The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[1of4]

19 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I know it’s in jest….however you’d recommend all recently qualified drivers wear a crash helmet or those with a poor accident record do? 

Glad you realised the comment was made in jest, realised after I made it, that it could have been taken the wrong way.

As for recommending who should wear one, that will be no one. But if individuals want that extra level of protection, I've got no problem with it.

I'm all for individual choice so long as it doesn't impact on the wellbeing and safety of others.

[GboroRam]

12 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'll agree that it reduces your chances of death/hospitalisation, but the younger generations - certainly the under 30s, or under 20s for example aren't at that greater risk to begin with. 

I am also not saying youngsters shouldn't ever take the vaccine, but my lads are certainly waiting until there is real world long term data available before deciding to take it.  If it is then proven safe in the long term, such as the Rubella vaccine you mentioned, then I would have no issues with teenagers taking it in the future. 

Again, don't think about the risk to the under 30s. Think about the risk of under 30s spreading it to more vulnerable groups. Like the 13 year olds in school getting vaccinated against German Measles so they don't spread it to under 30 year old pregnant women. It's not for their benefit primarily.

[GboroRam]

51 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

But if the cases are high and we have a vaccination programme and more protection then who cares what the R number is. If there is protection through the vaccination program and natural immunity, then why the clamour for even more mitigation? 
its not going away, do you suggest we wear masks indefinitely, we social distance indefinitely? Or do we have the jab (if you want too) and just get on with it? 

Because you're thinking about individuals and not a system. If the system gets overwhelmed, with the virus running riot - it'll affect far more people than it should. Vaccination is the key method of reducing the R number. Unfortunately take up is never going to be 100% so we need to find other controls to drive that number down. As it stands we never got the virus under control, so it's taking far more lives than it should have.

Think about the system, not just rely on the vaccine. If we were talking about Australia levels of infections, I'd say we could have relied on our successful vaccination program. But we never got the virus under control.

[maxjam]

15 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Again, don't think about the risk to the under 30s. Think about the risk of under 30s spreading it to more vulnerable groups. Like the 13 year olds in school getting vaccinated against German Measles so they don't spread it to under 30 year old pregnant women. It's not for their benefit primarily.

We'll have to agree to disagree then I'm afraid ?  

You can still catch and spread covid after being vaccinated, being vaccinated however is 90%+ effective at keeping you out of hospital - you primarily get vaccinated to protect yourself and the older generations/vulnerable shouldn't really think twice about it.  The same principle applies to German Measles, if you are thinking about getting pregnant get the shot and protect yourself.

Maybe when the longer term data is in and the vaccines have been proven as safe as traditional vaccines I will change my mind but until that point I am strongly opposed to vaccinating teenagers.

[ramsbottom]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

I've got no real strong feelings either way tbh.  I don't get the rabid never wearing one brigade tbh, its a temporary covering at best as you walk round a shop or wherever.

 

I've been through this a few times, under 50 imo it should be personal choice - which it is, but with no recriminations.  As for under 18s the risk attached to the vaccine isn't that much smaller than their risk from covid, but I'm happy to agree that the risk is extremely tiny.  My greater concern is whether these new vaccines have any long term effects and given the risks to the younger generations, waiting to be jabbed imho would be better for them. 

I can see the argument about protecting the wider population but the latest data shows us that being double jabbed doesn't prevent you from catching/spreading covid anyway so.... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree ?

 

See above and put more energy into the booster scheme, have people protect themselves first and foremost.

 

Their response hasn't been ideal - better than ours I'll agree but then again we were never going to get to covid zero like them with 1000+ people crossing the channel everyday.  Stories, albeit rare, of babies dying because they weren't allowed to cross state lines to go to hospital is just one example of the extremes they have gone to in protecting their communities.  Soaring mental health and substance abuse problems are also just the tip of the iceberg in keeping people locked down for extended periods.

The earliest data never suggested it prevented you from catching or spreading it.  Not a single scientific report said it would.  All it does is reduce the symptoms so the vast majority of people aren't required to be hospitalised, just like a bout of normal flu.  My Mrs came down with it a few weeks ago and was pretty bad with it (probably due to her having an underlying condition), so god knows what she would've been like if she hadn't been double jabbed.

[Gone]

34 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Because you're thinking about individuals and not a system. If the system gets overwhelmed, with the virus running riot - it'll affect far more people than it should. Vaccination is the key method of reducing the R number. Unfortunately take up is never going to be 100% so we need to find other controls to drive that number down. As it stands we never got the virus under control, so it's taking far more lives than it should have.

Think about the system, not just rely on the vaccine. If we were talking about Australia levels of infections, I'd say we could have relied on our successful vaccination program. But we never got the virus under control.

So my assumption is in your opinion we should introduce as many measures as possible until the cases are below some arbitrary number (let’s say <10) for a sustained period? 

[GboroRam]

49 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

So my assumption is in your opinion we should introduce as many measures as possible until the cases are below some arbitrary number (let’s say <10) for a sustained period? 

No. I think there's some measures we can introduce with such a minimal impact that it's a no brainer. Masks in confined spaces makes total sense. Offering the vaccine to anyone over 12 is effective and far safer than letting the virus run amok once more. Introducing safety measures in schools such as masks, desks facing forwards, tight bubbles - all perfectly sensible measures that won't majorly impact the school's ability to deliver coursework or overly burden anyone with safety measures.

Promoting home working does make sense in limiting transmissions, but it does seem that the economy takes a tanking when we push it too much. We seem far too reliant on people buying a coffee and a ham sandwich at lunchtime; take it away and the economy nosedives.

Any measures that don't mean we need to lock down are welcomed. The balance is between keeping the economy rolling vs seeing the virus swamp hospitals. At the minute it looks like it's in control - but a bad winter will leave us in a vulnerable position, as we know admissions rise during the winter months pretty much every year. 

It's all about the R number and how we control it. And the end result of that control is hospital admissions. As long as we can keep admissions down and infection rates manageable, I'd say the R number is sufficiently controlled. I wish we'd got the virus under control early, like much of continental Europe has managed to do - let alone the standout "zero covid" countries like Aus and NZ. But we're firefighting yet again, with rising infection rates and rising hospital admissions. This virus spreads exponentially, so small increases translate into large numbers rapidly. If we want to prevent an explosion at Christmas it's what we do now that will make the difference.

It seems we're far too cavalier. I'd prefer some tightening of measures now, so we can relax them in 8 weeks time and enjoy Christmas. Maybe that's just me though.

 

[Gone]

13 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

No. I think there's some measures we can introduce with such a minimal impact that it's a no brainer. Masks in confined spaces makes total sense. Offering the vaccine to anyone over 12 is effective and far safer than letting the virus run amok once more. Introducing safety measures in schools such as masks, desks facing forwards, tight bubbles - all perfectly sensible measures that won't majorly impact the school's ability to deliver coursework or overly burden anyone with safety measures.

Promoting home working does make sense in limiting transmissions, but it does seem that the economy takes a tanking when we push it too much. We seem far too reliant on people buying a coffee and a ham sandwich at lunchtime; take it away and the economy nosedives.

Any measures that don't mean we need to lock down are welcomed. The balance is between keeping the economy rolling vs seeing the virus swamp hospitals. At the minute it looks like it's in control - but a bad winter will leave us in a vulnerable position, as we know admissions rise during the winter months pretty much every year. 

It's all about the R number and how we control it. And the end result of that control is hospital admissions. As long as we can keep admissions down and infection rates manageable, I'd say the R number is sufficiently controlled. I wish we'd got the virus under control early, like much of continental Europe has managed to do - let alone the standout "zero covid" countries like Aus and NZ. But we're firefighting yet again, with rising infection rates and rising hospital admissions. This virus spreads exponentially, so small increases translate into large numbers rapidly. If we want to prevent an explosion at Christmas it's what we do now that will make the difference.

It seems we're far too cavalier. I'd prefer some tightening of measures now, so we can relax them in 8 weeks time and enjoy Christmas. Maybe that's just me though.

 

Just my opinion but I think introducing those measures now won’t make a blind bit of difference. We do nothing, cases may creep up, we put in mitigation cases may creep up. I don’t believe introducing mask wearing, bubbles, kids facing forward will make any difference what so ever. It’s all window dressing to make folk feel better, the actual tangible impact of those restrictions are minimal at best. And let’s be honest he health system is under strain every winter (allegedly) this year will be no different. We’ve rolled out the vaccines and it’s time to carry on as before, just my opinion on the matter anyhow. 

[Stive Pesley]

25 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Just my opinion but I think introducing those measures now won’t make a blind bit of difference. We do nothing, cases may creep up, we put in mitigation cases may creep up. I don’t believe introducing mask wearing, bubbles, kids facing forward will make any difference what so ever.

I think they would make a *small* difference, rather than zero difference. The problem the government have is that making any of it mandatory will be hugely unpopular with a large part of their electorate - and people will refuse to comply. Therefore is it worth doing at all? I suspect not. BJ is  a populist after all - he will always veer away from unpopular decisions - until he has no choice (and can blame someone else)

 

[ariotofmyown]

57 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I think they would make a *small* difference, rather than zero difference. The problem the government have is that making any of it mandatory will be hugely unpopular with a large part of their electorate - and people will refuse to comply. Therefore is it worth doing at all? I suspect not. BJ is  a populist after all - he will always veer away from unpopular decisions - until he has no choice (and can blame someone else)

 

He's a populist who decided to let it rip because he didn't think the British people would mostly follow some obvious precautions to protect themselves and each other. He's a populist who reflects his multitude of defects on the little people.

[ariotofmyown]

Kid's friend at school (11 and hence not vaccinated) just tested positive. He has Covid just before last Christmas.

I know of 2 other people who have had it more than once. Not seen much about repeat infection but not great news.

[Archied]

2 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Kid's friend at school (11 and hence not vaccinated) just tested positive. He has Covid just before last Christmas.

I know of 2 other people who have had it more than once. Not seen much about repeat infection but not great news.

Don’t know why , ive been on about it for quite some time on here , the fact that I know loads of people who have tested positive for a second time after being double jabbed and all without fail have said they felt far more wiped out symptoms wise ,, ah but of course I just make this stuff up for the sake of posting??‍♂️

[jimmyp]

On 21/10/2021 at 20:08, maxjam said:

Not sure who he is or what he's trying to show?

Are we now using different figures to the ones the Govt have produced since the pandemic started to get the results 'we' want?

Regardless... the top graph still shows substantial infection rates in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, which as stated, is the only thing I'm concerned with re. any potential introduction of covid passports.

A good explanation as to why using NIMS for population data is misleading and the analysis offered in the tweet yesterday by Paul is far more reliable. 
 

Very much not the case of using different figures to get the results we wanted. Unless by we you actually meant Hugh Osmond. 

[maxjam]

52 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

A good explanation as to why using NIMS for population data is misleading and the analysis offered in the tweet yesterday by Paul is far more reliable. 
 

Very much not the case of using different figures to get the results we wanted. Unless by we you actually meant Hugh Osmond. 

I think it is very much a case of using different figures to get the results he wanted. 

I did read through his twitter feed, and some of responses and googled elsewhere but didn't find much.  It seems that there is a group of 4 of them pushing their work which hasn't picked up an awful lot of traction. 

Now imagine if I had posted that link, unless I could provide other verified sources I would have been laughed out of the thread.  Until its proved unreliable I think I'll stick to the Govt figures and papers - as we all have been doing throughout the pandemic.

 

[jimmyp]

12 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I think it is very much a case of using different figures to get the results he wanted. 

I did read through his twitter feed, and some of responses and googled elsewhere but didn't find much.  It seems that there is a group of 4 of them pushing their work which hasn't picked up an awful lot of traction. 

Now imagine if I had posted that link, unless I could provide other verified sources I would have been laughed out of the thread.  Until its proved unreliable I think I'll stick to the Govt figures and papers - as we all have been doing throughout the pandemic.

 

I’m not sure the chief data reporter of the Financial Times needs to push his work to gain more traction.

[maxjam]

22 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

I’m not sure the chief data reporter of the Financial Times needs to push his work to gain more traction.

I'm not sure what your point is tbh?

He states the UKHSA isn't out to mislead anyone - which its not, but his 'team' of 4 use 'ONS demoninators' to interpret the data UKHSA puts out differently to everyone else. 

You can keep posting his tweets if you like but I get my data from here and will continue to do so until proven unreliable;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

[maxjam]

Boris talking sense earlier today - or are people still getting sick and tired my 'ridiculous misinformation campaign. It's not only plain wrong, it's dangerous if you convince others of a similar lazy three monkeys mindset to your own.'

Apologies still being accepted in good faith ?

 

[jimmyp]

22 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm not sure what your point is tbh?

He states the UKHSA isn't out to mislead anyone - which its not, but his 'team' of 4 use 'ONS demoninators' to interpret the data UKHSA puts out differently to everyone else. 

You can keep posting his tweets if you like but I get my data from here and will continue to do so until proven unreliable;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

The Financial Times really aren’t the only ones who interpret the data differently to everyone else. 

NIMS data cannot be accurately used to compare the outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
 

Edited October 22, 2021 by jimmyp

[jimmyp]

31 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Boris talking sense earlier today - or are people still getting sick and tired my 'ridiculous misinformation campaign. It's not only plain wrong, it's dangerous if you convince others of a similar lazy three monkeys mindset to your own.'

Apologies still being accepted in good faith ?

 

He should read the report you posted. 
 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by jimmyp

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

He should read the report you posted. 
 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

 

I don't doubt that the vaccine provides some protection against tranmission - what the above doesn't mention however, and what I stated earlier in this thread, is the fact that its effectiveness against transmission wanes after approx 12 weeks to the equivalent of an unvaccinated individual. 

I'm not sure what the hang up is about it all tbh, other than me being a bit playful following an unnecessary post aimed at my apparent 'ridiculous misinformation campaign'.  The study recommended a booster program which I fully support.