Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

No doubt the Oxford vaccine will be rolled out very soon - makes particular sense in more isolated areas (because of typical vaccine refrigeration requirements) whist there is till the Pfizer vaccine available. The difficulty for regulators is whether to authorise the two full doses or a half dose (far more effective) followed by a full dose (where far fewer of volunteers received this). Perhaps those receiving it could have a choice, knowing both are safe; I'd choose the half dose to begin with even if there are fewer numbers to show its effectiveness.

 

The great news is that there are sufficient vaccines ordered that have approval for everyone to get vaccinated - I think children are excluded from programme

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

That Matt Hankcock interview on ITV to me it looks like he is laughing his bollox off rather than shedding tears of joy

Exactly. He’s laughing at the guys name and is not having some breakdown regarding the vaccination program starting. 
Talk about making something out of nothing!

On a side note and making something out of nothing what’s going on with his haircut? Grimly hanging onto the little he has left which makes him look far older than he actually is. 
Totally irrelevant I know but these politicians need a makeover, where’s Gok wan, Trinny and Susannah when you need them, Boris with a cool trendy haircut we need to see it.

Theres a TV program in there somewhere, AHA!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Exactly. He’s laughing at the guys name and is not having some breakdown regarding the vaccination program starting. 
Talk about making something out of nothing!

On a side note and making something out of nothing what’s going on with his haircut? Grimly hanging onto the little he has left which makes him look far older than he actually is. 
Totally irrelevant I know but these politicians need a makeover, where’s Gok wan, Trinny and Susannah when you need them, Boris with a cool trendy haircut we need to see it.

Theres a TV program in there somewhere, AHA!

 

I think they're still in 2002

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Surely the Oxford vaccine is infinitely preferable if it is proven to be as effective. The cost and requirements are so much more achievable globally compared to the Pfizer one. 

Take yer pick on what you want from either vaccine, the pfizer one gives you autism and the Oxford  one will turn you into a shapeshifting lizard. 

Whats my scientific evidence for this? 

Bloke on facebook said so. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

But surely, everyone who didn't have a tracking chip inserted into them would be automatically killed by the aliens.

😂😂 he claims to be “deeply passionate” about space, yet has no formal qualifications to support his passion and thinks the measurement of a light year is wrong and we could easily travel to other galaxies in a matter of months. He only starts to talk sense when he’s pissed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/08/v-day-watershed-moment-may-have-wear-masks-another-year/7

 

'The public may have to wear masks for another year, despite a “watershed moment” beginning Britain’s national vaccination programme, Sir Patrick Vallance has said.'

 

We'll end up wearing masks for a long time yet, as well as social distancing IMO. **** sake just gets the clubs open, I've had enough, genuinely been an horrific year:nono:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/08/v-day-watershed-moment-may-have-wear-masks-another-year/7

 

'The public may have to wear masks for another year, despite a “watershed moment” beginning Britain’s national vaccination programme, Sir Patrick Vallance has said.'

 

We'll end up wearing masks for a long time yet, as well as social distancing IMO. **** sake just gets the clubs open, I've had enough, genuinely been an horrific year:nono:

"However, the joy was tempered by warnings from ministers that those who receive the vaccine should not be able to expect extra freedoms, such as to hug a grandchild."

Why on earth not?  What possible reasons does anyone have to say that a person who is vaccinated against coronavirus should not hug a person who by virtue of age is immune from coronavirus?  Are they saying that old people cannot return to normal life until there is no risk that they will die?  Because of the government's ambition is to achieve immortality, they will fail.

 

I look forward to the first prosecution of someone who hugs a grandchild in their own home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/08/v-day-watershed-moment-may-have-wear-masks-another-year/7

 

'The public may have to wear masks for another year, despite a “watershed moment” beginning Britain’s national vaccination programme, Sir Patrick Vallance has said.'

 

We'll end up wearing masks for a long time yet, as well as social distancing IMO. **** sake just gets the clubs open, I've had enough, genuinely been an horrific year:nono:

Madness.

 

Everyone get the vaccine in you and then carry on as you were.

 

Apart from the obvious ridiculousness of this, it's not really the news we need now at a time that we need to maximise vaccination complicity.

 

Not exactly a motivator when you realise the intention is for continued life in bubble wrapping.

 

Just when I thought things might be starting to get sensible.

 

Who gives a toss if Covid is still in transmission if it no longer poses a threat post vaccine?

Edited by Nod.E
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

"However, the joy was tempered by warnings from ministers that those who receive the vaccine should not be able to expect extra freedoms, such as to hug a grandchild."

Why on earth not?  What possible reasons does anyone have to say that a person who is vaccinated against coronavirus should not hug a person who by virtue of age is immune from coronavirus?  Are they saying that old people cannot return to normal life until there is no risk that they will die?  Because of the government's ambition is to achieve immortality, they will fail.

 

I look forward to the first prosecution of someone who hugs a grandchild in their own home.

 

5 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Madness.

 

Everyone get the vaccine in you and then carry on as you were.

 

Apart from the obvious ridiculousness of this, it's not really the news we need now at a time that we need to maximise vaccination complicity.

 

Not exactly a motivator when you realise the intention is for continued life in bubble wrapping.

 

Just when I thought things might be starting to get sensible.

 

Who gives a toss if Covid is still in transmission if it no longer poses a threat post vaccine?

Isn't this because they don't know how long immunity of the vaccine against COVID lasts? So if someone gets the vaccine and goes back to normal, then a few months down the line the immunity is weakened and they're hugging like there's no tomorrow, and they get COVID, are we not just back to square one? 

 

I don't blame them for still being cautious. It's a brand new vaccine. Yes it has been tested and regulated but it's still in the world of the unknown as to how long it can protect you for. 

 

If they said go back to normal life, we'll be saying 'why did they tell us to go back to normal when they didn't know how long we are immune for?' 

Until they know for certain, they'll continue to proceed with caution and give out the warnings about masks and socially distancing. 

 

That's also the reason why I don't like them putting a date on these things...' back to normal by Easter... We'll have a great summer...'. How do they know? How do Johnson and Hancock (as they were the ones that said it) know this? Their track record of overpromising and under-delivering works heavily against them when they come out with stuff like this? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/08/v-day-watershed-moment-may-have-wear-masks-another-year/7

 

'The public may have to wear masks for another year, despite a “watershed moment” beginning Britain’s national vaccination programme, Sir Patrick Vallance has said.'

 

We'll end up wearing masks for a long time yet, as well as social distancing IMO. **** sake just gets the clubs open, I've had enough, genuinely been an horrific year:nono:

Given the horrific levels of particulates/urban pollution that we are living with, depending upon your location, continuing to wear an N95 respirator may be a prudent move - particularly if cycling to work.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

Isn't this because they don't know how long immunity of the vaccine against COVID lasts? So if someone gets the vaccine and goes back to normal, then a few months down the line the immunity is weakened and they're hugging like there's no tomorrow, and they get COVID, are we not just back to square one? 

 

I don't blame them for still being cautious. It's a brand new vaccine. Yes it has been tested and regulated but it's still in the world of the unknown as to how long it can protect you for. 

 

If they said go back to normal life, we'll be saying 'why did they tell us to go back to normal when they didn't know how long we are immune for?' 

Until they know for certain, they'll continue to proceed with caution and give out the warnings about masks and socially distancing. 

 

That's also the reason why I don't like them putting a date on these things...' back to normal by Easter... We'll have a great summer...'. How do they know? How do Johnson and Hancock (as they were the ones that said it) know this? Their track record of overpromising and under-delivering works heavily against them when they come out with stuff like this? 

It is.  But I don't believe that fear of going back to square 1 should stop us from going to square 2.  

 

Vaccine immunity, if limited, will not be limited to a set time.  We won't be in the position of one day herd immunity, next day everyone is vulnerable.  So they will notice if immunity is weakening and can roll out a top-up.

 

As it stands, over the past year, the average over-80 has had an 11% chance of dying.  In a normal year, it is only 10%.  All these restrictions have been with the intention of holding that number down as low as possible and stop it rising to (absolute worst case forecast) 20% - a forecast which we now know from worldwide experience wouldn't have come true anyway.

 

But if the vaccine does take hold and - even if only temporarily - and the death rate goes back to "only" 10%, should we reintroduce these severe restrictions - which, on old people, are desperately severe, because their entire social life has been taken from them - because we fear the death rate might rise back to 11% and we want to reduce it to 10.1%?

 

This is the point about old people.  They know they are going to die.  They aren't (unlike certain members of the government) trying to achieve immortality.  They want to balance the risk of dying with the enjoyment of life, and the post-vaccine risk of dying without coronavirus is in those terms insignificant.

 

Put it simply.  Lockdown because a pandemic is happening makes an unpleasant sort of sense.  Lockdown because we haven't got a pandemic but are afraid we might, does not.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

Isn't this because they don't know how long immunity of the vaccine against COVID lasts? So if someone gets the vaccine and goes back to normal, then a few months down the line the immunity is weakened and they're hugging like there's no tomorrow, and they get COVID, are we not just back to square one? 

 

I don't blame them for still being cautious. It's a brand new vaccine. Yes it has been tested and regulated but it's still in the world of the unknown as to how long it can protect you for. 

 

If they said go back to normal life, we'll be saying 'why did they tell us to go back to normal when they didn't know how long we are immune for?' 

Until they know for certain, they'll continue to proceed with caution and give out the warnings about masks and socially distancing. 

 

That's also the reason why I don't like them putting a date on these things...' back to normal by Easter... We'll have a great summer...'. How do they know? How do Johnson and Hancock (as they were the ones that said it) know this? Their track record of overpromising and under-delivering works heavily against them when they come out with stuff like this? 

Tend to agree. It also grates when the whole "trust the science" campaign gets effectively ignored when people want to know when we can return to normal. (Which I guess is what you were saying, but more eloquently than I have)

Do people not accept these two things may well be at odds with each other??

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pliskin said:

I’m looking forward to having my vaccine. I’m not sure the nurse administering it will when she pulls the curtain back to my bare arse full mooning. 🌝 

I thought you had the vaccine jab in your arm, so why would you show the nurse your bare arse you sicko :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!

 

Why not try a search to find something else?

 

What was it? Mildly curious. 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1370264/Pfizer-vaccine-warning-covid-regulator-allergic-reaction-warning-latest

 

Couple of people with history of allergies had an allergic reaction and are both recovering fine. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, filbertway said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1370264/Pfizer-vaccine-warning-covid-regulator-allergic-reaction-warning-latest

 

Couple of people with history of allergies had an allergic reaction and are both recovering fine. 

Interesting that they decided to take it in the first place.  You would have to be very concerned about covid :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...