I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
The proportion of over 80s among English hospitals deaths has been steadily falling during the last month.
"Martin Vernon, a consultant geriatrician in Greater Manchester and formerly a senior official in charge of care for older people at NHS England, said he had recently seen “a substantial outbreak” in a fully vaccinated care home that would have been due for the second dose round about now, within the 21 day interval. “Unfortunately some of those people are now very poorly,” he added.
A hack pushing an agenda, not an official looking for independent data with an open mind.
If they would have been due for the second dose round about now, they were not due it yet.
If the breakout happened "within" the 21 days then they were not due it yet.
Nothing that occurs "within" the 21 day window is affected by the decision to delay the second dose.
Twenty-one *days*? Hey man, I don't wanna rain on your parade, but we're not gonna last twenty-one *hours*! Those viruses are gonna come in here just like they did before. And they're gonna come in here and they're gonna come in here AND THEY'RE GONNA GET US!
But they are worth millions to the bio-weapons division.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
So blood from 26 people were tested, blood from all showed sufficient antibodies to kill main strain, blood from 7 showed insufficient to beat the Saffer strain.
Now besides the fact it's a lab test and not peer reviewed and a small sample ...
... That shows 100% success against the main variant. ... And 19/26 = 73% success against the Saffer strain.
If your vaccine is 73% successful, let alone 100% successful, then dosing twice as many people is absolutely the right strategy!
I hope you are right.
It seems that HMG were correct to delay AZ. But Pfizer? I guess we will find out for sure quite soon, on all counts.
AZ has NOT been delayed - 12 weeks was the best indication out of the trial data. Have to scotch this myth every time it rears it head.
Is that true? I stand corrected. A lot of confusing info around
Given some are delibately seeking to confuse it, that's not a surprise.
The other thing is that whilst we are in lockdown and cases are decreasing, the dodgy mutation isn't likely to spread very far.
It might become a problem if it transmits better and we unlock to such a point that R=1 or thereabouts.
That would be a perfect scenario for creating more mutants given the important SA mutation seems to be occurring spontaneously in lots of places.
The virus wants to live!
Another vaccine will be needed sooner rather than later.
I wouldn't anthromorphise the virus. It is not sentient.
It does seem to be exhibiting the phenomenon of convergent evolution.
Which would suggest that there are few other ecological niches for the virus to fill. Possibly it has no other direction to go.
I wonder if humans are sentient half the time so I wouldn't worry about the anthropomorphism...
It is an interesting question though. Is there a "local maximum" of transmission after which spike protein mutation essentially stops or is there an endless stream of mutations which follow one after another?
We are definitely forcing evolution at the moment so might find out sooner rather than later.
The mutation that has developed in SA, Brazil and now seemingly in the UK strains binds it more tightly to the ACE receptor, to gain access to the host cell. Hence more infectious. This convergent pattern suggests that other mutations are probably not so helpful at gaining entry.
Other mutations of the original virus are not so helpful, yes, otherwise we'd have seen more of them.
Are there any further mutations of the Kent/SA variant that we haven't yet seen, though? Once it has acquired these, are there any more in the pipeline?
If not, then we might as well start making the vaccine for that variant now. I assume that someone somewhere is forcing the thing in a test tube to find this out as best they can.
It's really desperate stuff coming out of the EU. Beyond unacceptable.
There appear to be no sane voices left over there able to say "Serioulsy guys - you are looking profoundly foolish. Each utterance is proving so counter-productive. STFU."
I know you are a professional environmentalist. Has your second paragraph been recycled? It could easily have been written about any number of PB Brexiteers towards the end of last year. If so, good work!
I am not sure the relevance to be honest
It is not wrong to ask where the voices of reason are in the EU
They have 'ratnered' their brand in just a few days
"Geoff Butcher, who runs a group of six care homes in the Midlands, said it had completed inoculation of all its residents over a week ago. However, in one of its homes more than half the residents had recently tested positive for the virus in an outbreak that had started three weeks after receiving the Pfizer vaccine."
So care homes ARE getting Pfizer
Also:
"Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, which represents care home operators, praised the speed and effectiveness of the rollout. But he added that a second dose within a shorter timescale “might help protect those most at risk of severe disease and mortality and also alleviate the burden upon the NHS by preventing hospitalisation”. Care England is also seeking assurances that there will be adequate supplies of the second dose."
"Deaths in care homes with Covid-19 on the death certificate have risen by about a third in England and Wales over the past week."
And here's that Vernon guy again:
"Martin Vernon, a consultant geriatrician in Greater Manchester and formerly a senior official in charge of care for older people at NHS England, said he had recently seen “a substantial outbreak” in a fully vaccinated care home that would have been due for the second dose round about now, within the 21 day interval. “Unfortunately some of those people are now very poorly,” he added.
"Prof Vernon likened the choice to go against the three week dosing interval tested by Pfizer during clinical trials, to the decision, about a year ago, to move people out of hospital and into care homes without testing them for the disease, helping to spread the virus.
“We are knowingly being instructed to expose one of the most vulnerable groups a second time around to a level of risk that we cannot easily quantify but can anticipate to be higher than if we had followed the available scientific evidence,” Prof Vernon said."
Let's hope Ursula VDL hasn't got something accidentally right
If the outbreak is already substantial 21 days after the first dose then its likely that it began within 14 days of the first dose ie before the first dose began to have an effect.
For there to be problems with delaying the second dose then infection needs to take place five weeks after the first dose and two weeks after when a second dose could have been given.
Besides which, when we are eventually in the position to collect that data in respect of the care homes then we should also have comparable data coming through for other groups within the 1st and 2nd cohorts - over 80s living in the wider community, and frontline health and care workers.
The data may suggest serious problems with the Pfizer jab, in which case more time will be needed to ascertain the root cause or causes (e.g. the extended dosing interval, problems with storage and transportation, whether one or more deficient batches has managed to clear the approval process, etc, etc.) They could suggest that the rollout has been a fantastic success. Or they could identify a specific problem only with residents in elderly care homes, which could again have more than one explanation (e.g. that this specific group of recipients really needs the booster quickly, or they have feeble immune systems which take an especially long time to respond, or their ability to build immunity to the virus is simply poor full stop.)
If there's any outcome other than a complete success then it may take some time to work out where any issues have originated from.
I really hope our media use some level of caution on these stories about people who have been vaccinated and get COVID. There are going to be lots that do, that's how the maths of vaccinating millions of people with something that isn't anywhere near 100% for many weeks (and even then still significantly sort of that).
We will unfortunately get people who still die from COVID despite having the Pfizer jab or the AZN jab etc.
Exactly.
This is said far, far too rarely.
If you gave the entire 52 million cohort Pfizer, and it held to 92% real world efficacy, almost 4.2 million vaccinees would become infected with Covid-19!
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
Oh really? Because nobody on Twitter could be pushing an agenda if they used to formerly have a role with the NHS? Are you seriously that naïve?
Especially when what's being claimed, eg outbreaks within the 21 days, is what we should be expected. Outbreaks after 21 days would be concerning but there isn't much time to see that yet and frankly I wouldn't trust anyone previously pushing an agenda before it started.
What are you getting your knickers in a twist for? ‘They would have died anyway’ was your line wasn’t it?
Eh?
I think you might be confusing me with someone else? I don't recall ever writing that, certainly not within that context.
Only time I recall getting into a conversation on that topic was a long time ago when someone said many of those dying would have died anyway and I said even if that was true this virus is a horrible way to go, in agony and struggling to draw each breath, quite possibly without family able to accompany them. What a rotten way to go, when my time is up I'd rather go to sleep and just not wake up.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
Some care home workers have declined to be jabbed.
Isn't the vaccine meant to prevent serious infection, rather than any infection?
The whole point is that people do not pass away or need to be hospitalised.
I'd love some more details on whether these outbreaks are in care homes that have had 100% of the staff jabbed - or conversely, if a material number have refused it.
Whatever side of the debate you are on, some of the reporting in the MSM is a complete disgrace. Some of the very good news on transmissability is being completely ignored in favour of fear porn. Some of it spread about SAGE members. Or independent SAGE members.
It's really desperate stuff coming out of the EU. Beyond unacceptable.
There appear to be no sane voices left over there able to say "Serioulsy guys - you are looking profoundly foolish. Each utterance is proving so counter-productive. STFU."
I know you are a professional environmentalist. Has your second paragraph been recycled? It could easily have been written about any number of PB Brexiteers towards the end of last year. If so, good work!
I just think Europe these days is missing the people of the stature of a Brandt or a Chirac, who could "have a quiet word" in the situation the EU big-wigs have faced this past week.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
The proportion of over 80s among English hospitals deaths has been steadily falling during the last month.
Indeed, but yet again it’s the PB Hysterions preferring arresting anecdote to mundane empirical data.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
Some care home workers have declined to be jabbed.
Isn't the vaccine meant to prevent serious infection, rather than any infection?
The whole point is that people do not pass away or need to be hospitalised.
I'd love some more details on whether these outbreaks are in care homes that have had 100% of the staff jabbed - or conversely, if a material number have refused it.
Whatever side of the debate you are on, some of the reporting in the MSM is a complete disgrace. Some of the very good news on transmissability is being completely ignored in favour of fear porn. Some of it spread about SAGE members. Or independent SAGE members.
I really hope our media use some level of caution on these stories about people who have been vaccinated and get COVID. There are going to be lots that do, that's how the maths of vaccinating millions of people with something that isn't anywhere near 100% for many weeks (and even then still significantly sort of that).
We will unfortunately get people who still die from COVID despite having the Pfizer jab or the AZN jab etc.
Exactly.
This is said far, far too rarely.
If you gave the entire 52 million cohort Pfizer, and it held to 92% real world efficacy, almost 4.2 million vaccinees would become infected with Covid-19!
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
Some care home workers have declined to be jabbed.
Isn't the vaccine meant to prevent serious infection, rather than any infection?
The whole point is that people do not pass away or need to be hospitalised.
I'd love some more details on whether these outbreaks are in care homes that have had 100% of the staff jabbed - or conversely, if a material number have refused it.
Whatever side of the debate you are on, some of the reporting in the MSM is a complete disgrace. Some of the very good news on transmissability is being completely ignored in favour of fear porn. Some of it spread about SAGE members. Or independent SAGE members.
On that, we agree. It’s absolutely ludicrously bad - embarrassingly so.
I really hope our media use some level of caution on these stories about people who have been vaccinated and get COVID. There are going to be lots that do, that's how the maths of vaccinating millions of people with something that isn't anywhere near 100% for many weeks (and even then still significantly sort of that).
We will unfortunately get people who still die from COVID despite having the Pfizer jab or the AZN jab etc.
Exactly.
This is said far, far too rarely.
If you gave the entire 52 million cohort Pfizer, and it held to 92% real world efficacy, almost 4.2 million vaccinees would become infected with Covid-19!
Could, not would
True, and that’s an important clarification, but you catch my drift.
It's really desperate stuff coming out of the EU. Beyond unacceptable.
There appear to be no sane voices left over there able to say "Serioulsy guys - you are looking profoundly foolish. Each utterance is proving so counter-productive. STFU."
I know you are a professional environmentalist. Has your second paragraph been recycled? It could easily have been written about any number of PB Brexiteers towards the end of last year. If so, good work!
I just think Europe these days is missing the people of the stature of a Brandt or a Chirac, who could "have a quiet word" in the situation the EU big-wigs have faced this past week.
A very fair comment. Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Schmidt also spring to mind.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
Some care home workers have declined to be jabbed.
Isn't the vaccine meant to prevent serious infection, rather than any infection?
The whole point is that people do not pass away or need to be hospitalised.
I'd love some more details on whether these outbreaks are in care homes that have had 100% of the staff jabbed - or conversely, if a material number have refused it.
Whatever side of the debate you are on, some of the reporting in the MSM is a complete disgrace. Some of the very good news on transmissability is being completely ignored in favour of fear porn. Some of it spread about SAGE members. Or independent SAGE members.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
The proportion of over 80s among English hospitals deaths has been steadily falling during the last month.
Are breakdowns of cases and hospitalisations by age group available? Do these show that the proportional decreases in cases and hospitalisations amongst the over 80s are greater than amongst younger age groups?
I know that these sorts of figures might be distorted by other factors (many working age people cannot work from home and are forced to have more social interactions; younger persons being more likely, on average, to disregard lockdown rules) but if the disease is in substantially steeper decline amongst the ancients then this would be an encouraging sign.
It's really desperate stuff coming out of the EU. Beyond unacceptable.
There appear to be no sane voices left over there able to say "Serioulsy guys - you are looking profoundly foolish. Each utterance is proving so counter-productive. STFU."
I know you are a professional environmentalist. Has your second paragraph been recycled? It could easily have been written about any number of PB Brexiteers towards the end of last year. If so, good work!
I just think Europe these days is missing the people of the stature of a Brandt or a Chirac, who could "have a quiet word" in the situation the EU big-wigs have faced this past week.
Even someone like Michel Barnier, he seems like a fully functioning adult.
He needs to define how many "outbreaks" and what does he mean by that, and how many within the 21 days...and which vaccines.
Check his Twitter-feed, he has quite a few similar people, pros in care homes, saying Yes we see the same concerning phenomenon
Yes, but most of them definitely do have an agenda, and some of them are quoting cases within days of the people being vaccinated, which suggests that one can't have entire confidence in their understanding.
I do wonder, though, whether there might be a problem of the vaccination teams bringing infection in to the homes?
IT will be ironic, but very worrying, if the UK proves to be completely right about Oxon-AZ, but has made a terrible error in delaying Pfizer.
The company did say we have no evidence this delay will work.
Although if they’re getting the disease a fortnight after vaccination, then the recommendation for a 3-4 week gap (whichever it was) would have made no difference anyway.
That being said, surely now is the moment to use our existing Pfizer stock for second jabs and switch to AZ full time, in case those nutters at the Commission actually do seize Pfizer’s supply as they’re threatening to.
I thought even the US was now talking about 5-6 weeks for Pfizer
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
Some care home workers have declined to be jabbed.
Isn't the vaccine meant to prevent serious infection, rather than any infection?
The whole point is that people do not pass away or need to be hospitalised.
I'd love some more details on whether these outbreaks are in care homes that have had 100% of the staff jabbed - or conversely, if a material number have refused it.
Whatever side of the debate you are on, some of the reporting in the MSM is a complete disgrace. Some of the very good news on transmissability is being completely ignored in favour of fear porn. Some of it spread about SAGE members. Or independent SAGE members.
"Independent SAGE" are a disgrace. Nothing to do with SAGE and instead extremists with an agenda to push.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
He needs to define how many "outbreaks" and what does he mean by that, and how many within the 21 days...and which vaccines.
Check his Twitter-feed, he has quite a few similar people, pros in care homes, saying Yes we see the same concerning phenomenon
Yes, but most of them definitely do have an agenda, and some of them are quoting cases within days of the people being vaccinated, which suggests that one can't have entire confidence in their understanding.
I do wonder, though, whether there might be a problem of the vaccination teams bringing infection in to the homes?
IT will be ironic, but very worrying, if the UK proves to be completely right about Oxon-AZ, but has made a terrible error in delaying Pfizer.
The company did say we have no evidence this delay will work.
Although if they’re getting the disease a fortnight after vaccination, then the recommendation for a 3-4 week gap (whichever it was) would have made no difference anyway.
That being said, surely now is the moment to use our existing Pfizer stock for second jabs and switch to AZ full time, in case those nutters at the Commission actually do seize Pfizer’s supply as they’re threatening to.
I thought even the US was now talking about 5-6 weeks for Pfizer
Denmark has already pushed out to 6 weeks, wouldn't be surprised if they extend that in three weeks so they don't need to hold supply back.
Anyone over 70 who hasn't had a jab yet can now arrange one. You don't have to wait for a letter.
Can you give more info? Can’t see anything on the nhs website for instance. Mother in law is over 70 and not called yet.
As I understand it, the “gateway” on the booking site will let you in if it recognises your NHS number. If it lets you in, your letter has probably been issued and just not reached you yet.
And what does that have to do with defending whether he incited a riot or not? Is it less incitement if he 'might' have been right about why he was angry?
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
That 53% reduction in infections is absolutely amazing, it could have an absolutely huge downwards effect on the R hopefully the other vaccines also replicate this.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
I have deactivated my main Twitter account, for all of the reasons you say. I was spending fruitless hours on it, arguing about stupid things with people I have never met. The utter definition of futility.
However, I keep another account which I use solely to gather news, data, memes, the odd joke: I never interact with anyone else. I use it for about 20 minutes a day, rather than 6 hours. Job done.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
This is surely the news of the day, but to read MSM sites you would not know this.
It's really desperate stuff coming out of the EU. Beyond unacceptable.
There appear to be no sane voices left over there able to say "Serioulsy guys - you are looking profoundly foolish. Each utterance is proving so counter-productive. STFU."
I know you are a professional environmentalist. Has your second paragraph been recycled? It could easily have been written about any number of PB Brexiteers towards the end of last year. If so, good work!
I just think Europe these days is missing the people of the stature of a Brandt or a Chirac, who could "have a quiet word" in the situation the EU big-wigs have faced this past week.
A very fair comment. Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Schmidt also spring to mind.
True, but perhaps not unique to the other side of the Channel. Which elder statesman would parties or partisans in the UK listen to with respect?
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
"Geoff Butcher, who runs a group of six care homes in the Midlands, said it had completed inoculation of all its residents over a week ago. However, in one of its homes more than half the residents had recently tested positive for the virus in an outbreak that had started three weeks after receiving the Pfizer vaccine."
So care homes ARE getting Pfizer
Also:
"Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, which represents care home operators, praised the speed and effectiveness of the rollout. But he added that a second dose within a shorter timescale “might help protect those most at risk of severe disease and mortality and also alleviate the burden upon the NHS by preventing hospitalisation”. Care England is also seeking assurances that there will be adequate supplies of the second dose."
"Deaths in care homes with Covid-19 on the death certificate have risen by about a third in England and Wales over the past week."
And here's that Vernon guy again:
"Martin Vernon, a consultant geriatrician in Greater Manchester and formerly a senior official in charge of care for older people at NHS England, said he had recently seen “a substantial outbreak” in a fully vaccinated care home that would have been due for the second dose round about now, within the 21 day interval. “Unfortunately some of those people are now very poorly,” he added.
"Prof Vernon likened the choice to go against the three week dosing interval tested by Pfizer during clinical trials, to the decision, about a year ago, to move people out of hospital and into care homes without testing them for the disease, helping to spread the virus.
“We are knowingly being instructed to expose one of the most vulnerable groups a second time around to a level of risk that we cannot easily quantify but can anticipate to be higher than if we had followed the available scientific evidence,” Prof Vernon said."
Let's hope Ursula VDL hasn't got something accidentally right
If the outbreak is already substantial 21 days after the first dose then its likely that it began within 14 days of the first dose ie before the first dose began to have an effect.
For there to be problems with delaying the second dose then infection needs to take place five weeks after the first dose and two weeks after when a second dose could have been given.
Besides which, when we are eventually in the position to collect that data in respect of the care homes then we should also have comparable data coming through for other groups within the 1st and 2nd cohorts - over 80s living in the wider community, and frontline health and care workers.
The data may suggest serious problems with the Pfizer jab, in which case more time will be needed to ascertain the root cause or causes (e.g. the extended dosing interval, problems with storage and transportation, whether one or more deficient batches has managed to clear the approval process, etc, etc.) They could suggest that the rollout has been a fantastic success. Or they could identify a specific problem only with residents in elderly care homes, which could again have more than one explanation (e.g. that this specific group of recipients really needs the booster quickly, or they have feeble immune systems which take an especially long time to respond, or their ability to build immunity to the virus is simply poor full stop.)
If there's any outcome other than a complete success then it may take some time to work out where any issues have originated from.
To be brutally realistic:
1) How many quality years do you save by vaccinating a healthy 80 year old compared to an 80 year old in a care home.
2) How many doses do you 'lose' from the possibility of a healthy 80 year old dying of other causes within a few months compared to the possibility of an 80 year old in a care home dying from other causes within a few months.
3) What are the effects on medical care of a healthy 80 year old being infected compared to an 80 year old in a care home.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
I have deactivated my main Twitter account, for all of the reasons you say. I was spending fruitless hours on it, arguing about stupid things with people I have never met. The utter definition of futility.
However, I keep another account which I use solely to gather news, data, memes, the odd joke: I never interact with anyone else. I use it for about 20 minutes a day, rather than 6 hours. Job done.
I tried that once. Someone will say something and you’ll get dragged in. The fact that we’re corresponding on this website shows the personality type - if you think someone is talking bollocks and you have a pithy reply, you’ll eventually break.
Sounds made up. But if you knew you were going to win regardless, and thus Trump could indulge his sillier arguments, why would you bother to proof read?
I would love if the american habit of referring to people by title, and thus Trump continues to be called President Trump, were argued as grounds for why it is ok to convict after he leaves office on articles moved before he left.
Being serious, it surely must apply, otherwise Congress has no redress for acts committed too late for them to hold a trial, acts which might not have redress by other means.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
This is surely the news of the day, but to read MSM sites you would not know this.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
This is surely the news of the day, but to read MSM sites you would not know this.
It is actually. If the overall results are as such, there's a lot of people politicking over this vaccine that are going to look stupid.
Re: the headline, the question for the GOP if enough of its Senators who want Trump out of the way decide to do some maths and calculate who acts as the human shield and votes for conviction leaving the rest to tootle symbolically by being able to vote against.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
This is surely the news of the day, but to read MSM sites you would not know this.
Its the second story on the BBC News front page, only the death of Captain Sir Tom is put above it.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
This is surely the news of the day, but to read MSM sites you would not know this.
It's the second item on BBC News after Captain Tom.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
This is surely the news of the day, but to read MSM sites you would not know this.
Its the second story on the BBC News front page, only the death of Captain Sir Tom is put above it.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
I have deactivated my main Twitter account, for all of the reasons you say. I was spending fruitless hours on it, arguing about stupid things with people I have never met. The utter definition of futility.
However, I keep another account which I use solely to gather news, data, memes, the odd joke: I never interact with anyone else. I use it for about 20 minutes a day, rather than 6 hours. Job done.
I tried that once. Someone will say something and you’ll get dragged in. The fact that we’re corresponding on this website shows the personality type - if you think someone is talking bollocks and you have a pithy reply, you’ll eventually break.
I don't. I think I've snapped just a couple of times in a year or so. And each time I immediately stopped, and deleted. I am quite proud of it. I feel like an ex-chain smoker.
It also helps that my new account has about 7 followers (because I never say anything at all), so even if I did start tweeting, few would notice. So there's no point.:
It's really desperate stuff coming out of the EU. Beyond unacceptable.
There appear to be no sane voices left over there able to say "Serioulsy guys - you are looking profoundly foolish. Each utterance is proving so counter-productive. STFU."
I know you are a professional environmentalist. Has your second paragraph been recycled? It could easily have been written about any number of PB Brexiteers towards the end of last year. If so, good work!
I just think Europe these days is missing the people of the stature of a Brandt or a Chirac, who could "have a quiet word" in the situation the EU big-wigs have faced this past week.
A very fair comment. Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Schmidt also spring to mind.
True, but perhaps not unique to the other side of the Channel. Which elder statesman would parties or partisans in the UK listen to with respect?
A good question. Looking back at previous Prime Ministers, maybe Brown and Major, certainly not Blair or Cameron, both of whom have enormous credibility questions to answer. Although I have noticed since the demise of Corbyn, Blair's reputation seems to be undergoing a very minor revival.
Of Leaders of the Opposition, perhaps Hague, Howard or even Milliband. Although Howard was not my cup of tea, as a moderate Brexiteer, maybe he cuts through to both sides of the divide more than others.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
The proportion of over 80s among English hospitals deaths has been steadily falling during the last month.
Are breakdowns of cases and hospitalisations by age group available? Do these show that the proportional decreases in cases and hospitalisations amongst the over 80s are greater than amongst younger age groups?
I know that these sorts of figures might be distorted by other factors (many working age people cannot work from home and are forced to have more social interactions; younger persons being more likely, on average, to disregard lockdown rules) but if the disease is in substantially steeper decline amongst the ancients then this would be an encouraging sign.
It is a little early to see an effect. The proportion vaccinated by the end of Dec was quite small. It is a bit of a tight timeline for the over 80s to get vaccinated, have a couple of weeks for it to work, then another couple for them to sicken and die. It would mostly take another couple of weeks to show in the data. At the moment we are probable seeing the unwinding of the Christmas effect.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
That 53% reduction in infections is absolutely amazing, it could have an absolutely huge downwards effect on the R hopefully the other vaccines also replicate this.
They will. And it's another reason to be increasingly positive.
And what does that have to do with defending whether he incited a riot or not? Is it less incitement if he 'might' have been right about why he was angry?
I think we should all walk away from Trump and treat him like a WW2 munition -primitive yet potentially awful.
There simply is no point engaging with him.
I suspect though that he'll manage to engage himself. I think there's a small chance that he gets convicted simply because of that. There has to be a price about wasting everyone's time.
If protection is 76% and transmission is reduced by 67% then does the likelihood of someone being infected and then passing the infection on equal (1-0.76) x (1-0.67) = 8% ?
Or are their other factor involved ? Asymptomatic transmission ?
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
I don't know that it makes him an expert in immunology, though. For example blaming the increase from 3 to 12 weeks for people who died because there was an outbreak in a care home that dates 5-10 days after the first jab is simply odd. I mean those people wouldn't have got their second jab before being infected anywah.
What it does mean is that some mobile vaccination drives might be spreading the virus which is surely the key learning from this, not that people can catch it before we expect significant immunity to have built up, we know that.
Ultimately, this feels like a political hit piece from a FBPE type who really hates Boris and a doctor who cares more about individual patients than public health. The immunology expert said as much too, when advising their own government the view from doctors has always been from the point of view of protecting individuals while scientists approach it from a population/mathematical point of view as they don't have the same ethical considerations.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
I have deactivated my main Twitter account, for all of the reasons you say. I was spending fruitless hours on it, arguing about stupid things with people I have never met. The utter definition of futility.
However, I keep another account which I use solely to gather news, data, memes, the odd joke: I never interact with anyone else. I use it for about 20 minutes a day, rather than 6 hours. Job done.
I tried that once. Someone will say something and you’ll get dragged in. The fact that we’re corresponding on this website shows the personality type - if you think someone is talking bollocks and you have a pithy reply, you’ll eventually break.
I don't. I think I've snapped just a couple of times in a year or so. And each time I immediately stopped, and deleted. I am quite proud of it. I feel like an ex-chain smoker.
It also helps that my new account has about 7 followers (because I never say anything at all), so even if I did start tweeting, few would notice. So there's no point.:
And just think of all the time you’ve saved on behalf of your former interlocutors. It is a truly virtuous thing you have done.
Oxford vaccine could substantially cut spread https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964 The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists. The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic. The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose. It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot. ...
That 53% reduction in infections is absolutely amazing, it could have an absolutely huge downwards effect on the R hopefully the other vaccines also replicate this.
They will. And it's another reason to be increasingly positive.
What makes me even more positive is that the major part of this study comes from SA and Brazilian data where both variants have been in circulation for months and it still gets to 83% efficacy against any symptoms and 53% efficacy against infection. That's got to be a huge win for the world, even if it means people need to be careful for 14 weeks in total as part of the dosing regimen.
I've just watched the latest ZOE video. Tim Spector reckons a 53% reduction in infections at 12 days (and curiously, none before that). Doesn't differentiate between vaccines.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
A pedant writes, on a point of usage -- whether @Black_Rook said something "below" or "above" depends which way the thread is sorted, which aiui is different between users and the default different between interfaces. It might be better to say "earlier" or "later" (and it can be later thanks to the ability to edit posts).
I've just watched the latest ZOE video. Tim Spector reckons a 53% reduction in infections at 12 days (and curiously, none before that). Doesn't differentiate between vaccines.
All the vaccinations seem to consistently indicate no protection in first 12 days, then excellent protection after day 12 - which makes any claims on Twitter about infections "within" the 21 day period absolutely suspect. Not only would a second dose have never occured "within" 21 days but if the infection was within the first 12 days then the patient was effectively unvaccinated when they caught it.
I really hope our media use some level of caution on these stories about people who have been vaccinated and get COVID. There are going to be lots that do, that's how the maths of vaccinating millions of people with something that isn't anywhere near 100% for many weeks (and even then still significantly sort of that).
We will unfortunately get people who still die from COVID despite having the Pfizer jab or the AZN jab etc.
And many more like Captain Tom who will die with Covid but not necessarily of Covid.
No, and neither can the Baggies. Fulham look doomed too. I can see no Great Escapes this season.
Sam Allardyce? Fancy putting a Dingle from Dudley in charge at The Hawthorns.
Probably right, and I think Fulham and West Brom are definitely doomed. If any of the bottom three have a chance, it’s the Blades. I could see them winning another half dozen games this season, but even that would not be enough.
Liverpool v. Man City might have been the most important matches over recent seasons but the matches I look forward to when the fixtures are released are against United and Everton.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
I have deactivated my main Twitter account, for all of the reasons you say. I was spending fruitless hours on it, arguing about stupid things with people I have never met. The utter definition of futility.
However, I keep another account which I use solely to gather news, data, memes, the odd joke: I never interact with anyone else. I use it for about 20 minutes a day, rather than 6 hours. Job done.
I tried that once. Someone will say something and you’ll get dragged in. The fact that we’re corresponding on this website shows the personality type - if you think someone is talking bollocks and you have a pithy reply, you’ll eventually break.
You can just use it for getting useful information. No conversations.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
A pedant writes, on a point of usage -- whether @Black_Rook said something "below" or "above" depends which way the thread is sorted, which aiui is different between users and the default different between interfaces. It might be better to say "earlier" or "later" (and it can be later thanks to the ability to edit posts).
Quoting someone from the future is high-level internet use though.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
The proportion of over 80s among English hospitals deaths has been steadily falling during the last month.
Are breakdowns of cases and hospitalisations by age group available? Do these show that the proportional decreases in cases and hospitalisations amongst the over 80s are greater than amongst younger age groups?
I know that these sorts of figures might be distorted by other factors (many working age people cannot work from home and are forced to have more social interactions; younger persons being more likely, on average, to disregard lockdown rules) but if the disease is in substantially steeper decline amongst the ancients then this would be an encouraging sign.
It is a little early to see an effect. The proportion vaccinated by the end of Dec was quite small. It is a bit of a tight timeline for the over 80s to get vaccinated, have a couple of weeks for it to work, then another couple for them to sicken and die. It would mostly take another couple of weeks to show in the data. At the moment we are probable seeing the unwinding of the Christmas effect.
Thanks for that. As I previously suspected, hopefully not too long until we know a lot more. I do wonder if that's at least part of the rationale behind the Government putting off any big announcement on the criteria for easing lockdown until late February - waiting long enough to gather and analyse sufficient data on vaccine efficacy in the olds.
It's really desperate stuff coming out of the EU. Beyond unacceptable.
There appear to be no sane voices left over there able to say "Serioulsy guys - you are looking profoundly foolish. Each utterance is proving so counter-productive. STFU."
I know you are a professional environmentalist. Has your second paragraph been recycled? It could easily have been written about any number of PB Brexiteers towards the end of last year. If so, good work!
I just think Europe these days is missing the people of the stature of a Brandt or a Chirac, who could "have a quiet word" in the situation the EU big-wigs have faced this past week.
A very fair comment. Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Schmidt also spring to mind.
True, but perhaps not unique to the other side of the Channel. Which elder statesman would parties or partisans in the UK listen to with respect?
A good question. Looking back at previous Prime Ministers, maybe Brown and Major, certainly not Blair or Cameron, both of whom have enormous credibility questions to answer. Although I have noticed since the demise of Corbyn, Blair's reputation seems to be undergoing a very minor revival.
Of Leaders of the Opposition, perhaps Hague, Howard or even Milliband. Although Howard was not my cup of tea, as a moderate Brexiteer, maybe he cuts through to both sides of the divide more than others.
Hague's a good spot. Ed M is arguably following in his footsteps- hopeless leaders at wrong times, but both had/have more to give. Howard can cut through- heck, he tried over the IM Bill. Didn't work though, which illustrates the problem. My hunch is that the political machine is so good at shredding reputations now that the current generation can ignore the warnings of their elders.
If you want to cut off any previous PM, it's too easy; Major: Black Wednesday Blair: Iraq Brown: Gold Cameron: Referendum May: (where to begin?) It's too easy, and saves you the trouble of thinking whether their warnings carry any weight.
Which is another argument for having someone whose entire job is to whisper in the PM's ear "remember you too are mortal."
This may not be popular in places like Islington and Camden.
"Labour urged to focus on flag and patriotism to win voters' trust, leak reveals Exclusive: leaked internal strategy presentation reveals plan to ‘change the party’s body language’"
Liverpool v. Man City might have been the most important matches over recent seasons but the matches I look forward to when the fixtures are released are against United and Everton.
Liverpool v Man United has always been and always will be the biggest fixture of the season.
Even when Fergie was running away with the League, even when Liverpool were not even Top 4, it doesn't make a difference. That is English Footballs #1 fixture and likely always will be. Before my time but no doubt it was the same in the eighties when Liverpool were running away with it and United struggling.
Liverpool v Man City may be important but its not even as big as the Merseyside Derby, or the Manchester Derby, let alone Liverpool v Man Utd.
Some rivalries just trump all others. Like The Ashes in Cricket, it doesn't matter if either England or Australia are struggling - you don't get bigger than The Ashes.
I don't know. Why don't you ask him. He's on Twitter. Must be authoritative.
In this case, he is quite authoritative. See his Twitter bio
"Consultant Geriatrician Tameside & Glossop, Former NHS National Clinical Director|Clinical Advisor Manchester & London|Leader"
Dismissing an opinion, just because it is worrying, or "on Twitter", is daft
He's not an immunological scientist, he's a doctor of old people. I don't know how qualified that makes him, more than me or you, but maybe not more than the very high grade immunology scientists the government has advising it.
Being a "doctor of old people" makes him quite an authority on whether deaths of old people (in this case in care homes) are increasing, perhaps to a worrying degree
As I have already said, I am not immediately believing everything he says, but given the other voices adding support to his opinion, it is worth admitting the POSSIBILITY that he is right
If you look back through his feed he has a consistent anti-government axe to grind. Doesn't make him wrong of course, but it's a bias. Other point - why is he saying "within, and beyond 21 days of vaccination?" Anything "within" is completely utterly and entirely irrelevant to anything in the entire world, so why say it?
Yes, I did just that: checked his feed. He's definitely of the Left, hates Boris, and - given his FBPE followers - probably a Remoaner. I believe, therefore, that he is actually foxy.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
Delete Twitter. I did. Your life will be better for it. You might think you’ll miss out on some of the amusing or quirky stuff, or some of the useful “on the spot” live “news”, but you won’t. Someone always brings it to your attention and it’s worth it to avoid the crap and actively NOT get swept up in the latest bubble debate.
I have deactivated my main Twitter account, for all of the reasons you say. I was spending fruitless hours on it, arguing about stupid things with people I have never met. The utter definition of futility.
However, I keep another account which I use solely to gather news, data, memes, the odd joke: I never interact with anyone else. I use it for about 20 minutes a day, rather than 6 hours. Job done.
I tried that once. Someone will say something and you’ll get dragged in. The fact that we’re corresponding on this website shows the personality type - if you think someone is talking bollocks and you have a pithy reply, you’ll eventually break.
You can just use it for getting useful information. No conversations.
Part of the fun of PB is letting other folk collate it from Twitter for you here!
Liverpool v. Man City might have been the most important matches over recent seasons but the matches I look forward to when the fixtures are released are against United and Everton.
Liverpool v Man United has always been and always will be the biggest fixture of the season.
Even when Fergie was running away with the League, even when Liverpool were not even Top 4, it doesn't make a difference. That is English Footballs #1 fixture and likely always will be. Before my time but no doubt it was the same in the eighties when Liverpool were running away with it and United struggling.
Liverpool v Man City may be important but its not even as big as the Merseyside Derby, or the Manchester Derby, let alone Liverpool v Man Utd.
That was just what us Liverpool fans told ourselves to feel better, but we were lying to ourselves.
Liverpool v. Man City might have been the most important matches over recent seasons but the matches I look forward to when the fixtures are released are against United and Everton.
This may not be popular in places like Islington and Camden.
"Labour urged to focus on flag and patriotism to win voters' trust, leak reveals Exclusive: leaked internal strategy presentation reveals plan to ‘change the party’s body language’"
This may not be popular in places like Islington and Camden.
"Labour urged to focus on flag and patriotism to win voters' trust, leak reveals Exclusive: leaked internal strategy presentation reveals plan to ‘change the party’s body language’"
Liverpool v. Man City might have been the most important matches over recent seasons but the matches I look forward to when the fixtures are released are against United and Everton.
How's your FA Cup run, then?
We're the champions of the world, we don't care about the a minor domestic cup that sees the kids play.
(Obviously when we win it, then it is the most important domestic cup competition in the world.)
It's really desperate stuff coming out of the EU. Beyond unacceptable.
There appear to be no sane voices left over there able to say "Serioulsy guys - you are looking profoundly foolish. Each utterance is proving so counter-productive. STFU."
I know you are a professional environmentalist. Has your second paragraph been recycled? It could easily have been written about any number of PB Brexiteers towards the end of last year. If so, good work!
I just think Europe these days is missing the people of the stature of a Brandt or a Chirac, who could "have a quiet word" in the situation the EU big-wigs have faced this past week.
A very fair comment. Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Schmidt also spring to mind.
True, but perhaps not unique to the other side of the Channel. Which elder statesman would parties or partisans in the UK listen to with respect?
A good question. Looking back at previous Prime Ministers, maybe Brown and Major, certainly not Blair or Cameron, both of whom have enormous credibility questions to answer. Although I have noticed since the demise of Corbyn, Blair's reputation seems to be undergoing a very minor revival.
Of Leaders of the Opposition, perhaps Hague, Howard or even Milliband. Although Howard was not my cup of tea, as a moderate Brexiteer, maybe he cuts through to both sides of the divide more than others.
Hague's a good spot. Ed M is arguably following in his footsteps- hopeless leaders at wrong times, but both had/have more to give. Howard can cut through- heck, he tried over the IM Bill. Didn't work though, which illustrates the problem. My hunch is that the political machine is so good at shredding reputations now that the current generation can ignore the warnings of their elders.
If you want to cut off any previous PM, it's too easy; Major: Black Wednesday Blair: Iraq Brown: Gold Cameron: Referendum May: (where to begin?) It's too easy, and saves you the trouble of thinking whether their warnings carry any weight.
Which is another argument for having someone whose entire job is to whisper in the PM's ear "remember you too are mortal."
But that phenomenon provides just as good a case for: 'Make the most of it while you can, because no one will give a damn about you once you're out'.
To be fair, reading the complete thread helps to remind one why it is that the smaller EU members (of which Finland is obviously one) seem to have been more muted in voicing displeasure with the current state of the EU rollout. They were frightened of being steamrollered by the big players in a stampede for the vaccine, and ending up having to wait ages for supply.
As it is, the entire EU is waiting ages for supply. But if you think you would've ended up waiting ages regardless, absent a collective approach, then being forgiving of the Commission (whilst gently encouraging it to get its act together) doesn't appear to be a wholly inexplicable response.
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was not involved in the trial, said that the new figures “certainly do not suggest that the JCVI advice on dose-spacing was in any way incorrect for this vaccine.
“It does not directly address the same questions for other vaccines but there are no good reasons or data to suggest that they would have markedly dissimilar results.”
The second para is key and absolutely lines up with the same as what the expert I spoke to said.
Doctors know how to be doctors and I trust them to do that. I trust scientists to pick the best immunology strategies for the nation and whether it's Pfizer or AZ, our 12 week gap policy makes sense for our situation of having over 30k in hospital and ~2.5k being hospitalised everyday.
This may not be popular in places like Islington and Camden.
"Labour urged to focus on flag and patriotism to win voters' trust, leak reveals Exclusive: leaked internal strategy presentation reveals plan to ‘change the party’s body language’"
It has to be credible though. No battleships on desks please!
Will there be a bust of Winston Churchill though? I understand that an elderly gentleman seller in the US has one up on Ebay right now, if Starmer would like to bid for it.
Comments
Are there any further mutations of the Kent/SA variant that we haven't yet seen, though? Once it has acquired these, are there any more in the pipeline?
If not, then we might as well start making the vaccine for that variant now. I assume that someone somewhere is forcing the thing in a test tube to find this out as best they can.
It is not wrong to ask where the voices of reason are in the EU
They have 'ratnered' their brand in just a few days
The data may suggest serious problems with the Pfizer jab, in which case more time will be needed to ascertain the root cause or causes (e.g. the extended dosing interval, problems with storage and transportation, whether one or more deficient batches has managed to clear the approval process, etc, etc.) They could suggest that the rollout has been a fantastic success. Or they could identify a specific problem only with residents in elderly care homes, which could again have more than one explanation (e.g. that this specific group of recipients really needs the booster quickly, or they have feeble immune systems which take an especially long time to respond, or their ability to build immunity to the virus is simply poor full stop.)
If there's any outcome other than a complete success then it may take some time to work out where any issues have originated from.
This is said far, far too rarely.
If you gave the entire 52 million cohort Pfizer, and it held to 92% real world efficacy, almost 4.2 million vaccinees would become infected with Covid-19!
I think you might be confusing me with someone else? I don't recall ever writing that, certainly not within that context.
Only time I recall getting into a conversation on that topic was a long time ago when someone said many of those dying would have died anyway and I said even if that was true this virus is a horrible way to go, in agony and struggling to draw each breath, quite possibly without family able to accompany them. What a rotten way to go, when my time is up I'd rather go to sleep and just not wake up.
Even if he isn't, all this suggests there may be a bias in his medical tweets, maybe witting, maybe unwitting. I also note that his specifically medical tweets are usually (but not always) quite measured, so despite his bias he might be genuinely spotting early signs of a worrying trend.
As Black Rook says below, we just don't know yet, but we will know fairly soon.
I know that these sorts of figures might be distorted by other factors (many working age people cannot work from home and are forced to have more social interactions; younger persons being more likely, on average, to disregard lockdown rules) but if the disease is in substantially steeper decline amongst the ancients then this would be an encouraging sign.
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1356655236333641733
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55910964
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to a "substantial" fall in the spread of the virus, say scientists.
The impact of Covid vaccines on transmission has been a crucial unknown that will dramatically shape the future of the pandemic.
The study, which has not been formally published, also showed the vaccine remained effective while people waited for a second dose.
It was 76% effective during the three months after the first shot.
...
ignored the "Wait to be contacted" warning and put my NHS number and date of birth in: I now have both vaccinations booked.
No harm in trying even if it doesn't work.
Single Dose Administration, And The Influence Of The Timing Of The Booster Dose On Immunogenicity and Efficacy Of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccine
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268
However, I keep another account which I use solely to gather news, data, memes, the odd joke: I never interact with anyone else. I use it for about 20 minutes a day, rather than 6 hours. Job done.
1) How many quality years do you save by vaccinating a healthy 80 year old compared to an 80 year old in a care home.
2) How many doses do you 'lose' from the possibility of a healthy 80 year old dying of other causes within a few months compared to the possibility of an 80 year old in a care home dying from other causes within a few months.
3) What are the effects on medical care of a healthy 80 year old being infected compared to an 80 year old in a care home.
I would love if the american habit of referring to people by title, and thus Trump continues to be called President Trump, were argued as grounds for why it is ok to convict after he leaves office on articles moved before he left.
Being serious, it surely must apply, otherwise Congress has no redress for acts committed too late for them to hold a trial, acts which might not have redress by other means.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/02/single-dose-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-could-cut-transmission-by-67
Re: the headline, the question for the GOP if enough of its Senators who want Trump out of the way decide to do some maths and calculate who acts as the human shield and votes for conviction leaving the rest to tootle symbolically by being able to vote against.
It also helps that my new account has about 7 followers (because I never say anything at all), so even if I did start tweeting, few would notice. So there's no point.:
Of Leaders of the Opposition, perhaps Hague, Howard or even Milliband. Although Howard was not my cup of tea, as a moderate Brexiteer, maybe he cuts through to both sides of the divide more than others.
There simply is no point engaging with him.
I suspect though that he'll manage to engage himself. I think there's a small chance that he gets convicted simply because of that. There has to be a price about wasting everyone's time.
If protection is 76% and transmission is reduced by 67% then does the likelihood of someone being infected and then passing the infection on equal (1-0.76) x (1-0.67) = 8% ?
Or are their other factor involved ? Asymptomatic transmission ?
What it does mean is that some mobile vaccination drives might be spreading the virus which is surely the key learning from this, not that people can catch it before we expect significant immunity to have built up, we know that.
Ultimately, this feels like a political hit piece from a FBPE type who really hates Boris and a doctor who cares more about individual patients than public health. The immunology expert said as much too, when advising their own government the view from doctors has always been from the point of view of protecting individuals while scientists approach it from a population/mathematical point of view as they don't have the same ethical considerations.
It is a truly virtuous thing you have done.
Sam Allardyce? Fancy putting a Dingle from Dudley in charge at The Hawthorns.
https://twitter.com/going4golds/status/1356243874835001345
https://twitter.com/trevor8sinclair/status/1356588060939534337
Liverpool v. Man City might have been the most important matches over recent seasons but the matches I look forward to when the fixtures are released are against United and Everton.
Howard can cut through- heck, he tried over the IM Bill. Didn't work though, which illustrates the problem. My hunch is that the political machine is so good at shredding reputations now that the current generation can ignore the warnings of their elders.
If you want to cut off any previous PM, it's too easy;
Major: Black Wednesday
Blair: Iraq
Brown: Gold
Cameron: Referendum
May: (where to begin?)
It's too easy, and saves you the trouble of thinking whether their warnings carry any weight.
Which is another argument for having someone whose entire job is to whisper in the PM's ear "remember you too are mortal."
"Labour urged to focus on flag and patriotism to win voters' trust, leak reveals
Exclusive: leaked internal strategy presentation reveals plan to ‘change the party’s body language’"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/02/labour-urged-to-focus-on-flag-and-patriotism-to-win-voters-trust-leak-reveals
Even when Fergie was running away with the League, even when Liverpool were not even Top 4, it doesn't make a difference. That is English Footballs #1 fixture and likely always will be. Before my time but no doubt it was the same in the eighties when Liverpool were running away with it and United struggling.
Liverpool v Man City may be important but its not even as big as the Merseyside Derby, or the Manchester Derby, let alone Liverpool v Man Utd.
Some rivalries just trump all others. Like The Ashes in Cricket, it doesn't matter if either England or Australia are struggling - you don't get bigger than The Ashes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/lajh8z/reddit_gives_the_impression_that_there_are_a_lot/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
A total of 9,646,715 were first doses, while 496,796 were second doses."
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-more-than-10-million-vaccine-doses-administered-in-uk-as-deaths-rise-by-1-449-12206598
We should see an escalation instead. "I see your flag and raise you a battleship".
"I see your battleship and raise you ..."
(Obviously when we win it, then it is the most important domestic cup competition in the world.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYM40HN82l4
As it is, the entire EU is waiting ages for supply. But if you think you would've ended up waiting ages regardless, absent a collective approach, then being forgiving of the Commission (whilst gently encouraging it to get its act together) doesn't appear to be a wholly inexplicable response.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-shot-oxford-vaccine-strategy-is-vindicated-by-new-study-w6zbqcmtg
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was not involved in the trial, said that the new figures “certainly do not suggest that the JCVI advice on dose-spacing was in any way incorrect for this vaccine.
“It does not directly address the same questions for other vaccines but there are no good reasons or data to suggest that they would have markedly dissimilar results.”
The second para is key and absolutely lines up with the same as what the expert I spoke to said.
Doctors know how to be doctors and I trust them to do that. I trust scientists to pick the best immunology strategies for the nation and whether it's Pfizer or AZ, our 12 week gap policy makes sense for our situation of having over 30k in hospital and ~2.5k being hospitalised everyday.
When do we get to see the spectacular explosion of SN10?