Jump to content

Official COVID-19 megathread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, disjointed said:

The new tier 4 regions do not include the North West, I would imagine it is only a matter of time. Pretty telling that a lot of the new tier 4's were originally in tier 2 after the last lockdown. 

I was hoping to blag my way in at Forest Green on 2 January but now I’ll be handing over £10 to iFollow methinks 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, disjointed said:

The new tier 4 regions do not include the North West, I would imagine it is only a matter of time. Pretty telling that a lot of the new tier 4's were originally in tier 2 after the last lockdown. 

Not really. I'm in a very rural area going from Tier 2 to 4. There were no grounds at all for it to go higher until the last couple of days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave_Og said:

Not really. I'm in a very rural area going from Tier 2 to 4. There were no grounds at all for it to go higher until the last couple of days. 

Isn't it just extending the area around the current tier 4's in attempt to stop it spreading faster. I can't really see it working, as this new strain is already in other areas. The South Africans have told us of another new strain that is also more contagious. Two people in the UK have already been found with it. Roll on the vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, al_bro said:

Isn't it just extending the area around the current tier 4's in attempt to stop it spreading faster. I can't really see it working, as this new strain is already in other areas. The South Africans have told us of another new strain that is also more contagious. Two people in the UK have already been found with it. Roll on the vaccine.

Unless this vaacine is really effective, 2021 could be a write off too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, disjointed said:

Unless this vaacine is really effective, 2021 could be a write off too. 

 

11 minutes ago, al_bro said:

The scientists seem to think it is.

I think the vaccines will work. The issue is that to vaccinate the population to anywhere near the level required will take most of 2021 anyway. 

 

That's without any complications that require a pause in the vaccination program. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rudemedic said:

 

I think the vaccines will work. The issue is that to vaccinate the population to anywhere near the level required will take most of 2021 anyway. 

 

That's without any complications that require a pause in the vaccination program. 

Ben, what do you think of Tony Blair's statement today re giving 1 jab not 2 jabs to as many people as possible. I don't think John Prescott was involved. Apparently the 2nd jab only adds another 4% effectiveness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, League one forever said:

How deep is your knowledge Matt? 
 

How can you possibly have evidence of every sector and what their needs are? You keep asking for answers and substantial proof of things that haven’t happened yet? How does that work? 
 

To use your analogy, you’ve already decided that the engine won’t work as well before you’ve even started the rebuild. 

 

My line of work is in UK imports, freight, analysis and a little bit of financials. I don't know if it counts for anything!

 

I have absolutely no confidence in this government giving you what you want out of The English Exit, that's what I'm saying. They couldn't care less about me (they probably couldn't care less about you), I didn't vote for it - so I'm not the one with the expectations or the one they have to appease. I'll get whatever it is they're offer, and unfortunately none of us get an opportunity to say otherwise.

 

What you have described to me in this thread is you want something that replaces the tools and facets of the EU, something that suits the UK better - which is fine, that's great - but where are the projections and forecasts? Where are the studies? Something of this magnitude can't just be blagged with half-baked politicians who are winging it. What I'm also reading in this thread is that whatever happens, it doesn't look like it'll be any different from what we've already got - apart from the upfront cost and pain of transitioning, and we've no idea how long or how damaging that will be. So to me at least we're just installing a different flavour of bureaucracy and all this about 'Getting control of X back' is just symbolic material for the supporting press, it doesn't mean as much as some think it means; and so we're back to flag-shagging, immigration and the £400m sorry £120m (if we take Scotland's cut out of it) fishing rights.

 

I'm sorry mate, but constantly repeating that it'll be alright in 10-20 years time like a religious mantra sounds a lot like blind faith to me - and if you want my opinion on faith - I'm quite happy to point anyone in the direction of George Carlin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, League one forever said:

Anyway- enough. 
 

Enjoy Christmas everyone. Hope you have a good one. Up the blues. 👍🏻

 

Let's leave (pardon the pun) it there and quit while we are still kind of on talking terms - I don't want to fall out with you.

 

I hope you have a great Christmas, and good health to you and your family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Matt said:

 

Let's leave (pardon the pun) it there and quit while we are still kind of on talking terms - I don't want to fall out with you.

 

I hope you have a great Christmas, and good health to you and your family.

No fall out at all mate. Just debate. 
 

Same to you and your family. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, disjointed said:

Ben, what do you think of Tony Blair's statement today re giving 1 jab not 2 jabs to as many people as possible. I don't think John Prescott was involved. Apparently the 2nd jab only adds another 4% effectiveness. 

Blair's just repeating what a scientist has said. Why anyone would take notice of him I don't know. In fact the 1st. inoculation gives 52% protection right away and the 2nd. 90%. One week after the 2nd. is when it's at it's most effective 95%. Stick to the original timetable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, al_bro said:

Blair's just repeating what a scientist has said. Why anyone would take notice of him I don't know. In fact the 1st. inoculation gives 52% protection right away and the 2nd. 90%. One week after the 2nd. is when it's at it's most effective 95%. Stick to the original timetable. 

Are you just repeating what a scientist said...? 😁 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, al_bro said:

Blair's just repeating what a scientist has said. Why anyone would take notice of him I don't know. In fact the 1st. inoculation gives 52% protection right away and the 2nd. 90%. One week after the 2nd. is when it's at it's most effective 95%. Stick to the original timetable. 

Wasn't his point that you achieve 90% protection after one dose after several days and then it goes up to 95% after second dose. What is the point in wasting all the 2nd doses on gaining another 4% when supplies are restricted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

Wasn't his point that you achieve 90% protection after one dose after several days and then it goes up to 95% after second dose. What is the point in wasting all the 2nd doses on gaining another 4% when supplies are restricted?

That's what I read, have to say I didn't read any of the scientific reports associated with it which is why I asked Ben what he thought. Just me being lazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whittles left foot said:

Wasn't his point that you achieve 90% protection after one dose after several days and then it goes up to 95% after second dose. What is the point in wasting all the 2nd doses on gaining another 4% when supplies are restricted?

Whats the point in vaccination when 99.8% survive then 👀🤔🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, whittles left foot said:

Wasn't his point that you achieve 90% protection after one dose after several days and then it goes up to 95% after second dose. What is the point in wasting all the 2nd doses on gaining another 4% when supplies are restricted?

This is the bit that up is wrong though. As Al_bro says just above, the BMJ reported the data as 52% protection after 1dose, so the improvement of the second dose is around 40% more protection. Not sure where the 4%comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Pidge said:

This is the bit that up is wrong though. As Al_bro says just above, the BMJ reported the data as 52% protection after 1dose, so the improvement of the second dose is around 40% more protection. Not sure where the 4%comes from.

It's actually nearly 80% more protection. See my note above about being a smart arse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2020 at 6:44 PM, disjointed said:

Ben, what do you think of Tony Blair's statement today re giving 1 jab not 2 jabs to as many people as possible. I don't think John Prescott was involved. Apparently the 2nd jab only adds another 4% effectiveness. 

 

On 12/24/2020 at 5:23 PM, al_bro said:

Blair's just repeating what a scientist has said. Why anyone would take notice of him I don't know. In fact the 1st. inoculation gives 52% protection right away and the 2nd. 90%. One week after the 2nd. is when it's at it's most effective 95%. Stick to the original timetable. 

 

On 12/24/2020 at 6:11 PM, whittles left foot said:

Wasn't his point that you achieve 90% protection after one dose after several days and then it goes up to 95% after second dose. What is the point in wasting all the 2nd doses on gaining another 4% when supplies are restricted?

 

On 12/24/2020 at 6:56 PM, disjointed said:

That's what I read, have to say I didn't read any of the scientific reports associated with it which is why I asked Ben what he thought. Just me being lazy. 

Think it depends on the vaccination. If the vaccine decision makers say you need a second dose then you need a second dose. They will be considering the cost effectiveness of the vaccine. 

 

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 / 10 years people need a booster either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2020 at 7:18 PM, mcfluff1985 said:

Whats the point in vaccination when 99.8% survive then 👀🤔🤣

Because of the morbidity of the disease. There are some people who had relatively minor symptoms (so didn't need hospitalizations) of COVID-19 in March and April who still haven't recovered. Long-COVID is something that should be taken seriously. Post-viral fatigue had been known about since the mid-late 80s. The post viral fatigue like nature of Long-COVID is even more complicated. 

 

That's without considering the implications of severe forms of the disease that require hospital stay and the very severe cases requiring ICU care. It's said that for every week you spend on ICU requires a month to recover from. So some of those cases you read about where people have been on ICU for months the people involved will take years to fully recover, if they ever do. 

 

FWIW the mortality rate of measles is similar to COVID-19, the mortality of mumps is 10 times less than COVID-19 and the mortality rate of rubella in the UK is about 20 times less than COVID-19. (Rubella has a similar case fatality rate as mumps but Rubella only affects half the population). Everyone under 30 should have had multiple MMR vaccinations and most under 40 should have had a few. 

 

I'm fairly certain in the last 30 years the common practice of having a tetanus booster in your earlier 20s was stopped because it wasn't cost-effective as immunity increased by a fraction of a % with that booster. The people who dictate the vaccination schedule in the UK take cost-effectiveness very seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...