Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Pipine said:

😢 it must be awful working in the nhs seeing the 50k infections every day knowing that they’ll soon translate into hospitalisations and awful decisions will have to be made.  My heart goes out to anyone having to deal with this.. 

And then coming out of that hospital to a crowd of people clam king the pandemic isn’t real. It must be awful for those people, I admire their drive and motivation to continue every day trying to save lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I feel some people on here need to be careful about what they post based on... little evidence.

In a similar way people from a non-scientific background think calling evolution "The theory of evolution" means we're not sure of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I feel some people on here need to be careful about what they post based on... little evidence.

To be fair it was on a 5 live phone in and tweeted by an MP. If we wait for full on official confirmation of everything in a "proper" newspaper then we're very restricted...

Bringing things for debate vs awaiting "evidence" especially when the only official sources (the government) lie all the time

Edited by efcfanwirral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question from a mate on WhatsApp that I tried to answer three times and gave up, anyone want to have a bash *cough @Toilet Duck*

"Honest question, what do these % immunity scores mean? As I understand it, they looked at how many people with the actual jab got covid vs those who had the placebo and converted this into a percentage. Using this method, how could they say a person has x% immunity after the first jab and then y% immunity after the second jab? A person either has immunity or they don't? They can say 52% or 91% of _people_ are immune (depending on which source is being quoted and for what purpose) after the first jab and that 95% of people are immune after the second jab. That is a big impact from the second jab if we are starting at 52% but not so much if we are starting at 91%. Am I wrong that an individual cannot have a % immunity and if I am, how is this calculated?"

Edited by stuartbert two hats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, efcfanwirral said:

To be fair it was on a 5 live phone in and tweeted by an MP. If we wait for full on official confirmation of everything in a "proper" newspaper then we're very restricted...

I think if its ' there is a new variant making kids more sick' it's a much higher standard needed than a phone in IMO. That MP should have known better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I feel some people on here need to be careful about what they post based on... little evidence.

the science isn't exact, but everything is fast moving, and currently they are thinking it is spreading more amongst children which is why the push for schools to be closed. We can wait until have more knowledge about this new variant spreading in schools, but then it might be too late and we have a terrible February to go with a terrible January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

the science isn't exact, but everything is fast moving, and currently they are thinking it is spreading more amongst children which is why the push for schools to be closed. We can wait until have more knowledge about this new variant spreading in schools, but then it might be too late and we have a terrible February to go with a terrible January.

Thats different to saying 'its more dangerous for kids' which is what she is saying shouldn't have been spread around. 

Closing schools for a few weeks would be the right thing to do anyway to stop the spread. But then the one does with 12 week gap for the second dose is better then if the infectiousness is going up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Some guy on Reddit 

Reddit can be linked to. Being able to see that post in context will also either give it credibility or not. If it’s been debunked or downvoted then we know that its complete hogwash.
 

Reddit is a great source of information but it’s also equally a hive of conspiracy nuts. Like Twitter, news tends to spread fast there. Back up your statements with your sources and we can judge the validity of them based on where the information is coming from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Thats different to saying 'its more dangerous for kids' which is what she is saying shouldn't have been spread around. 

Closing schools for a few weeks would be the right thing to do anyway to stop the spread. But then the one does with 12 week gap for the second dose is better then if the infectiousness is going up.

yeah but the tweet she commented on was not saying anything about danger to children was he? just that people saying more virulent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Thats different to saying 'its more dangerous for kids' which is what she is saying shouldn't have been spread around. 

Closing schools for a few weeks would be the right thing to do anyway to stop the spread. But then the one does with 12 week gap for the second dose is better then if the infectiousness is going up.

 

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yeah but the tweet she commented on was not saying anything about danger to children was he? just that people saying more virulent

ok...yeah, she was saying that people had contacted her worried about danger to kids....and yeah, no evidence of that I don't think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah but the tweet she commented on was not saying anything about danger to children was he? just that people saying more virulent

Thats what virulent means though.  That they are more likely to catch it than other age groups. No evidence of that

 

Edit : just saw your follow up. We agree it seems!

Edited by zahidf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

I've read an article on the BBC and still can't work it out - are schools going back monday/tuesday everywhere apart from london and the south east? 

Apart from London and parts of the south east. I think primaries are going back on Monday in most of south east / tier 4 (they are here in Portsmouth)*

 

* Subject to whatever u-turn happens next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cornwall gone from being safest area in UK in tier 1, to now having the fastest rising rates in the country.. Surely tourism must be to blame? Very popular with Londoners down here.

 

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-coronavirus-infection-rates_uk_5fef208ec5b61817a53659ed?utm_source=upday&utm_medium=referral

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Question from a mate on WhatsApp that I tried to answer three time and gave up, anyone want to have a bash *cough @Toilet Duck*

"Honest question, what do these % immunity scores mean? As I understand it, they looked at how many people with the actual jab got covid vs those who had the placebo and converted this into a percentage. Using this method, how could they say a person has x% immunity after the first jab and then y% immunity after the second jab? A person either has immunity or they don't? They can say 52% or 91% of _people_ are immune (depending on which source is being quoted and for what purpose) after the first jab and that 95% of people are immune after the second jab. That is a big impact from the second jab if we are starting at 52% but not so much if we are starting at 91%. Am I wrong that an individual cannot have a % immunity and if I am, how is this calculated?"

So, they’re not % immunity scores, it’s the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing disease and is measured on a population level. What often gets quoted is the mean % of people that were protected (92% etc) but what gets ignored by most people other than scientists are the confidence intervals around that score. Small confidence interval = less variation in the data, wide confidence interval = more variable (so the 95% confidence interval shown on all the data for these vaccines is basically 2 standard deviations from the mean (ie, 95% of observations will occur within this range)). What the regulators were looking for was a minimum of 50% efficacy (at a population level) with the lower confidence interval above 30%...that’s been met by all the current vaccines (and off the top of my head there was only one time point in one of the trials where the lower boundary was 29%). What’s more, all the vaccines met this criteria after 1 shot, but the boost improves it and firms up the immune response. They are probably useable as 1 dose, but better as 2.

The question of whether an individual has a specific  % immunity is more complex and depends entirely on what kind of immune response they mount, with a whole host of things influencing how an individual immune system functions. That variability is what leads to a % efficacy in the population as a whole (some people mount a really robust immune response and are protected, others don’t...but they have all received the same immune stimulant (the vaccine)). There’s differences in exposure too that can influence it and different underlying conditions, so it’s not something that is easily measured (hence we look at how the vaccine performs at a population level rather than an individual one). We can stratify the population based on age, race, co-morbidities etc to see how the vaccine performs in groups of similar people, but can’t accurately say to somebody, get two shots of this vaccine and 9 times out of 10 when you encounter the virus you will not develop disease. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Euphoricape said:

Cornwall gone from being safest area in UK in tier 1, to now having the fastest rising rates in the country.. Surely tourism must be to blame? Very popular with Londoners down here.

 

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-coronavirus-infection-rates_uk_5fef208ec5b61817a53659ed?utm_source=upday&utm_medium=referral

 

Would’ve thought it was just the natural consequence of being in Tier 1, in winter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Interesting article on pandemic response: be interested in @Toilet Duck view on it. Especially on whether people who have already had Covid being behind in the queue for vaccines

https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/2020/12/31/how-perfectionism-has-made-the-pandemic-worse

Will have a look and report back! At the moment, I’m making waffles! (Yes, in my head I said that in Donkey’s voice!)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...