When will this shit end?

[Leyrulion]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Our of interest could a country gamble and vaccinate everybody based on trials that just show the vaccine is safe but not necessarily that it works? Obviously it might not work, but if it does then they've won a watch. It could turn out to be a dud though, but as long as it has been proven not to be dangerous then could that be an option?

I think your difficulty would be getting compliance to have three, four, five vaccinations. 

It's going to be hard enough getting one done.

[Toilet Duck]

4 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Our of interest could a country gamble and vaccinate everybody based on trials that just show the vaccine is safe but not necessarily that it works? Obviously it might not work, but if it does then they've won a watch. It could turn out to be a dud though, but as long as it has been proven not to be dangerous then could that be an option?

Thing is, you get both sets of information from the same phase of testing...in essence, we’ll be skipping the longer safety evaluation normally used for vaccines when emergency use is authorised as the phase 3 data comes in. The early safety data suggests that the front runners are broadly safe, but not enough participants have had them yet to pick up rarer side effects, so both safety and efficacy data are generated in the final phase of testing.

[Fuzzy Afro]

I think I've figured out what the difference will be between lockdown 1 and the hypothetical lockdown 2.

 

Lockdown 1, everything was effectively banned apart from the few limited excuses the government gave you to leave your home (work if you cannot WFH, shopping for necessities, exercise once a day, and to provide care for vulnerable people)

 

I think the second lockdown, should there be one, will be more of a set of restrictions. So they might say socialising is banned, pubs closed etc. But I don't think we'll ever see things like exercise restricted again.

[Fuzzy Afro]

3 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Thing is, you get both sets of information from the same phase of testing...in essence, we’ll be skipping the longer safety evaluation normally used for vaccines when emergency use is authorised as the phase 3 data comes in. The early safety data suggests that the front runners are broadly safe, but not enough participants have had them yet to pick up rarer side effects, so both safety and efficacy data are generated in the final phase of testing.

Am I also correct in saying that we don't normally manufacture vaccines for the mass market until they are approved but in this case the companies are manufacturing them early so that they're ready to go when the regulator says so? Obviously the downside is they might need to bin them all if they fail the trials.

[Leyrulion]

7 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Am I also correct in saying that we don't normally manufacture vaccines for the mass market until they are approved but in this case the companies are manufacturing them early so that they're ready to go when the regulator says so? Obviously the downside is they might need to bin them all if they fail the trials.

Yep. The companies are taking risks and governments are pumping in Billions into vaccines they don't really know if they'll work

[zahidf]

36 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Our of interest could a country gamble and vaccinate everybody based on trials that just show the vaccine is safe but not necessarily that it works? Obviously it might not work, but if it does then they've won a watch. It could turn out to be a dud though, but as long as it has been proven not to be dangerous then could that be an option?

Well that's what China and Russia(to a lesser extent) are doing...

[zahidf]

49 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Interestingly, the Health Information and Quality Authority (kind of our version of NICE), publishes evidence based reports to help guide health policy in Ireland and in their latest report this week, in addition to recommending a cut in the self-isolation period (similar to France and now policy here, but 10 days rather than 7 as it pushes the 90% up a bit), they also conducted a study on attitudes to hand hygiene and other measures among mask-wearers and found no evidence that a false sense of security existed. I guess this is probably in line with previous studies on seatbelts and condoms, where use was predicted to increase risky behaviour, but in fact didn’t end up doing so (some people just engage in risky behaviour no matter what!)...Basically, masks didn’t change the behaviour of those wearing them, they just provided extra protection where social distancing was difficult (which I suppose is exactly what we want them to do!)...

But.. trump says a writer told him it wasn't safe

 

Trump: “I think there’s a lot of problems with masks.” He again cites restaurant servers who touch their masks. (There’s overwhelming consensus that masks are effective and critical.) He adds, “The mask, perhaps, helps.”

[found home in 2009]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

How Bolton became the epicentre of the coronavirus pandemic in England

she did not believe the virus was real.

She said: "One of my work friends went out with eight people and only four of them got it and the other four didn't - so I just think it's completely fake."

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/how-bolton-became-epicentre-coronavirus-18945043

I can understand people who look at the tiny percentage of the population that have got Covid & take the attitude it's low risk, I'd rather get on with life.

 

But for four of your friends to get it & to think the disease is "fake". I honrstly can't comprehend that attitude at all.

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, found home in 2009 said:

I can understand people who look at the tiny percentage of the population that have got Covid & take the attitude it's low risk, I'd rather get on with life.

 

But for four of your friends to get it & to think the disease is "fake". I honrstly can't comprehend that attitude at all.

It’s the exact same with climate change denialism IMO. It’s more socially acceptable to put your fingers in your ears and deny it exists than it is to just admit that you don’t really care about it. 

[gizmoman]

1 hour ago, found home in 2009 said:

I can understand people who look at the tiny percentage of the population that have got Covid & take the attitude it's low risk, I'd rather get on with life.

 

But for four of your friends to get it & to think the disease is "fake". I honrstly can't comprehend that attitude at all.

"one young student who was walking through Victoria Square with her friends said she did not believe the virus was real."

So in this report they managed to get the full names and ages of the people who were concerned, but the "young student" is anonymous, how do they even know she was a student? You would think any decent journalist would give a bit more detail after taking a direct quote, especially after giving full disclosure for the quotes from "John Henderson, 60, with his friend Kevin Currie, 73. Both are from Harwood" I'm not saying people don't have this type of additude but you have to be suspicious when "journalists" are so lax.

[Ozanne]

4 hours ago, gizmoman said:

"one young student who was walking through Victoria Square with her friends said she did not believe the virus was real."

So in this report they managed to get the full names and ages of the people who were concerned, but the "young student" is anonymous, how do they even know she was a student? You would think any decent journalist would give a bit more detail after taking a direct quote, especially after giving full disclosure for the quotes from "John Henderson, 60, with his friend Kevin Currie, 73. Both are from Harwood" I'm not saying people don't have this type of additude but you have to be suspicious when "journalists" are so lax.

You don’t have to be suspicious at all, I never even came clock to thinking that when reading that story. 

[onthebeach]

 

I’m in Oadby/Wigston - towns next to the Leicester border.

We were in lockdown with Leicester until the 1st August and then released to the same guidelines as the rest of UK. Looking at the latest figures (2nd!) it looks though we will hear very soon what our version of a new lockdown will be 😰The first measure seems a bit bonkers - the local parks from tomorrow have a curfew from 5pm - 7am with dog patrols and £100 fines as enforcement. Presume this is to break up gatherings but as there is currently a law to prevent more than 6 people gathering why is this needed? Parks are so important for those without outside space and for exercise etc, if you work during the day this makes it nearly impossible to use them. It could mean there is a plan to stop mixed households up to 6 meeting inside at homes and private gardens but also in public places too?

I really don’t know why it’s gone so wrong - we were only released from ‘an area of concern’ with no additional measures last week but the case rate has rocketed. Apparently it’s general community spread - not just one business/factory/school etc. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

5 hours ago, gizmoman said:

"one young student who was walking through Victoria Square with her friends said she did not believe the virus was real."

So in this report they managed to get the full names and ages of the people who were concerned, but the "young student" is anonymous, how do they even know she was a student? You would think any decent journalist would give a bit more detail after taking a direct quote, especially after giving full disclosure for the quotes from "John Henderson, 60, with his friend Kevin Currie, 73. Both are from Harwood" I'm not saying people don't have this type of additude but you have to be suspicious when "journalists" are so lax.

She likely asked to be anonymous but told them she was a student?

[Zoo Music Girl]

14 minutes ago, onthebeach said:

 

I’m in Oadby/Wigston - towns next to the Leicester border.

We were in lockdown with Leicester until the 1st August and then released to the same guidelines as the rest of UK. Looking at the latest figures (2nd!) it looks though we will hear very soon what our version of a new lockdown will be 😰The first measure seems a bit bonkers - the local parks from tomorrow have a curfew from 5pm - 7am with dog patrols and £100 fines as enforcement. Presume this is to break up gatherings but as there is currently a law to prevent more than 6 people gathering why is this needed? Parks are so important for those without outside space and for exercise etc, if you work during the day this makes it nearly impossible to use them. It could mean there is a plan to stop mixed households up to 6 meeting inside at homes and private gardens but also in public places too?

I really don’t know why it’s gone so wrong - we were only released from ‘an area of concern’ with no additional measures last week but the case rate has rocketed. Apparently it’s general community spread - not just one business/factory/school etc. 

That really sucks on the park thing. I'm not a morning person so tend to go for walks in the evening, so would mean parks are off limits Mon to Fri unless I wanted to get up especially early for a walk. Don't see the logic.

[Ozanne]

Apparently the CMO is advising the PM for a 2 week national lockdown. It won’t happen but interesting that’s where we are at. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Apparently the CMO is advising the PM for a 2 week national lockdown. It won’t happen but interesting that’s where we are at. 

Bloody hell. I agree it won't happen but that has escalated quickly.

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Apparently the CMO is advising the PM for a 2 week national lockdown. It won’t happen but interesting that’s where we are at. 

Unclear if this is actually true as well. It was tweeted out by a member of “Independent Sage” along with unsubstantiated claims of 38000 infections per day. A bit of “he said, she said” from independent sage members on twitter isn’t really a reliable source. 

[steviewevie]

weather's going to start being a bit shit from next week, so that will help keep those pesky young people away from each other...unless they meet up inside of course. Maybe we should tag them and if they go near each other they blow up or something.

[Fuzzy Afro]

However Edward Ongar has told sky news that the rise in cases is due to “households meetings, and the night time economy”

 

They’re really laying the foundations for a ban on indoor household meetings and a 10pm hospitality curfew. Looking at the numbers it’s quite striking, basically everywhere from the midlands up to the border is a bit riddled atm and anywhere from just above London to the south coast is doing okay. 

[onthebeach]

The red wall takes on a whole new meaning

[Ozanne]

22 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Unclear if this is actually true as well. It was tweeted out by a member of “Independent Sage” along with unsubstantiated claims of 38000 infections per day. A bit of “he said, she said” from independent sage members on twitter isn’t really a reliable source. 

It is in a national newspaper, I don’t just post any nonsense info I come across but thanks for the input. 

Edited September 17, 2020 by Ozanne

[Fuzzy Afro]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It is in a national newspaper, I don’t just post any nonsense info I come across but thanks for the input. 

The newspaper is just reporting what Anthony Costello has claimed, there seems to be a lot of doubt that Whitty actually said that. Even the newspaper article itself isn’t reporting it as fact. 

[Quark]

9 hours ago, Toilet Duck said:

Interestingly, the Health Information and Quality Authority (kind of our version of NICE), publishes evidence based reports to help guide health policy in Ireland and in their latest report this week, in addition to recommending a cut in the self-isolation period (similar to France and now policy here, but 10 days rather than 7 as it pushes the 90% up a bit), they also conducted a study on attitudes to hand hygiene and other measures among mask-wearers and found no evidence that a false sense of security existed. I guess this is probably in line with previous studies on seatbelts and condoms, where use was predicted to increase risky behaviour, but in fact didn’t end up doing so (some people just engage in risky behaviour no matter what!)...Basically, masks didn’t change the behaviour of those wearing them, they just provided extra protection where social distancing was difficult (which I suppose is exactly what we want them to do!)...

That is interesting, as it's definitely at odds with what I see!  But I guess there's a lot more to it than just mask/no mask so it's hardly a controlled experiment!

Thinking about people in general, maybe it's more likely to be attention span!  The wearing of masks is relatively new, whereas they've been telling us to maintain distance and wash our hands for 6 months now, so people just forget they've still got to do it.

One thing I've realised as I've got older is that I'm now far more accepting of the fact that people as a collective species are idiots. Whether it's simplistic populist sloganeering winning elections, or an apparent inability to maintain multiple behavioural patterns as required, I have a shrinking faith in the belief that we're all just not component cells of a giant moron. I have to look at individuals and small groups to have any hope for us!

[Ozanne]

21 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

The newspaper is just reporting what Anthony Costello has claimed, there seems to be a lot of doubt that Whitty actually said that. Even the newspaper article itself isn’t reporting it as fact. 

Neither am I, I’m just passing on information I thought people might find useful. I should’ve known you would feel the need to pick something apart again. I won’t bother next time. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Neither am I, I’m just passing on information I thought people might find useful. I should’ve known you would feel the need to pick something apart again. I won’t bother next time. 

You’re allowed to post things that you find interesting, and I’m allowed to analyse why I think it’s wide of the mark for now. That’s how it works.