#COVID19 | Page 887 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Polly 433

Vital 1st Team Regular
Unbelievably ignorant viewpoint. You do realise that there has been the same government for the last 11yrs?

BJ was the one who decided not to close the borders - Not any previous government
BJ decided not the lock down the country when the rest of its neighbours were doing so - Not any previous government
BJ decided to remove restriction to early, twice - Not any previous government
You do realise that the U.K. has 2m people going thru it airports each day. Even with restrictions 18m people went thru U.K. airports in Feb 2020. This was before anyone in U.K. had died. Locking down, would have done very little, at best would have delayed. Let’s face it half the population are refusing to follow rules now after 100,000 dead, Imagine the situation attempting to do that back in Feb. The majority of people entering the country from abroad with covid in March 2020 were not coming from places like Wuhan ( or Wigan) but Italy and Spain. What would you have done. Locked out 20m Brits for the remainder of the year? Far to simple a blame factor. Blame BJ for the things he has done poorly, not short of them.
 

Bremen Tree

Vital 1st Team Regular
You do realise that the U.K. has 2m people going thru it airports each day. Even with restrictions 18m people went thru U.K. airports in Feb 2020. This was before anyone in U.K. had died. Locking down, would have done very little, at best would have delayed. Let’s face it half the population are refusing to follow rules now after 100,000 dead, Imagine the situation attempting to do that back in Feb. The majority of people entering the country from abroad with covid in March 2020 were not coming from places like Wuhan ( or Wigan) but Italy and Spain. What would you have done. Locked out 20m Brits for the remainder of the year? Far to simple a blame factor. Blame BJ for the things he has done poorly, not short of them.
Alright, pal. You stick with your alternative facts and keep your head in the clouds with respect to the UK's, ergo Bojos, slow response.
 

in_the_top_one

Vital Champions League
Interesting development..

Original tweet /link from the Times says she REFUSES the vaccine but if you click on it you find that they have subsequently changed the title!

It now it says,
"Angela Merkel won’t get AstraZeneca Covid vaccine as 1.4m doses left unused"

How peculiar! They could of course, go a step even closer to honesty by saying "can't have"..



The article now begins :
"Angela Merkel, the German chancellor has said she will not take the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine because at 66 she is older than the upper age limit for it.

The German authorities have not approved the vaccine for people over 65."


...which is quite the reverse ferret.
 
Last edited:

in_the_top_one

Vital Champions League
Interesting thread about key workers exposure and whether the UK vaccination strategy is correct.


Of school/nursery staff, 12% were positive compared to non-key workers (8%). The confidence intervals (uncertainty around estimates) did not overlap suggesting these differences are statistically significant. Other key workers e.g. police/prison staff also had high seropositivity.

 

Pope John XXIII

Vital Football Legend
Interesting thread about key workers exposure and whether the UK vaccination strategy is correct.


Of school/nursery staff, 12% were positive compared to non-key workers (8%). The confidence intervals (uncertainty around estimates) did not overlap suggesting these differences are statistically significant. Other key workers e.g. police/prison staff also had high seropositivity.

While I'm not complaining per se (there is no point) I have always felt that some of the underlying assumptions of the science behind this are bogus.

Ok, so "the data" shows that teachers, police etc are not statistically more likely to die than other occupations or groups. Therefore, because of that statistic, the assumption is made that they are not at risk.

Yet at the same time we know that these professions both involve workers who are exposed to the *exact* conditions in which the virus loves to spread, day after day.

The lack of curiosity in the science community as to why there isn't a correlation and what this means really shocks me.

We know that teachers/police (as two examples), based on the very nature of their work should be at risk. It's not even about common sense; we know the conditions the virus likes.

But instead of leading with that, scientists have blindly followed "the data" on deaths as the only method of judgement. This doesn't sound all that sensible to me.

They know a group should be at risk. The numbers suggest the risk hasn't played out. Yet they show not the least bit of curiosity as to why that is, and choose instead to assume there is no risk, despite what they know. Not sure how that is good science. Data is not the end of science
 

in_the_top_one

Vital Champions League
While I'm not complaining per se (there is no point) I have always felt that some of the underlying assumptions of the science behind this are bogus.

Ok, so "the data" shows that teachers, police etc are not statistically more likely to die than other occupations or groups. Therefore, because of that statistic, the assumption is made that they are not at risk.

Yet at the same time we know that these professions both involve workers who are exposed to the *exact* conditions in which the virus loves to spread, day after day.

The lack of curiosity in the science community as to why there isn't a correlation and what this means really shocks me.

We know that teachers/police (as two examples), based on the very nature of their work should be at risk. It's not even about common sense; we know the conditions the virus likes.

But instead of leading with that, scientists have blindly followed "the data" on deaths as the only method of judgement. This doesn't sound all that sensible to me.

They know a group should be at risk. The numbers suggest the risk hasn't played out. Yet they show not the least bit of curiosity as to why that is, and choose instead to assume there is no risk, despite what they know. Not sure how that is good science. Data is not the end of science
Not sure how to read your reply in the context of my post which highlights scientists presenting the serology data showing 12% seropositivity in key workers (teachers and police), contrasting with 8% in the rest. That's 50% higher, and likely down to the working conditions you describe.

That isn't focusing only on deaths; it is the finer grained analysis of data that you seem to be saying is absent.
 

Calvin Plummer

Vital Football Legend
While I'm not complaining per se (there is no point) I have always felt that some of the underlying assumptions of the science behind this are bogus.

Ok, so "the data" shows that teachers, police etc are not statistically more likely to die than other occupations or groups. Therefore, because of that statistic, the assumption is made that they are not at risk.

Yet at the same time we know that these professions both involve workers who are exposed to the *exact* conditions in which the virus loves to spread, day after day.

The lack of curiosity in the science community as to why there isn't a correlation and what this means really shocks me.

We know that teachers/police (as two examples), based on the very nature of their work should be at risk. It's not even about common sense; we know the conditions the virus likes.

But instead of leading with that, scientists have blindly followed "the data" on deaths as the only method of judgement. This doesn't sound all that sensible to me.

They know a group should be at risk. The numbers suggest the risk hasn't played out. Yet they show not the least bit of curiosity as to why that is, and choose instead to assume there is no risk, despite what they know. Not sure how that is good science. Data is not the end of science
You've misread the above data
 

Pope John XXIII

Vital Football Legend
Not sure how to read your reply in the context of my post which highlights scientists presenting the serology data showing 12% seropositivity in key workers (teachers and police), contrasting with 8% in the rest. That's 50% higher, and likely down to the working conditions you describe.

That isn't focusing only on deaths; it is the finer grained analysis of data that you seem to be saying is absent.
I did not misread the data, as if backs up something I posted from the ONS the other day.

My point was general, with a firm eye on Jonathan Van Tam's comments dismissing the idea of prioritisation of key workers on the basis that data shows they are at no risk of dying.

The reality is, data is showing that they are at increased risk of contracting COVID. Just because they are not dying is neither here nor there. You have to buy a ticket to win the raffle.

I have been surprised, as I said, by the lack of curiosity. If frontline workers are at increased risk contracting but not necessarily of dying, why is that? Because, if there isn't a reason for it, maybe that is because there isn't a reason; and that there is no mystical protective factor.

Same as the BME groups. Why are they at increased risk of dying? Is it merely because they are at increased risk of contracting? Is it genetic? Behavioural? No one seems interested in any of it beyond one bare fact.
 

da fuq

Vital Champions League
Cant disagree with this but this is a ripple from brexit. Let us hope europe does not swing hugely to the right. We know what happened the last time a nationalist populist took control.

Even those whoppers in the National Rally ( formerly the front national ) the biggest anti EU party in Europe have now said that they need to remain in the EU

Even the fucking knuckledraggers in a fascist party can see how retarded it is to leave the EU

Imagine that ....you don't even have the intelligence to be more evolved than these amoebas

Owd Strett and the rest

Deary me
 

JC21

Vital 1st Team Regular
Even those whoppers in the National Rally ( formerly the front national ) the biggest anti EU party in Europe have now said that they need to remain in the EU

Even the fucking knuckledraggers in a fascist party can see how retarded it is to leave the EU

Imagine that ....you don't even have the intelligence to be more evolved than these amoebas

Owd Strett and the rest

Deary me
Or imagine "being on the same side" as them
 

Bremen Tree

Vital 1st Team Regular
Interesting development..



Original tweet /link from the Times says she REFUSES the vaccine but if you click on it you find that they have subsequently changed the title!

It now it says,
"Angela Merkel won’t get AstraZeneca Covid vaccine as 1.4m doses left unused"

How peculiar! They could of course, go a step even closer to honesty by saying "can't have"..



The article now begins :
"Angela Merkel, the German chancellor has said she will not take the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine because at 66 she is older than the upper age limit for it.


The German authorities have not approved the vaccine for people over 65."

...which is quite the reverse ferret.
Fake news is full effect. They would have known this from the beginning. The reversal is too late because the misinformation has already served its purpose in vilifying the chancellor.
 

radfordinlondon

Vital Champions League
Not sure how to read your reply in the context of my post which highlights scientists presenting the serology data showing 12% seropositivity in key workers (teachers and police), contrasting with 8% in the rest. That's 50% higher, and likely down to the working conditions you describe.

That isn't focusing only on deaths; it is the finer grained analysis of data that you seem to be saying is absent.
And yet the govt response has not changed the policy. They think the vaccination by profession would slow things down. Lets hope we dont have another xmas surge in teachers and other frontline workers.
 

Pope John XXIII

Vital Football Legend
And yet the govt response has not changed the policy. They think the vaccination by profession would slow things down. Lets hope we dont have another xmas surge in teachers and other frontline workers.
Every school has something called a single central record, which by law they have to keep for safeguarding. It includes every member of staff who works in the building at any time.

All you need to do is ask headteachers to nominate people from their single central record and out forward their NHS numbers. You then need to allocate each school to a vaccination centre nearby and open it to appointments.

On a good day we are vaccinating 550,000 people per day (that is just first dose and doesn't include people getting their second dose alongside).

It just so happens that there are 548,000 teachers in the UK. Add 150% to that to include all the support staff and you are talking 2-3 days to vaccinate the lot potentially if you did them all together; alternatively, just get the head to send them the swiftqueue link and let them be done with the 40 somethings

I don't know the logistics of police; that probably isn't as easy. You can do all teachers in the Easter holiday or a weekend and not disrupt service, but you can't do the same for Police. But at the same time, all police are registered with a central body. Why is it a problem to throw open the swiftqueue link to serving police officers?

As with teachers, the link can just be sent to employees by their employers. There are 150,000 serving police officers, and unlike school support staff you might find it less necessary to vaccinate the policing support staff. You have 23,000 prison officers to do as well.

It's not a huge number of people we are talking about in those groups. Yes, it will slow things down; but only because you are vaccinating some additional people, not because it is a logistical difficulty (what is difficult about giving people a link? Our employees can register our NHS numbers).

It isn't even about saving lives. It's about making sure these people can remain at work and keep a vital service open. Yes, a 40 year old might be fractionally more likely to die than myself as a 37 year old teacher, but for under 50's we have already stated that the risk is low; so, if we accept we are into the people with low risk by now then surely keeping vital services open is as much a priority? You are potentially asking someone who is low risk in their 40s to have to wait a couple of extra days between booking and attending their appointment so that police or teachers don't have to self isolate and take time off work.

We keep losing sight of this priority in the nonsense about whether teachers or police die or not. The argument to vaccinate them isn't really about that.

And what happened to prioritising people with learning disabilities, where the death rate is disastrous? Did that happen?
 
Last edited:

in_the_top_one

Vital Champions League
The "good days" of vaccination rates that high have been few and far between but should start to come back (and be surpassed) in the next few weeks.

There are two points being discussed here: greater risk in some groups, and prioritisation.
I don't think it is fair to say that scientists and public health professionals have a lack of curiosity about increased risk in some areas. There is huge curiosity about that and many articles. There isn't a simple answer that had emerged yet. Here is an article from ages ago - ie last September. https://www.gmjournal.co.uk/what-is...oportionate-impact-of-covid-19-on-bame-groups

Prioritisation is more of a political choice to make. Personally, I agree with Pope that vaccinating key workers in essential public systems is a good idea. However, there are downsides too. It would take longer to organise when the difference in time saved would be quite small for most (and during that time more clinically vulnerable people would be waiting longer). Also, it opens a massive can of worms where the government is publicly choosing who to protect first. Arguments would ensue, maybe even court cases. Everyone understands the age system and you can't argue that the biggest predictor of risk is age. It is a sensible system to use and easily defended.


I'm increasingly disappointed about schools going back next week. It seems like too great a risk at the moment, especially when we are so close to Easter. We have an opportunity now to get numbers low. Everything is going on the right direction but I can see schools pushing R>1 and infections getting out of control again. Hope I'm wrong, but the truth is that nobody knows for sure and that means we should err on the side of caution.
 

Pope John XXIII

Vital Football Legend
The "good days" of vaccination rates that high have been few and far between but should start to come back (and be surpassed) in the next few weeks.

There are two points being discussed here: greater risk in some groups, and prioritisation.
I don't think it is fair to say that scientists and public health professionals have a lack of curiosity about increased risk in some areas. There is huge curiosity about that and many articles. There isn't a simple answer that had emerged yet. Here is an article from ages ago - ie last September. https://www.gmjournal.co.uk/what-is...oportionate-impact-of-covid-19-on-bame-groups

Prioritisation is more of a political choice to make. Personally, I agree with Pope that vaccinating key workers in essential public systems is a good idea. However, there are downsides too. It would take longer to organise when the difference in time saved would be quite small for most (and during that time more clinically vulnerable people would be waiting longer). Also, it opens a massive can of worms where the government is publicly choosing who to protect first. Arguments would ensue, maybe even court cases. Everyone understands the age system and you can't argue that the biggest predictor of risk is age. It is a sensible system to use and easily defended.


I'm increasingly disappointed about schools going back next week. It seems like too great a risk at the moment, especially when we are so close to Easter. We have an opportunity now to get numbers low. Everything is going on the right direction but I can see schools pushing R>1 and infections getting out of control again. Hope I'm wrong, but the truth is that nobody knows for sure and that means we should err on the side of caution.
A couple of things;

Firstly, we are not talking about making clinically vulnerable people wait. We are talking about making people in their 40's wait; for days rather than weeks. People in their 40s are not clinically vulnerable. And it's not even waiting really; they will still be able to book on, but it might be the difference between being able to book on an appointment for tomorrow or for next Thursday.

And I also don't understand why this would need to be a logistical issue. It would take half an hour for a headteacher to put forward all their staff for a link to be sent to them to join the swiftqueue. If you want the relevant NHS numbers it might take headteachers a couple of days. Where is the logistical issue?

And thirdly, from a selfish point of view I would really rather have at least some time with everyone back in school. I am getting very concerned by some of the emails I am getting from students.
 

radfordinlondon

Vital Champions League
Every school has something called a single central record, which by law they have to keep for safeguarding. It includes every member of staff who works in the building at any time.

All you need to do is ask headteachers to nominate people from their single central record and out forward their NHS numbers. You then need to allocate each school to a vaccination centre nearby and open it to appointments.

On a good day we are vaccinating 550,000 people per day (that is just first dose and doesn't include people getting their second dose alongside).

It just so happens that there are 548,000 teachers in the UK. Add 150% to that to include all the support staff and you are talking 2-3 days to vaccinate the lot potentially if you did them all together; alternatively, just get the head to send them the swiftqueue link and let them be done with the 40 somethings

I don't know the logistics of police; that probably isn't as easy. You can do all teachers in the Easter holiday or a weekend and not disrupt service, but you can't do the same for Police. But at the same time, all police are registered with a central body. Why is it a problem to throw open the swiftqueue link to serving police officers?

As with teachers, the link can just be sent to employees by their employers. There are 150,000 serving police officers, and unlike school support staff you might find it less necessary to vaccinate the policing support staff. You have 23,000 prison officers to do as well.

It's not a huge number of people we are talking about in those groups. Yes, it will slow things down; but only because you are vaccinating some additional people, not because it is a logistical difficulty (what is difficult about giving people a link? Our employees can register our NHS numbers).

It isn't even about saving lives. It's about making sure these people can remain at work and keep a vital service open. Yes, a 40 year old might be fractionally more likely to die than myself as a 37 year old teacher, but for under 50's we have already stated that the risk is low; so, if we accept we are into the people with low risk by now then surely keeping vital services open is as much a priority? You are potentially asking someone who is low risk in their 40s to have to wait a couple of extra days between booking and attending their appointment so that police or teachers don't have to self isolate and take time off work.

We keep losing sight of this priority in the nonsense about whether teachers or police die or not. The argument to vaccinate them isn't really about that.

And what happened to prioritising people with learning disabilities, where the death rate is disastrous? Did that happen?
Completely agree. The only other reason i can think of is that the level of competence is so low, they dare.not risk any kind of additional 'complexity' as it might unsettle their house of cards.