#COVID19 | Page 969 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Strett said:
It's 66.3% effective against illness, that's not shit and offers good protection and also a stamp in that passport.
We've ordered 30m doses haven't we?
Click to expand...
What difference does that make? How many AZ doses did the EU order?

66% is shit compared to pretty much any other vaccine on the market.

I suppose the young should just be grateful for anything their elders condescend to inject them with
 
Pope John XXIII said:
What difference does that make? How many AZ doses did the EU order?

66% is shit compared to pretty much any other vaccine on the market.

I suppose the young should just be grateful for anything their elders condescend to inject them with
Click to expand...

The new Moderna vaccine could be reserved for young people amid fears over the risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca jab, a member of the Government's vaccination advisory board has said.

The Moderna jab is the third to be approved in the UK, after the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, and begins its rollout in Wales today.

Professor Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said it was possible doses of the Moderna jab could be reserved for young people, if the UK's medicines regulator decides to pause the rollout of the AstraZeneca version in that age group.
 
Strett said:
The new Moderna vaccine could be reserved for young people amid fears over the risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca jab, a member of the Government's vaccination advisory board has said.

The Moderna jab is the third to be approved in the UK, after the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, and begins its rollout in Wales today.

Professor Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said it was possible doses of the Moderna jab could be reserved for young people, if the UK's medicines regulator decides to pause the rollout of the AstraZeneca version in that age group.
Click to expand...
17 m doses only ordered. Will barely cover one of the three age groups.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
In my experience, the home tests are next to useless
Click to expand...
What's your experience of the home tests? My issue is my children get tested on the Sunday but could catch it on the Monday. But we wouldn't know until the Wednesday. Do we know what percentage of false negatives are given?

I went to visit the in laws at the weekend, for the first time in over a year (in the garden and all social distanced)

It was very nice until they started calling the students for not following the rules in Nottingham. It didn't go down well when I pointed out that he went to Cornwall last year and didn't social distance from friends. and broke the rules on travelling.

But he is a Tory, so I expected it.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Strett, read this thread and the links therein:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379701658813337602
Click to expand...
Having read the Lancet study there I feel like questions (that aren't this guy's questions to answer) have to be asked about why we continue to persist with lockdown measures. Like what is the purpose of them?

I was under the impression that the main reason was stop the NHS going under and being unable to cope with the sheer numbers of extreme cases of covid.

That seems to have shifted though, and these studies talk more about 'containing' covid as an illness, rather than the more serious effects of it.

It seems like the debate is much, much larger than the scope of these models. In my eyes, lockdowns were totally necessary because they stopped everything from completely going to shit, the NHS breaking down, leading to more and more deaths not only from Covid, but from everything else. For this reason we had to take the most extreme measures possible as a society.

I didn't read anything in that Lancet paper that suggests we are even remotely in that situation right now.
 
i am a tree said:
Having read the Lancet study there I feel like questions (that aren't this guy's questions to answer) have to be asked about why we continue to persist with lockdown measures. Like what is the purpose of them?

I was under the impression that the main reason was stop the NHS going under and being unable to cope with the sheer numbers of extreme cases of covid.

That seems to have shifted though, and these studies talk more about 'containing' covid as an illness, rather than the more serious effects of it.

It seems like the debate is much, much larger than the scope of these models. In my eyes, lockdowns were totally necessary because they stopped everything from completely going to shit, the NHS breaking down, leading to more and more deaths not only from Covid, but from everything else. For this reason we had to take the most extreme measures possible as a society.

I didn't read anything in that Lancet paper that suggests we are even remotely in that situation right now.
Click to expand...

Who is arguing against a phased reopening with sensible measures in place?
 
i am a tree said:
Having read the Lancet study there I feel like questions (that aren't this guy's questions to answer) have to be asked about why we continue to persist with lockdown measures. Like what is the purpose of them?

I was under the impression that the main reason was stop the NHS going under and being unable to cope with the sheer numbers of extreme cases of covid.

That seems to have shifted though, and these studies talk more about 'containing' covid as an illness, rather than the more serious effects of it.

It seems like the debate is much, much larger than the scope of these models. In my eyes, lockdowns were totally necessary because they stopped everything from completely going to shit, the NHS breaking down, leading to more and more deaths not only from Covid, but from everything else. For this reason we had to take the most extreme measures possible as a society.

I didn't read anything in that Lancet paper that suggests we are even remotely in that situation right now.
Click to expand...

He also says that the 'exit waves' will not be large enough to overwhelm the NHS, so agreed, what are we waiting for.
The CMO along with Van Tam stated at the start of the rollout that when JCVI 1-9 are done that 99% of deaths will be cut. They can't move the goalposts.

The national vaccination programme is currently focused on, “the prevention of COVID-19 mortality and the protection of health and social care staff and systems”. JCVI evidence strongly indicates that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age, and that the risk increases exponentially with age. This is reflected in the priority cohorts for vaccination identified by the JCVI. Across England, nine cohorts have been sequentially invited for vaccination, with vaccination of the first four groups listed below well underway across the country.

It is estimated that taken together, these at-risk groups account for 99 per cent of all deaths from COVID-19 to date.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
Who is arguing against a phased reopening with sensible measures in place?
Click to expand...
No-one, but as you have seen on here, there is a huge debate as to what comprises 'sensible measures'. The unvaccinated being on house arrest while the oldies have the run of the UK is something I would point out as decidedly unsensible.

The point here is I'm more concerned with how the government is interpreting these models than anything in the models themselves.
Does the idea of a third wave, or something else in these models, contribute to the argument about Covid passports, or any other drastic policy the government wants to introduce? Why?

To my eyes, the models and predictions of a third wave, should be fairly limited in their usefulness in answering questions that are increasingly about politics and other issues rather than preventing a terrible disaster.
 
i am a tree said:
No-one, but as you have seen on here, there is a huge debate as to what comprises 'sensible measures'. The unvaccinated being on house arrest while the oldies have the run of the UK is something I would point out as decidedly unsensible.

The point here is I'm more concerned with how the government is interpreting these models than anything in the models themselves.
Does the idea of a third wave, or something else in these models, contribute to the argument about Covid passports, or any other drastic policy the government wants to introduce? Why?

To my eyes, the models and predictions of a third wave, should be fairly limited in their usefulness in answering questions that are increasingly about politics and other issues rather than preventing a terrible disaster.
Click to expand...

Modellers predicted a spike in infections when schools returned. UK infection rates are continuing to drop.
 
Forest-England said:
What's your experience of the home tests? My issue is my children get tested on the Sunday but could catch it on the Monday. But we wouldn't know until the Wednesday. Do we know what percentage of false negatives are given?

I went to visit the in laws at the weekend, for the first time in over a year (in the garden and all social distanced)

It was very nice until they started calling the students for not following the rules in Nottingham. It didn't go down well when I pointed out that he went to Cornwall last year and didn't social distance from friends. and broke the rules on travelling.

But he is a Tory, so I expected it.
Click to expand...

Every fucker in the U.K. seems to be heading to Cornwall this summer.
 
The other thing I would be interested in is what you have to do to these models to completely prevent a third wave, or reduce it significantly.
 
i am a tree said:
No-one, but as you have seen on here, there is a huge debate as to what comprises 'sensible measures'. The unvaccinated being on house arrest while the oldies have the run of the UK is something I would point out as decidedly unsensible.

The point here is I'm more concerned with how the government is interpreting these models than anything in the models themselves.
Does the idea of a third wave, or something else in these models, contribute to the argument about Covid passports, or any other drastic policy the government wants to introduce? Why?

To my eyes, the models and predictions of a third wave, should be fairly limited in their usefulness in answering questions that are increasingly about politics and other issues rather than preventing a terrible disaster.
Click to expand...

How can we have a sensible discussion when you post nonsense like under house arrest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.