When will this shit end?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, March Hare said:

The lockdowns have been good for me personally. Spent much more time with my family and don’t have to commute 10 hours a week. That extra time is precious. 
Also glad this latest lockdown has been less strict than the first as I can also go for a walk with a mate occasionally.  Not just speak to them on Zoom.

The resulting (expected) long term change for work life balance is a positive too.

 

 

That’s good to hear. It’s good to hear some of the different experiences of lockdown. I suspect many like you will appreciate the extra time with their family and not commuting etc. 

[phimill]

My in-laws (Dudley) have been called for their Jabs on Friday both 67 - so seems as if a lot of the country is moving to the 65+ catergory. Guessing they will call 60+ by the end of the month? All 50+s in March?

[Chapple12345]

 

This is great 

[steviewevie]

I love not going go to work, don't love so much having to spend more time with the family. Maybe I should go live on my own.

[steviewevie]

My Dad's wife is just under 70 and she got jabbed with that AZ shite the other day.

[stuartbert two hats]

20 minutes ago, phimill said:

My in-laws (Dudley) have been called for their Jabs on Friday both 67 - so seems as if a lot of the country is moving to the 65+ catergory. Guessing they will call 60+ by the end of the month? All 50+s in March?

I think those with  underlying conditions not severe enough for shielding are next, e.g. diabetics.

Edit: although maybe I should actually look at the groups before posting. I've no idea really!

Edited February 10, 2021 by stuartbert two hats

[zahidf]

Back to tiers?

 

[phimill]

25 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I think those with  underlying conditions not severe enough for shielding are next, e.g. diabetics.

Edit: although maybe I should actually look at the groups before posting. I've no idea really!

Either way - they are definitely ahead of the current plan so fingers crossed it carries on this way!

[Zoo Music Girl]

23 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I think those with  underlying conditions not severe enough for shielding are next, e.g. diabetics.

Edit: although maybe I should actually look at the groups before posting. I've no idea really!

Looking at the list on gov.uk it says adults over 65, then adults 16 to 65 in an at-risk group (not clinically extremely vulnerable as they're in the group with the over-70s). And then it's 60-65, 55-60 and 50-55. But I suspect those last three groups will get a bit merged together too.

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

Your informed responses are always welcome but I suspect @gizmoman doesn't care, they seems to traul around the internet looking for things he can post that might be of concern about vaccines and when you point out why they might be wrong they ignore that and move on to the next thing they can find.

Note they believe that even post-Covid lockdowns will be required for some other reason unless we rise up, they are being silly. I'm sure they're actually glad when their own vulnerable relatives get the jab and this nonsense is just internet game playing. 

That may be so, though it may not, gizmo has always been polite so I’m happy to respond (some of the stuff he/she posts is from scientific blogs or has references, I just need to examine the level of evidence presented and how it is being interpreted). However, more importantly, this stuff gets repeated ad nauseum on social media and others start to believe what they read, so rather than simply dismissing it as conspiracy theory nonsense, on the bits I can explain, I prefer to do so just in case anyone else comes away with the idea that large sections of the scientific community are worried about these things too. There’s always a grain of truth in some of these ideas that get propagated, and I think it’s important to acknowledge the true bit while providing evidence of why it’s not the entire story so that gizmo (if he/she cares) or anyone else reading it can make an informed choice about what to believe. I can’t explain everything, in many cases, nobody can, that’s why there are recurring themes in the criticism of these and other vaccines, bits without an absolute answer get repeatedly chosen because there’s fertile ground to be sown in terms of the doubt that has been cultivated since Wakefield and his ilk and there have been issues with vaccines before (they have been pulled from use as per normal, it’s how using new medicine works)...so it’s not possible to say with 100% certainty that everything will be just fine, but the weight of evidence in most cases is overwhelmingly in favour of safe use and I think we need to highlight that rather than dismissing people as nutters...they may be, or they may have legitimate fears, and if not, others may have those fears too, so informed dialogue should help alleviate them more effectively than internet spats! 

[MEGABOWL]

6 hours ago, august1 said:

Do either of them hit the criteria to be 'at risk' or just luck to be getting it under 70?

Not in a Group 4 way, no. Tameside has been moving very quickly since the start so is just on to Group 5.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

4 minutes ago, MEGABOWL said:

Not in a Group 4 way, no. Tameside has been moving very quickly since the start so is just on to Group 5.

Coventry has moved to over 65's with no underlying health conditions, I know of people in Rotherham who have had the jab in the same situation. 

I also know one place lost a few hundred doses of vaccine because they lost power to the fridge - these things happen though and very little can be done to avoid them when the vaccine is being administered in the community. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

So on thag NHS list of groups I was just looking at, it says everyone under 50 is basically TBC. I know they still need to do second jabs for most of the first nine, but when do we think they will set out a plan for the next set of groups? Hoping they do prioritise key workers and anyone with public-facing roles, but can see how that might be tricky to implement.

[steviewevie]

29 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Back to tiers?

 

This is Manchester. We do things differently here.

[phimill]

10 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

So on thag NHS list of groups I was just looking at, it says everyone under 50 is basically TBC. I know they still need to do second jabs for most of the first nine, but when do we think they will set out a plan for the next set of groups? Hoping they do prioritise key workers and anyone with public-facing roles, but can see how that might be tricky to implement.

I guess that will be part of the road map for the wider unlocking.

More and more close contact things to re-open based on how far they get down the under 50's

[Zoo Music Girl]

6 minutes ago, phimill said:

I guess that will be part of the road map for the wider unlocking.

More and more close contact things to re-open based on how far they get down the under 50's

Yeah maybe. They just seem to be making really good progress on getting through the groups so feel like they should say soon what the next step is.

Do people think it will just go by age group? Was wondering if they might try to prioritise certain professions as has been suggested. Teachers and police, for example. I'd like to see supermarket workers get it too, but haven't heard much about that.

[gizmoman]

 

2 hours ago, mcshed said:

Your informed responses are always welcome but I suspect @gizmoman doesn't care, they seems to traul around the internet looking for things he can post that might be of concern about vaccines and when you point out why they might be wrong they ignore that and move on to the next thing they can find.

Note they believe that even post-Covid lockdowns will be required for some other reason unless we rise up, they are being silly. I'm sure they're actually glad when their own vulnerable relatives get the jab and this nonsense is just internet game playing. 

Well before I go trawling again, maybe we can continue with this particular topic, did you bother to read the article I linked? It discusses a particular technical aspect of immune response and vaccine design. The person who wrote the article doesn't see it as a major risk but It's not something i know anything about and the people who commented are not in agreement as to how much of an issue it is, that is why I was interested in TD's opinion.

Sadly his "informed response" was not quite as enlightening as I had hoped since "I haven’t read the piece or the comments", so he was giving his opinion on the results of the (short-term) vaccine trials when in fact much of the argument is based on perceived longer -term risk.*

All of this is presented not to try and find something wrong with the vaccines but to understand what the risks and rewards are. The consensus on here is that these vaccines (all of them) are perfectly safe and there is no need to question the experts. It may be that they are in fact perfectly safe, and so far there doesn't seem to be much of an issue but the question from the start has been the lack of long-term data, the reality is we are taking a calculated gamble with this and as TD says we must still be vigilant.

As for vunerable relatives,  you'll be pleased to know my mum (86) has had the AZ vaccine and she's fine, I am glad she is now protected but was worried about any adverse reaction as any one would be, asking questions and being concerned does not make you an anti-vaxxer, which is the point i was trying to make from the start.

 

*Not having a go at TD here, I'm sure he's a busy man and isn't my personal fact checker.

Edited February 10, 2021 by gizmoman
typo

[PM87]

3 hours ago, zahidf said:

Give people who have had Covid before just a booster shot?

 

This is interesting. I had Covid back in late October (asymptomatic and was a complete fluke that I ended up taking a test - I was living with an Assistant HT at the time and it was a school related initiative). I've read about antibody studies for those who have tested positive and have been wondering what this means in terms of vaccination. As I was asymptomatic, I'm almost expecting to have more of a reaction to the vaccine itself than I did to Covid 19 and I've started to worry about what having antibodies will mean when I'm injected. I may well have no antibodies left by the time it's my turn tbf. But maybe I technically only need a booster at this point?

I'm 33 so it's not like I'll be called to have the vaccine tomorrow, so this is not necessarily a pressing concern. I'm also very pro vaccine for the record, am currently volunteering most days at a vaccine centre but can't say I'm not questioning this. I think it also doesn't help that I've never had the flu vaccine (or the actual flu either - is it weird I'm 33 but never had flu?) and I keep hearing that side effects to the Covid vaccine can be like having the flu vaccine, which I haven't experienced. I suppose the most important thing with vaccines, is if they are proven to stop transmission to a high level, it will prevent me from passing it on to any one. Which is my main concern with Covid.

[Zoo Music Girl]

9 minutes ago, PM87 said:

This is interesting. I had Covid back in late October (asymptomatic and was a complete fluke that I ended up taking a test - I was living with an Assistant HT at the time and it was a school related initiative). I've read about antibody studies for those who have tested positive and have been wondering what this means in terms of vaccination. As I was asymptomatic, I'm almost expecting to have more of a reaction to the vaccine itself than I did to Covid 19 and I've started to worry about what having antibodies will mean when I'm injected. I may well have no antibodies left by the time it's my turn tbf. But maybe I technically only need a booster at this point?

I'm 33 so it's not like I'll be called to have the vaccine tomorrow, so this is not necessarily a pressing concern. I'm also very pro vaccine for the record, am currently volunteering most days at a vaccine centre but can't say I'm not questioning this. I think it also doesn't help that I've never had the flu vaccine (or the actual flu either - is it weird I'm 33 but never had flu?) and I keep hearing that side effects to the Covid vaccine can be like having the flu vaccine, which I haven't experienced. I suppose the most important thing with vaccines, is if they are proven to stop transmission to a high level, it will prevent me from passing it on to any one. Which is my main concern with Covid.

I'm no expert at all but I don't think there's any risk or danger in having the vaccine if you've already had Covid? Would have thought the issue was more about using resources wisely, so maybe people who've had it don't need two full doses and they could be used elsewhere. I think the plan is for everyone to have it regardless of whether they've had Covid or not (unless they refuse of course). And loads of people won't know they've have it of course as didn't get tested, especially in the first wave.

[xxialac]

vs a 10 year sentence for people who've passed a PCR test and said they've flown in from Spain when they've actually come in from Portugal.

And how much scrutiny did this 'new law' receive in our Parliament? Oh that's right, none.

Take back control...

[gizmoman]

52 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

That may be so, though it may not, gizmo has always been polite so I’m happy to respond (some of the stuff he/she posts is from scientific blogs or has references, I just need to examine the level of evidence presented and how it is being interpreted). However, more importantly, this stuff gets repeated ad nauseum on social media and others start to believe what they read, so rather than simply dismissing it as conspiracy theory nonsense, on the bits I can explain, I prefer to do so just in case anyone else comes away with the idea that large sections of the scientific community are worried about these things too. There’s always a grain of truth in some of these ideas that get propagated, and I think it’s important to acknowledge the true bit while providing evidence of why it’s not the entire story so that gizmo (if he/she cares) or anyone else reading it can make an informed choice about what to believe. I can’t explain everything, in many cases, nobody can, that’s why there are recurring themes in the criticism of these and other vaccines, bits without an absolute answer get repeatedly chosen because there’s fertile ground to be sown in terms of the doubt that has been cultivated since Wakefield and his ilk and there have been issues with vaccines before (they have been pulled from use as per normal, it’s how using new medicine works)...so it’s not possible to say with 100% certainty that everything will be just fine, but the weight of evidence in most cases is overwhelmingly in favour of safe use and I think we need to highlight that rather than dismissing people as nutters...they may be, or they may have legitimate fears, and if not, others may have those fears too, so informed dialogue should help alleviate them more effectively than internet spats! 

Sorry just replied to mcshed without seeing this, BTW you can all refer to me as "he", if that should change in the future i'll be sure to let you know!

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

vs a 10 year sentence for people who've passed a PCR test and said they've flown in from Spain when they've actually come in from Portugal.

And how much scrutiny did this 'new law' receive in our Parliament? Oh that's right, none.

Take back control...

But you were worried it wasnt tough enough a few weeks ago...

Its just a maximum sentence which is designed to make people NOT break the law

[PM87]

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I'm no expert at all but I don't think there's any risk or danger in having the vaccine if you've already had Covid? Would have thought the issue was more about using resources wisely, so maybe people who've had it don't need two full doses and they could be used elsewhere. I think the plan is for everyone to have it regardless of whether they've had Covid or not (unless they refuse of course). And loads of people won't know they've have it of course as didn't get tested, especially in the first wave.

Yeah. I definitely won't turn it down. I'm pro vaccine but won't lie, I have a weird anxiety about the possibility the vaccine will make me sicker than Covid did. i know that's probably stupid and I think a lot of my anxiety comes from simply having wayyyyy too much time on my hands (I've been furloughed since April.)

[JoeyT]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But you were worried it wasnt tough enough a few weeks ago...

Its just a maximum sentence which is designed to make people NOT break the law

"close the borders to everyone"

*law brought in with 10yr sentence to deter lying on locator form / deter travel abroad in general*

"that's too harsh"

😂

[tigger123]

44 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

This is Manchester. We do things differently here.

Given how badly the government treated Manchester with the tiers before, it's probably in Manchester's interests to hope for a national approach to the unlocking of restrictions.