Jump to content

dingbat2

GOLD member
  • Posts

    3,262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by dingbat2

  1. So Macron has said... “The real problem with AstraZeneca is just that it doesn’t work as expected, because we have very little information,” Mr Macron said he was not privy to any new data but added: “Today everything suggests that it is almost ineffective for those over 65, and some say over 60.” The first paragraph is self-contradictory isn't it, how can you says it doesn't work as expected when you don't have enough information to draw that conclusion? And the second paragraph is just not true is it? The data didn't show that at all from what I saw, there just wasn't enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions from it I thought, or have I missed something?
  2. You should be a journalist for Handelsblatt Mr Tease 😆
  3. The drugs of choice at the Stone Circle 2022.... and less noise
  4. Totally agree with this, thats my point, just I probably expressed it badly. We just shouldn't even consider someone's sexulaity, race, age, gender at all in anything we do, it should be totally irrelevant. The fact we do still highlights how far society has to go to be truly inclusive and appreciative of each other
  5. Not having a go at you at all but the fact that you have to consciously consider trying to include those sensuality, gender, ages and ethnicities tells you what is wrong. Its still not natural to think its an irrelevance to even consider those issues that demonstrates its still embedded deep down in societies brain. It seems its almost like a list of boxes we have to tick before publishing things. Doesn't mean the prejudices aren't still there, they are, the fact that we have to consider them in the first place is the problem
  6. I am not sure if I am interpreting the data wrong above, but the thing I dont get with that data is the low percentage of the control group who became infected in the >65 age group 1 from 319 = 0.3% compared with the 18-64 age group of 100/5510 = 1.8%, so 6 times more chance of getting it within that population if you were between 18-64 and haven't been vaccinated. I am not sure why the sample was so small in the higher age group as a whole, surely they would have picked a decent sample from that population to be be able to draw conclusions from it
  7. ... and for what it's worth i would happily sacrifice my jab for someone in a more vulnerable group than me in Portugal or Spain at the moment
  8. Shit, thats one of the most scary graphs I have seen since this all started. What's going on in Spain and Portugal to make infections increase so exponentially all of a sudden, will it also spread to France, another new, even more transmissible, variant maybe? Bloody frightening, just shows how quickly things can change with this tosser virus. The whole thing is on a knife edge still for countries not as advanced with vaccination acquisition rollout
  9. I don't see it as a ploy, I just see it as total incompetence, nothing more
  10. I don't get what saying that means, what does he actually mean when he says he says he takes full responsibility. It is utterly meaningless, if you were taking full responsibility then you would acknowledge that you aren't capable to make the best decisions to reduce deaths as quickly as possible and hence you should fall on your sword. It means nothing to say you are taking responsibility
  11. Let's also not forget that idiotic decision to allow schools to open for one day before the inevitable u-turn, just to give the virus that extra day to spread the virus amongst the kids after the christmas holidays, who then pass it on to their parents and teachers. That was one of the most shocking and incompetent dithering decisions for me during the entire pandemic. It was inevitable what was going to happen but they still allowed schools to open for one crucial day. God knows what impact that decision has had in spreading infection unnecessarily. It just didn't need to happen, stupid decision
  12. What he lacks in looks he more than makes up for in incompetence
  13. Neil Diamond at Glasto 2008 on BBC4 at the moment, thats good news and wonderful memories, enjoy!
  14. But what if Coldplay were headlining?
  15. The last paragraph is key, the media, especially on the web, just want views and clicks so will aim to sensationalise everything, they have no sense of responsibility, as the sky headline above shows. Mortality might increase from 1% to 1.3% in the over 60s. Its still highly unlikely you will die. There needs to be more balance in reporting but when websites get paid based on number of clicks, its not surprising this happens and everyone ends up panicking and the inevitable effect this must have on peoples mental health. The Government couldn't win with this one, whether they were transparent or just waited until more evidence was available before disclosing. Wait for tomorrows tabloid from pages, they will lap this up, they love this stuff, it sells papers and increases clicks
  16. Its a rate per 100,000 rather than an absolute number, and there are a lot more young people than there are over 80s so the proportion of 80s in hospital will be a lot higher
  17. Bit worrying that the cases aren't falling very fast any more, they have been between 33000-40000 for the last week now, despite the lockdown And the 7 day average will start going back up tomorrow if there another 42000 cases reported tomorrow
  18. Makes you wonder if they have every considered the idea of pop-up festivals on the site (not raves!) where they have a lot of the infrastructure set up permanently or semi permanently, such as a smaller fence, dedicated permanent car park fields/camping fields, etc, long drops, etc. capable of holding more frequent festivals or big gigs and at shorter notice, and with less financial risk. There are a lot of places that already do large individual gigs already, such as the Forestry Commission, etc
  19. Yeah, I mentioned that a couple of weeks ago, really worried about Brazil, I think they will end up being hit harder than any other country, thanks to all the factors being against them - an incompetent president in denial not taking the pandemic seriously which only encourages the public to follow his lead, high case rates already, poor vaccination rates, collapsed healthcare systems, many very densely populated and poor areas. I fear its going to get a lot worse there before it gets better unfortunately, I hope I am wrong
  20. Thanks TD for the comprehensive reply, really appreciate it. I suppose a lot of how this develops depends on if / to what extent already vaccinated people can still carry and pass the virus onto non-vaccinated people. As well as how the non-vaccinated people, especially the under 50s, spread it between themselves and how much pressure this then puts on healthcare system, if and when restrictions start to get lifted and they return to work/go out. Very difficult balancing act
  21. I have always enjoyed wandering through the Greenfields, its a totally different area of the festival. Never felt as if I was having something forced on me, just people with alternative views to mine, cant remember ever being told my views were wrong, they just expressed their views and beliefs, if they were contrary to mine then all was fine and I moved on, but they always made me think. The Greenfields are not forced on punters, its you who has to go to the Greenfields to find out what their views and beliefs are, and its not like they are centre stage so you can easily avoid them/not know they are there, they are tucked away in a corner which most punters wont ever visit
  22. Thats what I mean, the net r-rate was say 1.7 during December, probably higher, but that's with measures in place, so if 'a' is 3 the impact of the limited restrictions meant 'b' was about 0.6 say, c was still 0. Since lockdown, 'b' is now 0.3 (say), 'c' is currently still 1, a*b*c = 0.9 and will fall further as vaccinations start having an impact
  23. I have a naive question, sorry I am just a bit confused! If the new variant initially had an r-rate of say 1.7, that means 10 people who have the virus spread it to 17 people who in turn spread it to 29 people, and so cases go up exponentially. If the first does of a vaccine has a 75% efficacy rate, then 75% of the 17 above wont get it (assuming everyone is vaccinated) so only 4 get the virus who then pass it on to 1 or 2 people. so r-rate becomes 1.7 * .25 = 0.4, so does the virus then fizzle out (assuming no further mutations) . Does the virus then effectively disappear or at worst only affect a few people who in turn don't spread it? Or will all of the people who have the vaccination still be carriers even though they don't get the virus? Won't there therefore be a target rate for r (being a combination of the rate from the variant * restrictions measures in place * effectiveness of the jab) where the virus will be allowed to go round the population on the basis it wont really spread any further, and people can only get it from importing it from areas/people not already vaccinated. And even if they do import it, it wont spread it anyway. So simplistically the r-rate is a*b*c, a being the r-rate the most prevalent variant in the population currently b being the impact of current restrictions c being a combination the efficacy of the jab and percentage of people who have had that jab ... and when a*b*c that goes below certain levels restrictions could start be lifted (e.g. , <0.8 tier 4 restrictions lifted, < 0.6 tier 3 restrictions lifted, <0.4 all restrictions lifted).
×
×
  • Create New...