Coronavirus Thread

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

If by that you mean 'have two people in their thirties really died in Leicester as a direct result of the vaccine on the same weekend', I can tell you categorically that they have. 

 

Quite why it hasn't been picked up by the media, and indeed whether or not the same story is replicated UK wide, I have absolutely no idea. I do find it very, very hard to believe that deaths from the vaccine are not more widespread based on what I know though, what are the odds otherwise? 

 

Anyone who has read anything I've ever contributed to this thread knows that I am about as far from being a conspiracy theorist as is possible, and I'm certainly not an anti vaxxer. But the differences between what I know has actually happened to people I knew, versus what I have seen reported in the media, makes me feel very nervous. 

 

 

 

 

By "something wrong" I mean a fundamental issue with the vaccine that is resulting in an unusual amount of deaths, just to clarify.

 

I don't doubt the truth of those two people in Leicester that you know having gone the way you say they had, but if that is happening up and down the country and it is not being reported on - as opposed to a horribly tragic coincidence - then I'd like to hear a reasonably solid idea of what would motivate the media into such behaviour when telling the truth would serve them as well if not better. Because if it turns out to be the case then everyone involved - the media, the government and the scientific community - has some extremely difficult questions to answer as they would all be implicated in a cover-up of grotesque consequence. I'd like to have a very firm footing before going there, but that's my take.

[String fellow]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

If by that you mean 'have two people in their thirties really died in Leicester as a direct result of the vaccine on the same weekend', I can tell you categorically that they have. 

 

Quite why it hasn't been picked up by the media, and indeed whether or not the same story is replicated UK wide, I have absolutely no idea. I do find it very, very hard to believe that deaths from the vaccine are not more widespread based on what I know though, what are the odds otherwise? 

 

Anyone who has read anything I've ever contributed to this thread knows that I am about as far from being a conspiracy theorist as is possible, and I'm certainly not an anti vaxxer. But the differences between what I know has actually happened to people I knew, versus what I have seen reported in the media, makes me feel very nervous. 

 

 

 

 

According to the government's own website, 58 people have died so far after receiving an AZ jab.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting 

[StanSP]

 

 

 

[Guest Lcfc82]

14 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

He’s a ****ing arsehole. The fact this so called “ Indian variant “ has been in the country for that long and it’s hardly made an impact tells you everything you need to know. 

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, Lcfc82 said:

He’s a ****ing arsehole. The fact this so called “ Indian variant “ has been in the country for that long and it’s hardly made an impact tells you everything you need to know. 

Why does that make him an arsehole?

 

Do you totally dismiss or neglect the fact the government lie to us or dismiss some important information?

[Guest Lcfc82]

No I think the government have been poor throughout the whole Covid thing but he is notoriously left wing and wouldn’t have a good word to say regardless.

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, Lcfc82 said:

No I think the government have been poor throughout the whole Covid thing but he is notoriously left wing and wouldn’t have a good word to say regardless.

so pointing out how the government has been poor makes him an arsehole?

But you can do the same and not face the same label?

 

I believe that's called hypocrisy. Or double standards.

 

You choose.

[Parafox]

37 minutes ago, Lcfc82 said:

He’s a ****ing arsehole. The fact this so called “ Indian variant “ has been in the country for that long and it’s hardly made an impact tells you everything you need to know. 

Journalist after sensationalism. Just like so many. I dislike Trump  but his fake news agenda had some credibility.

[Guest Lcfc82]

Call it what you want fella but I know what my view on him is. 
have a good night 

[Guest Lcfc82]

1 minute ago, Lcfc82 said:

Call it what you want fella but I know what my view on him is. 
have a good night 

@Stan

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

Peeps today aren't wearing masks etc, the while thing is a farce and deaths are reducing and so generally hospital admissions.

 

I think asking as we are vaxxing we are ok

Yep. Doing our carpets tomorrow. 

[doverfox]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

End globalisation now its the only way. Because by the time new variants are identified its already too late can't wait for the calls to stop flights to Vietnam as they have a hybrid Kent/Indian version.

[VLC86]

3 hours ago, doverfox said:

End globalisation now its the only way. Because by the time new variants are identified its already too late can't wait for the calls to stop flights to Vietnam as they have a hybrid Kent/Indian version.

End globalisation  there isn’t a variant around at the moment that evades the vaccine. The answer isn’t to lock the borders, the answer is to monitor variants through science and put temporary quarantine on areas that have a variant that show signs that they could evade the vaccine.

 

Failing that, lock yourself in a bunker and stock up on mushy peas.

[Dunge]

I recall the government’s explanation of the Indian variant and lack of red-listing - essentially that they’re aware of many different variants around but they won’t know how they’re going to act differently until they see them in action. ie, there are variants and then there are variants of concern. So the government knew of this variant and its presence in the UK for weeks but they didn’t have the reason to class it as being of concern until later.

 

That’s not to say there isn’t an argument for being stricter with the borders. In fact it’s probably an argument for being even stricter with them, at least in the short term. Although it’s hard to see how we’d keep these variants out regardless given the nature of the UK as a central trading location.
 

I couldn’t tell you whether the government is being truthful in that - a sad indictment of their truthfulness in general - but they provided an answer to this particular accusation.

[Alf Bentley]

Here's a BBC Fact Check on why the Govt delayed putting India on the red list for a fortnight after Pakistan & Bangladesh had been red-listed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56801288

 

A complex picture with perhaps reason to believe India was testing more & had better Covid data, based on tests on UK arrivals from those countries. But some of this really rings alarm bells.....

 

"Bangladesh had the South Africa but not the Brazil variant and Pakistan had neither when they were added to the red list on 9 April. India had both, as well as a new variant, but was not added for another two weeks.

On 9 April: Pakistan had a seven-day average of 21 cases per million people, Bangladesh had twice as many, India had four times as many.

 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said these figures depended on how much testing was being done and said "far more" was carried out in India. He said the decision to add Pakistan and Bangladesh earlier was based on a higher proportion of people arriving in the UK from these countries, testing positive for coronavirus. "When we put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, positivity among those arriving from those countries was three times higher than it was among those arriving from India," Mr Hancock told Parliament on 17 May. 

 

Figures from NHS Test and Trace do not support that claim. For the period 25 March to 7 April, the positivity rate from Bangladesh was 3.7%, from India was 5.1% and from Pakistan was 6.2%.

Mr Hancock was asked about this in Parliament on 19 May and said: "The positivity rate in India, on which the decision to put Pakistan but not India on the red list was 1.6% in India and 4.6% in Pakistan, which is three times higher, as I said." But those are not published figures. He didn't give the date for them and didn't mention Bangladesh this time.

 

"Nobody knows the full criteria - but there may be a political element because the UK wants a trade deal with India," Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology, at the University of Reading, said. Boris Johnson had planned a trade visit to India but cancelled it on 19 April - days before the country was added to the red list.

 

[Dr The Singh]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Here's a BBC Fact Check on why the Govt delayed putting India on the red list for a fortnight after Pakistan & Bangladesh had been red-listed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56801288

 

A complex picture with perhaps reason to believe India was testing more & had better Covid data, based on tests on UK arrivals from those countries. But some of this really rings alarm bells.....

 

"Bangladesh had the South Africa but not the Brazil variant and Pakistan had neither when they were added to the red list on 9 April. India had both, as well as a new variant, but was not added for another two weeks.

On 9 April: Pakistan had a seven-day average of 21 cases per million people, Bangladesh had twice as many, India had four times as many.

 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said these figures depended on how much testing was being done and said "far more" was carried out in India. He said the decision to add Pakistan and Bangladesh earlier was based on a higher proportion of people arriving in the UK from these countries, testing positive for coronavirus. "When we put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, positivity among those arriving from those countries was three times higher than it was among those arriving from India," Mr Hancock told Parliament on 17 May. 

 

Figures from NHS Test and Trace do not support that claim. For the period 25 March to 7 April, the positivity rate from Bangladesh was 3.7%, from India was 5.1% and from Pakistan was 6.2%.

Mr Hancock was asked about this in Parliament on 19 May and said: "The positivity rate in India, on which the decision to put Pakistan but not India on the red list was 1.6% in India and 4.6% in Pakistan, which is three times higher, as I said." But those are not published figures. He didn't give the date for them and didn't mention Bangladesh this time.

 

"Nobody knows the full criteria - but there may be a political element because the UK wants a trade deal with India," Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology, at the University of Reading, said. Boris Johnson had planned a trade visit to India but cancelled it on 19 April - days before the country was added to the red list.

 

Hancock should be sacked.  Also Great Britain has a long history of selling it's soul its people for Indian ££££, so shameful.

[Legend_in_blue]

According to Prof Gupta (via the BBC) the UK is currently in the midst of an early third wave...

 

 

 

[Matt]

16 hours ago, StanSP said:

Why does that make him an arsehole?

 

Do you totally dismiss or neglect the fact the government lie to us or dismiss some important information?

I'll make my point and ask again, what politician or political party doesn't lie?

 

Who regulates politicians or political parties and if not why not?

 

I'm in no way sticking up for the government or personnel but it makes me laugh how people say they lie to us like the alternatives don't.

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

According to Prof Gupta (via the BBC) the UK is currently in the midst of an early third wave...

 

 

 

I assume we are following the lowest track of the five scenarios

that predicts another wave oct/nov (though still not too large for the nhs to cope) 

 

I would expect to see a wave earlier than that as the Indian variant raises hospitalisations faster than the 25/45 y o can get their second vaccination in and effective.  Again it shouldn’t be too much for the NHS to cope with.  areas of the world which are slow with their vaccination program will be cacking themselves at the though that this Indian variant gains traction in their populations.  we must surely be approaching a time where the variants of concern will become less dangerous to the population whilst remaining v transmissible.

 

anyway, the question is do we delay the 21 June ‘free for all’  by a few weeks to enable more second vaccinations in that age group highlighted earlier or take our chances that it won’t overwhelm the hospitals and won’t lead to a level of cases that enables a more virulent variant to establish. 

 

at some point we have to get back to ‘normal’.  Maybe normal in the future will be thousands of people each year dying from covid just as they currently do from other respiratory diseases.  If he does move June 21 back then he will have to do it with a specific date within the following month that is not moveable or perhaps more likely, he will say that June 21 can happen if foreign holidays don’t. 

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Here's a BBC Fact Check on why the Govt delayed putting India on the red list for a fortnight after Pakistan & Bangladesh had been red-listed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56801288

 

A complex picture with perhaps reason to believe India was testing more & had better Covid data, based on tests on UK arrivals from those countries. But some of this really rings alarm bells.....

 

"Bangladesh had the South Africa but not the Brazil variant and Pakistan had neither when they were added to the red list on 9 April. India had both, as well as a new variant, but was not added for another two weeks.

On 9 April: Pakistan had a seven-day average of 21 cases per million people, Bangladesh had twice as many, India had four times as many.

 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said these figures depended on how much testing was being done and said "far more" was carried out in India. He said the decision to add Pakistan and Bangladesh earlier was based on a higher proportion of people arriving in the UK from these countries, testing positive for coronavirus. "When we put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, positivity among those arriving from those countries was three times higher than it was among those arriving from India," Mr Hancock told Parliament on 17 May. 

 

Figures from NHS Test and Trace do not support that claim. For the period 25 March to 7 April, the positivity rate from Bangladesh was 3.7%, from India was 5.1% and from Pakistan was 6.2%.

Mr Hancock was asked about this in Parliament on 19 May and said: "The positivity rate in India, on which the decision to put Pakistan but not India on the red list was 1.6% in India and 4.6% in Pakistan, which is three times higher, as I said." But those are not published figures. He didn't give the date for them and didn't mention Bangladesh this time.

 

"Nobody knows the full criteria - but there may be a political element because the UK wants a trade deal with India," Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology, at the University of Reading, said. Boris Johnson had planned a trade visit to India but cancelled it on 19 April - days before the country was added to the red list.

 

Different to what I remember them saying, so it does look like they’re changing their tune on this and that thoughts of trade deals were in their minds.

[StanSP]

14 minutes ago, Matt said:

I'll make my point and ask again, what politician or political party doesn't lie?

 

Who regulates politicians or political parties and if not why not?

 

I'm in no way sticking up for the government or personnel but it makes me laugh how people say they lie to us like the alternatives don't.

I'm not disputing that the alternatives aren't any better. 

 

But just because alternatives would, doesn't mean that the current lot should get away with it.

[RowlattsFox]

Has the Indian variant reached America? Or are they just not bothered. 

[Matt]

Just now, StanSP said:

I'm not disputing that the alternatives aren't any better. 

 

But just because alternatives would, doesn't mean that the current lot should get away with it.

Correct.

 

So who regulates them and if not why not?

 

Granted they should be doing the right job for the right reason but surely be allowed to get away with lying, misleading, neglecting people and communties is where the glaring issue is and being regulated, held accountable is a step in the right direction of stoping the lies, deceit, neglect and whatever else you want to call it.

 

It's against the law to lie in an advert, they have standards and regulations, but people running the country can get away and are allowed to get away with anything. Crazy.

 

I'm all for people highlighting the right and wrongs on parties and personnel but the go to simple argument in politics is 'such and such lies' they all do and another party wouldn't do much different anyway as you say that's not to say the should be allowed to get away with it but its simply how it is.

 

We (The football community) get laughed at for our 'Us' and 'Them' mentality, our partisan views, politics is even worse, on a very pathetic scale. People disagree with things just because the party they 'support' didn't come up with the idea.

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, Matt said:

Correct.

 

So who regulates them and if not why not?

 

Granted they should be doing the right job for the right reason but surely be allowed to get away with lying, misleading, neglecting people and communties is where the glaring issue is and being regulated, held accountable is a step in the right direction of stoping the lies, deceit, neglect and whatever else you want to call it.

 

It's against the law to lie in an advert, they have standards and regulations, but people running the country can get away and are allowed to get away with anything. Crazy.

 

I'm all for people highlighting the right and wrongs on parties and personnel but the go to simple argument in politics is 'such and such lies' they all do and another party wouldn't do much different anyway as you say that's not to say the should be allowed to get away with it but its simply how it is.

 

We (The football community) get laughed at for our 'Us' and 'Them' mentality, our partisan views, politics is even worse, on a very pathetic scale. People disagree with things just because the party they 'support' didn't come up with the idea.

I agree with all you say.

 

I didn't make a comment about another party not lying about this though?

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I agree with all you say.

 

I didn't make a comment about another party not lying about this though?

But when they all lie then rightly or wrongly what does it matter. They don't differentiate.