Coronavirus Thread

[Parafox]

7 hours ago, bovril said:

He was saying that being seen as rushing it risks putting people off. I'm confident in the vaccines, I'm not so confident our government hasn't sped up the process for political reasons. 

I think the rapid development of vaccines is more about the need to protect the human population as quickly as possible and I too have confidence. There will always be nay-sayers and sceptics. I'd rather put my trust in proven scientific evidence, which we seem to have, rather than some hippies in a commune who believe the virus is a way of wiping out the human race in order to save the planet.

Whatever comes along as a side effect of the companies producing the vaccine, such as potential profiteering or government connivance in the speed of development for political reasons, may well be exposed in the years to come, post-Covid.

[Legend_in_blue]

10 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

I interpret that as until we reach the herd immunity threshold, so in the coming months etc. 

 

According to this guy, we're as good as there...

 

 

 

[Paninistickers]

Just now, Legend_in_blue said:

 

According to this guy, we're as good as there...

 

 

 

Literally i was just gonna post this guy in response to parafox. An excellent interview. 

[Legend_in_blue]

Just now, Paninistickers said:

Literally i was just gonna post this guy in response to parafox. An excellent interview. 

It also backs up the data Ivor Cummins' chums were discussing the other day in terms of pockets of areas being badly hit in March but not so now and vice versa.  But because it's linked to a biochemical engineer, people are quick to dismiss it.  You can't turn a blind eye to the raw data.

[Parafox]

12 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

According to this guy, we're as good as there...

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Literally i was just gonna post this guy in response to parafox. An excellent interview. 

I get the concern about not knowing the longer term protection but surely right now, we need to accept the fact that the vaccine, in whatever form, gives us breathing space, almost literally. Over time the vaccine will be refined and more targeted. Sceptics and anti-vaccers are dissing it as dangerous and untested. Not the case. It's proven that it works now. Lets save people. Then we can take a less pressured view on the longer term protection.

[Parafox]

18 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Literally i was just gonna post this guy in response to parafox. An excellent interview. 

Not sure if you agree with me or not?

[Paninistickers]

9 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Not sure if you agree with me or not?

You just seemed to have  absolute trust in the vaccine. I'm not anti the vaccine, but as that guy in the interview explains, it's  fair to weigh up any risk. 

 

Elderly, high risk, multiple health problems = worth the risk of taking the vaccine 

 

Healthy, fit 45 year old = too many long term unknowns with the vaccine and as someone almost certain to survive a covid infection, it's logical to avoid unnecessary injections 

[Legend_in_blue]

11 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

I get the concern about not knowing the longer term protection but surely right now, we need to accept the fact that the vaccine, in whatever form, gives us breathing space, almost literally. Over time the vaccine will be refined and more targeted. Sceptics and anti-vaccers are dissing it as dangerous and untested. Not the case. It's proven that it works now. Lets save people. Then we can take a less pressured view on the longer term protection.

I agree.  I completely accept that the most vulnerable should be given the opportunity of this.  What I am not so sure about is the message, via one of the three (this week Van Tam, most likely next week the Vallance/Whitty double act), that this vaccination is to be pushed out across the whole country to all over 50 in the first instance as a way to lift the measures.  Non-compliance being a continuation of the restrictions for all.  It's bordering coercion/blackmail.  

[Paninistickers]

5 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I agree.  I completely accept that the most vulnerable should be given the opportunity of this.  What I am not so sure about is the message, via one of the three (this week Van Tam, most likely next week the Vallance/Whitty double act), that this vaccination is to be pushed out across the whole country to all over 50 in the first instance as a way to lift the measures.  Non-compliance being a continuation of the restrictions for all.  It's bordering coercion/blackmail.  

Once the over 65s and vulnerable have had a jab, surely there's no need to pursue continuing vaccine programme?,

 

Isn't the whole point of this to avoid the health service being overwhelmed? and since hardly any fit under 60s end up in hospital, like the flu jab,  the worst that'll happen is a few days feeling rough at home and a rare few endings g up in hospital.  That's not a national emergency

[Parafox]

16 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

You just seemed to have  absolute trust in the vaccine. I'm not anti the vaccine, but as that guy in the interview explains, it's  fair to weigh up any risk. 

 

Elderly, high risk, multiple health problems = worth the risk of taking the vaccine 

 

Healthy, fit 45 year old = too many long term unknowns with the vaccine and as someone almost certain to survive a covid infection, it's logical to avoid unnecessary injections 

 

15 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I agree.  I completely accept that the most vulnerable should be given the opportunity of this.  What I am not so sure about is the message, via one of the three (this week Van Tam, most likely next week the Vallance/Whitty double act), that this vaccination is to be pushed out across the whole country to all over 50 in the first instance as a way to lift the measures.  Non-compliance being a continuation of the restrictions for all.  It's bordering coercion/blackmail.  

 

6 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Once the over 65s and vulnerable have had a jab, surely there's no need to pursue continuing vaccine programme?,

 

Isn't the whole point of this to avoid the health service being overwhelmed? and since hardly any fit under 60s end up in hospital, like the flu jab,  the worst that'll happen is a few days feeling rough at home and a rare few endings g up in hospital.  That's not a national emergency

Agreed on all 3 points. I don't have an ideological view of the vaccine but right now we need to give it a chance. I understand you both aren't sceptics and if the vaccine will prevent the mass infections we have seen then that's a good thing. If we can stop the chain of infection  even temporarily, we give the world a chance to regroup and develop better preventative medicines against this.

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/20/world/gallery/new-normal-coronavirus/index.html

 

Interesting but thoroughly depressing pictures here, worth a look just for some of the measures that places are using around the world.

[Parafox]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/20/world/gallery/new-normal-coronavirus/index.html

 

Interesting but thoroughly depressing pictures here, worth a look just for some of the measures that places are using around the world.

Excellent photos but, as you say, depressing photos. 

[SpacedX]

56 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

It also backs up the data Ivor Cummins' chums were discussing the other day in terms of pockets of areas being badly hit in March but not so now and vice versa.  But because it's linked to a biochemical engineer, people are quick to dismiss it.  You can't turn a blind eye to the raw data.

I honestly don't know why I bother, but I will try...again. 

 

Firstly, in line with the usual low standards of journalism that we have become accustomed to from Talk Radio, this is nothing more than an opinion piece, dressed up in the usual appeal to authority; he is billed as an "expert in testing" and "labwork and the like" ffs. . Dr. Yeadon is quick to clarify that his specialist field within Pfizer was "respiratory" and not vaccines. Certainly Yeadon makes some very potent points and his insight is valuable but to imply or entertain that it the roll out of this vaccine may safely be confined to elderly and vulnerable is frankly irresponsible. Whilst they will be prioritised and are the most obvious immediate candidates together with healthcare workers/practitioners and essential occupations, protecting the most vulnerable also involves vaccinating younger generations and children in order to maximise the benefits of indirect immunity for the elderly and the other vulnerable groups. Even in near optimal circumstances, successful vaccination policy involves many moving parts. In the COVID-19 crisis, it’s the entire global population that needs protection, and scientists are working to achieve that within an unprecedented timeframe. Ultimately, developing a safe and effective vaccine will only be the beginning. This is no immediate magical panacea - It won’t make the virus disappear. As Dr. Van Tam was eager to get across, that likely means following safety guidelines, such as physical distancing and mask wearing, for some time to come.

 

Secondly, the sensationalist strapline "Strong Evidence of Covid Herd Immunity in the UK" is simply laughable. It's nothing of the sort - by Dr Yeadon's own admission, nothing more than his own opinion - and I have been at pains to explain for months now, whilst junk like Talk Radio may be all about that, science is not. The basis for this tenuous assertion appears to be that the second wave in London is nowhere near as acute as the first, completely ignoring and overlooking the the systematic sand data-driven evaluation of the distribution (frequency, pattern) and determinants (causes, risk factors) of infection amongst specified populations, failing to appreciate demography, regional geographies, socio-economic factors and dynamics. The fundamentals than of epidemiological science. This is immensely complex and cannot be reduced to some two-bit nine minute interview on ****ing 'Talk Radio'.

 

Herd immunity level for this coronavirus is estimated at 60% of a population, and the latest Public Health England data show that only 17.5% of Londoners have antibodies to it. It is conceivable that some people have developed T-cell immunity, which can build up independently of antibodies. It is also feasible that some pockets of London have a higher prevalence of antibodies than others, but this is complete conjecture and still unlikely to achieve anywhere remotely near herd immunity levels. The Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, at University College London, have categorically stated that the evidence demonstrates herd immunity cannot be achieved without a comprehensive vaccine administration programme.

 

London has significant numbers of white-collar workers, and relatively lower number of people working in manufacturing, retail and wholesale jobs, relative to other areas of the UK. Many office workers can, and are now, working remotely. Not everyone could better self-isolate by working from home, but the move might be enough to reduce the infection rates.  Far less crowding and mixing is taking place during the second wave on public transport. All analyses of people’s activity patterns indicate that there are significantly fewer journeys into central London than before lockdown, whereas other provincial cities were getting closer to normality in such movements.  More than half of Birmingham and Manchester’s worst-hit areas are among the poorest in England; in Liverpool it is closer to two-thirds. It has been established that people in  more deprived areas are more likely to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2. Those with lower-paid and public-facing occupations are often classified as essential workers who must work outside the home and may travel to work on public transport. Job and financial insecurities can also make people less able to to comply with social restrictions, while overcrowded households could make it harder to self-isolate. People who become infected today receive lower doses of coronavirus than six months ago, for behavioural reasons including more cautious social interactions and wearing masks.

 

Of course, London has pockets of extreme deprivation and overcrowding, but the nature of the employment there and wealth for significant proportions of the population, has meant London has been able to adapt differently compared with other areas. Another indicator is that infection rates in northern English towns were never driven as low as they were in London and the south during the national lockdown, so once those restrictions were relaxed the “embers” re-ignited the northern areas. An analysis by Public Health England found that some areas of Manchester, Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale never really left the epidemic phase despite the imposition of social restrictions. 

 

People say viruses don’t discriminate - we've heard it on here...I've no doubt said it myself. This is a fundamental misunderstanding – viruses do discriminate, against the most vulnerable parts of our society.

 

I'm so sick of this cherry picking and popular opinion dressed up as 'data' or "thinking out of the ****ing box". The big picture is byzantine in detail and far surpasses the distorted lens of Talk Radio or the scrutiny of a post or flippant afterthought on a provincial football forum. 

 

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

It also backs up the data Ivor Cummins' chums were discussing the other day in terms of pockets of areas being badly hit in March but not so now and vice versa.  But because it's linked to a biochemical engineer, people are quick to dismiss it.  You can't turn a blind eye to the raw data.

Out of interest, did they discuss the natural human reaction where if the virus affects someone (themselves / families or friends), they are more like to comply to the restrictions ?

 

https://m.ara.cat/en/Bergamo-from-ground-zero-immune-coronavirus_0_2575542685.html
 

This article explains here how in Bergamo, it’s a combination of antibodies and people being more observant after the awful experience the city had 

Edited 4 December 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Out of interest, did they discuss the natural human reaction where if the virus affects someone (themselves / families or friends), they are will comply to the restrictions more so?

 

https://m.ara.cat/en/Bergamo-from-ground-zero-immune-coronavirus_0_2575542685.html
 

This article explains here how in Bergamo, it’s a combination of antibodies and people being more observant after the awful experience the city had 

Abso-****ing-lutely this.

 

Why is this so difficult to explain? 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Once the over 65s and vulnerable have had a jab, surely there's no need to pursue continuing vaccine programme?,

 

Isn't the whole point of this to avoid the health service being overwhelmed? and since hardly any fit under 60s end up in hospital, like the flu jab,  the worst that'll happen is a few days feeling rough at home and a rare few endings g up in hospital.  That's not a national emergency

Depends what tactic the govts and the world want to play. People’s health alters - is it better to develop antibodies whilst fit and healthy or wait until you are sadly given a cancer diagnosis etc? 

[CosbehFox]

4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Abso-****ing-lutely this.

 

Why is this so difficult to explain? 

This past year has just been a constant reconfirmation of the ‘I’m alright jack’ attitude which rules the world.  
 

Until it affects people personally and then opinions change. 

Edited 4 December 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Once the over 65s and vulnerable have had a jab, surely there's no need to pursue continuing vaccine programme?,

 

Isn't the whole point of this to avoid the health service being overwhelmed? and since hardly any fit under 60s end up in hospital, like the flu jab,  the worst that'll happen is a few days feeling rough at home and a rare few endings g up in hospital.  That's not a national emergency

Not sure it works like that 

 

there are many hundreds of thousands of people in their forties and fifties who will need hospital treatment if they catch covid, especially with a high viral load ....if the virus is left to just spread then those people could well end up bringing the NHS to its knees ??

[Paninistickers]

33 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Not sure it works like that 

 

there are many hundreds of thousands of people in their forties and fifties who will need hospital treatment if they catch covid, especially with a high viral load ....if the virus is left to just spread then those people could well end up bringing the NHS to its knees ??

But in general those who need or want the winter flu jab will.prob take this.

 

And those that don't bother with the winter flu jab won't bother with this and probably won't ever see the inside of hospital. 

 

Edit to add: i have little doubt we will be forced/coerced into taking the thing. Like   online data being tracked , photo driving licenses, credit checks, anti money laundering checks at the bank, cloud storage etc etc...there's no escape .

 

resistance is futile 

 

Edited 4 December 2020 by Paninistickers

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

But in general those who need or want the winter flu jab will.prob take this.

 

And those that don't bother with the winter flu jab won't bother with this and probably won't ever see the inside of hospital. 

 

Edit to add: i have little doubt we will be forced/coerced into taking the thing. Like   online data being tracked , photo driving licenses, credit checks, anti money laundering checks at the bank, cloud storage etc etc...there's no escape .

 

resistance is futile 

 

I think it will be left to personal choice BUT when people realise that the airline that they want to take them on their hols and the country whose beach they want to lie on will both insist on some proof that a vaccine has been taken, maybe their reservations will recede! 
 

im not sure what your point about winter flu jabs had to do with my point that the NHS would be in trouble with the number of 40-60 y/o who have covid and are hospitalised if it’s left to circulate in that age group ....a percentage of healthy people do need hospital treatment 

[Paninistickers]

22 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I think it will be left to personal choice BUT when people realise that the airline that they want to take them on their hols and the country whose beach they want to lie on will both insist on some proof that a vaccine has been taken, maybe their reservations will recede! 
 

im not sure what your point about winter flu jabs had to do with my point that the NHS would be in trouble with the number of 40-60 y/o who have covid and are hospitalised if it’s left to circulate in that age group ....a percentage of healthy people do need hospital treatment 

Yup, point was the 'weakest' (bad word, maybe more vulnerable is better) 40-60 who choose to take the flu jab and as such will prob take the covid jab too....them being the exact punters who need to take the covid jab  so as to avoid hospital  admission 

 

And I agree, we will all be coerced into taking it. That's hardly personal choice. It's  bullying. A social credit system. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Talk of London going back into Tier 3 in the next couple of weeks, surely not? 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Not sure it works like that 

 

there are many hundreds of thousands of people in their forties and fifties who will need hospital treatment if they catch covid, especially with a high viral load ....if the virus is left to just spread then those people could well end up bringing the NHS to its knees ??

That's an exaggerated figure.  So far, up to 4th November, a total of 11,847 patients aged between 18-64 have been admitted to hospital in England with coronavirus.  Some of those would be admitted for some other reason and just happened to have coronavirus at the time.  Many of them would be in the range which is going to be vaccinated anyway.  There have been in total 34 days up to 4th November when as many as 100 patients of that age were admitted, and the highest single day was 202. 

For "hundreds of thousands" to need hospital treatment after a limited vaccination programme, you would need the post-vaccination spread of coronavirus to be twenty times worse than it has been so far.  It seems unlikely.

Edited 5 December 2020 by dsr-burnley

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

I honestly don't know why I bother, but I will try...again. 

 

Firstly, in line with the usual low standards of journalism that we have become accustomed to from Talk Radio, this is nothing more than an opinion piece, dressed up in the usual appeal to authority; he is billed as an "expert in testing" and "labwork and the like" ffs. . Dr. Yeadon is quick to clarify that his specialist field within Pfizer was "respiratory" and not vaccines. Certainly Yeadon makes some very potent points and his insight is valuable but to imply or entertain that it the roll out of this vaccine may safely be confined to elderly and vulnerable is frankly irresponsible. Whilst they will be prioritised and are the most obvious immediate candidates together with healthcare workers/practitioners and essential occupations, protecting the most vulnerable also involves vaccinating younger generations and children in order to maximise the benefits of indirect immunity for the elderly and the other vulnerable groups. Even in near optimal circumstances, successful vaccination policy involves many moving parts. In the COVID-19 crisis, it’s the entire global population that needs protection, and scientists are working to achieve that within an unprecedented timeframe. Ultimately, developing a safe and effective vaccine will only be the beginning. This is no immediate magical panacea - It won’t make the virus disappear. As Dr. Van Tam was eager to get across, that likely means following safety guidelines, such as physical distancing and mask wearing, for some time to come.

 

Secondly, the sensationalist strapline "Strong Evidence of Covid Herd Immunity in the UK" is simply laughable. It's nothing of the sort - by Dr Yeadon's own admission, nothing more than his own opinion - and I have been at pains to explain for months now, whilst junk like Talk Radio may be all about that, science is not. The basis for this tenuous assertion appears to be that the second wave in London is nowhere near as acute as the first, completely ignoring and overlooking the the systematic sand data-driven evaluation of the distribution (frequency, pattern) and determinants (causes, risk factors) of infection amongst specified populations, failing to appreciate demography, regional geographies, socio-economic factors and dynamics. The fundamentals than of epidemiological science. This is immensely complex and cannot be reduced to some two-bit nine minute interview on ****ing 'Talk Radio'.

 

Herd immunity level for this coronavirus is estimated at 60% of a population, and the latest Public Health England data show that only 17.5% of Londoners have antibodies to it. It is conceivable that some people have developed T-cell immunity, which can build up independently of antibodies. It is also feasible that some pockets of London have a higher prevalence of antibodies than others, but this is complete conjecture and still unlikely to achieve anywhere remotely near herd immunity levels. The Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, at University College London, have categorically stated that the evidence demonstrates herd immunity cannot be achieved without a comprehensive vaccine administration programme.

 

London has significant numbers of white-collar workers, and relatively lower number of people working in manufacturing, retail and wholesale jobs, relative to other areas of the UK. Many office workers can, and are now, working remotely. Not everyone could better self-isolate by working from home, but the move might be enough to reduce the infection rates.  Far less crowding and mixing is taking place during the second wave on public transport. All analyses of people’s activity patterns indicate that there are significantly fewer journeys into central London than before lockdown, whereas other provincial cities were getting closer to normality in such movements.  More than half of Birmingham and Manchester’s worst-hit areas are among the poorest in England; in Liverpool it is closer to two-thirds. It has been established that people in  more deprived areas are more likely to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2. Those with lower-paid and public-facing occupations are often classified as essential workers who must work outside the home and may travel to work on public transport. Job and financial insecurities can also make people less able to to comply with social restrictions, while overcrowded households could make it harder to self-isolate. People who become infected today receive lower doses of coronavirus than six months ago, for behavioural reasons including more cautious social interactions and wearing masks.

 

Of course, London has pockets of extreme deprivation and overcrowding, but the nature of the employment there and wealth for significant proportions of the population, has meant London has been able to adapt differently compared with other areas. Another indicator is that infection rates in northern English towns were never driven as low as they were in London and the south during the national lockdown, so once those restrictions were relaxed the “embers” re-ignited the northern areas. An analysis by Public Health England found that some areas of Manchester, Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale never really left the epidemic phase despite the imposition of social restrictions. 

 

People say viruses don’t discriminate - we've heard it on here...I've no doubt said it myself. This is a fundamental misunderstanding – viruses do discriminate, against the most vulnerable parts of our society.

 

I'm so sick of this cherry picking and popular opinion dressed up as 'data' or "thinking out of the ****ing box". The big picture is byzantine in detail and far surpasses the distorted lens of Talk Radio or the scrutiny of a post or flippant afterthought on a provincial football forum. 

 

'cos it would be a lot worse if folks like you didn't, mon ami. Keep fighting the good fight.

 

Also, quoted for emphasis in case any of our resident sceptics actually feel like addressing it rather than simply posting and running.

[dsr-burnley]

6 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Once the over 65s and vulnerable have had a jab, surely there's no need to pursue continuing vaccine programme?,

 

Isn't the whole point of this to avoid the health service being overwhelmed? and since hardly any fit under 60s end up in hospital, like the flu jab,  the worst that'll happen is a few days feeling rough at home and a rare few endings g up in hospital.  That's not a national emergency

Once the over 65s and vulnerable have had the jab, I think there is no need to continue lockdown and social distancing.  Obviously unvaccinated people can continue to self isolate if they want, but the general health risks of continued isolation for old people will certainly outweigh the general health risks of covid for younger people.

 

But vaccination of everyone else is still a good idea.  The more people vaccinated, the fewer people die; while getting deaths down to acceptable levels is (by definition) acceptable, getting them down to the lowest level possible is even better.