When will this shit end?

[xxialac]

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

You still don't follow.  It is absurd to have maximum sentences that are not linked to the crime.

Why not have maximum life sentences for all minor crimes as 10 years to 'make people NOT break the law'. Why just this one?

Do you honestly think the max sentence for a crime for passing a PCR and not filling out a form honestly should be 3 years longer than child sex offences?

A threat of a jail sentence is enough. A threat of a 10 year jail sentence is a government overreaching on a  scale that would make Putin blush.

[squirrelarmy]

5 minutes ago, xxialac said:

You still don't follow.  It is absurd to have maximum sentences that are not linked to the crime.

Why not have maximum life sentences for all minor crimes as 10 years to 'make people NOT break the law'. Why just this one?

Do you honestly think the max sentence for a crime for passing a PCR and not filling out a form honestly should be 3 years longer than child sex offences?

A threat of a jail sentence is enough. A threat of a 10 year jail sentence is a government overreaching on a  scale that would make Putin blush.

Kind of agree here. 10 year maximum is far too severe. Realistically no one is ever going to be sentenced that any way. It’s just a big number to scare people into complying. 
 

What would have a better effect is a shorter sentence such as 6 months or 1 year but make that the minimum punishment received. If you knew you were going to jail even just for a short time then that would be more than enough to stop people risking it. 
 

They also need to make sure there are no exceptions to the law regardless of who they are or who they are related to. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by squirrelarmy

[xxialac]

6 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Kind of agree here. 10 year maximum is far too severe. Realistically no one is ever going to be sentenced that any way. It’s just a big number to scare people into complying. 
 

What would have a better effect is a shorter sentence such as 6 months or 1 but make that the minimum punishment received. If you knew you were going to jail even just for a short time then that would be more than enough to stop people risking it. 
 

They also need to make sure there are no exceptions to the law regardless of who they are or who they are related to. 

Yeah, completely.

6 months is good and appropriate because you still get a criminal record, which could be disastrous for your career, life prospects etc. It's more than enough.

10 years is Patel on a power trip gone mad and designed to make the vengeful NIMBY Daily Mail types salivate.

And what happens when it turns out one of their mates is spotted in a red listed country and then found out not to be hotel quarantining? They'll end up with another Cummings situation and setting the bar at 10 years and then letting him off with a fine will massively undermine trust (again).

Edited February 10, 2021 by xxialac

[Zoo Music Girl]

21 minutes ago, PM87 said:

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.)

Why though? Not having a go, just generally interested! It's the same virus delivered in a different way, so if you've had it before your body should just recognise it and go "oh that again".

[Guest]

25 minutes 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...

No one will serve a 10 year term for this, it’s pointless and is just done for headlines. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

3 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Why though? Not having a go, just generally interested! It's the same virus delivered in a different way, so if you've had it before your body should just recognise it and go "oh that again".

Just to say I'm aware I've oversimplified that slightly in terms of how the vaccines work! 

[JoeyT]

 

[DeanoL]

17 hours ago, gizmoman said:

Do we? Even though the stage 3 testing isn't yet complete and we have no long term data to go on? My response was to a post painting anti-vaxxers as stupid people who read something on Facebook and decide not to get jabbed. The fact is there are plenty of scientists who have questions about this new technology and are concerned about the possible unknown effects.

The more you read about this subject the harder it is to make sense of it, this post and responses discusses ADE - antibody-dependant enhancement.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/18/antibody-dependent-enhancement

There are fears that long-term the new vaccines may actually make peoples response to the disease worse due to this effect.

I don't pretend to know if this is likely to be a problem but it's something the experts are discussing (and disagreeing on - see the responses to the post). I'd be interested in Toilet Duck's thoughts.

Unless you've have COVID recently though (so already have some immunity) does it really matter if it's not 100% safe? Surely it just needs to be safer than getting COVID?

It's 100% completely true that we simply don't and can't know the impact these vaccines will have on people in two years' time. And that is a worry. A legit one. It concerns me too.

But equally we also don't know the impact having had COVID will have on people in two years time. We also can't know that. We've got a bit more information about it, and long COVID does appear to be a thing in some individuals. 

Sometimes with vaccines, if they provide sterilizing immunity, there's the zero-risk selfish option. You let other people take the vaccine, this causes the virus to die out, and you come out of it without having to have had either COVID or the vaccine. That's why traditionally anti-vaxxers rile people up so much. It's a selfish position, but also sort of logical. Herd immunity only needs 70-80% of people to "risk" taking the vaccine, so why not be in the 20-30% that don't?

But that isn't the case here - the virus is still going to spread, so in a few years' time, you'll either have had COVID or you'll have had the vaccine. There's no getting away from that, so if you don't trust the vaccine it's a matter of picking your poison.

13 hours ago, steviewevie said:

So, if everyone in the world self  isolated for 2 to 4 weeks, would we get to zero covid?

I love theorycrafting stuff like this - I don't *think* it's possible, as you'd end up with food shortages and you'd need power to keep running and so on, but it's fascinating to think about. Perhaps more possible now than even five years, as automation is so much better - could power plants run unmanned for 2 weeks? Maybe.

12 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

I haven't fallen for anything- but in the real world we have the Tories and the NHS unable to cope with anything but covid this winter, and an even slightly vaccine resistant strain could put pressure on next winter if it still affects older people. And we can see which way the wind is blowing on that.

The Tories are our government for a very long time thanks to the scary side of Labour still being in the party waiting in the wings, so we can either have an NHS on its knees unable to give decent care beyond covid or be pragmatic about what needs to happen. Would rather a European model over an American one

We have a hybrid system here too. As someone with private medical (benefit with work) most of the capacity there has been sold to the NHS. It's been a bit better in some cases, there's access to a bit more capacity, but realistically you weren't getting anything non-urgent from a private practice the past few months either.

[xxialac]

Sunday: "Vaccine passports would be “discriminatory” and the government has “no plans” to introduce them in Britain, Nadhim Zahawi has said. In his strongest remarks against the case for documentation proving an individual has been inoculated, the minister responsible for the vaccine rollout said “that’s not how we do things in the UK”.

Wednesday: "Shapps suggests UK would back international vaccine passport scheme"

[PM87]

2 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Why though? Not having a go, just generally interested! It's the same virus delivered in a different way, so if you've had it before your body should just recognise it and go "oh that again".

I'm not sure why tbh. I've just got it in my brain that the vaccine itself will make me feel worse than having Covid did. My nan was in bed for 3 days after her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine (her doctor's surgery in London didn't cancel the second appointments that had been booked because they said it was a logistical nightmare to cancel 100s of appointments and then rebook). But again, my nan is in her 80s and I'm in my 30s, so I shouldn't compare how our bodies will react to something. 

My concerns are not logical at all. And if everyone having the vaccine prevents transmission and stops me from passing on Covid to someone vulnerable who might not be as lucky as I was to suffer asymptomatic Covid, a few days of feeling under the weather is obviously a small price to pay. If I was working right now and not on never-ending furlough, I reckon I'd barely give any of this a second thought, at least not to the extent I do right now. 

 

[DeanoL]

 

11 hours ago, philipsteak said:

Down into double figures around me. Rest of the county is still a bit higher, but parts of Cumbria were amongst the highest in the country at it's worse. On the flipside I'm sure I read somewhere we have the highest reliance on furlough in the whole UK. 

I've noticed in Cumbria (far south) people being loads more considerate in the past few months compared to under the pre-Christmas restrictions. Plenty of folk willing the cross the road to avoid passing you on the pavement, etc. It's really quite refreshing.

1 hour ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

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.

That would probably be good, but unless they work directly with schools and supermarkets and such to provide passes of some sort to their employees, it feels like it'll add some significant admin strain to the system that may be of minor benefit. I actually think it'll either be broad age groups, or just a complete free-for-all, and either way it'll be a government announcement "if you're in this group, go book your vaccination online" rather than writing to people individually.

[Toilet Duck]

43 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

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!

Had a read of the article and the comments! Good article, identifies the cases where ADE is demonstrated, has a few inconsistencies though (binding antibodies have a key role in directing other parts of our immune system to the virus and are far from useless! In fact, along with T-Cell receptors that recognise lots of different fragment of the virus, they are part of the reason why people getting infected with the new variants aren’t any more susceptible to severe disease). I read through the comments too and there’s a lot of unsubstantiated speculation (good to think about these things and either rule them out with evidence we already have, or design new experiments to test them). So far, there are some key facts that support the position that ADE is not a major factor in the progression of Covid, before or after vaccination. The first relates to your worry that over time, when neutralising antibodies wane, lower concentrations will result in this mechanism kicking in...at the start of vaccination, antibody levels are low too, but we don’t see an increase in severe disease in those infected in the first few weeks after vaccination compared to those in the control group (we see the opposite in fact). The lower neutralising antibody titres in weeks 1-3 do result in lower protection from symptomatic infection, and indeed, Pfizer noted an odd dip in white blood cell count for the first 3 days that in theory could increase the risk of infection, however it’s transient and we only have anectodal reports of infection in these first few days being any more prevalent (need proper studies on that, but really people shouldn’t assume they have protection til a few weeks after the shot and should behave like they have none). 
 

The immune system is a complex beast, and the inflammatory phase of Covid is where the most damage is done. ADE was speculated as a possible reason for this, and patients with severe Covid and high antibody titres fuels that a bit, but when we dig a bit deeper, it doesn’t look like ADE. It looks like a poor quality immune response with t-cells that have poor affinity for SARS-CoV-2 infected cells and antibodies that again have poor affinity for their target, while still being plentiful that are contributing most. There are other aspects that start to click together as well when we look at co-morbidities associated with worse outcome. The metabolic syndrome associated with T2DM and co-morbid obesity leads to poorly functioning inflammatory responses and thus may be among the reasons diabetic patients are at greater risk (whether this is true for type 1 diabetics I don’t know, I suspect not). Anyway, this is speculative too, the long and short of it is that there is undoubtedly an immune malfunction behind severe disease, but there is little evidence that is is due to ADE or that vaccination with make that worse.

[steviewevie]

Russia and China seem to be supplying their vaccines to a lot of the world...a bit of geopolitics going on maybe.

Also, anyone see that covid in US programme on the other night? Worth a watch.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ry3q

[steviewevie]

Japan

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/10/japan-pfizer-vaccine-doses-wrong-syringes

[PM87]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Russia and China seem to be supplying their vaccines to a lot of the world...a bit of geopolitics going on maybe.

Also, anyone see that covid in US programme on the other night? Worth a watch.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ry3q

I second this, was very interesting, as was the first episode about China.

[Zoo Music Girl]

8 minutes ago, PM87 said:

I'm not sure why tbh. I've just got it in my brain that the vaccine itself will make me feel worse than having Covid did. My nan was in bed for 3 days after her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine (her doctor's surgery in London didn't cancel the second appointments that had been booked because they said it was a logistical nightmare to cancel 100s of appointments and then rebook). But again, my nan is in her 80s and I'm in my 30s, so I shouldn't compare how our bodies will react to something. 

My concerns are not logical at all. And if everyone having the vaccine prevents transmission and stops me from passing on Covid to someone vulnerable who might not be as lucky as I was to suffer asymptomatic Covid, a few days of feeling under the weather is obviously a small price to pay. If I was working right now and not on never-ending furlough, I reckon I'd barely give any of this a second thought, at least not to the extent I do right now. 

 

That's fair enough. I can see why you might feel that way having seen your nan's experience. I reckon you will be fine, though, so try not to worry!

And well done on the volunteering. I have my face to face training this weekend (I'm fitting it in around work so has all been a bit slow getting started). Looking forward to starting!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PM87 said:

I second this, was very interesting, as was the first episode about China.

Did you watch the ITV one a few weeks back?

[Zoo Music Girl]

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

I've noticed in Cumbria (far south) people being loads more considerate in the past few months compared to under the pre-Christmas restrictions. Plenty of folk willing the cross the road to avoid passing you on the pavement, etc. It's really quite refreshing.

That would probably be good, but unless they work directly with schools and supermarkets and such to provide passes of some sort to their employees, it feels like it'll add some significant admin strain to the system that may be of minor benefit. I actually think it'll either be broad age groups, or just a complete free-for-all, and either way it'll be a government announcement "if you're in this group, go book your vaccination online" rather than writing to people individually.

Yeah I kind of agree. It would add a lot of admin.

[Fuzzy Afro]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Unless you've have COVID recently though (so already have some immunity) does it really matter if it's not 100% safe? Surely it just needs to be safer than getting COVID?

It's 100% completely true that we simply don't and can't know the impact these vaccines will have on people in two years' time. And that is a worry. A legit one. It concerns me too.

But equally we also don't know the impact having had COVID will have on people in two years time. We also can't know that. We've got a bit more information about it, and long COVID does appear to be a thing in some individuals. 

Sometimes with vaccines, if they provide sterilizing immunity, there's the zero-risk selfish option. You let other people take the vaccine, this causes the virus to die out, and you come out of it without having to have had either COVID or the vaccine. That's why traditionally anti-vaxxers rile people up so much. It's a selfish position, but also sort of logical. Herd immunity only needs 70-80% of people to "risk" taking the vaccine, so why not be in the 20-30% that don't?

But that isn't the case here - the virus is still going to spread, so in a few years' time, you'll either have had COVID or you'll have had the vaccine. There's no getting away from that, so if you don't trust the vaccine it's a matter of picking your poison.

I love theorycrafting stuff like this - I don't *think* it's possible, as you'd end up with food shortages and you'd need power to keep running and so on, but it's fascinating to think about. Perhaps more possible now than even five years, as automation is so much better - could power plants run unmanned for 2 weeks? Maybe.

We have a hybrid system here too. As someone with private medical (benefit with work) most of the capacity there has been sold to the NHS. It's been a bit better in some cases, there's access to a bit more capacity, but realistically you weren't getting anything non-urgent from a private practice the past few months either.

Issue with it is you’d need EVERYONE to self-isolate. It would require 100% buy in, because you can’t police it (because the officers would be self-isolating). You’d need to stock up on food beforehand, and if there’s a medical emergency? Sorry mate, the doctors are self-isolating.

 

It wouldn’t even work with household groups because you’d have transmission within households during the lockdown and the last person to get infected would bring it out into the community. 

[PM87]

Just now, Zoo Music Girl said:

That's fair enough. I can see why you might feel that way having seen your nan's experience. I reckon you will be fine, though, so try not to worry!

And well done on the volunteering. I have my face to face training this weekend (I'm fitting it in around work so has all been a bit slow getting started). Looking forward to starting!

Let us know how you get on. I think you'll find the experience really rewarding and also fascinating to see. It's quite the military operation, literally in the case of my vaccine centre, where lots of army medics have been sent to help. The NHS and everyone involved is doing such a fantastic job. 

[PM87]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Did you watch the ITV one a few weeks back?

I did! As with all these docs, it's so frustrating to see the early warnings going ignored - the exceptionalism of the west that 'it won't happen here.' 

[gizmoman]

12 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Had a read of the article and the comments! Good article, identifies the cases where ADE is demonstrated, has a few inconsistencies though (binding antibodies have a key role in directing other parts of our immune system to the virus and are far from useless! In fact, along with T-Cell receptors that recognise lots of different fragment of the virus, they are part of the reason why people getting infected with the new variants aren’t any more susceptible to severe disease). I read through the comments too and there’s a lot of unsubstantiated speculation (good to think about these things and either rule them out with evidence we already have, or design new experiments to test them). So far, there are some key facts that support the position that ADE is not a major factor in the progression of Covid, before or after vaccination. The first relates to your worry that over time, when neutralising antibodies wane, lower concentrations will result in this mechanism kicking in...at the start of vaccination, antibody levels are low too, but we don’t see an increase in severe disease in those infected in the first few weeks after vaccination compared to those in the control group (we see the opposite in fact). The lower neutralising antibody titres in weeks 1-3 do result in lower protection from symptomatic infection, and indeed, Pfizer noted an odd dip in white blood cell count for the first 3 days that in theory could increase the risk of infection, however it’s transient and we only have anectodal reports of infection in these first few days being any more prevalent (need proper studies on that, but really people shouldn’t assume they have protection til a few weeks after the shot and should behave like they have none). 
 

The immune system is a complex beast, and the inflammatory phase of Covid is where the most damage is done. ADE was speculated as a possible reason for this, and patients with severe Covid and high antibody titres fuels that a bit, but when we dig a bit deeper, it doesn’t look like ADE. It looks like a poor quality immune response with t-cells that have poor affinity for SARS-CoV-2 infected cells and antibodies that again have poor affinity for their target, while still being plentiful that are contributing most. There are other aspects that start to click together as well when we look at co-morbidities associated with worse outcome. The metabolic syndrome associated with T2DM and co-morbid obesity leads to poorly functioning inflammatory responses and thus may be among the reasons diabetic patients are at greater risk (whether this is true for type 1 diabetics I don’t know, I suspect not). Anyway, this is speculative too, the long and short of it is that there is undoubtedly an immune malfunction behind severe disease, but there is little evidence that is is due to ADE or that vaccination with make that worse.

Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to read and respond, I feel a bit guilty now as I'm sure you've got better things to be doing! I'll send a few quid to the Teenage cancer trust as payment!

[zahidf]

@toiletduckits a bit furhter up from me, but what do you make of the idea of giving people whove had Covid already one dose of the vaccine as a 'booster' instead of two doses?

[efcfanwirral]

1 hour 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.

I do wonder if over the summer when it goes to younger people that this could be an option- if you've had a positive PCR then wait a month or two to book it in and let those with (presumed) no protection get theirs first. Could speed things up a bit 

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

I do wonder if over the summer when it goes to younger people that this could be an option- if you've had a positive PCR then wait a month or two to book it in and let those with (presumed) no protection get theirs first. Could speed things up a bit 

oh yeah, no one is saying that its dnagrous to have 2 doses. its just to get more people vaccinated quicker