When will this shit end?

[zahidf]

Just now, Ozanne said:

A grown up response.

Lol just an Internet flub!

I dont think you can trust polls. No one will admit to breaking the law!

Wander around London its clear loads of people aren't following the one household rule/meet just one person from a different household. 

Restrictions need 80% or so compliance. To be effective imo. I dont think its that high anymore. Its definitely a lot lower than it was earlier this year 

 

 

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, Copperface said:

What's stopping them from hiring more staff?   Why you asking me?

Also what is this about every adult getting two doses?  Really?

Initial phase is the older and more vulnerable. That alone will see deaths plummet. What are you classing as that group? How many? When do you think they will be completed? What about those who cannot receive the vaccine, will not take it, and most importantly, the pretty decent percentage of those who it is doesn't work on?

Effacay is those who don't get covid. But none in the testing group had serious covid which got them in the hospital.

 

They've literally said they are assuming one dose people will have enough protections for 3 months before a second dose. Assuming one dose is protective enough

Edited December 30, 2020 by zahidf

[Losing my hair]

10 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

I am! Keep the faith! (Who underwrites the go/no go decision early in the year is the main obstacle I think...that I know little about, so listen to others on here that know better). If it was at the end of August, I’d say we’d almost definitely be on...if it’s not to be, I’d expect it will be because a decision was made to not risk it well before we see the benefit of the vaccine roll out. The curveball is and always has been what happens in terms of morbidity once mortality is taken out of the equation (100% protection so far from severe disease with 1 shot of the Oxford vaccine (>10 days) gives me hope on that front). 

And I assume that the issue of whether or not vaccinated people can still be infectious will have to be taken into account.

[efcfanwirral]

 

23 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Here's a depressing fact.

The government only allowed 5 hours to debate the Brexit Trade Deal, by far the most important piece of legislation in a generation.

When they debated fox hunting seventeen years ago, the debate lasted...5 hours.

At the exact same level of importance for the Tory party then!

[gigpusher]

Just now, Losing my hair said:

And I assume that the issue of whether or not vaccinated people can still be infectious will have to be taken into account.

I also assume whether they can spare medical staff might be a factor. I know  a lot do it on their holidays etc but it might be tricky if staff are burnt out from a very long period of huge stress. 

[Losing my hair]

1 minute ago, gigpusher said:

I also assume whether they can spare medical staff might be a factor. I know  a lot do it on their holidays etc but it might be tricky if staff are burnt out from a very long period of huge stress. 

Again, I assume that they can draft in other people qualified to give injections; pharmacists, vets, dentists, to help.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Lol just an Internet flub!

I dont think you can trust polls. No one will admit to breaking the law!

Wander around London its clear loads of people aren't following the one household rule/meet just one person from a different household. 

Restrictions need 80% or so compliance. To be effective imo. I dont think its that high anymore. Its definitely a lot lower than it was earlier this year 

 

 

Ah the classic answer when you present data from polling - you can't trust the polls.

Just because it might not be happening where you are doesn't mean you can extrapolate that up to most in the country. I'm not sure why you have such little faith in people, which is why I would imagine it's more wishful thinking in the hope we can all get back to normal quicker. Apart from anecdotal reports why do you assume people are in the masses set to break all the restrictions?

In the majority people are sticking to the rules and that will be the way we get out of this quicker.

[fraybentos1]

6 minutes ago, Copperface said:

What's stopping them from hiring more staff?   Why you asking me?

Also what is this about every adult getting two doses?  Really?

Initial phase is the older and more vulnerable. That alone will see deaths plummet. What are you classing as that group? How many? When do you think they will be completed? What about those who cannot receive the vaccine, will not take it, and most importantly, the pretty decent percentage of those who it is doesn't work on?

Im asking you cause ur saying the staff numbers needed as if it’s a stumbling block.

it’s around 25 mil I believe.

what do you mean doesn’t work on? It prevented 100 percent of severe disease in trials from One jag

[duke88]

1 hour ago, funkychick2007 said:

Who are they planning is going to do the testing in schools it shouldn’t be teachers!! 

Had an email from my son’s school - they’re recruiting people to supervise the testing. Pupils will do the test themselves.

[Copperface]

3 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

Hmm, who to believe...

Professionals in their field, scientists and epidemiologists, vaccine taskforce people with the actual data and logistics at their fingertips, or an internet Karen?

I tell you what, it’s a bloody hard one. 

It's a discussion, not an Old Bailey jury.

Internet Karen. Good one. Might adopt that. Backed up everything with figures, justified where I can, but nobody, including you, has yet contradicted what I have suggested with anything but waffle, or Hancock/Johnson type bull. Even TD above, despite keeping the faith, then goes on to somewhat undermine that faith to some extent.

[gigpusher]

1 minute ago, Losing my hair said:

Again, I assume that they can draft in other people qualified to give injections; pharmacists, vets, dentists, to help.

I was talking about the festival going ahead not vaccinations.

[Jack.194]

Why the fuck have they not closed schools, seriously?

Also, how can a government that have cut education to its core, pushed forward with austerity, and consistently voted against free school meals for the last TEN YEARS genuinely claim that they’re keeping schools open to ‘limit the inequality that shutting schools would cause.’

I’m absolutely beyond fuming. Not only that but it’s FIVE DAYS until most schools go back now!! I spoke to my headteacher yesterday and she said she hadn’t heard a thing from the gov/LA about testing, opening etc etc. And to top it all off, I still don’t really know where my schools stands as it’s a SEN school, they didn’t mention us once in that speech Gavin made.

I was really hoping for ~a month full national long lockdown, push forward with vaccines, and then things might’ve been looking up.

Sorry to rant, I’ve tweeted all I can but I’m still really feeling it.

[Losing my hair]

1 minute ago, gigpusher said:

I was talking about the festival going ahead not vaccinations.

Sorry, I misunderstood, but that's a fair point.

[Copperface]

5 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Im asking you cause ur saying the staff numbers needed as if it’s a stumbling block.

it’s around 25 mil I believe.

what do you mean doesn’t work on? It prevented 100 percent of severe disease in trials from One jag

As  far as I know, an efficacy of 90% indicates it doesn't work on 10%.

[Toilet Duck]

8 minutes ago, Losing my hair said:

And I assume that the issue of whether or not vaccinated people can still be infectious will have to be taken into account.

I don’t know. Cases at the moment are an important predictor of future hospitalisation and death. If they no longer are, I can see community testing wound down (if morbidity persists, then obviously not). Doesn’t mean testing for attendance at what might be perceived as high risk activities won’t continue  for some time til we have as many as we can protected. 

[gigpusher]

1 minute ago, Losing my hair said:

Sorry, I misunderstood, but that's a fair point.

Yeah I'll let almost anyone give me a jab but if I need actual medical treatment at a festival I would rather people trained to do it for the job 😄 

[Copperface]

10 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

I also assume whether they can spare medical staff might be a factor. I know  a lot do it on their holidays etc but it might be tricky if staff are burnt out from a very long period of huge stress. 

We were highlighting this same point in February and March this year in respect of all the ES and security infrastructure needed.

And it is still valid.

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, Copperface said:

As  far as I know, an efficacy of 90% indicates it doesn't work on 10%.

They still catch covid but NONE of them had to go to hospital.

[Toilet Duck]

1 minute ago, Copperface said:

As  far as I know, an efficacy of 90% indicates it doesn't work on 10%.

That was 90% effective in stopping PCR confirmed infection. 100% effective in stopping hospitalisation at the moment, which is a big deal (as millions and billions of people get it, this will probably drift down, but if it keeps numbers down to flu levels, then I think that’s a result). 

[Toilet Duck]

23 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

Hmm, who to believe...

Professionals in their field, scientists and epidemiologists, vaccine taskforce people with the actual data and logistics at their fingertips, or an internet Karen?

I tell you what, it’s a bloody hard one. 

To be fair to Copperface, he’s well informed (we just have slightly different expectations, and I’m probably just a bit more optimistic)...or maybe I’m Karen!

[Toilet Duck]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

They still catch covid but NONE of them had to go to hospital.

To be completely correct, they become infected with SARS-CoV-2, but don’t develop COVID, or at least, if they do, it’s not serious enough to require a trip to hospital. 

[Copperface]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

They still catch covid but NONE of them had to go to hospital.

 

2 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

That was 90% effective in stopping PCR confirmed infection. 100% effective in stopping hospitalisation at the moment, which is a big deal (as millions and billions of people get it, this will probably drift down, but if it keeps numbers down to flu levels, then I think that’s a result). 

Well even if only within that control group, and even where, with greater numbers, it might not quite be 100% as you say, then that is good news. Doesn't change that much though in respect of festivals I would suggest.

[stuartbert two hats]

13 minutes ago, Copperface said:

As  far as I know, an efficacy of 90% indicates it doesn't work on 10%.

That's not what it means. In terms of preventing serious disease after 14 days of first dose, the AZ vaccine is 100% effective.

[Copperface]

4 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

To be fair to Copperface, he’s well informed (we just have slightly different expectations, and I’m probably just a bit more optimistic)...or maybe I’m Karen!

We're actually coming at this from different angles - You have the medical/epidemiological/virology expertise, which I have never claimed to have, and I am looking at it from a resilience/logistics/response/capacity planning aspect. Somewhere in there lies the median and maybe the happy truth.

[squirrelarmy]

23 minutes ago, Losing my hair said:

Again, I assume that they can draft in other people qualified to give injections; pharmacists, vets, dentists, to help.

Would you trust a vet to give you a prostate exam 😬