arizona, Yemen, India, Brazil...........
I'll be taking that with a pinch of salt for now.We pick up many cold viruses each year. Depending on various factors, our immune systems either kill them before succumbing to an infection, or we succumb and get the symptoms before eventually killing it off. So we are frequently developing immunity to coronaviruses, such as the common cold, even if we aren't fully conscious of them. That immunity may be effective against Covid-19, the article said (I didn't read it all).
That's good news because we are all immune to the common cold...
... oh wait. One of the distinctive points about the common cold is that we are not immune to it.
We pick up many cold viruses each year. Depending on various factors, our immune systems either kill them before succumbing to an infection, or we succumb and get the symptoms before eventually killing it off. So we are frequently developing immunity to coronaviruses, such as the common cold, even if we aren't fully conscious of them. That immunity may be effective against Covid-19, the article said (I didn't read it all).
All of which currently have 12-14 hours daylight, compared to our 17-18.Does everybody get up at daybreak and go to bed at dusk?
Not confusing, but the timing is inexplicable. If face masks are effective, they should have been mandated as soon as the supply for health workers was secure. If not, why are we doing this at all?it's not confusing now in terms of shops but on the 13th when I wrote this it was, with it being up to common sense, or not.
Oh, and if you want confusing. Try this:I think you are mixing up detailed for complex situations to the confusion about what the 'English' govt was saying about masks in shops on the 13th of July, and indulging in whataboutery.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-phase-3-staying-safe-and-protecting-others/pages/seeing-friends-and-family/
We pick up many cold viruses each year. Depending on various factors, our immune systems either kill them before succumbing to an infection, or we succumb and get the symptoms before eventually killing it off. So we are frequently developing immunity to coronaviruses, such as the common cold, even if we aren't fully conscious of them. That immunity may be effective against Covid-19, the article said (I didn't read it all).
it's not confusing now in terms of shops but on the 13th when I wrote this it was, with it being up to common sense, or not.
I think you are mixing up detailed for complex situationsIt's usually details for complex situations that are confusing. I would argue, in this case, that the regulations are unnecessarily complex and difficult enough to remember and follow that many people just won't. They are confusing.
to the confusion about what the 'English' govt was saying about masks in shops on the 13th of July, and indulging in whataboutery.No. You seemed confused about what the term "confuse" actually means. I was simply providing an example that was actually confusing.
The reason why we never gain immunity to the common cold is that it is caused by many viruses - mostly rhinoviruses but some coronaviruses - and they mutate quickly so that our antibodies are no longer effective. There's no reason why the COVID19 virus can't mutate in the same way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53467022
although from what I read Sars-Cov-2 has exhibited a much slower mutation rate than most similar classes of virus. That's lucky for us, although I guess it is really simply a manifestation of the reality that there is little selection pressure on it to evolve currently. It must be very happy, finding a massive untapped food source (us) with little or no defence or resistance to it. It's happy to profit from the temporary power asymmetry while it has the edge on us, but when we start producing vaccines and developing natural immunity it will start evolving much faster thanks to our push back.
This sounds promising:
...
It must be very happy, finding a massive untapped food source (us) with little or no defence or resistance to it.That's absolutely not true. We have a vast array of defences against it and they are pretty effective when properly applied. That's why levels of infection are getting quite low in the UK, are almost zero in other parts of Europe and effectively zero in places like New Zealand.
It's happy to profit from the temporary power asymmetry while it has the edge on us, but when we start producing vaccines and developing natural immunity it will start evolving much faster thanks to our push back.It doesn't have the edge on us, in most parts of the world where it is being taken seriously, we are winning.
Sort of ... but I expect the cost of providing it in sufficient quantities would make it impractical.
Do you have any idea of what the cost of keeping somebody on a ventilator for several weeks is?
There seems to be a viewpoint developing among some of us on this forum that viruses behave purposely.I don't think any of the posters here except maybe a few of the creationists ascribe any purpose to evolution or to the virus. It's just that it's quite hard to talk about it without using language that appears to ascribe purpose as a shorthand. For example
A strain of the virus that evolved to be just as infectious as it is now but that did no serious harm to humans would be far more successful because we wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to stamp it out.
I'm guessingAgreed, you are.
we would still need social distancing and masks etc - that are needed to prevent people getting ill and reduce the numbers that might be ill enough to need it or ventilators.Agreed.
The reason why we never gain immunity to the common cold is that it is caused by many viruses - mostly rhinoviruses but some coronaviruses - and they mutate quickly so that our antibodies are no longer effective. There's no reason why the COVID19 virus can't mutate in the same way.I was thinking of non-specific defense mechanisms as opposed to acquired immunity (so my phrase 'our immune systems' was misleading). So that would include, for example, saliva, which washes microbes away from the respiratory tract, and the epiglottis, which covers the latter during swallowing; and cilia in the bronchial tree, which waft mucus containing microbes back up. Here's (https://reason.com/2020/07/01/covid-19-herd-immunity-is-much-closer-than-antibody-tests-suggest-say-2-new-studies/) an article detailing the research that suggests T cells may be giving acquired immunity because they have already been exposed to the coronavirus-type of common cold.
I don't think any of the posters here except maybe a few of the creationists ascribe any purpose to evolution or to the virus. It's just that it's quite hard to talk about it without using language that appears to ascribe purpose as a shorthand..
...
If it is really as effective as the study says (NB it is a small study and it hasn't been peer reviewed yet), we will ramp up production, just like, when we found we needed more ventilators and PPE than normal, we ramped up production.
...
Well, currently it is in demand for treating MS and other auto-immune conditions - but still expensive and hard to obtain.Yes, because it is not in demand for treating victims of a global pandemic. If it is found to be of benefit, manufacturers will gear up production until there is enough to go round. It may still be expensive, but its use promises to save a lot of money.
Sometimes using teleological metaphor is an efficient way to get an idea across; of course that assumes the reader understands a metaphor is being used.Yes indeed. Dawkins' first book is dependent on this idea.
Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has announced that the Scottish government has also decided to reimpose quarantine on arrivals from Spain.......
The British government’s decision to remove Spain from list of safe countries to travel to means those coming back from Spain will have to self-isolate for two weeks upon their return to England.
A formal announcement is expected to be made by the Department for Transport on Saturday, PA reports.
Scotland and the UK (though they've yet to formally confirm) re-introduce 14 days quarantine on arrivals from Spain.The Scottish govt's decision to lift this on Monday was obviously wrong at the time. In theory I have a holiday booked in Barcelona in September. I suspect this won't happen.
From The Guardian's live blog.
The Scottish govt's decision to lift this on Monday was obviously wrong at the time. In theory I have a holiday booked in Barcelona in September. I suspect this won't happen.My parents are in France at the moment and, apparently, we are thinking about reimposing quarantine for France too. They wouldn't be too bothered about self isolating for fourteen days after coming back, but they couldn't stay there without insurance.
My parents are in France at the moment and, apparently, we are thinking about reimposing quarantine for France too. They wouldn't be too bothered about self isolating for fourteen days after coming back, but they couldn't stay there without insurance.
I hope it works out ok for them.
I am in France at the moment. In fact I intend to stay here for the next six weeks or so.
I an in a small village in an area which is not densely populated and which has had a very low level of COVID-19. It is not a tourist mecca and I doubt that - locally - there will be any problems. I am having glorious weather (daily in excess of 30 degrees) and yesterday had my first restaurant meal for over four months.
If, when I return to England, I am forced to self-isoate for two weeks then I shall set about doing that. I, at least, am having the kind of experience of which so many people will be denied this year.
Baffled as to why you would retweet something without at least reading the tweetBaffled as to why you would post a link to a story without at least reading it first. :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53559934
Baffled as to why you would post a link to a story without at least reading it first. :)Touché
If you do a search on the page for "tweet" and "twitter" you might then have an understanding of why Lewis shared a video on Instagram without reading it properly.
Oddly at 2 points the UK cases go down
Two possibilities:I agree but if it was 1 then I would be very interested in the details.
1. We changed the way we count cases e.g. maybe we were double counting some people.
2. A mistake in the data behind the animation.
Probably the latter IMO.
I agree but if it was 1 then I would be very interested in the details.
So would I.Thanks for this and the wiki on Covid confirms
There was a news item the other day which reported that England counts its coronavirus deaths differently to the other home countries. The official statistic is the number of people who have died in care homes and hospitals having previously tested positive for coronavirus. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were applying a month limit to how long previously the test could have happened. i.e. if somebody tested positive in March and died in May, in England it was a COVID19 death, elsewhere it was not.
If England had decided to retroactively bring its counting method in line with Scotland etc, you would see an apparent reduction of deaths in England. I'm not saying it is that specific thing, but some other similar counting anomaly might be the cause.
I've done a bit more digging. The graphics source is the European CDC which is the same source used by ourworldindata.com. Check out this graph of UK daily and cumulative cases:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-and-daily-cases-covid-19?country=~GBR
On 3rd July, there was a massive step down and approximately -30,000 new cases. Obviously you can't have a negative number of new cases, so somebody did an adjustment on that day. The same step down appears in data direct from the government.
https://coronavstats.co.uk
So I think option 1 is the most likely, after all.
From the BBC's rolling Covid news
'France's transport minister has said the government will review plans to build a fourth terminal at Paris's main airport, Charles de Gaulle-Roissy.
Jean-Baptiste Djebbari said the fall in air traffic brought about by coronavirus meant extra capacity might no longer be needed.
The fourth terminal was meant to cope with an extra 40m passengers by 2030.
But the pandemic has caused a steep drop in international travel and many airlines are struggling to survive. On Tuesday French airport operator ADP said passenger traffic could take as long as seven years to recover fully.'
Will there be a similar impact on new runway at Heathrow?
I wouldn't be at all surprised, unless the government chooses to go ahead with it as part of its stimulus package.Yep, it's an interesting challenge 'if you build it, they may not come'
From the BBC's rolling Covid newsLet's hope so: it and HS2 are alike disastrous ideas.
'France's transport minister has said the government will review plans to build a fourth terminal at Paris's main airport, Charles de Gaulle-Roissy.
Jean-Baptiste Djebbari said the fall in air traffic brought about by coronavirus meant extra capacity might no longer be needed.
The fourth terminal was meant to cope with an extra 40m passengers by 2030.
But the pandemic has caused a steep drop in international travel and many airlines are struggling to survive. On Tuesday French airport operator ADP said passenger traffic could take as long as seven years to recover fully.'
Will there be a similar impact on new runway at Heathrow?
Let's hope so: it and HS2 are alike disastrous ideas.As per Jeremyp's comment though the question will be whether the govt sees it as part of their stimulus package. This sort of long term planning is not really what govts are good at.
As per Jeremyp's comment though the question will be whether the govt sees it as part of their stimulus package. This sort of long term planning is not really what govts are good at.
Yes. I think HS2 may be more likely too because it's a big project that can be used to stimulate the economy.And it can at least be sort of sold as 'green'.
And it can at least be sort of sold as 'green'.It's not nearly as green as not building it at all.
It's not nearly as green as not building it at all.You did see the ' ' marks?
Worrying news from Hong Kong
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53575875
Yes, very worrying, especially as it confirms a trend seen elsewhere - Australia, Spain, Germany, France, Israel - increasing cases as societies try to move towards something approaching normal. For the time being, at least, we have got to find a new normal.
It is very worrying, many people seem to be trying to get back to pre-virus days too quickly.I think it's not an easy call - even with us having moved out of lock down, it's not going to be enough for many businesses. It's easy to say that things are happening too fast but for many in some terms it's not fast enough. It's a difficult balance, and we are only seeing the very start of the tsunami of job losses that are going to happen. Even had we a magic wand to make Covid disappear now, the effects will be felt for years.
...a new normal....a new normality. Grammar.
...a new normality. Grammar.And language changes.
And language changes.Not if I've got anything to do with it.
Not if I've got anything to do with it.
Seriously, you can't just say "language changes" to excuse any solecism.
Solving the world's problems by pedantry. Well done brave little soldier.One does what one can, dear boy.
Not if I've got anything to do with it.And yet that language changes is true. As long as something can be understood clearly, I see no problems. It's a tool, not a straitjacket.
Seriously, you can't just say "language changes" to excuse any solecism.
And yet that language changes is true. As long as something can be understood clearly, I see no problems. It's a tool, not a straitjacket.Langage changyth notte, thou malapert knave!
Some interesting and confusing stats here - it would appear that the 15 worst city for excess deaths in the whole of Europe has an effective increase of 0%. In addition the lack of Italy's figures make it a problem to say anything clear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881
Langage changyth notte, thou malapert knave!I'm fairly conservative on these matters, but don't give a shit about split infinitives, for example. But I will resist the use of "I was like" to mean "I said" or "I thought" to my dying day. I may well be arrested for common assault on a bus one day, if I hear a group of teenagers using it ad nauseam
As replies go, that was, like, cool, Dude!
I thought it was like a rant.
I thought it was like a rant.
You mean, like, similar to a rant but not quite a rant?
Seen elsewhere
'In Manchester, you can be sacked for refusing to go and sit with someone in an office, fined £100 for sitting with them at home, and given a money-off deal to sit with them in a busy restaurant.'
If I was implementing the local lockdown in Manchester, I would be rolling back all the measures, not some of them. I would be mandating working from home where possible, closing the restaurants and reimposing the social distancing rules. I don't know why it has to be so difficult.
^^ This.100%.
It occurred to me the other day that it might come to thisSee 2851
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53621613
See 2851Why would there be a debate? If it's a choice of schools or pubs but not both, we have to give priority to schools.
Schools are much more important than pubs, which are more than likely to spread the virus when people are too sloshed to socially distance.
Why would there be a debate? If it's a choice of schools or pubs but not both, we have to give priority to schools.Because the UK govt is deeply worried that it's lost its authority and anything they say will be ignored. So first they put up a bit of kite flying through sources hoping to get people agreeing to the schools choice.
This gives a good excuse to post this
https://youtu.be/ttRIz-0HWps
Schools are much more important than pubs, which are more than likely to spread the virus when people are too sloshed to socially distance.More prejudice buttressed by ignorance.
More prejudice buttressed by ignorance.
I can't say I found it particularly amusing. Do you have children?Dylan Moran does
Because the UK govt is deeply worried that it's lost its authority and anything they say will be ignored.I seriously doubt that - at least in the sense I think you mean. If they say "pubs must close" they will close. The government has all the necessary machinery to enforce that decree.
So first they put up a bit of kite flying through sources hoping to get people agreeing to the schools choice.Much as I like a pint in the pub, getting the schools up and running must be a priority. No reasonable person would agree that pubs should have priority over schools.
Meaning?
I've been to two pubs and a wine bar since they reopened. In no case was I ever too sloshed to maintain social distancing. Most people who go to the pub do it to socialise, not to get sloshed.
Well, provided there are no unexpected spikes,shutdowns or anything else, my granddaughter is bringing Reuben to Salisbury in two weeks time, so I shal, fingers crossed, be able to see him. Something to really look forward to.
He is sitting up on the floor (with pillows behind of course in case he topples back) and has two teeth. :)
It must be hard to social distance in a pub or wine bar though, sloshed or not.Not the ones I went in. In fact, in the wine bar, we were the only group in there. It probably won't exist in three months.
I think it is in Aberdeen a pub is the source of a spike in cases of the virus.If 13 new cases is a spike.
Not the ones I went in. In fact, in the wine bar, we were the only group in there. It probably won't exist in three months.If 13 new cases is a spike.
'Safety concerns halt use of 50 million NHS masks'
'It has emerged that the person who originally approached the government about the deal was a government trade adviser who also advises the board of Ayanda.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841
Hmmmm...
This is just another to add to the list of bad deals made by the government in questionable circumstances - avoiding competition and scrutiny .
Sturgeon is right to be 'pretty furious' with them.The points should be awarded to St Johnstone
I could have put this on the Trump or US election threads but seems better here. Interesting articleIt may be confirmation bias but I thought that was a very good article.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/covid-19-end-of-american-era-wade-davis-1038206/amp/
I could have put this on the Trump or US election threads but seems better here. Interesting article
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/covid-19-end-of-american-era-wade-davis-1038206/amp/
More idiocy in Scottish football - be interested to see if there is any reaction from Celtic's opponents in the Champions League Qualifiers, KR Reykjavík
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53733180
It's great. Multiple sportsmen have now broken the rules but, apparently, all you need to do to make it right is apologise (with the notable exception of Jeffrey Archer).Jeffrey Archer ???
Jeffrey Archer ???
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53735718Maybe he thought it was worth putin on the risk. (https://youtu.be/zgij9irxfKY)
Putin has stated a vaccine produced in Russia is now ready for use. It was only been tested for a couple of months, which apparently is too short a time in which to certify if it really is going to do the business. One of Putin's daughters has been vaccinated. I think Putin should have been the first to have the jab.
Maybe he thought it was worth putin on the risk. (https://youtu.be/zgij9irxfKY)
This has nothing to do with the virus! ::)Lighten up!
This has nothing to do with the virus! ::)Quite funny though
It's great. Multiple sportsmen have now broken the rules but, apparently, all you need to do to make it right is apologise (with the notable exception ofMatches now offJeffreyJofra Archer).
I think the entire Celtic team must now self isolate for ten days and any matches they were due to play in that period should be defaulted. Also, the points for the match against Kilmarnock in which Bolingoli played should be awarded to the opposition. Something similar should apply to Aberdeen and Valteri Botas and Charles Leclerc should have been made to self isolate for ten days too.
Maybe he thought it was worth putin on the risk. (https://youtu.be/zgij9irxfKY)
Wear your mask for Zoom calls
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article244861827.html?__twitter_impression=true
I can see the argument, but I think it's bollocks.Agree. Bad regulations undermine good ones.
Huge recession, and bad death figures. Not sure how anyone spins this as good performance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53748278
Not sure how anybody ever thought there could be any other outcome.I'm talking about comparison with other countries.
Well, if you remember, we were running out of masks. They could have done all the competition and scrutiny, but that is the main reason why it usually takes months or years for the government to issue contracts.
The government cut corners because the masks were needed in April this year, not April next year. If they hadn't done the deal, people would be criticising them for running out of masks and the company involved would probably have issued a press release saying "we've got 50 million masks, why didn't you ask us".
I'm talking about comparison with other countries.
Other countries are different. Other countries have different population densities and distributions. Other countries count deaths and infections differently. Other countries have different cultures. Some other countries cook the books, both in terms of economic performance and virus impact.That's a carte blanche to just ignore all govt performance as non measurable.
Direct comparisons between countries don't really tell you anything very much.
That's a carte blanche to just ignore all govt performance as non measurable.
So I'm in the CO-OP and saw a woman not wearing a mask ;
me: you should be wearing a mask !
her: why? I'm not infected !
me: No but you are ugly 😣
hope you're all well ?
Can't speak for others but I'm fine (apart from being too hot) good to see you here again.cheers Trent, you'll be sick of me again soon enough ;D
cheers Trent, you'll be sick of me again soon enough ;D
cheers Trent, you'll be sick of me again soon enough ;D
Not me. I love old jokes.Am I a joke to you? ;D ;D ;D
That's a carte blanche to just ignore all govt performance as non measurable.No it isn't. We can still make judgements as long as we take into account all the reasons why our stats might be worse than (as an extreme example) New Zealand.
Yes indeed. It was noticeable on this mornings BBC news that great play was being made of 4, I repeat 4 new cases in NZ and the subsequent tightening of lock down there and yet, 1,000 cases new cases in the UK and not a mention.Because they've had no cases for months. The last time we had four cases it was also big news. It'll be big news again if we go down to zero cases and then have four new ones.
I mean it's not like the Tories haven't been in power for ages and been promising to do something about the migrants crossing the channel for the best part of a decade, but all of a sudden we have Pritti popping up and SKY news flying helicopters and reporters on boats to shout at people on rubber inflatables.And what about this train crash in Scotland? Clearly it's the government trying to distract us from coronavirus.
No it isn't. We can still make judgements as long as we take into account all the reasons why our stats might be worse than (as an extreme example) New Zealand.So how do you think a country with a high total of deaths by all measures and higher collapse in GDP is doing?
I think it's abundantly clear to most people that we should have locked down at least a week earlier than we did even without comparing the direct statistics to France or Italy. On the other hand, if we had judged our statistical performance against that of the USA at the end of May, we would have concluded they were doing much better than us. How times have changed.
So how do you think a country with a high total of deaths by all measuresBy all measures? What do you think is a reasonable total for a disease with no known cure, an R0 of between 3 and 4 and a 1% mortality rate?
and higher collapse in GDP is doing?
Am I a joke to you? ;D ;D ;D
btw , I'm still a boy. ;)
No :o! I always pictured you as big, hairy and cuddly. I wondered where you'd got to, well I hope.The figures are the worst in the G7 currently and the worst in Europe. And combined with the death rate which is amongst the highest by however you measure it. You really think that is ok?
Coronavirus figures up and hard times are here according to Independent.
jp:- A recession on the scale we are having seems to me to be about what we would expect.
Yup.
No :o! I always pictured you as big, hairy and cuddly. I wondered where you'd got to, well I hope.if you fancy a cuddle let me know. No commitment, I'm a sociopath ;)
Coronavirus figures up and hard times are here according to Independent.
jp:- A recession on the scale we are having seems to me to be about what we would expect.
Yup.
The figures are the worst in the G7 currently and the worst in EuropeWell I'm happy for the rest of Europe. Although not really.
You really think that is ok?
Interesting that UK cases of coronavirus are creeping up again, but the death rate has kept going down, so far.
Quite promising, it means in part that we are learning how better to deal with the illness caused by the virus. This was always likely to happen. In addition, some of the most vulnerable have already died so not as many vulnerable people for the virus to kill.Though an increase in cases would have a time lag to deaths.
Though an increase in cases would have a time lag to deaths.
It would, and there will almost certainly be an increase in deaths, but our ability to mitigate some of the worst aspects of the virus will lead to fewer deaths than was the case at the beginning of the pandemic.Yep, there has been a great deal learned
Interesting that UK cases of coronavirus are creeping up again, but the death rate has kept going down, so far.
Death rate lags about two weeks behind infections.I reckon it's a measurement/recording issue
Also, the NHS is better at treating the victims than it was at the start.
I reckon it's a measurement/recording issueWhy?
Why?I'm not convinced that we the public are fully informed of the criteria used in measuring ,recording ,reporting of deaths caused solely by covid or when and if the govmt change the criteria for whatever reason . Unless you are privy to the raw scientific data jeremy, (which you might be for all I know). To me the figures are just a guide so I don't read too much into it any more
I'm not convinced that we the public are fully informed of the criteria used in measuring ,recording ,reporting of deaths caused solely by covid or when and if the govmt change the criteria for whatever reason .We are not recording deaths solely caused by COVID19. The figures referred to are "deaths of people in hospitals and care homes who previously tested positive for COVID19". That means that some people who are recorded did not die of COVID19 and some people who died of COVID19 are not recorded. This is well known and accepted because the statistic is still a good proxy for how bad it is here.
Unless you are privy to the raw scientific data jeremy, (which you might be for all I know). To me the figures are just a guide so I don't read too much into it any more
I'm not convinced that we the public are fully informed of the criteria used in measuring ,recording ,reporting of deaths caused solely by covid or when and if the govmt change the criteria for whatever reason . Unless you are privy to the raw scientific data jeremy, (which you might be for all I know). To me the figures are just a guide so I don't read too much into it any more
Way, way back in this thread there was a conversation about the coding process in hospitals, which I used to be involved in peripherally, and even in that process there is always an element of not exactly error, more an openness to interpretation that leaves the figures just as you say a guide. The recent reduction in deaths in England attributed to Covid 19, is just one such example of said interpretation.Thanks Trent and keep up the good work :)
Thanks Trent and keep up the good work :)
Oh not working anymore thank goodness. Was fortunate enough to leave work slightly earlier than planned.well, enjoy yourself mate
Never understood why the track and trace thing wasn't mandatory in the first place.
I honestly thought it was. I've been in three pubs/bars since they were allowed to open in England and none of them would let us in without the name and address of at least one member of the party.TBH I don't know if this was a wrinkle in the Scottish regulations or something that pubs were generally following. I too have been in 3 pubs and 2 were scrupulously following track and trace but one wasn't. I left.
TBH I don't know if this was a wrinkle in the Scottish regulations or something that pubs were generally following. I too have been in 3 pubs and 2 were scrupulously following track and trace but one wasn't. I left.I've just moved into a new village it has 4 pubs, only one has Track n Trace .In fact I thought it was the name of the Landlord and his wife !!!
I've just moved into a new village it has 4 pubs, only one has Track n Trace .In fact I thought it was the name of the Landlord and his wife !!!I went into a pub called the George and Dragon once. There was a middle-aged couple behind the bar. The woman was serving another customer, so I was served by George.
I went into a pub called the George and Dragon once. There was a middle-aged couple behind the bar. The woman was serving another customer, so I was served by George.believe it or not I've been there Wilks.
(True; it's in Wendover. It's now a gastropub, specialising in Thai cuisine.)
believe it or not I've been there Wilks.;D
I then moved on to the Dashwood arms at Piddington nr West Wycombe stayed there for 3 months helping out .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53799854
Public Health England is to be replaced by an agency dealing with pandemics.
I don't think PHE has done well but this doesn't strike me as being a well thought out fix. For a start, what is this new body going to do for the 49 out of 50 years when there isn't a pandemic?
If, as the article suggests, it mirrors the Robert Koch Institute then it's remit would be a bit wider than that.PHE won't cease to exist according to the BBC article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Koch_Institute
But that wouldn't be as wide as PHE's remit was.
It is just the ritualistic response of an incompetent government tomake it appear that the blame for failure does not rest it it. Scapegoating.
Can see some airports struggling to survive
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8634843/amp/Jet2-axes-102-pilots-latest-kick-teeth-air-industry.html?__twitter_impression=true
Is that the same Dido Harding who is married to Tory MP John Penrose?This Dido Harding
That is the John Penrose who sits on the advisory board of think tank "1828" which calls for "the NHS to be replaced by an insurance system and for Public Health England to be scrapped."
I believe she is.
Colour me fucking surprised.
This Dido HardingDido and Aenaichess?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8369217/NHS-test-trace-tsar-Dido-Harding-board-Cheltenham-Festival.html
Dido and Aenaichess?Points for effort there.
More job losses
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53817598
Interesting.It's evolving. Becoming more infectious and less harmful are both in the virus's interest. A virus which kills its victims in short order will be pretty unsuccessful at reproducing itself. The ideal virus, from the virus's own point of view, is one which is easily transmitted by droplet infection, and which makes its victims cough and sneeze, but not feel so ill that they isolate themselves.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25E08Y
Trump and the 'big' surge in New Zealand
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8637675/Jacinda-Ardern-war-words-Donald-Trump-New-Zealands-COVID-19-outbreak.html
Hmm..In total this is a piece of idiotic corruption
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53813480
In total this is a piece of idiotic corruption
In total this is a piece of idiotic corruption
It is. Words fail me. Well not quite.
It's not just the corruption, although that is quite breathtaking. It is also the promotion of the staggeringly inept.
Inept that is, unless other talents come to the fore that may facilitate the aim to destabilise the Health Service enough to justify further changes.
This is very sad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53812587
Feels like
https://youtu.be/dMnCaA9pVW0
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53938272
Whilst the number of people testing positive for the virus appears to be rising, the death rate isn't. From what they were saying on this morning's news many of those who have it are young people who don't tend to get it seriously if they are normally fit and well.
One this morning's news they said that kids who test positive, but with little or no symptoms, could pass on the virus to adults for up to three weeks after contacting it.On Sunday Morning Live, most of the guests seemed to think that young people were being victimised over the recent 'spikes', attributed to their rave parties. Not even the guest medic pointed out that mass gatherings of any kind OUTSIDE seem to be quite safe, but mass gatherings INSIDE, of the rave party kind are a real danger.
BizarreVery droll, but this is a classic example of generalising from a single instance. If I did that, you'd be down on me within minutes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/08/31/herman-cain-tweets-coronavirus-not-that-deadly-despite-having-died-from-it/?fbclid=IwAR0qHsYqwgaFzsS-0j4rk5DJx06CWXxd70GY8DEEueiyx5xC6CDf_RuO284#4e1072773c77
Very droll, but this is a classic example of generalising from a single instance. If I did that, you'd be down on me within minutes.What generalizing is there in my post?
Very droll, but this is a classic example of generalising from a single instance. If I did that, you'd be down on me within minutes.
What generalizing is there in my post?The implication that Coronavirus is indeed as deadly as is claimed, because someone who denied it died from it. It's ironic, but t proves nothing either way.
The implication that Coronavirus is indeed as deadly as is claimed, because someone who denied it died from it. It's ironic, but t proves nothing either way.I didn't make any such generalization. I was just noting that the tweet from the dead was bizarre.
I didn't make any such generalization. I was just noting that the tweet from the dead was bizarre.Yeah, right. Have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything whatsoever?
Yeah, right. Have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything whatsoever?Yep, frequently. I am struggling to see your point here. Don't you think that the tweet from the dead was bizarre?
Yep, frequently. I am struggling to see your point here. Don't you think that the tweet from the dead was bizarre?
I would find it interesting to know the average figures of deaths that would be expected in normal times compared to the figures we now have that would include death rates over this blasted coronavirus period and be able to see how much they have differed over the course of the shutdown?
Perhaps one of the more resourceful contributors to the forum knows where to find these figures if they have already been presented somewhere else?
ippy
I would find it interesting to know the average figures of deaths that would be expected in normal times compared to the figures we now have that would include death rates over this blasted coronavirus period and be able to see how much they have differed over the course of the shutdown?
Perhaps one of the more resourceful contributors to the forum knows where to find these figures if they have already been presented somewhere else?
ippy
My brother and sister in law, having returned from a holiday in France are in quarantine for 14 days. Fortunately they both have jobs that allow them to work from home.
Anyway, somebody in their organisation (not either of them) decided to go out shopping while they were in quarantine. Their mobile phone rang and the conversation went something like this:
"Hello, we are just following up on quarantines. Are you at home right now?"
"Yes"
"OK, do you mind coming to the door so we can do a swab test?"
Fined twice over: once for breaking quarantine and once for lying about it to the police.
Have to say this seems right to me.Have to say: hasn't she got anything better to do with her time? I'm not saying the daily briefings shouldn't happen. In fact I wish the UK daily briefings were still happening, but they could easily be done by the minister in charge of health or some lesser official.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-scotland-announces-u-turn-22701022?fbclid=IwAR39iQUK0CcPEPny8oVKaYClARLwg55DfIrO3Et3JJBXS06QZHe2pBORq04
Have to say: hasn't she got anything better to do with her time? I'm not saying the daily briefings shouldn't happen. In fact I wish the UK daily briefings were still happening, but they could easily be done by the minister in charge of health or some lesser official.
I think they are very worthwhile and watch them regularly - she also takes questions from journalists and doesn't do the wiffle-waffle you see from the likes of Boris the liar.
Have to say: hasn't she got anything better to do with her time? I'm not saying the daily briefings shouldn't happen. In fact I wish the UK daily briefings were still happening, but they could easily be done by the minister in charge of health or some lesser official.I'm not sure there is. It's an hour or so a day and it's dealing with the main concern of the govt at this time. It provides continuity at a time when many people are worried. Note the main issue with the story here was BBC Scotland's decision to stop showing the briefings, and thinking people could access them on line. Given many of those most concerned about Covid are elderly and in a group less likely to access online, this seemed the wrong decision to me.
I'm not sure there is. It's an hour or so a day and it's dealing with the main concern of the govt at this time.It's a whole hour or more every day of the First Minister's time. There's absolutely no reason for her to do it, unless she's got nothing else to do.
Note the main issue with the story here was BBC Scotland's decision to stop showing the briefings, and thinking people could access them on line. Given many of those most concerned about Covid are elderly and in a group less likely to access online, this seemed the wrong decision to me.
It's a whole hour or more every day of the First Minister's time. There's absolutely no reason for her to do it, unless she's got nothing else to do.Yes, I got your point, I was just pointing out that the story was not about the continuation of the briefings or who is doing them.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be shown. I'm saying it is unnecessary for the First Minister to be doing them rather than somebody else like the health minister, for example.
If you are trying to show how seriously it's being taken, it seems a perfectly sensible reason to me to have the briefing done by the FM,The very fact of having a daily briefing would do that. Even at the height of the crisis, the UK wide briefings were handled perfectly well by several of the government ministers on a rotating basis (even after the PM had recovered). Frankly, I think Sturgeon is grandstanding, unless she really has got fuck all else to do and I don't believe that.
The very fact of having a daily briefing would do that. Even at the height of the crisis, the UK wide briefings were handled perfectly well by several of the government ministers on a rotating basis (even after the PM had recovered). Frankly, I think Sturgeon is grandstanding, unless she really has got fuck all else to do and I don't believe that.There were lots of comments when Johnson did very few briefings that he wasn't taking it seriously. Covid is the big story and the big thing that action is being taken on. Why the FM should not take that into account just seems odd to me.
There were lots of comments when Johnson did very few briefings that he wasn't taking it seriously.Boris Johnson was very seriously ill with COVID19. Any claims that he wasn't taking it seriously are bullshit.
Covid is the big story and the big thing that action is being taken on. Why the FM should not take that into account just seems odd to me.But every day the First Minister of Scotland goes on telly to read out some routine statistics. It would be far better if a minion did it most days and the First Minister came on only when there are serious developments, for example, when there is a policy change.
But every day the First Minister of Scotland goes on telly to read out some routine statistics. It would be far better if a minion did it most days and the First Minister came on only when there are serious developments, for example, when there is a policy change.
Boris Johnson was very seriously ill with COVID19. Any claims that he wasn't taking it seriously are bullshit.The questions about taking it seriously started way before he had Covid. If you think it can be done by a 'minion', you aren't taking it seriously.
But every day the First Minister of Scotland goes on telly to read out some routine statistics. It would be far better if a minion did it most days and the First Minister came on only when there are serious developments, for example, when there is a policy change.
The questions about taking it seriously started way before he had Covid. If you think it can be done by a 'minion', you aren't taking it seriously.
Eejit!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54205353
If you think that the only way for the First Minister or Prime Minister to demonstrate they are taking it seriously is to stand up and read the statistics out every day, then you are part of the problem. It's a facile "appearances are more important than substance" attitude and I despise it.If you don't think appearances are part of the substance here then you are not thinking clearly.
Yes he is, but he probably isn't the only person to contribute to the spike. Bolton has a population of about 200,000 people, so the spike is around 400 new infections. Unless it happened a month or two ago, it's unlikely all those 400 infections came from one person.The report doesn't say that he was solely responsible so not sure what you are arguing about
Dido, Queen of Carnage;D ;D ;D
And COVID-19 is busy creating fat people. What else is there to do under lockdown than eat .... ?
But it can't be despicable to question govt action as the claim was.Yes I don't think it's despicable to question mortality rates where these are due to lack of testing which allowed people who had Covid-19 to transmit to people in vulnerable categories rather than quarantining themselves.
But it can't be despicable to question govt action as the claim was.From what I hear from a couple of friends who follow political ins and outs, it is not so much the actual testing but getting the results that is the main problem.
From what I hear from a couple of friends who follow political ins and outs, it is not so much the actual testing but getting the results that is the main problem.No, the availability of the testing is also a huge problem. It's all a bit of a post code lottery and Dido Harding seems surprised that the return of schools has lead to an increase in demand.
I think a lot in this about society living with Covid makes sense. The original lockdown made sense because we knew very little about it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54228649
The report doesn't say that he was solely responsible so not sure what you are arguing aboutIt gives the impression that it was all his fault. The danger is that the people of Bolton will say "it was all that idiot" and not take the measures that they need to to stop it.
Of-course there are good points and we will have to learn to live with the virus, preferably with vaccines and treatments at hand, but what actual measures does Heneghan propose to contain the possible exponential rise over winter clearly described by Vallance and Whitty in this mornings presentation?I think we'll get to the point where there is no alternative but to live with the virus. It looks increasingly likely that people do not become permanently immune to the disease and that would probably spell doom for any vaccine too.
Aside, I thought they did much better on this than in the previous briefings : concentrating on factual information and being careful with their wording.
I think we'll get to the point where there is no alternative but to live with the virus. It looks increasingly likely that people do not become permanently immune to the disease and that would probably spell doom for any vaccine too.
Either we'll lose our squeamishness about death from the disease or we'll learn to live permanently with some lockdown measures or most probably some combination of the two.
The whole go back to the office thing has been an utter disaster of a message though.
The worrying thing is that apart from the pubs and restaurants opening hours thing most of the new English restrictions have applied in Scotland already and we may well have a higher R number.I think the pub opening hours restriction will have a greatly beneficial effect. Other than that, I think it's good that England is coming more into line with Scotland. Most of the country's population is in England and it is more densely packed than other parts of the UK. If anything the restrictions need to be more restrictive than Scotland.
That said I really think we need to look to live with it more than we have.Agreed. And we will, one way or another. In days gone by, humans lived with the possibility of death by disease as an ever present threat. Obviously, we don't want to go back to that if we can avoid it and I think we an - to an extent. I think our best chance is not a vaccine but improving hospital care to get the mortality rate down. If we can get it down to flu like levels of mortality, we can start thinking of it more like we think of flu. In a bad year, flu kills about 20-30 thousand people in the UK and we put up with it.
Why have other countries, like Italy & Germany, recovered better? PM: "There is a difference between our country and others. Ours is a freedom-loving country... It's very difficult to ask the British population uniformly to obey guidelines in the way that is necessary".
I think the pub opening hours restriction will have a greatly beneficial effect.I'm sceptical - I really don't see why closing pubs at 10am is going to have a major impact. People will either just move their pub-going earlier, potentially you'll end up with more people packed in during the hours of 8-10pm. And of course once kicked out of the pub people will head to the park (if weather permits) or back home in groups to continue drinking. Not allowed in the rules, of course, but how on earth are they going to be enforced.
I'm sceptical - I really don't see why closing pubs at 10am is going to have a major impact.Because people will be less pissed.
People will either just move their pub-going earlier, potentially you'll end up with more people packed in during the hours of 8-10pm.Some will. Some won't. Some will look at the busy pub at 8pm and say "no thanks".
And of course once kicked out of the pub people will head to the parkWhich is at least outdoors and hence a lower risk.
I think these changes are going to make very little difference, and are probably designed to have limited effect on most people's lives. Problem is that in a couple of weeks when things are still getting worse (as they will inevitable be due to the flywheel effect) we'll be getting a new announcement with more strict measures. Frankly better to bring these into effect now than in two weeks.I think, whether they are successful or not depends on how well the restrictions are enforced. The rule of six and the reversal on the "go back to work" policy by themselves will make some difference. I think it's more a case of will they be enough to stop the rise in cases? Unfortunately, we won't know for two or three weeks.
Because people will be less pissed.Not necessarily - the earlier closing time may just increase the rate of drinking.
Some will. Some won't. Some will look at the busy pub at 8pm and say "no thanks".Others will just turn up earlier - starting at 6pm rather than 8pm.
Which is at least outdoors and hence a lower risk.Not if everyone is huddled together because it is getting parky at this time of the year at 10pm. Nor if groups larger than 6 get together which is easier outdoor in the dark rather than in a managed pub.
I think, whether they are successful or not depends on how well the restrictions are enforced.I agree, but I think the early pub closure is a sticking plaster on a wound that is bleeding at an increasingly rapid rate.
The rule of six and the reversal on the "go back to work" policy by themselves will make some difference. I think it's more a case of will they be enough to stop the rise in cases? Unfortunately, we won't know for two or three weeks.The problem is that the government are looking reactive and ever changing - the rule of 6 was supposed to be the new clear (and preamble long range) message. Yet within days it is being superseded with new interventions. And I suspect in a couple a weeks today's announcements will be superseded again. The difficulty is that all this leads to is confusion rather than clarity and that leads to people failing to comply due to 'message fatigue' or genuinely being confused about what they can and cannot do.
The problem is that the government are looking reactive and ever changing - the rule of 6 was supposed to be the new clear (and preamble long range) message. Yet within days it is being superseded with new interventions. And I suspect in a couple a weeks today's announcements will be superseded again. The difficulty is that all this leads to is confusion rather than clarity and that leads to people failing to comply due to 'message fatigue' or genuinely being confused about what they can and cannot do.
I think this one of the biggest issues. The fact that the TV news presents at least 4 different sets of rules for the constituent parts of the UK is confusing enough. Then the govt. changes the instructions at regular intervals, and then add on the complexities of local and regional lockdowns it is no small wonder that the general population is confused as to what they are supposed to do.I think that's right.
Not necessarily - the earlier closing time may just increase the rate of drinking.For some people it will. For others it won’t. Taking everybody into account which (you may be surprised to learn) includes a lot of people who aren’t there just to drink their drunkenness quota, it will improve the situation.
Not if everyone is huddled together because it is getting parky at this time of the year at 10pm. Nor if groups larger than 6 get together which is easier outdoor in the dark rather than in a managed pub.If it’s parky they’ll go home. If they don’t go home, the police can fine them.
I agree, but I think the early pub closure is a sticking plaster on a wound that is bleeding at an increasingly rapid rate.
The problem is that the government are looking reactive and ever changing - the rule of 6 was supposed to be the new clear (and preamble long range) message. Yet within days it is being superseded with new interventions. And I suspect in a couple a weeks today's announcements will be superseded again. The difficulty is that all this leads to is confusion rather than clarity and that leads to people failing to comply due to 'message fatigue' or genuinely being confused about what they can and cannot do.
The rule of six hasn’t been superseded.
I think this one of the biggest issues. The fact that the TV news presents at least 4 different sets of rules for the constituent parts of the UK is confusing enough. Then the govt. changes the instructions at regular intervals, and then add on the complexities of local and regional lockdowns it is no small wonder that the general population is confused as to what they are supposed to do.The government has to change the rules at regular intervals. Not reacting to changes in the situation just because Trentvoyager gets confused is not a valid strategy. I suggest you read some of the government’s own publications instead of relying on the media to inform you. I mean that seriously: I was confused about the rule of six until I read the explanation on gov.uk.
The government has to change the rules at regular intervals. Not reacting to changes in the situation just because Trentvoyager gets confused is not a valid strategy. I suggest you read some of the government’s own publications instead of relying on the media to inform you. I mean that seriously: I was confused about the rule of six until I read the explanation on gov.uk.
Yes. Lets get all of us to look at gov.uk - such fun to watch it crash.Really? Is that your argument for not informing yourself? It's a static web page. It's not going to crash.
You expect everyone to look it up, when there are perfectly valid means of communication available to inform virtually everyone via tv & radio.Boris Johnson was televised at lunchtime yesterday setting out the new rules in Parliament and then again at 8pm in the evening. Did you bother to watch either?
Seriously?Yes. Seriously.
John Crace's take on Boris's attempts at leadership today.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/22/its-boristime-v-coronatime-and-theres-only-ever-one-winner
Really? Is that your argument for not informing yourself? It's a static web page. It's not going to crash.I'm sorry Jeremy, but there are all sorts of areas where the message (and messaging) is a mess. Effectively 'headline' rules being brought in without thinking about the detail and all the questions that will arise.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing
Boris Johnson was televised at lunchtime yesterday setting out the new rules in Parliament and then again at 8pm in the evening. Did you bother to watch either?
I agree that the media coverage can be quite confusing, but that's their fault, not that of the government. Yes. Seriously.
What about your take? I assume you watched it.I watched it - guff, whaffle, inappropriate body language (all that weird fist-pumping stuff) and no clarity of message. At a time like this we need leadership, and we aren't getting it (or at least not in England).
So here is an example.What do you mean? It says seven people cannot gather together. It means your choir is screwed.
I (like millions of people) am a member of a choir. Through August and early September we worked diligently towards being able to return to live rehearsals. It took weeks for the DCMS to clarify whether this was, or was not, even possible, following the summer relaxation of rules. We'd got to the point of determining capacity with strict 2M social distancing, covid-safe rules etc.
Then the rule of six came in, without any clarity as to whether it applied to an organised indoor activity such as a choir.
Our plans were thrown into confusion. Just a few days ago there was final conformation that we were exemptFrom whom did the confirmation come? Government guidelines are clear. You shouldn't have been allowed to go through with it.
I watched it - guff, whaffle, inappropriate body language (all that weird fist-pumping stuff) and no clarity of message. At a time like this we need leadership, and we aren't getting it (or at least not in England).I watched it. The Churchillian rhetoric was misplaced. Actually, it reminded me of Jim Hacker, but I digress.
And, of course, the strongest whiff of rank hypocrisy - a man telling us we had to obey the rules or there would be severe consequences, who completely exonerated his own special advisor when he breached his own guidance.Boo hoo. A government advisor got away with a slap on the wrist for a minor transgression, much like anybody else would. Maybe he should have been sacked, but he wasn't. Get over it.
What do you mean? It says seven people cannot gather together. It means your choir is screwed.There you go - for all your claim that the rules are simple/clear and you understand them, you've just proved you don't.
From whom did the confirmation come? Government guidelines are clear.The Department of Culture, Media and Sport - i.e. the Government.
You shouldn't have been allowed to go through with it.But we are (or at least we were until yesterday, or maybe we still are) - because belatedly this is the government view or at least it was from 17th Sept to 22nd Sept - now, who knows.
Boo hoo. A government advisor got away with a slap on the wrist for a minor transgression, much like anybody else would. Maybe he should have been sacked, but he wasn't. Get over it.Others were sacked or resigned for lesser transgressions and they weren't the architect of the rules.
Boris Johnson was televised at lunchtime yesterday setting out the new rules in Parliament and then again at 8pm in the evening. Did you bother to watch either?
I won't engage with you further on this thread as you just want to pick arguments with people who don't have your god-like propensity to understand this shambles of a governments messaging.Except Jeremy P clearly does not understand the rules by implying that live choir rehearsals involving more than 6 people were obviously banned under the rule of 6 (charmingly What do you mean? It says seven people cannot gather together. It means your choir is screwed.") when the government had clarified just last week quite the reverse - that organised choir rehearsals with more than 6 people were allowed provided the choir committee had performed risk assessment, put mitigations in place etc.
Others were sacked or resigned for lesser transgressions and they weren't the architect of the rules.Yes, get over it.
What you are missing is the corrosive effect this had,It's only corrosive because people let it be corrosive. It was months ago. Get over it.
Yes, get over it.Yeah, people being lied to is only corrosive because they are bothered about being lied to, they just need to get over it. The people who lie have no responsibility for the effects of their lies.
It's only corrosive because people let it be corrosive. It was months ago. Get over it.
Yes I did. Why the badgering tone? Why must you start an argument in an empty room?You do not look at the situation as it is but as you think it ought to be. The government web site is useless because it's always crashing, for example. Except, no, that's bullshit. Criticise the government for the mistakes it actually makes, not the ones that only exist in your head.
Yeah, people being lied to is only corrosive because they are bothered about being lied to, they just need to get over it. The people who lie have no responsibility for the effects of their lies.
Yes we were lied to. We're all very sorry about that but it is going to make absolutely fuck all difference to anything that happens before the next general election.If you don't think trust should be affected by lying, ypu are a fool.
Get over it. There are more pressing issues than Cummings' relatively minor breach of the lockdown rules.
You do not look at the situation as it is but as you think it ought to be. The government web site is useless because it's always crashing, for example. Except, no, that's bullshit. Criticise the government for the mistakes it actually makes, not the ones that only exist in your head.Just not willing to make excuses for them as you are.
Sometimes I think people here are enjoying watching Boris and his merry men floundering about.
You do not look at the situation as it is but as you think it ought to be.But you cannot simply discount the track record of the government in dealing with this. We are 6 months on from the original lock down (and about 8 months from a recognition that we had a major global problem), yet our testing system remains in chaos, we have literally only just launched an app (and we really don't know whether it work and even if it does in theory it is useless unless people can get tested and get results quickly). We have messaging that is all over the place and changing so regularly that it becomes difficult to understand and saps confidence.
Criticise the government for the mistakes it actually makes, not the ones that only exist in your head.That's exactly what I am doing.
It is no good entirely exonerating or entirely blaming the Government. It is I suppose possible that others, had they been elected, might just have made a few different, or worse, mistakes and we'll never know, but to heap blame for seemingly every dot and comma on the Government is simply unfair.Can you point out what criticisms you think are unfair and why?
It is no good entirely exonerating or entirely blaming the Government. It is I suppose possible that others, had they been elected, might just have made a few different, or worse, mistakes and we'll never know, but to heap blame for seemingly every dot and comma on the Government is simply unfair.
It is no good entirely exonerating or entirely blaming the Government. It is I suppose possible that others, had they been elected, might just have made a few different, or worse, mistakes and we'll never know, but to heap blame for seemingly every dot and comma on the Government is simply unfair.I'm not doing that.
Susan, with all due respect it's not every dot and comma. It's the big stuff like PPE, like discharging people back into care homes thus seeding the disease in a vulnerable population, it's being clear on your messaging, it's not pretending to be the Superman of capitalism, it's getting a decent test, track and trace operation up to speed. These are not dots and commas. These are the essentials. If they were getting these right, then I personally, probably would not be so annoyed that a government advisor drove to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight, but when they get the big things wrong the little things then start to really irritate.I agree
I get mightily tired of some posters thinking that I am somehow quibbling over minor issues, I'm not. It's the big stuff the government got wrong and on current form I'm not seeing a huge improvement.
People died who need not have done. That is down, in part, to our government. Sorry/not sorry if that doesn't fit in with some people's world view.
My thanks for above responses. Do any of you have reliable evidence and information that another set of people in the UK Government would have made far fewer mistakes?Germany
My thanks for above responses. Do any of you have reliable evidence and information that another set of people in the UK Government would have made far fewer mistakes?
My thanks for above responses. Do any of you have reliable evidence and information that another set of people in the UK Government would have made far fewer mistakes?
A government sans Tories comes to mind, and perhaps with more competence and not lead by a narcissistic liar.or with less corruption - see Dido Harding
or with less corruption - see Dido HardingOr the other contracts given to Tory donors or supporter to provide PPE (ventilators and masks) that they had no prior experience in manufacturing/supplying.
In general with some specific criticisms, I think the UK govt has done ok as regards the employment support.I agree - I think the furlough scheme was really good - straight forward and, critically, it worked - employers got the money quickly and simply.
There's going to be a lot of areas though where people can't bring staff back for 30% of the time though.True - I think the scheme just announced might not work well in terms of protecting jobs. On the radio the point was raised about the dilemma for an employer with reduced work - do you keep one employee on full time and make another redundant, or do you drop both to part time and take advantage of the government scheme. The problem is that that former is likely to cost the employer less and if that is the case many companies, through necessity, will make employees redundant rather than using the scheme.
Given the levels of borrowing, it may be difficult to do much more.I think there is additional scope given that the cost of borrowing at the moment is historically low. I think the government knows this and recognises that more may need to be put in place - certainly if we go back to a more significant lock-down.
So in the latest in a long catalogues of failures the brand new app won't work on older smart phones.
I downloaded it yesterday and was OK, but had to upgrade my system software. But older phones won't be able to use the most recent system software and therefore won't be able to work with the app. :o
We are over reacting and we are screwing up people.Really?
Happy to wear mask, happy to be currently in quarantine for specific reasons, but we know much more about covid and we can see the effects of lockdown. We are over reacting and we are screwing up people.
The government were forced into the first lockdown due to lack of preparedness for a pandemic. They did not take the opportunity, the time granted by the lockdown, or just did not manage, to put in place the systems needed to manage infection when distancing measures could be eased; hence they are now being forced into a mish mash of other measures, some of them being quite useless as well as damaging.I agree with most of that but it doesn't impact on my belief that the current piecemeal lockdowns are an overreaction. The impacts and costs are not just financial, and in not learning to live with Covid we simply continue to ignore those costs.
The talk of a two week circuit-break shows they still do not understand the point of quarantining.
This article by Sally Davies, on preparedness for coming pandemics, is good:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/26/next-pandemic-coronavirus-prepare
I agree with most of that but it doesn't impact on my belief that the current piecemeal lockdowns are an overreaction. The impacts and costs are not just financial, and in not learning to live with Covid we simply continue to ignore those costs.What does 'learning to live with with Covid' mean in your view NS.
Learning to live with Covid19 is not quite the same as living with flu or measles or dengue. These infections are nowhere as infectious or as deadly as Covid19.
If a person gets flu or measles, the person is relatively isolated, lies in bed for a week or 10 days and gets well again. Everyone else else goes about their business.Everybody doesn't get well again. If we allowed it to, measles would kill one person in about two thousand patients in the UK. Flu does kill between 10 and 30 thousand people each year in the UK.
Ffs!Apparently the SNP have suspended her - points.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-mp-margaret-ferrier-apologises-after-ignoring-coronavirus-rules-and-travelling-parliament-2990115
Ffs!
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-mp-margaret-ferrier-apologises-after-ignoring-coronavirus-rules-and-travelling-parliament-2990115
Also Boris's Dad (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54369002) and Jeremy Corbyn (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-rule-six-dinner-party-coronavirus-labour-boris-johnson-b735766.html).Corbyn should be suspended. Elder Johnson should be fined but it isn't the same.
Corbyn should be suspended. Elder Johnson should be fined but it isn't the same.
No, I didn't mean to imply I thought they were as serious as standing up and giving a speech in the H of C when you believe you have COVID19, but they still both broke the rules even though they should have known better.Corbyn should be suspended by the Labour Party because they have supported the decisions on 'lockdown'. It isn't just a matter of personal hypocrisy. Stanley Johnson isn't an MP so whatever happens is different.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54381848Local newspaper the Ayr Advertiser's take
This qualifies for three threads. I’ll post it here for now.
Trump has tested positive.
It's all sorted I've sent a bottle of bleach by courier.:) Nice one!
Newsflash: Trump reportedly moved to a medical facility.He's going to have a wisdom tooth put in.
He's going to have a wisdom tooth put in.
Learning to live with Covid19 is not quite the same as living with flu or measles or dengue. These infections are nowhere as infectious or as deadly as Covid19.
If a person gets flu or measles, the person is relatively isolated, lies in bed for a week or 10 days and gets well again. Everyone else else goes about their business.
But with Covid it is different. Everyone else could be infected and could face potentially life threatening situations.
Even with vaccines, unless some form of an effective treatment and medication is found to reduce the intensity of covid...'living with it' is going to be very difficult.
Serco Test and Trace
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-nearly-16000-new-covid-19-cases-added-to-total-after-technical-glitch-12090306
I see leftist cynics wanting to sack #DidoHarding over the technical glitch concerning the 16,000 #Covid19 cases that went missing & could not be traced.
The #SercoTestAndTrace system is still in its infancy. Glitches will happen.
Moaning doesn’t help in the battle against Covid!
I'm not so much bothered about the 16,000 tests that weren't added on to the total as soon as they could be (which is just a glitch), but I am concerned that the Test and Trace system is still in its "infancy" or, more correctly, that this MP thinks it is acceptable that the Test and Trace system is still in its infancy, seven months after the pandemic started.
What does 'learning to live with with Covid' mean in your view NS.
To me that is exactly what we are doing at the moment - flexing restrictions to keep the virus from running completely out of control, overwhelming the ability of the health service to cope and leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. We are not getting it right all the time, and given that we are in a new exponential growth phase those restrictions need to be pretty stringent - in my view more so than they are at the moment, certainly at national level.
I agree the figure being added on doesn't matter that much and would be a glitch if figures were the only thing affected, but surely the fact that the tracing & tracking was delayed in these 16,000 cases is hugely important.
Yesterday I developed a slight cough and I measured my temperature this morning and it appeared to be slightly raised, although I don't really trust the thermometer I used. So I booked myself into a test centre this morning and had a COVID19 test. I will get the results hopefully within 48 hours "but it could take up to five days". Frankly, it's not acceptable if it takes 48 hours, never mind five days. There are serious problems with the test and trace system but, given the scale of the operation, you'd expect them when the service is in its infancy. That would include temporarily losing 16,000 results.
It is not acceptable that the service is still in its infancy. And it's not acceptable to use "it's in its infancy" as an excuse for a screw up.
Agree. But more importantly I hope you are ok and get your result quickly.I'm sure I'm fine, but it's better safe than sorry.
More apparent stupidity. Lana Del Rey sports a fishnet face mask (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54416856).
Yesterday I developed a slight cough and I measured my temperature this morning and it appeared to be slightly raised, although I don't really trust the thermometer I used. So I booked myself into a test centre this morning and had a COVID19 test. I will get the results hopefully within 48 hours "but it could take up to five days". Frankly, it's not acceptable if it takes 48 hours, never mind five days. There are serious problems with the test and trace system but, given the scale of the operation, you'd expect them when the service is in its infancy. That would include temporarily losing 16,000 results.
It is not acceptable that the service is still in its infancy. And it's not acceptable to use "it's in its infancy" as an excuse for a screw up.
I heard that after a while there were people around in Africa that were immune to HIV, I suppose something similar would happen without doing anything with this virus but in the mean time we can only do our best.
I'm sure no government wants to get it wrong, it's not as though any government would be gaining anything by making mistakes.
We can all sit on our arses and point fingers that's easy, I try to social distance and wear a mask when appropriate plenty don't, who's to say this is the way and be 100% right, even I can't give you a 100% answer to this depressing Virol problem we have at the moment.
What still puzzles me is that there is, apparently, a test which can be done and result achieved within 10 minutes. If such a fkit is indeed available - a friend has told he she has heard of it mentioned in news programmes several times - then perhaps it should be used.
Some people may be genetically immune or have a tendency to be asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms but the former is probably very low in numbers if any.I have read an expert estimate of natural immunity as being between 35% and 50%.
I have read an expert estimate of natural immunity as being between 35% and 50%.
There is speculation that there could be cross immunity at that level due to previous exposure to other coronaviruses such as some types of the common cold but it is speculation, and if it relies on T Cell response isn't necessarily a help regarding achieving herd immunity because T Cells usually take days or weeks to generate an immune response to infection during which time the individual is likely to still be able to shed virus and pass it on to others. Do you have a link to what you read at all?No - 'fraid not.
No - 'fraid not.
So Test and trace on an excel spreadsheet. World beating anybody?
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/shock-and-despair-follow-revelations-that-world-beating-test-and-trace-system-is-being-run-on-excel/05/10/?
I wish I was making this fucking stuff up.
Incredible isn't it.I’m afraid it isn’t. This kind of screw up is all too common.
Corona in Excel sheets.
Corona in Excel sheets.I'm not at all surprised. This sort of thing happens all the time. You're told you have to set some system up in a short time frame, so you hack something together using Excel. You promise yourself that you will review that decision later when you have got time, but, of course that time never arrives. Then one day you hit Excel's limits and everything falls apart in spectacular fashion. Then you hack together a work around that makes the whole thing even more creaky (which, from what I've heard is what they've done). Rinse and repeat.
Did you forget a few words there?I think B McB is using it to echo Gloria in Excelsis
Hmmm...I think this could be phrased better
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-06/rishi-sunak-suggests-musicians-and-others-in-arts-should-retrain-and-find-other-jobs
UPDATE: This article has changed to reflect that the Chancellor's comments were about employment generally and not specifically about the music or arts sector.
I'm not at all surprised. This sort of thing happens all the time. You're told you have to set some system up in a short time frame, so you hack something together using Excel. You promise yourself that you will review that decision later when you have got time, but, of course that time never arrives. Then one day you hit Excel's limits and everything falls apart in spectacular fashion. Then you hack together a work around that makes the whole thing even more creaky (which, from what I've heard is what they've done). Rinse and repeat.I have seen some reports that it was because they used columns as opposed to rows to store the cases that they ran out.
There are three ways to fix this:
1. Use tools appropriate to the job. That means a database.
2. Upgrade hardware and software so you can use a modern version of Excel (which can deal with a million rows of data)
3. Split the Excel files into smaller batches - the chosen solution.
I can understand why they haven't immediately taken option 1 - they don't have time. I can't understand why they haven't taken option 2 unless it's a bureaucracy thing: they can't get the hardware and software in time, even though you or I might just go to a shop and buy a computer and then get Excel online.
I have seen some reports that it was because they used columns as opposed to rows to store the cases that they ran out.
I think B McB is using it to echo Gloria in Excelsis
What in particular should have been phrased better? The chancellor's comments or the ITV story? If the latter, they seem to have realised that:Both, I would suggest. Sunak's phrasing both set up the misread and also looks as if it's merely repetition rather than an answer to the specific issue and the question asked.
Did you forget a few words there?Pun on "Hosanna in excelsis".
Pun on "Hosanna in excelsis".
The Trump triumvirate of threads continues.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54455040
It's very unfortunate for the American people that Trump's COVID19 seems not to have been very serious. I don't mean in terms of wanting him to die - which I don't - but he's now pushing the narrative that it isn't serious at all.Yep, agree. And that he then wants to punt a non FDA approved treatment.
Teachers being told not to use the Serco app?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54465356
So the Scottish govt is going to allow all cafes to remain open - with licensed ones not allowed to sell drink
The problem is that there is no such there as a licensed cafe, just licensed premises so will be interesting as to how they can define it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54466992
So the Scottish govt is going to allow all cafes to remain open - with licensed ones not allowed to sell drinkAre planning use classes very different in Scotland?
The problem is that there is no such there as a licensed cafe, just licensed premises so will be interesting as to how they can define it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54466992
Why is it a problem? It seems simple enough to me: cafés can remain open as long as they don't serve alcohol.Nothing on the licence states that they are cafes, and there is no official definition of a cafe.
Are planning use classes very different in Scotland?The confusion appears to be with restaurants not bars. Oddly enough two places that I frequent have Cafe in their name but neither is a cafe
Certainly in England a cafe is a different use class than a bar or pub. A cafe is able to apply for a licence to serve alcohol, but that does not mean it ceases to be a cafe - rather it becomes a licensed cafe rather than an unlicensed cafe.
Sure you can argue that there are cafes that look like bars, and bars that look like cafes, but the distinction will be their planning.
The confusion appears to be with restaurants not bars. Oddly enough two places that I frequent have Cafe in their name but neither is a cafeNot sure I understand the issue - are there different rules applying to cafes and restaurants?
Not sure I understand the issue - are there different rules applying to cafes and restaurants?Yes. In the Central Belt, restaurants are to shut but cafes can open.
There are many scientists and medical experts that are speaking-up now about different ways to combat the pandemic but you will not find them on such media as the BBC, so you have to look elsewhere. This is worth a listen. Plus the interviewer is excellent - never biased and always asks relevant questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE&t=816s
Yes. In the Central Belt, restaurants are to shut but cafes can open.Then there needs to be a way to differentiate between a cafe and a restaurant. I presume this will be linked to planning, as each planning application will go beyond broad use classes and specify a particular use - so one businesses planning application (using English planning classes) will be A3 Cafe, while another will be A3 Restaurant. Yet another will be A4 Bar etc.
Then there needs to be a way to differentiate between a cafe and a restaurant. I presume this will be linked to planning, as each planning application will go beyond broad use classes and specify a particular use - so one businesses planning application (using English planning classes) will be A3 Cafe, while another will be A3 Restaurant. Yet another will be A4 Bar etc.It doesn't appear so from the briefing from Sturgeon
Nothing on the licence states that they are cafes, and there is no official definition of a cafe.
So? The rule is "cafés are not allowed to serve alcohol". Whether a licence applies to a café or not is thus rendered irrelevant. It might have been relevant under the original rule that said only unlicensed cafés are allowed to even open, but that rule has been discarded as being stupid.You seem to be missing the point - there was no official definition of what a cafe was as opposed to a restaurant so there was confusion about what would be allowed to open.
So? The rule is "cafés are not allowed to serve alcohol". Whether a licence applies to a café or not is thus rendered irrelevant. It might have been relevant under the original rule that said only unlicensed cafés are allowed to even open, but that rule has been discarded as being stupid.
- All licensed premises will be required to close, with the exception of takeaway services
- Cafés (unlicensed premises) which don’t have an alcohol licence will be able to open between 6am and 6pm
The definition they are using for cafe is
'An establishment whose primary business activity, in the ordinary course of its business, is the sale of non alcoholic drinks, snacks or light meals"
You seem to be missing the point - there was no official definition of what a cafe was as opposed to a restaurant so there was confusion about what would be allowed to open.
No, no, no. Do not fall for this "many scientists" claim. It is very few. They have been quoting a figure of 15 or 16 thousand scientists. Untrue. 15,000 people signed the petition or whatever it was. That could be any Tom, Dick or Harriet.
It is clear from all the data that herd immunity will not work without significant dangers to at risk groups.
In addition, although the majority of people in younger age groups are less affected you would still see an intolerable strain on health services if herd immunity were put into practice. Even now we are only just beginning to understand the implications of "long covid". Although the number of deaths in younger people is low, if you multiply that across large sections of the community the death toll would still be intolerable.
And no country has yet managed the trick of "shielding" at risk groups whilst letting the rest of society continue as normal. How would you look after people in care homes, hospitals, how would support at home from home helps work.
These proposals are grotesque and inhuman.
The problem is the cure is becoming equally as bad as the disease. Peoples' lives are being ruined. Some folk are in real trouble both financially and mentally. Suicide rates have risen along with domestic and child abuse reports. This virus is not disappearing anytime soon, we may have to live with the 'new normal' and various restrictions indefinitely. At the moment two of my grandchildren are off school in isolation for two weeks because the infant department has closed as a member of staff tested positive for the virus. They could return to school and be sent home again within days when someone else tests positive.
What is happening as a result of lockdown restrictions is equally inhuman. One professor noted, so many coronavirus rules as measures have a limited effect.
The problem is the cure is becoming equally as bad as the disease. Peoples' lives are being ruined. Some folk are in real trouble both financially and mentally. Suicide rates have risen along with domestic and child abuse reports. This virus is not disappearing anytime soon, we may have to live with the 'new normal' and various restrictions indefinitely. At the moment two of my grandchildren are off school in isolation for two weeks because the infant department has closed as a member of staff tested positive for the virus. They could return to school and be sent home again within days when someone else tests positive.
What is happening as a result of lockdown restrictions is equally inhuman. One professor noted, so many coronavirus rules as measures have a limited effect.
This is good
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/10/continual-local-lockdowns-answer-covid-control?__twitter_impression=true
This is goodNo it isn’t.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/10/continual-local-lockdowns-answer-covid-control?__twitter_impression=true
No it isn’t.
China is almost certainly lying about its stats and, even if it isn’t, they did things that we would never tolerate like welding up the doors of apartment blocks.
New Zealand is in the back of beyond with a population smaller than London crammed into about 400 times the area.
I realise that this article feeds your prejudices, but it’s superficial nonsense.
No it isn’t.And what are my prejudices?
China is almost certainly lying about its stats and, even if it isn’t, they did things that we would never tolerate like welding up the doors of apartment blocks.
New Zealand is in the back of beyond with a population smaller than London crammed into about 400 times the area.
I realise that this article feeds your prejudices, but it’s superficial nonsense.
I realise that this article feeds your prejudices, but it’s superficial nonsense.
Did you actually read the article?Why did it bring them up then?
At no point did it claim that we could get to a situation like NZ or Vietnam. I think everyone realises there will be differences between different countries.
It simply made the point that if you want to get to a point where society can function relatively normally you need a robust and efficient test and trace system, instead of worrying about letting people get their 2 weeks in the sun.And yet that is what people worry about.
That our test and trace system is neither robust or efficient doesn't really need further explanation, but out of interest how fast are we testing people and what number are we failing to contact?
Latest figures I saw for tracing all contacts was 68.8%. That is not brilliant when you are trying to control a virus.
As for how fast test results come through:
• Turnaround times for pillar 2 (swab testing for the wide population) have become
longer for all in-person testing routes2 compared to the previous week. In the most
recent week, 60.8% of in-person tests results were received the next day after the
test was taken compared to 70.6% in the previous week. Turnaround times for
satellite/home tests have become notably shorter over the past 3 weeks.
Both these figures are from gov.uk website.
Everyone I know wants to get back to some kind of recognisable functioning society, but our government is failing us, particularly on test and trace.
The stupidity of it is, if they'd managed to get their collective arses into gear on test & trace, then all our other problems caused by the pandemic would have been so much easier to manage as shown by NZ and others.
Hmmm.... Holy Tory Corruption, Batman!
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1315235954659999746.html
It's either do things like that or wait for three months while the NHS procurement process grinds along. What would you do?False dichotomy.
An entire city of nine million people in China will be tested for COVID-19 in just five days after a small number of new cases emerged.
...
Qingdao's new infections came shortly after China had completed its Golden Week holiday, during which millions of people travel domestically to meet up with families.
...
In May, the authorities tested nearly all of the 11 million people in Wuhan - the city where COVID-19 first emerged at the end of last year.
There have also been mass testing schemes in Beijing and Urumqi.
False dichotomy.No it isn't.
No it isn't.Yes it is - there is no reason why in the current circumstances the already well developed NHS procurement process could not be streamlined to ensure expediency.
Yes it is - there is no reason why in the current circumstances the already well developed NHS procurement process could not be streamlined to ensure expediency.How long would it have taken to streamline it? Once it had been streamlined, I guarantee you would find the exact same kind of mistakes being made as actually were made.
How long would it have taken to streamline it?As quickly as alterations in the regulation on procurement of goods and services with public funds can be altered - which is straight away if government chooses to, which it has for its own bungled centralised procurement.
Once it had been streamlined, I guarantee you would find the exact same kind of mistakes being made as actually were made.I disagree - most of the time taken for public procurement is around value for money, rather than whether the item/equipment etc is fit for purpose. So I doubt very much that the NHS would decide to buy ventilators from Dyson who have never produced a ventilator in their lives and didn't even have a design for a ventilator, let alone a design that had been approved by regulators.
As quickly as alterations in the regulation on procurement of goods and services with public funds can be alteredSo six months to a year.
- which is straight away if government chooses to
So six months to a year.Not if the government changes the regulations and enacts them with immediate effect.
You have no idea how hard it is to make changes in government organisations.Typically as easy as changing the regulations at government level. The process works at the speed it takes those organisations to jump through government-imposed hoops. Remove those hoops and those organisations will move as fast as you like.
'Lockdown does NOT save lives. It postpones deaths. You end up with the same number of deaths. You just prolong the crisis. Can this country stop being anti-science? We may as well be examining animal entrails'.The 'journalist' Allison Pearson.
You could say that about anything that saves lives.
'Lockdown does NOT save lives. It postpones deaths.
You end up with the same number of deaths. You just prolong the crisis. Can this country stop being anti-science? We may as well be examining animal entrails'.I thought the science was saying we need lock downs.
The 'journalist' Allison Pearson.Hmmm
All ok, we have worldbeating experts, with worldbeating pay on our worldbeating system
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-test-and-trace-consultants-paid-equivalent-of-1-5m-salary-12104028
Back in 2000 when I was a Sendmail consultant, I was charged out at £1,500 per day. That's equivalent to £2,500 today or - based on 200 working days in the year - £500k per year. Of course, I only saw a fraction of that but the bottom end of what those consultants are charging is not atypical for certain highly sought after skills.
Which might be ok if we saw any evidence of these "highly sought after skills"
The fact that they charge so much and people will pay seems like some evidence.Jeremy - any response to my comments in reply 3238, specifically:
The fact that they charge so much and people will pay seems like some evidence.
Jeremy - any response to my comments in reply 3238, specifically:
Why you think I have no idea how hard it is to make changes in government organisations.
The fact that they charge so much and people will pay seems like some evidence.But given the corruption that you have already accepted, no.
No. Evidence would be a functioning and efficient test, track and trace system.
You don't get to define what evidence is.
The fact that they charge so much and people will pay seems like some evidence.
Says the poster who offered a definiton of what evidence is:
;D ;D
I didn't define evidence in that post. I offered some evidence.
I must now declare an interest. As of last Wednesday, I am contracted onto the NHS Digital COVID test and trace monitoring team.(A) good for you. But (B) if a programme spends 12bn in 6 months and they screw up on Excel, and people in charge are being charged at 2Ok a week, then they are shite, the proframme is badly managed, and most of the 'cheaper' consultants are fucking up.
We're not making £2,000 per day out of it though.
I heard a very moving call from a lady to LBC around 4.15pm today. She was stressed and in tears as she is in the holiday lets business in Wales. She said that there has been very little help for her industry as the help has gone to businesses paying rates and furloughing staff. She has lost thousands in income due to lockdown and social distancing rules and has been living on her savings and is about to lose her home as the mortgage holiday is over and the banks want money. She said she was educated, has worked all her life but the Covid help schemes the government are promoting either do not apply to her or are not giving her more than £79 a month to live on - pay her mortgage, bills etc. The isolation also seemed to be having a devastating effect on her during what is the worst time in her life economically - she could not get comfort by seeing relatives (parents, sisters) or her partner as he lived in another house and was struggling with his own business problems.Is she happy to have the NHS at capacity? For NHS staff to be in danger ? Did her comments help you out on that,?
She wanted the government to end lockdown, preferring to take her chances of dying or falling sick to economic ruin and social isolation that she felt was as bad for her health as Covid-19. I had a lot of sympathy for her call. I have found it useful to not spend money on eating out etc but understand that a lot of people's livelihoods are built on us spending money on hospitality and leisure. I do not think there is any danger of the majority of people losing interest in spending their money on restaurants and bars - especially given the human need for social interaction. After hearing her call I have a better understanding of why some people are flouting the rules as the alternative to living in limbo in social isolation and facing economic ruin. She said the virus is part of Nature and it's here to stay and there is a limit to how effective we can be at fighting its population control.
Is she happy to have the NHS at capacity? For NHS sradf to be it in danger ? Did her comments help you out on that,?She didn't say anything about the NHS but my impression was that she was putting her life and the lives of others in her position ahead of the lives of NHS staff. It seemed like she thought the price of lockdown was too high a price to pay so decided if she had to choose between her life and someone else's she chose her life. Is that surprising that some people would choose to preserve their own life over others', given the choice? I don't find that surprising. So yes I would say her comments did help me out in understanding her POV. It's always good to get more of an understanding of what motivates different human behaviour.
She didn't say anything about the NHS but my impression was that she was putting her life and the lives of others in her position ahead of the lives of NHS staff. It seemed like she thought the price of lockdown was too high a price to pay so decided if she had to choose between her life and someone else's she chose her life. Is that surprising that some people would choose to preserve their own life over others', given the choice? I don't find that surprising. So yes I would say her comments did help me out in understanding her POV. It's always good to get more of an understanding of what motivates different human behaviour.Agree, it is worthwhile to listen to peoples' perspectives and experiences here but that doesn't make them right no matter how deeply felt. I think no matter what a govt chooses here it is in some sense damned but that does not mean a choices are equal, and in particular not all reactions are equal.
Agree, it is worthwhile to listen to peoples' perspectives and experiences here but that doesn't make them right no matter how deeply felt. I think no matter what a govt chooses here it is in some sense damned but that does not mean a choices are equal, and in particular not all reactions are equal.Right is relative and depends on whose perspective you approach the issue from, especially when you are talking about survival. People who might not die from Covid-19 but might die from financial ruin or lack of access to cancer treatment will think it is right for them to take the risks involved in prioritising their life over the lives of others who might die from Covid-19.
Is she happy to have the NHS at capacity? For NHS staff to be in danger ? Did her comments help you out on that,?My feeling is that prioritizing the NHS over the economy risks creating a false sense that the NHS is responsible for peoples' health, rather than the individual him or herself. Let's not forget that a healthy economy may also lead to a more healthy nation.
Let's not forget that a healthy economy may also lead to a more healthy nation.
Modify message
You've got that arse about face.So you think the country going into further debt will be a better long term outcome?
So you think the country going into further debt will be a better long term outcome?Rad for comprehension. I never said that.
Rad for comprehension. I never said that.Fair enough. What I would consider arse about face is people crossing the road to avoid others, or asking the shopkeeper to bring out some bananas to avoid entering the shop, both things I have seen since March. All apparently to protect the NHS
Fair enough. What I would consider arse about face is people crossing the road to avoid others, or asking the shopkeeper to bring out some bananas to avoid entering the shop, both things I have seen since March. All apparently to protect the NHS
And? I frequently cross the road to avoid others. It's not to protect the NHS it's to protect me and my partner who is in one of the higher risk groups (as per a letter from his GP).
If I don't think people are capable of keeping a required social distance then I am not going to take the risk of coming into close contact with them.
I am taking responsibility for my health and my partners health.
Is that a difficult concept for you? Is it a particular problem for you that I choose to cross the road?
Is it not going a bit far though? What about the person you're avoiding, how does it make them feel?That you are respecting social distancing in case either one of you might be infected.
That you are respecting social distancing in case either one of you might be infected.
I cross the road to respect social distancing too as do plenty of other people I encounter - it is just common courtesy in these difficult times.
Is it not going a bit far though? What about the person you're avoiding, how does it make them feel?
Isn't it a bit ott though?No - it is the new norm - you cannot respect 2M social distancing when passing someone coming the other way on a pavement that is less than 2M wide (which is most pavements). So to respect social distancing one or other of you needs to move further away - sometimes, where safe, that involves walking down the road rather than the pavement. Otherwise crossing over the road and walking on the other pavement.
No - it is the new norm - you cannot respect 2M social distancing when passing someone coming the other way on a pavement that is less than 2M wide (which is most pavements). So to respect social distancing one or other of you needs to move further away - sometimes, where safe, that involves walking down the road rather than the pavement. Otherwise crossing over the road and walking on the other pavement.
Round my way it is just what happens all the time - I don't think anyone considers it OTT, they consider it polite and courteous.
Me too. Fortunately, I do not have to cross the road - my sweep stick is a long enough, white and noisy enough signal for other people to take appropriate action to distance us.
No it's not going a bit far. It is what I feel comfortable with.That's understandable, everyone is different and if your immune system is suppressed you might be more vulnerable to the virus; I wear more layers than a lot of people, to avoid colds, and I get funny looks occasionally.
No - it is the new norm - you cannot respect 2M social distancing when passing someone coming the other way on a pavement that is less than 2M wide (which is most pavements). So to respect social distancing one or other of you needs to move further away - sometimes, where safe, that involves walking down the road rather than the pavement. Otherwise crossing over the road and walking on the other pavement.
Round my way it is just what happens all the time - I don't think anyone considers it OTT, they consider it polite and courteous.
I understand that in densely populated areas like Oxford Street there is a problem. What I'm talking about is round where I live where you might pass someone only occasionallyI have no idea where you live, but I'm not talking about Oxford St, but suburban Hertfordshire.
... so all you have to do is not cough or breathe over them.So do you hold your breath as you walk up to them and pass them? Do they do the same? If not you will each be breathing in the exhalation of the other at close distance and that is a risk. You reduce the risk by maintaining the 2M social distance.
That's understandable, everyone is different and if your immune system is suppressed you might be more vulnerable to the virus;
That's understandable, everyone is different and if your immune system is suppressed you might be more vulnerable to the virusAnd as you walk towards someone on a pavement how do you know their immune system isn't suppressed?
And as you walk towards someone on a pavement how do you know their immune system isn't suppressed?We have to take a risk. I'm not saying that people shouldn't avoid crowded areas. But a one-off interaction on the pavement is hardly going to make you breathe in enough virus to become infected, so long as you don't cough over each other. I've seen so much nutcasery that it's clear to me that the restrictions are way over the top. For example, a friend of mine who isn't well educated washed her hands so much that they became red, chapped and painful - because of Boris saying "Wash Your Hands". We have to strike a balance between hand-washing to remove the virus and not washing them for long enough to allow the skin to oil itself. That involves some degree of risk.
We have to take a risk.But it isn't you taking the risk, is it Spud. It is the other person taking the risk because of your behaviour.
But a one-off interaction on the pavement is hardly going to make you breathe in enough virus to become infected, so long as you don't cough over each other.No it is perfectly possible to become infected through breathing in someone else's exhaled air at close quarters. That's why we socially distance - the further away you are the lower the concentration of virus in the exhaled air and the reduced risk of infection. And it is a power law, so twice the distance, four times reduction in viral concentration at least.
I've seen so much nutcasery that it's clear to me that the restrictions are way over the top. For example, a friend of mine who isn't well educated washed her hands so much that they became red, chapped and painful - because of Boris saying "Wash Your Hands".Err - in which case learn to wash your hands properly and still wash them regularly rather than wash them less.
We have to strike a balance between hand-washing to remove the virus and not washing them for long enough to allow the skin to oil itself. That involves some degree of risk.There is absolutely no reason why washing your hands regularly enough to remove virus should create skin issues, unless you have an underlying skin complaint.
But it isn't you taking the risk, is it Spud. It is the other person taking the risk because of your behaviour.My sister came from abroad to stay with us for a week a few years ago and she had a cold. I interacted with her all week, but did not pick up the cold.
No it is perfectly possible to become infected through breathing in someone else's exhaled air at close quarters. That's why we socially distance - the further away you are the lower the concentration of virus in the exhaled air and the reduced risk of infection. And it is a power law, so twice the distance, four times reduction in viral concentration at least.
Err - in which case learn to wash your hands properly and still wash them regularly rather than wash them less.
There is absolutely no reason why washing your hands regularly enough to remove virus should create skin issues, unless you have an underlying skin complaint.
Once you sense that you may have picked up a virus you can do lots of things to ensure that it doesn't infect you.
You've not really got the hang of viruses have you?He'll be telling us to drink bleach next.
Any evidence to support your medical advice there Spud? Reducing inoculant is important but how does staying off the internet help? Flushing out with toothpaste?
I don't see the connection between putting head on swing to relieve headache and lying flat on back to reduce respiratory infection :o. Respiratory infections are generally worse if you lie flat; mucus goes down the respiratory tract instead of coming out, collects, becomes stagnant and causes chest infections, very common in inactive people. They are generally encouraged to sit upright and let it come out. We're meant to cough and sneeze, it clears the mucous membranes. I'd rather put up with a runny nose for a short while than get pneumonia.Glad you wrote this. Yes, during a cold the nose produces huge quantities of fluid, which you can blow out through the nose or swallow, or, when you're asleep, it collects and causes problems.
How do you work lying on your back? Don't answer that.
Any evidence to support your medical advice there Spud? Reducing inoculant is important but how does staying off the internet help? Flushing out with toothpaste?Brushing with toothpaste washes microbes out of the mouth. It also stimulates saliva production which enables remaining microbes to be swallowed.
Brushing with toothpaste washes microbes out of the mouth. It also stimulates saliva production which enables remaining microbes to be swallowed.
Looking at computer screens causes eyestrain. It interferes with normal eye muscle function - in the days before computers, lights were used to illuminate things without pointing them in our faces.
Eye function is linked with head and neck function in general.
The main route by which the virus gets into us is via the naval cavity directly into the respiratory system.
[Nasal hair is] a filter for dust, pollen, spores, viruses and bacteria. Particles stick to the wet surface of your nose hairs, which prevents them from reaching your lungs and causing infection. Eventually you’ll either blow the nasties into a tissue, or swallow them, to be destroyed in your stomach.reference (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/does-nasal-hair-have-any-useful-function/)
SpudSusan
I'm astonished that a member of this forum would choose not to wear a mask and follow the safety directions. I think it is very selfish of you and I cannot think of any reason to condone such behaviour.
An amount may be present in the mouth but even if you could flush most of it out there is no evidence this would avoid infection.Brushing with toothpaste is proven to reduce diseases including pneumonia.
Brushing with toothpaste is proven to reduce diseases including pneumonia.
reference (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/does-nasal-hair-have-any-useful-function/)
Given that our nasal passage is designed to keep viruses out, I would still say that crossing the road to pass someone is over the top, unless perhaps you or that person is singing or coughing.
Brushing with toothpaste is proven to reduce diseases including pneumonia.
Evidence for a respiratory viral disease please. In fact any evidence would be interesting.I've given a link earlier in this thread with a list of diseases linked with poor dental hygiene. One is bacterial pneumonia, which is a complication of Covid 19.
What do the eye muscles have to do with a respiratory infection?Simplistically, think of the difference in ease with which you can stand on one leg with your eyes open to with them closed. Or the way in which the eyes can fix on an object while turning the head.
(A) good for you. But (B) if a programme spends 12bn in 6 months and they screw up on Excel, and people in charge are being charged at 2Ok a week, then they are shite, the proframme is badly managed, and most of the 'cheaper' consultants are fucking up.The Excel fiasco was not in the NHS-D part or the part run by Deloitte.
So do you hold your breath as you walk up to them and pass them? Do they do the same? If not you will each be breathing in the exhalation of the other at close distance and that is a risk. You reduce the risk by maintaining the 2M social distance.Yes, I do. It wasn’t a conscious decision but I do find I hold my breath for the few moments I pass somebody in the street.
Yes, I do. It wasn’t a conscious decision but I do find I hold my breath for the few moments I pass somebody in the street.I have no trouble in smelling the perfume or tobacco smoke from car's driver/passengers as it whisks by, even if none of the windows are open. I often wonder if this is a source of viral infection.
I've given a link earlier in this thread with a list of diseases linked with poor dental hygiene. One is bacterial pneumonia, which is a complication of Covid 19.
Simplistically, think of the difference in ease with which you can stand on one leg with your eyes open to with them closed. Or the way in which the eyes can fix on an object while turning the head.
Now imagine you develop poor posture from lack of exercise resulting from eye strain or retinal damage from screen light. This can make us more susceptible to respiratory infection.
The Excel fiasco was not in the NHS-D part or the part run by Deloitte.Doesn't that merely demonstrate the fragmented and incoherent approach. Frankly it doesn't matter which part the failure exists in if is a single point of failure issue. If this doesn't work properly then the whole app-as-part-of-test-track-and-trace doesn't work.
Yes, I do. It wasn’t a conscious decision but I do find I hold my breath for the few moments I pass somebody in the street.I suspect quite a few people do this - however the point remains that you (regardless of whether you are holding your breath) cannot know whether the person you are passing is also holding their breath. Hence better to put distance between the two of you if you can - which in most cases when passing someone on a pavement you are able to do by one person crossing the road or walking in the road for a few metres (if safe).
I must have missed your link, but you are referring to bacterial causes if complications of Covid-19 treatment not about reducing the chances of catching Covid-19."most toothpastes and mouthwashes contain detergents with anti-viral qualities, similar to those in hand sanitisers" - https://tinyurl.com/y6gx9sqj
You talk about posture etc then claim a link to respiratory diseases. Again I presume you are talking about pneumonia. Maybe you could clarify what you were actually claiming.The osteopathic perspective is that the body has all it needs to fight disease (secretory cells and ciliated epithelium in the airways, for example) and that there is often a musculoskeletal component to disease. Muscles of the front of the neck and chest can become shortened due to poor posture, and that leads to changes in our breathing pattern. Some parts of the lungs don't get used for gas exchange, because they are not inflated during quiet breathing, and poor posture exacerbates this. The lungs are then more susceptible to infection. Cardiovascular exercise is good because it expands the lungs so that all parts of them are used. But also, breathing exercises and stretching exercises can help to avoid this, for example stretching the pectoral and scalene muscles. Just as stretching the hamstrings relieves tension through the patella (since the quads won't have to work so hard to pull against the tight hamstrings), and so relieve patellar pain, stretching thoracic and neck muscles makes breathing more efficient and can help prevent respiratory infection.
"most toothpastes and mouthwashes contain detergents with anti-viral qualities, similar to those in hand sanitisers" - https://tinyurl.com/y6gx9sqjI don't care how many ideas you may present about posture, etc etc, but you seem to be presenting them as if doing all that you recommend would overcome the rapid spread of the covid 19 and I think you should keep them for another time, not promote them in the way you are at this particular time.
The osteopathic perspective is that the body has all it needs to fight disease (secretory cells and ciliated epithelium in the airways, for example) and that there is often a musculoskeletal component to disease. Muscles of the front of the neck and chest can become shortened due to poor posture, and that leads to changes in our breathing pattern. Some parts of the lungs don't get used for gas exchange, because they are not inflated during quiet breathing, and poor posture exacerbates this. The lungs are then more susceptible to infection. Cardiovascular exercise is good because it expands the lungs so that all parts of them are used. But also, breathing exercises and stretching exercises can help to avoid this, for example stretching the pectoral and scalene muscles. Just as stretching the hamstrings relieves tension through the patella (since the quads won't have to work so hard to pull against the tight hamstrings), and so relieve patellar pain, stretching thoracic and neck muscles makes breathing more efficient and can help prevent respiratory infection.
I don't care how many ideas you may present about posture, etc etc, but you seem to be presenting them as if doing all that you recommend would overcome the rapid spread of the covid 19 and I think you should keep them for another time, not promote them in the way you are at this particular time.I think asking people to not express their ideas because they might be dangerous just leads to groupthink
"most toothpastes and mouthwashes contain detergents with anti-viral qualities, similar to those in hand sanitisers" - https://tinyurl.com/y6gx9sqj
The osteopathic perspective is that the body has all it needs to fight disease (secretory cells and ciliated epithelium in the airways, for example) and that there is often a musculoskeletal component to disease. Muscles of the front of the neck and chest can become shortened due to poor posture, and that leads to changes in our breathing pattern. Some parts of the lungs don't get used for gas exchange, because they are not inflated during quiet breathing, and poor posture exacerbates this. The lungs are then more susceptible to infection. Cardiovascular exercise is good because it expands the lungs so that all parts of them are used. But also, breathing exercises and stretching exercises can help to avoid this, for example stretching the pectoral and scalene muscles. Just as stretching the hamstrings relieves tension through the patella (since the quads won't have to work so hard to pull against the tight hamstrings), and so relieve patellar pain, stretching thoracic and neck muscles makes breathing more efficient and can help prevent respiratory infection.
Your link contains claims that brushing your teeth could help re Covid-19 infection, but also contains the comment '“Whilst I cannot say for certain that there would be no effect whatsoever, I do not think it likely that teeth brushing would make that much difference,” he explained. “Firstly droplets can and do infect through the nose and can be inhaled directly to the back of the throat and deeper into the respiratory tract so any residual disinfection around the teeth is very unlikely to have much if any benefit." So not really great support for your suggestions.What the two medics say also goes for handwashing: what if you get some virus on your hands after washing them? They seem rather committed to anything as long as it's got evidence to prove it. I doubt they know much more about tooth brushing and its benefits than any other person, after all it's something we all do. Further, research has been done that showed mouthwash eliminated virus after three rinses (carried out in a beaker iirc).
Your claims re muscular skeletal influences may also be possible regarding general health and well being but there is no specific evidence of any effect regarding viral infection from Sars-Cov-2.
They seem rather committed to anything as long as it's got evidence to prove it.What on earth would you expect them to do. Surely there are three alternatives here:
What on earth would you expect them to do.Be a bit more positive! Not that it matters, everyone has access to tooth brushes and paste already.
Be a bit more positive! Not that it matters, everyone has access to tooth brushes and paste already.Why should medics/scientists be 'positive' about something (i.e. recommending it) unless there is evidence that it works. To do so without that evidence runs the risk of lulling people into a false sense of security if they adopt behaviour that won't protect them or worse potentially harming them.
Further, research has been done that showed mouthwash eliminated virus after three rinses (carried out in a beaker iirc).Problem with this research is that it was carried out in the idealised environment of a petri dish (with guaranteed 100% contact between virus and reagent, not the non-idealised environment of a real mouth. The other big flaw is that the key entry point for the virus seems to be certain types of nasal cell - ie. the nose, not the mouth.
That said, I agree that it is still basically at the 'it works for me' stage.There isn't such a thing as the 'it works for me stage' something either works or it doesn't - thinking you'd like it to work just cos you like the idea is merely the placebo effect.
Problem with this research is that it was carried out in the idealised environment of a petri dish (with guaranteed 100% contact between virus and reagent, not the non-idealised environment of a real mouth. The other big flaw is that the key entry point for the virus seems to be certain types of nasal cell - ie. the nose, not the mouth.The experiment demonstrated that the mouthwash kills the virus. Of course it's not going to eliminate all of the virus in the mouth, but will still reduce the viral load.
There isn't such a thing as the 'it works for me stage' something either works or it doesn't - thinking you'd like it to work just cos you like the idea is merely the placebo effect.What I meant was that it is still at the stage where somebody discovers that something benefits them, but this hasn't been confirmed experimentally. I'm not claiming that any one action can completely ensure one doesn't become infected. Only complete isolation or maybe a vaccine could do that.
The experiment demonstrated that the mouthwash kills the virus. Of course it's not going to eliminate all of the virus in the mouth, but will still reduce the viral load.But the experiment was carried out in a dish - there is no guarantee that the virus will be killed in the mouth.
What I meant was that it is still at the stage where somebody discovers that something benefits them, but this hasn't been confirmed experimentally.How on earth can you say that something benefits them unless you have demonstrated that through experiment. We aren't talking about a subjective benefit here but an objective one - you become infected or you don't become infected. How on earth can an individual know whether has benefited them in this respect (mouthwash reducing likelihood of becoming infected with covid) unless there is evidence to demonstrate it.
I was just wondering … does anyone have an idea of, vaguely, how many people have had the virus one way or another since the beginning of the year. If every single person from youngest to oldest was tested today, what, vaguely, would the total be, and that would be including the number who have died? This may be an impossible question, but I ask it in case someone has an idea.
I don't think anybody really knows.
This report (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54723962) says that nearly 100,000 people are catching it every day at the moment. It also has a graphic (not very helpful to a visually impaired person) that says there have been 942,000 confirmed cases so far. This is a huge underestimate because not everybody who has had it has been tested.
It also says 46,000 deaths. If we assume that the mortality rate is 1% (as has been claimed), that means 46 million people have had the disease. That seems absurdly high to me but if we take that as the upper estimate and 942,000 as the lower estimate, we are talking about several million people having had the disease.
Weren't antibody tests supposed to give us an indication of how much of the population have contracted the virus? The only problem is is that the antibodies don't last long, especially for the those who had mild or no symptoms.
....46,000 is 1 percent of 4.6m not 46m so that makes more sense.
It also says 46,000 deaths. If we assume that the mortality rate is 1% (as has been claimed), that means 46 million people have had the disease. That seems absurdly high to me but if we take that as the upper estimate and 942,000 as the lower estimate, we are talking about several million people having had the disease.
I don't think anybody really knows.Thank you very much for your reply. If the number is towards the higher end, I don't think I would be surprised.
This report (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54723962) says that nearly 100,000 people are catching it every day at the moment. It also has a graphic (not very helpful to a visually impaired person) that says there have been 942,000 confirmed cases so far. This is a huge underestimate because not everybody who has had it has been tested.
It also says 46,000 deaths. If we assume that the mortality rate is 1% (as has been claimed), that means 46 million people have had the disease. That seems absurdly high to me but if we take that as the upper estimate and 942,000 as the lower estimate, we are talking about several million people having had the disease.
But the experiment was carried out in a dish - there is no guarantee that the virus will be killed in the mouth.It was stated that mouthwash could not be used to treat the infection. But if it does disable viruses in the mouth that have not yet infected cells, then someone who's used it and then coughs won't emit as much virus into the air, so other people he comes into contact with will inhale less virus.
And as the key route of entry and infection seems to be via specific cells in the nasal passage then killing the virus in the mouth may have no, or very limited effect, in actually preventing infection.
46,000 is 1 percent of 4.6m not 46m so that makes more sense.Yes. In fact, it seems quite a reasonable estimate.
Thank you very much for your reply. If the number is towards the higher end, I don't think I would be surprised.My high end was wrong by a factor of ten as NS pointed out.
Some coverage of the corruption in the procurement processThe Tory slime trail should inform our vote wherever its festering mucoidal nastiness besmirches the environment.
https://goodlawproject.org/news/special-procurement-channels/
News conference from Johnson at 4pmMoved to 5pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-54762048?__twitter_impression=true
What an absolute farce. The BBC is already reporting on what the new measures will be, so why can't Boris stand up and tell us? The only thing I can think of is that he's actually going to row back some of the measures because of political pressure from his MPs.I am clinging to the hope that it's about working on the details of increased financial support.
And as ever farcically presented. Good that furlough has been extended but I watch Johnson appear to read out from notes and if that was written, it was written by an idiot and read out by fool.
Meanwhile in Barcelona
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2020/nov/02/pianist-plays-eternal-flame-during-violent-anti-lockdown-protest-in-barcelona-video
They are not a short-term necessity. We can go for a month without buying any new clothes or shoes, but we need to buy food on at least a weekly basis.
Why are clothes and shoe shops closed - are clothes and shoes considered not a necessity? Even though sanitised precautions are being taken. Sorry, if you need a winter coat or boots you will have to manage without. Not everyone has the internet.
They are not a short-term necessity. We can go for a month without buying any new clothes or shoes, but we need to buy food on at least a weekly basis.What if you have a kid that has grown out of shoes or clothes?
Is there anyone here who thinks the second lockdown should not be happening?
They are not a short-term necessity. We can go for a month without buying any new clothes or shoes, but we need to buy food on at least a weekly basis.
I think I've come to the same conclusion. I think the tier system was working. I think the model projections that were shown to us to justify the lockdown were flawed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8900803/Coronavirus-UK-models-predict-4-000-deaths-day-second-wave.html
Look at when the model lines start, mostly in early October. This is when the models were made. That was before the tier system was in operation. Look at the worst case model - the one with the scary 4,000 deaths per day. It predicts the number of deaths per day will exceed the April peak on......
... 1st November. We are nowhere near that, even one week later.
The only line that bears any relationship to reality is the best case model but even it still has us on an exponential curve upwards and I don't believe the data support that.
The government panicked. They didn't give the tier system a chance to work.
Although I disagree with Sir DS on the point about religious belief, I think this latest blog is a good one and one which I support.I may agree with his outcome but that's a struggle to read because of the ridiculous hyperbole about motivations.
https://www.desmondswaynemp.com/blogs/
What if you have a kid that has grown out of shoes or clothes?You can buy them online.
I suspect they panicked because they knew they had fucked up over track and trace. I think this was classic ' We must do something. This is something. We must do this.'I can't think of any other reason why they would put England back in a full lock down except it being necessary and right now I don't believe it is necessary.
You can buy them online.Not that easy to know that the shoes you buy for kids will fit.
Although I disagree with Sir DS on the point about religious belief, I think this latest blog is a good one and one which I support.
https://www.desmondswaynemp.com/blogs/
https://www.desmondswaynemp.com/blogs/I am informed by my critics that I have failed to appreciate that the preservation of life itself is more important than liberty
the number of daily deaths at 1600 or so daily, is normal -and has been at the normal expected level since June.
Not that easy to know that the shoes you buy for kids will fit.https://www.johnlewis.com/content/baby-children/how-to-measure-childrens-feet?intcmp=ic_20200917_measureathome_cp_bab_
Not that easy to know that the shoes you buy for kids will fit.Not only that but how many people do not have access to make purchases on line?
Not only that but how many people do not have access to make purchases on line?I just signed up with BT for my new flat and it's about £25 pcm give or take.
I have quite often wondered - what is the minimum monthlycost of running a phone giving access to buying on line.
I can appreciate that those job seeking would find it easier to do so with such a phone, but if you are very short of money, how on earth do people manage the monthly expense of some kind of smart phone, especially if they do not have a bank account.
What if you have a kid that has grown out of shoes or clothes?Strangely, my local Marks & Spencer is selling clothes and shoes - it's open because it sells food but the clothes sections are also still open.
Strangely, my local Marks & Spencer is selling clothes and shoes - it's open because it sells food but the clothes sections are also still open.
And my Tesco, which sells mainly food, sells clothes for women, men and children - including shoes.The point is not that there is no ability to buy baby new shoes but that they are essentials so why should shoe shops and clothes shops have to shut while supermarkets selling shoes and clothes stay open.
The point is not that there is no ability to buy baby new shoes but that they are essentials so why should shoe shops and clothes shops have to shut while supermarkets selling shoes and clothes stay open.Yeah I agree - I thought it odd that M&S could sell the stuff while other shops had to shut. And I agree that clothes and shoes are essentials. Apparently there is an estimated £6.8 billion hit over next 4 weeks to the non-essential retailers that have been forced to close. They may get some sales online but low price stores like Primark have said online sales would not work for them as so many clothes bought on-line are returned so the low prices cannot cover the cost of dealing with delivery and returns.
Two flaws that I can see.Thank you for comments - I would forward them to him as I think he would be interested to read them, but he is probably a bit busy at the moment.
I agree it is fine to risk your life for liberty but you can't ask other people to risk their lives for your liberty.
This is not good. Given the enormous number of excess deaths earlier in the year, the deaths should currently be below normal. Why? Because a lot of the people who should be dying now actually died in April or May. Coronavirus is still killing a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise have died.
That said, I think the England full lockdown is a panic measure and there were signs that the tier system was working.
How did anyone think this was a good idea?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54841278
Rees Mogg is an eejitWe really need somebody who is aware of the invention of the electric telegraph and subsequent developments to be the leader ofd the House.
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/rees-mogg-accuses-shielding-mps-of-shirking-their-duty-by-working-from-home/
More hmm....
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vaccine-tsar-kate-bingham-runs-up-670-000-pr-bill-sjxmrz2bx
It means each consultant is on the equivalent of £167,000 a year
JeremyP and Nearly Sane, I agree that the government panicked and then introduced this second lockdown. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I think any party in government at this unprecedented time would be in a similar position.
...
A Level exams cancelled in Wales for 2021 - will be marked by course assessment. Feels like the right decision made at the right timeWrong decision.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54888376
Wrong decision.I think this is a logical error that the fiasco was not taking into account the impact of decision last time so that applies this time.
In fact, it is clear from the fiasco that ensued, it would have been better to hold the exams last year too.
I think this is a logical error that the fiasco was not taking into account the impact of decision last time so that applies this time.
There were many people calling that issue out as needing understanding and dealing with. That those decisions were badly handled is a hindsight ad consequentiam, but then you are arguing that no change can be made to what happened.
This is giving some certainty to the students now rather than waiting, and allows for the mess before to be avoided.
Cheerier headline than the details merit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54914410
Cheerier headline than the details merit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54914410
Excellent news. As long as we can maintain the growth and not have another lockdown in the fourth quarter...Probably not the best time to be leaving a major trading block with no deal though.
... oh.
Actually, there is one aspect in which it is quite good news. It seems like, given relaxation of the social distancing rules, the economy will recover. Thus, if the vaccine(s) work, we will not be facing a long depression.
Probably not the best time to be leaving a major trading block with no deal though.
Well that went well....Honestly, I thought the cruise industry was finished even with the end of the pandemic. To take a cruise now is crazy.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/11/11/seadream-yacht-club-ends-first-caribbean-cruise-after-positive-test/6253380002/
For all the people (not necessarily here) who thought Sweden got it right.They're even worse than the UK
https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1328045594099724289?s=19
I thought I saw something in the corner of my eye the other day about mink and Coronavirus, so that was it. I agree with you.That was probably about the mink farms in Denmark. They've decided to cull all the mink being farmed there (about 15 million). Bad news for the mink and everybody who earned a living by farming them.
That was probably about the mink farms in Denmark. They've decided to cull all the mink being farmed there (about 15 million). Bad news for the mink and everybody who earned a living by farming them.Bad news for the agricultural minister too as they have resigned, and possibly the Prime Minister
And I am now in level 4. Or will be from 6pm Friday
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54974855
We get out of Tier 4 on 12th Dec. We are likely if we do move out of it to move into Tier 3, and I don't see that being changed before Christmas. That will mean that any pub not selling meals will remain shut. All other pubs and restaurants will only be open till 6pm and not selling alcohol, Given many pubs and restaurants will normally do around a third of their trade in the period between now and Christmas, this is going to brutal for the hospitality industry.
And you really wanted to visit the tatoo parlour.....
We get out of Tier 4 on 12th Dec. We are likely if we do move out of it to move into Tier 3, and I don't see that being changed before Christmas. That will mean that any pub not selling meals will remain shut. All other pubs and restaurants will only be open till 6pm and not selling alcohol, Given many pubs and restaurants will normally do around a third of their trade in the period between now and Christmas, this is going to brutal for the hospitality industry.
Irresponsible, selfish and arrogant.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/22/let-us-disobey-churches-defy-lockdown-with-secret-meetings
Anti-anti-vaccinator* petition. (https://www.change.org/p/facebook-take-down-stop-mandatory-vaccinations)
*I refuse to call them "anti-vaxxers", because that's what they want to be called: they think that giving themselves an eccentrically-spelled abbreviation normalises them.
Some dickhead on Twitter wrote "Covic is one big lie". I couldn't help myself and answered "Covic? Isn't he a tennis player?"My hat is doffed
Privileging religions to killDesperately stupid, sad, etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55069040
Just bizarre
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/amp/brexit-will-spark-rise-in-dogging-213622/?__twitter_impression=true
Is there no end to their bullshittery?Yes the Huffington Post is absolutely full of it.
Wtf!
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/oxford-university-astrazeneca-vaccine-uk-flag-union-jack_uk_5fbfdd14c5b68ca87f827a0e/?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Yes the Huffington Post is absolutely full of it.Well you could try the Independent
I think the request predates the issues with the results
But why? Though the Oxford vaccine was highly regarded and was one of the front runners in the race...it has had severe problems. Pfizer and Moderna have beaten it to the post.
Also, there is considerable confusion on whether its efficacy is 62% or 90 % or what exactly. There seems to have been some mistake on the doses given to some people which thereby brought out the higher efficacy. All very uncertain.
They plan to redo the trials I think.
I think the request predates the issues with the results
Well you could try the IndependentThere are no plans to put Union Jacks on doses. Somebody might have suggested it, but clearly the idea was never taken seriously.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/coronavirus-downing-street-tried-to-have-oxford-vaccine-branded-with-union-flag/ar-BB1bpLum
Or The Guardian
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/no-10-reportedly-wanted-union-flag-on-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-kits/ar-BB1bq8mN
Or the Mirror
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/no10-asked-for-union-jack-flag-branding-on-new-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine/ar-BB1bpYUI
Others are available
What are the severe problems? I agree that the 90% figure is suspect, but they’ll just do more trials to get to the bottom of it.
But why? Though the Oxford vaccine was highly regarded and was one of the front runners in the race...it has had severe problems. Pfizer and Moderna have beaten it to the post.
Also, there is considerable confusion on whether its efficacy is 62% or 90 % or what exactly. There seems to have been some mistake on the doses given to some people which thereby brought out the higher efficacy. All very uncertain.
They plan to redo the trials I think.
There are no plans to put Union Jacks on doses. Somebody might have suggested it, but clearly the idea was never taken seriously.Congratulations for agreeing on what was said
Well you could try the IndependentUnion fucking JACK! This pseudo-pedantry of calling it the Union Flag if it's not flying from a ship pisses me off no end. It is perfectly correct to call it the Union Jack wherever it is flown or portrayed. https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags-2/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/coronavirus-downing-street-tried-to-have-oxford-vaccine-branded-with-union-flag/ar-BB1bpLum
Or The Guardian
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/no-10-reportedly-wanted-union-flag-on-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-kits/ar-BB1bq8mN
Or the Mirror
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/no10-asked-for-union-jack-flag-branding-on-new-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine/ar-BB1bpYUI
Others are available
Congratulations for agreeing on what was said
Union fucking JACK! This pseudo-pedantry of calling it the Union Flag if it's not flying from a ship pisses me off no end.It's not pedantry. It's perfectly acceptable to call it either.
So why are you all getting so outraged about it?Idiocy
Union fucking JACK! This pseudo-pedantry of calling it the Union Flag if it's not flying from a ship pisses me off no end. It is perfectly correct to call it the Union Jack wherever it is flown or portrayed. https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags-2/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/
Union fucking JACK! This pseudo-pedantry of calling it the Union Flag if it's not flying from a ship pisses me off no end. It is perfectly correct to call it the Union Jack wherever it is flown or portrayed. https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags-2/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/
It's not pedantry. It's perfectly acceptable to call it either.The pedantry is in carefully calling it the Union flag. Until 20-30 years ago, it was always called the Union Jack, but then some anal-retentive wanker decided, wrongly, that it was only correct to call it that if it was flying on a ship, and lots of other people, sheep-like, followed suit.
I admit to ignorance & never thought about it much but in the back of my mind the union flag was the white one with a red cross that you see around World Cup times and union Jack was the usual red white and blue one :-[. I've learned something today.The red-cross-on-white is the (unofficial) flag of England, and is emphatically not the Union Jack or Flag, because the word "union" refers to the union of England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland (and Wales, but Wales isn't represented in the flag).
The red-cross-on-white is the (unofficial) flag of England, and is emphatically not the Union Jack or Flag, because the word "union" refers to the union of England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland (and Wales, but Wales isn't represented in the flag).
The pedantry is in carefully calling it the Union flag. Until 20-30 years ago, it was always called the Union Jack, but then some anal-retentive wanker decided, wrongly, that it was only correct to call it that if it was flying on a ship, and lots of other people, sheep-like, followed suit.
The pedantry is in carefully calling it the Union flag. Until 20-30 years ago, it was always called the Union Jack, but then some anal-retentive wanker decided, wrongly, that it was only correct to call it that if it was flying on a ship, and lots of other people, sheep-like, followed suit.
The red-cross-on-white is the (unofficial) flag of England, and is emphatically not the Union Jack or Flag, because the word "union" refers to the union of England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland (and Wales, but Wales isn't represented in the flag).Oh yeah the Welsh have a dragon. I'm not up on flags, do Sctoland have a thistle?
How do you carefully call something the "Union Flag". The term is not incorrect, so why shouldn't people use it?Because they probably think, incorrectly, that "Union Jack" is wrong, though that was what it was always called until 20-30 years ago.
Because they probably think, incorrectly, that "Union Jack" is wrong, though that was what it was always called until 20-30 years ago.
Why are you so obsessed with a flipping flag? ::)I'm not - I just get irritated by pseudo=pedantry.
I'm not - I just get irritated by pseudo=pedantry.Pseudo pedantry would be correcting people for calling it the Union Jack, not calling it the Union Flag, however carefully.
What's the point of a pub being open if it can't serve alcohol?I doubt many will.
Congratulations guys! You people in Britain are going to start getting vaccinated (Pfizer) against the Covid 19 as early as next week. Good going! :)
Well only the most vulnerable will be vaccinated anytime soon.
Congratulations guys! You people in Britain are going to start getting vaccinated (Pfizer) against the Covid 19 as early as next week. Good going! :)
Whilst the Covid-19 vaccine seems like excellent news, I just hope they have thoroughly tested it for bad side effects. The thalidomide vaccine was given to pregnant women to relieve morning sickness, and we all know how that panned out. :oIt has been. And there is a world of difference between this vaccine and thalidomide, which isn't a vaccine at all.
Does it make sense to avoid vaccinating those who have already contracted covid? I wouldn't think so.....but some minister in India has been saying such things.
Yes it does as it isn't clear how long any immunity actually lasts.
Does it make sense to avoid vaccinating those who have already contracted covid? I wouldn't think so.....but some minister in India has been saying such things.
Whilst the Covid-19 vaccine seems like excellent news, I just hope they have thoroughly tested it for bad side effects. The thalidomide vaccine was given to pregnant women to relieve morning sickness, and we all know how that panned out. :oThalidomide isn't a vaccine.
I expect Littleroses didn't intend to describe it as a vaccine; Thalidomide (Thalomid or Distival) is an excellent drug for treating many serious conditions. It was obviously not tested on pregnant women and was prescribed to them for hg with some awful results. Since then far more care has been taken when prescribing anything for a pregnant woman.That's correct.
Pregnant woman are not going to be given the Covid-19 vaccine.
Yes it does as it isn't clear how long any immunity actually lasts.
Also you'd need to be sure that people really had had it, rather than merely thinking they had (without a definitive test result) and deciding therefore that they didn't ned to get the vaccine. So much better to vaccinate everyone possible, noting that there will be a proportion of people who cannot have the vaccine due to underlying health issues plus those that refuse to have it.
It makes sense to vaccinate everyone regardless of whether they have previously tested positive for covid or think they might have been infected previously.
You mean..No, it doesn't make sense! Yes, I agree that everyone should be vaccinated. The minister was probably thinking in terms of rationing vaccines to the extent possible. Never mind. :)
And even though it is fantastic news, the government (Matt Hancock in this case) just can't help but try to gild the lily by lying:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/02/hancock-brexit-helped-uk-to-speedy-approval-of-covid-vaccine
I just reckon we've got the very best people in this country and we've obviously got the best medical regulator, much better than the French have, much better than the Belgians have, much better than the Americans have.
That doesn't surprise me at all, because we're a much better country than every single one of them.
You mean..No, it doesn't make sense! Yes, I agree that everyone should be vaccinated. The minister was probably thinking in terms of rationing vaccines to the extent possible. Never mind. :)
"I just reckon we've got the very best people in this country and we've obviously got the best medical regulator, much better than the French have, much better than the Belgians have, much better than the Americans have.An American vaccine, manufactured in Belgium.
That doesn't surprise me at all, because we're a much better country than every single one of them."
With an American vaccine....?! ??? The guy is pretty patriotic....I must say. :D
If you needed to ration vaccines, it might make sense not to vaccinate people who have already had the disease (if you ca be sure who they are), but there isn't going to be a shortage for long, at least not if the Astra Zenica vaccine gets approval. The bigger concern is likely to be logistics i.e. how quickly can we get everybody vaccinated. That's why we will prioritise certain groups of people e.g. healthcare workers.
An American vaccine, manufactured in Belgium.
Just pathetic.
Yes...we are going to prioritize too. But we are unlikely to get the Pfizer one. We haven't pre-bought it, I think. Also, the - 70 degrees requirement is very difficult to manage in India. We are waiting for the Oxford one or the Indian ones which could be available early next year.Yes that's right - the Pfizer is less likely to be useful in certain countries due both to the logistics linked to storage temperature, but also due to cost. The Oxford/AZ one may be better and cheaper in that regard but current data suggest it may not be quite as effective and is a few weeks behind the others in terms of results and approval.
An American vaccine, manufactured in Belgium.
Just pathetic.
Fauci has expressed some doubts about the rushed approval in the UK....though he apologized later....But that is because the vaccine has only been being tested for a matter of months so all this means is that the volunteers vaccinated a few months ago are still showing immunity at three months because that is as far as we've been able to test so far.
The Moderna vaccine offers immunity for at least 3 months I understand...! But that is pathetic! Do people have to get a shot after every three months? ???
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-moderna-vaccine-confers-months-immunity.html
What are the long term dangers of the mRNA technology? Can anyone guess knowledgeably? Are the old methods (weakened viruses) used by the other vaccines possibly more reliable, do you think?mRNA is likely to be safer, if anything, as it is more targeted. Regarding reliability - I see no reason why the mRNA vaccines should be less reliable, arguable more so as the basic principle is that the body uses the mRNA to produce the spike protein which then elicits an immune response. So it may provide a stronger and longer immune response to more traditional vaccines that might just inoculate with the spike protein itself which would potentially last for less time in an effective form compared to a situation where the body produces the spike protein for an extended period of time.
Tweet from Grant ShappsIt's worse than that. The business trip has to result in 50 jobs or £100k of business. So I, for example, would not be exempt because my business trips happen after the business has been won and even at my best daily rate it would require me to be abroad for in the region of 100 days or more.
'New Business Traveller exemption: From 4am on Sat 5th Dec high-value business travellers will no longer need to self-isolate when returning to ENGLAND from a country NOT in a travel corridor, allowing more travel to support the economy and jobs. Conditions apply.'
Virus doesn't like business class
Fauci has expressed some doubts about the rushed approval in the UK....though he apologized later....I think you should carefully check out the meaning of "at least".
The Moderna vaccine offers immunity for at least 3 months I understand...! But that is pathetic! Do people have to get a shot after every three months? ???
What are the long term dangers of the mRNA technology? Can anyone guess knowledgeably? Are the old methods (weakened viruses) used by the other vaccines possibly more reliable, do you think?My guess (which is not knowledgeable) is that vaccines based on weakened viruses are potential more dangerous than mRNA vaccines. In the early days of developing a polio vaccine there were a couple of attempts that went wrong because the weakened virus was not as weak as had been thought.
But that is because the vaccine has only been being tested for a matter of months so all this means is that the volunteers vaccinated a few months ago are still showing immunity at three months because that is as far as we've been able to test so far.
mRNA is likely to be safer, if anything, as it is more targeted. Regarding reliability - I see no reason why the mRNA vaccines should be less reliable, arguable more so as the basic principle is that the body uses the mRNA to produce the spike protein which then elicits an immune response. So it may provide a stronger and longer immune response to more traditional vaccines that might just inoculate with the spike protein itself which would potentially last for less time in an effective form compared to a situation where the body produces the spike protein for an extended period of time.
I am not a biologist.....Well I am.
but is there a possibility that the spike protein that is produced in the body will, after some time, no longer be treated as a threat by the immune system which will therefore stop producing anti bodies.Not really - it is unlikely that the body will come to treat the spike protein as 'self' and fail to produce an immune response, because that isn't how the immune system functions.
Well I am.
Not really - it is unlikely that the body will come to treat the spike protein as 'self' and fail to produce an immune response, because that isn't how the immune system functions.
More likely the immune system 'forgets' that it has been challenged with the 'foreign' spike protein previously and is no longer primed to respond to an infection. If that were to happen people who had been vaccinated would lose immunity over time and would therefore become susceptible to develop disease and be infectious to others if they are infested with the virus.
And that is why researchers will be carefully assessing how long immunity lasts following vaccination and will, if necessary, recommend booster inoculations from time to time to maintain immunity.
Socially non distancing
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-step-in-as-huge-crowds-gather-in-london-and-nottingham/
I am not allowed to travel to Edinburgh...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55215611
I am not allowed to travel to Edinburgh...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55215611
Fortunately, I don't think key workers would be that interested in seeing you, so you don't need to.Kate and William don't need to either.
I am not allowed to travel to Edinburgh...Hmm - could be a public relations disaster. Not sure many people will be too impressed that a 'royal train' (at tax-payers expense) still exists in this day and age, and particularly with the current pressures on public finances.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55215611
Hmm - could be a public relations disaster. Not sure many people will be too impressed that a 'royal train' (at tax-payers expense) still exists in this day and age, and particularly with the current pressures on public finances.
If these royals want to appear to be in touch with normal people why not ask them to travel on an ordinary train, no issue with them traveling first class but what on earth can be the justification for having their own train.
Bit like a couple of months ago when they were in a care home chatting to residents and one of the resident's children was interviewed saying that he hadn't been allowed to visit his mother for months.
Perhaps this pair of hangers-on should have decided to stay where there were, like the rest of us have to, and maybe suggest that the key workers they wished to thank might be better compensated with something extra in their pay.Indeed, and in the spirit of the times why didn't they arrange to thanks a much wider group of people via a Zoom call, in the manner that the rest of us are doing. I think getting out their hugely expensive train is particularly ill-advised.
They have done zoom calls. At this time a lot of people will appreciate them making an effort to go around and speak to people in person. It's a three day trip apparently and all the travelling, apart from cars to and from station, will be on the one train. I get that many think they are a waste of space but not all feel like that. This pair are quite popular and put others at ease. If their visits give people a boost it can't be all bad - if they weren't welcome they wouldn't be doing it.For the tiny number of people who will actually see them there might get a boost (although I suspect the vaccine will give them infinitely more of a boost), of course, millions of other key workers who wont see them. I'm sorry Robbie there are countless people who have been working their buts off, whether in key roles or to try and keep companies afloat who will not be given a boost by a couple of out of touch privileged elites telling a few nurses and school teachers 'what a fabulous job you do' (so pleased we don't need to use the NHS or state schools!!).
It's a three day trip apparently and all the travelling, apart from cars to and from station, will be on the one train.Well it really must be a PR disaster if the uber-sychophantic Daily Express is gunning for them for using the royal train.
It's quite simple isn't it? You obey the rules: COVID 19 decreases and you can have your pubs and restaurants and music concerts. You don't obey the rules, COVID 19 increases and these things are taken away from you. It's depressing how many people are so incredibly stupid.It’s certainly not conducive to the Humanist formulation of the inherent goodness of people.
They have done zoom calls. At this time a lot of people will appreciate them making an effort to go around and speak to people in person. It's a three day trip apparently and all the travelling, apart from cars to and from station, will be on the one train. I get that many think they are a waste of space but not all feel like that. This pair are quite popular and put others at ease. If their visits give people a boost it can't be all bad - if they weren't welcome they wouldn't be doing it.Well said! The Royals are a good system and that system does not need fixing!
Well said! The Royals are a good system and that system does not need fixing!Rather that than your 'they are all perfect, no need to fix anything' attitude, which is frankly the kind of attitude that sends those in the middle ground (don't want to get rid of the Royals but they need serious reform) heading inexorably towards the republican camp.
Edited to add that I see from the intervening posts that the drag-'em-all-down anti-royialists have had a say!
Rant over.:) Actually, I can quite agree with quite a bit you have said and I do not of course think the royals are perfect, that would be ridiculous. They make mistakes. However, as I have said often enough, it's a system that works until someone comes up with a far better one, and with the agreement of a large majority of the people, not just a slight percentage.
:) Actually, I can quite agree with quite a bit you have said and I do not of course think the royals are perfect, that would be ridiculous. They make mistakes.In which case your comment that 'The Royals are a good system and that system does not need fixing!' seems rather ill-advised. If they aren't perfect then the system certainly needs change (i.e. fixing) and is arguably not a good system.
However, as I have said often enough, it's a system that works until someone comes up with a far better one, and with the agreement of a large majority of the people, not just a slight percentage.A far better system is surely too high a bar - you just need a better system. For many people (and I fully accept it isn't a majority) any system where the head of state is chosen by the people in a democratic process is a better system, indeed a far better system, than one in which the head of state is selected by accident of birth.
From what I've read this nonsense is intended as a 'thank you', and no doubt a few forelock-tugging sycophants will be wheeled out to say how grateful they were.
Perhaps this pair of hangers-on should have decided to stay where there were, like the rest of us have to, and maybe suggest that the key workers they wished to thank might be better compensated with something extra in their pay.
Wee Willie Windsor was only following tradition, Gordon - a tradition set by his dear old dad who decided, on being tested positive, way back in the mists of time (April) to high tail it up to Birkhall to isolate himself there with his flunkies - taking the virus with him, of course.I don't think there is any suggestion that William or Kate are infectious and I'm sure they'll have been having regular tests.
In which case your comment that 'The Royals are a good system and that system does not need fixing!' seems rather ill-advised. If they aren't perfect then the system certainly needs change (i.e. fixing) and is arguably not a good system.
A far better system is surely too high a bar - you just need a better system. For many people (and I fully accept it isn't a majority) any system where the head of state is chosen by the people in a democratic process is a better system, indeed a far better system, than one in which the head of state is selected by accident of birth.
In which case your comment that 'The Royals are a good system and that system does not need fixing!' seems rather ill-advised. If they aren't perfect then the system certainly needs change (i.e. fixing) and is arguably not a good system.True, but nowhere near as colourfl or as much fun!
A far better system is surely too high a bar - you just need a better system. For many people (and I fully accept it isn't a majority) any system where the head of state is chosen by the people in a democratic process is a better system, indeed a far better system, than one in which the head of state is selected by accident of birth.
Going down well in Wales too - not. >:(
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55229410
:D
They're damned if they do & damned if they don't, can't win! On the whole the 'tour' seems to be quite successful tho & is well intentioned.
That said, the optics don't look great. In a rational world it wouldn't be a big deal, but this isn't a rational world and there will be people who try to justify their own reckless behaviour with "Will and Kate did it".It gets worse and worse - now the government are all over the place in terms of their own messaging about the tour.
I thought of starting a poll in my local FB group, which is infested by illiterate anti-vaccine people who think they know better than the vast majority of experts:
Will you be getting the SARS-Cov-2 vaccine?
1) Yes - I want to consign this bloody pandemic to history as soon as possible.
2) No - I have a valid medical exemption, confirmed by a proper doctor (not a homeopath, aromatherapist, etc).
3) No - 'm a selfish idiot.
However, in the end I thought better of it.
And to cap it all - after a completely unnecessary 48 hours of whistlestop tour of top infection places - packed full of visits just to maximise the number of contacts and potential infections - just the time to meet up with your 94 year old grandmother/grandmother in law. Not sure what they did next but if they entered Windsor castle that would most definitely be against the rules in tier 2, as you cannot meet indoors except with other members of your household.OK - definitely breaking the rules, as Edward/Sophie and Anne were also there:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122All the more reason for everyone to get the vaccine, except those without a valid reason that means they cannot have the vaccine.
People who suffer from significant allergic reactions have been told it is not wise for them to have the vaccine.
All the more reason for everyone to get the vaccine, except those without a valid reason that means they cannot have the vaccine.
While I am a strong believer in consent there are times when public health (and the economy in this case) are perhaps stronger arguments. And while I wouldn't go as far as forcing people to have the vaccine I see no reason why being vaccinated (unless you cannot be for medical reasons) should be a requirement for accessing services etc.
All the more reason for everyone to get the vaccine, except those without a valid reason that means they cannot have the vaccine.I think there's a typo there: "except those with a valid reason that means they cannot have the vaccine
While I am a strong believer in consent there are times when public health (and the economy in this case) are perhaps stronger arguments. And while I wouldn't go as far as forcing people to have the vaccine I see no reason why being vaccinated (unless you cannot be for medical reasons) should be a requirement for accessing services etc.Another one there I think: " I see no reason why being vaccinated ... shouldn't be a requirement for accessing services etc"
Germany into harsher lockdown from Wednesday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55292614
Including over Christmas. Nobody in our government would have the balls to do that.Rumours that Scottish Govt might break from the 5 day plan
'Rash Christmas'......I gave you the bug, but the very next day you gave it away...
...I gave you the bug, but the very next day you gave it away...Coronageddoned being a bit worse than Whamaggedoned
The message appears to be you can mix but best not to.Tighter restrictions in Wales. Won't be surprised if Scotland follows
Tighter restrictions in Wales. Won't be surprised if Scotland follows
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55331366
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55347406
The French President has tested positive for the virus and is self isolating.
Is there an echo in here ;)
Hmm...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9061903/Tobias-Ellwood-attended-Christmas-dinner-London-club-insists-business-meeting.html
?
I phoned the surgery this morning to see if they could give me some idea of when I might be called and the answer was; probably during the next week or so!
It could be your Christmas Day treat from "Boris" Johnson!:D
Our youngest adopted son (35) has Down's Syndrome, it would appear that people with this condition are at greater risk if they contract the virus and should be shielding. I must have a word with the people at his care home to ensure they are aware of this.Am I not correct in thinking that DS people are prone to respiratory problems? That'd explain it, if so.
Our youngest adopted son (35) has Down's Syndrome, it would appear that people with this condition are at greater risk if they contract the virus and should be shielding. I must have a word with the people at his care home to ensure they are aware of this.Colleague at work has a son with Down's and they have been shielding.
Baffled why in the new tier 4, communal worship is allowed.
Because religion.Yes, that seems like the wise option. Pity not all places are as sensible.
Interestingly my parents' church stopped doing communal services at the beginning of the last lockdown and didn't restart when it finished even though they are in tier 2.
Baffled why in the new tier 4, communal worship is allowed.To be fair, it was - and will be - allowed in Scotland in tier four - though numbers limited to twenty. I conducted worship on two consecutive Sundays under tier four.
To be fair, it was - and will be - allowed in Scotland in tier four - though numbers limited to twenty. I conducted worship on two consecutive Sundays under tier four.I think it was wrong then. Given the latest news it's just wrongerest.
Baffled why in the new tier 4, communal worship is allowed.Any excuse to have a Scroogesque pop at religion.
Any excuse to have a Scroogesque pop at religion.I understand that principles of rationality, consistency and equality are things you have problems with. I offer my sympathy.
We have online worship on our FB page - but not all our congregation can access FB.And again this simply privileges religion, and while I appreciate the joke it simply is the same approach as Cumming. You want to claim the rules don't apply to you.
As long as we are legally allowed to open our building, under whatever circumstances, we will do so.
Our minister has his last Sunday off - on the 27th - and yours truly has the pulpit again..under lockdown.
More sanitise than you can shake a stick at, all outer doors open, meaning the place is freezing, no singing...and still we're worried that we might get more than twenty in a building that sits six hundred at a push.
Mind you, if we end up with twenty five, well, I won't see 'em......
And again this simply privileges religion, and while I appreciate the joke it simply is the same approach as Cumming. You want to claim the rules don't apply to you.
I don't think that would hold up as laws cannot preclude reform. You cannot bind future parliaments
Technically, and under the articles which established the reunited CofS in 1929, they don't - though I believe they should.
The state guarahteed not no interfere with anything concerned in the running of the Kirk, as long as the kirk did not interfere with the state.
Yes, it's picky, but it works so far.
I don't think that would hold up as laws cannot preclude reform. You cannot bind future parliaments
They can have been as devious as you like but it doesn't matter. Your argument is not really that different from the people who talk about the weird Magna Carta stuff. There is no way in our current democracy to have a court abrogate its decision to the Kirk. They can't retrospectively affect the principle that parliaments cannot bind their successors - not in the end because of the principle but because of power.
The kirk may be labyrinthine, legalistic, and its' legislative process moves at the speed of a one-legged arthritic tortoise, but the legal bods who drew up the Act were devious - this being the kirk, after all. Apparently, any change in the arrangement would have to be agreed by parliament (presumably Westminster), and the General Assembly to ve enacted.
Since, with the infamous 'Barrier Act' of 1568 - yes, right date - no GA can legislate without consulting presbyteries and the report going to a subsequent GA for amending and - hopefully - ratification, I wouldn't hold my breath.
If the Lord Jesus returned tomorrow, it would take the Kirk a minimum three years to legislate for it.......
I understand that principles of rationality, consistency and equality are things you have problems with. I offer my sympathy.You don't need me to tell you where you can stick your sympathy.
You don't need me to tell you where you can stick your sympathy.It is such a shame that these problems with rationality, consistency and equality that you have reduce your contributions to this. But I suppose that when you are trying to defend privileging the religious there's not much more you can do.
So trying to find out something that is rambling around in my head.
Is the fact that the UK has allowed the virus to take hold at fairly high levels in the population responsible (partly or wholly) for the emergence of this new more transmissable variant earlier than would have happened if we had controlled the virus more effectively?
And how is it more transmissable? They are saying 70% more but by what mechanism is that taking place?
I've tried internet searches but it all seems a bit sketchy currently.
I have no specific information but...The Daily Telegraph, of course, had a columnist asking WHERE the mutation came from.
Obviously there is a statistical connection between the amount of the virus in a given area and the chance of a significant mutation in that area.
It's going to be a lot easier to work out that a variant is more transmissible and by how much (by directly measuring how much more it has spread relative to the other variant) than to work out the specific mechanisms it uses. The lack of information to date would suggest that we don't know the answer yet.
It is such a shame that these problems with rationality, consistency and equality that you have reduce your contributions to this. But I suppose that when you are trying to defend privileging the religious there's not much more you can do.I'm not rising to your bait and getting myself suspended again.
I'm not rising to your bait and getting myself suspended again.More seriously, part of my annoyance with this is that given the average age of congregations will be relatively high and exemptions like this could lead to my sainted mother who is 90 thinking it's ok to attend. I will talk to her later today and try and persuade her not to, though I hope that her church will behave sensibly like jeremyp's parents' church and take the decision not to hold services.
To clarify: I don't know why religion is being especially privileged; it is one of many inconsistencies and illogicalities of the government's response to the lurgy. I certainly do not believe that religion should have any special privileges, and have frequently argued against such privilege, in the shape of church schools supported by taxpayers, the established church, bishops in the House of Lords, etc. I did, though, think it was typical of NS to pick on that one inconsistency out of many to have a pop at.My original comment on it did not have a 'pop at it', just said that I found it baffling, and then after that agreeing with jeremyp that his patent's church had made a wise decision to not hold services. It's just you debating with your view of posters rather than the posts themselves that seems to have caused you to make up a motivation that was wrong.
Belguim, Italy, and The Netherlands ban flights from UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55385768
OK, maybe I was a bit over-touchy, but you didn't have to be so infuriatingly superior and patronising.I accept your apology.
I accept your apology.I endure your continuing sneery arrogance.
I endure your continuing sneery arrogance.I forgive you. Now, to get back on track, do you agree that for many reasons the exception here is baffling, inconsistent and wrong?
Yes. I never said otherwise.Hurrah, now for Christmas, do we have a virtual game of football?
So trying to find out something that is rambling around in my head.
Is the fact that the UK has allowed the virus to take hold at fairly high levels in the population responsible (partly or wholly) for the emergence of this new more transmissable variant earlier than would have happened if we had controlled the virus more effectively?
And how is it more transmissable? They are saying 70% more but by what mechanism is that taking place?
I've tried internet searches but it all seems a bit sketchy currently.
There just isn't enough information available in the public domain (as far as I can tell) that allows us to confirm that the new virus variant is more transmissible or the exact mechanism behind this. It is certainly possible.
What is clear is that infection figures are running very high and the gov. has u-turned on the previous approach, using the "new strain" as an excuse. It would have been much more effective to have followed the advice and comments offered earlier.
Somebody told me that it is less serious if you catch it. I really do hope that is the case but I am not sure where that factoid came from.This seems like a reasonable summary of what is known
Somebody told me that it is less serious if you catch it. I really do hope that is the case but I am not sure where that factoid came from.
The BBC reported similar.Link?
Link?
My son-in-law tested positive for the virus and was not very poorly at all - up and about helping with household chores. My daughter and grand-daughters were then tested and all three had a negative result. They were still off work and school and in isolation for fourteen days.
On a couple of news bulletins.Here's link to BBC summary on the mutation
The BBC reported similar. If that is the case why all these extras measures? My son-in-law tested positive for the virus and was not very poorly at all - up and about helping with household chores. My daughter and grand-daughters were then tested and all three had a negative result. They were still off work and school and in isolation for fourteen days.
There's something very wrong about the handling of this pandemic. It's not all about the virus. The loss of lives (suicides) and livelihoods is tragic, some people are suffering abominably.
I just feel it's an incredible price to pay to lose your livelihood and commit suicide for a virus that has a 98% chance of recovery.
.......
It is worth noting that 2% of 60 million is 1,200,000.
Not helping, guys (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/12/eric-clapton-and-van-morrison-release-their-anti-mask-anthem)
I feel very sorry for all those lorry drivers queuing to get across the channel. Many aren't going to make it before Christmas as the backlog is going to take a good while to clear. :(Indeed, and given it was the sort of situation that the govt had supposedly been planning for happening just a few days early seems to show that their plans weren't that good, certainly not oven ready.
Good news.It really is, and much needed
Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine approved for use in UK (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671)
Good news.
Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine approved for use in UK (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671)
Most of England Tier 4 from midnight, all other areas apart from the Isles of Scilly, tier 3Can you tell me, please, what tier New Forest (west hampshire) is in?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55489932
Can you tell me, please, what tier New Forest (west hampshire) is in?Tier 4 from Thursaday.
Can you tell me, please, what tier New Forest (west hampshire) is in?Moved into Tier 4
Tier 4 from Thursaday.Thank you for your help, much appreciated. Will hairdressers be allowed to open, do you know?
Thank you for your help, much appreciated. Will hairdressers be allowed to open, do you know?No, hairdressers will be shut
ETA: thank you too NS for your reply.
No, hairdressers will be shutthank you for reply. Oh dear, back to washing it myself! No means of making it look even vaguely smart, but since nobody much is going to see it, I suppose that doesn't matter either!!
What the hell is year 12?
The most senior high school year in which pupils do their A levels.Secondary school starts at year 7, so five years to O levels= year 11 and two years on for A levels = year year 13 ?
Secondary school starts at year 7, so five years to O levels= year 11 and two years on for A levels = year year 13 ?
Surely this is a nonsense and dangerous decision by the govt?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9099049/Questions-Britains-decision-drop-two-dose-vaccine-regimen.html
Surely this is a nonsense and dangerous decision by the govt?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9099049/Questions-Britains-decision-drop-two-dose-vaccine-regimen.html
More here:It is with front line health service staff who are in constant danger of contracting the virus. If there's one group of people we should not be shafting at this time, it's them.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/31/covid-vaccine-uk-doctors-criticise-rescheduling-of-second-doses
Health workers having had one dose of the Pfizer vaccine are finding their appointments for the second are being cancelled.
It could be fine, but making these decisions without convincing evidence from clinical tests is reckless risk taking. One also suspects that the MHRA has been leant on, compromising trust further.
Struggling to see the rationale behind this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55507001
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-uk-chief-medical-officers-on-the-prioritisation-of-first-doses-of-covid-19-vaccinesYour point? That Pfizer are saying that the 3 months is an issue is surely a problem?
Your point? That Pfizer are saying that the 3 months is an issue is surely a problem?
The 4 UK Chief Medical Officers agree with the JCVI that at this stage of the pandemic prioritising the first doses of vaccine for as many people as possible on the priority list will protect the greatest number of at risk people overall in the shortest possible time and will have the greatest impact on reducing mortality, severe disease and hospitalisations and in protecting the NHS and equivalent health services.
4 Chief Medical Officers!The devolved nations have a Chief Medical Officer too, so there are four in total.
We are also now allowing patients to receive different vaccines at first and second vaccination points. Against all medical protocols.I think the NYTimes doesn't quite give the full story. This is a contingency for when there has been a delay and the person is high risk. It's not a policy for general
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html?
Led by donkeys.
We are also now allowing patients to receive different vaccines at first and second vaccination points. Against all medical protocols.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html?
Led by donkeys.
UK health officials rejected suggestions that the guidance implied a change of tactics. One said: “The UK has not moved to a mix-and-match regimen.” The approach would be used in exceptional circumstances where the only alternative was not to complete a vaccination course, they said. In practice it would be used rarely if at all, the official added
I think the NYTimes doesn't quite give the full story. This is a contingency for when there has been a delay and the person is high risk. It's not a policy for general
And time for a bit of humble pie, from the BBCs live covid feed
'Germany looking into delaying second vaccine dose - report
Germany is seeking advice on whether to delay giving the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to make supplies go further, in a similar move to the UK, according to a document seen by the Reuters news agency.
The country's health ministry has asked an independent vaccination commission for its opinion on administering the second shot later than 42 days after the first.'
So the UK govt was ahead of a trend, though perhaps needed to manage the message better
Yes, of-course all countries have to consider these strategies as vaccine supply is limited. But the fact remains that there has not been time to test the longer delays between doses, which, in theory, might even be more effective. It is operating in the dark.
It must be recognised that the decision is being taken on a pragmatic and political basis, not a scientific one. That Germany or other countries may take the same path increases the risks, not vindicate risks already being taken.
Modellers have suggested that increasing the period to the 2nd dose to 12 weeks could save around 6000 UK lives. On the other hand, there is an unknown probability and cost of variants of this slippery virus escaping the vaccines.
But it does suggest that the move isn't the 'reckless' idea that some have suggested, but rather an appropriate if somewhat desperate measure that a range of political appointees would take under the same constraints. It doesn't validate the science, but it does support the idea that it's an appropriate way forward under the circumstances.
O.
'After Tier 5, Tier 6 is martial law, Tier 7 is a planned cull, Tier 8 is a cull but just at random, Tier 9 is Protect & Survive, Tier 10 is the Four Horsemen, Tier 11 is The Rapture, Tier 12 is there is no Rapture, idiots & Tier 13 is Eat Out To Help Out but only at Wetherspoon's'
And time for a bit of humble pie, from the BBCs live covid feed
'Germany looking into delaying second vaccine dose - report
Germany is seeking advice on whether to delay giving the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to make supplies go further, in a similar move to the UK, according to a document seen by the Reuters news agency.
The country's health ministry has asked an independent vaccination commission for its opinion on administering the second shot later than 42 days after the first.'
So the UK govt was ahead of a trend, though perhaps needed to manage the message better
Which one involves emotional cerebro-spinal fluid?
Which one involves emotional cerebro-spinal fluid?
Don't you mean accurate emotional cerebro-spinal fluid?"Righteous accurate emotional cerebro-spinal fluid".
"Righteous accurate emotional cerebro-spinal fluid".
With added 'Dynamism'.Only if it's sprinkled with hormones from a black hole, obviously.
If the case is the trip wasn't approved I hope Celtic get the library thrown at them
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55535738
Even if it were approved, it's completely tone deaf. After Bolingoli acted as he did, link below, , you'd think that they might consider what this looks like. If it was approved then the process is idiotic as things changed considerably.
Idiots.
The club should be fined and the team forced to self isolate for ten days, forfieting any games as a result.
(And I favour Celtic, nominally, at least)
Oi, Starmer, no!Quite right. Good for Sir Keir.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/tv/sir-keir-starmer-says-laws-19563627
Quite right. Good for Sir Keir.It's idiotic, and will create a ridiculous backlash, as well as undermining political debate.
Just to remind anyone who has forgotten, why Johnson is a dangerous idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3NAx3tsy-k
And yet as the evidence mounts of his complete incompetence a large minority (37% on Yougov here: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating ) still choose to believe that he is doing a good job.The thing is that there are tons of things that could be done better without this incompetence
Astonishing to me.
And yet as the evidence mounts of his complete incompetence a large minority (37% on Yougov here: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating ) still choose to believe that he is doing a good job.
Astonishing to me.
Don't you think that Tory voters are irrational evil horrible people?Nice to see you think sending children back to school for one day in some areas was a great idea.
Don't you think that Tory voters are irrational evil horrible people?
Germany intends to stick to recommendations by BioNTech and Pfizer regarding the administration of a second dose of their Covid-19 vaccines rather than delaying it, health minister Jens Spahn said.
Germany has asked an independent expert panel for advice on whether to allow a delay in administering the second dose to make scarce supplies go further, after a similar move by Britain last week.
“My impression is that it makes a lot of sense, especially with these sensitive issues, where trust and reliability are important, that we stick to the approval,” Spahn told a news conference, adding that this was in line with the initial feedback he had received from the vaccination experts."
The EU said it should order vaccines collectively, now it turns out Germany has ordered an extra 30 million byt itself for its own citizens. Bet there won't be any sanctions for Germany. One rule for the big states and fuck the rest.
I hear on the news that 1,000 plus deaths have been announced today. Is there any record kept of where these deaths are, and who, in general, they are
Thank you. I put in BH25 but I think it then showed a map so I would be grateful if you could let me know what it shows?
You can get summary figures by postcode here
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Not sure if there are general figures for who is dying produced.
Thank you. I put in BH25 but I think it then showed a map so I would be grateful if you could let me know what it shows?It gives figures for the county. Total cases 5557. Rolling rate per 100,000 - 642.3. Above the average by about 45%
Thank you. I put in BH25 but I think it then showed a map so I would be grateful if you could let me know what it shows?Looking at it goes to lower levels and your postcode has 28 cases, and a rolling rate of 440 per 100,000 which is bang on average
It gives figures for the county. Total cases 5557. Rolling rate per 100,000 - 642.3. Above the average by about 15%Thank you. Those figures are probably due mor to the the eastern side of Hampshire although I do not know of course, but just over the border to the west is the Christchurch/Bournemouth/Poole area so they will probably have highish numbers.
Thank you. Those figures are probably due mor to the the eastern side of Hampshire although I do not know of course, but just over the border to the west is the Christchurch/Bournemouth/Poole area so they will probably have highish numbers.
ETA that I did not see above about local cases. Many thanks for the info.
A friend phoned to say that apparently Sir Desmond Swayne, local NFW MP, is not at all pleased about the New forest area being put into tier four.
Link?https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN29916N
Not really sure how what any country orders relates to how much ir receives or how quickly.
My parents both received their first shots of the Pfizer vaccine today.Great news. I'm getting annoyed that my mother doesn't have a date for it yet.
Did I say that?
Now go away and have this imaginary conversation where you make up things I haven't said , and have it someplace else.
Great news. I'm getting annoyed that my mother doesn't have a date for it yet.
You won't want to hear this then... My dad appears to have managed to jump the queue. My mother was a fairly high priority due to being over 70 and having asthma and high blood pressure. They just gave him his shot because he was there, accompanying mum (he's also over seventy but doesn't have any other risk factors).
The 'alternative vaccine'He's a Tory, and therefore a heartless spunktrumpet, but this is a non-story.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-minister-champagne-covid-lockdown-b1782539.html
He's a Tory, and therefore a heartless spunktrumpet, but this is a non-story.
Careful. You'll have the right wing thought police after you.
Relative to you isn't everyone right-wing?Portraying a centre leftist like Trentvoyager as somehow extremist left winger tedious, and also the sort of thing that you complain about others doing.
Portraying a centre leftist like Trentvoyager as somehow extremist left winger tedious, and also the sort of thing that you complain about others doing.
It's also extremely tedious hearing people say every Tory is a "heartless spunktrumpet" even though it is true of this particular minister. How about we stop stereotyping everybody according to our prejudices?I think you want to address that to Nye Scuppertea.
Portraying a centre leftist like Trentvoyager as somehow extremist left winger tedious, and also the sort of thing that you complain about others doing.
I will happily apologise if I'm wrong, this is my thinking....I don't think Trentvoyager was a very strong supporter of Corbyn. So I think you have to provide evidence for your assertion. That you complain about just dismissing views because of strawmen seems exactly what you are doing here.
Corbyn is the most extreme left-wing politician of note we have seen since the 1970's. As Trent was a very keen supporter of Corbyn it would be rational to conclude he is extremely left wing.
I complain when peoples views are dismissed or straw manned just because they are of a particular persuasion.
Would quite happily debate the merits of any political policy or ideology and have attempted to debate these with Trent, the debates don't get very far.
A recent exchange by way of example ended with Trent stating 'quite frankly you are one or two sandwiches short of a picnic'.
I think you want to address that to Nye Scuppertea.
Speaking of whom, not relevant to this thread but still, would like to know the meaning of Nye's latest name. I thought maybe 'Nye' referred to new year's eve but that is too obvious. Does he vandalise the tea table? Would love to know Nye, if you join this thread.
I liked and supported Jeremy Corbyn & wouldn't consider myself to be extreme left. Moderately left probably.
Speaking of whom, not relevant to this thread but still, would like to know the meaning of Nye's latest name. I thought maybe 'Nye' referred to new year's eve but that is too obvious. Does he vandalise the tea table? Would love to know Nye, if you join this thread.I think it's just creating a name as a homonym of Nice cup of tea.
I liked and supported Jeremy Corbyn & wouldn't consider myself to be extreme left. Moderately left probably.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN29916N
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/germany-says-eu-wide-vaccination-strategy-is-the-right-way/a-56127798
The idea was that EU members would order the vaccine collectively so that all member states would get a fair share. Bilateral deals were discouraged in the name of solidarity. That's 30 million extra doses that could have been distributed amongst all the states. Now they're going all to Germany. One rule for them!
I don't think Trentvoyager was a very strong supporter of Corbyn. So I think you have to provide evidence for your assertion.
That you complain about just dismissing views because of strawmen seems exactly what you are doing here.
The rest of your post just reads as 'He started it'
I think neither have to provide evidence because we are merely stating what we think. If we do have to provide evidence then your statement "Trentvoyager was 'not' a very strong supporter of Corbyn" would also need evidence.You've made a claim to justify your position. Your-s is the positive claim. I have a lack of belief in it
That wasn't my complaint, I said dismissing views or straw manning just because of their political persuasion. I have neither dismissed anyone's view or used a strawman JUST because of their political persuasion.
No, I have found in the past that instead of getting into a debate on topic it descends into name calling, which rather poetically is where you ended. :)
You've made a claim to justify your position. Your-s is the positive claim. I have a lack of belief in it
Pointing out that your argument amounts only to 'He started it' isn't name calling.
Anyway given you aren't willing to evidence your position, apnd given this is fairly off topic, I will draw a line.
Just to clarify, and hopefully we can leave , and return to the thread. I offered more than once that I didn't find Corbyn convincing. This wasn't based as such on policy but on the fact that he was not to my mind a good leader. So it proved.
Anyhow, for whatever reason one poster seemed to find it amusing to characterise me as some kind of militant left wing firebrand. Which I decidedly am not. I feel much more comfortable with Starmer as leader as he represents more my particular view of the world.
That a poster clearly identifies themselves as "right wing thought police" entertains me.
Perhaps it will make them more restrained in future when they misrepresent other posters.
'Nice cuppa tea'Corbyn wasn't really all that far Left, just Old-Labour. He'd've fitted in well in Attlee's 1945 cabinet. Talking of which, yes "Nye Scuppertea"="Nice cuppa tea", and "Nye" is short for Aneurin, as in Nye Bevan.
I dislike Corbyn he was too far to the left for my taste.
Corbyn was a polytechnic Trotskyite who never completed the course.This is pure snobbery.
This is pure snobbery.
In what way?He only went to Polytechnic and didn't get a degree, so he must be rubbish, unlike all the Eton-and-Oxbridge whizz-kids who are doing such a great job of running the country and tackling Covid. (He's not a Trot, either.)
He only went to Polytechnic and didn't get a degree, so he must be rubbish, unlike all the Eton-and-Oxbridge whizz-kids who are doing such a great job of running the country and tackling Covid. (He's not a Trot, either.)
This sort of ridiculous type of policing does real damage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55594244
Some impact
Idiots.
The club should be fined and the team forced to self isolate for ten days, forfieting any games as a result.
(And I favour Celtic, nominally, at least)
I have an appointment this week for Friday afternoon for my first vaccine jab and 9th April for the second one.There is a whole idea that the over 80s will be 'vaccinated' by some time in Feb which plays on an equivocation about vaccination being one jab or 2
And in the land of bullshit nutcrackers bollock conspiracy theories:Some moron at my place of work scrawled 5G nonsense in one of the cubicles in the gent's bogs.
https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/01/11/popular-rabbi-warns-followers-covid-vaccine-could-make-you-gay/
Now, what I want to know is what effect does it have on me?
Does it turn me straight, or make me super gay?
And in the land of bullshit nutcrackers bollock conspiracy theories:Definitely the second. You get to wear a cape and can shoot gay rays out of your eyes that make straight people gay.
https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/01/11/popular-rabbi-warns-followers-covid-vaccine-could-make-you-gay/
Now, what I want to know is what effect does it have on me?
Does it turn me straight, or make me super gay?
I had my second vaccine last week and my 7 days immunisation period will be up tomorrow. I will be gay (happy) then.
Scary numbers about the impact on waiting lists.I am very glad my (younger) son had his posterior ligamment repair done before Christmas ... after a wait since March.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55575112
For once this seems like the UK govt acting quite timeously. So hurrah. (Note: for those outwith Scotland, timeously is used to mean done in time) (Further note: for those outwith Scotland, outwith is a Scottish term, near synoymous with outside)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55671656
Didn't know "outwith" was a Scottish term, always been used in our family.
Anyway, to substance, I disagree about the timeously bit, if they should have gleaned anything about this virus at all it is that a delay is a mistake, and a deadly one at that. They knew about this new variant (Brazillian) on Sunday last, they should have stopped all travel on Monday, not sit on their hands until Thursday. I know there are difficulties doing this but they should have acted sooner, these are not ordinary times.
I'll bet you a bottom dollar the variant is here already.
Someone told Boris Johnson that five Brazilian people in the UK have the new variant of Covid-19. "Oh God, that's terrible news!" He said. "Er... how many is a Brazillion?".
Your bottom dollar is safe
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55676637
Hardly felt the jab,but arm feels slightly bruised this morning. I have a card to say I've had it and have to take with me when going for second one in April.Ah.... But did you feel that monitor chip they inserted...the one which fries your brain if you don't think in their bubble?
Ah.... But did you feel that monitor chip they inserted...the one which fries your brain if you don't think in their bubble?... and when you have the second jab, they insert the fish to go with the chips and the frying continues.
After all the efforts by Australia to keep Covid out, this has to feel like a gut punch to many Australians
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55683035
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/55687722
Blunt but fair from Nick Kyrgios
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55713453
Just goes to show how top sports stars can be so out of touch with the real world.You should have a look at Neil Lennon's rant yesterday. To be fair he's about to lose his job but unhinged. I think tons of the people in Melbourne are going to be pissed off with this given the length and severity of their lockdown.
Just talked to my mother after her jag.
New car? ;)The jag/jab divide
You should have a look at Neil Lennon's rant yesterday. To be fair he's about to lose his job but unhinged. I think tons of the people in Melbourne are going to be pissed off with this given the length and severity of their lockdown.
Priti Patel the Home Secretary calls out lack of action by Priti Patel the Home Secretary.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-55733357?__twitter_impression=true
Presumably she argued for stronger controls but was overruled?And if she felt that strongly about should have resigned. She accepted cabinet collective responsibility then but has just broken it with this.
And if she felt that strongly about should have resigned. She accepted cabinet collective responsibility then but has just broken it with this.
Does "collective responsibility" mean that no minister can admit that the "cabinet" made mistakes earlier?Not when saying they disagreed with the decision at the time.
Not sure it has been raised, Gabriella. I meant to after watching Channel 4 news reporting on it but I got distracted. The problem is wider than the BAME community and the virus. AS we see Trump leave, there are a lot of people who voted for him because he didn't sound like a 'normal' politicianAll very gloomy and, even more depressingly, probably really believable.
Also the fact that the community has been more affected by Covid, then makes a narrative that it is somehow aimed at that purpose stronger. Hence easier to make the vaccine suspect.
Not when saying they disagreed with the decision at the time.
ETA and remaining in post throughout.
That's how it works normally. You don't have to resign just because you disagree with a collective decision. If you did, there would be two or three resignations after every cabinet meeting.That's what I said
Of course, you also shouldn't be throwing the rest of the cabinet under the bus several months later.
From BBC live feed, horrendous news:Pretty bad, but it's actually "yesterday's news". This is the delayed reaction from the extremely high infection rates from a couple of weeks ago.
UK records new daily high of 1,820 Covid deaths
A further 1,820 people have died in the UK within 28 days of a positive Covid test - the biggest figure reported in a single day since the pandemic began.
It means the total number of deaths by that measure is now 93,290.
Yesterday's figure of 1,610 deaths was the previous highest daily total.
Another 38,905 positive Covid cases have also been reported in the past 24 hoursThis is actually good news. The infections are coming down from the stratospheric heights of a couple of weeks ago. This means the new lockdown and possibly the vaccinations are working.
Pretty bad, but it's actually "yesterday's news". This is the delayed reaction from the extremely high infection rates from a couple of weeks ago.This is actually good news. The infections are coming down from the stratospheric heights of a couple of weeks ago. This means the new lockdown and possibly the vaccinations are working.I think referring to 1820 deaths as -yesterday's news shows a severe lack of empathy. It also brushes away any responsibility for the death rates.
The overall message of today's figures should be cautious optimism.
I know it's not good for my blood pressure but I watched Piers Morgan interview Gavin Williamson on GMTV this morning.
Can someone please explain to me why Williamson is even an MP, let alone the Education Secretary?
His answers on education and how covid impacts on it have to be seen to be believed.
He was totally abysmal. It was like watching an android that had got stuck in some kind of feedback loop that just keeps repeating stock phrases over and over again. It was unbelievably excruciating.
Clip here: https://tinyurl.com/williamsongmtv
Agreed!To he clear, I think he's got an incredibly shit job to do in an incredibly shit time buy he's managed to match that by being incredibly shit at it. Watching the interview was watching someone who knows they are not up to the job. He looked broken subservient, devoid of belief. I remember Estelle Morris resigning because she didn't think she was up to it but I suspect she had more self awareness than Williamson.
If I were running the country I'd introduce a law applying to politicians 'if you fail to answer question 3 times it will amount to instant dismissal'.
I know it's not good for my blood pressure but I watched Piers Morgan interview Gavin Williamson on GMTV this morning.That's one link I certainly will avoid at all costs. I agree with what you say. How that man can think he is any use at all as an Education Secretary is beyond understanding.
Can someone please explain to me why Williamson is even an MP, let alone the Education Secretary?
His answers on education and how covid impacts on it have to be seen to be believed.
He was totally abysmal. It was like watching an android that had got stuck in some kind of feedback loop that just keeps repeating stock phrases over and over again. It was unbelievably excruciating.
Clip here: https://tinyurl.com/williamsongmtv
Hope they get the Torah thrown at them. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55764673The bit about a third party handling the gig's a bit iffy. When we hire out the church hall for private functions (and our rates mean we won't profit by doing so), we know exactly who, when, why and times of occupancy - we have to, because of fire regs
Resigned because they realised they had too. Up till now they have been utterly tone deaf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-55767262
I know it's not good for my blood pressure but I watched Piers Morgan interview Gavin Williamson on GMTV this morning.Because his constituents got sloppy and lazily voted Tory.
Can someone please explain to me why Williamson is even an MP, let alone the Education Secretary?
Because his constituents got sloppy and lazily voted Tory.Blaming voters is a guarantee to losing again
Blaming voters is a guarantee to losing againWho is ultimately responsible though....that’s right the voters.
Who is ultimately responsible though....that’s right the voters.I am saying blaming then it will mean you lose. If political parties have no responsibility for losing votes they are pointless.
Are you suggesting feeding the voters an ersatz reality where the voter is right but betrayed in a way the voter could not have forseen?
I think referring to 1820 deaths as -yesterday's news shows a severe lack of empathy.No it doesn't. It's addressing facts.
It also brushes away any responsibility for the death rates.No it doesn't. Don't worry, there are plenty of things you can bash the government with even while accepting that things are improving.
No it doesn't. It's addressing facts.Deaths of 1820 people is not just about facts. That you want to portray it that way illustrates your lack of empathy.
No it doesn't. Don't worry, there are plenty of things you can bash the government with even while accepting that things are improving.
Deaths of 1820 people is not just about facts. That you want to portray it that way illustrates your lack of empathy.But I am right. Things are improving. You can't argue against that by insulting me.
Deaths of 1820 people is not just about facts. That you want to portray it that way illustrates your lack of empathy.Bloody sympathy! I hate that trendy word "empathy" - it's like "sympathy", but cold and clinical, with all the warmth removed.
Bloody sympathy! I hate that trendy word "empathy" - it's like "sympathy", but cold and clinical, with all the warmth removed.They mean different things, and empathy here is the correct one since it's about the ability to understand the feelings of others.
But I am right. Things are improving. You can't argue against that by insulting me.Because it was the worst day for deaths we've had. Go and tell the families devastated by that that their deaths were good news,
The tragedy that led to those 1,820 deaths happened at the beginning of January when the infections went out of control, not on the day they were reported.
Read this thread. It's mostly an unremitting tale of doom and gloom. Don't you want to hear some good news? Why do you need to try to discredit it?
They mean different things, and empathy here is the correct one since it's about the ability to understand the feelings of others.No they don't, and sympathy means that as well. Please explain why you think the meanings are different.
No they don't, and sympathy means that as well. Please explain why you think the meanings are different.See below.
Because it was the worst day for deaths we've had. Go and tell the families devastated by that that their deaths were good news,
You are lying. I did not say the deaths are good news. I said that the overall figures were grounds for cautious optimism because the infections were going down. Again I ask, what have you got against me pointing out that there is some good news?You called the deaths of 1820 people 'yesterday's news'.
This line of attack by you is utterly contemptible.
Some good news. (https://uk.yahoo.com/news/london-coronavirus-cases-borough-revealed-072056589.html)Lots of good news.
More on the issues with supply affecting the EU. The companies seem to have over promised.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/eu-threatens-to-block-covid-vaccine-exports-amid-astrazeneca-shortfall?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0hnp5agXNaw2GNmWFXcMdINT-G0bUbXe_VMUQxdQdyC6wAtuDGMgQD6Qo
I reckon astrazeneca is giving preferntial treatment to certain countries, backhanders and everything, and that's why they can't fulfill their contract with the EU.
While I might agree with some of this, the use of a blanket 'scientists say' is not accurate based on the report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55820178
Just ffs!Twenty years in prison? Fed and sheltered with TV etc probably? Far, far too lenient. This is where the old stocks, with public humiliation seems more appropriate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55821623
Hope this is a false alarm
http://www.wrexham.com/news/bomb-disposal-unit-attends-ongoing-incident-on-wrexham-industrial-estate-wockhardt-factory-closed-off-199680.html
So do I. :o Our youngest daughter's in-laws live not far from that site.Made it to BBC
Hope this is a false alarmSo there appears to have been a controlled explosion and roads are now reopened
http://www.wrexham.com/news/bomb-disposal-unit-attends-ongoing-incident-on-wrexham-industrial-estate-wockhardt-factory-closed-off-199680.html
EU losing plot on vaccinesAlthough I have to say there is a significant level of hypocrisy from Gove on the radio this morning.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-covid-vaccine-row-astrazeneca-european-commission?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR1Wl_oCyGk-Gl76ouWVZsbMHLc0j-6wvcW2LlJj7-OAunnpm6bQeCU9jA0
Although I have to say there is a significant level of hypocrisy from Gove on the radio this morning.Though part of the reason that we appear to getting a supply is that UK govt worked at setting up more manufacturing in the UK.
His line - that the UK should receive the vaccines they have ordered, paid for as scheduled in the contract the UK had signed. Fair enough, but frankly that seems to be all the EU are expecting too.
Though part of the reason that we appear to getting a supply is that UK govt worked at setting up more manufacturing in the UK.But there has also been development manufacturing facilities within the EU too - and let's not forget that I think all the Pfizer vaccine we have been using has been manufactured in the EU.
The bigger problem though is overall vaccine nationalism as this is a stushie between 2 rich areas both of which are getting a substantially higher % of vaccines than their population %. The whole of Covid has been light on international cooperation outwith of the drug companiesTrue - but it is naive to think that the richer countries wont use their money and influence to ensure they get vaccine supplies as fast as possible.
But there has also been development manufacturing facilities within the EU too - and let's not forget that I think all the Pfizer vaccine we have been using has been manufactured in the EU.Yes, but the UK govt isn't trying to say it will somehow commandeer the amounts produced in Europe, and the capacity vs UK population is a considerably higher ratio than the EU capacity vs population.
True - but it is naive to think that the richer countries wont use their money and influence to ensure they get vaccine supplies as fast as possible.
And actually in that statement perhaps lies the solution - for rich countries to be able to vaccine their whole populations very rapidly there needs to be massive manufacturing capacity and those rich countries will invest in that capacity. As the richer countries head towards everyone being vaccinated that capacity can shift to providing vast amounts of vaccines to less developed countries - but you need that capacity in the first place.
Yes, but the UK govt isn't trying to say it will somehow commandeer the amounts produced in Europe, and the capacity vs UK population is a considerably higher ratio than the EU capacity vs population.But that is based on a presumption that vaccines produced in the UK are for home consumption, and those produced in the EU for EU consumption.
But that is based on a presumption that vaccines produced in the UK are for home consumption, and those produced in the EU for EU consumption.That the EU are wanting vaccines produced in the UK to cover a shortfall, and that the numbers that are being promised to the EU from EU production are in numbers of5million or so show this.
That isn't the case - various countries and groups of countries have entered into contracts with commercial organisations to supply vaccines - I doubt those contracts make any mention of where those vaccines are produced.
And I'm not sure it is the case that the UK has higher production capacity per capital than the rest of europe. I've certainly not seen any data to indicate this - so if you think that is true, can you provide the evidence please.
Covid takes us back to the 1950sAnd advert withdrawn
https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/government-coronavirus-advert-sexist
That the EU are wanting vaccines produced in the UK to cover a shortfall, and that the numbers that are being promised to the EU from EU production are in numbers of5million or so show this.No - your assumption makes no sense, unless you think that every vaccine contract signed by a country is for x million vaccines produced in that country - that isn't the case and has never been the case. There is no suggestion that all the vaccines bought by the EU will be manufactured in the EU, nor that all the vaccines bought by the UK will be manufactured in the UK. So the suggestion that the EU want vaccines manufactured in the UK to cover a 'shortfall' is meaningless.
No - your assumption makes no sense, unless you think that every vaccine contract signed by a country is for x million vaccines produced in that country - that isn't the case and has never been the case. There is no suggestion that all the vaccines bought by the EU will be manufactured in the EU, nor that all the vaccines bought by the UK will be manufactured in the UK. So the suggestion that the EU want vaccines manufactured in the UK to cover a 'shortfall' is meaningless.You're very confused. If I claim there is a greater capacity per head to produce vaccines in the UK than the EU, where those vaccines are then used is of no impact to that statement
Let's not forget that the UK has ordered 40 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine - as far as I am aware every one of those doses will come from the EU as there is no Pfizer vaccine manufacturing facility in the UK. Is the UK wanting Pfizer vaccines produced in the EU because it has a 'shortfall' - of course not, it ordered 40 million doses and it, quite reasonably expects those 40 million doses to be delivered (in this case from EU manufacturing facilities). No doubt the UK would be pretty hacked off if Pfizer told them 'sorry chum, you aren't getting your (EU manufactured) vaccines because the EU wants them. Likewise the EU have every right to expect their AZ vaccines contract to be honoured too, regardless of whether they are being manufactured. And far more AZ vaccines are being manufactured in the EU than Pfizer ones are being manufactured in the UK AFAIK.
You're very confused. If I claim there is a greater capacity per head to produce vaccines in the UK than the EU, where those vaccines are then used is of no impact to that statementBut you have failed to provide any evidence that there is greater capacity to manufacture vaccines per head in the UK rather than in the EU. Until or unless you do that any discussion about the impact of 'greater capacity' in one place or the other is, frankly, moot.
But you have failed to provide any evidence that there is greater capacity to manufacture vaccines per head in the UK rather than in the EU. Until or unless you do that any discussion about the impact of 'greater capacity' in one place or the other is, frankly, moot.
Off you pop and find the evidence to support your claim of greater capacity per head to produce vaccines in the UK than the EU.
Which tells us nothing about the capacity for manufacture of the vaccine. You might have said that all of the early vaccinations in the UK were sourced from the EU (as they were Pfizer ones) and therefore the UK must have lacked manufacturing capacity. That would be a non-sense statement, just as your comment is non-sense without evidence to back it up.
Apart from that being clearly implied by the attempts by the EU to get vaccines from the UK - which given they are already behind in vaccination by around 8% of the population - their motivation to do so is based on the lack of vaccines in Europe creating the shortfall.
And as Udayana also covered that's what can be worked out from the details here.Where in the article does it give vaccine manufacturing capacities for the UK vs the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/why-has-astrazeneca-cut-vaccines-to-eu-and-will-it-impact-uk-
Which tells us nothing about the capacity for manufacture of the vaccine. You might have said that all of the early vaccinations in the UK were sourced from the EU (as they were Pfizer ones) and therefore the UK must have lacked manufacturing capacity. That would be a non-sense statement, just as your comment is non-sense without evidence to back it up.The early supply from Pfizer is a past situation so irrelevant to where we are now where the UK is working on its production of the AZ vaccine, and the EU being far behind in vaccination is unable to catch up on the capacity they have in any combination of AZ and Pfizer.
Where in the article does it give vaccine manufacturing capacities for the UK vs the EU.
And before you say 'look at the info-graphic', read it properly - this is capacity to produce the AstraZeneca vaccine - sure the UK's capacity for the AZ vaccine (100million) looks higher per head than the EU (400million). But the UK doesn't, as far as I'm aware, have any production facilities for the other approved vaccines, the Pfizer and Moderna - while the EU does (and indeed supplies the UK with these vaccines).
So you cannot conclude anything about overall vaccine production capacity from that article.
The early supply from Pfizer is a past situation so irrelevant to where we are now where the UK is working on its production of the AZ vaccine, and the EU being far behind in vaccination is unable to catch up on the capacity they have in any combination of AZ and Pfizer.It isn't irrelevant - both the UK and the EU are vaccinating using both AZ and Pfizer vaccines - the EU has production facilities for both, the UK only for the AZ.
It isn't irrelevant - both the UK and the EU are vaccinating using both AZ and Pfizer vaccines - the EU has production facilities for both, the UK only for the AZ.
The question of production capacity is simple - when working at full capacity how many vaccines (AZ, Pfizer, Moderna) can be produced in production facilities in the EU compared to vaccines (AZ, Pfizer, Moderna) that can be produced at production facilities in the UK. Now in terms of capacity per head, you'll then need to divide by the relevant population. However I do not have those data and nor do you so your claim of greater capacity per head to produce vaccines in the UK than the EU isn't backed up by any evidence.
However the notion of production capacity in a particular country is actually only relevant if the way in which the vaccine is distributed is on the basis that people in country X only get a vaccine produced in country X. That isn't how it works - country X enters into a contract with company A to deliver Z-million vaccine doses over a period of time B. Where those vaccines are produced isn't part of the deal - or if it was Belgium and the Netherlands would be laughing as they are largely responsible for the non-american production of all Pfizer and Moderna vaccine (I think).
Both the initial Phizer and AZ vaccine supplied in the UK were from Europe - Belgium and Netherlands respectively - the UK capacity (non-existent at the start of 2020 except for small amounts of flu vaccine) has only recently come on-line.True - and I gather also that the EU part-funded the programme to establish capacity to manufacture the AZ vaccine in the UK.
The EU is making the issue territorial - suggesting that UK production was explicitly included in their contract with AZ, and also that they might stop Phizer doses going to the UK.You could, of course, argue it the other way around - in other words that the UK was happy to take Pfizer and AZ vaccines from the EU when the UK vaccine manufacturing capacity was unable to meet demand, however aren't willing to allow AZ vaccines produced in the UK to be shipped to the EU when they are struggling to meet current demand. Either way it is pretty unseemly and I doubt that contracts placed by either EU or UK for either vaccine had stipulations as to their origin of manufacture.
No doubt lawyers could argue forever about what is covered by the contracts, but it is unlikely to help!Perhaps so.
True - and I gather also that the EU part-funded the programme to establish capacity to manufacture the AZ vaccine in the UK.
You could, of course, argue it the other way around - in other words that the UK was happy to take Pfizer and AZ vaccines from the EU when the UK vaccine manufacturing capacity was unable to meet demand, however aren't willing to allow AZ vaccines produced in the UK to be shipped to the EU when they are struggling to meet current demand. Either way it is pretty unseemly and I doubt that contracts placed by either EU or UK for either vaccine had stipulations as to their origin of manufacture.
Perhaps so.
However I think the key point here is that it would appear that AZ are unable currently to meet their contractual agreements for supply of their vaccine to both UK and EU. So what to do - I think in the short term the fairest option is to ensure that both the EU and the UK are impacted proportionally. But of course the only long term solution is to increase capacity to meet the contractual obligations with both the UK and EU.
the contract stipulated that the company would make its "best effort" to meet the EU demand and did not compel the company to stick to a specific timetable - an assertion disputed by the EU.
...And won't be recommended for over 65s in Germany
Note that, until today, the EU couldn't do anything with the AstraZenica vaccine because, only today will it be approved in the EU.
All of this is just hypothesis unless you have sight of the relevant contracts.I gather from comment on the news that the AZ contract with the EU mentions four production sites, two of which are in the UK.
If the EU contract says "vaccine to be supplied from the plants in Belgium and the Netherlands" then the EU doesn't have a leg to stand on in this dispute. If, on the other hand, the British plant is included in the contract, then AstraZenica can't just say "sorry EU", they must make a commercial decision about how to resolve the issue. It's likely that both their UK and EU contracts have penalty clauses which come into effect in the event of failure to commit to delivering contracted vaccines. So those will inform AstraZenica's decision.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55852698
The CEO of AstraZenica said that:
If he is right and if the British contract does stipulate a timetable, the UK must get priority.
It's a horrible mess because, in a ideal world, we would all be sat round a table discussing how to resolve the shortage in a way that is fair to everybody, but political squabbles are clearly getting in the way.
Note that, until today, the EU couldn't do anything with the AstraZenica vaccine because, only today will it be approved in the EU.
I gather from comment on the news that the AZ contract with the EU mentions four production sites, two of which are in the UK.
I doubt that the AZ contract with the UK would be substantially different to that with the EU in terms of 'best efforts'.That's just speculation too. There's only one group of people that have full knowledge of both contracts and they seem to be of the opinion that AstraZenica's best interests are served by throttling EU supplies but not UK supplies.
...
5.4 Manufacturing sites AstraZenaca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU (which for the purposes of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom) and may manufacture the Vaccine in non-EU facilities, ...
It's all just speculation unless these people have seen the contract and even if true, it doesn't necessarily mean they have to use the UK sites. The contract might say (as an example, obviously, I haven't seen it either) "the contract will be fulfilled from site e and u and AstraZenica may use sites g and b to make up any shortfall". In that case, AstraZenica are not obligated to fulfil EU orders from Great Britain. Change "may" to "must" and it's a different story.5.4 Manufacturing sites AstraZenaca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU (which for the purposes of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom) and may manufacture the Vaccine in non-EU facilities, ...5.4 Manufacturing sites AstraZenaca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU (which for the purposes of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom) and may manufacture the Vaccine in non-EU facilities, ...
As an aside, the contracts manager of the first company I worked in said "never sign a contract that commits you to 'best efforts'". He would always insist on it being replaced with "reasonable efforts" because the former commits you to fixing everything even at the cost of bankrupting the company.It would appear the contract uses the term Best Reasonable Efforts.
That seems pretty clear that the UK manufacturing sites are treated in exactly the same way as the EU sites in terms of their obligation to deliver the vaccines the EU ordered.
It would be interesting to see what the UK contract specifies.It would indeed, but I doubt it will be markedly different in terms of wording and obligations to deliver.
It would indeed, but I doubt it will be markedly different in terms of wording and obligations to deliver.
What would be interesting is to know what would have happened if it had been the UK manufacturing facilities that had hit some issues rather than the EU ones. Would we simply see the same argument in reverse - in other words the UK demanding vaccines from the EU plants to make up for the shortfall in UK production.
Of course the solution here is to solve the production issues and production capacity to ensure that AZ can meet its obligations to both the UK and EU, and the UK and EU both get the vaccines they have ordered in the timeframe specified in their contracts.
The UK has already made clear it will not allow the contract to be published. And there have been remarks indicating that the considerable funding required to establish the plants was provided only on the condition that the UK demand would be met before non-UK.Even if that is true, and you should note that the EU also put funding into the development of the manufacturing facilities in the UK, then a further question arises. Were the EU made aware of this contractual arrangement when they signed with AZ. If not then there are questions about the equivalence on the EU and UK production facilities mentioned in their contract. If the UK had to be serviced first then there cannot be an equivalence in terms of best reasonable efforts to supply from the various facilities.
It could be noted that EU funding for development and production for covid vaccines has been far below that of the UK and USA.True - but then presumably the EU had put more funding into vaccine production facilities as they already had facilities in place, while the UK had little production facility at the outset.
Marina Hyde on vaccine wars, and Desmond Swayne.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/29/nationalism-vaccine-mutation-uk-eu?__twitter_impression=true
I believe he is SusanDoris's MP.
I rather liked her bit on Desmond Swayne.Hiw such a person becomes an MP I'll never know.
I believe he is SusanDoris's MP.I've read the Guardian link and that sort of damning article by a very anti-conservative is not for me.
I've read the Guardian link and that sort of damning article by a very anti-conservative is not for me.I don't think Michael Gove is very anti-conservative.
I will reserve judgement until I see his blog for this week.
EU continue to flail aboutBad news for the UK, but completely understandable. Frankly if the UK feels they should have first dibs on vaccines made in the UK, then it is hardly surprising (nor unreasonable) for the EU to feel they should have first dibs on vaccines made in the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-55860540?__twitter_impression=true
Bad news for the UK, but completely understandable. Frankly if the UK feels they should have first dibs on vaccines made in the UK, then it is hardly surprising (nor unreasonable) for the EU to feel they should have first dibs on vaccines made in the EU.And quite possibly creating a border in Ireland jeopardising the Good Friday agreement and handing a huge boost to Brexit and Johnson
Phew.. Back from the brink at least, but damage to be assessed...
Quite a lot given the widespread condemnation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55865539
Re Sir Desmond Swayne
NFW members have been sent quite a long letter. Latest blog not on line yet. There is one section which I willl quote when I have seen latest blog. He does not lie, and I have no reason to believe that he has done so in his letter even though I have read it only once so far.
The MP for New Forest West sat among the SNP benches in the House of Commons as he argued that Parliament's social-distancing procedures are "ridiculous".
Also good value for his constituents sleeping on the job and all (2nd photo down):
https://www.aol.co.uk/tory-mp-desmond-swayne-benefits-174847716.html?
He's a keeper ain't he?
Yea - he sounds like a real sweetheart:I have to say I am somewhat concerned but will do some more reading tomorrow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-52911053
I think bigoted, unthinking halfwit covers it.
Also he really takes Covid seriously doesn't he?
5.4 Manufacturing sites AstraZenaca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU (which for the purposes of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom) and may manufacture the Vaccine in non-EU facilities, ...Except that that seems to be a clause to try to keep manufacturing within the EU. It's a clause that says "you can't use your plant in Africa (as a hypothetical) if you have capacity in the EU or the UK". It does not say "you must use capacity in the UK to make up for lack of capacity in the EU.
That seems pretty clear that the UK manufacturing sites are treated in exactly the same way as the EU sites in terms of their obligation to deliver the vaccines the EU ordered.
It would appear the contract uses the term Best Reasonable Efforts.
Captain Tom Moore in hospital with CovidThat is really very bad news indeed. It is very hard for the very old to fight off pneumonia anyway, but to have the added problem of that deadly virus .... well, that's just not fair on this particular gentleman.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-55881508
That is really very bad news indeed. It is very hard for the very old to fight off pneumonia anyway, but to have the added problem of that deadly virus .... well, that's just not fair on this particular gentleman.
site blogs, my speeches in Parliament and indeed, what I said to the PM last Wednesday:Personally, I worry about the extent of the economic problems, not on my own behalf but for my granddaughters and their families as well as all other similar younger people.
Sir Desmond Swayne
To lift lockdown, will my right hon. Friend focus exclusively on the progress of vaccinations of those who are most likely to be hospitalised if infected? Is it not the case that mission creep beyond hospitalisations would inevitably lead to the diminution of our sense of urgency to lift the restrictions?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right and he gets to the heart of the problem in the pretend policy that has been announced by the Opposition party. If we were to interfere with the JCVI 1 to 9 list, which is intended to target those most vulnerable and those most at risk of dying or of hospitalisation, we would, of course, interpolate it with other people appointed by politicians, taking vaccines away from the more vulnerable groups and, as he has rightly said, delay our ability to move forward out of lockdown. He is spot on.
I did also point out that he was being criticised by Michael GoveI'm afraid I don't take much notice of Michael Gove - not someone who appeals. Not too keen on Priti Patel either!
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/swayne-may-still-face-party-action-after-refusing-to-apologise-for-covid-remarks/31/01/
I'm afraid I don't take much notice of Michael Gove - not someone who appeals. Not too keen on Priti Patel either!It does make clear though that the concern is not just 'anti- Conservative'
Stupidity
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-55886085
If you must break the law, don't take a picture of yourself doing it and definitely don't post the picture on social media.
Pandemic? What pandemic? What's Covid?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/02/teenager-emerges-after-10-month-coma-with-no-knowledge-of-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR1-CqlWsRy1LSzwMPHt-2cPpxDpb0cFzivPcOfMBk9YNL68lBkkR7NLVjk
Von Der Leyen keeps digging
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/ursula-von-der-leyen-accuses-uk-of-compromising-on-vaccine-safety?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR1hM0KEg_V0Z4GysXn1o4g3J5Rh04OjgZUCDgqFZ8U8CbCnqw1L8R46MOE
You mean UNDER 65s.Yes, thanks
Really???
"None of us were able to predict" coronavirus would mutate or variants would emerge - Dido Harding, head of the National Institute for Health Protection
One has to question who she means by "us".Indeed! If she was someone randomly opining, the 'us' wouldn't be so scary. Given she's been in charge of a £20bn failure, her complete lack of knowledge is a bit more concerning.
It is pretty clear the virus is evolving, after all that is how it jumped to us from bats. The wider it spreads the faster its development. The whole point of test and trace is (or was) to stop that spread.
Really???I found it hard to believe she might have said that, but unfortunately, I have found a citation that confirms it.
"None of us were able to predict" coronavirus would mutate or variants would emerge - Dido Harding, head of the National Institute for Health Protection
Between that business plan being published and us going into the lockdown that we are in now we have seen the virus mutate. We have seen the new variant emerge, which was something that none of us were able to predict
Dido & Granteus - making the UK look more intelligent by the day."Dido, Queen of Carnage", as Marina Hyde (I think) called her in the Grauniad.
But where, oh where are the mourning cupids.
Meanwhile Piers Corbyn arrested over vaccine 'Auschwitz leaflet'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55933373
Coming soon, Vaccine Passports?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/travel/coronavirus-vaccine-passports.html?fbclid=IwAR1xbOuCD8EZl4bkB8L6hjr1fu76tpP-0uIPIE1ohg1TfS43R1yqLqY4SK8
When we had our jab yesterday my husband and I were given vaccine record cards, stating the date we had it, the vaccine used, which arm it was put in, and the date the next one is due.And I hope that, when the vaccination programme is over, pubs and restaurants ask to see your card before you're admitted. I don't think that the selfish refusers should be allowed to endanger the rest of us, given that the vaccines are not 100% effective.
And I hope that, when the vaccination programme is over, pubs and restaurants ask to see your card before you're admitted. I don't think that the selfish refusers should be allowed to endanger the rest of us, given that the vaccines are not 100% effective.
Headlines on some papers in the newsagents saying restrictions should be over, or almost over, by May.
I agree you should have to present your vaccine card when visiting anywhere you will be in close contact with others, when lockdown ends. However, I suspect it could be another year or two before the pandemic is over, so new spikes are more than likely to occur if people don't behave sensibly.
I agree you should have to present your vaccine card when visiting anywhere you will be in close contact with others, when lockdown ends. However, I suspect it could be another year or two before the pandemic is over, so new spikes are more than likely to occur if people don't behave sensibly.I don't know why you think that: with the vaccines being administered* world-wide, and a sane president now in charge in the USA, it should be all over, more or less, in a few months.
I don't know why you think that: with the vaccines being administered* world-wide, and a sane president now in charge in the USA, it should be all over, more or less, in a few months.
*Sorry, "rolled out": apparently, that's the official expression that we're all obliged to use.**
**Note for Owlswing: this is sarcasm.
We shall see, but I can't say I am optimistic.Why not?
Why not?
Because many people don't act in a sensible way.Like this?
Like this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-55950930
Just like that. Hardly a day goes by with the police breaking up a large party or a rave. They must know they are likely to get caught and fined so why do it?There are probably a fair few that the police aren't aware of, so get away with it.
There are probably a fair few that the police aren't aware of, so get away with it.
But actually I suspect that many of these huge gatherings get busted and there are probably not too many of them going on. What is probably much more common (and actually far more worrying because they are far less likely to be caught) are gatherings of 10 or so people in someone's house. I suspect these are happening all over the place every night.
You are more than likely correct. Just because the vaccine rollout is going well I don't think anyone can afford to be complacent. It is possible there might be a Covid variant, which is resistant to the present vaccines.Thank you, Little Miss Sunshine. https://youtu.be/SJUhlRoBL8M
Powerful article
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/06/ive-been-called-satan-dr-rachel-clarke-on-facing-abuse-in-the-covid-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true
Worrying news about the Astrazeneca vaccine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-55975052
I agree with LR. It is grossly over the top. Say, for arguments sake, it costs £50,000 a year to incarcerate a person. Is this offence really worth potentially costing the state half a million pounds?The intention though is surely more about deterrent rather than retribution in individual cases. The 10 years is s maximum.
Australian Open crowds stopped
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-56035668
The intention though is surely more about deterrent rather than retribution in individual cases. The 10 years is s maximum.
Note none of the above is saying it's right. I feel that the penalties being possibly that high is influenced by a sense of guilt that the actual measure is a bit late, and in terms of only applying to certain countries a bit light
Depressingmmmm, I don't think I'll go to that link. One thing that has surprised - me and caused a frown or two - is the news that a quite high percentage of those who have died with the Covid 19 not only have other health problems but have some kkind of learning difficulties. I can't remember what the percentage was and that doesn't make the deaths more or less sad, but was the fact suppressed dliberately, or what? Anybody know?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/17/englands-poorest-areas-hit-by-covid-perfect-storm-leaked-report?fbclid=IwAR1KD4bpkJIvfrbsfKw3jLF1AIwWsgE3GB_w5XRXBMYRu7zOeokP28Cu90k
mmmm, I don't think I'll go to that link. One thing that has surprised - me and caused a frown or two - is the news that a quite high percentage of those who have died with the Covid 19 not only have other health problems but have some kkind of learning difficulties. I can't remember what the percentage was and that doesn't make the deaths more or less sad, but was the fact suppressed dliberately, or what? Anybody know?Twice as likely, see link below. I don't think it was suppressed in anyway just hasn't been much discussion of it. Ian Rankin, the author, was on Channel 4 News last night talking about it as he has a son in a care home with learning difficulties and he was arguing that people with learning difficulties should be higher priority than they are.
Twice as likely, see link below. I don't think it was suppressed in anyway just hasn't been much discussion of it. Ian Rankin, the author, was on Channel 4 News last night talking about it as he has a son in a care home with learning difficulties and he was arguing that people with learning difficulties should be higher priority than they are.Thank you - that puts things in perspective a bit more.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-learning-disability-deaths-vaccine-b1796604.html
Thank you - that puts things in perspective a bit more.It would appear that the impacts can be considerably higher than that as well with figures of 1 in 3 in Scotland and 1 in 6 in England, higher in some age groups comparatively. The link below covers this as well as the MSPs trying to get the Scottish Govt to change the priorities.
Just had my first jab (Astra Zeneca). Take that, Covid-19!Hurrah
A little song from a friend
https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR2bfCHZgWs0IPitF3XOFXqmffAe1jdwOtG_HpiMNccx7ATvfvOeJ6adom8&v=67ePnaF9PAk&feature=youtu.be
Also had my vaccination this morning. AZ.hAZzah
Also had my vaccination this morning. AZ.Jolly good show. Did you have to sit in an "observation room" for 10 mins or so afterwards, n case you had a funny turn? I did, but didn't. (Well I did feel ever so slightly woozy just after, but that only lasted 30 secs or so.)
hAZzah;D
Jolly good show. Did you have to sit in an "observation room" for 10 mins or so afterwards, n case you had a funny turn? I did, but didn't. (Well I did feel ever so slightly woozy just after, but that only lasted 30 secs or so.)
I had my first jab (Oxford AZ) in January.
I had no reaction of any kind. I did not even feel the needle entering my arm.
I had my first jab (Oxford AZ) in January.Are you sure they actually did it?
I had no reaction of any kind. I did not even feel the needle entering my arm.
I had my first jab (Oxford AZ) in January.
I had no reaction of any kind. I did not even feel the needle entering my arm.
For someone talking about data not dates, there seem to be.a number of dates. In general though this is at least a plan but all school pupils going back on the same day seems a bit big bang given previous concerns. Note, of course, this is England and in Scotland we have had a partial return today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56158405
It would appear that the impacts can be considerably higher than that as well with figures of 1 in 3 in Scotland and 1 in 6 in England, higher in some age groups comparatively. The link below covers this as well as the MSPs trying to get the Scottish Govt to change the priorities.And some action from the Scottish Govt
https://healthandcare.scot/mobile_default.asp?page=story&story=2467&fbclid=IwAR0fDVyD1N2erMUbMlXciRW_PjkvnzF4ZYztazONzfyhlPzRGOcWA3uQxuU
all school pupils going back on the same day seems a bit big bang given previous concerns.
More detail on Salmond's submissionI think you've put this in the wrong thread!
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-claims-malicious-concerted-23546891.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true
I think you've put this in the wrong thread!I had indeed. Thank you
Oh dear.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/covid-scotland-entire-class-forced-19913298.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true
Teachers 'should be prepared to sacrifice their lives'I have been to the link and read the first part. I have not gone on to 'read more'. The inference could be made that he meant the statement to include actual 'ssacrifice of life' by a teacher, but unless he actually said those words, then the writer of the article cannot be sure that he did correctly infer that. Care should be taken by journalists to make sure they are not implying something that wasn't consciously or deliberately implied, in my opinion.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/covid-schools-reopening-ofsted-teachers-b1807935.html?utm_content=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1614339489
Peter Hitchens bays at the moonFucking irresponsible, stupid, pompous twat. God I hate him! Even more than his equally pompous, thankfully dead, brother!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9307363/PETER-HITCHENS-Ive-Covid-jab-cost-freedom.html
Fucking irresponsible, stupid, pompous twat. God I hate him! Even more than his equally pompous, thankfully dead, brother!
I don't read that awful tabloid so had never heard of the guy, but he sounds a very unpleasant piece of work.
It's a very difficult state of affairs for any government to deal with and I certainly would not like to be in their position. Interesting thought: would they have been so pleased to be in power Dec. '19 if they had known what was ahead of them.
Peter Hitchens bays at the moon
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9307363/PETER-HITCHENS-Ive-Covid-jab-cost-freedom.html
It's a very difficult state of affairs for any government to deal with and I certainly would not like to be in their position. Interesting thought: would they have been so pleased to be in power Dec. '19 if they had known what was ahead of them.
Mad RC Bishops
https://religionnews.com/2021/03/02/bishops-discourage-catholics-from-using-johnson-johnson-vaccine-if-given-a-choice/?fbclid=IwAR1nCRM_7rrt_OcvLh65n1W-kDZgncZyNKztjK2-J0XZMpDj2wG6gcowsVU
I don't think there's a moral problem, but the Catholic statement is mild and reasonable, unlike Roses' typically childish response.
At least I admit to being in my second childhood, I see you have joined me. :P ;D
Getting back to the subject of the virus, I see Biden is not impressed with Texas who have decided to discard the wearing of masks!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56275103
Johnson lying to parliament
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/court-order-shows-boris-johnson-misled-parliament-over-coronavirus-contracts-3156459
Track and Trace 'no clear impact' despite £37bn budgetSurely there was a positive impact......on the bank balance of Tory cronies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56340831
Surely there was a positive impact......on the bank balance of Tory cronies.You don't half post some gonads! How, exactly, is the money wasted going to enrich tory cronies?
Seen in The Guardian:Also in the Grauniad: Dido Harding - Dido Queen of Carnage.
Vallance & Whitty - the two gentleman of corona.
Struggling to understand the reactions by certain govts
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-56357760?__twitter_impression=true
My husband and I had the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, so the reports of blood clots are a bit concerning. However, we seem to be ok, and will have our second dose in mid April.
Apparently there have been 37 reported cases of blood clots in people who have recently received the Oxford Astra-Zeneca vaccine in the EU countries concerned. The total number of vaccines administered is over 17,000,000. Translated into something a little more understandable than a number followed by lots of noughts this suggests that there is one case of blood clotting in the total population - men, women and children - in a city the size of Bristol.And even if they could, having the jab remains much safer than not having it.
There is no reasonable way, given these statistics, in which the blood clotting incidences can be attributed to the vaccine.
Try thinking instead of just reacting.
Apparently there have been 37 reported cases of blood clots in people who have recently received the Oxford Astra-Zeneca vaccine in the EU countries concerned. The total number of vaccines administered is over 17,000,000. Translated into something a little more understandable than a number followed by lots of noughts this suggests that there is one case of blood clotting in the total population - men, women and children - in a city the size of Bristol.
There is no reasonable way, given these statistics, in which the blood clotting incidences can be attributed to the vaccine.
On a pedantic point, "views", like "opinions", are irrelevant when we're talking about verifiable, objective facts. "Everyone is entitled to their own pinion, but not to their own facts" - DP Moynihan.
Is the gap between two Astrazeneca doses 12 weeks in the UK? Here, in India, it is 4 weeks which I think lowers the efficacy to 60% from 90%.
Also, people who have had covid can stop with one jab, I think. The immunity in such cases is said to be 500 times that for people who have not had covid.
Any views?
Is the gap between two Astrazeneca doses 12 weeks in the UK? Here, in India, it is 4 weeks which I think lowers the efficacy to 60% from 90%.
Also, people who have had covid can stop with one jab, I think. The immunity in such cases is said to be 500 times that for people who have not had covid.
Any views?
Our next dose of the Oxford vaccine is next month, 12 weeks after the last one.
You may like to have a look at this, Sriram. It has been posted by the British Medical Journal and so can be regarded as reliable.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n326
This note also looks at another consequence of the extended interval: assuming that vaccine delivery resources are limited, then a very much greater number of people can receive the benefits of a first dose in a relatively short time than if the resources were also used to deliver a second dose within the same period. This exemplified by the situation in the UK where more than a third of the total population has already received the first dose.
Saving vaccines is just one issue. I think Astrazeneca have clearly stated that a gap of 12 weeks increases the efficacy to 90%. 4 Weeks reduces the efficacy to 60%.
This is the most recent statement on the subject from AstraZeneca themselves that I've been able to find:-
"Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%)." (source (https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html))
Incredibly good news though I am about the last of my cohort that I know with no date as yet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56477291
Which I now have - 30th March
Privileging religious beliefs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56511585
Privileging religious beliefs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56511585
Considering that Christians have a "personal relationship with God", it's surprising how essential it is for them all to gather in special buildings.
It's a command.
The buildings don't have to be special - thet don't even have to be there at all.
A command from whom?
From the vows of membership of the Church of Scotland....
"....I promise, depending on God's grace bring weith me, to attend worship with my fellow Christians on the Lord's day...."
A double mutant!
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-56507988?__twitter_impression=true
Concerning but not surprising. :oMutants aren't necessarily bad news - it might mutate into a much less severe form, which is never fatal (except perhaps in people already at death's door), and just makes you feel under the weather for a few days. That would actually be in the virus's interest; it wants to reproduce itself as widely as possible, and it can't do that very effectively if it kills off its hosts in short order.
Mutants aren't necessarily bad news - it might mutate into a much less severe form, which is never fatal (except perhaps in people already at death's door), and just makes you feel under the weather for a few days. That would actually be in the virus's interest; it wants to reproduce itself as widely as possible, and it can't do that very effectively if it kills off its hosts in short order.The virus isn't close to being deadly enough to kill off its hosts. However the mutation that drives infection is transmissibility - a more transmissible virus will rapid dominate, as we've seen. The fatality is secondary as far as virus survival is concerned.
Hmmmmmmmmm! ::)
I take my promises seriously.
Charles Walker MP goes full Partridge
https://youtu.be/9eBMR9um3rc
Charles Walker MP goes full PartridgeSounds reasonable to me. He looks disconcertingly like Richard Dawkins.
https://youtu.be/9eBMR9um3rc
'People may quit if forced to work from home, Rishi Sunak warns'
Though some people may well quit if they are forced to return to the office. As most of what I did when I was in an office was be on Zoom calls it's not something I particularly want
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56535575
Who wouldn't want to work from home? I'd love to, but forklift trucks don't drive themselves.
But in the future maybe it would be possible to control them from your home by some sort of technology. What we can do now would have been thought impossible not so long ago.
True. Looking forward to that day. Could drive and eat my bacon and eggs at the same time. LOL!More likely to be robotic and put you out of a job, I'm afraid
Jagged
Got my appointment for my first jab. :)Great
Starmer comes out against pub vaccination passport - good. Because it's not British - idiotic.Bad - I'm for it, British or not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56598413
Bad - I'm for it, British or not.why?
why?Because it'll piss off anti-vaccinators, and because they shouldn't be allowed to endanger others with their irresponsible attitude.
Because it'll piss off anti-vaccinators, and because they shouldn't be allowed to endanger others with their irresponsible attitude.So you want to end up with less obeyance to just annoy people. Try and think that out again?
Because it'll piss off anti-vaccinators, and because they shouldn't be allowed to endanger others with their irresponsible attitude.
Surely there is also danger here in presuming that vaccine passports imply 'safety'.
This is the major problem with a so-called passport. There was a virologist chappie on TV this morning explaining that it may well give a false sense of security, and that with currently only 51% having some kind of immunity you will already be forced into having to discriminate and that's without taking into account people who are exempt.
Furthermore, vaccination although very effective, is not 100% effective so the possibility for infection still remains and on top of this is the very real possibility of future variants that will be able to evade partly, or wholly the effect of vaccination. So the passport is likely to be very time limited.
The over riding problem to me is that the public might see the vaccination and associated proof as a sort of "get out of jail free" card and go back to normal.
We cannot afford to do that.
We have to find a new normal.
Who wouldn't want to work from home? I'd love to, but forklift trucks don't drive themselves.
AZ tests on children paused
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56656356
Not tests but vaccinations.It's not a vaccination programme. It's a trial programme. Test programmes include vaccinations. So we both phrased it wrong.
OK Sorry I misinterpreted your message.No problem, it was my incorrect phrasing at fault.
This could be a significant advancement in the battle against covid...!HERE'S HOPING!
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/sanotize-nasal-spray-reduces-covid-19-viral-load-uk-clinical-trail/
*********
A self-administered nitric oxide nasal spray (NONS) made by Vancouver-based biotech firm SaNOtize has been found to dramatically reduce Covid-19 viral load in infected patients after completing early-stage clinical trials in Canada and, most recently, the UK.
SaNOtize, alongside Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services in the UK, have announced results of Phase II trials indicating that SaNOtize’s nasal spray represents a safe and powerful antiviral treatment that could prevent the transmission of Covid-19, shorten its duration, and reduce the severity of symptoms in those already infected.
*********
HERE'S HOPING!
And on the subject of hope, I hope you and yours are well, sir.
And Covid 'passports' ....Jolly good show.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56634176
And the sort of corruption it distracts from
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56667960.amp
Quite incredibly after all of the sitters on corruption that Labour could have gone big on, Starmer went on this Dyson story which is an easy defence for the UK govt. This then undermines all the other issues. Atrocious decision from Labour.I rather think the public have gone past caring what Boris does although the huge problem with the deal with Dyson is if Johnson was favouring Dyson ahead of companies that were ready to go with tried and tested design.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56832486
I rather think the public have gone past caring what Boris does although the huge problem with the deal with Dyson is if Johnson was favouring Dyson ahead of companies that were ready to go with tried and tested design.which has got fuck all to do with this specific issue. Sheer idiocy from Labour.
And here is a prime example of what Labour should have been concentrating onIf he gets away with this. It is because the voters have given him carte blanche or a free pass because their little heads ache to figure out what is going on or because they are made moist by the cockwomble's evil antics.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/22/fifth-of-uk-covid-contracts-raised-red-flags-for-possible-corruption?__twitter_impression=true
If he gets away with this. It is because the voters have given him carte blanche or a free pass because their little heads ache to figure out what is going on or because they are made moist by the cockwomble's evil antics.Stop letting Labour and Starmer off the hook. And youtlr witless snobbery mirrors that of the entitled Etonian eejits.
The news from India is scary. I have 3 colleagues in hospital at the moment. Thoughts are with them, and hoping Sriram is well.
Good to hear you are OK.
I am fine NS. Thanks for asking! :)
Yes....the situation is terrible in India especially in some states. The authorities did not have a sense of urgency and were complacent till last week. Luckily the death rate is fairly low compared to the number of cases...though in absolute numbers it is high.
Vaccinations are at 10%... Given the numbers (only 1390 million people)...will take several months to get to a reasonable number.
Hoping for the best.
Thanks once again!
Just heard from my colleague that her mother has died as well. Both parents dead in 3 days.
So had an e-mail from the partners cousin in Goa. She said: "Bad, bad, bad. This is the end of India." Given that I have known her for 40 years and I know that she is not one for hyperbole, I find her communication very worrying.I'm getting similar emails from a friend who lives in Bangalore; it seems that the MSM is concentrating on Delhi, but other cities are now equally affected, as are some rural areas, where health care is, at best, rudimentary. We are not seeing just how horrific this is - though what we ARE seeing is bad enough. Now, Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan all report sharp increases in cases as well.
Just heard from my colleague that her mother has died as well. Both parents dead in 3 days.
Just heard from my colleague that her mother has died as well. Both parents dead in 3 days.
Hard to imagine just how traumatic that must be for her.And she can't go back for the funerals.
Indian Cricket T20 league suspended because of CovidGiven the situation in India, I'm surprised it took this long.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/56978321
Thanks guys for discussing the India situation.
Yes...it is a bad situation. The authorities did not anticipate the accelerated spike that has taken place. They probably thought.... even if a second wave comes around it would be similar to the first. But the second wave is several times more infectious and deadly than the first. It is catching on by leaps and bounds.
Oxygen, Remdesivir, ventilators and even hospital beds are in short supply.....similar to the situation Italy faced last year.
Vaccinations were planned when the pandemic was at a low....sometime in November. It was a slow, long term, leisurely plan. But the second wave has now made vaccinations an urgency......and there is short supply.
Anyway the front line warriors are holding up...and the graph appears to be peaking.
Hoping for the best.
One plus is that many Indians are rejecting superstitious beliefs and swamis and such people. Faith in science is growing. :)
India casesAnd?
Updated 5 May at 13:51 local
Confirmed
20,698,476
Deaths
226,578
Recovered
16,967,189
United Kingdom
Coronavirus Cases:
4,423,796
Deaths:
127,543
Recovered:
4,234,772
UK Population
68,562,151
India Population
1,393,409,038
And?The conclusion I draw is that India is actually doing better than Britain, proportional to their population sizes. That's not to trivialise the situation in India. It's probably very bad in certain regions of India. (That's assuming that Vlad's figures are accurate, of course.)
Hi Sriram,
Glad to see you are alright. We've had our own major problems with coronovirus in the UK as you no doubt know. My sister caught it and died, so I can only imagine the distress and heartache present in so many Indian families at the moment. I can only hope that our country, along with other countries, increase their assistance in what looks like an emergency situation. Stay safe.
Enki
Thanks guys for discussing the India situation.That last sentence is most certinly a very promising sign for the future.
Yes...it is a bad situation. The authorities did not anticipate the accelerated spike that has taken place. They probably thought.... even if a second wave comes around it would be similar to the first. But the second wave is several times more infectious and deadly than the first. It is catching on by leaps and bounds.
Oxygen, Remdesivir, ventilators and even hospital beds are in short supply.....similar to the situation Italy faced last year.
Vaccinations were planned when the pandemic was at a low....sometime in November. It was a slow, long term, leisurely plan. But the second wave has now made vaccinations an urgency......and there is short supply.
Anyway the front line warriors are holding up...and the graph appears to be peaking.
Hoping for the best.
One plus is that many Indians are rejecting superstitious beliefs and swamis and such people. Faith in science is growing. :)
The conclusion I draw is that India is actually doing better than Britain, proportional to their population sizes. That's not to trivialise the situation in India. It's probably very bad in certain regions of India. (That's assuming that Vlad's figures are accurate, of course.)
Not a parody
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/may/10/gwyneth-paltrow-pandemic-lowest-point?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=edit_2221&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1620665298
Have you read the comments? Hilarious.I think the comments are brutal about the Guardian's sad ineptitude but since many of them are about people's deaths, 'Hilarious' seems misapplied.
I think the comments are brutal about the Guardian's sad ineptitude but since many of them are about people's deaths, 'Hilarious' seems misapplied.A few of them are about people dying, but quite a lot of them are hilarious.
That last sentence is most certinly a very promising sign for the future.But I think we have seen Science increasingly overruled by politics and economics during the pandemic and that isn't a promising sign.
I see his point (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PgIUDn__WU&t=703s) but what is the alternative?
He doesn't have a point, it's nonsense.Thanks for this, I hadn't (yet) thought to fact check it. If he hasn't got a point, why have the government been so worried about the emerging variants?
AFP Fact Check - Mass Covid-19 vaccination will not lead to ‘out of control’ variants (https://factcheck.afp.com/mass-covid-19-vaccination-will-not-lead-out-control-variants).
Thanks for this, I hadn't (yet) thought to fact check it. If he hasn't got a point, why have the government been so worried about the emerging variants?
Variants are inevitable with any virus and some of them will be worrying because they either spread faster or the current vaccines may not work as well on them. The way to prevent even more variants is to limit its spread by vaccination. As it said in the fact check article:
Joe Grove, a virologist at the Institute of Immunity and Transplantation at University College London, explained that even though vaccination could drive some virus changes, “it is not credible that widespread immunity will drive the emergence of a monster virus.”
Geert pointed out that the 1918 flu pandemic had few strains and was over in a year, with no vaccination.
From what I can understand, he is putting a lot of emphasis on the importance of the innate (unspecific) immune system and worrying that this could in future, when you have new variants, be rendered ineffective by the acquired antibodies to the vaccines.
Geert pointed out that the 1918 flu pandemic had few strains and was over in a year, with no vaccination. He also said the problem with mass vaccination is that however fast it's done, there is still a time lag while the body is developing specific antibodies, which is enough time for mutants to become predominant.
He doesn't say anything about a monster virus during the interview (almost 2 hours).
From what I can understand, he is putting a lot of emphasis on the importance of the innate (unspecific) immune system and worrying that this could in future, when you have new variants, be rendered ineffective by the acquired antibodies to the vaccines.
Get drinking
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/brits-drink-124-pints-each-struggling-pubs-covid-lockdown-b935186.html
I'm not sure that I got that right. There do seem to be professionals asking questions about the safety of the vaccines, and because I can understand quite a bit of it I am interested. The Belgian vet is quite hard to follow due to his accent, and having looked again at the interview I can't see how his argument takes into account the success of the vaccines that is being demonstrated.
I really don't see how this makes the slightest bit of sense. The vaccine is designed to stimulate the an immune response in the same way as getting the decease does. I don't see how this sort of thing can be usefully discussed (unless we have any well informed virologists here). I'm not an expert so I'd rather go with what they say rather than some maverick vet.
We also know, from extensive experience, that vaccines are effective.
If we had done nothing about COVID19, maybe the worst would be over now but so would the lives of hundreds of millions of people.I agree, but because I believe we are created with adequate repair mechanisms I don't think vaccines are the only answer, especially for those who are healthy. The idea that the whole world should be vaccinated seems very sinister to me.
I agree, but because I believe we are created with adequate repair mechanisms I don't think vaccines are the only answer, especially for those who are healthy. The idea that the whole world should be vaccinated seems very sinister to me.What is really sinister is people endangering millions by arguing against science.
I agree, but because I believe we are created with adequate repair mechanisms I don't think vaccines are the only answer, especially for those who are healthy. The idea that the whole world should be vaccinated seems very sinister to me.
I agree, but because I believe we are created with adequate repair mechanisms I don't think vaccines are the only answer, especially for those who are healthy. The idea that the whole world should be vaccinated seems very sinister to me.
What is really sinister is people endangering millions by arguing against science.The UK number of new infections dropped to very low levels once the first four priority categories had been vaccinated. This made me think that it wasn't necessary for everyone to be done.
Since genomic sequencing wasn't actually a thing in 1918, one has to wonder how he knows how many variants there were. Also, 50 million people died (according to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html)).I've found the bit where he explains how the innate immune system might be inhibited by vaccine-induced antibodies that can no longer neutralise the virus. Go to 9:08 here:
I really don't see how this makes the slightest bit of sense. The vaccine is designed to stimulate the an immune response in the same way as getting the decease does. I don't see how this sort of thing can be usefully discussed (unless we have any well informed virologists here). I'm not an expert so I'd rather go with what they say rather than some maverick vet.
We also know, from extensive experience, that vaccines are effective.
I've found the bit where he explains how the innate immune system might be inhibited by vaccine-induced antibodies that can no longer neutralise the virus. Go to 9:08 here:
https://youtu.be/2dX_Cr7lh-g
Whether he's right, I don't know.
He's not. It shows he knows nothing of the immune system or vaccines. He clearly confuses over use of antibiotics with mass vaccination (which is basically his argument) but the two aren't comparable because they work in completely different ways.I'm not sure which part of the interview you got that from. About 6 minutes after the end of the above section, Bret Weinstein compares Geert's theory with not completing a course of antibiotics (because you feel better before you've completely eliminated the bacteria) thus the remaining bacteria which were most resistant to the antibiotic will regenerate.
However, I'm not sure he is right that there is a correlation between vaccination during this pandemic and the emergence of the more vaccine-resistant strains. Yet. It might be that lockdown has led to induced resistance, though and could be correlated with emerging strains. Eg the Kent variant emerged after the UK lockdown last year.
Had a look at some dates. Brazilian, South African and Kent variants emerged Dec 2020. Indian emerged October (but did not cause immediate surge). So these all emerged after the peak of the first waves, when selection pressure from naturally produced antibodies and lockdown measures would have led to mutant strains being selected for and becoming dominant.Drivel.
The point being, lockdown may help induce resistance. Too early to know if vaccination does too.
Drivel.Rude
RudePerhaps, but nonetheless accurate.
Rude
Well I thought NS was being quite restrained, given the idiocy that you posted.It was a response to the claim that there is no correlation between variants and vaccines. None is apparent yet, but there seems to be a correlation between variants and human pressure on the virus in the form of lock down. (I'm not saying lock down is bad). If you think there isn't, say so.
Perhaps, but nonetheless accurate.My main concern is the claim that everybody should be vaccinated. I'm not against the older population taking it, since the innate immune system depletes with age, and it can save many lives. But the Belgian vet has raised concern that the vaccine could interfere with the innate immune system's ability to neutralize future virus strains, so that people who would have been able to neutralize them without vaccination (eg young adults) will then become dependent on vaccines. If you understand the biology, feel free to say I'm talking rubbish. The innate immune system is what fights off the flu after a few days - without antibodies.
Had a look at some dates. Brazilian, South African and Kent variants emerged Dec 2020.Nonsense - the Kent variant emerged way earlier than that. The Kent variant was first isolated and sequenced in September - it was first designated a variant of concern in Dec, but it had been around for months by them.
If you understand the biology, feel free to say I'm talking rubbish.I am a professional scientist working in the field of cell biology. Spud, you are talking rubbish.
My main concern is the claim that everybody should be vaccinated. I'm not against the older population taking it, since the innate immune system depletes with age, and it can save many lives. But the Belgian vet has raised concern that the vaccine could interfere with the innate immune system's ability to neutralize future virus strains, so that people who would have been able to neutralize them without vaccination (eg young adults) will then become dependent on vaccines. If you understand the biology, feel free to say I'm talking rubbish. The innate immune system is what fights off the flu after a few days - without antibodies.
I am a professional scientist working in the field of cell biology. Spud, you are talking rubbish.I don't doubt that he is, but it'd be more helpful if you explained why.
Vaccines have nothing to with innate immune system. Vaccines teach the adaptive immune system to fight off viruses.
I am a professional scientist working in the field of cell biology. Spud, you are talking rubbish.Okay, so a simple question: if young people use their innate immune system (which depletes with age) to neutralize coronavirus, why do they need to be vaccinated?
Okay, so a simple question: if young people use their innate immune system (which depletes with age) to neutralize coronavirus, why do they need to be vaccinated?
Okay, so a simple question: if young people use their innate immune system (which depletes with age) to neutralize coronavirus, why do they need to be vaccinated?
SpudWhat does that have to do with my question?
Why do you think it is that 'flu' vaccines can be offered to susceptible people on an annual basis?
Because this is a new virus to humans that we have no natural immunity for. Yes, most people will fight the virus off but it will continue to mutate if there is too much of it in circulation. In addition, even though many will fight it off without any problems, a large enough number will not and will in the worst case scenario die, or will be left with long covid. The mutations, as we have seen with the Indian variant is affecting younger people and they are dying without vaccination and proper medical treatment. What are you finding so difficult to understand?Presumably there's a threshold level of vaccination at which herd immunity will occur?
Presumably there's a threshold level of vaccination at which herd immunity will occur?
What does that have to do with my question?
Just heard that colleague in India has died from Covid. He had a six year old son.So many sad stories. And I know this is off topic, but I heard yesterday there is a 5-year-old boy who was the only survivor of the Italian ski-lift disaster.
Confusion, or a deliberate hiding of bad news?
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-changes-covid-19-guidance-in-8-areas-with-no-official-announcement/
Confusion.
I'd have said ineptitude. But yes, not, I think, deliberate.
Confusion, or a deliberate hiding of bad news?
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-changes-covid-19-guidance-in-8-areas-with-no-official-announcement/
Deaths in Peru reassessed to nearly 3 times what was the estimate. Suspect this applies in more countries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-57307861
Of course"Eyes role"? I'm sure many people's will. Keep Dido Queen of Carnage away from the NHS, or we're doomed!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dido-harding-eyes-role-as-head-of-nhs-sqzww3fb9
Johnson is just such a prick.
It will be interesting to learn how much of the hospitality and similar industries will respond to this.I think the extension is prudent in the circumstances, don't you?
It will be interesting to learn how much of the hospitality and similar industries will respond to this.
Lloyd Webber has already spoken about this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57410819
It will be interesting to see if he follows through.
Yes, I do think it prudent, but I am also concerned about what appears to be a deliberate political decision to permit significant elements of the economy to bear the cost.That's not the political decision. It's unfortunate but inevitable that the sector of the economy that relies on getting lots of people close together will get the worst of this.
Lloyd Webber has already spoken about this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57410819
It will be interesting to see if he follows through.
What an idiot he is, the safety of the public is much more important than opening up a theatre. >:(It's certainly more important than staging the sort of shite he composes!
What an idiot he is, the safety of the public is much more important than opening up a theatre. >:(
If cases are increasing among 12-34 year-olds, admissions remain at a level where hospitals can cope, and severity is reduced, I'm wondering if that would that mean the need to vaccinate the young is less urgent? Indeed was it necessary to vaccinate those below, say, 50?
If cases are increasing among 12-34 year-olds, admissions remain at a level where hospitals can cope, and severity is reduced, I'm wondering if that would that mean the need to vaccinate the young is less urgent? Indeed was it necessary to vaccinate those below, say, 50?Everybody should be vaccinated who can be. Young people may not be so prone to dying, but they can still have serious long term symptoms. Furthermore, the more people you vaccinate, the harder it is for this virus to spread.
No. We still need to contain the spread to minimise the risk of variants.The converse view is that you don't want to be challenging the immune system of an uninfected person unless you know he/she is going to be adversely affected by a pathogen. Doing so will take away from the body's ability to respond to future challenges. If I'm not mistaken, this is why the immune system is depleted as we get older.
The converse view is that you don't want to be challenging the immune system of an uninfected person unless you know he/she is going to be adversely affected by a pathogen. Doing so will take away from the body's ability to respond to future challenges. If I'm not mistaken, this is why the immune system is depleted as we get older.
My gut feeling is, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
The converse view is that you don't want to be challenging the immune system of an uninfected person unless you know he/she is going to be adversely affected by a pathogen. Doing so will take away from the body's ability to respond to future challenges. If I'm not mistaken, this is why the immune system is depleted as we get older.
My gut feeling is, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Two jags done
He's 83: he'd have been done ages ago.This joke is brought to you by the jags side of the jags/jabs divide
Hand-on-cock has resigned.Surely that's Hand-on-Arse?
Meanwhile, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has denied the tie between England and Scotland.
Meanwhile, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has denied the tie between England and Scotland.
Could you elaborate on that? Not sure what you mean.
I googled it and came up with this story in the Express.What an incredibly badly written article!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1453508/nicola-sturgeon-news-uk-rejected-england-urged-sever-ties-scotland-indyref2-spt
I'm still none the wiser.
What an incredibly badly written article!
Could you elaborate on that? Not sure what you mean.The Sun's front page headline on 19 June was something like, "INSEPERABLE - Sturgeon denies England and Scotland tied"
Apparently some kids have been using lemon juice to fake positive Covid tests so they and their classmates can be sent home from school. I must admit if there had been a pandemic when I was a kid, and similar circumstances to what we have at present, I would have been up for that, disliking school as I did. NAUGHTY ME! :-[It's like something out of the Beano! Have to admire.
Apparently some kids have been using lemon juice to fake positive Covid tests so they and their classmates can be sent home from school. I must admit if there had been a pandemic when I was a kid, and similar circumstances to what we have at present, I would have been up for that, disliking school as I did. NAUGHTY ME! :-[
I'm trying to work out how lemon juice could be used to fake a positive test. Can it also be used to fake a vaccination certificate?
This threads has been surprisingly quiet. I would have thought more would have been said about PM Johnson's "one bound and we're free" 19th July effort.But but Freeeeeeeeedoooooooommmmmm
Feeling perky about no one having to wear masks anymore?
Happy that dear Mr Javid is making a bonfire of all the gains we've made?
My advice: if you are thinking of going shopping, the first thing I would buy is some FFP3 masks.
I think it is crazy to end restrictions so soon as the number of people with the virus here in the UK has risen dramatically. :oBut what date would you choose and why?
But what date would you choose and why?I though the point was that we should make our decisions based on data rather than dates.
But what date would you choose and why?it's not a question of the date. It's a question of what is reasonable on the date.
it's not a question of the date. It's a question of what is reasonable on the date.Re mutation: I've read stuff to the effect of if there is a lot of virus it may mutate, yes, but the mutations won't be selected for, since the original strain is surviving. But if that strain is under pressure and is being neutralised by vaccine-induced antibodies, and mutated strains are more resistant to those antibodies, a new variant will survive and replicate until it becomes the dominant one. (It will be 'selected for').
I am all in favour of opening up as much as we can, but to get rid of the mandate for mask wearing is irresponsible in the extreme.
Mask wearing is such an easy win in terms of controlling the spread of the virus. It allows for most things to be done as normal and yet it significantly reduces infection if all adhere to that one restriction. What so many people appear to miss is the virus's capability to mutate and that in order to mutate it is much easier if there is a lot of virus in circulation which is the case now, and will be even more so when we open with no safeguards in place.
Johnson has made it sound like an either/or decision. That is nonsense. We can open up with a few safeguards in place.
All the government are doing at the moment is taking a huge gamble, a gamble that risks making England a world beater in variant creation and also risks significant numbers of people being affected by long covid.
This government is appalling.
Re mutation: I've read stuff to the effect of if there is a lot of virus it may mutate, yes, but the mutations won't be selected for, since the original strain is surviving. But if that strain is under pressure and is being neutralised by vaccine-induced antibodies, and mutated strains are more resistant to those antibodies, a new variant will survive and replicate until it becomes the dominant one. (It will be 'selected for').It is basic evolutionary theory.
It is basic evolutionary theory.Interesting. So iirc the Delta variant is more transmissible, but is its apparent lower morbidity and mortality more due to the host population being younger people and those with 'suboptimal' antibodies from recent vaccination or previous infection or generally good innate immunity because they are younger?
Mutations are random events which occur when the virus is being replicated in a host human - the more the level of the virus in the population the more mutation events will occur.
The mutations may, or may not, change the characteristic of the virus - specifically making it more or less transmissible than the virus before the mutation or more or less dangerous in terms of severity of disease than the virus before the mutation.
If the mutation is more transmissible it will be more likely to infect people and more likely to infect more people and therefore there will be greater overall replication of the new mutant and it will replicant and survive better and therefore become dominant. It its transmissibility is less than the pre-mutation variant it will do the reverse and will likely disappear fairly rapidly. If there is no difference in transmissibility than the original virus it will likely just transmit itself alongside the original.
The issue of severity of disease is different as it doesn't impact on replication unless it it so severe that it kills the host before replicating or is retained for much longer in the body before the immune response deals with it.
So in terms of a pandemic your worst nightmare is the combination of a virus mutation that is more transmissible and causes more severe disease. But your friend (up to a point) it a virus that is more transmissible because causes less serious disease, allowing transmission (and population level immunity to develop) while only causing very mild illness.
Interesting. So iirc the Delta variant is more transmissible, but is its apparent lower morbidity and mortality more due to the host population being younger and those with 'suboptimal' antibodies from recent vaccination or previous infection or generally good innate immunity because they are younger?The delta variant is more transmissible.
it's not a question of the date. It's a question of what is reasonable on the date.Okay - |I agree about wearing of masks and sensible social distancing, but there are so many other things that can't be held back for ever. The economy, mental health, llearning to live with the new normal whatever that turns out to be. I don't pretend to know anywhere near enough to offer any better solutions though.
I am all in favour of opening up as much as we can, but to get rid of the mandate for mask wearing is irresponsible in the extreme.
Mask wearing is such an easy win in terms of controlling the spread of the virus. It allows for most things to be done as normal and yet it significantly reduces infection if all adhere to that one restriction. What so many people appear to miss is the virus's capability to mutate and that in order to mutate it is much easier if there is a lot of virus in circulation which is the case now, and will be even more so when we open with no safeguards in place.
Johnson has made it sound like an either/or decision. That is nonsense. We can open up with a few safeguards in place.
All the government are doing at the moment is taking a huge gamble, a gamble that risks making England a world beater in variant creation and also risks significant numbers of people being affected by long covid.
This government is appalling.
The delta variant is more transmissible.I guess it would be hard to know how serious disease from the Delta is compared with the alpha variant, since it is affecting a younger host age. What I was focussing on in my earlier post was whether human infection prevention measures such as lockdown and vaccination were responsible for mutated strains being selected for. The measures make it hard for the original strain to survive, and thus the variants are more likely to become dominant.
Whether is causes more serious disease isn't so clear - I don't think your assertion is valid as it is based on a different population demographic for people most likely to be infected now (younger) as most older people have been vaccinated.
The assessment of seriousness is how likely it is to cause serious disease compared to the earlier variant on the basis that the population at risk is the same.
You can then factor in any differences in the population likely to become infected, but that isn't a feature of the virus itself.
I guess it would be hard to know how serious disease from the Delta is compared with the alpha variant, since it is affecting a younger host age.Not really, you just look at the likelihood of developing serious illness with age etc matched cohorts infected with the alpha and delta variants. It may take a little more time to get the data as there will be less people developing serious illness if you are looking at a younger cohort of people.
What I was focussing on in my earlier post was whether human infection prevention measures such as lockdown and vaccination were responsible for mutated strains being selected for. Since they make it hard for the original strain to survive, and thus are more likely to become dominant.No - the lockdown etc will only affect the levels of transmission and therefore number of mutations some of which may be variants of concern.
This is the opposite of the refrain that the more people are vaccinated, the less chance the virus has to spread.But not born out by the science.
View from New Zealand on our policy.The virus would still eventually evade the vaccine because the vaccine is not 100% effective. And it would be a more virulent strain that evaded it. If we relax restrictions the current strain will continue to be the dominant one.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/uks-awful-experiment-will-threaten-nz
The virus would still eventually evade the vaccine because the vaccine is not 100% effective. And it would be a more virulent strain that evaded it. If we relax restrictions the current strain will continue to be the dominant one.
The virus would still eventually evade the vaccine because the vaccine is not 100% effective. And it would be a more virulent strain that evaded it. If we relax restrictions the current strain will continue to be the dominant one.That isn't true at all - in fact the reverse is true.
42k new cases today
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
That's actually good news. The rate of increase is only 27% compared to last week. The rate of increase in cases is not rising exponentially anymore.Neither of then are figures that you would use to justify 'Freedom Day'
It's hospital admissions that is the real bad news at the moment: 53% more compared to last week. It won't take too many weeks of rising at 50% to overwhelm the NHS.
Neither of then are figures that you would use to justify 'Freedom Day'Of course not. It's insane to continue with the removal of current measures.
That's actually good news. The rate of increase is only 27% compared to last week. The rate of increase in cases is not rising exponentially anymore.But surely the point about an exponential increase is that, in % terms, it remains the same over time.
It's hospital admissions that is the real bad news at the moment: 53% more compared to last week. It won't take too many weeks of rising at 50% to overwhelm the NHS.True
The situation in England is already looking shambolic as regards wearing masks on public transport with various 'mayors' (which we don't have here in Scotland) doing different things, and it seems they have varying local powers where some can require masks be worn and other just encourage the wearing of masks.To be fair, while we aren't going for Freedom Day, we are in Scotland reducing restrictioms while hospital.cases rise. Overall I would give the Scottish govt 3 out of 10 handling this, as opposed to 2 for UK govt, if I ignore the corruption. Sturgeon has communicated better but the actual different decisions have been marginal.
You'd have thought that the strategy of the UK government as regards changes in England would have anticipated this scenario: unless, of course, the strategy is to encourage chaos and, no doubt, then blame everyone else (which presumes there is a strategy). Alternatively it could be down to the incompetence of a bunch of incompetents.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/14/passengers-face-patchwork-of-mask-rules-on-public-transport-after-19-july
But surely the point about an exponential increase is that, in % terms, it remains the same over time.
So if you have a 25% increase per week and the starting point is 100, in one week you have 125, another week you have 156, the next week 195, then 244, 305 etc. So in the first week your absolute increase is only 25, by week 6 it is over 60.
There may be some evidence that the rate of increase is slowing, but i think you need to follow that over a longer period of time than just one week to see a real effect, as it can be particularly influenced by a single daily value that is anomalously high or low.
True
Until recently, the % rate of increase was in the 50's. It came down first to the 30's and now it's below 30. It's not just one week. So I think the evidence is that the rate of increase of infections is slowing. It's the one piece of good news in an otherwise grim situation.The problem with 7 day rolling data is that is can be affected by a single anomalous day's data depending on whether that is in the 7-day figures or when it drops out. Have a look at the graph - scroll down to 'Cases - people testing positive'.
The problem with 7 day rolling data is that is can be affected by a single anomalous day's data depending on whether that is in the 7-day figures or when it drops out. Have a look at the graph - scroll down to 'Cases - people testing positive'.The rate has been dropping for a while. I'm not just looking at this week's figures. Look at the shape of the black line
The rate has been dropping for a while. I'm not just looking at this week's figures. Look at the shape of the black lineActually you can see the effect better here:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
It's not an exponential curve.
Of course, I expect an increase following the last two weekends of the Euros and, if July 19th goes ahead as planned, I expect the rate to go exponential again, at least for a while.
News reports suggest the covid rate is rising on a daily basis, it isn't good in our part of Wales. :oYes it is rising - the discussion between Jeremy and me is whether there is evidence that the rate at which it is rising is beginning to slow, suggesting we might be coming close to the peak.
With the lifting of restrictions in England next week the NHS will soon be overwhelmed again. :oQuite possibly.
Legal restrictions are being lifted ...But they aren't all being lifted. In terms of 'freedom' the most significant not being lifted is the legal requirement to self isolate. And with the case numbers sky rocketing, and likely to continue to do so there will be vast numbers in that position. That will affect most of us, I suspect, not just in terms of actually not being able to do anything outside your own home (that's about the most restricted you can be) but also huge impacts on businesses as key staff vanish for 10 days.
But they aren't all being lifted. In terms of 'freedom' the most significant not being lifted is the legal requirement to self isolate. And with the case numbers sky rocketing, and likely to continue to do so there will be vast numbers in that position. That will affect most of us, I suspect, not just in terms of actually not being able to do anything outside your own home (that's about the most restricted you can be) but also huge impacts on businesses as key staff vanish for 10 days.And many of those isolating will be in the NHS
Legal restrictions are being lifted, but many shop chains are choosing to continue insisting on masks and social distancing, and many people, including me, will continue to observe them anyway, so I think Roses' apocalyptic vision is a little exaggerated.
And many of those isolating will be in the NHSA fairly sizeable number I suspect.
Unfortunately, that's not true. The more people who get the virus, the more opportunity there is for a strain to develop that has immunity to our vaccines. If it does develop, it will become the dominant strain fairly quickly.Yes - senior moment from me there.
From what I've read today there is more than one opinion.
It's not a bad thing for any of them to paint a bad possible scenario right now.
51, 870 new casesAfter a brief flattening of the curve the case numbers are rising very steeply again.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Not according to medics interviewed on the news channels.Or indeed here
Yes - senior moment from me there.You can't shield the vulnerable in mass settings the care home disaster taught us that. Nor does it work where the non vulnerable share housing with the vulnerable.
It seems that achieving herd immunity has been traded for reduced morbidity and mortality, at least in the short term.
Had we only shielded the vulnerable instead of total lockdown, and not used the current type of vaccines with a pandemic already underway, it's possible we could have achieved herd immunity through natural infection of the fitter individuals. Current vaccines induce an antibody response, but while this is happening the person can still be infected. Following natural infection you get an innate immune response which prevents reinfection while you're making antibodies. This prevents selection of escape variants and leads to herd immunity.
https://youtu.be/cjMZvpmuaKY
Yes it is rising - the discussion between Jeremy and me is whether there is evidence that the rate at which it is rising is beginning to slow, suggesting we might be coming close to the peak.Unfortunately, it went up again yesterday and again today.
Unfortunately, it went up again yesterday and again today.Indeed - there was a brief flattening (for whatever reason) but we seem back to the steep trajectory.
There is now officially no good news.
I have just seen that, I wonder if he will have a change of heart about getting rid of lockdown?I doubt it. He's a reasonably intelligent bloke, and therefore will realise that you shouldn't generalise from a single instance.
If he is a reasonably intelligent bloke he would realise getting rid of lockdown is a HUGE mistake.He has all the figures and expert advice, and you don't. Furthermore, it is possible to be intelligent and to disagree with you.
He has all the figures and expert advice, and you don't. Furthermore, it is possible to be intelligent and to disagree with you.
He has all the figures and expert advice, and you don't. Furthermore, it is possible to be intelligent and to disagree with you.Is it difficult to speak when you have your tongue that far up the Tory govts arse?
In the US, there seems to be a correlation between people who don't want to get vaccinated and people who believe Joe Biden won by fraud. How about that! :D
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/17/politics/conspiracy-theories-election-vaccines-analysis/index.html
Frankly, I don't see the connection but it is interesting.
The whole 'Freedom Day' in England seems chaotic - from what I've been reading Nadhim Zahawi, who is doing the media rounds this morning, is really playing up that people should wear facemasks in shops, public transport and anywhere they are requested to - which makes me wonder why they didn't just retain the 'wear facemasks' requirement.I did hope, as I said on here earlier, that the great majority of people would be responsible, and continue to wear masks in enclosed public places, and take other precautions, but if my local Facebook group is anything to go by, I was being over-optimistic. There are dozens of posts, from various members, mostly semi-literate, parroting the new line from the anti-vaccinators and Covid-deniers that it's a matter of personal choice: wearing one is fine, and not wearing one is also fine. They are unable or (more likely) unwilling to understand that it's a matter of protecting others as well as yourself. Maybe Rosie is right after all (he muttered through clenched teeth) - maybe it should be a legal requirement for a while longer. Society needs protecting from these selfish morons.
The idea that all this becomes a matter of personal responsibility, especially given the recent increase in cases, sound a lot like the UK government trying to shift the blame so that if things get worse it becomes the fault of Joe Public.
I did hope, as I said on here earlier, that the great majority of people would be responsible, and continue to wear masks in enclosed public places, and take other precautions, but if my local Facebook group is anything to go by, I was being over-optimistic. There are dozens of posts, from various members, mostly semi-literate, parroting the new line from the anti-vaccinators and Covid-deniers that it's a matter of personal choice: wearing one is fine, and not wearing one is also fine. They are unable or (more likely) unwilling to understand that it's a matter of protecting others as well as yourself. Maybe Rosie is right after all (he muttered through clenched teeth) - maybe it should be a legal requirement for a while longer. Society needs protecting from these selfish morons.
Face coverings remain mandatory here in Scotland even though other restrictions have eased so, presumably, that could have been the case in England too.Though the move for some areas in Scotland from level 2 to level '0' seems just as driven by politics as in England - even though our cases in part because of the earlier school holidays have just begun to fall again, though are still overall slightly hiigher than England. I think Sturgeon has seemed less driven by politics either by shutting down a bit earlier, or opening up a bit later. The overall numbers don't really indicate a significant difference.
It seems that there is an element of the Tory party that is all for "Freedom Day", so maybe it is Tory party politics that is driving the situation in England, but not so much here.
When I went to the supermarket this morning the checkout operator was most concerned that people would remove their masks in the store when lockdown is lifted in Wales next month. I hope they won't, I will be wearing mine and socially distancing.
But, of courseIf I wanted to test myself, how would I get or find one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lateral-flow-test-run-out-b1886589.html
If I wanted to test myself, how would I get or find one?
But, of course
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lateral-flow-test-run-out-b1886589.html
hmm.. I ordered one yesterday afternoon ... to be delivered this afternoon according to Royal Mail text msg.For various reasons, not least that we have school aged kids, lateral flow testing has become part of our routine. It isn't hard and doesn't take long and it is certainly useful before going to meet people you may be concerned about in tests of contracting the virus.
I expect that as you can't now rely on people social distancing or wearing masks people will want to test before meeting relatives or friends etc.
It is basic evolutionary theory.
Mutations are random events which occur when the virus is being replicated in a host human - the more the level of the virus in the population the more mutation events will occur.
The mutations may, or may not, change the characteristic of the virus - specifically making it more or less transmissible than the virus before the mutation or more or less dangerous in terms of severity of disease than the virus before the mutation.
If the mutation is more transmissible it will be more likely to infect people and more likely to infect more people and therefore there will be greater overall replication of the new mutant and it will replicant and survive better and therefore become dominant. It its transmissibility is less than the pre-mutation variant it will do the reverse and will likely disappear fairly rapidly. If there is no difference in transmissibility than the original virus it will likely just transmit itself alongside the original.
The issue of severity of disease is different as it doesn't impact on replication unless it it so severe that it kills the host before replicating or is retained for much longer in the body before the immune response deals with it.
So in terms of a pandemic your worst nightmare is the combination of a virus mutation that is more transmissible and causes more severe disease. But your friend (up to a point) it a virus that is more transmissible because causes less serious disease, allowing transmission (and population level immunity to develop) while only causing very mild illness.
In the UK's case it's Johnson's fault for allowing large case numbers of Delta which are his direct responsibility as he elected not to stop flights from India at the same time as he did from Pakistan and Bangladesh, even though India had a higher rate of infections at the time. The lure of a trade deal with Modi being his prime objective. With high case numbers and high vaccination rates here, it puts pressure on the virus to change so that it can get round the vaccine, but it's the high number of cases that allows the virus to have the "space" to mutate in.
If we'd had high vaccination rates but low case rates this issue would not have been such a worry. We were heading in that direction until Delta.
OK, so the Flemish vet Vanden Bossche....
Hi Trent,See the link for a devastating rebuttal of Vanden Bossche's claims. Note too that he isn't quite what he claims to be, so while he has a background in virology he hasn't been active for quarter of a century, with no credible peer reviewed publications since 1995.
OK, so the Flemish vet Vanden Bossche thinks that severe lockdown and vaccines that are 'leaky' select for the more infectious variants once the latter are present in the population.
Wakefield caused no end of problems by discouraging parents from letting their children have the MMR vaccine. People like him should be struct of the medical register. >:(He was struck off the medical register, but not until he had created havoc with his claims based on fraudulent and unethical data.
He was struck off the medical register, but not until he had created havoc with his claims based on fraudulent and unethical data.
See the link for a devastating rebuttal of Vanden Bossche's claims. Note too that he isn't quite what he claims to be, so while he has a background in virology he hasn't been active for quarter of a century, with no credible peer reviewed publications since 1995.He is at liberty to give medical advice, as long as he doesn't falsely represent himself as a qualified doctor of medicine or falsely claim to be licensed.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche
In every field there are charlatans and mavericks looking to peddle mistruths - and the field of virology and vaccines is no exception. Vanden Bossche is basically Andrew Wakefield but with a veterinary rather than a human medical background.
He is at liberty to give medical advice,
...
He doesn't come across to me as a charlatan.Andrew Wakefield didn't come across as a charlatan - but he was.
I think your and Stranger's links are worth a read, but so is his website. Up until now I've mainly just watched some of his YouTube videos, but have now started to read the FAQs section on his website. He's quite hard to understand, because of his 'suboptimal' English!I posted the link as it contains a strong rebuttal - but realistically a bunch of opinion pieces, whether from Vanden Bossche or anyone else aren't worth a bean unless they are based on sound scientific evidence. And that's the difference, Vanden Bossche's claims fly in the face of the science and the evidence.
Andrew Wakefield didn't come across as a charlatan - but he was.
Andrew Wakefield didn't come across as a charlatan - but he was.Time is needed to know whether he is correct or not, about a variant that can completely evade the vaccines. One thing that has been shown recently is that the current vaccines do not prevent infection (at least, not very effectively). This study (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-vaccine-39percent-effective-in-israel-prevents-severe-illness.html) suggests a figure of 39% effectiveness of Pfizer: "Israel says Pfizer Covid vaccine is just 39% effective as delta spreads, but still prevents severe illness" It seems this supports Vanden Bossche's ideas. Theoretically the vaccines would reduce infection indirectly through reducing the symptoms that aid transmission, such as coughing. But it seems the delta virus is still able to evade vaccinal antibodies, which was one of Vanden Bossche's predictions.
I posted the link as it contains a strong rebuttal - but realistically a bunch of opinion pieces, whether from Vanden Bossche or anyone else aren't worth a bean unless they are based on sound scientific evidence. And that's the difference, Vanden Bossche's claims fly in the face of the science and the evidence.
This isn't a kind of 'one person's view', 'another person's view' - well we'll agree to differ and each person's opinion is equally valid. We are in the world of science and evidence - opinions not based on (or contradictory to) the scientific evidence aren't worth a bean. It doesn't matter how 'credible' someone comes across as, this isn't about personality but about evidence.
Another possible reason for rising cases in vaccinated people is that vaccinal antibodies may be waning.Fortunately it seems that case numbers are now starting to fall, but whether this will continue when the impact of 'Freedom day' changes kick in probably in a week's time is anyone's guess.
Fortunately it seems that case numbers are now starting to fall, but whether this will continue when the impact of 'Freedom day' changes kick in probably in a week's time is anyone's guess.It's a week since "freedom day" (I really hate that term). I think the effect should be kicking in about now given that the incubation period is about a week.
I think the issue of cases in double jabs people is that the vaccines are most effective at reducing serious disease and perhaps disease at all, so someone may have mild symptoms or even be symptomatic having been vaccinated while they would have had more severe disease had they not been vaccinated. This seems to be greater for the delta variant. Add to that the amount of testing going on and it is perhaps not surprising that we are seeing a fair amount of cases in vaccinated people.
It's a week since "freedom day" (I really hate that term). I think the effect should be kicking in about now given that the incubation period is about a week.I think it has taken more than a week for effects to kick in, not least because we've only just been through the first weekend since the changes last Monday.
I'm more concerned that this sudden drop in cases might be an artefact of the testing process, or worse, a sign of deliberate manipulation.
Or maybe that people are deleting the app and not getting tested?There has been a slight reduction in testing numbers, but nothing like the reduction in case numbers:
Cstch covid for frrrreeeeeeedddddddooooommmmm!Is he aware that, even if you don’t die from COVID-19, the effects can still be long term?
https://www.indy100.com/politics/neil-oliver-gb-news-covid-monologue-b1895098
Cstch covid for frrrreeeeeeedddddddooooommmmm!And to think I used to like that right-wing dickhead when he presented 'Coast'!
https://www.indy100.com/politics/neil-oliver-gb-news-covid-monologue-b1895098
And to think I used to like that right-wing dickhead when he presented 'Coast'!
I'm all for vaccine passports, with exemptions for those with a medical reason not to be vaccinated, and was arguing for them when vaccines first appeared.what's your definition of a medical reason? How about that some vaccines may be more dangerous for ypung people than not having it? Hoe about that there has not been detailed testing on pregnant women?
How about that some vaccines may be more dangerous for ypung people than not having it?If that is the case they wouldn't be approved for use by the relevant regulatory body.
Don't know what everyone else here thinks but I'm not comfortable with this vaccine passport thing. I believe that as many people as possible should be vaccinated. I have. The authorities need to encourage people to be vaccinated because the medical evidence is in its favour. I don't agree with excluding people from society though, even if they are stupid enough not to want to take it.I agree in principle.
I think vaccine passports have problems around issues like how long are they valid due to waning immunity, but in principle I have no objection. Indeed, if some oik can't be bothered to protect him or herself why should the rest of us be put at risk by allowing them in to the same space as responsible people.*This (https://www.portugalresident.com/us-study-changes-war-against-covid-and-suggests-europes-digital-certificates-are-pointless/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=us-study-changes-war-against-covid-and-suggests-europes-digital-certificates-are-pointless) study suggests that vaccination, and hence vaccine passports, do not guarantee that someone can't be infected or infect someone else.
* With the obvious exemptions being allowed.
This (https://www.portugalresident.com/us-study-changes-war-against-covid-and-suggests-europes-digital-certificates-are-pointless/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=us-study-changes-war-against-covid-and-suggests-europes-digital-certificates-are-pointless) study suggests that vaccination, and hence vaccine passports, do not guarantee that someone can't be infected or infect someone else.
The vaccine at present protects from serious disease, but not infection. The passport might tell us that its owner is less likely to need hospitalization.
The more people who are vaccinated the safer we all are.This totally ignores that most people, especially the young, can eliminate the virus before they develop antibodies.
This totally ignores that most people, especially the young, can eliminate the virus before they develop antibodies.Err - how would they eliminate the virus without developing antibodies which is a key element of the immune response that is responsible for ... err ... eliminating the virus.
This totally ignores that most people, especially the young, can eliminate the virus before they develop antibodies.
This totally ignores that most people, especially the young, can eliminate the virus before they develop antibodies.
Err - how would they eliminate the virus without developing antibodies which is a key element of the immune response that is responsible for ... err ... eliminating the virus.Sorry - I should have clarified this. People have "natural antibodies", antibodies that are not developed in response to Covid-19, which consist of IgM, IgG and I think IgA. These are not specific for particular viruses, but can bind to and eliminate them. People also have Natural Killer cells, a class of lymphocyte that destroys infected cells. These are the mechanisms by which people recover from infection within a week or two, before covid-soecific antibodies develop.
Sorry - I should have clarified this. People have "natural antibodies", antibodies that are not developed in response to Covid-19, which consist of IgM, IgG and I think IgA. These are not specific for particular viruses, but can bind to and eliminate them. People also have Natural Killer cells, a class of lymphocyte that destroys infected cells. These are the mechanisms by which people recover from infection within a week or two, before covid-soecific antibodies develop.Spud - I think you need to do a crash course in immunology.
Spud - I think you need to do a crash course in immunology.There are certain nonspecific natural antibodies that we are born with, which are said to be our first line of defense. You may or may not be right that they are not sufficient to deal with infection, and that acquired antibodies are made in sufficient numbers to become the key component to fight a first infection within days.
IgG, IgM, IgA etc are so-called isotypes (or classes) of antibody. All are specific, in that they have an antigen binding site that will recognise a particular antigen on a foreign body, e.g. a virus protein. They are all specific for particular viruses, or rather a protein component on a virus. The exception being if the same protein is found on more than one virus in which case antibodies raised to virus A may protect from virus B.
So on the case of covid, the immune response involves the generation of specific antibodies, of all of the above classes, to various covid virus proteins. Without that acquired immune response our ability to fight infection is very weak, just associated with the innate immune system. The latter does involve natural killer cells, but their ability to respond to infection is limited without the acquired immune system.
And contrary to your post the acquired immune system (even in a first infection) will be kicking out Covid-specific antibodies within days, so your person who recovers from COVID in a week or two will be using the acquired immune system as the key component to fight that infection.
There are certain nonspecific natural antibodies that we are born with, which are said to be our first line of defense. You may or may not be right that they are not sufficient to deal with infection, and that acquired antibodies are made in sufficient numbers to become the key component to fight a first infection within days.
You may like to respond to the point made at 19:45-20:05 of this video (https://youtu.be/ZJZxiNxYLpc)
It's still the case that most young people can fight the infection without vaccinal antibodies.
He also says further on that the innate immune system could become useless when ineffective vaccinal antibodies are recalled in response to infection with a future variant, and block the innate mechanisms.
Earlier in the video he reminds us of the "first do no harm" principle. So if there is even a slight risk of side effects from vaccination, that principle is not being followed.
Geert Vanden Bossche has recently published a letter in which he argues that the vaccination campaign against COVID-19 is going to precipitate a public health disaster because the vaccines will select for viral variants that can escape their protection and drive them towards higher virulence. His claims are speculative, he offers no evidence to support his arguments, and makes several comments which are blatantly incorrect.
Never published any research about vaccines, even though he supposedly invented a new type of universal vaccines based on NK cells…
Should we stop vaccinating people in the middle of a pandemic that has already killed over 500,000 people in the United States alone on the word of someone who is board certified in Veterinary Virology, Microbiology and Animal Hygiene and hasn’t published a research paper since 1995?
This has been known for some time, as has the fact that you are less likely to pass the virus on and the length of time you stay infectious is shorter. As with all vaccines they are not 100% effective. Also if you are double vaccinated you are three times less likely to become infected.This study was done in the context of people in their homes. The one I linked to was among people who had taken part in festivities, so it's more relevant to the use of vaccine passports.
Report here: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
The more people who are vaccinated the safer we all are. A fact that the immunologist in your link, Manuel Santos Rosa, acknowledges as he is pushing for vaccination of children. (Report here: https://www.portugalresident.com/portuguese-immunologist-says-it-is-more-and-more-important-that-children-and-young-people-are-vaccinated/ )He said that back in June.
He said that back in June.So what. It was true then and it is true now.
Earlier in the video he reminds us of the "first do no harm" principle. So if there is even a slight risk of side effects from vaccination, that principle is not being followed.Do no harm - correctly in medical ethics described as non-maleficence, is just one of the four key pillars of medical ethics, the others being beneficence, autonomy and justice. They need to be balanced and certainly non-maleficence is not the primary driver for a decision whether or not to authorise a treatment for use.
This study was done in the context of people in their homes.
So what. It was true then and it is true now.Yes - I got mixed up. He changed his opinion on passports as a result of the study, not child vaccinatiin.
I can't see how you came to that conclusion based on the report I linked to. It absolutely did not specify any context other than it was a sample of 100,000 people between 24the June and 12th July.The number that tested positive was iirc similar to that in the festivities study. It seems when one study comes to a conclusion, another concludes the opposite. Which do we believe? The one that supports our view?
Those people might have been mixing or might not have been. they may have been at home or work or in other places.
I don't understand your need to so obviously misrepresent facts.
Yes - I got mixed up. He changed his opinion on passports as a result of the study, not child vaccinatiin.Have you spent a bit of time trying to learn the basics of our immune system and immune response Spud. I think you need to.
There are certain nonspecific natural antibodies that we are born with, which are said to be our first line of defense. You may or may not be right that they are not sufficient to deal with infection, and that acquired antibodies are made in sufficient numbers to become the key component to fight a first infection within days.
You may like to respond to the point made at 19:45-20:05 of this video (https://youtu.be/ZJZxiNxYLpc)
It's still the case that most young people can fight the infection without vaccinal antibodies.
He also says further on that the innate immune system could become useless when ineffective vaccinal antibodies are recalled in response to infection with a future variant, and block the innate mechanisms.
Earlier in the video he reminds us of the "first do no harm" principle. So if there is even a slight risk of side effects from vaccination, that principle is not being followed.
There is, alas, no vaccine aginst stupidity.Yes there is. It's called education. Unfortunately, it's not 100% effective.
Have you spent a bit of time trying to learn the basics of our immune system and immune response Spud. I think you need to.Heck, yes. About 28 years ago, but I don't remember covering natural antibodies. Thanks for correcting me on the time it takes for specific antibodies to be made.
Without that acquired immune response our ability to fight infection is very weak, just associated with the innate immune system.Could it be said that the innate immune system's ability to fight infection is actually quite good, especially in younger people, but is reduced with increasing viral load? This would agree with the low number of children infected during the first wave, but higher numbers during second and third waves involving more infectious variants.
And to think I used to like that right-wing dickhead when he presented 'Coast'!
Some twat on the book of faces recently compared me to a Nazi because I argued in favour if vaccine passports.There will be someone on social media who will compare to Nazi for arguing in favour of OAP bus passes
In this study (https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1931.short) have they specified the vaccination status of the people who had tested positive for coronavirus? If they want to make the case for vaccination, presumably they must compare people who have been vaccinated and had subsequent thrombocytopenia or thromboembolism, with unvaccinated people who have been infected and had subsequent thrombocytopenia or thromboembolism.Not really - the issue that are investigating isn't whether being vaccinated reduced the risk of blood clots associated with covid infection. What they were looking at was comparing increased risk of blood clot due to vaccination vs increased increased risk of blood clot due to covid infection.
Not really - the issue that are investigating isn't whether being vaccinated reduced the risk of blood clots associated with covid infection. What they were looking at was comparing increased risk of blood clot due to vaccination vs increased increased risk of blood clot due to covid infection.You can't conclude this because the study doesn't include any unvaccinated people. What it shows is that the combination of vaccination and infection leads to a much higher risk of clotting.
Given that one of the (false) arguments put forward by anti vaxxers is an increased risk of blood clots, this research is important as it clear demonstrates a much greater risk of blood clots from infection than from vaccination, which tips the risk/benefit ratio further in favour of vaccination as blood clots seem to be the major (albeit very rare) adverse effect of vaccination. There are, of course, many other major impacts of infection other than blood clots.
So the conclusion is that you are probably less likely to suffer from blood clots if you are vaccinated than if not.
That would appear to be what the research has concluded. The antivaxxer mob are the ones who cause harm to those gullible enough to act on their garbage. >:(I'm not anti-vaccination, and with regard to covid I'm not against vaccination of the vulnerable or people who wish to have it for peace of mind. But the current covid vaccines cannot lead to herd immunity, only an ongoing need for boosters, so I don't agree with putting pressure on people to be jabbed.
You can't conclude this because the study doesn't include any unvaccinated people. What it shows is that the combination of vaccination and infection leads to a much higher risk of clotting.But again you are looking for a different study. This study is looking at the risk of blood clots from the vaccine or from infection, all other things being equal. Otherwise you have compounding variables.
I found a study that shows a higher risk in unvaccinated, seriously ill covid patients. But for mildly infected covid patients there may be no greater risk of thrombosis than for an uninfected vaccinated person.
I'm not anti-vaccination, and with regard to covid I'm not against vaccination of the vulnerable or people who wish to have it for peace of mind.Vaccination is primarily to protect other people, not yourself (assuming you are pretty healthy). That's why refusing to get vaccinated, when in a low risk group, is an inherently selfish attitude.
But the current covid vaccines cannot lead to herd immunity, only an ongoing need for boosters,Of course they can, in combination with ongoing immunity driven by infection and also boosters against new variants - why is that a problem.
so I don't agree with putting pressure on people to be jabbed.People can choose, but as I've said above if you are healthy and at low risk refusing to have the jab is an inherently selfish decision. But while I would accept that some people may choose not to have the jab (and potentially be selfish) I don't think that should allow them to participate in 'high risk of infection' activities when they've refused to take an option to lower that risk. So I have no problem with requiring events and even some services and jobs to require people to be vaccinated unless they are unable to do so on health grounds.
Vaccination is primarily to protect other people, not yourself (assuming you are pretty healthy). That's why refusing to get vaccinated, when in a low risk group, is an inherently selfish attitude.The statistics for cases, hospitalisations and deaths occurring now compared with pre-vaccination stats suggest that the primary reason one would accept the vaccine would be to reduce the risk of severe disease to oneself.
Of course they can, in combination with ongoing immunity driven by infection and also boosters against new variants - why is that a problem.The statistics suggest that we are no nearer herd immunity than before the vaccine roll out. I think Trent recently linked to an article about this.
“The plans were not updated or changed to reflect the considerably higher risk posed by the Delta variant,” he noted. “And that strikes me as … wishful thinking on behalf of not very clever politicians, frankly.”
Vaccine-generated memory cells recall antibodies effective against limited epitopes of the S-protein, so they can't be relied on to protect us in the future unless they are elicited through natural infection, which leads to an immunological recognition of a broader range of viral epitopes.But you can, of course, raise a new or booster vaccine to a different epitome. The reason why the spike protein was chosen is it is fundamental to the virus' ability to infect cells and therefore unlikely to vary markedly without rendering the virus unable to be infectious. So by choosing the spike protein we have a vaccine most likely to be effective against variants that are themselves infectious - and indeed that has proved to be the case, as our current vaccines are effective against all the variants of concern, albeit in some cases a little less effective than against the original variant that was used as a template for vaccine development.
Unfortunately the vast amount of S-specific antibodies in the vaccinated population now risks blocking antibodies generated through natural infection, thus preventing herd immunity which relies on the latter to protect against new variants.Nope - that is muddled thinking. If I get infected and am vaccinated I will generate natural immunity (and generate antibodies against other epitopes) as well as being able to fight the infection via the acquired immune response to the spike protein conferred by the vaccine. And indeed if there is a variant that presents new epitopes that will generate a new immune response alongside the immune response associated with infection from a previous variant.
The statistics suggest that we are no nearer herd immunity than before the vaccine roll out. I think Trent recently linked to an article about this.Non-sense - we may not have reached herd immunity but we are far, far closer to it now than we were a year ago, through a combination of infection-generated and vaccine-generated immunity. Indeed I think in the UK not far off 90% of people have some level of immunity, demonstrated by the presence of covid antibodies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/27/delta-covid-variant-doubles-risk-hospitalisation-new-study-findsYou will note that contrary to Spud's naive view the expert opinion, as indicated in the article, is that getting vaccinated is absolutely key to dealing with variants.
I like the last sentence:
Quite.
Spud's views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.Your views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.
Your views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.
Spud's views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.I do not expend energy on getting cross or angry and have a fairly confident, equable sort of character, but I try to not read Sppud's comments because I find them so very irritating and annoying.
The end of the suit?Not while 'The Chap' magazine exists. (actually, I've gone off it in recent years. It used to have some interesting articles about all sorts of arcane subjects, but now it's little more than a clothing catalogue.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58374306
Not while 'The Chap' magazine exists. (actually, I've gone off it in recent years. It used to have some interesting articles about all sorts of arcane subjects, but now it's little more than a clothing catalogue.)I suspect suits will be the vinyl of the future, never quite dying out, having resurges, and supported by a loyal band of hard cases.
Not really - the issue that are investigating isn't whether being vaccinated reduced the risk of blood clots associated with covid infection. What they were looking at was comparing increased risk of blood clot due to vaccination vs increased increased risk of blood clot due to covid infection.A few other people on Twitter were asking the same question as me about the nature of the study, but one of the authors has since clarified that about 90% of the participants who tested positive for covid, did so before they were vaccinated.
Given that one of the (false) arguments put forward by anti vaxxers is an increased risk of blood clots, this research is important as it clear demonstrates a much greater risk of blood clots from infection than from vaccination, which tips the risk/benefit ratio further in favour of vaccination as blood clots seem to be the major (albeit very rare) adverse effect of vaccination. There are, of course, many other major impacts of infection other than blood clots.
So the conclusion is that you are probably less likely to suffer from blood clots if you are vaccinated than if not.
You will note that contrary to Spud's naive view the expert opinion, as indicated in the article, is that getting vaccinated is absolutely key to dealing with variants.But is it key that everybody gets vaccinated? I recall noting that by the time all over 70s had been done, the number of cases had fallen significantly. "In England, between 8 December 2020 and 11 March 2021, 90.2% of adults aged 70 years and over had received the first dose of a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine" By 11 March case numbers were around 6,000 per day, down from 60,000 in early January.
Also worth noting that the variants of concern all arose in populations with virtually no vaccine-generated immunity.As I understand it, the variants of concern arose in areas with high population density and poverty, due to high replication rates there. In theory, lockdown selects for these more infectious variants so that they become dominant.
Non-sense - we may not have reached herd immunity but we are far, far closer to it now than we were a year ago, through a combination of infection-generated and vaccine-generated immunity. Indeed I think in the UK not far off 90% of people have some level of immunity, demonstrated by the presence of covid antibodies.Interesting. I was looking at the numbers of cases, which seem as high now as they were back in January, although the curve is less steep.
Interesting. I was looking at the numbers of cases, which seem as high now as they were back in January, although the curve is less steep.Not true - reported cases in Jan were considerably higher than now, and there were fewer tests being conducted then as well.
I suspect suits will be the vinyl of the future, never quite dying out, having resurges, and supported by a loyal band of hard cases.
It is interesting to note that the musicians in orchestras seldom appear in concerts in the previously standard "white tie and tails" but are more often seen wearing clothes that would seem to be more comfortable and relaxed. Their formal attire was a hangover from the days when orchestras were found in the homes of aristocrats and bishops and their members wore an attire which reflected their status as servants.While it is certainly true that few orchestras nowadays wear "white tie and tails" that does not mean that orchestra members aren't expected to conform to a dress code in concerts - in most cases they most definitely are. Typically that will be all-black attire. As a choir member we regularly perform with professional orchestras and I can tell you there is most definitely a dress code - and the orchestra will bring that with them on the day of the concert. So the final rehearsal will see them wearing casual attire and they change into their concert clothes before performing.
Not true - reported cases in Jan were considerably higher than now, and there were fewer tests being conducted then as well.Yes, January had a much higher peak but it didn't last long and fell sharply. What I meant though was that now cases have plateaued at around 30,000 per day. But I guess considering that restrictions have been lifted that's still much better than the situation in January.
But herd immunity isn't just restriction to infection, but disease. So one of the major features of the vaccine is that it reduces severity of disease and of course plenty of the people testing positive are completely asymptomatic - and we only know they are positive due to our testing regimes. In normal circumstances if an infection was being passed around without generating symptoms we wouldn't be able to tell this from a situation where there was no infectious transmission.That's a good point about the asymptomatic positive cases.
There is no doubt that we are much closer to herd immunity now than in January and that is due in a large part to vaccination, but also ongoing infections within the population too.So what we need is for the booster to tackle Delta and then no new even more infectious strains to emerge.
As was pretty easily calculated from back of fag packet calculations way back in March 2020, getting to herd immunity without vaccination would have resulted in many times more deaths than we've seen.
Yes, January had a much higher peak but it didn't last long and fell sharply. What I meant though was that now cases have plateaued at around 30,000 per day. But I guess considering that restrictions have been lifted that's still much better than the situation in January.In Jan cases peaked at 80,000 cases per day, only attenuated by a severe lockdown. Currently we have no major restrictions and cases are less than half that, and with more testing.
He's too sexy for the jab. (https://uk.yahoo.com/news/said-fred-star-still-against-201321860.html) Disappointing - I quite liked RSF.
But we should always be looking for better ways to achieve the desired results, right? There are those who shy away from conventional medicine in favour of alternative approaches.
What like bleach or torchlight?Well if the vaccine carries some risk, as the research above showed, we should be looking for better options. Bleach sound too risky to me, but torchlight... what did you have in mind?
In Jan cases peaked at 80,000 cases per day, only attenuated by a severe lockdown. Currently we have no major restrictions and cases are less than half that, and with more testing.Agreed. But herd immunity is where transmission is prevented, so we probably shouldn't call our current situation that.
But that is only part of the story. More importantly we have just one quarter of the hospital admissions compared to the Jan peak, and less than 10% of the daily deaths compared to the Jan peak. That shows the vaccine in action.
Well if the vaccine carries some risk, as the research above showed, we should be looking for better options. Bleach sound too risky to me, but torchlight... what did you have in mind?
Agreed. But herd immunity is where transmission is prevented, so we probably shouldn't call our current situation that.Actually herd immunity refers to the spread of an infectious disease, not just transmission of an infectious agent. So immunisation and vaccination that prevents disease (regardless of whether some infection/transmission is still ongoing) is still herd immunity. Remember that in most cases we don't routinely test for infections, we determine whether or not people, singly or as a population, are infected on the basis of the presence of disease. So a population where there remains transmission of an infectious agent but virtually no disease (due to prior infection and/or vaccination) would also be considered to have reached herd immunity - in other words the population is broadly immune from the infectious disease.
Actually herd immunity refers to the spread of an infectious disease, not just transmission of an infectious agent. So immunisation and vaccination that prevents disease (regardless of whether some infection/transmission is still ongoing) is still herd immunity. Remember that in most cases we don't routinely test for infections, we determine whether or not people, singly or as a population, are infected on the basis of the presence of disease. So a population where there remains transmission of an infectious agent but virtually no disease (due to prior infection and/or vaccination) would also be considered to have reached herd immunity - in other words the population is broadly immune from the infectious disease.It also means, strictly speaking, that people who for whatever reason do not have immunity are protected; but I get your point.
Sounds narrow minded.
Alternative methods, certainly in the case of covid, is just being used as an excuse for making any old shit up.
Well if the vaccine carries some risk, as the research above showed, we should be looking for better options. Bleach sound too risky to me, but torchlight... what did you have in mind?I don't know how you can sit there and continue to type such idiotic stuff, I really don't.
Well if the vaccine carries some risk, as the research above showed, we should be looking for better options. Bleach sound too risky to me, but torchlight... what did you have in mind?But pretty well everything carries some level of risk. The point isn't to identify something with no risk (albeit good to minimise risk) - the point is the risk to benefit ratio. So the vaccine is great in this respect - it is highly effective at preventing disease and of course that disease carries risks way, way beyond that of the vaccine, and it is also incredibly safe, with most side effects being very minor and of negligible impact. There are more serious side effects (e.g. blood clots) but these are both very, very rare but also much less likely due to the vaccine than due to a potential covid infection.
Sounds narrow minded.
So I was looking at Andrew Taylor Still's book, written before the earth's crust cooled so not particularly 'scientific' as we would define it. He recommends using the blister Beatle (cantherides) against smallpox because injecting cowpox into people was high risk.
Something I note with regard to the search for a better approach than mRNA vaccines is the necessity to treat the disease as early as possible. That sounds like a start.
I don't know how you can sit there and continue to type such idiotic stuff, I really don't.It was an attempt at a joke. To be clear, this is about the claim that because the vaccine carries lower risk of vascular diaease than the infection then everybody must get jabbed; and the charge that not being jabbed is selfish. As it stands, the jab has been shown to be dangerous and so we should search for a safer way to prevent, or at best reduce the severity of the disease.
As it stands, the jab has been shown to be dangerous
It was an attempt at a joke.Oh dear - not very good at jokes are you.
To be clear, this is about the claim that because the vaccine carries lower risk of vascular diaease than the infection then everybody must get jabbed;Not it isn't - it is about the claim that the having the vaccine is risky, which is about the risk of having the jab vs not having the jab. The overwhelming evidence is that having the jab provides less net risk than not having it and that is even the case if you cherry pick the most recognised (but incredibly rare) side effect of blood clots. Even selecting just this risk (which you shouldn't be doing if looking at overall net risk) then your risk of a blood clot is greater if you don't have the jab than if you do.
and the charge that not being jabbed is selfish.Yup refusing to have the jab is selfish as it confers greater risk on other people who may be more vulnerable and may not be able to have the jab. Plus refusing to be jabbed increases overall infection and virus replication levels which makes the chances of further variants of concern arising greater. So, yes, refusing the jab is selfish.
As it stands, the jab has been shown to be dangerousNow it hasn't - the vaccine is incredibly safe and it is far more dangerous not to have the jab than to have it.
and so we should search for a safer way to prevent, or at best reduce the severity of the disease.Such as ...
Likewise there are situations where a vaccine is necessary.
I think for some the vaccine is being used as a crutch, when there are other ways to prevent disease from Covid that are risk-free
If there is a chance something can kill you even if used professionally, it is not safe. Such a thing ought not to be used indiscriminately.
And this is one such time. You can babble as much as you like about co-morbidities and rifles but you said this:Vitamin D and Exercise - limited to 20 minutes per day during lockdown, how can someone stay fit and get enough sunlight from that?
Come on then? What are they? What do you know that the medical experts don't know? Risk free? Like Ivermectin perhaps?
It has been shown to be remarkably safe not withstanding the sad cases where the rare blood clot has led to death.if the country was being invaded and each citizen was given a type of rifle that occasionally fired backwards at the user, would that rifle be considered safe? Perhaps it would suffice for the short term but we would be working to make it safer.
You are totally misrepresenting the facts.https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports
If you are saying it is dangerous because of the few deaths there have been you might want to consider banning aspirin as it is believed to lead to 3,000 deaths a year.No because there are times when it is necessary to have a pain killer. Likewise there are situations where a vaccine is necessary.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/14/risk-of-bleeds-and-death-with-daily-aspirin-use-higher-than-thought
It is about weighing the risks against benefitsWe also need to take into account (as well as the limitations of the vaccine) that some people are more at risk of covid disease than others. This study (https://www.cdc.gov/Pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm) shows that 94% of hospitalizations due to Covod in the US between March 2020 and March 2021 were people who had one or more co-morbidities.
and you, for whatever reason, are painting an inaccurate and misleading picture of the safety of the vaccine.Maybe, but I am yet to be convinced, especially from what friends have told me about side effects.
That is unless your risk free option is that people who have co-morbidities should live in isolation for the rest of their lives.But they would be vaccinated.
That is just about every medicine available and many medical procedure carried out.When was the last time someone told you they had side effects from swallowing aspirin?
But they would be vaccinated.
When was the last time someone told you they had side effects from swallowing aspirin?
As I keep pointing out nothing is risk free:I don't agree with that philosophy anyway. I wouldn't take aspirin unless I was in severe pain.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-aspirin-causes-more-than-3000-deaths-per-year-scientists-warn_uk_593fb481e4b0b13f2c6daa10
As talked about before risk/benefit balance. Do we keep taking aspirin because it helps stop deaths because it helps prevent blood clots for patients with heart disease or do we drop it because of the 3,000 who die taking it?
As you have already pointed out it is not 100% effective, therefore people with co-morbidities would still be at risk from the unvaccinated population.The risk-free options I believe exist would reduce disease severity in the unvaccinated population to the same extent that the vaccines do.
I don't agree with that philosophy anyway. I wouldn't take aspirin except if I was in severe pain.
The risk-free options I believe exist would reduce disease severity in the unvaccinated population to the same extent that the vaccines do.
Perhaps you've never had a heart attack. People's "philosophies" very often undergo changes after suffering a health crisis.The worst I've experienced was severe palpitations. Enough to know something was wrong. I was trying to exercise at the rate I used to and also was sleeping on a too-firm mattress. I didn't need to take pills, just address the cause.
A bit like the anti-vaxxers who catch Covid and are now saying they wished they'd had the vaccine.
I suppose you could call them fairweather anti-vaxxers.
You have evidence?Vitamin D is one I read elsewhere. Personally I just try and get a balanced diet. Yes, people do not exercise enough, and become obese. As I said I'm not against vaccinating them.
I ask because the studies done on Vitamin D so far are showing mixed results (putting it mildly), as to exercise good luck motivating this lard arse nation to get off it's collective sofa.
As to not catching colds it is also years since I have suffered one. I have one rule - don't shake hands (this was before Covid).
https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reportsThat is complete nonsense - have you actually read the source data:
1,612 deaths and many more adverse reactions due to vaccination in the UK to date.
I didn't need to take pills, just address the cause.
Perhaps you've never had a heart attack. People's "philosophies" very often undergo changes after suffering a health crisis.Agreed. My son, whose condition was 'critical' when he was taken into hospital, and which is now good and getting better daily, is now taking aspirin. I too take it . I also take a capsule of something, the name of which ends in '...ozole', which helps to avoid any possible stomach upsets.
A bit like the anti-vaxxers who catch Covid and are now saying they wished they'd had the vaccine.I have heard recently of quite a few very vocal anti-vaxxers who now are very ill with the disease and I'm afraid I have thought, well, it really serves them right.
Sometimes you can't address the cause.Such a good post and so well put. My son seems to be in the last group too! The doctors told him there were no clear causes and that it was probably bad luck!
My partner had a heart attack some 10 years ago now. He had none of the risk factors associated with heart disease. He didn't smoke, wasn't overweight, drank very moderately, took exercise and yet he had a heart attack. Why you may well ask? We found out it was because of an unusually narrow artery that made him more susceptible to the plaque that builds up in all of us at a certain age. The consultant told him there are three main groups of people who have heart attacks - the lifestyle group = smoking, drinking, overeating, lack of exercise - the elderly who are just more likely to suffer cardiac issues because of their age, and a smaller group which the consultant called the "what the fuck am I doing here?" group which make up perhaps 5% of the cases they see - these are people who look after themselves, aren't elderly but have drawn a short straw genetically speaking in cardiac terms.
There is no way to address that cause. As is the case with many other diseases. For example, most of us will know, or at least be aware of people who have had lung cancer but never smoked a cigarette in their lives.
Covid, for a lot of people, only has one partial answer, and that is the vaccine. It would be great if we can find other treatments but none of the ones mentioned are a complete fix. Staying healthy and having vitamin D hasn't worked for a sizeable number of younger people who caught covid and died. It is a most peculiar virus. It can take the healthy sometimes and leave my Aunt's sister who is 95 virtually untouched by it. She had the disease but said she's had worse colds - and she truly is a creaking gate, in case you thought she was some nonagenarian wonder woman.
That's a long way round for saying there are some things you simply cannot address in the manner you have described.
As I've said, I'm not anti-vaccination.
I have heard recently of quite a few very vocal anti-vaxxers who now are very ill with the disease and I'm afraid I have thought, well, it really serves them right.
I have an equable temperament and rationalise things rather than waste energy being angry, but this particular problem shows signs of shaking that.
You sure sound like one.
The risk-free options I believe exist would reduce disease severity in the unvaccinated population to the same extent that the vaccines do.
The risk-free options I believe exist would reduce disease severity in the unvaccinated population to the same extent that the vaccines do.Fantasy land - the only options to reduce disease severity in unvaccinated people that come close to vaccination are:
Given that this is a global pandemic with pretty well every country on the planet prioritising dealing with the pandemic, including harnessing the best minds on the planet do you not think that they'd have come up with an effective alternative to vaccination if one existed.
I don't agree with that philosophy anyway. I wouldn't take aspirin unless I was in severe pain.Aspirin would be pretty useless for dealing with severe pain.
That is complete nonsense - have you actually read the source data:Hmm, I'm not sure. Suppose someone is living with heart failure, and they're given the jab because it will decrease their risk of catching Covid. They develop a fever, a common adverse reaction, and their heart stops due to the increase in rate and strength of contraction during the fever. One could easily dismiss this as 'he was about to go anyway', but still, the death was caused by the jab. Maybe they have accounted for such incidences, I don't know.
These data are merely for people who died within 7 days of having the vaccine, not people who died due to a vaccine adverse effect. The rate of deaths is basically exactly what you'd get in the normal population, adjusted for the demographics of those having the vaccine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#annex-1-vaccine-analysis-profile
'Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred, naturally, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far, mostly in the elderly.
The MHRA has received 509 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 1,060 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 15 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 28 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified.
Sometimes you can't address the cause.I know several men who, around middle age or at least before old age, fall into the category where you wouldn't expect them to suffer a heart attack but they do. Maybe some of those had a narrowed coronary artery -I think there would have been warning signs preceding the heart attack that could have been picked up by a diligent practitioner. I know someone who had a massive intra-cerebral bleed; the doctors said most probably caused by high blood pressure, even though her BP was normal. When I mentioned a history of severe migraines they shrugged. Interestingly she hasn't had a migraine since the bleed. I know what factors combined to cause the migraines, and I think they could have been prevented. The fact that they weren't is evidence that the medical profession, maybe through no fault of its own, isn't doing a thorough job.
My partner had a heart attack some 10 years ago now. He had none of the risk factors associated with heart disease. He didn't smoke, wasn't overweight, drank very moderately, took exercise and yet he had a heart attack. Why you may well ask? We found out it was because of an unusually narrow artery that made him more susceptible to the plaque that builds up in all of us at a certain age. The consultant told him there are three main groups of people who have heart attacks - the lifestyle group = smoking, drinking, overeating, lack of exercise - the elderly who are just more likely to suffer cardiac issues because of their age, and a smaller group which the consultant called the "what the fuck am I doing here?" group which make up perhaps 5% of the cases they see - these are people who look after themselves, aren't elderly but have drawn a short straw genetically speaking in cardiac terms.
There is no way to address that cause. As is the case with many other diseases. For example, most of us will know, or at least be aware of people who have had lung cancer but never smoked a cigarette in their lives.
Covid, for a lot of people, only has one partial answer, and that is the vaccine. It would be great if we can find other treatments but none of the ones mentioned are a complete fix. Staying healthy and having vitamin D hasn't worked for a sizeable number of younger people who caught covid and died. It is a most peculiar virus. It can take the healthy sometimes and leave my Aunt's sister who is 95 virtually untouched by it. She had the disease but said she's had worse colds - and she truly is a creaking gate, in case you thought she was some nonagenarian wonder woman.
That's a long way round for saying there are some things you simply cannot address in the manner you have described.
Fantasy land - the only options to reduce disease severity in unvaccinated people that come close to vaccination are:
1. Lock downs and self isolation to prevent disease tranmission and:
2. Enough other people being vaccinated with consequential reduction in viral transmission to unvaccinated people.
But the second relies on a massive vaccination programme and the first is not risk-free as the risks of lockdowns and self isolation even on health are major, let alone on restrictions on basic liberties.
The vaccine is, without doubt, the best balance between effective reduction in covid disease severity and minimisation of associated risk. Nothing else comes close. Given that this is a global pandemic with pretty well every country on the planet prioritising dealing with the pandemic, including harnessing the best minds on the planet do you not think that they'd have come up with an effective alternative to vaccination if one existed.
. Maybe some of those had a narrowed coronary artery -I think there would have been warning signs preceding the heart attack that could have been picked up by a diligent practitioner.
I posted my views on covid disease prevention measures a year ago. One was good dental hygiene, which has been linked with a reduction in respiratory and other disease. I would have mentioned other measures but because of the reaction here I didn't bother.Irresponsible, anti-scientific bullshit.
I'm open to you being right. But not for me - I adopted a philosophy that invasive intervention should be reserved as a last resort, because the body has a self-repair mechanism that intervention should first seek to utilize. That means, from an osteopathic perspective, ensuring the muscles and joints are working properly. The current vaccines fundamentally modify the self-repair mechanism.That may be appropriate if the patient's mechanism is weak.
I adopted a philosophy that invasive intervention should be reserved as a last resort, because the body has a self-repair mechanism that intervention should first seek to utilize.You are correct - the body does have a self repair mechanism. The problem is that for many infections (including covid) and many people that self repair mechanism is not sufficient to prevent the infection causing very severe disease and sometimes death. Indeed, if you actually understood anything about the biology underlying the disease you would understand that the actual cause of death is directly related to the actions of that repair system - the virus doesn't kill you, your response to the virus does.
Partner had no warning signs before MI. The only way to pick it up would be via a diagnostic procedure such as an angiogram. As these aren't routinely done, and it would be very costly to screen the entire population, not to mention logistically impossible, then your suggestion is nonsense.Sure, I understand, just think it's strange there was no sign nor symptom at all if there was plaque build up. If the heart is not getting enough blood supply its muscle becomes ischaemic and chest pain or tightness is felt on exertion. Regarding taking daily low-dose aspirin, yes perhaps, if someone has already had an MI, or is experiencing chest pain and could be due for one. But as far as I know it's not recommended for everyone as it can increase the risk of internal bleeding. It's primarily a pain killer.
Sure, I understand, just think it's strange there was no sign nor symptom at all if there was plaque build up
As many as 50 percent of all cardiac deaths due to disease in the heart's vessels occur in individuals with no prior history or symptoms of heart disease.
Not strange at all.That's interesting, and I can't find anything on clinical signs (as distinct from symptoms) of coronary occlusion. So I can believe it - but (correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't follow that everyone should take aspirin, nor be vaccinated against a disease that not everyone is at serious risk from.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080616124938.htm
For those who don't want to bother with the article, this is the main takeaway:
This may have improved since 2008 with diagnostic tools but there will be a sizeable % of MI patients who still fall into this category.
In the case of coronavirus, please explain to me how you know who is and is not at risk?
You are correct - the body does have a self repair mechanism. The problem is that for many infections (including covid) and many people that self repair mechanism is not sufficient to prevent the infection causing very severe disease and sometimes death. Indeed, if you actually understood anything about the biology underlying the disease you would understand that the actual cause of death is directly related to the actions of that repair system - the virus doesn't kill you, your response to the virus does.
And that is why the approaches to help control the virus involve dampening down that self-repair mechanism (e.g. dexamethasone) or providing a highly controlled exposure to part of the virus that results in the development of a level of immunity but without severe side effects, such that when the body is actually exposed to the virus it's already augmented self-repair mechanism (the immune system) is better able to deal with the virus without creating dangerous or even fatal effects.
In Reply #4554 I linked to this large study showing 94% of hospitalized covid patients had one or more 'co-morbidities'.
The figure of 7800 looks large against the deaths reported from vaccination side effects of 1,632 as of 1st September. Of course, you have to weigh all the other lives saved by vaccination against that as well.It isn't the case that 1,632 people have died from vaccine side effects - that number is the number of people who died within 28 days of having a jab regardless of whether there is any link whatsoever with the jab. And of course people die all the time, and with the vaccine roll out starting with the oldest and most vulnerable it isn't unexpected that quite a few of those people will die within 28 days of a jab dose, and indeed would have died regardless. The rate of deaths in the vaccine jabbed people is basically in line with deaths in a 28 period adjusted for the age profile etc of the vaccinated people.
In Reply #4554 I linked to this large study (https://www.cdc.gov/Pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm) showing 94% of hospitalized covid patients had one or more 'co-morbidities'.
I'm reading up on the biology. Yes the hyper-inflammatory response is a big problem, and I think there is a way in which it can be dampened without drugs. The other problem is how to prevent the virus from reaching the lungs. I think the first step is awareness of the natural barriers to respiratory infection, such as nasal hair and the mucociliary system.
I'm reading up on the biology. Yes the hyper-inflammatory response is a big problem, and I think there is a way in which it can be dampened without drugs.It can be dampened down with anti inflammatory agents - some of which are naturally occurring others are synthetic. But in order to give an accurate and specific dose to the right place you need that agent to be delivered in a defined manner. And do you know what we call an anti-inflammatory agent delivered in a defined manner and specific dose - yup, we call them drugs.
The other problem is how to prevent the virus from reaching the lungs. I think the first step is awareness of the natural barriers to respiratory infection, such as nasal hair and the mucociliary system.Just nonsense - so on nasal hair. Men have significantly greater nasal hair than women - men are also more susceptible to covid infection than women. Clearly nasal hair is preventing infection - not.
It isn't the case that 1,632 people have died from vaccine side effects - that number is the number of people who died within 28 days of having a jab regardless of whether there is any link whatsoever with the jab. And of course people die all the time, and with the vaccine roll out starting with the oldest and most vulnerable it isn't unexpected that quite a few of those people will die within 28 days of a jab dose, and indeed would have died regardless. The rate of deaths in the vaccine jabbed people is basically in line with deaths in a 28 period adjusted for the age profile etc of the vaccinated people.
The MHRA has received 524 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 1,064 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 16 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 28 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Usage of the vaccines has increased over the course of the campaigns and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths.
Ok so 6% of the 130,000 that have died in the UK thus far is 7,800 people that will die without comorbidities. Are you willing to risk being one of the 7800?The 6% figure is for hospitalizations, not deaths.
How?I've recently suggested one way. Breathing in air that is warm, if the external temperature is cold, or air that is cool, if the external temperature is hot, will help the alveoli to remain within the temperature limits at which they function best.
The 6% figure is for hospitalizations, not deaths.
Ok apologies for that. The actual figures for deaths (March - June 2020, later data isn't available/easy to find) are here:That seems odd: In the US study, Table 1 says that the number of covid patients with no underlying disease who died was 740, which is 0.9% of the 80,174 covid patients who died.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/ukcovid19deathsbyagewithnounderlyingconditions
8.9% without underlying health conditions died.
A large % who you seem to want to take a gamble with their lives.
I've recently suggested one way. Breathing in air that is warm, if the external temperature is cold, or air that is cool, if the external temperature is hot, will help the alveoli to remain within the temperature limits at which they function best.Oh dear - yet another one of your nonsense suggestions.
Oh dear - yet another one of your nonsense suggestions.India had temperatures over 40 C at the peak of their infections. That's way above the optimum temp for lung function. Those countries also have high population densities, which worsened the spread.
So living in a warm climate, such as India or Brazil or Mexico or Indonesia should naturally reduce the impact of covid. Hmm, slight problem those countries are all in the top seven for covid deaths.
Ok apologies for that. The actual figures for deaths (March - June 2020, later data isn't available/easy to find) are here:1.7% were under 70.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/ukcovid19deathsbyagewithnounderlyingconditions
8.9% without underlying health conditions died.
A large % who you seem to want to take a gamble with their lives.
1.7% were under 70.
0.2% were under 45.
OIC.I've thought all along that it was important to vaccinate those over 70.
You have the BJ mindset. They're old. They don't count.
Having the vaccine is about the protection of others not only yourself.
I've thought all along that it was important to vaccinate those over 70.But if you are relying on natural immunity from infections, firstly there will be a load of those people, however young, who will get seriously ill, some will die and others will have the long lasting effects of long covid. Also you simply cannot generate natural immunity as fast as a vaccination programme without the infection running riot, and when infections run riot you cannot protect the vulnerable as sooner or later the infection gets to them.
Re protecting others, it's true but don't forget that young people being more resilient could have protected the elderly (once the latter had been vaccinated) through developing immunity through natural infection. This has been demonstated (in Israel recently (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1)) to be as good if not better than vaccination immunity.
India had temperatures over 40 C at the peak of their infections. That's way above the optimum temp for lung function.So it can't be too cold and it can't be too hot.
I've thought all along that it was important to vaccinate those over 70.
Re protecting others, it's true but don't forget that young people being more resilient could have protected the elderly (once the latter had been vaccinated) through developing natural immunity, which has been demonstated (in Israel recently (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1)) to be as good if not better than vaccine-induced immunity.
But if you are relying on natural immunity from infections, firstly there will be a load of those people, however young, who will get seriously ill, some will die and others will have the long lasting effects of long covid. Also you simply cannot generate natural immunity as fast as a vaccination programme without the infection running riot, and when infections run riot you cannot protect the vulnerable as sooner or later the infection gets to them.As I understand it, there will always be disease and death, however we manage infection. Social distancing can minimize this, and is very important. We shouldn't underestimate the value of natrally-acquired immunity. The "vaccinate everybody" approach causes a sudden surge in immune pressure on the virus, which responds with more infectious variants becoming dominant. Relying more on natural immunity allows the virus to occupy a niche while that immunity gradually builds up to the point where the disease is endemic rather than pandemic.
Or, of course, you can engage in a highly effective vaccination campaign which will, of course, run alongside natural immunity as until the virus is completely eradicated there will always be some underlying level of infection ongoing.
The "vaccinate everybody" approach causes a sudden surge in immune pressure on the virus, which responds with more infectious variants becoming dominant.
Relying more on natural immunity allows the virus to occupy a niche while that immunity gradually builds up to the point where the disease is endemic rather than pandemic.
Am not denying that Delta was detected prior to mass vaccination. It probably arose because of high numbers of infections last summer.
..except that the current dominant strain the "India variant" arose from a country which at the time had IIRC less than 0.05% of its population vaccinated!?
Right. Allowing ever new and more devious variants to arise.Sorry, I forgot to mention that natural immunity may protect better against new variants.
Am not denying that Delta was detected prior to mass vaccination. It probably arose because of high numbers of infections last summer.The biggest driver for the emergence of new variants of concern is the number of viral replication events which is basically down to the rates of infection. Vaccination significantly reduces (although does not eliminate) the transmission of the virus. More vaccination, less viral replication events and therefore less likelihood that a random mutation will be a variant of concern.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that natural immunity may protect better against new variants.Your appalling ignorance and disregard for the safety of as many people as possible is mind-numbingly shocking. And although you may deny your lack of concern for others, it would become apparent if you just stepped outside your complacent, uninformed shell for a moment.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that natural immunity may protect better against new variants.
I've recently suggested one way. Breathing in air that is warm, if the external temperature is cold, or air that is cool, if the external temperature is hot, will help the alveoli to remain within the temperature limits at which they function best.Where do you get the warm air from if it is cold outside or the cold air from if it is hot outside?
Just to highlight how random and desperately cruel Covid is, and why Spud is way, way off the mark, I suggest reading this:This should be read by Spud over and over and over again and by all other vaccine-resistant fools.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/the-virus-is-painfully-real-vaccine-hesitant-people-are-dying-and-their-loved-ones-want-the-world-to-listen
As I understand it, there will always be disease and death, however we manage infection. Social distancing can minimize this, and is very important. We shouldn't underestimate the value of natrally-acquired immunity. The "vaccinate everybody" approach causes a sudden surge in immune pressure on the virus, which responds with more infectious variants becoming dominant. Relying more on natural immunity allows the virus to occupy a niche while that immunity gradually builds up to the point where the disease is endemic rather than pandemic.
Where do you get the warm air from if it is cold outside or the cold air from if it is hot outside?A car heater for cold weather and I guess a homebase air conditioner for hot weather.
A car heater for cold weather and I guess a homebase air conditioner for hot weather.
A car heater for cold weather and I guess a homebase air conditioner for hot weather.
Dumbasfuckeregogogoch
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/covid-jab-holiday-retreat-ban-21532284?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Thereby adding to the global climate crisis.
Save the planet - have the vaccine.
..and for those people who don't have a car?
Are the recommended air conditioners portable and battery operated? Do they work for your purposes if it is both hot and windy?
I can smell something. Trying to work out what it is. Cracked it! It's bullshit!It was probably not accurate, but I've found a video that I was looking for in which Geert Vanden Bosche explains what happens in a natural pandemic where there are no lockdowns or vaccinations. He then talks about how the latter change the outcome of the pandemic, in terms of herd immunity. At some point I'll try and write it up here.
Yes. And you also forgot to mention that natural immunity will only be achieved at the probable cost of millions of deaths.
In the short term, yes, and this is why they introduced infection prevention measures - to 'flatten the curve'. But without them, the pandemic might only last two years, like the Spanish Flu. We might now end up in a situation where the pandemic lasts much longer than it would without human vaccines and lockdowns, causing more deaths overall.Absolute non-sense. The levels of deaths required to reach herd immunity without vaccinations would be massively greater than with vaccination. Vaccination is the solution that allows us to achieve herd immunity with minimum levels of deaths and also to allow us to return to as near normal life as possible - the key being that vaccination massively reduces the risk of serious injury and death, so we can live with covid in the manner we live with flu and many other infectious diseases.
It was probably not accurate, but I've found a video that I was looking for in which Geert Vanden Bosche explains what happens in a natural pandemic where there are no lockdowns or vaccinations. He then talks about how the latter change the outcome of the pandemic, in terms of herd immunity. At some point I'll try and write it up here.
In the short term, yes, and this is why they introduced infection prevention measures - to 'flatten the curve'. But without them, the pandemic might only last two years, like the Spanish Flu. We might now end up in a situation where the pandemic lasts much longer than it would without human vaccines and lockdowns, causing more deaths overall.
I know the video. I've seen it. That's a load of old pony as well.Here's his theory:
Have a read of this.I wonder what he would say about what Sarah Gilbert said the other day, that the virus will become less virulent over time and end up like a cold.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche (https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche)
I wonder what he would say about what Sarah Gilbert said the other day, that the virus will become less virulent over time and end up like a cold.
Is it the case that most viruses become more deadly (as with SARS Cov2) before becoming less deadly?
Wasn't Sarah Gilbert's point that because of high levels of population immunity the virus would become more like the cold rather than the virus mutating to a less virulent form?Yes, you're right I think. It became more infectious, and the vaccinal antibodies reduce its ability to reach/cause disease in the lungs.
I don't think SARS-Cov-2 became more deadly did it - but rather more transmissible? This makes sense in terms of natural selection.
Yes, you're right I think. It became more infectious, and the vaccinal antibodies reduce its ability to reach/cause disease in the lungs.
Geert (pronounced Gert) is still asserting that the mass vaccination has caused the (already circulating) more infectious variants to become dominant. That with only natural immunity to contend with, the wild type would still be dominant.
He's also confirmed what I thought, that vaccinating just the vulnerable segment of the population would be ok as it leaves a good proportion with natural immunity who will reduce the infections by the delta etc variants (which the vaccines can't stop). But he says the more people are vaccinated, the lower the number of people who can deal with the variants.
Also, because of the high infection rates in countries with high levels of vaccination (due to lower levels of natural immunity) that makes mutation more likely.
But I think Sarah was also saying that the spike can't mutate much more because if it does it won't be able to bind to ace2. Geert still believes there's a giant wave coming, though.
Yes, I know what he has been saying and these points are addressed in the article I posted the link to. He isn't the oracle on this so just repeating that Geert says this or Geert says that isn't of much value really. He is one voice - that doesn't necessarily make him wrong of course but it doesn't make him right either. You do seem to be doing the same here as you have done before with other topics - latched onto one voice which isn't mainstream and repeated what that voice says as if it is the truth whilst dismissing the main stream view.I am trying to get to the bottom of why he doesn't seem to be taking into account that statistically people are less likely to become severely ill or die if vaccinated.
I wonder what he would say about what Sarah Gilbert said the other day, that the virus will become less virulent over time and end up like a cold.Viruses tend to become less serious because it's in their interest to. They want to propagate themselves, and they can't do that very well if they kill their victims in short order. The ideal for them is to be easily transmissible by droplet infection, and to make their victims cough and sneeze, so that they spread the virus, but not become so ill that they isolate themselves. Also, we will be putting huge effort into countering a serious illness, whereas if it's no worse that a cold, we won't bother so much. A virus like the one in the drama series "Survivors", which killed over 99.9% of the world's population in a few weeks, would be a disaster on its own terms, as, once it had run its course, it would have nowhere to go.
Is it the case that most viruses become more deadly (as with SARS Cov2) before becoming less deadly?
Comment from a teacher friend on their experience of anti vax protestors at school
'Anti vaccine protestors are now targeting schools! 😡 We had a load of them today, set up outside the school, playing loud music and shouting. Lessons were interrupted. We could smell the cannabis wafting up to the classrooms. They then caused a major disturbance as all the pupils gathered around instead of dispersing safely. The whole school at once! Our pupils see it as a novelty and were filming and laughing. Teachers trying to disperse pupils on a very, very busy main road were then targeted for not allowing pupils to enter into discussion. 😂😂😂😡😡😡Disgusting and wrong on every level!!! 😡😡😡😡'
I am trying to get to the bottom of why he doesn't seem to be taking into account that statistically people are less likely to become severely ill or die if vaccinated.
Ii hasn't come across to me at least that you are questioning what he is saying but rather that you are repeating it as fact. If I'm wrong on that then I apologise, but that's how it seems.My recent posts may have come across as repeating it as fact because doing so helps to consolidate it in my mind. I have used ambiguous words sometimes, eg 'Geert is asserting/believes' to indicate that I am questioning it. But at times I do sway towards believing it, other times not.
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/08/23/geert-vanden-bossche-is-back-and-still-blaming-vaccines-for-covid-19-variants/Phew thank goodness most of that link is comments... I was thinking the article would take weeks to read.
I can actually, I think, see his concern: The viruses that are resistant to the vaccine will have the field to themselves. However, I don't generally take the opinions of one or two mavericks when the vast majority of scientists in the relevant field disagree.
Not a horse de-wormer. (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-antiviral-pill-half-hospitalisations-deaths-merck-b958364.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0_SygjvnoogomXA-mJre0Vf3nbvdrC-KXQ2eDHq_CMtraXY04Q6nhBEJo#Echobox=1633108857)How do you know? Has anybody tried deworming horses with it?
Those of you following the stats will know that we have deaths in the range of 100-200 per day at the moment which is pretty bad but nothing like the peaks.There definitely seems to be a correlation in some countries between low vaccine take-up and high morbidity and mortality. But India has low cases yet only 17% are fully vaccinated.
In the USA, they are currently running at 2,000 deaths per day. Here's an animation that explains why it is so bad there:
https://dangoodspeed.com/covid/total-cases-since-june
tl;dw politics
There definitely seems to be a correlation in some countries between low vaccine take-up and high morbidity and mortality. But India has low cases yet only 17% are fully vaccinated.
There definitely seems to be a correlation in some countries between low vaccine take-up and high morbidity and mortality. But India has low cases yet only 17% are fully vaccinated.As well as what a-o said, it is typical of pandemics to be patchy: some areas get off lightly.
That's because India has high numbers of unreported cases.
When the cases were soaring in April-May 21 no one said the figures were wrong....
When the cases were soaring in April-May 21 no one said the figures were wrong....
Gillian McKeith - who, unsurprisingly, is an anti-vaccinator - makes an idiot of herself again.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/gillian-mckeith-spectacularly-misunderstood-a-funeral-home-s-pro-vax-advert/ar-AAP7j4l?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/12/covid-response-one-of-uks-worst-ever-public-health-failures
"Britain’s early handling of the coronavirus pandemic was one of the worst public health failures in UK history, with ministers and scientists taking a “fatalistic” approach that exacerbated the death toll, a landmark inquiry has found.
“Groupthink”, evidence of British exceptionalism and a deliberately “slow and gradualist” approach meant the UK fared “significantly worse” than other countries, according to the 151-page “Coronavirus: lessons learned to date” report led by two former Conservative ministers."
As if we hadn't known all along!
I had a thought or two as well, last week. The news said there could be 60,000 deaths from Flu this winter. The reasoning was that because there wasn't enough flu circulating last year, due to lockdown, people will now be more susceptible to it. I take this to mean that not enough of those with good innate immunity have been infected, and acquired natural immunity to it, in order to provide a level of herd immunity. Doesn't this also apply to Sars covid-19, in that because we didn't allow it to circulate to an extent, in healthy and young people, there were more deaths later on? This did seem to be the case following the extensive lockdowns of 2020, when the world has experienced two large spikes this year caused by variants of concern.
I had a thought or two as well, last week. The news said there could be 60,000 deaths from Flu this winter. The reasoning was that because there wasn't enough flu circulating last year, due to lockdown, people will now be more susceptible to it. I take this to mean that not enough of those with good innate immunity have been infected, and acquired natural immunity to it, in order to provide a level of herd immunity. Doesn't this also apply to Sars covid-19, in that because we didn't allow it to circulate to an extent, in healthy and young people, there were more deaths later on? This did seem to be the case following the extensive lockdowns of 2020, when the world has experienced two large spikes this year caused by variants of concern.
As I understand it the innate immune system's effectiveness isn't dependent upon exposure.Yes, I meant that people with good innate immunity were not exposed to the wild type. If they had been, their innate, non-specific antibodies would have neutralized not only the wild type but also mutated strains, which would then only be able to circulate in low levels. Since this didn't happen, more infectious variants were able to become dominant, causing a higher infectious pressure, which the innate immunity of healthy people finds harder to deal with.
Yes, I meant that people with good innate immunity were not exposed to the wild type. If they had been, their innate, non-specific antibodies would have neutralized not only the wild type but also mutated strains, which would then only be able to circulate in low levels. Since this didn't happen, more infectious variants were able to become dominant, causing a higher infectious pressure, which the innate immunity of healthy people finds harder to deal with.
??? As has been said before, the more people have the virus, the more likely it is to mutate, maybe into more infectious forms. This still sounds like the stuff from that vet who's been debunked.Sure - but I'm also talking about what the person in the Spanish researchers' article in Udayana's link says, that "the absence of circulation of certain pathogens can lead to a decrease in herd immunity against them. This can promote the rise of more serious, longer-lasting epidemics that start sooner".
Sure - but I'm also talking about what the person in the Spanish researchers' article in Udayana's link says, that "the absence of circulation of certain pathogens can lead to a decrease in herd immunity against them. This can promote the rise of more serious, longer-lasting epidemics that start sooner".
I wondered whether "certain pathogens" includes Covid 19.
In basic epidemiological models the population falls into three groups:I don't think your explanation takes into account the people from the susceptible group who can be infected but can recover without developing long-term acquired immunity - ie those whose innate antibodies neitralize the virus.
Susceptible - individuals who can be infected by the disease
Infected - individuals who are infected and can spread the infection
Removed - individuals that are no longer relevant because:
a) they are naturally immune
b) they have been infected but recovered with at least temporary immunity
c) they have been vaccinated
d) they have been infected and died
The herd immunity threshold is the proportion of the population that must be in the Removed group to bring the number of susceptible individuals infected by contact with each infected individual to 1 or less, such that the epidemic ends.
For both flu and covid we are not going to get to the herd immunity threshold as new variants arise quickly, so everyone will eventually end up in one of the Removed sub-groups.
We can take our chances but clearly the best bet is to be vaccinated even given the vaccination is not perfect.
I don't think your explanation takes into account the people from the susceptible group who can be infected but can recover without developing long-term acquired immunity - ie those whose innate antibodies neitralize the virus.
As long as a low infection rate is maintained, thia group helps protect those who are susceptible to severe morbidity and mortality.
That would be most people: they are susceptible, if infected they can further spread the infection but have some, often temporary, level of immunity when recovered. How can they possibly be helping protect anyone except by getting vaccinated so they reduce the likelihood of spreading the disease?I mean those who have not been previously exposed but can still recover while specific antibodies are not present in high enough amounts to play a part in the recovery. Such as most young children and asymptomatically infected people. IIRC these do not shed as much virus, therefore they are less of a threat to others, and can therefore act as a sponge to soak up the virus. I thought this was the concept being described in the news - having a level of circulation of Flu that will help prevent an epidemic?
I mean those who have not been previously exposed but can still recover while specific antibodies are not present in high enough amounts to play a part in the recovery. Such as most young children and asymptomatically infected people. IIRC these do not shed as much virus, therefore they are less of a threat to others, and can therefore act as a sponge to soak up the virus. I thought this was the concept being described in the news - having a level of circulation of Flu that will help prevent an epidemic?
No. The more people there are who are less likely to be infected and/or spread the infection (covid or flu or other disease) the slower the spread of the disease, but they do not act as a "sponge" - preventing the spread. They help by not participating in the spread. Of-course having the most vulnerable being vaccinated helps hugely as it reduces the chance of them getting seriously ill even if they are exposed to the virus.
So, for example, with flu the same number of people will end up getting infected and the same number seriously ill whether or not the flu virus was circulating earlier in the year - just that cases would have been more spread out over time and, so, would be easier to deal with. Of-course if people, especially the more vulnerable, have been vaccinated with a vaccine appropriate for the variety of virus in circulation, the number of serious cases would be greatly reduced as well as the overall number of cases and speed of spread.
Spud,His point is that if lots of people have innate antibodies that work equally well against all variants, then more infectious mutants cannot become dominant and hence the infection rate stays low.
You seem to be concerned about which variant is dominant, but there is little we can do about that.
Variants of the Sars-Cov-2 virus are not in competition with each other. An individual can be infected by either or both. If an infected person has anti-bodies against a less infectious variant it does not make it any easier for a more infectious variant to spread ("drive infection").
In fact, it can be taken as given that the more infectious variant will dominate (ie. be seen in a larger number of cases) unless it can be kept isolated.
You might be dazzled or caught in the glare of technical jargon from an off-beam troll?
His point is that if lots of people have innate antibodies that work equally well against all variants, then more infectious mutants cannot become dominant and hence the infection rate stays low.
...
Over a fifth of the daily world figures are in the UK
Just thinking about the first point:Okay, fair point if we are thinking of variants that have already started spreading. If we start with the Wuhan type, though, and think about a person who has just been infected with it. When the virus starts to replicate, by chance it mutates into particles that can enter cells slightly more easily. There will be a small amount of this variant and relatively more original strain in that one person. If his non-specific, innate antibodies reduce the overall amount of virus by 90% (before S-specific antibodies are produced to clear the rest), and deal with the variant and wild type alike, there will be the same proportion of the two strains left over, so the amount of mutated virus won't be enough, if transmitted to a person with functioning innate antibodies, to become dominant. If there is a high enough proportion of people with functioning innate antibodies in the population the variant won't be able to become dominant.
Take a population of 100 people, half of whom are naturally immune against two variants, A and B. Someone with variant A passes it on to 2 others in a day (then recovers), someone with variant B passes it onto 4 people in a day before recovering. Introduce one person infected with A and one person infected with B into the population.
On day 2 there are two people infected with A but 4 people with B
On day 3 there are 4 people with A but 16 with B
...
and so on ... until all the 50 susceptible people have been infected - the next day.
You can play with the numbers but for large populations variant B will almost always be dominant - at least until we approach herd immunity. And we can see that that has been the case worldwide in populations that have had low numbers vaccinated.
Spud. The talk of innate antibodies refers to children as far as I can see. At what age does that decline? Sorry if mentioned earlier.They are present throughout life but decline with age.
If his non-specific, innate antibodies reduce the overall amount of virus by 90% (before S-specific antibodies are produced to clear the rest), and deal with the variant and wild type alike, there will be the same proportion of the two strains left over, so the amount of mutated virus won't be enough, if transmitted to a person with functioning innate antibodies, to become dominant. If there is a high enough proportion of people with functioning innate antibodies in the population the variant won't be able to become dominant.Completely scientifically illiterate non-sense.
That Arsehole Justin Welby should be calling down God's judgment on our Covid Loving Government but no. He's more Garden of Eton than Garden of Eden.What rattled your cage on this one Vlad - this comment seems to come without any context. What exactly has Welby said in relation to covid.
Looking at the BBC news this morning I'm struggling to understand why reintroducing the requirement to use facemasks is such a hot potato: after all, it isn't exact an onerous demand.Definitely not universal on public transport in my experience.
Here in Scotland the need to wear them in shops and public transport, and for older kids in secondary school, was never removed - and, anecdotally, compliance with this seems almost universal in my experience.
Looking at the BBC news this morning I'm struggling to understand why reintroducing the requirement to use facemasks is such a hot potato: after all, it isn't exact an onerous demand.Mask wearing has really dwindled in England since it ceased to be broadly mandatory. And that includes in places where it remains required, for example on London Transport - the problem is that there is no real way to enforce the requirement as the rules only allow LT staff to prevent people from travelling rather than issue fines etc.
Here in Scotland the need to wear them in shops and public transport, and for older kids in secondary school, was never removed - and, anecdotally, compliance with this seems almost universal in my experience.
Looking at the BBC news this morning I'm struggling to understand why reintroducing the requirement to use facemasks is such a hot potato: after all, it isn't exact an onerous demand.
Here in Scotland the need to wear them in shops and public transport, and for older kids in secondary school, was never removed - and, anecdotally, compliance with this seems almost universal in my experience.
Kwasi Kwarteng. What a useless politician.My fear is that even if the government reintroduces the mandate it will be impossible to enforce - once you have removed something (mask wearing) I think it will be really hard to reintroduce it. I suspect large swathes of the public will just shrug and carry on maskless.
I've just written to my MP (again) about reintroducing the mask mandate. Trying to keep up the pressure, but the government are so obdurate that I fear that wearing my fingers to the bone on a keyboard will have no effect.
My fear is that even if the government reintroduces the mandate it will be impossible to enforce - once you have removed something (mask wearing) I think it will be really hard to reintroduce it. I suspect large swathes of the public will just shrug and carry on maskless.
Possibly, but it could still persuade enough people to change, and that overall change would make a difference.Actually the area which is now really concerning me is vaccination.
They have painted themselves into a corner entirely of their own making.
Actually the area which is now really concerning me is vaccination.
It has been clear for some time that vaccine efficacy does wane over time, hence the need for boosters. Yet the booster programme seems shambolic and completely lacks transparency - we keep receiving more information about the proportion of the population single and double jabbed, but we also need to see data on the numbers receiving their boosters, which are supposed to be provided 6 months after the second jab. So we should be seeing the same level of vaccination activity right now and over the past month as we saw in March/April as all those people will be ready for boosters.
The other thing which is again, too little too late, is 12-15 year olds. Why did we wait until August to make the decision, only allowing roll out in Sept/Oct what kids were back at school. If we'd made the decision in a timely fashion as other countries did we could have had mass vaccination in mid July (before schools broke up), with kids having built up immunity by the time they returned to school in September. As it is we have a double whammy - so kids only being vaccinated now and also a load of kids unable to be vaccinated as they'd had the virus within the last few weeks.
Yet again, we (or rather the government) have taken their eye off the ball.
Looking at the BBC news this morning I'm struggling to understand why reintroducing the requirement to use facemasks is such a hot potato: after all, it isn't exact an onerous demand.I think the answer you'll get Gordon is ''It's me english pride, innit''
Here in Scotland the need to wear them in shops and public transport, and for older kids in secondary school, was never removed - and, anecdotally, compliance with this seems almost universal in my experience.
Indeed. I also covered these points in my letter. I'm now 6 months form my last vaccination and not a peep from the NHS. Kwarteng made it sound as if people weren't coming forward to be vaccinated. How can you if you aren't invited and the NHS specifically tells you to wait to hear from them and not to hassle them.Kwarteng is a completely useless fuck. Co Author of Britain completely unhinged. Copies of which were the solution to the toilet roll crisis.
Completely scientifically illiterate non-sense.In a person with functioning innate immunity, mutated virus will be eliminated as effectively as original strain. Therefore if transmitted to such a person, there will be less chance that he will pass it on. So the need is for as many people with effective interferon responses etc as possible so that the mutated strains are cleared. Also this can continue as long as the viral load is low, since the innate system can't cope with high loads. So infection prevention measures need to be in place.
Firstly that wouldn't prevent the new more transmissible variant from becoming dominant as the whole point is that for any given amount of viral load the more transmissible variant will have a greater propensity to infect and replicate within the cells of the host and be released to infect others. So you might start with equal proportions but once this goes through the next host you will have greater proportions of the new more transmissible variant, and that effect will compound with each infection, replication within a host and release cycle. Hence you get the new strain becoming dominant.
But it also fails to recognise that the innate and acquired immune systems go hand in hand - if we become infected both will become involved in the immune response. But of course the innate system alone is simply insufficient to deal with any significant infection event and even with the first exposure to the virus the combination of innate and acquired may be insufficient to prevent severe disease or even death.As I understand it, the innate immunity of a healthy person can cope with a low viral load and for higher loads will be activated while specific antibodies are evolving and being produced in great enough quantities to deal with the virus.
The key point about acquired immunity is it makes you much less vulnerable the second (third etc) time you encounter the pathogen.If the second encounter is with the same pathogen, yes - if the encounter is with a mutated form, it may be less effective.
So we can allow this to happen naturally, and accept major levels of serious disease and death, or we can short circuit the reponse by kick start acquired immunity in a safe manner using the vaccine, so that when that person encounters the actual pathogen the are less infectious and less likely to get serious disease or die.I know, however, in normal circumstances this is done before exposure to the pathogen, so as to reduce the risk of immune escape which happens when the virus is encountered during a partial immune response such as between first and second doses of vaccine.
In a person with functioning innate immunity, mutated virus will be eliminated as effectively as original strain.But the point is that innate immunity is inefficient at eliminating the virus, hence the need for acquired immunity.
Therefore if transmitted to such a person, there will be less chance that he will pass it on.He or she - but nonetheless, innate immunity is unlikely to prevent viral replication, expulsion and therefore potential transmissibility in all but the lowest of viral load infections. But the point is that if the virus replicates in the host and is expelled (e.g. through breathing out!!) then the mutant strain is much more likely to infect a new person than the original strain. So the sequence goes as follows:
If the second encounter is with the same pathogen, yes - if the encounter is with a mutated form, it may be less effective.Not necessarily - it depends on the nature of the mutation and the nature of the acquired immunity (whether natural or via vaccine). The reason why the vaccine has targeted the spike protein is because it is key to transmissibility and therefore any mutations that remain viable (i.e. are still able to be transmitted) are likely to retain the spike protein in a broadly similar configuration and so will be similarly recognised by the acquired immunity.
But the point is that innate immunity is inefficient at eliminating the virus, hence the need for acquired immunity.I agree with this (except that early in the pandemic the innate immunity of children was able to cope with the virus - perhaps not preventing transmission though), but if we consider the Wuhan lockdown, it's interesting that they managed to prevent the virus spreading beyond the city except to other countries where there was no lockdown.
He or she - but nonetheless, innate immunity is unlikely to prevent viral replication, expulsion and therefore potential transmissibility in all but the lowest of viral load infections. But the point is that if the virus replicates in the host and is expelled (e.g. through breathing out!!) then the mutant strain is much more likely to infect a new person than the original strain. So the sequence goes as follows:
1. So for one person who becomes infectious having been exposed to both mutant and original strain they may infect four person but only one of those people becomes infected with both strains (call this person a) the other three people (call them people b, c and d) with the new strain only (as it is more transmissible).
2. Those people b, c and d - they infect four additional people all with the mutant strain, while person a infects one person with both strains and three with the mutant strain.
So from a single person infected with both strains we have 16 people infected with the mutant strain and just one infected with the original strain. That is how the mutant becomes dominant.
I agree with this (except that early in the pandemic the innate immunity of children was able to cope with the virus - perhaps not preventing transmission though), but if we consider the Wuhan lockdown, it's interesting that they managed to prevent the virus spreading beyond the city except to other countries where there was no lockdown.
If stringent infection prevention measures are adhered to, the infection rate could be kept low enough to suppress more infectious variants. GVB's argument is that if vaccination levels get too high, more people will have what he calls sub-optimal antibodies which fitter variants will be able to evade. This counterbalances the effect of infection prevention measures and they will be more likely to become dominant.
...
If stringent infection prevention measures are adhered to, the infection rate could be kept low enough to suppress more infectious variants. GVB's argument is that if vaccination levels get too high, more people will have what he calls sub-optimal antibodies which fitter variants will be able to evade. This counterbalances the effect of infection prevention measures and they will be more likely to become dominant.
The original Wuhan variant was much less transmissible than Delta of course and measures which worked for Alpha don't seem to work for Delta. One difference has been the spread in households where isolation was fairly effective with the earlier variants but not so for Delta.
https://time.com/6097341/china-delta-covid19-fujian/ (https://time.com/6097341/china-delta-covid19-fujian/)
If GVB wants to use quarantines/lockdowns to contain the virus rather than vaccines, it is theoretically possible but:China has used lockdowns and quarantines to successfully control the virus. But they have also vaccinated a billion, apparently without the effects predicted by GVB?
1) No governments will continue such controls for the length of time needed
2) It is much too late and virus can now be considered endemic world wide.
That is because for a given viral load the chances of becoming infected with delta are far higher, by 4 to 5 times, than with alphaThat makes sense: so they select for more infectious virus, while preventing serious disease. Do you know whether antibodies from natural (symptomatic) infection are better at preventing infection? Also do you know if the interferon response is better (is the virus less able to disrupt it) after vaccination?
Also, AIU, the vaccine induced antibodies are just as effective against both variants in terms of the proportion of virus particles eliminated but are less effective at preventing infection just because the delta variant is better at breaking into host cells. Both variants carry the spike proteins for which the vaccines have been designed.
There was an article in Nature that described the changes carried by delta and why they work better, but don't have the ref. to hand.
That is because for a given viral load the chances of becoming infected with delta are far higher, by 4 to 5 times, than with alpha
Also, AIU, the vaccine induced antibodies are just as effective against both variants in terms of the proportion of virus particles eliminated but are less effective at preventing infection just because the delta variant is better at breaking into host cells. Both variants carry the spike proteins for which the vaccines have been designed.
There was an article in Nature that described the changes carried by delta and why they work better, but don't have the ref. to hand.
That makes sense: so they select for more infectious virus, while preventing serious disease.
Do you know whether antibodies from natural (symptomatic) infection are better at preventing infection?
Also do you know if the interferon response is better (is the virus less able to disrupt it) after vaccination?
Nation wearily prepares for lockdown as the government categorically rules it out. (Newsthump)
JfC!I think we can see this will be mills and Boon on his affair and short on his decision on discharging people into care homes.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/matt-hancock-considering-100000-deal-25449409
JfC!I've got a good title for his sequel. ''20 years in HMP Belmarsh.''
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/matt-hancock-considering-100000-deal-25449409
Indeed. I also covered these points in my letter. I'm now 6 months form my last vaccination and not a peep from the NHS. Kwarteng made it sound as if people weren't coming forward to be vaccinated. How can you if you aren't invited and the NHS specifically tells you to wait to hear from them and not to hassle them.
There seems to be a huge variability here. I for instance received my booster jab invitation letter 6 months and one day after my second vaccination. Other friends of mine in the SW eligible for boosters have not heard a thing. One friend was informed two weeks before a 6 month interval, whereas his partner (who uses the same medical practice) has still not heard 3 weeks after the 6 month period.
It does seem variable, but you can book online without being invited to now if eligible. I have heard nothing from NHS but am booked in for exactly 182 days after my second jab. I've heard nothing from my GPs throughout this - other than a text saying not to contact them and ask about the boosters.Good to hear, but we are really playing catch up.
Good to hear, but we are really playing catch up.
I became eligible for my booster a few weeks ago and could even book until a few days after the eligibility period started. The earliest I could get my booster was one week after I became eligible.
While this might sound trivial, moving everything forward by a week can help the overall position markedly as immunity is really beginning to wane as we get to 6 months so any additional days of waiting is additional time for someone to catch, spread the virus and for either of those people to get ill, long covid etc.
I really don't understand how they managed to take their eye off the ball so badly with boosters, and with 12-15 year old, having been pretty hot off the mark back in the early part of the year with first/second jabs.
Meanwhile, Stateside the bollocks and general lunacy goes on and on:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/23/florida-doctors-covid-coronavirus-bruce-boros?
And Omicron in UK
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/27/two-cases-of-omicron-covid-variant-identified-in-uk?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1638022870
I wondered where the strange name "Omicron" had come from, then my nephew informed me of this:
A short clip from Futurama: https://odysee.com/@MIGMAG:3/Omicron-Persei-8--Futurama-Predicting-the-Future_360p:6
How can we take some of these scientists seriously if they cannot think of a different name for something they tell us is very worrying?! Smh...
This is a joke, is it? I mean you do know that omicron is a letter in the Greek alphabet, just like the other variant names?Mmmm pi
Although the variants that have been in the news are the first four letters of the alphabet (alpha, beta, gamma, delta), there have been others that were designated. They did miss out nu (too easily confused with 'new') and xi, (a common name, of the Chinese president in particular).
No, they don't select for "more infectious virus". As you agreed earlier, the delta variant will be "dominant" in all cases. The proportion of delta cases to alpha is not changed by vaccination.When asked about this in a recent Q&A presentation, Geert said that when an unvaccinated person gets symptomatically infected with covid he/she will at best completely isolate and at worst spend less time around other people until they are better, thus will tend to spread the virus only while pre-symptomatic. If a vaccinated person is less likely to be symptomatic when infected, they won't be so aware of the infection and so will be more likely to spread it to others. So he says mass vaccination increased the speed at which delta became most prevalent. Allowing the virus to become endemic naturally doesn't mean more infectious variants won't become dominant over decades or centuries.
When asked about this in a recent Q&A presentation, Geert said that when an unvaccinated person gets symptomatically infected with covid he/she will at best completely isolate and at worst spend less time around other people until they are better, thus will tend to spread the virus only while pre-symptomatic. If a vaccinated person is less likely to be symptomatic when infected, they won't be so aware of the infection and so will be more likely to spread it to others. So he says mass vaccination increased the speed at which delta became most prevalent. Allowing the virus to become endemic naturally doesn't mean more infectious variants won't become dominant over decades or centuries.Really? Does he provide any figures demonstrating this?
A long and incredibly sad read:Stupid bastard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/30/life-tragic-death-john-eyers-fitness-fanatic-who-refused-covid-vaccine?
Good for Greece.I can't agree with you I'm afraid. What if someone demanded that you give blood and fined you £100 a month if you didn't? A fundamental principal of medicine is patient autonomy.
What if someone demanded that you give blood and fined you £100 a month if you didn't?Completely different situation.
A fundamental principal of medicine is patient autonomy.Indeed, but there have always been situations where public health considerations have been considered to trump individual autonomy. So the argument isn't whether public health considerations can over-ride individual autonomy - that seems to be a pretty settled view in medical ethics. This issue is whether the public health considerations SHOULD over-ride individual autonomy in this particular situation.
Completely different situation.It's a medical procedure that saves other people's lives. So is vaccination. It's not completely different is it.
Indeed, but there have always been situations where public health considerations have been considered to trump individual autonomy. So the argument isn't whether public health considerations can over-ride individual autonomy - that seems to be a pretty settled view in medical ethics. This issue is whether the public health considerations SHOULD over-ride individual autonomy in this particular situation.I think we are in agreement on this point.
Personally I'm not sure I'd go as far as requiring people to have the vaccination. However I have no issue to requiring people to demonstrate they have had the vaccination (or cannot on medical grounds) in order to be able to access services, public spaces etc etc. In which case you are not required to have the vaccination, but if you refuse to do so you cannot expect to be permitted access public events/transport etc in the same manner as those who have had the vaccine and have reduced their risk to others.
It's a medical procedure that saves other people's lives.It is, because by not donating blood you do not personally render yourself a greater risk to others. By contrast by not having the vaccine you do render yourself a greater risk to others.
It isYou saifd it was completely different. I gave you two aspects in which it isa the same. So it's not completely different. End of argument.
Vaccination is a public health issue, the donation of blood isn't.I'd say it is. Similarly organ donation, or the lack of it.
I can't agree with you I'm afraid. What if someone demanded that you give blood and fined you £100 a month if you didn't? A fundamental principal of medicine is patient autonomy.
You saifd it was completely different. I gave you two aspects in which it isa the same. So it's not completely different. End of argument.Nope they are different.
because by not donating blood you do not personally render yourself a greater risk to others
If blood supplies are short, it puts people's lives at risk. If you refuse to donate blood, you are contributing to the risk (I say that as somebody who hasn't donated blood for many years).
I'd say it is. Similarly organ donation, or the lack of it.
Nope they are different.I recall seeing a study that demonstrated this, so I won't question it. But don't forget a vaccinated person may transmit as well. So should they also be fined? Say half the amount? I think it's fine to restrict unvaccinated people, if the evidence shows they transmit more. But only fine someone if they deliberately attempt to transmit the virus. And also, people who recover from symptomatic infection will have immunity too, so I'm guessing they will transmit less.
A non blood donor isn't a specific risk to the public, a non vaccinated person is a specific risk to the public as they carry a greater risk or transmitting an infectious disease.
I recall seeing a study that demonstrated this, so I won't question it.The vaccine has been shown to be effective in reducing transmission.
But don't forget a vaccinated person may transmit as well.But the likelihood is reduced if you have the vaccine.
So should they also be fined? Say half the amount?No - because the person who takes the responsible decision to gat vaccinated has taken the option to reduce the risk of transmission as far as possible through vaccination. The person who refuses to be vaccinated has deliberated taken a choice not to reduce that risk. That choice should not be consequence free if the deliberate choice impacts on the health of others.
I think it's fine to restrict unvaccinated people, if the evidence shows they transmit more.The evidence is clear that vaccination reduces transmissibility of the virus.
But only fine someone if they deliberately attempt to transmit the virus.Isn't refusing to get the vaccine a deliberate action - I think so, so anyone who has refused to get the vaccine and places themselves in situations where they may be infectious to others is in effect taking a deliberate decision to increase the risk to others. I doubt they actually want to infect people but they cannot absolve themselves of their responsibilities if they refuse to get vaccinated.
And also, people who recover from symptomatic infection will have immunity too, so I'm guessing they will transmit less.That's true - but that shouldn't remove an obligation to be vaccinated, because immunity, whether natural or through vaccination doesn't last forever.
I think as many as possible should be vaccinated, everyone should be encouraged to take it.Agreed.
Vaccines work
I feel deeply uncomfortable with vaccine passports and forced vaccinations though.There is a major difference between being required to demonstrate that you have been vaccinated (or aren't able to be on medical grounds) in order to be able to travel or attend an event and being forced to be vaccinated.
If those of us who have taken the vaccine trust it (after all it is a good vaccine, although imperfect) then it shouldn't matter if the person next to us is unvaccinated.It should because not all people are able to have the vaccine and why should they be at increased risk because some people who can get the vaccine selfishly chose not to do so. And significantly imparting community transmission, including to those who are vulnerable, can only be majorly impaired if we get sufficient people with immunity (whether natural or via vaccines) to attain so-called herd immunity. While millions of people (e.g. in the UK) refuse to be vaccinated, we may never reach that point and the people most impacted will be those unvaccinated (well that's their own fault, except for the costs etc in dealing with their hospitalisation), but also the most vulnerable whose immunity is impaired. Not much good telling that person that's it's OK that the person next to them on the tube has refused to have a vaccine.
It's the segregation of people I dislike.So do I - specifically people who are particularly vulnerable who feel they have to segregate themselves from many aspects of society as they are very concerned about getting the virus. I have rather more concern for those people than selfish people who refuse to get the vaccine. In my view if vax-refusniks get segregated from certain aspects of society that's their own fault. If vulnerable people do then it is the fault of others, most notably those irresponsibly not following covid advise and specifically refusing vaccines.
In the same way restrictions applied to everybody so should reopenning society.But it doesn't does it - it doesn't apply equally to people who are vulnerable through no fault of their own. In order to support those people then if people who refuse vaccines find that reopening of society doesn't apply equally to them, then so be it - their look-out and their choice.
Ad_O and Prof Davey,Flu isn't as dangerous as covid ... by a long way.
What about flu. Do we vaccinate everyone to protect immunosuppressed people who can't be vaccinated?
Ad_O and Prof Davey,
What about flu. Do we vaccinate everyone to protect immunosuppressed people who can't be vaccinated?
Nope they are different.Now you are moving the goalposts. You previously said they are completely different. I suppose it is the closest we'll ever get to you conceding the point.
One of my colleagues at work had the misfortune to be in South Africa when it got red listed. He is now incarcerated in HMP Edinburgh Airport Holiday Inn Express.You can get a room at the Holiday Inn just along from the airport at the zoo tonight for £116
What I find interesting is that it is costing him about £200 a night, which, in most parts of the UK (perhaps not Edinburgh) will get you a reasonably nice room and reasonably good food. The food they are being provided could be described as adequate but that would be a lie. They are relying on food parcels.
Somebody here is making a big fat profit out of this. I wonder who.
Now you are moving the goalposts. You previously said they are completely different. I suppose it is the closest we'll ever get to you conceding the point.Ok - I will reiterate - they are completely different.
You are making the mistake of assuming equivalence. Flu and Covid 19 are not equivalent:Yup and I was also going to post that link.
http://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/one-year-on-three-myths-about-COVID-19-that-the-data-proved-wrong?
The risk from Covid to all of us is significantly higher than from flu, so different measures are appropriate. We are just arguing over what those measures should be.
Comparisons with flu are just distraction and deflection.
Ok - I will reiterate - they are completely different.And I pointed out two ways in which they are the same. Therefore your assertion is incorrect.
And I pointed out two ways in which they are the same. Therefore your assertion is incorrect.How can they be similar.
But it doesn't does it - it doesn't apply equally to people who are vulnerable through no fault of their own. In order to support those people then if people who refuse vaccines find that reopening of society doesn't apply equally to them, then so be it - their look-out and their choice.
I don't disagree that this is a problem but the pandemic has gone on for nearly two years now. We're all getting tired of it. I think we need to learn to live with this now. We have a vaccine which is effective and which can be modified, much like we do with influenza.I agree - and that's why we need to go a little further to encourage people to get vaccinated.
I can't agree with you I'm afraid. What if someone demanded that you give blood and fined you £100 a month if you didn't? A fundamental principal of medicine is patient autonomy.What a bloody stupid analogy. One is not endangering other people by not giving blood.
How can they be similar.I was refuting your claim that they are completely different, not making any claim about their similarity.
... not making any claim about their similarity.Really, and there was me thinking that your previous posts were a claim of similarly, e.g. reply 4378:
What a bloody stupid analogy. One is not endangering other people by not giving blood.Quite - someone not giving blood isn't directly causally responsible for someone else becoming ill. Someone not being vaccinated and then infecting someone else is a direct causal for that person becoming ill. The two are entirely different.
That's true - but that shouldn't remove an obligation to be vaccinated, because immunity, whether natural or through vaccination doesn't last forever.As I understand it, most peoples' immune system has some natural (innate) antibodies and NK cells. Higher quantities when young. These can prevent symptomatic infection, and are as effective if not more so than vaccine-induced adaptive antibodies and T cells. What I think may be missing from this debate is the ability of a person to utilize his innate immunity. Assuming the memory B-cells from which the innate antibodies arise (google B1 memory cells) hang out in the lymph nodes, there will be problems if someone has poor lymph drainage, for example from the head and neck, or the chest, because that person won't be able to utilize his full quota of innate immunity.
As I understand it, most peoples' immune system has some natural (innate) antibodies and NK cells. Higher quantities when young. These can prevent symptomatic infection, and are as effective if not more so than vaccine-induced adaptive antibodies and T cells. What I think may be missing from this debate is the ability of a person to utilize his innate immunity. Assuming the memory B-cells from which the innate antibodies arise (google B1 memory cells) hang out in the lymph nodes, there will be problems if someone has poor lymph drainage, for example from the head and neck, or the chest, because that person won't be able to utilize his full quota of innate immunity.You are just repeating yourself Spud, and your arguments are no more compelling than they were previously.
So just as one person might rely on repeated booster shots to give lasting immunity, another person, who might do yoga stretches daily or have regular massages, might be repeatedly exposed to the virus but his innate immune system is healthy enough to deal with it each time.
Also, if a person becomes symptomatically sick and recovers, they will usually develop memory cells which, on re-exposure years down the line, can then produce large quantities of specific antibodies in a short time, thus reducing disease severity.
So there is no need to force everyone to be vaccinated.
And there are other factors that influence whether or not exposure leads to infection. Poor dental hygiene for example has been linked with increased severity of Covid illness. Then there are things such as poor diet, and chronic stress, which lead to suppression of the immune system.
And Stratton is gone. Good.And yet the lying incompetent racist thug PM remains.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59584736
And yet the lying incompetent racist thug PM remains.
Really, and there was me thinking that your previous posts were a claim of similarly, e.g. reply 4378:Saying two things are not completely different is not the same as saying they are similar. It's a difference of degree. I found a couple of characteristics they have in common, which refutes your claim that they are completely different. I'm refuting your claim, not making a claim of my own, and even if I were and my claim turned out to be false, it would not alter the fact that your claim is refuted.
And Stratton is gone. Good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59584736
I don't see anything good about it. She's lost her job for a very minor point but all the people who were at the party (and thus breaking the law) and the prime minister who is continually lying about the party remain employed.
hmm. on the whole she was good at her job - putting a gloss on Boris' lies and misdirection.Not sure she was - don't forget that she was originally brought in to front daily press conferences - that never happened, presumably because she simply wasn't good enough to fulfil that role. You may ask therefore how she got the job - the fact that she is a chum (or is that chum-ess) of Sunak and Carrie Symonds couldn't possibly have anything to do with why she was appointed, could it ;).
And, though one could feel sorry at her tearful statement, she didn't speak the truth about what she knew about rule breaking at No 10. It was just a bit of PR, getting her out of the issue.A classic case of being sorry for getting caught, rather than being sorry for what she did.
I don't see anything good about it. She's lost her job for a very minor point but all the people who were at the party (and thus breaking the law) and the prime minister who is continually lying about the party remain employed.
Underwhelming performing from the racist incompetent lying thug
Led by Donkeys take on the Met:
https://youtu.be/9Y18CrgFdh4
It appears that the Cabinet Secretary’s office had covid law breaching Xmas parties too
The same Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, tasked by Boris Johnson to investigate Xmas parties
Shouldn’t be difficult to investigate!
We’re now in pure Alice in Wonderland territory
Right so everyone in Westminster who had a lockdown-busting Christmas party is now just briefing against everyone else in Westminster who also had a Christmas party, in some sort of circular firing squad where executions are conducted with cheap prosecco.
Another twist in the hugely entertaining pantomime of Tories having parties when they shouldn't - it seems that the Cabinet Secretary, a Simon Case, who is charged with investigated said parties himself had a party.
Various quotes about this can be found in the Guardian Live blog. I'm enjoying the schadenfreude.
Another twist in the hugely entertaining pantomime of Tories having parties when they shouldn't - it seems that the Cabinet Secretary, a Simon Case, who is charged with investigated said parties himself had a party.Yes I'd seen this too - details are apparently:
Various quotes about this can be found in the Guardian Live blog. I'm enjoying the schadenfreude.
I think the only explanation is that Johnson is a 'Typhoid Tory' figure, with apologies to 'Typhoid Mary': everyone who associates with him seemingly gets infected whilst he carries on regardless.
He, like Mary, needs to be quarantined on a long-term basis to protect the rest of us.
Simon Case is no longer leading the Whitehall investigation in lockdown rule breaking in Downing Street
Case is off the case. Asked to turn in his gun and party hat.
You are just repeating yourself Spud, and your arguments are no more compelling than they were previously.It does not ensure this in all cases. Vaccines are supposed to be used either on a small part of the population or when there is no chance of infection while building up antibodies. There is a reason for this. When a highly mutable virus meets an incompletely primed immune system, fitter strains will be selected which will be transmitted and eventually become dominant. The immune system needs to be completely primed before exposure to the antigen. That requirement cannot be sufficiently met during a pandemic.
One of the major points about vaccination is that it ensures that when someone is exposed to the virus that their immune system is already primed. This has a number of benefits.
First, of course, it makes the infection likely to be less serious, so less chance of hospitalisation and death.Yes, but at the same time the virus is being transmitted by vaccinees and undergoing natural selection due to the unfavourable environment. So long term these people are still at risk of serious disease from more infectious strains.
But also it make it more difficult for the virus to replicate and reduces viral shedding and therefore the likelihood for others to become infected.This is the case once the vaccinal antibodies are primed, but not when they are suboptimal or waning, at which point the virus will at some point overcome these antibodies and the infection rate will increase again.
Thirdly with less infection and less serious infection there is a reduction in the number of viral replication events, each of which may result in a mutation. The fewer mutations the less likelihood of a new variant of concern arising that may evade immunity (whether natural or vaccine-induced).
In every respect vaccination is good and more vaccination is better.Not when used while infection is occurring.
If however this virus meets a naive immune system in a healthy person, it will nearly always be eliminated by that person's innate antibodies and natural killer cells before his acquired antibodies build up sufficiently to select more infectious strains as described above.
I think we have things called dead bodies that disprove that ludicrous statement.In the US study cited earlier, on 500k people hospitalized with C-19, over 90% of them had co-morbidities.
In the US study cited earlier, on 500k people hospitalized with C-19, over 90% of them had co-morbidities.
So this study confirms that 50,000 people who were hospitalized didn't have comorbidities.The exact figure is 5.1% of 540,000 which is about 27,000. Suppose the rest had been vaccinated, that equals about 0.15% of the USA population vaccinated.
Do you have a point to your relentless anti vaccine propaganda. Or do you just want everyone to catch this disease and have a proportion of them die?Vaccinating everybody will perpetuate the pandemic so that ultimately more people are sick and die than without mass vaccination.
It's now being reported that Simon is off the Case (again Guardian Live blog).
The exact figure is 5.1% of 540,000 which is about 27,000. Suppose the rest had been vaccinated, that equals about 0.15% of the USA population vaccinated.
Vaccinating everybody will perpetuate the pandemic so that ultimately more people are sick and die than without mass vaccination.
...
Vaccinating everybody will perpetuate the pandemic so that ultimately more people are sick and die than without mass vaccination.
The Netherlands will go into a new lockdown from Sunday morning to try to limit Covid-19 infections because of the Omicron variant, prime minister Mark Rutte said on Saturday.
He said: “The Netherlands is again shutting down.
“That is unavoidable because of the fifth wave that is coming at us with the Omicron variant,” Reuters reports.
Once upon a time you might have had wine at 'work meeting', though not in the last 20 years. And not fucking last year. This govt is a pile of entitled shites lead by a shite covered incompetent lying entitled prick
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59722081
Once upon a time you might have had wine at 'work meeting', though not in the last 20 years. And not fucking last year. This govt is a pile of entitled shites lead by a shite covered incompetent lying entitled prickThey are not "entitled"; they have a sense of entitlement, which is not the same thing at all.
They are not "entitled"; they have a sense of entitlement, which is not the same thing at all.It has a pejorative sense as well- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/entitled
Once upon a time you might have had wine at 'work meeting', though not in the last 20 years. And not fucking last year. This govt is a pile of entitled shites lead by a shite covered incompetent lying entitled prick
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59722081
Allison Pearson being a dangerous twat:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/reactions-as-allison-pearson-writes-in-telegraph-its-time-for-humanity-to-prevail-over-scientists-306003/?
Until you can show the maths supporting your inane claims they will, rightly, be ignored.We now have a wave of mortality happening, relatively lower numbers than in previous waves, but if it continues through next year, that will support the claim: just turn the computer screen sideways to see why.
We now have a wave of mortality happening, relatively lower numbers than in previous waves, but if it continues through next year, that will support the claim: just turn the computer screen sideways to see why.
My reading of this is that Boris the Liar is more concerned about appeasing the lunatic fringe of his own party than he is about the welfare of the population of England. Time will tell.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/27/boris-johnson-will-impose-no-further-covid-restrictions-before-new-year
Extra measures in ScotlandIn the pubs?
In the pubs?Traditionally yes.
Traditionally yes.
1/5 or 1/4 gill and not the sparrow spit 1/6 served up in England!
What? If there are more infections there will be more deaths - that doesn't support the idea that vaccination causes an increase in infections.I hope you don't mind if I have a go at this.
What? If there are more infections there will be more deaths - that doesn't support the idea that vaccination causes an increase in infections.True, but what does support it is that we already know that the vaccines allow transmission. The natural adaptive immune response mounts after viral load and transmission peaks, so there is little opportunity for it to put selection pressure on the virus. Because vaccinal antibodies allow transmission, they will be likely to put selection pressure on the virus, and so will indirectly cause increased infection due to the increased spread of more highly infectious variants.
I hope you don't mind if I have a go at this.
True, but what does support it is that we already know that the vaccines allow transmission. The natural adaptive immune response mounts after viral load and transmission peaks, so there is little opportunity for it to put selection pressure on the virus. Because vaccinal antibodies allow transmission, they will be likely to put selection pressure on the virus, and so will indirectly cause increased infection due to the increased spread of more highly infectious variants.
This is not to say that natural immunity doesn't apply selection pressure too: we know that the variants of concern were circulating before mass vaccination began. If a more infectious variant arises naturally within a mostly un-vaccinated population, its spread will be limited because their innate immunity, which can deal with a low viral load, along with a build-up in transmission-preventing, naturally acquired immunity, will eventually dilute the cases of infection with this variant enough to result in herd immunity. We see this currently happening in Bulgaria, for example.
In the UK Health Security Agency's vaccine surveillance report we are seeing lower case rates in unvaccinated people aged 18-69. I suggest that this cancels out/makes up for the higher death rates in the same groups.
Table 11 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041593/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-50.pdf) Shows the data for late November - early December.
Not seen that anything to say that transmission is prevented by naturally acquired immunity. Do you have a link for that?Naturally acquired immunity prevents re-infection, so that the third wave of infection has a definite end point (in contrast to the current ongoing third wave following mass vaccination), as all reservoirs for infection are then used up.
Naturally acquired immunity prevents re-infection, so that the third wave of infection has a definite end point (in contrast to the current ongoing third wave following mass vaccination), as all reservoirs for infection are then used up.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2110300
You said transmission, not reinfection. You can catch Covid-19 more than once though so natural infection doesn't prevent re-infection.As I understand it, you can catch Covid-19 a-symptomatically or mildly symptomatically and will make specific antibodies that are gone after 8 weeks, but you won't develop memory cells. This could explain many of the re-infections in your link, if the previous infections were mild.
Whether natural infection gives better protection than vaccines or the other way round seems to be unclear with various studies giving different results.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-do-vaccines-protect-better-than-infection-induced-immunity#The-need-for-further-research (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-do-vaccines-protect-better-than-infection-induced-immunity#The-need-for-further-research)
As I understand it, you can catch Covid-19 a-symptomatically or mildly symptomatically and will make specific antibodies that are gone after 8 weeks, but you won't develop memory cells. This could explain many of the re-infections in your link, if the previous infections were mild.
More severe and drawn out infection will tend to result in memory cells being developed. These are permanent and can quickly make specific antibodies upon re-exposure. They may prevent re-infection or, if not, reduce disease severity.
The other factor not considered in the study is that vaccination and boosters put a wall of antibodies in front of the virus but these antibodies do not always prevent infection, they only reduce disease severity. This carries Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780), which then increases the risk of infection for both groups. So, one cannot claim that the vaccines are better.
The thing about respiratory viruses is that because they mutate, the short-lived adaptive response is ideal - it assists the innate immune system deal with the current strain of virus and then is gone. Antibodies produced by long-term memory cells may not be able to neutralize future strains. So if the virus increases its infectiousness as a result of selection pressure from vaccines, higher numbers of people will be infected. This makes the viral load increase and peoples' innate immune system can't cope, so they become more severely ill. Then they tweak the vaccines and the process repeats itself.
You haven't supplied any supporting evidence for your statement that 'Naturally acquired immunity prevents re-infection'How about the link in 4860, which states, "The efficacy of natural infection against reinfection, which was derived by comparing the incidence rate in both cohorts, was estimated at 92.3% (95% CI, 90.3 to 93.8 ) for the beta variant and at 97.6% (95% CI, 95.7 to 98.7) for the alpha variant.
just speculated about itsome of it
being due to mild infections dealt with by the innate immune system. If you could find that that would be interesting, otherwise it's just speculation.I also wonder this (!)
I am interested to hear alternative views on this but do wonder why the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields see mass vaccination as the way out of this.
Edit: I have found this article which is fascinating but much is above my head as i am no expert.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742100218X (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742100218X)Thanks - had a look at these, including some comments in the comments section. Will get back to you on this.
Edit 2: Also found this paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1 (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1) and this article https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/vaccines-will-not-produce-worse-variants (https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/vaccines-will-not-produce-worse-variants) which say that vaccines reduce the tendency for mutations by blocking some of the intermediary steps needed to generate a new variant - 'Unvaccinated patients exhibit more antigenic mutational variance'.
Edit 2: Also found this paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1 (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1) and this article https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/vaccines-will-not-produce-worse-variants (https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/vaccines-will-not-produce-worse-variants) which say that vaccines reduce the tendency for mutations by blocking some of the intermediary steps needed to generate a new variant - 'Unvaccinated patients exhibit more antigenic mutational variance'.The article talks about how if we wanted to induce resistance in a virus to a drug, we could do it by repeatedly exposing it to an insufficient amount of the drug. Over the generations, only the strains of virus that can overcome the reduced amount of drug will survive and ultimately one will arise that is fully resistant.
The article talks about how if we wanted to induce resistance in a virus to a drug, we could do it by repeatedly exposing it to an insufficient amount of the drug. Over the generations, only the strains of virus that can overcome the reduced amount of drug will survive and ultimately one will arise that is fully resistant.
But the author doesn't seem to appreciate that this is what mass vaccination during a pandemic does. While the antibodies are building up in vaccinated individuals, that is when the selection is occurring, due to the fact that those individuals are already being exposed to the virus. There is no question that the vaccines prevent infection once they have fully primed the immune system - I know I stated a few posts ago that they do not, so just to clarify, that means during the few weeks after vaccination, as well as when waning.
I'm also not claiming that the variants of concern arose because of vaccination. They arose as a result of short-lived antibody build-up (following natural infection) that does not eliminate the virus but does suppress innate immunity, thereby allowing infection and facilitating natural selection of fitter strains due to the partial resistance of those short-lived spike-specific antibodies.
GVB describes how a natural pandemic ruins its course in his video on YouTube, "Asymptomatic Infection results in more infectious Covid-19 strains". (from about 6 -24 minutes).
What he doesn't do is finish explaining how the third wave ends. But that wave is due to the virus becoming more infectious as a result of the above process.
His claim is that if we mass vaccinate on top of the natural tendency for immune pressure to select for fitter variants, we put more and more suboptimal antibodies into the population and thus allow the fitter strains to become dominant, and so the pandemic is prolonged.
Edit 2: Also found this paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1 (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1) and this article https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/vaccines-will-not-produce-worse-variants (https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/vaccines-will-not-produce-worse-variants) which say that vaccines reduce the tendency for mutations by blocking some of the intermediary steps needed to generate a new variant - 'Unvaccinated patients exhibit more antigenic mutational variance'.Hi again,
Hi again,
The study says that "Analysing the relationship between vaccination rates and lineage entropy, we found that the declining diversity of SARS-CoV-2 lineages is indeed negatively correlated with increased rate of mass vaccination across the countries analyzed...Furthermore, the decline in the lineage diversity is coupled with the increased dominance of Variants of Concern: the B.1.1.7/Alpha-variant (45%), B.1.1.617/Delta-variant (21%), P.1/Gamma-variant (10%)12 [as at May 2021], suggesting that these variants may be “fitter strains’’ of SARS-CoV-2." So let's suppose that no vaccination had taken place. Could we not infer (if this study is implying that reduced diversity resulted from mass vaccination) that the previously higher level of lineage diversity would have been maintained, and thus that more infectious variants would not have become dominant (at least, not so rapidly)? In that case, the vaccines literally acted as a breeding ground for those variants. Or maybe I haven't interpreted this correctly?
I hope you don't mind if I have a go at this.
True, but what does support it is that we already know that the vaccines allow transmission. The natural adaptive immune response mounts after viral load and transmission peaks, so there is little opportunity for it to put selection pressure on the virus.
Because vaccinal antibodies allow transmission, they will be likely to put selection pressure on the virus, and so will indirectly cause increased infection due to the increased spread of more highly infectious variants.
This is not to say that natural immunity doesn't apply selection pressure too: we know that the variants of concern were circulating before mass vaccination began. If a more infectious variant arises naturally within a mostly un-vaccinated population, its spread will be limited because their innate immunity, which can deal with a low viral load, along with a build-up in transmission-preventing, naturally acquired immunity, will eventually dilute the cases of infection with this variant enough to result in herd immunity. We see this currently happening in Bulgaria, for example.
In the UK Health Security Agency's vaccine surveillance report we are seeing lower case rates in unvaccinated people aged 18-69. I suggest that this cancels out/makes up for the higher death rates in the same groups.
This doesn't follow. Once the initial infection has passed, how much difference is there between natural and vaccine induced immunity?
If those of us here wo claim to be Christian, givin His command to love other, are in any way trying to do so, then the Christ-like thing woyld be the selfless act of accepting all vaccines in the hope that we lessen the risk to others.But to paraphrase the leading headline in yesterday's Telegraph, "We can't jab the whole planet every six months. Future vaccination will have to be limited to those who are most vulnerable"
As suggested in a previous link, the immune system won't put much selection pressure on the virus during the initial infection. But vaccination while the virus is circulating will force the virus to evolve. This was confirmed by Sir Patrick Vallance in January 2021 during a press conference. So notwithstanding the efficacy of the vaccines, it seems to me that mass vaccination will still lead to an increase in the infection rate.
But to paraphrase the leading headline in yesterday's Telegraph, "We can't jab the whole planet every six months. Future vaccination will have to be limited to those who are most vulnerable"
As suggested in a previous link, the immune system won't put much selection pressure on the virus during the initial infection. But vaccination while the virus is circulating will force the virus to evolve. This was confirmed by Sir Patrick Vallance in January 2021 during a press conference. So notwithstanding the efficacy of the vaccines, it seems to me that mass vaccination will still lead to an increase in the infection rate.
Bulgaria and Ukraine, 26% and 28% fully vaccinated, have both past the peak of their third wave. Cases in Russia also seem to be declining - good news. Perhaps things are moving more slowly there due to lower temperatures (currently -13` in Moscow)
Cases in Bulgaria rising rapidly again sadly.Omicron has been detected there, so that could be the cause. If so then mortality should remain low, unless there is more to come from O than what we are currently seeing. I saw a study this morning concluding that "Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event. A single vaccine dose after infection helps to restore protection." . This could explain why Bulgaria's third wave declined steeply despite low vaccination.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~BGR (https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~BGR)
If that's really the case then it's also made the virus milder. Another benefit of mass vaccination.I've been pondering this possibility for a while.
It is just not true that "vaccination while the virus is circulating will force the virus to evolve". What did Vallance say exactly? - If he said that - it wouldn't be the first time he has made a misleading statement in a press conference.I think this is it:
I think this is it:
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1346510188107472898
Well, Vallance was speaking very loosely - trying to get a general point across. It's not strictly scientific and not be taken literally.He started off by saying, "the more you vaccinate, the more you put evolutionary pressure on the virus."
He started off by saying, "the more you vaccinate, the more you put evolutionary pressure on the virus."
Indeed he did, and it is correct that "the more you vaccinate, the more you put evolutionary pressure on the virus". But what do you think that means?Immune pressure on it will make it hard for it to replicate, but if the immune pressure is not enough to completely neutralize it, transmission continues, often asymptomatically, allowing mutation to continue. Then a mutation in the spike protein that enhances its ability to infect cells gives that virus a competitive advantage and a new wave of infection occurs.
Immune pressure on it will make it hard for it to replicate, but if the immune pressure is not enough to completely neutralize it, transmission continues, often asymptomatically, allowing mutation to continue. Then a mutation in the spike protein that enhances its ability to infect cells gives that virus a competitive advantage and a new wave of infection occurs.
Immune pressure on it will make it hard for it to replicate, but if the immune pressure is not enough to completely neutralize it, transmission continues, often asymptomatically, allowing mutation to continue. Then a mutation in the spike protein that enhances its ability to infect cells gives that virus a competitive advantage and a new wave of infection occurs.
Mutations happen due to things such as antigen driftOther way round - genetic variation arises as a result of accumulation of mutations.
and i haven't seen anything to suggest that this process is sped up by vaccinations.I've seen it stated somewhere that viruses can increase the rate of mutation when under immune pressure.
As a layman one could imagine that vaccinations would mean that those mutations which get round the antibodies would be selected preferentially - but the paper i linked to earlier says that the antibodies etc act to prevent intermediate stages in the development of new variants so act to reduce the likelihood of new variants developing.Yes that is interesting - the research is quite complicated - but it appears to me that when a more infectious variant appears, of course the diversity of variants will decline. That this correlates with increasing vaccination suggests that no vaccination would keep the diversity high. That implies less rapid spread of more infectious variants.
What you talk about here is just as likely with natural infection as with vaccination as far as I can see - since the immunity from natural infection isn't neutralising either - and new variants formed prior to vaccinations.Innate immunity is very effective - that;s why children and young, healthy adults were generally asymptomatic during the first wave (when the infection rate was lower, so re-infection was less likely). Adaptive immunity is also very effective, but also wanes over time. The problem is the more pressure we put on the virus, the more infectious it has to become.
Great, we can agree on that (with a small note that "competitive advantage" for an rna virus is different to one we normally consider in evolution).But we need to account for changing levels of naturally induced immunity in the absence of vaccines.
Now, a "mutation in the spike protein that enhances its ability to infect cells" is not an inevitable event but a matter of probability, and the probability of that mutation occurring in a vaccinated individual will be equal to or less than it occurring in an un-vaccinated person.
So, suppose the whole population is vaccinated with a vaccine that is 70% effective - that leaves 30% of the people vulnerable to infection. Suppose now that 10% of people are exposed to enough of the virus to guarantee infection by the virus. Then, of the vaccinated population, 3% will become infected and become possible incubators for a mutated virus. If no-one was vaccinated, 10% of the population would be infected and be possible incubators - roughly three times as many.
But we need to account for changing levels of naturally induced immunity in the absence of vaccines.
Other way round - genetic variation arises as a result of accumulation of mutations.
I've seen it stated somewhere that viruses can increase the rate of mutation when under immune pressure.
Yes that is interesting - the research is quite complicated - but it appears to me that when a more infectious variant appears, of course the diversity of variants will decline. That this correlates with increasing vaccination suggests that no vaccination would keep the diversity high. That implies less rapid spread of more infectious variants.
Note also that the more rapidly the more infectious variants spread, the more they will affect unvaccinated people, hence the reason for the higher morbidity and mortality among unvaccinated is that the vaccines have accelerated spread of these variants.
Innate immunity is very effective - that;s why children and young, healthy adults were generally asymptomatic during the first wave (when the infection rate was lower, so re-infection was less likely). Adaptive immunity is also very effective, but also wanes over time. The problem is the more pressure we put on the virus, the more infectious it has to become.
I'm talking in this post about last year's VOCs, Alpha etc. As far as the less severe Omicron goes, it has been suggested that it arose when a strain similar to Wuhan jumped into mice and then evolved in them, before jumping back to humans. Something to do with mouse ACE 2... remaining questions are, did the vaccines cause that, and if so, will the overall cost to human life of everyone being infected be worth paying?
It seems that the Omigod variant may be good news. It's transmissibility means that it is becoming the dominant strain, and it is usually mild in its symproms. It may become endemic, and no more worrying than flu or colds.
It seems that the Omigod variant may be good news. It's transmissibility means that it is becoming the dominant strain, and it is usually mild in its symproms. It may become endemic, and no more worrying than flu or colds.
It seems that the Omigod variant may be good news. It's transmissibility means that it is becoming the dominant strain, and it is usually mild in its symproms. It may become endemic, and no more worrying than flu or colds.
I think some of the medical experts over here suggested a similar thing, in which case I struggled to understand why politicians are shitting their pants and living up yet more restrictions. We have a pretty decent vaccine. We need to get back to normal.
Twitter thread explaining what "endemic" means (https://t.co/QaFUwqtEST).
(though I did find the gifs unnecessary and annoying)
If we can keep the effective reproduction number under 1 - eg. by improved vaccines, it will disappear and we can get back to normal.
I think some of the medical experts over here suggested a similar thing, in which case I struggled to understand why politicians are shitting their pants and living up yet more restrictions. We have a pretty decent vaccine. We need to get back to normal.
Because it is an unknown. We didn't know if it was milder and if so how much. With it being so transmissible even being milder the potential number of hospitalisations is high. It was, and is, about being cautious and trying not to overwhelm the NHS. We will get back to normal(ish) soon but need to get through the winter.
Can you account for them? What is the scientific basis for any significant difference in immunity in vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals? The most significant difference would seem to be fatality in those whose natural immune response goes into overdrive and kills the patient!This (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.full-text) recent preprint concludes that "Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event. A single vaccine dose after infection helps to restore protection." The basis for this difference may be to do with the exposure to the whole pathogen, rather than one bit of it. The fatality caused by immune overdrive occurred from the beginning, it didn't wait until vaccines were available. Had they not been used, immunity building up may have reduced the severity of disease within a year. In the study, naturally acquired immunity led to fourfold reduction in severity of re-infection compared with double vaccination.
We already have a vaccine and which can be tweaked every season. The vaccine was supposed to be the way out. People are getting tired.
We already have a vaccine and which can be tweaked every season. The vaccine was supposed to be the way out. People are getting tired.
What gets me is many of the restrictions don't have much logic. Close a pub or a pool hall but not a school. The virus spreads equally in both. If you're going to have restrictions then they have to apply to everyone.
They aren't currently trying to prevent all transmission but to reduce a surge in it and so are making choices on what is most important.
So kids get let off, spread it, but us adults don't. Lovely!
This (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.full-text) recent preprint concludes that "Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event. A single vaccine dose after infection helps to restore protection." The basis for this difference may be to do with the exposure to the whole pathogen, rather than one bit of it. The fatality caused by immune overdrive occurred from the beginning, it didn't wait until vaccines were available. Had they not been used, immunity building up may have reduced the severity of disease within a year. In the study, naturally acquired immunity led to fourfold reduction in severity of re-infection compared with double vaccination.
Can you find a link?Here's where I saw it (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780) (paragraph 2 of the discussion) but the context seems to be that if the mutation rate increases, the virus goes extinct.
That's not what the paper said though I think. It was complicated though.One way may be by replacing our innate antibodies which can neutralize a broad spectrum of strains (at low viral load) with antigen-specific antibodies, which have higher affinity for the new strains than the innate abs, thus are preventing the innate abs from complexing with them, while not preventing infection of the cells because they are specific to the original strain. So for healthy and young people who could have cleared infection by VOCs before the adaptive immunity builds up, they now have to wait until that immunity builds up, ie they get more severe disease. This in turn accelerates transmission, due to heavier shedding.
How has vaccination accelerated the spread?
Everything I have read says that the innate immune system is limited in it's effectiveness. You have stated this before as if fact but haven't seen any supporting links for it. I may have missed them but do you have any?From GVB's website (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/blog/supportive-references-from-literature) some references he cites..
I heard that it came from Delta but have seen nothing definitive. Again, any links to support what you have just said? No one I have read has claimed that Omicron resulted from use of the vaccines.In my opinion the vaccination should have been for elderly and those with comorbidities only. Doctors worked out how to treat the disease before this, and enabling people to recover carries the benefit that they contribute to herd immunity. But also, I am wary of the medical profession. There is clearly a motive within it and in government to be seen to be doing its utmost. That combined with a complete absence of supplementary advice, eg dental hygiene, diet, improvement of overall health, and a long-standing belief that some parts of the human body are vestigial and useless (remember the days of tonsil and appendix removal for the sake of it?), or not up to the job (ie the immune system), I think led them to go all out for mass vaccination.
Edit: Have seen there is a Chinese study which says this but also found this which says many scientists have been sceptical of the animal cause of Omicron since Sars-Cov-2 isn't good at infecting mice. It says that scientists have modified Sars-Cov-2 to make it infect mice in labs so ......
https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/did-omicron-come-from-mice-chinese-scientists-believe-so/ (https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/did-omicron-come-from-mice-chinese-scientists-believe-so/)
I don't really know enough to debate this any further but, I have asked several times, with no answer, why you think the vast majority of experts in the field support mass vaccination? They are surely aware of the sort of things you are talking about. Why do you think we aren't seeing the majority of virologists and the like crying out to stop the vaccine roll outs?
Not sure what you mean by 'let off'.
Here's where I saw it (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780) (paragraph 2 of the discussion) but the context seems to be that if the mutation rate increases, the virus goes extinct.
One way may be by replacing our innate antibodies which can neutralize a broad spectrum of strains (at low viral load) with antigen-specific antibodies, which have higher affinity for the new strains thus not allowing the innate abs to complex with them, while do not prevent infection of the cells because they are specific to the original strain. So for healthy and young people who could have cleared infection by VOCs before the adaptive immunity builds up, they now have to wait until that immunity builds up, ie they get more severe disease. This in turn accelerates transmission, due to heavier shedding.
From GVB's website (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/blog/supportive-references-from-literature) some references he cites..
In my opinion the vaccination should have been for elderly and those with comorbidities only. Doctors worked out how to treat the disease before this, and enabling people to recover carries the benefit that they contribute to herd immunity. But also, I am wary of the medical profession. There is clearly a motive within it and in government to be seen to be doing its utmost. That combined with a complete absence of supplementary advice, eg dental hygiene, diet, improvement of overall health, and a long-standing belief that some parts of the human body are vestigial and useless (remember the days of tonsil and appendix removal for the sake of it?), or not up to the job (ie the immune system), I think led them to go all out for mass vaccination.
Here's where I saw it (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780) (paragraph 2 of the discussion) but the context seems to be that if the mutation rate increases, the virus goes extinct.
...
In my opinion the vaccination should have been for elderly and those with comorbidities only. Doctors worked out how to treat the disease before this, and enabling people to recover carries the benefit that they contribute to herd immunity.
...
It is feasible that immunity through infection might last a few weeks or months longer than that through vaccination - although that has not been generally proven - given that a wide variety of vaccines have become available (the study only considers Pfizer and variants before omicron). As far as is known, the vaccines provide long term protection against serious disease in the same way as natural infection.Yes, I know more people may in theory have died without mass vaccination. However, there are models that could be looked at to prevent this, such as early treatment following a positive test, say with antivirals on an outpatient basis. This was proposed by GVB, who has said that the main problem is allowing the infectious pressure to get out of control. Antivirals would bring it down and this would prevent naturally protected people (by innate immunity) from becoming susceptible to infection (because the innate system can't cope with high infectious pressure).
But what you keep ignoring is that to build up immunity in the population as you suggest would have led to the unnecessary deaths (or long covid) in hundreds of thousands of people.
If vaccinated people do become infected (just as those that have been naturally (re)infected) - the immune system has a chance to catch up, if needed, with less risk to life.Not sure about this. Problem being that when variants arise, the memory cells recall antibodies which match the original virus but not the variants. This will lead to severe disease because the old vaccinal abs and the innate abs will both be unable to prevent infection. So it may not be 'if' but 'when' vaccinated people do become infected.
Party at No 10. Bring your booze. Piss on the electorate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59946784
Antivirals may well be one of the ways forward now - but not originally. So your "in theory" is useless. Without vaccination, a lot larger number of people would have died.Yes, I'm very aware of this, however, many more will in future and my question is whether that would be the case had the pandemic taken its course naturally. I know of one South African and one US consultant who treated thousands of patients for coronavirus very successfully. They used methods that hadn't been recommended by the establishment (I don't mean in the sense that they were advised not to use them, but that they weren't protocol).
saw this study about how little protection prior infection gives against reinfection with Omicron.I've got 29 tabs open, mostly on this subject, so now I can have 30!
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/ (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/)
Any thoughts Spud?
Party at No 10. Bring your booze. Piss on the electorate.Drinks cabinet?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59946784
saw this study about how little protection prior infection gives against reinfection with Omicron.Yes I think it's to be expected. Imagine for a moment that I'm writing an exam essay on why naturally acquired immunity appears not to be permanent. With my limited knowledge and using the models explained by Geert, I can at least have a go.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/ (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/)
Any thoughts Spud?
Yes I think it's to be expected. Imagine for a moment that I'm writing an exam essay on why naturally acquired immunity appears not to be permanent. With my limited knowledge and using the models explained by Geert, I can at least have a go.
In theory, and perhaps historically, the third wave of a pandemic in which minimal intervention measures are implemented would be characterized in its latter stage by more infectious variants that can overcome the innate antibodies in the fittest of the population who so far have only been asymptomatically infected, leading to disease in those people.
I imagine that further global waves of infection would in that scenario be prevented by the fact that the whole process would happen in a much more condensed time frame than what we have seen with Covid-19. In that scenario: while symptomatic disease is increasingly occurring in people of increasing fitness, there is a build-up of long-lasting immunity. As we know, this immunity is depleted after a year or two, but it's there long enough to see in 'herd immunity'. The reason we have had a prolonged pandemic is because the lockdowns have prolonged the periods between waves, and mass vaccination has (I think) put extra evolutionary pressure on the virus.
Concerning the latter, I imagine the fitness cost of becoming more infectious would under non-vaccination circumstances prevent these variants from becoming dominant. But with mass vaccination, a more infectious variant is the only one that can be transmitted from one vaccinated person to another vaccinated person.
Natural selection theory would suggest that just because a more infectious variant can survive in an environment of high immune pressure, it doesn't follow that it would survive better without that pressure. Dominance of more infectious variants would occur when the immune pressure increases due to lock down and vaccination, but without that increase, maybe less infectious strains would have continued to be dominant.
Maybe there is some fitness cost of increased infectiousness such that a more infectious virus wouldn't be as efficient as less infectious strains in the absence of the high immune pressure generated on top of natural immunity by vaccines?
Edit: I meant to say that this would explain why naturally acquired antigen-specific immunity to coronaviruses lasts for the length of time it does. Historically the high levels of antibodies were only needed for long enough to ensure herd immunity.
Edit 2: if a voc emerges in a region where there are high levels of suboptimal immune pressure, the 'fitneas cost' phenomenon might prevent spread outside that region where there is less immune pressure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60133618
***********
The number of Americans dying each day from Covid-19 now stands as high as it did during the Delta variant's peak, a grim figure that experts believe will rise.
Statistics show that an average of over 2,000 people are dying from the virus in the US every day, roughly on par with the deaths seen in late September.
According to statistics from Johns Hopkins University, the daily average of confirmed Covid-19 deaths surpassed 2,000 on 21 January and stood at 2,033 on 23 January.
That's just short of where it was at the peak of the surge in Delta variant cases in September.
But there are many more people in hospital now due to the virus than there were back then, due to much higher case loads.
The average daily number of new confirmed cases in the US far surpasses previous waves.
************
What is this....? Just when we thought it was all getting over....
Too many unvaxed fat people.Naturally acquired immunity protected people against Delta better than vaccines:
Naturally acquired immunity protected people against Delta better than vaccines: https://youtu.be/25-iJKPA1CA
among those who survive, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection also confers protection against severe outcomes in the event of reinfection (3,4).https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#contribAff (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#contribAff)
Yeah, but the survival rate of vaccines is quite a bit higher than the survival rate for COVID... from the summary of the study this video is talking about:Yes, I do feel Spud is being a bit Social Darwinian here.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#contribAff (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#contribAff)
If your argument is based upon the circumstances being beneficial 'among those who survive' then you're already onto a losing argument.
O.
And as well as lying sbout parties, they were grossly incompetent/corrupt about PPEOf-course, as suggested here all along. But, just price it in along with covid fraud and money wasted on non-working track and trace ... the public will happily pay through increased NI and tax - in exchange for a diet of recycled jokes and lies.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1488494435679838209.html
Yeah, but the survival rate of vaccines is quite a bit higher than the survival rate for COVID... from the summary of the study this video is talking about:Sure, I'm aware of that, but I think that because so many people were not susceptible to severe disease, it was unnecessary (a) to lock everyone down and (b) to vaccinate everyone. That was my position from the start. I was just pointing to the data because policies seem to have been based on a mistrust of natural immunity from the get-go. For example, the requirement to have been double-jabbed to avoid quarantine, even if one had antibodies from previous infection.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#contribAff (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#contribAff)
If your argument is based upon the circumstances being beneficial 'among those who survive' then you're already onto a losing argument.
O.
Sure, I'm aware of that, but I think that because so many people were not susceptible to severe disease, it was unnecessary (a) to lock everyone down and (b) to vaccinate everyone.
That was my position from the start. I was just pointing to the data because policies seem to have been based on a mistrust of natural immunity from the get-go.
For example, the requirement to have been double-jabbed to avoid quarantine, even if one had antibodies from previous infection.
(Edit: ad-o's point was probably right, although other factors are at play in the US, such as the inability of many to afford to pay for treatment to control underlying illness, leading to their increased risk of severe covid)
Sure, I'm aware of that, but I think that because so many people were not susceptible to severe disease, it was unnecessary (a) to lock everyone down and (b) to vaccinate everyone. That was my position from the start.
And at the start we had no way of knowing who was and who wasn't susceptible to severe disease. Even now we are only just getting a handle on why some people are affected so adversely. So the only option to avoid even more deaths (and please don't forget the 150,000 + and still counting) was to lock down initially and to go for vaccination. To achieve herd immunity which is what you are basically arguing for, and have done in your long history of misinformed posting, would only have condemned many more of us to death.I notice that the number of deaths is currently quite high. That is because of the high infectiousness of Omicron. Apparently it's only because the vaccine for Omicron isn't yet approved that it hasn't been rolled out, so it looks as though the pandemic will end through the very method you say we should avoid - enough people being infected to achieve herd immunity.
I notice that the number of deaths is currently quite high. That is because of the high infectiousness of Omicron. Apparently it's only because the vaccine for Omicron isn't yet approved that it hasn't been rolled out, so it looks as though the pandemic will end through the very method you say we should avoid - enough people being infected to achieve herd immunity.
One other thing: we knew quite early on that children were not severely affected. Because we locked them up we won't know whether they and healthy adults could have achieved herd immunity without the high deaths you assume.
I notice that the number of deaths is currently quite high. That is because of the high infectiousness of Omicron. Apparently it's only because the vaccine for Omicron isn't yet approved that it hasn't been rolled out, so it looks as though the pandemic will end through the very method you say we should avoid - enough people being infected to achieve herd immunity.
One other thing: we knew quite early on that children were not severely affected. Because we locked them up we won't know whether they and healthy adults could have achieved herd immunity without the high deaths you assume.
Vaccinated people who catch Covid have their immunity boosted without such serious risks, so what is happening mostly isn't the same as achieving that same level of immunity without vaccines.I get this, and am aware of the proportions of deaths in unvaccinated people being much higher, as in Trent's link.
Is true herd immunity possible with Omicron and the current vaccines? Since transmission still occurs how are the vulnerable protected (true herd immunity?) High population immunity isn't the same as herd immunity.I guess it depends on whether more immune escape occurs - already in some countries BA.2 is taking over from BA.1, for example. The thing now is that with the immune systems of so many people being exposed to proteins in the virus that are conserved between variants, that will generate a more comprehensive immunity that will hopefully control transmission.
I get this, and am aware of the proportions of deaths in unvaccinated people being much higher, as in Trent's link.
I guess it depends on whether more immune escape occurs - already in some countries BA.2 is taking over from BA.1, for example. The thing now is that with the immune systems of so many people being exposed to proteins in the virus that are conserved between variants, that will generate a more comprehensive immunity that will hopefully control transmission.
So why did you say 'it looks as though the pandemic will end through the very method you say we should avoid' when what people were saying should be avoided was trying to achieve herd immunity/wide scale immunity by natural infection rather than by vaccination?Because Omicron will (possibly) do just that: achieve herd/wide scale immunity by natural infection. The reason this is likely now is because the anti-omicron vaccine hasn't been made in time - by the time it's ready, most people will have been exposed. But this will be better because exposure to the whole virus generates better memory, that is effective against all variants (except those that result from antigenic shift). Had we rolled out the new vaccine already I have read that this could lead to further immune escape. So hopefully omicron will in the next month generate sufficient immunity that they do not roll it out.
I think that the high infectivity with Omicron, and the fact that the vaccines reduce but do not prevent transmission, true herd immunity will be very hard to reach. I'd rather talk about high population immunity rather than herd immunity as the latter has a specific meaning which is different as I understand it.Possibly, yes.
Spud. You brought up children earlier.Yes: Because they are less susceptible to severe disease than adults. But as the virus becomes more infectious they will suffer increasingly severe illness, yes.
They are dying from Covid at a rate of 2 or 3 a week. Many more are suffering from Covid and its long-term implications.Denmark has ended all restrictions, I think? The problem now is that the current vaccines do not block omicron's entry into the cell because it uses a different entry method. So for now, it's a matter of avoiding severe illness using early outpatient therapeutic intervention - the moment a person becomes ill.
https://bjgplife.com/our-children-are-sitting-ducks/
There is still so much that is unknown.
Your argument seems to be to let this disease go unchecked as you have fallen for the "it's a milder version" fallacy.
Do you really think it is wise to just allow this disease to progress unchecked?
Denmark has ended all restrictions, I think?
The problem now is that the current vaccines do not block omicron's entry into the cell because it uses a different entry method.
So for now, it's a matter of avoiding severe illness using early outpatient therapeutic intervention - the moment a person becomes ill.No, now it's a case of balancing common sense preventive measures, including but not limited to vaccinations and some degree of restrictions on movement, mingling, and other measures like mask-wearing, against the ongoing effects of those measures, like social isolation for the vulnerable, economic problems (and their associated health and wellbeing implications) etc.
The problem now is that the current vaccines do not block omicron's entry into the cell because it uses a different entry method.
And??They have a high vaccination level and are doing children, they've fully jabbed 31% of 5-11 year-olds.
If someone walked off the end of a pier would you follow them?
Vaccination is one way of avoiding severe illness, even with it being less effective against Omicron.
They have a high vaccination level and are doing children, they've fully jabbed 31% of 5-11 year-olds.
Dr John Campbell, who I follow a bit on YouTube, thinks that we can't avoid exposure to Omicron, despite restrictions. So he thinks Denmark are doing the right thing.
There you are then. Vaccination works.Yes it does, but in principle that is only if it blocks transmission and is done well before exposure to the virus.
The antibodies block the virus spike protein from attaching to the ACE2 receptors. From what I've read, Omicron still needs to attach to ACE2 receptors but unlike earlier variants it favours a different method of cell entry (Endocytosis) but the reduced vaccine protection is to do with the changes in the virus spike protein rather than the method of entering cells. The different entry method does mean it is more infectious (as it doesn't require the presence of the TMPR552 protease), more of an upper respiratory disease (for the same reason) and does less damage to lungs (less bunching of infected cells - syncytia).Thanks - I would like to read more about why it does less damage to the lungs.
Thanks - I would like to read more about why it does less damage to the lungs.
Thanks - I would like to read more about why it does less damage to the lungs.
This point was backed by virologist Prof Lawrence Young of Warwick University. “People seem to think there has been a linear evolution of the virus from Alpha to Beta to Delta to Omicron,” he told the Observer. “But that is simply not the case. The idea that virus variants will continue to get milder is wrong. A new one could turn out to be even more pathogenic than the Delta variant, for example.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/12/scientists-plead-caution-covid-restrictions-lifted-england
Johnson, has never, of course, followed the old saying "let caution be your watchword" in the whole of his life. So why should he apply it to a pesky virus?
The quote that jumped out at me from this was:
The idea that viruses always mutate to be milder is a myth.When it's human beings you infect, being mild is a very good evolutionary trait. We will see mutations that make the virus milder and we'll see mutations that make it more dangerous, but we'll stamp out the dangerous ones and ignore the mild ones.
When it's human beings you infect, being mild is a very good evolutionary trait. We will see mutations that make the virus milder and we'll see mutations that make it more dangerous, but we'll stamp out the dangerous ones and ignore the mild ones.
Only to a point. A virus which kills everyone before they can pass it on won't last long but beyond that there isn't much selective pressure to make a milder variant become dominant surely. The Prof from Imperial (who's name escaped me) was on the radio recently and said 'they' (his team i guess) had discussed this and concluded that there is no ruke that viruses inevitably become milder. It can happenn but doesn't necessarily happen he said.
I didn't say it was inevitable, I said it's a good evolutionary trait.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60453566My thoughts are with Brian, Roger and the other one.
Queen tests positive for Covid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60453566
Queen tests positive for Covid.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1495409472440840192?t=sqCifIegdsVytkO7_iM6bw&s=19
drbeen is good- thank you. Thanks for the paper, Uday.
Thought this was interesting Spud. Talks about how Omincron seems to be more susceptible to innate immunity than Delta etcThanks Maeght, was going to bring this up actually because Geert's theory is that if our naturally acquired and vaccine-generated immunity is now ineffective against omicron, then they no longer out-compete our innate antibodies, allowing the latter to bind better to and neutralize it. Will read your link.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/omicrons-surprising-anatomy-explains-why-it-is-wildly-contagious/
Thought this was interesting Spud. Talks about how Omincron seems to be more susceptible to innate immunity than Delta etcThank you, very clear and informative.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/omicrons-surprising-anatomy-explains-why-it-is-wildly-contagious/
Ooh dear
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60698453
It looks like England is on an uptick too.Indeed
But in terms of symptoms and severity, how bad is it compared with seasonal flu, colds etc?
We are currently running at 160 - 170 deaths a day.Apparently a lot of these do not die from Covid, though - they happen to test positive while in hospital with other illnesses?
Apparently a lot of these do not die from Covid, though - they happen to test positive while in hospital with other illnesses?
Apparently a lot of these do not die from Covid, though - they happen to test positive while in hospital with other illnesses?
If you look at the numbers who died with Covid-19 mentioned on their death certificate i wouldn't say 'a lot do not die from Covid'.Were they symptomatic, though? As far as I know,a doctor has to mention covid on the certificate even if they are asymptomatic, though I might be wrong.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths)
Were they symptomatic, though? As far as I know,a doctor has to mention covid on the certificate even if they are asymptomatic, though I might be wrong.
Hard to do a direct comparison but 2018 was one of the worst years for Flu in recent times and we topped out at 30,000 deaths for the year (that figure doesn't include Scotland or N.Ireland so add a bit on)Are we seeing lower numbers of Influenza infections than usual? That would make the above yearly covid figure less of a worry.
We are currently running at 160 - 170 deaths a day.
If that doesn't improve we are on course for around 60,000 deaths this year, which in terms of severity is pretty bad.
Also, much more capacity is taken up in hospitals with those that are seriously affected but don't die, and the knock-on effects that has for other illnesses with longer waiting times due to the effects of the pandemic and now due to the lack of staff because they are also off work with Covid.
So still a lot fucking worse.
Still, I am reassured it is all going to be ok because my pal Saj has got the figures under constant review. ::)
Are we seeing lower numbers of Influenza infections than usual? That would make the above yearly covid figure less of a worry.
I think we will be told if the NHS begins to be overstretched. The objective of any measures they said was to flatten the curve, thus allowing the health service to help people recover and develop immunity.
That said, I read that there is currently negative efficacy for the vaccines with regard to infection rate. The more cases of infection, the higher the risk of severe illness, so there may come a point where infection prevention measures are needed again. More mass vaccination of healthy people may again only lead to short term positive efficacy. I think we are on the right track without that.
Are we seeing lower numbers of Influenza infections than usual? That would make the above yearly covid figure less of a worry.
I think we will be told if the NHS begins to be overstretched. The objective of any measures they said was to flatten the curve, thus allowing the health service to help people recover and develop immunity.
That said, I read that there is currently negative efficacy for the vaccines with regard to infection rate. The more cases of infection, the higher the risk of severe illness, so there may come a point where infection prevention measures are needed again. More mass vaccination of healthy people may again only lead to short term positive efficacy. I think we are on the right track without that.
Good article that needs serious consideration by the "it's all over" brigade and "let's get back to normal" morons.Re myth 1, I note that it says the NHS is now under considerable strain. So this might indicate reintroducing infection prevention measures. Also it says that about half of hospital admissions with covid were primarily admitted for something else.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/30/uk-near-record-covid-cases-three-myths-omicron-pandemic
I think Omicron ismilderless severe: as we have discussed, it doesn't infect the lung as easily as previous variants. Whether it is 'evolving to become milder' is to do with Omicron springing from a much earlier variant and whether it jumped to animals in the process, which is not known for certain. Th
As the article makes clear the variants do not all follow a linear development, they do not stem from the preceding variant necessarily, therefore we should not be assuming that all future variants will be less severe. One of the ways to lessen the possibility of variants is to limit infection.I think the intention of the government and public was to limit infection by means of mass vaccination, but unfortunately that seems to be backfiring - see below.
Do you see any indication within our current government's thinking that they are in the least bit interested in limiting infection?
Do you see the majority of the public doing anything to limit infection?
We are getting the response badly wrong here.
Immune escape is happening largely because we are allowing the infection rate to soar and doing fuck all about it.(Disclaimer: as far as I am concerned, the following is theory, but makes sense enough that I decided not to be vaccinated).
I think the intention of the government and public was to limit infection by means of mass vaccination,The main reason for vaccination was to reduce disease severity, rather than infections, so that even if people are becoming infected they will have milder symptoms, are less likely to be hospitalised and far less likely to die.
but unfortunately that seems to be backfiring - see below.Non-sense, the vaccination programme has worked exceptionally well. Just imagine the numbers of deaths we'd have had without the vaccination programme, noting that vaccination does also reduce (but not eliminate) transmissibility, likelihood of infection and, critically, the number of viral replication events. Mutations, that may drive variants of concern are random events - the more replication of the virus the greater the likelihood of mutations and therefore the greater the likelihood of variants of concern.
Healthy people who got sick and recovered ...I'll stop you right there - without vaccination we'd have had far, far more healthy people who got sick and did not recover - in other words they died.
I'll stop you right there - without vaccination we'd have had far, far more healthy people who got sick and did not recover - in other words they died.No - according to the study from the US, 94%(?) of mortality was in people with co-morbidities.
The main reason for vaccination was to reduce disease severity, rather than infections, so that even if people are becoming infected they will have milder symptoms, are less likely to be hospitalised and far less likely to die.The beneft from the vaccines is temporary.
Non-sense, the vaccination programme has worked exceptionally well. Just imagine the numbers of deaths we'd have had without the vaccination programme, noting that vaccination does also reduce (but not eliminate) transmissibility, likelihood of infection and, critically, the number of viral replication events. Mutations, that may drive variants of concern are random events - the more replication of the virus the greater the likelihood of mutations and therefore the greater the likelihood of variants of concern.
No - according to the study from the US, 94%(?) of mortality was in people with co-morbidities.
What study?
These are the figures he is referring to. As usual, it is more complex than those who adopt tin foil wish to admit. Scrub that last bit - aren't bright enough to understand.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-comorbidities-coviddeaths-idUSL1N2TU22X
I think the intention of the government and public was to limit infection by means of mass vaccination, but unfortunately that seems to be backfiring - see below.
(Disclaimer: as far as I am concerned, the following is theory, but makes sense enough that I decided not to be vaccinated).
Immune escape is happening because the majority of people have vaccine-elicited antibodies that cannot themselves prevent infection any longer, since they are designed to stick to the spike protein, which has a high mutation rate; they are nonetheless still produced by B cells when a vaccinated person is exposed to a new variant, they stick to the virus more readily than the innate antibodies, the first line of defense, thus out-competing the latter and rendering that person more prone to infection.
Had we vaccinated only the vulnerable groups, there would not have been such high surges of anti-spike antibodies in the population that only viruses with mutated spike protein could survive.
Healthy people who got sick and recovered would have developed antibodies not just to the spike protein but to other proteins in the virus that do not mutate (ie they are 'conserved'). This would have reduced the transmission of more highly infectious variants, so that they took much longer to become dominant, which would result in slowing of the infection rate and the virus becoming endemic.
I think the intention of the government and public was to limit infection by means of mass vaccination, but unfortunately that seems to be backfiring - see below.
(Disclaimer: as far as I am concerned, the following is theory, but makes sense enough that I decided not to be vaccinated).
Immune escape is happening because the majority of people have vaccine-elicited antibodies that cannot themselves prevent infection any longer, since they are designed to stick to the spike protein, which has a high mutation rate; they are nonetheless still produced by B cells when a vaccinated person is exposed to a new variant, they stick to the virus more readily than the innate antibodies, the first line of defense, thus out-competing the latter and rendering that person more prone to infection.
Had we vaccinated only the vulnerable groups, there would not have been such high surges of anti-spike antibodies in the population that only viruses with mutated spike protein could survive.
Healthy people who got sick and recovered would have developed antibodies not just to the spike protein but to other proteins in the virus that do not mutate (ie they are 'conserved'). This would have reduced the transmission of more highly infectious variants, so that they took much longer to become dominant, which would result in slowing of the infection rate and the virus becoming endemic.
So according to your 'theory' reinfections should be lower in unvaccinated people, yes?The two positive samples of participants had to be between 20 and 60 days apart. According to Geert's talks a year ago, this is the time after the initial infection is cleared during which a suboptimal immune response occurs - short-lived antibodies specific to the antigen. These have higher affinity to the virus than innate antibodies - thus preventing the latter from binding if the person is re-exposed during this 2 month period - but do not neutralize the virus, so that it can re-infect the person.
According to this paper the reverse is true. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.19.22271112v1.full (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.19.22271112v1.full)
'Omicron BA.2 reinfections after either Delta or BA.1 initial infections, were mainly observed among young individuals below the age of 30 and the majority of these cases were not vaccinated, further emphasizing the enhanced immunity obtained by the combination of vaccination and infection compared to infection induced immunity only. '
Comments?
The two positive samples of participants had to be between 20 and 60 days apart. According to Geert's talks a year ago, this is the time after the initial infection is cleared during which a suboptimal immune response occurs - short-lived antibodies specific to the antigen. These have higher affinity to the virus than innate antibodies - thus preventing the latter from binding if the person is re-exposed during this 2 month period - but do not neutralize the virus, so that it can re-infect the person.
The first infection is likely to be mild, since the innate antibodies are not inhibited as they are in the reinfection, which is likely to be more symptomatic.
After the reinfection, longer lasting immunity is built up.
The high infectiousness of Omicron makes it much more likely that a person will be re-exposed in this way.
These are the figures he is referring to. As usual, it is more complex than those who adopt tin foil wish to admit. Scrub that last bit - aren't bright enough to understand.I was not trying to prove that the number of coronavirus deaths in the country has been significantly overstated, as your link says. I perhaps should have said that if we had vaccinated those with comorbidities (like those in the study linked to in your link), this may have reduced the deaths in those people while allowing those in good health to develop herd immunity. Like we do with the flu vaccine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-comorbidities-coviddeaths-idUSL1N2TU22X
Is there actually any evidence of this?Good question; in his videos he talks as though it is an established fact but then on his website it is listed as a critical unanswered question. So I have sent a message asking him to clarify.
'Despite the fact that natural antibodies differ in their function from adaptive antibodies, they are polyreactive and they detect autoantigens and new antigenic determinants.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6384419/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6384419/)
Good question; in his videos he talks as though it is an established fact but then on his website it is listed as a critical unanswered question. So I have sent a message asking him to clarify.
Meanwhile, just came across this:
Not so fast: adaptive suppression of innate immunity (https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1007-1142b)
"T cells of the adaptive immune system have now been shown to suppress overzealous early innate responses to infection that can lead to 'cytokine storm'–mediated death"
Good question; in his videos he talks as though it is an established fact but then on his website it is listed as a critical unanswered question. So I have sent a message asking him to clarify.
Meanwhile, just came across this:
Not so fast: adaptive suppression of innate immunity (https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1007-1142b)
"T cells of the adaptive immune system have now been shown to suppress overzealous early innate responses to infection that can lead to 'cytokine storm'–mediated death"
There is a lot about the innate immune system here https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2012.00066/full (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2012.00066/full)Rather a lot to read! Had a scan though, thanks.
The beneft from the vaccines is temporary.So is the benefit from immunity derived from infection.
So is the benefit from immunity derived from infection.Which is probably because the virus will be likely to have mutated before the immune system is exposed to it again, so it makes sense to have a short-lived antibody response in the event of mild infection.
But apparently the innate immune system can retain a memory of the virus, so it will be updated each time we are exposed to a new strain.Non-sense - the whole point about the innate immune system is that it non-specific and isn't adaptive - hence the distinction between innate immune system and the adaptive immune system.
Which is probably because the virus will be likely to have mutated before the immune system is exposed to it again, so it makes sense to have a short-lived antibody response in the event of mild infection.
But apparently the innate immune system can retain a memory of the virus, so it will be updated each time we are exposed to a new strain.
Non-sense - the whole point about the innate immune system is that it non-specific and isn't adaptive - hence the distinction between innate immune system and the adaptive immune system.
And of course the other issue is that the innate immune system is pretty poor as a line of defence, hence the need for adaptive immunity.
So you will always get an innate immune response to a new viral infection, but that alone will provide a poor barrier to serious infection, disease and death. You will also always get an adaptive immune response which is better but takes time to kick in resulting in the risk of severe disease. Hence the benefit of vaccination which kicks the adaptive immune system into action decoupled from viral infection, meaning that if the virus is encountered you get a more rapid and stronger adaptive immune response which will reduce the likelihood of infection taking hold, reduce the likelihood of severe disease and reduce the likelihood of death.
But another massive benefit of being vaccinated is that the earlier and more robust immune response will reduce the number of viral replicative events and this number is directly related to the likelihood of mutations during replication, some of which may confer the virus to be more transmissible or more virulent and therefore be variants of concern.
Non-sense - the whole point about the innate immune system is that it non-specific and isn't adaptive - hence the distinction between innate immune system and the adaptive immune system.FYI, innate training (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0285-6#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20trained%20immunity,to%20a%20non%2Dactivated%20state.)
FYI, innate training (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0285-6#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20trained%20immunity,to%20a%20non%2Dactivated%20state.)
"activation of the innate immune system can also result in enhanced responsiveness to subsequent triggers. This process has been termed ‘trained immunity’, a de facto innate immune memory. "
Is there actually any evidence of this?Back to this question; I haven't had a reply to my email yet, but I had some thoughts.
The reason he has concluded that antigen-specific antibodies can suppress innate antibodies from binding to covid-19, seems to be related to the observation that during the first phase of the pandemic, children were always asymptomatic when infected, but when infected later on they developed symptoms and illness.You do realise how non-sensical that is.
Professor,I'm not being patronising - I am simply pointing out that it is completely non-sensical to claim that infected children at the start of the pandemic were asymptomatic as we couldn't know that they were infected as we had no tests and were relying on symptoms, or slightly later tests were only used to confirm symptomatic cases.
It doesn't matter. The point is that children weren't affected at the start of the pandemic
This would be explained by their good innate immunity.
Do stop being so patronising :)
The point is that children weren't affected at the start of the pandemicBut they were - it is just that the numbers were being overwhelmed by older and particularly vulnerable people being hospitalised and dying. Now that vaccination has reduced the severity for most of the population, we perhaps become more aware of children getting covid. This doesn't mean there are more cases in children nor that they are more severe - indeed the evidence seems to be the opposite - e.g. this from the BMJ on the very youngest children from Jan 2022:
This would be explained by their good innate immunity.This could be an explanation if the underlying assumption were true (that children are being affected more severely by covid now compared to earlier in the pandemic) but that doesn't seem to be the case. And even if it were there are many other explanations that are more likely explanations that some scientifically illiterate appeal to declining innate immunity.
The point is that children weren't affected at the start of the pandemicNope
Back to this question; I haven't had a reply to my email yet, but I had some thoughts.
The reason he has concluded that antigen-specific antibodies can suppress innate antibodies from binding to covid-19, seems to be related to the observation that during the first phase of the pandemic, children were always asymptomatic when infected, but when infected later on they developed symptoms and illness.
Children were not symptomatic early on because they have high levels of natural antibodies. Because these can recognize a wide range of pathogens they are able to bind to covid-19.
Because they had no previous exposure to Covid-19, they hadn't yet made antigen-specific antibodies. But upon first exposure they did then mount a suboptimal antibody response, and these antibodies would be gone within 2 months, as occurs after a first vaccination.
Some children would be re-exposed to the virus while they had these suboptimal antibodies. At this point the children developed symptoms and illness. He says that the reason for this must be that the higher strength of binding of the antigen-specific antibodies enabled them to bind better than the less specific innate antibodies could do.
While suppressing the innate antibodies, the antigen-specific antibodies, being of low quality and quantity, failed to neutralize the virus and thus allowed it to bind to ACE2 and infect host cells, so that these children developed symptomatic illness.
We do have evidence that suboptimal antibodies can bind to a virus but not neutralize it. They are called 'non-neutralizing antibodies'.
.....I'm pretty sure children were not susceptible to covid19 disease at the beginning of the pandemic. If they were, we would have seen them in the hospitals with the adults.
I'm pretty sure children were not susceptible to covid19 disease at the beginning of the pandemic. If they were, we would have seen them in the hospitals with the adults.
Now however they are susceptible and are being admitted to hospital more often. What is the explanation for this, if not that the virus is now more infectious and there is more chance of secondary exposure with innate abs suppressed by suboptimal s-specific abs.
Remember it's all over. At least that's what the government wants you to think:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/05/i-lowered-my-guard-four-people-on-catching-covid-for-the-first-time
"Living with Covid" is a useless piece of spin if you don't do anything to facilitate living with Covid.
'Experts believe the jump in pediatric hospitalizations is likely the result of a confluence of factors. One of them is Omicron’s more contagious nature, and another may be the variant’s newfound preference for airway passages above the lungs, which can be more easily blocked in small children.'Thanks for this. Okay, but didn't the Wuhan variant infect the nose and throat of a patient first? So if small nasal passages were the main reason for Omicron why didn't children get upper respiratory infection with the Wuhan strain?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-omicron-is-putting-more-kids-in-the-hospital/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-omicron-is-putting-more-kids-in-the-hospital/)
' children have relatively small nasal passageways that can easily be blocked, so paediatric upper respiratory infections sometimes warrant extra attention compared with those in adults. Roberta DeBiasi, who heads the division of paediatric infectious diseases at the Children’s National Hospital in Washington DC, says that she and her colleagues have noticed an increase in the number of children with ‘COVID croup’, which is an inflammation of the upper airway that produces a characteristic ‘barking’ cough. That adds credence to the theory that Omicron might infect children differently from adults.' '
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00309-x (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00309-x)
Thanks for this. Okay, but didn't the Wuhan variant infect the nose and throat of a patient first? So if small nasal passages were the main reason for Omicron why didn't children get upper respiratory infection with the Wuhan strain?
As I understand it each of the variants infect the upper respiratory track first then can proceed to lower respiratory tract infections. The difference with Omicron, as we've discussed, is that it's preferred cell entry method means it is more of an upper respiratory tract infection than previous variants. I don't really know about the very original Wuhan strain but remember fairly early in the pandemic an Horizon program discussing how the strain in the UK would start as upper respiratory tract then become a lower respiratory tract infection.Agreed. Children were not susceptible to infecion at the beginning, but were to Delta, getting mild to moderate diaease. At no point have they been susceptible to severe disease, except in rare cases.
Should it ever be proven that it escaped from a Chinese laboratory, as many people think (I'd normally dismiss that as conspiracy-theoretical gonads, but it won't go away), should China pay compensation to the rest of the world, perhaps in the form of a big donation to the WHO?
Agreed. Children were not susceptible to infecion at the beginning, but were to Delta, getting mild to moderate diaease. At no point have they been susceptible to severe disease, except in rare cases.
Labouring on with Geert's theory, is it reasonable to assume that their innate immunity protected them at the beginning, but the increased infectious pressure due to the variants now enables the virus to evade it and cause illness.
I guess to verify the theory about suppression of innate abs by acquired abs we would need to locate asymptomatically infected children and then keep testing them for infection and antibodies, for several months.
I wouldn't have realised about there not being documented evidence for it had you not flagged it up.
I am repeating myself frequently I know, but it ain't over:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/06/covid-linked-33-fold-increase-risk-pulmonary-embolism-dvt
I am a bit confused by the interpretation of data in the vaccine surveillance report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1063023/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-12.pdf).
Out of 1,383 deaths within 28 days of a positive test in over 80 year-olds, 102 were unvaccinated. In the table this is said to be twice the rate (deaths per 100,000) by comparison with the data for vaccinated with 3 doses. In January just under 90% of over 80s were double jabbed. I'm not sure what percentage of them have now been boosted.
If 77% of deaths in >80s were triple jabbed, how does that translate into "twice as likely to die with Covid if unvaccinated than if tripple vaccinated"?
Compare also the case rates: you're a lot more likely to be infected if vaccinated, especially boosted.
This would mean that the boosters are causing the virus to be circulated. That means a higher chance of variants arising, right? So technically we should end vaccinations now.
the footnote to the table saysThat doesn't tell us how they arrive at a specific rate of 85 and 42 deaths per 100,000 ie twice as many unvaxed as triple vaxed (over 80 years old). Factoring in that 10% are unvaxed, it should be roughly equal.
'In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and
deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective.
This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may
also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19.'
Not sure we can assume that in the absence of any actual evidence that the innate immune system in children was able to deal with infections from the earlier variants. We don't actually know that children weren't susceptible to infection at the beginning though do we as most wouldn't have been tested. Symptoms with Omicron are different in children it seems but we know it is more of an upper respiratory tract infection than the earlier variants so that could be why on its own. No need to try to get things to fit into his theory without there being evidence for it.The literature I read today agreed that children have not been as severely affected as adults, ie they have milder symptoms.
Yes, there would need to be a proper study about the effect of acquired antibodies on the innate immune system. I have tried to look into how the natural (innate) antibodies actually operate and not really found anything. We know acquired antibodies bind to the spike proteins but do the natural ones do the same do you know?
My impression is that you have too much faith in the innate immune system, based on what GVB has said but without the actual evidence to back it up. GVB may have that evidence, and he may be right, but I haven't seen it.
The literature I read today agreed that children have not been as severely affected as adults, ie they have milder symptoms.
One article spoke of a faster interferon response to infection in children.
Why didn't children get severe lung disease when the early variants affected the lungs?
Shall I shelve that argument as evidence for adaptive antibodies outcompeting innate antibodies, then?
If the infection rate in vaccinees is indeed much higher, that could also be because of 'original antigenic sin', which seems likely to involve the innate as well as adaptive immune system?
I have tried to look into how the natural (innate) antibodies actually operate and not really found anything. We know acquired antibodies bind to the spike proteins but do the natural ones do the same do you know?From Wikipedia: "IgM in normal serum is often found to bind to specific antigens, even in the absence of prior immunization.[49] For this reason IgM has sometimes been called a "natural antibody"."
"In this study, we developed a multiplexed glycan microarray assay and applied it to evaluate how different isotypes of anti-glycan antibodies (IgA, IgG, and IgM) compete for printed glycan antigens. While IgG and IgA antibodies typically outcompete IgM for peptide or protein antigens, we found that IgM outcompete IgG and IgA for many glycan antigens."
Competition between serum IgG, IgM, and IgA anti-glycan antibodies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25807519/#:~:text=While%20IgG%20and%20IgA%20antibodies,IgA%20for%20many%20glycan%20antigens.)
Might have to look up glycan versus protein antigens.
Note, most innate antibodies are IgM.
Thanks.Me too - gvb's latest thing is a paper predicting increased infectivity and virulence, through 'O-glycosylatuon', which makes a bit more sense having read about glycans and how they coat the virus enabling it to evade antibodies.
Lots to read here. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02754/full (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02754/full)
It's getting well beyond my knowledge and am very aware that reading papers doesn't make me an expert so will be careful not to argue from a position of knowledge and understanding which I don't have.
Just a quick question guys.
Have many of you had your booster shots against covid? I am due for one and have a wedding coming up next month.
Some people are warning against the booster due to blood clots. Even some doctors are not recommending because the necessity for a booster shot and its effectiveness against various covid variants has not been established.
Any views?
Had two AstraZeneca last year, and then the Pfizer as a booster last November. Had no problems with any of them, and no respiratory troubles apart from a few very mild cold symptoms since. Certainly nothing that could be identified as Covid 19.
Just a quick question guys.
Have many of you had your booster shots against covid? I am due for one and have a wedding coming up next month.
Some people are warning against the booster due to blood clots. Even some doctors are not recommending because the necessity for a booster shot and its effectiveness against various covid variants has not been established.
Any views?
I've managed with toothpaste (Colgate "cavity protection with calcium" - frequent use) a car heater and about 20 hankies. No shots, jabs, pricks, aching arms, and no more than a runny nose and bit of a cough at any time. Three of my friends got boosted recently and were off sick (very) following it.And that is simply anecdotal, compared with the thousands who have died because they didn't get vaccinated. Most likely your friends had been well infected with Covid before they had their jabs, there being so much Covid 19 about.
I forgot to mention a Wisdom 'smokers' toothbrush. I don't smoke, but it cleans like hygienist equipment. I am sure it reduces viral load.
From what I have seen there is evidence that toothpaste can reduce the salivary viral load in people who are infected - so probably giving a reduction in transmission - but none regarding them helping prevent catching Covid-19.References 8-11 here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392035/) suggest that:
https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/threats-to-dental-health/new-research-for-toothpaste-and-mouthwash-effects-on-covid-19-virus (https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/threats-to-dental-health/new-research-for-toothpaste-and-mouthwash-effects-on-covid-19-virus)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020653922000697 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020653922000697)
Do you know of any evidence regarding it being protective?
References 8-11 here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392035/) suggest that:
"in elderly persons who reside in nursing homes, evidence suggests tooth brushing decreases the incidence of pneumonia and decreases mortality rates.8 Numerous studies of elderly persons who routinely received professional oral care have demonstrated improved outcomes: fewer febrile days and decreased rates of influenza or pneumonia.9–11"
My thinking is that using microbe-neutralizing toothpaste and a firm toothbrush (with a medium or small head) to remove plaque from the teeth, would free up salivary IgA as there are less microbes for it to combat in the mouth. That IgA can then act on any virus that enters the throat from the nose.
References 8-11 here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392035/) suggest that:Possibly less chance of respiratory infections in the edentulous, then? (Provided they put their dentures in Steradent overnight.)
"in elderly persons who reside in nursing homes, evidence suggests tooth brushing decreases the incidence of pneumonia and decreases mortality rates.8 Numerous studies of elderly persons who routinely received professional oral care have demonstrated improved outcomes: fewer febrile days and decreased rates of influenza or pneumonia.9–11"
My thinking is that using microbe-neutralizing toothpaste and a firm toothbrush (with a medium or small head) to remove plaque from the teeth, would free up salivary IgA as there are less microbes for it to combat in the mouth. That IgA can then act on any virus that enters the throat from the nose.
That may be your thinking but any evidence for it? I understand your point - if all or much of the salivary IgA was used to defend against bacteria in the mouth due to poor dental hygiene then this might mean a lower level of protection against Sars-Cov-2 but is there any actual evidence of that? Any idea of whether this is a real factor?Alas, no - and I think it's the IgM that responds first, anyway, the so-called natural antibodies that can bind without having had previous encounter with the virus.
I wondered if this (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/dr-geert-vanden-bossche-ade-evolution-of-the-virus-expected-excess-deaths) might interest anyone. I don't know how much of it is true but it's an explanation for the apparent increased susceptibility of vaccinated people to infection with Omicron.
What apparent increased susceptibility?When (until a few months ago) the vaccine surveillance report used to give data for infections in unvaccinated and vaccinated people, the infection rates were consistently higher in the latter group. This coincided with Omicron taking over.
See for example data for over 18 agegrouos, page 45 of Covid 19 vaccine surveillance report week 8, 2022 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1057599/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week-8.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi84N2XoIz4AhXEg1wKHQGYC-EQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1kIowTDiuXmz_gYIbWU4TQ).
When (until a few months ago) the vaccine surveillance report used to give data for infections in unvaccinated and vaccinated people, the infection rates were consistently higher in the latter group. This coincided with Omicron taking over.
Dicky,
Smallpox and polio were a differen kettle of fish.
Oh, I see ... another brilliant analysis ... all just by avoiding reading the footnotes!Could you explan how the data for case rates per 100,000 unvaccinated can consistently show that vaccination makes you twice as likely (roughly) to test positive if you're over 18?
Could you explan how the data for case rates per 100,000 unvaccinated can consistently show that vaccination makes you twice as likely (roughly) to test positive if you're over 18?
Could you explan how the data for case rates per 100,000 unvaccinated can consistently show that vaccination makes you twice as likely (roughly) to test positive if you're over 18?Having looked back through the thread (belatedly), I see that your concerns have regularly been answered by people far better informed than myself. I've concluded that the answer to your objections does not lie in the areas of virology or immunology - it's a matter of psychology.
Could you explan how the data for case rates per 100,000 unvaccinated can consistently show that vaccination makes you twice as likely (roughly) to test positive if you're over 18?
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are unadjusted crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data and there are likely to be systematic differences between these 2 population groups. For example:
• testing behaviour is likely to be different between people with different vaccination status, resulting in differences in the chances of being identified as a case
• many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues
• people who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19
• people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/antibody-dependent-enhancement-in-vaccines&ved=2ahUKEwjzqMaZyJH4AhULSEEAHdjdBNIQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0CkVcppYJdHeZPTZkJrA29
I saw that one but didn't post it as it is pre Omicron isn't it, and it seems Spud is most concerned about Omicron causing ADE - I think?Yup, I only noticed the date afterwards. However, I think my previous link, though not right up to date, deals with the bigger picture in fairly convincing detail.
SpudThanks for that, very interesting, although I thought this bit in bold doesn't make sense:
Please note what the following article says about the immunological function of the T cells and the Fc receptors in particular. The article doesn't seem to deny the possible truth of the phenomenon to which you're drawing attention, but points out that this is far from the whole story.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20220103/Omicron-spike-specific-binding-antibodies-attenuate-disease-despite-increasing-transmission.aspx&ved=2ahUKEwiC7dbrwJH4AhV-QEEAHe_JDboQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2kkmHfbMxV9zOfdCTyQkoR
...
So the thrust of the message is that vaccination against omicron is leading to antibody-dependant enhancement of infection (not disease).
The prediction made based on the continued high circulation of the virus is that high immune pressure is now being placed on the virulence of the virus. To explain: the non-neutralizing antibodies, while enhancing infection, also prevent severe systemic disease, for example in the lung, where they suppress trans-infection of alveolar cells.
The virus needs to increase the severity of disease in order to transmit itself better in this environment of high immune pressure. So mutation that can enable a greater level of infection in the lower respiratory tract will over time be selected for, as long as the infection rate remains high.
This would lead to a severe wave of mortality.
It seems to me that this theory depends on interpreting the available data to mean that infection rates are higher in vaccinated people.
...
Prefacing everything with the acknowledgement that I am not an expert ........
From what I have read, yes, what you describe is possible but it is/has been watched out for an not seen yet according to the experts. I have also read that the consequences of ADE are acute & dramatically and kills quickly and this has not been seen (this was on a website which required registration to read in full and I only got a greyed out 'glimpse' but that is what was clearly said.
This is interesting https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/all.15264 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/all.15264)
I saw that one but didn't post it as it is pre Omicron isn't it, and it seems Spud is most concerned about Omicron causing ADE - I think?And it's talking about enhancement of disease, whereas with Omicron we seem to be seeing enhancement of infection coupled with attenuated disease.
ADEs have been recognised as a possibility from the start of vaccine development, based on experience with SARS, MERS and other viruses. So the vaccines in use have been designed to minimise the risks and for the known variants there is no indication that ADE is increasing spread or severity. Obviously as each new variant emerges the vaccines in use are checked against them and tested to make sure differences do not cause additional problems and that they are still effective enough to keep using.I would emphasize that ADE normally refers to disease. but in this case it is infection that appears to be enhanced coupled with attenuated disease. Note also that this could also be a feature of immunity induced by natural infection. The question is do we want to add to the latter through mass vaccination? If we do we continue to add to the evolutionary pressure on the virus, in particular on its virulence (according to Geert).
This is a repetition of your continued misunderstanding or misstatement of/on the emergence and spread of new variants. Although it is feasible that variants with higher infectivity and severity will emerge, study of the variants that have emerged and their spread, severity and interaction with the existing vaccines must inform us prior to blatant scaremongering.
In that they could both kill or cause life-long disablement, they are very much the same kettle of fish. Insofar as the research done was largely hit and miss and based on anecdote and some small amount of empirical experience with smallpox, the medics of the time were way behind the vast researches of modern medicine into the various types of corona virus. It was this research the world-wide medical experts drew as a basis of their development of Covid19 vaccines (whereas with smallpox before Jenner, they even tried inoculation with live smallpox on occasion). There is a difference in that vaccination against smallpox and polio conferred longer immunity than vaccines against Covid19, but the basic principle is the same.A couple of points. Iirc, vaccination against polio and smallpox differed from vaccination during this pandemic in that those two viruses mutate much more slowly, so immune escape didn't happen.
The fact that occasional side-effects have been noted with Covid19 vaccines does little to counter the arguments that such vaccines largely prevent serious illness, lifelong disablement or death (in potentially millions of people) from the virus and its variants.
I don't quite understand what you're afraid of, unless you've been infected with ludicrous conspiracy theories. When one realises that nations throughout the world who have long been on not the best, or even hostile, relations, have all concurred in the importance of vaccination, the idea of some horrible conspiracy going on (by whom and against whom?) becomes utterly ridiculous.
All-cause mortality for Pfizer was higher in vaccinated. I have seen studies that show it to be higher during the vaccination program.Err - evidence please.
Here is the podcast (https://youtu.be/VVxmAIKjYM4) showing at 12 minutes the data in a graph relating deaths to vaccinations.
There were overall 34,000 deaths in NZ in 2021. This was 2,300 more than in 2020. Total deaths with a positive Covid test were 59 by December 31 2021.
Here is the podcast (https://youtu.be/VVxmAIKjYM4) showing at 12 minutes the data in a graph relating deaths to vaccinations.Yes, just looked at the piece about 12 minutes and either your guy is a complete idiot, or is a disingenuous conspiracy theory nut.
There were overall 34,000 deaths in NZ in 2021. This was 2,300 more than in 2020. Total deaths with a positive Covid test were 59 by December 31 2021.
Yes, just looked at the piece about 12 minutes and either your guy is a complete idiot, or is a disingenuous conspiracy theory nut.Yes - I did mention that in #5087. I agree, it looks like the increased all cause mortality was due to it being winter.
Look at the graph and tell me the time period when the peak in deaths occurred - Oh I'll do it for you - it rises from about mid May and then drops back down again by about mid October. Any reason why there might be a rise in deaths in New Zealand[/b] between May and September - here's a clue for you, this is the equivalent of November to March in the UK. Any idea Spud?
So if this is about deaths due to vaccination, then you wouldn't expect the same effect in years prior to covid/vaccination - hmm - look at figure 1 in the link.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-7-263
Weird eh - there is a spike in deaths every year peaking about July - why, because it is Winter!!!!
Yes, just looked at the piece about 12 minutes and either your guy is a complete idiot, or is a disingenuous conspiracy theory nut.I've been sent a link to a study that gives the data on risk/benefit ratio of boosters, in New Zealand:
Look at the graph and tell me the time period when the peak in deaths occurred - Oh I'll do it for you - it rises from about mid May and then drops back down again by about mid October. Any reason why there might be a rise in deaths in New Zealand[/b] between May and September - here's a clue for you, this is the equivalent of November to March in the UK. Any idea Spud?
So if this is about deaths due to vaccination, then you wouldn't expect the same effect in years prior to covid/vaccination - hmm - look at figure 1 in the link.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-7-263
Weird eh - there is a spike in deaths every year peaking about July - why, because it is Winter!!!!
I've been sent a link to a study that gives the data on risk/benefit ratio of boosters, in New Zealand:You also need to factor in the impact of other measures on expected deaths - so NZ had pretty severe lock down measure in place until recently - in the absence of covid that would have markedly reduced mortality anyway as other transmissible (and sometimes fatal) diseases such as seasonal flu are suppressed. So for the first period you describe the baseline expected deaths would be lower than historically in a typical winter as we don't normally lock down etc.
https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/waieconwp/22_2f11.htm?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
As shown in that 'Peak Prosperity' video, the excess deaths during primary and secondary vaccination don't seem to be much more than expected for the winter period. Excess deaths for the booster period however, seem significantly high, given it was summer time.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/05/excess-deaths-rise-not-covid/
Really strange. I've had something quite severe - had to see a GP, who reassured me I hadn't had a brain hemorrhage (had a major headache and couldn't eat for 3 days).
At this time of year I wouldn't expect to come down with Flu (I think that is what it was as I tested negative for covid.)
There has been a lot of Covid around here.
Sorry to hear you've been unwell.Archived version of article
This is an interesting review of excess deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f45S6vmQgA&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f45S6vmQgA&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell)
Can't read the article you linked to due to a paywall.
Archived version of article
https://archive.ph/g0yRr
Sorry to hear you've been unwell.I think I got food poisoning from a reduced price chicken sandwich! And then some respiratory virus broke through my innate immune system... So maybe excess deaths could relate to the cost of living and not being able to afford in-date food...
This is an interesting review of excess deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f45S6vmQgA&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f45S6vmQgA&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell)
Can't read the article you linked to due to a paywall.
I think I got food poisoning from a reduced price chicken sandwich! And then some respiratory virus broke through my innate immune system... So maybe excess deaths could relate to the cost of living and not being able to afford in-date food...
So there will be a considerable portion of the population will have declining vaccination efficacy from the initial vaccination programme, but not have had their boosters yet.Maybe I'm wrong, but are the higher excess deaths said to be non-covid deaths?
Err - evidence please.Interested in your opinion on this:
But even if that is the case then like there is a simple explanation - being that vaccination programmes started with the oldest and most vulnerable - in other words those most likely to die, either from covid or from other causes.
I'm sure there is a massively greater death rates amongst pensioner bus pass holders compared to those that aren't eligible for a bus pass. Doesn't mean that bus passes are dangerous, does it.
Interested in your opinion on this:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239
Watch this SpudCan you summarize it please, looks like a waste of 12 minutes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSAsfuMkuw&ab_channel=BacktotheScience (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSAsfuMkuw&ab_channel=BacktotheScience)
Can you summarize it please, looks like a waste of 12 minutes?
Interested in your opinion on this:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239)
Why do you consider it a waste of 12 minutes?She's behaving like a prat. Thanks, I've looked up P-hacking and will check out the video.
Anyway, it is about the use of P-hacking and about comparing apples to oranges.
The abstract in the link is a summary, and I think the most relevant bit is "The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials"
Firstly, could you summarise this paper and provide brief descriptions of relative and absolute figures?
...It is. That's why I want a summarise.
Do you want the figures from the paper itself? It's 22 pages long.....
Why do you consider it a waste of 12 minutes?The limitations of the study are discussed in the paper (now reviewed and published). I've managed 3 minutes of the Aussie lady, will keep trying.
Anyway, it is about the use of P-hacking and about comparing apples to oranges.
The limitations of the study are discussed in the paper (now reviewed and published). I've managed 3 minutes of the Aussie lady, will keep trying.
Making a bit of a meal of it aren't you? Would start to think you didn't want to watch it. How about this instead?Are you still following John Campbell? This is his most recent talk, on adverse reactions.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-fail-vaccine-publishes-antivax-propaganda/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-fail-vaccine-publishes-antivax-propaganda/)
Are you still following John Campbell? This is his most recent talk, on adverse reactions.
https://youtu.be/onNe5VMQAwQ
'A plague on both their houses'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64818969
I am staggered at the sheer ineptitude of Hancock choosing Oakeshott to help write his book in the first place. Then giving her access to all his govt Whatsapp messages takes it to another level. He is certifiably insane.I would be interested to see her contract - if she gets more money based on sales then I suspect the principle that took precedence here is her bank account.
I am staggered at the sheer ineptitude of Hancock choosing Oakeshott to help write his book in the first place. Then giving her access to all his govt Whatsapp messages takes it to another level. He is certifiably insane.
Risks seriously outweigh benefits for boosters. In the over 70s risks equal benefits.
https://youtu.be/JvSHD_n3Lyg
Having gone through baby loss, he (Mr Patto) said he finds it “hard to understand” why parents would trust unverified information on social media over advice from their healthcare professionalWith many condolences to Mr Patto, I agree with his opinion and advice.
...
Mr Patto blamed Covid-19 for a re-emergence of the debate around anti-vaccination and medical consent, saying it is “unfortunately spilling over” into real life.
Johnson was useless, and his advisors knew that at the time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67262984
One wonders what would have been the right one.
Cummings is an obvious misogynist. His 'defence' that he was rude about men would be laughable were it not for the seriousness of the issue. The attempt to wash his hands of responsibility is typical of his lying.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/covid-inquiry-dominic-cummings-helen-mcnamara-misogyny-stilettos/
I don't want to derail the topic (much) but, it seems to me that just insulting a woman doesn't make you a misogynist. I think she was getting in his way and that's why he insulted her. It was all deeply unprofessional but so is calling cabinet ministers "feral fuck pigs".I don't think just insulting a woman is misogynistic. Using the terms 'stiletto' and 'cunt' though are deliberate attempts to emphasise that she is a woman, and is therefore misogynist.
I think he took Malcolm Tucker as a role model not as a satirical figure of fun.
I don't think just insulting a woman is misogynistic. Using the terms 'stiletto' and 'cunt' though are deluberate attempts to emphasise that she is a woman, and is therefore misogynist.
Whilst many people would refer to "cunt" as a gendered slur, it's most often used against men in my experience. The stiletto thing is a bit weird because, clearly, you are meant to think of stiletto heeled shoes but the metaphor makes more sense if you think of actual stilettos.Cumming uses words deliberately. He knew. The combination of the words and the double meaning of stiletto was entirely meant.
Or maybe he just didn't put any thought into it.
Anyway, I have already derailed the thread enough, so I'll stop now.
Cumming uses words deliberately.
Does he now. I would suggest he is not always as machiavellian as you think. The trip to Barnard's Castle suggests somebody who doesn't always think things throughThat one can be idiot in one way does not preclude being skilled in another. His tool is words. That's a very deliberate conjunction.
Women working in No 10 felt 'invisible' because of macho culture, inquiry hears
MacNamara says when she returned to No 10 in April, after her illness, she felt the macho culture had become more extreme.
O’Connor quotes from her witness statement, in which she said:
There are numerous examples of women being ignored, excluded, not listened to or talked over. It was also clear that the female perspective was being missed in advice and decision making..
Tip for the FM - interpret requests for information for inquirys as wide as possible to avoid looking like you are covering up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67367302
Patrick Vallance's Journal of a Plague Year
To me, the clear implication was that he was the important person there and the others were hired help.
That is essentially true. The trouble is that, when you hire help, it's a waste of money if you don't let them help.He wouldn't even care about wasting other people's money (or tax money as its sometimes called).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/29/uk-ministers-asked-to-explain-fourth-delay-to-covid-wine-cellar-reportToo pissed
I suspect they've forgotten. Again.
And again.
And again and again.
Let's hope this virus doesn't 'escape'. ....... http://tinyurl.com/mu9s8yjj (http://tinyurl.com/mu9s8yjj)If you read the whole, article you'll find out that UK Homeowners Are Eligible For A £1,500 Loft Insulation Voucher .
Not a huge fan of Nicola but sounds about right to me.Though as noted, not her.
Though as noted, not her.
Massive cover-up underway concerning mRNA vaccines. Embalmers in the West are finding a new type of clot in the circulatory system of vaccinated people, unlike any naturally occuring clots. Yet coroner's are refusing to investigate.
Massive cover-up underway concerning mRNA vaccines. Embalmers in the West are finding a new type of clot in the circulatory system of vaccinated people, unlike any naturally occuring clots. Yet coroner's are refusing to investigate.Probably all to do with the massive invisible planet Wormwood that is approaching soon
Probably all to do with the massive invisible planet Wormwood that is approaching soon
Massive cover-up underway concerning mRNA vaccines. Embalmers in the West are finding a new type of clot in the circulatory system of vaccinated people, unlike any naturally occuring clots. Yet coroner's are refusing to investigate.
Massive cover-up underway concerning mRNA vaccines. Embalmers in the West are finding a new type of clot in the circulatory system of vaccinated people, unlike any naturally occuring clots. Yet coroner's are refusing to investigate.No doubt a scam promoted by Andrew Wakefield esq. and his associates. I look forward to their prosecution for disinformation and multiple homicide.
These clots are nothing new and they occur post mortem.According to various embalmers, they are new and are not like clots formed post mortem. Unlike normal clots they don't disintegrate when handled, and can be stretched like rubber.
According to various embalmers, they are new and are not like clots formed post mortem. Unlike normal clots they don't disintegrate when handled, and can be stretched like rubber.